|
You know...
It must be so hard being an athiest. I mean I believe I have an immortal soul, and the ability to choose between right and wrong. I believe I was created in the image of the Divine, with the ability to create an innovate. I believe humanity is special, and was given the ability to be more than a primitive animal running on instinct. Religion is how we rise above the divine.
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.
Sad really.
[Highly aggressive response deleted]
And what you're doing with this post is different how exactly? Aren't you pretending to boycott this thread anyway? If you can't even abstain from that, why do you think so many people can abstain from sex?
[EDIT] OR, for a biblical response: Matthew 7: 3-5
You know...
It must be so hard being an athiest. I mean I believe I have an immortal soul, and the ability to choose between right and wrong. I believe I was created in the image of the Divine, with the ability to create an innovate. I believe humanity is special, and was given the ability to be more than a primitive animal running on instinct. Religion is how we rise above the divine.
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.
Sad really.
Not cool Matthew...
How about Atheists believe that they are special, because they can choose between right and wrong an create and innovate without the assistance of the divine.
Because we can do this our selves and we have learned this ourselves it is all the more special and precious.
I am a secular humanist or atheist, I have no problem with believing in the divine, but I do have a problem with people who believe that they are superior to everybody else because they believe in the divine.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, I was a bit cranky this morning, so to some of the (polite)agnostics I apologize
Though I do think it needs to be said, there was a civil conversation going on before the, 'those stupid christians' contingent arrived.
I am somewhat bemused that everyone attacks me, yet those comments go unscathed. I didn't see anyone saying 'Those stupid Athiests, why don't they just embrace the words of the Pope as law!' Hells, even my statements were supporting the Pope's position that abstaining is 100% effective, not that the implimentation was perfect. (Same thing goes for condoms, they themsevles aren't 100% effective, and that's assuming they are used correctly, of sufficient quality, etc.)
Paul, I know beams, motes et al. Though to use another cliche, 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven'
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I am a secular humanist or atheist, I have no problem with believing in the divine, but I do have a problem with people who believe that they are superior to everybody else because they believe in the divine.
I don't quite follow (can an off topic thread get more off topic?). Do you have an issue with a non-beleiver feeling they're superior to that guy who's worshipping the 'angry sky god' as some of our polite tolerant athiests have already said? Or did I miss your condemnation of other posters? If I did, then I apologize.
By nature, a person of faith should believe that they aren't superior to any other person, since we're all created in His image. We can hope (and pray of course) that the agnostic comes to see His hand in the world and works, but His greatest gift is the ability to create and choose. If a person chooses to not believe in Him, then we can and should, witness, not beat them over the head and drag them to temple. Coersed conversion is worse than no conversion, because a) the person doesn't truly believe, so he's not really converted and b) the converter is damning himself.
Edit: As I've said elsewhere I'm a Henotheistic Lutheran Heretic. I have several friends of (non Judeo-Christian) faith, and am very respectful and mindful of their traditions.
|
|
Yeah, I was a bit cranky this morning, so to some of the (polite)agnostics I apologize
Though I do think it needs to be said, there was a civil conversation going on before the, 'those stupid christians' contingent arrived.
I am somewhat bemused that everyone attacks me, yet those comments go unscathed. I didn't see anyone saying 'Those stupid Athiests, why don't they just embrace the words of the Pope as law!' Hells, even my statements were supporting the Pope's position that abstaining is 100% effective, not that the implimentation was perfect. (Same thing goes for condoms, they themsevles aren't 100% effective, and that's assuming they are used correctly, of sufficient quality, etc.)
Paul, I know beams, motes et al. Though to use another cliche, 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven'
Oh? Quite a few people did tell ZN that he'd overstepped the mark by my reading.
Also, no one's argued that if you are abstinent, it is really effective at preventing STDs (It's not 100%, btw as there are other mechanism for contracting the disease). We've argued (well, I have) that, given that so many people aren't abstinent that having no plan B is foolish at best and evil at worst.
And, as one of those sad, hateful atheists, apology accepted and one offered if I've been one of those to cause you offence.
[EDIT] You're also right that some of the atheist condemnation in this thread has been a bit much. But some of the holier than thou responses from a couple of your fellow theists are also a bit much. Neither 'side' is covering themselves in glory in this thread.
As to your question in the other post, yes, apparently it is possible for an OTD thread to get more off-topic.
