End of Religion

Turtwig

Yeah, I find the RC Church's stance on condoms sickening.
You still have to convince me of otherwise.:)

philologos

Malty T: I don't agree 100% with the Roman Catholic churches condom policy. However, you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to disprove what these writers have put forward. That is that monogamy promotion is changing the situation in Africa. You just don't like the conclusion. If it wasn't just a mere dislike you would have provided a somewhat decent refutation to the success of this in Uganda. Simple as.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

However, you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to disprove what these writers have put forward

And you haven't provided a single scrap of evidence to disprove what the authors of the three scientific studies said Flamed Diving put forward

Jakkass wrote: »

I asked you a question. You claimed that people of faith are less likely to pursue an education. Why is this false in my case?

That's not what he said

philologos

Religion is nonsense.
It brainwashes children and indoctrinates them into a life of bull****t, it is a virus (RD) and wastes ample educational opportunities.

Why should such slander be tolerated? It's quite interesting how much more frequent it is that people who oppose the beliefs of Christians will engage in such argument more frequently than those defending their beliefs.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

If you wish to keep up this myth that Christians can't be critical, or that Christians are inferior in terms of intelligence and the application thereof. I guess you have to come to that conclusion. However, there is no basis to it in the slightest.

When did I say that Christians can't be critical?
When did I say that Christians are inferior in terms of intelligence?

I just think you compartmentalize your brain. You apply critical thinking, rational thought, logic and apply empirical evidence to examine any premise that lies outside of religion.

When it comes to religion, as you've demonstrated many times on this forum, you take the bible, assume everything in it to be the truth (which is the wrong approach from the start) and then go ahead and desperately try to fit it in with your current world view, whether that be literally (those bits are convenient), metaphorically, symbolically or whatever else you can think of.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I don't agree 100% with the Roman Catholic churches condom policy. However, you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to disprove what these writers have put forward. That is that monogamy promotion is changing the situation in Africa. You just don't like the conclusion. If it wasn't just a mere dislike you would have provided a somewhat decent refutation to the success of this in Uganda. Simple as.

Provide a reputable study or stop saying you have provided anything of note, because you havent.

:mad:

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I don't agree 100% with the Roman Catholic churches condom policy. However, you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to disprove what these writers have put forward. That is that monogamy promotion is changing the situation in Africa. You just don't like the conclusion. If it wasn't just a mere dislike you would have provided a somewhat decent refutation to the success of this in Uganda. Simple as.

Hi Jakkass,

I'll reply in full in soon as I can. Just letting you know that I'd love if promoting monogamy was the solution you claim it to be. So please don't accuse me of being blinded by some emotive agenda.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I don't agree 100% with the Roman Catholic churches condom policy. However, you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to disprove what these writers have put forward. That is that monogamy promotion is changing the situation in Africa. You just don't like the conclusion. If it wasn't just a mere dislike you would have provided a somewhat decent refutation to the success of this in Uganda. Simple as.

Having read a bit more about it, Uganda employed the ABC method:

Abstinence
Be faithful
Condoms

That's what works and I don't think you'll find anyone here that will argue with that. Telling people that reducing the number of sexual partners they have will reduce their risk of AIDS is just common sense, it's nothing to do with "sexual ethics", it's avoiding partaking in a risky activity. That comes under the label of "education".

What doesn't work however, and what has been shown not to work, is the promotion of one and the downplaying of the others, especially when the motivations are religious. All three should be promoted as methods to reduce the problem, some people can be encouraged to avoid casual sex for the sake of their health but there will always be significant numbers who will still be unfaithful and it only takes one person being unfaithful in a relationship for both to get AIDS.

Explaining the risks of casual sex works for some people, providing safe condoms works for others and that will always be the case, it has been the case since the dawn of humanity and will continue to be the case no matter how many times people are told about the wonders of monogamy.

Dades

patmartino - can you tone down your responses going forward? Nobody is going to want to engage with you if you just spout anti-religious vitriol, and it doesn't really move anything forward.

Thanking you.

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Having read a bit more about it, Uganda employed the ABC method:

Abstinence
Be faithful
Condoms

Very sensible.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that most of the people arguing against the Pope's decision, even if the Pope were right wouldn't accept his conclusions. That's pretty much where we're at.

