Christian Prayer.

Originally posted by stoker
christianity is helping. this disease was spead by sexual practice at first then spread to the inocent, it not christian to condone this. but to help stop the spead. imagine me catching it then trying to tell others ive never indulged in this or any other sexual practice that may have infected me, i would be hard pressed to belive it of someone else. but take ...[text shortened]... son will infect the 3 would you shoot to save or let them all die, no concequences even from god

No I would not do that.
If you could then something called humanity is missing from your genetic makeup.

God takes care of situations like that.

Originally posted by stoker
christianity is helping. this disease was spead by sexual practice at first then spread to the inocent, it not christian to condone this. but to help stop the spead. imagine me catching it then trying to tell others ive never indulged in this or any other sexual practice that may have infected me, i would be hard pressed to belive it of someone else. but take ...[text shortened]... son will infect the 3 would you shoot to save or let them all die, no concequences even from god

And people claim atheists have no morality.

There is a word for what you are suggesting... Evil.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And people claim atheists have no morality.

There is a word for what you are suggesting... Evil.

stoker is making a legitimate point.

From a purely rational point of view -- if, by deliberately killing one person, you know that you would prevent the deaths of three others, wouldn't it make sense to do so?

And yet, irrational as it may seem, there is indeed a strong sense that killing that one person would be an act of evil.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
stoker is making a legitimate point.

From a purely rational point of view -- if, by deliberately killing one person, you know that you would prevent the deaths of three others, wouldn't it make sense to do so?

And yet, irrational as it may seem, there is indeed a strong sense that killing that one person would be an act of evil.

Actually you are wrong. In Stokers example you are killing one person under the ASSUMPTION that you will save 3. There is no proof that you are saving 3.

In a situation where 1 person has a gun and is going to kill 3, and you are certain of the outcome then I would consider shooting that one person.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Actually you are wrong. In Stokers example you are killing one person under the ASSUMPTION that you will save 3. There is no proof that you are saving 3.

In a situation where 1 person has a gun and is going to kill 3, and you are certain of the outcome then I would consider shooting that one person.

Yes indeed, this is not a generalised thought experiment where you have someone whose
continued existence WILL result in 3 others dying and you KNOW this for a fact.

It is a specific example where someone has a (currently incurable) but treatable disease who
can receive treatment for this disease and thus live normally for a good long time, and similarly
so can any people they MAY infect in the future.
And this is even before you consider that it's entirely possible that the disease may be cured before
any of these people die from it.

In such instance it can be considered nothing but evil to shoot this person.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes indeed, this is not a generalised thought experiment where you have someone whose
continued existence WILL result in 3 others dying and you KNOW this for a fact.

It is a specific example where someone has a (currently incurable) but treatable disease who
can receive treatment for this disease and thus live normally for a good long time, and sim le die from it.

In such instance it can be considered nothing but evil to shoot this person.

In certain parts of the world, people can't afford the treatment -- so if they get AIDS, it will eventually kill them, but in the meantime, most will spread it to others. So a "rational" way to greatly slow down the spread of AIDS would be to kill everyone who has currently has it.

But if this proposal was made, almost no one would support it. Even if you could prove that it would greatly reduce the number of total deaths related to AIDS, you would still find it very difficult to find many people who would support this "rational" action.

Would you support doing this?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
In certain parts of the world, people can't afford the treatment -- so if they get AIDS, it will eventually kill them, but in the meantime, they will spread it to others. So a "rational" way to greatly slow down the spread of AIDS would be to kill everyone who has currently has it.

But if this proposal was made, almost no one would support it. Even if ...[text shortened]... find many people who would support this "rational" action.

Would you support doing this?

No, the rational solution is to promote safe sex, sanitation, education, law and order, peace,
give them an economy, and supply the drugs for free till they can afford them.

My solution is rationally demonstrably more effective as well as being more humane.

If you try to kill the people with the disease you drive those with it underground and thus
make transition even more likely.
Also the people will get justly angry and will fight back, killing even more people.

There is no way of spinning this so that what stoker said is reasonable or rational.
It's hateful and evil, and I can't see why you are trying to support it.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
In certain parts of the world, people can't afford the treatment -- so if they get AIDS, it will eventually kill them, but in the meantime, most will spread it to others. So a "rational" way to greatly slow down the spread of AIDS would be to kill everyone who has currently has it.

But if this proposal was made, almost no one would support it. Even if ...[text shortened]... find many people who would support this "rational" action.

