Is my friend correct on this theory...

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

This is true. but we arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a God. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look for God, most of us already know he is there. Religion supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).

But, the church holds an opinion and then it does whatever to ignore all evidence to the contrary. See condom use for prevention of AIDS in Africa. The Pope actually said that condoms make the AIDS problem worse. Just a small example.

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

But, the church holds an opinion and then it does whatever to ignore all evidence to the contrary. See condom use for prevention of AIDS in Africa. The Pope actually said that condoms make the AIDS problem worse. Just a small example.

Yes I remember when this was said. But he is the pope, so he cannot say, "use condoms as they scientifically help prevent disease," because by doing so, he is saying indirectly "its ok to have sex with whoever." Plus, we believe condom use is a form of birth control. but youre right, him saying condoms make things worse is kind of him trying to say he knows science (or maybe he does). I have done a lot of research on aids spread/prevention in Africa. My dad and I still take trips now and then to Zambia to work at some of the convents there. Condoms really arent going to help the main cause of aids spread. From what Ive witnessed, most of the young men and women (5-25,yes, 5...) were rape victims from different tribes. When people in Africa have sex, they have every intention of spreading the disease (or at least it seems like this), its a way of establishing dominance and also a way of not "Singling you out." This is off topic, my bad.

The church can be the same as society. This is extreme, but it can be said that nuking africa will stop aids prevention (using condoms). This is true. Evidence supports it. People will support it (kpeng- LOL). But people will say, because of their moral beliefs/ethical/religous- Dont do it, because by nuking it you really arent solving the problem. This is basically what the pope is trying to say -Dont just stick to condom use as saving the day or helping, more needs to be done.

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

Yes I remember when this was said. But he is the pope, so he cannot say, "use condoms as they scientifically help prevent disease," because by doing so, he is saying indirectly "its ok to have sex with whoever."

He can do that?

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

Plus, we believe condom use is a form of birth control. but youre right, him saying condoms make things worse is kind of him trying to say he knows science (or maybe he does). I have done a lot of research on aids spread/prevention in Africa. My dad and I still take trips now and then to Zambia to work at some of the convents there. Condoms really arent going to help the main cause of aids spread. From what Ive witnessed, most of the young men and women (5-25,yes, 5...) were rape victims from different tribes. When people in Africa have sex, they have every intention of spreading the disease (or at least it seems like this), its a way of establishing dominance and also a way of not "Singling you out." This is off topic, my bad.

There's no denying that the Catholic church is doing great damage by advocating against condoms.

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

The church can be the same as society. This is extreme, but it can be said that nuking africa will stop aids prevention (using condoms). This is true. Evidence supports it.

That's a ridiculous statement to make.

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

People will support it (kpeng- LOL). But people will say, because of their moral beliefs/ethical/religous- Dont do it, because by nuking it you really arent solving the problem. This is basically what the pope is trying to say -Dont just stick to condom use as saving the day or helping, more needs to be done.

We're really getting off-topic, but I don't see any excuse for him saying that. "More needs to be done." What more? Until there is a cure, there is prevention. We all know how good we all are at abstinence. Thanks to our urge to have sex, our race has managed to survive and procreate. It's not going away anytime soon. Therefore, condoms are the best weapon against AIDS for now. That's relatively simple to understand and I don't understand how people who use the WWJD motto can claim anything else? What would Jesus do? Would he tell people to use any and all means against a deadly disease that is mercilessly, indiscriminately killing fathers, mothers and children? Or would he advice against it because someone might take it as a hint that recreational sex is OK?

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

He can do that?
He cant say that because of numerous reasons- He is a figure head, he is a role model, and because if he comes across as a hypocrite, more people will attack him. Remember this is the catholic church, they have more inner working than the US government. They have their own scientists, their own researchers, they have unlimited resources. A lot of the stuff they say or release can sometimes be backed with decent evidence as well. You did see the link I attached right?


There's no denying that the Catholic church is doing great damage by advocating against condoms. lol

That's a ridiculous statement to make.
No doubt, I was just trying to make an easy to read point, but unfortunetatly I used an extreme example, my bad.

