Ha, take that Ratzinger!

MagicMarker · 14-11-2011 12:24AM

Aww, and there was me looking forward to you explaining how the effectiveness of condoms when used correctly plummets as soon as you sleep with more than one person.

Unless... you do realise that you use a different condom with the 2nd person?

B_Fanatic · 14-11-2011 12:31AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Aww, and there was me looking forward to you explaining how the effectiveness of condoms when used correctly plummets as soon as you sleep with more than one person.

Unless... you do realise that you use a different condom with the 2nd person?

You should try to see it from his perspective. Considering ye're not trying to change his beliefs (In this thread anyway) here I think that's reasonable. Once you do that it is quite obvious to see why a christian wouldn't supply the unwed with condoms whereas it's a helluva lot more difficult to justify an athiest doing so. What would they be doing with them when they SHOULD be abstaining until marriage?

I, for one, applaud TQE on his consistency. He's the kind of christian that has his roots sunk in too deep. Not sure if that's an insult or a compliment though

ShooterSF · 14-11-2011 12:35AM

B_Fanatic wrote: »

You should try to see it from his perspective. Considering ye're not trying to change his beliefs (In this thread anyway) here I think that's reasonable. Once you do that it is quite obvious to see why a christian wouldn't supply the unwed with condoms whereas it's a helluva lot more difficult to justify an athiest doing so. What would they be doing with them when they SHOULD be abstaining until marriage?

I, for one, applaud TQE on his consistency. He's the kind of christian that has his roots sunk in too deep. Not sure if that's an insult or a compliment though

No what he is doing is dancing around the truth to promote his belief. If he was happy to say "yes condoms can help stop you from getting HIV but you'll risk hell by doing so in an unmarried relationship" and left that choice with someone it'd be an improvement at least.

Galvasean · 14-11-2011 01:19AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Unless... you do realise that you use a different condom with the 2nd person?

After you've turned it inside out of course

MagicMarker · 14-11-2011 08:59AM

Galvasean wrote: »

After you've turned it inside out of course

Goes without saying!

sensibleken · 14-11-2011 10:46AM

I never understood the Catholic church's obsession with where my willy goes or what I put on it. The pope can keep his grubby hands off my cock!

robindch · 14-11-2011 11:30AM

sensibleken wrote: »

I never understood the Catholic church's obsession with where my willy goes or what I put on it.

Good (implied) question.

I think a lot of religious people are scared silly at how powerful sex is as a driver for human behaviour. By pretending to have lots of immutable, unarguable rules concerning sex, the church successfully uses this fear to legitimize its own claims to political power over believers. ie, if you're somebody who's frightened your spouse will have sex with a neighbour, then you're going to support any local institution which acts to limit this possibility. And the church is an institution which craves political power.

I'm less sure about the memetic reason for the rules + hatred towards male homosexuals, but it seems plausible to think that they exist to force men to marry, so that they are forced to have children, who are forced to learn the religious rules of their parents -- actions which ensure (and reinforce) the propagation of the same religious rules. Rules and hatred against lesbians are weaker, since forcing female homosexuals to have hetero sex is easier than trying to force male homosexuals to have hetero sex.

Also, over evolutionary time, most primates have been polygamous rather than polyandrous so at a very basic level, our brains think it's inappropriate for males to clump together within a single sexual grouping, while it's fine for women to group together in a single sexual unit under the control of a single male who's free to impregnate them as he wishes (with implied lesbian sex, which to be quite honest and to say the very least about it, seems to be something that many if not most men and women enjoy).

Religious rules are simply reflecting our evolutionary past, albeit darkly and unpleasantly, as they do everything.

Newsite · 14-11-2011 11:32AM

robindch wrote: »

Good (implied) question.

I think a lot of religious people are scared silly at how powerful sex is as a driver for human behaviour. By pretending to have lots of immutable, unarguable rules concerning sex, the church successfully uses this fear to legitimize its own claims to political power over believers. ie, if you're somebody who's frightened your spouse will have sex with a neighbour, then you're going to support any local institution which acts to limit this possibility.

I'm less sure about the memetic reason for the rules + hatred towards male homosexuals, but it seems plausible to think that they exist to force men to marry, so that they are forced to have children, who are forced to learn the religious rules of their parents -- actions which ensure (and reinforce) the propagation of the same religious rules. Rules and hatred against lesbians are weaker, since forcing female homosexuals to have hetero sex is easier than trying to force male homosexuals to have hetero sex.

Also, over evolutionary time, most primates have been polygamous rather than polyandrous so at a very basic level, our brains think it's inappropriate for males to clump together within a single sexual grouping, while it's fine for women to group together in a single sexual unit under the control of a single male who's free to impregnate them as he wishes (with implied lesbian sex, which to be quite honest and to say the very least about it, seems to be something that many if not most men and women enjoy).

Wow - and you call us irrational

I support my local church as they condemn stealing. Therefore, my next-door neighbour is less likely to steal my new 2011 motor

Delirium · 14-11-2011 11:36AM

Newsite wrote: »

Wow - and you call us irrational

I support my local church as they condemn stealing. Therefore, my next-door neighbour is less likely to steal my new 2011 motor

You're so right, that's why we don't have any Christian criminals :rolleyes::rolleyes:

robindch · 14-11-2011 11:36AM

Newsite wrote: »

I support my local church as they condemn stealing. Therefore, my next-door neighbour is less likely to steal my new 2011 motor

The full details are more complex since individual actors can and do use proxies, but broadly speaking, yes, that's about it.

sensibleken · 14-11-2011 11:37AM

Newsite wrote: »

Wow - and you call us irrational

I support my local church as they condemn stealing. Therefore, my next-door neighbour is less likely to steal my new 2011 motor

If the same church exerts power over your neighbour or community then the analogy is valid. you could also substitute church for political party or any other powerfull organisation.

