In the news this week ...

Michael Faraday?

A brilliant pioneering scientist who believed in (dare in mention it) 'g--'?

Shouldn't be allowed!

Oops! 'Dare in mention it'??

Poor tired brain played tricks on me there (it's only randomly assembled anyway, so can't complain!)

The Mary McCardle one is interesting because I think the DUP have been muted. Not because they don't disagree but they don't want too much scrutiny on their SPADs. Wallace Thompson, mouthpiece of the further right than the free p's Caleb Foundation, was a SPAD for Nonsense McCausland and then Free Willy (sorry Sammy Wilson).

It is a job for the boys gravy train and to be honest the free p's and the DUP were on it long before the shinners.

LSV,

Many people who believe in god come up with amazing things, just coz you believe in god does not make you incapable of understanding science. There are many people of faith who have progressed our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Scientists always search and test what we know regardless of their faith.

Ministers or Pastors on the other hand know it all because they have been told and they do not need the ability to think because it is written.

As for the Mormons and Romsey bit, I'm with the Mormons, the evangelical wants a theocracy, why should anyone have to persuade evangelicals, why not just voters?

It's a bit like I said on another thread, why do religious folk want a second vote above the rest of us?

Issac Newton believed in alchemy, that the philiosophers stone was viable and that worshipping Jesus was akin to idolatry.

Just because he was an unhinged loon in occult terms didn't stop him from coming up with some marvellous insights into science.

As for climate change - I think current policy and government goals are misguided. The climate is changing, it always has and it always will. To harken to some stable era of weather patterns and so on is deeply flawed given all the variables involved. Whether humanity is the cause of it, the propagator of it or the catalyst for it is irrelevant, all the money being spent on trying to avoid it should be funneled into mitigating the effects; flood defences, irrigation, low moisture crops and so on.

I once heard a politician talking about winning the 'war on climage change' and I immediately thought 'he's going to lose'.

Ah, an Olde Tyme Atheist Convention! I don't believe it!

As long as we remember that it isn't a "movement, idealogy or religion.", we'll be OK.

Have you ever wondered what transpires at an Olde Tyme Atheist Convention?

I should say, I've heard the kids like to sing 'I love reason better than ice cream'. One child, who knows what he was thinking, decided to reverse the order...'I love ice cream better...' Big mistake, if you catch my drift. I'm surprised the story wasn't in William's post.

pssst William re the interesting Faraday Course

"This short weekend course is for busy people who would like to obtain a broad introductory overview of the science-religion debate from leading spcialists in the field"

Too busy to run a spell check?

8. Andrew

"I love ice cream better than Jesus" is something any right-thinking child would say. Priests know this too, and older children know that that priests know this.

Here is a religion-related story from the US: the KKK was counter-protesting a picket by the Westboro Baptist church.

https://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/05/30/arlington.cemetery.protesters/index.html?hpt=T2

The KKK proclaims itself to be christian (see e.g. some bits from a National Geographic channel docu here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmHNzF9MaNY ). So which, if any, of these two lovely groups has it right when it comes to the love of jesus?

Peter2m,

Trekkies have conventions too and the last time I checked they're not a "movement, idealogy or religion."

People with a like-minded interest getting together... who'd think it?!

PeterKlaver (@ 11) -

"So which, if any, of these two lovely groups has it right when it comes to the love of jesus?"

If a wolf puts on a sheep outfit, does it thereby become a sheep?

(By the way, the petulant use of the lower case by atheists really cracks me up. Talk about hang-ups! jesus. Sheesh! Or was it just an innocent typo?)

Now I wonder how my experiment is getting on on the other thread? Must check on that a bit later. It would be so disappointing if I had to intervene with 'intelligent input', since such a thing should be completely unnecessary when constructing anything!

Natman (@ 12) -

Trekkies have conventions too and the last time I checked they're not a "movement, idealogy or religion."

Well what a relief to know that atheists gather together to indulge in a special interest group fantasy. You really got me worried there. I imagined (silly me) that atheists actually believe that their view of reality is 'true', and that they seek to influence education, politics, culture and, yes, even religion (ya know, the kind of thing that characterises an ideology and a movement). It's such a relief to know that they are just a bunch of harmless sci fi fantasists. If only someone had told Uncle Joe that!

I must say, however, that spending all that money on a conference just to 'pass the parcel' and 'do the cha cha' (or equivalent thereof) seems rather excessive!

LSV,

Honestly, sometimes, I wonder if you read your posts before putting them up. You should go for a job in politics. The ability to take a two line comment and extract from it what you want it to mean is valuable in that line of work.

You're clearly on one of your sporadic 'everything an identified atheist says is fair game for off-the-topic, vitriolic criticism' moods.

Apologies William.

William, I think the David Norris story is an interesting and revealing one - did a couple of posts on it https://mccamley.org/blog/my-i-agree-with-nick-moment and https://mccamley.org/blog/as-dirk-gently-once-said

My point was how difficult, if not impossible, it is to discuss child abuse in any rational way, to make any differentiations, any context. No one wants to hear. Not dissimilar to Ken Clarke's experience last week when he tried to differentiate teypes of severity in rape.

6. Natman wrote:

"To harken to some stable era of weather patterns and so on is deeply flawed given all the variables involved."

The goal is not so much to achieve a stable weather pattern; rather it is to minimise future unstable climatic conditions. While there are many factors influencing weather, there are only a few that have long term impacts on climate.

Natman -

"You're clearly on one of your sporadic 'everything an identified atheist says is fair game for off-the-topic, vitriolic criticism' moods."

Thank you for that comment, Natman. I now know that, since you are attempting to claim the 'maturity high ground', that you yourself will never again resort to this kind of response to the comments of Christians (since, of course, you would not want to be guilty of hypocrisy, would you?).

This is great. That means that from now on we can actually have a mature debate. This is something that I have been wanting for about two years. Good. I will keep a record of your post #15 on this thread, and I will henceforth remind you of it when you produce one of your vitriolic criticisms of Christianity.

No more snide remarks. No more mockery. No more avoidance of logical arguments. No more passing off speculation as legitimate evidence. No more trickery. No more circular arguments. No more special pleading. (Oh, and a reminder to a certain Peter Klaver: no more avoiding legitimate philosophical arguments by calling them 'pseudo-philosophy').

A bright future awaits...

LSV,

You'll notice the phrase 'off-the-topic'.

I reserve the right to be as vitriolic about religion as I like, so long as it's on topic.

As for special pleading... avoiding the Open Thread are we?

Natman (@ 19) -

"You'll notice the phrase 'off-the-topic'.

I reserve the right to be as vitriolic about religion as I like, so long as it's on topic."

