"Unfortunatelly billions still listen to the crap."

Might wanna go check your statistics. There aren't billions of Catholics. There are barely billionS of Christians. If you want to make us all out to be Catholics, fine, but don't complain when people make all Muslims out to be radicals...

"AIDS is a disease which is transfered through sexual contact. If people followed the (Catholic not Lutheran/Anglican) church direction they would get AIDS, which is what they do. If they listened to scientists however (like Einstein), they would of course NOT get AIDS because the Condom would stop it. Simple?"

Not so simple. They wouldn't get it, because they wouldn't be having sex with people that have the disease. Sexual contact isn't something the church promotes outside marraige. Unless a husband cheated on his wife, the disease would never get into the family, and if someone got it though medical malpractice it would neve spread beyond the couple.

As I said, if people followed the church's beliefs they wouldn't get AIDS, because it wouldn't spread, because people would only have one partner. You can't blame AIDS on the Catholic Church when they promote the exact behavior that would end the disease. You expect them to discard their beliefs and adopt your morality, much like Muslims expect us to discard our freedom of speech to bow to their concept of "respect".

"Ayn Rand may have disliked homosexuality but neither did she deny anyone to do EXACTLY what they wanted with their own lives."

Odd, considering she promoted discrimination against homosexuals, and even promoted them to be seen as mentally handicapped. It sounds like she'd just fine with shunning people who do EXACTLY what they want to do and yet differ with her perspective.

That doesn't strike me the kind of person you describe. The fact that she was constantly hurling condemnation on almost every human institution makes it a little facetious to say that she wanted people to do exactly what THEY wanted. She seemed to have nothing but disdain for what the average person wanted.

She just thought, like most deranged people of her ilk, that she knew what was better for us than we do. For that reason, her feelings about religion are hypocritical. She's just replacing one idol with another. No one who wanted people to do exactly what they wanted would hae spent so much time telling us what we should do...

If people followed the (Catholic not Lutheran/Anglican) church direction they would get AIDS, which is what they do.

The catholic faith now condones sleeping around?

Damn! Perhaps I am on the wrong track after all.

If they listened to scientists however (like Einstein), they would of course NOT get AIDS because the Condom would stop it. Simple?

Scientists -> Albert Einstein -> condoms -> no AIDS. Got it. Funny how the connection between Einstein and condoms escaped me in the past.

As a bonus they added the ban on eating Pigs (to protect their sheep farming industry).

You would probably try to breed pigs in the desert. You'd be the nomad with the pig herd.

You think religion causes stupidity or is stupidity, but it is obvious that you haven't even thought as far as it takes to understand religious laws. Just think economically, think about what pigs require and what livestock is for. You might just understand the Jewish and Muslim law regarding pigs.

But then again, you might not. It's not so easy as simply believing that all religion is crap.

Again. Religious groups are (by definition) morons(yes Muslims too). We agree on that I guess?

Why am I a moron just because I go to shul?

They were great examples on how individuals overcome superstition and acts on Reason.

Yes, Judaism does that to people. That's why you will find so many great scientists among Jews. The Jewish religion encourages education.

And if Ayn Rand was a "kook". Why has she been proven right on every point?

She has?

I don't eat pork. I have in the past. And when I have breakfast in the office canteen I see others ordering and eating fried slices and sausages.

I do not have the healthiest lifestyle, in fact there is a lot I could change to improve, but I do not feel stupid or "controlled" just because I avoid particularly greasy meats.

Now a fan of Ayn Rand tells me that I am a moron because of that.

And what she says appears to be gospel.

But organised religion, well, that is obviously stupid.

I tell you what, Marcus, you try being an egoist, I try not to eat pork. We will see who gets better results.

You expect them to discard their beliefs and adopt your morality

The problem is, of course, that if everybody stops listening to the Catholic Church and sleeps around using condoms instead of having one fixed partner, AIDS will spread a lot faster.

I dare say that this might, technically, not completely solve the AIDS problem in the strictest sense.

At the moment devout Catholics are reasonably safe. Condoms are not.

