I wrote what i quoted, asking me if i read it is silly. I'm asking you a question. Will you answer it ? Or are all believers fanatics which also makes us morons ?
No. I said religious fanatics are morons. How you get that to all religious people being morons is beyond me. Do you know what a religious fanatic is? Since you've several times mistaken religious fanatic as "all religious people", I assume the answer is "No."
No one is forcing you to believe in the highest. And i'm not into question on question. What is you're purpose.
The above quote was in response to Myrrh. Sometimes I get the feeling you're not even following the discussion, just take some random lines and respond to them, without consideration of any post before.
I said if there are changes or if anything is different, let me know. Which is very different than saying this is correct. By saying so i invite others look it up and correct it if it's wrong. Which it was. And i have nothing against it. To the ignorant it's a weapon against me.
We did let you know. Which caused Myrrh to throw get upset and tell us to stop insulting religions.
Did we not just cover hazards of screwing around ? Did you not just say that having sex without a condom is what "stupid people" do ? You think condoms are natural ?
Yes. If you'd actually have read what I said you'd have understood it perfectly. I did not contradict myself had you actually bothered reading what I said and not just quote and respond to the word "natural".
We'll i wouldn't like to be like the Tiger and have sex with other animals. That can make us sick.
Naturally I meant other tigers when I said "other animals". I assumed you'd know that. Obviously I were wrong.
It's possible to survive without cooking. And in terms of taste, I've seen animals that would drop anything for a piece of what we eat.
Actually, if mankind didn't have cooking, we'd have died out a long time ago. Our teeth are the worst in the entire animal kingdom, and our mouth is extremely weak. Had we not had cooking, it would be almost impossible for us to get the nutrients we need. I'm sure you're well-aware that you should thoroughly chew your food before you swallow, as digestion starts in the mouth. Both due to the teeth grinding it down, and due to the saliva working on it. However, due to our bad teeth and saliva, we need to chew it more then other animals for the stomach to be able to absorb all of the nutritients in it. Cooking makes it easier to chew, and also easier for the stomach to digest it.
However, one could argue that cooking made our teeth in to the state they are today, as cooking no longer required good teeth. Thus, people with bad teeth survived much better. However, if we did not have cooking nowadays, we would die out. For more then just the digestion.
Taste, on the other hand, is something that's very important for us. It allows us to weed out things that are not good for us, such as rotten meat. This is something that can poison us, and lead to our death. A lot of other animals can survive this due to better digestion, immune system etc. We, however, can not. Those animals don't need an equally advanced sense of taste that we do. They do, however, still need taste. Such as bears avoiding poisonous shrooms etc.
Taste in itself is a rather peculiar sense. Each of the "tastes" are activated based on different things. They were originally ment to detect different things, such as things that are poisonous for us, thus preventing us from eating them, thus preventing potential death. They activate on Ions, which mainly exists in water. That's why you won't taste anything unless your tongue is dry, which is another reason saliva exists. Saltiness detects, for example, Calcium. Sour detects acids. As I'm sure you're well-aware, acids are usually said to be sour. The sourer, the lower the pH value is. The more basic, the higher. Natural is 7. Sweetness is detected by sugar. Bitterness I actually have no idea what it really does, but I would assume its there to detect more of the basic tastes, which can also be toxic. Umami is the last one and detects various salts, and also meat.
Even you can agree on the most part we obtain a killer virus through poor choice.
No. The plague we did not get through poor choice. There's a lot of killer diseases that we do not get through poor choice. All diseases start somewhere. As I said earlier, they are not God's wrath upon us for making a bad decision. They come from somewhere, which is not bad decision necessarily. I meant exactly what I said. Humans are pretty much the weakest animal in the world. Even ants are stronger then us. That is, for their size. If a human were an Ant's size, the ant would kill us. Hell, if a human were the size of ANY insect, the other insect would kill us. The
only thing we are really superior with, and the only reason we're still alive, is due to our brain. If we did not have our brain, diseases etc. would have killed us off already.
