If you're doing one great thing, it doesn't excuse the terrible things.... Even if they aren't just whoring out their religion, and legit helping people, that's awful sweet, but they're still advocating against basic human rights (which, FWIW is a much easier fix)
No, corruption is endemic to humanity . . . Religion tries to improve on that. Sometimes people of Faith come up short, as I have. But we keep trying . . . and some of us get there. So long as we keep trying . . . God will forgive us our failings.
Good night now . . . and God bless.
Stop pussying out on the "we are flawed" shit... it's not a flaw, it's a practice. "Oh, we preach tolerance and acceptance" but... you know, a shit tonne of us all are homophobes and use our bible as an excuse.... but "man is flawed".. fuck
A the elevate the dignity of some of the world's poorest people, and advocate for them to be absolved of the debt that prevents them from rising out of that poverty. You can mock the Church for it's promotion of monogamy in sub-Saharan Africa, and it's stance against birth control. But condoms have not been nearly as effective of slowing the HIV rates in Uganda as the devotion of it's increasingly Catholic population to the tenets of the Church.
.
Source please
Oh here found one Wikipedia:
Uganda has been among the rare HIV success stories.[70] In the 1980s, more than 30% of Ugandan residents had HIV; this had fallen to 6.4% by the end of 2008, the most effective national response to AIDS of any African country.[71] However, there has been a spike in recent years compared to the mid-nineties,[72] especially after a shift in US Aid Policy toward abstinence only campaigns (starting in 2003 with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief under U.S. President George W. Bush). According to one report by Uganda's Aids commissioner, the number of new HIV infections has almost doubled from 70,000 in 2003 to 130,000 in 2005.[citation needed] Researchers have found that rates of new infection have stabilized as of 2005 due to a variety of factors, including increased condom use and sexual health awareness. Meanwhile, the practice of abstinence was found to have decreased.[73]
If you're doing one great thing, it doesn't excuse the terrible things.... Even if they aren't just whoring out their religion, and legit helping people, that's awful sweet, but they're still advocating against basic human rights (which, FWIW is a much easier fix)
Mark
The Catholic Church supports basic Human Rights . . .
It advocates that people should not be discriminated against due to race creed or sexual orientation.
The Church believes that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and does not support the idea of referring to homosexual cohabitation as a "marriage". But that does not prevent those relationships from continuing, does it? Neither does the Church support homosexual acts, which are considered sinful. But it does not say that Gays cannot be Catholic, only that to be Catholic they should resist those urges.
In the area of Human Rights, the most BASIC one is the Right to life itself. The Catholic Church believes that all human life has value, from the point of conception to the point of natural death. Personally, I will support that stance over one that would support the ending of a human life that is considered "inconvenient". You can continue to bash the Church over it's refusal to acknowledge a word, but you will continue to be wrong . . .
I believe in God . . . you don't. Within the next several decades we will both find out who was right. I promise not to grin too widely when I get to say, "told ya".
Stop pussying out on the "we are flawed" shit... it's not a flaw, it's a practice. "Oh, we preach tolerance and acceptance" but... you know, a shit tonne of us all are homophobes and use our bible as an excuse.... but "man is flawed".. fuck
Mark
How is it pussying out to recognize a "truth"? The Church DOES preach tolerance and acceptance of people. What it does not do is tolerate what it considers to be sinful. As stated, the Church does not say that homosexuals should be denied life, liberty, employment, shelter, housing, etc because they are homosexuals. Far from it.
Classic example of "throw out the baby with the bath water" thinking . . .
there is a distinction that i think some are overlooking here and that is the difference between the teachings of the church/bible vs. the beliefs and actions of some groups in the name of religion.
although, i do agree that the latter is a big problem and that religion in general does add kindling to the fire. however, i think some of the disagreements in this thread could benefit from keeping this distinction in mind.
How is it pussying out to recognize a "truth"? The Church DOES preach tolerance and acceptance of people. What it does not do is tolerate what it considers to be sinful. As stated, the Church does not say that homosexuals should be denied life, liberty, employment, shelter, housing, etc because they are homosexuals. Far from it.
Classic example of "throw out the baby with the bath water" thinking . . .
Two things that have really pissed me off about this conversation today:
1. The people who use the term / idea "The church folk are "accepting" of another branch of folk", are implying an inequality in status. The "up here" people are willing to accept those "down there" people / us vs. them. Worst part is they don't think it does. But hint, it does.
2. The wording / doublethink of "What you do is a sin, but we will accept you as flawed" is spin doctored prejudice. "Oh, we totally accept you, even though an aspect of you is dirty, wrong, evil, etc." Dressed up hate speak on par with "I'm not racist but....." kinda thinking
Add this to the list of things that anger us atheist folk, the unmitigated gall and arrogance displayed, when being "accepting".
