Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

Hvad er der galt med ateisme?

 

Filosofi, Etik & Religion

Sider: << < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > >>
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 26/12 2012 23:47 | Indlæg redigeret den: 27/12 2012 13:30

Aros
Men der er bare ikke disse 2 former for ateisme. Det du kalder for den onde form for ateisme, er bare hvad vi andre kalder for den politiske ideologi kommunisme.

LOL! This is what I think is the nub of the problem. I often see atheists, particularly the so-called New Atheists lumping all religion together, no distinction, no differences, and preferably the worst case scenarios. And yet, believers are supposed to make distinctions within atheism... I also see atheists declare that religon is bad because of the deeds of some religious people. They also discard the good done by people of a religious disposition who claim to be inspired by their religious convictions as invalid, even untrue and worse. Yet, when atheists do good deeds, it is clamed that it is because they are atheists, humanists or whatever, and when they do evil deeds, we are told it is nothing to do with their atheism. I call that double standards.

Men din udtalelse virker nedladende og viser en manglende forståelse.

That is not my intention. And to say that I lack understanding is presumptious and arrogant. It may also be a convenient way of avoiding inconvenient truths. In any case, a good number of atheists talk down to people and lack understanding. Some seem to know little about history, theology and philosophy.

Derfor kan jeg hverken se at det skulle skabe noget tomrum der ikke er der, eller dække et tomrum der er der.

Regarding the empty room, it´s possible I mixed you with someone else. I haven´t time to crawl through the thread now... I will just add that I know several atheists who speak of emptiness and loneliness in their lives. Some speak of meaningless and suffer depression. Others speak of the feeling that there must be something more. This is often what starts them on the road to enquiry and faith. I have also heard former atheists talk in hindsight about how they filled their lives with all kinds of activities, eg. power, work, sex, drugs, causes, anger, whatever, as a means of avoiding the emptiness. Obviously not all do, but too many to ignore, I think.


Harris, dawkins and co, kan jeg ikke se problemet i. De kritiserer religion. så vidt jeg ved er der ingen af dem der er kommunister. De argumenter imod religion med ord. Der er ikke nogen af dem der har en pistol imod dit hovedet eller vil fængsle dig for din tro.

Harris is telling people it might be "ethical" to kill people for an idea. Dawkins is going around telling people at public atheist rallies to "ridicule Catholics" (I have a link if you need to hear him) and that being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse. That kind of talk is stupid and it breeds ignorance and intolerance. I call it incitement to religious hatred, even violence. Both of these “gurus” have their disciples who are more than willing to hurl abuse at and spit in the faces of Catholics, vandalize churches and desecrate sacred hosts on Youtube, etc... That sounds very like the "Society for the godless" to me...

At du siger at du jævnligt hører den slags fra ateister kan undre mig, med mindre du bevidst opsøger det.

I don´t know why it should surprise you. You only have to re-read this thread for an off-topic example or two. I have also seen much of it on threads on other forums and websites where I don´t participate. And what is provocation? Standing up for what one believes? Correcting false information?

Problemet er bare at sådan kan man vælge at tolke alt kritik jo. Med mindre du er enig med kritikken. Hvis f.eks min kritik er historisk korrekt,

Yes, hvis... That is also the nub of the matter. History is constantly being re-read and updated as new research, information, documents and other resources come to light. History can be biased. Facts can also be distorted, misrepresented and/or supressed. There are many examples... It is my experience that some atheists get very aggressive when their historical interpretations and assumptions are challenged, even when the material is being provided by atheist experts in a given subject...

Anyway, I´m not going to say any more on the subject because we are not going to agree... You are free to (dis)believe what you want to (dis)believe ;)




Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 27/12 2012 00:01 | Indlæg redigeret den: 27/12 2012 13:10

A little humour. Hopefuly no one will take offense... ;) :) <3

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped. ~Evelyn Underhill

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. ~Heywood Broun

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up – they have no holidays. ~Henny Youngman

To you I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the Loyal Opposition. ~Woody Allen

Postulating the nonexistence of God, atheism immediately commits the blunder of an absolute negation, which is self-contradictory. For, to sustain the belief that there is no God, it has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.” ~Ravi Zacharias

Atheism is a disease of the mind caused by eating underdone philosophy. ~Austin O’Malley

A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol. ~Deitrich Bonhoeffer

Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter. ~William Murray

Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God. ~Tom Stoppard

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. ~C.S. Lewis

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. ~Mohandas Gandhi

http://www.gadel.info/2011/04/does-god-exists-atheism-quotes-for.html#ixzz2GCn3cSiO




10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On ;) :) <3 <3 <3
http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html#ixzz2GCoWgsKo



Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 27/12 2012 00:29

Historien om Suzie

Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 27/12 2012 11:24 | Indlæg redigeret den: 27/12 2012 13:12

