NationStates Jolt Archive

See if you support me, why, and if we can find a way to make it happen.

Regarding the condom issue in Africa, someone important could make the following proposal to the Pope:

"Okay, we'll interrupt the handing out of condoms in Africa. If more people die because of it, you raise them from the dead and we resume distributing the condoms. If fewer people die, we forbid the manufacture and sale of condoms in the world, though other contraceptive methods are fair game."

Why encourage another Crusade in this fashion?

I propose we ban religion from politics and anyone who attempts to mix the two gets their brain scrambled by a nice little copper and lead reminder.

I propose we ban religion from politics and anyone who attempts to mix the two gets their brain scrambled by a nice little copper and lead reminder.

This is Your brain on Religion:

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Eggs/EggPan.jpg

I propose we ban religion from politics and anyone who attempts to mix the two gets their brain scrambled by a nice little copper and lead reminder.

You don't punish people for insanity.

You don't punish people for insanity.

No, but you do punish people who tend to govern via insanity.

No, but you do punish people who tend to govern via insanity.

No, you just isolate them, because they are insane. They do not understand the consequences of their actions.

isolating them sometimes involves "removing them" in that way

No, you just isolate them, because they are insane. They do not understand the consequences of their actions.

By your definition of insanity (the correct one), religious persons are generally not insane.

By your definition of insanity (the correct one), religious persons are generally not insane.
No, they are just less insane. They choose to ignore the consequences, rather than being incapable of seeing them. Some of them, anyway. They stuff the consequences into their subconscious.

No, you just isolate them, because they are insane. They do not understand the consequences of their actions.

Isolation is a form of punishment, one that happens to be much more expensive than a single bullet. But enough of dragging this thread off topic.

No, they are just less insane. They choose to ignore the consequences, rather than being incapable of seeing them. Some of them, anyway. They stuff the consequences into their subconscious.

Then if we had the chance to assassinate Hitler, we should not have done so?

No, they are just less insane. They choose to ignore the consequences, rather than being incapable of seeing them. Some of them, anyway. They stuff the consequences into their subconscious.

Or more insane.

Isolation is a form of punishment, one that happens to be much more expensive than a single bullet. But enough of dragging this thread off topic.
No, isolation should be done for safety, and only to the degree necessary. It is inhumane to punish the insane.

Then if we had the chance to assassinate Hitler, we should not have done so?
It would be preferable to isolate him.

It would be preferable to isolate him.

So his people are galvanized to invade Poland, ;)

So his people are galvanized to invade Poland, ;)
That is why you also isolate the German populace to the degree necessary.

That is why you also isolate the German populace to the degree necessary.

So we are to punish the entire populace of Germany, for the actions of Adolf Hitler...

And how are we isolating them, per se, with some kind of Large Wall? a sanctioning style Isolation will only lead to WWII...

I endorse calling the pope an utter idiot and shooting him. Then banning religion as a whole world wide in every form

I think that people should just keep critisizing his backwards, insane, ideas and propositions and keep injecting Herr Pope with a healthy dose of reality.

So we are to punish the entire populace of Germany, for the actions of Adolf Hitler...
Not punish. Only isolate for safety. And not the entire populace, only to the amount insane, and in increments. It is inhumane to punish the insane.

And how are we isolating them, per se, with some kind of Large Wall? a sanctioning style Isolation will only lead to WWII... It would have to be a joint effort, in the process the populaces of the other countries isolating themselves, because they are also insane.

Not punish. Only isolate for safety. And not the entire populace, only to the amount insane, and in increments. It is inhumane to punish the insane.

It would have to be a joint effort, in the process the populaces of the other countries isolating themselves, because they are also insane.

Yeeeaaah....Good luck with that...

It would be preferable to isolate him.

It would be ideal, sure. But I have a very low opinion of someone who believes in idealistic politics.

I think that people should just keep critisizing his backwards, insane, ideas and propositions and keep injecting Herr Pope with a healthy dose of reality.

Mockery and ridicule also work wonders. :)

As an atheist, I should not really have to be the one to say this, but look; religion is not the same thing as insanity. Sure, God may not exist except as a concept in people's heads, but nations don't exist except as a concept in people's heads. Both gods and countries are delineated by people building physical things to reinforce their ideas. Now you can argue that humanity might be better off without nations or deities, but both tribalism and religion are integral parts of the human condition; it is in our nature to make gods. I may not think that that's a good thing, but treating all religious people as clinically insane? Or shooting them? That is a far worse thing.

Also, resurrection of the dead is not, from a theological perspective, within the Pope's powers. He has the ear of God (or perhaps more accurately, he is God's speakerphone), and can on occasion decree with infallibility, but he cannot actually perform miracles. Raising the dead is Jesus' schtick, and (except for Lazarus) we have to wait until the Day of Judgement for the dead to rise again. And no man may know the day nor the hour, but it's unlikely to be within a reasonable human timeframe. :P

As an atheist, I should not really have to be the one to say this, but look; religion is not the same thing as insanity.

It were, it would mean that more than half of the world, along with many great inventors, scientists, writers, leaders, composers, et cetera , are all insane.

As an atheist, I should not really have to be the one to say this, but look; religion is not the same thing as insanity.
Belief is a degree of insanity. Conceives reality in a given manner without corresponding evidence. Doesn't see reason. Rejects evidence. Doesn't try to approach the real world; lives in a world that it makes up.

Sounds like insanity to me.

It were, it would mean that more than half of the world, along with many great inventors, scientists, writers, leaders, composers, et cetera , are all insane.
Welcome to the real world. But not all are simply believing. Some have a degree of reasoning; some have a degree of ignorance. Ignorance tends towards insanity.

It were, it would mean that more than half of the world, along with many great inventors, scientists, writers, leaders, composers, et cetera , are all insane.

Including - and non-existent God do I love the irony - Darwin. :D

Including - and non-existent God do I love the irony - Darwin. :D

A man who went to university with the aim of becoming a clergyman yet wrote in his posthumous...ly published... biography...

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." (p.87)

and...

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."(p. 87)

and...

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."(p.87)

and my favourite...

"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."(p.93)

From The Autobiography of Charles Darwin though sourced from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion)

I have a proposition for the pope: Take the last 2 000 years of xtianity and stuff it up your.......

Nah, I'll be nice.

I have a proposition for the pope: Take the last 2 000 years of xtianity and stuff it up your.......

Nah, I'll be nice.

Pity. I was gonna recommend this papal tiara: http://www.spiritrestoration.org/images/papal%20tiara%20of%20pius%20IX.jpg

as one of the first things to go. :)

Religion and insanity may not be identical, but most people stop having an invisible friend DECADES before they turn 82 (an age Ratzinger will reach on the 19th).

Belief is a degree of insanity. Conceives reality in a given manner without corresponding evidence. Doesn't see reason. Rejects evidence. Doesn't try to approach the real world; lives in a world that it makes up.


There aren't "degrees of" insanity. Someone is either sane or insane, legally. Psychologically it isn't a meaningful term at all.

All of the qualities you are describing are not limited to, nor inherently characteristic of, religious people.

Ignorance tends towards insanity.

What are you even trying to say here?

There aren't "degrees of" insanity. Someone is either sane or insane, legally. Psychologically it isn't a meaningful term at all.

All of the qualities you are describing are not limited to, nor inherently characteristic of, religious people.



What are you even trying to say here?

Psh, youre just displaying your own Insanity here, :p

You should be Isolated for this!

I support... ignoring the man at every oppurtunity.

I support... ignoring the man at every oppurtunity.

Apparently, people aren't.. particularly good at that it seems.

I support... ignoring the man at every oppurtunity.

You should instead support making me pope.

You should instead support making me pope.

*thinks of Greed and Death with that much power and numbers of followers*

OMG! It could rule the world!!! :eek:

*thinks of Greed and Death with that much power and numbers of followers*

OMG! It could rule the world!!! :eek:

or at least fix the catholic church.

You should instead support making me pope.

Make your own pope.

This one's mine.

Make your own pope.

This one's mine.

But I will allow Gay marriage and gay priest, allow priest to marry, excommunicate anyone covering up a child molestation scandal, and up the alcohol content and serving size of communion wine.

Then if we had the chance to assassinate Hitler, we should not have done so?

Depends, when would you propose this supposed assassination? If you do it to early you're likely end up with someone else that was much much more competent at the top and you've just killed a man that hasn't done anything "evil" just yet and Germany may have won WWII or WWII wouldn't have happened in the traditional sense and instead the Cold War may have gone hot or any number of lovely things could have happened that made the Holocaust* look down right tame in comparison.

Theres also http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlersTimeTravelExemptionAct

*I'm not saying that the Holocaust was a walk in the park, it was very very bad/evil just that it could have been much much worst...

As to the op, do you have something against people in/use to be in a seat of power Heikoku 2? If its not the pope, its bush if its not bush its whomever. Also I really think you're over using the whole raise them from the dead and generally zombies aren't fun things to have around anywho...

See if you support me, why, and if we can find a way to make it happen.

Regarding the condom issue in Africa, someone important could make the following proposal to the Pope:

"Okay, we'll interrupt the handing out of condoms in Africa. If more people die because of it, you raise them from the dead and we resume distributing the condoms. If fewer people die, we forbid the manufacture and sale of condoms in the world, though other contraceptive methods are fair game."

What the fuck are you on nowadays H2, and where can I get some.

I support... ignoring the man at every oppurtunity.

The man is the official spiritual leader and spokesman of about 1,1 billion people. That's a lot to just ignore..

I apologize for not noticing your (Trostia) post sooner.
There aren't "degrees of" insanity.
IF I inject you with neurotoxins twice, you are inherently more damaged than you would be if I only did it once. You would have a much more reasonable view of reality if I only did it once.