[EDIT 2]Clarification has meant that the position of the Church is now much closer to what I'm talking about. Therefore, I welcome the change of stance. Even if it's not as far as I'd like, it's be churlish not to say it's a good move.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If it's not caught sexually, is it still an STD?
Wow, that sounds like a really twisted koan...
Anyway, like I stated above, I've myself found AMC vs. AM a catch 22. From the religious perspective AM is the ideal, but we are all flawed (various teachings aside) and prone to act rather than think. I don't *know* the solution, but beleive society moving away from casual sex would help.
Indeed, the Pope's scenarios dealt with someone who *knew* they were HIV positive (or another STD) and such a person should refrain from sex, since, if they truly loved their partner, they'd put their safety above their own physical needs. IOW, choosing right over wrong (whether you believe in the spark of the Divine that we all have, or believe we're highly evolved monkeys that can choose to ignore our instincts).
I am a secular humanist or atheist, I have no problem with believing in the divine, but I do have a problem with people who believe that they are superior to everybody else because they believe in the divine.
I don't quite follow (can an off topic thread get more off topic?). Do you have an issue with a non-beleiver feeling they're superior to that guy who's worshipping the 'angry sky god' as some of our polite tolerant athiests have already said? Or did I miss your condemnation of other posters? If I did, then I apologize.
** spoiler omitted **Edit: As I've said elsewhere I'm a Henotheistic Lutheran Heretic. I have several friends of (non Judeo-Christian) faith, and am very respectful and mindful of their traditions.
Ok - it is rude to denigrate somebody because of their beliefs, It is not rude to debate those beliefs. I believe some of the less sensitive of the atheist posters were told that their posts were less than helpful in moving the conversation on. I saw no reason to dogpile as it would have bogged things down.
My stance in regard to this debate is that Abstinence is an unrealistic imposition on society, that at its core the majority of people will ignore or lapse.
I believe that forbidding contraception is a tool to keep people poor and carries with it racial undercurrents. I also believe that it discriminates against women and forces them comply with a 19th century view of the world.
Because I see it this way I am not happy with those that promote both abstinence and no contraception and I will vigorously debate those who I think are endangering others out of their support for an outdated set of societal rules.
I do not begrudge you your faith, it is a good thing when faith acts for the betterment of others.
|
|
If it's not caught sexually, is it still an STD?
Wow, that sounds like a really twisted koan...
Anyway, like I stated above, I've myself found AMC vs. AM a catch 22. From the religious perspective AM is the ideal, but we are all flawed (various teachings aside) and prone to act rather than think. I don't *know* the solution, but beleive society moving away from casual sex would help.
Indeed, the Pope's scenarios dealt with someone who *knew* they were HIV positive (or another STD) and such a person should refrain from sex, since, if they truly loved their partner, they'd put their safety above their own physical needs. IOW, choosing right over wrong (whether you believe in the spark of the Divine that we all have, or believe we're highly evolved monkeys that can choose to ignore our instincts).
If I recall correctly, and my knowledge is only from the media in the UK, the Pope was talking about prostitutes. If they're already in that position, I doubt their choices are that great. It's not right over wrong, but f@#+ for money or starve to death. That's wrong over wrong and I'm afraid I'd take the option that means I keep living.
Also, I agree with you. In the situation you mention, the moral thing to do is to not have sex. Absolutely agree. The problem is, not everyone is that moral, so what do you tell them to do? They're going to have sex anyway, whether they're weak-willed, ignorant who think that HIV is not a precursor to AIDs a la the former South African health secretary or just selfish a@~+!#&%s. Surely it's better to get them wearing a condom rather than nothing at all.
If it's not caught sexually, is it still an STD?
Wow, that sounds like a really twisted koan...
Anyway, like I stated above, I've myself found AMC vs. AM a catch 22. From the religious perspective AM is the ideal, but we are all flawed (various teachings aside) and prone to act rather than think. I don't *know* the solution, but beleive society moving away from casual sex would help.
Indeed, the Pope's scenarios dealt with someone who *knew* they were HIV positive (or another STD) and such a person should refrain from sex, since, if they truly loved their partner, they'd put their safety above their own physical needs. IOW, choosing right over wrong (whether you believe in the spark of the Divine that we all have, or believe we're highly evolved monkeys that can choose to ignore our instincts).
You don't stop being human if you have HIV and a loving partner may not stop wanting to be intimate with you either.
It is sad and good friends of ours were in this position. All our friend could do was make his partners last few years happy and not let him die alone.
