|
Actually the part I was quoting was discussing a more general idea of faith.In that case, while it's not true that everyone with certain beliefs have rational reasons to believe what they do, the opposite isn't true either. Of course, this doesn't mean that there is rational basis for every belief out there.
I did mention earlier that faith can be rational and faith can be irrational.
As can lack thereof.
|
|
Everyone has faith. The only thing that differs is what they have faith in and whether they let that faith blind them to facts.
As can lack thereof.
Fair enough.
I would add that at times we do not all have the facts. As well as that there is a difference between facts and truth.
EDIT: And Opinions.
|
|
I would add that at times we do not all have the facts. As well as thatWe need to act in accordance with the facts we do know. Such as the fact that ABC has dramatic effectiveness whereas abstinence-only policies do not.
Opinions
there is a difference between facts and truth.Show me an objective way to know the truth and I'll concede that - elsewise, quibbling over "truth" is just vapid MM.
While I concede the point as it were, I will point out that there are two objectives in search for facts. To find the truth or to find the information "I" want.
|
|
The reason we search for facts is so that we may reach our goals. Here, the goal is to keep millions of people from dying horrible deaths.
While I concede the point as it were, I will point out that there are two objectives in search for facts. To find the truth or to find the information "I" want.
Is it? Or is it to encourage millions of people to make sane choices that allows them to live long healthy happy productive lives?
There is that old axiom, I am sure you are aware of, tech a man to fish he eats for a day, ect..
I would be very supprised if you could provide any example of religious faith that was rational. I won't say that is impossible, but i have yet to come across any example of it.
The belief in something which not only does not have any evidence for it's existence, but goes against everything we know about the universe, and expect use to accept its truly extra-ordinary claims on nothing more than magical thinking and circular logic seems to me the very essence of irrationality.
That isn't to say that their are no religious or mystical practices which are rational. The physicial and psychological benifits of being a member of a community, such as a church or coven are well demonstrated, as is the practice of meditation. But none of these things are due to a belief in a god or gods, as the same practices/conditions produce the same results when de-mystified.
As for the idea that every one has faith in something. I disagree, at least, as long as we are referring to religious faith(ie. belief in the absense of evidence.) I am unaware of any such behaviour in myself, I strive only to hold a position with good reason. I believe my partner loves me, not out of faith in her love, but because the evidence of our shared life and mating behaviours give me an evidence basis to believe it. I can barely imagine what it is like to believe something without atleast some good reason to believe it.
I would be very supprised if you could provide any example of religious faith that was rational. I won't say that is impossible, but i have yet to come across any example of it.I referenced a quite famous paper written by Marvin Harris earlier in this thread. You might find it a worthwhile read.
As for the idea that every one has faith in something. I disagree, at least, as long as we are referring to religious faith(ie. belief in the absense of evidence.) I am unaware of any such behaviour in myself,Gravity.
You have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that gravity will still be there two seconds from now. You have plenty of reasons to believe that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. Yet, you don't spend your day constantly looking for something to hold on to that's bolted to the floor.
I do not need "assurances"; I have evidence.
The behaviour of gravity is very well understood, and since it is unlikely that all the mass of both myself and the earth will disappear to be suddenly, and unlikely that the force of gravity will cease to exist, i act according to weight of probablity. I have evidence that under the current conditions of the universe these laws do not change, because we have data and a theortical frame work in place that shows it to be the case(something of a simplification, but for the purposes of this discussion close enough). It isn't faith, but rather an entirely rational calculation of probablity. what it would require faith to believe it that it is likely that tomorrow gravity will stop working, because the evidence is that gravity tends to work one way, and we have no evidence to suggest that it is likely to change.
"What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan
Opinions.
I would add that at times we do not all have the facts. As well as thatWe need to act in accordance with the facts we do know. Such as the fact that ABC has dramatic effectiveness whereas abstinence-only policies do not.
Opinions is not really a strong enough term, and it gives entirely the wrong idea about how well understood this is.
It is a little like those who misuse theory.
What in fact we are talking about here is a very strong scientific concensus, based upon a well understood theortical frame work and a wide range of studies and meta-studies, the results of which show statistically significant difference in outcomes for people under the umbrella of an ABC based education scheme and those taught using an Abstinance only approach.
