Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

kanelli wrote:The first article posted was an inflammatory piece of crap that indeed could have been assigned a C if it were a high school essay. For this reason, many of the atheists here don't even want to touch it. As well, there has already been a thread on atheism recently.

Freza, you have not even been able to touch any of Scot's points with a barge pole - he is obviously much more informed about evolution and intelligent design. As you can tell, the fact that he is not engaging you in deep debate is because he knows you can't hold up your end of the debate.

This article is not worthy of discussion, and a truly intelligent person would have evaluated the article first and realised that is was low quality crap before trying to criticise people for slamming it, and baiting people into debating the piece of crap.

Wow, I was about to invest 12 seconds on the thread but based on ^^^^ I will move onto more meaninful and enlighting stuff. *clicks games forum*

freza wrote:

scot1870 wrote:AIDS has been spread by lack of contraception, led primarily by the Catholic church's insistence that it was a sin to use it(until recently for the very reason I've just said).

Laughing my a#s off!! WOW! What a statement. Are you for real?? Hhhmm So the catholic church is the actual culprit? Oh my. Boy was I ill-informed. I thought that AIDS is spread due to lack of PERSONAL responsability, poverty, lack of education, and bad decision making on the part of critically thinking individuals. Thank you so much for making me see the light though. But I'm going to have to ask you for one small little favor - can you please back up your statement with facts, you know, statistics...evidence etc.

Oh dear. Are you mental? I suggest you get a bit more worldly. Where do I get this from? From friends who've worked as charity workers in places like South Africa and newspapers. Local priests denounce contraception even when AIDS is rife, instead blaming the spread on "divine" punishment and often spreading stories such as "condoms are the cause of AIDS". In poor areas, the church is often the only source of education and moral guidance for people, they believe everything they are told but all they get is misinformation. Maybe read up a bit on it before spouting your rubbish, some links I found in 5 seconds of searching:

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/DF198BFC ... 71B42D.asp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0, ... 68,00.html

As for intelligent design and any of the sciences, I'm not going to waste my time putting it up here only for it to get some half-baked scripture in reply that does nothing to address the fundamental points. I'll address serious points as they come up, people thinking that "only God could have created something as delicate as the human ear" is profound are way off the mark, hence why I said I was laughing all the way through that article.

Scott,

I suggest that you start a thread titled: PROOF THAT RELIGION CAUSES AIDS. Because that is what you're suggesting apparently. But you need to actually show statistics (I assume you took statistics in university, so you must know what they mean, right?) Yeah, I suggest that you show scientific data to support your claim. Not anecdotal evidence, not an article reflecting the stand of a certain segment of a religion on AIDS - which proves um, nothing - but instead actual evidence to support your claim that Religion causes (haha) AIDS.



As to intelligent design, your words are once again incredible (not in a good way) so I prefer to stick with the theories of philosophers/thinkers like Plato and Spinoza and scientists/geniuses like Einstein...

freza wrote:Scott,

I suggest that you start a thread titled: PROOF THAT RELIGION CAUSES AIDS. Because that is what you're suggesting apparently. But you need to actually show statistics (I assume you took statistics in university, so you must know what they mean, right?) Yeah, I suggest that you show scientific data to support your claim. Not anecdotal evidence, not an article reflecting the stand of a certain segment of a religion on AIDS - which proves um, nothing - but instead actual evidence to support your claim that Religion causes (haha) AIDS.



As to intelligent design, your words are once again incredible (not in a good way) so I prefer to stick with the theories of philosophers/thinkers like Plato and Spinoza and scientists/geniuses like Einstein...

What a clown. Religion is a major cause in the spread of AIDS (tihrough promoting unprotected sex), not AIDS itself. I'll not waste time on it, Google it yourself and you'll see many articles and comments from priests, missionaries, statisticians and even the Vatican itself commenting on it. Those links I gave you even had stats and real examples!!!!

Einstein was an atheist! People sometimes use selected quotes to show intelligent design leanings but actually he was atheist through and through.

I'm done with this topic, come back when you have been out of your country and know how the world works.

oh yeah, I'll google those statistics right now, cuz I'm SURE that they DO exist. So let me google them, and find them!

You dug yourself into a hole Scott, I pity you more than anything.

One of the first things we're taught in our entry-level uni English (if I'm not mistaken) classes is to back-up - with solid evidence - outrageous and unusual statements that we might make .... I guess you missed this class or something...

obviously I'm not interested in talking to someone like you either, I'm sorry for wasting my time, but it was a slow day at work today, oh well.

freza wrote:oh yeah, I'll google those statistics right now, cuz I'm SURE that they DO exist. So let me google them, and find them!

You dug yourself into a hole Scott, I pity you more than anything.

One of the first things we're taught in our entry-level uni English (if I'm not mistaken) classes is to back-up - with solid evidence - outrageous and unusual statements that we might make .... I guess you missed this class or something...

obviously I'm not interested in talking to someone like you either, I'm sorry for wasting my time, but it was a slow day at work today, oh well.

I said I was done but not quite. The 2 sources I gave you give statistics and have actual quotes from priests. What more do you want? We're talking about causes of the spread of AIDS, do you think they go around asking people in hospital if their vicar told them it was OK to use a condom so you could have a statistic!?

There is no hole I'm in, there's a tonne of literature on this stuff and it's one of the most common complaints directed at the Catholic church! I simply won't go an look any more up for you, enjoy googling, it may open your mind to a whole world of new things.

So when you researched your papers in school you solely relied on anecdotal evidence (sans-scientific statistics) from news articles that you found on the internet?

Interesting. You get an F on that.

enough said
bye!!!