As I said, if people followed the church's beliefs they wouldn't get AIDS, because it wouldn't spread, because people would only have one partner. You can't blame AIDS on the Catholic Church when they promote the exact behavior that would end the disease. You expect them to discard their beliefs and adopt your morality, much like Muslims expect us to discard our freedom of speech to bow to their concept of "respect"

So if humans stopped behaving like humans (ie having sex which is a natural behaviour for all reproducing bilogical entitites) then they wouldn't get AIDS? Otoh if people did not reproduce there would be no humans.

Well Sex is normally natural. I didn't mean the type where Priests "play" with kids in their spare time. Something that happens when people deny their natural needs. I know the Mullahs in Iran fancy little kids too. They are also very keen on insisting on "marrial duties".

What is ridicilous is that they are against abortions but at the same time they are against contraception? See what happens when you rely on what sheep farmers wrote instead of scientists? Ironically Muslims are not against condom use. So in some ways Catholics are even more ancient.

bm

I don't eat pork. I have in the past. And when I have breakfast in the office canteen I see others ordering and eating fried slices and sausages.

You don't eat pork, why? Because it's unhealthy? Unhealthier than say, Lamb? It's your choice of course to eat whatever you want. I find foolish to decide what you eat upon scriptures made by people without ANY expert knowledge on dietism.

I often ask muslims this. "Hey, the Quaran doesnt say anything about eating worms, or Rats. Is that cleaner food than Pig". Noone ever has an answer. Only that "It says so in the books". Is that intelligent reasoning to you? No of course.

I do not have the healthiest lifestyle, in fact there is a lot I could change to improve, but I do not feel stupid or "controlled" just because I avoid particularly greasy meats.

Everyone lives the way they want. No argument there.

Now a fan of Ayn Rand tells me that I am a moron because of that. And what she says appears to be gospel. But organised religion, well, that is obviously stupid. I tell you what, Marcus, you try being an egoist, I try not to eat pork. We will see who gets better results.

What she said and let me quote
"I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy." - Ayn Rand.

Means that religion is NOT an enemy to someone libertarian. However, it does stop me from trying to
point out the (quite serious) flaws of it. In my book, everyone is free to bow down at whatever direction they want, chant whatever they want. As long as it's not forced down my throat. Unfortunatelly religious nutcases chooses to pollute my daily life with their eternal bitching and arguments and fights. If everyone thought more then there would be less problems.

No. You are not one of those nutcases. But there are plenty (like the picture above shows).

marcus

So if humans stopped behaving like humans (ie having sex which is a natural behaviour for all reproducing bilogical entitites) then they wouldn't get AIDS? Otoh if people did not reproduce there would be no humans. No, what is ridiculous is you trying to say that following the Catholic edicts about sex would cause there to be more AIDS, and that somehow Einstien has something to do with condoms.

No one intelligent says people need to deny their natural needs, or do they? People also have the natural need to kill other people in traffic. I'm not a baboon, so I don't need to bludgeon people who I get angry with, sleep with every red ass I pass by, and frankly I don't need to blow up people who insult my religious icons.

What's ironic is that in the last few weeks I have seen more than one person unable to string a decent argument together come in and claim to be the voice of "science", condemning religion in Einstien and anyone else's name. So, if you want to compare the Medieval Catholic church to modern fundamentalist Islam in terms of behavior, great. I'll conceded that they are on par with the people who burned witches and enacted the crusades.

I don't think that is really a compelling argument for them, though, nor it is kind of attack on most modern religious, including the practice of many Muslims.

The problem is, of course, that if everybody stops listening to the Catholic Church and sleeps around using condoms instead of having one fixed partner, AIDS will spread a lot faster. I dare say that this might, technically, not completely solve the AIDS problem in the strictest sense. At the moment devout Catholics are reasonably safe. Condoms are not.

Yeah. Or they could stick to small boys and keep safe that way? I don't know. They are the experts on the issue.

Or how about. They stay the f*ck out of deciding how other lives their lives for them? How about that?.¨

There's of course the solutions to do like the sheep farmers when they have the "itch" .

marcus

So if humans stopped behaving like humans (ie having sex which is a natural behaviour for all reproducing bilogical entitites) then they wouldn't get AIDS? Otoh if people did not reproduce there would be no humans.