Someone is either sane or insane, legally
The lack of variability here does injustice to the Pope.

Psychologically it isn't a meaningful term at all. You should come up with another term.

All of the qualities you are describing are not limited to, nor inherently characteristic of, religious people.
So religious persons don't believe things contrary to evidence, seek evidence before believing things, ect?

What are you even trying to say here?
Intelligence/knowledge would tend to make one less suspectable to degraded thinking.

You don't punish people for insanity.

Maybe that's why the world has gone crazy.:tongue:

Maybe that's why the world has gone crazy.:tongue:
I'm talking about conscience.

There aren't "degrees of" insanity. Someone is either sane or insane, legally. Psychologically it isn't a meaningful term at all.


Then what is the correct term for "partial insanity" ?

I propose we ban religion from politics and anyone who attempts to mix the two gets their brain scrambled by a nice little copper and lead reminder.

So... on person cannot think political and religious things ever?

Seems like a stupid attempt at an idea.

So... on person cannot think political and religious things ever?

Seems like a stupid attempt at an idea.
You will suffer more if the world is governed on the basis of belief as opposed to examination of reality.

You will suffer more if the world is governed on the basis of belief as opposed to examination of reality.

Having never lived on such a world, I couldnt tell you...

Where is this mythical world where governments arent based on beliefs?

So religious persons don't believe things contrary to evidence, seek evidence before believing things, ect?
What 'evidence' are you thinking of here; what 'evidence' has proven all religiousness as in the wrong?

Intelligence/knowledge would tend to make one less suspectable to degraded thinking.
Firstly, you're pre-supposing that all religious thinking is somehow 'degraded' and, secondly, that religious folks are not intelligent.

There have been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas), and are (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6KE-2NM-LM) (quite obviously) intelligent, reasoned religious folks.

The notion that religiousness is equatable with insanity is a woefully unsubstantiated notion.

You will suffer more if the world is governed on the basis of belief as opposed to examination of reality.

Unfortunately, you will never be able to separate belief from politics.

For instance:

I believe that Obama will be a better President than McCain - a choice made based on belief - largely because the reality on which it was based had to do with knowing about McCain and hoping about Obama.

If someone believes in God, and God in a specific context, that is going to color their political views, you can't escape it. You can legislate to mitigate it, but you can't escape it.

What 'evidence' are you thinking of here; what 'evidence' has proven all religiousness as in the wrong?

What the hell is this? God has not been proven to not exist; therefore he exists? No, see, you have to try to show that something exists first.
Unless it's something like the sky, you know. But I'd still recommend you demonstrate the existence the sky, too, just to be sure.

Firstly, you're pre-supposing that all religious thinking is somehow 'degraded' and, secondly, that religious folks are not intelligent. I only said that intelligence helps. It will not completely over-ride tenancies towards collective thinking. They will still believe what others believe because they believe it. The whole issue is believing. Physics is still only a belief; gravity is demonstrated only by it's continued appearance. You must attempt to demonstrate God, and you must be open.

I believe that Obama will be a better President than McCain - a choice made based on belief - largely because the reality on which it was based had to do with knowing about McCain and hoping about Obama.
You should have attempted to demonstrate it so. You would still call it a form of belief, but it is "belief" with evidence, with demonstration. There is more behind it.

What the hell is this? God has not been proven to not exist; therefore he exists? No, see, you have to try to show that something exists first.
Unless it's something like the sky, you know. But I'd still recommend you demonstrate the existence the sky, too, just to be sure.

I only said that intelligence helps. It will not completely over-ride tenancies towards collective thinking. They will still believe what others believe because they believe it. The whole issue is believing. Physics is still only a belief; gravity is demonstrated only by it's continued appearance. You must attempt to demonstrate God, and you must be open.


You should have attempted to demonstrate it so. You would still call it a form of belief, but it is "belief" with evidence, with demonstration. There is more behind it.

The fact remains that belief, whatever it's form, informs your choices. If you believe in God, that belief will affect your choices and your behavior. The founding fathers knew this, that's one of the reasons the establishment clause was written into the Bill of Rights.

If you want proof that you can't keep belief out of politics, look around you. The best that can be done, without completely demolishing the rights of believers, is what we have done. Do you propose that we make religion illegal?

The fact remains that belief, whatever it's form, informs your choices.
No, I try to inform myself with evidence. Now, it may be hard to word all of the evidence, or take time to put it together, but I try.

Do you propose that we make religion illegal?
No, I propose that we make it illegal where it unwillingly effects others. You're still welcome to set up a shrine in your own bedroom.

What the hell is this? God has not been proven to not exist; therefore he exists? No, see, you have to try to show that something exists first.
No I don't.

There's plenty of things I believe in without demonstrable proof; the external world being a major one.

Moreover, I think you underestimate the phenomenological force of religious belief. As someone who used to be a committed Christian and is now a rather agnostic atheist, I can attest to the experience of God/Allah/whatever that one can have in religious practice, and the veracity of the experience. We can talk on about proof and evidence till the moo-cows come home, but as deities are supernatural and reportedly outside the realm of human experience, at least in part, believing in one does not require the proof you demand.

Now, you may well scoff and call this insanity or ill-reasoned thinking, but I see it as insane as believing that the keyboard I am typing on genuinely exists, or as ill-reasoned as putting my faith (I use the term pointedly) in induction and causation.

EDIT: A major caveat, of course, is that I am in no way claiming that all religious folks are reasoned and intelligent. But then, neither are all agnostics/atheists.

Physics is still only a belief; gravity is demonstrated only by it's continued appearance. You must attempt to demonstrate God, and you must be open.
If you can adequately demonstrate to me that you exist, then we'll turn to God.

but as deities are supernatural and reportedly outside the realm of human experience, at least in part, believing in one does not require the proof you demand.

If the belief would be limited to believing a superior being exists that would be true. However, most beliefs are not. They for instance include claims and ideas about how the superior being has and does interact with our observable reality. For such claims "proof" or "evidence" etc. can, and should be asked - especially if the ideas/claims seem to conflict with the already known evidence.

There's plenty of things I believe in without demonstrable proof; the external world being a major one.
No I said evidence. I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that something exists outside of ourselves. Also, if you do believe many things without any evidence, I want you banned from influence over any organization which has effect upon my life - assuming that those beliefs would effect the organization.

We can talk on about proof and evidence till the moo-cows come home, but as deities are supernatural and reportedly outside the realm of human experience, at least in part, believing in one does not require the proof you demand.
Ditto

Now, you may well scoff and call this insanity or ill-reasoned thinking, but I see it as insane as believing that the keyboard I am typing on genuinely exists, or as ill-reasoned as putting my faith (I use the term pointedly) in induction and causation.
Those things have evidence.

If you can adequately demonstrate to me that you exist, then we'll turn to God.
I could take a picture. Would that help?

I could take a picture. Would that help?

Is this me?

http://www.brian-bender.com/photos/pics/doofus.jpg

Is this me?

No, that's God.

Is this me?
http://www.brian-bender.com/photos/pics/doofus.jpg
I can't say, but we can find out if you will pay the expenses to meet me in person.

I can't say, but we can find out if you will pay the expenses to meet me in person.

So, your proposition to prove you exist is to pay the expenses to meet every poster in this forum in person?



Good luck with that...


the supposed riddle was easily solved by using the myspace link in the sig, :tongue:

So, your proposition to prove you exist is to pay the expenses to meet every poster in this forum in person?

Good luck with that...
No, I was proposing that you pay, as you were the one who was concerned with their existence. They seem to display more complexity than bots to me, and so I am not concerned. I will become concerned if you can demonstrate that they are bots.

No, I was proposing that you pay, as you were the one who was concerned with their existence. They seem to display more complexity than bots to me, and so I am not concerned. I will become concerned if you can demonstrate that they are bots.

Um, no it wasnt, I simply asked a question related to the dilemma...Associated with the fact that pictures dont constitute proof...

The original question was asked here, however:




If you can adequately demonstrate to me that you exist, then we'll turn to God.

If the belief would be limited to believing a superior being exists that would be true. However, most beliefs are not. They for instance include claims and ideas about how the superior being has and does interact with our observable reality. For such claims "proof" or "evidence" etc. can, and should be asked - especially if the ideas/claims seem to conflict with the already known evidence.
Sure, but I'm not discussing those religious believers who think, for example, that God caused Katrina because of teh gayz. I was brought up in a religious tradition that was highly compatible with scientific knowledge, encouraged it, even; a congregation that included a couple of doctors and at least one scientist I know of.

I agree that a universe that is devoid of a deity's influence is a different one to a universe that a deity has influenced, but will we ever be able to show what kind of universe the one we inhabit is? Even if were to have knowledge of every single physical law of the universe, every event in the universe, perhaps even perform some test to explore what happened during the Planck epoch, we could never discount a force beyond that of the physical laws.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the above is proof for the existence of a deity, or that it validates all religious belief (indeed, it's arguable that 'simple' evolutionary theory discounts certain versions of monotheistic religions), but that certain religious/spiritual notions are very hard to get rid of.

Um, no it wasnt, I simply asked a question related to the dilemma...Associated with the fact that pictures dont constitute proof...

The picture comment was intended to be as ridiculous as your posts, in anticipation of them. Haven't we gotten past proving things by now? Do you have to "prove" that heat exists before you make attempt to make an oven?

Sure, but I'm not discussing those religious believers who think, for example, that God caused Katrina because of teh gayz.

I want everyone to know....I hate those people, with a passion..

Their laws concerning the Casinos, caused more damage to us than anything else in MS combined...

Thank God that they finally told those people to go fuck themselves, */rant*

The picture comment was intended to be as ridiculous in anticipation of your posts. Haven't we gotten past proving things by now? Do you have to "prove" that heat exists before you make attempt to make an oven?