Ka-ching,
Would that your OFF-TOPIC stereo-typing were true!!! Alas for you... ;) :(

You need to (re)read the last link in my comment above. The article is a little long and demands some intelligence, but I´m sure you´ll manage it! :)

PS: Happy Christmas! <3
Aros
Forum-indlæg: 848
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 27/12 2012 13:34

Plante: Mener du virkelig det? Hvis du møder en du synes der er grim er det så konstruktivt at råbe "Du er griiiim!", måske endda med det motiv at nedgøre? Jævnfør sandhed, konstruktiv, tonefald og motiv... (indsæt fedme for et mere objektivt, målbart parameter)

Plante, for det første er et begreb som grim ikke en absolut sandhed. En person der for dig er pæn er måske grim for mig. At ændre grim til tyk gør det ikke mere objektivt. Derudover er det ikke at lyve blot fordi jeg ikke råber grim efter en fremmed person, og jeg oplever ikke ligefrem dagligt at vildt fremmede personer kommer hen til mig og spørger om jeg synes de er pæne eller grimme. At jorden er rund er en sandhed, at jeg er en mand er en sandhed, at sige lakrids smager godt, eller at sige at naboens tykke kone er grim, er en mening, og ikke nogle absolutte sandheder. Der er helt klart en meget lille minoritet af mænd der f,eks finder stærkt overvægtige kvinder tiltrækkende, men ikke destro mindre findes de, og derfor er det ikke en absolut sandhed at sige at tykke kvinder er utiltrækkende. Det er blot min personlige mening. Derudover tager du det jeg skrev helt ud af sammenhæng og betydning.

katchetowa: Fejlen med ateister er at de tror de ikke tror!.Det gør vi alle på et eller andet!.

Det er nok en fejlantagelse fra din side. Jeg kan naturligvis kun tale for mig selv, men jeg er ateist, og jeg er helt bevidst om at der er ting jeg tror på. Jeg er helt enig i at alle tror på et aller andet. Men der er stor forskel på at tro at de madvarer jeg lige stillede ind i køleskabet, stadig vil være der hvis jeg åbner køleskabet igen 5 min senere. Det er en ret velbegrundet tro at have. Der er noget mindre grundlag for at tro på at der eksisterer en gud, alfer, smølfer, hobbitter eller hvad ved jeg.

katchetowa: Førhen var religion en trøst for mennesket i en barsk verden.Mange forventede ikke at blive mere end 25 år gamle!.
Som et ordsprog siger gud mildner luften for de klippede får!.(sagt fra de højere klasser til de lavere).
De blev plyndret godt og grundigt.Sådan var tidens moral.Den går frem og tilbage!.
De fleste døde af sult eller sygdom!.
Biskopper går på bordel og paven render efter små drenge!.Sådan blev det da religion blev et erhverv og ikke
en tro på en bedre verden og næste kærlighed.Kommunismen var lige så korrupt eller rettere skrevet mennesket
er korrupt for idealerne fejler ikke noget.Det er mennesket!.Hvis en leder bliver for blødsøden bliver han
fjernet.Så er lederen i virkeligheden en stråmand for dem som står under ham eller hende!.
Det er mennesket som et selvstændigt individ som må tage stilling til sin holdning overfor sin næste!.hvornår vi er
selvstændige må være det næste! Og bla bla bla..

Selvfølgelig er der noget galt med idealerne i kommunisme. Moralsk er kommunisme ligeså forkastelig og frastødende som fasicme/nazisme. Blødsøden er ikke ligefrem et ord jeg ville bruge om de fleste kommunistiske ledere. Iøvrigt finder jer det ironisk at bruge ordet selvstændighed i sammenhæng med kommunisme, et politisk system der er målsat på at udrydde selvstændighed og individuelisme.

Earthling: LOL! This is what I think is the nub of the problem. I often see atheists, particularly the so-called New Atheists lumping all religion together, no distinction, no differences, and preferably the worst case scenarios. And yet, believers are supposed to make distinctions within atheism... I also see atheists declare that religon is bad because of the deeds of some religious people. They also discard the good done by people of a religious disposition who claim to be inspired by their religious convictions as invalid, even untrue and worse. Yet, when atheists do good deeds, it is clamed that it is because they are atheists, humanists or whatever, and when they do evil deeds, we are told it is nothing to do with their atheism. I call that double standards.