I'll say it again. So many diseases for humans exist due to our bad immune system. This cause any virus that mutates to go from another animal in to a human to be successful. It causes any virus that mutates, to be successful in effecting humans. We need our medicine to fight them, or else we would all die off. Which is not the case with other animals, and one of the reasons they have survived longer then us. All without their brain.
In my part of the planet. Public Society is comprised of people who have religion, and people who do not. We have several types of Churches that range from Pentecostal, to Catholic to Christian, Baptist etc ... Then we have Muslim Temples and the whole lot.
These same people use computers and drive cars. It's so multi culturally diverse here, going to see residents door to door, each will be of a different race. Black, white, Asian Indian, from around the world. All with different beliefs. All work together and share public areas.
Sweden is not the same as Canada. As you say, no one in Sweden is really into a religion.
Religion has it's impact but it's defiantly not the driving force in Society.
Ofcourse public society is compromised of people that have religion and those that do not. That's not what I'm saying. However, I am going to assume, based on your answer, that you agree religion did not build society, humans did. And who made the laws? Society did. Not religion. Religion copied them.
The only part in it Religion has, was to make homosexuals the outcasts. Which, mind you, I don't consider to be something very good. As I'm sure you're well-aware of, homosexuality is natural. It exists in every mammal. Homosexuality were something fully-acceptable in, for example, ancient Rome, where it were common for young males to have sex with each other.
Those laws also existed before we knew what a virus was.
Religion does not make people afraid. Those who believe in life after death, really do have less reason to fear death than those who do not believe in it. All religion asks is that we are good to one another. Not to steal or cheat. Still there are criminals who attend church regularly. What we learn is not always what we follow.
I never said religion made people afraid and paranoid.I said by controlling people's fears, you can control their actions. That is not the same as saying people walk around being afraid. For example, by telling a child that if he goes down to the river to play, a naked man playing a harp will kidnap him and kill him. This will make him avoid the river. There are a lot of child stories told by mothers in order to scare their children in to not doing something.
Religion does the very same thing. By saying you will go to hell where you will burn for an eternity if you don't follow God's words, it causes people to avoid doing it. Thus, whoever controls the religion, controls the people. Which is why, until lately, the church have had a
large amount of power over the people and the king, throughout all ages. If they did not control people's fears and beliefs, they would not have had the power they had.
-Lets not forget about the people who don't use condoms = People who make such gambles
-The Man or woman may or may not be infected = The person one would be taking that risk with.
This makes no sense. I said you couldn't take it more out of context then you did. I did not ask for an explanation of what you said. Your answer still means nothing, as it has nothing do do with what you quoted (read: the original context, not the taken-out context).
Not arguing people shouldn't use condoms. But condoms do break.
Similar to what i asked before without getting an answer.
Is it safe to have sex with someone who is HIV positive with a condom. Answer please.[/quote]There is a 90% probability that the condom won't break, assuming you don't scratch it and use an oil-based lube. Additionally, there's only roughly 10% chance to actually get HIV when you have sex with an HIV positive person. If you fuck said person 1000 times, the condom will break 100 times. Our of those 100 times, 10 times can infect you. This means you have roughly a 1% chance to get infected by HIV, if you fuck a HIV positive person with a condom on.So no, you're not entirely safe. Granted, I'm not entirely sure the chance to get HIV is 10%. It can be both lower or higher. However, I do know that the "HIV men" in Sweden, that are upset over having HIV and is on a mission to infect as many people as possible, have had sex with sometimes upwards of 100 people, and only 1-2 of those were found to have HIV. And they didn't use a condom. However, 1-2% sounds like a bit too small of a chance.
Mind you, I never did state you were 100% protected by using a condom. I simply stated that STD's won't spread at the rate it do if people use a condom. So if everyone used a condom, the STD spread would decrease. Which means the amount of STD-infected people will decrease. Which will further lower the chance to be infected by STD.
And God says that these laws are supposed to be forever!