Condoms stop the spread of HIV - it works so why order people to stop using them.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Paul,
I don't have the full interview in front of me, but the conversations linked here do talk about married couples.
Also he does talk about 'ABC' and his concern isn't the availability of condoms or (as I read it) so much the use of them. Rather that they are symptomatic of a 'decline of morality' and casualness of sex.
The (in)famous prostitute example was about a revelation. That if the hypothetical prostitute used a condon to protect his clients, it might lead him to the revelation that the health and wellbeing of another was more important than his (or the client's) sexual gratification.
HIV theory question for those who know more about the science than I.
Yeah, I was a bit cranky this morning, so to some of the (polite)agnostics I apologize
Though I do think it needs to be said, there was a civil conversation going on before the, 'those stupid christians' contingent arrived.
I am somewhat bemused that everyone attacks me, yet those comments go unscathed. I didn't see anyone saying 'Those stupid Athiests, why don't they just embrace the words of the Pope as law!' Hells, even my statements were supporting the Pope's position that abstaining is 100% effective, not that the implimentation was perfect. (Same thing goes for condoms, they themsevles aren't 100% effective, and that's assuming they are used correctly, of sufficient quality, etc.)
Paul, I know beams, motes et al. Though to use another cliche, 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven'
Oh? Quite a few people did tell ZN that he'd overstepped the mark by my reading.
Also, no one's argued that if you are abstinent, it is really effective at preventing STDs (It's not 100%, btw as there are other mechanism for contracting the disease). We've argued (well, I have) that, given that so many people aren't abstinent that having no plan B is foolish at best and evil at worst.
And, as one of those sad, hateful atheists, apology accepted and one offered if I've been one of those to cause you offence.
[EDIT] You're also right that some of the atheist condemnation in this thread has been a bit much. But some of the holier than thou responses from a couple of your fellow theists are also a bit much. Neither 'side' is covering themselves in glory in this thread.
As to your question in the other post, yes, apparently it is possible for an OTD thread to get more off-topic.
[EDIT 2]Clarification has meant that the position of the Church is now much closer to what I'm talking about. Therefore, I welcome the change of stance. Even if it's not as far as I'd like, it's be churlish not to say it's a good move.
I have tried altered my behaviour based on their advice, and had my mind changed on by one of them on something based their reasoned argument. Go figure.
P.S. @ Matthew Morris:
Just for the record, you where making un-civil comments in this thread long before I, presumably a member of the "'those stupid Christians' contingent', turned up at post 22ish and contributed a fairly long post on the consensus amongst epidemiologist with regards to Abstinance only sex education. And the thread didn't go down hill.
Yeah, I was a bit cranky this morning, so to some of the (polite)agnostics I apologize
Though I do think it needs to be said, there was a civil conversation going on before the, 'those stupid christians' contingent arrived.
I am somewhat bemused that everyone attacks me, yet those comments go unscathed. I didn't see anyone saying 'Those stupid Athiests, why don't they just embrace the words of the Pope as law!' Hells, even my statements were supporting the Pope's position that abstaining is 100% effective, not that the implimentation was perfect. (Same thing goes for condoms, they themsevles aren't 100% effective, and that's assuming they are used correctly, of sufficient quality, etc.)
Paul, I know beams, motes et al. Though to use another cliche, 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven'
Just for the record, I suspect you would find that every one in this thread is an Agnostic. I certainly am an agnostic, in that we do not know if good exists or not. It is also the case that the chances are that we are all to a greater of lesser extent atheists. I mean, you don't believe in Thor, Athena or Kali do you? So you are an atheist with regards to them, the only difference is that I do not believe in one more god than you.
If you want a more accurate terminology, perhapes Strong athiest, or strong anti-theist would be better. Because not only do I not believe in gods, I would not want atleast one of them, to be real.
Does increased safe means of action, result in ironically more reckless behavior?Did you start driving like a maniac because you were wearing a seatbelt?
The short answer? no.
Longer answer, data does not support your claim.
But before we break out the champagne substitute to honor the three-point seat belt's demi-centennial, we might also consider the possibility that some drivers have caused accidents precisely because they were wearing seat belts.
This counterintuitive idea was introduced in academic circles several years ago and is broadly accepted today. The concept is that humans have an inborn tolerance for risk—meaning that as safety features are added to vehicles and roads, drivers feel less vulnerable and tend to take more chances. The feeling of greater security tempts us to be more reckless. Behavioral scientists call it "risk compensation."