Science does not talk about something being 'proven' because 'proof' is something that only really exists in mathimatics, but in lay term, the fact that ABC has significantly better out comes, is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
Gravity.
You have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that gravity will still be there two seconds from now. You have plenty of reasons to believe that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. Yet, you don't spend your day constantly looking for something to hold on to that's bolted to the floor.
And some skilled mathematicians believe it does not actually exist, but is rather a side effect of other known properties.
|
|
Opinions.
I would add that at times we do not all have the facts. As well as thatWe need to act in accordance with the facts we do know. Such as the fact that ABC has dramatic effectiveness whereas abstinence-only policies do not.
Opinions is not really a strong enough term, and it gives entirely the wrong idea about how well understood this is.
It is a little like those who misuse theory.
What in fact we are talking about here is a very strong scientific consensus, based upon a well understood theoretical frame work and a wide range of studies and meta-studies, the results of which show statistically significant difference in outcomes for people under the umbrella of an ABC based education scheme and those taught using an Abstinence only approach.
Science does not talk about something being 'proven' because 'proof' is something that only really exists in mathematics, but in lay term, the fact that ABC has significantly better out comes, is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
So many things wrong with this. Sigh
...I would be very supprised if you could provide any example of religious faith that was rational. I won't say that is impossible, but i have yet to come across any example of it.I referenced a quite famous paper written by Marvin Harris earlier in this thread. You might find it a worthwhile read.
As for the idea that every one has faith in something. I disagree, at least, as long as we are referring to religious faith(ie. belief in the absense of evidence.) I am unaware of any such behaviour in myself,Gravity.
You have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that gravity will still be there two seconds from now. You have plenty of reasons to believe that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. Yet, you don't spend your day constantly looking for something to hold on to that's bolted to the floor.
I do not need "assurances"; I have evidence.
The behaviour of gravity is very well understood, and since it is unlikely that all the mass of both myself and the earth will disappear to be suddenly, and unlikely that the force of gravity will cease to exist, i act according to weight of probablity. I have evidence that under the current conditions of the universe these laws do not change, because we have data and a theortical frame work in place that shows it to be the case(something of a simplification, but for the purposes of this discussion close enough). It isn't faith, but rather an entirely rational calculation of probablity. what it would require faith to believe it that it is likely that tomorrow gravity will stop working, because the evidence is that gravity tends to work one way, and we have no evidence to suggest that it is likely to change.
"What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard
Go back, and read again. I have highlighted the important phrase for you.
The behaviour of gravity is very well understood,
A large portion of gravities behaviour have been understood and explained since sir Isaac Newton. General relativity further increased our understanding of it's observed behaviour, as has quantuum theory.
None of that is a claim that our understanding is perfect(we for instance understand very little about its causes, i understand even less about it that the collective 'we' which is the total of human knowledge), only that we have a good deal understanding about how it behaves, and are able to use that understanding to make predictions about it's beahviour, which turn out to be right and practically applicable.
You seem to think that I some how need 'proof' to act, when all such a need would result in is parlysis, as nothing can be proven out side of mathimatics and pure logic. Rather than proof, I relie of evidence.
Next, likelihood. The simple answer is, we do not know how likely the big bang is, but it is supported by huge amounts of evidence, and is a coherrant and logical naturalistic explination, not contridicted by any observation. 'God did it' however is not however, so it is certainly more unlike than the big bang.
Let us pretend that the world waas created a second ago, assuming that you are talking about a reality that has been given shape by a creator, their are three basic options.
1. The creator made the world with different rules than those we remember, in which case, repeatablity is what shows us something is wrong. chalk up a win for repeatablity.
2. The creator used naturalistic means to creat the universe exactly as our memory depicted, in which case, with time we can learn to understand said rules, using repeatability of observation.