Two things that have really pissed me off about this conversation today:
1. The people who use the term / idea "The church folk are "accepting" of another branch of folk", are implying an inequality in status. The "up here" people are willing to accept those "down there" people / us vs. them. Worst part is they don't think it does. But hint, it does.
Balderdash!!! I can accept your intolerance of religion, without it implying that I feel superior to you, Mark. Quite honestly, in these discussions I sometimes feel frustrated in my inability to make my point in the exact way I wish to. For someone who is usually pretty good with words, it is quite galling. By the same token (sorry), you would have to say that the Canadian concept of "reasonable accommodation" is racist in that it implies that we will accept "those ideas" even though we feel ours are "better". Total crap.
2. The wording / doublethink of "What you do is a sin, but we will accept you as flawed" is spin doctored prejudice. "Oh, we totally accept you, even though an aspect of you is dirty, wrong, evil, etc." Dressed up hate speak on par with "I'm not racist but....." kinda thinking
Add this to the list of things that anger us atheist folk, the unmitigated gall and arrogance displayed, when being "accepting".
Mark
Well, you would know about gall and arrogance Mark, I will grant you that. Your whole attitude/tone is one of "up here" vs. "down there". Every post is rife with it. Only you and those of like mind are enlightened enough to see "the truth". I can accept homosexuals for who they are, and that is not spin, it is the truth. And I resent your continual use of the term "hate-speak". I do not "hate" anyone (well, I'd still like to meet the wife's ex in a dark alley, but that's another issue).
Well, you would know about gall and arrogance Mark, I will grant you that. Your whole attitude/tone is one of "up here" vs. "down there". Every post is rife with it. Only you and those of like mind are enlightened enough to see "the truth". I can accept homosexuals for who they are, and that is not spin, it is the truth. And I resent your continual use of the term "hate-speak". I do not "hate" anyone (well, I'd still like to meet the wife's ex in a dark alley, but that's another issue).
See here's the difference...
I am arrogant. For sure. I feel I'm more self-aware / intelligent / pretty than many people for sure... but not because they're gay, not because they're minority, not because they follow certain lifestyles, just in general. I feel I'm a "up here" kinda guy, on average, against EVERYONE. Is it particularly flattering? Nope... but it's fair. I'll almost never admit it, but I know some people that are smarter / prettier than I, some even on here, but I'll never tell
My superiority complex has nothing to do with any particular attribute. I'm an ass to everyone - once again, fair. Again, you "accept" homosexuals? Why is a preference of which particular genitalia causes your orgasm a big deal? They're not doing anything unnatural, they're not doing anything deviant, hell... by definition, I bet the hetero's out there are dominating the "deviant" acts.... trust me, I've seen the videos!
Brent has called me out on things like calling him stupid - I've never done that. As much as I will take my shots, and as much as I will state my opinion, I don't shoot at a person directly, at least not intentionally. I think religion is a crutch, always said that, never said anything here directly about you, Brent, and whomever else is thinking what an ass I am...
As for the hate speak stuff, well, I still say it is. You say you don't intend hate in it? I can believe that, but again, were you aware that the whole "accepting" line of conversation implies superiority? Were you aware that despite what you've intended, what is interpreted makes a bigger impact? I don't think you're a malicious fella there Milo, I know you well enough to truly believe that... but recognize the fact that saying things like this, in that manner is offensive, and implies wrong-doing.
I am arrogant. For sure. I feel I'm more self-aware / intelligent / pretty than many people for sure... but not because they're gay, not because they're minority, not because they follow certain lifestyles, just in general. I feel I'm a "up here" kinda guy, on average, against EVERYONE. Is it particularly flattering? Nope... but it's fair. I'll almost never admit it, but I know some people that are smarter / prettier than I, some even on here, but I'll never tell
I have never said that you behaved otherwise.
My superiority complex has nothing to do with any particular attribute. I'm an ass to everyone - once again, fair. Again, you "accept" homosexuals? Why is a preference of which particular genitalia causes your orgasm a big deal? They're not doing anything unnatural, they're not doing anything deviant, hell... by definition, I bet the hetero's out there are dominating the "deviant" acts.... trust me, I've seen the videos!
I accept homosexuals in the same way that I accept everyone else. If they act like a douchebag, I will treat them in kind. If not, why would I treat them differently than anyone else?
Brent has called me out on things like calling him stupid - I've never done that. As much as I will take my shots, and as much as I will state my opinion, I don't shoot at a person directly, at least not intentionally. I think religion is a crutch, always said that, never said anything here directly about you, Brent, and whomever else is thinking what an ass I am...
Well, to use your own debate techniques against you, your reference to Religion as a "crutch" is dismissive of the intelligence of those who have Faith. The implication being that you are superior because you do not "need" said crutch. That is insulting, not to mention fallacious.
