The Pope says condoms "increase the problem" with AIDS

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759068' date='Mar 27 2009, 12:16 AM']

Write him a letter and tell him to resign.[/quote]


Better yet, an angry email. Feel the wrath of my e-hatred.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='759130' date='Mar 27 2009, 09:33 AM']

Better yet, an angry email. Feel the wrath of my e-hatred.[/quote]
e-gads!

Okay, read this philosophical essay:

[url="http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/601/Contemplation_of_Beauty_Cardinal_Joseph_Ratzinger.html"]The Feeling of Things, the Contemplation of Beauty"[/url]

It's not directly related to the controversial stuff, but does, I think, address some of the substrate which informs his thought. And, if you wish, we could have a nice chat about Plato, intuition (what Ratzinger refers to as "inspiration") and the relation between truth, knowledge and Beauty.

The difficult part is to understand (or at least to contemplate the possibility of) is that some "systems" of thinking are incompatible with one another. Which is to say, among other ideas, that the truth is not democratic in the sense that it's all one big pile of truthiness. And, if this is so, then the "battleground" between "idea systems" moves to a deeper level related to methodology. And, once one has grappled with that a fair amount, then one is left with the consideration of "how one moves masses of people" who are unwilling to undertake such excursions into the deep waters of philosophy/theology/science. Which indirectly goes to your objection about appeals to the supernatural. I think if you asked the Pope his thoughts on this matter, you would end up with a thoroughly delightful discussion respecting just what is natural and what is supernatural. After all, he allows us to infer, in the writing I linked to, that the truth possibly consists of more than what can be discovered in a logico-rational way. (Or as I earlier put it, from the perspective of exhausting the limits of propositions that can be derived from any given logical structure. One is still left with the question: from whence the premises?)

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759148' date='Mar 27 2009, 10:36 AM']Okay, read this philosophical essay:

[url="http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/601/Contemplation_of_Beauty_Cardinal_Joseph_Ratzinger.html"]The Feeling of Things, the Contemplation of Beauty"[/url]

It's not directly related to the controversial stuff, but does, I think, address some of the substrate which informs his thought. And, if you wish, we could have a nice chat about Plato, intuition (what Ratzinger refers to as "inspiration") and the relation between truth, knowledge and Beauty.[/quote]

Well I'm going to have to brush up on my Plato as I've only read The Republic and that was about 8 years ago when "learning" wasn't as important in my college life as keg stands were.

I'm following pretty well but he loses me here:
[quote]Now however, we still have to respond to an objection. We have already rejected the assumption which claims that what has just been said is a flight into the irrational, into mere aestheticism.

Rather, it is the opposite that is true: This is the very way in which reason is freed from dullness and made ready to act.[/quote]

I don't agree/understand how its been rejected and the opposit is true. I have a hard time rectifying "being moved' as truth in any sense. It seems so many people can be "moved" by so many different things, many of which could "move people" to slaughter their family. How, in any sense, can we show one movement-through-the-experience-of-true-beauty is better than another...or atleast not malicious? This seems paramount to me moreso than the experience itself. Especially when even the most sincere of intentions/truths can be manipulated to produce some of the worst horrors mankind has ever seen, as Christianity has proven itself capable of in the past 2000 years.

It also seems he justified the Holocaust because of the beauty he experiences when listening to Bach. Beauty has to be ugly and beautiful as in the contrasting relationships between the descriptions of a Beautiful Christ and an Ugly Christ. That doesn't really sit well with me.

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759148' date='Mar 27 2009, 10:36 AM'][b]The difficult part is to understand (or at least to contemplate the possibility of) is that some "systems" of thinking are incompatible with one another. Which is to say, among other ideas, that the truth is not democratic in the sense that it's all one big pile of truthiness.[/b] And, if this is so, then the "battleground" between "idea systems" moves to a deeper level related to methodology. And, once one has grappled with that a fair amount, then one is left with the consideration of "how one moves masses of people" who are unwilling to undertake such excursions into the deep waters of philosophy/theology/science. Which indirectly goes to your objection about appeals to the supernatural. I think if you asked the Pope his thoughts on this matter, you would end up with a thoroughly delightful discussion respecting just what is natural and what is supernatural. After all, he allows us to infer, in the writing I linked to, that the truth possibly consists of more than what can be discovered in a logico-rational way. (Or as I earlier put it, from the perspective of exhausting the limits of propositions that can be derived from any given logical structure. One is still left with the question: from whence the premises?)[/quote]
I'm only standing at the mouth of the rabbit hole and it looks fairly deep. I admittedly have a hard time accepting the premises of different "systems of thinking" that are rooted in the tales of a carpentar who lived 2000 years ago (all written 80 or so years after his death by people who had never met him and whose existance is almost completely un-verified by any other historical document) who was the son of god, born of virigin, and rose from the dead. Perhaps some more philosophical writings on these topics without said roots would sink in a little deeper and I can really start to grasp this.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]It also seems he justified the Holocaust because of the beauty he experiences when listening to Bach.[/quote]