Your summary of what he wrote is not a summary of what he wrote. You have to read it again.

He simply explained that if people would follow the Catholic Church, they could have sex and reproduce and not get AIDS.

No other method except the one the Catholics propose can offer you that much.

Well Sex is normally natural. I didn't mean the type where Priests "play" with kids in their spare time. Something that happens when people deny their natural needs. I know the Mullahs in Iran fancy little kids too. They are also very keen on insisting on "marrial duties".

You don't have to sleep with as many people as possible just to be "natural". It's perfectly acceptable to marry and have only one partner.

What is ridicilous is that they are against abortions but at the same time they are against contraception?

I guess you think too much to understand that that is perfectly consistent. The message appears to be "have as many children as possible without using more than one woman".

See what happens when you rely on what sheep farmers wrote instead of scientists?

Yes, you settle questions about morality according to traditions and not science. Why is that bad?

No. I do not want to compare them BakerStreet. Have you heard the word "Turning the clock back?" This is apparently a complete surprise to you BakerStreet but YES. There are plenty of people who actually seek to turn the clock backwards. Go Medieaval as they say.

Churches/Mosques/Synagoges are the anti-thesis of Invididualism. They are imho just a version of socialism/communism or anything else which denies the INDICIVIDUAL a part in it. It also denies the basic thing called Self Sentinence. Which means that we as humans have the chance to make up our own minds instead of constantly refering to texts written by(which appalls me) people WITH no scientific knowledge of ANYTHING. Yet they were experts on everything apparently. It is moronic and silly. Can't find any other explanations.

People should take a hint about most important discoveries coming from Greece, Babylonia etc. Islam and Christianity then spent a good part of a millenia trying to surpress the knowledge (jellous perhaps because they couldnt come up with anything useful themselves).

So. You may be one of those "modern individualistic" Christians. Then I applaud you for being pragmatic about it. Unfortunatelly a huge number does not work that way.

Funny that Draginol himself wrote an article about the inconsistencies in the Bible a few days ago. It didnt take long before all sorts of explanations were made up to make up for those. And this is what some people use as a reference? In 2005?

Jews, Muslims and Christians may keep on blaming eachother as much as they want but they will never be able to deny that they all share the same flawed concept. Namelly that humans are not strong enough to think for themselves.

BakerStreet. You say all other religions are modern now?
Just a few days ago a "Pride Festival" was banned in Moscow. Suddenly the ever bickering Muslims, Jews and Christians were alll buddies and agreed that Gays should all be beheaded, flogged or something else. Isn't it fine when they can at least agree that they are all bigoted?


Marcus

You don't eat pork, why?

Because the law says don't eat pork.

Because it's unhealthy? Unhealthier than say, Lamb?

That is one of the reasons why I think the law was made.

It's your choice of course to eat whatever you want. I find foolish to decide what you eat upon scriptures made by people without ANY expert knowledge on dietism.

How do you know they were not? You don't even know why one shouldn't breed pigs in the desert. You talk about things you don't understand and judge the results of those who do.

And that, my friend, is not "reason", it's stupidity.

I often ask muslims this. "Hey, the Quaran doesnt say anything about eating worms, or Rats. Is that cleaner food than Pig". Noone ever has an answer. Only that "It says so in the books". Is that intelligent reasoning to you? No of course.

You ask Muslims THAT? No wonder they don't answer you.

But actually yes, "it says so in the books" is an intelligent answer. It's why I didn't touch acid in the chemistry lab where I once worked.

I don't know what "reason" is as defined by Ayn Rand (I read her books), but the _logical_ and intelligent way to act is to do what the books say UNLESS one KNOWS that it is wrong. Otherwise you are throwing existing information away. That can't be good.

It is a common problem I have with Ayn Rand fans that they always seem to assume that they are smarter than those who don't follow Ayn Rand. The fact that these people might simply be smart enough to eject Rand's nonsense doesn't occur to them very often.

Marcus, have you ever been in a synagogue?