Your so incredibly transparent Jakkass. You keep saying this because you want our position to be an unreasonable one because as it stands, our position is the most reasonable one. No one is disagreeing with the pope because he is the pope. We are disagreeing with the pope because HE IS WRONG. He said that AIDs is (AND I QUOTE): "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".

Now, he is write in saying that money alone wont solve the problem, people in africa need to change their sexual habits. He is wrong (by omission, it could argued) when saying that distribution of condoms wont work because , distribution doesn't imply that people will use them (remember that its pointed out to you that AIDs has been effectively combated in Thailand and Cambodia simply by enforcing condom use in brothels). But he is talking grade A, prime fertilizing bullsh*t when saying that they increase the problem, as all evidence to the contrary shows that they dont.

I hope that this is the last time such nonsense is spouted by you, that you will discontinue this emotive side tracking nonsense, but I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Abstinence
Be faithful
Condoms

Yes, condoms alone aren't enough to solve the AIDS issue.

Mark: Take a few minutes, calm down and come back to the discussion again. I have no interest in anything but calm and respectful discussion.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, condoms alone aren't enough to solve the AIDS issue.

No one ever said they were. Neither is encouraging people to be monogamous enough to solve the AIDS issue, even in the long term. Promotion of condoms will always be at least as important as promotion of safe sexual habits.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, condoms alone aren't enough to solve the AIDS issue.

But they help. Good, we all agree then.

patmartino

Jakkass wrote: »

Why should such slander be tolerated? It's quite interesting how much more frequent it is that people who oppose the beliefs of Christians will engage in such argument more frequently than those defending their beliefs.

Any religious belief is a delusion. As a barrister I would love to see you in court trying to prove that religion and God are real.

Read the God delusion.

Canis Lupus

patmartino wrote: »

Any religious belief is a delusion. As a barrister I would love to see you in court trying to prove that religion and God are real.

Read the God delusion.

lol.... He probably knows it off by heart but you're new here.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, condoms alone aren't enough to solve the AIDS issue.

Quick! Back to the drawing board! You need a new rationalisation! Oh God pillars crumbling. Perhaps God put condoms there to test you? No. Er, the Devil did it? Yes! The Devil did it!

liamw

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But they help. Good, we all agree then.

The Pope stated that they 'increase the problem' so I guess Jakkass also disagrees with the Pope.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark: Take a few minutes, calm down and come back to the discussion again. I have no interest in anything but calm and respectful discussion.

Now that really was a pathetic dodge Jakkass. I'm all for respectful discussion, but respect has to work both ways and someone going on the emotive defense ("you only disagree with pope cause he's the pope") is being respectful to the discussion. Do have an actually response to my post or have you retracted you claim as it was nonsense?

Flamed Diving

I thought I would keep everyone up to date on the peer-review, academic literature:

Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission

Steven D. Pinkerton, and Paul R. Abramson

The consistent use of latex condoms continues to be advocated for primary prevention of HIV infection despite limited quantitative evidence regarding the effectiveness of condoms in blocking the sexual transmission of HIV. Although recent meta-analyses of condom effectiveness suggest that condoms are 60 to 70% effective when used for HIV prophylaxis, these studies do not isolate consistent condom use, and therefore provide only a lower bound on the true effectiveness of correct and consistent condom use. A reexamination of HIV seroconversion studies suggests that condoms are 90 to 95% effective when used consistently, i.e. consistent condom users are 10 to 20 times less likely to become infected when exposed to the virus than are inconsistent or non-users. Similar results are obtained utilizing model-based estimation techniques, which indicate that condoms decrease the per-contact probability of male-to-female transmission of HIV by about 95%. Though imperfect, condoms provide substantial protection against HIV infection. Condom promotion therefore remains an important international priority in the fight against AIDS.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3SWVHNF-4

The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991537

Study Question
Can a theoretically and culturally based, AIDS-risk reduction intervention delivered to naturally formed peer groups increase self-reported condom use among African-American early adolescents at 6 and 12 months of follow-up?

