|
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'
I think pres man was agreeing with you (giving the long answer rather than the short answer).
I think pres man was agreeing with you (giving the long answer rather than the short answer).
Pretty sure his inference was that by adding the safety feature (in this case condoms, in my case seatbelts) people would be more likley to engage in risky behaviour, which I debated.
The initial primer of the linked article was that as safety features were added we became more reckless, however the end of the article gave the opposing view that the principle simply wasn't borne out.
So at best the article equivocates, and at worst debunks the claim that more stuff = more risk taking.
|
|
Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?
If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?
How many were Catholic? How many died from other activities the Church doesn't condone? Seriously, maybe people should be monogamous and not shoot up. Might do some good for the world.
WTF does it matter what the Pope says? Go to Mexico. Very Catholic country. They sell condoms.
Oh, and as to all the goofy corner cases on here: if you are HIV positive and you're having unprotected sex (or sex at all, really) that isn't the Pope's fault. It's yours.
Religion doesn't excuse people from personal responsibility.
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'
There has been a lively debate over risk compensation ever since, but today the issue is not whether it exists, but the degree to which it does.
Yes, there are dissenting views, of course there are dissenting views to climate change as well, so there you go.
|
|
I think pres man was agreeing with you (giving the long answer rather than the short answer).Pretty sure his inference was that by adding the safety feature (in this case condoms, in my case seatbelts) people would be more likley to engage in risky behaviour, which I debated.
The initial primer of the linked article was that as safety features were added we became more reckless, however the end of the article gave the opposing view that the principle simply wasn't borne out.
So at best the article equivocates, and at worst debunks the claim that more stuff = more risk taking.
Fair enough, pres man was disagreeing with you it seems.
Although the article he linked concludes that risk compensation exists but there is no evidence that it exists in regards to your specific example, seat belt use.
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.
The Cladogram I have in front of me goes Homo sapiens-Homo-hominini-hominidae-hominoidea-Catarrhini(I.E. Old world monkeys)-anthropidea(generalised simiforms). At which point we share a common ancestor with all apes and monkeys, in the form of Apidium. It would be correct to say that apes are not decended from new world monkeys, but not to say that they are not descended from Catarrhini.
Now this Phylogenetic Cladogram was put together may last year, it is possible that something dramatic has happened since and I just don't know about it, especially since my reading of journals has basically halted since uni and Evolutionary anthropology is not something I have any degree of expertise in.
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.
The Cladogram I have in front of me goes Homo sapiens-Homo-hominini-hominidae-hominoidea-Catarrhini(I.E. Old world monkeys)-anthropidea(generalised simiforms). At which point we share a common ancestor with all apes and monkeys, in the form of Apidium. It would be correct to say that apes are not decended from new world monkeys, but not to say that they are not descended from Catarrhini.
Now this Phylogenetic Cladogram was put together may last year, it is possible that something dramatic has happened since and I just don't know about it, especially since my reading of journals has basically halted since uni and Evolutionary anthropology is not something I have any degree of expertise in.
It's hard for me to say without looking at what you are looking at, but Catarrhini is a more inclusive grouping than Old World monkeys. They are not synonymous; rather, OW monkeys is one family under the Catarrhini umbrella. The catarrhine families are Hylobatidae (lesser apes), Hominidae (great apes, including humans), and Cercopithecidae (OW monkeys). All Old World monkeys are catarrhines, but not all catarrhines are OW monkeys.
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.
The Cladogram I have in front of me goes Homo sapiens-Homo-hominini-hominidae-hominoidea-Catarrhini(I.E. Old world monkeys)-anthropidea(generalised simiforms). At which point we share a common ancestor with all apes and monkeys, in the form of Apidium. It would be correct to say that apes are not decended from new world monkeys, but not to say that they are not descended from Catarrhini.
Now this Phylogenetic Cladogram was put together may last year, it is possible that something dramatic has happened since and I just don't know about it, especially since my reading of journals has basically halted since uni and Evolutionary anthropology is not something I have any degree of expertise in.
It's hard for me to say without looking at what you are looking at, but Catarrhini is a more inclusive grouping than Old World monkeys. They are not synonymous; rather, OW monkeys is one family under the Catarrhini umbrella. The catarrhine families are Hylobatidae (lesser apes), Hominidae (great apes, including humans), and Cercopithecidae (OW monkeys). All Old World monkeys are catarrhines, but not all catarrhines are OW monkeys.
Then you have my apologies.I guess the Cladogram must be wrong, it gave the impression thatBoth Hylobatidae and Hominidae had evolved from Catarrhinis, without listing Cercopithecidae as a separate tribe.
