gobear, nice to see you again. My point is Lib posted threads worthy of this lebon award, and when the term atheist is use in an article, then it has religous connotations. To be with a religion or to be without a religion still brings religion into the picture (as can be seen by this quote from Lib “an atheistic religion,”). And I agree that no one knows where the line is, but to say Lib was more offensive is “just not so”.
Great pick!
In that spirit, I’d like to nominate Rick Sowadsky M.S.P.H., C.D.S, Senior Communicable Disease Specialist for the Nevada State Health Division AIDS program, who said:
He said that failure rates vary from one manufacturer to the next.
He also said:
What a nutjob!
I’d also like to nominate those loons at the General Practice Notebook, who say that the contraceptive failure rate for condoms is between 2% and 15%, thus indicating an even greater failure rate for HIV infection since the AIDS virus is much smaller than a sperm. Same goes for the dimwits at the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York.
And finally, I want to nominate the gnat-brains from the New York Hall of Science, who say that even latex condoms work only “most of the time” and then only “when they’re used properly”, meaning never use more than once, never use an oil-base lubricant, and never begin sexual contact without a properly fitted and lubricated latex condom.
Well, Svt “atheistic religion” is an oxymoron; atheism is the denial of religion. And I do not think Lib was offensive, merely mistaken. Nor do I think he, nor you, nor any relgious person per se is worthy of this so-called Lebon. It belongs to those who use religion as a weapon to retard progress and I don’t think either of you qualify.
And, yes, DanielWithrow, I’m going to hug Lib and [b
Svt4Him**. I can’t very hold them to the commands of Jesus to love their enemies if I’m not willing to do the same. Reading the fundy Web boards, I constantly come across self-serving accounts in which the fundies claim that atheists mistreat and persecute them.
I want to be, excuse my French, a witness to the fact that we do not require the existence of mythical beings to love another and be kind.
Gobear
I’m not really sure that hugging someone just to prove a point is either loving or kind. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you. 
Well, atheists just can’t win. If we yell at you, we’re god-hating jerks, and if we hug you, then we’re just insincere.
sigh
Well, you will receive kind words and soft reproaches whether you like it or not. I am really, really, tired of the venom here and on other boards, and I refuse to contribute to to all the ill-will floating on the Internet.
Gobear
You can win. In fact, you’re way ahead of me. I suspect that you love just because it is a good thing to do, nothing more, nothing less. Me, I’m still struggling to learn how.
I’d like to nominate that pink haired lady.
Does someone know her name? She’s just SOOO incredibly out of touch with reality (or sure seems to be).
And that Mary Tyler Moore character “Georgina” voiced thing she’s got going on…
ERRRRggggh!
Of course, maybe she’s just goofy, not radical enough to be a nutjob. Still.
(psssst, I’m a christian too, and I saw NOTHING in the OPs intent that would suggest she thought all religious people were nutjobs. Personally, I think it’s a GOOD thing to point out “our” nutjobs, if we could get rid of those overzealous misguided freaks, perhaps we wouldn’t be looked at so suspiciously for our beliefs).
Oh I love the irony. Since when have I become your enemy? I do not consider you my enemy, nor think I have ever implied you were one, although I do not think having a virtual hug makes you score more virtual points in this debate. But I do question the sincerity of a hug towards an enemy, unless it’s to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. 
And atheism is without God, not without religion. Granted I still don’t believe atheism exists, but that’s another story. :dubious:
OK, I don’t want to get the flames going, but can someone explain the ‘handstabber’ comment? I don’t understand what that means
/me being dense.
So, you feel that those people who call themselves atheists actually believe in a god, deep down inside?
Well, I always figured you despised me as one of “those” people, but if I’m wrong, I apologize. And I have zero interest in scoring points. Don’t want 'em, don’t need 'em. My only interest is to offer you the hand of friendship.
Please explain.
Again, please explain. I do not believe in any supernatural entities–no gods, no devil, no elves, no demons, nothin’.
Behold Exhibit A, a real live atheist.
To quote “Wicked Little Town” from Hedwig:
You said “people of faith” when “they are called nutjobs.” What other interpretation would you like to be taken from your statement? The qualifier shouldn’t have been added… but then I can’t see how it changes much of the meaning of what I said, or the nature of your comment. Are all you saying is that Jack Chick feels a tweak when he’s called a nutjob? Or were you reffering to a broader group of religious people (including yourself) upon hearing someone like, for instance, Chick, called a nutjob? Because the latter still falls under my point.
And where’s the “twice” today?
Lib, what is wrong with you?
I used to see you as a very rational poster, but that condom post was over the line.
My mother works in Women’s Health and is referred to as the Harm Reduction Queen for her part in initiating codom and clean needle distribution in our small town. Even I, the Harm Reduction Princess, knows that condoms are not 100% effective 100% of the time.
HOWEVER, there is a big leap between “Hey, I’m a scientist and I can tell you that condoms aren’t 100% effective.” and “Hey, I’m a religious leader who opposes all birth control and you might as well not even use condoms because they don’t work and spread disease.”
Condoms work. Condoms prevent the spread of STDs. No one ever said they were 100% effective. They don’t claim to be perfect on the packaging. Health workers don’t claim they are perfect.
But to take that 2 or 3% and balloon it into “doesn’t work” is patently ridiculous. And FYI, sheepskin and lambskin condoms have print on the packaging that says they do not protect against STDs. This isn’t some Secret Of The Illuminati that the public is ignorant to.
