Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
My lack of faith (in humanity)
Options
Comments
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Ah right, an unverifiable anecdotal conversation. That helps. Not. Still looks like assumption to me based on the actual evidence and text you actually presented.
We make arguments based on unverifiable anecdotal conversation in this forum all the time. What anything looks like to you is your own business really, I didn't present it as you claim, but if that's the way you read it, again - that's on you, not me.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Text which described what the woman did, but linked it in NO WAY To religion at all, despite the implication that religion was involved from the sentence that proceeded what you pasted.
Again, that's the way you read it, but that wasn't it's intention, it was merely one example of a person who was influenced by her faith to try and better humanity. Clearly it went over your head, and that's fine.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But I repeat the other part of that point, that your claim not to have made implications at all is demonstrably false. The implication was clear and was there for all to read.
You claim there was an implication when there wasn't, in spite of me clarifying that there was no implication, you continue to read it that way. That's fine. Other people will not necessarily read my post the same way you did and will make up their own minds.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No, according to what I just said. Which I am happy to repeat as many times as you choose to ignore it. Which is that given the number of people who are moved to do the exact same things without faith or religion.... faith and religion is clearly superfluous to requirements to getting those things done.
Yes, that's why I said according to you, because you said it, and it's your opinion. That's fine. I don't agree with your opinion.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »If people do X with religion and other people do X without religion, then clearly religion is superfluous to requirements for people to do X.
Are you familiar with the concept of a false equivalence? In order for your argument to have any merit, you would have to demonstrate that the same people would have done X with, or without their faith as their motivation. You can't demonstrate that, if people say that their faith inspired them to do what they do.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Which has nothing, at all, of any sort, whatsoever to "people thinking the same way I do". It has everything to do with the fact that this forum has many times seen people come in and copy and paste some name of someone who has done good works, and has been religious, and has missed the entire divide between correlation and causation. You are far from the first. You will be far from the last.
I haven't argued correlation. I have it from the source themselves that it was causation. I haven't at all missed the divide between correlation and causation as I am quite aware that there are many people who are non-religious who have different motivating factors for the work they do, but that does not negate my pointing out to the OP that for many people, religion is not the negative influence or the "stranglehold" that they perceive it to be. It's simply a matter of perspective.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »We make arguments based on unverifiable anecdotal conversation in this forum all the time.
Speak for yourself. As I said:
a) You claimed not have made any implications. I showed this was false.
b) The implication failed as you have not shown, except in some makey up conversation you have no evidence for actually having had, that religion was in any relevant to the thing you tried to imply a connection with.
Those failures are on you, not me.One eyed Jack wrote: »Again, that's the way you read it, but that wasn't it's intention
Bull. You made a claim related to religion having a positive influence and then led into this, using a -hyphen, a copy and pasted diatribe about some woman working against AIDS.
If you want to pretend there was no intended implications there then so be it but I am not sure who will buy it. It is abundantly clear however that the intended implication was that her religion motivated her actions. Yet you have no evidence for this position.One eyed Jack wrote: »it was merely one example of a person who was influenced by her faith to try and better humanity. Clearly it went over your head, and that's fine.
Except you did not link it to faith in any way, despite implying an implication. If that failure goes over your head, that's fine.One eyed Jack wrote: »You claim there was an implication when there wasn't
Except there was and it is there for all to see. You were clearly implying the text you pasted was an example of religion having a beneficial effect. You very clearly wrote "I would suggest that religion can be a positive influence in many more people's lives than it isn't -" and then led on from this to the example you pasted.
If you want to pretend otherwise then that is on you not me, if the reasons I am not buying it are complex and over your head, that's fine.One eyed Jack wrote: »Yes, that's why I said according to you, because you said it, and it's your opinion. That's fine. I don't agree with your opinion. Are you familiar with the concept of a false equivalence?
Are you? Because you are not applying it at all correctly. If the concept of it is over your head, that's fine. It is on you not me. The simple fact is that if people do X with Y, and do X without Y, then clearly Y is not a requirement. If the meaning of the word superfluous is over your head, that's fine.One eyed Jack wrote: »In order for your argument to have any merit, you would have to demonstrate that the same people would have done X with, or without their faith as their motivation.
If the concept of burden of proof is over your head, that's fine. I am happy to explain it. It is you claiming the relevance of faith to the actions not me. So in fact it is for you to show she would NOT have done the same things without faith, not for me to do so. That's on you. Not me.
You made the link and the implication, before back tracking from it. Not me. Not anyone else. You. So if you want to support that link with any evidence other than a possible wholesale invented conversation then I am all ears.
Back here in the real world however I can show that plenty of people do these things without religion. And that religion and/or faith are not requirements at all to do them. So supporting the link you have made, let alone the relevance of it.... is all for you to do. Not me. If that concept is over your head, that's fine.One eyed Jack wrote: »I haven't argued correlation. I have it from the source themselves that it was causation.
A that alleged conversation which we have no way of evidencing again. You do love your unverifiable anecdotes don't you.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I mean like, if a large chunk of the population believe in god then what hope is there for the country? In my mind, you would want to be fairly blind or stupid to not be able to see that God is in the same set of characters as Santy and the Easter Bunny.
There is a large number of buildings across the US with no 13th floor. Or negatively numbered floors. I find that this can be a much greater motivation for despair that those thinking there is a god. Imagine being scared of a number?