3. The creator is a trickster who uses supernatural means to intentonally make it impossible to see his hand in it. Repeatablity fails, in that it doesn't life the curtain on said trickster, but in all practical regards, studying the nature of the new universe, it functions perfectly well. However unlikely a naturalistic universe which has slowly grown in complexity might be, the idea of a complex unnatural being using unmeasurable powers to intentionally trick us, is more unlikely, so it is never going to be rational to believe in him without extra-ordinary evidence of his existance. It is certainly 'possible', but the possiblity of a trickster deity messing with us is no more a good basis for planning your weekend than that our planet might be invaded by aliens.
So many things wrong with this. SighOpinions.
I would add that at times we do not all have the facts. As well as thatWe need to act in accordance with the facts we do know. Such as the fact that ABC has dramatic effectiveness whereas abstinence-only policies do not.
Opinions is not really a strong enough term, and it gives entirely the wrong idea about how well understood this is.
It is a little like those who misuse theory.
What in fact we are talking about here is a very strong scientific consensus, based upon a well understood theoretical frame work and a wide range of studies and meta-studies, the results of which show statistically significant difference in outcomes for people under the umbrella of an ABC based education scheme and those taught using an Abstinence only approach.
Science does not talk about something being 'proven' because 'proof' is something that only really exists in mathematics, but in lay term, the fact that ABC has significantly better out comes, is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Such as?
And some skilled mathematicians believe it does not actually exist, but is rather a side effect of other known properties.
Gravity.
You have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that gravity will still be there two seconds from now. You have plenty of reasons to believe that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. Yet, you don't spend your day constantly looking for something to hold on to that's bolted to the floor.
Yet, that doesn't change the fact that the behaviour of matter is such that i am, based of the availible evidance, able to plan the action of walking down the street, without believing without evidence that i will not float free from the surface.
we for instance understand very little about its causesWhich goes back to what I said. We don't actually know if it will go away in two minutes from now - in part (but only in part), because we don't know it's cause.
You seem to think that I some how need 'proof' to act, when all such a need would result in is parlysis, as nothing can be proven out side of mathimatics and pure logic. Rather than proof, I relie of evidence.I don't know where you got that I think you somehow need "proof" to act. I pretty clearly said the opposite and talked about the ongoing existence of gravity being taken on faith.
Let us pretend that the world waas created a second ago, assuming that you are talking about a reality that has been given shape by a creator, their are three basic options.I wasn't assuming the existence of a creator in order for the world to have been created a second ago. If you want to discuss the possibility that there was a creator behind it, okay.
1. The creator made the world with different rules than those we remember, in which case, repeatablity is what shows us something is wrong. chalk up a win for repeatablity.Or the creator made the world with different rules than those we remember, but which are, to our limited ability to understand, compatible with the rules we remember.
2. The creator used naturalistic means to creat the universe exactly as our memory depicted, in which case, with time we can learn to understand said rules, using repeatability of observation.This fails in at least two ways. One is the np-1 problem and the other is Godel's incompleteness theorem.
3. The creator is a trickster who uses supernatural means to intentonally make it impossible to see his hand in it. Repeatablity fails, in that it doesn't life the curtain on said trickster, but in all practical...
It is pretty late here so i am not going to get into the more complex of your responses(especially as i will need to read up on several of them).
1. I don't know that gravity will still be here in to minites, but the available evidence still tells me that it is unlikely to be the case. It is not a matter of faith, merely probability. I have evidence that it is unlike to change(after all, there are whole stretchs of the universe which show signs which indicate that gravity has been as it is now, for billions of years. In fact for our solar system to be as it is the system must have had gravity for more than 6 billion years) It is enough evidence to base my decisions on how to get to bed. I don't have faith that it will work, i have hundreds of millions of points of data that support the hyposis that my walk will be effected by gravity.
2. on parsimony:
It requires no faith to accept Parsomony as a general principle, the observed rules of nature point to it, and it is a working tool, which has proven useful in the exploration of the universe. I don't have 'faith in parsimony' i have repeated observation of it's utility.
And some skilled mathematicians believe it does not actually exist, but is rather a side effect of other known properties.
Gravity.
You have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that gravity will still be there two seconds from now. You have plenty of reasons to believe that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. Yet, you don't spend your day constantly looking for something to hold on to that's bolted to the floor.
