Touche... kind of like dying a hero's death.  Sacrificing oneself for the greater good of the cause.

Something to think about. 

Certainly there is a school of thought that states the soul enters the body at conception. If that were the case here, then we'd have a case of murder.

Which was the question you were begging, coy asshole. Stop being such a twat. Speak plainly, and let go of this nauseating, tin-eared philosophical drivel.

Wouldn't practicing abstinence be the only sure way to contain an AIDS epidemic?

Wouldn't this totally infeasible scenario be the best solution?

Condoms are not 100% effective.

Neither are seat belts. Let's take 'em out and tell people to “drive better.”

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the epidemic in Africa, but we should fight it with the only thing that works 100% of the time: ABSTINENCE.

I'm not suggesting we ignore it, I'm just advocating a spicy blend of total ignorance of condom use and pure religious bullshit.

Condoms may alleviate the problem, but they won't make it go away.

We can hit those naughty people with a rolled up newspaper. “Bad brown person!”

I'm sorry, I have no answer for the systematic molestation within the Catholic Church. You have me confused with Cory Cardinal Tucholski.

Sorry, I didn't know at the time about your dropping the fish-heads for the mayonaissers. It's a world of difference (like KRAFT yellow versus white cheese).

I have no position on stem cell research.

Liar.

The point of my last post is to get you to think.

No, you're still begging the question. “If they might have a soul, then they do, then it's murder.” There's no way to argue this based on evidence; it requires the predisposition to make assumptions about the validity of claims coming from a certain book. It's not coming from a “school of thought,” but a “church of dogma.” Just like intelligent design or “critical analysis of evolution” as it's been re-branded. You already have a conclusion you want me to reach (which I won't, because it requires several unwarranted assumptions), but you're too dickless to admit it. You already made smug remarks on your blog about the poor misguided atheist “seekers” who just haven't benefitted from your particular brand of apologetics, yet you condescend as though you're open to any conclusion reason can reach, not just the ones you like. You can try to muddy the waters, such as in your half-assed definition of life argument--which has been swiftly refuted--but it's just an appeal from ignorance. Just like the Christian “competing theory” for life on earth.

Blasting me for all the failures of the Christian churches is not nice.

Not really a denial then, just a dissociation.

I know that's not what you were suggesting because you are argument against stem cell research.  However, it is still the same argument.  They're just a clump of cells, incapable of suffering, have no self awareness and incapable of existing without the host body.  

What abstinence only education proponents fail to grasp is, abstinenece only fails. The rates of HIV infection and pregnancy skyrocket in areas where abstinence only is taught. Here is a fact, people have urges, sometimes these urges are given in to, that is reality. You seem all too comfortable condemning people to death for being human. Teaching condom use is not encouraging promiscuity, it is educating people what precautions to take if temptation becomes too much or if they just plain decide they want to have sex. As much as you want the rest of the world to live by your "moral code", you should not be so ready to watch people die because of it.

To me, and I hope many here, that type of morality and prejudgement is evil and shows one of the worst effects of dogma on society.

The question is one of one the soul enters the body. If the answer, as I suspect, is at conception, then destroying this clump (weather able to suffer or live without a host body) becomes murder. A tumor would never have a soul, so that is an irrelevant argument.

This would be an invalid argument if atheists don't believe that we humans are more than the sum of our parts. But I suspect you believe on some level or another that we are more than just a biological machine that accepts stimuli and reacts to it by instinct, here only to fill a niche created by "evolution."

You're right. It's an invalid argument. I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.

Or perhaps Burger King? Or perhaps they could become apologetics? 

Sorry. I just saw the title, "Theists need love too" in the recent post section. I didn't really pay attention to where this was located.

Later tonight I will... right now I'm multitasking. It's a good argument and it derserves a reasoned response that I don't have time to give.