Does not the Oven prove that heat exists? ;)

No I said evidence. I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that something exists outside of ourselves...

Those things have evidence...

I could take a picture. Would that help?
I'd say that evidence is based upon fallible sense-data, but that's a whole other thread.

My point being, I think talk of god(s) is on the same level as the problems of induction (http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/induction-problem/), causation and the existence of the external world.

Also, if you do believe many things without any evidence, I want you banned from influence over any organization which has effect upon my life - assuming that those beliefs would effect the organization.
We need to separate some issues here. We've got a discussion on the existence of any deity, and a discussion on the separation of church and state.

I fully support a complete separation of church and state; one's religious convictions should not be enforced by legislation onto others. But this does not invalidate the, at times, incredibly nuanced theological positions of many folks on this planet.

Does not the Oven prove that heat exists? ;) Things are known by what they do, not what they are.

Sure, but I'm not discussing those religious believers who think, for example, that God caused Katrina because of teh gayz.

But the topic is actually about such a man. Not the "gayz did Katrina" thing literally (though the Pope indeed considers them "a threat to humanity on par with the destruction of the rainforest"), but making claims about reality based on faith instead of the observable evidence.

I agree that a universe that is devoid of a deity's influence is a different one to a universe that a deity has influenced, but will we ever be able to show what kind of universe the one we inhabit is?

Hmm. Is this relevant to determine if people that embrace an actual religion are sane ? As I said, most religions do not limit themselves to "God is out there". One in fact needs to believe a lot more before one is considered "religious".

Things are known by what they do, not what they are.

And Ovens dont heat? :rolleyes:

But the topic is actually about such a man.
Sure, but Triniteras' comments are much broader than this thread's target.

As I said, most religions do not limit themselves to "God is out there". One in fact needs to believe a lot more before one is considered "religious".
Well... that's debatable, but I agree most religious folks are more than deists.

And Ovens dont heat? :rolleyes: I was expanding on your statement.

I'd say that evidence is based upon fallible sense-data, but that's a whole other thread.
We also have reason and knowledge.

My point being, I think talk of god(s) is on the same level as the problems of induction (http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/induction-problem/), causation and the existence of the external world.
Those things are demonstrable to both reason, and even fallible sense-data!

I fully support a complete separation of church and state; one's religious convictions should not be enforced by legislation onto others. But this does not invalidate the, at times, incredibly nuanced theological positions of many folks on this planet.
I want a separation of Church-Voting from state.

I want a separation of Church-Voting from state.

Well, I would support removing all mentions of God from Bills and whatnot...

However, Im not sure how you could stop voting on the basis of the church or religious beliefs...

Its impossible to stop someone's ideas and thoughts...

Its impossible to stop someone's ideas and thoughts...
I'm not talking about "ideas and thinking"; I'm talking about governance.

We also have reason.
Problem being, our knowledge/assumption of things like causation seem to (http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/hume/#CauIndInfNegPha) have no basis in reason.

Causes and effects are discovered, not by reason but through experience, when we find that particular objects are constantly conjoined with one another. We tend to overlook this because most ordinary causal judgments are so familiar; we've made them so many times that our judgment seems immediate. But when we consider the matter, we realize that “an (absolutely) unexperienced reasoner could be no reasoner at all” (EHU, 45n). Even in applied mathematics, where we use abstract reasoning and geometrical methods to apply principles we regard as laws to particular cases in order to derive further principles as consequences of these laws, the discovery of the original law itself was due to experience and observation, not to a priori reasoning.

Those things are demonstrable to both reason and fallible sense-data.
Pray tell how?

If you adequately do, I'm sure the philosophy department at Cambridge University would happily offer you a professorship.

I want a separation of Church-Voting from state.
Then you would need to enact some fairly draconian legislation, preventing, I'd imagine, a majority of voters in the US from voting.

Well no, not causation, you're right. I'm not arguing for causation.

Then you would need to enact some fairly draconian legislation, preventing, I'd imagine, a majority of voters in the US from voting.
No, you would just have to make the voting much less board.

No, I try to inform myself with evidence. Now, it may be hard to word all of the evidence, or take time to put it together, but I try.


No, I propose that we make it illegal where it unwillingly effects others. You're still welcome to set up a shrine in your own bedroom.

Thanks, but no.

The problem is that, while you are trying to be logical, rational and informed. The Sarah Palins and Dubyas of the world think that, within their frame of reference, they are too. What I'm trying to explain, and what you are having trouble seeing, is that while your information may be scientific and, to your mind, incontrovertable, they consider their information to be equally valid. Their data comes from their religion. The only way you can keep religious people from letting their religion affect their political decisions is to ban them from the political process - that would run counter to the Constitution. The Constitution is here to protect you from them and them from you.

However, Im not sure how you could stop voting on the basis of the church or religious beliefs...

I can think of several possibilities. For instance:
Instead of directly voting on a specific person, or picking "yes/no" options, one has to provide the voting computer with the thought processes one has on the issue one is voting for. A step further than the "voting advice" sites you can find in abundance on the net.

Of course, the downsides of such a system are obvious.

No, I try to inform myself with evidence. Now, it may be hard to word all of the evidence, or take time to put it together, but I try.


No, I propose that we make it illegal where it unwillingly effects others. You're still welcome to set up a shrine in your own bedroom.

Evidence is still belief. If you believe in evolution, you are having faith (oh no, how evil!) that evidence of your own selection is credible.

I believe in the Christian God, and I have absolutely found evidence credible to me. Does that mean you have to find it credible? Nope, and feel free not to, but I won't let your athiest religion suffocate my belief, as much as you would seemingly like it to. Religion, and belief aren't plagues, and if you weren't so intolerant you would be able to see that.

Every post of yours I've read is foolishness, politics themselves are beliefs. Obama believes that gay people should have equal rights, so he advocates civil unions, but he doesn't approve their "lifestyle choice" so he cannot sponsor "gay marriage" this is due to his religious belief. So, by your logic Obama better stop thinking both of those things because he can't prove that gay people deserve civil unions, or that they don't deserve marriages, and both are beliefs.

Well no, not causation, you're right. I'm not arguing for causation.
Yes, but my point is connected with causation.

If we allow people (all of us, really) to hold an assumption in causation -- base all our scientific knowledge upon such an assumption, indeed -- without cries of insanity or unreasoned nonsense, I think it's rather foolhardy to decry all those who hold a belief in a supreme being as nutters.

Yet this is not to stifle debate with religious folks; far from it. As you rightly point out, religious belief can have a major, and often unacceptable, influence on the lives of everyone; regardless of religious belief. This should be challenged. Moreover, theological discussion is helpful and healthy. Though I wasn't 'converted' to atheism through reasoned debate (for me it was more of a phenomenological lack of god-ness, if you take my meaning, that changed my mind) I'm sure there's some out there who stopped believing due to reasoned argument.

Finally, I find it's always helpful to separate religion or spirituality from religious institutions; the latter often being far more insidious than the former.

No, you would just have to make the voting much less board.
Sorry, what do you mean by 'board'?

Sorry, what do you mean by 'board'?

Alright, here's the deal, I'm not sure what it means either... but using evidence, and illogic, I'll attempt to examine it.

Now, elections are usually held in buildings... which typically contain wood... following? Ok, well a popular Judeo-Christian story speaks of a large boat (the "Ark"), now this Ark, if the pictures I've seen are correct, was also made of wood.

So what we do is we remove the wood from all buildings where any public voting happens, so as not to install inherently false religious notions in the otherwise right-thinking peoples minds.

And, in case no one caught it, this entire post (until this last paragraph) was in humor.

The problem is that, while you are trying to be logical, rational and informed. The Sarah Palins and Dubyas of the world think that, within their frame of reference, they are too. What I'm trying to explain, and what you are having trouble seeing, is that while your information may be scientific and, to your mind, incontrovertable, they consider their information to be equally valid. Their data comes from their religion. The only way you can keep religious people from letting their religion affect their political decisions is to ban them from the political process - that would run counter to the Constitution. The Constitution is here to protect you from them and them from you.
Evidence! Not incontrovertible! And the constitution is a piece of paper. It has as much protection as your government abides by it.

Evidence is still belief. If you believe in evolution, you are having faith (oh no, how evil!) that evidence of your own selection is credible. Evidence is evidence. Evolution is a conclusion. The two are different things. And belief is only "evil" if you consider the resulting mass death "evil". I consider it a natural process.

but I won't let your athiest religion suffocate my belief, No, I'll let your suffering and learning suffocate your beliefs. They will reduce you to evidence (and reason-resulting conclusions). And I never claimed to be your definition of atheist.

Religion, and belief aren't plagues, and if you weren't so intolerant you would be able to see that. It is contagious and inflicts harm upon peoples.

So, by your logic Obama better stop thinking both of those things because he can't prove that gay people deserve civil unions.
Equal rights for not demonstratively "unequal" persons; using harm of others as a starting point for this equality. Not shown to have higher rate of disorders. And I say nothing about "proving"! And if I did, I'll go back and fix it!


If we allow people (all of us, really) to hold an assumption in causation -- base all our scientific knowledge upon such an assumption, indeed -- without cries of insanity or unreasoned nonsense, I think it's rather foolhardy to decry all those who hold a belief in a supreme being as nutters.

Sorry, what do you mean by 'board'?
I don't base what I know on causation, as it is an assumption. I try to avoid assumptions; and I think that the assumption of causation is not particularly apt. Some particles can "go back in time", as they call it. Quantum mechanics, ect.

By broad I mean hold them accountable.

*Sigh*

Evidence! Not incontrovertible! And the constitution is a piece of paper. It has as much protection as your government abides by it.