Som helhed er jeg ikke særlig glad for religion generelt, but i am not lumping all religion together. Der er KLART religioner der er bedre end andre. Ja det er mest politisk korrekt at sige at religioner er lige meget værd, de er bare forskellige osv. Vrøvl. Jeg synes det er allerbedst slet ikke at være religiøs, men hvis man ser på verden, er der da ingen tvivl om f.eks protestanter og buddhister gør mindre skade i verden end f.eks muslimer gør. Ihvertfald på nuværende tidspunkt i mennesket historie. At påstå andet, er at være ekstremt naiv, desideret dum, eller begge dele. Religion er ikke påkrævet for at gøre gode ting. Hvis folk gør noget godt og gavnligt er det fint, men ligesom jeg ikke kunne finde på at sige: "det er fordi han er ateist at han gør gode ting", synes jeg heller ikke det giver mening at sige om religiøse. Forskellen er er nok Earthling, at hvis f.eks en muslim dræber en jøde, så er det lidt svært at sige at det ikke har noget med islam at gøre, når jøder i koranen er beskrevet som onde folk der burde udryddes. Du kan ikke på samme måde rationelt sige at der er en sammenhæng imellem at være ateist og at dræbe jøder. Men derfor har der nok eksisteret en ateist der dræbte en jøde. Måske endda en ateist der dræbte en jøde FOR at være jøde. Det har bare ikke haft noget med at være ateist at gøre. For der findes ikke en bog med regler for alle ateister der siger: "thi udryd, dræb og tugt jøden hvor end i finder ham". Noget helt andet er at alle naturligvis skal fordømmes for at gøre forkerte og umoralske ting, om de er ateister eller ej. Jeg har aldrig hævdet at hvis en ateist gør gode ting, så er det fordi han er ateist.

Earthling: That is not my intention. And to say that I lack understanding is presumptious and arrogant. It may also be a convenient way of avoiding inconvenient truths. In any case, a good number of atheists talk down to people and lack understanding. Some seem to know little about history, theology and philosophy.

Folk generelt ved ikke ret meget om Historie, teologi, eller filosofi. Men det kan du da umuligt mene om de ateister der har deltaget i denne debat. Jeg tør godt vædde den hat jeg ikke har, på at en person som f.eks John ved en hel del mere om ihvertfald filosofi end du gør. Han ved ihvertfald mere om det end de fleste i dk gør. Jeg har også selv studeret lidt filosofi og historie. Man kan sagten finde nogen der ved mere, Men jeg vil dog alligevel påstå jeg er mere ende i det end gennemsnittet i befolkningen. Det siger selvfølgelig heller ikke så meget.

Earthling:
Regarding the empty room, it´s possible I mixed you with someone else. I haven´t time to crawl through the thread now... I will just add that I know several atheists who speak of emptiness and loneliness in their lives. Some speak of meaningless and suffer depression. Others speak of the feeling that there must be something more. This is often what starts them on the road to enquiry and faith. I have also heard former atheists talk in hindsight about how they filled their lives with all kinds of activities, eg. power, work, sex, drugs, causes, anger, whatever, as a means of avoiding the emptiness. Obviously not all do, but to many to ignore, I think.

Det lyder mere som om du taler om nihilister, dvs folk der ikke tror på noget overhovedet, og som ikke sætter noget højt, som ingen idealer eller værdier har. Det vil jeg godt påstå ikke gælder de fleste ateister. Jeg "tror" f.eks på demokrati, frihed, at det er forkert at gøre andre fortræd og meget andet. Selvfølgelig er et liv der kun består af arbejde, sex, stoffer og at være vred hele tiden, et tom liv. Men hvis der er alt hvad ens liv består af bliver det vel ikke mere meningsfuldt af at være religiøs. Der er jo også religiøse hvis liv bare er arbejde, sex, stoffer og at være vred. Jeg har masser af mål, ønsker og drømme, og jeg bruger bestemt ikke mit liv på bare arbejde, sex, stoffer og at være vred. Og jeg vil kæmpe for hvad jeg tror på. For der er mange ting jeg tror på. Der er bare ingen af dem der har religiøs eller overnaturlig basis.

Earthling: Harris is telling people it might be "ethical" to kill people for an idea. Dawkins is going around telling people at public atheist rallies to "ridicule Catholics" (I have a link if you need to hear him) and that being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse. That kind of talk is stupid and it breeds ignorance and intolerance. I call it incitement to religious hatred, even violence. Both of these “gurus” have their disciples who are more than willing to hurl abuse at and spit in the faces of Catholics, vandalize churches and desecrate sacred hosts on Youtube, etc... That sounds very like the "Society for the godless" to me...