Or to put it in terms of this thread. If a one member of couple has HIV and if there are no condoms available, are they more or less likely to engage in sexual activity with their partner than they are if there was a condom available? Since condoms are less effective than abstaining in that type of situation, engaging in sexual activity even with a condom is the more risky behavior.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting viewpoint on the Pope's remarks. here
ZN, the term you're looking for (at least with me) is Henotheism in the modern Max Muller sense of the term. I accept the existance of other powers (Hells, the first commandment basically spells them out, and the plauges of Egypt were 'frak-you's to the Egyptian pantheon), I just don't care to worship them. That's one reason I get along with my Wiccan friends so well. I accept their beliefs, respect them even, but I don't worship them.
Interesting viewpoint on the Pope's remarks. here
ZN, the term you're looking for (at least with me) is Henotheism in the modern Max Muller sense of the term. I accept the existance of other powers (Hells, the first commandment basically spells them out, and the plauges of Egypt were 'frak-you's to the Egyptian pantheon), I just don't care to worship them. That's one reason I get along with my Wiccan friends so well. I accept their beliefs, respect them even, but I don't worship them.
I wasn't actually looking for that term, rather your choosing it for your self. Your position is really very rare. For most, the point I was making stands
|
You know...
It must be so hard being an athiest. I mean I believe I have an immortal soul, and the ability to choose between right and wrong. I believe I was created in the image of the Divine, with the ability to create an innovate. I believe humanity is special, and was given the ability to be more than a primitive animal running on instinct. Religion is how we rise above the divine.
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.
Sad really.
No need to bash atheists. I am an atheist, and my personal moral compass says that I have to do what is going to better society in any way I can. This is why I took education to be a clinical psychologist so that I will work in a Psychiatric ward and help people at their lowest. I am monogamous, I married my husband, I do not care what religion you practice just keep it to yourself. I am not responsible to some divine entity for my actions but I am responsible to society as a whole, my family and my friends.
And frankly as for the condom debate. Sure abstinence does work, but we're still human, we do give into our hormones and temptations. So when we do give into those hormones then we should use condoms to help protect ourselves.
Matthew I know your better than this, attacks on other peoples ideology is beneath you. I won't attack your religion because I know it's something you find dear, but maybe a little empathy is in order.
It must be so hard being an athiest. I mean I believe I have an immortal soul, and the ability to choose between right and wrong. I believe I was created in the image of the Divine, with the ability to create an innovate. I believe humanity is special, and was given the ability to be more than a primitive animal running on instinct. Religion is how we rise above the divine.
I rose above the divine by not being guilty of multiple genocides. I bet you've done it too. It's surprisingly easy, even easier than using a condom. One wonders how supposedly omnipotent beings do so terribly at it.
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.Sad really.
Ape, not monkey. African apes too, though I know I'm cheating shamelessly by bringing facts into things. Pretty decent gig, I'd say.
Certainly doesn't need a bunch of wishful thinking to tart it up. It must be hard to have such low self-esteem that such things are required to get one through the day.
Sad really.
It must be so hard being an athiest. I mean I believe I have an immortal soul, and the ability to choose between right and wrong. I believe I was created in the image of the Divine, with the ability to create an innovate. I believe humanity is special, and was given the ability to be more than a primitive animal running on instinct. Religion is how we rise above the divine.I rose above the divine by not being guilty of multiple genocides. I bet you've done it too. It's surprisingly easy, even easier than using a condom. One wonders how supposedly omnipotent beings do so terribly at it.
While I entirely agree, this might be seen as pushing onto the hypersensitivity, just be aware and take bugleymans advice to me ;).
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.Sad really.
Ape, not monkey. African apes too, though I know I'm cheating shamelessly by bringing facts into things. Pretty decent gig, I'd say.
Certainly doesn't need a bunch of wishful thinking to tart it up. It must be hard to have such low self-esteem that such things are required to get one through the day.
Sad really.
Not to rush off into phylogenetic, but we are humans, which means we are hominids, which in turn means we are also apes, which in turn means we are also monkeys ;)
But you are right in that theistic creation myths are pretty dull.
I am literally made of star dust, and the best Christianity can do is being made out of mud and given CPR?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*snore*
Jews, Roma, Marsh Arabs... Millions dead in those nice Athiest nations like Cuba, Cambodia, the USSR.
If Samnell is trying to blame religion for 'genocide' then I'll have to hold him responsible for all those deaths. Just to be fair, after all.