Intriguing. Although this has nothing to do with the topic, what are these other properties that result in gravity?
|
|
Intriguing. Although this has nothing to do with the topic, what are these other properties that result in gravity?And some skilled mathematicians believe it does not actually exist, but is rather a side effect of other known properties.
Gravity.
You have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that gravity will still be there two seconds from now. You have plenty of reasons to believe that just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it will happen in the future. Yet, you don't spend your day constantly looking for something to hold on to that's bolted to the floor.
As I understand it, gravity is just a side effect of the way the rest of the universe works. I will try to find the articles again and get you a link.
As I understand it, gravity is just a side effect of the way the rest of the universe works. I will try to find the articles again and get you a link.
Going back 20 some odd years to my General Relativity courses in university, but Einstein postulated that gravity was not a force, per se, but rather a warping of space time that is caused by anything with mass. It is why one can expect (and can measure) the distortion of a path of light due to sufficiently large gravity, when Newtonian physics simply postulates that gravity only acts on two objects with mass.
Newton:
F = GmM/r^2. If one of the two object has m = 0 (i.e. a photon) then F should be 0.
But astronomers have detected gravity lenses (large gravity wells which distort the path of light) and then there are black holes that are so strong they can stop light from exiting.
Think of a rubber mat with with a heavy ball bearing on it. Toss a smaller ball bearing near the larger one, and the smaller one's path will change due to the proximity of the larger one. That's the basic idea.
Greg
You should take a refresher course in basic statistics. When I flip a coin 100 times, it's quite possible I'll get 100 heads. If I flip it one more time, I've got a 50% chance I'll get a tails.
Actually, if you did get 100 heads in a row, what you'd really have is a pretty darn good (inductive) argument that the coin you're fliping isn't random. While hitting a 1 in (1.26 × 10^30) is possible, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. On average, you'd need to flip the coin once a second for something like a billion lifetimes of the universe before you could expect to achieve that result once (and though you're correct that the subsequent flip would be 50/50, I fail to see the relevance).
And can we drop the "go take this class" jabs? They serve no purpose beyond self-congratulation disguised as "friendly" advice.
You should take a refresher course in basic statistics. When I flip a coin 100 times, it's quite possible I'll get 100 heads. If I flip it one more time, I've got a 50% chance I'll get a tails.
1. I don't know that gravity will still be here in to minites, but the available evidence still tells me that it is unlikely to be the case. It is not a matter of faith, merely probability. I have evidence that it is unlike to change(after all, there are whole stretchs of the universe which show signs which indicate that gravity has been as it is now, for billions of years. In fact for our solar system to be as it is the system must have had gravity for more than 6 billion years) It is enough evidence to base my decisions on how to get to bed. I don't have faith that it will work, i have hundreds of millions of points of data that support the hyposis that my walk will be effected by gravity.
Now, that each individual coin wil come upheads is as likely as any other combination, of coin landing, but the result is less likely. Because there is only on combination of results that results all the coins being heads. By contrast, their is 100 possible results which lead to there being 99 heads, and 1 tail, there are even more possible results which lead to 98 heads and 2 tails
Yet, that result is on the extreme of a bell curve of possiblity. If I where to form a plan on how to react to the result of the hundred coin tosses, i would be well advised to place a spread beat across the centre of that curve. I could certainly be wrong about the outcome, but evidence provides me with a more likely out come.
Yet, the available evidence does suggest that the odds against gravity disappearing are longer still, so i can act with even more certainty, enough that worrying about it's disappearance is not something that factors into my decision making, and just like the coin toss, it is based
I have no idea how you think the observed rules of nature lead one to be able to take parsimony without faith. I'd love to hear how you put that together. Referencing parsimony's usefulness raises a different question - whether you believe that religious faith must not be useful.2. on parsimony:
It requires no faith to accept Parsomony as a general principle, the observed rules of nature point to it, and it is a working tool, which has proven useful in the exploration of the universe. I don't have 'faith in parsimony' i have repeated observation of it's utility.
Every successful scientific theory we have has been built using parsimony. Not because the universe is parsimonous, but because it is a success logical tool. Start with the least absurd explination of available evidence, investigate until evidence contradicts the explination. Until then use that at a working assumption. You wan't evidence of it's success, almost every element of our modern world has been touched by it, because it is a fundimental element of the scientific method, which is responcible for vast improvements in human health, welfare and technology.
