Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[Cello Man]

I've been lurking on these forums for a while. It's been fun and informatve reading the discussions taking place here. I've had enough of being quiet now, and I'm ready to start picking this forum's collective brain. The point of my first diatribe is as follows:


Religious tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. I don't advocate extreme mindless bigotry such as running mini-vans with Jesus-fish stickers off the road, but permitting religion to place their version of morality on a higher pedestal than human life cannot be excused.

Case in point: AIDS in Africa has become a full-on epidemic. Within certain areas where the only governing authority is provided by Catholic missionaries, people are not being educated about the use of condoms to avoid spreading the HIV virus. The official stance of the Catholic church is that the use of birth control is a sin, and the idea of pre-marital abstinence is being promoted as the sole solution to the AIDS problem.

Let's face it. People are people, and the reason people exist in the first place is because other people had sex. The need to propogate our species is coded into every fiber of our being. Preaching absolute abstinence makes as much sense as telling people to stop breathing. Sure, there will be the small percentage of people who are devout enough to follow the whatever their religion says to the letter, but as statistics on abstinence-only sex education in my own country (USA) show, the idea is doomed to failure from the outset.

If Catholics were somehow forced by an outside government or health care organization to spread educational materials and birth control supplies, they would cry discrimination against their religious beliefs. Surely they'd be as offended as a Muslim being served bacon for breakfast. We cannot let that overshadow the fact that a campaign of misinformation and their unrealistic, outdated, and warped sense of morality is killing people by the thousands, the same people they are trying to "save". The Vatican is unwilling to permit what it sees as the lesser of two evils. Their philosophy of abstinence-only education is misguided at the very best. At worst, now combined with a lethal STD in the equation, I see no reason whatsoever that it's any different from criminally negiligent genocide.

I say that those responsible should be taken to task. If ithis were a truly fair and objective world, leadership of the Catholic Church would have already been found guilty of crimes against humanity.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

[Meadmaker]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

[scotth]

and warped sense of morality is killing people by the thousands, the same people they are trying to "save".

Other than thousands being an understatement, that was largely my opinion already. Clearly setting the goal of seeing real justice is reaching too far at the moment. I would like the people to quit dying that could be saved by no more than telling them the truth. I would take that.

The U.S. Gov't., the one that is supposed to be representing me, is guilty of committing those same crime, today. My Gov't witholds money from charities and other NGOs that teach that condoms can help stop the disease. No matter what other great thing the group might be doing in Africa, say. If you teach that handy little bit of knowledge you are cut off. No money for you.

We've got to find a way to recruite a large enough voting group of American's to make a difference on this. They (the people running in elections) need to know that our community even exists. They're always worried about the "Hispanic vote", the "Black vote", the "Catholic Vote", or the "Someother Vote", but it is never the "Rational vote" or the "Skeptical Vote". We need to start doing a better job of converting our friends. We really need to start recruiting. We need grow a lot. And we need to look and act enough like a community that we begin to be recognized as such.

[pipelineaudio]

I agree, this silliness especially favorable towards muslims of tolerance no matter what as long as theyre not xians or jews is silly

Where is N.O.W. to protest the treatment of women in Dar-al-Islam ?

[gdtbiker]

Nice first rant, er, ah. . .I mean diatribe, Cello Man - Welcome! to the real world that is so often unbelievable. :)

[gdtbiker]

Oh, and, uh, Welcome to the forums too! :)

[andyandy]

i'd agree that all religious beliefs should not be tolerated (ie. accepeted)by default purely because they are religious....

An example closer to home in the UK is the stance of the Muslim Council of Britain on homosexuality

Following recent press coverage it is reiterated that the practice of homosexuality is sinful in Islam.Following some recent inaccurate reports in the media, the Muslim Council of Britain wishes to make it clear that the statements attributed to Abdul Aziz by the Gay website Pink News - where he was erroneously described as 'the policy advisor to the MCB' - were unauthorised and not at all representative of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The MCB believes that homosexual relationships are sinful and clearly go against Islamic teachings.

MCB has always been and remains committed to a non—discriminatory, just and cohesive society in Britain.http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-555

Why should homophobic intolerance on an organised and coordinated level be tolerated in the UK simply because that group happens to be a religion?

MCB has always been and remains committed to a non—discriminatory just and cohesive society in Britain? :mad:

[scotth]

How rude of me.... Yes, welcome to the forums.

I liked the post also, if you hadn't already figured that.

[Darth Rotor]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.
Nonsense. If they follow it all, their adherence to doctrine would massively reduce the incidence of AIDS, by massively reducing amount of exposure via reduction in coitus. It's all that "fornication" and "non chastity" that is the root cause.

Your cherry picking is showing.

DR

[ceo_esq]

Nonsense. If they follow it all, their adherence to doctrine would massively reduce the incidence of AIDS, by massively reducing amount of exposure via reduction in coitus. It's all that "fornication" and "non chastity" that is the root cause.

Sure, but isn't that more or less the same point Meadmaker was making via sarcasm?

[Cello Man]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

Those ideals are all fine and dandy, assuming everyone adhered to them unswervingly. However, we live in reality. The point I'm making is that the Church is not providing people with enough information to make and informed decision. When a possible outcome exists of contracting a fatal virus for which there is no cure, you would think they'd be more than happy to use this nugget of information if for no other reason than to scare people into their social mold.

Small children, if left to their own faculties, would run into the street and get flattened all the time. Luckily their parents usually do a good job of making sure this doesn't happen. The parents must intervene because the kid has no way of being informed enough to make a good decision. Likewise, a large percentage of the African population has had no access to education, so those that choose to provide for them have all the obligations to provide them with information necessary to make good decisions.

[ceo_esq]

Those ideals are all fine and dandy, assuming everyone adhered to them unswervingly. However, we live in reality. The point I'm making is that the Church is not providing people with enough information to make and informed decision. When a possible outcome exists of contracting a fatal virus for which there is no cure, you would think they'd be more than happy to use this nugget of information if for no other reason than to scare people into their social mold.

Yet the Catholic Church is massively involved in AIDS awareness/education efforts in Africa and elsewhere.


Likewise, a large percentage of the African population has had no access to education, so those that choose to provide for them have all the obligations to provide them with information necessary to make good decisions.

What are you getting at here, though? If I advise someone that a certain decision is a bad one and disclose to him that it could lead to serious risks, have I not provided him with information at least sufficient to enable him to make a different decision?

[Cello Man]

Yet the Catholic Church is massively involved in AIDS awareness/education efforts in Africa and elsewhere.

Hmm. That does somewhat change things. I don't remember reading anything to that effect, so I'll do a little more research. If I'm wrong about this topic, then I concede. Can you provide me with a source?

[Tricky]

Religious tolerance is a very good idea. With so many religions in the world, you'd have to be intolerant of most everybody unless you practiced religious tolerance.

Behavior tolerance is another matter. Most people of all religions know how to behave in a manner consistant with the society in which they live. When people (religious or non-religious) are unable to abide by common respect and politeness, then they should not be tolerated.

[TragicMonkey]

If I advise someone that a certain decision is a bad one and disclose to him that it could lead to serious risks, have I not provided him with information at least sufficient to enable him to make a different decision?

It depends on what information you are not sharing.

Suppose you live in a primitive community. I am a medical doctor from a more advanced society. I am your only source of medical information. I inform you that eating the seeds from the monkeyflower bush is bad for you. I also inform you that eating the flowers of the monkeyseed bush is bad for you.

I do not go into the details. The seeds are high in fat and will cause you to gain weight and risk high blood pressure and assorted ailments, if you eat too many of them. The flowers contain a powerful toxin that will cause you to die in horrible agony within eight hours of eating one.

But I decide you don't need to know that. You can trust in my knowledge, and in my warning that both seeds and flowers are bad for you and should be avoided.

Now, you see someone eat the seeds. There are no apparent ill effects.

Will you try the flower?

If you do, am I at all responsible for your death? Not only are you a free agent, to choose as you will, but I actually warned you not to do it.

[Meadmaker]

Those ideals are all fine and dandy, assuming everyone adhered to them unswervingly.


I find it almost inconceivable that there are very many people who ignore the church's teaching on chastity, but adhere to it on condom use.

As for the Catholic Church not providing condom information, I think you are giving the church way too much credit. Where are these places where the Catholic missionaries constitute the only entity capable of providing education to massive numbers of Africans?

I think the Church's position on contraception is downright silly, but it isn't the cause of the AIDS epidemic.

[sillyhead]

Wow. I haven't read a thing past the topic line. Kudos for that, even if you suck. I might comment on other posts in this thread, or I might not. (:

But the title of the thread is provocative.

[Dog Boots]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

Teaching good things don't justify teaching bad things. Besides, if people follow the complete advice as you state it, it's still irresponsible and stupid on a continent where the real problem is overpopulation.

[Meadmaker]

Teaching good things don't justify teaching bad things. Besides, if people follow the complete advice as you state it, it's still irresponsible and stupid on a continent where the real problem is overpopulation.

I'll grant that the teachings of the church could contribute to overpopulation, just not AIDS. And I'll bet the Africans ignore the teaching on birth control every bit as often as Americans or Europeans.

[scotth]

I'll grant that the teachings of the church could contribute to overpopulation, just not AIDS. And I'll bet the Africans ignore the teaching on birth control every bit as often as Americans or Europeans.

The US Gov't funding policies (or lack of funding rather) are certainly religiously driven.

Local (African) leaders spreading of misinformation is religiously and/or superstitiously motivated.

While the whole blame for the problem cannot be laid at the feet of the Catholic church, it should be nearly beyond argument that many many people are dying needlessly because one persons irrational beliefs or another are preventing the spread of or belief in the truth.

Yes, people around the world are dying because of decision made by religious people. Decisions that are informed by 1000+ year old legends and fairy tales rather than what has actually been learned in the last 100.

My tolerance for this is getting thin.

[ponderingturtle]

I find it almost inconceivable that there are very many people who ignore the church's teaching on chastity, but adhere to it on condom use.

As for the Catholic Church not providing condom information, I think you are giving the church way too much credit. Where are these places where the Catholic missionaries constitute the only entity capable of providing education to massive numbers of Africans?


The question is for how many are they the primary source for information? And if you add in that the US only supports abstenence only programs also for religious beleifs then it is much worse case for religion.

The problem is that they are not dessemintating all the information that they have. Their beliefs on chastity are irrelevent, because they are hiding information about what to do if the person doesn't meet that ideal. It is not holding the ideal that is the problem.

[ponderingturtle]

Teaching good things don't justify teaching bad things. Besides, if people follow the complete advice as you state it, it's still irresponsible and stupid on a continent where the real problem is overpopulation.

Only if the church could admit that over population can be a problem

[ponderingturtle]

I'll grant that the teachings of the church could contribute to overpopulation, just not AIDS. And I'll bet the Africans ignore the teaching on birth control every bit as often as Americans or Europeans.

Only if they can some how get any accuate information on contraception in the first place and get affordable contraceptives.

[ceo_esq]

Hmm. That does somewhat change things. I don't remember reading anything to that effect, so I'll do a little more research. If I'm wrong about this topic, then I concede. Can you provide me with a source?

Here's a few English-language sources that came up in a very brief Google search:

http://www.caa.org.na/
http://www.cmmb.org/What/choose_to_care.htm
http://www.cafod.org.uk/about_cafod/what_we_do/hiv_and_aids/aids_education_in_south_africa
http://www.crs.org/our_work/where_we_work/overseas/africa/democratic_republic_of_congo/staff.cfm

[ceo_esq]

It depends on what information you are not sharing.

Suppose you live in a primitive community. I am a medical doctor from a more advanced society. I am your only source of medical information. I inform you that eating the seeds from the monkeyflower bush is bad for you. I also inform you that eating the flowers of the monkeyseed bush is bad for you.

I do not go into the details. The seeds are high in fat and will cause you to gain weight and risk high blood pressure and assorted ailments, if you eat too many of them. The flowers contain a powerful toxin that will cause you to die in horrible agony within eight hours of eating one.

But I decide you don't need to know that. You can trust in my knowledge, and in my warning that both seeds and flowers are bad for you and should be avoided.

Now, you see someone eat the seeds. There are no apparent ill effects.

Will you try the flower?

If you do, am I at all responsible for your death? Not only are you a free agent, to choose as you will, but I actually warned you not to do it.

Is this absolutely hypothetical, or is it meant to be some kind of analogy to a real situation? For example, did the Catholic Church fail to share how HIV is transmitted or the fact that AIDS is a life-threatening disease?

[ImaginalDisc]

Ideas should not be given special protection for being religiously modivated. Anyone who tells people not to use condoms is guilty of idiotic nonsense and causing harm to people, whether it is their imaginary freind who told them to say it, or not. Harmful religious stupidity should be given the same treatment as any other stupidity.

[scotth]

Ideas should not be given special protection for being religiously modivated. Anyone who tells people not to use condoms is guilty of idiotic nonsense and causing harm to people, whether it is their imaginary freind who told them to say it, or not. Harmful religious stupidity should be given the same tratment as any other stupidity.

Hey Hey... whats "cooking".

In case you missed it, I've announced my bounty for the TAM 5 poker tourney is a 750ml Chateau d'Yquem. I thought you might appreciate that in particular.


I disagree. Religious stupidity should be given even more attention than regular stupidity. Religious stupidity is dogmaticly enforced and perpetuated. It will require a more intense and sustained effort to crack.

I think your point really was that it should not be given any slack merely because it is religious stupidity. And with that, I am in total agreement.

[ImaginalDisc]

Mmm, fine vino *and* poker; this is tempting.

I'm not sure. On the hand, I loathe religion, so I agree with your sentiment. But, on the other, I don't think that religious ideas should automatically be attacked. The Old Testament says, for example, that the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians for a while. Instead of dismissing it because it's religious, I dismiss it because there is no archeological or historical evidence supporting it.

[scotth]

Mmm, fine vino *and* poker; this is tempting.

I'm not sure. On the hand, I loathe religion, so I agree with your sentiment. But, on the other, I don't think that religious ideas should automatically be attacked. The Old Testament says, for example, that the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians for a while. Instead of dismissing it because it's religious, I dismiss it because there is no archeological or historical evidence supporting it.

I was not clear. I am not advocating attacking an idea merely because it is religious. I am advocating attacking erroneous ideas (and flat lies) all the time, but especially when they are espoused by religious institutions.

[tkingdoll]

I'll tolerate any religion that doesn't result in someone's death or suffering.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'll tolerate any religion that doesn't result in someone's death or suffering.

There's a problem there, though. What if that religion changes its practitioners' perception of death and suffering?

I once had the following conversation with someone who firmly believed in karma and reincarnation.

Me: I recently found out that more than 100 people have been exonorated while on death row by DNA evidence. All those people turned out to be innocent of the crimes they were going to be killed for. Isn't it nice that they're free now?

Them: No. We shouldn't waste any time after the conviction. We should just kill off all those murderers, pedophiles and all those ********.

Me: But, I just gave you evidence that sometimes they're innocent. Don't they deserve a chance to have their death scentences revoked?

Them: No. If they're innocent, then after they die they reincarnate as people. If they're guilty, then they become a snail or something. The best thing to do is kill them if we're not sure.

[elliotfc]

I'll tolerate any religion that doesn't result in someone's death or suffering.

Yes, because God knows that if religion didn't exist, nobody would die and nobody would suffer.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, because God knows that if religion didn't exist, nobody would die and nobody would suffer.

-Elliot

Please don't be such a fool as to put forth that fallacy as an arguement. Just because there is no perfect sollution doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.

[scotth]

Them: No. If they're innocent, then after they die they reincarnate as people. If they're guilty, then they become a snail or something. The best thing to do is kill them if we're not sure.

I hope you replied, "You don't mind if I shoot/kill you then. If things are like you say, the best thing to do is move you on to your next existence where your next form will be picked for you with justice."

Of course, it might be rather pleasant being a snail. I've never heard one complain.

[elliotfc]

There's a problem there, though. What if that religion changes its practitioners' perception of death and suffering?

I once had the following conversation with someone who firmly believed in karma and reincarnation.

Me: I recently found out that more than 100 people have been exonorated while on death row by DNA evidence. All those people turned out to be innocent of the crimes they were going to be killed for. Isn't it nice that they're free now?

Them: No. We shouldn't waste any time after the conviction. We should just kill off all those murderers, pedophiles and all those ********.

Me: But, I just gave you evidence that sometimes they're innocent. Don't they deserve a chance to have their death scentences revoked?

Them: No. If they're innocent, then after they die they reincarnate as people. If they're guilty, then they become a snail or something. The best thing to do is kill them if we're not sure.

Eek.

Alan Keyes...a while back...said something not similar, but interesting kind of I guess. He's an orthodox Catholic who supports the death penalty. He was saying how...our justice system is not capable or appreciating the *greatest* forms of evil (he was talking about premeditated murder, things like that), and that it's best for us to deliver such people to God for judgment. A nice euphemism, that's what struct me and why I remember it, and I'm partial to the guy and the death penalty. But a bizarre way to put it.