As for the hate speak stuff, well, I still say it is. You say you don't intend hate in it? I can believe that, but again, were you aware that the whole "accepting" line of conversation implies superiority? Were you aware that despite what you've intended, what is interpreted makes a bigger impact? I don't think you're a malicious fella there Milo, I know you well enough to truly believe that... but recognize the fact that saying things like this, in that manner is offensive, and implies wrong-doing.
Mark
No . . . the "accepting" line of conversation merely implies a libertarian approach to something, similar in concept to the idea that "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your Right to say it". It is a thought process that is Christian . . . namely that I "accept" people as they are, and for who they are. If there are aspects of their personality or behaviour with which I disagree, that does not give me license to denigrate them. God commands us to love one another as we love ourselves. How can I hope to renew my Faith in God, if I cannot follow this basic premise?
Oh, and I would like to apologize for last night's rant. It may not have bothered you, but it did me. Mostly because I was angry with how upset I allowed myself to get, but still . . .
Mark, the implication is quite clear in many of the threads, that you hold yourself smarter then those who hold to living a life based on the Bible. If you believe that is truly not the case, I apologize and will do so if I see you at Christmas.
Now you claim I don't have thoughts of my own because I quote a scripture in reference to someones point, ie Johnnie. When talking about God being a jealous God, what do you want me to say? In my mind it makes the most sense to let God speak for Himself no? The video is a collaboration of the many scriptures that deal with issue of the jealousy of God. Should I deny that these scriptures exist? What good would that do anyone.
I don't participate in these discussions to convert anyone to my way of thinking. That is not my job. I learned many years ago I don't have the power to change the mind of an individual. I participate in these discussion to share a point of view based on my studies and life experiences and if someone learns something from something I have said or I have challenged someone to dig deeper into an issue great. You challenge me to dig deeper and to study further.
I try to live a life that is consistent with what I believe. Is it costly? Absolutely! I am not the most popular guy around, so lonely can creep in. I am coming home for Christmas and half my family will choose not to even see me. That is tough to live with but I go on.
I can easily admit that there are things in the Bible I don't understand and can't explain (no need to get into them in this thread) but I have to except them anyway because of what I do understand about what I read in the scriptures.
I think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, the difference between me and you is, I look for reasons to have faith and you look for reasons not to have faith. I don't mind being held accountable for the things I have done with my life. You want to live your live without any accountable to a creator because of all the flaws you see in the world.
Brent . . . I would quibble with your last comment a bit. I do not think that Mark rejects accountability, I think he just feels he needs to be accountable to himself.
Brent . . . I would quibble with your last comment a bit. I do not think that Mark rejects accountability, I think he just feels he needs to be accountable to himself.
Being accountable to only yourself changes by the rules of each person makes for himself. What becomes the standard if every man does that which is right in his own eyes? There would be a real mess. We are suppose to be a society of laws. Some feel (and there are plenty of examples) that if you don't like the law break the law in order to have the law changed. Rather than go thru the proper process of having parliament change it. Heck, MP's don't even vote what their districts want, they usually vote what their leaders tell them to vote. I'd be up for an open vote on most of the issues discussed on this forum like they do in the states, I don't think the other side would though.
abortion,
capital punishment.
stem cell.
the definition of marriage.
assisted suicide.
the new Quebec Law .
the morning after pill to children without parents consent.
and anything else one cares to list.
The problem is losers tend not to care about the results. If the government or people took part in an open vote and the majority by chance came down on the side against abortion. Would abortions stop? Nope they would keep on going until the law changed again. I mean it hasn't even been 100 years yet since Prohibition. People have and always will, do what they believe to be right in their own eyes.
Now you claim I don't have thoughts of my own because I quote a scripture in reference to someones point, ie Johnnie. When talking about God being a jealous God, what do you want me to say? In my mind it makes the most sense to let God speak for Himself no? The video is a collaboration of the many scriptures that deal with issue of the jealousy of God. Should I deny that these scriptures exist? What good would that do anyone.
Brent . . . I would quibble with your last comment a bit. I do not think that Mark rejects accountability, I think he just feels he needs to be accountable to himself.
I think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, the difference between me and you is, I look for reasons to have faith and you look for reasons not to have faith. I don't mind being held accountable for the things I have done with my life. You want to live your live without any accountable to a creator because of all the flaws you see in the world.
Brent
I wouldn't say I look for reasons NOT to have faith, I have faith in many things; my ability / competence in many aspects of my life, other people's general competence, the inherent good in people, etc.
I don't look to supernatural (again, I hate that word) reasons for things. I have faith in mankind itself. We have gone from savage cave dwellers to a species that live off-planet! You want to talk awe and beauty? I don't need god for that, I can watch as a multi-ton vehicle flies me across the country in mere hours. Seeing clouds from the top vs. the bottom filled me with appreciation and a sense of wonder. I find joy in things that are everyday occurrences.
You're right saying I don't hold myself accountable to a creator. But that doesn't mean I am not accountable. My morals and values hold me accountable to myself, and those that I respect and whose opinion matters to me. I've admitted to being an ass, but ask around and I guarantee the majority of those that know me know that's smoke and mirrors.
