[CraigD]

chilehed, on 26 April 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

It was not you, but rather dduckwessel, who dragged in poverty in response to my comments about people being free moral agents. It’s a common argument which is deeply flawed. People make foolish decisions because they’re foolish; having money doesn’t make a foolish person any wiser, and poverty doesn’t doom one to foolishness.

dduckwessel, on 30 April 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

I never said it made them foolish but that people living in serious poverty (which there is a lot of in parts of Africa) are less educated and so easy pawns for religious manipulation.

chilehed, on 04 May 2011 - 01:59 PM, said:

That might seem to be a reasonable assumption to some people, but it certainly can't explain the HIV epidemic in Africa unless you know of a religion that insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse.

The subject of this thread – whether the Pope should be held criminally responsible for discouraging the use of condoms – is based on the explanation that the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in predominantly Catholic communities is explained by the argument that Catholics are less likely to use condoms than non-Catholics because of a perception that such use is in without exception wrong, and that this perception is promoted by the Church. The prevalence of membership in the Catholic Church correlates strongly with poverty, which correlates with poor education. So to say that the assertion that that poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS “certainly can’t explain the HIV epidemic in Africa” is, I think, either wittingly or unwittingly disingenuous.

No major religion “insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse”. However, religions embracing the doctrine of salvation by grace – that deviation from proscribed correct behavior can be forgiven by an act of confession and contrition – which include most Christian religions, tolerate it.

Combining a teaching that an behavior that people are strongly instinctively motivated toward – having sex with many attractive available partners – is permissible but wrong, with teaching that a behavior that they are not instinctively motivated toward, involves complications and expense, and may be distasteful - the use of condoms - is likewise permissible but wrong, tends to reduce the second behavior (condom use) - more than the first (illicit sex).

This explains why education programs that teach abstaining from illicit sex rather than using condoms – typically called “abstinence only” programs – to prevent the spread of disease are less effective than programs than programs that insist on the use of condoms.

Your response to this explanation in this thread, chilehed, has been that the fault lay not in abstinence only education programs, but in the failure of students of these programs to follow them. Public health and disease, however, knows no such distinction – a program is more or less effective than another, as measured by disease and undesired pregnancy rates.

On a high level, I think it’s important to understand that secular public health proponents and Christian religion proselytizers have fundamentally different main goals.

• Health proponents want to improve secular quality of life, by reducing disease, preventing unwanted pregnancy, and increasing lifespans.
  
• Christian proselytizers want to increase the number of souls that survive the death of their bodies to dwell forever in paradise.

To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.

As an atheist who does not believe in an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell, I agree with health proponents and disagree with Christians.

[The Polymath]

Do you know the phrase, "Every bit helps"? It applies here. While a condom is not foolproof, it helps. Why not use every resource at one's disposal to help prevent HIV?

[dduckwessel]

CraigD, on 05 May 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

[*]Christian proselytizers want to increase the number of souls that survive the death of their bodies to dwell forever in paradise.
[/list]To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.

I doubt that Africa is any more than numbers to the Vatican (which is completely removed from the people) or they would be more concerned about the welfare of the people rather than keeping silly rules.

As for the genocide issue, African's had a hand in their own demise (they listened), so in that regard the Pope cannot be held accountable. I doubt the RCC is even taking this seriously, it appears to me as if it's business as usual for them.

My concern was that this genocide issue would obscure the original reason why the Vatican is under scrutiny, which was the intentional cover-ups of rape and the relocation of known pedophiles, which are punishable crimes.

[chilehed]

CraigD, on 05 May 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

...The prevalence of membership in the Catholic Church correlates strongly with poverty, which correlates with poor education. So to say that the assertion that that poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS “certainly can’t explain the HIV epidemic in Africa” is, I think, either wittingly or unwittingly disingenuous.

Oh, I get it: correlation equals causation, people are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant, and poverty prevents people from being free moral agents.

I don't need to explain why that argument is less than convincing.

CraigD, on 05 May 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

No major religion “insists that its adherents must engage in fornication, homosexuality, prostitution and drug abuse”. However, religions embracing the doctrine of salvation by grace – that deviation from proscribed correct behavior can be forgiven by an act of confession and contrition – which include most Christian religions, tolerate it.

I'm struggling to find a charitable way to describe the absurdity of that statement.

CraigD, on 05 May 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

Combining a teaching that an behavior that people are strongly instinctively motivated toward – having sex with many attractive available partners...

You have a very strange understanding of human nature; if that was instinctive then our biochemistry would reflect it. The desire to have multiple partners doesn't come from our instinct, it comes from our will.

CraigD, on 05 May 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

Your response to this explanation in this thread, chilehed, has been that the fault lay not in abstinence only education programs, but in the failure of students of these programs to follow them. Public health and disease, however, knows no such distinction – a program is more or less effective than another, as measured by disease and undesired pregnancy rates.

ROTFLMAO! The effectiveness of a course of action is not to be judged based on whether or not it's followed? What a load of nonsense!

CraigD, on 05 May 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.

What makes you think that you have a sufficient background in philosophy or Christian theology to qualify yourself to make such statements?

[The Polymath]

chilehed, on 08 May 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

I don't need to explain why that argument is less than convincing.

Well, I for one can't see why, so could you explain it?

chilehed, on 08 May 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

I'm struggling to find a charitable way to describe the absurdity of that statement.

How is it absurd?

chilehed, on 08 May 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

You have a very strange understanding of human nature; if that was instinctive then our biochemistry would reflect it. The desire to have multiple partners doesn't come from our instinct, it comes from our will.