Your summary of what he wrote is not a summary of what he wrote. You have to read it again. He simply explained that if people would follow the Catholic Church, they could have sex and reproduce and not get AIDS. No other method except the one the Catholics propose can offer you that much.

I read very well what he wrote and I stay by what I replied with as well. Either a) You have no idea how HIV spreads
You think there's some sort of "divine justice" who gets it. Ok fine. What you need to understand is that
marriage or no marriage plays absolutelly NO role if one of the parties has HIV. In other words. You WILL get
HIV if you have un-protected sex. Married or not. Whatever the case. You cannot live in a fantasy world and expect
people to not have sex out of marriage. It is an indviduals right to choose when and with whom to have sex. It is however
not part of Catholic Churches right to STOP people from getting information (or access) to Condoms. Or worse, spreading
false information about Condoms.

You are of course not aware that HIV can be transmitted through blood tranfusions and many other means? Pity but it can, I assure you.
They were probably guilty of some sin, luckily you can buy your way out in the Catholic Church, you get to keep the HIV though .

I'll give you this much Leuki, if you are Jewish. I respect Jews more than other faiths because Jewish people
have more often than other faith-followers managed to mix religion with individualistic thought and openess to Science. Which is
why many famous scientists come from Jewish roots. I respect that . Just don't expect me to not point out the inconsistencies in the faiths.


marcus

Funny you say that cause he said Islam not muslims. So what I understood he ment was that the religion seems to be the same everywhere not the people(hope I'm right), specially since there is no one defending the opposite of it. Remember, not everyone who believes in islam is muslim and not everyone who is muslim believes in islam. Why do you always jump the gun to defend something without actually making sense of it first?

Are you serious? You're criticizing me for not "actually making sense of it?" What the hell do you think a muslim is?

Muslim Link
3 entries found for muslim

Main Entry: Mus·lim
Pronunciation: 'm&z-l&m, 'mus-, 'muz-
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic muslim, literally, one who surrenders (to God)
1 : an adherent of Islam
2 : BLACK MUSLIM
- Muslim adjective

Yes I have been to a Synagogue (we have 2 here). Nice place. Talked to some Rabbis too, usually levelheaded guys .

To the points.

How do you know they were not? You don't even know why one shouldn't breed pigs in the desert. You talk about things you don't understand and judge the results of those who do.

I don't. You know why? Because they provide absolutelly no evidence that I shouldn't. It's like saying "the Sky is Green, just take my word for it".

When/If they provide such evidence. Well I'll listen. You could say that "eating too much meat makes your diet unbalanced". Meat yes. But Pig is not better or worse than other meat. In fact. I cold say the opposite. Look how both Sheep and Cows are struck with Mad Cow disease but not Pigs. What about Bird Flu? Hmm.

Btw. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why not other animals are covered. Why not eat Flies for instance? Why specificially Pigs? What's so diabolical about them? No Muslim ever gave me a reasonable answer, so I'll keep asking. Everytime they refer to the darn book I just say "but if you disregard that and think yourself". At some point I'll succeed .

I don't know what "reason" is as defined by Ayn Rand (I read her books), but the _logical_ and intelligent way to act is to do what the books say UNLESS one KNOWS that it is wrong. Otherwise you are throwing existing information away. That can't be good.

Plenty of sites which defines her view(aynrand,org etc). This might be a misunderstanding but I didn't claim Rand to be the only Libertarian thinker, she just spearheaded the Objectivistic idea and very convincingly at that.

As someone who works with Info analysis I can say that DATA and INFORMATION is not the same. thing. There's plenty of Data around, less actual information. Internet is a good example of that . What I want to see is proven information, not hearsay. I am sure we would see far less screaming Muslims if they at least once stopped and thought for themselves instead of "reading old scriptures" all the time.

Btw. Forgot to add that Jews have a huge bonus compared to the other two. They don't evangelize (at least I have never met an evangelical Jew). There's nothing I hate more than religious folks trying to push their crap into my throat (like these protesters for instance). Jehovas Witnesses are among the worst. They could be used as test subjects in Chernobyl or something.

marcus