I'll answer this with two points:

1. If my post was 'off topic', then in what way was your post #12 'on topic', considering that I was actually responding to that, in the light of what peterm2 wrote in #7, and also considering that this relates to a news topic that William listed here?

So now you are falsely accusing me of posting 'off topic'. And yet to think I am the one who is constantly accused of dishonesty!

I think an apology might be in order, don't you?

2. Your original accusation against me was not only that my post was 'off topic', but was also vitriolic. When I challenged you on this, you then admit that you are also vitriolic in some of your posts (and you intend to continue in that vein). So either you admit to hypocrisy, or you admit that your original comment about my posts was totally meaningless and therefore unjustified.

So here we have a false accusation followed by hypocrisy and / or total meaninglessness.

Doesn't make you look very good, does it, Natman?

"As for special pleading... avoiding the Open Thread are we?"

(I'll overlook the fact that this comment is off-topic!)

On the Open Thread you made an outrageous claim as follows: "I'd be happy to take anything you think is too complex to have not have been designed and explain to you how it occurred naturally."

OK. So please explain how blog posts can be created without the intervention of a person.

You made a claim. Now back it up with evidence. You can't complain, because I am just responding to your challenge. Oh, and by the way... explain how my computer arose naturally.

You complain that I don't answer your questions, but you have set a challenge, and I am responding to it. Now therefore, let's complete this challenge, and then we can move on...

Natman

I’ll have to hope that my reply to your reply to me (the one where you raised the issue of Scotty, Kirk, Bones and Spock, in reply to my comment about a link William posted on the content section of this thread and one LSV commented on too) isn’t off topic. Off topic? That's illogical, Captain!

But enough about the Enterprise (it's a red herring, or unicorn, or something), and lets get back to Atheist Ireland; I’ve been on the website and read lots of interesting stuff there.

They have “Campaigns”; campaigns on lots of things - “Leaving Religion” is one, complete with “support network” and everything! And a "Read the Bible Campaign" (that's more than some churches have!)

They’re going to “discuss and adopt the Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life.”

They have “Secular analysis”.

“International Speakers”

They have adopted a “Declaration on Religion in Public Life”, an amended version of the “Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life” at the AGM in 2010. (You know, it reads like a creed.)

They are an “advocacy group”.

They have a “Mission Statement”.

“Aims”, including, the “promotion of atheism...”

They have a membership.

I could go on.

Now, Natman, I have no desire to stop anyone believing what they want to believe, but can we stop the pretence about atheism not being a "movement, idealogy or religion"?

Peter2m,

I'm an atheist, but I'm not compelled to follow any of those. In fact, I can pick and choose the bits I like and discard the rest and still call myself, and be considered, an atheist. The only thing I have in common is a lack of belief in god. That's all, nothing else. The organisation that set up those articles you mentioned could be considered a movement, but nothing compels me to join their organisation and other atheists are quite happy to consider me one of theirs without that subscription.

Atheism on it's own is not a religion, movement or idealogy, but atheist organisations can be.

Natman

Good, we're making progress with your recognition that there are *atheist* organisations; not simply 'secular' organisations, or 'ethical' organisations, or 'pressure groups', or 'lobbyists'; rather, "atheist organisations", where *atheist* is the defining feature of the organisation; and, note, according to your definition, the identifying feature which individual people can have in 'common', that which can draw them together, that which they share, that by which one considers another "one of theirs", the label by which one can belong to a broader 'church'. That which I, or others, can ask questions about, scrutinise, disagree with or affirm; and that by which I might frame at least an aspect of my own identity - "I'm an atheist".

You don't escape any of this by saying, "Atheism is a lack of", and then that thinking there is no valid reply.

Peter2m,

I agree with your comments, in the whole, but atheism still isn't a religion, ideology or movement, it's a state of mind. Much in the same way your lack of a belief in Thor isn't a religion, ideology or movement.

If there was a convention of not-believers-in-Thor, would you consider yourself a member, or just someone with a shared opinion?

I don't believe Thor exists because he used to be an actor in Home & Away. No deity, worth its logical socks, would appear in Home & Away.

The Thor of history is a very ordinary man, a very ordinary man indeed.

I have it on good authority that the Trekkies have a movement against Thor; apparently they believe that 'Thor' will actually be the father of James T. Kirk, and the guy can't be both. It's a quandry alright.

I've asked Solomon what he thinks. He says cut Chris Hemsworth in two but then that's his solution to everything.

Since atheism is simply a non-belief in God (so we are told) - and nothing else (i.e. there is no 'positive' belief involved) - then can I take it that it is perfectly OK to be an atheist and to not believe in evolution (i.e. the theory of the natural formation of life)? Belief in evolution is an actual belief in something, so therefore if a belief in evolution is part and parcel of being an atheist, then it follows logically that atheism cannot claim to be simply a 'non-belief'.

It seems that Natman has walked away from post #20, but perhaps he may be so good as to answer this one.

And if it is possible to be an atheist and to not believe in evolution, then please let us all know what such an atheist believes about life, the universe and everything.

I think I might start calling myself an 'Adarwinist' and then no one can criticise me for my views, since it is a non-belief not a belief!!

LSV,

Evolution isn't a belief, it's a scientific theory. You don't 'believe' in it, it's just how things are best explained.

Do you 'believe' in the theory of gravity? Do you 'believe' in germ theory? Just because you cannot understand the science doesn't make it something to believe in or not.

I answered #20 in the open thread where it belongs and you seem to be avoiding... I wonder why. It can't possibly be because you can't answer the question of who designed god?

Natman

“Atheism still isn’t a religion, ideology or movement...”

“it’s (Atheism) a state of mind”.

Whatever.

“If there was a convention of not-believers-in-Thor, would you consider yourself a member, or just someone with a shared opinion?”

That’s the thing, Natman, why would anyone organise or attend a convention of not-believers-in-Thor? What would there be to do? What would there be to discuss? What would there be to debate? What would there be to promote? There’d be no point in organising or attending such a conference, unless one was intent on doing something like... following an ideology... which is what Atheist Ireland is doing; you seem to agree.

You are right about this, though, “your lack of a belief in Thor isn't a religion, ideology or movement.” Which is why I’m not organizing Athorism Ireland and inviting internationally renowned Athorist speakers, and organising campaigns and support networks to help people leave Thoranity, or promoting and defending the Athorist worldview. If I did that I’d have a movement and an ideology. And a shop:

https://www.atheistbus.org.uk/store/

I know you’re not into movements, you keep saying, but we’re not debating you, we’re debating *atheism*. Can I ask you one question, though, does the movement influence you?

