Atheism

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b] [QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b] I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS.[/QUOTE] As I've already explained, at great multi-paragraph length, the implication of that is simply not true. It's not. It's a handy misrepresentation of facts that allows weak minded liberals who should know better to wallow in their self-affirming version of anti-Semitism. Why would you volunteer to be such a risible moron? Google hard and google often. "The door of a[n apprentice] bigot's mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.” -Ogden Nash [/QUOTE] You are a slandering liar. Your accusation of anti-Semitism is frankly perverse. I shouldn't be responding to scum like you, but I can't pass up on this opportunity to prove what a lying ass you are. * In 2007, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique announced that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting condoms with HIV to spread Aids in Africa. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/african_archbishop_claims_condoms_were_infected_with_aids/ Chimoio isn't alone, aid workers report that the Catholic church is making it impossible for them to hand out condoms to those who do want them, and that priests tell the populace that condoms are laced with the HIV virus. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids In a 2003 BBC documentary the South American cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo asserted that condoms don't protect against AIDS at all, and that the use of condoms thus helps spread AIDS. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/catholicism.colombia " In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!" " http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom There are also plenty of deranged baptists who make the same claims: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=54128 So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.

scum? And this from the guy claiming not be be abusive ...

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

scum? And this from the guy claiming not be be abusive ...[/QUOTE]

When provoked to the extreme with accusations of anti-Semitism, yes. But I see you are also trying to weasel out of the real content of the post, namely proof that GF is a liar.

[QUOTE]

[b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

scum? And this from the guy claiming not be be abusive ...[/QUOTE]

When provoked to the extreme with accusations of anti-Semitism, yes. But I see you are also trying to weasel out of the real content of the post, namely proof that GF is a liar.[/QUOTE]

I don't have to weasel out of anything since I didn't make the remarks and am not responsible for them. In contrast, yesterday you claimed yesterday not to be abusive and to be moderate (while calling me a troll) and here you are the next day calling GF "scum".  Oh dear ...

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE]

[b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

scum? And this from the guy claiming not be be abusive ...[/QUOTE]

When provoked to the extreme with accusations of anti-Semitism, yes. But I see you are also trying to weasel out of the real content of the post, namely proof that GF is a liar.[/QUOTE]

I don't have to weasel out of anything since I didn't make the remarks and am not responsible for them. In contrast, yesterday you claimed yesterday not to be abusive and to be moderate (while calling me a troll) and here you are the next day calling GF "scum".  Oh dear ...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

[/QUOTE]

Oh tsk, tsk, TQ. Didn't you know? The spewing of such slanderous insults is permitted from one side only. Those on the other side must not respond in kind but must, instead, take their lumps without retort lest they be deemed created of some lesser moral fabric.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b] So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.[/QUOTE] The lone archbishop who thinks somebody in Europe is lacing condoms and AIDS medication to finish of the African people can't blamed be on broad Catholic policy Thomas. Get real. Even the article, from a Catholic news site, noted "However, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio’s opposition to condoms goes beyond the Church’s teaching on sex and sexuality." There are paranoid, rogue people in every profession and sometimes they end up with a public voice. It's unfortunate but it happens. It's true however that suspicion about the wisdom and efficacy of condom campaigns in Africa was generally shared by the Catholic hierarchy in the early years of the new millenium. Trujillo's case that condoms could allow HIV to pass through was the first attempt to bring science to an increasingly held belief by the Church that condom campaigns were failing Africa. It was intended to support feelings that the use of condoms to protect against AIDS in Africa was "Russian Roulette....leading people to think they are fully protected" and that the promotion of condoms as the answer to AIDS "is to lead many to their death." Instead, fidelity or abstinence was the answer. It's true the use of science in those early years was somewhat selective and overstated, and outside of the consensus of the day, but it wasn't entirely incorrect. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm. At the bottom of that 2004 piece were some of the thoughts of the very early scientific and epidemiological proponents of the then radical idea that condoms needed a second look at there was increasing evidence that they were not fulfilling their promise in Africa. One scientific source used by Trujillo and the Church in 2004 was described in 2009 by Harvard AIDS specialist Edward Green this way: In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa." It's of course hard to know how that 2004 coverage might have differed if what is known today was known then. Your use of Benedict's quote as the final nail in your coffin of 'moderation' is one more irritating example of having to follow you around and mop up completely unnecessary stupidity. That is the precise quote I used to show that the statement was true, science based and directly and explicitly supported by epidemiology and epidemiologists in 2009. I'm not going to reargue the whole thing because it's all there in my previous post. The somewhat retroactively "well duh" truth is that when 25% and more of the young people in a country are infected with HIV a device with a non insignificant risk of physical and human failure is a terrible primary strategy to fight the spread of AIDS. We now know that an emphasis on condom distribution campaigns almost certainly increased infections in these countries. Edward Green again: So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well. Condoms are dead last on everybody's list now. How the African epidemics might have charted a different course if the hard to displace western condom orthodoxies had been more critically looked at in the early 2000's when the Church and others first raised alarms cannot be known. If people were remotely able to wrestle in their rabid hatred for the Catholic Church, in your case apparently to the point of being willing to indirectly continue the outdated and deadly promotion of condoms as the primary solution to AIDS in Africa, it would be interesting to consider the implications of the fact that in being behind the Vatican was actually ahead. Here are the raft of the 'the Pope was right' stories from 2009, which also catch the Church stance on condoms in countries in which the epidemiological patterns are different. http://www.google.ca/search?q=pope+right+about+condoms&aq=f&oq=pope+right+about+condoms&aqs=chrome.0.57j59j62l3.4415j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 That anti-catholism is the new anti-semitism of elements of the left has been passionately and painstakingly argued in scholarship and books for some time. In my long experience it is certainly so. Sorry about your modern day anti-semitism Thomas. You should work on that.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

[/QUOTE]

Oh tsk, tsk, TQ. Didn't you know? The spewing of such slanderous insults is permitted from one side only. Those on the other side must not respond in kind but must, instead, take their lumps without retort lest they be deemed created of some lesser moral fabric.

[/QUOTE]

Stop being a bigot and you won't have to worry about having your distasteful and shameful behaviour outed. And seriously, taking intellectual succor from ThomasQuinn is the QZ version of failing an IQ test.

And this is why we are told not to discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. Ha. I guess because people have to feel a sense of friendship and acceptance in order to digest their food. After I feed my little dogs their dinner, I always rub their fur and tell them in a very happy voice that I am glad they ate their dinner. They love this and get very wiggly and happy. And I think this makes them healthier - this feeling of being loved and appreciated at dinnertime. I hope this is off topic enough to irritate Mooghead, not that I think he is reading every word of this thread.

I was thinking that this thread could use an intermission, you know, like really long movies. I think The Ten Commandments intermission would be appropriate. Or how about Mozart's requiem? That may convince Mooghead that God does exist.

I can tell you a true story to give you guys a break. I studied in a Christian mission school and there was a chapel for students to pray when they want. As usual, before exam time, a lot of students would go there to pray. On day, a teacher told us that it was no use praying to God at the last minute because God help those who help themselves. One classmate turned to me and said "If I can help myself I don't need God".

[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b]

And this is why we are told not to discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. Ha. I guess because people have to feel a sense of friendship and acceptance in order to digest their food. After I feed my little dogs their dinner, I always rub their fur and tell them in a very happy voice that I am glad they ate their dinner. They love this and get very wiggly and happy. And I think this makes them healthier - this feeling of being loved and appreciated at dinnertime.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a lot of work. You should just bring TQ home. He gets wiggly and happy when he gets to yell stuff like "Slandering liar lying face perverse scum ass!". I mean it's over in seconds and unlike dog food there's no cleaning up. Except for some mouth froth and that bit of china breaking from the flailing. It's REALLY hard not to laugh, which is great. Think about it. :)

Religion and politics are tough topics. Polarizing and emotional. But there's an important point in this case. Everybody knows that religion has orthodoxies, and that is rightly factored in when people evaluate any claims a religious organization might make. People are far less aware though that orthodoxies just as present and real exist in science and other secular pursuits and abstractions. In reviewing Edward Green's 2003 book Rethinking AIDS Prevention, the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote "If Green’s analysis is correct, we are faced with a troubling paradox: while our technologically sophisticated system often operates at the margin of acceptable cost efficacy, halfway around the world, secular bias and biomedical fiscal power are responsible for discouraging and discrediting simple yet effective solutions, at the cost of millions of lives." Eight years later came another book, this time "Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment has Betrayed the Developing World". Both centre around epidemiological evidence of what makes a meaningful contribution to the problem (monogamy, or greatly reducing sexual partners, and male circumcision) and what should only be a secondary backup solution (condom use). As almost every stricken underdeveloped country in Africa has quietly shifted focus to the ABC approach in recent years this seems borne out. It got a lot of initial attention when Green publicly said in 2009 that the Pope may be right that condom distribution programs had made things worse in Africa. Everybody had howled at the Pope; it was much more difficult to howl at the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies and 30 year veteran of the field. It's worth noting with some irony that the very thing that brought the important issue attention -- evidence based affirmation of the ideas of a Pope - is likely the same thing that quietly turned attention away after a brief burst of focus. Too unpalatable, too uncomfortable, too controversial.

It needs to be noted that if western condom orthodoxies had been the best primary approach in Africa to date it is probably unlikely that the Catholic Church would have played a very productive role. There would have been resistance, at least for a while, perhaps even some obstruction. It took them until 2010 to acknowledge that sex workers using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV could be a moral act, though to be fair the facts of Africa may have muddied things for a while. It must also be said though that neither was the Catholic Church fundamentally right about this by accident. A core pillar of the beliefs surrounding sexuality is that sex outside of an act of love in a monogamous married union is at risk of being a negative physical and spiritual force on both individuals and the human condition. While this may have little relevance to TQ's Friday night dates - sorry this is a serious topic so let's keep it realistic - little relevance to Holly's Friday night dates, in retrospect it should have had blinding and obvious relevance to AIDS and its grim African realities. We need as a culture to be able to judge ideas on their merits, and while some noise and resistance is understandable the amount of visceral and uncritical rejection - more than rejection: the seeming need for utter evisceration - of anything religion might have to offer in the way of social solutions is damaging to us. As is the inverse - an equally blind faith in secular institutions and solutions.

In short, I really should not have had to make my argument this morning four entire years after the information was equally available to all of us. I certainly shouldn't have had to make it after being called a slandering liar, scum, a lying ass. Mostly because it's not easy to type while laughing. But you get the point.

[QUOTE] [b]tcc wrote:[/b]

I can tell you a true story to give you guys a break. I studied in a Christian mission school and there was a chapel for students to pray when they want. As usual, before exam time, a lot of students would go there to pray. On day, a teacher told us that it was no use praying to God at the last minute because God help those who help themselves. One classmate turned to me and said "If I can help myself I don't need God". [/QUOTE]

I immediately pictured this as one of those one frame cartoons. :)

Another true story:

In the movie "pi and the tiger" the young pi practised three faiths at the same time. He reminded me of one friend who was a RC but he also prayed to a Buddhist deity and an Indian cult deity. All these symbols of his faith were displayed in his office. When people asked him why he believed in all three different religions, he said "just in case.....".

[QUOTE] [b]Donna12 wrote:[/b] After I feed my little dogs their dinner, I always rub their fur and tell them in a very happy voice that I am glad they ate their dinner. They love this and get very wiggly and happy. And I think this makes them healthier - this feeling of being loved and appreciated at dinnertime. [/QUOTE] Donna, this post was adorable. Made me smile. [QUOTE] [b]tcc wrote:[/b] When people asked him why he believed in all three different religions, he said "just in case.....". [/QUOTE] Too funny. Love this. Pick one, any one... or two... or... NONE. ;-) == I almost lost it tonight when a friend sent me a link to information about a live show called, "Jesus Loves You (But Hates Me)". I feel like booking a trip to Colorado right now so I can see it. There are age restrictions though, so I'm guessing I'll have to wait a year before I can get in with my daughter. In the 'about the show' section of the site, the writer and star of it, says, “Religion eventually caused a major division in my family. The more I questioned and disagreed with my parents’ beliefs, the farther apart we grew...And if you think I’m going to ‘hell’ for disagreeing with you, well then, there’s no room for conversation or compromise, is there?" It sounds eerily familiar to me and looks brutally honest - but I do love how the creator manages to twist traumas from her childhood into what seems like a very funny and well-received skit. There's another page on the site that allows people to share their stories with her. She says she sometimes uses those stories in her show. I sent her something. How cool it would be to see it morph into a scene people can laugh about. Here's the link - http://www.jesuslovesyoushow.com/ Hopefully I can embed the video here...