-Elliot

[scotth]

Yes, because God knows that if religion didn't exist, nobody would die and nobody would suffer.

-Elliot

No, of course not. Not nobody, but many many less.

[elliotfc]

I hope you replied, "You don't mind if I shoot/kill you then. If things are like you say, the best thing to do is move you on to your next existence where your next form will be picked for you with justice."

Of course, it might be rather pleasant being a snail. I've never heard one complain.

Ask Cargo. Or, that's what they told me when they offered a snail for me to eat. They told me to ask Cargo. Is Cargo the king of snails or something? Anyways he'd know.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

No, of course not. Not nobody, but many many less.

Yes. Fewer people would die if there were no religion.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

I hope you replied, "You don't mind if I shoot/kill you then. If things are like you say, the best thing to do is move you on to your next existence where your next form will be picked for you with justice."


I did. They agreed. It was eerie.

In fact, since they beleived in karma and reincarnation, I proposed the following scenario.

You are invited to a dinner party hosted by Mr. Body. You, and all your fellow guests are in the parlor when the lights go out, and a gun shot is heard. When the lights come on, Mr. Body lies dead, shot through the heart and no one confesses to killing him. There's no powder on his hands or body, so he couldn't have shot himself. After a thorough investigation, neither you nor the police can accertain who the murderer is.

Do you let the guests, one of whom is a murderer, go free? Or, in line with your belief in karma, do you pick up a gun and shoot one of them randomly, trusting in their bad accumulated karma to ensure that the murderer takes the bullet?

Their answer, "Hey, that's a great idea!"

[scotth]

Yes. Fewer people would die if there were no religion.

-Elliot

And even this is only really true if less people are born due to no/less religion. The number of deaths won't really change, but the manner and timing of them certainly can improve.

Having far fewer die of ignorance rather than old age, seems like a worthy goal to me.

[scotth]

I did. They agreed. It was eerie.

In fact, since they beleived in karma and reincarnation, I proposed the following scenario.

You are invited to a dinner party hosted by Mr. Body. You, and all your fellow guests are in the parlor when the lights go out, and a gun shot is heard. When the lights come on, Mr. Body lies dead, shot through the heart and no one confesses to killing him. There's no powder on his hands or body, so he couldn't have shot himself. After a thorough investigation, neither you nor the police can accertain who the murderer is.

Do you let the guests, one of whom is a murderer, go free? Or, in line with your belief in karma, do you pick up a gun and shoot one of them randomly, trusting in their bad accumulated karma to ensure that the murderer takes the bullet?

Their answer, "Hey, that's a great idea!"

At which point, I would either run, or shoot.

People who think like this are a clear hazard to the population that believe that this life we are living today is all we'll ever have.

[elliotfc]

And even this is only really true if less people are born due to no/less religion. The number of deaths won't really change, but the manner and timing of them certainly can improve.

Having far fewer die of ignorance rather than old age, seems like a worthy goal to me.

How does ignorance kill someone, exactly?

Are the words religion and ignorance interchangeable?

-Elliot

[scotth]

How does ignorance kill someone, exactly?

Are the words religion and ignorance interchangeable?

-Elliot

Are we reading and replying to the same thread?

[ImaginalDisc]

How does ignorance kill someone, exactly?

At the risk of misleading vividness. . .

"Oh, no! My brother talks to people he can't see, and occasionaly tries to stab his own legs with a knife! What am I to do?"

"Your brother is possessed by demons! We must sprinkle some dirty water on him and mumble some words. That'll cure him!"



"Those people are dark, daddy. Why?"

"They are dark because dark skin is the mark of Cain, and they are bad."



Must I go on?

Are the words religion and ignorance interchangeable?

-Elliot

No. A is a subset of B.

[elliotfc]

Are we reading and replying to the same thread?

Using scientific means I feel confident that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both you and I are replying to the same thread. As for reading the same thread, I don't know if you have read every post in this thread, and I know that I have, but I'm not sure if I can prove that point.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

No, of course not. Not nobody, but many many less.

Except for the fact that in the absence of religion there would probably be fewer people for a number of reasons, how do you reckon that fewer people overall would suffer and die if there were no religion?

[ImaginalDisc]

Except for the fact that in the absence of religion there would probably be fewer people for a number of reasons


Full stop. Firstly, what are those reasons, and secondly, what evidence do you have to support that?

[drkitten]

Except for the fact that in the absence of religion there would probably be fewer people for a number of reasons, how do you reckon that fewer people overall would suffer and die if there were no religion?

How many people have suffered and died as a direct result of religious beliefs, either their own, or those of the person inflicting the suffering?

[elliotfc]

At the risk of misleading vividness. . .

"Oh, no! My brother talks to people he can't see, and occasionaly tries to stab his own legs with a knife! What am I to do?"

"Your brother is possessed by demons! We must sprinkle some dirty water on him and mumble some words. That'll cure him!"

OK....the brother certainly exists, we agree there.

As for demons...demons being entities...are you saying that they are ignorant because demons don't actually exist? I think it sensible to describe someone as ignorant if they have a *deficit* in knowledge. Meaning, *if demons existed*, and someone didn't accept that or know that, the ignorant label would apply quite well.

I reckon you think that the person doing the sprinkling is wrong. Now, what are they *specifically* ignorant about?

"Those people are dark, daddy. Why?"

"They are dark because dark skin is the mark of Cain, and they are bad."

It appears that the above person is ignorant of skin pigments and melanin and all that stuff. Or not? I dunno. I'd have to get to the bottom of it. For all I know they are quite cognizant of it. Now, if they were to say that "evilness" manifests in the womb and results in the manufacture of such things, I would disagree with them wholeheartedly but I don't know if ignorant is the word. Again, I associate ignorance with a deficit in knowledge.

Must I go on?

You don't have to do anything, we're just talking here.

No. A is a subset of B.

So...is everything religion has to say ignorant (I think we would define ignorance differently, but nevermind that for now), or just some/most of the things religion says?

And of course if God does exist then science is ignorant (it's a methodology...how could a methodology be ignorant...but nevermind that, it's a serviceable thing to say since we're comparing religion to ignorant).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Except for the fact that in the absence of religion there would probably be fewer people for a number of reasons, how do you reckon that fewer people overall would suffer and die if there were no religion?

Fewer and BETTER people. -Elliot

[elliotfc]

Full stop. Firstly, what are those reasons, and secondly, what evidence do you have to support that?

Sub-replacement fertility is a new phenomenon, and it's occurring in the nations where people have basically stopped going to church.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

OK....the brother certainly exists, we agree there.

As for demons...demons being entities...are you saying that they are ignorant because demons don't actually exist? I think it sensible to describe someone as ignorant if they have a *deficit* in knowledge. Meaning, *if demons existed*, and someone didn't accept that or know that, the ignorant label would apply quite well.

I reckon you think that the person doing the sprinkling is wrong. Now, what are they *specifically* ignorant about?

Are you not aware of the fact that demons don't exist, and that mental illnesses cannot be treated by exorcism?



It appears that the above person is ignorant of skin pigments and melanin and all that stuff. Or not? I dunno. I'd have to get to the bottom of it. For all I know they are quite cognizant of it. Now, if they were to say that "evilness" manifests in the womb and results in the manufacture of such things, I would disagree with them wholeheartedly but I don't know if ignorant is the word. Again, I associate ignorance with a deficit in knowledge.


The Mormon Chruch held, for quite a long time, the belief that dark people are dark, because dark skin is the Mark of Cain. It's all over their "holy" book.


You don't have to do anything, we're just talking here.



So...is everything religion has to say ignorant (I think we would define ignorance differently, but nevermind that for now), or just some/most of the things religion says?

If it isn't based on facts and evidence, but rather spurious speculation without a shred of proof, it's ignorant, often willfully so.

And of course if God does exist then science is ignorant -Elliot

What? Even if god exists, Maxwell's theorems will still work, for one thing.

[elliotfc]

How many people have suffered and died as a direct result of religious beliefs, either their own, or those of the person inflicting the suffering?

Very very many. But people have suffered and died as a direct result of....

-love
-intelligence
-desire for money and material goods
-science
-bad culinary arts

...and many other things.

If we ban everything that has directly led to the deaths of many people...well...what's left? Hiding under your bed all day? And what if somebody jumps on your bed and breaks it? Then what?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Are you not aware of the fact that demons don't exist, and that mental illnesses cannot be treated by exorcism?

No, you are the ignorant one. You so silly. Demons do exist.

I agree that mental illness cannot be treated by exorcism, and so does the Catholic Church, so no problem there.

The Mormon Chruch held, for quite a long time, the belief that dark people are dark, because dark skin is the Mark of Cain. It's all over their "holy" book.

Now, do they believe that evil manifests itself with dark skin pigmentation? Again, if so, what specifically are they ignorant about?

If it isn't based on facts and evidence, but rather spurious speculation without a shred of proof, it's ignorant, often willfully so.

I disagree. A person can hold things to be objectively true by...oh I'll just use your phrase "spurious speculation"....but the things is...they wouldn't be ignorant. They would only be liable to being called names by you is all.

What? Even if god exists, Maxwell's theorems will still work, for one thing.

Agreed. Or, they work most of the time especially when we're looking. I dunno. They didn't always work, at least that's what they physicists say. What do they know.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Sub-replacement fertility is a new phenomenon, and it's occurring in the nations where people have basically stopped going to church.

-Elliot

Correlation, not causation, has been established. Try again.

Edit: Now that I think about, how is having fewer births bad? we can barely feed and clothe the planet's populace as it is.

[Meadmaker]

The question is for how many are they the primary source for information?

That is indeed the question. My guess is that the answer is darned close to 0.


And if you add in that the US only supports abstenence only programs also for religious beleifs then it is much worse case for religion.

And if you add in the US budget deficit and its effect on interest rates, then it really proves the case.

The OP was about the Catholic Church and its contraception policy.

In my humble opinion, there is a strong element of "I don't like them so I will blame them for everything" in the OP.

The Catholic Church just isn't all that powerful.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, you are the ignorant one. You so silly. Demons do exist.

Prove it.

I agree that mental illness cannot be treated by exorcism, and so does the Catholic Church, so no problem there.

You are wrong. Read this week's commentary. It seems the Catholic Church just loves spraying its Jesus water on people's faces.

Now, do they believe that evil manifests itself with dark skin pigmentation? Again, if so, what specifically are they ignorant about?

*sigh* They believed, and no longer do, offically, that black skin was the mark of Cain, and that dark people were innately evil. For the record, being dark does not make on evil.



I disagree. A person can hold things to be objectively true by...oh I'll just use your phrase "spurious speculation"....but the things is...they wouldn't be ignorant. They would only be liable to being called names by you is all.

If you say things which are untrue, which you do not know to be true, you are ignorant. If you say things which are untrue which you know to be false, that is a lie.

[ceo_esq]

Correlation, not causation, has been established. Try again.

Edit: Now that I think about, how is having fewer births bad? we can barely feed and clothe the planet's populace as it is.

Are you inferring this simply from the fact that we do barely feed and clothe them?

Also, regarding the negative consequences of fewer births, have you read up on the demographic disaster facing Western Europe and Japan?

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you inferring this simply from the fact that we do barely feed and clothe them?

Well, our resources are inequitably consumed primarily by the wealthiest populations, not the neediest, and that without heretofore technoligical achievements by people such as Norman Borlaug, we would have already faced a Malthusian crisis.

Also, regarding the negative consequences of fewer births, have you read up on the demographic disaster facing Western Europe and Japan?



More older people and fewer younger people is an arguement for a more secure and better regulated health care and social security system not an arguement in favor of religion.

[elliotfc]

Correlation, not causation, has been established. Try again.

You are right. More and more people are saying causation however, for what it's worth. Just saying is all, you can be non-plussed about it.

Here's something to read if you're interested....oops...having a problem copying and pasting the web addresss...so just do a search for...
"from empty pews to empty cradles"
article by 3 professors.

I think it's generally appreciated that people who attend church regularly tend to have more children. I read recently that Canadian women who attended church regularly were 50% more likely to have 3 or more children than women who didn't attend church regularly.

If it's just a correlation, fine. It's a correlation. It's definitely a correlation.

Edit: Now that I think about, how is having fewer births bad? we can barely feed and clothe the planet's populace as it is.

The Population Bomb was written what....30 years ago? Any year now it will all come true. Just like 1984. Any year now, 1984 will all come true.

We all have to have faith in something.

-Elliot

[I less than three logic]

We all have to have faith in something.
Working on a catch phrase? :D

[elliotfc]

Prove it.

http://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~t2watson/proof_of_demons.htm

You are wrong. Read this week's commentary. It seems the Catholic Church just loves spraying its Jesus water on people's faces.

Yeah. Every time a Catholic walks into a church self-adminstration occurs. Way to go Randi! Who woulda thunk! Catholics putting holy water on their faces! The truth beknown!

*sigh* They believed, and no longer do, offically, that black skin was the mark of Cain, and that dark people were innately evil. For the record, being dark does not make on evil.

I keep bringin up skin pigments, this is the third time.

You say they no longer do. Fine. Does it have something to do with skin pigments?

[QUOTEIf you say things which are untrue, which you do not know to be true, you are ignorant.[/QUOTE]

I disagree and have no desire to follow up. I no longer care that you think I am ignorant based on your definition, since I disagree with it. If we agreed on a definition I would care, but I don't, so I don't.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

http://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~t2watson/proof_of_demons.htm

Save your humor for your friends.



Yeah. Every time a Catholic walks into a church self-adminstration occurs. Way to go Randi! Who woulda thunk! Catholics putting holy water on their faces! The truth beknown!

You obviously didn't even read this week's commentary.



I keep bringin up skin pigments, this is the third time.

You say they no longer do. Fine. Does it have something to do with skin pigments?

Yes. Dark skin generally has something to do with skin pigmentation.

If you say things which are untrue, which you do not know to be true, you are ignorant.

I disagree and have no desire to follow up. I no longer care that you think I am ignorant based on your definition, since I disagree with it. If we agreed on a definition I would care, but I don't, so I don't.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Well, our resources are inequitably consumed primarily by the wealthiest populations, not the neediest, and that without heretofore technoligical achievements by people such as Norman Borlaug, we would have already faced a Malthusian crisis.

Yeah. Exactly. Thomas Malthus. He has been dead for generations. But any day now...it's coming. The Malthusian crisis. Just have to get the year right. Just like those people talking about the Second Coming. Oh they get it wrong when they predict the date. But the *next* announcement...well that one's going to be right. And if that's wrong...well...you just wait. The Second Coming, like the Malthusian Crisis. Any day now. You just wait.

As for...technological achievements. Well there's the kicker. Bastards. If this person didn't come up with this achievement...or that acheivement...but...damn people! People keep on achieving things...technologically. Damn them! Standing in the way of the Malthusian crisis (hallowed be its name). Damn them! We need progress, not technological achievement!

More older people and fewer younger people is an arguement for a more secure and better regulated health care and social security system not an arguement in favor of religion.

Yes, I agree, it's all a government conspiracy, so they can take over health care.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Working on a catch phrase? :D


I dunno, did I catch you? :)

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Yeah. Exactly. Thomas Malthus. He has been dead for generations. But any day now...it's coming. The Malthusian crisis. Just have to get the year right. Just like those people talking about the Second Coming. Oh they get it wrong when they predict the date. But the *next* announcement...well that one's going to be right. And if that's wrong...well...you just wait. The Second Coming, like the Malthusian Crisis. Any day now. You just wait.

As for...technological achievements. Well there's the kicker. Bastards. If this person didn't come up with this achievement...or that acheivement...but...damn people! People keep on achieving things...technologically. Damn them! Standing in the way of the Malthusian crisis (hallowed be its name). Damn them! We need progress, not technological achievement!



Yes, I agree, it's all a government conspiracy, so they can take over health care.

-Elliot


Are you quite finished building your strawman? Hello? Yes? I'm over here, not over there in left field, where you keep going.

Malthusian crisies have been, so far, avoided by heroic technological efforts, not religion. You have made no case in favor of religion.

[elliotfc]

Save your humor for your friends.

What, you're not my friend? :(

You obviously didn't even read this week's commentary.

I skimmed it. I was being silly, but you're not my friend so you don't appreciate that. :(

I'm glad Randi cares about holy water btw. Powerful stuff, so powerful that even gets the Amazing one.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

What, you're not my friend? :(



I skimmed it. I was being silly, but you're not my friend so you don't appreciate that. :(

I'm glad Randi cares about holy water btw. Powerful stuff, so powerful that even gets the Amazing one.

-Elliot

I can't believe it. You KEEP talking about this week's commentary, but you refuse to actually read it. Do you take prescription medication to become so willfully ignorant, or is it natural?