Det har jeg ikke hørt Harris sige, men ifald han har, er jeg uenig.100% uenig. Ikke alene for en ide. Det der er forskellen er nok, at hvis f.eks en mullah udstøder en fatwa så adlyder muslimerne, som nazisterne ville adlyde en ordre hitler havde udstedt. For mig er Harris bare en person, hans mening har ikke nogen højere mening for mig, og jeg anser ikke hans mening som et påbud der skal adlydes. Han er ikke min profet eller min guru. Selvom han er ateist ligesom mig, kan jeg faktisk være uenig i ALT hvad han siger. I tilfælde hvor folk opfører sig latterligt har de fortjent at blive latterliggjort. At opdrage børn til en bestemt religion er at fratage dem deres ret til selv at vælge, og selv at afgøre og vurdere hvad der er sandt og hvad der ikke er. Derudover ingår der f.eks tit i religion en tro på et helvede, og at sige til et barn at hvis det ikke opfører sig ordenligt så kommer det i helvede, det er helt bestemt børnemishandling og ondskabsfuldt. Hvad ville folk ikke tænke hvis jeg sagde til et barn, opfør dig ordenligt eller jeg sender dig over til naboen som stikker i dig med knive og brænder dig i sin ovn? de ville med god grund tænke at jeg er sindsyg. Men at sige til et barn at det kommer i helvede og bliver torturreret og brændt i al evighed er åbenbart okay. Det der moralsk er problemet med religion er at det får folk til at acceptere ting som de ellers ville finde komplet umoralsk. Rationelt er der ikke noget logisk argument for hvorfor det skulle være mere okay at true med helvede end eksemplet med naboen. Og bare så der ikke er tvivl, jeg ville heller ikke opdrage et barrn til at det SKULLE være ateist.

Earthling: Yes, hvis... That is also the nub of the matter. History research is constantly being re-read, updated as new information, documents and resources come to light. History can be biased. History can also be re-written and facts distorted and/or supressed. There are many examples... It is my experience that some atheists get very aggressive when their historical interpretations and assumptions are challenged, even when the material is being provided by atheist experts in a given subject...

Enig, men derfor er der stadig ting vi er helt sikre på skete. Ting der er historiske fakta. Jeg går ikke ud fra, dvs jeg håber ihvertfald ikke du er blandt dem der afviser helt sikre historiske fakta, som f.eks holocaust fornægtere. Ja der kan komme nye data der f.eks viser at der ikke blev udryddet 6 millioner, men 6,5 millioner eller 5,9 millioner, men det ændrer ikke på at holocaust skete. Jeg kan ikke udtale mig om hvad ateister generelt vil. Måske ville nogle ateister blive sure over ny data, i min verden må man acceptere hvad beviserne peger på.

Earthling:Anyway, I´m not going to say any more on the subject because we are not going to agree... You are free to believe what you want to believe

No we are not :-) .Yes you to.

Earthling: A little humour. Hopefuly no one will be offended

Jeg blev det ikke. Enkelte af dem var faktisk morsomme. Resten var bare enten ikke morsomme eller fejlagtige.

Earthling: I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up – they have no holidays. ~Henny Youngman

To you I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the Loyal Opposition. ~Woody Allen

Disse to er ret morsomme, og normalt synes jeg ellers ikke Woody allen er morsom.

Earthling: Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter. ~William Murray

Denne er desideret dum, fordi den blot viser at personen hverken ved hvad humanisme eller ateisme er, og heller ikke ved at man IKKE nødvendigvis er begge dele. Humanisme er ikke = ateisme. Ligesom kommunisme ikke er = ateisme. Jeg er f.eks ateist, men er IKKE humanist. Derduover findes der faktisk også kristne humanister. Så udtalelsen er faktisk så fejlagtig som den kan blive.

Earthling: Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. ~C.S. Lewis

Tror mere det er vrede imod umoralske religiøse dogmer.
CeciliaN
Forum-indlæg: 222
Opskrifter: 4
Område: Sjælland
Dato: 27/12 2012 15:55

Ka-ching:
Jeff
Hvis folk ventede med at have sex til de blev gift er det rimeligt at antage at de ikke ville have så mange sexpartnere og at færre mennesker ville blive smittet.


Hvad så med os, der mener at ægteskab er noget pjat og ikke har lyst til at gifte os - skal vi så leve helt uden sex? :O What a boring life.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 27/12 2012 17:47 | Indlæg redigeret den: 27/12 2012 19:34

CeciliaN raises another important point with her comment.

Just as "sex outside of marriage" is not the cause of STDs (nor is even having many partners, for that matter), so is having sex only in marriage not a cure.

Ka-ching, I am hoping that in your own life, that your understanding of sex and health is better than what this post seems to assert.

The worst part of these kinds of comments is the way we let stigma operate where objective scientific evidence is required. Instead of stigmatizing certain kinds of legal behaviors, we should be focused on information, testing, and communication between sex partners.

John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 27/12 2012 22:11

Jeff, would you please point out exactly where Ka-ching said that sex outside of marriage is the cause of STD's...
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 28/12 2012 08:25 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 08:51

Ka-ching:
Jeff
By the way, what is wrong with fornication?

Herpes, cytomegalovirus, gonore, HPV som giver halskræft og livmoderhalskræft.



Jeff:

Surely you don't mean fornication is the cause of STDs?


Ka-ching:
Jeff
Hvis folk ventede med at have sex til de blev gift er det rimeligt at antage at de ikke ville have så mange sexpartnere og at færre mennesker ville blive smittet.


