Is abstinence 100% effective?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, you [b]assumed I didn't understand it. And we know what happens when you assume.

Yes, it IS a catholic doctrine. So now I'm forbidden to believe any catholic doctrine? Just because I'm not catholic?[/b]

He's calling my sister a liar because he assumes something was "indicated" in a post of hers?

Words like "inidicated" and "presumably" are red flags, especially when someone is accusing you of lying. Keep your chin up, sis. I know you don't need the help, but I've got your 6 nonetheless.

Anyway:

The Immaculate Conception, I find to be an odd belief. On what grounds does the RCC proclaim it? Very curious.

Originally posted by sumydid
Abstinence in and of itself is inarguably 100% effective.

Googlefudge said
[b]Abstinence works right up to the point where people start having sex.

Exactly. I agree.

Abstinence works right up to the point that it isn't abstinence anymore.

The failure isn't on abstinence's part. The failure is rooted in mankind's general lack of self ...[text shortened]... t telling everyone to abstain will solve the problem--is preposterous. We do agree on that.[/b]

Excellent, it's good to find areas of agreement :-)

However.... (sorry can't help it... well I can but don't want to, which is kind of the point)

While we can all agree that telling everyone "just stop having sex" to stop unwanted pregnancies and
to control STD's is preposterous.

Given the existence of means of preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancies without abstaining, why
should people 'exercise self control' to not have sex? (assuming here consensual, between adults, and
all that jazz)
Our bodies have evolved to survive and have sex, they tend to get rusty and broken if you don't.
Sex is good for your physical and mental health.

It is also a whole lot of fun (when done right).

So why should people abstain from having sex, when the 'negative side effects' can now be dealt with/avoided?

Why teach that having sex (outside religiously sanctioned marriage) is dirty and wrong when in fact its healthy and
fun?
(in moderation, with a suitable partner ect ect... not promoting randomly going out and having sex with people
the relationship side is very important but that's not the topic of discussion)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Excellent, it's good to find areas of agreement :-)

However.... (sorry can't help it... well I can but don't want to, which is kind of the point)

While we can all agree that telling everyone "just stop having sex" to stop unwanted pregnancies and
to control STD's is preposterous.

Given the existence of means of preventing STD's and unwanted pre ...[text shortened]... le
the relationship side is very important but that's not the topic of discussion)

According to the Holy Bible, God wants us to have a lot of sex, as long
as it is the right kind of sex done in accordance with His will.

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to the Holy Bible, God wants us to have a lot of sex, as long
as it is the right kind of sex done in accordance with His will.

First, god doesn't exist, and the bible is irrelevant, so I don't care, and nobody else should either.

Second, Constitution of USA guarantees freedom of religion... The abstinence only sex education
programs are religious in origin so they are conflict with the constitution.

Third, even if god did exist, why should he give a damn who with, or how much, people have sex?
It's none of his beeswax.

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to the Holy Bible, God wants us to have a lot of sex, as long
as it is the right kind of sex done in accordance with His will.

In light of this, God must be a dirty old codger.

Originally posted by googlefudge
First, god doesn't exist, and the bible is irrelevant, so I don't care, and nobody else should either.

Second, Constitution of USA guarantees freedom of religion... The abstinence only sex education
programs are religious in origin so they are conflict with the constitution.

Third, even if god did exist, why should he give a damn who with, or how much, people have sex?
It's none of his beeswax.

Fourth, this is the spiritual forum so if you despise the bible and God that much, and think them irrelevant and unworthy of conversation, we'd all be better off if you picked a forum more in line with your interests.

And fifth, if God does exist, it damn sure is "His beeswax," the things that we do. Maybe you think parents shouldn't care with whom or at what age or arrangement their children have sex but if so, your view represents a very small, radical minority.

Originally posted by sumydid
Fourth, this is the spiritual forum so if you despise the bible and God that much, and think them irrelevant and unworthy of conversation, we'd all be better off if you picked a forum more in line with your interests.

And fifth, if God does exist, it damn sure is "His beeswax," the things that we do. Maybe you think parents shouldn't care with who ...[text shortened]... ment their children have sex but if so, your view represents a very small, radical minority.

in response to...

Fourth....
Being an atheist I don't believe in god, and subsequently the teachings of the bible are
no more relevant than any other historical book written by man.
However this doesn't mean that I think that 'spiritual, philosophical, ethical' issues are
unimportant or that I can't have a view on them.

My point in the post you are responding to was that quoting or citing the bible at me to
support an argument is pointless as I don't believe in your god, and consequently that
the bible is inspired by god.
I don't care what the bible says god says because I don't believe he exists.

in response to....

Fifth...
Several things.

