Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The church actually has an answer to this, myk. It’s called NFP. It’s free and it encourages the couple to work with their bodies instead kf opposing their natural cycles.
and it has zero basis in fact, no medical evidence & again shows that reality how & real people are affected by these unqualified, inexperienced men pretending to be voices of an imaginary god only serves them by keeping their customers/prisoners in a state of obedience, fear, suffering & paying for the punishment
every time you say the church pays for something you think is good you ignore:
-ALL their money comes people like you who could donate it freely to good causes
-ALL you give them pays for them before those good causes
-ALL you give them allows them to pay to cover their sex crimes ($4billion US so far)
-ALL you give them allows them to invest to campaigning against laws that affect non catholics
imagine the tens/hundreds of billions more we would all have for good causes without the costs of THEM & fighting against THEM. But you carry on trying to get us to agree with you so you can feel validated.
@JoC
I don't know what you mean by "NFP" or "kf", please explain. "Natural Family Planning"? You know that Planned Parenthood already provides this information, don't you? And what does the freezing point of a molecule have to do with contraception?
kf was a type for “of”
NFP is Natural Family Planning. I’m unfamiliar with what planned parenthood does as I’m not from there but NFP has a method of spacing children is cheaper than using condoms.
I prefer a SECULAR method instead of counseling that is based on obedience to a god not proven.
"NFP has a method of spacing children is cheaper than using condoms."
In what sense cheaper? That sounds absurdly wrong to me. Though of course it's obvious cost is not the only reason people use birth control, and condoms have been proven to be the best method for reducing the risk of catching or transmitting an STD like the HIV+ virus.
Now that you're here, could you tell us if you think that STD's like HIV+ are more or less likely to be caught or transmitted through the protective latex layer of a condom?
NFP's guidelines on child spacing are inaccurate (which reduces their effectiveness at preventing pregnancy); worse still they are dangerous to the live infant.
I simply like to go by the numbers, and when you look at it there is interesting points, such as:
nations where atheism is more common place are more developed and have a higher education level
nations that use condoms and promote safe sex in that way have a far lower and comparatively miniscule HIV rate.
the problem is theism has tried to take a strangle hold of morality, and it needs to be taken away from that domain.
abstaining also presents problems, if you literally completely stop then humanity dies.
if you do it very little then men do not produce much and begin to shut down and fertility becomes very troublesome.
and to say condoms do not stop pregnancy I would say perhaps if it failed(broke) although there are morning after contraceptives.
personally I just could not set my moral compass to the commands of a group of 'virgins' in the Vatican with little real life experience and whom set their lives in worshiping some imaginary friend, if this world had no religion or these people were moved to a world with no concept of theism, they would be put in a mental institution.
as a young women in a long relationship it hasn't had a problem so far, no hiv and no baby :) haha
Of course I'm not saying we stop altogether. Actually, having contraception readily available is already taking it's toll on the developed world. You see countries with birth rates less than the mortality rates. Contraception is literally whittling down the population of some countries.
you actually think slowing population growth is a bad thing?!?!?!?!
the planets biggest threat is mass over population jon
its why everything is being stretched to breaking point
we should post free condoms to everyone on earth monthly & if it wasn't for the abhorrent lies of cults like the cathoSick church they would be used & lives improved greatly
you are on the wrong side of history at every turn but carry on flogging the dead horse that's working for you
"Of course I'm not saying we stop altogether. Actually, having contraception readily available is already taking it's toll on the developed world. You see countries with birth rates less than the mortality rates. Contraception is literally whittling down the population of some countries."
One of the largest problems facing humans as a species today is our exponentially increasing population, only religion could convince anyone to make such an asinine assertion as local population reduction being problematic.
Ironically, one of the larger problems is underpopulatation. Just search population crisis and it usually talks about underpopulation as opposed to overpopulation.
"
Ironically, one of the larger problems is underpopulatation. Just search population crisis and it usually talks about underpopulation as opposed to overpopulation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/04/climate-change-pop...
"Some 225 million women have an unmet need for contraception. If this need were answered, the impact on population growth would be significant, though not decisive: the annual growth rate of 83 million would be reduced to 62 million. But contraception is rarely limited only by the physical availability of contraceptives. In most cases it’s about power: women are denied control of their wombs. The social transformations that they need are wider and deeper than donations from the other side of the world are likely to achieve."