Jeremy, Yeah, I had a bad day and vented, and apologized. I don't 'mock' Athiests normally, and do find it sad and petty that the only way some can justify their belief system is to attack others. I'm secure in my beliefs that I don't need to tear others down to justify myself. It was beneath me.
Not all athiests are 'religious haters' Any more than all religious people are going to blow up planes. (To that point El Al is the safest airline out there IIRC).
Glad you and your partner are still together, still getting the hang of that. (two divorces, one death, pretty sure I'm going to be the old man with a dog).
Funny moment
|
|
*snore*
Jews, Roma, Marsh Arabs... Millions dead in those nice Athiest nations like Cuba, Cambodia, the USSR.
If Samnell is trying to blame religion for 'genocide' then I'll have to hold him responsible for all those deaths. Just to be fair, after all.
Jeremy, Yeah, I had a bad day and vented, and apologized. I don't 'mock' Athiests normally, and do find it sad and petty that the only way some can justify their belief system is to attack others. I'm secure in my beliefs that I don't need to tear others down to justify myself. It was beneath me.
Not all athiests are 'religious haters' Any more than all religious people are going to blow up planes. (To that point El Al is the safest airline out there IIRC).
Glad you and your partner are still together, still getting the hang of that. (two divorces, one death, pretty sure I'm going to be the old man with a dog).
Funny moment
** spoiler omitted **
Matthew,
I think Samnell is probably talking about the Biblical genocides where every man, woman, child, animal and tree got slaughtered. Or the Flood where God personally killed everyone on Earth bar 8 people. Or Soddom and Gammorah, where God personally destroyed everyone in two cities.So we can save the "but your massacres were carried out in the name of religion whereas Pol Pott killed people because he was just nuts" argument for now.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matthew,
I think Samnell is probably talking about the Biblical genocides where every man, woman, child, animal and tree got slaughtered. Or the Flood where God personally killed everyone on Earth bar 8 people. Or Soddom and Gammorah, where God personally destroyed everyone in two cities.So we can save the "but your massacres were carried out in the name of religion whereas Pol Pott killed people because he was just nuts" argument for now.
Point taken, I assumed he was talking about Jihads, crusades, Hutu-Tutsi massacars etc. Things done by man in the name of their G_d/gods. I'm too used to seeing that argument trotted out that it's a reflexive response.
I should just ignore him, I know. Some people can't be civil.
I could point out that technically He delegated the city smiting, but that gets into my own 'Satan didn't rebel' heresy. I doubt anyone wants to hear that. :-)
Matthew,
I think Samnell is probably talking about the Biblical genocides where every man, woman, child, animal and tree got slaughtered. Or the Flood where God personally killed everyone on Earth bar 8 people. Or Soddom and Gammorah, where God personally destroyed everyone in two cities.So we can save the "but your massacres were carried out in the name of religion whereas Pol Pott killed people because he was just nuts" argument for now.
Exactly. Typically, religious people who commit atrocities do so in the name of their religion -- atheists, on the other hand, do not generally wipe people out in the name of atheism! That is, one is a case of causation, the other of correlation. Pointing out that there are mass murders perpetrated by atheists is equivalent to pointing out that there are mass murders perpetrated by blondes. Correlation, not causation. Many religions, on the other hand, have at one time or another actively encouraged the murder of non-believers. Very clearly causal.
But enough. I've been goaded down into the mud, and I should know better.
*snore*
Jews, Roma, Marsh Arabs... Millions dead in those nice Athiest nations like Cuba, Cambodia, the USSR.
If Samnell is trying to blame religion for 'genocide' then I'll have to hold him responsible for all those deaths. Just to be fair, after all.
Jeremy, Yeah, I had a bad day and vented, and apologized. I don't 'mock' Athiests normally, and do find it sad and petty that the only way some can justify their belief system is to attack others. I'm secure in my beliefs that I don't need to tear others down to justify myself. It was beneath me.
Not all athiests are 'religious haters' Any more than all religious people are going to blow up planes. (To that point El Al is the safest airline out there IIRC).
Glad you and your partner are still together, still getting the hang of that. (two divorces, one death, pretty sure I'm going to be the old man with a dog).
Funny moment
** spoiler omitted **
Please enlighten me, how exactly does atheism make anyone do anything? Because that is the implication here. Your implying that the correlation that these totalitarian states are all atheist, equals that Atheism caused the genocides. Can you provide a causative path that leads from atheism to genocide?
