[TrashMan]

The Vatican claimed that the HIV virus was small enough that it could pass straight through condoms. There is no scientific evidence of that besides a very dodgy done by the Vatican itself. Every single other piece of scientific literature on the subject says the exact opposite.

So we're not talking about faulty condoms and the like. They flat out claimed that no condom protects against HIV.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/health/main608255.shtml

Did you even read the link you posted? Vatican still hasn't an official position on condom usage (still being debated). A personal oppinion of a cardinal or two arn't the official Church stance. so don't blow this way out of proportion.

Anyone can. But if the priest is telling you not to use condoms and you trust priests why would you believe the other side?

In other words, by saying that the moon is 1400000km away from the Earth I am PREVENTING education?
It's tilll not preventing...and read above.



EDIT: Just to bring things into perspective, did anyone notice that the worlds greatest butchers weren't motivated by religion - quite the opposite.

[karajorma]

Did you even read the link you posted? Vatican still hasn't an official position on condom usage (still being debated). A personal oppinion of a cardinal or two arn't the official Church stance. so don't blow this way out of proportion.

It was never countermanded by either of the popes (this whole mess started during John Paul II's time). And the Vatican report is was not simply the personal opinion of one or two cardinals. And finally failing to state a position despite huge external and internal pressure to do so for over 10 years IS a position.

In other words, by saying that the moon is 1400000km away from the Earth I am PREVENTING education?
It's tilll not preventing...and read above.

If people actually trusted you to be correct then you would be. Fortunately I doubt anyone on this forum would believe you so people wanting to know the distance will go to a source they trust instead.

But if the source they trust deliberately spreads misinformation in order to further their goals then yes, that is preventing education because time now needs to be spent counteracting that misinformation instead of simply teaching new stuff. 

[TrashMan]

You do relise abstinance IS the only way to be safe.

Take a couple that s together for 20 years. How many times do you think they will sleep together during that period? 100? 200?
That 90-95% efficiency of condoms starts to look pretty lame the more you do it.. and people do do it..a lot.

Also, don't froget that while Vatican still didn't issue a official stance, the current message I'm getting from them is "If you gonan do it anyway, then better use them."

This is nothing but antoher media-inflated sensationalist attack on the Church.

[Mefustae]

Also, don't froget that while Vatican still didn't issue a official stance, the current message I'm getting from them is "If you gonan do it anyway, then better use them."

Praytell, where are you getting this message from? So far, the link Kara posted has demonstrated the kind of thing that seems to be coming out of the Church, and they're not exactly covering up the official "anti sex-for-pleasure" line so prevalent in Catholic dogma.

So, yeah, could you explain where you've been getting this message?

This is nothing but antoher media-inflated sensationalist attack on the Church.

Well, of course. After all, reality has a well known liberal bias.

[Bobboau]

You do relise abstinance IS the only way to be safe.

no it's the only way to be without any risk at all, 95% is safe.

[karajorma]

You do relise abstinance IS the only way to be safe.

Take a couple that s together for 20 years. How many times do you think they will sleep together during that period? 100? 200?
That 90-95% efficiency of condoms starts to look pretty lame the more you do it.. and people do do it..a lot.

There is a huge difference between what is safe and claiming that condoms are ineffective against AIDS because the virus can pass straight through the condom.

One is an opinion as to what is safe while the other is an outright lie. An outright lie which has been spread by an office of the Vatican and which was not countermanded despite calls from AIDS charities to do so.

As I said before in some cases having no opinion IS an opinion. And it's obvious that the reason why the Vatican didn't stop the spread of such a lie was because it suited their agenda.

[Mars]

I love how everyone ignored Goober, who was the only one so far with practical evidence.

[TrashMan]

Praytell, where are you getting this message from? So far, the link Kara posted has demonstrated the kind of thing that seems to be coming out of the Church, and they're not exactly covering up the official "anti sex-for-pleasure" line so prevalent in Catholic dogma.

So, yeah, could you explain where you've been getting this message?[/quoteg

My uncle (preist for 50 years, highly educated) and the local priest. I asked them.

The current stance of the Church is as follows:
- It's against condomms, but if you're gonan have sex anyway and htere's danger of desease, use em.

The reasoning is quite simple - If you only sleep with your wife, and none of you have HIV, you don't NEED a condom, as you'll never get it...unless your wife isn't the only one you're sleeping with.
You f'course realsie the Church is als oagainst sex before marriage.