This is clearly language of causation. Indeed, I would argue that answering the question about "what is wrong" with anything is (always) strongly related to either a) the state or nature of that thing or b) its causal relationship to something else. It seems rather contrived to construct another kind of utterance for this kind of usage and quite dishonest to assert that Ka-ching's utterance was meant in some odd deviation from the normal understanding of what was meant by my question of "what is wrong...?".

If Ka-ching had replied with "fornication is sin", then we would have a case of describing the nature of fornication. Similarly, if he had replied with "fornication is widespread" he may have been referring to its state. However he did neither. He replied through two utterances linking it end states of other things and to a process for how those end states arise, all of which is manifest in the example I gave above.

If Ka-ching had wanted to clarify his position as not one concerning causation, he was given an opportunity to do so through my follow-up question found above, which directly and explicitly concerned the matter of causation again. He did not do this. Instead, he chose to bolster the linkage he was arguing between fornication and STDs by explaining things in kind of quasi-"proof by contradiction" (although formally the argument comes closer to a counterfactual conditional ) - he did this by trying to illustrate a specific process linking STDs and fornication. It seems wholly dishonest discourse to try to argue this to be anything but intended as logic of causation, - in more Aristotelian terms, efficient cause (although I would not necessarily choose to discuss this in terms of the Four Causes - indeed, a close examination of the details in the utterances above will show much affinity with features covered in Humes' discourse on causation: remember, I am not arguing that Ka-ching shows causation, I am interested in the polemic/rhetoric per se).

Finally, if we were to play the game of evading the meaning that normal reading seems to convey, then I might ask where it is that I actually stated that Ka-ching stated that fornication causes STDs, rendering your question wholly irrelevant. However, I think we all know that this kind of game doesn't get to be played in grown-up conversation.




Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 28/12 2012 10:46

Eller den korte version :D
Jeg sagde ikke at sex uden for ægteskabet er årsagen til sexsygdomme. Om det foregår i eller uden for et ægteskab er irrelevant hvis partneren er smittet. Sex er årsagen til at der stadig eksisterer sexsygdomme og problemet ville være meget mindre hvis folk ventede med at have sex indtil de har fundet den person som de vil være sammen med resten af livet eller hvis alle forlanger af deres partnere at de er blevet testet for samtlige sexsygdomme før man har sex.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 28/12 2012 11:15 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 12:21

Ka-ching,

Enten var dit svar givet på spørgsmålet "what is wrong with fornication" eller ej. You can't have it both ways, medmindre du vil spamme med vilkårlige indlæg. Jeg synes, at din omgang bliver ret utroværdig lige nu.

Derudover er jeg (og sikker mange andre brugere!) ret overrasket over din version af beskyttelse mod kønssygdomme. Selv når du har rettet en lille smule i din påstand, så bliver ret meget vrøvl tilbage.

1)
Sex er årsagen til at der stadig eksisterer sexsygdomme

Nej, sex er ikke årsagen. Patogener (bakterier, viruser, osv.) er årsagen. Se linket nedenfor.

2)
problemet ville være meget mindre hvis folk ventede med at have sex indtil de har fundet den person som de vil være sammen med resten af livet

Det har intet med ægteskab at gøre, som CeciliaN siger (og er implicit i mine indlæg). Derudover har måden hvordan man beskytter sig selv intet med ægteskab at gøre. Se linket nedenfor.

3)
hvis alle forlanger af deres partnere at de er blevet testet for samtlige sexsygdomme før man har sex

At blive testet er ikke en løsning i sig selv.

Jeg anbefaler at du læser lidt på denne side eller lignende:

http://stopaids.dk/sikker_sex.html

Og jeg gentager:

Instead of stigmatizing certain kinds of legal behaviors, we should be focused on information (about safer sex, condom use, etc.), testing, and communication between sex partners.



Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 28/12 2012 13:29 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 13:30

Jeff
Nej, sex er ikke årsagen. Patogener (bakterier, viruser, osv.) er årsagen.
Sex er årsagen til at man får disse patogener, og sex er også årsagen til at sexsygdommene stadig eksisterer. Hvis de inficerede ikke havde sex med nogen, ville der jo ikke være flere der blev smittet, og patogenerne ville forsvinde, når de inficerede dør. Så jo, sex er årsagen til at sexsygdomme eksisterer!