Natman (@ 27) -

Well you attempted to answer the second part of #20. I can easily answer this question concerning 'who created God' (something to do with 'first cause'). In fact, even though theism isn't difficult to defend, this question has got to be the easiest of the lot. So I will post something later on the Open Thread. In fact, I am amazed that atheists still bring up this argument.

As for 'belief', I can see that you have never studied epistemology. 'Belief' is simply choosing to accept that something is true, and especially if it involves some level of personal trust in that truth. I am convinced that the theory of gravity is true, therefore I believe it.

There are many levels of certainty / uncertainty. Knowledge lies at one end and pure conjecture lies at the other. 'Belief' cannot really be placed accurately, as it depends on the motive of the person doing the believing.

Certainly abiogenesis (i.e. without intelligent input) involves what you would term 'belief', since there is no evidence at all that this is true - only unproven theories. In fact, it is actually unprovable, because no one was there at the beginning to observe it. Hence there cannot be any kind of empirical confirmation of this theory, irrespective of whatever is simulated in the laboratory. Abiogenesis can, by definition, never be in the same epistemic category as the theory of gravity, which can be directly observed (i.e. its effects observed).

So therefore I can say, in accordance with your definition of belief, that I am a non-believer in purely materialistic abiogenesis. Therefore that is a non-belief, not a belief.

28. peterm2:

People might organise and attend a conference of non-believers in Thor just to register the view that not everyone believes in Thor. It might be a venue for reassuring one another that non-belief in Thor is not necessarily 'abnormal'.

We could discuss rational ideas that explain the role formally filled by Thor. Thunder is a prime example. We could promote the view that it is not necessary to believe in Thor to be brave; or moral; or 'spiritual'.

So our ideology is that we don't have to believe in invisible, incorporeal, supernatural entities to be normally functioning human beings.

We can confirm with one another that the natural world works very well without Thor.

We can see that despite our non-belief in Thor we still experience exactly the same emotions and empathies as believers in Thor (even though they sometimes beg to differ on this point).

So a conference of non-believers in Thor serves many purposes in a world where belief in Thor is commonplace.

LSV,

So you say that abiogensis cannot be observed? Gosh. So where did all the living creatures come from? Simply put; you have one idea about abiogenesis (goddit) the scientific community has others (there are a few y'know). The difference is that you say 'goddit', provide no more explanation as to -how- and sit back. The scientists come up with an idea, then test it to see if it works. Their ideas can be explored, falsified and/or confirmed in time. Yours cannot.

Evolution happens; it's been observed, it's been studied and the mechanisms by which it operates are solid scientific theories. It's as close to a fact as it's possible to get in scientific terms (your ignorance and incredulity doesn't alter that one iota).

By contrast, the effects of gravity are observed, but never the how. We have no idea how, or why, it operates other than 'things pull other things towards them'. If you're going to take issue with a scientific theory because of science that lacks a firm foundation, pick on gravity.

But you won't, because gravity doesn't blow massive holes in your carefully crafted fantasy world that god did everything without leaving a trace.

I have to ask though, if the sequence of thinking in my post in the Open Thread is so easy to answer, why havn't you? I dare to suggest you're ploughing through the internets and books, desperate to find an answer? First cause answers nothing, as that implies god didn't need a first cause, and if not, why not? And therefore why can't the universe be without one?

29. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"I am convinced that the theory of gravity is true, therefore I believe it."
_____________________________________________

"I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything..." [Richard Feynman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na-KzVwu6es]

We should be careful not to sell our 'beliefs' too cheaply.

Peter2m,

If believers in Thor had special privileges, if their beliefs were considered 'default' because they'd been around a while and if they were determined to push their beliefs onto others and into schools, wouldn't you want to meet up with other athorists to do something about it?

The 'movement' has some good ideas, but ultimately the things that they've put forwards are merely extrapolations of lines of thought I'd already had. Some things they come up with annoy me, but I'm happy that they don't insist I agree with it all to be part of their collective. Church is not so forgiving. Can you imagine going to Catholic mass or an Anglian service and when the time came to get the sacrament you said 'actually, I think this bread and wine malarky is all a bit silly. Can I have pizza and cola instead?'.

Newdwr

So you're agreeing that Atheism is an ideology?

Natman -

"I dare to suggest you're ploughing through the internets and books, desperate to find an answer?"

What is this?

Belief?
Knowledge?
Wishful thinking?

It can't be knowledge, as you cannot observe what I am doing.

So what is it?

As a matter of fact, I don't spend my whole life obsessed with W&T. I have other things to do in life. I have certainly not looked in any books at all to give the dead simple answer to your rather naive question.

But if you want to believe that I am desperate about this question, please go ahead and indulge yourself, if it reassures you, and if it further reinforces in your mind your own unproven worldview.

As for your abiogenesis answer: talk about a circular argument!! "I believe that life arose by a purely mindless process, and, hey, what is the evidence for this? The fact that life exists!!!" Stop taking the Mick, Natman. I am not that stupid.

I don't think it's accurate to describe atheism as the lack of a belief in God - that's sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism is the positive belief that there is no God, and the desire to assert that belief.

34. peterm2 wrote:

"So you're agreeing that Atheism is an ideology?"

I'm agreeing that I expect that the non-belief in Thor will be proven to be correct. But I'm not absolutely sure about anything, and everything I think I know might possibly be wrong.

Natman

"If believers in Thor had special privileges, if their beliefs were considered 'default' because they'd been around a while and if they were determined to push their beliefs onto others and into schools, wouldn't you want to meet up with other athorists to do something about it?"

So you now arguing for the benefits of the movement? For a purpose to the movement? And the good ideas of the movement?

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of pushing "beliefs onto others and into schools"


"Church is not so forgiving"

You know, there's times that's quite right.

"Can you imagine going to Catholic mass or an Anglian service and when the time came to get the sacrament you said 'actually, I think this bread and wine malarky is all a bit silly. Can I have pizza and cola instead?'."

Well, it wouldn't bother me - it's 'daily bread'; but it would be a bit of an irrelevant disagreement. I'd be more likely to go for the, "Do we need to be investing in all this wealth while people are starving," argument.

36. mccamleyc:

Atheism can be described both as a lack of belief in God, and as a positive assertion that God does not exist. Take your pick.

I'm with the first option.

LSV,

I do believe your statement didn't specifiy the -how- of abiogensis, merely that it happened. The creation of the universe by a god in six days is a theory of abiogensis, albeit one that cannot be tested or falsified.

Or the, "You spent how much to build a what to float it up the Thames?" argument.

Natman (@ 31) -

"Evolution happens; it's been observed, it's been studied and the mechanisms by which it operates are solid scientific theories. It's as close to a fact as it's possible to get in scientific terms (your ignorance and incredulity doesn't alter that one iota)."

