From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:21:58 MST

In article <1992Aug20.230043.13220@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.144304.293@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> 
>>> Anyway, back to the serious stuff.  I'm wondering Jim, if you have
>>> any theories on what it is that makes fundies post such obnoxious
>>> drivel?  Do you think that the religion might have something to do
>>> with it?
>>
>>Yep.  That's it.  Just like its their perverse nature that makes
>>homosexuals break into churches and shout obscenities or pass out
>>condoms in schools,
> 
> Well, that brings up another point.  Do you think that it's their
> religion that makes people do stupid things such as trying to prevent
> the distribution of condoms in schools, or are these people just naturally
> stupid?  

If people consistently do stupid things it's because they're naturally 
stupid.  But I don't think it's stupid to resist the distribution of
condoms, I think it is stupid to distribute them, and not for religious
reasons.

If condoms could actually help to prevent AIDS, I would be all for it.
But they won't.  They can't.  If condoms are only 80% effective against
pregnancy without the aid of a spermicide as reported in the little
info sheets than come with birth control pills that discuss alternative
birth control options, then how does anyone seriously think that condoms
will help prevent HIV infection during long-term sexual activity?  The HIV
is much smaller than a sperm, and there isn't any "AIDSicide" to use
with the condom.  At best you might have a 4 in 5 chance of protecting
yourself, and this might be helpful for an occasional frolic, but it's 
not much help for repeated liaisons.

The problem is that condoms will give people a false sense of security
and the HIV infection rate will go up.  That's why decent minded citizens
oppose the distribution of condoms.  It promotes sexual activity in
teenagers by providing this false sense of security.  The *only*
*rational* preventive measures against AIDS remains abstinence and
*strict* monogamy.


> Similarly, do you think that it is their religion which makes
> some Catholics so insane that they try to ban all forms of birth control,
> or do you suppose that they're insane to start with?

I don't think that "insane" is the proper word.  Misguided may be better.
One can always be misguided if one looks to any *human* as having all
authority.

> 
> BTW, I'm not sure whether your jab at homosexuals is supposed to be a
> jab at me.  

I didn't "jab" homosexuals, I was making a point showing you the illogic
of your reasoning.  Didn't you read my satire disclaimer?  Or were you
too busy writing your response already?   

> It isn't, although I do identify with homosexuals since
> they are another group in society which is discriminated against for
> the despicable crime of being different.
> 

They are not "discriminated" against at all *under the law*.  They have
the same rights as any other individual.  If you mean that they are
discriminated against by individual bigots, then fine, everyone, me and
you included, runs into people who are bigotted against us occasionally.

>>or just like its a natural consequence of atheism
>>that makes atheists so arrogant, conceited, and close-minded.  ;)
>>
>>(SATIRE ALERT:  I'm not actually asserting these things about homosexuals
>>or atheists in general although its true of some of each.  The point is
>>that *people* can be obnoxious, perverse, arrogant, conceited, and
>>close-minded regardless of their beliefs, lifestyles, etc.)

Ah, *here's* my satire alert.  Why didn't you read it?

> 
> Yes, but unless there is a conspiracy to discredit fundies, it certainly
> appears as if quite a number of them have no notion of common courtesy.
> When was the last time you saw an atheist crossposting a mindless
> rant to multiple unrelated groups, and then never being heard from
> again?  Surely you must have noticed that there do seem to be quite
> a number of religious nuts out there whose idea of a conversation
> is to tell us all we're going burn in hell, and then disappear back
> into the woodwork.  

I admit that I have noticed that.

> Don't you agree that there is something seriously
> wrong with these people?  

Yes, I agree.  I think though, that these people are somewhat unstable
to begin with, and they gravitate towards philosophies or religions 
that are more easily perverted to accomodate their tendencies.

I have never denied that religion, including Christianity, can be
twisted by those with their own personal agendas.  Atheism can too.
But since most people tend to be religious (it's a part of our nature
it seems) there tends to be a diversity of "fundie" versions of every
religion.  This is not the fault of the religion or philosophy, but
the fault of the people who are willing to be mislead, and those who
create these "fundie" versions of each religion in order to mislead
them.   There will always be con artists and power mongers.  Religion
is susceptible to misuse; but so are guns.  The solution is not to
get rid of either, but proper grounding and education in their use.


> Doesn't it seem evident that there isn't
> much going on inside their noggins?

Yes, I can't deny it.

> 
> There are two explanations that I can think of for this.  One is that
> mindless nuts tend to gravitate towards fundamentalism, and the other
> is that fundamentalism tends to make people mindless nuts.  

This is a bit stronger statement than I said above, but essentially the
same point.

> Maybe
> a combination of the two.  It does seem though, that since these
> people claim they derive their morality from their religion, that the
> religion may not be teaching the right things.  That is, unless somebody
> has decided that mindless nuts are an asset to society.

But when *you* speak of "fundamentalism" and "mindless nuts", I feel you
are making a more sweeping generalization than I am.  Sure, mindless nuts
gravitate towards religion, but so do thoughtful people who want to
improve the human condition.  There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism
if it is not taken to the extreme which is what I think you are specifically
referring to.  I consider myself a "fundamentalist" for example, but I am
not an extremist.  I believe in the fundamental doctrines and teachings of
the historic, orthodox Christian faith, which is why I consider myself
a "fundamentalist" and an "orthodox Christian".  But I don't get up on
soap boxes and preach in the streets.  I try to keep my discussions
relevant and to the point as much as possible.  I don't proselytize, but
I try to "be ready to give every person who asks [me] a reason for [my]
faith." as the scripture says.  

> 
>>I find your opinions very enlightening.  :)
> 
> Glad to hear it.  I find some of your opinions terrifying.

There you go again.  I guess Christianity is not the only philosophy
that has "mindless nuts".  :)

> --
> Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.

Regards,

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.atheism