And that is just one example of 1000s I could give. From people subscribing to the efficacy of homeopathy, to the uptake rates of Evolution and other aspects of science in countries like the US and Turkey, to the results of surveys asking people primary school level questions about the relative orbits of the earth, moon and sun..... it is quite easy to despair for man kind.
Of course the easy non-thinking response to that is to ask what practical significance people being afraid of a number.... or not knowing the earth orbits the sun.... actually is. And of course there is none really. Rather it is results of that sort that are indicative of a general sort of ignorance/education divide in general from when our despair comes.
In a thread recently on what life would be like if we allowed ourselves to be governed by science I pointed out to the OP that the world already IS run by science. But democracy is only as good as how informed the people voting actually are. And the more reliant our society becomes on science, the more we are going to be ruled and governed by those who understand it.
Improving our education of science......... learning to demand evidence of people who make claims in our halls of education, power, science and medicine..... and at least attempting to get our media to hire science journalists with a scientific education so they do not come out writing tosh nonsense such as last months "Bacon is as dangerous as smoking" crap because they were asked to write science articles without knowing the first think ABOUT science..... are the ways that will allow us to NOT let science govern us as it already does, but for us to govern science.
"We live in an age based on science and technology with formidable scientific powers, and if we do not understand it.... we the general public.... then who is making all the decisions about science and technology that determines the future our children will live in? Members of our congress? There is no more than a handful of them who have any background in science at all. We have arranged a society based on science and technology in which no one understands anything about it. And this combustable mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, will blow up in our faces. Who IS running science and technology in a democracy if the people do not know anything about it?
Science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking, or evaluating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. And if we are not able to ask skeptical questions of those who tell us what is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we are up for grabs to the next chalatan who comes ambling along. Jefferson himself said 'It is not enough to enshrine some rights in a constitution or a bill of rights.... the people have to be educated in order than we run the government not the government running us'".
Carl Sagan
So it is quite easy to despair for a species that seems in many areas to be intent and bent on making the script of the film "idiocracy" a reality. And, in the greater scheme of things, the fact the majority of people subscribe to the not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated claim that there is a god..... is only a drop in the ocean of where that despair stems from.
But perspective is a wonderful thing and we can lament and worry about those things while always keeping an eye on the heights and pinnacles our species is capable of reaching. The nobility and self sacrifice it can achieve and display.
As the old quote goes "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!"
It is the potential of humankind from which one can derive hope from, and despair at our failings from, in equal measure depending on one's perspective. And mood.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Are you? Because you are not applying it at all correctly. If the concept of it is over your head, that's fine. It is on you not me. The simple fact is that if people do X with Y, and do X without Y, then clearly Y is not a requirement. If the meaning of the word superfluous is over your head, that's fine.
And in order for that statement to be true, you would have to be able to demonstrate that the same people would do X with, or without Y.If the concept of burden of proof is over your head, that's fine. I am happy to explain it. It is you claiming the relevance of faith to the actions not me. So in fact it is for you to show she would NOT have done the same things without faith, not for me to do so. That's on you. Not me.
No, I gave an example of a woman who, by her own words, claimed that she was inspired by her faith to do what she does. You are free to rebut that claim with evidence that the same person would have done the same thing had she not had faith.You made the link and the implication, before back tracking from it. Not me. Not anyone else. You. So if you want to support that link with any evidence other than a possible wholesale invented conversation then I am all ears.
I don't have any evidence other than the person's own testimony. I understand why that is not acceptable to you, and that's fair enough.Back here in the real world however I can show that plenty of people do these things without religion. And that religion and/or faith are not requirements at all to do them. So supporting the link you have made, let alone the relevance of it.... is all for you to do. Not me. If that concept is over your head, that's fine.
I agree with you, and I gave the example of Daniel Dennett earlier in the thread. That does not negate the fact that for some people, their faith is the reason why they do what they do. Clearly for those people, religion and/or faith is a requirement in motivating them to do what they do.A that alleged conversation which we have no way of evidencing again. You do love your unverifiable anecdotes don't you.
Just about as much as I love your unverifiable anecdotes, which is the reason I don't question them, because I'm aware of the type of people you often describe in your anecdotes.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »And in order for that statement to be true, you would have to be able to demonstrate that the same people would do X with, or without Y.
No. You are wrong again. Try and understand what I am actually saying rather than what you want me to be saying. Because what I am _actually_ saying does not require what you claim it requires at all.
Once again: I am saying that if people do X with Y, and people do X without Y, then Y is clearly not a requirement for X to occur. Cherry picking random single examples of people you merely declare would or would not have done it with or with Y, dodges the point I am making entirely.
If I say you can travel to work with or without a car, my statement remains entirely true regardless of whether you WOULD do so or not.
Now it is YOU here claiming that this one cherry picked example of a woman working against AIDS did so due to her faith or religion or had such motivations. So it is YOU that would have to show she would not have acted exactly the same way without that faith or religion.
And the _only_ support for that position you have offered so far is a conversation you purport to have, but can not verify in even the smallest way.
But back here in reality we have people doing those things without faith _all the time_. So clearly faith is no requirement to do it or attain it.
And even those cherry picked example, should you finally be capable of finding one, that DID only do good things because of their faith..... so what? That is only a cherry picked part of the picture. What are the costs of that for a start? And how does it scale up to people who have only done BAD things due to their faith?