We're really getting off-topic, but I don't see any excuse for him saying that. "More needs to be done." What more? Until there is a cure, there is prevention. We all know how good we all are at abstinence. Thanks to our urge to have sex, our race has managed to survive and procreate. It's not going away anytime soon. Therefore, condoms are the best weapon against AIDS for now. That's relatively simple to understand and I don't understand how people who use the WWJD motto can claim anything else? What would Jesus do? Would he tell people to use any and all means against a deadly disease that is mercilessly, indiscriminately killing fathers, mothers and children? Or would he advice against it because someone might take it as a hint that recreational sex is OK?

Aids in Africa is not normal lol. People knowingly give aids to others. There is SO much more than can be done. Such as creating peace between "tribes" (tension between them leads to mass murder/rape/injury), fixing the issue of broken governments to help establish proper health care facilities to test, treat, and prevent aids, and so much more. Condom use may be the full-proof way of preventing aids, but the main reason for the increase in Aids spreading in Africa is:
-lack of testing/diagnostic
- lack of hosptials
- lack of resources
- lack of information
- lack of respect and responsibility
- violence
- and maybe, maybe at the very end is lack of condom use lol. Condoms are only the best defense for AIDS in non-third world countries.

As for this:
What would Jesus do? Would he tell people to use any and all means against a deadly disease that is mercilessly, indiscriminately killing fathers, mothers and children? Or would he advice against it because someone might take it as a hint that recreational sex is OK?
Jesus would say- stop being irresponsible, stop having sex with multiple people, stop knowingly spreading your disease, stop raping children, and get help. Aids spreading in Africa is not related to condom use. Even if everyone was given unlimited condoms, its still going to spread at the same rate.

It is human nature to have sex. But the spread of aids is not driven by lust, its driven by anger and irresponsibility. Here is my main example. The convent we work for nurses over 100+ aids victims, all of them children. We are seperated into two divisions, 1 for each major tribe. What happens, is when tribes try to "make their mark," they do this by infiltrating homes at night, and raping as many people in the house as possible. This is no joke. And the basis behind this is 1) Spread their seed and increase their tribesman numbers, and 2) Spread disease. This happens all over the place.

ps- Hyabusa, how old are you and wherei n fl are you? Ill just swing by next time im near you, you're killing my fingers man I hate typing

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

Aids in Africa is not normal lol. People knowingly give aids to others. There is SO much more than can be done. Such as creating peace between "tribes" (tension between them leads to mass murder/rape/injury), fixing the issue of broken governments to help establish proper health care facilities to test, treat, and prevent aids, and so much more. Condom use may be the full-proof way of preventing aids, but the main reason for the increase in Aids spreading in Africa is:
-lack of testing/diagnostic
- lack of hosptials
- lack of resources
- lack of information
- lack of respect and responsibility
- violence
- and maybe, maybe at the very end is lack of condom use lol. Condoms are only the best defense for AIDS in non-third world countries.

It's a matter of perspective. In terms of bang-for-buck, condoms are the best tool available, and advocating against their use is downright criminal IMO.

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

As for this:
What would Jesus do? Would he tell people to use any and all means against a deadly disease that is mercilessly, indiscriminately killing fathers, mothers and children? Or would he advice against it because someone might take it as a hint that recreational sex is OK?
Jesus would say- stop being irresponsible, stop having sex with multiple people, stop knowingly spreading your disease, stop raping children, and get help. Aids spreading in Africa is not related to condom use. Even if everyone was given unlimited condoms, its still going to spread at the same rate.

Really? Doesn't sound like the guy I usually hear about.

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

It is human nature to have sex. But the spread of aids is not driven by lust, its driven by anger and irresponsibility.

That's why it's spread within families. I understand you have some anecdotes, but statistics tell a story much more complex than "AIDS is spread by evil".

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

Here is my main example. The convent we work for nurses over 100+ aids victims, all of them children. We are seperated into two divisions, 1 for each major tribe. What happens, is when tribes try to "make their mark," they do this by infiltrating homes at night, and raping as many people in the house as possible. This is no joke. And the basis behind this is 1) Spread their seed and increase their tribesman numbers, and 2) Spread disease. This happens all over the place.

Anecdotal evidence is weak. Still, I don't want to just dismiss it. Your example does contradict itself though. How do you spread the seed and disease at the same time? Wouldn't the disease negate the seed. Do you have any reliable sources of this occurence?