One of the fellows I work with I don't like much. He's black. Therefore, I must be in favor of slavery.

Seem absurd? That's how your statement strikes me. It tells me you are prone to interject your own muddied thinking into the progression of ideas being explored by the Pope in that piece--rather than taking a few moments to settle down and work your way through some of the difficult ideas. I don't recall any references to the holocaust in that essay at all. It also suggests to me that you may not understand music well enough to comprehend why some folks are profoundly moved by certain composers, among them Bach.

Don't think I'm hammering on you just to be hammering. I'm not. What I am pointing out is that what you are doing is, first, understandable from the perspective of a person who is just being introduced to some challenging ideas, and second, not really so different than the way you castigate, as follows:

[quote]I'm only standing at the mouth of the rabbit hole and it looks fairly deep. I admittedly have a hard time accepting the premises of different "systems of thinking" that are rooted in the tales of a carpentar who lived 2000 years ago (all written 80 or so years after his death by people who had never met him and whose existance is almost completely un-verified by any other historical document) who was the son of god, born of virigin, and rose from the dead.[/quote]

As for the first part--as I said, it's understandable. Rome wasn't built in a day, you don't learn a new language overnight, you don't get to the Pro Bowl if you have an aversion to practice. I'm going to presume we more or less agree on this. Later for the second part.

Okay. So let's roll with the imagery you invoked that I quoted at the top. Let's see if we can squeeze this particular lemon till the juice runs down our legs.

Have you seen Band of Brothers? If so, then you'll remember this:



Watch it again.

And, at some time it's convenient, there are these. It's the entire Beethoven string quartet, 131, in C# minor. (You can scroll past for now if you wish):

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:


So, what's going on in the Band of Brothers excerpt? Do you think it is the intent of those who crafted these scenes to suggest that Beethoven has something to do with the awful tragedy we know as WWII? Or, is it perhaps a deliberate attempt to counterpose the beautiful and the ugly? Further, is it not somehow melancholy that we are forced to confront the idea that German culture was capable of producing that ugliness, especially in light of what is generally recognized as one of the greatest bits of music genius ever? (Evar!!!?) How do you respond as the "audience" trying to reconcile these two ideas when they are placed right next to each other? Is it possible that the tension created by those who crafted this scene is not merely an aesthetic "trick" but might perhaps be a conscious attempt to provoke the audience into being moved in such a way that we must use our minds to try to understand the dissonance?

[quote]Soldier 1: "I'll tell you one thing about the Krauts, they sure clean up good."

Soldier 2: "Yep. All ya need is a little Mozart."

Officer: "Beethoven."

Soldier 2: "Sorry, sir?"

Officer: "That's not Mozart. That's Beethoven."

***

Officer: "Hitler's dead."

Soldier 2: "Holy shit."

Officer: "Shot himself in Berlin."

Soldier 3: "Is the war over, sir?"

Officer: "No. We have orders to Bertesgarden. We're going to move out in one hour."

Soldier 4: "Why? The man's not home. Shoulda killed himself three years ago...saved us a lot of trouble."

Officer: "Yeah, he should've. But he didn't."[/quote]

Let's dissect this a little more. Who is cleaning up the mess? Women and old men. Are they responsible for the rubble in which they live? See any German soldiers? Any German policy-makers? The closest representatives of an [i]efficient cause[/i] in the scene are American Soldiers. Are they responsible for the rubble?

Note how being part of the [i]efficient cause[/i] for all that affects the soldiers. Soldiers 1 and 2 are deadpan in the delivery of their lines. They are also a little deadened in the soul, too, perhaps. What do you have to do to yourself to get through the day in that kind of environment? The Officer, a troubled soul in his own right, understands the deeper implications of some of it. He's pretty forceful in his correction of Soldier 2. Is he suggesting some kind of qualitative difference between Mozart and Beethoven? Is he just a stickler for accuracy? And what's that look in his eye when he says, "It's Beethoven"?

When Soldier 2 attributes the music to Mozart, he's not only mistaken in a kind of muddy way, he also posits a homespun notion of causal coextensive-ness between the rubble, the people cleaning up and the music. It's pretty much all the same to him. Not so for the Officer. He gets it. Without saying a word. And the audience, as it observes his face, ought to be moved.

Moved toward what? And would the audience have been moved as powerfully if only one aspect of the environment (either one) were presented, instead of both?

Okay, enough of that.

So here's the deal. The disdain you express in the second bit I quoted is as simplistic as that which you disdain. It just takes a different form. You don't realize that because you are treading on mostly unfamiliar ground. That's understandable. You are falling back on that which you feel comfortable and that is understandable, too. If I wanted, I could lol the shit out of some of the superstitions of science: Quarks? What the fuck is a quark? Anybody seen one? Or is it just a mental construct we imagine to help verify a theory--a way of understanding the universe? Or, why do we call them atoms if we can split them?

My point is this: either shit or get off the pot. Have the courage to do the deep work you seem to fear or settle for the kind of superciliousness that so many anti-religionists are spouting nowadays. If you have problems with religion, that's fine. I do, too. But don't expect too much solidarity from those who have done a little more work than you in trying to sort it all out. Speaking only for myself, I don't see much difference (or benefit) in the levels of white noise generated by the crude athiests or the nutso fundamentalists.

It all just gets in the way of my desire to pursue some Beauty.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759276' date='Mar 27 2009, 04:24 PM']One of the fellows I work with I don't like much. He's black. Therefore, I must be in favor of slavery.

Seem absurd? That's how your statement strikes me. It tells me you are prone to interject your own muddied thinking into the progression of ideas being explored by the Pope in that piece--rather than taking a few moments to settle down and work your way through some of the difficult ideas. I don't recall any references to the holocaust in that essay at all. It also suggests to me that you may not understand music well enough to comprehend why some folks are profoundly moved by certain composers, among them Bach.

Don't think I'm hammering on you just to be hammering. I'm not. What I am pointing out is that what you are doing is, first, understandable from the perspective of a person who is just being introduced to some challenging ideas, and second, not really so different than the way you castigate, as follows:



As for the first part--as I said, it's understandable. Rome wasn't built in a day, you don't learn a new language overnight, you don't get to the Pro Bowl if you have an aversion to practice. I'm going to presume we more or less agree on this. Later for the second part.

Okay. So let's roll with the imagery you invoked that I quoted at the top. Let's see if we can squeeze this particular lemon till the juice runs down our legs.

Have you seen Band of Brothers? If so, then you'll remember this:



Watch it again.

And, at some time it's convenient, there are these. It's the entire Beethoven string quartet, 131, in C# minor. (You can scroll past for now if you wish):


So, what's going on in the Band of Brothers excerpt? Do you think it is the intent of those who crafted these scenes to suggest that Beethoven has something to do with the awful tragedy we know as WWII? Or, is it perhaps a deliberate attempt to counterpose the beautiful and the ugly? Further, is it not somehow melancholy that we are forced to confront the idea that German culture was capable of producing that ugliness, especially in light of what is generally recognized as one of the greatest bits of music genius ever? (Evar!!!?) How do you respond as the "audience" trying to reconcile these two ideas when they are placed right next to each other? Is it possible that the tension created by those who crafted this scene is not merely an aesthetic "trick" but might perhaps be a conscious attempt to provoke the audience into being moved in such a way that we must use our minds to try to understand the dissonance?



Let's dissect this a little more. Who is cleaning up the mess? Women and old men. Are they responsible for the rubble in which they live? See any German soldiers? Any German policy-makers? The closest representatives of an [i]efficient cause[/i] in the scene are American Soldiers. Are they responsible for the rubble?

Note how being part of the [i]efficient cause[/i] for all that affects the soldiers. Soldiers 1 and 2 are deadpan in the delivery of their lines. They are also a little deadened in the soul, too, perhaps. What do you have to do to yourself to get through the day in that kind of environment? The Officer, a troubled soul in his own right, understands the deeper implications of some of it. He's pretty forceful in his correction of Soldier 2. Is he suggesting some kind of qualitative difference between Mozart and Beethoven? Is he just a stickler for accuracy? And what's that look in his eye when he says, "It's Beethoven"?

When Soldier 2 attributes the music to Mozart, he's not only mistaken in a kind of muddy way, he also posits a homespun notion of causal coextensive-ness between the rubble, the people cleaning up and the music. It's pretty much all the same to him. Not so for the Officer. He gets it. Without saying a word. And the audience, as it observes his face, ought to be moved.

Moved toward what? And would the audience have been moved as powerfully if only one aspect of the environment (either one) were presented, instead of both?

Okay, enough of that.

So here's the deal. The disdain you express in the second bit I quoted is as simplistic as that which you disdain. It just takes a different form. You don't realize that because you are treading on mostly unfamiliar ground. That's understandable. You are falling back on that which you feel comfortable and that is understandable, too. If I wanted, I could lol the shit out of some of the superstitions of science: Quarks? What the fuck is a quark? Anybody seen one? Or is it just a mental construct we imagine to help verify a theory--a way of understanding the universe? Or, why do we call them atoms if we can split them?

My point is this: either shit or get off the pot. Have the courage to do the deep work you seem to fear or settle for the kind of superciliousness that so many anti-religionists are spouting nowadays. If you have problems with religion, that's fine. I do, too. But don't expect too much solidarity from those who have done a little more work than you in trying to sort it all out. Speaking only for myself, I don't see much difference (or benefit) in the levels of white noise generated by the crude athiests or the nutso fundamentalists.

It all just gets in the way of my desire to pursue some Beauty. [/quote]
Do you work?



Serioulsy though, I'm gonna have to take the weekend to sort through this all, but as always I appreciate the sincerity.

I guess I find myself needing different examples than those posed by Ratzinger to really hammer the ideas home before I can objectively look at how his ideas work in the grander scheme of things.

And to be fair, you'll never find me talking up quarks as essential or even valid scientific ideas as I had enough trouble getting through physics I and II. I don't think i'd disagree if you were to say that theoretical physics was just pointless hoopla like I claim with some of the central views of Christianity. The difference being that there stands the possibility of exploring their credibility empirically one day.

Anyways I'll see what I can get by Sunday. I'll probably be making a trip to the library in the meantime!

[Jamie_B]

[quote]What do you have to do to yourself to get through the day in that kind of environment?[/quote]

Ive got a old high school friend who is retiring from the Army after 2 tours in Iraq, (retiring a captin) he's gonna be staying with me for a week while his stuff is shipped back from germany (his final tour of service where he was stationed) starting next week sometime. I look foward to having that exact conversation with him.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='759287' date='Mar 27 2009, 04:55 PM']Do you work?
<snip>
Serioulsy though, I'm gonna have to take the weekend to sort through this all, but as always I appreciate the sincerity.[/quote]
Two answers: 1--Part-time because I semi-retired in my 40s. And not when I am online. 2--Seems to me that I just did some work, unless you think I pulled all that outta my ass.

What's the big deal about sincerity? Hitler was sincere--he really meant the maniacal behavior he engaged in. In any case, I don't write with sincerity in mind.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='759292' date='Mar 27 2009, 05:08 PM']Ive got a old high school friend who is retiring from the Army after 2 tours in Iraq, (retiring a captin) he's gonna be staying with me for a week while his stuff is shipped back from germany (his final tour of service where he was stationed) starting next week sometime. I look foward to having that exact conversation with him.[/quote]
I'd suggest a little caution, he may not want to talk about it much. Most combat vets I have known and chatted with didn't/don't mind talking about the less essential stuff, but tend/ed to be reticent about the serious side of things. In the case of my father, I learned more about his WWII experiences in the period just prior to his death (we all knew it was coming) than I had in my entire adult live to that point. And he really wasn't in the center of things at all.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759313' date='Mar 27 2009, 06:12 PM']I'd suggest a little caution, he may not want to talk about it much. Most combat vets I have known and chatted with didn't/don't mind talking about the less essential stuff, but tend/ed to be reticent about the serious side of things. In the case of my father, I learned more about his WWII experiences in the period just prior to his death (we all knew it was coming) than I had in my entire adult live to that point. And he really wasn't in the center of things at all.[/quote]


hmm good advice, he is retering to this area and doent have any friends aside from me and his sister who live in the area so im sure we will hang out more than just the week he will be staying with me. perhaps ill let him approach me with that stuff casually.

