Posted on 06/28/2011 9:27:44 AM PDT by Maelstorm
ScienceDaily (June 1, 2011) — Gay young men in serious relationships are six times more likely to have unprotected sex than those who hook up with casual partners, according to new Northwestern Medicine research.
The findings provide a new direction for prevention efforts in this population who account for nearly 70 percent of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in adolescents and young adults in the United States and who also have the highest increase in new infections.
"Being in a serious relationship provides a number of mental and physical health benefits, but it also increases behaviors that put you at risk for HIV transmission," said Brian Mustanski, associate professor in medical social sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of a paper on the research, published online in the journal Health Psychology. "Men who believe a relationship is serious mistakenly think they don't need to protect themselves."
About 80 percent of gay young men who are HIV positive don't know it, because they aren't being tested frequently enough, he noted. "It isn't enough to ask your partner his HIV status," Mustanski said. "Instead, both people in a serious, monogamous couple relationship should go and receive at least two HIV tests before deciding to stop using condoms."
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
re: “How is that apparent? Because my opinion differs from yours (or theirs)?”
No - because you implied that because disease and catastrophes exist - therefore God is sadistic - without any supporting arguments. I completely agree with you that a thinking person should give due consideration and examine arguments, but you gave no indication that you had done so.
Now, you’ve just said you did and I take your word for it.
So, which Christian thinkers’ books and essays dealing with the subject of suffering and pain (and catastrophes) did you read and consider and examine? Where did you feel their arguments fell short? Just curious.
re: “let me make it clear that I am referring - not to moral evil - but rather to natural catastrophes.”
I stand corrected. However, your use of the word, “catastrophe” implies something “bad” has occured. If earthquakes or floods are all merely “natural” events, just part of the naturalistic universe - then why use the word “catastrophe”? If thousands of people happen to be killed in an earthquake, isn’t this just part of the naturally occuring struggle for “survival” - weaning out the weak and making room for more successful organisms?
re: “By the way, many “thoughful Christian thinkers” - including the present Pope - also believe that natural catastrophes have natural causes.”
I also agree that catastrophes can have natural causes.
re: “Also that solar eclipses are not caused by a dragon swallowing the sun...”
Where did I ever say that? Where does the Bible say that?
re: “How would I comfort a victim of such catastrophes? I would try to alleviate their material suffering and be of good cheer! I would also attempt to take concrete measures to protect us all against such catastrophes (installing tsunami warning systems, etc.)”
Those are all admirable things to do, however, that is not what I’m asking. That is my fault and I should have been more clear myself in my question.
I’m still unclear as to why you should be upset for victims of “catastrophes” - weren’t they just organisms who happened to be in the “wrong” place when the natural earthquake occured? Why is that a bad thing? Why help them? If children die isn’t that just part of living in a naturalistic world? Why try to cheer them up? Why try to create better warning systems? What’s the purpose of that? To save people’s lives? Why is that a good thing?
If there is no God, why is there good in the world?
God created a perfect earth. Adam and Eve were told not to eat from ONE tree. They could have anything in the garden but that one tree. They were tempted and chose to sin.
Adam had been given dominion over all the earth. When he sinned,the earth was also condemned. Adam was from the earth. Created from earth's dust. His choice condemned it all.
It's easy. Some people are looking for reasons to reject God and justify their rejection of God.
If they can convince themselves or portray themselves, as morally superior to God, they judge Him by the arbitrary standards or *right* and *wrong* which they've established, which not surprisingly but still hypocritically, reflect the Judeo-Christian world view, the world view built on the God they reject, they can then justify their rejection of God as Him not being good enough.
After all, who would want to worship a God who was morally inferior to them.
And in that sense, they are right. Problem is, the God they're rejecting is not the real God at all, but a construct of their vain imaginings set up so they can reject the real God.
All the atheists who reject God need to take a good hard look at the real one, not the decoy set up by Satan to deceive them. FWIW, I reject what atheists portray as God as well, and don't blame them as all for rejecting their concept of Him.
Nice try. Care to find any credible scientist who says otherwise? I won't wait because I know you can't.
Name call all you want, that alone speaks volumes about you
Calling you ignorant isn't name calling. You are ignorant on the subject. You're snide remarks and inability to reply with anything of substance tells me you're too stupid to know the difference between facts and fantasy. Either that or you're playing games and wasting time.
People tend to create a god, stick him a box they've made and then criticize how small he is. Doesn't work for me either. :-)
I find it odd that so many freepers demonstrate such profound ignorance on the subject especially since we've gathered so much data they really have no excuse to argue. Well, not intelligently. Instead we get the same snide comments, the same ignorant responses, the same behavior and that is, when you point them to some great source material they just stop responding as if they choose to remain ignorant.