Newsite · 14-11-2011 11:37AM

sensibleken wrote: »

I never understood the Catholic church's obsession with where my willy goes or what I put on it. The pope can keep his grubby hands off my cock!

God says that fornicators and adulterers won't see Heaven. And the church is charged with preaching his Word. So if you genuinely don't see the connection, I'd be worried!

sensibleken · 14-11-2011 11:38AM

Newsite wrote: »

God says that fornicators and adulterers won't see Heaven. And the church is charged with preaching his Word. So if you genuinely don't see the connection, I'd be worried!

why then is god fúcking someone else's wife!

Newsite · 14-11-2011 11:39AM

koth wrote: »

You're so right, that's why we don't have any Christian criminals :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think you might have missed the point of the analogy.

Also 'Christian criminals' is like saying 'meat-loving vegetarian'.

Delirium · 14-11-2011 11:42AM

Newsite wrote: »

I think you might have missed the point of the analogy.

Well feel free to clarify.

Also 'Christian criminals' is like saying 'meat-loving vegetarian'.

No it's not, it just means they're bad Christians.

sensibleken · 14-11-2011 11:43AM

Newsite wrote: »

I think you might have missed the point of the analogy.

Also 'Christian criminals' is like saying 'meat-loving vegetarian'.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:[8]
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

MagicMarker · 14-11-2011 11:49AM

Newsite wrote: »

I think you might have missed the point of the analogy.

Also 'Christian criminals' is like saying 'meat-loving vegetarian'.

Ah this old chestnut, love it.

Dades · 14-11-2011 12:06PM

Newsite wrote: »

Also 'Christian criminals' is like saying 'meat-loving vegetarian'.

Mistress 69 · 14-11-2011 06:07PM

robindch wrote: »

Good (implied) question.

(with implied lesbian sex, which to be quite honest and to say the very least about it, seems to be something that many if not most men and women enjoy).

Very interesting stuff..indeed.. Robin :pac:

Galvasean · 14-11-2011 10:26PM

I agree. Tell us more about the lesbian sex Robin

MrPudding · 14-11-2011 10:37PM

Galvasean wrote: »

I agree. Tell us more about the lesbian sex Robin

Yes Robin, please tell us more. And also, may I sign up to your newsletter?

MrP

Newsite · 14-11-2011 10:37PM

robindch wrote: »

The full details are more complex since individual actors can and do use proxies, but broadly speaking, yes, that's about it.

Ok. There is actually a kernel of truth in your assertion, but it won't be something that you are aware of, or, as an atheist, have any affinity with.

What I mean is this: God put forth certain laws that He wishes us to follow for our own good. Even an atheist might agree that if God exists (which of course He does), He is all-knowing, and all-seeing, and as a result likely knows what is good for us and what is not good for us.

Let me put this to you: forgetting any perceived oppression by the Church, is it a good thing for people to be instructed to not cheat on their wives? (using the point you made about your neighbour fooling around with your wife). Also bear in mind that in asking this, I have no affiliation with any church.

Mistress 69 · 14-11-2011 10:38PM

notallowedpostalink

Newsite · 14-11-2011 10:43PM

Dades wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'. Could you take a vegetarian seriously if you saw them sitting down to a steak?

Mistress 69 · 14-11-2011 10:52PM

Newsite wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'. Could you take a vegetarian seriously if you saw them sitting down to a steak?

Tricks with fruit and Goats Head Soup and all that star star, sorry... i mean ..stuff!

The Mad Hatter · 14-11-2011 10:59PM

Newsite wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'. Could you take a vegetarian seriously if you saw them sitting down to a steak?

Yes, but no-one seems able to agree what the True fruity Christian is really like. The closest anyone has come is "a Christian who believes exactly what I do."

Newsite · 14-11-2011 11:01PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, but no-one seems able to agree what the True fruity Christian is really like. The closest anyone has come is "a Christian who believes exactly what I do."

The reason you don't know what one is really like is because it's very unlikely that you've ever met one.

robindch · 14-11-2011 11:19PM

Newsite wrote: »

Ok. There is actually a kernel of truth in your assertion, but it won't be something that you are aware of, or, as an atheist, have any affinity with.

Newsite -- as you're a new (and welcome) poster here, can I suggest you drop the "look, you folks don't know jack" attitude here? Most of us have spent many years involved within religion in one way or another and as a group, we're probably far more knowledgeable about christian religious texts than the vast majority of religious believers. In fact, many people think that this familiarity is one of the main reasons why we're atheists and agnostics to start with.

Newsite wrote: »

Let me put this to you: forgetting any perceived oppression by the Church, is it a good thing for people to be instructed to not cheat on their wives?

No, because it's really quite obvious to most humans, that cheating is bad. What the church is doing is using that innate knowledge in order, as I said above, to legitimize its own political power base.

recedite · 14-11-2011 11:24PM

robindch wrote: »

Also, over evolutionary time, most primates have been polygamous rather than polyandrous so at a very basic level, our brains think it's inappropriate for males to clump together within a single sexual grouping, while it's fine for women to group together in a single sexual unit

No, all those spare priks have to go somewhere. Into a bachelor herd of some kind, where they usually take out their frustrations by launching a war against "the other tribe". The surviving veterans then return and have a go at usurping the dominant male.

Newsite wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'.

And you shall know a polygamous ape by its nuts.

The Mad Hatter · 14-11-2011 11:33PM

Newsite wrote: »

The reason you don't know what one is really like is because it's very unlikely that you've ever met one.

I've met a hell of a lot of people who claim to be.

Ha, take that Ratzinger!

Comments