Parents don't have a say in who you sleep with once you are an adult, neither does the state.
(contingent on that sex being consensual with another adult)
While they might have an opinion, strong or otherwise, on the 'suitability' of those who you
love/sleep with, they don't get any power of veto, or get to punish you for your choices.
Most people actually agree with this, not a small or radical minority, the middle of the road majority.

If god exists, then even if he did individually make/breath life into, all of us, this doesn't mean he gets
to dictate how we as sentient beings exist or behave.
And if he did exist, he hasn't produced any convincing evidence he exists or given us a moral code worth
following... If he really does exist then he is an absentee parent, at best. And as such gave up any and all
right to pass judgement on anyone.

We are sentient beings (otherwise we can't make decisions and it's all meaningless) and it doesn't matter
who or what, 'made' us, the mear fact that they brought us into existence does not give them continuing power
or authority over us.

Especially if they are not only absent, but leave absolutely no trace or hint of their very existence.

So no, if god exists (which he really doesn't) it is none of his beeswax what I or anyone else does.

And I know this is not a minority opinion, it may not be expressed often where you live, but the world is a very big place.

Originally posted by googlefudge
in response to...

Fourth....
Being an atheist I don't believe in god, and subsequently the teachings of the bible are
no more relevant than any other historical book written by man.
However this doesn't mean that I think that 'spiritual, philosophical, ethical' issues are
unimportant or that I can't have a view on them.

My point in the post y ...[text shortened]... ay not be expressed often where you live, but the world is a very big place.

Apparently we are both missing each others points today. Perhaps we
could use a little more rest.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently we are both missing each others points today. Perhaps we
could use a little more rest.

erm, well in this instance I was responding to sumydid's response to my response to your response....

We are all respondents really...

Originally posted by googlefudge
in response to...

Fourth....
Being an atheist I don't believe in god, and subsequently the teachings of the bible are
no more relevant than any other historical book written by man.
However this doesn't mean that I think that 'spiritual, philosophical, ethical' issues are
unimportant or that I can't have a view on them.

My point in the post y ...[text shortened]... ay not be expressed often where you live, but the world is a very big place.

You simply couldn't be more wrong. On the majority of your points.

But really it won't do any good to go back and forth on it like a skipping record.

FYI-because God is irrelevant to you it doesn't make Him irrelevant in discussion. For you to think otherwise reeks of narcissism.

Originally posted by sumydid
You simply couldn't be more wrong. On the majority of your points.

But really it won't do any good to go back and forth on it like a skipping record.

FYI-because God is irrelevant to you it doesn't make Him irrelevant in discussion. For you to think otherwise reeks of narcissism.

Well I wouldn't put it like that (skipping record) but making arguments, receiving rebuttals (or refutations),
and making further arguments is what debating is.

You made some points, I made counter points, if you disagree, counter my counter points.
It only becomes pointless if one or both side is not prepared to accept any points against them, or if one
or other side simply gets into a loop of saying the same thing over and over again.

If you think the majority of my points are wrong (and ideally sticking to the topic I was responding to
IE sex education in schools with specific reference to abstinence only programs) Then by all means explain
why and I will read your points carefully and respond after considering them.


Also I didn't say god was irrelevant in discussion, in fact I mention him often in debates on these forum.
My point was that it's pointless to talk to me (other atheists) about what god does or doesn't want or
what it says in his holy book because I (we) don't think god exists, or that the book is holy.
For god to become relevant to me you first have to show he exists.
Till then it's like telling me that "The magic unicorn at the end of your garden says...."

The reason that was pertinent to the discussion here, is that A RJHind's was responding to me with 'what god says'
and because in the USA you have a constitution that says you can't force your religion down anyone else's throat.
[So I paraphrased it a bit :-) ] Which means for this discussion what 'god wants' is irrelevant because abstinence only
is a religious idea/program and shouldn't be foisted on everyone who doesn't follow that particular brand of religion.


EDIT: also, even if I am, as you say, wrong. I think you aught to agree that I could easily say things more wrong than that and thus
I could defiantly be more wrong ;-p

Originally posted by sumydid
You simply couldn't be more wrong. On the majority of your points.

But really it won't do any good to go back and forth on it like a skipping record.

FYI-because God is irrelevant to you it doesn't make Him irrelevant in discussion. For you to think otherwise reeks of narcissism.

Let him have his way. It is obvious he wants to keep on sinning and is
justifying it to himself and trying to convince others to join him. He is
not interested in anything else. "Do as you will" the Satanists say, "for
there is no God."

Originally posted by tomtom232
In light of this, God must be a dirty old codger.

He wants us to make more pornos for HIM. Pervert!

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to the Holy Bible, God wants us to have a lot of sex, as long
as it is the right kind of sex done in accordance with His will.

Do you mean "done right" as in for procreation only, or for fun too? (Because the planet prolly doesn't need to much more procreation for a while)