Evidence is evidence. Evolution is a conclusion. The two are different things. And belief is only "evil" if you consider the resulting mass death "evil". I consider it a natural process.

No, I'll let your suffering and learning suffocate your beliefs. They will reduce you to evidence. And I never claimed to be your definition of atheist.

It is contagious and inflicts harm upon peoples.


Equal rights for not demonstratively "unequal" persons; using harm of others as a starting point for this equality. Not shown to have higher rate of disorders. And I say nothing about "proving"! And if I did, I'll go back and fix it!


I don't base what I know on causation, as it is an assumption. I try to avoid assumptions; and I think that the assumption of causation is not particularly apt. Some particles can "go back in time", as they call it. Quantum mechanics, ect.

By broad I mean hold them accountable.

How do you propose to prevent people from voting their beliefs? How do propose to prevent the officials elected by those people from acting on their beliefs? You can't do it unless you eliminate their participation in the political process. I repeat, is that what you propose?

You can't do it unless you eliminate their participation in the political process.
No. I said do it by holding them accountable. Create more involvement. It will lead to the same by default. They themselves will then understand and prohibit.

No. I said hold them accountable. Create more involvement. It will lead to the same by default.

They are already held accountable. The people who elected them can choose not to elect them again - which in the case of McDubya and Palin, they did. If the majority of the people had approved of the religious path the Republicans were trying to follow, Palin would now be Vice President.

This is a democracy or, more accurately, a Republic, the people decide what they want. If they don't like it, they get rid of it. And, regardless of what you would like, belief will always be a part of it.

No. I said hold them accountable. Create more involvement. It will lead to the same by default. They themselves will then understand and prohibit.

Hold all religious people accountable? Accountable of what? To what standard? What is the 'same default'? It seems to me that early paganist polytheism, and elemental worship was the first real wide-sweeping beliefs of emerging mankind, is this the default? They will understand what, exactly? Shamanism? Druidism? And what will they prohibit exactly?

They are already held accountable. The people who elected them can choose not to elect them again - which in the case of McDubya and Palin, they did. If the majority of the people had approved of the religious path the Republicans were trying to follow, Palin would now be Vice President.

This is a democracy or, more accurately, a Republic, the people decide what they want. If they don't like it, they get rid of it. And, regardless of what you would like, belief will always be a part of it.

Fake choice, BS choice. Lesser of two evils. I let you choose between Coke and Pepsi. You can't choose a third option, by systemic structure and psychology.

Hold all religious people accountable? Accountable of what?
To the consequences of their actions.

belief will always be a part of it.

And it certainly should. Only when the belief tangible hinders people is accountability needed, and even that is a relative judgement, based on the observers own beliefs, and how those beliefs interact with political beliefs.

Fake choice, BS choice. Lesser of two evils. I let you choose between Coke and Pepsi. You can't choose a third option, by systemic structure and psychology.

Um... what?

I don't base what I know on causation, as it is an assumption. I try to avoid assumptions; and I think that the assumption of causation is not particularly apt.
It'd be nigh-on impossible to get by in the world without some knowledge based on causation.

But let us leave this issue here; it's too much of a threadjack.

By broad I mean hold them accountable.
In what manner?

EDIT: You say that, in relation to voting, religious folks should be held accountable to the consequences of their actions. What are you trying to get at here? Which responsibility to he political process do religious folks have that non-religious folks do not?

In what manner Give them more responsibility for social functions, and to the degree necessary, arrange in such a manner as to avoid harm to your person and functions (as resulting from assumption/belief).

In what manner?

Oh, this is easy. Hold all people who believe anything accountable by the standard of logic and evidence. See, if you jsut answer every question with those two words, and some other words just thrown in you'll reach the same default, and everyone will be perfect, never believing anything, except things that are universally evidential. :rolleyes:

Give them more responsibility for social functions, and to the degree necessary, arrange in such a manner as to avoid harm to your person and functions (as resulting from assumption/belief).
If I read you correctly, you wish to shield people from political decisions based upon belief. This would seem to be a nigh-on impossible task.

If you're trying to say that religious convictions shouldn't be pushed onto the non-religious, I'd agree, but the point you're making is far stronger than that.

Give them more responsibility for social functions, and to the degree necessary, arrange in such a manner as to avoid harm to your person and functions (as resulting from assumption/belief).

Ok... so if a Christian voted for Obama because of his social policy, and Obama turns out to be some terrible tyrant, the voter should be held accountable, whereas a non-Christian who voted for Obama for the same reason should not be held accountable because he doesn't believe in something that you don't think evidence supports?

I'll be honest... you don't have a very good argument... but it's fun to see so much fail, please, continue.

If I read you correctly, you wish to shield people from political decisions based upon belief.
No, I wish to have to possibility of shielding myself from decisions based upon belief.

Ok... so if a Christian voted for Obama because of his social policy, and Obama turns out to be some terrible tyrant, the voter should be held accountable, whereas a non-Christian who voted for Obama for the same reason should not be held accountable because he doesn't believe in something that you don't think evidence supports?
No, hold everyone accountable.

If I read you correctly, you wish to shield people from political decisions based upon belief. This would seem to be a nigh-on impossible task.

If you're trying to say that religious convictions shouldn't be pushed onto the non-religious, I'd agree, but the point you're making is far stronger than that.

Actually, I believe he is saying that everyone everywhere should be shielded from any belief not supported by evidence that he finds credible. Gravity, without proof, and circumstantial evidence is credible to him, while a diety, without proof, and circumstantial evidence is not credible to him.

So, all political decisions, and even the legal dissembling of opinions should be decided by his whim based on what he feels is credible evidence.

Or at least, thats what I got from his posts.

Which responsibility to he political process do religious folks have that non-religious folks do not?

While I sofar do not understand the point Triniteras wishes to make, I have a vague idea that the necessity of suspension of belief is one of them.
For instance, one should not let ones belief that people who die valiently will go to heaven influence a decision to send them into a battlefield. One should not let the belief that the earth is 6000 years old and Genesis is literally true influence the contents of science classrooms. One should not let ones religious belief that homosexuality is an abomination lead to laws forbidding gay marriage, if your country does not allow laws to be based on religion. And so on.

Pretty tough - though some people manage it.

No, hold everyone accountable.

Umm... this doesn't make much sense, by your logic every German should've been killed because Hitler rigged the election, but because he was elected, we should hold everyone accountable. Does that count foriegners who didn't have the option of voting for Hitler? You did say "everyone". So we should hold every human accountable for every crime ever committed by any human ever? Seems unreasonable to be honest.

Actually, I believe he is saying that everyone everywhere should be shielded from any belief not supported by evidence that he finds credible. Gravity, without proof, and circumstantial evidence is credible to him, while a diety, without proof, and circumstantial evidence is not credible to him.

So, all political decisions, and even the legal dissembling of opinions should be decided by his whim based on what he feels is credible evidence.
No, that is not what i said, I would not base it on my "whim", that is dictatorship. That is unlawful. And I did not say anyone should be shielded from belief, only that they may sheild themselves.

Umm... this doesn't make much sense, by your logic every German should've been killed because Hitler rigged the election
No, isolated. And then they, with the rest of the world, take the necessary measures to prevent it; educationally, structurally.

While I sofar do not understand the point Triniteras wishes to make, I have a vague idea that the necessity of suspension of belief is one of them.
For instance, one should not let ones belief that people who die valiently will go to heaven influence a decision to send them into a battlefield. One should not let the belief that the earth is 6000 years old and Genesis is literally true influence the contents of science classrooms. One should not let ones religious belief that homosexuality is an abomination lead to laws frobidding forbid gay marriage, if your country does not allow laws to be based on religion. And so on.

Pretty tough - though some people manage it.

See, and that would be understandable... but he makes it clear that any religious though... no wait, any thought not founded on evidence that he approves of should be banned in any public situation. A church shouldn't be allowed to exist, because thats invading a non-believers right not to look at religious buildings... and a sign on the church would be right out!

No, I wish to have to possibility of shielding myself from decisions based upon belief.
How far would you take this?

For example, I strongly believe that radical social change is needed to generate an ecologically sustainable society, and will vote, or abstain from voting, on this basis (among others).

Should you be 'shielded' from my belief? Or, perhaps more accurately, how would you/could you shield yourself from such a belief?

No, that is not what i said, I would not base it on my my "whim", that is dictatorship. That is not unlawful. And I did not say anyone should be shielded from belief, only that they may sheild themselves.


No, isolated. And then they, with the rest of the world, take the necessary measures to prevent it; educationally, structurally.

I hope you're trolling... because this is hilarious.

How far would you take this?

For example, I strongly believe that radical social change is needed to generate an ecologically sustainable society, and will vote, or abstain from voting, on this basis (among others).

Should you be 'shielded' from my belief?

Yes, because I don't necessarily believe the same thing you do, your opinion should not be able to be used in vote-casting.

I'd suggest asking him what sources are credible, so that you can vote in a logical, and evidence-based manner, rather than the foolish, unfounded belief that you currently have.

See, and that would be understandable... but he makes it clear that any religious though... no wait, any thought not founded on evidence that he approves of should be banned in any public situation.
No, that is not what I said, I would not base it on my my "whim", that is dictatorship, and not based on any kind of constitution/law.

A church shouldn't be allowed to exist, because thats invading a non-believers right not to look at religious buildings.
Poppycock. I would only want the church banned if the decisions of it's followers harmed me. Otherwise I don't care if they believe.

No, isolated. And then they, with the rest of the world, take the necessary measures to prevent it; educationally, structurally.

Ah, so segregation will cure the worlds intolerance? You know, prior to (and during) the '60s America had a policy of "Seperate but equal" where an institution could have seperate facilities for whites, and for non-whites. This often (read: only) led to discriminatory practices that were quite not equal.