[I less than three logic]

I think it's generally appreciated that people who attend church regularly tend to have more children. I read recently that Canadian women who attended church regularly were 50% more likely to have 3 or more children than women who didn't attend church regularly.
Well that only makes sense. Those not attending church are aborting most their pregnancies, so of course they’ll have fewer children. ;)

[elliotfc]

Malthusian crisies have been, so far, avoided by heroic technological efforts, not religion. You have made no case in favor of religion.

It was not my intent to make a case in favor of religion, don't invoke strawman word and do the same in the next sentence.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

It was not my intent to make a case in favor of religion, don't invoke strawman word and do the same in the next sentence.

-Elliot

This has been a discussion about religion, the tolerance of. That is the topic. Stick to it.

[elliotfc]

I can't believe it. You KEEP talking about this week's commentary, but you refuse to actually read it. Do you take prescription medication to become so willfully ignorant, or is natural?

As for your question, why don't you tell me. You've make the leap to invoke meds, why stop there. It's amusing, so continue, no reason for me to jump in.

As for the commentary, are you talking about the Amorth bit? I've known about that for a lot longer then you, or Randi, I reckon. Just my opinion. You invoked the blessed commentary in response to the holy water deal. Where exactly does Randi mention holy water in his weekly epistle?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

This has been a discussion about religion, the tolerance of. That is the topic. Stick to it.

But I am tolerant of religion.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

As for your question, why don't you tell me. You've make the leap to invoke meds, why stop there. It's amusing, so continue, no reason for me to jump in.

As for the commentary, are you talking about the Amorth bit? I've known about that for a lot longer then you, or Randi, I reckon. Just my opinion. You invoked the blessed commentary in response to the holy water deal. Where exactly does Randi mention holy water in his weekly epistle?

-Elliot

Firstly, calling it an "epistle" is deeply insulting.

Secondly, from the commentary:

Father Amorth claims that he has performed more than 30,000 exorcisms in his career. That is to say, this educated man has pronounced words over people who think that imaginary demons are infesting their bodies, he has sprinkled charmed water over them, and he has ordered the invaders to go away. Wow. What a wasted life. It’s the year 2006, yet we still have witches, demons, devils, spooks, and banshees from which this man will protect us?


I've wasted enough time with you.

[elliotfc]

Firstly, calling it an "epistle" is deeply insulting.

Right, only Randi can be insulting. Which is why I stopped reading his commentaries. The believers won't see them as insulting. How many people read them by the way? The ubermenschs, a small but hardy breed.

I've wasted enough time with you.

Yeah, go read some more Randi commentaries. We all need our holy texts.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Ah. Ignore lists are great.

[elliotfc]

As for Randi, he is ignorant about holy water. It is a sacramental which is not necessary for an exorcism. Only two things are needed to perform an exorcism. But never let the facts get in the way of a Randi zinger. The important thing is dogmatic bluster, the ubermensch acting...well, as only the ubermensch can. It's all chemical, he can't help himself, not making a big deal here.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Ah. Ignore lists are great.

They are certainly serviceable. I wouldn't say great...that's pushing it, but you will elevate things to the level of greatness that you need to. It's a tough world, one man's great is another man's justgottadoit.

-Elliot

[KingMerv00]

It's all chemical, he can't help himself, not making a big deal here.
-Elliot

Making a joke I take it?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1906241&postcount=24

[I less than three logic]

We all need our holy texts.
I don’t think you have the proper authority to keep speaking for everyone like that. Perhaps you can start backing up all these “we all” statements with some evidence?

[ponderingturtle]

That is indeed the question. My guess is that the answer is darned close to 0.
Does it matter if it is non catholic, but abstenice only as all of those are largely for religious reasons?

This is an anti religion thread not anti catholic, so the catholic church is just one example of the bad effects that religion has.


And if you add in the US budget deficit and its effect on interest rates, then it really proves the case.

The OP was about the Catholic Church and its contraception policy.

No the op was that religion does many evil things that should not be tolerated. The US for religious reasons does the same thing as the catholic church, so why would only one get counted

In my humble opinion, there is a strong element of "I don't like them so I will blame them for everything" in the OP.

Nothing wrong with spreading ignoreance and miss-information in your book I see.

[ponderingturtle]

I keep bringin up skin pigments, this is the third time.

Knowning about pigmentation does not disprove the idea that god damned all darker skinned people and marked them as evil, that is just the physical explanation of how the physical effect is achieved.

Knowing about skin pigmentation does not disprove that it is the mark of cain

[IllegalArgument]

How would people classify soviet or chinese communism?

There is no god-heaven-nirvana in communism but it certainly was used to justify the killing of millions of people.

As for Elliot's comment about population growth and religion.

The Chinese had to impliment "one child" policy to crub their population group and they certainly don't go to church.

[Meadmaker]

This is an anti religion thread not anti catholic, so the catholic church is just one example of the bad effects that religion has.

The "case in point" from the OP was the Catholic Church and the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I suppose there are plenty of other "cases in point" that could be used as an example of religions and bad things. From the title of the thread, I actually expected a thread about Muslim extremists.

Instead, the only example of a case of something we should not tolerate was the Catholic Church somehow suppressing information about AIDS prevention.

There are many, many, things done in the name of religion that cause all sorts of human suffering, and I don't think we should tolerate those. However, in my humble opinion, preaching against birth control isn't one of them. It is at worst silly. The teaching is widely ignored anyway. It doesn't cause AIDS.


Nothing wrong with spreading ignoreance and miss-information in your book I see.

There's plenty of ignorance and misinformation to go around. Some of it is even spread by atheists.

Could you cite an example of misinformation the Catholic Church spreads, in relation to AIDS? I know they say that God doesn't like promiscuous people, homosexuals, or contraceptives, but since I don't have a direct line to God, I don't know that I could call that misinformation. It is at worst unconfirmed speculation.

They also say that promiscuity and homosexuality contribute to AIDS. That isn't misinformation at all. They also say that condoms are not perfect protection against AIDS. No misinformation there. They, and the US government, say that the only perfect protection against STDs is abstinence. That might not be realistic, but it isn't misinformation.

As for ignorance, you can accuse the Catholic Church of not giving people information, but then again, there are lots and lots of people who are not giving African people information about AIDS. I myself haven't spoken to any Africans about the subject, or contributed any money to anyone who does. I doubt that McDonalds has given out any AIDS information in Africa, either. Their food may cause lots of African deaths, but not due to AIDS. I think McDonalds and Pope Benedict are equally culpable when it comes to African AIDS.

[tkingdoll]

McDonalds send missionaries to Africa?

[Tanstaafl]

How would people classify soviet or chinese communism?

There is no god-heaven-nirvana in communism but it certainly was used to justify the killing of millions of people.

There are many non-religious reasons for killing people. I don't think that's relevant to the thread. This is specifically about the dangerous effects of religion, that is where it is the religious ideas themselves that are used to justify violent and/or repressive acts. The fact that non-religious ideas can also do this does not excuse religion.

But I guess you could make the point that eliminating religion would not eliminate such things as genocide, and I would agree with that.

[Tanstaafl]

I think McDonalds and Pope Benedict are equally culpable when it comes to African AIDS.

I'm sorry, I think that is just too ridiculous to even bother refuting.

[IllegalArgument]

There are many non-religious reasons for killing people. I don't think that's relevant to the thread. This is specifically about the dangerous effects of religion, that is where it is the religious ideas themselves that are used to justify violent and/or repressive acts. The fact that non-religious ideas can also do this does not excuse religion.

But I guess you could make the point that eliminating religion would not eliminate such things as genocide, and I would agree with that.

That's exactly the point I was making.

I'm not interested in execusing religion, I just want to make sure people don't assume religion is the only source of "evil".

[scotth]

I think that if we could get a solid majority of the population to learn to think critically in every aspect of their lives, it would be amazing how far we would come in wiping out many of the evils of this world.

Religion is one of many things that deserves to be squarely in the cross hairs. Religion is the most likely thing to convince someone that it is in their own self interest to commit any type of suicide attack. And don't just look at Muslims. Martyrdom has a long history with Christians as well. That idea has fallen far enough from favor in the more progressive areas that many there don't even realize it is part of their tradition any more. But plenty still believe even today.

[ImaginalDisc]

That's exactly the point I was making.

I'm not interested in execusing religion, I just want to make sure people don't assume religion is the only source of "evil".

Certainly not. It's also no use saying that religion does a lot of good to, in addition to the evil. The comunnity, compassion, charity, and other nifty c-words people associate with religion can happen without imaginary beings and pompus priests telling people what to do. Religion has nothing unique to offer.

[ceo_esq]

Well, our resources are inequitably consumed primarily by the wealthiest populations, not the neediest ...

Right. That's certainly part of it. Yet this suggests that the real problem isn't that we can't feed or clothe the world's current population; just that we don't.


More older people and fewer younger people is an arguement for a more secure and better regulated health care and social security system not an arguement in favor of religion.

No one's using it as an argument in favor of religion, but the solution to precipitously dropping birth rates in those countries is not (at least not entirely) better government regulation of healthcare or social security. Either mass immigration (with whatever downside that entails) or having more babies is going to be required at some point, I should think.


How many people have suffered and died as a direct result of religious beliefs, either their own, or those of the person inflicting the suffering?

It's very difficult to say, but my best guess is that, albeit substantial, it's a smaller number than the number of people whose suffering has been mitigated or whose deaths have been avoided as the result of religious beliefs, at least in the West.


Firstly, calling it an "epistle" is deeply insulting.

I'm not sure why this should necessarily be deeply insulting, given that an epistle (per OED) is simply "A communication made to an absent person in writing; a letter. Chiefly ... applied to letters written in ancient times, esp. to those which rank as literary productions, or ... to those of a public character, or addressed to a body of persons." It does not seem unreasonable to describe Randi's weekly Commentaries as epistles. Then again, people determined to take umbrage generally manage to achieve that result one way or another.

[Meadmaker]

McDonalds send missionaries to Africa?

No, they send business people to Africa, and sell hamburgers. However, they don't provide education on condom use. Neither does Pope Benedict.

[Tanstaafl]

No, they send business people to Africa, and sell hamburgers. However, they don't provide education on condom use. Neither does Pope Benedict.

The Catholic church actively discourages people from using condoms, despite knowing that they are effective in slowing the spread of AIDS.

[Meadmaker]

The Catholic church actively discourages people from using condoms, despite knowing that they are effective in slowing the spread of AIDS.


To blame the church for an AIDS death, you would have to find someone who:

Died of AIDS.
Contracted AIDS from sex with an infected partner.
Refrained from using a condom because of the church's teaching on condoms.

In other words, they were either engaging in promiscous sex, or possibly monogamous sex, but with a promiscuous partner. However, despite engaging in promiscuous sex, they would have to adhere to the teachings of the church on condom use. If they didn't use a condom because they, or their partner, didn't like them, that's a different story altogether. And of course, the infected partner had to catch AIDS from someone, which would have involved him not using a condom during that sex, either.

So, first, we have to find someone who follows church teachings on contraception. Whether in North America, or Africa, such people are rare. Very few Catholics actually go along with church teaching on contraception. However, not only that, but you have to find someone who is engaging in some sort of sexual practice that would result in AIDS transmission, with a person who has AIDS, and who would have used a condom, except for the fact that the Pope said he wasn't supposed to.

How many such people are there, these swinging dudes and dudettes who are obedient to the Pope, not on matters of sexual behavior in general, but just when it comes to contraception?

Balanced against this, you might find that church teaching might influence some people who, even though they use condoms, might remain monogamous, or at least have fewer sex partners in an attempt to be a bit more spiritual in the use of their bodies. If you are going to blame the Pope for AIDS deaths, I think he should get some credit for AIDS prevention among those who are influenced toward chastity or monogamy through the teachings of the church.

In my humble opinion, it seems very likely that the number of AIDS deaths prevented by Catholic teaching on monogamy and related sexual matters is greater, by a long shot, than the number of AIDS deaths caused by the few people who engage in disease-causing sexual activities, but will refuse contraception because of religious teachings.

[Tanstaafl]

It seems to me that your claim was equal culpability between McDonalds and the pope. I presume you meant that the pope is not to blame at all.

The pope does actively attempt to discourage people from using condoms, independent of whether the sex involved is within marriage. Granted, his efforts probably have a limited effect, particularly given a dearth of information, limited funds, maybe limited availability of condoms, etc. And we certainly can't pin any particular AIDS death on the pope.

But he is nonetheless actively discouraging people from using condoms.

McDonalds is doing nothing at all.

You really consider those equal?

[Meadmaker]

It seems to me that your claim was equal culpability between McDonalds and the pope. I presume you meant that the pope is not to blame at all.

The pope does actively attempt to discourage people from using condoms, independent of whether the sex involved is within marriage. Granted, his efforts probably have a limited effect, particularly given a dearth of information, limited funds, maybe limited availability of condoms, etc. And we certainly can't pin any particular AIDS death on the pope.

But he is nonetheless actively discouraging people from using condoms.

McDonalds is doing nothing at all.

You really consider those equal?


Pretty much, yeah. If he were encouraging people to go to orgies and not use condoms, you might have a point. However, if people follow the Pope's teaching, they won't get AIDS. If they follow only some of the Pope's teachings, I find it hard to believe that the part they keep would be the part about not using condoms.

[ImaginalDisc]

So, Meadmaker, telling people they will burn in hell forever if they use a condom doesn't equal discouraging condom use to you?

[Meadmaker]

So, Meadmaker, telling people they will burn in hell forever if they use a condom doesn't equal discouraging condom use to you?

I know it is difficult, ID, but please try to read what people write instead of putting words in their mouths.

Here's what I said. I'll type slow.

If you follow Catholic teaching, you won't get AIDS. If you only follow some of Catholic teaching, I think it is inconceivable that there are any measurable number of people who choose to engage in promiscuous sex, thus making them high risks for AIDS acquisition, but who would refrain from using a condom because of church teaching.


On the other hand, I do think that some people, influenced by the church, will refrain from promiscuous sex, thus reducing the spread of AIDS.

[ImaginalDisc]

I know it is difficult, ID, but please try to read what people write instead of putting words in their mouths.

Here's what I said. I'll type slow.

If you follow Catholic teaching, you won't get AIDS. If you only follow some of Catholic teaching, I think it is inconceivable that there are any measurable number of people who choose to engage in promiscuous sex, thus making them high risks for AIDS acquisition, but who would refrain from using a condom because of church teaching.


On the other hand, I do think that some people, influenced by the church, will refrain from promiscuous sex, thus reducing the spread of AIDS.
Your above quoted post is irrelevant to my question.


Does, or does not, the Catholic Chruch condem condoms and the people who use them?

[slingblade]

If one followed all the teachings of Catholicism, one would not get AIDS, because one would: be a virgin; not be promiscuous; not need to use condoms because one was virginally monogamous and had sex only with one's partner; and married one's partner before engaging in sex...is that basically the argument?

Doesn't this assume that marriage either guarantees one's partner is AIDS-free, or that marriage cures AIDS I guess, or that both people know their own AIDS status before marriage, or that one partner isn't lying, or that only sex spreads AIDS, or that if you've been pure all your life, you can't possibly have gotten AIDS, say by transfusion, or birth, or some other vector, and....

Doesn't this position assume a lot?

[Ausmerican]

Only two things are needed to perform an exorcism.
-Elliot

Delusion and a Messiah Complex?
A rich fantasy life and copious ignorance?

[Meadmaker]

Your above quoted post is irrelevant to my question.


Does, or does not, the Catholic Chruch condem condoms and the people who use them?

Absolutely, it does.

[Meadmaker]

If one followed all the teachings of Catholicism, one would not get AIDS, because one would: be a virgin; not be promiscuous; not need to use condoms because one was virginally monogamous and had sex only with one's partner; and married one's partner before engaging in sex...is that basically the argument?

Doesn't this assume that marriage either guarantees one's partner is AIDS-free, or that marriage cures AIDS I guess, or that both people know their own AIDS status before marriage, or that one partner isn't lying, or that only sex spreads AIDS, or that if you've been pure all your life, you can't possibly have gotten AIDS, say by transfusion, or birth, or some other vector, and....

Doesn't this position assume a lot?

Obviously, it's possible to follow the church teaching, and still get AIDS from an infected spouse. But, how often does that really happen?

Of course, it's possible to use a condom every time you have sex, and still get AIDS from an infected partner.

Here's a question I would like to see answered, by someone with knowledge on the subject. I don't know the answer, and I don't know if anyone knows the answer.

Suppose a 25 year old woman marries a 25 year old HIV positive man. They are both aware that he is HIV positive, so every time they have sex, they use a condom. They avoid particularly risky activities, but they have a normal sex life. They have sex as frequently as an average couple, always using a condom.

What is the probability that the woman will be HIV negative when she dies?

[scotth]

Suppose a 25 year old woman marries a 25 year old HIV positive man. They are both aware that he is HIV positive, so every time they have sex, they use a condom. They avoid particularly risky activities, but they have a normal sex life. They have sex as frequently as an average couple, always using a condom.

