[BIRD33]

I'm not sure.

[Jimmy]

How does your heart know?

The invisible and the non-existant look a lot alike.

Are you talking about condoms in Africa?

[Banana]

Are you talking about condoms in Africa?

The reason condoms don't work in Africa is because no one carries Magnums.

[BIRD33]

They don't need condoms in africa if they are circumcised.We've been over this.Popes on the forefront here.

[Pickle]

No, they don't need to be circumcised either. Because if they are abstinent and practice fidelity - Aids will disappear and turn into rainbows and butterflies.

[Jimmy]

They don't need condoms in africa if they are circumcised.We've been over this.Popes on the forefront here.

Good call.

[Banana]

They don't need condoms in africa if they are circumcised.We've been over this.Popes on the forefront here.

Oh, right.

[Jimmy]

No, they don't need to be circumcised either. Because if they are abstinent and practice fidelity - Aids will disappear and turn into rainbows and butterflies.

Rainbows and butterflies is what I think of when I think of men raping young virgins to cure their aids. Education, whether it be about abstinence or what have you, is the only thing that will help.

[Pickle]

I agree that education will help - however I don't agree with anything to do with abstinence unless it's a personal decision. Abstinence is not a natural function of human beings, or any living creature and trying to educate people to think it is, is how people end up with STDS in the first place.

[Jimmy]

Abstinence will never happen, ever. It would work though. The Pope is a believer in sex for procreation. Those religious types are strangely against sport-fucking. You can't fault the man for suggesting a plan that however unlikely, WOULD work.

Unless you just like piling on religious people. Kind of a hobby for atheists. I think your whole foundation is "You know what's better than religion? Making fun of Religion!"

Interesting..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment...400568.ece

[BIRD33]

Oh, right.

I don't have a confusing picture to go with my argument so you win.

[Banana]

Abstinence will never happen, ever. It would work though. The Pope is a believer in sex for procreation. Those religious types are strangely against sport-fucking. You can't fault the man for suggesting a plan that however unlikely, WOULD work.

Unless you just like piling on religious people. Kind of a hobby for atheists. I think your whole foundation is "You know what's better than religion? Making fun of Religion!"

Interesting..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment...400568.ece

Oh please. Why is every relgious person's defence when they are asked to defend their beliefs "I'm being persecuted! WAH!" You can choose to or not to have an intellectual debate about something you can't see or prove, but don't start playing the victim. If I tell you there is no Santa Claus, are you going to feel like there was a pile on? Yet, no one except kids believe in Santa right? If I tell you I believe in lawn fairies, you aren't going to laugh and question it if I say "I know in my heart they exist?"

Religion is full of hyprocrisy, take it or leave it principles and a false sense of moral superiority. Maybe I should feel like there is a pile-on on atheist's? Maybe just the next time you joke that you and 2.0 won't see me in the afterlife because I'll be going to hell.

[Pickle]

I do agree with you, that it theoretically would work. But we don't live in theory - we live in reality, so proposing realistic solutions is what's necessary. And I will scoff at anyone who suggests abstinence as a solution, religious or not. It's just not realistic, no matter how much it would work in theory.

[Banana]

I don't have a confusing picture to go with my argument so you win.

Oh, sorry that the diagram confused you. Does this help?
(CI = Confidence interval)
Cut infection rate in 12 months
1.58%

Intact infect. rate in 12 months
3.38%

Absolute risk reduction
1.8 (95% CI: 0.64-2.95)

Relative risk reduction
53% (95% CI: 23-72)

Odds ratio
0.45 (95% CI: 0.27-0.77)

Number needed to treat in 1 year
56 (95% CI: 34-155)

In other words, you would have to circumcise 56 men to prevent one of them contracting HIV in one year. And the number needed to prevent HIV longer term is higher.
Doctors could spend their time better spent treating people with ulcerative disease and malaria, which make HIV transmission easier and using the money saved to promote safer sexual practices.
Few accepted medicines have such a high NNT.
On this basis, the NNT in developed countries such as the USA, where the HIV rate is relatively low (0.6% compared to 4.1% in Uganda), would be much higher - it would take 380 circumcisions in the US to prevent one case of HIV.

[Pickle]

Jimmy's melt in, 5...4...3...2..1

[BIRD33]

Oh, sorry that the diagram confused you. Does this help?
(CI = Confidence interval)
Cut infection rate in 12 months
1.58%

Intact infect. rate in 12 months
3.38%

Absolute risk reduction
1.8 (95% CI: 0.64-2.95)

Relative risk reduction
53% (95% CI: 23-72)

Odds ratio
0.45 (95% CI: 0.27-0.77)

Number needed to treat in 1 year
56 (95% CI: 34-155)

In other words, you would have to circumcise 56 men to prevent one of them contracting HIV in one year. And the number needed to prevent HIV longer term is higher.
Doctors could spend their time better spent treating people with ulcerative disease and malaria, which make HIV transmission easier and using the money saved to promote safer sexual practices.
Few accepted medicines have such a high NNT.
On this basis, the NNT in developed countries such as the USA, where the HIV rate is relatively low (0.6% compared to 4.1% in Uganda), would be much higher - it would take 380 circumcisions in the US to prevent one case of HIV.

OOOOOh Facts!

[Jimmy]

Oh please. Why is every relgious person's defence when they are asked to defend their beliefs "I'm being persecuted! WAH!" You can chose to or not to have an intellectual debate about something you can't see or prove, but don't start playing the victim. If I tell you there is no Santa Claus, are you going to feel like there was a pile on? Yet, no one except kids believe in Santa right? If I tell you I believe in lawn fairies, you aren't going to laugh and question it if I say "I know in my heart they exist?"

Religion is full of hyprocrisy, take it or leave it principles and a false sense of moral superiority. Maybe I should feel like there is a pile-on on atheist's? Maybe just the next time you joke that you and 2.0 won't see me in the afterlife because I'll be going to hell.

You missed the point. There is no argument for or against faith, there's just faith or not. Most religious types don't care what atheist's think and I believe this drives you crazy. I've never seen myself as a victim nor have I seen myself as morally superior.

As for me and the kids in heaven viewing you in hell ponder this.

Will Good Atheists Go To Hell? (Matthew Ch 25)
"When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the righteous people at his right and the others at his left.
"Then the King will say to the people on his right, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.'
The righteous will then answer him, "When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? 38 When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?'
"The King will reply, "I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!'"

See you there.

[Banana]

You missed the point. There is no argument for or against faith, there's just faith or not. Most religious types don't care what atheist's think and I believe this drives you crazy. I've never seen myself as a victim nor have I seen myself as morally superior.

My bad. I must have misread this.
http://insanetrain.com/forums/showpost.p...stcount=13

It doesn't drive me crazy that faith exists. I prefer it when people say they don't need proof when they have faith. What DOES drive me crazy is when people cling to religious ideals when they don't follow them. We know a pious man who does this, I believe you find it irritating too. And it DOES drive me crazy when certain religious types claim they KNOW God exists and then get mad when you ask them what makes them KNOW that.

[Jimmy]

Saying morality is faith hidden is not a claim of superiority, it is a suggestion that morality is driven by a belief in some form of judgement.

[Banana]

Saying morality is faith hidden is not a claim of superiority, it is a suggestion that morality is driven by a belief in some form of judgement.

A belief that religious folk have and atheists don't.

Is it a stretch to relate the two things?