[MULLY]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='757434' date='Mar 21 2009, 06:48 AM']I agree with Homer that I think Ratzinger is a brilliant man, and I think I understand the Church's position. But at the end of the day, if you look at it realistically, people are going to keep fucking no matter what, and if they are going to keep doing that in an area of the world where AIDS is running rampant, then if people can be persuaded to wear condoms, then it certainly can help curb some of the staggering numbers of people that contract HIV.[/quote]

Yeah, but let us not forget that this brilliant man actually believes there's some omnipotent being out there and he's here to set the rules for it.

I agree 110%, man, people are going to continue to have sex regardless of what Pope Whatever-his-name-is says. All I was saying is that this thread was probably started out of misunderstood context issues. In my opinion the Pope most likely meant that the passing out of condoms doesn't help the issue because it encourages people to engage in sex. I honestly couldn't care less what the Pope says though.
MULLY

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759312' date='Mar 27 2009, 06:08 PM']Two answers: 1--Part-time because I semi-retired in my 40s. And not when I am online. 2--Seems to me that I just did some work, unless you think I pulled all that outta my ass.[/quote]
I meant work like "have a job" since you had the time to post such a detailed response.

Anyways I didn't get home from Baltimore til late last night so I have yet to revisit this.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='759823' date='Mar 30 2009, 02:07 PM']I meant work like "have a job" since you had the time to post such a detailed response.

Anyways I didn't get home from Baltimore til late last night so I have yet to revisit this.[/quote]
Refer to #1...

...or maybe I'm just lucky to have WiFi...

...in my van...

...down by the river.

The best thing about Baltimore nowadays is leaving it, eh? j/k

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759276' date='Mar 27 2009, 04:24 PM']One of the fellows I work with I don't like much. He's black. Therefore, I must be in favor of slavery.

Seem absurd? That's how your statement strikes me. It tells me you are prone to interject your own muddied thinking into the [b]progression of ideas[/b] being explored by the Pope in that piece--rather than taking a few moments to settle down and work your way through some of the difficult ideas. I don't recall any references to the holocaust in that essay at all. It also suggests to me that you may not understand music well enough to comprehend why some folks are profoundly moved by certain composers, among them Bach.[/quote]

I went back and re-read the essay and I believe I follow his progression of ideas but I just don't accept them. I think they're based on false premises.

[quote]Being struck and overcome by the beauty of Christ is a more real, more profound knowledge than mere rational deduction.[/quote]

No. I don't know what else to say to that besides no. Feeling (in this case "being overcome by beauty") does not equal knowledge. Feeling equates to intra-organism chemical reactions in response to stimuli filtered and interperutted through the cultural web woven during our lifetimes. I don't dismiss "feelings" as mearly a biological bi-product, un-important to society. But I do dismiss it as "knowledge." And I could replace "Christ" with essentially anything, lets say "The Blackening" by Machine Head, and have an equally un-validateable (is that a word?) train of thought. And thats a big sticking point IMO. Verifying "truths" needs to be pen-ultimate to the systems of discovering "truths."

[quote]For me an unforgettable experience was the Bach concert that Leonard Bernstein conducted in Munich after the sudden death of Karl Richter. I was sitting next to the Lutheran Bishop Hanselmann. When the last note of one of the great Thomas-Kantor-Cantatas triumphantly faded away, we looked at each other spontaneously and right then we said: "Anyone who has heard this, knows that the faith is true."

The music had such an extraordinary force of reality that we realized, no longer by deduction, [b]but by the impact on our hearts,[/b] that it could not have originated from nothingness, but could only have come to be through the power of the Truth that became real in the composer's inspiration.[/quote]

Again, response to stimuli, filtered through his previously indoctrinated worldview. The impact on my "heart" while wondering through a snowy northern NY public park after an eighth of mushrooms can be equally as stunning and revealing were I eloquant enough to articulate it. But it doesn't explain anything about the world.

[quote]Today another objection has even greater weight: the message of beauty is thrown into complete doubt by the power of falsehood, seduction, violence and evil. Can the beautiful be genuine, or, in the end, is it only an illusion? Isn't reality perhaps basically evil? The fear that in the end it is not the arrow of the beautiful that leads us to the truth, but that falsehood, all that is ugly and vulgar, may constitute the true "reality" has at all times caused people anguish.

At present this has been expressed in the assertion that after [b]Auschwitz[/b] it was no longer possible to write poetry; after [b]Auschwitz[/b] it is no longer possible to speak of a God who is good. People wondered: [b]Where was God when the gas chambers were operating?[/b] This objection, which seemed reasonable enough before Auschwitz when one realized all the atrocities of history, [b]shows that in any case a purely harmonious concept of beauty is not enough[/b]. It cannot stand up to the confrontation with the gravity of the questioning about God, truth and beauty. Apollo, who for Plato's Socrates was "the God" and the guarantor of unruffled beauty as "the truly divine" is absolutely no longer sufficient.

[b]In this way, we return to the "two trumpets" of the Bible with which we started, to the paradox of being able to say of Christ: "You are the fairest of the children of men," and: "He had no beauty, no majesty to draw our eyes, no grace to make us delight in him."[/b] In the passion of Christ the Greek aesthetic that deserves admiration for its perceived contact with the Divine but which remained inexpressible for it, in Christ's passion is not removed but overcome.[/quote]

I mean...call me stupid if you must, but he is saying that the Holocaust is A: beautiful in the paradoxical nature of beauty and B: neccessary for beauty to exist in the first place. I don't think any level of genocide is neccessary for even the most beautiful of art/music/scenery to exist let alone think that there is some sort of "truth" to beauty.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='759858' date='Mar 30 2009, 05:20 PM']I mean...call me stupid if you must...[/quote]
I won't do that, but it's clear you're out of your league.


[quote]...but he is saying that the Holocaust is A: beautiful in the paradoxical nature of beauty and B: neccessary for beauty to exist in the first place. I don't think any level of genocide is neccessary for even the most beautiful of art/music/scenery to exist let alone think that there is some sort of "truth" to beauty.[/quote]
He's not saying that at all. But I already covered that.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='759955' date='Mar 31 2009, 08:21 AM']He's not saying that at all. But I already covered that.[/quote]

Yeah he is. He's using the same old "god works in mysterious ways" mumbo jumbo wrapped up in metaphors and I don't think it pertains at all your black person-racist example.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='760021' date='Mar 31 2009, 12:24 PM']Yeah he is. He's using the same old "god works in mysterious ways" mumbo jumbo wrapped up in metaphors and I don't think it pertains at all your black person-racist example.[/quote]
You're mistaken. And the only reason that I've troubled myself thus far is that you seem like a bright young adult. I've laid out some suggestions as to where the dissonance is, and a few bread crumbs for you to follow, if you choose. What you call mumbo-jumbo is, at least in rudiment, upperclass level philosophy stuff.

The sticking point for you is not really a matter of agreement or disagreement on the conceptual argument being made; that's a natural part of philosophy. It's that you don't recognize the need for the work to understand the playing field. You know, sort of like how you accuse the creationists of doing bad science.

Which is why I made the white noise comment. Because the bottom line is that, methodologically, there's not a dime of difference between your anti-religion views and the nutso xtians anti-science views. They stem from the same unwillingness to "flush the toilet." It's a common failing and one that I have to be on guard about in other areas, myself. If we prefer to cling to the turds in our diapers, rather than dispose of them properly--things not only get messy pretty quick, we also end up carrying around quite a load after a while.

Now, I know you'll disagree, but my response to that will be: why should I care?

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='760104' date='Mar 31 2009, 05:59 PM']You're mistaken. And the only reason that I've troubled myself thus far is that you seem like a bright young adult. I've laid out some suggestions as to where the dissonance is, and a few bread crumbs for you to follow, if you choose. What you call mumbo-jumbo is, at least in rudiment, upperclass level philosophy stuff.

The sticking point for you is not really a matter of agreement or disagreement on the conceptual argument being made; that's a natural part of philosophy. It's that you don't recognize the need for the work to understand the playing field. You know, sort of like how you accuse the creationists of doing bad science.

Which is why I made the white noise comment. Because the bottom line is that, methodologically, there's not a dime of difference between your anti-religion views and the nutso xtians anti-science views. They stem from the same unwillingness to "flush the toilet." It's a common failing and one that I have to be on guard about in other areas, myself. If we prefer to cling to the turds in our diapers, rather than dispose of them properly--things not only get messy pretty quick, we also end up carrying around quite a load after a while.

Now, I know you'll disagree, but my response to that will be: why should I care?[/quote]
Fair enough. Hope to meet you in the middle one day down the road.

[CincyInDC]

New [url="http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/03/18/jesus-christ-returns-to-earth-punches-pope-in-face-leaves-again/"]development[/url]....

[quote][b][size=3]Jesus Christ returns to Earth - punches Pope in face, leaves again[/size][/b]

Jesus Christ - a leading figure in modern Christianity - returned to Earth today after a nearly 2,000-year hiatus. The Second Coming was cut short, however, as Christ, 37, went directly to the Vatican and punched Pope Benedict XVI square in the mouth. Jesus then ascended back to heaven.

While a bloodied Benedict had no comment, Christ put out a press release shortly before his ascension.

“My children, it is not my time yet,” read the statement in part. “But someone had to give that A-hole a good face punching, and the buck stops here.”

[img]http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w122/wboxerw19/1christ-middle-finger.jpg[/img]

According to reports, Christ delivered a vicious right cross to the Pontiff’s mouth, healed him, then punched him again and left without saying a word. In his press release, Christ made it clear he was not happy with the leader of the Catholic Church.

“Ok, I’m sorry for the language, but this prick is running around hugging Holocaust deniers and [b]telling people in AIDS-ravaged nations that condoms hurt in the fight against HIV.[/b] And this dickhead is supposed to be speaking for me?”

Reaction from the Christian community was quick, but quickly quelled in divine fashion. Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren was the first - and only - religious leader to speak out.

“This is not the Christ I worship,” said Warren. “This is a Christ who refuses to damn homosexuals and obviously refuses to turn the other cheek.”

Warren was quickly rebuked in the form of a lightning strike and locust attack. Those near Warren at the time said they could clearly hear a voice ringing out from the heavens, which stated “Drive this purpose, Bitch.”

Christ gave no word on when the true Second Coming would take place, but stated that if humanity continues down its current path, it could be quite some time.

“This fuckneck walks around in his mansion wearing ridiculous outfits,” wrote an apparently peeved Savior. “And then he has the nerve to judge others? This is just ridiculous.”

While Christ saved most his venom for the Pope and the Catholic Church, he also chastised Catholics and Christians around the globe.

“Did no one see the memo about worshiping false gods,” the statement read. “Seriously, people are freaking dying of hunger and you people are worshiping this clown? And what’s the deal with saying so many prayers to my Mom? She’s great and all, but I’m a fucking God, people. Hellloo???”

Hours after Jesus’s second career ascension to heaven, the Vatican released a short statement of its own, telling followers that “we need your tithing now more than ever.”

–WKW[/quote]

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='765601' date='Apr 20 2009, 07:35 PM']New [url="http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/03/18/jesus-christ-returns-to-earth-punches-pope-in-face-leaves-again/"]development[/url]....[/quote]

[Homer_Rice]

[size=3][font="Arial Black"]NSFW[/font][/size]

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='765601' date='Apr 20 2009, 08:35 PM']New [url="http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/03/18/jesus-christ-returns-to-earth-punches-pope-in-face-leaves-again/"]development[/url]....[/quote]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[quote]second career ascension[/quote]

wow, thats incredible
:applaud:

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='756883' date='Mar 18 2009, 06:33 PM']It has little to do with science (at least what you recognize as science) and everything to do with his long track record as a deep thinker regarding [b]universal truths[/b] and the sort of culture he thinks is both necessary and sufficient to make the pursuit of such truths possible.[/quote]
I'm bored at work so I decided to revisit this thread and I came back across point. I don't know how/why I missed this the first time around but Universal Truths specifically regarding the human experience is something I whole heartedly reject.

Unless you can explain to me how any Universal Truth, regarding humans and their how experiences gel into a in-errant, cohesive worldview, existed 2.5 million years ago.

Gravity 2.5 million years ago - check
Thermodynamics 2.5 million years ago - check
Beauty existing only in void left by tragedy - ????

In my venture to understand epistemology as I was prompted to do in this thread I came across this quote:

[quote]If all epistemologies are equal, then there is no such thing as nonsense.[/quote]

How and where can we draw a line between what is sensical and what is non-sensical if we can't emprically show it?

Science, in this particular case of condoms combating AIDS, trumps all other methods. Cultural change COULD make a difference in AIDS transmission rates. I can follow the logic - get people to stop fighting - promote "social and family values" - make sex before marriage undesirable - AIDS rates go down. That is wholescale shift of the nobleist sense, but it is far from practical. Science on the other hand offers real world solutions: Condoms prevent the spread of AIDS better than any other form contraception, medicine treats AIDS better than prayer. Ignoring this, or worse, claiming this isn't true, is stupid on steroids no matter what your preconcieved dogmas are.

Condoms, along with proper instruction, need to be overtly available to every male who is of age to be sexually active in Africa. The Church stands in the way of this...no matter how good their intentions are, the science shows that they are only doing more damage.

According to www.avert.org there were roughly 1.9 million adults and children newly infected with HIV in 2007 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lets say 1 million are adults. According to Jamie's statistics someone is raped every 26 seconds in South Africa. I can't figure out if its just the country of South Africa or all of Sub-Saharan Africa, apparently the only in depth studies about this were done in South Africa. Lets assume it doesn't include other areas of Africa so I'll round that number down to a rape every 10 seconds which is 52,500+ per year. I'll round that number up to 60,000 just to be safe and assume every rape resulted in a new adult infected with HIV.

That leaves 940,000 HIV transmissions through adults who were not raped per year. I'm going to assume Condoms are succesful preventing HIV transmission at a similar rate to preventing pregnancy (if one can find numbers showing otherwise I'd be stunned and admit my wrong) which is 98% so we'll say they are 95% effective to err on the low side.

If we could get condoms and proper instructions into the hands of the 940,000 people who are not raping or being raped and they were 95% effective...893,000 people wouldn't have HIV. Worse case scenerio is some break, which leaves them on average maybe only 90% effective now, people use them wrong (80% effective), and people don't use them consistantly so the entire condom movement is now only, say 55% effective.

That is 517,000 people who don't have HIV. Thats half a million people saved in a single year using odds that are far worse than in reality. Now clearly there are a lot more variables than this simple math, but we are talking about someone who said condoms make the problem worse. That would have to assume there is a population of people in Africa just dying to have sex but won't because condoms aren't available and I dunno about you but that seems pretty implausable.

It fucking kills me that an educated, eloquant man like Ratzinger uses his inane ramblings about the universal truth of his sky god to stand in the way of matters that are clearly scientific and need more rational approaches that don't have their foundations in shitty asusmptions like "we can keep adolescents from having sex by telling them about god's rules for the world." People fuck, always have, always will...the church needs to get over it and stop trying to regulate it. Its a losing war that a man of Ratzinger's intelligence should be able to recognize but he fails...because of his sky god and their universal plan for mankind.

[Homer_Rice]

I'd suggest getting better acquainted with the manner in which philosophers have treated the whole "universals vs. particulars" issue over the past couple of millenia. The differences between Plato/Aristotle are representative of ancient times and the "realist vs nominalist" debates of the Middle Ages are pretty good places to start.

And no philosopher worth his/her salt is going to say that all systems of knowledge are equal.

As for the rest, what I said before.

[Squirrlnutz]

Now the Pope is rallying Islam for a tag-team match against secularization.

[url="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=eae0e0d4-2fa0-423c-9d41-f9954cdc0f4d"]http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...41-f9954cdc0f4d[/url]

[quote]Thus, genuine adherence to religion -- far from narrowing our minds -- widens the horizon of human understanding.[/quote]

How is adopting a rigid, unchanging, bigoted, historically inaccurate/plagarized worldview developed 2000 years ago anything but contstricting on the human mind?

How does knowing the answer already help to widen the horizon of human understanding?

Thankfully he calls for relgious people to embrace "reason" which will eventually undermine all their superstition. Because clearly the most "reasonable" world view is one that includes a bearded man in the sky who decided he would watch humanity suffer for 100-200 thousand years before breifly popping in to deliver some instructions about how to worship, how to treat your friends, how to treat your enemys and how to repress women while letting us know he's mildly disapproving of masturbation and thoroughly disgusted by anal sex. Oh and decided that telling illiterate bronze age goat herding peasents was the best way to get his message out. As Hitchens said "the word didn't get to China for about another 1000 years." But that doesn't matter right?

I can't even fathom the mental gymnastics required to accept this insanity when its laid out on the table like this.



Homer: If you read this I have a question that I can't discern for myself from Ratzinger's writings. Does his universal-worldview of beliefs exist in the absence of the bible?

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='775640' date='May 12 2009, 03:16 PM']Homer: If you read this I have a question that I can't discern for myself from Ratzinger's writings. Does his universal-worldview of beliefs exist in the absence of the bible?[/quote]
You would be surprised at how much of it does, not only for Ratzinger, but for virtually all competent theologians.

One of the troublesome realities of societies, all throughout history, is the employment of what is described as the "noble lie." I suggest reconciling your own mind to how this sort of behavior fits into your (or anyone's) analysis of any given situation/personality when it comes to motivating/moving/persuading/controlling larges groups of people.

I personally do not like the employment of "mythos" in the service of "logos" but there it is.