Yeah, I have thoughts on that, too. I doubt that we (theists) are ever going to take over politics. In fact, despite our fights to prevent it, I foresee our influence overall will continue to shrink and shrink until it becomes almost nonexistent. I believe that you (atheists) will continue to gain greater influence over politics and society, and our numbers will dwindle. Science will make it easier not to believe in God as human understanding of biology increases. Eventually, as the fossil record becomes more complete, evolution will (despite several flaws and biological challenges) increase in status from theory to law, finally forcing out any last arguments theists have to teach intelligent design in classrooms. And all this within our lifetimes.

Why do I believe this? Bible prophecy friends.

Perhaps I can take more time to give a more detailed explanation in a different forum, one where that would be more suited to the topic. Suffice it to say here that I believe theistic political influence will dwindle considerably and atheistic influence will increase exponentially.

Right now, I have cash drawers to count and floors to sweep! (I told you I was multitasking

You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

That's a strawman, you pussy. Could you be any more stupid?

The question is one of one the soul enters the body. If the answer, as I suspect, is at conception, then destroying this clump (weather able to suffer or live without a host body) becomes murder. A tumor would never have a soul, so that is an irrelevant argument.

Which is what I've been trying to get your sorry ass to say in first place. You believe experimenting on 150 cells is murder as specifically defined by your magic book. There is nothing in science to support this. You pretend to raise some universally relevant question with your ambiguous language, when your argument is pure theological claptrap. If you would've just leveled with us about it I might not have instantly lost any potential respect I might have for the crap dribbling out of your mouth.

This would be an invalid argument if atheists don't believe that we humans are more than the sum of our parts. But I suspect you believe on some level or another that we are more than just a biological machine that accepts stimuli and reacts to it by instinct, here only to fill a niche created by “evolution.“

Some people don't have the luxury of worrying whether they're some deity's playthings or not (a concept so self-evidently insipid I couldn't even take it seriously in elementary). They just want a REAL fucking cure for their REAL fucking problems. They're looking to something that might actually work, as opposed to your philosophical apologetic masturbation. That you put evolution in quotes suggests to me you're even more mind-bendingly ignorant than I could have imagined.

I'm sorry but you're just misinformed ... When it comes to Africa, the policy that all the experts support (WHO, UN, etc.) is called ABC ... Abstinence, Be Faithful and Condom-use.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has tied provisions into their aid to Africa vis-a-vis HIV/AIDS that force countries to follow and Abstinence Only policy, which has been proven time and time to be a failure - in reference to transmission of HIV/AIDS, other STIs, lack of knowledge of birth control, out-of-wedlock births, etc.  A comprehensive AIDS prevention package would include abstinence and birth control/controseptive information ... as well as counselling for pair-bonds to cut down on promiscuity.

 Also, a great deal of new infections are transmitted thourgh married men who are promiscuous, have sex with prostitues, etc. - this often happens in culture where men are allowed to rape their wives (becuase of backwards, religious dogmas attached to marraige), which is just a sick and twisted side-note.

The knowledge of and availability of condoms would greatly reduce new infections as well as the spread of infection to children whose moter, father, or both are infected with HIV. 

Your comment that condoms are not %100 effective is, er, correct but misleading ... they are %99.9 effective, which is better then %0 (when a person taught Abstinence ONLY and that condom use is sinful) at preventing infection, pregnency, etc.  the %0.1 uneffectiveness usually occurs when the condom breaks, which is usually a result of lack of lubrication or improper use ... this disappears when an informed individual or couple uses condoms.

Yes, much like not getting hit by a bullet is the only sure way to avoid dying via a bullet wound.

Bulletproof vests are, in-fact, merely Bullet-resistant.  I don't see soldiers forgoing them in favor of avoiding the bullets altogether. 

There's a difference between abstinence-only education, and a society of people who actually practice continuous abstinence.  Abstinence-only education has been proven over and over again to be a failure, not only in preventing the spread of disease but in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

 If you go to planned parenthood(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/), what is the only method of birth control listed as 100% effective against both STD's and pregnancy? http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm

The fact that abstinence is the only 100% effective method is readily available from everyone who is willing to help you with other methods of birth control.  This is not a new or surprising fact.

Salvadore Dali claimed that he and his wife, Gala, could achieve simultaneous orgasms, while in different rooms at their vast estate in Catalonia, Spain - He was not known to be a liar, just an eccentric artist ...