What makes you think this? Behavioral studies have shown it.

chilehed, on 08 May 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

ROTFLMAO! The effectiveness of a course of action is not to be judged based on whether or not it's followed? What a load of nonsense!

How so? the effectiveness of a course of action is based on how well it works, not how many people follow it. Everyone in the world could be following an inefficient course of action at the same time.

chilehed, on 08 May 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

What makes you think that you have a sufficient background in philosophy or Christian theology to qualify yourself to make such statements?

What makes you think he doesn't?

[chilehed]

The Polymath, on 09 May 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

Chilehed said:

Oh, I get it: correlation equals causation, people are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant, and poverty prevents people from being free moral agents.
I don't need to explain why that argument is less than convincing.

Well, I for one can't see why, so could you explain it?

"Correlation equals causation" is the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

"People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant" is an ad hominem argument that also begs the question by presupposing that Christianity is not true. I could just as easily say that people are atheists because they’re ignorant, with the same lack of validity.

"Poverty prevents people from being free moral agents" is not worthy of any response.

The Polymath, on 09 May 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

Chilehed said:

I'm struggling to find a charitable way to describe the absurdity of that statement.

How is it absurd?

It’s like saying that a woman tolerates infidelity who kicks her husband out of the house unless and until he stops it, admits it to her, feels sorrow in his soul and destestation of it, and firmly resolves to not do it ever again.

The Polymath, on 09 May 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

Chilehed said:

You have a very strange understanding of human nature; if that was instinctive then our biochemistry would reflect it. The desire to have multiple partners doesn't come from our instinct, it comes from our will.

What makes you think this? Behavioral studies have shown it.

So you say. I’d be very interested in seeing a valid study that manages to distinquish between what we do out of instinct, out of will, and out of a pathologic psychological condition.

Humans have a very strong hormonal interaction which results in the pair imprinting to each other.

The Polymath, on 09 May 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

How so? the effectiveness of a course of action is based on how well it works, not how many people follow it. Everyone in the world could be following an inefficient course of action at the same time.

That’s like saying you can evaluate the performance of a car without having anyone start the engine and drive it. It’s an absurd position, especially since it’s a given that you won’t get a sexually transmitted disease if you follow Church teaching.

The Polymath, on 09 May 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

Chilehed said:

CraigD said:

To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.

What makes you think that you have a sufficient background in philosophy or Christian theology to qualify yourself to make such statements?

What makes you think he doesn't?

Because he says things that make it obvious that he has only a shallow understanding of Catholic theology. That comment was actually more like gnostic thought.

[The Polymath]

chilehed, on 13 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

"Correlation equals causation" is the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

How so? Could you point out where in the post this was?

chilehed, on 13 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

"People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant" is an ad hominem argument that also begs the question by presupposing that Christianity is not true. I could just as easily say that people are atheists because they’re ignorant, with the same lack of validity.

That was not his argument. This is:

CraigD said:

poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS

How is that an ad hominiem attack?

chilehed, on 13 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

.
"Poverty prevents people from being free moral agents" is not worthy of any response.

1) People do what they can to try to make their lives better (even if it doesn't)
2) See this part of the above-quoted post:

CraigD said:

poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma

chilehed, on 13 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

It’s like saying that a woman tolerates infidelity who kicks her husband out of the house unless and until he stops it, admits it to her, feels sorrow in his soul and destestation of it, and firmly resolves to not do it ever again.

...And then goes and does it again, because, hey, they're just words, right?

chilehed, on 13 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

That’s like saying you can evaluate the performance of a car without having anyone start the engine and drive it.

You can. By looking at each of the component parts, you can calculate the performance of the car.

chilehed, on 13 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

It’s an absurd position, especially since it’s a given that you won’t get a sexually transmitted disease if you follow Church teaching.

Very few (if any) people have that kind of willpower to do so.

[chilehed]

The Polymath, on 17 July 2011 - 01:21 AM, said:

How so? Could you point out where in the post this was?

CraigD, on 05 May 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

...The prevalence of membership in the Catholic Church correlates strongly with poverty, which correlates with poor education. So to say that the assertion that that poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS “certainly can’t explain the HIV epidemic in Africa” is, I think, either wittingly or unwittingly disingenuous.

By definition this is the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And, in fact, what it means is "People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant”.

The Polymath, on 17 July 2011 - 01:21 AM, said:

...And then goes and does it again, because, hey, they're just words, right?

What part of “feels sorrow in his soul and destestation of it, and firmly resolves to not do it ever again” is unclear to you?

Your understanding of Catholic teaching is extremely poor.

The Polymath, on 17 July 2011 - 01:21 AM, said:

Very few (if any) people have that kind of willpower to do so.

I know many people who do. There’s nothing unique about them.

As I’ve said repeatedly, this is a problem of the will. People will not adhere to common sense (which is what the teaching of the Church is), therefore they get sexually transmitted diseases.

You’re claiming that the fact that people get diseases who refuse to abstain from behaviors which transmit those diseases, proves that teaching that one should abstain from those behaviors is a cause of the epidemic. That’s not merely silly, it’s insane.

I’ll say it again: it’s incoherent to say that people who ignore the teaching of the Catholic Church are observing it.

[Southtown]

"...And do not call anyone on earth 'father,'..." --Matt 23:8-9
http://www.remnantof...g/beastword.htm

"Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?
For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them,
'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God
by your tradition?'" -- Matt 15:2-3
http://en.wikipedia....Karaite_Judaism

First 15 minutes at least, pleeeeez.