What the hell is wrong with people who choose to remain ignorant on an issue that is critical to our current and future generations. They don't stand for something and end up falling for anything.
Sometimes I really pity the fools. Sometimes I don't care.
Diseases and catastrophes are not considered sin - we are not condemned by God because of these misfortunes. Scripture condemns homosexuality. I just can’t see God creating someone that way, and then condemning them for it.
God is not sadistic - we live in a fallen world.
The "thrust" of your inquiry:
I’m still unclear as to why you should be upset for victims of “catastrophes” - weren’t they just organisms who happened to be in the “wrong” place when the natural earthquake occured? Why is that a bad thing? Why help them? If children die isn’t that just part of living in a naturalistic world? Why try to cheer them up? Why try to create better warning systems? What’s the purpose of that? To save people’s lives? Why is that a good thing?
In a nut shell: Cogito, ergo sum. I am a rational being, most of the time (i.e., excepting dream-states and the like). I am capable of distinguishing between "desirable" and "undesirable" conditions and outcomes (because I am rational - like a well-programmed computer - but also because I have instinctive tendencies, motivations, and personal wants and needs - unlike a computer). As a human being with a normal level of socialization (not suffering from autism; not a "wolf-child;" not a psychopath; hence successful psychological integration into society; assimilation of societal norms; acceptance of most societal standards - all natural human tendencies!), I am not unmoved by the plight of others. Also, as a human being, I am myself affected by such catastrophes.
As to why human beings frequently/usually display such characteristics as compassion, etc. Slight Darwinian advantage; better propagation of genes by those societies where a slight degree of altruism prevailed; etc.
Other than that, my theory requires no further presuppositions.
My niggling:
1. My (initial) failure to provide supporting arguments and instead simply make a flat assertion does not justify your statement that I "implied" anything. You were making an UNNECESSARY assumption. You could have first asked: What is your justification? Are you, in fact, dismissing countless philosophers without having first examined their arguments, etc. It is improper of you to leap to the conclusion that I have not done those things.
2. Which Christian thinkers' books and essays have I read - too involved to discuss here. Do I SOUND like someone who has never "cracked a book?" Nor am I actually "required" to provide my credentials (you haven't!).
3. The word "bad:" I asserted above that a thinking, feeling being is capable of making moral judgements; I state here that I see no need for recourse to a "higher" authority.
Regards,
So you believe that the sinful behavior of a few humans thousands of years ago somehow permanently "changed" the fundamental laws of the Universe (plate tectonics, meterology, celestial mechanics, giants asteroids hurtling to Earth, etc.)
Is that principle still in operation today? Does the earth shake because someone had an "evil" thought? Does a tidal wave kill thousands because they were "bad?" Does our "bad" behavior divert meteors and send them crashing into the Earth? Today?
Regards,
Yes unless they are abstaining from anal sex you are right.
re: “As a human being with a normal level of socialization . . . not a psychopath; hence successful psychological integration into society; assimilation of societal norms; acceptance of most societal standards - all natural human tendencies!), I am not unmoved by the plight of others. Also, as a human being, I am myself affected by such catastrophes. . . As to why human beings frequently/usually display such characteristics as compassion, etc. Slight Darwinian advantage; better propagation of genes by those societies where a slight degree of altruism prevailed; etc. . . The word “bad:” I asserted above that a thinking, feeling being is capable of making moral judgements; I state here that I see no need for recourse to a “higher” authority.”
alexander_busek,
I must say that previous generations of atheists were much more honest about their atheism than are contemporary ones. Nietzsche would say that today’s atheists are foolish and somewhat cowardly because they want to get rid of God, yet hang on to some type of quasi-altruistic morality.
Why not, as Nietzsche proposed, go all the way and realize that since “god is dead” there is no universal morality (based either on religion or science), as he pointed out in “The Madman” - “Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?”.
In fact, Nietzsche correctly surmised that any kind of universal morality are restraints on your true personhood.
I’ll give you credit that you admitted that things like “compassion” are the result merely of “Slight Darwinian advantage; better propagation of genes by those societies where a slight degree of altruism prevailed; etc.”
But, Nietzsche would say you need to go all the way and recognize that since there is no god - you, yourself are the new God (see his book, “Übermensch”). You are above all moral constraints - morality is only for the weak - it only holds you back from being your true self. It holds you back from experiencing life in all its fullness. Nietzsche “got it”. He understood the full consequences for the death of god. But, most atheists today don’t want to do that.