We can not simply cherry pick happy examples of people doing happy things, and then merely assert based on anecdotal, possibly entirely invented, conversations that faith was the reason they did it and they would not have done so without.
So you have all your work still ahead of you to support the implication you made, pretended you did not make, and are now pretending I have to prove the negative of.One eyed Jack wrote: »No, I gave an example of a woman who, by her own words, claimed that she was inspired by her faith to do what she does.
Words that exist in a conversation you claim happened, but can not verify.One eyed Jack wrote: »You are free to rebut that claim with evidence that the same person would have done the same thing had she not had faith.
I will stick to substantiating the things I have actually said, not claims you are making on my behalf, thanks very much. Try it sometime.One eyed Jack wrote: »I don't have any evidence other than the person's own testimony. I understand why that is not acceptable to you, and that's fair enough.
Words that exist in a conversation you claim happened, but can not verify.One eyed Jack wrote: »Clearly for those people, religion and/or faith is a requirement in motivating them to do what they do.
Except that is not clear at all for the VERY reason you are pretending my position has to answer to.... which your position is actually the one that has to answer to it. That is: You can not take a single one of those people and show that a lack of faith would have precluded them doing what they did. Especially in a world punctuated by people without any faith who are doing those things.
And that lack in your position is, as I said, one that exists long BEFORE one steps back and looks at the big picture and the costs and other effects of having that religion and that faith in our world.
Christopher Hitchens laid this out in a similar point when discussing those who do good works in the name of their faith. To paraphrase what he said: Hamass provides social services in Gaza while Louis Farrakan does great social work getting young black men off drugs. Does any of this change the big picture that one is a Militarised terrorist organisation with a fanatical antisemitic ideology while the other is a racist crackpot cult?
You moved to answer the OPs general despair at the stranglehold of religion on mankind by zooming in one one SINGLE person who ALLEGEDLY was motivated by faith to do some good stuff. Not withstanding your complete inability to verify that claim..... even if we were to grant the claim 100% true it does not remotely address the scale of what the OP was lamenting.One eyed Jack wrote: »Just about as much as I love your unverifiable anecdotes
Given I have presented absolutely nothing on this thread that fits that description, you have clearly decided to simply resort to bluster at this point. Your unverifiable anecdotes are not erased by pretending others have used some, that have not.0 -
Advertisement
-
If religion inspires someone to go do good deeds and help her fellow man (or woman), then more power to her elbow, I say, and I don't care too much if it's because she feels called by God or because she's decided off her own bat that this is what she wants to do. None of my business, and I appreciate that she's a decent person doing good.
Religious people can decide to go out and do good.
Athiests can decide to go out and do good ("If I have only one life, I'm going to use it to make the world better" would be a reason.)
None of this influences whether or not I reckon that official society should be secular. Nor would I attempt to ban what people privately believe or call them idiots for doing so.
Also, I'm amused that the ad at the bottom of this page in A&A is "BA in Theology, Maynooth College".0 -
If religion inspires someone to go do good deeds and help her fellow man (or woman), then more power to her elbow, I say, and I don't care too much if it's because she feels called by God or because she's decided off her own bat that this is what she wants to do. None of my business, and I appreciate that she's a decent person doing good.
At the level of the individual I wholly agree with you in every way.
And if there are people who truly believe their religion is the only thing stopping them going around murdering and pillaging then I would be the last person in the world to want them to lose their faith.
So when you say "they are a decent person doing good" perhaps there are even "horrible people doing good" somewhere. And nothing but a fear of eternal damnation is stopping them being the person they actually want to be.
But I guess I am cursed with a need to look at the big picture. And if the big picture is that religion is not required at all on the larger scale for swaths of charity work and humanitarian work to occur.... then religion is superfluous to requirements. Therefore if a COST of that religion exists does this not put it into negative utility?
Take the parents in the US who watch their children die of perfectly easily treatable medical conditions because they believe medical intervention is an affront to their god. Or the people living in terror of Farrakan or Hamas. Or the people dying of AIDS because they were told Condoms are evil. What consolation do you feel they might receive from being told "Well Matilda over here is very nice and credits that to her faith"?Nor would I attempt to ban what people privately believe
Thankfully I think that is a sentiment shared by just about everyone on this forum, myself included. I do not generally see anyone on this forum advocating banning thought crime, or trying to divest them of their faith. Rather they want faith to have its time and its place.
But I also see where the OP is coming from. When one sees a large amount of people subscribing to a notion that is not just slightly, but entirely unsubstantiated in any way..... and in many cases is a transparent fabrication like Joseph Smith or Scientology...... it is quite easy to despair for the human intellect. And while I personally have gotten over that despair intellectually, I certainly can get myself back in that mind-space enough to sympathize with people like our OP here.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Given that she is an obstetrician with a medical background, have you any evidence for that particular claim that she personally advised against the use of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS?Are we seriously being asked to believe she must be dispensing condoms unless we find evidence to the contrary?
You didn't make any specific claim, but you suggested the burden of proof was the wrong way around.One eyed Jack wrote: »Nope, it was gctest who expected me to accept his claims for which he couldn't produce any evidence. I was able to produce evidence for anything I claimed..
ie that a nun would disobey the teachings of the Vatican simply because she apparently has some kind of medical qualification. The more salient point is that she is a nun.