Or is that we will merely brainwash those who don't agree with your definition of credible evidence?

Yes, because I don't necessarily believe the same thing you do, your opinion should not be able to be used in vote-casting.
Lets allow Triniteras to speak for h[im/er]self, shall we?

The Germans got Hitler, so they were in that sense "unequal" temporarily. But the rest of the world was also responsible.

Poppycock. I would only want the church banned if the decisions of it's followers harmed me. Otherwise I don't care if they believe.

Of course the gov't would step in if a body injured, harrassed, or in some way wronged you.

A body of believers (in whatever) that vote in accordance with what they believe is not harming you, so long as they follow the law, which no doubt happens in nearly 100% of the cases of people voting.

The Germans got Hitler, so they were in that sense "unequal" temporarily. But the rest of the world was also responsible.

This post is confusing due to errors. They were unequal in the sense of having Hitlers? They had more than the rest of the world? I'm not following.

How do you suggest we punish the rest of the world (and the Germans) for their responsibility?

Lets allow Triniteras to speak for h[im/er]self, shall we?

Hasn't he done enough?

How far would you take this?
Oh all the way.

For example, I strongly believe
I don't care.

that radical social change is needed to generate an ecologically sustainable society, and will vote, or abstain from voting, on this basis (among others).
We should get together and discuss it.

Of course the gov't would step in if a body injured, harrassed, or in some way wronged you.

A body of believers (in whatever) that vote in accordance with what they believe is not harming you, so long as they follow the law, which no doubt happens in nearly 100% of the cases of people voting.

No man, I want you to be the government. We will, together, follow the law.


How do you suggest we punish the rest of the world (and the Germans) for their responsibility?
Enough about punishing. You don't punish people for decisions, they are made out of ignorance.

A body of believers (in whatever) that vote in accordance with what they believe is not harming you, so long as they follow the law, which no doubt happens in nearly 100% of the cases of people voting.
Hmmm... I think it's possible that voting in accordance with beliefs, and the law, could harm others. To take a topical example, I think it could well be argued (assuming for argument's sake it isn't constitutionally suspect), that Prop 8 harms homosexuals.

However, the fact that voting from conviction can harm is not an sufficient reason to ban voting from conviction.

No man, I want you to be the government. We will, together, follow the law.

I already abide by the laws... I rarely drive above the speed limit, I attempt to drive safely and reasonably, I don't do illegal drugs... I had one beer at a friends house, and even though I didn't leave until the beer was several hours gone, I still had my wife drive us home.

I vote, and am therefore a part of the government.

So... it sounds like I've got it all figured out... and yet, I'm still a Christian... there must be something you left out.

Hmmm... I think it's possible that voting in accordance with beliefs, and the law, could harm others. To take a topical example, I think it could well be argued (assuming for argument's sake it isn't constitutionally suspect), that Prop 8 harms homosexuals.

However, the fact that voting from conviction can harm is not an sufficient reason to ban voting from conviction.

I see your point... but at the same time, teh gayz are harming traditional marriage.

On an pseudo-related nore... are CA politicians gonna try to bring a repeal to Prop 8? Surely, if all of Cali had to vote again, they wouldn't let the same thing happen as did before?

Traditional Marriage is not a person.


I vote, and am therefore a part of the government.
You do not yet make the laws

So... it sounds like I've got it all figured out... and yet, I'm still a Christian...
Well obviously that's going to have to stop. You can't be making laws without regard to what we can, firstly in regards to testing shit obviously, call the real world.

Well obviously that's going to have to stop. You can't be making laws without regard to what we can, in regards to testing shit, call the real world.

I have no aversion to science, or natural evidence by any means. What has to stop? My beliefs? How have they harmed you?

You can't be making laws without regard to what we can, in regards to testing shit, call the real world.
OK, but the only way we can relate to this real world is through beliefs.

So how can we prevent beliefs crafting policy?

I have no aversion to science, or natural evidence by any means. What has to stop? My beliefs? How have they harmed you?
If you vote on your beliefs, they harm me, regardless of whether or not they are related to religion.

OK, but the only way we can relate to this real world is through beliefs.

So how can we prevent beliefs crafting policy?
By believing the shit that can be tested, or at least voting in that manner. Vote scientifically, avoiding conjecture. You know, evidence, should come out of testing shit, insomuch as possible. I see no reason for any need to depart from it in voting. Can't think of a circumstance that would require otherwise.

If you vote on your beliefs, they harm me, regardless of whether or not they are related to religion.

So, if I believe something, because of my religion, and vote that way, regardless of how I vote, or even the issue, it harms you? So, when the gay marriage vote comes to MN, and I vote in support of it, in direct accordance with my religious beliefs, I am harming you directly?

In other instances, you would be, even if it was non-religious belief.
And one does not believe or vote because of religion, only psychological structure.

It is the action itself, not the intention. You are voting for less belief (If I understand you right, and you are voting for gay marriage), regardless of your intention. But there are ramifications outside of simply voting so long as you were to continue acting on belief.
(Post edited into communicable coherence)

By believing the shit that can be tested, or at least voting in that manner. Vote scientifically, avoiding conjecture.
This gives us very little to base voting upon.

We would have to disregard pretty much all economic and foreign policy along with much social policy.

You would be, even if I wasn't bisexual, even if it was non-religious belief.
And one does not believe or vote because of religion, only psychological structure.

Ok... so what can you determine about my psychological structure, given that I am a Christian, and pro-gay marriage?

And how does such a vote harm you? Surely you have excellent evidence to back up such a fantastic claim.

This gives us very little to base voting upon.

We would have to disregard pretty much all economic and foreign policy along with much social policy.

Hmm... ok, so with a ban on being influenced by economic, foreign, social, and religious policy... would there be anything left to vote based on?

I can't think of anything... that seems to cover almost every base of thought upon which one could vote.

Also, the action does count; primarily it is the way of voting itself. You are voting for less belief (If I understand you right, and you are voting for gay marriage). It may, overall, in that manner, be a "positive" effect, regardless of your intention. But due to the intention itself, it has ramifications outside of that direct voting instance, which is why it would matter in that instance, so long as you were to continue acting on belief.

So I should be held negatively responsible for voting for a positive change? What about opposing opinions? Who determines what change is good?

Also, I assure, my support for gay-marriage is very steeped in my religious beliefs, and to a lesser, and dependant extent, my social beliefs.

Could you go back, Der Teutoniker? I had to edit, as made a mistake in the understanding of your post, and consequently had to edit. During the process of editing, I made a logic loop. I had not realized all these posts were made, as my messaging service had shut off.

I most certainly do not think persons should be held accountable for intention. Only the results of intention.

Could you go back, Der Teutoniker? I had to edit, as made a mistake in the understanding of your post, and consequently had to edit. I had not realized all these posts were made, as my messaging service had shut off.

I don;t understand what you mean by 'voting for less belief'.

It is my personal religious convictions that directly lead me to choose (in the future, should the opportunity be presented) to vote in favor of local gay-marriage legislation.

Not only am I not against restricting beliefs, but I am actually leaning entirely on my own, faith-based beliefs to arrive at my conclusion.

I most certainly do not think persons should be held accountable for intention. Only the results of intention.

To an extent, of course. If Obama turns out to be a tyrant, the American public at large should not be held responsible, because Obama would have decieved them.

If I cause direct physical harm to my neigbor, or harrass my neighbor, regardless of intent, I should be held responsible, but you see how direct, and indirect responsibility should have different responses?

It is my personal religious convictions that directly lead me to choose (in the future, should the opportunity be presented) to vote in favor of local gay-marriage legislation.
In this instance, you are voting the same as those with less belief, so it is not (comparatively to them) relevant. The result, gay marriage, would lead public consciousness towards an acceptance of homosexuals (as opposed to unfounded discrimination), which would mean less belief. So you are voting for less belief.

Not only am I not against restricting beliefs, but I am actually leaning entirely on my own, faith-based beliefs to arrive at my conclusion. I don't want to restrict beliefs, I want to restrict actions based on them, so long as they harm me.

To an extent, of course. If Obama turns out to be a tyrant, the American public at large should not be held responsible, because Obama would have decieved them.
Of course they should be held responsible. His deception would only be possible through lack of investigation and lack of participation.

In this instance, you are voting the same as those with less belief, so it is not as relevant. The result, gay marriage, would change public consciousness towards an acceptance of homosexuals.

I don't want to restrict beliefs, I want to restrict actions based on them, so long as they harm me.


Of course they should be held responsible. His deception would only be possible through lack of investigation and participation.

Ok, I think I finally understand your stance.

I thoroughly disagree with most everything you think on the subject, and I reject it as generally against the very code of America itself. However, I respect, and value your right to hold such an opinion, regardless what I think of it. I respect your right to vote based on your beliefs even though your vote could cause me harm to my freedom of religious expression. Indeed, the very value that ensures my right to vote how I want, based on what criteria I choose also ensures you that same right, the 1st Amendment, the value that should keep an opinion like yours from becoming mainstream, and harming others in the American community.

Ok, I think I finally understand your stance.

... could you explain what you think it is, then? Because I'm still rather confused by it.

against the very code of America itself
Whose code? Who/What does it serve?

However, I respect, and value your right to hold such an opinion, regardless what I think of it. Opinions are not relevant. Resulting actions are relevant.

I respect your right to vote based on your beliefs You keep bringing up beliefs. Forget beliefs. Enter theories, evidence, possibility.

even though your vote could cause me harm to my freedom of religious expression.
Expression for who, and to do what? And not likely, voting possibilities are very narrow.

