Oh Damn... Evangelism + Sex advice = Disaster

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh Damn... Evangelism + Sex advice = Disaster

 Pineapple, you'll love this one:

Quote:
Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body.

LINK

Here's another sticky correlation.  If it's not religious belief causing this... what is it?

Quote:
The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Speaking of religion and reality checks, theist advocates of the empirically demonstrable failure that is Abstinence Only Education have this to say:

Quote:
But supporters of abstinence-based education said that the new report shows that there is too little not too much emphasis on discouraging sex before marriage.

So, Pineapple, would you like to offer your explanation for why this isn't the fault of theists and theism?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 Pineapple, you'll love this one:

Quote:
Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body.

LINK

Here's another sticky correlation.  If it's not religious belief causing this... what is it?

Quote:
The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Speaking of religion and reality checks, theist advocates of the empirically demonstrable failure that is Abstinence Only Education have this to say:

Quote:
But supporters of abstinence-based education said that the new report shows that there is too little not too much emphasis on discouraging sex before marriage.

So, Pineapple, would you like to offer your explanation for why this isn't the fault of theists and theism?

 

Southern states also tend to have poorer, more rural populations with less education -- which have always had more children earlier than the richer, educated and  urbanized north and west. I wouldn't be quick to make such a statement of causation. Interestingly enough, people who fit this demographic tend to be more religious.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Southern states also

 

Quote:
Southern states also tend to have poorer, more rural populations with less education -- which have always had more children earlier than the richer, educated and  urbanized north and west. I wouldn't be quick to make such a statement of causation. Interestingly enough, people who fit this demographic tend to be more religious.

Except... there have always been poor people in the South, and the increase in teen pregnancy and STD transmission didn't correspond to an increase in overall poverty.  It coincided with the institutionalization of Abstinence Only Education.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if you compare European countries with Comprehensive Sex Ed, you'll find that the rates of pregnancy and disease transmission are lower across economic boundaries, as they are higher across the same boundaries in the U.S.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why is it when topics like

Why is it when topics like these come up, I have to look up the data?

 

What are the numbers? How much higher? What is the change withing the same state over time? What other things should be taken into account?

 

 

Case in point, you response to the first poster,  it's true that there have always been poor people in the south, but how does the change of poor people correlate with the change in STDs?

 

What were the STD rates before the absitence only education? What are they during, and how much did they change? What else changed?

 

These are basic things that you would need to address if you want to use stats. If you want me to address data, you should at least provide it.

 

 

Oh and I looked at CDC and Maryland has low religiousity and rather higher disease rates than texas.

 

See how useful that is?

 

Oh look, numbers!

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/3.htm

 

Clymetia

 

Texas:365

MD: 412

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
oh and here's another

oh and here's another study:

 

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

 

page 18

 

Quote:

Unprotected Sex. Program and control group youth did not differ in their rates of
unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months. Over the last
12 months, 23 percent of both groups reported having had sex and always using a condom;
17 percent of both groups reported having had sex and only sometimes using a condom; and
4 percent of both groups reported having had sex and never using a condom (Figure 2).

 

 

 

page 57

 

Quote:

Eight percent of all control group youth and seven percent of all program group youth
reported having had sexual intercourse and not using a condom the first time (Figure IV.2).
There are similarly no differences when measured over the last 12 months—17 percent of
youth in both groups reported having had sex in the last 12 months and using a condom

only sometimes, and 4 percent reported having had sex in the last 12 months and never
using a condom. (Figure IV.3). For all youth, this latter result is equivalent to about half of

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, the argument is that they are less likely to use protection right?

 

 


 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I'll let you in on a

 I'll let you in on a secret, Pineapple.  I really just enjoy getting a rise out of you and watching you crawl around the net trying to find anything at all to contradict the idea that religion is bad.

It amuses me.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'll let

Hambydammit wrote:

 I'll let you in on a secret, Pineapple.  I really just enjoy getting a rise out of you and watching you crawl around the net trying to find anything at all to contradict the idea that religion is bad.