Her methods of combating AIDs are to promote abstinence from sex and alcohol, and then spend a lot of time praying. It may work if strictly adhered to, but what are the chances of that? If not a realistic proposition, then its only a distraction from something else that does work.
In this respect the method is similar to the RCC approved methods of birth control.
Here's what she recommends;
Here's what she does not recommend...we put a very strong spiritual component into that as well, based on faith and values.
How did that work out?
That worked out very well, because that is what gives strength to the programme. Many people want to change behaviours, but they feel powerless to do so, but [it gives you strength] when you put it into a faith context with prayer. We even ran the group with Moslem groups as well... if you look at every religion across the world, it holds marriage as sacred and sex outside the marriage as wrong. In Africa the main spread of AIDS is through heterosexual relationships. So, we used Scripture, we used a lot of reflection during the day, reflecting on what our faith is calling us to, and we also had reconciliation if it was a Catholic group, and often Mass as well..
BTW this "Doctor" Edward Greene she keeps quoting is not a medical doctor at all....unless you include witch doctors in that category.If you look at the countries where they’ve just invested in condoms. Here’s a quote from one of the recent medical journals in America where it shows you that it’s just not working. It said in a recent medical report from Washington DC, “twenty years into the pandemic there is no evidence that more condoms leads to less AIDS,” stated Dr Edward Greene of the Harvard Centre of Population Development Studies.
Dr Hurst of the University of California supported this analysis saying that “...The promotion of the safe-sex message has reportedly increased numbers of sexual partners.” The spread of HIV is a behavioural problem... Having multiple sex partners drives the pandemic.
OK... right. Does that sound like a good use of the health budget? A program resulting from the collaboration between witch doctors and missionaries? Somebody should phone Leo Varadkar, this could be the answer to all his problems :pac:Green is a pioneer in anthropological research on indigenous healers. He is the first to develop public health programs based on collaboration between African indigenous healers and western-style biomedical personnel..
Green qualified as an anthropologist at the Catholic University of America in 1974. He spent two years living in the jungle, learning the wisdom of the noble savage...
wikiFor his dissertation ethnographic research in the early 1970s, Green spent two years living with the Matawai Maroons of Suriname, descendants of escaped African slaves. They are one of five groups of Maroons in Suriname whose descendants have lived for more than two centuries in the Amazon rain forest....
He got a one off 3-year grant from Harvard, which was not renewed afterwards.
Here's Sister Miriam writing letters to the Irish Times as a Dublin 4 medical expert, quoting the latest research (you guessed it; new day, same old $hit)
No mention of her being a nun. She must have forgotten.0 -
You didn't make any specific claim, but you suggested the burden of proof was the wrong way around.
ie that a nun would disobey the teachings of the Vatican simply because she apparently has some kind of medical qualification. The more salient point is that she is a nun.
Thank you for acknowledging that much. The burden of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim such as the one gctest did, and when I asked them for evidence of their claim, they threw enough shìt in the hope I suppose that something would stick.Her methods of combating AIDs are to promote abstinence from sex and alcohol, and then spend a lot of time praying. It may work if strictly adhered to, but what are the chances of that?
I'd say it was very effective if strictly adhered to. I'm guessing the chances that it would be strictly adhered to would be dependent upon the individual, like any other prevention and management regime that would need to be strictly adhered to. Think of it like herd immunity in relation to vaccines and the numbers of new age idiots in the Western world who refuse to have their children vaccinated, thereby reducing the effectiveness of any immunity for the whole population.If not a realistic proposition, then its only a distraction from something else that does work.
In this respect the method is similar to the RCC approved methods of birth control.
Well whether abstinence would be a realistic proposition or not would be entirely dependent upon what support structures are put in place to support that proposition. On it's own, it would be about as effective as throwing out condoms at a teenage disco when they're all drunk. How realistic do you think their effectiveness would be in the absence of education?OK... right. Does that sound like a good use of the health budget? A program resulting from the collaboration between witch doctors and missionaries? Somebody should phone Leo Varadkar, this could be the answer to all his problems :pac:
Yes it does, it's no more bizarre than a collaboration between black atheists and church leaders in the States in an effort to combat economic poverty among their community. I reckon Leo could indeed learn a lesson or two from them. He seems open to suggestions having run out of ideas and hoping the service will fix itself in the long term... somehow.Green qualified as an anthropologist at the Catholic University of America in 1974. He spent two years living in the jungle, learning the wisdom of the noble savage... wiki
He got a one off 3-year grant from Harvard, which was not renewed afterwards.
If there's a point in there, I'm not seeing it?Here's Sister Miriam writing letters to the Irish Times as a Dublin 4 medical expert, quoting the latest research (you guessed it; new day, same old $hit)
No mention of her being a nun. She must have forgotten.
And again, not seeing the point there?
I appreciate the lengths you went to of course, but I'm just not seeing what your overall point is?0 -
Well, humanity has been around for about 200,000 years, during which time not only have most of the world's population failed to demonstrate the mental capacity to figure out that god doesn't exist, but they've managed to invent thousands of gods to suit their needs. It's fair to say that over that time humanity has demonstrably directed itself in a reasonably positive direction long term; we're still around anyway. So there's probably no great cause for worry in that regard; it looks like we can manage to survive and believe in gods at the same time.