More in the next post... I really need to learn how to multi-quote.
Hold on, I did say to use ones own thoughts in these discussions not JUST quote other sources, but I did NOT claim anyone didn't have thoughts of their own.. BIG difference.
Both sides of this discussion have at times made statements that were just parroting others beliefs.. A good debater can make points both ways in his/her own words without merely quoting others... That's what I like to see.
Being accountable to only yourself changes by the rules of each person makes for himself. What becomes the standard if every man does that which is right in his own eyes? There would be a real mess.
Now who lacks faith? If you look at most religions, you'll find a lot of similarities regarding how to act / treat others. The golden rule of "do unto others" is pretty standard across many as an example. To me, as a guy who thinks religions are adult fairy tales, that would suggest that the people who made up these fairy tales all kinda had similar morals and values. There are exceptions to this, but most people, at heart, are "good" people.
We are suppose to be a society of laws. Some feel (and there are plenty of examples) that if you don't like the law break the law in order to have the law changed. Rather than go thru the proper process of having parliament change it.
Sure, some people are more Malcolm X than MLK. We are a society of laws by the way, and most people follow them. The "some people" argument makes very little sense, I mean you could say this...
Some people find it sexually arousing to dress as woodland creatures, and scent these costumes with musk.
This doesn't mean I get all hot and bothered by a chipmunk skittering by, but hey, maybe the dude next to me on the bus does.
Heck, MP's don't even vote what their districts want, they usually vote what their leaders tell them to vote. I'd be up for an open vote on most of the issues discussed on this forum like they do in the states, I don't think the other side would though.
I don't think most people would agree that the way the states make laws is the ideal.... isn't poker banned because of vegetable cargo laws?
abortion,
capital punishment.
stem cell.
the definition of marriage.
assisted suicide.
the new Quebec Law .
the morning after pill to children without parents consent.
and anything else one cares to list.
Yes, No, Yes, Anyone to anyone, Yes, No, Yes, maybe later.
The problem is losers tend not to care about the results. If the government or people took part in an open vote and the majority by chance came down on the side against abortion. Would abortions stop? Nope they would keep on going until the law changed again. I mean it hasn't even been 100 years yet since Prohibition. People have and always will, do what they believe to be right in their own eyes.
Here's the thing, majority doesn't always mean it's the right thing. For example, the number of women of child-bearing age is not the majority of people when you consider it's baby-making ladies vs. Men + post-menopausal ladies (I'll discount the youngin's since they wouldn't be legally allowed to vote anyways). So if all the baby-making ladies voted for abortion, and the others all voted against it, then the majority would be AGAINST abortion. However, that doesn't make it fair or right. Men don't get preggers, and neither do the post-menopause crowd, but they do outnumber those that this directly relates to.
The Bible clearly mentions aliens when Ezekiel gets picked up by the space ship and taken into orbit.
i had to look up the ezekiel stuff as i had never heard of that, but apparently it is true as they talk about ships in the sky coming down and flying away with him. no specific alien life references, but still very interesting.
btw, part three is taking longer than i expected (mostly due to me playing poker during my free time instead ). however, the specific argument is more complicated than i had known. apparently the more modern reference to intelligent design has two main parts to it and, to be honest, one of the parts i really just don't understand at all (i.e. specified complexity = complete gibberish to me). i may have to exclude it in my argument. i was planning on focusing on the original argument anyway as that's the one i studied in university (i.e. the teleological argument for the existence of god). probably going to throw some hume (aka the man!) in there as well. idk, we'll see.
btw, part three is taking longer than i expected (mostly due to me playing poker during my free time instead ). however, the specific argument is more complicated than i had known. apparently the more modern reference to intelligent design has two main parts to it and, to be honest, one of the parts i really just don't understand at all (i.e. specified complexity = complete gibberish to me). i may have to exclude it in my argument. i was planning on focusing on the original argument anyway as that's the one i studied in university (i.e. the teleological argument for the existence of god). probably going to throw some hume (aka the man!) in there as well. idk, we'll see.
Fine tuning argument still stumbling for you? Don't worry atheism doesn't have an answer to the fine balancing of the universe and it's perfect harmony to sustain life. They can't even come close to duplicating it in any lab on any scale, they just accept it by faith and teach it in science class as science.
Fine tuning argument still stumbling for you? Don't worry atheism doesn't have an answer to the fine balancing of the universe and it's perfect harmony to sustain life. They can't even come close to duplicating it in any lab on any scale, they just accept it by faith and teach it in science class as science.
Take your time.
To be fair, Brent, if I asked you to duplicate photosynthesis in a lab, could you do it? Without researching it first? Probably not.
There are plenty of things about the known universe that science can replicate in a lab but, without knowing EVERYTHING about how the universe works, it would only be natural for somethings to still be beyond our reach. That no more "proves" the existence of God than Evolution disproves it.