Scot, Freza made a very valid point.The "religion spreads aids" argument only works with christianity in Africa cause the catholic church says using condoms is wrong. Christianity is not the only religion there is.no? So not all religions are against using condoms (not even all christian churches) therefore not all religions help in spreading aids therefore your argument that "religion spreads aids" is grass just like your ass XD

Maybe you should've been more specific as to which religion in which part of the world is causing which problem in your original EDIT: topic?

Actually, most world religions emphasise no s.e.x before marriage, but humans being the animals that we are (like every other animal on the this planet) are meant to be se.x.u.ally attracted to each other and procreate to propogate the species. People have been having s.e.x out of wedlock since the beginning of time, and so telling people to use condoms is very important. The major religions focus on abstinence and make social conditions difficult for people to do the right thing if they choose to have s.e.x before marriage. Therefore, it can still be argued that religion does contribute to the spread of AIDS.

freza wrote:So when you researched your papers in school you solely relied on anecdotal evidence (sans-scientific statistics) from news articles that you found on the internet?

Interesting. You get an F on that.

enough said
bye!!!

Yes, I only used a source from an international awarding winning documentary series, shame on me. I'm not at school, this is the real world and not everything is driven by statistics. You yourself said that poor education was one of the major drivers of AIDS spreading, when the Church is your education it kind of makes the logic easier for you to follow.

In response to Paranoid,yes, I was only talking about Catholosism in particular, in Africa but also it effects South America. As it was the only religion I mentioned specifically that should be clear. Other religions will contribute, but Christianity is the major religion in the AIDS pandemic parts of the world.

Once again a thread goes off on a tangent. I for one take great offence at the suggestion that non-believers are narrow minded. Purely because many of them will have looked and researched all the options, and come to an educated decision to not believe in God or religion.

Is this not more open minded than people who believe everything that is told to them? After all aren't we all atheists when we're born? We know nothing of God or religion, and geographically and culturally speaking, depending where and how you're brought up will 9 times out of 10 dictate the religion that you belong to. Therefore one could argue that those belonging to organised religions are more narrow minded, as they just accept everything that's taught to them, without exploring their great human mind to question things. If after questioning people still wish to believe whatever they've been taught then fine, but to not question and to blindly follow, IMHO is the biggest crime against a persons humanity.

My two cents.

I don't think athiests are narrow minded at all.But I do think most of them are arrogant and think they are on a higher level than thoes with a religion when it comes to such discussions, that the ones who believe in religion are dumb or something.I was quite surprised the article labled athiests as narrow minded cause mostly it's athiests who call other people that (from experience)

Also, chocoholic.To think that most athiests studied their options and looked into different religions to reach where they are is not an accurate assumption IMO. Most athiests I've met only have faith in scientists who discover(ed) evolution.They know that something called evolution (and other scientific theories) might have started the world.They don't exactly know how thoes things work, but just because some big scientists said something then it must be real and the only truth. Does that sound familiar? isn't that believing in somethng you are told? having faith in scientists is kinda like having faith in god.(And I'm not saying you personally don't understand how the theories work, I'm talking about thoes who don't yet use them in debates against religion)

Also, I noticed athiesim is so "in" lately.It's like a new trend, and alot of the new athiests don't know much about it (maybe cause most of them are teens acting cool).They call it the "religion of athiesim" when in fact it's the lack of one, alright that was a bit off..But you get what I mean.

Religious doctrines should be more open to Atheists. I have always thought to myself is god not big enough to stick up for himself in such matters. I find this especially when punishments are dished out for breaking god's laws - as i say surely he does not need someone else to be judge and carry out the fight for him - He is God.

I don't consider myself and Atheist - as that would suggest my main focus would be to disprove the existence of god.

If anything i would consider myself an Agnostic - so to me there are more important pressing matters in the world today.

Bertrand Russell Explains it well.

For the atheists check out the infidel guy;

No more diversions from me on this, I promise!

jabbajabba wrote:If anything i would consider myself an Agnostic - so to me there are more important pressing matters in the world today.

Agnostic and atheist both share a similarity that essentially says organised religion is not the answer, the agnostic just says there is probably something out there but I'm just not sure what it is. I've said on here before in real life (and not just debating forums) I have no problem with people's choice to believe, I can't prove either way. But it's more the bells and whistles of the stories and structures of organised religion that get me wound up, yet people devote their lives to books written by humans about what they thought God was several millenia ago and we're supposed to bow down and accept it? They can do as they want, as you point out there are more important things in life I'd rather be doing instead, I only have one shot at this - no afterlife, reincarnation or anything for me!

On the point of atheism being just a just the same belief but in scientists, I don't agree. Great scientists publish their works and have generations of subsequent scientists go out to try and prove or disprove it. We can test their theories and the very best ones stand up - take Einstein's Theory of Relativity, one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang theory. When he wrote it, it was just theory. Now we can test it and he was right, that's why he's seen as such a genius. We can take the whole expansion of the universe back to the seconds before the Big Bang. But I concede we don't know the very beginning yet, but it will come.

There is no test for there being a God, there will never be one and so this debate will continue until the world is crushed by the universe collapsing on itself (due to gravity, not God). But from the facts that science provides we can determine that much of the stories of the origins of Earth and life told in organised religion are, well, complete rubbish. Maybe that's why you so many people see atheism (or at the very least agnosticism) as a natural way out, because the fact way outweighs the fiction.

It's an intersting debate. Paranoid, you're probably right in that not all athiests have looked at all the options, but many have. I tend to agree with Scot on many of his points. Plus people can also have faith, without being religious.

It's one of those discussions which can go round and round. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever the want to, if only people were tolerant of that, it would be great.