Serves me right for moving beyond ethology ;) Taxonomy, the second most mind bendingly awful biological discipline, after bio-chemistry.
No, the "whole point" of religion is not to be irrational. Religion -should- be highly rational. I refer you to Marvin Harris' work on the sacred cow of India.
Here's a good (and famous) article which should be pretty accessible (I studied it way back as a freshman) on the topic
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743946
I said nothing about the point of religion. What I did say was that the point of faith is to believe in something in spite of a lack conclusive of evidence. Because, you know, if there was conclusive evidence, you wouldn't need the faith part.
Um...thanks for the link though?
I fully endorse the ABC approach towards HIV/Aids prevention.
However, I will also state that the Pope and the Catholic Church are in absolutely no place to be preaching how their lay people should conduct themselves. In particular when their own clergy cannot seem to be able to keep their d**ks in their own pants. As noted by the ongoing fiasco over pedophile priests and those who have taken it upon themselves to seek their "indulgences" with practicing nuns... Priestly Oopsies
I fully endorse the ABC approach towards HIV/Aids prevention.
However, I will also state that the Pope and the Catholic Church are in absolutely no place to be preaching how their lay people should conduct themselves. In particular when their own clergy cannot seem to be able to keep their d**ks in their own pants. As noted by the ongoing fiasco over pedophile priests and those who have taken it upon themselves to seek their "indulgences" with practicing nuns... Priestly Oopsies
I wonder if anyone has done a study as to the relative frequency of such abuses in the RCC as compared to other types of occupations.
|
|
What correlation?So you can see no correlation between my post and your meat grinder example? :)For what it is worth, it is very documented that some people can walk across hot coals unscathed. I knew a guy who did it multiple times.I don't know what that's worth.
Faith is sufficient to come out of a seemingly dangerous/deadly situation. The problem with a binary world view... with this=that correlation and causation suppositions is that it is entirely too imprecise for modeling the real world. For every example you can come up with support your point of view, someone with another view can find evidence to support theirs.
These points are usually based off of personally evidential empirical constructs and as such make for difficult if not impossible debate.
|
|
The biggest criticism which can be leveled against alleged moral/spiritual experts is that they have no more demonstrable expertise in moral/spiritual areas than anyone else.I wonder if anyone has done a study as to the relative frequency of such abuses in the RCC as compared to other types of occupations.I fully endorse the ABC approach towards HIV/Aids prevention.
However, I will also state that the Pope and the Catholic Church are in absolutely no place to be preaching how their lay people should conduct themselves. In particular when their own clergy cannot seem to be able to keep their d**ks in their own pants. As noted by the ongoing fiasco over pedophile priests and those who have taken it upon themselves to seek their "indulgences" with practicing nuns... Priestly Oopsies
A Christain sheppard does not claim moral superiority, and is still human. They are supposed to communicate God's will, not be perfect examples of following it. Take Jonah, the reluctant prophet from the OT and Peter who denies Jesus in the NT as an example of what I am talking about. Expecting people to be something they are not and then castigating them for your expectations is a road to disappointment for all involved.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
What correlation?So you can see no correlation between my post and your meat grinder example? :)For what it is worth, it is very documented that some people can walk across hot coals unscathed. I knew a guy who did it multiple times.I don't know what that's worth.Faith is sufficient to come out of a seemingly dangerous/deadly situation. The problem with a binary world view... with this=that correlation and causation suppositions is that it is entirely too imprecise for modeling the real world. For every example you can come up with support your point of view, someone with another view can find evidence to support theirs.
These points are usually based off of personally evidential empirical constructs and as such make for difficult if not impossible debate.
Seemingly dangerous/deadly being the key point there.
In most cases walking over hot coals is perfectly safe, provided you don't dally and have a good sole.
It all comes down to the fact that wood/ash is a poor conductor of heat. It's just not able to transfer heat into your feet quickly enough to do any damage as you walk across. Same reason you can reach into a hot oven without getting burned (so long as you don't touch the metal walls/pan).
Faith is sufficient because the only real obstacle to a successful firewalk is fear, and faith (whether it be in a higher power to protect you or simply faith in your own understanding of the laws of physics) can certainly help you overcome fear.
I'm not at all sure the same can be said for the meat grinder, I have a feeling it'll still grind you up no matter what you believe.
Fifteen minutes ago in another thread, you said this:
"people who tell us we should take it on faith - by which they mean without evidence"
Assuing you agree accepting something without evidence is irrational, then by your own words faith qualifies. Are you trying to pick a fight, or am I misinterpreting your intent?
So, if I have faith that I can walk into a meat grinder and come out unscarred - is the point of that faith to be irrational?