"At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the total world population crossed the threshold of 1 billion people for the first time in the history of the homo sapiens sapiens. Since then, growth rates have been increasing exponentially, reaching staggeringly high peaks in the 20th century and slowing down a bit thereafter. Total world population reached 7 billion just after 2010 and is expected to count 9 billion by 2045. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987379/
The idea that the exponentially increasing human population is not an imminent ecological disaster that needs to be tackled on an international basis is a myth espoused by ludicrous religious dogma.
@Jon the Catholic: "Actually, having contraception readily available is already taking it's toll on the developed world."
If you're talking about countries like Japan, it's a bit more complicated than that. The birth rate is falling because people are getting married later or not at all for a number of reasons. There's work pressure, the cost of housing, a reluctance to abandon a more carefree lifestyle, and the high cost of daycare and education.
In the postwar era, the Japanese government promoted family planning in a big way. (Before the war they did the opposite, giving medals to women who had more than 10 children.) As the birthrate went down, life expectancies went up due to better nutrition and healthcare. So what they have now is not so much population decline (though that will come), but rather population aging.
The solution isn't to take away contraception, but rather to make child-raising easier and less expensive.
But you must agree though that the availability of contraception and other artificial birth control methods has an effect on this trend. It's funny how when the Reproductive Health Law was passed in our country, they wouldn't shut up about countries like Sweden, Germany, Japan and how they managed to keep their population levels low and now where in Japan, it's actually a problem, people don't like to talk about it in the context of contraception.
With contraception Japan got it's birthrate down to about 2.2 children per couple, which was more or less replacement level. The main methods used were condoms and abortions. The pill didn't become available until quite recently because of resistance from the medical profession (abortion is more profitable) and a cultural bias about women controlling their own fertility.
But now a growing number of people aren't getting married at all because of various economic and social factors. That's why the birthrate has dipped below replacement level.
Japan and other developed countries will eventually find a population balance that's good for people, the economy, and the Earth. They won't do that by mandating fecundity like the Vatican, but by solving the problems that make child-raising difficult. The Catholic way of unbridled reproduction is a straight road to global hyper-population, poverty and environmental collapse.
One of the causes of sub-replacement fertility is actually contraception. You actually just said it. In Japan's case, it may not have been the factor to push it over the edge but it's still a factor. Japan isn't the only country actually. I remember seeing graphs which already started exhibiting a reverse pyramid in many developed countries. I believe the article was just talking about what the country's demographic tells us about the country.
The more developed countries showed that there were more young adults than children, which the article failed to notice but I did right away. The up-side-down pyramid was starting to show in most developed countries. I can't seem to find it now though. The Philippines and other developing countries showed a (right side up) pyramid distribution.
Does the protective latex of a condom make it more or less likely a wearer will catch or transmit an STD during sex?
Does the protective latex of a condom make it more or less likely a wearer will catch or transmit an STD during sex?
Does the protective latex of a condom make it more or less likely a wearer will catch or transmit an STD during sex?
Does the protective latex of a condom make it more or less likely a wearer will catch or transmit an STD during sex?
Does the protective latex of a condom make it more or less likely a wearer will catch or transmit an STD during sex?
Does the protective latex of a condom make it more or less likely a wearer will catch or transmit an STD during sex?
Does the protective latex of a condom make it more or less likely a wearer will catch or transmit an STD during sex?
?????????????
Less likely. But again, it’s not a sure thing.
Now, if sex is not had in the first place, is it more or less likely they’ll catch the STD?
"Now, if sex is not had in the first place, is it more or less likely they’ll catch the STD?"
It's absurd to think people are going to stop having sex so offering it up as a solution to catching STD's and unwanted pregnancies is like suggesting banning cars worldwide is a real solution to road traffic deaths? Religiously based abstinence teaching which replaced fact based sex education and proper contraception based family planning in many states in America has been an unmitigated disaster with all the data showing that unwanted pregnancies and STD rates skyrocketing among teens that received such wishy washy superstitious flimflam. You might as well suggest never going near water is a better safeguard than wearing a life jacket against drowning, whilst it's hard to argue against the claim, it is a demonstrably stupid claim for obvious reasons.
The real tragedy though is Catholicism doesn't stop with this absurdly stupid claim that abstinence is a real solution despite all the evidence to the contrary, but they go on to use their influence to promote the evil idea that condoms are immoral, and even worse that they make catching STD's more likely, and they peddle this pernicious BS where it will do the most harm of course, among the poorest and most ill-educated people they can find. It's no accident of course, well educated people are a lot harder to indoctrinate with pernicious lies than people who are dirt poor and have no access to education or birth control anyway.