To be fair, Brent, if I asked you to duplicate photosynthesis in a lab, could you do it? Without researching it first? Probably not.
There are plenty of things about the known universe that science can replicate in a lab but, without knowing EVERYTHING about how the universe works, it would only be natural for somethings to still be beyond our reach. That no more "proves" the existence of God than Evolution disproves it.
never said it proves anything, only that it leads towards design, which is what the fine tuning argument is all about. Not making a claim about the designer either with this point. Only that the balance of the universe and everything in it, has been put in a predetermined location in order to sustain life here on earth. The tilt of the earth on it axis, the distant from the moon to control the oceans tide, the distance from the sun to allow that "photosynthesis" to actual happen. ^-^
I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. Let's try an analogy....
The lottario / 649 lottery draw has 13,983,816 (14 millionish) different 6 number combinations to win, if you DO NOT consider order of the numbers important.
If order IS important, then the odds of correctly nailing it jumps to 10,068,347,520 (10 billionish). Here's the site that did the math.
These odds include a few things - there are only 49 numbers, and the numbers are NOT replaced into the bag after drawing one out. Got that? Great. Simple probability math for us poker folk right?
Now, the current periodic table contains 114 KNOWN elements. Something simple like water includes a combination of 2 elements (Hydrogen and Oxygen), but H20 means that hydrogen is used twice. This would be an equivalent of having 114 balls in a bag, and replacing the ball every time you're going to pick one out. Now, something like water, nice and simple, I'm assuming to randomly put those together by picking balls out (and remember, replacing them into the bag after to draw perfect), the odds would be 1 in 114x114x114 (1, 481, 544 or let's say 1.5 million) - that's like... lots ya? I fully admit my math may be hilariously bad at this point. Alright, now, I'm going somewhere with this.
A really smart guy once said:
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Now elements combine and create stuff. Stuff is what we see / touch / consume etc. This stuff is needed by us, and in fact, we are stuff as well. The sheer chances of all these elements coming together in just the right combinations, all in the same kinda place, is outstandingly minuscule in probability to such a point where it's damned near impossible. And that's just the stuff part of this! Throw in things like "ideal conditions / distance from the sun / moons to control some of the stuff so it doesn't ruin other stuff"? Come on! I mean we said earlier that water is a one in 1.5 million chance? Wow! All of this coming together perfectly balanced, in the right amounts is just too much for any person to be able to comprehend!!!
And therein lies the point. It's "easier" for our brains, and even our consciousness, to think in terms of patterns, simplicity, and familiar. But that really smart guy earlier said space was just too big for us to understand. These elements are floating around and doing shit out in space, and an outstandingly large percentage of it goes nowhere, does nothing, and continues floating. No life forms, no planet with the right distancing from their particular star to sustain their stuff, nothing but elements kicking around, not really making stuff like the stuff we have.
This leads to people thinking "Well, some son of a gun must be out there using these elements to make our stuff, and we should be thankful that they did that because we like stuff like water, fertile soil, and high definition televisions". What I think though, is that with space just so big as it is, and all these different conditions and scenarios, well, of course at some point that stuff is going to get made by chance, with enough time and patience. Back to the lotto - I bet people would look strange if I bought a ticket with the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, but it's equally likely to win as any other combination, and some day, if we continue doing lotto, that willl hit. People aren't good at this kinda thing.
Brent your argument of a "design" has no backing to it aside from something you'd like to believe, that our stuff was intentional. I counter that the design argument is just a person's inability to comprehend / not wanting to comprehend space and it's big-ness. Want some (albeit anecdotal) evidence of man's desire for the familiar / simplification? Google "god" and look at the pics (here, I did it for you). The far and away majority of them is a humanoid, generally white and bearded dude. Why wouldn't god be different looking than us? Because we like our familiar comfort, so god looks like us (well, technically, looks like a prototype of father-figure). We believe that's how it should be because we can't understand probability well enough.
I'm saying that our probability of existing is so stupidly small, we should not exist. However, we do, not because of bearded white men in the clouds, but because of the sheer size, randomness and extent of space and time. This gets even MORE hard to believe when you consider that those elements I named are just ones we "know" of... there could be tonnes more! This is like guessing the winning lottery ticket when you don't know how many numbers you're supposed to pick, or how many are available!