Of course, my view of evolution doesn't alter what people want to believe. But since I am a freethinker (and sceptic), and therefore exercise my freedom to only accept ideas on the basis of reason and evidence, I cannot accept this theory, because I am not convinced by the so-called evidence presented. Studying adaptation within a species (which is the outworking of information already within that species) is not the same as the grand theory of common descent. In fact, adaptation within species accords perfectly with the idea of 'different kinds' within the natural world (further supported by the lack of transitional forms - hoaxes and reconstructions from pig's teeth don't count, of course). Adaptation is simply a facility to enable species to function within their changing environment. The extrapolation from this observed mechanism to the grand morphological changes of macroevolution is not consistent with what we understand by the word 'fact'. It is an assumption consistent with the need to validate a particular worldview with all its metaphysical (and, dare I suggest, moral) implications.

Saying that something is a 'solid scientific theory' does not make it true. And anyway, you have already stated that 'truth is subjective' (#109 on the 'A Prayer for William and Kate' thread from April), so please explain what you mean by the words 'ignorance' and 'incredulity'. If truth is subjective, then we all simply believe what we want to believe. That is what the word 'subjective' means.

So do you still believe that 'truth is subjective' or not?

If so, then you have to admit that the 'truth' of evolution is also 'subjective'. So what are you getting so hot under the collar about?!

Or, if you went to a church like I went to once and you asked the pizza and cola question, somebody would say, "Sure, gimme a minute and when I've had my bread and wine I'll nip out to the chippy and bring you one back. Diet or regular? Pepperoni?"

LSV,

So, this microevolution involves changes in the physiology and genetics of a species from it's parent species (that's been observed), eventually, with enough changes, the two species can no longer interbreed (that's been observed). I'm at a loss, however, of how these species know where the boundry between micro and macro evolution is and how they stop. So, they're now two species that cannot interbreed and they continue with their 'micro' evolutionary changes.

You don't have to be a biologist to see that, eventually, these two species are going to be totally different to each other. For observed examples please see https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I hate to break this to you, but the concept of transitional fossils is a creationist term, the concept isn't used in biology, and it works like this:

Species A has a fossil, species B has a fossil. Creationist demands a 'transitional' between the two. Palentologist provides species C, a form halfway between A and B. Creationst then demands transitional fossils between A and C and C and B!

Truth is subjective, yes. But scientific theories are as close as it's possible to get. You display regular, and potentially willful, ignorance about the theories you disagree with all the while demanding and insisting that we take your incredulity as viable evidence that they're wrong.

42.logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"I cannot accept this theory, because I am not convinced by the so-called evidence presented"

May I ask what position you are in, academically, to pronounce on this theory? What is it, other than your own personal incredulity, that leads you to form this conclusion?

LSV wrote

"Certainly abiogenesis (i.e. without intelligent input) involves what you would term 'belief', since there is no evidence at all that this is true - only unproven theories."

Since you have never gone and looked into the evidence and have ignored evidence presented to you, you are not in any position to pass judgment on the evidence for abiogenesis, are you? Remember your claims about biological molecular self-replicating systems being irreducilby complex etc., when that was just such a splendid demonstration of your ignorance on the matter. Or how you have till this days scared away from learning how molecules normally associated with living tissue form spontaneously even in space. Etc, etc, the list of things you were ignorant of or have ignored goes on quite a bit. Who are you to talk of evidence then?

"In fact, it is actually unprovable, because no one was there at the beginning to observe it."

One could hardly get a greater demonstration of scientific ignorance than the guy who says that things from the past, where no witness will tell us what he/she saw, are unprovable. We might want to release all murder convicts who were convicted on the basis of forensic evidence then. That is all a matter of piecing together what happened based on physical evidence from the past. Because the one person present sure isn't going to tell you what he observed, and the other can't anymore. Yet we can draw conclusions, sometimes with very great reliability, of what happened at the murder scene.

Natman, post 40,

"The creation of the universe by a god in six days is a theory of abiogensis, albeit one that cannot be tested or falsified."

I thought it had been falsified a zillion times already? Or did you mean the variant where god not only created the universe in 6 days, but also created all our memories and evidence to make it look as if it was created billions of years ago? Because god is such a trickster.

Re. General Ratko Mladic;

The Serbs were the only people of the former Yugoslavia who did not at any time collaborate with the nazis during WWII, and the presence of concentration camps in Nis and elsewhere testifies to their suffering in that conflict. The fact that Mladic was found in a village where most of the population had been re-settled, having been refugees from western areas during the Balkan Wars, points to a much under-reported reality; "Ethnic Cleansing" was not - by any stretch of the imagination - a uniquely Serb initiative. Terrible things happen in war-time, and i'm not saying Mladic abided by the letter of the Geneva Convention (by any means), but there is a dishonest and orchestrated attempt in the western media to paint Serbia as having the lion's share of responsibility for the Balkan Wars, as if there was some sort of facile parallel with nazi Germany.

Here is an opinion from South East Asia; Malaysia’s Obedient Wives Club says “Keep husbands sexually satisfied to curb infidelity”.
And to be sure that there is no ambiguity, OWC’s Vice-President Dr Rohaya Mohamed added, “A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore in bed to your husband?”

Look here for details: https://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/keep-husbands-sexually-satisfied-to-cu

A C Grayling writes:

'So despite the best efforts of religious folk to keep the discussion on their turf, those who do not share their outlook should repudiate the label "atheist" unless those who wish to use it are prepared to say "atheist and afairyist and agoblinist and aghostist" and so on at considerable length, to mark the rational rejection of belief in supernatural entities of any kind.'

Theophane@48
"The Serbs were the only people of the former Yugoslavia who did not at any time collaborate with the nazis during WWII"
Really?

What about the Serbian State Guard, Serbian Volunteer Corps, Yugoslav National Movement (ZBOR), or The Black Chetniks. With their help the collaborationist Military Administration in Serbia were able to proclaim Serbia one of the "Judenfrei" states in Europe.

newlach

Great! Then go ahead and stop using the term; find another one to describe the motivating factor in the movement, ideology and worldview followed. The people I'm quoting are using the term atheist to describe themselves - and it seems to me that they have their reason for doing so - at least one of which appears to be to declare their opposition to those individuals and societies who do follow God/gods - which makes the idea that it isn't something, and can't be responsible for something, well... unsustainable. Even Natman's calling it a 'movement' now.

Movement Schmovement
Hey, anything that puts the wind up the supernaturalists is cool with me.

Hi Paul

"Hey, anything that puts the wind up the supernaturalists is cool with me."