So, alexander_busek, quit kidding yourself about holding to any kind of moral constraints. They are only limiting you and, in a way, it insults the intelligence of theists when atheists won’t admit to nor live by the logical consequences of their atheism.
As to your point about me making an unsubstantiated assumption about you - let me remind you that you were the one who claimed that God was sadistic. The only support you gave was because of the existence of natural disasters, disease, etc. Wouldn’t you agree that that is pretty slim evidence considering the provocative statment you made?
You said, in a previous post, that you had read Christian authors dealing with the subject and I merely asked you which ones and you now say that is “too involved to say here”. In addition, I didn’t ask you for “credentials” - just Christian authors you claimed to have read.
As I said, you should embrace your atheism and all it entails. Your attempts at retaining some kind of morality, while charming and nice, is completely unnecessary, unsupported by the naturalistic, atheistic worldview you say you subscribe to, and even “irrational” from Nietzsche’s point of view.
This is not a gay thing. The same is true for heteros. When people are in a relationship they believe is committed to only each other, they will have unprotected sex. (Heteros might use the pill or other female birth control, but condoms, unh-unh.) So this is how HIV is spread: gay men OR straight women can still get HIV from their serious partners (who might be cheating, or who might already have been infected).
As to your point about me making an unsubstantiated assumption about you - let me remind you that you were the one who claimed that God was sadistic.
Ahhh, but I didn't make an unsubstantiated claim about YOU, whereas you did leap to a couple of conclusions about me!
The only support you gave was because of the existence of natural disasters, disease, etc. Wouldn’t you agree that that is pretty slim evidence considering the provocative statment you made?
I agree that more evidence might be justified in a Court of Law, but this is only a couple of FReepers talking "off topic." But actually, no: I would not even then characterize that as "slim evidence." In fact, I'd say that it was still rather devastating evidence. And I notice that you still haven't actually responded to it, nicht wahr?
You said, in a previous post, that you had read Christian authors dealing with the subject and I merely asked you which ones and you now say that is “too involved to say here”. In addition, I didn’t ask you for “credentials” - just Christian authors you claimed to have read.
That IS tantamount to asking me to present my "credentials" - something which you haven't done yet, either!
Regards,
re: “Ahhh, but I didn’t make an unsubstantiated claim about YOU, whereas you did leap to a couple of conclusions about me!”
Orginially, yes, I thought I lept to a conclusion when you claimed that you have read Christian writers on the subject. I took your word for it and admitted that I stood corrected. However, you still have not mentioned any specific Christian author’s or apologists that you claimed you read. Since you made the claim, I don’t think it is inappropriate for me to inquire as to which ones you’ve read.
re: “That IS tantamount to asking me to present my “credentials” - something which you haven’t done yet, either!”
I didn’t ask you for “credentials” - I didn’t ask you for what university degrees you hold - I didn’t ask you what you did for a living - I merely asked, based on your own claim that you have already read and considered Christian writers perspectives on this issue, what authors or books you read.
As to me presenting “my” creditials - why should I? You made the claim, not me. However, I have read several articles and essays by Nietzsche (of course), Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkings, Sam Harris, etc. I’ve also read many Christian authors views on this subject - C.S. Lewis, J.J. Packer, Ravi Zacharias, Walter Martin, William Lane Craig, Greg Koukle, etc.
re: “In fact, I’d say that it was still rather devastating evidence.”
Just saying so doesn’t “make it so” and you haven’t explained why occurance of natural disasters is such “devastating evidence” that God is sadistic.
re: “And I notice that you still haven’t actually responded to it, nicht wahr?”
I’m not sure what you mean? I think I have been responding to your statement - I’ve pointed out that you merely made an provocative claim about God without fleshing out your argument, and, I’ve asked you to sustantiate your claim that you have read Christian authors on the subject of natural disasters and the problem of suffering and where you disagreed with them, and where you felt they didn’t adequately answer the problem.
re: “But I am not an adherent of Nietzsche (you know, not all atheists are), so please don’t employ a Straw Man argument and say that I don’t measure up to his standards.”
Yes, I realize that not all atheists adhere to Nietzsche. I believe that was my point. And, no, you don’t measure up to his standards as an atheist. Not many do today. You all want the goodies without the “Gander”. I understand why, it just intrigues me how modern atheists want to avoid the unavoidable on morality without God. Whatever moral system you rely upon or create is simply built upon your own personal preferences. That’s fine, but most atheists refuse to admit it.
Look, you don’t have to respond to this post, unless you just want to. I think we’re just generating heat without producing any light. So, I will not be responding to your next one so you can have the last word.
Auf wiedersehen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.