It amuses me.

 

Mmmm.  That is delightfully wicked.  I will sleep soundly tonight thanks to that chortle.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'll let

Hambydammit wrote:

 I'll let you in on a secret, Pineapple.  I really just enjoy getting a rise out of you and watching you crawl around the net trying to find anything at all to contradict the idea that religion is bad.

It amuses me.

 

 

And I love how you completey disregard the scientific method  when it comes to your claims.

 

I love how you resort to condesending retoric whenever I ask you to provide data and you just squirm around to avoid providing it.

 

Tell you what though, whenver you make a claim like this, I won't bother to ask you for actual data and will not in any way assume you will apply the scientific method to any of the claims.

 

It will save us both the trouble.

 

 

 

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
LOL

LOL

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Why is

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Why is it when topics like these come up, I have to look up the data?

What I don't get is why Hamby and Kev have such a hard-on for the Captain. What's up, guys? Didn't she say that she just didn't want to have sex until marriage?

At least, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever read "it's wrong to have sex before marriage" from Pineapple. Did I miss something?

Keep in mind, this is coming from a former man-whore. I've slept with quite a few women who didn't want to have sex before marriage. Sometimes plans just change. But you can hardly fault a woman for wanting to avoid disease or bad relationships.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:What I don't get is

 

Quote:
What I don't get is why Hamby and Kev have such a hard-on for the Captain. What's up, guys? Didn't she say that she just didn't want to have sex until marriage?

I can't explain it, Will.  I see articles like this online, and the first thing I think is "It'll be fun to watch Pineapple get pissed about this."

There is no logic to it.  A couple of months ago, I actually went to the trouble of writing out my real argument for why religion is necessarily bad.  Pineapple's response (after some delay) was basically "I disagree with Weinberg."  This jab at a single quote didn't even address any of my arguments, and we digressed into a discussion of cognitive dissonance, which also didn't address any of my arguments.

Since Pineapple is the only theist who typically tries to argue with me, I guess I go out of my way to antagonize her.  I guess she's sort of like the girl in high school (every high school has one) who flirts viciously with every boy in class, and then won't even give them a hand job when they finally get her alone after six months of trying.  Pineapple puts up a damn good show, and then when it comes down to brass tacks and full arguments, she says, "Wanna go have a root beer?"

Also, in all seriousness, Pineapple does generally find the holes in statistics, and tossing an article in front of her is a good way for me to avoid saying something completely stupid in public.  She does the work for me because she's so intent on proving how benign religion is.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
since i'm still in a mushy

since i'm still in a mushy mood after belatedly eulogizing i am god as you last night, i'll also come out and say i'm a pineapple fan.  we've never had any significant dialogue but i read her posts quite frequently and i like how she makes it a point to try to keep down the hyperbole on both sides of the fence (i have seen her go after asshole theists as well), because that's often been my role on message boards too.

i like ballsy theists.  it's really easy to be an atheist here and have everybody agree with you at least most of the time--i get my jollies from it myself--but to be a theist, stick to your guns (without the fundy thick-headedness), and carve out a place for yourself in this community in the long run: that takes guts.  i respect that.

in fact, off the top of my head, pineapple and eloise are the only theists who have managed it.  well, some people consider luminon a theist, but i won't apply that label to him since he resents it.

i'm also really happy to see that pineapple doesn't get as angry as she used to. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:i like ballsy

 

Quote:
i like ballsy theists.  it's really easy to be an atheist here and have everybody agree with you at least most of the time--i get my jollies from it myself--but to be a theist, stick to your guns (without the fundy thick-headedness), and carve out a place for yourself in this community in the long run: that takes guts.  i respect that.

I agree with you.  To be perfectly honest, the first month or two she was here, I put her through the grinder pretty hard, and she stayed.  Also, to be fair, she was semi-masquerading as a non-specific age/gender person and brought a certain amount of antagonism on herself by being very evasive on a lot of issues.  Since she decided it's ok to be a young woman on here, she's actually come a long way with regard to discussing the issue at hand and not deflecting everything to another subject.