It has proven itself.
You should take a refresher course in basic statistics. When I flip a coin 100 times, it's quite possible I'll get 100 heads. If I flip it one more time, I've got a 50% chance I'll get a tails.Actually, if you did get 100 heads in a row, what you'd really have is a pretty darn good (inductive) argument that the coin you're fliping isn't random. While hitting a 1 in (1.26 × 10^30) is possible, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. On average, you'd need to flip the coin once a second for something like a billion lifetimes of the universe before you could expect to achieve that result once (and though you're correct that the subsequent flip would be 50/50, I fail to see the relevance).
Thank you bugley man, for the provision of the probablity. I knew it was an unlikely outcome, but not exactly how unlikely.
And can we drop the "go take this class" jabs? They serve no purpose beyond self-congratulation disguised as "friendly" advice.
And in this case, sort of pointless, as i never claimed that something being unlikely made it impossible. I simply said that probablity of an event is a practically useful tool for decision making.
Zombieneighbor clearly has above average knowledge of science.You should take a refresher course in basic statistics. When I flip a coin 100 times, it's quite possible I'll get 100 heads. If I flip it one more time, I've got a 50% chance I'll get a tails.Actually, if you did get 100 heads in a row, what you'd really have is a pretty darn good (inductive) argument that the coin you're fliping isn't random. While hitting a 1 in (1.26 × 10^30) is possible, it's so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. On average, you'd need to flip the coin once a second for something like a billion lifetimes of the universe before you could expect to achieve that result once (and though you're correct that the subsequent flip would be 50/50, I fail to see the relevance).
And can we drop the "go take this class" jabs? They serve no purpose beyond self-congratulation disguised as "friendly" advice.
Gah, a fact I wish I could disagree with, because it is scares the hell out of me me. Science is not hard, and frankly is profoundly enriching. If I am an example of above average scientific literacy, I fear for the future of humanity.
Doesn't matter whether it's likely or not. Every coin flip sequence has the exact same probability of occurring. Yet, one of them is going to occur. Incidentally, though, there is a cosmological theory (the theory of the universal wavefunction) which says that every possible Universe does or has existed - so what we're seeing is selection bias.
And the "take a refresher course in basic statistics" comment wasn't meant as a jab, so, if it was taken as one, I take it back. Zombieneighbor clearly has above average knowledge of science.
LT, I understand that every coin toss has the same probability of occuring. That isn't the point. The point is that the scenario you outline is so fantastically unlikely that we are left with a terrible analogy. Not all inductive reasoning leads to conclusions that are 50% likely to be wrong!
bugleyman, please explain -specifically- why the scenario is so fantastically unlikely.
If you're just parroting what some scientist told you, how is that different from somebody repeating what some priest read to him from a Latin book?
The chance of flipping a coin and getting 100 heads in a row is equal to 1 in (2 (the number of sides) raised to the 100th power (the number of tosses)). That is, 2^100 = 1.2676506 × 10^30, or 1 in 126,765,060,000,000,000,000,000.
Let's look at the logical definition of analogy for a second.
A form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity* between the things in other respects.
* Emphasis mine.
So in this case, the "known similiary" upon which your analogy rests is between something that has already happened (gravity has continued to work, day in and day out, for millions of years), and something that has a one in one hundred twenty six thousand million million million chance of happening. That makes for a terrible analogy, with the expected poor conclusion (i.e. all inductive reason is useless).
|
|
As I understand it, gravity is just a side effect of the way the rest of the universe works. I will try to find the articles again and get you a link.Going back 20 some odd years to my General Relativity courses in university, but Einstein postulated that gravity was not a force, per se, but rather a warping of space time that is caused by anything with mass. It is why one can expect (and can measure) the distortion of a path of light due to sufficiently large gravity, when Newtonian physics simply postulates that gravity only acts on two objects with mass.
Newton:
F = GmM/r^2. If one of the two object has m = 0 (i.e. a photon) then F should be 0.