Hvorfor mener du ikke at testning er en løsning? den eneste måde at undgå sexsygdomme, er at undgå at have sex med inficerede personer, så det virker da meget logisk, at nye partnere bliver testet før man har sex med dem.
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 28/12 2012 13:41

At sige at promiskuitet ikke er årsagen til kønssygdomme er lidt ligesom at sige at det ikke er årsagen til ulykker at man leger ude på motorvejen.
- "Nej nej, det var ikke legen på motorvejen der var årsagen. Det var bilerne. Eller rettere - producenterne af bilerne. Eller rettere - den mentalitet der forårsagede ønsket om hurtigere transport, og som førte til opfindelsen af transportmidler, generelt."
Nej. Det var fordi idioten legede ude på motorvejen. Ellers ville han ikke være død. Færdigt.
Og ligeledes ville mange mennesker ikke have de kønssygdomme de har hvis de ikke bollede til højre og venstre.
At de gjorde det er ikke årsagen til at sygdommen eksisterer til at starte med. Selvfølgeligt ikke. Det er simpelthen for fjollet at begynde at tale om dét.
Men det ER årsagen til at DE har sygdommen. Og til at de spreder den videre til andre. Og til at kønssygdomme er så stort et problem som de er.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 28/12 2012 14:10 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 15:13

John siger:
Nej. Det var fordi idioten legede ude på motorvejen. Ellers ville han ikke være død. Færdigt.
Og ligeledes ville mange mennesker ikke have de kønssygdomme de har hvis de ikke bollede til højre og venstre.
At de gjorde det er ikke årsagen til at sygdommen eksisterer til at starte med. Selvfølgeligt ikke. Det er simpelthen for fjollet at begynde at tale om dét.
Men det ER årsagen til at DE har sygdommen.


Jeg er simpelthen chokeret.

Jeg kan ikke sige noget andet end det.

en eneste måde at undgå sexsygdomme, er at undgå at have sex med inficerede personer


My usual verbosity will have to be squeezed into: WTF?

John, as usual, your analogy is completely tortured and off the mark and the implicit equation of having sex with more than one partner with playing on the highway is actually just plain reprehensible.

Surely these posts are some of the most egregious I have seen here on VegKon.

I am actually not clarifying this further for now, since I am holding out for others' comments.




Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 28/12 2012 14:22 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 14:29

Jeff
I think John´s question was reasonable. I also think most people understand what Ka-ching is getting at and that he has a very reasonable point. I actually saw no need for your sneery retort to him.

It is a fact that the virus, bacteria and diseases he mentions are transmitted through sexual contact, and that the more partners one has, the higher the risk of infection, even with condoms. information, testing and communication. People are selfish. People take risks. People lie. Condoms fail (15% rate, I think).

In fact, your very wording belies what you are saying. Why testing? Why condoms? Note also that your link is about Aids, HIV, gay sex, none of which Ka-ching mentions... And actually two gay virgins who committed to sexual fidelity between them would be at a very low risk of contacting anything.

No one claims marriage is a "cure" for anything. If it´s not broke, don´t fix it. Or are you going to produce indisputable scientific evidence of cases where two virgins marry and live a life of sexual fidelity breaking out in "Herpes, cytomegalovirus, gonore, HPV som giver halskræft og livmoderhalskræft"??? I think not. In fact, the objective scientific evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. I can post links if you want.

CeciliaN´s comment is irrelevant given that the original context of the remark about fornication arose within the framework of religion - and common sense. If someone has no religion and no belief in God, why would they even be asking the question she asks? Begs belief!

What stigma, Jeff? The way things are, it´s the virgins, the celibates and the faithfully married men and women who are stigmatized and laughed at. And as for celibacy being boring? Because someone is sexually inactive doesn´t mean thay are not sexual beings. Neither does it mean they can´t have full and exciting lives, or very deep and loving friendships, with no risk of exploiting people for pleasure. CeciliaN should try it. ;)

That aside, the topic is atheism, not sexual behaviour!

Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 28/12 2012 14:25 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 15:16

Aros,
Your comment begs one or two remarks ;)

Der er KLART religioner der er bedre end andre... At påstå andet, er at være ekstremt naiv, desideret dum, eller begge dele

Agree.
Religion er ikke påkrævet for at gøre gode ting. Hvis folk gør noget godt og gavnligt er det fint, men ligesom jeg ikke kunne finde på at sige: "det er fordi han er ateist at han gør gode ting", synes jeg heller ikke det giver mening at sige om religiøse.

So are you saying that recommendations to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, vist the prisoner, heal the sick, protect the widow and the orphan, love their neighbour/enemy, forgive, etc., have no bearing on the behaviour of someone who has a particuliar religion? Sorry don´t buy. Note, I´m not saying that non-believers can´t do the same, only that I think many believers are directly inspired by their faith. Of course, some athiests say they only do it because of fear and selfish motives (see earlier comments on this thread)... But that´s another story...

Forskellen er er nok Earthling, at hvis f.eks en muslim dræber en jøde, så er det lidt svært at sige at det ikke har noget med islam at gøre, når jøder i koranen er beskrevet som onde folk der burde udryddes. Du kan ikke på samme måde rationelt sige at der er en sammenhæng imellem at være ateist og at dræbe jøder. Men derfor har der nok eksisteret en ateist der dræbte en jøde. Måske endda en ateist der dræbte en jøde FOR at være jøde. Det har bare ikke haft noget med at være ateist at gøre.

