Apparently theists do not look kindly upon liars but some don’t understand why atheists feel the same. A commenter on this site writes:
Most [atheists] appear to despise lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations as much as any theist. I’m just a bit fuzzy on why.
So I thought I’d look to their leader for support for this. And it seems to me theists are happy to lie when it suits their agenda:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
“The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.”
That is from the head theist at the time, Pope Benedict XVI.
And that is quite simply a lie. Condoms are how you prevent sexually transmitted diseases. I’m sure the objections will be that he really meant that monogamy and marriage are the only way to prevent HIV/Aids but that does not mean that it’s not a lie. It just means that marriage and condoms both work. Therefore it’s a lie to suggest that only marriage does (or whatever is meant by the traditional teaching of the church).
So when the boss theist that many theists look up to for guidance is happy to lie, what am I to make of the argument that theists appear to despise lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations?
They despise them only when it suits them, I’d suggest.
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
And yet Adam and Eve are argued to be our ‘parents’. Odd how they could do that being dead.
Lies! All Lies!
It just means that marriage and condoms both work. Therefore it’s a lie to suggest that only marriage does (or whatever is meant by the traditional teaching of the church).
You have missed one detail:
“The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.”
Condom has a rate of fail also if it is used correctly (see Planned Parenthood site), so it is not a lie.
Technically you can get HIV virus from other forms of contact than sex. It’s very unlikely, but still possible. So no, even the church’s teachings aren’t actually failsafe.
Unless you want to insist the church teaches to completely isolate yourself from ever coming near or having contact with other human beings.
The Hazmat-suit wearing, nuclear-bunker-dwelling denomination of christianity must be relatively new.
Though celibacy does not appear to have prevented more than a few priests from succumbing to HIV? Practice what you preach, I guess.
Agreed. The study suggests that if people are told that determinism is true, then they are more likely to cheat. But I’d guess that’s mostly because of a background belief that free will is both required for moral responsibility and incompatible with determinism. I doubt you’d get the same result with people who didn’t share that background belief.
My own view, what little it’s worth, is that
(1) free will is incompatible with determinism, so the only coherent concept of free will is libertarian freedom;
(2) determinism is false;
(3) we do not have libertarian freedom;
(4) libertarian freedom is not required for moral responsibility.
I think (2) because determinism requires both (a) everything is reducible to physics and (b) physics is deterministic. But (a) is false, on the most philosophically rigorous construals of “reducibility”, and (b) is false, not just because of quantum mechanics but because of the physics of complex systems that are sensitive to chaos.
I think that (3) is false because libertarian freedom only makes sense on some overly strong version of Cartesian dualism, which runs afoul of the incoherence of causal interaction between “mind” and “brain”.
And I think that (4) is false mostly for the reasons given by Strawson, Frankfurt, and by Dennett: moral responsibility is a matter of having the right pro-social attitudes, not a matter of having the right metaphysical doctrines.
If you want to search so deep for a lie in way that every sentences would be Ok:
You are right you can technically get HIV virus by other forms than sexual contact but that is not the way that HIV spreads at least at the time BVXI said that sentence.
All that followed the Church teachings that are not celibacy but bstinence and faithfullness are free from HIV. I they know that without a test.
But “failsafe” means “foolproof”, no? Not 1 or 2 priests. Several hundred and suggestions of under-reporting.
How do you define chaos? When you say physics is not deterministic Do you mean that given the same initial status the final status are not always the same?
Can you define pro-social attitudes?
Yes. A simple example, whilst the half-life of radioactive elements is precisely measurable, there is no way to predict which nuclei will decay or at what moment.
There two possibilities you can´t predict wich atom will decay when because you do not have the information of the state of each atom and the laws that led to the decay of an atom in a given state or because given the same state one atom will decay and the other now. Both cases would explain the observation. You are choosing the second? Why?
There’s nothing about the state of a particular radioactive nucleus that indicates when decay will occur. Of course, there’s also no way to tell one nucleus from another.
I’m not attempting to explain why radioactive nuclei decay at a precisely measurable rate. In my opinion, science is not equipped to explain why things happen; only how they happen.
May be I wasn´t able to explain myself.
You mean two atoms in the same state, the same initial conditions one will decay and the other no?
Not exactly. The half-life accurately predicts the number of decaying nuclei in any sample. There is, however, no way to predict which nuclei will decay at any one moment, only how many of them.
He doesn’t. Chaotic systems are deterministic.
No. I don’t think the tree is it. Hmmm.
Anyways however its clearly said, can’t quote but, in verses the moral law is written on mans heart.
Otherwise he couldn’t be found guilty. Few ever got scripture information.
so indeed nobody isn’t able, or able to fail, the moral code.
atheists have no excuse or can be accused of being likely worse then others.
Only on a very high curve would everyone except evangelical christians fail due to better insight.
evangelical/born again Christians are new creations and so must have higher sense of what is righteous.
It trumps the normal sense of right and wrong.The bible says so.
Way off topic, but has anyone noticed a thread about trees over at UD ?
It just … disappeared. Possibly because Barry made a big blunder.
There has been a discussion, beginning HERE.
Do not use turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards. (there are plenty of places on the web where you can do that!)
Mung: Yes, but the temptation is hard to resist. The unrelenting claims to moral superiority (particularly from BA). And most of us are banned at UD anyway.
The rules are relaxed in the Noyau thread. You’re welcome to
start ajoin the discussion there.ETA I see Neil already linked to it.
And yet research showed 21.5% of the 600,000 members on an extra-marital dating site were Catholic.
So it absolutely is a lie.
And yet the facts state otherwise. As already noted, there is not a major difference between theists and atheists regarding the telling of lies. Even ffm uses that as “evidence” there is an objective moral law, but you are saying the opposite. You can’t even agree on the basics, you theists!
Ok then what make that one atom dacaey and the other no?
You are comparing apple and oranges, comdom fails also if it is correctly used (Planned Parenthood). If you do not decide to use a condom it is not a failure of the preventive method is your failure as if you decide of not to be faithfull is not a failure of the method is your failure.
Still not a lie.
I’m comparing apples and oranges? Yet when the pope compares marriage to condoms that’s not?
Whatever that world salad was supposed to mean I’m not getting it. If you are saying that deciding to be unfaithful is not a failure of marriage in the same say that condom failing is, well, I’d say you were comparing apples to oranges.
It absolutly is a lie. 2003 statistics from the World Factbook shows Burundi at 62% Catholic with 6% AIDS infection rate. Angola’s population is 38% Roman Catholic and has 3.9% AIDS rate. Ghana is 63% Christian, with in some regions as much as 33% Catholic and has 3.1% AIDS rate.
If only they’d used condoms!
A Field Guide to Lies
Wait, I’m not calling it a lie.
It doesn’t matter what thesists say. iTs what the bible says.
The bible is more reasonable and settles matters.
OMagain,
Could you please explain why the Philippines, a Catholic country where the use of condoms is publicly condemned by the Church, has an AIDS infection rate of just 0.06%?
And could you explain why the AIDS infection rate is 1.13% in Thailand, a country where condoms are widely distributed? Just curious. Merry Christmas, by the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate
Of course, only religions allow human sacrifice.
And atheism is a religion.
Inferiority complex detected
Human sacrifices to lack of belief in god or gods. Say it isn’t so.
I only sacrifice people to feed my family, nothing to do with my beliefs.
What the flying fuck are you talking about?
This:
It’s either false, or atheism is a religion.
Well, I must admit that using the wp-admin comments page makes me lose track of what’s being discussed in individual threads.
Poor excuse in this case considering llanitedave’s response was just a few posts above.
My bad.