The end justifies the means and all that :-)

Not that 'puts the wind up' me.

What is interesting though is that there continue to be those who deny that this cultural phenomenon, which is, in so many ways, and so obviously, a mirror image of the evangelical sub-culture I'm familiar with, is a movement, ideology or religion.

And the church could learn a thing or two from this: we don't need our international organisations, conferences, publishing companies, celebrities, worship bands, contemporary music scene, keynote speakers, souvenirs, soundbites, or Uncle Tom Cobbly an' all, to be the church - but we should know that...

I listened with interest to this morning's discussion about HIV and attitudes in our communities. I have been positive for nearly 15years and indeed have been on the programme myself, several years ago. I am also lucky enough not to need treatment yet. Whilst the clinical advances are fantastic, and very reassuring - I live with a chronic health condiiton not a death sentence - there is no cure on the horizon, no vaccine, and still a lot to be discovered about what the virus does in the body over a long period of time, even when it is 'frozen'.

Whilst access to treatment is vital, and must be made available to all who need it on clinical grounds rather than financial, it must be remembered that drug treatment is not easy - and takes it toll on the body. I wonder if new transmissions would still be best prevented through much more effective - and better funded - sexual health services. Every time I visit the clinic I am struck by how grim the external surroundings are, how difficult it must be to walk in for the first time and wonder how you can enter modern services beyond Belfast at a convenient time.

I was diagnosed in 1996, I felt so sad to hear this morning the story of a man who was diagnosed 13 years later. As normal and healthy as my life is, every time I get my bloods checked at the Royal, a part of me always hopes they will tell me the virus has gone and discharge me. Definite uncertainity about my long term health is not easy to live with.

newdwr54 (@ 45) -

"May I ask what position you are in, academically, to pronounce on this theory? What is it, other than your own personal incredulity, that leads you to form this conclusion?"

Ah yes. Of course. Special pleading.

What are my qualifications? Let's see now...

1. I have a brain.

2. I possess something called 'reason'.

3. I am a freethinker, meaning that I believe in the need to think for myself.

4. I don't believe in blindly conforming to dogmatic, unsubstantiated ex cathedra utterances from a 'priesthood', whether a religious one or an anti-religious one operating in the guise of science.

5. I am someone who can tell the difference between 'the scientific method', on the one hand, and 'philosophical special pleading', on the other.

Isn't it ironic that the very same people who encourage others to "think critically" and "think for themselves" and "make their own minds up" now say: "oh but when we demand that you accept this unproven and, by definition, unprovable theory, you have to do so, otherwise we will revile you for your 'incredulity'"!!?

Which brings me to my next qualification...

6. I am not a fool.

(Oh, and I suppose that anyone who has scientific qualifications who is sceptical about Darwinism isn't to be regarded as a 'true' scientist? Since there are people in that category, then how does the argument you seem to me to be insinuating stack up?)

So what are you going to do... force feed me?

Sparklypriness,

Welcome to the blog to you as a new poster. And my deepest sympathy for the medical condition you find yourself in. I hope you can continue to live a life without constant treatment for a long time time still.

Oh dear, I do have to almost laugh out loud at LSVs intellectual handicap. On the one hand he claims he be able to distinguish the scientific method, yet in the same post manages to produce something like

""oh but when we demand that you accept this unproven and, by definition, unprovable theory........."

First of all there is that bit about science not delivering final proof for theories the way mathematics does, but instead usually accepting theories as conditional instead. As I said in an earlier attempt to educate LSV a little, his demands for 'the proof' or 'irrefutable evidence' only serve to demonstrate that some high school graduates have a better grasp of science than he does. The things he demands for accepting abiogenesis or evolution do not indicate a scientific approach at all, but rather his way of setting the bar impossibly and unusually high so that the burden of proof can't be met.

And his argument from persecution syndrome in bits like

"oh but when we demand that you accept this unproven and, by definition, unprovable theory, you have to do so, otherwise we will revile you for your 'incredulity"

and

"So what are you going to do... force feed me? "

also doe not match very well with his statements about not being a fool and having reason.

Relax LSV, we are not going to force feed you. We are just going to be persistent in pointing out the vacuousness and inconsistent double standards of your posts, the way you ignore all evidence that works against your creationist claims and the way you try to divert away from evidence by bringing up philosophical concerns that you never care one iota about when you are presenting empirical evidence you think helps your case.

paul james;

"What about the Serbian State Guard, Serbian Volunteer Corps, Yugoslav National Movement (ZBOR), or The Black Chetniks. With their help the collaborationist Military Administration in Serbia were able to proclaim Serbia one of the "Judenfrei" states in Europe."

From a first glance at the Wikipedia account of these things you might think i'd throw in the towel - but not quite. The population of 'Nedic's Serbia', the nazi puppet state, is said to have been around 3.5 million, of whom 500,000 were Germans; presumably most of them soldiers. It just isn't fair to talk about "collaboration" when a massively stronger power is holding a weaker power in such complete subjection. One can say that both Croats and Muslims collaborated; in Croatia especially there was a real measure of popular support for the Ustache, and there were volunteers in significant numbers from both communities for recruitment to the SS. The Serbs on the other hand, overwhelmingly, were victims of nazi oppression, and crucially, quoting Wikipedia;

"Serbs remained the dominant ethnic group in the Yugoslav Partisans [the predominant armed resistance to the nazis] throughout the war".

- though Tito was a Croat.

peterm2

A C Grayling writes:

'...it is worth pointing out an allied and characteristic bit of jesuitry employed by folk of faith. This is their attempt to describe naturalism (atheism) as itself a "religion". But by definition a religion is something centred upon belief in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe; and not merely in their existence, but in their interest in human beings on this planet; and not merely their interest, but their particularly detailed interest in what humans wear, what they eat, when they eat it, what they read or see, what they treat as clean and unclean, who they have sex with and how and when; and so on ...But naturalism (atheism) by definition does not premise such a belief.'

Theo
Your original statement was "The Serbs were the only people of the former Yugoslavia who did not at any time collaborate with the nazis during WWII"
Concentrating on ZBOR alone, a fascist and christian party formed prior to the occupation whose military wing the Serbian Volunteer Corps fought alongside the Nazis against Titos partisans.
This was an active and ideologically driven collaboration beyond mere response to subjection by a superior power.

On the subject of Mladic
"i'm not saying Mladic abided by the letter of the Geneva Convention (by any means), but ..........."
Read some of the witness accounts of the Srebrenica Massacre orchestrated by Mladic and you will realise how crass that statement sounds.

paul james,

I also said;

"Terrible things happen in war-time".

