mcboo- doesn’t that just make Hawkins agnostic verging on atheist?

To try and hold the catholic church responsible for that is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

Why is unprotected sex so prevalent in SA, do we actually know?

(I could hazard a guess, and it’s nothing to do with religion)

I’ve read the God Delusion and like it very much, thank you 😀

Just because I’m an atheist doest it mean I have to believe everything Dawkins writes?

I’m perfectly delighted to use my own mind to decide what I believe, thank YOU very much.

Surely blind belief and adherence to the subjective writings of others exactly the type of thing that we accuse religionists of?

I might abandon the term atheist and start calling myself a rationalist instead.
Pardon me if I disagree with Spinoza on a few minor points.

If that’s ok with you.

The whole argument is inherently contradictory. Apparently everyone in SA is so devoutly Catholic that they adhere religiously to the churches views on contraception, yet choose to flagrantly disregard its teachings on shagging mucky hookers.

Does not compute, I’m afraid

(I could hazard a guess, and it’s nothing to do with religion)

It is to do with poor sex education which is heavily influenced by Religeon. There may be cultural issues as well but its quite obvious that if the catholic church promoted protected safe sex the transfer of HIV and other STD’s would be much reduced.

And lets drop the hooker argument is bollox (unless were also saying no to sex outside of wedlock …which even then doesn’t hold water). People may have many sexual partnerss throughout their life without ever being unfaithful.

There is nothing wrong with this – unless your a looney religeous nutter

30 seconds’ googling would lead me to believe that the primary cause of the HIV epidemic in SA is nothing to do with religion, but rather entirely down to ignorance.

Random quote,

accurate knowledge about HIV and AIDS is poor. Of particular worry is the lack of knowledge regarding how to prevent sexual transmission of HIV. Across all age groups and sexes less than half of all people surveyed knew of both the preventive effect of condoms and that having fewer sexual partners could reduce the risk of becoming infected.

They’re not avoiding condoms because of Catholicism, they’re avoiding condoms because they don’t know any better.

of course the cc or the pope isn’t to blame for aids, but they could react to it with a bit more common sense. if i was the member of a group that supposedly had my best interests at heart, i’d like the leader to be a bit more pragmatic.

It is to do with poor sex education which is heavily influenced by Religeon

I’m not seeing that link. Sex education in schools is done outside of school hours, which means they’re on the back foot to start with, and there’s a shortage of trained teachers to provide it.

There’s some interesting reading here.

They’re not avoiding condoms because of Catholicism, they’re avoiding condoms because they don’t know any better.

Led from the top:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4879822.stm

Zuma showered to avoid HIV

Mr Woppit – Member
I’ve managed to move from anger to a sort of pitying, derisory contempt…

Why? Why not just get on with your own life, and stop worrying about what other people do?

Or do you genuinely need to have something in your life to make you feel superior to others? Cos let’s face it, that’s what it’s about really, in’t it? An insecure person with feelings of inadequacy needs to put others down in order to feel better about themselves.

Many atheists just come across like this to me:

‘There’s is no God. Do you hear me? There is no God! NO GOD I TELL YOU! LISTEN TO ME I NEED ATTENTION! Please listen to me….’

Why not take up a constructive hobby instead of getting all worked up? This could help you feel better about yourself, help you gain a sense of self-worth, that there is in fact value in your own existence.

Lots of traditional crafts are sadly dying out. Why not take up something that’s not poppluar these days, keep the old crafts alive?

Ooh, I dunno; something like stained glass window making or stone carving or something?

Just a couple of examples. You could do your own designs of course.

I’m an athiest, but my anger is just coincidental.

I think it is to do with being a 40 something male.

Tried to watch the video but got too bored at 1.15

“the atheist movement”
“the atheist community”

Errr. What?

I don’t believe in god and manage to do it without ‘moving’ in a ‘community’. And I’m not angry. Does she mean there is a club I could join?

… and there’s Fred with his usual list of assumptions and pretty pictures.

My comment was an opinion. It doesn’t stop me enjoying a good dinner.

Nitwit.

No offence.

teamhurtmore – Member
mcboo- doesn’t that just make Hawkins agnostic verging on atheist?

Agnostic, athiest…..I like humanist, the belief that humans do not need religious faith to live fulfilling lives with decency and respect.

Frodo – I agree with your sentiments but not the argument:

It is to do with poor sex education which is heavily influenced by Religeon. There may be cultural issues as well but its quite obvious that if the catholic church promoted protected safe sex the transfer of HIV and other STD’s would be much reduced.

From the FDA website:

The surest way to avoid these diseases is to not have sex altogether (abstinence). Another way is to limit sex to one partner who also limits his or her sex in the same way (monogamy). Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Protecting yourself against the AIDS virus is of special concern becuase this disease is fatal and has no cure.About two-thirds of the people with AIDS in the United States got the disease during sexual intercourse with an infected partner. Experts believe that many of these people could have avoided the disease by using condoms….In other words, sex with condoms isn’t totally “safe sex,” but it is “less risky” sex.

So the RC church is promoting safe sex whereas you are promoting less risky sex. It is an important distinction particularly when considering why the RC adopts the position it does.

Anyway, back to those angry atheists….

I like humanist, the belief that humans do not need relgious faith to live fulfilling lives with decency and respect.

I like that too.

But my neck is still really sore.

Elf, the problem, as you well know you little scamp, is that religious influence is all pervasive.

The amount of humans that starve to death every year, the amount of couples unable to access contraception, access to abortion, the prevalence of capital punishment, the gap between rich and poor, the entirety of human suffering and happiness are all influenced by religionists.

Every aspect of our interaction with the wider world is influenced to greater or lesser extent by belief in a fairy story with no basis in reality.

And you want us to sit back and ignore it?

I’m an angry atheist.

This morning my coffee went cold before I got chance to drink it. 👿

Nitwit.

No offence.

May Peace be upon you.

X

Mcboo – I wasn’t arguing you, it was a genuine question. I was trying to find the bit in the book but lost it. But surely there is faith, no faith and then degress of agnosticism (if that’s a word?) between? Rather than degrees of atheism.

The amount of humans that starve to death every year, the amount of couples unable to access contraception, access to abortion, the prevalence of capital punishment, the gap between rich and poor, the entirety of human suffering and happiness are all influenced by religionists.

What about those killed in war over precious natural resources?

Yeah, religion as the foundation of social control is behind a lot of bad stuff, but then so is Capitalism. In fact, Religion has often bin used as a smokescreen for other interests. The way Islam is demonised by the West is one such example. Funny how the Islamic world was more or less quietly getting along doing it’s own thing, then suddenly, it’s the greatest threat to Civilisation ever. Nothing to do with oil then, oh no….

Actually, name the last war that was purely over religion.

To try and hold the catholic church responsible for that is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

I dont think many people hold the Catholic church totally responsible for the spread of AID’s (although it would claim that all of this is within the power of its creator but never mind all that) I think many people would hold the Pope responsible for spreading misinformation and untruths to those without the means to access alternative information about their condition and its spread. This may combat the churchs believe in superstion and fairy tales and the hold it has over many people in Sub Saharan Africa.
Is the Pope responsible, in part definitely yes.

If you reeeeaally want to have the “Is the Catholic Church a force for good?” debate I’d recommend you start by having a look at a debate under that title on youtube.

Its worth watching just to hear Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry use the English language. Someone post the link, I cant youtube at work.

‘There’s is no God. Do you hear me? There is no God! NO GOD I TELL YOU! LISTEN TO ME I NEED ATTENTION! Please listen to me….’

Sorry Elf, I think you’re a top bloke but, as an agnostic/atheist all I hear is people of any religion saying the above (not saying you have a religion etc., mind). The latest I hear is ‘Militant Atheists’, or ‘shrill’ describing people like Dawkins. I have read ‘the God Delusion’ and there is nothing shrill or angry inside it. If someone could point out a passage or something that shows it then I’ll most probably agree with you.

The term ‘militant atheist’ is usually used to stop people from daring to question another person’s beliefs. Attack someone before they can ask an intelligent question. While I’d say ‘fair do’, about people’s belief it starts impinging on my own life and then I get a bit annoyed.

To be honest I do get angry at what people do in the name of religion (which is another silly argument) such as murder of LGBT people incited by nutters in the US’s evangelical groups, trying to dumb down science with creationist crap in both christian and muslim groups and many many more.

If people want to believe in a god/invisible pink unicorn/flying spaghetti monster then fine, I’m glad for you. But don’t try to tell me how to live my life.

Your pictures are pretty but they can’t hold a candle to crystal structures (sez this chemist). 😀

Tried to watch the video but got too bored at 1.15

You expect the first minute to be all thrills? It gets better – why not have it on in the background whilst arguing on STW?

Many atheists just come across like this to me:

‘There’s is no God. Do you hear me? There is no God! NO GOD I TELL YOU! LISTEN TO ME I NEED ATTENTION! Please listen to me….’
You should listen too, elf – the point she’s making is that atheists aren’t angry about that at all, but about the side effects of religion (it is a bit US centric – religion has far more pervasive negative effects over there).

What about it? Non religious war is a different matter entirely, stop changing the subject.

Religion is responsible for continued human suffering.
You want us to ignore this because someone might be offended if we question their nonsensical, idiotic belief in the supernatural?

That’s sad.

Why not just get on with your own life, and stop worrying about what other people do?

Because what other people believe has a direct effect on our lives?

Agnostic, athiest…..I like humanist,

Question: can you be an atheist, but still believe in extraterrestial life that may be millions of years more evolved and intelligent than our own? (i.e. beings that are more “supreme” than humans?)

A pretty picture from That Space:

The Spire, Eagle Nebula (M16)

I’m an angry atheist.

I view the religious as falling into two camps the proper fundy nutters who take it all a bit too seriously and make millions of peoples lives a living hell or certainly more unpleasant than they need be and all the others who are basically enablers of the nutters.

All discussions about Atheism from the religious side degenerate into semantics or “faith issues” and there is absolutely no point in arguing the toss.

Thats what’s infuriating about them they don’t have the sense nature gave a chicken.

Elf, the problem, as you well know you little scamp, is that religious influence is all pervasive.

The amount of humans that starve to death every year, the amount of couples unable to access contraception, access to abortion, the prevalence of capital punishment, the gap between rich and poor, the entirety of human suffering and happiness are all influenced by religionists.

Every aspect of our interaction with the wider world is influenced to greater or lesser extent by belief in a fairy story with no basis in reality.

And you want us to sit back and ignore it?

Well put.

I’ve been going to Church for about a year. Getting the kids into the church school got me down there (flame away), but I went in with an open mind.

Have been genuinely enjoying it. I find it a lovely tonic to modern life, everyone’s friendly and there’s a great sense of community.

I’ve just started the confirmation course (although not sure I will actually get confirmed at the end of it) so I have no great knowledge and probably lots to learn… or maybe not.

But for your Dawkins etc to say, Prove to me there is a God, is school boy stuff. Does he expect a picture of a bearded man sitting on a cloud? Presumably not, I haven’t read his book, so what does Dawkins want?

This fella has summed it up excellently for me and where I am with my own steps into religion

“I guess the way I view things is that, whether you believe in the bible (or other religious doctrine) or not, it is not as important as living by its teachings. Love is what is important. Jesus’ teachings of caring for and loving others, and staying humble is the most important thing. Even if you do not believe he existed, the teachings are still good. A person who loves others and lives as Christ did, that person will be truly happy, and people generally appreciate that type of character.”

teamhurtmore – Member
Mcboo – I wasn’t arguing you, it was a genuine question. I was trying to find the bit in the book but lost it. But surely there is faith, no faith and then degress of agnosticism (if that’s a word?) between? Rather than degrees of atheism.

Right…..it depends on your definition of agnostic and athiest. To me an agnostic just doesnt know, doesnt think we can ever know. I would probably go with athiest insomuchas the balance of probability (and telescopes) suggest there isn’t a god and doesnt need to be. Thats an opinion, I clearly can’t prove to a Christian that they are deluded and I wouldnt presume to try.

I didnt start this thread, I do object to myself and other non-believers being labled as somehow dogmatic. The opposite of religion isnt atheism, it is liberalism and scepticism.

My pleasure:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw[/video]

I haven’t read his book

Oh.

But for your Dawkins etc to say, Prove to me there is a God, is school boy stuff. Does he expect a picture of a bearded man sitting on a cloud? Presumably not, I haven’t read his book, so what does Dawkins want?

So why should Dawkins/anyone else (and he’s not ‘my’ Dawkins – that is usually used as a way to group people you don’t like together in order to bash them) believe in your god and not one of the thousands of others? Classic school-boy stuff that: “believe because I tell you to”!

On AIDs – pop quiz – who said the following and when?

“a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.

Sorry Elf, I think you’re a top bloke but, as an agnostic/atheist all I hear is people of any religion saying the above

I hear shouty types from both sides doing exactly the same thing. In the end it all boils down to people wanting attention and ultimately, power.

It’s part of Human Nature. Before Science came along, it was Religion that was used as a means of establishing social control. Now, it’s increasingly Science. That people still feel the need to control others is and will always be a constant. Religion and Science are merely vehicles with which to achieve this.

I think one of the main beefs some atheists have, proven by some of the comments on here, is that they too want a slice of the power. Religion isn’t without it’s faults, far from it, but most of it is quite benign and a force for Good. Indeed, without religion, most of our laws woon’t exist, y’know, the moral and ethically derived ones.

There’s space for Religion, Atheism, Agnosticism the lot within our society. Variety is the spice of life. It’s too closed minded and jingoistic to suggest one form should exist at the expense of the others.

I do object to myself and other non-believers being labled as somehow dogmatic.

It makes you angry? 😈

religion as the foundation of social control is behind a lot of bad stuff, but then so is Capitalism.

Does highlighting that there are other bad things in the world somehow make the first thing less bad? I don’t disagree with the statement, but I don’t see how that’s any sort of justification.

The way Islam is demonised by the West is one such example.

Is it? I thought the extremists were doing a pretty good job of demonising their own religion all by themselves, TBH.

Question: can you be an atheist, but still believe in extraterrestial life that may be millions of years more evolved and intelligent than our own? (i.e. beings that are more “supreme” than humans?)

Yes. See Erich von Daniken for details.

Challenging stuff there, “Fred”. Mostly because it’s wrong on so many levels it’s a challenge to even work out where to begin…