I would agree that there are events and phenomena that are unexplained (perhaps even unexplainable).  But why would you assume (or ignorantly deduce) a supernatural explanation for an unexplained event, or claim that the inexplicable nature of this event is evidence for the construct of the "soul"?  [This is like primitive man hearing thunder, seeing lightning and saying, "there must be something up in the sky that did this ... And his name is Zeus!" ]

Also, how would a supernatural explanation lead us to understand the causality or the process by which the inexplicable event occured?

What you have proposed is a God of the Gaps, nothing more.

I didn't propose anything about God, I was talking specifically about the human soul and whether or not it exists.  I related that story because I think it hints to the fact that might be more than just our bodies. 

Exactly Susan, like they say people tend to remember the hits and forget the misses. I have had feelings over the course of my life that something bad happened to someone I dearly cared for and luckily it was never true. If grandmother is sick, or just very old those feelings become more frequent because I think we know subconciously the end is near. This may be a case of coincedence, the thoughts were more frequent, the worry took over and unfortunately this the feeling was right. It does not indicate a "soul" however.

It's interesting that theists tend to interpret anything "strange" that happens according to a supernatural world view.  I used to do the same.  "Miracles" and weird shit like this happened to me all the time.  I used to think I could predict the future via a direct link from God because I'd had a few experiences like this. I once had a premonition about the death of somebody's father.  When my sister-in-law was in labor, I started crying because I "knew" something bad was going to happen to the baby.  Something bad did happen.  The baby died.  However, if nothing had happened I would have forgotten all about my premonition.

Since losing my religion I've had premonitions, but the odds of them coming to pass are about the same as chance.  I had one awhile back, maybe a few months ago.  What was it?  Damn, what was it?  I was upset enough that I almost cried, but here I am, sitting at my computer and I can't even remember what the premonition was.  Why?  It didn't happen.

In fact, it was a whacky coincidence like this that led to my final surrender of belief in god or the supernatural.  It was the penultimate nail in the coffin of my credulity. 9-11 was the final nail.   The experience of which I speak happened in May of 2001.  I wrote about it.  Here it is:

Sorry it took me forever to respond to this.  I got sick yesterday.  It really wasn't much fun.  Anyway, here are my thoughts on this: 

Abstaining from sex means that you are NOT exposing yourself to potential infection, and that NO pregnancy could possibly occur.  Teaching abstinance and practicing abstinence are, admittedly, much different animals.  The failures you mention are humans being humans and having sex regardless of the risk.  Inability to practice self-control is one of the hallmarks of our species.  That doesn't mean that the system is flawed, it just means that people are.  That isn't a revelation; the Bible teaches that as much as history teaches that, and my personal experience has DEFINATELY taught me that.

I'm not comfortable at all with the idea of condemning anyone to death.  People, both in this thread and in general, think that Christians want to laugh our asses off while the rest of you burn in hell.  This couldn't be farther from the truth, though I much doubt that you're actually going to believe me.  I think that hell is the worst fate for anyone to suffer, and I don't want to see anyone suffer it that doesn't have to.  I'm here as an apologist hoping that my thoughts make enough sense to you so that you're willing to make the commitment to Christ, and avoid that fate.

As a Christian, I'm supposed to be salt (preservative) and light (guide) to the world.  Not judge, jury, and executioner as so many atheists paint us.

One would have supply an entirely new moral code for abstinence to work.  Abstinence until marriage, then remain faithful after marriage.  In the long run, those ideas are much better than just handing them condoms; although I will concede that that would be a good short term solution. 

I disagree with your analogy.  Because I would no problem with a vaccine that would do the trick.  The problem is that condoms are short term solution; abstince and monogamy are the only sure-fire long term solutions.   That would be like shipping in an alternative, safer, albeit slightly harder to obtain drinking source in your example.  It would be worth it to go the extra mile to obtain the althernative drinking source, if it meant better quality of life overall, would it not?  The problem is no one sees it as such; they want the vaccine or just drink out of the poison well because both are easier to get.