Quote:
i'm also really happy to see that pineapple doesn't get as angry as she used to.

I can't think why a shy girl-pretending-not-to-be-a-girl would get angry when a bunch of 35 year old atheist men kept calling her on her bullshit...

Seriously, though, I agree with you here, too.   

You mentioned Eloise and Pineapple as the only theists who can stick around for the long term, and I think there's a very good reason for that.  Both of them believe in some sort of quantum computer god thingy that could double as Jefferson and Einstein's "God is the Universe" if only they'd let themselves get pinned down on an actual working definition.  Neither of them believe in a magic god who commands genocide and a moratorium on fun of any sort.  Granted... if there's anyone who needs to loosen up a little and do drunken Strip-Karaoke, it's Pineapple... but outside of her bizarre views on sex, abortion, etc, she does seem to at least want to apply science to every question.  And, in fairness, I think she probably believes science backs up her odd views on sex and abortion, too.

That is the bottom line.  Eloise and Pineapple both pretty much stick to the idea that if their god exists, it can be described by science.  That's really no different from the rest of us.  All that's different is that the two of them really, really want god to be true while the rest of us kind of like the universe without gods.  Pineapple also seems to really want religion to be a force for good in the universe, though I still haven't figured out why.

...

[Eureka Moment /ON]

You know what?  I just talked myself into answering Will's question for real and for true.  I just figured out why I keep antagonizing Pineapple about this stuff.  I really want to know what drives a near-atheist 19... is it 19?... year old Canuck girl to want so badly for religion not to be bad.  She's never been especially religious, lives in a relatively non-religious part of the world, and desperately wants us to be wrong about religion being bad for society.  That's a puzzle to me, and I want to know why.

Final Answer.  

Did I win a million dollars?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I can't

Hambydammit wrote:

I can't think why a shy girl-pretending-not-to-be-a-girl would get angry when a bunch of 35 year old atheist men kept calling her on her bullshit...

 

hey hey, i'm only 27...with enough thick, luxurious bangs to easily cover my slightly receding hairline.  i'm still on the line between cool, professional older boyfriend and creepy, "why the fuck is he at the frat party?" old man.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Southern states also tend to have poorer, more rural populations with less education -- which have always had more children earlier than the richer, educated and  urbanized north and west. I wouldn't be quick to make such a statement of causation. Interestingly enough, people who fit this demographic tend to be more religious.

Except... there have always been poor people in the South, and the increase in teen pregnancy and STD transmission didn't correspond to an increase in overall poverty.  It coincided with the institutionalization of Abstinence Only Education.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if you compare European countries with Comprehensive Sex Ed, you'll find that the rates of pregnancy and disease transmission are lower across economic boundaries, as they are higher across the same boundaries in the U.S.

 

 

I was responding to the second quote in particular.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
First, I hate it when topics

First, I hate it when topics become about me, this is a forum, not my biography.

 

Second, as for Hamby's comprehensive argument, I demanded data, and did not recieve it except some abstract by Greg Paul, which is questionable and last time I was in a science class, that isn't enough. I also asked him to provide a mechanism to distninguish between something caused by religion and not as I've asked thousands of times, and according to science, mechanisms are rather important.

 

Third Hamby keeps harping on me saying that I think religion does good in the world, but I do not. I don't think religion does anything, it is merely a vessel and if you supress something that is seemingly caused by religionby addressing the religion, I can guarentee that it will pop up somewhere else [apparently that "something else" is a religion regardless of whether it deals with Gods or the supernatural]. Which is what I meant when I said that personality is a better predictor than religion

 

 

Plus the misc. compalints about constantly re-defining [as in the bracekts above] etc....