I could see it positively I suppose. The most powerful country in the world, America, is relatively speaking a positive place to live and "trying" to make a positive influence on the world but it really does depend on a few people at critical stages making a really positive influence and at other stages it takes huge sacrifice. The American civil war being one of those stages. The abolishon of slavery relied heavily on the force of personality and courage of Abraham Lincoln making the right judgement at the right time as well as the eventual deaths of something like 700 thousand Americans through conflict.
The history of humanity could be seen as one of constant progress but also one of constant war all over the globe with huge suffering on a scale that you are probably completely unaware of. I don't think I'm being necessarily negative about that. I think youre being more ignorant about history.
This current period of world history is itself full of conflict but the last 20-30 years have probably been the most peaceful the world has ever seen since civilization's began. Could be a mere statistical fluke amongst history past and history yet to come.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think most Americans believed in gods as well; and most of them still do. Is it not fair to say that both the positive and negative influence of the US on the world is good enough reason to have faith in humanity's ability to survive our affection for deities?Deleted User wrote: »I could see it positively I suppose. The most powerful country in the world, America, is relatively speaking a positive place to live and "trying" to make a positive influence on the world but it really does depend on a few people at critical stages making a really positive influence and at other stages it takes huge sacrifice. The American civil war being one of those stages. The abolishon of slavery relied heavily on the force of personality and courage of Abraham Lincoln making the right judgement at the right time as well as the eventual deaths of something like 700 thousand Americans through conflict.
Why would I be unaware of historical suffering? It's knowing that we can persevere through all of that and still exist that gives me faith in humanity's ability to survive the crises we create for ourselves. Don't you think it's so very improbable that we exist at all, and that we continue despite everything we do, that we deserve a little faith in our facility to continue to do so?Deleted User wrote: »The history of humanity could be seen as one of constant progress but also one of constant war all over the globe with huge suffering on a scale that you are probably completely unaware of. I don't think I'm being necessarily negative about that. I think youre being more ignorant about history.
Could be, though I suspect there have been more than a few relatively peaceful decades here and there, and even at our historical worst we couldn't rival the scale of destruction we're capable of visiting on ourselves now.Deleted User wrote: »This current period of world history is itself full of conflict but the last 20-30 years have probably been the most peaceful the world has ever seen since civilization's began. Could be a mere statistical fluke amongst history past and history yet to come.0 -
I think its more like the Howard Hughes theory of avoiding infection; don't touch anything, and stay inside the house for years. Very effective, if strictly adhered to.One eyed Jack wrote: »I'd say it was very effective if strictly adhered to. I'm guessing the chances that it would be strictly adhered to would be dependent upon the individual, like any other prevention and management regime that would need to be strictly adhered to. Think of it like herd immunity in relation to vaccines and the numbers of new age idiots in the Western world who refuse to have their children vaccinated, thereby reducing the effectiveness of any immunity for the whole population..0 -
-
I'd say it was very effective if strictly adhered to. I'm guessing the chances that it would be strictly adhered to would be dependent upon the individual, like any other prevention and management regime that would need to be strictly adhered to. Think of it like herd immunity in relation to vaccines and the numbers of new age idiots in the Western world who refuse to have their children vaccinated, thereby reducing the effectiveness of any immunity for the whole population.[/quote]How likely it is to be adhered to should actually be a factor in deciding how appropriate it is to be given as a solution to a problem.One eyed Jack wrote: »Well whether abstinence would be a realistic proposition or not would be entirely dependent upon what support structures are put in place to support that proposition. On it's own, it would be about as effective as throwing out condoms at a teenage disco when they're all drunk. How realistic do you think their effectiveness would be in the absence of education?
[/QUOTE]What kind of support structures do you think are being put in place? Actually, scratch that, to have sex is one of the strongest impulses animals have. Short of locking people up, what would an adequate support structure capable of preventing people from giving into one of nature's strongest impulses...?
There must be some way to show the effectiveness of abstinence. Surely you have examples of its success? Perhaps I can help you. It is widely taught in the US of A. Now, it might be a little inaccurate and unfair to use a developed country to show the effectiveness of abstinence. After all, in your view, a key factor is the kind of support structures put in place. As one of the richest and most developed countries on earth the USA would obviously be at a serious advantage over those countries where you beloved nun/angel of mercy operates in terms of support structures. So I guess that mean that abstinence programmes in the USA are likely to be much more successful than those is poverty stricken developing countries. Ah well, never mind, I am sure there is some value in looking at it.
Lets see... Oh... Hmmm... It say here that states that teach abstinence only, or teach abstinence as the most effective form of contraception, have the highest rates of unwanted teen pregnancy... Hmmm, how can that be OEJ?
Source
And another
And another
Seeing a pattern? This is my personal favourite, free contraception resulted in a 42% drop in abortion rates. Who'd a thunk it?
How about now...?
So, given that it doesn't work in the developed world, I would be interested in seeing your evidence that it works in the developing world.
MrP0 -
Despite my suspicion of the word I am all for a more holistic approach to combating unwanted pregnancy and STD. Abstinence is great and, as pointed out, 100% effective when adhered to. But as also pointed out above programs and methodologies relying on it too heavily have the opposite to desired effect.
Alas those who rely too heavily on it (and there does indeed appear on the face of it to be a strong correlation to religiosity in those that do) also appear to be the ones who are entirely against sexual education in children, or things like condoms.
People here would lament the nuns and missionaries who actively go about preaching the sinful or hateful use of condoms, as many catholic and other people did and do.