Methods
A randomized, controlled trial of a community-based intervention delivered in eight weekly sessions involved 76 naturally formed peer groups consisting of 383 (206 intervention and 177 control) African-American youths 9 to 15 years of age. A theory-based, culturally and developmentally tailored instrument that assessed perceptions, intentions, and self-reported sexual behaviors was administered to all subjects at baseline (preintervention) and 6 and 12 months later.

Results
At baseline, 36% of youths were sexually experienced, and by 12 months of follow-up, 49% were sexually experienced. Self-reported condom use rates were significantly higher among intervention than control youths (85% vs 61%; P<.05) at the 6-month follow-up. However, by 12 months, rates were no longer significantly higher among intervention youths. The intervention impact at 6 months was especially strong among boys (85% vs 57%; P<.05) and among early teens (13 to 15 years old) (95% vs 60%; P<.01). Self-reported condom use intention was also increased among intervention youths at 6 months but not at 12 months. Some perceptions were positively affected at 6 months, but the change did not persist at 12 months.

Conclusions
High rates of sexual intercourse underscore the urgent need for effective AIDS-risk reduction interventions that target low-income urban, African-American preteens and early teens. A developmentally and culturally tailored intervention based on social-cognitive theory and delivered to naturally formed peer groups recruited from community settings can increase self-reported condom use. The strong short-term improvements in behaviors and intentions followed by some relapse over longer periods argue for a strengthened program and research focus on sustainability.
http://archpedi.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/4/363

And on and on and on and on:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=condoms%20aids%20effectiveness&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

But yeah. Newspaper articles...

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Now that really was a pathetic dodge Jakkass. I'm all for respectful discussion, but respect has to work both ways and someone going on the emotive defense ("you only disagree with pope cause he's the pope") is being respectful to the discussion. Do have an actually response to my post or have you retracted you claim as it was nonsense?

I don't have to respond to any post of yours, unless it is in a calm and respectful manner.

I said that atheist may be biased against the Pope because of the organisation he stands for. That's reasonable considering I was accused of having a Christian bias in this thread, which is ignoring the fact on many an issue I actually disagree with the Pope.

Flamed Diving

I'm Agnostic. Am I like the umpire or something?

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't have to respond to any post of yours, unless it is in a calm and respectful manner.

You dont have to resond to any post full stop, however your lack of willing, coupled with a new baseless accusation that I'm being disrespectful and uncalm just shows the hollowness of your claims. If I am being disrespectful, why haven't you reported my posts?

Jakkass wrote: »

I said that atheist may be biased against the Pope because of the organisation he stands for.

You said nothing of the sort. You said:

Jakkass wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that most of the people arguing against the Pope's decision, even if the Pope were right wouldn't accept his conclusions. That's pretty much where we're at

There was no "atheists may be biased", it was an out and out accusation against "most of the people arguing against the pope". I have called you on it, repsond without pointless rhetoric or retract your baseless claims.

Jakkass wrote: »

That's reasonable considering I was accused of having a Christian bias in this thread, which is ignoring the fact on many an issue I actually disagree with the Pope.

Do I really need to explain to you that catholic pope =/=all of christianity? No one is saying you do agree with the pope, but that doesn't stop you having a christian bias in your opinion on how to deal the AIDs problem.

lmaopml

Mark Hamill, behavioural interventions are crucial to reducing the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The Christians over there are working every single day with people who have AIDS, and looking after their 'whole' needs, not just their 'natural' urges!! You do realise that sub-saharan Africa contains 2/3 of the complete GLOBAL population of people with HIV.....and 90% of the worlds children who are born with HIV are also from the Sub saharan....

The simple truth is that nobody is saying 'not' to use condoms if you have AIDS and you are going out to have sex with multiple partners...especially if your male, because women often have very little say one way or the other...unfortunately in many parts of Africa there is a lot of discrimination against women with education and healthcare....Men are the more dominant of the two.

However, the supply of Condoms over in Africa is not like visiting your local Unicare, it's completely different! There is little or no 'advice' or 'education' or 'medicine' for those WITH AIDS, don't mind those who don't even know they have AIDS.....

So as far as sexual liberation is concerned and feeling free to practice natural urges is concerned, well yeah sure that's fine if you are living and practicing your sexual urges on somebody who has a 'say'!! It's often not the case over there......This is the reason why the problem is so bad...
It's not the West, and it's not America.......