I think Jeffrey Dahmer, infamous serial killer and atheist sheds light on something when he says, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. Note, I am not saying all athiests are like this guy, only that without a belief in a higher moral law or divine source, it is possible to effectively do whatever one wishes... One can be the arbitary maker of one´s own laws.

Folk generelt ved ikke ret meget om Historie, teologi, eller filosofi.

Agree, and I think it´s very unfortunate, even dangerous. It makes it easy for certain claims to go unchallenged... It may also mean people have their doors closed to a range of wisdom.

Men det kan du da umuligt mene om de ateister der har deltaget i denne debat. Jeg tør godt vædde den hat jeg ikke har, på at en person som f.eks John ved en hel del mere om ihvertfald filosofi end du gør. Han ved ihvertfald mere om det end de fleste i dk gør.

I was speaking in general terms. I dont´want to talk about John (hopefully he won´t take offense at this short reference to your comment). It might be the case that he knows more than me regarding philosphy. That would be natural given that he spent two-and-a-half years studying the subject. However, his “expertise” seems to be rather confined. It is evident to me that there is also a great deal he doesn´t know. Both Jeff and I have challenged his arguments at various times.

He knows more than the majority in dk? You mean dk or vk??? If you´re talking about vk, I would say that Jeff, and possibly others, know a great deal more. If you´re talking about dk, it´s a prepostorous claim.

Det lyder mere som om du taler om nihilister, dvs folk der ikke tror på noget overhovedet, og som ikke sætter noget højt, som ingen idealer eller værdier har. Det vil jeg godt påstå ikke gælder de fleste ateister. Jeg "tror" f.eks på demokrati, frihed, at det er forkert at gøre andre fortræd og meget andet. Selvfølgelig er et liv der kun består af arbejde, sex, stoffer og at være vred hele tiden, et tom liv. Men hvis der er alt hvad ens liv består af bliver det vel ikke mere meningsfuldt af at være religiøs. Der er jo også religiøse hvis liv bare er arbejde, sex, stoffer og at være vred. Jeg har masser af mål, ønsker og drømme, og jeg bruger bestemt ikke mit liv på bare arbejde, sex, stoffer og at være vred. Og jeg vil kæmpe for hvad jeg tror på. For der er mange ting jeg tror på. Der er bare ingen af dem der har religiøs eller overnaturlig basis.

No, I wasn´t talking about nihilists, although what I said doesn´t exclude them. Nor was I saying that atheists can´t have a meaningful life or that religious people can´t use religion as a vacuum-filler. I am saying that some athiests experience an endless, aching emptiness and loneliness in their lives regardless of activities, beliefs, or whatever. This poses challenges and questions. It may also prompt depression or an enquiry which leads to intelligent faith which further enriches their lives.

It´s like seeing in 3 or 4-D instead of 2 or 3-D. ;)

At opdrage børn til en bestemt religion er at fratage dem deres ret til selv at vælge, og selv at afgøre og vurdere hvad der er sandt og hvad der ikke er.

If we follow that logic, we could say the same about obliging children to go to school, learn various life skills, social norms, etc. And of course, children are always free to reject what they wish later on. Many do. Many also rebel, question and them embrace the faith of the parents as adults, for their own reasons. Aside from which, children can be very discerning. I remember being told a few things when I was a child which I simply dismissed as adult stupidity!

I know several peopel who grew up in atheist homes, even very liberal, "left´ish" homes where religion was taboo, misrepresented or hated. That is also a form of indoctrination.

In actual fact, children are being indoctrinated all the time in one way or another... I think it´s important to encourage them to ask questions and seek out information. It should be the basis of every solid education system. It was certainly at the heart of my education.

Derudover ingår der f.eks tit i religion en tro på et helvede, og at sige til et barn at hvis det ikke opfører sig ordenligt så kommer det i helvede, det er helt bestemt børnemishandling og ondskabsfuldt...Men at sige til et barn at det kommer i helvede og bliver torturreret og brændt i al evighed er åbenbart okay.

I agree, and I don´t think it´s okay. To use the concept of hell is such a way is to take it entirely out of context (the subject merits its own thread). It is also building a faith underpinned by fear, not love. I would never speak to a child like that, and I have never been spoken to like that. I would reprimand a person if I ever heard them speaking that way to a child.

The decisive encounter in my life was with Jesus when he reprimands the disciples for sending the children away. (Mark10:13-13) I saw an adult who cared for children and drew them to him. I also see someone who holds children up as examples because of their simplicity, their trust and their purity of heart. And I see him giving serious warning to all those who destroy the innocence of children. It would be better for a millstone to be tied around their necks... (Matt.18:6)

Det der moralsk er problemet med religion er at det får folk til at acceptere ting som de ellers ville finde komplet umoralsk.