 

 

 

 

 


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
I feel a certain obligation

I feel a certain obligation to weigh in here, and on an unusual side for me.  My middle school and high school education included sex education that described condom use and other profilactic methods.  I suffered through four years worth of material, repeated verbatim, year after year, while the socioeconomically (read:  12 year olds who couldn't read yet) disadvantaged kids giggled and shouted and screamed like a bunch of monkeys in a shit filinging party.  Bush went in (and his abstinence only plan) a couple years after I graduated high school.  Lemme tell you something: 

My high school graduating class was full of pregnant bellies, and lots of kids dropped out before we ever got to that point.  Ten years later, I seriously doubt there were that many more.

Sex ed doesn't matter and it doesn't help.  Kids are going to fuck.  Since kids are stupid, they're going to fuck without protection.  It doesn't matter whether they've been taught about protection and STDs in school or not, because street culture provides all the education a poor kid needs and a wealthy mommy and daddy provide all the care a rich kid needs.  It makes more sense to me to provide the morning after pill and free, anonymous abortions than to pay for sex ed.  Deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

The problem is they tell you, but don't make condoms readily available in a lot of cases...leaving students to consider going to a clinic, or a store.

 

Most of the time, the thought process doesn't get that far.

 

 

They need to be available in a way that you don't have to ask for it, for it to work. Either through dispensers or handed out.

 

 

 

My college has a support system for pregnant students (even a daycare...), and new arrivals to it of existing students have declined sharply since they installed condom dispensers in every bathroom, and began giving them out for free (by leaving them in a basket) at the entryway to every dorm on campus.

 

 

 

Just throwing my thoughts out there on it.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:don't

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
don't think religion does anything, it is merely a vessel and if you supress something that is seemingly caused by religionby addressing the religion, I can guarentee that it will pop up somewhere else [apparently that "something else" is a religion regardless of whether it deals with Gods or the supernatural]. Which is what I meant when I said that personality is a better predictor than religion

 

That argument works well with things like racism, war, etc. Those things are all very much in our nature, and though religion does tend to bring it out or to exacerbate previous situations, people would still act in that way. That's our uncivilized chimp brains overriding our frontal lobes.

But our uncivilized chimp brains also tell us to fuck like rabbits. Life-long monogamy is not supported or encouraged by our sex drive and our tendencies to change. When religions instruct their followers to become sexually repressed, they are doing just that-- repressing an urge, not encouraging it. Without religion, there would be little in the way of sexual freedom.

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Sex ed doesn't

 

Quote:
Sex ed doesn't matter and it doesn't help.  Kids are going to fuck.  Since kids are stupid, they're going to fuck without protection.  It doesn't matter whether they've been taught about protection and STDs in school or not, because street culture provides all the education a poor kid needs and a wealthy mommy and daddy provide all the care a rich kid needs.  It makes more sense to me to provide the morning after pill and free, anonymous abortions than to pay for sex ed.  Deckchairs on theTitanic.

By this same token, driving instruction doesn't matter either. We should just take the abstinence-only approach (since drivers are going to get into wrecks no matter what we do) and hand people driver's licenses while just shrugging and say, "Oh, just don't hit anybody. Crashing your car & running over pedestrians is bad."

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:since i'm still in a

 

Quote:
since i'm still in a mushy mood after belatedly eulogizing i am god as you last night, i'll also come out and say i'm a pineapple fan.

You and a vast majority of the posters here.

...Am I the only one who isn't getting it?

 

Explain this to me: from a logical perspective, how is Alison any different at all from, say, Ray Comfort or Ken Ham? I mean, the categories of the world that they choose to see through their own religious glasses is different (Alison prefers hers to re-color history & sociology rather than biology & geology), but it's exactly the same type of willful ignorance. Why do people respect that? If a YEC comes on and posts pictures of the Grand Canyon and starts trying to 'debunk' geology and claim that they can replicate sedimentary strata by stirring mud around in an aquarium, we laugh them off. When Alison points to a Muslim stoning event and claims that the Muslims did it because they're all either impoverished or sociopaths and goes about 'debunking' public record, it seems like she's cut a lot of slack despite being equally way out in the deep end.

Why? 

Why are you a fan of someone for being so brick-headed?

 

EDIT: In case you want to contest my characterization, there is actually a text-book example right in this thread:

Quote:
I don't think religion does anything, it is merely a vessel and if you supress something that is seemingly caused by religionby addressing the religion, I can guarentee that it will pop up somewhere else [apparently that "something else" is a religion regardless of whether it deals with Gods or the supernatural].

In principle, this is exactly the same argument many YECs will give with regards to large erosion channels like the Grand Canyon: "...I can provide X or Y example of a channel that was carved by a means other than erosion, therefore I posit that as evidence that erosion did not carve out the Grand Canyon."

Behaviors common to religious influence 'popping-up' outside of religious influence is no more evidence that religion is not a causal agent than channels being carved by forces other than erosion is evidence that erosion cannot carve out channels. 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
since i'm still in a mushy mood after belatedly eulogizing i am god as you last night, i'll also come out and say i'm a pineapple fan.

You and a vast majority of the posters here.

...Am I the only one who isn't getting it?

 

Explain this to me: from a logical perspective, how is Alison any different at all from, say, Ray Comfort or Ken Ham? I mean, the categories of the world that they choose to see through their own religious glasses is different (Alison prefers hers to re-color history & sociology rather than biology & geology), but it's exactly the same type of willful ignorance. Why do people respect that? If a YEC comes on and posts pictures of the Grand Canyon and starts trying to 'debunk' geology and claim that they can replicate sedimentary strata by stirring mud around in an aquarium, we laugh them off. When Alison points to a Muslim stoning event and claims that the Muslims did it because they're all either impoverished or sociopaths and goes about 'debunking' public record, it seems like she's cut a lot of slack despite being equally way out in the deep end.

Why? 

Why are you a fan of someone for being so brick-headed?

 

EDIT: In case you want to contest my characterization, there is actually a text-book example right in this thread:

Quote:
I don't think religion does anything, it is merely a vessel and if you supress something that is seemingly caused by religionby addressing the religion, I can guarentee that it will pop up somewhere else [apparently that "something else" is a religion regardless of whether it deals with Gods or the supernatural].

In principle, this is exactly the same argument many YECs will give with regards to large erosion channels like the Grand Canyon: "...I can provide X or Y example of a channel that was carved by a means other than erosion, therefore I posit that as evidence that erosion did not carve out the Grand Canyon."

Behaviors common to religious influence 'popping-up' outside of religious influence is no more evidence that religion is not a causal agent than channels being carved by forces other than erosion is evidence that erosion cannot carve out channels. 

 

ok, well, number one, and probably the most important point of all, i think i'm a much more relaxed person than you, at least when it comes to forming my opinion of people based on the ideology they espouse.  when i judge a person, it's very rarely based to any significant degree on their beliefs.  please recall, i said i'm a pineapple fan, not a fan of pineapple's arguments.  this is why i have good friends who are atheists, theists, and even one yec (i am from ky, after all), and feel no conflict about it nor has does our friendship ever suffer.

number two, i like specifically when pineapple challenges a universal or hyperbolic argument, and usually that argument is "religion was solely responsible for x malady."  it seems to me that her usual point is that religion being the sole cause of x malady is a ridiculous idea, which i tend to agree with.  granted, she often follows that with trying to absolve religion of any responsibility, which i tend not to agree with.  i'm not going to quote hunting, but as i said, i'm fairly certain i've seen her go after hyperbolic theist posts too, though of course not nearly as often.

finally, her willingness to be ganged up on continually and at least make an effort to meet her opponents on a somewhat level playing field impresses me.  imo, the typical fundy drive-by spouting bible verses and cutting and pasting from wotm is ray comfort-like.  i'm not saying her arguments are solid, i'm just saying she shows character.  ray comfort has no character.  in fact, his name says it all.

as for "willful ignorance," i don't know that i necessarily respect it, but i do at least respect the "will" in there.  there's a lot of will in pineapple and will is becoming a rarer and rarer commodity in today's world.  i definitely respect that.  i'm a nietzsche fan after all.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
since i'm still in a mushy mood after belatedly eulogizing i am god as you last night, i'll also come out and say i'm a pineapple fan.