Read this for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

ps- Hyabusa, how old are you and wherei n fl are you? Ill just swing by next time im near you, you're killing my fingers man I hate typing

I'm 27. You seem to like typing just fine.

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

It's a matter of perspective. In terms of bang-for-buck, condoms are the best tool available, and advocating against their use is downright criminal IMO.
No, In africa, its really not. No one uses condoms ever lolol. And like your wiki link (I dont see the reference/citation to condom use on this page btw) says, many people dont use it because of stigmas such as conspiracy and limiting mans power. In short, majority of people in Africa, do not care that they are spreading disease. But, people getting aids (innocents) do. Now, if people were responsible and cared about the welfare of others, then yea, condom use would probably have stopped the spread of a good amount of diseases in africa.


Really? Doesn't sound like the guy I usually hear about. Dude, us three should hang out more

That's why it's spread within families. I understand you have some anecdotes, but statistics tell a story much more complex than "AIDS is spread by evil". I dont have anecdotes, I worked for the NIH and indirectly for the WHO under the guidance of multiple UN physicians. I was in Somalia when we officially eradicated polio from the area. My knowledge comes from years of research and work in the field. In Africa, we actually handed out thousands of condoms, encouraging people to use them. Nobody really seemed interested in them nor did they know what to do with them.
People in Africa spread aids for malicious reasons, and they do so through sex. Dont get me wrong though. There is a very small amount of responsible people that might want to use condoms to prevent disease. Condom use is not going to save africa from the spread of HIV, nor has it even began to show any help


Anecdotal evidence is weak. Still, I don't want to just dismiss it. Your example does contradict itself though. How do you spread the seed and disease at the same time? Wouldn't the disease negate the seed. Do you have any reliable sources of this occurence?
No reliable source on me man, except me and the people I work for. Ill see if I can find literature on it. We have all events and statistics documented in my dads office somewhere. You are right on your contradiction. But when I said the two reasons as to why those things happened, its from what the people we were treating told us.


Read this for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa

I'm 27. You seem to like typing just fine.

dude youre killing me lol. But I agree with you to an extent, that saying condom use is bad, can actually be bad! But from my experiences that doesnt apply to the majority of std-spreading Africans who view rape as an invitation to man hood.

... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a tooth fairy. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look for the tooth fairy, most of us already know he is there. The belief in an actual tooth fairy supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).



... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a Lord Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look for Lord Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy, most of us already know he and his confederacy is there. The belief in an actual Galactic Confederacy supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).



... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a big foot. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look for big foot, most of us already know he is there. The belief in an actual big foot supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).



... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a Santa Clause and Rodolph, the flying reindeer with a nose that glows red. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look Santa Clause and Rodolph, the flying reindeer with a nose that glows red, most of us already know they are there. The belief in an actual Santa Clause and Rodolph, the flying reindeer with a nose that glows red, supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).

Originally Posted by ///M Speed

The only thing i can say is Jesus. Its a historical fact that He lived, died and resurrected.

a historical fact that he was resurrected?!

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

I dont understand why evolution and creationism cant be one of the same. Did God create the universe in 7 days? I didnt realize God was bound by time. Could 7 "days" really mean 7 billion years? I dont see why not. However, I feel that there is a divine hand that guides the overall evolution of species. I have worked in the microbiology field for quite a while. The way amino acids interact, the way certain processes occur, and the overall big picture of organic beings makes it very difficult to believe that something came from nothing.

Your ears are a perfect example. In your ears there are little hairs. When a sound wave comes in contact with the ear, it is funneled into the ear, where a series of mechanical movements create (almost like dominos) creates a shifting of the base of these hairs cells, moving them back and forth. The rocking of these hair cells, somehow, through a series of protein channel openings on the membranes of each cell connecting the ear to the brain, allow the brain to interpret this forward/backward movement of hair cells as sound. The wierd thing is, I just made it sound so much simpler than it really is, and with that, its hard to believe this was a random act of evolution, especially considering the thousands of similar functions that happen in the human body.