Read some of the witness accounts of the bombing of Dresden, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and ask yourself why there weren't similar media-inspired calls for the people who "orchestrated" those events to face justice. Mladic was engaged in the defence of his people and his country, and i think there is a real danger that the media feeding frenzy surrounding his trial will prejudice the outcome.

sparklyprincess

The discussion on HIV was very informative. That the virus can be "frozen" with antiretroviral drugs is a great development. It is also very good that the "wrath of God" rhetoric is heard much less than before, but quite discouraging that a Presbyterian minister infected with HIV considered it necessary to leave Northern Ireland. There is still a lot of stigma surrounding HIV infection and as the medical expert said, those infected should exercise great caution before disclosing their HIV status to others.

Very, very good report on the Atheist conference.

Peter Klaver (@ 58) -

"First of all there is that bit about science not delivering final proof for theories the way mathematics does, but instead usually accepting theories as conditional instead. As I said in an earlier attempt to educate LSV a little, his demands for 'the proof' or 'irrefutable evidence' only serve to demonstrate that some high school graduates have a better grasp of science than he does. The things he demands for accepting abiogenesis or evolution do not indicate a scientific approach at all, but rather his way of setting the bar impossibly and unusually high so that the burden of proof can't be met."

Fine. So your claims can't be proven. Therefore what are you getting so hot under the collar about, when someone doesn't agree with you?

It's funny how you dismiss the philosophical points that I raise, and yet you are happy to resort to an epistemological argument when it suits your case. And then you have the cheek to accuse me of double standards!

It's clear that you acknowledge that there is an epistemological issue at the heart of the scientific method, and this is one of the major points I have been raising for the last two years.

to be continued...

...continued from post #64...

"We are just going to be persistent in pointing out the vacuousness and inconsistent double standards of your posts, the way you ignore all evidence that works against your creationist claims and the way you try to divert away from evidence by bringing up philosophical concerns that you never care one iota about when you are presenting empirical evidence you think helps your case."

Ooooh, I am terrified. I really am!!

What evidence am I ignoring and what evidence am I presenting without reference to the philosophical concerns that I bring up? (All you have ever presented is a highly tendentious claim about "what could have happened", based entirely on the idea of replication, and you expect people to accept that as 'the truth' and dismiss the alternative 'intelligent design' explanation. Sounds like philosophy to me, since you are basing you whole argument, not on evidence, but on a particular interpretation of evidence.)

If you are so honest as you seem to be claiming, then please back up your accusations.

(By the way... isn't it very telling how you seem to have set yourself up as a moral policeman on this blog, accusing me of dishonesty and double standards, and yet I notice that you didn't rebuke Natman for his blatantly false accusation against me in post #19, which I pointed out in #20 - not to mention his flagrant hypocrisy concerning the tone of his and my posts. I think this shows everyone just what kind of person you really are. You are not at all interested in the value of honesty, but in using the charge of dishonesty to score ideological points. So much for 'atheist morality'!!)

Further to 61/62;

On a dictionary definition of "collaboration" i was wrong to say that the Serbs did not at any time collaborate, but if you compare Serbs with Croats and Bosniaks (Muslims), i think it substantially holds true.

Re 48,

The Serbs were the only people of the former Yugoslavia who did not at any time collaborate with the nazis during WWII, and the presence of concentration camps in Nis and elsewhere testifies to their suffering in that conflict

newlach #60

More A C Grayling... I was wondering how long it would be before someone took up my use of the word religion.

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, OUP, gives a third definition of the word religion:

"a pursuit or interest followed with devotion."

No mention of the gods or supernatural there.

But yes, it was a good report on the conference. Goodness, the last time I heard the word rejoice used the way Richard Dawkins used it was by a tent evangelist. ;-)

LSV,

"Fine. So your claims can't be proven. Therefore what are you getting so hot under the collar about, when someone doesn't agree with you?"

While science doesn't work by proving things, it can most definitely falsify things. Some of the things you keep banging on about have been thoroughly disproven. For you to try to avoid acknowledging that by ignoring evidence, applying double standards, going of on tangents etc is annoyingly disingenuous.

"It's funny how you dismiss the philosophical points that I raise, and yet you are happy to resort to an epistemological argument when it suits your case. And then you have the cheek to accuse me of double standards!"

I sure do, as I didn't raise it as merely an excuse not to accept that my position is flawed, the way you do, while not applying the same to myself. Did I ever turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence?

"What evidence am I ignoring and what evidence am I presenting without reference to the philosophical concerns that I bring up?"

See for example your claims about the irreducible complexity of biological self-replicating system. The paper I put up did that in, a very easy case of disprove by counter example. Yet you've refused to acknowledge even that blatantly obvious point. And then as part of that exchange you linked to a creationist page that links to some real science papers that are all carried out in the context of methodological naturalism. But hey, not a word of criticism from you there, since the papers are held up to support the case for goddunnit (not that they actually do any such thing, but that's another discussion).

"(By the way... isn't it very telling how you seem to have set yourself up as a moral policeman on this blog, accusing me of dishonesty and double standards, ......"

I'm no self-appointed moral policeman here, but yes, I do point out your application of double standards as part of your dishonesty. You may criticize me for picking an easy target if you like.

".........and yet I notice that you didn't rebuke Natman for his blatantly false accusation against me in post #19, which I pointed out in #20 - not to mention his flagrant hypocrisy concerning the tone of his and my posts. I think this shows everyone just what kind of person you really are."

Jeebus, this is dreadful even by your standards. So if I don't meddle in an exchange between you and someone else, you hold that up as a sign of me being dishonest?! Pathetic.

And as an example, let me point out that I do sometimes disagree with Natman and say so. In fact, here is an example from less than a fortnight ago of me taking your side against him:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/05/open_thread_8.html?postId=109017037

I'll admit that rarely happens. But then we did the little quantification thing a while ago and found 95% of posts to be nonsense. Cut the creationist distortions, learn some science and philosophy, and I'll agree with you more often.

Yet again, its a pity that this morning's discussion on HIV/AID didn't include someone who would accurately reflect the Christian positon according to the Bible.

It seems we are to be encouraged to sympathize with those who have the virus, but we must never be permitted to encourage the kind of sexual behaviour - ie keeping sex within monogamous heterosexual marriage - most likely to prevent its spread! How illogical is that!

It is surely long past time that we faced up to the moral dimension at the heart of the AIDS issue. At present, it can't even be discussed on the air!

The words of Jesus still have powerful relevance: "Neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more." (John 8v11)

Peter Klaver (@ 69) -

My original comment: ".........and yet I notice that you didn't rebuke Natman for his blatantly false accusation against me in post #19, which I pointed out in #20 - not to mention his flagrant hypocrisy concerning the tone of his and my posts. I think this shows everyone just what kind of person you really are."