I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Faith is irrational -- that's all I meant. Unless of course ones chooses to define "faith" as a synonym for belief, in which case belief in God is irrational, as insufficient evidence to prove the His existence exists (or has been presented).
It's pretty self evident when you approach it with an open mind. But unsurprisingly, it remains a sticky point for many religious people. I think conceding it makes them feel as though they've lost somehow. Which of course they haven't, but I don't see the point of arguing it any more...
This thread small of troll feeding. Stop feeding the troll everyone.
Two things: Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a political standpoint regarding organized religion that you consider it dangerous and should be removed from political influence. The religious stance taken by most atheists is agnosticism, which means that you consider the existence of divinity unclear enough not to consider the question relevant. Religious people, however, generally try to call atheism a religion, likely feeling that anything people consider important enough MUST be religious in nature. This shows only their own inability to conceive of people having OTHER bases for their values, morality and world-view.
Second, we do know that kids taught only abstinence DO have more teen pregnancies than those who have learned more in sex ed and have been taught to use condoms. The statistics of the "purity wov" crowd was pretty miserable, and actually worse than the statistics of the same age group in the general public, regarding things like age at sexual debut and so on. So, no, abstinence ISN'T helping. Teaching kids to relate to sex in a reasonable way works far, far better than lying to them and telling them only to say no.
|
|
Peter wasn't a Christian shepherd at the time that he denied Christ. By the time he was a Christian shepherd, he was willing to become a martyr...A Christain sheppard does not claim moral superiority, and is still human. They are supposed to communicate God's will, not be perfect examples of following it. Take Jonah, the reluctant prophet from the OT and Peter who denies Jesus in the NT as an example of what I am talking about. Expecting people to be something they are not and then castigating them for your expectations is a road to disappointment for all involved.The biggest criticism which can be leveled against alleged moral/spiritual experts is that they have no more demonstrable expertise in moral/spiritual areas than anyone else.I wonder if anyone has done a study as to the relative frequency of such abuses in the RCC as compared to other types of occupations.I fully endorse the ABC approach towards HIV/Aids prevention.
However, I will also state that the Pope and the Catholic Church are in absolutely no place to be preaching how their lay people should conduct themselves. In particular when their own clergy cannot seem to be able to keep their d**ks in their own pants. As noted by the ongoing fiasco over pedophile priests and those who have taken it upon themselves to seek their "indulgences" with practicing nuns... Priestly Oopsies
Way OT here, but Peter was a shepherd before he denied Christ and after. He was an apostle, a direct witness of the Christ. He was willing to be martyred before and after he denied Christ. Remember, he was willing to draw a sword on the arresting Roman soldiers. There was no way that could have gone well for him.
Now that we have this out of the way, you keep demanding I answer your questions, but you have ignored one of mine for days now. With all this animus against this papal decree, and your assertion that Catholics have not followed the command for abstinence, is there really any evidence that Catholics are any more likely to follow the condom decree?
Second, we do know that kids taught only abstinence DO have more teen pregnancies than those who have learned more in sex ed and have been taught to use condoms. The statistics of the "purity wov" crowd was pretty miserable, and actually worse than the statistics of the same age group in the general public, regarding things like age at sexual debut and so on. So, no, abstinence ISN'T helping. Teaching kids to relate to sex in a reasonable way works far, far better than lying to them and telling them only to say no.
You have that right... With Bush's failed "Abstinence" policies, there has been a spike in teen pregnancies and STD infections.
And the ramifications of these policies are still being felt today. In WI here, ARCW (Aids Resource Center), has found it more and more difficult to get a positive ABC approach in schools where they are not allowed to discus condom use as a means of preventing infection. Simply because of these "abstinence only" hurdles.
It also doesn't help either that as some of their federal funding also stipulate that they cannot use their education monies to promote a full ABC approach, but focus primarily on abstinence. If they fail to do so, they risk losing their federal monies.
Atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing. Atheism is belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is, as you say, belief that the situation is unclear enough not to consider the question relevant.
I agree those are the denotations of those words. The problem, however, is that pretty much every atheist I've ever read would be considered agnostic by this definition -- including "militant" atheists like Dawkins. Dawkins doesn't claim to know there is no god -- only that there is unsufficient evidence to support the claim that there is. In fact, here is what he has said on the matter:
We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.
-- Richard Dawkins
And if Dawkins isn't an atheist, who is?
And while I'm citing quotations, here's a favorite on the matter:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen F. Roberts
The biggest criticism which can be leveled against alleged moral/spiritual experts is that they have no more demonstrable expertise in moral/spiritual areas than anyone else.