Samnell isn't trying to say that Religion causes genocide, he said that god(specifically Yahweh), is recorded to have personally undertaken multiple genocidal acts, aided in several and ordered directly a number more. Which is somewhat different.
Some people can't be civil.
I'm sorry, I'll have to bill you for the repair of my overloaded Irony-o-Meter.
More likely "some people" get annoyed and post something regrettable in the heat of the moment. Good thing you never do that.
Matthew,
I think Samnell is probably talking about the Biblical genocides where every man, woman, child, animal and tree got slaughtered. Or the Flood where God personally killed everyone on Earth bar 8 people. Or Soddom and Gammorah, where God personally destroyed everyone in two cities.So we can save the "but your massacres were carried out in the name of religion whereas Pol Pott killed people because he was just nuts" argument for now.
Exactly. Typically, religious people who commit atrocities do so in the name of their religion -- atheists, on the other hand, do not generally wipe people out in the name of atheism! That is, one is a case of causation, the other of correlation. Pointing out that there are mass murders perpetrated by atheists is equivalent to pointing out that there are mass murders perpetrated by blondes. Correlation, not causation. Many religions, on the other hand, have at one time or another actively encouraged the murder of non-believers. Very clearly causal.
But enough. I've been goaded down into the mud, and I should know better.
*Shakes fist* Damn you, beating me to it ;)
Some people can't be civil.I'm sorry, I'll have to bill you for the repair of my overloaded Irony-o-Meter.
More likely "some people" get annoyed and post something regrettable in the heat of the moment. Good thing you never do that.
*Snorts*
Dude, i think you just won the thread.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I do find it funny that people who post things like 'big imagninary sky god' in a condescending fashion are getting so upset that one (admittedly ill thought out) post mocking them was made.
Pots, kettles all that.
Maybe the difference is that I did apologize for offending? You know some of that divinely inspired humility and all :P
I really hate when I do that. Happens more than I like. :(
Ditto -- I've been a pretty bad offender. I'm getting faster on the "delete" button, though. Now to never post stuff in the first place...
I do find it funny that people who post things like 'big imagninary sky god' in a condescending fashion are getting so upset that one (admittedly ill thought out) post mocking them was made.
Pots, kettles all that.
Maybe the difference is that I did apologize for offending? You know some of that divinely inspired humility and all :P
The thing is, Matthew, we were working through that by calling it out as unnecessarily antagonistic -- but in a diplomatic way. We were down to embers when you brought your gas can.
Look, I'm not gonna lie. I've done it. You apologized (thank you), so let's move on -- I just don't think the jabs ("some people can't be civil") are helpful in that regard.
Edit: And Sam, please put your gas can away too.
If it's not caught sexually, is it still an STD?
Wow, that sounds like a really twisted koan...
Yeah, it's twisted, but at least with respect to HIV, it's a series of vectors that must be taken seriously.
I do find it funny that people who post things like 'big imagninary sky god' in a condescending fashion are getting so upset that one (admittedly ill thought out) post mocking them was made.
Pots, kettles all that.
Maybe the difference is that I did apologize for offending? You know some of that divinely inspired humility and all :P
Just for the record, it is Invisible Magic Sky Daddy actually, though I have used a more provocative version in this thread.
I am the only one to have used it, and I haven't criticize you for attacking atheism(at least as far as memory and a quick read through tells me). What would be the point? There is nothing there to attack. It exists in the same way as a shadow does, it is the absence of a belief, just like a shadow is the absence of light.
PS. I got called on my tone. By the people who are now calling you on yours. How exactly are they the 'pot calling the kettle black'?
Yeah, I was a bit cranky this morning, so to some of the (polite)agnostics I apologize
Though I do think it needs to be said, there was a civil conversation going on before the, 'those stupid christians' contingent arrived.
I am somewhat bemused that everyone attacks me, yet those comments go unscathed. I didn't see anyone saying 'Those stupid Athiests, why don't they just embrace the words of the Pope as law!' Hells, even my statements were supporting the Pope's position that abstaining is 100% effective, not that the implimentation was perfect. (Same thing goes for condoms, they themsevles aren't 100% effective, and that's assuming they are used correctly, of sufficient quality, etc.)
Paul, I know beams, motes et al. Though to use another cliche, 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven'
Interestingly enough, I find I get more flack from catholics on issues like this(the word of the Pope) as a protestant than I see athiests getting.