Would you support doing this?

Did you see the last 30 min of the movie '2012'.
There is something called humanity in our decisionmaking which if absent might possibly lead initially to a more favourable outcome, but over the long term, ignoring the humane aspect to our being, turns us into something less than human.

Anyone who comes up with the idea of killing aids victims so that others just might live is nothing short of an animal. Becuase by the very same logic you can save lives by say, executing drunk-drivers so that they wont kill anyone. How about killing those who spread the flu virus - over 40,000 people die from the flu every year in the USA alone.

Extrapolate your logic and apply it to other situations and see if it makes sense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes charges should be brought, nominal Christians are mental, everyone knows that.
As for God, there is a very interesting Biblical account where Paul petitions God to
remove a sickness, yet it remained.

Yes we 'nominals' are widely known as the wierdos of the street! 🙄🙄

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, the rational solution is to promote safe sex, sanitation, education, law and order, peace,
give them an economy, and supply the drugs for free till they can afford them.

My solution is rationally demonstrably more effective as well as being more humane.

If you try to kill the people with the disease you drive those with it underground and thu ...[text shortened]... sonable or rational.
It's hateful and evil, and I can't see why you are trying to support it.

No, the rational solution is to promote safe sex, sanitation, education, law and order, peace,
give them an economy, and supply the drugs for free till they can afford them

All of this costs money -- so you're asking that lots of people in wealthy countries give away money that they earned to help other people whom they do not know. Why would that be rational? Wouldn't it be rational to spend all the money you earned on things for yourself and your own family?*

(*note: I am NOT supporting this selfish point of view -- I am just arguing that it is a "rational" point of view.)

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]No, the rational solution is to promote safe sex, sanitation, education, law and order, peace,
give them an economy, and supply the drugs for free till they can afford them

All of this costs money -- so you're asking that lots of people in wealthy countries give away money that they earned to help other people whom they do not know. Why would ...[text shortened]... ting this selfish point of view -- I am just arguing that it is a "rational" point of view.)[/b]

I don't know why you are arguing this is a rational idea.

I think you are confused about what rational means.

It doesn't mean self centred.

Curing disease, improving living conditions, preventing war ect ect make the world a better and safer
place for everyone.
Both individually and for your society as a whole.

Thus it is rational, (it is logically and reasonably sound) to be altruistic and solve such problems.

Also you asked what the rational solution to people in third world countries having aids was.
You didn't ask whether it was rational to want to solve the problem, just what a solution would look like.


Atheist's often get accused of not having morality and that a secular 'rational' world would be pitiless and
self centred with no humanity.
Nothing in fact could be further from the truth, being rational does not make one self centred, or selfish.
And emotions are still important, for as it turns out perfectly rational reasons.
It is rational to improve your own well-being, which includes emotional well-being.

As it turns out, due to things like empathy, it is both emotionally and rationally sound to try to promote others
happiness and well-being as well as your own.

The UK is one of, if not the, most secular of the western nations, and yet we are also one of the highest 'givers
to charity' in the world.
Secularism and rationality do not mean turning people into selfish emotionless robots.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Actually you are wrong. In Stokers example you are killing one person under the ASSUMPTION that you will save 3. There is no proof that you are saving 3.

In a situation where 1 person has a gun and is going to kill 3, and you are certain of the outcome then I would consider shooting that one person.

that was my point in killing one person saving 3 if that did not come across.
ive thought about similar situations ie killing hitler before 1938. would you?? this is my whole discution tho i put it with the aids.

Originally posted by stoker
that was my point in killing one person saving 3 if that did not come across.
ive thought about similar situations ie killing hitler before 1938. would you?? this is my whole discution tho i put it with the aids.

The two are not comparable.

Originally posted by stoker
that was my point in killing one person saving 3 if that did not come across.
ive thought about similar situations ie killing hitler before 1938. would you?? this is my whole discution tho i put it with the aids.

No I would not kill Hitler before his rampage across Europe. I think 1939 onward.
I would consider killing him after he already started and was proceeding to another town to destroy it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Your statement was insupportable, stop trying to dig a deeper hole.

well?? you say its unsaportable well is there a cure, ive not heard of it. and there is people who say they got it from blood transfutions.. inocent children who have it due to the mothers contacting it while unborn.
you just seem to ignore the facts and go on emotions well as i put it the world would be better without the aids. you show your bias in your reply i have not blamed any one for its rise other than human weakness. so if you have a point please make it otherwise you know