Water is highly unlikely, yet it's everywhere around here. More complicated things are less likely, yet they exist. We exist. We hit the longest of long shots, and the only reason we're not all cheering non-stop for our incredible fortune is because we cannot comprehend just how outstandingly lucky we are that everything came together to make our stuff. Instead, we boil it down, and make it manageable. "God" isn't a great designer, god is not picking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
Comments
If you're doing one great thing, it doesn't excuse the terrible things.... Even if they aren't just whoring out their religion, and legit helping people, that's awful sweet, but they're still advocating against basic human rights (which, FWIW is a much easier fix)
Mark
Stop pussying out on the "we are flawed" shit... it's not a flaw, it's a practice. "Oh, we preach tolerance and acceptance" but... you know, a shit tonne of us all are homophobes and use our bible as an excuse.... but "man is flawed".. fuck
Mark
Source please
Oh here found one Wikipedia:
Uganda has been among the rare HIV success stories.[70] In the 1980s, more than 30% of Ugandan residents had HIV; this had fallen to 6.4% by the end of 2008, the most effective national response to AIDS of any African country.[71] However, there has been a spike in recent years compared to the mid-nineties,[72] especially after a shift in US Aid Policy toward abstinence only campaigns (starting in 2003 with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief under U.S. President George W. Bush). According to one report by Uganda's Aids commissioner, the number of new HIV infections has almost doubled from 70,000 in 2003 to 130,000 in 2005.[citation needed] Researchers have found that rates of new infection have stabilized as of 2005 due to a variety of factors, including increased condom use and sexual health awareness. Meanwhile, the practice of abstinence was found to have decreased.[73]
The Catholic Church supports basic Human Rights . . .
It advocates that people should not be discriminated against due to race creed or sexual orientation.
The Church believes that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and does not support the idea of referring to homosexual cohabitation as a "marriage". But that does not prevent those relationships from continuing, does it? Neither does the Church support homosexual acts, which are considered sinful. But it does not say that Gays cannot be Catholic, only that to be Catholic they should resist those urges.
In the area of Human Rights, the most BASIC one is the Right to life itself. The Catholic Church believes that all human life has value, from the point of conception to the point of natural death. Personally, I will support that stance over one that would support the ending of a human life that is considered "inconvenient". You can continue to bash the Church over it's refusal to acknowledge a word, but you will continue to be wrong . . .
I believe in God . . . you don't. Within the next several decades we will both find out who was right. I promise not to grin too widely when I get to say, "told ya".
How is it pussying out to recognize a "truth"? The Church DOES preach tolerance and acceptance of people. What it does not do is tolerate what it considers to be sinful. As stated, the Church does not say that homosexuals should be denied life, liberty, employment, shelter, housing, etc because they are homosexuals. Far from it.
Classic example of "throw out the baby with the bath water" thinking . . .
although, i do agree that the latter is a big problem and that religion in general does add kindling to the fire. however, i think some of the disagreements in this thread could benefit from keeping this distinction in mind.
we might be meeting some aliens soon!
Two things that have really pissed me off about this conversation today:
1. The people who use the term / idea "The church folk are "accepting" of another branch of folk", are implying an inequality in status. The "up here" people are willing to accept those "down there" people / us vs. them. Worst part is they don't think it does. But hint, it does.
2. The wording / doublethink of "What you do is a sin, but we will accept you as flawed" is spin doctored prejudice. "Oh, we totally accept you, even though an aspect of you is dirty, wrong, evil, etc." Dressed up hate speak on par with "I'm not racist but....." kinda thinking
Add this to the list of things that anger us atheist folk, the unmitigated gall and arrogance displayed, when being "accepting".
Mark
Well, you would know about gall and arrogance Mark, I will grant you that. Your whole attitude/tone is one of "up here" vs. "down there". Every post is rife with it. Only you and those of like mind are enlightened enough to see "the truth". I can accept homosexuals for who they are, and that is not spin, it is the truth. And I resent your continual use of the term "hate-speak". I do not "hate" anyone (well, I'd still like to meet the wife's ex in a dark alley, but that's another issue).
See here's the difference...
I am arrogant. For sure. I feel I'm more self-aware / intelligent / pretty than many people for sure... but not because they're gay, not because they're minority, not because they follow certain lifestyles, just in general. I feel I'm a "up here" kinda guy, on average, against EVERYONE. Is it particularly flattering? Nope... but it's fair. I'll almost never admit it, but I know some people that are smarter / prettier than I, some even on here, but I'll never tell
My superiority complex has nothing to do with any particular attribute. I'm an ass to everyone - once again, fair. Again, you "accept" homosexuals? Why is a preference of which particular genitalia causes your orgasm a big deal? They're not doing anything unnatural, they're not doing anything deviant, hell... by definition, I bet the hetero's out there are dominating the "deviant" acts.... trust me, I've seen the videos!
Brent has called me out on things like calling him stupid - I've never done that. As much as I will take my shots, and as much as I will state my opinion, I don't shoot at a person directly, at least not intentionally. I think religion is a crutch, always said that, never said anything here directly about you, Brent, and whomever else is thinking what an ass I am...
As for the hate speak stuff, well, I still say it is. You say you don't intend hate in it? I can believe that, but again, were you aware that the whole "accepting" line of conversation implies superiority? Were you aware that despite what you've intended, what is interpreted makes a bigger impact? I don't think you're a malicious fella there Milo, I know you well enough to truly believe that... but recognize the fact that saying things like this, in that manner is offensive, and implies wrong-doing.