You and a vast majority of the posters here.

Really? I guess I have missed a lot. Last time I checked, Pineapple's arguments were still pedalling uphill to nowhere, you just flat-out hated her (which came off as grade-school love, I won't lie) and Hamby picked on her.

I don't see that a lot has changed. What I do see is a lot of duelling social science studies, which is frankly hilarious to me. At this rate, the social sciences will have something in maybe 200 years that we can hang our hats on. Durkheim could be said to have given us a step beyond pure speculation, but it seems to me as though speculation is back with a vengeance.

As an example, we have dirty ape's "My class got sex ed, and an unspecified number of girls in that class still got pregnant". You'll excuse me if I'm not convinced with the conclusion that sex education does absolutely nothing. On the other hand, it does point out that there are more factors than just sex ed. That point is, of course, valid. But any degree of certainty might require a couple of generations receiving sex ed before we draw any real conclusions. At this point, we're testing a reasonable hypothesis that with more information, a young person can at least be given a chance at avoiding unwanted pregnancy or disease. Trading that information for a lack of information wouldn't really be education, though.

Girls at 11 and 12 wouldn't be able to help knowing that the image of sluttiness sells. They don't know exactly what that means, but they know that dressing provocatively gets a reaction. We all know it does, and they know that many famous women writhe around on the floor in their underwear, and that it's some part of what makes them famous. There are even people who can remain the center of attention despite embarrassing themselves in sex tapes, or breaking the law. Try combatting that powerful culture as a phys ed teacher! It's you versus biology and every hollow promise of every advertisement and fiction out there. Yikes.

It's just too bad that there aren't more people who will say to their kids, "Okay, you're going to fuck. Wear this so that you don't get pregnant or diseased." Saying nothing and hoping for a Disney scenario is insane.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:So,

Hambydammit wrote:

So, Pineapple, would you like to offer your explanation for why this isn't the fault of theists and theism?

 

 

LOL! So I guess pagans don't count as theists.  Pagans love to fuck btw and we're not too worried about that pesky "no sex before marriage" thing.

 

It seems you're referring to christians and christianity.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:


 

Behaviors common to religious influence 'popping-up' outside of religious influence is no more evidence that religion is not a causal agent than channels being carved by forces other than erosion is evidence that erosion cannot carve out channels.

 


 

 

I point out that these things happen outside of religion to show that you may not be taking enough factors into account. For example, if X can cause the action without religion, is X a factor when you say that it is religion?



So tell me Kevin, if your arguments don't need to undergo the scientific process, why should Comfort's?



I mean Ray could very well use your logic and point to a Christian Red Cross worker and say "Wow, look at the good Christianity is doing!" and he wouldn't need data, or a mechanism because, hey, you don't need one apperantly, so why should he?



Why not rely on just anecdotes and confirmation bias? You do, so why can't he? It may be "obvious" to you that religion causes ills, but to Ray it's "obvious" that it causes good.



Also, while you're here, your constant false dicotomies are rather annoying.


First, DDA's comments in no way indicates that he supports absitence only. My comments in no way suggest I support abstience only education.


Asking for data to support the claim that absitence only increases the STD rate, is in no way being a cheerleader or apologist.


Let me say this clear:


DISAGREEING WITH YOU DOES NOT MAKE THE PERSON A APOLOGIST OR A CHEERLEADER OF THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING



I posted data that suggest that goes against the claim that people who absitence only education are less likely to use protection, that does not in any way mean the I support abstinence only education. All it does is say that that claim is false.





 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

HisWillness wrote:

It's just too bad that there aren't more people who will say to their kids, "Okay, you're going to fuck. Wear this so that you don't get pregnant or diseased." Saying nothing and hoping for a Disney scenario is insane.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm in the mood for a bit of

I'm in the mood for a bit of theism defense myself.
The obvious answer to this topic is:

Theism =/= Christianity, let alone fundamentalist Christianity.
You can believe in God(s), without having to believe that they want you abstain from sex.