Jeebus, this is dreadful even by your standards. So if I don't meddle in an exchange between you and someone else, you hold that up as a sign of me being dishonest?! Pathetic.

Ah, but you are very happy to involve yourself in my conversation with Natman on this very thread, but interestingly you jettison your concern about honesty, because, of course, it is an embarrassment to your fragile and intellectually and morally indefensible position.

Would you like to survey the evidence?

Post #46 - your response to my comment in post #29, which is a response to Natman's #27 (i.e. an exchange after the offending post #19).

Your post #47 follows on from Natman's #40, which is a direct response to my #35 addressed to Natman.

So you are willing to engage in the conversation I was having with Natman (which, of course, you have every right to do), but seem obviously unconcerned that, within that same conversation, Natman is undermining the credibility of your shared ideology with his blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy, for which he is not prepared to apologise.

Have you ever heard of "getting your own house in order"?

But I suppose someone who once accused a completely innocent person of being someone else who regularly posts under another identity on W&T, lost his moral credibility a long time ago. So spare the righteous indignation, mate. It makes you look rather silly.

"Mladic was engaged in the defence of his people and his country"

If by that you mean that troops under his direct command isolated men and boys then executed them in nearby fields or the systematic rape and murder of women and children, then yes, he was a brave and patriotic general.

Hey Peter Klaver, we're in the same house! Who'd think it?

Hey LSV, you didn't comment on #44, didn't you like those examples of speciation?

LSV, people can join in exchanges between others or stay out, their choice. They can go back to older posts in an exchange or simply stick to what is being discussed at the moment, their choice. Free will and all that jazz. Your post 71 was a waste, trying to create a whole lot when there was nothing there to go on.

Re. #72;

Distinguished armchair expert paul james holds forth on the complex realities of war-time Bosnia....

@75

Oh no. My brand new irony meter has blown up now.

@PastorPhilip,

Maybe the reason was that no one was that interested in a "Christian positon according to the Bible". HIV/AIDS is a disease like many others except that some people cannot help but hijack it to try and promote their own prejudices and morality, a morality which is not accepted by most other people (even those within their own churches). Being a pastor does not mean that your view is important or needs to be heard in every discussion.

pastorphilip;

Just to say i think #70 is a great post, deserving of its own thread, like the April Fool's one, but we both know that's unlikely because 'Auntie Beeb' more or less shares Dave's view;

"Being a pastor does not mean that your view is important or needs to be heard in every discussion."

I'd even suggest that Auntie's sniffiness is a major reason why, today, Christian morality "is not accepted by most other people".

Has there been a software glitch that affects posting lately??

Dave (@ 77) -

"HIV/AIDS is a disease like many others except that some people cannot help but hijack it to try and promote their own prejudices and morality, a morality which is not accepted by most other people (even those within their own churches)."

I can thoroughly understand your concern, Dave, because it must be appalling to be HIV+ and then have to live with some kind of moral stigma. I had a friend who died from AIDS over seven years ago, who was an African pastor. It is not clear how he became infected, but there is a suspicion that it may have been due to a blood transfusion. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that he acted immorally (according to what he and his church regarded as morality), but one can never be too sure what some people think, even if they don't express it. However, even if he had acted immorally (according to the Christian understanding) that should not in any way diminish anyone's compassion towards him.

However, having said this, I do think it is wrong to dismiss moral concerns. If there is a causal connection between certain behaviour - whether considered 'immoral' or not - and the contraction of a disease, then surely this should be factored into any discussion about prevention. If certain actions are having a detrimental effect on health, then such behaviour could be labelled 'immoral', especially if that effect impacts on other people. If a professing Christian happens to bring up this issue (hopefully with the utmost sensitivity), then why should he not be listened to?

As far as I am concerned, it's not a matter of pushing Christianity, but simply looking at the facts of the case. If certain behaviour causes a destructive effect, then we need to know about it, and guard against it. In fact, that approach sounds suspiciously scientific (up to a point).

"Being a pastor does not mean that your view is important or needs to be heard in every discussion."

I hope you're not telling Pastor Philip to shut up. He has every right to air his views, hasn't he? We are not living in a dictatorship, thank God.

Theophane,

To be honest the beeb probably just understand that christianity does not have to shoehorned into every discussion, maybe they thought that it would add nothing to the debate. I certainly think what PastorPhilip would have wanted to throw in would not have been remotely helpful - I have never found quotations and judgements of any use when dealing with people living with HIV.

"I'd even suggest that Auntie's sniffiness is a major reason why, today, Christian morality "is not accepted by most other people"."

You seem to suggest that christian morality has a special right to be promulgated and should be accepted by everyone but you forget that we all have a right to our own beliefs and our own decisions for what is moral for ourselves. In fact it is the very right which protects the person of faith from discrimination which means the rest of us do not have to live under your morality. It is certainly not for the beeb to be the arbiter of morals or to be a mouthpiece for religion.

Are you sure that it is just that most people find your morality is not for them. Why blame Auntie when the fault lies with the unacceptability of the morality itself.

But I guess throwing the blame about for your churches own failures is the current mode of operation.

LSV,

Nope I wasn't telling him to shut up, what I meant was that there is no automatic right for christianity to be at every table.

I think on the main part of your post we are not that far apart. Maybe the difference is terminology. I would never use the word morality in such a discussion but instead use the word risk. You are quite correct there is a fully established causal link between HIV infection rates and certain activities. When dealing with prevention it is important to ensure people are fully aware of the risk involved with different activities and it is important that people understand that abstinence is 100% safe and is an option. For most people it is an unacceptable option (and not that safe emotionally either) and reality is that we than have to look at how we minimise risk at every point from then on.

By talking about risk and prevention we can help people take responsibility for themselves and their partner(s) without being remotely judgemental about their choices or in fact even having to be aware of their personal morality, or for that matter them becoming aware of ours.

The problem with the morality angle is this, if HIV did not exist PastorPhilip would still think that me having sex with another man was immoral, whether I was married or not, so for him HIV is just a handy happen stance for him to hang his morality on. He made it clear that in his view the only place for sex was within a monogamous heterosexual marriage. I, and I would suggest most people (and not just since the beeb have been around) , fundamentally disagree with him and despite the best efforts of the church homosexual sex, adultery and fornication are neither a new phenomenon nor I suspect much more prevalent nowadays.

Maybe I am too cynical of PastorPhilip (and Theo and Mccamleyc) but I suspect that they view HIV as just another string to their bow in their war on homosexuality.