I think many people use religion as an excuse to carry out their own selfish ambitions. But in all honesty, it doesn't matter what you call yourself- jew, christian, muslim. If you dont act on your religion (ie: If youre a christian and you dont act like Christ), than the only thing you are is a hypocrite. Unfortunately we all **** up now or later.

I too work in a bio lab and am finishing my masters in biology. Anyone with some bio background knows that evolution is not entirely random. Changes happen over many years taking the environment of the species into account and adjusting its physiology over that time to adapt. That is not incomprehnsible to me. The part that explodes everyone's head is the time it takes (thousands to millions of years) for this to occur. Granted it blows my mind too, but with carbon dating in geology showing the earth's age, I believe it is very possible.

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

lol, dude, i am def not starting a war, esp since I lose most of these lol. (BTW, my 330 > your amg ) ((you do have an amg right?))

any AMG > any 330

Originally Posted by howie

any AMG > any 330

Finally a topic that can be argued using empirical evidence to back up claims.

Religious people take note...that is an example of a falsifiable claim.

personally, I believe in intelligent design. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the big bang theory (the main theory) say that the entire world came from one central infinately dense point? Well, that means that there was nothing other than that, literally. So, then how was that single point of matter created? As science's main argument is something cannot come from nothing, and that point would have to come from nothing. I believe in Evolution to an extent. Of course, unless god pops up and says "look at me", neither is EVER going to be proven, whatever you can present.

Originally Posted by M7MkII

Of course, unless god pops up and says "look at me", neither is EVER going to be proven, whatever you can present.

He did in human form, he called himself Jesus, there is historical evidence of this:

Originally Posted by ///M Speed

The only thing i can say is Jesus. Its a historical fact that He lived, died and resurrected.

Originally Posted by M7MkII

personally, I believe in intelligent design. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the big bang theory (the main theory) say that the entire world came from one central infinately dense point? Well, that means that there was nothing other than that, literally. So, then how was that single point of matter created? As science's main argument is something cannot come from nothing, and that point would have to come from nothing. I believe in Evolution to an extent. Of course, unless god pops up and says "look at me", neither is EVER going to be proven, whatever you can present.

So, because you don't understand something you decide to come up with your own solution?

Originally Posted by M7MkII

personally, I believe in intelligent design. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the big bang theory (the main theory) say that the entire world came from one central infinately dense point? Well, that means that there was nothing other than that, literally. So, then how was that single point of matter created? As science's main argument is something cannot come from nothing, and that point would have to come from nothing. I believe in Evolution to an extent. Of course, unless god pops up and says "look at me", neither is EVER going to be proven, whatever you can present.

I'm slowly working on my own little book/reference called "An atheist's response guide." Here is what I have to say about that particular concern:

The Cosmological Argument

The argument:
1) Everything has a cause AND/OR something doesn’t come from nothing
2) The universe needs a cause
3) Science doesn’t fully understand/explain the cause
4) Therefore, a god created the universe


The response:
Who says that everything has to have an observable cause? To humans, including me, everything in our daily lives requires a cause in order to make logical sense. However, that doesn’t mean that this is a property of all particles and all timescales in our universe. Relativity doesn’t make a tremendous amount of sense to the layperson, but it happens to be an observable fact. I’m not a physicist, but I do understand that certain physical phenomena that are not considered supernatural by most of the world do not have a well defined cause. For instance, radioactive decay is a common example of a completely random event.

Science doesn’t have an answer to all questions. Some questions are, in fact, unanswerable. The precise position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously. Therefore, if knowing the cause of an event is dependent upon knowing those two values precisely, we can’t know the cause. It is entirely possible that knowing the exact values of all properties of all particles in a uranium atom would allow the accurate prediction of when it will decay, thus we would know the “cause”. There is no doubt that scientists somewhere are continuing to try and defeat the limitations of the uncertainty principle.