But I would also similarly lament those who go into the area of combating things like pregnancy and AIDS and say NOTHING about condoms AT ALL. Because for me going into a place that requires and would benefit from education and popularization of their use and failing to do so.... is almost as bad. Especially in areas of the world with myths like "If you have sex with a virgin all your ailments are cured".
And I have never understood the whole issue with sexual education in children either. Nor has anyone managed to lay out what the issues may be save for one or two people who said something about "maintaining the innocence of children". Yet despite the innocence of children being one of the most precious and most worthy of protection things I can think about..... nothing on my list of what "the innocence of children" actually means and entails includes ignorance about sex, sexuality or sexual safety.
So I am all for abstinence, it's education, propagation, popularization and so forth. But as a part of a holistic to also educating children about sex well... and early..... and the easier and cheaper access (over the counter, vending machines, VAT free and so forth) to things like condoms and low(er) risk contraceptives.
Lack of faith in humanity indeed. Not only are we scared of numbers, but sometimes of our own sexuality and sexual nature. Add that to the list of reasons I gave for why the OP is not entirely off base in feeling despair at times.0 -
I']What kind of support structures do you think are being put in place? Actually, scratch that, to have sex is one of the strongest impulses animals have. Short of locking people up, what would an adequate support structure capable of preventing people from giving into one of nature's strongest impulses...?
I've already said - education.
Address the underlying problem rather than just throwing condoms at people who have no intention of using them.There must be some way to show the effectiveness of abstinence. Surely you have examples of its success? Perhaps I can help you. It is widely taught in the US of A. Now, it might be a little inaccurate and unfair to use a developed country to show the effectiveness of abstinence. After all, in your view, a key factor is the kind of support structures put in place. As one of the richest and most developed countries on earth the USA would obviously be at a serious advantage over those countries where you beloved nun/angel of mercy operates in terms of support structures. So I guess that mean that abstinence programmes in the USA are likely to be much more successful than those is poverty stricken developing countries. Ah well, never mind, I am sure there is some value in looking at it.
Lets see... Oh... Hmmm... It say here that states that teach abstinence only, or teach abstinence as the most effective form of contraception, have the highest rates of unwanted teen pregnancy... Hmmm, how can that be OEJ?
Source
And another
And another
Seeing a pattern? This is my personal favourite, free contraception resulted in a 42% drop in abortion rates. Who'd a thunk it?
How about now...?
So, given that it doesn't work in the developed world, I would be interested in seeing your evidence that it works in the developing world.
MrP
Not only is it inaccurate and unfair comparison, but as nozferahtoo points out with the example of the idea that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, you're ignoring the vast cultural differences between the two counties. One could flood Africa with comdoms and it still would have no effect IMO in reducing the spread of AIDS.
A more holistic approach would address the underlying problem of cultural attitudes borne of ignorance and economic poverty, working with people, rather than throwing condoms at them and expecting they will use them.
How long have condoms been available in the Western world? Using your logic, we should have eradicated AIDS by now, but rather depressingly there exists a sub-culture of "poz parties" and people determined to spread the disease. I'd gladly see those people locked up away from the rest of civilized society.
EDIT: "Bugchasing" they call it -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bugchasing&redirect=no0 -
Deleted User wrote: »In my mind, you would want to be fairly blind or stupid to not be able to see that God is in the same set of characters as Santy and the Easter Bunny.
The only fly in this ointment is that the list of people who are not stupid or blind (did you mean in the visual sense) yet are satisfied as to God's existence (whilst agreeing with you on the Santa/Easter Bunny situation) inconveniently long.
You would need a better defence of your position than what is, objectively, a blind and stupid statement0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »The only fly in this ointment is that the list of people who are not stupid or blind (did you mean in the visual sense) yet are satisfied as to God's existence (whilst agreeing with you on the Santa/Easter Bunny situation) inconveniently long.
You would need a better defence of your position than what is, objectively, a blind and stupid statement
I think you forgot the word "is". "is inconveniently long" would have made that sentence much more amenable to the unedumacated.
I didn't know I was on the defence :-) but alas I'm not sure I could be easily drawn into an argument about god's lack of existence. I have no reason to try convert anyone. I'd love to be converted though. Would be great to be able to say "God? Sher I was only talking to him the other day. Yeah I know him well. Yeah a lot of rumours going around that he isn't but no they're false. I met him and was talking to him sure as I'm talking to you now. Didn't have much to say for himself really. Keeps to himself generally which is why there is all the rumours that he isn't. I asked him why he let all the suffering in the world occur but he dodged the question and pretended he had a call coming in on the mobile so we said goodbye. But yeah he definitely exists."0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »The only fly in this ointment is that the list of people who are not stupid or blind (did you mean in the visual sense) yet are satisfied as to God's existence (whilst agreeing with you on the Santa/Easter Bunny situation) inconveniently long.
You would need a better defence of your position than what is, objectively, a blind and stupid statement
By the way, if the inconveniently long list of people who are not stupid or blind (in the metaphorical sense) yet are satisfied as to God's existence ended up jumping off a cliff then would you jump off that same cliff? Seems like an inconveniently long list of people doing something or believing in something is good enough reason to do it or believe it also.