It's the same thing as saying that a medical doctor can demonstrate no more expertise in medicine than can some random guy off the street.
I think your comparison is flawed. A closer comparison would be that of a mental health professional that has emotional issues of their own.
The Bible, itself, says that there will be many false prophets and tells us to know them by their fruits. That statement tells us to do exactly what I said - look and see if people who are supposed to be moral/spiritual leaders have demonstrable expertise in moral/spiritual matters.
Seems to me that you may be judging large groups of individuals by how a few bad apples act. In this case you appear not to be judging them all by the fruits of their own labors.
Unless of course ones chooses to define "faith" as a synonym for belief, in which case belief in God is irrational, as insufficient evidence to prove the His existence exists (or has been presented).
I think you mean "objective" evidence. Some religious people have plenty of subjective evidence.
What does, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" mean to you?
A misunderstanding of the context of the original expression. An eye for an eye was actually a response to not seek more in retribution than you received. If someone knocks out your eye, you demanding their life is not appropriate, you could demand an eye for an eye (but don't have to), but not a life for an eye.
The core of what we're discussing is the fact that millions of people have died painful and needless deaths because other people are using superstition rather than science to establish policy on how to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.
If you want to discuss superstition and HIV spread, then you should probably look to beliefs that having sex with a virgin would cure the disease. And so these people would go and rape young girls hoping to cure themselves. This of course did not work, and instead just spread it to more people. By the way, this was not a course of action suggested by the pope or his representatives.
As to the catholics and condoms and such, given that a lot of the spread has been done specifically by not heeding other papal suggestions, I fail to see how this is going to increase or decrease behavior. A guy goes and sees a prostitute and the pope says, "If you cheat on your spouse you should wear a condom when having sex with them." You really think the cheater is going to do that? Nope.
And, remember, no one here is arguing against abstinence. We are discussing whether a policy with demonstrable, spectacularly effective results (ABC) should be replaced with a policy which does not have demonstrable results.
We have failed to stop rapes. Perhaps it is time to start teaching people the right way to rape, since telling them to abstain from it has failed. Sorry, that is obviously hyperbole, but there are reasons why we feel uncomfortable suggesting a "right" way to do a course of action we are against. Almost all of the times you'd want to use a condom are things that the catholic church believes you should not be doing anyway. Suggesting that they should support teaching people to do these wrong things in the right fashion is illogical.
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
What if instead I call it a "hair style" instead of "hair color"?
Second, we do know that kids taught only abstinence DO have more teen pregnancies than those who have learned more in sex ed and have been taught to use condoms. The statistics of the "purity wov" crowd was pretty miserable, and actually worse than the statistics of the same age group in the general public, regarding things like age at sexual debut and so on. So, no, abstinence ISN'T helping. Teaching kids to relate to sex in a reasonable way works far, far better than lying to them and telling them only to say no.
They have more pregnancies, but do they have more sex? It may be they practice riskier sex but engage it less often, where as those with comprehensive sexual education practice safer sexual methods but engage in it more often. I personally don't know. I certainly believe children growing up in a hyper-sexualized society and then being told not engage in such behaviors is very likely to fail.
EDIT: Also, Agnostics can also be theists.
I think you mean "objective" evidence. Some religious people have plenty of subjective evidence.
Correct -- I did mean objective.
To me, however, "subjective evidence" is an oxymoron. I'm not ruling out the possibility that other people have access to information that I do not. However, calling that information evidence carries a number of implications which I do not believe are valid.
I think you mean "objective" evidence. Some religious people have plenty of subjective evidence.Correct -- I did mean objective.
To me, however, "subjective evidence" is an oxymoron. I'm not ruling out the possibility that other people have access to information that I do not. However, calling that information evidence carries a number of implications which I do not believe are valid.
I understand, it just seemed as if it was being suggested that all people with certain beliefs have no rational reason to belief what they do. They may have no objective reason but being incapable of proving something to others doesn't necessarily invalidate the experiences of a person.
We're not talking about "invalidating the experiences of a person". We're talking about whether a policy with proven dramatic effectiveness in saving human lives should be mucked with for superstitious reasons.I understand, it just seemed as if it was being suggested that all people with certain beliefs have no rational reason to belief what they do. They may have no objective reason but being incapable of proving something to others doesn't necessarily invalidate the experiences of a person.I think you mean "objective" evidence. Some religious people have plenty of subjective evidence.Correct -- I did mean objective.
To me, however, "subjective evidence" is an oxymoron. I'm not ruling out the possibility that other people have access to information that I do not. However, calling that information evidence carries a number of implications which I do not believe are valid.
Actually the part I was quoting was discussing a more general idea of faith.