The above example is just a good way to destroy postulate one of this argument. A savvy believer is simply going to point out that a god intervenes wherever an uncaused cause is found (the infamous god of the gaps argument). The better counterpoint to this argument is to ask why the reason for the existence of the universe has to be supernatural. Many, if not all, natural phenomena have been attributed to a deity at some point in human history. The fact that there are lightening rods on churches should be fairly good evidence that this approach has proven inadequate to produce results in the real world. Furthermore, not only is it necessary to explain why it has to be a deity, the believer needs to explain:

• Why it has to be their deity
• Be able to explain the existence of their deity (doesn’t it also need a cause?)
• Be able to show their deity is personal
• Be able to accurately explain what the will of their deity is
• And all the other unverifiable things they claim to know about their deity


If the believer is unable to accurately answer these questions and support them with evidence (which they can’t), then they don’t really have a better position than an atheist. However, sometimes, that is the believer’s goal. To show that neither of you have the answer and therefore you both have perfectly valid viewpoints. At this point, it becomes necessary to explain why the scientific method arrives at better conclusions than un-falsifiable claims. The real world examples of this are practically limitless. I’ve already provided the lightening rod example. But, be creative! I’m sure you can think of thousands more.

Originally Posted by ///M Speed

The only thing i can say is Jesus. Its a historical fact that He lived, died and resurrected.

It is historically documented that he lived. It is written by his followers that he died and was resurrected. Of course, as recently as the 18th century people were "coming back from the dead" which led to the "wake" other practices until modern medicine came around.

The bible is written by man last I checked, like all source documents for every religion that has ever existed. I personally follow no one religion as I do not have the arrogance to say that the religion I'm following is more right than all the others that do or have existed, which is quite a few.. here's a little list you could peer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions

So based on that list you have about a 1 in somewhere around 4,300 odds with currently active religions to pick the right one, gets a bit worse if one of the dead religions was right instead though.

Arrogance much? or would that be a "sin"?

Originally Posted by rpl

... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a tooth fairy. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look for the tooth fairy, most of us already know he is there. The belief in an actual tooth fairy supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).



... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a Lord Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look for Lord Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy, most of us already know he and his confederacy is there. The belief in an actual Galactic Confederacy supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).



... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a big foot. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look for big foot, most of us already know he is there. The belief in an actual big foot supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).



... We arent actively looking for scientific discoveries that prove there is a Santa Clause and Rodolph, the flying reindeer with a nose that glows red. Even though we would like such a discovery, we do not need to openly look Santa Clause and Rodolph, the flying reindeer with a nose that glows red, most of us already know they are there. The belief in an actual Santa Clause and Rodolph, the flying reindeer with a nose that glows red, supports science, but we do not require science to provide a backbone for our beliefs (even though for me, it does).

You havent read any of my posts between hyabusa, and I dont blame you. But When I said we dont need science to provide a backbone, I was saying that Christians/other believers do not need scientists to prove or not prove there is a God. Regardless of what would be found, we will still believe.

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

So, because you don't understand something you decide to come up with your own solution?

no, i stated my stance on the BB theory, and then said that i don't believe totally in evolution. I don't believe that we evolved from small, single-celled organism. I believe that we might've evolved from apes, and we've changed over the last 1000 years (as shown by heights, muscle size, etc.). I don't pretend to be an expert on any scientific theory, but what I do know I can use to argue my point. Don't think that just because I'm 09, I don't know anything.

AGAIN, unless god shows himself, both will only be theories. There is literally no way to totally prove either athiesm or Religion. Present either points, but you can never make it fact (unless god shows himself)

Originally Posted by Lexie330ci

You havent read any of my posts between hyabusa, and I dont blame you. But When I said we dont need science to provide a backbone, I was saying that Christians/other believers do not need scientists to prove or not prove there is a God. Regardless of what would be found, we will still believe.

And that doesn't bother you? Can you think of any other aspect of your life where if you found out a fact contradicting what you originally believed that you would simply disregard it and go on believing anyway? I mean, that is actually the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You could convince me that there is a creator of the universe that is personal and has a plan for me. You just have to provide compelling evidence.

Before presenting evidence, if someone told me that the faster you go, the slower time moves for you, I wouldn't have believed that. It simply wouldn't have made any sense. After two synchronized clocks come back reading different times after traveling at different speeds....my mind is changed.

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

But, the church holds an opinion and then it does whatever to ignore all evidence to the contrary. See condom use for prevention of AIDS in Africa. The Pope actually said that condoms make the AIDS problem worse. Just a small example.

Yes, but the church counts god being real as a fact. If you truly believe the catholic church, one of the most corrupted establishments for the last 600 years, represents the rest of christians, then I feel very offended.