Mark
No . . . the "accepting" line of conversation merely implies a libertarian approach to something, similar in concept to the idea that "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your Right to say it". It is a thought process that is Christian . . . namely that I "accept" people as they are, and for who they are. If there are aspects of their personality or behaviour with which I disagree, that does not give me license to denigrate them. God commands us to love one another as we love ourselves. How can I hope to renew my Faith in God, if I cannot follow this basic premise?
Oh, and I would like to apologize for last night's rant. It may not have bothered you, but it did me. Mostly because I was angry with how upset I allowed myself to get, but still . . .
Now you claim I don't have thoughts of my own because I quote a scripture in reference to someones point, ie Johnnie. When talking about God being a jealous God, what do you want me to say? In my mind it makes the most sense to let God speak for Himself no? The video is a collaboration of the many scriptures that deal with issue of the jealousy of God. Should I deny that these scriptures exist? What good would that do anyone.
I don't participate in these discussions to convert anyone to my way of thinking. That is not my job. I learned many years ago I don't have the power to change the mind of an individual. I participate in these discussion to share a point of view based on my studies and life experiences and if someone learns something from something I have said or I have challenged someone to dig deeper into an issue great. You challenge me to dig deeper and to study further.
I try to live a life that is consistent with what I believe. Is it costly? Absolutely! I am not the most popular guy around, so lonely can creep in. I am coming home for Christmas and half my family will choose not to even see me. That is tough to live with but I go on.
I can easily admit that there are things in the Bible I don't understand and can't explain (no need to get into them in this thread) but I have to except them anyway because of what I do understand about what I read in the scriptures.
I think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, the difference between me and you is, I look for reasons to have faith and you look for reasons not to have faith. I don't mind being held accountable for the things I have done with my life. You want to live your live without any accountable to a creator because of all the flaws you see in the world.
Brent
Being accountable to only yourself changes by the rules of each person makes for himself. What becomes the standard if every man does that which is right in his own eyes? There would be a real mess. We are suppose to be a society of laws. Some feel (and there are plenty of examples) that if you don't like the law break the law in order to have the law changed. Rather than go thru the proper process of having parliament change it. Heck, MP's don't even vote what their districts want, they usually vote what their leaders tell them to vote. I'd be up for an open vote on most of the issues discussed on this forum like they do in the states, I don't think the other side would though.
The problem is losers tend not to care about the results. If the government or people took part in an open vote and the majority by chance came down on the side against abortion. Would abortions stop? Nope they would keep on going until the law changed again. I mean it hasn't even been 100 years yet since Prohibition. People have and always will, do what they believe to be right in their own eyes.
This wasn't me, it was the ever-loving compuease.
Mark
Truesay here.
Mark
I wouldn't say I look for reasons NOT to have faith, I have faith in many things; my ability / competence in many aspects of my life, other people's general competence, the inherent good in people, etc.
I don't look to supernatural (again, I hate that word) reasons for things. I have faith in mankind itself. We have gone from savage cave dwellers to a species that live off-planet! You want to talk awe and beauty? I don't need god for that, I can watch as a multi-ton vehicle flies me across the country in mere hours. Seeing clouds from the top vs. the bottom filled me with appreciation and a sense of wonder. I find joy in things that are everyday occurrences.
You're right saying I don't hold myself accountable to a creator. But that doesn't mean I am not accountable. My morals and values hold me accountable to myself, and those that I respect and whose opinion matters to me. I've admitted to being an ass, but ask around and I guarantee the majority of those that know me know that's smoke and mirrors.
More in the next post... I really need to learn how to multi-quote.
Mark
Hold on, I did say to use ones own thoughts in these discussions not JUST quote other sources, but I did NOT claim anyone didn't have thoughts of their own.. BIG difference.
Both sides of this discussion have at times made statements that were just parroting others beliefs.. A good debater can make points both ways in his/her own words without merely quoting others... That's what I like to see.
And that's how to multiquote...:)
Here's the thing, majority doesn't always mean it's the right thing. For example, the number of women of child-bearing age is not the majority of people when you consider it's baby-making ladies vs. Men + post-menopausal ladies (I'll discount the youngin's since they wouldn't be legally allowed to vote anyways). So if all the baby-making ladies voted for abortion, and the others all voted against it, then the majority would be AGAINST abortion. However, that doesn't make it fair or right. Men don't get preggers, and neither do the post-menopause crowd, but they do outnumber those that this directly relates to.
Mark
There are many gods. The God of the Israelites told them not to worship any other god. That implies that there were other gods.
i had to look up the ezekiel stuff as i had never heard of that, but apparently it is true as they talk about ships in the sky coming down and flying away with him. no specific alien life references, but still very interesting.