What is the probability that the woman will be HIV negative when she dies?

Quite low. Not zero by any means. But certainly more likely than not, she could remain HIV negative.

From this page: http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factcond.html


The protection that proper use of latex condoms provides against HIV transmission is most evident from studies of couples in which one member is infected with HIV and the other is not, i.e., "discordant couples." In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.


Bolding mine.

[Meadmaker]

Thanks, Scott. I, too, did some searching, and found similar results. Most of the pages referred to studies, but didn't post the numbers from the results. Most said "highly effective", and similar words. However, unlike the study you posted, they all said that there was a non-zero transmission rate, even in the case of proper use. The most specific site said there was about a 1% chance per year that a non-infected woman would become infected if she and her husband consistenly used condoms correctly. (If anyone is curious about the numbers, I can try to find and link to the studies. I was just doing quick googling and browsing, so I didn't save the links.)

Ok, so let's consider the implications for the subject of this part of this thread, which is whether the Catholic Church teaching causes AIDS. In order to make that claim, you would have to say that the incidence of AIDS increases as a result of Catholic Church doctrine.

In the case of non-monogamous people, who the church would call fornicators, you have to assume that someone is willing to fornicate, but not willing to violate church rules on contraception while fornicating. In the case of married people, you have to assume that people are willing to risk the life of the non-infected partner rather than risk the wrath of God by using a condom. Since most people ignore the church teaching on condom use even when there is no health risk, that doesn't strike me as overly likely.

Furthermore, the church doesn't actually teach that married people should avoid condom use in that case. No Papal announcement on the subject has been made, and the cardinals who have spoken on the subject are divided. Most of the ones against condom use do not cite the church ban on birth control as justification, actually. Instead, they cite that there is a risk of disease transmission even with condom use.

Finally, if you are being fair tot he Pope, you would also have to factor in the possibility that some people, influenced by church teaching, modify their behavior in such a way as to reduce the risk of AIDS transmission. In other words, to be fair, you would have to give the Pope credit for preventing some cases of AIDS and weigh that against the small number of cases where AIDS might be transmitted as a consequence of adherence to Catholic doctrine.

In short, Catholic doctrine may be responsible for sexual frustration and feelings of guilt, but it doesn't kill people.

[TragicMonkey]

In short, Catholic doctrine may be responsible for sexual frustration and feelings of guilt, but it doesn't kill people.

Except the women who die in childbirth after having too many children, or the children who die of malnutrition because their parents had too many of them and can't afford to feed them all. It doesn't happen very much in so-called First World nations anymore...but then, First World Catholics tend to ignore the whole "no contraception" thing anyway. It certainly used to happen here. Not so long ago my family tree sounded like rabbits: "Mary Margaret had fifteen children: eight survived."

The "Rhythm Method" just doesn't work. That's what you get for getting sex tips from professional celibates.

[Beerina]

I don't advocate extreme mindless bigotry such as running mini-vans with Jesus-fish stickers off the road

That would probably not be a wise choice of action given they're still the vast majority of the population even in the bluest of states.

[Beerina]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

Brutal evolution in action, which is odd, given it doesn't exist.

[ponderingturtle]

McDonalds send missionaries to Africa?

Of course, to preach the way to salvation known as The Big Mac...

[ponderingturtle]

No, they send business people to Africa, and sell hamburgers. However, they don't provide education on condom use. Neither does Pope Benedict.

And they don't pretend to be teaching people about aids awareness either.

[Tanstaafl]

Actually, the pope does teach about condom use. He teaches not to.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks, Scott. I, too, did some searching, and found similar results. Most of the pages referred to studies, but didn't post the numbers from the results. Most said "highly effective", and similar words. However, unlike the study you posted, they all said that there was a non-zero transmission rate, even in the case of proper use. The most specific site said there was about a 1% chance per year that a non-infected woman would become infected if she and her husband consistenly used condoms correctly. (If anyone is curious about the numbers, I can try to find and link to the studies. I was just doing quick googling and browsing, so I didn't save the links.)

Ok, so let's consider the implications for the subject of this part of this thread, which is whether the Catholic Church teaching causes AIDS. In order to make that claim, you would have to say that the incidence of AIDS increases as a result of Catholic Church doctrine.

In the case of non-monogamous people, who the church would call fornicators, you have to assume that someone is willing to fornicate, but not willing to violate church rules on contraception while fornicating. In the case of married people, you have to assume that people are willing to risk the life of the non-infected partner rather than risk the wrath of God by using a condom. Since most people ignore the church teaching on condom use even when there is no health risk, that doesn't strike me as overly likely.
.

Sure but they have to be aware that condoms help and have them available, and when you add bush and the catholic church supporting keeping both out reach for the person, they become alot more culpable.

[ceo_esq]

And they don't pretend to be teaching people about aids awareness either.

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church only pretends to be teaching people about "AIDS awareness"? Because nothing leads me to believe it's a pretense.

[scotth]

Meadmaker, besides all the refutation of your general point that on condoms and the church....

Here is a quote from an interview with Sam Harris that cuts to the heart of it, "They preach about the sinfulness of condom use, in countries like Sudan, where millions of people die every year from AIDS. And, this really has a negative effect. This decreases the likelihood that condoms will be used in those villages." He was speaking of Christian missionaries in general and not specifically the Catholic church.

[ponderingturtle]

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church only pretends to be teaching people about "AIDS awareness"? Because nothing leads me to believe it's a pretense.

Sure it is, if it was not they would give them the information and let them decide on the action instead of not telling them about how condoms can be effective

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, besides all the refutation of your general point that on condoms and the church....

Here is a quote from an interview with Sam Harris that cuts to the heart of it, "They preach about the sinfulness of condom use, in countries like Sudan, where millions of people die every year from AIDS. And, this really has a negative effect. This decreases the likelihood that condoms will be used in those villages." He was speaking of Christian missionaries in general and not specifically the Catholic church.

Well if Sam says it, it must be true.

But, why would non-Catholic missionaries be preaching about the sinfulness of condom use?

[IllegalArgument]

Well if Sam says it, it must be true.

But, why would non-Catholic missionaries be preaching about the sinfulness of condom use?

First we would need to know which non-Catholic missionaries are preaching about the sinfulness of condom use.

Without that information, it's all guess work.

[scotth]

These could very well be Catholic missionaries at this point. However, it was part of a larger statement that was not so constrained.

Since Sam did not associate his statement specifically with Catholics, I thought it fair to state so.

[IllegalArgument]

These could very well be Catholic missionaries at this point. However, it was part of a larger statement that was not so constrained.

Since Sam did not associate his statement specifically with Catholics, I thought it fair to state so.

I agree, there are probably plenty of reasons for non-Cathlolic missionaries to be against condom use. I just figured it would be easier to figure out the specifics if we knew the denomination.

[Meadmaker]

It seems much more likely to me that the Christian missionaries, including Catholic ones, were teaching "Condoms won't protect you against AIDS nearly as well as chastity will protect you against AIDS."

[ImaginalDisc]

It seems much more likely to me that the Christian missionaries, including Catholic ones, were teaching "Condoms won't protect you against AIDS nearly as well as chastity will protect you against AIDS."

Evidence?

[ceo_esq]

Sure it is, if it was not they would give them the information and let them decide on the action instead of not telling them about how condoms can be effective

As far as I am aware, the Church does let people decide on their actions. It also makes people aware of what HIV and AIDS are and aren't, how the virus is transmitted, and what its effects on the human organism are. It also lays out a recommended program of behavior that, I think every reasonable person must concede, greatly reduces an individual's risk profile. Now, this is obviously not the only possible approach to AIDS education, nor necessarily the best. However, I think it is clear that by any reasonable definition, the Church does promote AIDS awareness and education, without sham or pretense.

[scotth]

It seems much more likely to me that the Christian missionaries, including Catholic ones, were teaching "Condoms won't protect you against AIDS nearly as well as chastity will protect you against AIDS."

No. Listen. One more time.

They are teaching that it is a SIN to use condoms. A sin against God. They are not comparing effectiveness of condoms vs chastity. They are teaching not to use them, period.

I am sure to think otherwise is reassuring, but it is false.

[IllegalArgument]

It seems much more likely to me that the Christian missionaries, including Catholic ones, were teaching "Condoms won't protect you against AIDS nearly as well as chastity will protect you against AIDS."

I figured that was the point you were making.

I don't have a problem with them teaching the benefits of chastity.

I do have my doubts that they are providing proper information about condoms as long with the chastity lecture.

The Catholics certainly have no desire to talk about condoms, it's against their religion.

[Meadmaker]

I do have my doubts that they are providing proper information about condoms as long with the chastity lecture.

The Catholics certainly have no desire to talk about condoms, it's against their religion.

That is absolutely true. The Catholics aren't talking about condom use. That was my point about McDonalds. McDonalds isn't talking about condom use, either. Is AIDS the fault of McDonalds? I doubt that other Christian missionaries are talking about condom use, either, unless they are saying "Condoms won't protect you. Chastity will."

You can't blame this or that church for "not talking about condom use". When did that become their job?


They are talking about chastity, which would protect you from AIDS. In doing so, they might be unrealistic, but they aren't spreading misinformation, nor are they causing AIDS.

As I mentioned before, the Catholic church is very influential in Ireland, and condoms are illegal without a prescription. Despite that, there's no huge AIDS epidemic. If it's the church's fault, how do you explain that?

[scotth]

That is absolutely true. The Catholics aren't talking about condom use. That was my point about McDonalds. McDonalds isn't talking about condom use, either. Is AIDS the fault of McDonalds? I doubt that other Christian missionaries are talking about condom use, either, unless they are saying "Condoms won't protect you. Chastity will."

You can't blame this or that church for "not talking about condom use". When did that become their job?


They are talking about chastity, which would protect you from AIDS. In doing so, they might be unrealistic, but they aren't spreading misinformation, nor are they causing AIDS.

As I mentioned before, the Catholic church is very influential in Ireland, and condoms are illegal without a prescription. Despite that, there's no huge AIDS epidemic. If it's the church's fault, how do you explain that?

Hmmmm...... To be accurate, the church IS talking about them. It is saying not to use them. And can be incredibly influencial in places where the average person does not have access to a telephone, TV, newspaper, or internet (unlike Ireland).

And going way back to the beginning of this thread.... No one is saying the Christianity or the Catholic Church are the sole reason people are dying of AIDS in Africa in stupifying numbers. They are just contributing to the problem in a rather signicant way. Being one bank robber of many doesn't make you something other than a bank robber. "But officer, he is commiting the same crime", is no defense.

[IllegalArgument]

I never said that the Catholic church was spreading misinformation. I said the Catholic church was not providing complete information.

According to CIA World Fact Book,
Ireland (2001) rate of infection .1%
Norway (2001) rate of infection .1%
Japan (2003) less than 0.1% (2003 est.)

It looks like Catholic Ireland fairs even worse than non-Christian Japan.

Though, I'm happy to see low rates in all three countries.

[Polaris]

I've been lurking on these forums for a while. It's been fun and informatve reading the discussions taking place here. I've had enough of being quiet now, and I'm ready to start picking this forum's collective brain. The point of my first diatribe is as follows:


Religious tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. I don't advocate extreme mindless bigotry such as running mini-vans with Jesus-fish stickers off the road, but permitting religion to place their version of morality on a higher pedestal than human life cannot be excused.

Case in point: AIDS in Africa has become a full-on epidemic. Within certain areas where the only governing authority is provided by Catholic missionaries, people are not being educated about the use of condoms to avoid spreading the HIV virus. The official stance of the Catholic church is that the use of birth control is a sin, and the idea of pre-marital abstinence is being promoted as the sole solution to the AIDS problem.

Let's face it. People are people, and the reason people exist in the first place is because other people had sex. The need to propogate our species is coded into every fiber of our being. Preaching absolute abstinence makes as much sense as telling people to stop breathing. Sure, there will be the small percentage of people who are devout enough to follow the whatever their religion says to the letter, but as statistics on abstinence-only sex education in my own country (USA) show, the idea is doomed to failure from the outset.

If Catholics were somehow forced by an outside government or health care organization to spread educational materials and birth control supplies, they would cry discrimination against their religious beliefs. Surely they'd be as offended as a Muslim being served bacon for breakfast. We cannot let that overshadow the fact that a campaign of misinformation and their unrealistic, outdated, and warped sense of morality is killing people by the thousands, the same people they are trying to "save". The Vatican is unwilling to permit what it sees as the lesser of two evils. Their philosophy of abstinence-only education is misguided at the very best. At worst, now combined with a lethal STD in the equation, I see no reason whatsoever that it's any different from criminally negiligent genocide.

I say that those responsible should be taken to task. If ithis were a truly fair and objective world, leadership of the Catholic Church would have already been found guilty of crimes against humanity.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

Well put, welcome to the forums.

[ceo_esq]

And going way back to the beginning of this thread.... No one is saying the Christianity or the Catholic Church are the sole reason people are dying of AIDS in Africa in stupifying numbers. They are just contributing to the problem in a rather signicant way.

As Meadmaker suggested, it's probably a mistake to try to separate the Church's teachings about condoms from its teachings about fidelity, monogamy and extramarital sex, because they are intended to operate in concert. If you follow one (condoms) and ignore the others, the result is predictably going to be negative. And that's going to be the outcome that contributes to the problem, though for rather obvious reasons it is unjust to lay that at the feet of the Church. All of the other aspects of AIDS-related Church activity (everything from the discouraging of high risk behavior, to awareness education, to substantial investment in clinical and research activity, to providing palliative or other care for something like a quarter of all AIDS victims worldwide) have a positive impact on the problem. Do you really think that the Catholic Church is a net contributor to the problem? That appears supremely implausible to me. The reverse seems far more likely to be true.

[Meadmaker]

No. Listen. One more time.

They are teaching that it is a SIN to use condoms. A sin against God. They are not comparing effectiveness of condoms vs chastity. They are teaching not to use them, period.

I am sure to think otherwise is reassuring, but it is false.

I'm quite confident that you are wrong. The Catholic Church is in fact comparing the effectiveness of condoms vs. chastity. As an easy way to test that, we could link to web sites, sponsored by the Catholic Church, in which that message was explicitly stated.

In fact, I'm absolutely confident, so much so that it isn't worth looking up, unless you make it worth my while. Is there any sort of bet we could make on the subject?

(As an aside, I understand that the Catholic Church does indeed say that condom use is a sin, and that its sinfulness is, in most cases, totally unrelated to their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness. Nevertheless, they quite frequently compare the effectiveness of condoms with the effectiveness of chastity, noting that chastity is much more effective in reducing AIDS transmission.)

[scotth]

I'm quite confident that you are wrong. The Catholic Church is in fact comparing the effectiveness of condoms vs. chastity. As an easy way to test that, we could link to web sites, sponsored by the Catholic Church, in which that message was explicitly stated.

In fact, I'm absolutely confident, so much so that it isn't worth looking up, unless you make it worth my while. Is there any sort of bet we could make on the subject?

(As an aside, I understand that the Catholic Church does indeed say that condom use is a sin, and that its sinfulness is, in most cases, totally unrelated to their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness. Nevertheless, they quite frequently compare the effectiveness of condoms with the effectiveness of chastity, noting that chastity is much more effective in reducing AIDS transmission.)

They don't get to read many websites in Sudan.

[Meadmaker]

They don't get to read many websites in Sudan.

So no bet?

[scotth]

So no bet?

Yes, I am sure that on websites intended for an audience that has a nearly unlimited number of information sources, the church is nearly forced to cover more information. They know they would be called out for it, otherwise.

I know numerous people who grew up in Africa. A couple of them were children of missionaries. I regularly get to hear from several sources what things are like in Africa today. In huge sections of Africa, the population is so ignorant it is difficult to even imagine. Religious missionaries are frequently their main source of information coming from outside their village. Imagine how influencial these missionaries would be. Even the most ignorant missionary would probably know much more than anyone most of the villagers know.

Missionaries from a number of sects teach that using condoms is a sin and that is about all that is said. AIDS isn't even part of the discussion.

I have a hard time seeing how it should not be considered murder.

I could go on about health organization volunteers hardly being able to give condoms away because the people know that you go to hell if you use those.

[ImaginalDisc]

So no bet?

Wagers make poor truth discerning mechanisms.

[Meadmaker]

I have a hard time seeing how it should not be considered murder.

I could go on about health organization volunteers hardly being able to give condoms away because the people know that you go to hell if you use those.

It would be interesting to hear the opposite side of that conversation. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if they were talking about going to hell for using condoms, part of the reason would be related to what they were doing while using the condoms.