There are HIV-free people walking around today who wouldn’t be, if it weren’t for that little latex sheath.
To minimize and deny that fact is completely and utterly stupid.
You need to cut down on the hysteria. I think you’ve been whipped into a froth by all of the atheist posts around here lately (yes I’ve noticed a prevalence too, so it’s not just you). I think you’re feeling attacked and fed up and it’s clouding your thinking. Because frankly, the stuff you’re pulling out of thin air is not up to your usual standard. It’s sloppy, unrelated, and it just doesn’t make sense. It’s not helpful to defend religious stupidity just because it’s religious and you think the Believers need to get a break.
FTR, I am not an atheist, and I am offended by the MSP and IPU lines. I can respect atheistic beliefs as long as they are strictly personal and not evangelical. My spiritual path is a big part of my life and I’m protective of it.
If you are rational, then you will have no problem distinguishing between (A) birth control vs HIV transmission and (B) “condom use spreads HIV” vs “condom use does not prevent HIV”.
Intaglio’s nomination was based on some uncited Cardinal saying that “Using Condoms do not stop the spread of HIV/AIDS Virus.” In fact, using condoms does not stop the spread of HIV/AIDS virus, as I documented.
Nominating the Catholic Cardinality for the nutjob award is Neanderthal to the extreme. It isn’t that the church has advocated casual sex while condemning the use of condoms. Rather, because of its stand on the morality of casual sex, its position on condoms as HIV prevention devices is perfectly logical and to be expected.
In fact, there is no more reliable a method for the prevention of HIV transmission than that advocated by the church. For the 2% to 15% who have used condoms and have fallen through the crack and become infected, minimizing and denying how they could have avoided their infection with 100% certainty is — what did you call it? — oh yes, completely and utterly stupid.
Apos
You should have left the “when” in quotes, because that was what I said. It isn’t a word that you can just discard and replace with “all” merely because it is an interpretation that you prefer because it gives you something to argue with. People of faith are naturally offended when they are called nutjobs.
Your sight ought not to constitute my intent. What you can and cannot see does not excuse rephrasing a man’s words and presenting them as his own.
You must be positively desperate for something to bitch about. Why must you assign anything other than the plain meaning?
As the starter of this, I would like to clarify that I don’t think all religious people are nutjobs. A great deal of religous people are normal every day folks who do not espouse hatred towards their fellow human. The Jack Chicks, Falwells, Phelps, Robertsons and a the few mentioned here, are the zealots who’s quotes seemingly are over the top and irrational, nearly most of the time.
Of course, what is irrational for you might be rational for me and vice versa.
I think the Pope making the No Condom-HIV-STD statement was clearly insane. It will do more harm than good, as Catholics who follow his doctrine will have guilt for having sex, now they will have guilt for having sex with a condom. Then, possibly, they will have guilt and disease/baby for the no condom ruling. That rule is clearly insane, but he is very old and gets his information from men who are all very set in their ways and not hip to the real world. .
However, if they were truly faithful and obedient in every way, they wouldn’t be having sex at all until marriage. On the whole, I think the Pontiff is a nice, sweet well intended old man who’s views are in alignment with the older crowd, but sadly outdated with the younger set. He hasn’t the energy anymore to investigate the answers to the questions such as this.
Perhaps a half Lebon award to the Pontiff is in order.
(I wish I had half the brains, vernacular skills and wit as some of the other dopers here who can argue/state and survive their position in the Pit.)
In other arenas, I would like to nominate for a Lebon, my sister in law and her husband who believe, but not limited too, that reading/watching Harry Potter is the gateway to evil, reading the bible every day to a child will increase their IQ, they have a personal conversations with Jesus who gives them full authorization for assinine selfish behavior and beleive that homosexuals chose their behavior and can be turned around with the love of Jesus. Yet, all the while they routinely manipulate my MIL to essentially raise her four perfect children so she can work/volunteer/do churchy things. If I could come up with a proper hypocrite title for them, I would hand it to them personally (in my dreams.)
I agree with Steve, despite his admission that he sometimes thinks about Duran Duran. One can disagree with some of Lib’s specific examples without denying that there are plenty of rabid atheist nutjobs in the world; zealous denial of religion is still a religion-related zealotry, and I’m not sure why this is such a big deal.
OTOH, I vehemently disagree with Lobsang. The OED clearly indicates that -ize endings are to be preferred. So there.
I carefully did not make a reference to those concepts, Daniel. Let’s assume I’m human, okay?
Shirley Ujest
I appreciate the clarification. Still, I don’t understand why the “religious” aspect is at all necessary. Why not just plain ol’ nutjobs? Would you open a thread about “gay” nutjobs, with the requirement that nominations be both gay and stupid? Besides, I don’t think that Chick, Falwell, Phelps, and Robertson are very religous.
But of course! and the polio vaccine was not 100% effective, so it did nothing to stop the spread of polio! Those medical health professionals are such fools! Thank god they have the religious nutjobs to set them straight!
Where does it say that condoms can only be used for casual sex, instead of a married relationship? Do you know what a condom is and how it works?
But concerning religous nutjob Libertarian’s main point: it doesn’t matter if religious people are nutjobs as long as you can find an atheist who’s a nutjob too. I wonder why they don’t use this defense in criminal court more often! “Yes your honor my client is a murderer but I can cite you 100 other cases of murderers. How dare you pick on him?”
It also seems Libertarian is seriously going off the deep end. I can’t wait for him to pop out his patented “you’re a sore-covered shitty dick” comeback.