Indeed, the very value that ensures my right to vote how I want, based on what criteria I choose also ensures you that same right, the 1st Amendment, the value that should keep an opinion like yours from becoming mainstream, and harming others in the American community. Criteria based on what, to do what? Because not believing unfounded things is always harmful, right? And no, the First Amendment doesn't prevent anything from becoming mainstream. It is, after all, paper.

Whose code? Who/What does it serve?

Opinions are not relevant. Resulting actions are relevant.

You keep bringing up beliefs.

Expression for who, and to do what?

Criteria based on what, to do what? Because not believing unfounded things is always harmful, right? And no, the first amendment doesn't prevent anything from becoming mainstream. It is, after all, paper.

The 1st Amendment. It serves the American public.

Opinions certainly are relevant, if they weren't, why would you hold such vehemence for them?

You started bringing up conversation noting that you wanted to limit the ability of people to believe things in public that you disagree with.

Expression for everyone to do as they choose to express, or support their beliefs, so long as they do not bring others into direct harm.

Certainly the parchment upon which the Bill of Rights was written is not the sole source of value. The ideas, and freedoms, and rights expressed, and granted have their own merit, and value. Sure, paper is paper... but the again, the values expressed, and granted on that particular 'paper' far outvalue the paper itself.

... could you explain what you think it is, then? Because I'm still rather confused by it.

He thinks that people should be held responsible (segregated) if any action they ever make in any way directly, or indirectly harm, or seem to harm any other person.

The harm caused in seemingly in accordance with his own definition of harm, and is based on some ethereal set of universal credentials for evidence which seemingly only he can divine, but they aren't subjective either.

The 1st Amendment. It serves the American public.
The American public serves the American public.

You started bringing up conversation noting that you wanted to limit the ability of people to believe things in public that you disagree with.
Not my disagreeing with. Demonstrability. Not what they believe in; their actions. Believe what you want.

Expression for everyone to do as they choose to express, or support their beliefs, so long as they do not bring others into direct harm.
Expression for everyone, and to do what? Support their beliefs to do what? Why do I care if harm is direct? They harm indirectly; felt. Respond.

The ideas, and freedoms, and rights expressed, and granted have their own merit, and value. Sure, paper is paper... but the again, the values expressed, and granted on that particular 'paper' far outvalue the paper itself.
Ideas on paper are paper. Ideas not developed, not understood, are paper.

He thinks that people should be held responsible (segregated) if any action they ever make in any way directly, or indirectly harm, or seem to harm any other person.
No, just me, acting according to understanding. I only consider the understandings/actions to only happen to be universally applicable (under the right circumstances, of course).

The harm caused in seemingly in accordance with his own definition of harm, and is based on some ethereal set of universal credentials for evidence which seemingly only he can divine, but they aren't subjective either.
I like to call it looking at things and thinking.

The American public serves the American public.

Not my disagreeing with. Demonstrability. Not what they believe in; their actions. Believe what you want.

Expression for everyone, and to what? Support their beliefs to do what? Why do I care if harm is direct? They harm indirectly; felt. Respond.

Ideas on paper are paper. Ideas not developed, not understood, are paper.

Indeed it does... as do our federally-granted rights.

You say that now, but earlier you were saying that no belief not based on your view of evidence should be able to be used for any publicly political purpose.

You really propose to meet out pseudo-justice for indirect harm of others? There are cases where indirect harm should be punishable, and cases where it shouldn't be.

So, ideas that I am thinking right now are not intangible thoughts, but are actual physical paper? Or have you decided that making no sense whatsoever should be done at least once in every post? What part of the Bill of Rights is 'not understood' 'undeveloped'. You are saying that the Bill of Rights, and thus the Constitution, checks and balances, and the Declaration of Independance should have absolutely no bearing on anything political because they were written on the medium of paper? Then America has no clause for seperation of church and state, because the laws that justly decree such a great ideal are just pieces of paper and therefore inherently valueless. A follow-up question, do you become inherently valueless when you write your name down on a sheet of paper?

He thinks that people should be held responsible (segregated) if any action they ever make in any way directly, or indirectly harm, or seem to harm any other person.

The harm caused in seemingly in accordance with his own definition of harm, and is based on some ethereal set of universal credentials for evidence which seemingly only he can divine, but they aren't subjective either.

... Still not sure I get it, but eh. Seems Triniteras wants to bring about the Atheist Apocalypse (http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html) but wants to skip the "empathy" and "understanding" parts of Reason.

Ideas on paper are paper. Ideas not developed, not understood, are paper.

Humans can hold ideas separate from their physical existence; neither justice nor equality are naturally occurring substances. The Bill of Rights is important because it is the original and official copy of the ideas it embodies; but the idea is not the thing. The idea of the First Amendment - or the Second, or anything else - is something we hold in our minds, which are emergent structures of the links between our neurons. Which is pretty impressive for a bunch of cells strung together in conductive brine, but I digress.

No, just me, acting according to understanding. I only consider the understandings/actions to only happen to be universally applicable (under the right circumstances, of course).

I like to call it looking at things and thinking.

Ok... so again, we come back to you thinking that your subjective views should become universal and total law throughout the world.

I can look at things, and I can think, and reason, and use logic... and still arrive at a different conclusion. Perhaps it is merely because your psychological framework, or whatever you were touting earlier isn't as advanced as mine?

Almost nothing is a universal value, nor should very many things be universal values.

He thinks that people should be held responsible (segregated) if any action they ever make in any way directly, or indirectly harm, or seem to harm any other person.

Since that would result in the isolation of every single human being on this planet, segregation would be impractical.

Then again, accountability is a fine thing. Perhaps we can demand that politicans indeed document their decisions and the reasons leading to them clearly and in writing ? Or perhaps even go a step further, and demand that they also back up claims ?

Extend that requirement to religious spokespersons, and silly statements like "condoms have tiny holes that let Aids through" and "the existence of homosexuals causes hurricanes" will be somewhat less abundant. And who knows - maybe some of those silly claims will turn out to have a firmer basis in reality than expected.
Or not ;)

... Still not sure I get it, but eh. Seems Triniteras wants to bring about the Atheist Apocalypse (http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html) but wants to skip the "empathy" and "understanding" parts of Reason.

Funny, he actually made a comment earlier about how he thought we should segregate people who don't conform to the same basic value.

He never explained what that value was, exactly, or how he alone has seemed to divine it, but it fits right in there segregating people because their different.

Since that would result in the isolation of every single human being on this planet, segregation would be impractical.

Then again, accountability is a fine thing. Perhaps we can demand that politicans indeed document their decisions and the reasons leading to them clearly and in writing ? Or perhaps even go a step further, and demand that they also back up claims ?

Extend that requirement to religious spokespersons, and silly statements like "condoms have tiny holes that let Aids through" and "the existence of homosexuals causes hurricanes" will be somewhat less abundant. And who knows - maybe some of those silly claims will turn out to have a firmer basis in reality than expected.
Or not ;)

Actually... I really thought the HIV virus can potentially pass through a condom... thats what I learned in High School... perhaps misinformed? Do you have a source?

Also... everyone knows teh gayz cause hurricanes... thats just basic meteorology, geez.

Although the political accountability thing wouldn't be bad... I'll be honest, I'd like to know why Obama thinks his stimulus plan will be effective (not to mention many other motivations, and actions, from many other presidents... for example, Truman sending a war fleet to Hawaii?).

Accountability certainly is a good thing... when not used in completely ridiculous situations... as I've seen presented tonight.

And who knows - maybe some of those silly claims will turn out to have a firmer basis in reality than expected.
Or not ;)

All silly claims have a basis in reality... did you know that ebil witches can be found out simply, by weighing them against a duck? Because wood burns, and witches burn, and both wood and ducks can float... ergo if she weighs the same as a duck, she is a witch.

All silly claims have a basis in reality... did you know that ebil witches can be found out simply, by weighing them against a duck? Because wood burns, and witches burn, and both wood and ducks can float... ergo if she weighs the same as a duck, she is a witch.

One of the few funny scenes in that film.

One of the few funny scenes in that film.

I'm a pretty big fan of it... though there are also a lot of non-funny parts too. When King Arthur is confronted by the anarcho-syndacist commune peasant, for example... thats great.

I'm a pretty big fan of it... though there are also a lot of non-funny parts too. When King Arthur is confronted by the anarcho-syndacist commune peasant, for example... thats great.

It's amusing, but it gets tiresome rapidly. As do the knights who say Ni, etc.

Actually... I really thought the HIV virus can potentially pass through a condom... thats what I learned in High School... perhaps misinformed? Do you have a source?

Latex condoms do not have holes big enough to let things the size of HIV through, unless they are defective. Natural lambskin and such condoms however can indeed be poreus enough to allow the Aids virus to pass.

And of course, a condom does not protect against all STDS. A condom for instance merely reduces the chance of transmitting HPV (which can cause cervical cancer).

So as we see - there indeed is a basis for the claim that condoms can let AIDS through. It is just not valid for the overwhelming majority of condoms on the market* - yet some religious organisations do like to leave out that last part. I personally call that "deliberate deception".

* Though admittedly it may be true of the condoms on the market in Africa. I do not know how popular non-latex is there.

You say that now, but earlier you were saying that no belief not based on your view of evidence should be able to be used for any publicly political purpose.
I don't care about beliefs, nor do I care about "views of evidence". Evidence itself is what is important. Everything else is theory that comes out of it. What I meant was actions based on belief.

So, ideas that I am thinking right now are not intangible thoughts, but are actual physical paper? Or have you decided that making no sense whatsoever should be done at least once in every post? What part of the Bill of Rights is 'not understood' 'undeveloped'. You are saying that the Bill of Rights, and thus the Constitution, checks and balances, and the Declaration of Independance should have absolutely no bearing on anything political because they were written on the medium of paper? Then America has no clause for seperation of church and state, because the laws that justly decree such a great ideal are just pieces of paper and therefore inherently valueless. A follow-up question, do you become inherently valueless when you write your name down on a sheet of paper?
The Bill of Rights is idea put onto paper, undeveloped in the minds of the populace, and correspondingly unacted upon, and then expanded upon, further acted upon.

Ok... so again, we come back to you thinking that your subjective views should become universal and total law throughout the world. There is no should, I act upon my understanding. I attempt understanding, which one may call belief with theory, evidence, ect; you attempt doing nothing and remaining in unfounded belief.

I can look at things, and I can think, and reason, and use logic... and still arrive at a different conclusion. Perhaps it is merely because your psychological framework, or whatever you were touting earlier isn't as advanced as mine?
No, it is apparent you are more concerned with unfounded belief than the examination of evidence.

Almost nothing is a universal value, nor should very many things be universal values. Universally applicable to some circumstances.



Since that would result in the isolation of every single human being on this planet, segregation would be impractical.
They would have to do it themselves, willingly.

Then again, accountability is a fine thing. Perhaps we can demand that politicians indeed document their decisions and the reasons leading to them clearly and in writing? Or perhaps even go a step further, and demand that they also back up claims?

Extend that requirement to religious spokespersons, and silly statements like "condoms have tiny holes that let Aids through" and "the existence of homosexuals causes hurricanes" will be somewhat less abundant. And who knows - maybe some of those silly claims will turn out to have a firmer basis in reality than expected.
Not a bad idea. Better yet, demand it of you and I for everything that harmfully effects others; and then demand it of Der Teutoniker. Afterall, otherwise we'll just get lazy and this phenomena will fade away.

snip

Garbage.

They would have to do it themselves, willingly.

Every human being engages in actions that harm other human beings. The harm can be tiny, the harm can be huge, the harm can be indirect or merely philosophical, the harm can be offset by enormous benefits for the same other humans that were harmed etc. etc. etc - but amongst other things "to live is to do harm".

Why would harm resulting from religous beliefs be treated differently than harm from hunger, harm from indifference, harm from merely existing and so on ?

Garbage.

Some may consider your lack of examination to be questionable; but I call it enlightenment, of a sort self-harming to engage in; Like the one dimensional entity, aware only of itself, you have achieved Nirvana. You go on, in those little circles.


Why would harm resulting from religous beliefs be treated differently than harm from hunger, harm from indifference, harm from merely existing and so on?
It shouldn't.

Some may consider your lack of examination to be questionable; but I call it enlightenment, of a sort self-harming to engage in; Like the one dimensional entity, aware only of itself, you have achieved Nirvana. You go on, in those little circles.

Umm... I have carefully examined, and questioned you on all aspects of your shifting viewpoint, you are the only one here running in circles, you have not cited any reasonable argument, nor evidence for any question I've asked of your views.

It shouldn't.

So everyone should willingly segregate themselves totally from all other society until everyone reaches some mass logic that you believe in? What happens when, in one generation of total isolation humanity ceases to exist?

Well, I have to go, my wife just got home from work, so I am gonna go, and watch some televison with her... this conversation has certainly been entertaining, not for it's valid idealogical merit, so much as it's comic value, but entertaining nonetheless.

Umm... I have carefully examined, and questioned you on all aspects of your shifting viewpoint, you are the only one here running in circles, you have not cited any reasonable argument, nor evidence for any question I've asked of your views.

I have to cite arguments? I can't make them? I don't see where evidence here is needed, I don't see where/what it was asked for here.

So everyone should willingly segregate themselves totally from all other society until everyone reaches some mass logic that you believe in? What happens when, in one generation of total isolation humanity ceases to exist? Only if they want a better life. And not the population isolating itself from society, no, for the population it would involve more involvement in society, not less (depending on each thing, of course). Where does literal isolation get society? I can't see that going anywhere. And they would reach the same "mass logic", not which I believe in, but on account of the same essential biology, that of being human. Isolation is of elements of ones interaction with others and in ones own mind, and isolation of oneself from those who would attempt subversion thereof (your own development).

See if you support me, why, and if we can find a way to make it happen.

Regarding the condom issue in Africa, someone important could make the following proposal to the Pope:

"Okay, we'll interrupt the handing out of condoms in Africa. If more people die because of it, you raise them from the dead and we resume distributing the condoms. If fewer people die, we forbid the manufacture and sale of condoms in the world, though other contraceptive methods are fair game."
How about this:

"You're a pedophile-enabling liar who is helping spread disease throughout the world. However, if you shut the fuck up right now and stop hurting the world, then after you get sent to Hell we'll all try to think of something nice to say about your fancy shoes."

"You're a pedophile-enabling liar who is helping spread disease throughout the world. However, if you shut the fuck up right now and stop hurting the world, then after you get sent to Hell we'll all try to think of something nice to say about your fancy shoes."

I agree with this, but fancy shoes? Wtf?

I like the hats, if I look over the sickness of it.

I agree with this, but fancy shoes? Wtf?
Well, I couldn't think of anything nice to say about him as a person, but he does have some nice shoes.

Well, I couldn't think of anything nice to say about him as a person, but he does have some nice shoes.

Does he? I can honestly say I don't pay attention to his shoes. I'm watching the eyes and the mouth for signs of his true lizard form, mostly.

I think the problem here is that neither proposal is one the Pope is likely to accept, so presenting them to him is a waste of time. I'd suggest compromise positions by which we might inch our way into a progressive Papacy, but it's highly unlikely to happen. He's pretty much ossified into a single position by now, so we're going to have to wait until he croaks, and hope that the next one believes more in actual Christian charity and goodwill than in Church dogmatism.

Does he? I can honestly say I don't pay attention to his shoes. I'm watching the eyes and the mouth for signs of his true lizard form, mostly.

"I mean, seriously, how often do you really look at a mans shoes?"

I think the problem here is that neither proposal is one the Pope is likely to accept, so presenting them to him is a waste of time. I'd suggest compromise positions by which we might inch our way into a progressive Papacy, but it's highly unlikely to happen. He's pretty much ossified into a single position by now, so we're going to have to wait until he croaks, and hope that the next one believes more in actual Christian charity and goodwill than in Church dogmatism.

Why compromise? Dissolve the papacy. His statements effect everyone (the Africans especially, more directly), can cause serious harm thereby, all the while he ignores condom science and makes unfounded statements against their usage.

Yes, let us abolish the churches, put our ideological opponents into mental institutions, shoot everyone who crosses us and exile the remainder to Siberia. Even were the idea of dissolving the Papacy in any way plausible, even if it were desirable (and I dispute that it is, on the grounds that for all the evil the Church inspires it also does good, and on the grounds that there are many people who are led to live moral lives and do good because of its teachings) - even so, it would not in any way be moral. Simply put, they have the right to believe what they want to, you have the right to believe what you want to, and both parties have the right to protest if either party infringes that right.That is the First Amendment. I may live in a country which has no such thing (New Zealand has no formal, written constitution), but even so tolerance and respect is not just a legal thing. It's a human thing.

No dude, you avoid shooting. And Siberia isn't as bad as you think, even a few decades ago.

And sure, let them believe what they want. But the statements of the Pope could seriously harm a lot of Africans if they stop wearing condoms. So he should retract his statement. Or dissolve the institution.

Even were the idea of dissolving the Papacy in any way plausible, even if it were desirable (and I dispute that it is, on the grounds that for all the evil the Church inspires it also does good, and on the grounds that there are many people who are led to live moral lives and do good because of its teachings)
Then give them better "teachings."

but even so tolerance and respect is not just a legal thing. It's a human thing. Yeah, you get hit with a sledgehammer, you'll tolerate that too. You're tolerating what is perhaps unintentional genocide.

Of course, this AIDS researcher at Harvard says the Pope is right about the issue, but why listen to the evidence when you can just have fun bashing the Pope, right?

http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/20/116868/

Of course, this AIDS researcher at Harvard says the Pope is right about the issue, but why listen to the evidence when you can just have fun bashing the Pope, right?

As we should since the Pope did not base his statements on this. He in fact could not produce anything substantial to base his claims on when the outtrage came.

*Now* there may be something. So *now* he could have made his proclamation and be praised.
But since he did not wait till he had some facts, he is still just a pathetic deceiver, using halftruths to push a political agenda without caring if what he said was true or not.

But glad to see you agree with us that statements like that should have backing ;)

I was pointing out that your proposals - institutionalising ideological opponents and abolishing churches - were both hallmarks of the USSR. And a gulag is pretty damned bad in my opinion.

I concur with you that the Pope's anti-birth-control stance is injurious to public health, and I would dearly like to see him retract them. But it's no more likely that he will than that he would dissolve the institution of the Papacy (in fact I'm not sure that he can do the latter, since from a theological/Catholic perspective the Church is founded by Christ through Peter and is called the Bride of Christ - and you know how the Catholic Church is about divorce!). So the Pope is hardly going to dissolve the Papacy, and anyone else attempting to do so is infringing upon the religious freedoms of a billion people.

EDIT: But since he did not wait till he had some facts, he is still just a pathetic deceiver, using halftruths to push a political agenda without caring if what he said was true or not.

I'm going to quibble with your statement that the Pope is pushing a political agenda; I'd say it's really more of a theological agenda. The Bible commands the faithful to go forth and multiply, not to waste their seed, and so forth in ways which put together have been assembled into an anti-birth-control platform (I can't say how solid that platform is theologically, since I haven't read all the bits of the Bible that deal with it, and it's the Bible - contradictory interpretations are a hallmark of it's reading). The Pope has nothing, temporally, to gain from the removal of birth control; he does, however, have something theologically to gain, since he believes that it will secure the place of millions of people in Heaven.

As we should since the Pope did not base his statements on this. He in fact could not produce anything substantial to base his claims on when the outtrage came.


Except that he could, and he did. The reason this researcher cites, risk compensation, is a reason that has been cited in Catholic commentary on the subject of condoms and AIDS, and with birth control and abortion.

As a Catholic, I've been hearing of this for a long time. But that's the thing, you have to actually pay attention to what the Church is really saying, rather than rip a headline from a blog and twist it out of context.

One more time, for those who haven't read it yet:
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/20/116868/

Interesting. Since there are clearly a lot of voices all over the medical and aid (and AIDS, ha!) fields that disagree with Edward Green, however, I'd need to see some hard statistics on it first, preferably from a neutral source like the UN. My gut instinct is that Green and the Pope are incorrect, but not being an expert in pandemic statistics I cannot say so with certainty.

I was pointing out that your proposals - institutionalising ideological opponents and abolishing churches - were both hallmarks of the USSR. And a gulag is pretty damned bad in my opinion.

I concur with you that the Pope's anti-birth-control stance is injurious to public health, and I would dearly like to see him retract them. But it's no more likely that he will than that he would dissolve the institution of the Papacy (in fact I'm not sure that he can do the latter, since from a theological/Catholic perspective the Church is founded by Christ through Peter and is called the Bride of Christ - and you know how the Catholic Church is about divorce!). So the Pope is hardly going to dissolve the Papacy, and anyone else attempting to do so is infringing upon the religious freedoms of a billion people.

The gulag lacks conscience. I don't propose a gulag.
Also, the billion people are harming the Africans, if they prevent the dissolvement of the papacy.


Regarding Acrostica, condoms usage itself does not exacerbate aids! Choice exacerbates aids! Is is their choice. That is not to say we should continue supplying them. Let them make their own. Why shield them?

Of course, this AIDS researcher at Harvard says the Pope is right about the issue, but why listen to the evidence when you can just have fun bashing the Pope, right?

http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/20/116868/
Funny story about that:

If you'd actually have read what that guy wrote, from a non-Catholic-biased source, you'd have learned a few important things.

First, that Dr. Green actually points out that condom distribution has worked in many countries around the world. What he was actually talking about was the issue of why condoms aren't working as well in Africa as they have in nations like Thailand and Cambodia. Your blanket statements, and those made by your pathetically dishonest "source," are simply not consistent with reality or with what Dr. Green himself is saying.

Second, one of the major reasons why condom distribution is struggling in Africa is because the fastest-growing population of new HIV victims are married women or women who are in monogamous relationships...and people aren't using condoms with their steady partners because it is viewed as a lack of trust.

Let's read that once more just to understand it.

Condoms aren't helping to prevent the spread of HIV between people who aren't using condoms. Fancy that.

I guess it would be too simple for us to, you know, encourage folks to use condoms even with their steady partner. That might actually work. We can't do that. Instead, we should advise people to enter into monogamous faithful relationships of the sort that are currently the most likely to result in HIV transmission. That's sure to end well!

Of course, given that the Catholic church has specifically and repeatedly told couples not to use condoms even when one party KNOWS THAT THEY ARE HIV POSITIVE, I think it's particularly hilarious to blame condoms for the fact that HIV is being spread primarily between steady couples.

I wasn't suggesting that you did propose a gulag. But the things you did propose are also ethically unsound, since they infringe upon religious freedom and turn the medical-psychological profession into a weapon of ideology.

The billion or so Catholics are not responsible for any harm inflicted by the Pope's anti-birth-control stance. If the Pope were elected by popular vote for a short term, then maybe. But the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, from the College of Cardinals, for life. You can perhaps blame the College of Cardinals for electing him, but really they aren't responsible for his thought processes and actions; the Pope is not a blank garbage-in garbage-out box. The only person that can properly be held responsible for the actions of the Pope is the Pope himself.

I wasn't suggesting that you did propose a gulag. But the things you did propose are also ethically unsound, since they infringe upon religious freedom and turn the medical-psychological profession into a weapon of ideology.
Freedom to do what? And is everything of humanity not a "weapon" of idea? Medical-psychological profession fights disease. It is a weapon.

The billion or so Catholics are not responsible for any harm inflicted by the Pope's anti-birth-control stance. If the Pope were elected by popular vote for a short term, then maybe. But the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, from the College of Cardinals, for life. You can perhaps blame the College of Cardinals for electing him, but really they aren't responsible for his thought processes and actions; the Pope is not a blank garbage-in garbage-out box. The only person that can properly be held responsible for the actions of the Pope is the Pope himself.
I said they, the Catholic populace. would be more directly responsible if they themselves prevent the dissolution of the papacy.

Freedom to worship, freedom to assemble, and (specifically in the case of the USSR) freedom to educate their children in the tenets of their religion. And no, everything is not a weapon of ideology. But when you say "So-and-so is ideologically unsound; in order to believe the ideologically unsound things that he does, he must surely be insane; therefore he must be sent to the sanatorium, where he cannot infect others with his insanity" you are using the profession as a weapon. Insanity is not infectious. Ideology can be.

And no, the Catholic populace would not be responsible. The Catholic populace at large has no power to prevent or bring about the dissolution of the Papacy; that power rests in the hands of the Pope, if anyone's.

Freedom to worship, freedom to assemble, and (specifically in the case of the USSR) freedom to educate their children in the tenets of their religion.
To do what?

And no, the Catholic populace would not be responsible. The Catholic populace at large has no power to prevent or bring about the dissolution of the Papacy; that power rests in the hands of the Pope, if anyone's.
That is the choice of the Catholic populace.

To do what? I'm afraid you've confused me ... didn't I just explain the infringement of freedoms inherent in dissolving churches? And no, it is not the choice of the Catholic populace. The Catholic populace no more gets to decide how the Pope is appointed than they get to decide who the Pope will be. The Catholic populace has the choice, essentially, of either being Catholic or not being Catholic. If the mere fact of being Catholic makes them responsible for the actions of their leadership ... well, I don't think that's so.

Most Catholics, being human beings and thus capable of greater intellectual subtlety than binary on/off blind support or blind disdain, support the Pope when he says things they agree with, and disagree with him when he says things they think are erroneous.

And now I have things to do, so I shall depart.

Funny story about that:

If you'd actually have read what that guy wrote, from a non-Catholic-biased source, you'd have learned a few important things.

First, that Dr. Green actually points out that condom distribution has worked in many countries around the world. What he was actually talking about was the issue of why condoms aren't working as well in Africa as they have in nations like Thailand and Cambodia. Your blanket statements, and those made by your pathetically dishonest "source," are simply not consistent with reality or with what Dr. Green himself is saying.

Second, one of the major reasons why condom distribution is struggling in Africa is because the fastest-growing population of new HIV victims are married women or women who are in monogamous relationships...and people aren't using condoms with their steady partners because it is viewed as a lack of trust.

Let's read that once more just to understand it.

Condoms aren't helping to prevent the spread of HIV between people who aren't using condoms. Fancy that.

I guess it would be too simple for us to, you know, encourage folks to use condoms even with their steady partner. That might actually work. We can't do that. Instead, we should advise people to enter into monogamous faithful relationships of the sort that are currently the most likely to result in HIV transmission. That's sure to end well!

Of course, given that the Catholic church has specifically and repeatedly told couples not to use condoms even when one party KNOWS THAT THEY ARE HIV POSITIVE, I think it's particularly hilarious to blame condoms for the fact that HIV is being spread primarily between steady couples.

Wow. The Catholic Church picking and choosing the bits they like from a text and ignoring the bits they don't. Who woulda thunk it? :tongue:

IF I inject you with neurotoxins twice, you are inherently more damaged than you would be if I only did it once. You would have a much more reasonable view of reality if I only did it once.


That only points out that there are "degrees" of neurotoxicity, something which I wouldn't care to dispute.


You should come up with another term.

I have a great term we can use. "Religion." Trying to make "insanity" fit when it does not is completely absurd when we already have the perfect word to describe what we're talking about.


So religious persons don't believe things contrary to evidence, seek evidence before believing things, ect?

Some religious people do, some don't, either way it's not part of being "religious" and it's not exclusive to the "religious" anyway. You for example, seem to have believed I said "religious persons don't believe things contrary to evidence," despite the lack of evidence that I said such a thing. By your usage of the term we could call you insane.

Intelligence/knowledge would tend to make one less suspectable to degraded thinking.

By 'degraded thinking' you mean insanity, yes? Or was that a goalpost shift right there?

Except that he could, and he did. The reason this researcher cites, risk compensation, is a reason that has been cited in Catholic commentary on the subject of condoms and AIDS, and with birth control and abortion.

As a Catholic, I've been hearing of this for a long time. But that's the thing, you have to actually pay attention to what the Church is really saying, rather than rip a headline from a blog and twist it out of context.

One more time, for those who haven't read it yet:
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/20/116868/

Ummmm so I wonder firstly what are the extra risks involved when having sex with a condom?

Secondly what are both the number of condom usage, and the increase in HIV infection in ohh lets just say the USA.

Thirdly I wonder if Dr Green has any sort of religius bias.

Ois, Heiko-kun, peru quí ye tó éstu, carvayón. Nun entiendu nan. Se m'han hasta sallíu les güellos de sitiu, qui me paez yeras un poquín mais cuerdu. Joder, si hasta me ríu solina. :D


Ñó, si se m'ha olvidau hasta scribir.

Of course, this AIDS researcher at Harvard says the Pope is right about the issue, but why listen to the evidence when you can just have fun bashing the Pope, right?

http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/20/116868/

I read the headline and then threw up on my keyboard.

Der Fuher Benedict can kiss my liberal-thinking, gay-marriage-supporting, science-believing, Luthern ass.