Jasus you're kind of right. People really are like lemmings.0 -
I think you kind of missed the point there; you don't have to agree with them, never mind jump off a cliff with them, to acknowledge that there are observably and demonstrably quite a great number of people who are neither fairly blind nor stupid, yet are not able to (or willing to) see that God is in the same set of characters as Santy and the Easter Bunny.Deleted User wrote: »By the way, if the inconveniently long list of people who are not stupid or blind (in the metaphorical sense) yet are satisfied as to God's existence ended up jumping off a cliff then would you jump off that same cliff? Seems like an inconveniently long list of people doing something or believing in something is good enough reason to do it or believe it also.
Jasus you're kind of right. People really are like lemmings.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you kind of missed the point there; you don't have to agree with them, never mind jump off a cliff with them, to acknowledge that there are observably and demonstrably quite a great number of people who are neither fairly blind nor stupid, yet are not able to (or willing to) see that God is in the same set of characters as Santy and the Easter Bunny.
Depends how you define not blind or not stupid. Fair enough I have to respect other peoples beliefs but no matter how many degrees someone has and no matter how many impossible mathematical theorems they prove, if someone tells me that they believe in God whole heartedly then I immediately lose faith in them and I wouldn't really be able to hold them in high regard if they started arguing their view point on another matter. For me they've already demonstrated an inability to think about logically or resolve one of the first major questions that they might encounter in their life: Is there a Christian God? It doesn't make them a bad person and using stupid was probably a harsh word to use in my initial post. "Suspect reasoning skills" would probably have been a better choice to use and probably applies more to those that sit down and think about whether there is a god or not. I'm sure there is plenty of people who have been indoctrinated in the belief in "God" that they would never even contemplate asking that question so in that regard they would not be stupid necessarily just because they never thought about it.
Think of it this way to see my point of view. Imagine the majority of the world population believed in the tooth fairy as a central figure of their world religion. And imagine that a lot of civil law and policitics and morality and opinion was influenced by the supposed word of the Tooth Fairy. How optimistic would you be for the world? You have to admit that no matter how good the word of the "Tooth Fairy" was, you'd be pretty worried that the majority of the planet was being influenced by this obviously false deity. Well that's basically me except replace the Tooth Fairy with the Christian God.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Depends how you define not blind or not stupid.
I don't think there's any objective way to define blind and stupid that would allow you to encompass such individuals; only by applying your own subjective criteria designed to exclude them would that be possible. But if you feel differently, feel free to give it a try? We're nothing if not good at being critical on A&A
Hmm. Isaac Newton believed in God; if you couldn't hold him in high regard if he started arguing his view point on another matter I'd suggest the fault is more in you than him, since his viewpoints were demonstrably sound. Ditto Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. Not to mention Erwin Schrödinger, Aziz Sancar, Louis Pasteur, Richard Feynman, Werner Heisenberg, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, or Peter Agre. Well, now that I have mentioned them, I'd suggest they all have held (or hold) view points worth considering their arguments for.Deleted User wrote: »Fair enough I have to respect other peoples beliefs but no matter how many degrees someone has and no matter how many impossible mathematical theorems they prove, if someone tells me that they believe in God whole heartedly then I immediately lose faith in them and I wouldn't really be able to hold them in high regard if they started arguing their view point on another matter. For me they've already demonstrated an inability to think about logically or resolve one of the first major questions that they might encounter in their life: Is there a Christian God? It doesn't make them a bad person and using stupid was probably a harsh word to use in my initial post. "Suspect reasoning skills" would probably have been a better choice to use and probably applies more to those that sit down and think about whether there is a god or not. I'm sure there is plenty of people who have been indoctrinated in the belief in "God" that they would never even contemplate asking that question so in that regard they would not be stupid necessarily just because they never thought about it.
Think of it this way; despite believing in a figure you find just as ridiculous as the Tooth Fairy all of the above have made a greater contribution to the sum of human understanding than you are ever likely to. If they're the people we should hold in the lowest regard because of their opinions, how incredibly bright is our future if there are people we can hold in higher esteem?Deleted User wrote: »Think of it this way to see my point of view. Imagine the majority of the world population believed in the tooth fairy as a central figure of their world religion. And imagine that a lot of civil law and policitics and morality and opinion was influenced by the supposed word of the Tooth Fairy. How optimistic would you be for the world? You have to admit that no matter how good the word of the "Tooth Fairy" was, you'd be pretty worried that the majority of the planet was being influenced by this obviously false deity. Well that's basically me except replace the Tooth Fairy with the Christian God.0 -
Hmm. Isaac Newton believed in God; if you couldn't hold him in high regard if he started arguing his view point on another matter I'd suggest the fault is more in you than him, since his viewpoints were demonstrably sound. Ditto Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. Not to mention Erwin Schrödinger, Aziz Sancar, Louis Pasteur, Richard Feynman, Werner Heisenberg, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, or Peter Agre. Well, now that I have mentioned them, I'd suggest they all have held (or hold) view points worth considering their arguments for.
Now you're name dropping :-) Worst form of argument. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me how large their reputation is or what work they have done. If they believe in god then they're reasoning skills are suspect in my mind and I wouldn't classify them as fully understanding the fundamental basic concept of science that if there is no theoretical basis for it or if there is no experimental evidence for it then it's not worth the paper its written on.0 -
It is? Your argument is that these people are blind or stupid. My argument is that these people are famously observant and intelligent. Which of them do you think you can demostrate is either blind or stupid?Deleted User wrote: »Now you're name dropping :-) Worst form of argument.