A terrible disease, said to come from "somewhere else", that spreads through sex, and can transmit at birth to children. A disease that takes many years, even a few decades to kill, and does so after completely breaking the victim down. And that shows through a specific appearance.
I am talking, of course, about syphilis.
When syphilis came to Europe from America, likely in return for the smallpox that Columbus brought there, most of european society changed. The bath houses were closed. Sex grew taboo outside of marriage, monogamy soared in importance.
It took the discovery of penicillin and 3-400 years to end it. Society has grown more stale during all this time, cementing principles and moral views on sex/marriage.
And now, the church thinks we're supposed to change even further in the direction of monogamy/abstinence? No. We already did that. HIV spread anyway. There is a limit to how far you can go with social change. That the Catholic church doesn't understand that, however, comes as no surprise.
Hnn. Interesting points.
Yeah, it's twisted, but at least with respect to HIV, it's a series of vectors that must be taken seriously.If it's not caught sexually, is it still an STD?
Wow, that sounds like a really twisted koan...
A number of STI's and STDs are in the same boat.
Does increased safe means of action, result in ironically more reckless behavior?
I would say a lot of the anti-condom/"what are the chances I'll get an STD" attitude I see a lot of (not necessarily through the second job) are a direct result of certain education campaigns. A little bit of knowledge with respect to the statistics behind certain STDs has turned out to be a dangerous thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd read it, Matthew.
So if they can't make mistakes, following orders, etc. Then how could Satan rebel? It would be like your computer rebelling.
Which means a) G_d, who is the creator somehow missed this coding flaw, b) Satan was designed to rebel, which kind of defeats the idea that it was a surprise or c) He got the 's$$#-job' of being the custodian of hell.
What got me on this line of thinking were passages of Jacob and the angel in the Talmud. As explained here The 'evil' angel Jacob wrestled with was just doing his job. And was happy when the job was over. "He said, "I am an angel, and from the day that I was created, my time to sing praise to G-d did not arrive until this moment.""
Also as mentioned here The angels, by their nature, are perfected beings.
So if G-d created an angel to be the 'heel' to Jacob's wrestling match (and I believe that the angel wasn't for Jacob specifically, he was the one who met the conditions, think of a cosmic 'If/Then' statement) then it would stand to reason, that Satan would serve a similar role. (Maybe for Jesus in the desert?)
(I also find the Jewish philosophy of the good and evil inclinations a lot more tolerable than the 'devil made me do it' we all have when we're six. We are free willed creatures and the gift from the Divine is to be more than hopped up apes with delusions of grandure, this means we make mistakes, and do evil occasionally no matter how hard we try not to. Lord Acton and all that.)
It's also how I reconcile the 'free will vs. predestination' argument. He has a plan, and it's (pun intended) cosmically complex. We all do have a part to play, even you athiests :P But if you (or I) fail to play that part, then a backup in a universe of nested if/then loops will come into play.
But like I say, I'm a heretic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interestingly enough, I find I get more flack from catholics on issues like this(the word of the Pope) as a protestant than I see athiests getting.
Maybe it's becasue you (and I) aren't lost, just misguided in their eyes?
Aside, I've gotten shocked looks from some Protestants that I actually respect the Catholic church (or 'Whore of Babalyon' if you prefer) on things. Then again, while ELCA Lutherans recognize many other branches (I joke that Methodists are Lutherans in denial, and that the CoE would have been Lutherans if not for Bloody Mary) the Missouri Synod doesn't. I'm in the middle.
Theological rant
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Exactly. Typically, religious people who commit atrocities do so in the name of their religion -- atheists, on the other hand, do not generally wipe people out in the name of atheism! That is, one is a case of causation, the other of correlation. Pointing out that there are mass murders perpetrated by atheists is equivalent to pointing out that there are mass murders perpetrated by blondes. Correlation, not causation. Many religions, on the other hand, have at one time or another actively encouraged the murder of non-believers. Very clearly causal.
Actually, I'll disagree here, because they do have the same cause.
"We can make the world better."
Whether it be Jihadists believing that the world will be 'better' by everyone following Shiaria, or the Spaniards believing that the world will be better once the Jews convert, or Hitler's 'Pure world' or Stalin and Mao's 'pure socialism' it all comes back to the simple motive of 'I know better than you, and I'll kill you to prove it.'