This is nothing but antoher media-inflated sensationalist attack on the Church.

Well, of course. After all, reality has a well known liberal bias.

I don't have to prove it, it's a well known fact.
In fact, I'd probably have more trouble proving to you the sky is blue.

[karajorma]

I notice how you don't refute the claims I made while still claiming that there is no substance to them.

Funny that.

[TrashMan]

I still havn't looked into that.

[Mefustae]

I love how everyone ignored Goober, who was the only one so far with practical evidence.

Except that the article he posted is sort of weird. They seem paint secularism in some sort of strange, militant light. I get that the author is trying to extol the virtues of the human spirit in the face of overwhelming danger, and that's pretty cool, but it shouldn't be taken as a demonstration of what religious value has over that of atheistic values.

The power demonstrated by those monks comes from the human spirit, and to attribute it to some sort of spiritual being cheapens the feat of people like this. They stand up to the Junta because of their unwavering belief in democracy and a free society, not because they think some spiritual being told them to or they're going to be rewarded in the afterlife.

If anything, it demonstrates that humanity doesn't need Gods like that of Christianity or Islam to give humanity strength, all we need to do is be cool to one another.

[Mars]

See that was all I was looking for, some type of response

[WMCoolmon]

Except that the article he posted is sort of weird. They seem paint secularism in some sort of strange, militant light. I get that the author is trying to extol the virtues of the human spirit in the face of overwhelming danger, and that's pretty cool, but it shouldn't be taken as a demonstration of what religious value has over that of atheistic values.

The author was pretty clear that they were referring specifically to "militant secularists" in Burma, and the author went so far as to call themselves "irreligious".

The power demonstrated by those monks comes from the human spirit, and to attribute it to some sort of spiritual being cheapens the feat of people like this. They stand up to the Junta because of their unwavering belief in democracy and a free society, not because they think some spiritual being told them to or they're going to be rewarded in the afterlife.

If anything, it demonstrates that humanity doesn't need Gods like that of Christianity or Islam to give humanity strength, all we need to do is be cool to one another.

You're using a peaceful protest by a group of Buddhist monks to argue that "religion makes it so much easier to find support for hate, to separate people"?

[Ghostavo]

I might be saying an outright lie, isn't buddhism an atheistic religion?

Mefustae just mentioned gods, not religions so...

[WMCoolmon]

No, that's an exact quote from Mefustae. If you don't believe me you can view it here.

[WMCoolmon]

Einstein kept trying to prove that the universe was deterministic because he believed it was against an increasing amount of evidence that is wasn't. And the reason he believed that is because he thought that God wouldn't do something like that. In other words he followed his faith rather than the scientific method.

By your own interpretation of the situation, it wasn't Einstein's faith that was responsible.

[Mefustae]

The author was pretty clear that they were referring specifically to "militant secularists" in Burma, and the author went so far as to call themselves "irreligious".

If you look closely at the article:

It's very moving. But more than that, it is food for thought. This - these monks staring down the guns - presents a problem for a militant secularist in the Dawkins or Hitchens mould. I don't mean that it has any bearing on the argument about whether there is or is not a God. Buddhist monks don't worship anything resembling the God on whom the Dawkins guns are trained in any case; and the fact that they stare down the guns doesn't make a difference to whether or not what they believe is true.

My question is: Why even mention Dawkins and Hitchens? It just seems unnecessary and, IMO, kinda inflammatory (to a small degree) that he'd mention them. The writer himself mentions that the Monks in question have absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins, and yet he still brings him up to try to quantify the motives of the "militant secularists".

Personally, I just feel it was an unnecessary reference that could have been written a more fitting and less inflammatory way. Just IMO, at any rate.

You're using a peaceful protest by a group of Buddhist monks to argue that "religion makes it so much easier to find support for hate, to separate people"?

I argued nothing of the kind.

Forgive me for asking, but why are you quoting me out of context from a post made 2 pages (and almost a full week) ago? I don't really understand why you've gotten a statement from another discussion and applied it to a completely unrelated post.

Anyway, in that post I was attempting to demonstrate to Jr2 that religion is a major factor in people hating each other. Religion does separate people, and it's this separation that provides ammunition for assholes who spread hate and fear by exploiting the differences between people, ala skin color, sexuality, etc. In the context of the discussion, in which Jr2 claimed that a lack of religion would make no difference to society, I disagreed in that it would remove a bloody thick barrier between cultures and take the wind out of the gasbags who use religion as a way  to propagate hate.