The truth IS out there: British scientists claim to have found proof of alien life - Science - News - The Independent
A Big Heart Open to God | America Magazine
Fine tuning argument still stumbling for you? Don't worry atheism doesn't have an answer to the fine balancing of the universe and it's perfect harmony to sustain life. They can't even come close to duplicating it in any lab on any scale, they just accept it by faith and teach it in science class as science.
Take your time.
To be fair, Brent, if I asked you to duplicate photosynthesis in a lab, could you do it? Without researching it first? Probably not.
There are plenty of things about the known universe that science can replicate in a lab but, without knowing EVERYTHING about how the universe works, it would only be natural for somethings to still be beyond our reach. That no more "proves" the existence of God than Evolution disproves it.
never said it proves anything, only that it leads towards design, which is what the fine tuning argument is all about. Not making a claim about the designer either with this point. Only that the balance of the universe and everything in it, has been put in a predetermined location in order to sustain life here on earth. The tilt of the earth on it axis, the distant from the moon to control the oceans tide, the distance from the sun to allow that "photosynthesis" to actual happen. ^-^
The lottario / 649 lottery draw has 13,983,816 (14 millionish) different 6 number combinations to win, if you DO NOT consider order of the numbers important.
If order IS important, then the odds of correctly nailing it jumps to 10,068,347,520 (10 billionish). Here's the site that did the math.
These odds include a few things - there are only 49 numbers, and the numbers are NOT replaced into the bag after drawing one out. Got that? Great. Simple probability math for us poker folk right?
Now, the current periodic table contains 114 KNOWN elements. Something simple like water includes a combination of 2 elements (Hydrogen and Oxygen), but H20 means that hydrogen is used twice. This would be an equivalent of having 114 balls in a bag, and replacing the ball every time you're going to pick one out. Now, something like water, nice and simple, I'm assuming to randomly put those together by picking balls out (and remember, replacing them into the bag after to draw perfect), the odds would be 1 in 114x114x114 (1, 481, 544 or let's say 1.5 million) - that's like... lots ya? I fully admit my math may be hilariously bad at this point. Alright, now, I'm going somewhere with this.
A really smart guy once said:
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Now elements combine and create stuff. Stuff is what we see / touch / consume etc. This stuff is needed by us, and in fact, we are stuff as well. The sheer chances of all these elements coming together in just the right combinations, all in the same kinda place, is outstandingly minuscule in probability to such a point where it's damned near impossible. And that's just the stuff part of this! Throw in things like "ideal conditions / distance from the sun / moons to control some of the stuff so it doesn't ruin other stuff"? Come on! I mean we said earlier that water is a one in 1.5 million chance? Wow! All of this coming together perfectly balanced, in the right amounts is just too much for any person to be able to comprehend!!!
And therein lies the point. It's "easier" for our brains, and even our consciousness, to think in terms of patterns, simplicity, and familiar. But that really smart guy earlier said space was just too big for us to understand. These elements are floating around and doing shit out in space, and an outstandingly large percentage of it goes nowhere, does nothing, and continues floating. No life forms, no planet with the right distancing from their particular star to sustain their stuff, nothing but elements kicking around, not really making stuff like the stuff we have.
This leads to people thinking "Well, some son of a gun must be out there using these elements to make our stuff, and we should be thankful that they did that because we like stuff like water, fertile soil, and high definition televisions". What I think though, is that with space just so big as it is, and all these different conditions and scenarios, well, of course at some point that stuff is going to get made by chance, with enough time and patience. Back to the lotto - I bet people would look strange if I bought a ticket with the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, but it's equally likely to win as any other combination, and some day, if we continue doing lotto, that willl hit. People aren't good at this kinda thing.
Brent your argument of a "design" has no backing to it aside from something you'd like to believe, that our stuff was intentional. I counter that the design argument is just a person's inability to comprehend / not wanting to comprehend space and it's big-ness. Want some (albeit anecdotal) evidence of man's desire for the familiar / simplification? Google "god" and look at the pics (here, I did it for you). The far and away majority of them is a humanoid, generally white and bearded dude. Why wouldn't god be different looking than us? Because we like our familiar comfort, so god looks like us (well, technically, looks like a prototype of father-figure). We believe that's how it should be because we can't understand probability well enough.
I'm saying that our probability of existing is so stupidly small, we should not exist. However, we do, not because of bearded white men in the clouds, but because of the sheer size, randomness and extent of space and time. This gets even MORE hard to believe when you consider that those elements I named are just ones we "know" of... there could be tonnes more! This is like guessing the winning lottery ticket when you don't know how many numbers you're supposed to pick, or how many are available!
Water is highly unlikely, yet it's everywhere around here. More complicated things are less likely, yet they exist. We exist. We hit the longest of long shots, and the only reason we're not all cheering non-stop for our incredible fortune is because we cannot comprehend just how outstandingly lucky we are that everything came together to make our stuff. Instead, we boil it down, and make it manageable. "God" isn't a great designer, god is not picking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
Mark