It might also be interesing to compare the rate of incidence of AIDS to the rate of Catholicism

Top ten Aftican countries for Catholics: (By % population)

10.Mauritius
Tanzania
Zambia
Uganda
Gabon
Rwanda
Angola
Congo
Burundi
1.Equatorial Guinea

Top ten countries for AIDS

10.Central African Republic
Malawi
Mozambique
Zambia
South Africa
Namibia
Zimbabwe
Lesotho
Botswana
1.Swaziland

It seems that the Pope is most effective at murdering Protestants and Animists. His own strongholds are relatively low on the list of AIDS victims.

[ponderingturtle]

As far as I am aware, the Church does let people decide on their actions. It also makes people aware of what HIV and AIDS are and aren't, how the virus is transmitted, and what its effects on the human organism are. It also lays out a recommended program of behavior that, I think every reasonable person must concede, greatly reduces an individual's risk profile. Now, this is obviously not the only possible approach to AIDS education, nor necessarily the best. However, I think it is clear that by any reasonable definition, the Church does promote AIDS awareness and education, without sham or pretense.

Mabey, I don't know that much about how the church teaches about aids. But if they are getting funding from the US government they must be teaching abstenance only programs and not teaching condom use. That is a fact and it is also a religiously motivated teaching, it is just not catholic in nature but other christians.

[ponderingturtle]

No. Listen. One more time.

They are teaching that it is a SIN to use condoms. A sin against God. They are not comparing effectiveness of condoms vs chastity. They are teaching not to use them, period.

I am sure to think otherwise is reassuring, but it is false.

After all if I am cheating I am commiting one sin, why should I compound my problems by useing condoms and comit two sins?

[elliotfc]

After all if I am cheating I am commiting one sin, why should I compound my problems by useing condoms and comit two sins?

You're assuming that this attitude is operant in adulterers. -Elliot

[ponderingturtle]

You're assuming that this attitude is operant in adulterers. -Elliot

I am demonstrating that just becuase you are comiting one sin you might not want to commit two.

[ImaginalDisc]

It would be interesting to hear the opposite side of that conversation. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if they were talking about going to hell for using condoms, part of the reason would be related to what they were doing while using the condoms.

It might also be interesing to compare the rate of incidence of AIDS to the rate of Catholicism

Top ten Aftican countries for Catholics: (By % population)

10.Mauritius
Tanzania
Zambia
Uganda
Gabon
Rwanda
Angola
Congo
Burundi
1.Equatorial Guinea

Top ten countries for AIDS

10.Central African Republic
Malawi
Mozambique
Zambia
South Africa
Namibia
Zimbabwe
Lesotho
Botswana
1.Swaziland

It seems that the Pope is most effective at murdering Protestants and Animists. His own strongholds are relatively low on the list of AIDS victims.

Typical poor reasoning and dishonest tactics from you.

That is at best a correlation. That's as spurious as claiming that since states with the lowest murderer rates administer the death penalty, the death penalty is a good deterant (Which is untrue by the way. Texas kills people constantly, and they have a high murderer rate.)

[Meadmaker]

Typical poor reasoning and dishonest tactics from you.

As opposed to...what? I'm looking for some influence that Catholics have had on AIDS rates. As best I can tell, all I've gotten from the anti-papish side is "They say don't use condoms, so it's their fault that people are dying of AIDS."

Sorry, I don't buy it. They say that you ought to lead a monogamous life, and be chaste outside of marriage, and not use condoms within marriage, for the purpose of contraception. (If your spouse has AIDS, the morality of using condoms is being debated. No definitive answer has been issued from the Vatican.)

If you could find me someone, anyone, who has AIDS and says, "I would have used a condom, but the priest told me not to," then you would have some sort of marginal case. It wouldn't be a good case, but it would be something.

[ImaginalDisc]

As opposed to...what? I'm looking for some influence that Catholics have had on AIDS rates. As best I can tell, all I've gotten from the anti-papish side is "They say don't use condoms, so it's their fault that people are dying of AIDS."

For the last time you nitwit, not using condoms during sex increases your chance of getting HIV. In the US, the fastest growing group of newly infected patients is heterosexual women. Why? Because even though a woman may be monogous, or even in a marriage, her husband may be running around on her, and having unprotected sex. Condoms block HIV. Jesus does not.

[elliotfc]

For the last time you nitwit, not using condoms during sex increases your chance of getting HIV.

Also, the duration of sexual intercourse increases your chance of getting HIV, so all you 15 second men out there take heart!

Condoms block HIV. Jesus does not.

The Church is not content with accepting the premise (if you're going to have sex...), I guess that's the issue. Is the premise real? No doubt. If you're going to rape someone...that's also a real premise. They're after the morality of the premises.

Like Meadmaker keeps saying over and over and over again, if people followed the Church's teaching on *sex*, this would not be the issue that it currently is. You get AIDS for what you do, and not for what you don't do. Nobody *has* to fornicate. Now, you can also get AIDS by not fornicating, but fornication is at the root (cheating spouse, etc).

-Elliot

[Meadmaker]

For the last time ...

Promises, promises.

[I less than three logic]

Now, you can also get AIDS by not fornicating, but fornication is at the root (cheating spouse, etc).
Well, sex is not the only way to contract HIV, just the most common. One’s spouse doesn't necessarily need to cheat in order to pass the virus on to you. Just a nit pick though. :)

[ImaginalDisc]

Promises, promises.

If the Catholic Chruch was right, there wouldn't even BE any AIDs in the first place.

"God loves you."

"Then why is there AIDS?"

"Um. . ."

[Freethinker]

If the Catholic Chruch was right, there wouldn't even BE any AIDs in the first place.

"God loves you."

"Then why is there AIDS?"

"Um. . ."

To punish the sinful, perverted homosexuals of course! :rolleyes:

[Meadmaker]

If the Catholic Chruch was right, there wouldn't even BE any AIDs in the first place.



If you were right about the Catholic Church, a lot of these conversations would proceed in a much less amusing fashion.

[Complexity]

Should I be tolerant of murderers? of thieves? of child molesters?

Should I be tolerant of abusers? of liars? of control freaks? of frauds?

Should I be tolerant of people who harm others through greed, delusion, or a lust for power?

Should I be tolerant of people who are intolerant of others?

Then why should I be tolerant of religions and those that follow them?

[elliotfc]

Should I be tolerant of murderers? of thieves? of child molesters?

Should I be tolerant of abusers? of liars? of control freaks? of frauds?

Should I be tolerant of people who harm others through greed, delusion, or a lust for power?

Should I be tolerant of people who are intolerant of others?

Then why should I be tolerant of religions and those that follow them?

I agree that some religious people are the things you list above.

Some doctors are murderers...thieves...molesters. Some parents are liars and control freaks and frauds. I think you can extend your points to embrace *everybody* and every classification.

I don't mind if you are intolerant with the totality of religion, and the religious, because I don't think it's anything more than that, a personal opinion. You're not advocating any legislation or threats towards religion/the religious, so it's just you getting things off your chest.

-Elliot

[Complexity]

I agree that some religious people are the things you list above.

Some doctors are murderers...thieves...molesters. Some parents are liars and control freaks and frauds. I think you can extend your points to embrace *everybody* and every classification.

I don't mind if you are intolerant with the totality of religion, and the religious, because I don't think it's anything more than that, a personal opinion. You're not advocating any legislation or threats towards religion/the religious, so it's just you getting things off your chest.

-Elliot

Every religious person falls into at least one of the categories that I listed - injuring others through delusion, if nothing else. That is not the case for doctors, parents, or most other varieties of people.

Don't assume that I'm intolerant of religions and their followers. My opinions aren't the issue.

As a libertarian, I'm not going to advocate legislation or threats to religions or the religious. I do want them to keep their paws off of my life and the lives of everyone else.

I am not merely getting things off of my chest.

I regard religion as one of the greatest threats to human happiness, health, progress, and survival.

[elliotfc]

Every religious person falls into at least one of the categories that I listed - injuring others through delusion, if nothing else. That is not the case for doctors, parents, or most other varieties of people.

I guess I haven't made the determination that religous people injure others through delusion...be it whether or not injuries actually take place (assuming delusion), or, whether or not the beliefs are delusional. I accept that you accept that the beliefs are delsional. As for "injuring", I don't know how objectively you can view that concept. Some people think they are injured at a point in time, but in the future they could re-evaluate the opinion.

Don't assume that I'm intolerant of religions and their followers. My opinions aren't the issue.

So *are* you actually intolerant of religions? Or, is it dogmatically true that religions deserve to be viewed intolerantly?

As a libertarian, I'm not going to advocate legislation or threats to religions or the religious. I do want them to keep their paws off of my life and the lives of everyone else.

Fair enough.

I am not merely getting things off of my chest.

No doubt you speak for many people, so I guess you're right.

I regard religion as one of the greatest threats to human happiness, health, progress, and survival.

Happiness is totally variable if not totally subjective, health is a real thing (though death is inevitable), progress is subjective (you can say that progress is mere chronology, or else you must have standards which would be subjectively chosen) and survival? We've got a lot of people on the planet.

If you say that people in general would be healthier if there was no religion...that's the one thing you list that has the most legs. You could theorize that without religion you'd have many more fatalists and nihilists, particularly in positions of authority. It's all fundamentally speculative.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

If you say that people in general would be healthier if there was no religion...that's the one thing you list that has the most legs. You could theorize that without religion you'd have many more fatalists and nihilists, particularly in positions of authority.
-Elliot

Say what? Atheists /= nihilists and fatalists. Some of us care about our our fellow human beings, and don't need imaginary friends to tell us how to treat them. Please drop the atheists = nihilists and fatalists cannard. That's a line from "Dr." Hovind's lectures, and is about as factually based as the rest of his crap.

[elliotfc]

Say what? Atheists /= nihilists and fatalists.

I didn't say they were necessarily those things.

I said that if there were no religious people there would be more nihilist and fatalists. Do you disagree?

Some of us care about our our fellow human beings, and don't need imaginary friends to tell us how to treat them. Please drop the atheists = nihilists and fatalists cannard.

I don't know how many times, and in how many threads, I have said something simliar. *You don't need religion to be moral*. I absolutely agree with that, and I have never agreed with the opposite supposition.

You introduce the canard, and I have to respond to it. Well, not have to, but whatever. A straw canard.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

I didn't say they were necessarily those things.

I said that if there were no religious people there would be more nihilist and fatalists. Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. You're just speculating. It's ridiculous.



I don't know how many times, and in how many threads, I have said something simliar. *You don't need religion to be moral*. I absolutely agree with that, and I have never agreed with the opposite supposition.

You introduce the canard, and I have to respond to it. Well, not have to, but whatever. A straw canard.

-Elliot

You said: You could theorize that without religion you'd have many more fatalists and nihilists, particularly in positions of authority. Just a momment ago.

[elliotfc]

Of course I disagree. You're just speculating. It's ridiculous.

I am speculating, but I base it on the fact that many religious people say that if they *weren't* religious, they'd be nihilistic or fatalistic. I think it's reasonable to believe them on that point.

Yes to speculating...no to ridiculous, as there is a basis behind it.

Also, whether you like it or not, religion can be seen, by and large, as an institution that is anti-nihilistic or anti-fatalistic. So in its absence, would anyone be surprised if there were...let's just say 9,832,452 extra nihilists in the planet (out of 6 billion or so). Not an unreasonable speculation, is it?

As for you insinuating that I'm introducing a canard, I *DID NOT SAY* that these people would *also* be atheists or agnostics. They could believe in god/gods completely detached from religion, or in animism or something else.

-Elliot

[Complexity]

The religious are infected with a thoroughly nasty set of memes. They can not be trusted to guess what they would think if they weren't infected with these memes. Quit being silly, elliotfc.

[Beth]

If you say that people in general would be healthier if there was no religion...that's the one thing you list that has the most legs.
-Elliot

Actually, there is evidence that the followers of some religions (such as LDS) are healthier and live longer than average. Saw an article in National Geographic sometime in that last 2 years that mentioned it. It was one of several attributes that were more common in long-lived healthy people. There are different theories as to why (the emotional support network, the prohibition on alcohol, caffeine,and other drugs, etc. ) but the evidence was pretty clear that being a member of certain religions had a positive correlation with health and longivity.

[Complexity]

Actually, there is evidence that the followers of some religions (such as LDS) are healthier and live longer than average. Saw an article in National Geographic sometime in that last 2 years that mentioned it. It was one of several attributes that were more common in long-lived healthy people. There are different theories as to why (the emotional support network, the prohibition on alcohol, caffeine,and other drugs, etc. ) but the evidence was pretty clear that being a member of certain religions had a positive correlation with health and longivity.

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

[ImaginalDisc]

I am speculating, but I base it on the fact that many religious people say that if they *weren't* religious, they'd be nihilistic or fatalistic. I think it's reasonable to believe them on that point.

No, it's not. It's reasonable to ask atheists and agnostics whether atheism and agnosticism leads to nihilism and fatalism. Asking theists what disbeleif is like is as stupid as asking virgins what sex is like.

Yes to speculating...no to ridiculous, as there is a basis behind it.

Also, whether you like it or not, religion can be seen, by and large, as an institution that is anti-nihilistic or anti-fatalistic. So in its absence, would anyone be surprised if there were...let's just say 9,832,452 extra nihilists in the planet (out of 6 billion or so). Not an unreasonable speculation, is it?

As for you insinuating that I'm introducing a canard, I *DID NOT SAY* that these people would *also* be atheists or agnostics. They could believe in god/gods completely detached from religion, or in animism or something else.

-Elliot

Religion is not anti-anything, except for being anti-reason and anti-fact.

[Freethinker]

No, it's not. It's reasonable to ask atheists and agnostics whether atheism and agnosticism leads to nihilism and fatalism.



I think most atheists are pretty happy that they've figured it out. I know that I am a happier person without the constant nagging doubt about whether I was good enough to go to heaven, and the guilt over my failings. Unlike marginal theists, I can go through my life not worrying about going to hell.
Something that may surprise theists is that I believe I'm a better person as far as treatment of my fellow man than when I attended church. I don't judge people for how they fit the ideal of Christianity. I donate to charities, both time and money now that I'm not pissing it away to the church. I do good things because I've realized that this is it. We get one shot, and I don't want to be remembered as a jerk.

I don't agree with the analogy about virgins and sex though. More like asking an alcoholic what it would be like to quit drinking. You won't find many who think it will be good, but once they have it under control, they are happier.

[Complexity]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[ceo_esq]

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

Whether it's a "well lived" life is a separate and more obscure inquiry. As for "mentally healthy", however, I don't think many mental health professionals would agree with you here. Most research in the area - which has been discussed from time to time on the forums - suggests that religiosity is, on the whole, positively associated with the customary indicators of mental health. That doesn't make a given religion true or even worthwhile, of course.

[Beth]

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

Well, as CEO-Esq pointed out, your first statement is incorrect. Mental health is positively correlated with church membership, just as physical health is. As far as your idea of a life well lived, well...to each his own. You might want to keep in mind that one doesn't have to be a superstitious delusional believer to belong to a church (Ex: universal unitarians). Personally, I think it's a factor that could rationally be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to join a church.

[Meadmaker]

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

But if you didn't know you were one of those things, there wouldn't be a problem.

Come to think of it, how do you know you are not one of those things?

[Meadmaker]

In thinking about this, I have decided that it isn't religion that is the problem. I do, however, think that excess devotion to any ideology causes unhappiness, for the believer and those associated. It doesn't matter if it's a religion, communism, environmentalism, atheism, skepticism, whatever.

If you just can't bear the idea that there are people running around who don't agree with you, you aren't likely to be a happy person, and plenty of religious and not so religious people have crusaded to inflict their vision of the perfect ideology on society, creating unhappiness for others.

[Euromutt]

There is no god-heaven-nirvana in communism but it certainly was used to justify the killing of millions of people.It's called "the classless society," and it's pretty much the communist equivalent of heaven or nirvana, only on a societal rather than on an individual scale. Communist doctrine, in fact, contains many elements which are eerily reminiscent of religious ones: the infallibility of scripture (the oeuvre of Karl Marx), prophesized events (but without specific dates, e.g. the Revolution, followed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and culminating in the aforementioned Classless Society), and infidels ("counter-revolutionaries") and heretics ("revisionists"). Sure, "Scientific Marxism" claims to be based on science, but then again, so does "Intelligent Design"; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.

That said, the aforegoing doesn't make communism a religion. Communism is an ideology, and if it bears similarities to certain religions, that is because religions are also ideologies. Which brings me to the OP. Religions are, when you get right down to it, ideologies, and like ideologies in general, some of them play reasonably well with others, while some (like communism and Wahhabism) do not. I'm not sure whether this was part of Cello Man's original point, but we have the incongruous situation in American history that (suspected) adherents of one admittedly ugly ideology, communism, have been persecuted by elements of government, while if the government were to attempt to subject Wahhabists to the same treatment, such an action would be blatantly unconstitutional.

So how come it's not okay to advocate the undermining of American society if you do so out of communist conviction, but it's perfectly acceptable if you do it as a Wahhabist? There is a double standard, in that one set of ideologies receive protections not granted others, simply because they invoke some supernatural entity.