But astronomers have detected gravity lenses (large gravity wells which distort the path of light) and then there are black holes that are so strong they can stop light from exiting.
Think of a rubber mat with with a heavy ball bearing on it. Toss a smaller ball bearing near the larger one, and the smaller one's path will change due to the proximity of the larger one. That's the basic idea.
Greg
Which does not stop the current theory of Gravitons as a hypothetical elementary particle. It is the current theory, despite lack of evidence. Many physicists are convinced that it is about to be found we just need to crash enough of the right particles together in an accelerator enough times to find it.
Of course due to all the current laws of physics we should have found tachyons by now and detect radio waves from the future. Yet we have not.
|
I'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. Or not shoot dope. And, since we're on the topic, the biggest risk groups tend to not be Catholic.
In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
So, again, WTF does it matter if the Catholic Church has a policy against contraception again?
Yeah, I know, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is apparently ZombieNeighbors trying to prove how smart they are and everyone else arguing statistics. Sorry.
Which does not stop the current theory of Gravitons as a hypothetical elementary particle. It is the current theory, despite lack of evidence. Many physicists are convinced that it is about to be found we just need to crash enough of the right particles together in an accelerator enough times to find it.
Of course due to all the current laws of physics we should have found tachyons by now and detect radio waves from the future. Yet we have not.
With all due respect, how is this anything but: Scientists don't know everything, therefore they don't know anything? Scientists freely admit they don't know everything; no FUD campaign required.
One side has evidence. Mountains and mountains of it. The other does not. Why not just call it what it is (faith), and move on? Faith I can respect -- but trying to argue that science and religion and on equal evidentiary footing is a fool's errand.
I'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. Or not shoot dope. And, since we're on the topic, the biggest risk groups tend to not be Catholic.
In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
So, again, WTF does it matter if the Catholic Church has a policy against contraception again?
Yeah, I know, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is apparently ZombieNeighbors trying to prove how smart they are and everyone else arguing statistics. Sorry.
Well, lack of birth control in developing countries(which tend to have a higher % of catholics IIRC) is economically ruinous. But if we confine ourselves to HIV/AIDs, I personally believe even one case matters.
|
|
I'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. Or not shoot dope. And, since we're on the topic, the biggest risk groups tend to not be Catholic.
In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
So, again, WTF does it matter if the Catholic Church has a policy against contraception again?
Yeah, I know, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is apparently ZombieNeighbors trying to prove how smart they are and everyone else arguing statistics. Sorry.
Well, lack of birth control in developing countries(which tend to have a higher % of catholics IIRC) is economically ruinous. But if we confine ourselves to HIV/AIDs, I personally believe even one case matters.
Sure thing. It's not a pleasant disease. However, considering you'd have to be born under a rock to not know it's out there. Or to know how to prevent it.
I've been to much of Latin America (probably the biggest concentration of Catholics in the world), and, amazingly, they all sell condoms. Brazil (very Catholic country) has PSAs and Telenovellas on the subject of HIV.
Nah, this thread is just another excuse to pile on the religious. Carry on.
I'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aidsI'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
Africa isn't overwhelmingly Catholic. Actually, Islam is the majority religion in Africa by a few percentile points (@45%). Catholics only account for 15% to 20% of Africa's population.
What percentage of the HIV positive population of Africa is Catholic, as opposed to other Christian denomination/native religion/Muslim?
Nice article, by the way. Doesn't state that the HIV crisis is Benedict's fault. And his idea (you know, not having premarital sex) is the same idea the Church has had for a while now. And, believe it or not, not sticking your junk in someone has proven to be a VERY effective way to not get an STD.
And, here's the biggest thing. Why would Africans listen to the Pope when it comes to using jimmy hats, and not listen when it comes to, oh, premarital sex?
So, when do we start blaming people's personal behavior instead of capping on religion again?
Or does being an Atheist mean never having to call someone out for their own behavior if there's a convenient religious person to blame?
If so, I may have to get my ass back to church and as forgiveness for thinking the big guy doesn't exist. Because I don't blame anyone but the people who did it to themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aidsI'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
Africa isn't overwhelmingly Catholic. Actually, Islam is the majority religion in Africa by a few percentile points (@45%). Catholics only account for 15% to 20% of Africa's population.