@jonthecatholic This syllogism is like a wall of death for your argument.
*the desire to have sex is biological
*diseases can be spread by having sex
*a way to prevent the spreading of disease is a policy of not having sex
*people will inevitably break policy (number one)
*contraception is one way to help prevent the spread of disease
*not spreading disease is preferable to spreading disease
**therefore... It is preferable to use contraception than its alternative (not using contraception).
But conveniently, you ignored it. I sense dishonesty in the first degree. Denial of facts, denial of logic. Blind faith apologetics.
If I'm wrong, which premise do you disagree with? And if you disagree with one be prepared to answer the 'why' with some hardcore facts. If you don't disagree with any premise, good. Then the conclusion follows necessarily and you are dead wrong.
Let me go over these:
*the desire to have sex is biological - agree
*diseases can be spread by having sex - agree. Can be spread but not all the time... even with unprotected sex
*a way to prevent the spreading of disease is a policy of not having sex - agree
*people will inevitably break policy (number one) - agree? but using this reasoning, we then shouldn't have traffic laws as people would inevitably break those. Or any laws for that matter.
*contraception is one way to help prevent the spread of disease - it's one way. not the only way, like the earlier statement. Agree.
*not spreading disease is preferable to spreading disease - Agree.
Your wall had a little error in it's 4th statement which while I agree with it, it doesn't add to your argument.
My turn.
If abstinence before marriage (sex with only one person) is practiced faithfully and correctly, is there a 100% assurance that STDs cannot be passed?
If contraception is practiced faithfully and correctly, is there a 100% assurance that STDs cannot be passed?
There was no error. The premise did not say not to have rules. It said people will break them. And they do. It means that knowing the rules will be broken anyway would it not be better to have something else as well? The whole thing doesn't even say abstinence is bad. It says that using contraception is preferable to not using contraception. You don't need absolutes. You just need to know what is better.
You skipped answering my question. When used properly and consistently, does using contraception 100% assure that STDs won't be passed or that pregnancies won't happen?
JoC
Nothing is 100%, condoms can break.
The efficacy of condoms is irrelevant unless you claim that they are 0% effective.
If police aren't 100% effective at preventing crime would you suggest that we get rid of them too? You have no argument. You know you're wrong and you won't admit it because you have more loyalty to your church than you do to truth. You don't seem to care about the truth whatsoever. You ignore reason. You avoid questions, and unless you are stupid and you can't understand the points that myself and Sheldon have made (which I find hard to believe that you are) then you must be so full of pride that you seethe at the very thought of admitting fault about anything.
This isn't even about the existence of god or the bible or anything. It's a simple question with an easy logical conclusion. We're not going to think you're stupid for being wrong, but you will be incredibly foolish to persist willingly in it.
Well if he really thought that condoms (or just about anything else in this world) are 100% effective; then I have to disagree: that is pretty darn stupid.
"You skipped answering my question. When used properly and consistently, does using contraception 100% assure that STDs won't be passed or that pregnancies won't happen?"
I think you mean condoms not contraception, and no they don't 100% guarantee it, they simply are the best most successful method available, and used properly and consistently would help check the spread of STD's including the HIV+ virus while science finds better treatments and maybe a cure. The Pope and the RCC however are spreading the asinine and evil claim that condoms can actually contribute to the spread of HIV+, and they're doing this in countries where the virus infects almost 50% of the population, that's tantamount to genocide. It's also moronic beyond believe, and shows they are devoid of any concept of morality or even human decency, preferring to adhere blindly to archaic dogma that will continue to contribute to exponentially exploding human population that can only lead to global disaster, but they don;t care because they actually believe a magic sky fairy is going to intervene anyway.
This is before we even mention their criminal complicity in protecting and prolonging the endemic child abuse perpetrated by their priests, whom they have shielded from justice, and moved around to ensure they can continue their vile and systematic rape of the children in their care. The whole organisation is rotten to the core.
@Sheldon: "that's tantamount to genocide."
Hence the title of this thread. I think it's not "tantamount" but literally genocide. In many African countries, AIDS is decimating people in the prime working and child-raising age groups. Those countries may never recover. By using its powerful communication and propaganda systems to disseminate lies and misinformation, the Catholic church has become directly responsible for this tragedy.
Pages