[ponderingturtle]

Whether it's a "well lived" life is a separate and more obscure inquiry. As for "mentally healthy", however, I don't think many mental health professionals would agree with you here. Most research in the area - which has been discussed from time to time on the forums - suggests that religiosity is, on the whole, positively associated with the customary indicators of mental health. That doesn't make a given religion true or even worthwhile, of course.

And how often is religiosity also associated with mental illness, the sort of thing like this "jesus told me to steal the purse", or hearing demonic voices kind of thing

[ponderingturtle]

Well, as CEO-Esq pointed out, your first statement is incorrect. Mental health is positively correlated with church membership, just as physical health is. As far as your idea of a life well lived, well...to each his own. You might want to keep in mind that one doesn't have to be a superstitious delusional believer to belong to a church (Ex: universal unitarians). Personally, I think it's a factor that could rationally be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to join a church.

This is actualy distinct from what CEO-Esq said, that was that religiosity was positively correlated with mental health, not church membership. Those are very different statements.

[ceo_esq]

This is actualy distinct from what CEO-Esq said, that was that religiosity was positively correlated with mental health, not church membership. Those are very different statements.

Yes, they are distinct, but let's not overstate how different they are. Church membership positively correlates with religiosity, and indeed, it is one factor (among others) not infrequently considered an indicator of religiosity in the social science literature.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, they are distinct, but let's not overstate how different they are. Church membership positively correlates with religiosity, and indeed, it is one factor (among others) not infrequently considered an indicator of religiosity in the social science literature.

But profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church.

[ceo_esq]

And how often is religiosity also associated with mental illness, the sort of thing like this "jesus told me to steal the purse", or hearing demonic voices kind of thing

So far as I am aware, there is no real causative association. Religious people who are mentally ill are more likely to have delusions that are subjectively experienced as religious ones; nothing earth-shaking there. If you believe in Jesus and Satan, your conscious mind might explain a compulsion to steal or kill in terms of those things. If you don't, you might persuade yourself that the CIA or your neighbor's dog is directing your actions.

[ceo_esq]

But profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church.

Are you saying that (1) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than with being really active in church, or (2) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church is associated with mental illess?

Either way, what makes you think such a thing?

[ponderingturtle]

So far as I am aware, there is no real causative association. Religious people who are mentally ill are more likely to have delusions that are subjectively experienced as religious ones; nothing earth-shaking there. If you believe in Jesus and Satan, your conscious mind might explain a compulsion to steal or kill in terms of those things. If you don't, you might persuade yourself that the CIA or your neighbor's dog is directing your actions.

My point is that standing on a street corner telling everyone who Jesus told you to castrate youself, is an act of religiosity. So that I would be supprised if there was a high level of correlation between religiosity and mental health.

[ponderingturtle]

Are you saying that (1) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than with being really active in church, or (2) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church is associated with mental illess?

Either way, what makes you think such a thing?

2. Because alot of mental ilness can express as religiosity, and I see no reason to think that having an increased support network would not have some correlation with mental health.

[Beth]

Yes, they are distinct, but let's not overstate how different they are. Church membership positively correlates with religiosity, and indeed, it is one factor (among others) not infrequently considered an indicator of religiosity in the social science literature.

My impression (could be wrong) is that church membership and activity is what is typically measure. How is religiosity measured separate from belonging to/being active in a church?

[ceo_esq]

My impression (could be wrong) is that church membership and activity is what is typically measure. How is religiosity measured separate from belonging to/being active in a church?

Largely by answers to questions regarding the nature and strength of personally held religious beliefs and attitudes, as far as I know.

[Jorghnassen]

Should I be tolerant of people who are intolerant of others?

By this logic, shouldn't you not tolerate yourself?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Religious tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. I don't advocate extreme mindless bigotry such as running mini-vans with Jesus-fish stickers off the road, but permitting religion to place their version of morality on a higher pedestal than human life cannot be excused.

What nobody quoted my hero yet?

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken, in American Mercury (March, 1930)

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
-- H. L. Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

His opinions are pretty much mine.

[Tanstaafl]

Too bad we can't nominate Mencken for the Language Award.

[elliotfc]

The religious are infected with a thoroughly nasty set of memes. They can not be trusted to guess what they would think if they weren't infected with these memes. Quit being silly, elliotfc.

First, I am religious, so saying "quit being silly" is quite a silly thing to say, based on your dogmatic definitions.

If you can't trust what I say, you should expect me to say things that would support your dogmatic definitions. But if I were to "quit being silly"...as in...say things that are more trustworthy, then I would be going against your dogmatic definitions.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

Life well lived is not necessarily the same thing as mentally healthy, assuming that your premise (religious equals mentally unhealthy is correct).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

No, it's not. It's reasonable to ask atheists and agnostics whether atheism and agnosticism leads to nihilism and fatalism. Asking theists what disbeleif is like is as stupid as asking virgins what sex is like.

I never SAID that atheism and agnoisticism led to nihilism and fatalism.

Here is all I'm saying, and please accept that this is all that I am saying...

If there were no religion, the once-religious or otherwise-would-be-religious could quite possibly turn to nihililsm or fatalism.

Atheists/agnostics were *never* part of my point, but you keep trying to make them so. Why?

Religion is not anti-anything, except for being anti-reason and anti-fact.

I'm thinking you don't care that I don't take you seriously, do you?

The best thing I can say about you is that you ostensibly dig the movie They Live. And that's no small thing. So you've got that going for you.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

I
If there were no religion, the once-religious or otherwise-would-be-religious could quite possibly turn to nihililsm or fatalism.

On what grounds do you form speculation?

Atheists/agnostics were *never* part of my point, but you keep trying to make them so. Why? If someone is not a believer, then they are an atheist or agnostic, by definition.





I'm thinking you don't care that I don't take you seriously, do you?

The best thing I can say about you is that you ostensibly dig the movie They Live. And that's no small thing. So you've got that going for you.

-Elliot

Spare me. I have no interest in your opinion of me.

Edit: Honestly, where do you get this notion that people are emotionally better off with religion? Is there any evidence for this, or is this merely an opinion you're dressing up as a fact?

Edit #2: Anticipating that you'll say, "Because when I ask thesists, they say that is how they'd feel if they stopped believing," consider the following.

If you ask newly recruited soliders how they will feel after returning home from combat, "shell shocked" and "jittery" won't be high on the list. However, combat veterans do frequently suffer from PTSD, and often have trouble readjusting to civilian life, despite what they may have anticipated their reaction to be.

If you ask expectant mothers how they think they'll feel after bith, "depressed" won't be high on list, but postpartum depression is a common phenomenon. It seems that expected mothers cannot be relied on the accurately anticipate their emotional response to giving birth.

Likewise, you cannot ask believers how they anticipate feeling after becoming an atheist or agnositc, because they probably won't be correct. The correct way to determine if believers will be nihilists or fatalists after they lose their delusions is to ask former believers who they felt.

[Complexity]

By this logic, shouldn't you not tolerate yourself?

I was pretty careful saying what I said - I asked a series of questions and let the reader answer them. While you can correctly infer from them that I have a loathing and disdain for religions and the religious, it isn't accurate to say that I am intolerant of them.

I am surrounded by crazy and ignorant people. I don't know anyone, including myself, who is free of woo. I can say that I and several others have made a conscious decision to learn more, to think better and more deliberately, and to seek out and get rid of our own woo.

I used to be religous. Most of my friends and all of my family are religious. I'm not intolerant of these people - I love them.

I try to work on myself each day and be there for my friends. What I won't do is pretend that religion is not woo.

Hate the woo, not the wooer.

Having said that, it is really hard not to strongly dislike the damned apologists on this board.

[Meadmaker]

Hate the woo, not the wooer.


:)
That's funny.

[Jorghnassen]

Hate the woo, not the wooer.


Depends on the wooer, if it's the guy buying the stuff, you can't hate him. If it's the seller on the other hand...

[Polaris]

I agree, this silliness especially favorable towards muslims of tolerance no matter what as long as theyre not xians or jews is silly

Where is N.O.W. to protest the treatment of women in Dar-al-Islam ?

They don't have the intestinal fortitude. Much easier to act like you believe in the righteousness of your cause when the biggest foe you have to face is a private golfers' club. Nobody there will shoot you. They're a bunch of hypocrites.

[ImaginalDisc]

They don't have the intestinal fortitude. Much easier to act like you believe in the righteousness of your cause when the biggest foe you have to face is a private golfers' club. Nobody there will shoot you. They're a bunch of hypocrites.
Firstly, NOW stands for NATIONAL Organization for Women, not International, so they tend o focus on domestic issues.

Secondly, they do in fact criticise Islam when domestic issues and foreign issues intersect.

http://www.now.org/nnt/summerfall-2005/iraqiwomen.html

http://www.now.org/press/08-05/08-26.html

But, if you feel like making more blatantly false statements, go right ahead.

[Complexity]

Depends on the wooer, if it's the guy buying the stuff, you can't hate him. If it's the seller on the other hand...

Actually, I hate the woo, have real problems with the wooers, and regard those selling the stuff as the scum of the earth - I've no problem hating them.

People in general are responsible for the junk they let into their heads (e.g. I always turn off Bush as quickly as possible). To remain complacent in ignorance and wooish idiocy is simply wrong.

[Polaris]

Firstly, NOW stands for NATIONAL Organization for Women, not International, so they tend o focus on domestic issues.

Secondly, they do in fact criticise Islam when domestic issues and foreign issues intersect.

But it doesn't say National Organization for AMERICAN Women. "National" just tells me who makes up the ranks. There's no claim to which women they support. And which has gotten more press, their support of Iraqi women (whom I suspect they wouldn't have given a damn about if they weren't able to pin it on George W. Bush) or some private golf course? Islamic oppression of women is nothing new. Where were they all this time and why so measley a protest about it?


But, if you feel like making more blatantly false statements, go right ahead.

If it means a nice bowl of rude flakes from you when I wake up every morning, I'll be happy to keep on doin' just that. However this was not a false statement. NOW couldn't give a rodent's rectum about Muslim women beyond lip service. They only come out in force and protest easy targets because they won't be beaten and jailed. Let's see a group of them stage sit-ins in Iran or Saudi Arabia, or chain themselves to fire hydrants in Algeria and Afghanistan (if the latter even has those). Until they do something visible beyond lamenting and cryptically blaming Bush, to me they're nothing but professional troublemakers with too much time on their hands.

[Meadmaker]

If I may, I'd like to relate this exchange about NOW to the OP.

It's very selective outrage, in both cases. NOW stands up for the rights of women, especially when threatened by Republicans. The OP raised an interesting question by asking about the limits on religious tolerance, but then, in my opinion, blew his point badly by picking as his one case in point the Pope and condoms.

There's a lot of outrages committed in the name of religion these days, but in my opinion, the ones that really qualify for outrage involve Muslims blowing things up or burning things down. Once in a while, a cult releases Sarin into a subway system, or tells people to drink some cool-aid because the law is on the way. David Koresh "marries" a bunch of teenage girls, and kills the children of his followers rather than give in to the feds. Those are religious outrages.

The Pope tells people to only have sex in ways that might make babies, and only when you know who the daddy is. His church takes a pretty extreme line on this, demanding chastity, monogamy, heterosexuality, and freedom from contraception. That's an outrage? It might not be realistic advice, and it might not fit with your philosophy of how best to achieve human happiness, but compared to blowing up commuter trains in Madrid, it's really nothing.

[ImaginalDisc]

But it doesn't say National Organization for AMERICAN Women.


The rest of this is just plain ignorant. Do yourself a favor and open a dictionary.

[ImaginalDisc]

If I may, I'd like to relate this exchange about NOW to the OP.

It's very selective outrage, in both cases. NOW stands up for the rights of women, especially when threatened by Republicans.

False. Funny, but false. NOW stands up for the rights of women when they are threatened. Period.

[ponderingturtle]

If I may, I'd like to relate this exchange about NOW to the OP.

It's very selective outrage, in both cases. NOW stands up for the rights of women, especially when threatened by Republicans. The OP raised an interesting question by asking about the limits on religious tolerance, but then, in my opinion, blew his point badly by picking as his one case in point the Pope and condoms.

There's a lot of outrages committed in the name of religion these days, but in my opinion, the ones that really qualify for outrage involve Muslims blowing things up or burning things down. Once in a while, a cult releases Sarin into a subway system, or tells people to drink some cool-aid because the law is on the way. David Koresh "marries" a bunch of teenage girls, and kills the children of his followers rather than give in to the feds. Those are religious outrages.

That is a very very different point being made. Those are the actions of small cults, and while more extreem results, they are also much more limited in the scale of the dammage.

So the catholic church is a good target if you want a unified religion that makes pronouncements that can effect the actions of millions of people

The Pope tells people to only have sex in ways that might make babies, and only when you know who the daddy is. His church takes a pretty extreme line on this, demanding chastity, monogamy, heterosexuality, and freedom from contraception. That's an outrage? It might not be realistic advice, and it might not fit with your philosophy of how best to achieve human happiness, but compared to blowing up commuter trains in Madrid, it's really nothing.

Picking on the extreemists only expressing displeasure with the extreemists, it does not show the problems created by mainstream religions.

[Polaris]

False. Funny, but false. NOW stands up for the rights of women when they are threatened. Period.

But only when "international and domestic issues intersect", as you said. Meaning they allow themselves the luxury of choosing to stand up for the rights of women only if it's not going to cause them too much trouble. Golf courses are safe because they aren't going to have acid thrown on them. Iraqi women? Where was the outrage when Saddam employed a State Rapist to torture the wives of political prisoners? Why did the sufffering of Iraqi women only appear to them when it was convenient to blame it on Bush? NOW is overwhelmingly left wing, and I suspect they don't want to jeopardize their PC credentials by criticizing the multicultural poster child of Islam.

Their work for abortion rights is commendable, I'll grant them that. But so far your evidence that they "stand up" for Muslim women is one story about what might happen to Iraqi women because of Bush's war. Lip service. Let a few of them get on a plane and picket in Riyadh, and then I'll give them their props. Until they're willing to put their money where their mouths are, like RAWA, I consider them a bunch of hypocrites who put partisanship above their principles.

[ImaginalDisc]

But only when "international and domestic issues intersect", as you said.
Do you know what this phrase means? I said this:

"Secondly, they do in fact criticise Islam when domestic issues and foreign issues intersect. "

Don't take phrases out of context.

[Polaris]

Do you know what this phrase means? I said this:

"Secondly, they do in fact criticise Islam when domestic issues and foreign issues intersect. "

Don't take phrases out of context.

I do indeed know what it means. They only criticize Islam when it bumps into a domestic issue (which is never, unless it has something to do with American foreign policy in the Dar al-Islam). Sounds very convenient to me, like an excuse to ignore the elephant in the room.

If the NOW really cared about oppressed women, they would make their #1 priority the improvement of conditions and human rights for women in the Islamic world - women who really are oppressed, uniquely so in fact. But they don't. It's easier to harp on non-issues in the US.

[rachaella]

Firstly, NOW stands for NATIONAL Organization for Women, not International, so they tend o focus on domestic issues.

Secondly, they do in fact criticise Islam when domestic issues and foreign issues intersect.

http://www.now.org/nnt/summerfall-2005/iraqiwomen.html

http://www.now.org/press/08-05/08-26.html

But, if you feel like making more blatantly false statements, go right ahead.

Another link relating to NOW and non-domestic issues,

http://www.now.org/issues/global/

These include action on:
women in Iraq
women in Venezuela
women in Mexico
women in Darfur
women affected by the recent tsunami
women in Israel
women in Afghanistan (pre-Bush)
women in Nigeria
etc. etc. etc.

Clearly NOW cares not a wink about women around the globe.

[elliotfc]

My point is that standing on a street corner telling everyone who Jesus told you to castrate youself, is an act of religiosity. So that I would be supprised if there was a high level of correlation between religiosity and mental health.

Doesn't religiosity have to correpsond to a particular religion?

Many Christians claim to be non-religious. Is that a ridiculous claim?

In my opinion religion requires organization, communal practice, and adherence to established tenets. Your example of the street corner guy *might* align with my appreciation of what is religion, but then again it might not. Not enough information.

Most religions are EXTREMELY WARY of individual revelation, which is what your example specificall incorporates. I don't need to state the reasons why religions would be opposed to individual revelation...right?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

On what grounds do you form speculation?

This particular speculation?

Many religious people have hinted or outright said that if they didn't believe in God they'd be sociopathic.

If someone is not a believer, then they are an atheist or agnostic, by definition.

I'm talking about religion. I am of the opinion that you can be a non-religious believer. If you disagree, to go further on this would be talking past you. I'm guessing you disagree, so I'll just stop here for the moment.

Edit: Honestly, where do you get this notion that people are emotionally better off with religion? Is there any evidence for this, or is this merely an opinion you're dressing up as a fact?

First, I didn't assert that people (in general) are emotionally better off with religion.

Second, I think that many people are emotionally better off with religion, based on their personal testimony.

Third, I agree that a general assertion would merely be opinion, which is why I didn't, nor will I, offer such an opinion.

Edit #2: Anticipating that you'll say, "Because when I ask thesists, they say that is how they'd feel if they stopped believing," consider the following.

No, how they'd feel if they stopped believing is not relevant to me, that's extra speculation. It's enough for me to here about what has *actually* been emotionally experienced.

Likewise, you cannot ask believers how they anticipate feeling after becoming an atheist or agnositc, because they probably won't be correct.

Agreed, which is why I'm not interested in that point.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

I do indeed know what it means. They only criticize Islam when it bumps into a domestic issue (which is never, unless it has something to do with American foreign policy in the Dar al-Islam). Sounds very convenient to me, like an excuse to ignore the elephant in the room.

If the NOW really cared about oppressed women, they would make their #1 priority the improvement of conditions and human rights for women in the Islamic world - women who really are oppressed, uniquely so in fact. But they don't. It's easier to harp on non-issues in the US.

A) Read Rachella's post, which follows the one you quoted.

B) What part of "National" is so difficult for you to understand?

[ImaginalDisc]

Many religious people have hinted or outright said that if they didn't believe in God they'd be sociopathic.




First, I didn't assert that people (in general) are emotionally better off with religion.

Astoundingly, you did claim that. Don't be a disgusting weasel.

I am speculating, but I base it on the fact that many religious people say that if they *weren't* religious, they'd be nihilistic or fatalistic. I think it's reasonable to believe them on that point.


I repeat, it is not reasonable to take their word for it. Use studies of atheists and agnositcs to determine how people feel when they divest themselves of the disease of religion, if your interest is in facts, rather than opinion.

[elliotfc]

Astoundingly, you did claim that. Don't be a disgusting weasel.

Could you provide the # of the post where I made that claim?

I actually think that atheists get emotional comfort from atheism. I know I've said that many times. Sometimes I think I'd get more emotional comfort from atheism.

Whatever. It's not a point that I made, and please prove otherwise.

I repeat, it is not reasonable to take their word for it. Use studies of atheists and agnositcs to determine how people feel when they divest themselves of the disease of religion, if your interest is in facts, rather than opinion.

You're assuming that the people who actually *don't* divest themselves of religion would behave as those who actually *do*. Meaning...you're assuming that the personalities of fundamentalist Christians are like your own, except for the bit about being religious believers.

-Elliot

[andyandy]

Astoundingly, you did claim that. Don't be a disgusting weasel.



I repeat, it is not reasonable to take their word for it. Use studies of atheists and agnositcs to determine how people feel when they divest themselves of the disease of religion, if your interest is in facts, rather than opinion.

maybe this thread could do with a little more tolerance. :)

How about studies on christianity and depression? Discussed on this thread -
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62181&highlight=christianity+depression

actually, i started the thread presuming that atheists would fare better than christians, but having seen studies to the contrary i'm willing to suggest the opposite could be true.

Many studies have linked a lack of religiosity to depression. Religious commitment is associated with a reduced incidence of depression13 and a quicker recovery from depressive illness for the elderly.15 Two separate reviews of the literature have supported this: those with high levels of "religious involvement", "religious salience" and "intrinsic religious motivation" were at reduced risk,14 and religious commitment was inversely related to suicide risk in 13 of 16 studies reviewed.13 One study showed a fourfold increased risk of suicide for non-churchgoers compared with regular attenders,22 and no study has shown an increased risk of suicide among churchgoers.

The reasons why people with a sense of religious commitment are less likely to become depressed may include a feeling of social connectedness, exposure to messages about healthy living, or perhaps the reduced exposure to drug-taking behaviour. However, studies controlling for these factors have still found religiosity to be independently protective. So there may be other reasons, such as the comfort that comes from believing in a benevolent and caring God, the view that justice always prevails in the end, or that adverse events always have a meaning and a message. Such attitudes would buffer enormously against the ill-effects of life stresses and the depression that often follows.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_10_201100/hassed/hassed.html



Quote:
Philadelphia–Depressed seniors who believe their life is guided by a larger spiritual force have significantly fewer symptoms of depression than those who do not use religious coping strategies. Moreover, this relationship is independent of the amount of social support those individuals receive, according to results of a prospective study presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

"This is a pretty remarkable study–and when you see these kind of data coming out from both medical and psychiatric populations, it’s hard to continue ignoring religion as a variable in the recovery from depression," said Harold G. Koenig, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

According to study author Hayden Bosworth, PhD, attempts in the literature to distinguish the effects of religion from the effects of social support on depression have led to mixed success (Husaini BA et al. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1999;48:63-72). Dr. Bosworth, associate director, health services research and development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and his colleagues attempted to address the issue by examining the effects of religious practices, coping mechanisms and social support on recovery among individuals diagnosed with major depression.

"These results indicate that clinicians should encourage reconnection with religion as a way of coping in patients whose spirituality has been important to them," concluded Dr. Bosworth.

"Physicians need to pay attention to their patients’ religious beliefs and practices," added Dr. Koenig. "Rather than continuing to see it as a liability or unhealthy crutch, they should see it as a potential strength in overcoming depression."

http://www.mental-health-today.com/articles/spirituality.htm

Are these studies all right? if you're interested in more than just opinion?

[ImaginalDisc]

Could you provide the # of the post where I made that claim?

156, which I quoted above.

You cannot ask theists how they will feel if they give up their delusion and expect an accurate response. That's like asking children how they will feel after they grow up.

If you want to learn how giving up theism affects people, ask former theists.

How many times must I say it?

[trvlr2]

What nobody quoted my hero yet?

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken, in American Mercury (March, 1930)

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
-- H. L. Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

His opinions are pretty much mine.



And mine,as well.

A pox upon the apologists!

The only difference between MY cult and yours is membership-yours has more. Therefore, it is even more ridiculous!

[ImaginalDisc]

maybe this thread could do with a little more tolerance. :)

How about studies on christianity and depression? Discussed on this thread -
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62181&highlight=christianity+depression

actually, i started the thread presuming that atheists would fare better than christians, but having seen studies to the contrary i'm willing to suggest the opposite could be true.



http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_10_201100/hassed/hassed.html





http://www.mental-health-today.com/articles/spirituality.htm

Are these studies all right? if you're interested in more than just opinion?

Do you have anything remotely relvant? The claim was that theists would become nihilists and fatalists if they gave up religion. Even if there IS a correlation between being agnostic/atheist and depression, that does not lead to a conclusion of cuasation. There are numerous studies which show that homosexuals have higher depression rates than heterosexuals. However, that depression is not caused by homosexuality itself, but rather by the intolerance of a culture run by small minded bigots who constantly trot out the cannards that homosexuality is evil, and so is atheism/agnosticism.

[elliotfc]

156, which I quoted above.

Ooooooooooooo Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

I just read 156 and I said *nothing remotely close* to people being emotionally better off because of religion.

This is too silly to waste any more words on, you're just making things up about me, whatever.

You cannot ask theists how they will feel if they give up their delusion and expect an accurate response. That's like asking children how they will feel after they grow up.

You just want to insult religious people. Yawn.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Do you have anything remotely relvant? The claim was that theists would become nihilists and fatalists if they gave up religion.

The claim was that *some* theists would become nilhilists/fatalists. One percent? Once percent of 5 billion being a significant number.

Even if there IS a correlation between being agnostic/atheist and depression, that does not lead to a conclusion of cuasation. There are numerous studies which show that homosexuals have higher depression rates than heterosexuals. however, that depression is not caused by homosexuality itself, but rather by the intolerance of a culture run by small minded bigots who continuously trot out the cannards that homosexuality is evil, and so is atheism/agnosticism.

Good point. Of course correlation is independent of causation. But I don't think anybody was advocating causation.

-Elliot

[andyandy]

Do you have anything remotely relvant? The claim was that theists would become nihilists and fatalists if they gave up religion. Even if there IS a correlation between being agnostic/atheist and depression, that does not lead to a conclusion of cuasation.

I can certainly see how looking at depression in atheists/theists may be relevant to studying fatalism in the non-religious - can't you? I've provided some evidence that those who are religious seem to be able to cope better with depression than those without religion. I'm sure the reasons for this are manifold - and it is true that it does not necessarily prove causation. However it is something which certainly requires greater thought than you seem to be willing to afford it. You seem as intolerant and closed-minded as the monothestics you seem to want to want to rail against....funny that :rolleyes:

That depression is not caused by homosexuality itself, but rather by the intolerance of a culture run by small minded bigots who constantly trot out the cannards that homosexuality is evil, and so is atheism/agnosticism.

any evidence for that? Or do you prefer opinions to facts?

[ImaginalDisc]

The claim was that *some* theists would become nilhilists/fatalists. One percent? Once percent of 5 billion being a significant number.


You said this: I am speculating, but I base it on the fact that many religious people say that if they *weren't* religious, they'd be nihilistic or fatalistic. I think it's reasonable to believe them on that point.

"1%" does not constitute "many." Have you changed your claim, from "many" to "1%" or does "1%" equal "many," in your unique usage of the English language?

[ImaginalDisc]

I can certainly see how looking at depression in atheists/theists may be relevant to studying fatalism in the non-religious - can't you? No, I don't. Consider what if, for a momment, such an in depth study were to conclude that people who folow the ancient Aztec Blood Cult experience the least depression? Would that be sufficent reason to give up rational thought and start performing human sacrifices to imaginary cannibal gods? I hope your response is, "no." Religions are, uniformly, delusion. Religions all lack a factual, rational basis. Even if religions are pleasant nonsense, they're still nonsense. I've provided some evidence that those who are religious seem to be able to cope better with depression than those without religion. I'm sure the reasons for this are manifold - and it is true that it does not necessarily prove causation. However it is something which certainly requires greater thought than you seem to be willing to afford it. You seem as intolerant and closed-minded as the monothestics you seem to want to want to rail against....funny that :rolleyes:

Don't try the turn around with me. Have you considered the possibility that the atheists and agnositcs who were studied were treated poorly by their counselors and therapists? I had a counselor once tell me that the root of all my problems is that I'm not religious. She wouldn't address any of my problems until I "accepted religion." How do you think a theist would respond if their therapist demmanded they give up religion?



any evidence for that? Or do you prefer opinions to facts?

You have no evidence of cuasation. I have evidence that atheists cannot join the boy Scouts, are the least trusted minority in the U.S.A., and that people all over this country loathe and despise atheists. Do you REALLY need me to provide you evidence that people hate atheists and agnostics? Have you been living under a rock?

[elliotfc]

You said this:

"1%" does not constitute "many." Have you changed your claim, from "many" to "1%" or does "1%" equal "many," in your unique usage of the English language?

Sure it does.

I think that 100,000 is a lot of people. I just do. I really do.

5 billion people. 1 percent. 50 million people. That's a lot of people.

About 3000 people died on 9/11. A lot of people, no?

If you scan back, I used a number of about 9 million people a few days ago, so I'm being completely consistent.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Sure it does.

I think that 100,000 is a lot of people. I just do. I really do.

5 billion people. 1 percent. 50 million people. That's a lot of people.

About 3000 people died on 9/11. A lot of people, no?

If you scan back, I used a number of about 9 million people a few days ago, so I'm being completely consistent.

-Elliot

You're equivocating.

[ImaginalDisc]

Elliot, do you still maintain that thiests who give up their insanity and delusion and become atheits and agnositcs would become nihilists and fatalists? If so, what proportion do you expect?

[andyandy]

Don't try the turn around with me. Have you considered the possibility that the atheists and agnositcs who were studied were treated poorly by their counselors and therapists? I had a counselor once tell me that the root of all my problems is that I'm not religious. She wouldn't address any of my problems until I "accepted religion." How do you think a theist would respond if their therapist demmanded they give up religion?

You had a bad experience with a counselor - and then extrapolate to suggest that this could be the reason for atheists being more likely to struggle with depression than those of a religous persuasion. Do you have any real evidence for this suggestion?


You have no evidence of cuasation. I have evidence that atheists cannot join the boy Scouts, are the least trusted minority in the U.S.A., and that people all over this country loathe and despise atheists. Do you REALLY need me to provide you evidence that people hate atheists and agnostics? have you been living under a rock?

No i've been living in the UK. People certainly don't hate atheists and agnostics here. Evidence of your somewhat narrow focus again? Where is your evidence that atheists can not join scouts? That's certainly not the case in the UK. Again you seem to operate within a rather narrow world-view.

You talk about how you want to use facts and not opinions, yet you offer nothing but opinion yourself.....I've provided some scientific studies on which i would hope we could base a objective discussion, and yet you try to dismiss them with anecdote, surely you can do better than that?

[elliotfc]

You're equivocating.

You're obsessed.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Elliot, do you still maintain that thiests who give up their insanity and delusion and become atheits and agnositcs would become nihilists and fatalists? If so, what proportion do you expect?

I don't consider theism to be insanity or delusion. Pass.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't consider theism to be insanity or delusion. Pass.

-Elliot

It's a belief maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is false. Consult a dictionary if you need to be reminded about what a delusion is.

[andyandy]

I'm going to post these paragraphs again.....

Philadelphia–Depressed seniors who believe their life is guided by a larger spiritual force have significantly fewer symptoms of depression than those who do not use religious coping strategies. Moreover, this relationship is independent of the amount of social support those individuals receive, according to results of a prospective study presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.



Many studies have linked a lack of religiosity to depression. Religious commitment is associated with a reduced incidence of depression13 and a quicker recovery from depressive illness for the elderly.15 Two separate reviews of the literature have supported this: those with high levels of "religious involvement", "religious salience" and "intrinsic religious motivation" were at reduced risk,14 and religious commitment was inversely related to suicide risk in 13 of 16 studies reviewed.13 One study showed a fourfold increased risk of suicide for non-churchgoers compared with regular attenders,22 and no study has shown an increased risk of suicide among churchgoers.

snip

The reasons why people with a sense of religious commitment are less likely to become depressed may include a feeling of social connectedness, exposure to messages about healthy living, or perhaps the reduced exposure to drug-taking behaviour. However, studies controlling for these factors have still found religiosity to be independently protective. So there may be other reasons, such as the comfort that comes from believing in a benevolent and caring God, the view that justice always prevails in the end, or that adverse events always have a meaning and a message. Such attitudes would buffer enormously against the ill-effects of life stresses and the depression that often follows.

The important role that mental health plays in the development and progression of physical illness goes part way to explaining why religious commitment is associated with reduced risk of conditions such as hypertension, heart disease and cancer.26,27,29,30 A population study over nine years showed that all-cause mortality was significantly reduced and life expectancy increased (to 82 years v. 75 years) for regular churchgoers. The findings were not explainable by the accepted lifestyle and social variables,24 and were consistent with other data.25

both of these studies were controlled to take into account social support, and the second study was also controlled to take into account "positive messages" on drugs or healthy living. Despite this the effect of religion was still found to be significant.

[JayT]

What about the various religions that teach intolerance in the context that theirs is the ONLY true religion and all others are false religions?

And what about those religions that teach their believers that all other religions and their symbols and idols must be destroyed?

I can think of at least three major religions that teach this kind of intolerance.

If they practiced religious tolerance, then they would be violating their sacred texts. And we can't have that, can we?

Therefore it is OK to maim and murder in the name of religion because there is no sin in the name of [insert favourite deity here].

Surah 9:5
Fight and slay the pagans (non-Muslims) wherever you find them.

Surah 3:85
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.

The Table Spread 5:72
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

The Table Spread 5:73
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
This clearly means that Allah is the only true god and Islam is the only true religion.
The Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) is a lie.


Exodus 19:5-6
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 23:27
I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people.

Exodus 34:13-14
But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
God says to Moses that the Israelites (Jews) are his chosen people, favoured above all those on earth, as long as they believe. Anyone who worships any other god will be totally destroyed. They are to seek out and destroy the religions of others.

Well. that seems clear enough.


And it gets worse. Much, much worse.
You should see what the Torah says about non-Jews.

These are just a few trivial samples of why religions, hatred, murder, fear and oppression fit together like hand and glove as long as they have existed and will keep doing as long as they continue to exist. That is, unless they violate the teachings of their respective religions and decide to get along with each other. That would make them all heretics, heathens and infidels.

I think religious intolerance is self-explanatory.

[ceo_esq]

It's a belief maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is false. Consult a dictionary if you need to be reminded about what a delusion is.

If you're aware of overwhelming evidence that all forms of theism are false, I suggest you publish it. It would really make waves in philosophical circles, not to mention, I suspect, in any number of other disciplines. In fact, why don't you do JREF the honor of publishing a preview here first? I guarantee you that nothing like that has ever been seen on this forum.

[ImaginalDisc]

If you're aware of overwhelming evidence that all forms of theism are false, I suggest you publish it. It would really make waves in philosophical circles, not to mention, I suspect, in any number of other disciplines. In fact, why don't you do JREF the honor of publishing a preview here first? I guarantee you that nothing like that has ever been seen on this forum.


Nonsense. Evidence that the universe was created by a God from darkness? Zilch. Evidence that god smote the limbs off of snakes? Zilch. Evidence that god turned a woman into salt? Zilch. Evidence of a worldwide flood within the reign of humanity? Zilch. Evidence of Heaven? Zilch. Hell? Zilch? Evidence that prayer works? Zilch. Evidence that god is good and loving? Zilch. Evidence that god is cruel and wrathful? Zilch.

Evidence that people will persist believing a fireside fairy tale told by ignorant desert nomads to put their kids to bed despite the way it contradicts every single thing we've learned about the universe and how is works? Plenty.

Don't give me that "the absence of evidence" tripe. There's no proof that invisible gossamer dragons who eat intangible tigers who eat incorporeal unicorns don't exist, but if someone proclaimed belief in those, we'd throw them in the looney bin, and rightly so.

[JayT]

Don't give me that "the absence of evidence" tripe. There's no proof that invisible gossamer dragons who eat intangible tigers who eat incorporeal unicorns don't exist, but if someone proclaimed belief in those, we'd throw them in the looney bin, and rightly so.

Although it is tempting, I wouldn't go so far as to send them to the looney bin merely for their beliefs alone, gossamer dragons or whatnot. That would be very undemocratic in a pluralistic society that consists of a multitude of various cultures and beliefs - your own included.

But, if they tried to hurt or kill people and/or stir up a mob of frenzied religious psychopaths to murderous violence against those who didn't believe as they did, then they certainly should be locked away from general society. Such people have no worth at all in a civilized country.

Beliefs alone shouldn't qualify anyone for imprisonment or other abuses, but the way they act on those beliefs is a different story.

I could live peacefully around Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus or anyone else, as long as they didn't try to kill me or show malignant hatred and shun me for simply having beliefs different than theirs or no such beliefs at all - if they would just let me live in peace.

The problem with 'beliefs' is not merely having them, but in how you practice them with respect to society as a whole.

Imagine a room full of people of different religious beliefs and you informed them that the government wants to establish a single, official state religion by law. You ask them which religion should it be and why. I have a hunch that it wouldn't be long before they were breaking chairs over each other's heads in the heated controversy that followed. That is just how religions in general behave in society when they get involved in government - hence the reason for separation of church and state in a democratic society consisting of many competing religions.

In the case of the United States:
...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

From Article VI, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution

Christian fanatics want to do away with that article and want to 'infiltrate' the government with that and similar goals in mind. If we let that happen, then the USA deserves the bloody consequences.

The Founding Fathers were not as clueless as some suggest. Thousands of years of painful historical experience motivated that article. They knew exactly what they were doing.

States of religion are states of distress.

[ImaginalDisc]

Although it is tempting, I wouldn't go so far as to send them to the looney bin merely for their beliefs alone, gossamer dragons or whatnot. That would be very undemocratic in a pluralistic society that consists of a multitude of various cultures and beliefs - your own included.


I suppose it's just too much to hope for for a hyperbole for dramatic effect to go unremarked on. :-p However, can we agree that the beleif in the ecologically complex pantheon of invisible animals is a delusion?

[JayT]

I suppose it's just too much to hope for for a hyperbole for dramatic effect to go unremarked on. :-p However, can we agree that the beleif in the ecologically complex pantheon of invisible animals is a delusion?

Yes. We can certainly agree on that.

I wasn't entirely sure if it was hyperbole or not. Some people are quite passionate in how they express themselves on this issue, in case you haven't noticed.
LOL

[elliotfc]

Nonsense. Evidence that the universe was created by a God from darkness? Zilch.

Was there darkness before there was light? And where exactly does light come from?

The question ought to be "evidence that the universe was created by a God", the darkness thing applies to materialism as well as intelligent design.

Of course ceo requested overwhelming evidence that proved theism was false, and you're talking about something different here.

Don't give me that "the absence of evidence" tripe.

Too late.

There's no proof that invisible gossamer dragons who eat intangible tigers who eat incorporeal unicorns don't exist, but if someone proclaimed belief in those, we'd throw them in the looney bin, and rightly so.

I disagree. Prove me wrong.

Why don't you advocate that invisible gossamer dragons who eat intangible tigers who eat incorporeal unicorns exist, and let's see what happenes. If you're not interested, I promise to reject your assertion outright, deal?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I suppose it's just too much to hope for for a hyperbole for dramatic effect to go unremarked on. :-p However, can we agree that the beleif in the ecologically complex pantheon of invisible animals is a delusion?

OK, fine, you got me.

Anybody who believes in invisible unicorns who eat insubstantial...whatever it is that you said...sure, anybody who purports that is delusional.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Was there darkness before there was light? And where exactly does light come from?

According to the Big Bang model, not really.

As for your completely disingenuous offer, don't make me laugh. No one can prove such beings exist, neither can you proove leprachauns, gods, angels, or honest politicians exist. Persisting in a belief in them is childish at best, and demented at worst.

[elliotfc]

According to the Big Bang model, not really.

As for your completely disingenuous offer, don't make me laugh. No one can prove such beings exist, neither can you proove leprachauns, gods, angels, or honest politicians exist. Persisting in a belief in them is childish at best, and demented at worst.

Christians call it child-like, as opposed to childish, based on the gospels.

But I'll make you a deal. If God exists, I promise not to care about your estimation about my belief.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Christians call it child-like, as opposed to childish, based on the gospels.


Oooh, the Gospels! Well, there's a pile of useful, factual books shown to be historically accurate, based on which we should make all our moral choices. [/Sarcasm]

But I'll make you a deal. If God exists, I promise not to care about your estimation about my belief.

-Elliot

All I see is "If god exist, blah blah blah blah." It doesn't. Get over it.

[elliotfc]

All I see is "If god exist, blah blah blah blah." It doesn't. Get over it.

Boy, you're all hung up about something that doesn't exist. Nice one!

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Boy, you're all hung up about something that doesn't exist. Nice one!

-Elliot

No, I'm all hung up about living a world run by people who are insane, people who believe in something which cannot possibly be true, and use this beleif to guide their actions. I'm hung up about living in a world where abortion clinics are bombed by rabbid theists and no one thinks to address the root cause of their murders; religion. I'm hung up about living in a world where ignorant, hateful madmen hijack planes and kill thousands of Americans, and yet we still treat religion as a sacred cow that reason is not allowed to take down. I'm hung up about living in a world where where god gets praise and thanks for the hard work and tuireless dedication of ambulance drivers, nurses, EMT's, paramedics, and doctors. I'm hung up about living in a world where the leaders of nations, including our own, proudly declares that GOD told him to go to war. I'm hung up about living in a world where people die while praying to get well, rather than take their medicine on time, because they'd rather put themselves in god's hands than a doctor's.

Humanity is danger of drowning in insanity, and religion is a stone around our necks. Without it, we're not assured a good world, but it'll definately be a less crazy one.

[Skeptic]

Hmm. That does somewhat change things. I don't remember reading anything to that effect, so I'll do a little more research. If I'm wrong about this topic, then I concede. Can you provide me with a source?

The church is against condoms. But it is also for monogamy, abstinence outside of marriage, and against homosexuality. If one follows the church teachings one will not get aids even without a condom. Somehow I cannot imagine anybody saying: "I'm going to town to pick up a male prostitute, but I won't wear a condom because the Pope doesn't allow it."

[elliotfc]

The church is against condoms. But it is also for monogamy, abstinence outside of marriage, and against homosexuality. If one follows the church teachings one will not get aids even without a condom.

I'm quibbling as a Catholic, tee hee. Of course you can get HIV without a condom if you enter a monogamous relationship with someone who was HIV+.

If...everybody followed through with the Church mandates...you'd see a REMARKABLE decline in HIV transmission in the immediate future...but you'd still have some HIV transmission. After a year you *wouldn't* because everybody would be locked in monogamy. And then there's drug use and other ways of getting HIV.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

No, I'm all hung up about living a world run by people who are insane, people who believe in something which cannot possibly be true, and use this beleif to guide their actions. I'm hung up about living in a world where abortion clinics are bombed by rabbid theists and no one thinks to address the root cause of their murders; religion. I'm hung up about living in a world where ignorant, hateful madmen hijack planes and kill thousands of Americans, and yet we still treat religion as a sacred cow that reason is not allowed to take down. I'm hung up about living in a world where where god gets praise and thanks for the hard work and tuireless dedication of ambulance drivers, nurses, EMT's, paramedics, and doctors. I'm hung up about living in a world where the leaders of nations, including our own, proudly declares that GOD told him to go to war. I'm hung up about living in a world where people die while praying to get well, rather than take their medicine on time, because they'd rather put themselves in god's hands than a doctor's.

Humanity is danger of drowning in insanity, and religion is a stone around our necks. Without it, we're assured a good world, but it'll definately be a less crazy one.

Fine, we agree that you've got a hang up.

How many years of religion, and today we're in danger of drowning. Brillilant. Any day now there won't be 6 billion people, there'll just be 1 billion. Any day now.

As for your assertion that religion makes for a crazy crazy world, why don't you try for a utopia of non-religious people? Surely that's bound to be a winner. I dunno...maybe start a government that is officially atheist. Yeah. And then in the country you can outlaw religion. Yeah, that'll work. If only it could be tried. Yeah.

-Elliot

[Freethinker]

Fine, we agree that you've got a hang up.

How many years of religion, and today we're in danger of drowning. Brillilant. Any day now there won't be 6 billion people, there'll just be 1 billion. Any day now.

As for your assertion that religion makes for a crazy crazy world, why don't you try for a utopia of non-religious people? Surely that's bound to be a winner. I dunno...maybe start a government that is officially atheist. Yeah. And then in the country you can outlaw religion. Yeah, that'll work. If only it could be tried. Yeah.

-Elliot

Another standard non-answer Elliot. When you are painted into a corner in a discussion you resort to sarcastic wise cracks to cover up the fact that you cannot answer with facts, and refuse to acknowledge the facts in the opposing argument. Try sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nyah-nyah-nyah. I can't hear you!" Same effect. You simply refuse to acknowledge a rational argument that refutes your own, or a rational point that conflicts with your view. Probably part of the suspension of disbelief required to believe in supernatural beings.

[andyandy]

What happened to an argument based on facts not opinions ID? You seem to have lapsed into lazy rhetoric.....I guess you aren't even willing to entertain the possibility that a religious outlook may in fact have any benefits whatsoever - simply because to do so would be to invalidate your own beliefs - and so like a fundamental Christian you simply ignore any evidence that does not fit your own worldview. Whatever happened to objectivity? As I've said already, I see little difference between your own closed-minded and dogmatic stance to those of the monotheistics you despise so much.....which is kind of ironic....:rolleyes:

[ImaginalDisc]

What happened to an argument based on facts not opinions ID?

I have facts that Atheists and agnostics in America are poorly treated and distrusted. You have what facts exactly?

[andyandy]

I have facts that Atheists and agnostics in America are poorly treated and distrusted. You have what facts exactly?

You don't seem interested in a proper debate. I've posted the two scientific studies twice now. They both concluded that those of a religious persuasion coped better with depression than those without a religious framework. Both found a significance even when controlled against other factors taking into account lifestyle and social variables. If you have significant evidence as to why these studies are erroneous then perhaps you would like to share that. But to be honest, i don't expect you to give any credence to the studies simply because you're arguing from a rather subjective position.

[ImaginalDisc]

You don't seem interested in a proper debate. I've posted the two scientific studies twice now. They both concluded that those of a religious persuasion coped better with depression than those without a religious framework. Both found a significance even when controlled against other factors taking into account lifestyle and social variables. If you have significant evidence as to why these studies are erroneous then perhaps you would like to share that. But to be honest, i don't expect you to give any credence to the studies simply because you're arguing from a rather subjective position.

Did you not read my responses? Obviously not. Here it is.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1950947#post1950947

I won't repeat myself.

[ceo_esq]

Nonsense. Evidence that the universe was created by a God from darkness? Zilch. Evidence that god smote the limbs off of snakes? Zilch. Evidence that god turned a woman into salt? Zilch. Evidence of a worldwide flood within the reign of humanity? Zilch. Evidence of Heaven? Zilch. Hell? Zilch? Evidence that prayer works? Zilch. Evidence that god is good and loving? Zilch. Evidence that god is cruel and wrathful? Zilch.

Evidence that people will persist believing a fireside fairy tale told by ignorant desert nomads to put their kids to bed despite the way it contradicts every single thing we've learned about the universe and how is works? Plenty.

Don't give me that "the absence of evidence" tripe. There's no proof that invisible gossamer dragons who eat intangible tigers who eat incorporeal unicorns don't exist, but if someone proclaimed belief in those, we'd throw them in the looney bin, and rightly so.

Thanks for that fascinating digression, but to return to the question at hand, are you or are you not aware of overwhelming evidence of the falsity of all forms of theism, as you plainly suggested you did? If all you really had to say was that you were aware of no evidence establishing the truth of any form of theism, a simple "Sorry, everyone, I overstated my case again" would have sufficed.

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for that fascinating digression, but to return to the question at hand, are you or are you not aware of overwhelming evidence of the falsity of all forms of theism, as you plainly suggested you did? If all you really had to say was that you were aware of no evidence establishing the truth of any form of theism, a simple "Sorry, everyone, I overstated my case again" would have sufficed.

No, there is no evidence at all supporting any sort of theism and the god of Christianity is most definately disproved by evidence. Prayer doesn't work and the Bible's account of history is false. Ergo, the Christian god can clearly be stated to be completely false.

[elliotfc]

Another standard non-answer Elliot. When you are painted into a corner in a discussion you resort to sarcastic wise cracks to cover up the fact that you cannot answer with facts, and refuse to acknowledge the facts in the opposing argument. Try sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nyah-nyah-nyah. I can't hear you!" Same effect. You simply refuse to acknowledge a rational argument that refutes your own, or a rational point that conflicts with your view. Probably part of the suspension of disbelief required to believe in supernatural beings.

I've never said that your arguments are irrational.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

No, there is no evidence at all supporting any sort of theism and the god of Christianity is most definately disproved by evidence. Prayer doesn't work and the Bible's account of history is false. Ergo, the Christian god can clearly be stated to be completely false.

I agree that you can clearly state that the Christian God is false.

-Elliot

[trvlr2]

Perhaps this may shed light on the relative? happiness of religionists?

My old GF, Annie, used to tell me "ne'er did a frown cross the brow of an idiot."

[andyandy]

Did you not read my responses? Obviously not. Here it is.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1950947#post1950947

I won't repeat myself.

no i can see why you wouldn't want to repeat yourself -

Don't try the turn around with me. Have you considered the possibility that the atheists and agnositcs who were studied were treated poorly by their counselors and therapists? I had a counselor once tell me that the root of all my problems is that I'm not religious. She wouldn't address any of my problems until I "accepted religion." How do you think a theist would respond if their therapist demmanded they give up religion?

anecdote. No evidence to support your claim.




You have no evidence of cuasation. I have evidence that atheists cannot join the boy Scouts, are the least trusted minority in the U.S.A., and that people all over this country loathe and despise atheists. Do you REALLY need me to provide you evidence that people hate atheists and agnostics? Have you been living under a rock?

no attempt to provide evidence for widespread "hatred" - nor any attempt to relate this to the study. If you're suggesting that this "hatred" is independant of the controlled for "social support" (perhaps that even those with friendship groups are still hated by those in those groups due to their religious beliefs?) then again please provide any evidence as to why you believe this. If not i'll have to conclude you have nothing of interest to add to the discussion.

You seem to have taken a stance that all religion in all its forms under all conditions is bad in every sense, and therefore seem unwilling to approach the subject with anything approaching objectivity. This is a shame.

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree that you can clearly state that the Christian God is false.

-Elliot

It is claimed that the Christian god grants whatever you ask for in prayer, yet this has been conclusively shown to be false. Ergo, the Christian god does not exist. A different, ignorant, uncaring or incoptent god might, but not the god which is described in the Bible.

[ImaginalDisc]

no i can see why you wouldn't want to repeat yourself -



anecdote. No evidence to support your claim.





no attempt to provide evidence for widespread "hatred" - nor any attempt to relate this to the study. If you're suggesting that this "hatred" is independant of the controlled for "social support" (perhaps that even those with friendship groups are still hated by those in those groups due to their religious beliefs?) then again please provide any evidence as to why you believe this. If not i'll have to conclude you have nothing of interest to add to the discussion.

You seem to have taken a stance that all religion in all its forms under all conditions is bad in every sense, and therefore seem unwilling to approach the subject with anything approaching objectivity. This is a shame.

Andy, this is all stuff which is all over this board. I repeat, have you been living under a rock? I know you've participated in some of thethreads I've refered to. Here's one, which you did not participate in, for example.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54165&highlight=Most+mistrusted+minority