What percentage of the HIV positive population of Africa is Catholic, as opposed to other Christian denomination/native religion/Muslim?
Nice article, by the way. Doesn't state that the HIV crisis is Benedict's fault. And his idea (you know, not having premarital sex) is the same idea the Church has had for a while now. And, believe it or not, not sticking your junk in someone has proven to be a VERY effective way to not get an STD.
And, here's the biggest thing. Why would Africans listen to the Pope when it comes to using jimmy hats, and not listen when it comes to, oh, premarital sex?
So, when do we start blaming people's personal behavior instead of capping on religion again?
Or does being an Atheist mean never having to call someone out for their own behavior if there's a convenient religious person to blame?
If so, I may have to get my ass back to church and as forgiveness for thinking the big guy doesn't exist. Because I don't blame anyone but the people who did it to themselves.
Just as you say people with HIV did it to themselves(a rather rude assumption, considering the plethora of ways one can be infected that have nothing to do with sex), so too does the occasionally questionable proclamations made by religious institutions raise the proverbial skeptical eyebrow. Then again, to be fair, you DID say STDs, not HIV specifically.
|
|
Just as you say people with HIV did it to themselves(a rather rude assumption, considering the plethora of ways one can be infected that have nothing to do with sex), so too does the occasionally questionable proclamations made by religious institutions raise the proverbial skeptical eyebrow. Then again, to be fair, you DID say STDs, not HIV specifically.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aidsI'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
Africa isn't overwhelmingly Catholic. Actually, Islam is the majority religion in Africa by a few percentile points (@45%). Catholics only account for 15% to 20% of Africa's population.
What percentage of the HIV positive population of Africa is Catholic, as opposed to other Christian denomination/native religion/Muslim?
Nice article, by the way. Doesn't state that the HIV crisis is Benedict's fault. And his idea (you know, not having premarital sex) is the same idea the Church has had for a while now. And, believe it or not, not sticking your junk in someone has proven to be a VERY effective way to not get an STD.
And, here's the biggest thing. Why would Africans listen to the Pope when it comes to using jimmy hats, and not listen when it comes to, oh, premarital sex?
So, when do we start blaming people's personal behavior instead of capping on religion again?
Or does being an Atheist mean never having to call someone out for their own behavior if there's a convenient religious person to blame?
If so, I may have to get my ass back to church and as forgiveness for thinking the big guy doesn't exist. Because I don't blame anyone but the people who did it to themselves.
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior. Like Africa is a whole continent of children who need us all knowing westerners to save them from themselves.
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior. Like...Just as you say people with HIV did it to themselves(a rather rude assumption, considering the plethora of ways one can be infected that have nothing to do with sex), so too does the occasionally questionable proclamations made by religious institutions raise the proverbial skeptical eyebrow. Then again, to be fair, you DID say STDs, not HIV specifically.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aidsI'm still curious how the Pope influenced non-Catholics to not use jimmy hats. In fact, I'd venture to say that a vast majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers are not Catholic.
Africa isn't overwhelmingly Catholic. Actually, Islam is the majority religion in Africa by a few percentile points (@45%). Catholics only account for 15% to 20% of Africa's population.
What percentage of the HIV positive population of Africa is Catholic, as opposed to other Christian denomination/native religion/Muslim?
Nice article, by the way. Doesn't state that the HIV crisis is Benedict's fault. And his idea (you know, not having premarital sex) is the same idea the Church has had for a while now. And, believe it or not, not sticking your junk in someone has proven to be a VERY effective way to not get an STD.
And, here's the biggest thing. Why would Africans listen to the Pope when it comes to using jimmy hats, and not listen when it comes to, oh, premarital sex?
So, when do we start blaming people's personal behavior instead of capping on religion again?
Or does being an Atheist mean never having to call someone out for their own behavior if there's a convenient religious person to blame?
If so, I may have to get my ass back to church and as forgiveness for thinking the big guy doesn't exist. Because I don't blame anyone but the people who did it to themselves.
Hnn. Fair enough.