So, would you kindly pick a topic to discuss so that we don't have any further misunderstandings?

See that was all I was looking for, some type of response

Happy to oblige. Care to weigh in on my response?

[WMCoolmon]

My question is: Why even mention Dawkins and Hitchens? It just seems unnecessary and, IMO, kinda inflammatory (to a small degree) that he'd mention them. The writer himself mentions that the Monks in question have absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins, and yet he still brings him up to try to quantify the motives of the "militant secularists".

Personally, I just feel it was an unnecessary reference that could have been written a more fitting and less inflammatory way. Just IMO, at any rate.

Ahh, maybe so, then. My take on that was that the author was merely shaping what he said to avoid obvious criticisms/nitpicking. But yeah, he didn't need the references to make his point.

You're using a peaceful protest by a group of Buddhist monks to argue that "religion makes it so much easier to find support for hate, to separate people"?

I argued nothing of the kind.

Forgive me for asking, but why are you quoting me out of context from a post made 2 pages (and almost a full week) ago? I don't really understand why you've gotten a statement from another discussion and applied it to a completely unrelated post.

Because it's an extremely generalized and open-ended statement that was the first comment in this thread (which was split from the other discussion) which expressed your stance on the topic and wasn't a specific rebuttal to another person's point. It was taken "out of context", yes, but the rest of that post deals specifically with people forming groups based on religion for a specific purpose. The main difference between the groups described in your post is that, in one case, you disagree with the group's action, and in this case, you (would seem to) agree with the group's action.

I find one thing in common with you and Karajorma's argument; when there are bad consequences, you are quick to blame religion and disregard people's free choice in the matter. But when something positive stems from religion, you try to attribute the credit elsewhere.

I'd also feel a little disrespected if somebody thought that they could tell what my inner motivations for doing something was just because they'd read a short news article on the subject. (This also being a biased, heavily interpretive news article - really more of an opinion piece than a factual summary)

Anyway, in that post I was attempting to demonstrate to Jr2 that religion is a major factor in people hating each other. Religion does separate people, and it's this separation that provides ammunition for assholes who spread hate and fear by exploiting the differences between people, ala skin color, sexuality, etc. In the context of the discussion, in which Jr2 claimed that a lack of religion would make no difference to society, I disagreed in that it would remove a bloody thick barrier between cultures and take the wind out of the gasbags who use religion as a way  to propagate hate.

So, would you kindly pick a topic to discuss so that we don't have any further misunderstandings?

Religious ideas separate people just as much as they unite them, and the choice of which it is is largely up to the people that make up those religions.

[karajorma]

Einstein kept trying to prove that the universe was deterministic because he believed it was against an increasing amount of evidence that is wasn't. And the reason he believed that is because he thought that God wouldn't do something like that. In other words he followed his faith rather than the scientific method.

By your own interpretation of the situation, it wasn't Einstein's faith that was responsible.

 

I have no clue where you're getting that from.

I find one thing in common with you and Karajorma's argument; when there are bad consequences, you are quick to blame religion and disregard people's free choice in the matter. But when something positive stems from religion, you try to attribute the credit elsewhere.

Incorrect. I've said plenty of times that I'm on the fence on this one cause religion does have lots of positive effects too and it's a question of whether the good ones balance out the bad ones.

[WMCoolmon]

I have no clue where you're getting that from.

Einstein's religion wasn't that he had some special insight into the mind of God that nobody else did. "The Universe is deterministic" does not mean that anybody can completely understand the underlying physics of the way the universe works. No religious leader of a popular religion would say that you could understand all of God's creation with science. None of the popular religions state that, either. Einstein's religion was something that he largely chose, and something that is not unlike atheism when compared to the likes of Judaism. It does not feature any religious authority figures or holy texts that offer statements from God of what the world is and how people should behave and what they should think.

At any point, Einstein was more than free to say that his faith was wrong rather than science. But even if you decide to take personal responsibility for his own choice of religion out of Einstein's hands, you still have that nagging jump from "the universe has order" to "and that order is knowable to beings that inhabit the universe."

EDIT: Oh, and I think you do take personal responsibility for your choice of religion, within reason.