Fortunately not all christians are like that. I have know some very compassionate clergy and layfolk along with christians living day to day with HIV. If I was ever going to find christ I suspect it might be there rather in the examples of the three aforementioned.

Re Pastorphillip comments ,

And Lsv 80,

...it must be appalling to be HIV+ and then have to live with some kind of moral stigma. I had a friend who died from AIDS over seven years ago, who was an African pastor. It is not clear how he became infected

These data also support their HIV transmission hypothesis. Because both HCV and HTLV-1 are 2 blood-borne viral infections that are compatible with prolonged survival, the authors use the presence of HCV antibodies (anti-HCV) and RNA and HTLV-1 antibodies as proxy biomarkers for putative HIV transmission

Reuse of needles and syringes contaminated with infectious blood. At that time disposable syringes and needles were not available and it was unknown that human blood could transmit infections. In fact, patients with relapsing cases of trypanosomiasis were given 10 mL of whole blood intramuscularly from convalescent patients

The hypothesis that transmission of HIV-1 during parenteral therapy of endemic infectious diseases during the first half of the last century jump-started the HIV pandemic in Equatorial Africa is exceedingly insightful. However, these 2 articles also provide data showing that these events caused an iatrogenic epidemic of HCV in the same areas, which in addition to being a proxy for HIV-1 is a huge public health burden. Worldwide hepatocellular carcinoma is increasing in incidence, and the primary reason for this increase is cirrhosis caused by chronic HCV infection

....doctors in the Central African Republic and Cameroon also had the best of intentions 50–80 years ago when they treated patients for endemic infectious diseases, including frequently fatal sleeping sickness and malaria: good intentions that led to serious, though unintended, global health consequences

No-one denies that there are other ways of aquiring HIV than immoral sexual behaviour, but it seems to me that the moral issue is 'the elephant in the room'.

Christians are, of course, obliged to deal with all types of people with compassion, but they are also obliged to teach what God has said in Scripture. The simple fact is that God has instituted marraige between one man and one woman as the best and only context for sexual expression: anything outside that is not only wrong, but brings problems for those involved, and often those problems can be of a physical nature.

True Christian compassion is honest enough to identify sin as what it is, and loving enough to point to the Christ Who died on the Cross so that sinners could be forgiven and enjoy a changed life. (see 2 Corinthians 5v17)

pastorphillip,

The bible also states that eating shellfish is a sin, when was the last time you ate that? I trust as well that your beard is full and lush and you never mix fabrics within your clothes.

The New Testament is conspicuously sparse on the question of homosexuality, perhaps because in the Hellenistic environment that Paul was writing in, it wasn't deemed much of an issue and was possibly even encouraged. Jesus doesn't mention it once. Funny for such a topic you're constantly banging on about.

Poor consideration in ignoring the risks involved in some practices in one thing, but you're trying to assert an unfounded religious ideal into a situation that it doesn't apply to.

If you're going to use the bible as your source for moral judgements, please provide specific bible passages to support your views and we'll view them in the context that they're written.

Pastorphilip,

Many many people acquire HIV through sexual behaviour which is not immoral. It may be immoral to you but that is irrelevant and no one is suggesting you partake in it. I am happy to say I have never had any immoral sexual relations in my life, can you and all your followers say the same.


You may feel obliged to teach what you say your god goes on about, but you don't have the right to expect people to either listen or to accept your beliefs. In the same vein I have the right to tell you that your morals are unacceptable to me and have no bearing on me.

I think most people who are HIV would simply prefer you to leave them alone if that is the level of your compassion ie it comes with a price, having to listen to you moralising. I have far more respect for people who are compassionate for compassion's sake rather than a tool on the hunt for souls.

You also really should look at your language - saying your god has instituted things for everyone flies in the face of freedom of religion. It is fine for you to believe that about marriage and fine for you to follow it but it has no bearing for the rest of us - it just comes across as arrogant attempts at social control and imposing your prejudices and beliefs on others, how would you like to be told that you had to abide by the rules of the Jewish Faith (I know you ignore a lot of the rules you have in common with them anyway but Natman has asked about that).

Incredible! The morals of some people who would argue that the cold bloodied and brutal murder of a group of men and boys can be justified as an acceptable act because it was a war afterall, yet what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is deserving of a death sentence and the wrath of God.

If I wasnt convinced before that Theo is a troll, I am now. No wonder the Catholic Church is in such a mess.

This is a key point for me
Dave #82

When dealing with prevention it is important to ensure people are fully aware of the risk involved with different activities and it is important that people understand that abstinence is 100% safe and is an option. For most people it is an unacceptable option (and not that safe emotionally either) and reality is that we than have to look at how we minimise risk at every point from then on
By talking about risk and prevention we can help people take responsibility for themselves

Ryan

What a fine post!!

romejellybeen, #87;

Long before Srebrenica, it had been "established" in fashionable circles that the Bosnian Serbs were the nasty "bad guys" (Radovan Karadzic especially was 'Hitler reincarnate' in the eyes of most commentators), ganging up on those poor, defenceless, pure-as-the-driven-snow Bosnian Muslims. Already by that time (summer 1995), no one was interested in hearing the Serb side of the story.

There is (somewhere, i promise) a Radio 4 report, which was repeated on a Sunday evening a few years ago, investigating the Mujahideen who stoked up much of the violence in the Balkans in the first place. Many of the same individuals were later involved in the first (unsuccessful) and second attacks on the World Trade Centre. Reflect for a moment on the scale of the western response to 9-11 - and the horrific number of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who paid with their lives - before rushing to judgment of the Bosnian Serbs.

Theo

I'm not judging the Bosnian Serbs, I'm commenting on you and on your "morality."

Anyone, Christian or otherwise, who has a knowledge of the teachings of Jesus Christ would have roundly condemned PastorP's post # 70 as anti-Kingdom and anti-Christian. You praised it to the highest. That tells me all I need to know about you.

You are also very naive if you actually believe that the US / British invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11. Next you'll be telling us about the Weapons of Mass Destruction they found.

You should print out Ryan's post # 88, translate it into Latin if you like, and read it every day until it has sunk in.

Theo,
incase you dont understand what I mean about Christ's teaching, let me spell it out.

A man comes on here posting about the pain of being HIV positive. Anyone with an ounce of compassion would simply offer support - even at a distance - to that man. Or at the very least, keep a dignified silence.

Instead, PastorP grasps the opportunity to spew more bile and judgement and add to the man's pain.... and you praise him???

That is malevolent and is the type of heartless religious cruelty Jesus attacked on so many occasions. Shame on you both.

_Ryan_ @88,


RJB, accurate analysis as ever

Ryan @88,

Excellent Post

(was meant to be my comment)