Behaviour must be part of the 'plan'! Not ruling out 'condom' usage, but emphasising 'behaviour' and responsibility!

I don't understand why you guys don't get that??? It's what has worked in Uganda...

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

However, the supply of Condoms over in Africa is not like visiting your local Unicare, it's completely different! There is little or no 'advice' or 'education' or 'medicine' for those WITH AIDS, don't mind those who don't even know they have AIDS.....

If there's little or no education or advice on how to sue condoms then there's little or no advice on how to avoid AIDS either. Education in general needs to increase, including the correct use of a condom and good condoms also need to be supplied.

lmaopml wrote: »

Behaviour must be part of the 'plan'! Not ruling out 'condom' usage, but emphasising 'behaviour' and responsibility!

I don't understand why you guys don't get that??? It's what has worked in Uganda...

Because that's not what's happening. The method in Uganda was called ABC, Abstinence, be faithful and condoms, all three contributed to the success and the fact that the last part of the method is repeatedly ignored and downplayed by christians is the problem. Our only goal in Africa should be reducing the spread of AIDS but the primary goal of christians is promoting monogamy and "christian values" in general with preventing AIDS as a secondary goal at best. As I keep saying, even if condoms were 100% effective 100% of the time christians would not see them as a solution because their primary goal of promoting monogamy is not met. That is what's pissing us off, that the AIDS crisis is basically being used by christians to push their values on Africa

Turtwig

Wow! Here's one for you.

In Thailand (where condoms were so successful) the most prevalent method of transmission of HIV is between married couples!!:eek:

lmaopml

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there's little or no education or advice on how to sue condoms then there's little or no advice on how to avoid AIDS either. Education in general needs to increase, including the correct use of a condom and good condoms also need to be supplied.



Because that's not what's happening. The method in Uganda was called ABC, Abstinence, be faithful and condoms, all three contributed to the success and the fact that the last part of the method is repeatedly ignored and downplayed by christians is the problem. Our only goal in Africa should be reducing the spread of AIDS but the primary goal of christians is promoting monogamy and "christian values" in general with preventing AIDS as a secondary goal at best. As I keep saying, even if condoms were 100% effective 100% of the time christians would not see them as a solution because their primary goal of promoting monogamy is not met. That is what's pissing us off, that the AIDS crisis is basically being used by christians to push their values on Africa

Exactly LOL...

A B C......That is what we have been saying.....and I don't know how many times I have said that 'if' you want to go out and have sex with all and sundry then use a condom......

However, the 'availability' of condoms on their OWN, without the other two being taught, along with sexual responsibility!....is only exacerbating the problems in other parts of Africa! 2/3rds of the whole globes AIDS sufferers are all there in that ONE area...It means that people who have AIDS, think all they have to do is use one in order not to pass on HIV...and they don't think they 'have' to 'do' anything else, including considering, proper usage, disposal, types of sexual acts etc etc etc....

lmaopml

Malty_T wrote: »

Wow! Here's one for you.

In Thailand (where condoms were so successful) the most prevalent method of transmission of HIV is between married couples!!:eek:

MaltyT, I think your arguing something irrelevent here....and I don't exactly get what Thailand has to do with AFRICA !!! Nobody is arguing that if you have AIDS and you want to have sex then use a condom! Whether your married or not.......obviously if one partner has been around the block a few times then chances are they could have picked up an std - it makes sense to get checked out instead of passing it on to somebody who thinks your clean cause you 'married' them.

All besides the point though.....

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

However, the 'availability' of condoms on their OWN, without the other two being taught, along with sexual responsibility

No one has ever said otherwise at any point in this thread, in fact every single person here has said that education is crucially important in reducing the spread of the disease. The only difference between what we're saying and what the christians are saying is that we see condoms as also being crucially important in reducing the spread and that they should be promoted just as much as sex education, whereas christians have religious motivations that make them try to downplay the importance of condoms in favour of the methods that match their beliefs.

We call the method used in Uganda the ABC method but christians call it the AB...............c if you absolutely must but there's loads of dodgy ones and they're not very effective and they even aggravate the problem method

philologos

Thailands also has quite a lot of issues with prostitution. Again, it could be very much a monogamy issue. Again, demonstrating how condoms on their own won't help us solve AIDS.