I must confess Bugley, I am (non-sarcasm, non-hostile) surprised they you of all people wouldn't see that. I mean the line between "I believe G-d told me what's best" and "I believe I know what's best" is so thin as to be non-existant.
That's part of the reason I myself don't run around screaming 'Repent or DIE!' I don't 'know' I'm right, I 'believe' I am. I don't have the right to save you at the point of a sword/stake/airplane. After all, if I'm wrong it's my afterlife I'm frakking with. If I'm wrong and 'make' you follow my faith, then I'm frakking with your soul, and that's worse.
Now if you see the light, recant your ways and join me of your own free will.... that's different ;-)
Not to rush off into phylogenetic, but we are humans, which means we are hominids, which in turn means we are also apes, which in turn means we are also monkeys ;)
But you are right in that theistic creation myths are pretty dull.
I am literally made of star dust, and the best Christianity can do is being made out of mud and given CPR?
No, not correct. I did graduate work in Evolutionary Anthropology. Apes are not monkeys. Monkeys are not in family Hominidae. Hominin (tribe Hominini) is currently the preferred taxonomic term for humans (sensu lato, which is to say, including extinct human species such as australopithecines) and chimpanzees.
I could have sworn the discussion was about the validity of two different means of prevention.
That's because you're viewing things as binary, when they're not.
(1) I'm in favor of abstinence, for the most part -- but married people/people in committed relationships go to Step 2 instead. Also, no matter how many times you tell teenagers to stay at Step 1, and no matter what consequences are imposed, a lot of them go to Steps 2-3 anyway.
(2) I'm very strongly in favor of monogamy. But sometimes a spouse will die, and a person might find another one. And sometimes, sadly, a faithful partner finds that their spouse isn't. Those people go to Step 3.
(3) I'm therefore also in favor of condoms being available and used.
We have three methods for protecting against the sexual transmission of HIV. Only if all three fail does one contract a death sentence. There's no reason we shouldn't keep all three in place, rather than arbitrarily removing one from the list.
Maybe the difference is that I did apologize for offending? You know some of that divinely inspired humility and all :P
Matthew, with respect, I'd suggest that a poor apology -- followed by a continuing of the bahavior that was apologized for (sniping with "can't be civil" comments) -- is worse than no apology at all. Therefore the false claim of moral superiority for offering it is, to me at least, sort of more offensive than the initial rant.
Actually, I'll disagree here, because they do have the same cause.
"We can make the world better."
Whether it be Jihadists believing that the world will be 'better' by everyone following Shiaria, or the Spaniards believing that the world will be better once the Jews convert, or Hitler's 'Pure world' or Stalin and Mao's 'pure socialism' it all comes back to the simple motive of 'I know better than you, and I'll kill you to prove it.'
I must confess Bugley, I am (non-sarcasm, non-hostile) surprised they you of all people wouldn't see that. I mean the line between "I believe G-d told me what's best" and "I believe I know what's best" is so thin as to be non-existant.
That's part of the reason I myself don't run around screaming 'Repent or DIE!' I don't 'know' I'm right, I 'believe' I am. I don't have the right to save you at the point of a sword/stake/airplane. After all, if I'm wrong it's my afterlife I'm frakking with. If I'm wrong and 'make' you follow my faith, then I'm frakking with your soul, and that's worse.
Now if you see the light, recant your ways and join me of your own free will.... that's different ;-)
Good point; I agree that the willingness to kill others to enforce one's will is ultimately the problem. In hindsight, arguing about which "side" does it in greater numbers does seem rather pointless.
I don't presume to speak for you, but I believe we agree that coercion and violence are not appropriate tools in advancing one's beliefs. As long as we cleave to that, then all is not lost. On the other hand, when we don't, people start flying planes into buildings.
pedantry
abstinnce
/pendantry
I think Samnell is probably talking about the Biblical genocides where every man, woman, child, animal and tree got slaughtered. Or the Flood where God personally killed everyone on Earth bar 8 people. Or Soddom and Gammorah, where God personally destroyed everyone in two cities.
Exactly. Matthew mentioned rising above the divine, so it seemed only fair and on point.
This thread seems to keep going through its ups and downs. As I said in the other thread before it was locked, a good topic for discussion - but I think people need to take a deep breath and reread what they write before hitting the Submit Post button.
Longer answer, data does not support your claim.
Nice article but...umm go back and read to the end. The answer there was that I was in fact 'Correct'. I think you must have prematurely evacuated the article :)
'NO CHANGE OF BEHAVIOUR'