If the work they have done doesn't matter to you, I think it's fair to say your reasoning suffers from a fundamental flaw; you're ignoring the data in order to arrive at your predetermined conclusion. Not going to win you many plaudits in pretty much any field of scientific enquiry.Deleted User wrote: »Anyway, it doesn't matter to me how large their reputation is or what work they have done. If they believe in god then they're reasoning skills are suspect in my mind and I wouldn't classify them as fully understanding the fundamental basic concept of science that if there is no theoretical basis for it or if there is no experimental evidence for it then it's not worth the paper its written on.0 -
Think of it this way; despite believing in a figure you find just as ridiculous as the Tooth Fairy all of the above have made a greater contribution to the sum of human understanding than you are ever likely to. If they're the people we should hold in the lowest regard because of their opinions, how incredibly bright is our future if there are people we can hold in higher esteem?
They possibly did make a bigger impact on humanity than me so far but that's besides the point. I would only hold them in high esteem for their experimentally proven theoretical work. The rest of their "opinions" can be thrown in the dustbin especially if it involves a "god" like figure that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for. People's opinions generally = bull****.0 -
It is? Your argument is that these people are blind or stupid. My argument is that these people are famously observant and intelligent. Which of them do you think you can demostrate is either blind or stupid?
If the work they have done doesn't matter to you, I think it's fair to say your reasoning suffers from a fundamental flaw; you're ignoring the data in order to arrive at your predetermined conclusion. Not going to win you many plaudits in pretty much any field of scientific enquiry.
All of them if they believed in the latest in a long string of gods that humanity believed in and subsequently dropped in favour of a better god or gods that better suited their needs over the millenia.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »They possibly did make a bigger impact on humanity than me so far but that's besides the point. I would only hold them in high esteem for their experimentally proven theoretical work. The rest of their "opinions" can be thrown in the dustbin especially if it involves a "god" like figure that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for. People's opinions generally = bull****.
Hardly beside the point; you said they're blind and stupid, yet their contribution to society is orders of magnitude greater than your own. What does that make you? If you're so much less than someone who is blind and stupid, how can you possibly give credence to your own opinion of other peoples opinions? Particularly when you know for a fact that you're prepared to ignore evidence in arriving at your opinion?Deleted User wrote: »All of them if they believed in the latest in a long string of gods that humanity believed in and subsequently dropped in favour of a better god or gods that better suited their needs over the millenia.
By all means make the attempt so. Perhaps you could start with Newtons observations on gravity and move on to Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmīs reasoning behind quadratic equations.0 -
Hardly beside the point; you said they're blind and stupid, yet their contribution to society is orders of magnitude greater than your own. What does that make you? If you're so much less than someone who is blind and stupid, how can you possibly give credence to your own opinion of other peoples opinions? Particularly when you know for a fact that you're prepared to ignore evidence in arriving at your opinion?
I said their "opinions" are not worth the paper they are written on unless there is some theoretical or experimental evidence for them. I don't pay much heed to people's opinions no matter how big their name was. Newton and Feynman held many opinions which they had no evidence for. If anything their unproven and non scientifically based opinions caused problems for science and humanity. I mean like the fact that they supposedly believed in god is taken by people like yourself to justify belief in god. That's a bit of a problem for me. Ditto for every other person who believes in God. The mass of believers forms the basis for your beliefs. Same as the mass of believers in Jupiter & Mars & Co. in ancient pre-Christian Rome formed the basis for the beliefs of the average Joe Soap roman back in the day. I mean like great men like Caesar believed in Jupiter and Mars and their contribution to humanity was massive so if he believed in Jupiter and Mars then that adds weight for Joe Soap roman to then believe in Jupiter and Mars.....0 -
If you're trying to call allies to your side, at least try to get your facts right. I can't be bothered checking the rest.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
[I call myself] an atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer than I am about this.
- Response when asked whether he called himself an atheist or an agnostic. The Voice of Genius: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries by Denis Brian (1995), Basic Books, p. 49.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Advertisement
-
No, you didn't. You said they were "fairly blind or stupid". A far more extravagant and ridiculous claim, especially given the opinions which they expressed and backed up with substantial theoretical and experimental evidence. Though if you're saying that nobodies opinions that aren't backed up by some sort of evidence are worth more than the paper they're written on, I'd agree with you; especially opinions like "you would want to be fairly blind or stupid to not be able to see that God is in the same set of characters as Santy and the Easter Bunny".Deleted User wrote: »I said their "opinions" are not worth the paper they are written on unless there is some theoretical or experimental evidence for them.
But that's simply not true! In fact... is it not simply an opinion presented without the backing of theoretical or experimental evidence? And you've told us quite clearly what you think of those....Deleted User wrote: »I mean like the fact that they supposedly believed in god is taken by people like yourself to justify belief in god. That's a bit of a problem for me. Ditto for every other person who believes in God. The mass of believers forms the basis for your beliefs.
I wouldn't say I'm calling allies to my side by any means, merely pointing out that there are plenty of observant and intelligent people who are not able to (or willing to) see that God is in the same set of characters as Santy and the Easter Bunny. As for Feynman, fair enough, I'll happily sub in Alexis Carrel, John Eccles, & Werner Arber.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »If you're trying to call allies to your side, at least try to get your facts right. I can't be bothered checking the rest.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement