Epidemic: The occurrence of more cases of a disease than would be expected in a community or region during a given time period. A sudden severe outbreak of a disease such as SARS. From the Greek "epi-", "upon" + "demos", "people or population" = "epidemos" = "upon the population." See also: Endemic; Pandemic.

You can save 100 people from being killed but murder one and you're a murderer. The church claims to be there for good. As such the good it does is implicit and it should cause harm. To do so knowingly is not therefore not acceptable.

I'm glad that you accept that the church does good.

And now he's inviked Godwins Law….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

Epidemic: The occurrence of more cases of a disease than would be expected in a community or region during a given time period. A sudden severe outbreak of a disease such as SARS. From the Greek "epi-", "upon" + "demos", "people or population" = "epidemos" = "upon the population." See also: Endemic; Pandemic.

good…
now explain how it applies to Latin America, where the data shows that in fact the number of new cases per year is declining

Oh and don't forget to show the exponential rise too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

Afterwards his spokesman Federico Lombardi said: "I think the Pope knows rather well what the Nazi ideology is".

Yeah I bet he does.

Here's an idea for the pope – perhaps 'aggressive atheism' would be a bit less popular if him and his mates stopped abusing kids then covering it up?

druidh – beat me to it!

I am glad that the pope visited edinburgh and glasgow today. I timed my journeys so that I was going out of edinburgh and he was coming in and going out of glasgow as he was going there. I have never seen roads so quiet.

and any time you think you can explain why there is no correlation between Percentage of catholics and birth rates and HIV incidence, then do come back
And the relevance of this is?

Really?
Catholicism causes catholics and (you say) HIV. So you would expect to see high incidence of them together, and low incidence of them together.

You don't. Why not?

Surrounded By Zulus – Member
I am glad that the pope visited edinburgh and glasgow today. I timed my journeys so that I was going out of edinburgh and he was coming in and going out of glasgow as he was going there. I have never seen roads so quiet.

Which makes you wonder….why is there so much traffic at other times? It's not like all the shops, schools and offices were shut.

Charlie- thats not what the data says.

On the avert site you keep refering to it refers to hiv in latin america as an epidemic.

You took two differnt data sets from two differnet sources with two different methodologies to try to make your point – a classic piece of distortion.

I'm glad that you accept that the church does good.

Of course it does. That's no excuse though. It actively chooses to do bad.

Really?
Catholicism causes catholics and (you say) HIV. So you would expect to see high incidence of them together, and low incidence of them together.

No I did not.

I said catholic doctrine on condom use reduces the distribution of condoms and thus increases HIV infection rates – this is simply indisputable.

to say catholcisim causes aids is stupid. To say that reducing the distribution of condoms increases infection trates is a proven fact.

druidh – Member

Surrounded By Zulus – Member
I am glad that the pope visited edinburgh and glasgow today. I timed my journeys so that I was going out of edinburgh and he was coming in and going out of glasgow as he was going there. I have never seen roads so quiet.

Which makes you wonder….why is there so much traffic at other times? It's not like all the shops, schools and offices were shut.

Summer sales ending?

🙄

Is it just me, or does CharlieMungus sound awfully like a certain Mr SFB ?

Just as bloody irritating if it's not him.

1) But, analysing the data critically, and following your definitions, we can see that it is not cant we?

2)Still waiting to see the exponential growth.

3)Not sure what you mean by 'not what the data says'
I took data from too different sources because it is not possible to find all the data from the same source. Which data is it you don't believe and why?

Woody – Member
Is it just me, or does CharlieMungus sound awfully like a certain Mr SFB ?

Just as bloody irritating if it's not him.

I thought it was just TJ with two logons

I said catholic doctrine on condom use reduces the distribution of condoms and thus increases HIV infection rates – this is simply indisputable.

If this simplistic model were the case, we would see the reduction of the distribution of condoms in catholic countries and a high incidence of HIV infection rates in those countries wouldn't we?

Woody, you don't need to read it if you find it irritating

Woody – Member

Is it just me, or does CharlieMungus sound awfully like a certain Mr SFB ?

Just as bloody irritating if it's not him.

Mr SFB does argue well but most just don't understanding him that's all. 😯

If this simplistic model were the case, we would see the reduction of the distribution of condoms in catholic countries and a high incidence of HIV infection rates in those countries wouldn't we?

Doesn't that depend on to what extent the people in different catholic countries listen to the pope's silly advice? Aren't African churches often much more hardline than in other areas?

druidh – Member

Woody – Member
Is it just me, or does CharlieMungus sound awfully like a certain Mr SFB ?

Just as bloody irritating if it's not him.

I thought it was just TJ with two logons

That would be great – TJ and CharlieMungus is fact a Schizophrenic, in an attempt to have the world's most pointless argument with oneself.

I feel better for having found a rational explanation.

I try to miss your bits out but due to your prolific output it is rather difficult as the thread will lose it's context. As usual ?Simon your pedantry is mis-directing the focus and potential breadth of argument and ruining what may have been an interesting discussion.

Yes grum, you are right and that is my point.

African churches are more hardline, but few people are catholic in Africa. Lots of people in South America are catholic, but it seems that they 'suit up' because there is not so much HIV there. So, if the catholic church changed its teaching, it wouldn't really make that much difference to the incidence of HIV AIDS, because either folks are catholic and don't listen or because they aren't catholic. So even in areas where the catholic church has strong influence on govt. policy, Philippines and some of latin America, it has little effect on how they conduct their sex lives

Not Simon, sorry.
Pedantry? Nah.

If people keep dipping their wicks without wearing socks with various partners they are bound to get whatever it may be sooner or later … a probability game really. Simple. 🙄

I took data from too different sources because it is not possible to find all the data from the same source. Which data is it you don't believe and why?

Shows your ignorance. You need data collected with the same methodology to provide a meaningful comparison – very basic stuff.

"I said catholic doctrine on condom use reduces the distribution of condoms and thus increases HIV infection rates – this is simply indisputable."

If this simplistic model were the case, we would see the reduction of the distribution of condoms in catholic countries and a high incidence of HIV infection rates in those countries wouldn't we?

Nope – other factors are at work. I tend to believe the analysis of experts in the field of HIV and epidemiology.

The catholic church applies pressure on governments and NGOs to attempt to prevent condoms being used in harm reduction. This clearly has a significant effect. condom usage is proven to reduce aids transmission. Therefore reducing condom usage increases aids transmission rates. This is simple and indisputable and accepted by experts in the field.

Old Benedict has ignored/forgotten the Catholic Churchs Concordat with the Nazi party…conveniently!

Level of education is missing from all this. Unfortunately so called 'moral' people to go around mis-educating, telling people that condoms are ineffective to people who know no better is disgraceful. Only the other day (monday or tuesday) on Newsnight or something similar a Catholic woman was going on about how condoms are porous so let HIV through! However people here, inlcuding the Catholics would probably have thought WTF.

I suddenly realised why I keep forgetting things. I have been so blonde lately its ridiculous.

It's soooo obvious. I'm just 'disordered'.

Yay!

😆

Apparently he's in Wimbledon tonight. Sleeping at the house of some papal dude who looks after these things. Doubtless a trip to Centre Court is on the agenda for tomorrow before he hits Westminster. I'd love it if some local scrotes went off joyriding in his popemobile, trashing wimbledon common and squashing wombles.

Leave the wombles alone!

So what was the link between the Nazis and the catholic church?

lyons – Member

Leave the wombles alone!

So what was the link between the Nazis and the catholic church?

Easiest just to google about the Concordat between them. There seems to be a lot of disinformation, but it clearly shows that the Church was at the very least aware of the Nazi Party and its modus operandi and potentially aware of its intentions and was thus effectively buying itself safety at the expense of others instead of alerting the world.

Also shows that Hitler wasn't really atheistic as otherwise he wouldnt have been involved with the Church…and either way it doesnt really matter the focus is on the Catholic church for aligning with him.

The theologics of the Nazi party is a massive red herring

Basically, the current incumbent of that stupid hat is not telling the whole truth…not like him is it 😉

The Catholic Church during ww2 signed a deal with the Nazi's, correctly called the Concordat.This was initially to withdraw their powerful lobby against the Catholics,as with most of the right they had viewed the Russian revolution with a great deal of fear.There are going to be two arguements here.
1) That the Church did not do enought to stop the deportation of the jews/oppose the Nazi party,they made a deal with Hitler being well aware of his views…And to save their own skin.they also, as always, shamefully viewed the Jews as expendable to protect themselves.2700 local priests were enough of a problem that they were sent to the camps.
2) That the church signed the cond't BEFORE the "final solution" and the start of the mass persecution and indeed became enough of a thorn in Hitlers side that he started his own church.They were also strong enough in 1936 to stop the killing of "wasteful mouths."

They actually signed the Concordat in 1933 when Hitler first came to power at his request. This was in line with their policy of signing concordats with other governments (11 I believe) with the aim of ensuring governments did not become involved in the Church, they also saw Hitler as a defender against communism which was clearly anti-religion.

By 1937 the Vatican was denouncing the Nazis, to learn more you need to read up about "Mit brennender Sorge". I have no more knowledge on this than the internet supplies so I won't try to come to a conclusion. Suggesting the Concordat as the prime piece of evidence of Catholic Church's position on Nazism is however misleading.

Fair enough – as i said there is a lot of disinformation.

they also saw Hitler as a defender against communism which was clearly anti-religion.

However – this kind of thing and the link with thwe Church further indicates that whatever Hitler was, he was not an extreme atheist. So the pope can suck on it 🙂

Hitler was far from an Atheist, like Stalin he believed that religion was a powerful agent of social control, and as such was to be used.His initial appeal was designed to appeal to ordinary lower middle class Germans.Germany had become VERY liberal during the golden age of Weimar,and Hitler's setting himself up as the moral Guardian would appeal to this social group and the very conservative Catholic Church in Germany. However it would be unfair to suggest that the Church colluded with Hitler once they realised what he was all about.It should be noted Hitler had no idea whet he wanted to do with the Jews until the Wanasee conference in 1941,where they came up with the final solution.The Church was very much one of Hitlers targets and they knew it.At that point the Church (at local level) did start speaking out,even if the Vatican kept it's pus shut.

Druidh

I'm glad you've mentioned Godwin's Law, first thing i thought of when i heard that idiotic statement! Taking into consideration the concordat, it further reveals some pretty hefty hypocrisy.

Oh well, at least he's lost the argument by default now. (are we right to call this argument a win now? "we" being British atheists of course)

Shows your ignorance. You need data collected with the same methodology to provide a meaningful comparison – very basic stuff.

No need for name calling.
I'm not sure which data you are referring to here, that in the graph or the numbers of new cases of HIV in Latin America. If the latter, then you need to show your source.

Nope – other factors are at work

Good, now we are getting some where. What other factors, by which i mean non pope-based.

I tend to believe the analysis of experts in the field of HIV and epidemiology.

That is my whole problem with your argument, it is based on belief, rather than hard evidence.

Ok.. I've looked closely at the data, and the sources supplied by Charlie, which are pretty robust as far as I can make out. The problem is there just isn't enough data there to make a judgement based on that data as to the impact of the CC on HIV infections on given populations. The only way to be able to safely draw a statistical conclusion is if there is a dramatic change in number of Catholics in one of the populations in question and then monitoring the effect of the CHANGE on the HIV infections data.

None of the data so far presented can do that and so neither side should be using the graphs presented as backup to their arguments.

Simply put we need to be able to say something like.. 'Look! The Catholic church was outlawed in country X and within a year the incidences of HIV infections dropped'.. Or something like that or more robust. Just because incidences of HIV in a country are low doesn't mean that the CC are not responsible for the low the numbers. It's not HIGH figures we need to look for but a correlation between the two sets of data. It's the rate of Change of one set of data and the monitored change in the other that will give us information on which to draw a conclusion one way or the other. That's science/statistics for you. Having some kind of faith in the graphs that they demonstrate support for the argument one way of the other is clearly misplaced.