The same could be said about a number of belief systems, eg. atheist communsim, fascism, apartheid, certain philosophies... We´ve already had this discussion...

Jeg går ikke ud fra, dvs jeg håber ihvertfald ikke du er blandt dem der afviser helt sikre historiske fakta, som f.eks holocaust fornægtere.

What do you think??? It would never cross my mind. ;)


Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 28/12 2012 14:27 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 14:39

This is ridiculous.

Once again, John (and Ka-ching) assert things and we are just to assume them to be true. Since this is John's typical modus operandi (accompanied by the inevitable screaming capitalisation), I am not surprised by this occurrence.

Besides the flawed logic of causation and an utter ignorance or disregard for practices of safer sex which plague these posts, it is also just not supported by evidence. On the contrary, it is contradicted by evidence:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFIQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Freproductivehealth%2Fpublications%2Fgeneral%2Flancet_2.pdf&ei=oqrdUNC4FZHIswaS4IGQDw&usg=AFQjCNGzts-ZEoAw7WSIbqDyCbdUh7TBNg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.Yms *

Again, this just utterly ridiculous.

I actually thought that at least John would be familiar with the problem of residual stigma confounding education around sexual behavior and prevention efforts, but I admit that my judgment failed.

Here is a kindergarten synopsis for those who don't want to read the whole report linked above:

In the first comprehensive global study of sexual behavior, British researchers found...there is no firm link between promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15501173/ns/health-sexual_health/t/global-study-dispels-common-myths-about-sex/#.UN2qgGe_wa8

Now, what I actually expect here is for John to disappear from the conversation once more, just as he did when he was set right about slime molds and his manifest lack of understanding of altruism in nature, game theory, etc.

Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 28/12 2012 14:48 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 14:57

Jeff
Sikker sex eksisterer så vidt jeg ved ikke. Man kan få herpes af at kysse en person med sygdommen, og kondomer beskytter ikke 100 % mod HPV, da de ikke dækker alt huden i området. Selv hvis kondomer beskyttede 100 %, ville mange alligevel blive blive inficeret via oralsex, som for mange er en uundværlig del af sexlivet. Da sex aldrig er 100 % sikkert, er der en risiko for at blive smittet, hver gang man har sex med en ny partner. Jo flere sexpartnere man har, jo større sandsynlighed er der for, at man på et tidspunkt har sex med en, der er inficeret, og derfor kunne problemet begrænses, ved at befolkningen gennemsnitligt har færre sexpartnere. Logikken her fejler intet!
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 28/12 2012 14:51 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 14:51

Earthling, actually, I originally used a link concerning STDs and changed to one about HIV, because I wanted a disease for which there was no cure, since I wanted to avoid the question of the eradication of disease through medical approaches, since it would confound the discussion.

Also to be clear, it was you who originally raised this issue through your implicit demonization of fornication.

And in the end it does to be relevant, since it is for me clearly the vestiges of religious beliefs about sex which allow us to attach stigma to legal sexual conduct, so that instead of understanding that humans have sex and pathogens infect people, we conflate all this into "humans having sex with more than one person are making other people sex" with a sleight of hand that somehow conjures the pathogen out of sight.

Interestingly, the mortality rate of influenza is actually rather high, certainly higher than that for many of the STDs being discussed. We also know quite clearly how these pathogens are transmitted. However, we don't use the same kind of rhetoric about the flu and how many people we have contact with in our day-to-day as we do about sex here.

Again, there is a virus and it infects and there are people and they interact in normal human ways. How we protect ourselves is through our practices when we interaction. We cover our mouths when we cough, we sneeze on our sleeve, and we wash our hands.

In the case of sex, we use condoms...
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 28/12 2012 14:54 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/12 2012 15:51

No firm link??? That´s saying nothing concrete.

WHO? Yes, some of us know all about their "reproductive rights" agenda...

Now try this for measure

CDC warns STD treatment is ineffective and fears 'gonorrhea epidemic' due to resistance to antibiotics
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187561/CDC-warns-STD-treatment-ineffective-fears-looming-gonorrhea-epidemic-resistance-antibiotics.html

Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea: Is The Antibiotic Era Coming To An End? (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/antibiotic-resistance-gonorrhea_n_1916862.html

Aids, behaviour and culture
http://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=294

Rise in HIV/Aids cases in Europe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7109139.stm

Expert: UN study backs Church strategy on Aids
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/07/21/expert-un-study-backs-church-strategy-on-aids/

Uganda clearly shows contraceptives not the answer to HIV/AIDS epidemic
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ugandan-clearly-shows-contraceptives-not-the-answer-to-hiv-aids-epidemic

And this is not about stigma, Jeff. It is about safe sex. Sleeping around and changing partners is NOT safe, either physically, emotionally or spiritually. Take it or leave it!

And please deal with topic of the thread, "Hvad er der galt med ateisme?" or start another one elsewhere.



Sider: << < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > >>