All Religion is Bad. [Archive]

articulett

22nd July 2007, 06:00 PM

It's the dodge and weave thing... if someone dares say religion is harmful or falsehoods dressed up as "higher truths" the apologists run in and say that not ALL religions are bad... as though that makes spreading and covering for the lie noble.

Faith is a crappy way to know anything. This started from a thread where qayak said something to the effect of "who says religion isn't child abuse?" after reading an OP about a creationist tour guide teaching children to be "skeptical of the skeptics" with a kid saying to an evolutionist at the end "why do you teach false facts"?-- The thread was derailed while demands were made to produce evidence of religions harmful effects. Studies and anecdotes were provided to no avail. The apologists love to demonize those who point at that religion is a lie and pretend that those commenting on it's harms are trying to say ALL religions are bad and harmful and child abuse.

All religions promote the notion that faith is a good way to know the truth. I'm voting yes even with the purposely dorky wording implying that anyone criticizing religion is criticizing all religions equally.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 06:03 PM

I don't believe most religions are entirely bad. So I'd have to analyse if the harm they do outweighs the benefits (such as charity work, emotional comfort, community, etc).

Not me. I think that the act of having a religion is inherently bad for you.

Hokulele

22nd July 2007, 06:03 PM

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 06:05 PM

Since when does a religion necessarily require a belief in god?

True enough... the "religious impulse", which can sometimes exist without a belief in a god(see "communism" and "American Idol") is always bad.

Hokulele

22nd July 2007, 06:07 PM

True enough... the "religious impulse", which can sometimes exist without a belief in a god(see "communism" and "American Idol") is always bad.

American Idol does so have a god (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1101562/).

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 06:18 PM

American Idol does so have a god (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1101562/).

If you say so... I've never seen it!:jaw-dropp

Ryokan

22nd July 2007, 06:27 PM

Well, that's a fairly small argument. I guess it depends whether you class Buddhism and its clones a religion or not. Let's agree that I'm meaning the 99% of religions which believe in god/s. Those are the ones which matter as I'm not aware of Buddhism telling lies about sky-daddies and angels.

Most Asian religions - Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism (depending on your definition of god(s)), Confucianism - don't necessarily follow gods. And believe me, there are a ton of Asians out there. So 99%? I dispute that.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 06:29 PM

American Idol does so have a god (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1101562/).

Are you trying to proffer the notion that ALL American idols are bad? Are you saying they are child abuse? I demand an APA study showing the harm from idolatry upon the youth of America!

:)

thaiboxerken

22nd July 2007, 06:33 PM

While some religions don't have a god, they do tend to all have a supernatural aspect.

Loss Leader

22nd July 2007, 06:34 PM

I just played the odds. All religions are bad and all religions cause harm. There's just too many things that have to be true at once for that conjunction to be a true one.

Hokulele

22nd July 2007, 06:35 PM

Are you trying to proffer the notion that ALL American idols are bad?

Some are certainly worse than others. ;)

mijopaalmc

22nd July 2007, 06:36 PM

if someone dares say religion is harmful or falsehoods dressed up as "higher truths" the apologists run in and say that not ALL religions are bad

You just said it (in bold), honey, not the "apologists". By saying "religion is harmful or falsehoods dressed up as 'higher truths'" without any qualification as to what kind of religion you mean, you are, by a common convention of the English language, saying that ALL religion is bad. It is similar to Michael Savage saying "liberalism is a mental disease"; it doesn't distinguish between individual liberal beliefs it just labels the whole thought system wrong.

Caius Textor

22nd July 2007, 06:38 PM

All religions require faith and a blind belief in some sort of extra-mundane entity/force/sbrubble. Also, they all require a dogmatic acceptance of metaphysical claims (science also has metaphysical claims, but they are debatable and even "observable" at some degree). Buddhism does not escape that rule.

I think religion per se, the idea of religious belief, is bad and causes harm. Also, history shows us that religious organizations have caused harm out of being religious, have exploited the "spiritual" to gain secular power and so on. The fact that they have been VERY good at times is just a side-effect; even wars have positive points about them. That doesn´t mean we should do war (or promote religion) just for the uncertain benefits that it could, maybe, yield.

That being said, it´s pretty low to attack an ideology or a person having an ideology saying that "it´s like a religion". People can have deep ideological convictions without having a "blind faith" on them. Everyone can have a religious-like attitude towards pretty much anything, including science. In particular, bashing communism as a religious-like belief is a shallow, narrow-minded fairy-tale, with obvious political (as opposed to logical/rational/factual) origins.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 06:40 PM

You just said it (in bold), honey, not the "apologists". By saying "religion is harmful or falsehoods dressed up as 'higher truths'" without any qualification as to what kind of religion you mean, you are, by a common convention of the English language, saying that ALL religion is bad. It is similar to Michael Savage saying "liberalism is a mental disease"; it doesn't distinguish between individual liberal beliefs it just labels the whole thought system wrong.

Thanks for dropping by and illustrating my point for me. I wasn't even going to mention that it was you who derailed that particular thread...

(shh.... don't say anything bad about religion... because to Mijo you mean ALL religions are equally bad...he's got an over-generalization thing going on--he thinks if something has any randomness in it, you can rightfully define it as random... pregnancy results are random...poker is random... and evolution is as random as a tornado in a junkyard producing a 747)

Hokulele

22nd July 2007, 06:40 PM

Apathia

22nd July 2007, 06:42 PM

I'm moving to Planet X, where they don't have these damned
either-ors! :(

Caius Textor

22nd July 2007, 06:45 PM

I'm not sure how well that applies to Taoism. Granted, many scholars make a separation between philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism, but if you read the central tenets, there does not seem to be much in the way of supernatural or metaphysical claims. *shrug*

Well, so why is it called/considered a religion then? There is where I, particularly, draw the line. Maybe it´s just a terminology problem.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 06:45 PM

Most Asian religions - Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism (depending on your definition of god(s)), Confucianism - don't necessarily follow gods. And believe me, there are a ton of Asians out there. So 99%? I dispute that.

Sure, sorry, and I wasn't meaning to belittle you by relegating you to 1%!

I was speaking hyperbolically, of course, partly because the overwhelming majority of religions do have a god, partly because I don't personally count Buddhism as a "religion", but that's merely a semantic debate, but mostly because the poll is aimed at religions which do have a god/s.

As someone stated - the bottom line is: Supernatural beliefs are bad, per se.

Hokulele

22nd July 2007, 06:54 PM

Well, so why is it called/considered a religion then? There is where I, particularly, draw the line. Maybe it´s just a terminology problem.

Sure, sorry, and I wasn't meaning to belittle you by relegating you to 1%!

I was speaking hyperbolically, of course, partly because the overwhelming majority of religions do have a god, partly because I don't personally count Buddhism as a "religion", but that's merely a semantic debate, but mostly because the poll is aimed at religions which do have a god/s.

As someone stated - the bottom line is: Supernatural beliefs are bad, per se.

I guess, if you want to define a religion as requiring a supernatural or metaphysical element, sure, that is bad. Basically that is teaching that it is possible, and even preferable, to believe in something that must be taken in faith, rather than fact.

However, I am not the one who has classified Buddhism, etc., as religions. Most governments, census takers, and other classification systems regard these as religions. If you want to focus on faith and gods, word the poll that way. If you want to focus on philosophy and lifestyles, hmm, I'm not sure what to say.

Caius Textor

22nd July 2007, 07:06 PM

It came to me, rather late of course, that this poll might be rendered meaningless because everyone will have a different, and sometimes conflicting, idea of what religion is.

Call me a genius...

On my defense, I´m judging based on the concepts and ideas behind religions. I have previously defended the Roman Church for its role in preserving knowledge, which is a solely secular aspect. I maintain that the blind belief aspect and the political exploitation of that is bad and always been.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 07:09 PM

Most governments, census takers, and other classification systems regard these as religions

Pretending to be Luke Skywalker is also classified as a religion by at least one government... so certainly that is a less than effective way of defining it.

Hokulele

22nd July 2007, 07:14 PM

Pretending to be Luke Skywalker is also classified as a religion by at least one government... so certainly that is a less than effective way of defining it.

Nice cherry-picking. Put that in the context of the entire post please.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 07:15 PM

Don't worry TA, I'm sure T'ai, rttjc, and Iamme will be coming by to boost the figures in your strawman poll any minute now.

I should do a poll and see if gayak's query regarding "who says religion isn't child abuse?" is automatically seen as a statement that all religions are harmful to all children indoctrinated with them... you know-- see if it was worth derailing a thread over rather than discussing the abuses in the OP... see if most people would demand an APA report in order to allow someone to make such a claim as Mijo did-- hmmmm...

But I don't think polls ever would change the mind of a creationist or religious apologist... heck, even facts don't sway them...

articulett

22nd July 2007, 07:22 PM

I'm moving to Planet X, where they don't have these damned
either-ors! :(

And look. You used your 1000 post to not-vote on the poorly worded question.
And it didn't even have the planet X option. Good for you. Endorse the planet X option even when it's not there. It probably is the best way of dealing with the nonsense. Congratulations on 1000 posts!

Tsukasa Buddha

22nd July 2007, 07:24 PM

I dunno. Good and bad, depending on circumstances.

Religion compels people to charity, in some cases. It brings people to love for others. However, if this is caused by illogical assumptions, such as God and the afterlife, they may be doing good for the wrong reasons, and you may decide that that is wrong. Of course, its poor assumptions also lead to nastiness like bigotry.

Of course, it depends if Zen is considered a religion. Also, I read a Theravadan book in which the author claimed that Buddhism (At least his version of it) was not based on blind faith like other religions. And what about Confucianism? A lot of religions basically focused on how to live properly (Respect yor elders, study well, etc.)

Mr. Atheist, I would be glad to join your ranks :) .

Dorian Gray

22nd July 2007, 07:40 PM

All dichotomies will devolve into pedantic metadiscussions of terms.

True__

False__

articulett

22nd July 2007, 07:52 PM

All dichotomies will devolve into pedantic metadiscussions of terms.

True__

False__

true...

What's religion?
What's bad?
What's harm?
Does all refer to people or religions?
Are we talking averages?
Monotheism?

TA is trying to prove to gayak that saying religions suck or anything like that is a blatant attack on all religions-- He is disappointed that he's not proving his thesis, but he's chocked it up to the fact that he is clearly more moral than those who vote no...

per this thread should anyone wonder about the bee in his bonnet:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2792073#post2792073

(he has me on ignore because I am a horrifying individual per TA, because I once wondered aloud if he had a brain tumor...) It will make him very very happy if you vote no--with bonus points if you deride me like Mijo did above. :) Now don't let him down--

T'ai Chi

22nd July 2007, 07:54 PM

I'd like to see evidence of

-atheist charities
(and no, not just charities that have no religious goals, I mean actually promoting atheism)

-non-religion being the center of any culture

-beautiful and inspiring atheist works of art

Not saying any don't exist. Apparently thought it is rather hard to come by. Google searches didn't amount to much.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 07:57 PM

Gregoire

22nd July 2007, 08:06 PM

Ok, let's put this to the test.

I have been having a fairly lengthy discussion in SMMT, which ought to be in here. The main problem is this phrase:

ALL RELIGION IS BAD.

Nice, black and white comment. Not, "most religions are bad" or "some religions are bad", but ALL. I have covered the matter several times and that is a fair description. "Bad" will equate to "causes mental or physical harm", the contention being that belief in god is bad, of itself.

I would like to poll views on this.

Sorry there are only two choices, but it is a yes/no answer needed and I've lost the instructions for putting Planet X in polls.

And PLEASE!

Do vote before reading the spoiler about why I voted the way I did.

I am new to the Forum so I don't know how most people think, but like most questions using words like ALL, NONE, ALWAYS, or NEVER I cannot say "true".

Specifically, I can imagine situations where a belief that "bad things happen for a reason" etc could help someone get through a difficult situation.

22nd July 2007, 08:09 PM

Is Deism a religion? Is solipsism? What about anti-dogmatic religions, like some forms of paganism, which dogmatically eschew dogma? How about the Discordians?

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that all religion is bad, nor that all religion causes harm.

In fact, given that the central tenant of the Universal Church of Truth and Light is to believe what you will, and do no harm, I'm not sure you can EVER say that all religion is bad. Even if you define 'causing harm' as 'promoting belief in nonexistant entities' - since some UCoTaLers choose solely to believe in the nearless endless wonders of the material universe.

So I have to vote that statement as false.

`The Rev.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 08:09 PM

Yay... T'ai weighs in with his irrelevancies.

Some of the biggest philanthropists are atheists including Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Angelina Jolie- better yet, they don't make you believe crap to get the help. There are multiple secular groups and charities too... but just as groups don't advertise themselves as being non-scientolgists or non-stamp collectors they don't have a paradigm to rally around so they can get a tax break for their good deeds.

Since, he has me on ignore, I just want to point out that T'ai is our longest posting young earth creationist. Over 10,000 posts, and nary a clue in sight.

22nd July 2007, 08:10 PM

Hokulele

22nd July 2007, 08:11 PM

It will make him very very happy if you vote no--with bonus points if you deride me like Mijo did above. :) Now don't let him down--

Which is the precise reason I didn't vote at all. :D

articulett

22nd July 2007, 08:14 PM

quixotecoyote

22nd July 2007, 08:18 PM

According to Encarta, the relevant definitions are:

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

Once you believe in the existence of divinity you have begun believing without evidence. This is bad.

Apathia

22nd July 2007, 08:22 PM

And look. You used your 1000 post to not-vote on the poorly worded question.
And it didn't even have the planet X option. Good for you. Endorse the planet X option even when it's not there. It probably is the best way of dealing with the nonsense. Congratulations on 1000 posts!

Thanks!
I hadn't realized I'd come to the 1000. And it wasn't a wasted post. I protest the most frequent error in thinking on these boards.

And here's that lovely planet!
http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/PlanetX.JPG

EeneyMinnieMoe

22nd July 2007, 08:24 PM

That's such a blanket statement that of course it's false. Here are some examples of religion doing good:

Buddhism is quite homosexual, bisexual and transgender-friendly which is why countries such as Thailand are so accepting of LGBT people. Same could be said for Jewish synagogues that allow for same sex marriage and organizations like the Unitarian Universalists.

Jainists live a life of peace and serenity. They bother no one, don't cause any wars, don't abuse their own members, practise what they preach and foster a respect for nature and human life.

Islam- sells a lot of airplane tickets to Saudi Arabia.

Judaism- produced the coolest culture and most interesting population of people on Earth.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 08:28 PM

That's such a blanket statement that of course it's false.

That in itself is a blanket statement. Oops, I guess it must be false too!

22nd July 2007, 08:37 PM

ALL blanket statements are false, full stop.

Um....

Caius Textor

22nd July 2007, 08:38 PM

That's such a blanket statement that of course it's false. Here are some examples of religion doing good:

One could easilly come up with a list of NAZISM doing good.

Q.E.D.

Roadtoad

22nd July 2007, 08:42 PM

No, not all religion is bad. At least, not until it contradicts the facts.

At that point, it becomes evil.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 08:49 PM

No, not all religion is bad. At least, not until it contradicts the facts.

At that point, it becomes evil.Nope. In my opinion, the idea that religion can, at any time and at the whim of any believer, start contradicting reality with the full acceptance of the majority of believers, is enough to define the whole enterprise as "bad".

Puppycow

22nd July 2007, 08:50 PM

No. I'm frankly a bit suprised that so many agree with the statement. I haven't seen the inside of a church in over a decade (not counting old Japanese temples as a tourist) so I'm not an 'apologist.' But as stated, it's too much of a blanket statement. There are always caveats and exceptions. 'Religion' should be unambigiously defined, and I'm not fully satisfied with the given definition of 'bad.' Some things can cause both 'harm' and 'benefit.' And of course, we then have to consider exactly what counts as 'harm.' Is it objectively definable? Can we accurately weigh 'benefits' against 'harm'? Harmful to whom? The believer only, or someone else? Religion is too complicated a subject to make a pithy blanket statement about it.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 09:12 PM

...he has me on ignore ...

As I said, Arti, in a post specifically directed to you today, I wouldn't ever put you on ignore. More lies...

Note me trying very hard to sway people in the vote, too.

Nice talking to you again.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 09:16 PM

I am new to the Forum so I don't know how most people think, but like most questions using words like ALL, NONE, ALWAYS, or NEVER I cannot say "true".

Specifically, I can imagine situations where a belief that "bad things happen for a reason" etc could help someone get through a difficult situation.

I see this is still causing confusion and I don't see why.

The subject is deliberately worded and I think the word "all" is pretty unambiguous, no matter how much "religion" and "harm" are debated.

The premise is very simple - if you believe religion does some good, the answer is "false". If you believe there is no good in religion, the answer is "true".

It's a simple concept and Arti's campaigning well for votes.

I'm just interested to see where it ends up.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 09:16 PM

Puppycow

22nd July 2007, 09:42 PM

That's like saying that insisting that heroin is bad for you is "too much of a blanket statement".

Indeed it is too much of a blanket statement. Are you saying it might not be beneficial to a terminally ill patient in chronic pain?

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 09:47 PM

Indeed it is too much of a blanket statement. Are you saying it might not be beneficial to a terminally ill patient in chronic pain?

Pointing out how the benefits outweigh the harms under extreme circumstances doesn't eliminate the harms under more normal conditions.

Puppycow

22nd July 2007, 09:58 PM

Pointing out how the benefits outweigh the harms under extreme circumstances doesn't eliminate the harms under more normal conditions.

But the original question included the word 'all' without any caveats. Therefore a single exception to the rule is suficient to falsify the statement. 99.9% is not the same as 100%. I would probably have anwsered in the affirmative without the word 'all.'

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 10:03 PM

But the original question included the word 'all' without any caveats. Therefore a single exception to the rule is suficient to falsify the statement. 99.9% is not the same as 100%. I would probably have anwsered in the affirmative without the word 'all.'
I guess I wasn't clear. Benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms. So, by that standard, religion is ALWAYS bad, even if there are also minor benefits.

Puppycow

22nd July 2007, 10:16 PM

I guess I wasn't clear. Benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms. So, by that standard, religion is ALWAYS bad, even if there are also minor benefits.

But then, everything would likely be 'bad' by those criteria. Even something that is 99% beneficial and 1% harmful. All sex would be 'bad.' All human activity would be 'bad.' Sunshine, which is necessary for all life would be 'bad' because sometimes it causes cancer. It is a classic reductio ad absurdum.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 11:26 PM

As I said, Arti, in a post specifically directed to you today, I wouldn't ever put you on ignore. More lies...

Note me trying very hard to sway people in the vote, too.

Nice talking to you again.

Oh... must of misread something... I thought when you said you were finished with me... that it meant you were going to put me on ignore--dratz

Ah well...

Say do you think all racism is bad and harmful...
ALL racism?... Even, say "ethnic pride"... which some might call racism...
If I say teaching your kid to be racist is child abuse--
will you start another strawman poll to prove how morally superior you are to yourself?

articulett

22nd July 2007, 11:32 PM

But the original question included the word 'all' without any caveats. Therefore a single exception to the rule is suficient to falsify the statement. 99.9% is not the same as 100%. I would probably have anwsered in the affirmative without the word 'all.'

Yeah... wasn't it cool how he forced your vote that way... using your own logic to back you into a corner... Even if you thought the harm way outweighed the good, you would have to say false. (I heard we learned some cool stuff from Nazi experimentation, so I guess I would have to vote false if some asked If everything Nazi was bad and harmful...)

articulett

22nd July 2007, 11:41 PM

Which is the precise reason I didn't vote at all. :D

Very diplomatic-- but the polls don't close till they close so if you ever feel the urge to vote... you just click your preferred choice at leisure... I wish I had thought of the planet X option first... damn... it WAS the right answer for such a loaded question...

Live and learn...

(I just want to state for the record, that I voted yes because I think TA is a bozoface-- but if I had to do it all again...I'd choose the write-in option of "planet X". )

quixotecoyote

23rd July 2007, 12:36 AM

You can say that all religion is bad and still have circumstances where it's the best of multiple bad options. Like the heroin example, heroin is still going to do bad things to his mind and body, but it's a negligible issue in context.

andyandy

23rd July 2007, 12:39 AM

I guess I wasn't clear. Benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms. So, by that standard, religion is ALWAYS bad, even if there are also minor benefits.

benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms, so by that standard, capitalism is ALWAYS bad.

but hang on,

benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms, so by that standard, communism is ALWAYS bad.

and indeed

benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms, so by that standard, anything that is not utopian is ALWAYS bad.

This seems a strange argument.

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 12:50 AM

...so I guess I would have to vote false if some asked If everything Nazi was bad and harmful...)

You're complaining about the use of "all"?

Uh, you do realise that was your own position, all religion is bad? I checked several times whether you meant "some", "most" or some other adjective, but it was you who insisted that all religion is bad. I tried to ensure that no ambiguity remained.

I'm just running the poll to see what everyone else thinks.

Don't be complaining about strawmen you yourself created. Looks like a majority agree with you.

John Hewitt

23rd July 2007, 01:32 AM

I shall vote false, one cannot and should not say that religion is always bad. Many scientific observers, I suspect most, believe that the human propensity to religious faith in some way manifests an adaptation. In those circumstances talk of the evils of religion, though a popular theme on this forum, miss the point.

A sensible discussion must go "Beyond Good and Evil," to borrow Nietzsche's phrase, and look at how that adaptation arose, what it does and what the social effects of religious faith are and. Above all, they should consider the alternatives, "would it be possible to create a faithless society and, if so, would you want to live in it?"

Roboramma

23rd July 2007, 01:41 AM

articulett

23rd July 2007, 02:24 AM

You're complaining about the use of "all"?

Uh, you do realise that was your own position, all religion is bad? I checked several times whether you meant "some", "most" or some other adjective, but it was you who insisted that all religion is bad. I tried to ensure that no ambiguity remained.

I'm just running the poll to see what everyone else thinks.

Don't be complaining about strawmen you yourself created. Looks like a majority agree with you.

Liar. Nobody said "all". Anytime anybody said anything bad about religion... the ALL was presumed so instead of talking about the harmful act, Mijo and You pretended everyone said all and started rushing to defend religion in general and ignoring the bad act being discussed. You do this every time. All apologists do. The hear "all" when nobody says all... even though you don't hear all when someone says racism is bad... Mijo doesn't need APA reports to let people ask if locking kids in cages is child abuse. That's the whole point.

You have a kneejerk defense of religion... that's why you loaded your question that way. Mijo turned into ALL. But most apologists do. It's the way they take the focus off religion in general. They pretend that somebody is calling every religion bad if they say "religion is x"-- it's like you guys overgeneralize and then set up your damn strawman-- anything to avoid the issue. That's what religion does--it makes everybody defer to it and "respect" it and protect it or pretend it's mostly good or necessary for something or has some higher truths...

A person could totally agree with Gayak's right to say "who says religion isn't child abuse?"--particularly after egregious examples of such-- but instead you pretended Gayak said "all religions are harmful and bad". And then you made this your poll to prove your point that ALL religions are not harmful and bad even though Gayak nor anyone else said it. They said religion is a lie or "who said religion isn't child abuse?" or "religion harms kids"-- Not ALL. Mijo and you played semantic games to hear "all" and change the subject to make the commenter worse than what he was commenting on, you simpleton.

And then, when you were losing your silly poll, you went over to the other thread and declared yourself morally superior to those who voted yes to your inanely worded strawman poll.

You apologists are so dishonest and semantically obtuse.

articulett

23rd July 2007, 02:38 AM

Does all religion cause physical or mental harm? I don't know. That's a tough question because to answer it we'd actually have to survey all of religion (and there are a lot of them out there - particularly when you realise that for the purpose of this question every sect must be looked at individually because what differentiates it from it's sister sects might make the difference in averting any harm that you may have found in those sister sects). One counter-example is enough.

Of course, the other way to treat the question is to look at whatever it is that makes something a religion and ask, "Is this thing necessarily harmful"? I don't know.

But I have to profess only mild interest in this question. Certainly there is good that comes from religion. I was listening to someone, I think it was a lecture by Douglas Adams that I downloaded the other day, talking about a similar point. Sure, the framework of not just religion, but a lot of old ideas (his example was feng shui) is false. Nevertheless, sometimes there is actual knowledge contained within it that's not worth throwing away. So, is it possible that some religions have some use? Sure.

However, one thing that I will unequivocally say is bad (not necessarily harmful, but bad nevertheless) is the idea of faith as a way of knowing something. It's simply false. The idea that because you believe it, it's valid or true, or whatever, and that there is no further evidence required, is wrong. And I think that leads not just to religious ideas (many of which are harmful) but also bad politics, bad policy, bad business, etc.

The idea that we can know something simply because we or someone else assert it, and that no further investigation is required, is not only false, it's arrogant. It does disservice to the beauty of the natural world, which requires real work to uncover.

I agree. And that is what this silly poll is about. Whenever people tried to say just that-- it turned into a fake argument about whether someone can say that all religion is bad. It always does. It does with Dawkins, Pharyngula, Sam Harris, etc. Everytime you dare to critique religion, faith, or god -- the apologists come out of the woodwork and demonize you. It's the old smoke and mirrors to avoid discussing the actual point of whatever comment someone made.

I suppose I could do the reverse dishonesty and say that if someone sticks up for religion that they endorse female genital mutilations, deaths from lack of blood transfusion, pedophiliac priests, suicide bombers, threatening kids with hell, ignorance in the name of creationism, etc. But that would be as silly as this poll.

TA made this poll based on a strawman...

He's trying to prove some point, but I'm not sure what-- he's involved in a contest that seems to primarily be taking place in his head. If most people put false, he'll feel like he's won or proven some point or something. If most people put true, he'll feel he's more moral than the majority. Neither make sense, so it's funny when he says that "I'm winning..." This isn't my silly poll and he's trying to prove some point or other to Gayak--but who knows what it is.

Roboramma

23rd July 2007, 02:42 AM

articulett

23rd July 2007, 02:52 AM

Which, articulet, is why I think this poll is flawed - Atheist, you seem to by trying to make a semantic point with the poll, but I don't think anyone has been arguing what you're claiming they're arguing.
(edit: this post was written before post 71, consider the above responding to post 70)

Anyway, moving on, I just wanted to make a minor addition to the point I made above:
Say that we find that such and such a religion is useful in some way. What then? Should we encourage people to continue to believe the entire ediface? Does this vindicate faith?
I don't think so. I think that questioning the relgion, and it's claims, is still entirely valid and useful. Those within it should do so. Those without as well. Hopefully, by doing so, the false and harmful ideas might be pruned away, and the useful, beneficial, real stored cultural knowledge will be what remains.

But that supposes giving up the idea of faith as a way of knowing.

And, as I said earlier, I think this applies to everything - not just religion.

If someone said "Religion makes people ignorant and fearful" or "religion is child abuse" would you conclude that the person was saying "all religions are bad and harmful"? That' really what the question should be. Because every time anyone says religions are bad... if you don't specify exactly-- people bring up this ALL issue and derail the discussion as though someone said "all"... and then you can never discuss the egregious acts of religionists, because you spend all your time defending the strawman where you've suddenly been vilified for stating an opinion.

And nuttiest thing is that the people who do this the most are so "blind" to it--they are the first to declare that they see no evidence of religion getting special status and deference.

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 02:57 AM

If someone said "Religion makes people ignorant and fearful" or "religion is child abuse" would you conclude that the person was saying "all religions are bad and harmful"?
Yes.

Herzblut

andyandy

23rd July 2007, 03:01 AM

If someone says

Religion is child abuse

Then yes that does imply that they think all religion is bad and harmful.

if the implication is distinct from that, then one could simply say

some religion can be child abuse

or

some religion is child abuse

and this would prevent any ambiguity.

Roboramma

23rd July 2007, 03:12 AM

andyandy

23rd July 2007, 03:24 AM

To make a further point that I'm not sure what I think about, but I think is worth discussing - what if I said, "Murder is bad".
Would you equate that with "All murder is bad"?
If not, why not, and why do those reasons not apply to "religion is bad" or "religion is child abuse"? (Preferably let's talk about the former because it's the subject of this thread).

It is an interesting point - and as always with the interpretation of the implied meaning of sentences never likely to reach any absolute conclusions....but i'd say that the relative distaste expressed does govern the implication - If one was to say "murder is bad" then that would still to me imply "I think that all murder is bad" - for if this is not what someone meant then i would have expected them to qualify it to avoid confusion. But an even stronger implication that one thinks that all murder is bad would be "murder is abhorrent" - the strength of conviction seems to make any ambiguity less likely.
And as in the case of religion - "religion is child abuse" employs a very powerful and emotive negative descriptor, so that possible ambiguity is much reduced.

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 03:25 AM

On the other hand, if one is trying to suggest that most of the time, in the real world, when religion is taught to children, it is in practice child abuse, then saying "religion is child abuse" would get that across rather well.

You have to say at least "teaching religion" or, even better, "current teaching of religion".

what if I said, "Murder is bad".
Would you equate that with "All murder is bad"?

Yes.

Herzblut

Roboramma

23rd July 2007, 03:44 AM

Thanks for the replies Andyandy and Herzblut. Can't write too much, have to run off, but I'll probably be back tomorrow.

Just wanted to say, I'm genuinely surprised at the response to the "murder is bad" question. Now i have to do some thinking.
My own reaction if someone said "Murder is bad" would be that they think murder is usually bad. Start questioning them about out of the ordinary situations and they'll probably agree that it isn't always bad. That or they'll define murder to be those occasions when it isn't bad. (for instance "executions" aren't murder).

That's not to say that you're wrong. But it does make me wonder - is there anything about which you would say, "this is bad"? in those unqualified terms? Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a time that that sentence would be valid unless the qualifications were implied.

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 03:53 AM

Nobody said "all".

As usual, demonstrably wrong:

Religion is a lie. It is all made up with not a shred of evidence to support it. All Lies = All Bad.

Along with qayak's position, which is quite unequivocal, this is just a small selection of your posts:

I'm just saying that it definitely causes harm and it isn't true...

Of course not...I just am not going to condone the censure of those who speak out against religion nor pretend that religion is good for something when we know full well it isn't true and it is manipulative.

And I am all for anyone spreading the idea that FAITH is a bad way to know anything true.

Amd just for the irony value:

I would never expect anyone just to take my word for something.

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 03:56 AM

articulett

23rd July 2007, 04:01 AM

Irony, indeed, TA-- thanks for making my case for me. Every time anyone tried to say anything bad about religion you turned it an argument against them rather than the thing they were calling bad.

To me this just makes the case for you being an apologist all the more obvious. You kept making the commenter the bad guy pretending they said ALL while totally ignoring the egregious acts they were commenting on. Moreover, you insulted new posters who were voicing their bad experiences with religion on a thread that was actually supposed to be about Dawkins and his response to Sloan. You and andyandy both made jibes about anyone who said anything good about dawkins and then made an attack on Gayak and accused him of saying "all religions are bad and cause harm"... and your first quote of him above was in direct response to that accusation. And that was after Mijo stalked him and brought up the "all" issue from a whole other post-- never mentioned the OP--just kept pretending Gayak said all religions are bad and harmful. Do you ever get a clue?

It's like you are your own worst enemy and don't see it.

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 04:11 AM

Just wanted to say, I'm genuinely surprised at the response to the "murder is bad" question. Now i have to do some thinking.
My own reaction if someone said "Murder is bad" would be that they think murder is usually bad. Start questioning them about out of the ordinary situations and they'll probably agree that it isn't always bad. That or they'll define murder to be those occasions when it isn't bad. (for instance "executions" aren't murder).

Yes, but as you already pointed out executions are technically excluded from being murder. This doesn't hamper the categorical imperative of "Murder is bad".

This imperative is embedded in the German penal law insofar as it includes that a murderer will always be punished according to the maximum penalty that is legally possible, without any distinction. There is no such thing as "a murderer will be punished from ... to ...." in our law. All other law systems I know include at least the threat of maximum penalty. "Murder is bad" - even "is worst" - is imperative.

You might ask yourself which ethics this absolute normative judgment (dogma) is derived from.

Herzblut

articulett

23rd July 2007, 04:13 AM

On the other hand, if one is trying to suggest that most of the time, in the real world, when religion is taught to children, it is in practice child abuse, then saying "religion is child abuse" would get that across rather well.

I don't agree that the above statement is true, but then I wasn't really taught much religion as I child.

Is it justifiable to "religion is child abuse" when you really mean what I said above? Moreover, will most people who honestly listen to you understand that that's what you mean?
I don't know the answer to either question. I don't even know if, for example, that's what Dawkins means when he says it, though I would guess that if specifically challenged he'd admit that it is.

Regardless of all that, however, it's certainly a more effective way of making the point than adding various qualifiers, though they may make the statement closer to the truth.

To make a further point that I'm not sure what I think about, but I think is worth discussing - what if I said, "Murder is bad".
Would you equate that with "All murder is bad"?
If not, why not, and why do those reasons not apply to "religion is bad" or "religion is child abuse"? (Preferably let's talk about the former because it's the subject of this thread).

I could make a poll asking do you think all murder is bad and harmful-- and then point out all could include, wars, euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, killing animals, defense killings, suicide, etc. That's what it feels like. If every time someone said "Murder is wrong" the apologists rushed in to accuse them of being against euthanasia, war, etc. and then derailed the thread to discuss the egregiousness of the person's comment rather than murder. That's what TA did to Gayak.

He derails thread after thread with these kind of strawmen... tangential... to prove some wild point that only he seems to be understanding as far as I can tell in an everlasting quest to win some point or other in some contest that nobody else seems to care about.

By the way, Dawkins didn't say that religion is childabuse... it's actually a misquote of what he said and it was illustrated with some pretty powerful examples--But the apologists ignore the examples and demonize him as though he said he wanted to lock people in jail for inflicting religion on their kids. It's really weird... Mijo even linked someone else that was describing an abusive religious experience on Dawkins website that had the title Religion's Real Child Abuse http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins and they used this to make the strawman that Dawkins is saying all religion is bad and harmful.

They demonize everybody just so long as you don't have to discuss the sacred cow. (And, by sacred cow, I mean no offense to your avatar...) Of course, it helps to know who the apologists are so you can use your words very carefully around them lest they derail a thread to assert that you are more immoral and wrong than whatever the topic you are discussing was.

Undesired Walrus

23rd July 2007, 06:09 AM

Religous, theological arguments are the very foundations of intellectual debate in this world. So are arguments made by Atheists. Why, for God's (ho ho) sake can we not tolerate each other and our intellectual debates?

I like to listen to Hamza Yusuf, a great Muslim preacher, who makes me think about a lot of things I never thought of before, things that make me better live my life. Does that mean I am a believer? No.

I beg of you all, open your mind to all information. All debates. All theological arguments, regardless if it came from a crazy guy on the street or a fictional God.

I'd agree that it tends to get a bit dodgy when somebody has blind faith that their God really does exist, but c'mon folks, this argument that all religion is bad is always elitist and really, really annoying.

I often find many Atheists immensly frustrating. I want to grab them by the shoulders and go, 'You are not that great you moronic arrogant tub of crap!'. There are intellectual religous people and dumb ignorant atheists. There are intellectual atheists and dumb ignorant believers.

Advice, fellow non-believers, do not presume there is absolutely 100% no God, ever ever ever. Let's try and get rid of 'isms' eh?
Let's criticise religion, let's make sure we are never intimidated by pointing out that believing in something with no proof is irrational. But let's not elevate ourselves to a higher standing at the same time! It seems incapable of a vast majority of atheists to not do this.

I, personally, do not think there is a God, but we owe it to ourselves never to become arrogant, ignorant, pricks like famous Atheist Penn Gillette. Who acts exactly like a fundamentalist.

The best thing we can do in this society is just turn to each other, regardless if they be scientists or believers, atheists or fundamentalists, and realise, WE ARE NOT THAT GREAT.

Gregoire

23rd July 2007, 06:18 AM

Welcome to JREF, Gregoire!

Just a few quick questions - bear with me here.

1. Are you an atheist?
2. Were you in the Army?
3. Did you train at Ft. Sill, OK, in the summer of '90?
4. Do you remember Waco Hill?

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome. :)

I am sorry to tell you I was never in the Army, so I guess I am not the person you are thinking of. I did apply to West Point way back when I was
17, but was disqualified from any military service because of a heart murmur.

23rd July 2007, 06:42 AM

Thanks for the welcome. :)

I am sorry to tell you I was never in the Army, so I guess I am not the person you are thinking of. I did apply to West Point way back when I was
17, but was disqualified from any military service because of a heart murmur.

Ok, maybe a different, distant member of the family... :D If I could just remember his first name...

Tanstaafl

23rd July 2007, 08:24 AM

Well, darn. That's what I get for being good and not reading the spoiler.

The new name would be quite a conversation piece.

mijopaalmc

23rd July 2007, 09:56 AM

Darth Rotor

23rd July 2007, 10:59 AM

because that is not a position I can state, I am changing my name to

The Religious Apologist
Don't you dare, mate, or I'll never grill you a blue steak!

If you choose to change, the new name should be
The Kiltless Atheist :D

DR

Faithkills

23rd July 2007, 11:07 AM

I'd like to see evidence of

-atheist charities
(and no, not just charities that have no religious goals, I mean actually promoting atheism)

Atheists just give because it's the right thing to do. They don't do it for the acclamation like religions and corporations do. Yet anyway.

-non-religion being the center of any culture

It is arguably the center of US culture. People want the sop of religion but when it comes down to it, the U.S. cultural religion has always been success. Let's pray it continues to be so.

-beautiful and inspiring atheist works of art

You don't see much acanine art either. There is just art that doesn't feature dogs.

In any case there is plenty of art by atheists and while visual art isn't always conducive to atheistic themes certainly music and literary art are, and there are many examples of that.

Faithkills

23rd July 2007, 11:21 AM

However, I am not the one who has classified Buddhism, etc., as religions. Most governments, census takers, and other classification systems regard these as religions. If you want to focus on faith and gods, word the poll that way. If you want to focus on philosophy and lifestyles, hmm, I'm not sure what to say.

In many countries, especially in the U.S. organizations want to be classified as religion so they can avoid taxes.

All religions require faith and a blind belief in some sort of extra-mundane entity/force/sbrubble. Also, they all require a dogmatic acceptance of metaphysical claims (science also has metaphysical claims, but they are debatable and even "observable" at some degree). Buddhism does not escape that rule.

That's it for me. If they don't try to subvert the perception of truth then I don't really have a problem.

If it asks you to believe something without evidence, to me that's religion, and that's always bad for the participant. Sometimes the power thus derived may be utilized to good things, but for the most part they merely utilize that power to perpetuate the system, and too often to attempt to eradicate others.

There is no benefit derived from religion that could not be obtained without asking people to believe lies. As for charity some of the most heavy lifting is done by organizations like the Peace Corps or MSF. Less religious countries have higher metrics of well being all across the board.

Is it a religion? Does it ask people to believe things without evidence?

If it quacks..

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 11:34 AM

Arti, I'm pleased to see that you still live by that old adage, "Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it."

...just kept pretending that Gayak said all religions are bad and harmful.

Unbelievable. You saw him say it in the thread and I copied it in here. Maybe if he'd written it in blood you may believe it.

Talk about a "skeptic" not accepting the evidence of her eyes, reading plain English!

That's what TA did to Gayak.

He derails thread after thread with these kind of strawmen...

And thanks for franking the impression everyone has of your ignorance - I pointed out to you a while ago, you can't even get your cheerleader's name right twelve months later - IT'S QAYAK.

I am dead-set lmao. You lie, you bluster and you cannot even learn the difference between a "g" and a "q".

Genius.

And you're so funny, contradicting yourself all the way through this thread. I bet you add to your fan club considerably with it.

You need to learn what a "strawman" is. That's when I make up something. Again, as I repeatedly point out to you - there's nothing made up here; QAYAK repeated his statement quite clearly and unequivocally: all religion is bad.

But the real humour in the situation is that you have been whining about "not really meaning all religion is bad" yourself, yet you voted "true" and defend the position!

:dl:

Sorry, Arti, but I've met some really slow people during my life. You, however, take the biscuit.

Don't you dare, mate, or I'll never grill you a blue steak!

If you choose to change, the new name should be
The Kiltless Atheist :D

DR

Tight go at the moment, 38 apiece right now!

Kiltless? Hmmm. I think my weak Sassenach blood wouldn't be tough enough for that in winter - maybe in the summer!

Want pics?

Are you surprised at the total? Have to confess I am. Gave it every chance, wording the OP and title as I did - guaranteed to scare off the "Falses" who will think it's just another religion beat-up and stay away.

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 11:39 AM

slingblade

23rd July 2007, 12:31 PM

My willingness to see as many facets as I can of any issue prevents me from answering a yes-or-no as posed. I feel that to come down on one side or another will automatically preclude me from accepting new evidence or new lines of thought.

I feel most things present ambiguity: everything I can think of has the potential to be both good and bad, depending on circumstance.

I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again: it is not so much the religion per se that bugs. It's the mind-set in general that allows it. I find myself concerned that a mind willing to believe in magic and miracles doesn't think very well in other aspects of life. Of course, I'm talking about myself, but I'm fairly certain I'm not unique. ;)

I wasted most of my life waiting for God to rescue me, for God to put it all right, for God to fix my problems.

I wasted most of my life.

That makes something quite primal within me sit on its haunches and howl in utter despair.

Can religion hurt people? Oh, very yes. Does it always hurt all people? I don't know; I don't know all people.

Faithkills

23rd July 2007, 12:49 PM

Advice, fellow non-believers, do not presume there is absolutely 100% no God, ever ever ever. Let's try and get rid of 'isms' eh?
Let's criticise religion, let's make sure we are never intimidated by pointing out that believing in something with no proof is irrational. But let's not elevate ourselves to a higher standing at the same time! It seems incapable of a vast majority of atheists to not do this.

No, as you said, it's rational versus irrational. If one points out it's irrational they get their panties in a bunch. If you point out that it's a societal problem with so many people being made irrational they really get their panties in a bunch.

Unlike believers I don't mind what silly delusions people want to have individually, as long as they were given some choice (which most children are not). But at a macro level the actors making use of the power derived from all these deluded people do harm me by causing all sorts of political actions that are wrong or dangerous.

Bush is in power because of the religious right. I do not think for one moment that this cocaine snorting overgrown frat boy has any real piety. But the believers empower him nevertheless. They go to church and their leaders tell them what a fine moral man W is for protecting innocent stem cells and promoting religious causes and finding clever ways to funnel govt funds into 'faith based' activities.

And they vote.

It's not about elevating one side and demeaning another side. You act like nothing is at stake but ego.

Is xtianity as destructive as islam? No, not right now.

Is wicca less destructive than xtianity? Sure.

Are all religions equally bad? No. But it's pretty easy to draw correlations between the relative power of religion and their harm. That kind of power is going to be used, by someone.

mijopaalmc

23rd July 2007, 12:53 PM

articulett-

How would you respond to someone who said "liberalism is a mental disorder" and made it very clear that they meant "all liberalism is a mental disorder"?

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 01:06 PM

Bush is in power because of the religious right.

Patently false.

He's in power because 50%[ish] of Americans can't be arsed voting. That the majority of the population allows the minority religious right to choose the government is the majority's fault, not the religious right.

Faithkills

23rd July 2007, 01:11 PM

mijopaalmc

23rd July 2007, 01:32 PM

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 02:00 PM

I can't believe you would even argue this. Don't you value your credibility at all?

I'm not arguing it, and you're quite right - I wouldn't waste my time that way. I merely pointed out what you were saying is idiotic. If you wish to keep doing it, I think you may find it's your credibilty which suffers.

Next off you can explain why atheism caused Stalin to murder millions of his people.

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 02:04 PM

No, as you said, it's rational versus irrational.
...
But at a macro level the actors making use of the power derived from all these deluded people do harm me by causing all sorts of political actions that are wrong or dangerous.

Bush is in power because of the religious right.

Kinda foolish and mean reaction. Irrational, deluded people, you say? Haha! The religious right behaved fully rational and not deluded at all: they voted for their candidate! Their guy has the power in his hand, not yours, right?

And keep shouting at those people! That will only drive them once again towards that nice, familiy-oriented and deeply religious man who really understands them.

I wonder who is irrational and deluded here.

Herzblut

articulett

23rd July 2007, 02:23 PM

Again, when someone uses a collective noun without qualification, they describing all of the collective noun.

I've asked this twice before and gotten no response:

Do the people who think that say "religion is bad" doesn't implicitly mean "all religion is bad" think that Michael Savage is making any distinctions within "liberalism" when he says "liberalism is a metal disorder"? After all, he doesn't say "all liberalism is a mental disoroder".

You got a response... but as always you ignore the response with the tangential

Regarding the latter... if someone made the comment after an egregious act as part of an OP, I would not derail the thread by making the silly demand that they proffer an APA report detailing liberalism as a mental disorder. Moreover, I would not conduct a strawman poll to see if people agreed or not to the claim that ALL liberalism is a mental disorder. I might ask how liberalism was involved in the OP. But then again, I'm not a dishonest religious apologist.

You went to a thread about a creationist tour guide making children purposefully ignorant and bigoted and didn't mention that at all... instead you demonized Qayak because he asked, "who said religion isn't child abuse." Then you stalked him to another thread and made the same accusation that he was calling all religion harmful and bad... despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the thread. And your real crybaby beef is just that I have outed you both as a religious apologist and an "intelligent design" proponent. If it quacks...

Yes, I think the following are religious apologist. Those who critique atheists etc. and mischaracterize their statements as though whatever they said is worse than what they are commenting on. I see people do this all the time to Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pharyngula, Penn Jillette. But when asked to proffer proof of their claims it seems quite obvious to me that the person doth protest too much. If such a nontheist would have made similar claims about locking kids in cages, raising kids to be white supremacists or promoting bigotry, teaching kids the earth was flat, or astrology-- nobody would have rushed in to demonize the claimant. But religion has special protective status that is upheld by the apologist to make sure nobody dares say the Emperor is naked.

I outed you and others because I think it's very disturbing that people have this knee-jerk blind defense towards something which is a lie perpetuated on the innocent and trusting... and they never seem to see it... they are the first to say religion gets no special preferences.

I don't want my favorite members to stop posting, because of such idiocy disguised as "holier than thou" morality. I also don't like the way such people treat newcomers I like. And yes, I consider these signs of a religious apologist:

Those who seem to hate Dawkins and/or memes or anything associated with him without being clear why. Those who, like you say Dawkins is wrong and you are right about some silly notion that nobody but a creationist would adhere to. The people who equate atheism with dogma or "militant" for people using nothing more than words http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/militant_atheists_are_a_clich.php
while ignoring the words those words are about entirely. People who haven't read Dawkins, et. al., show a poor understanding of evolution and slander such people anyhow. Those who equate faith with facts and respect of scientists as worship. Those who never really say much of anything except obfuscating notions and critique of others who speak the truth about things that matter-- about the fact that religion claims to have higher truths but there is no evidence of higher truths. Those, like you, who derail threads and fling ad homs and can't stay on topic and demand impossible evidence for things you don't want to believe while proffering the measliest semantic argument for your own view.

It's an opinion...you know, like your silly contention that random means anything related to probability and that anything with randomness can be called a random process.

And there are many here who feel similarly. I like to give them a heads up so they don't think that they are the reason for the miscommunication. Because the most socially incompetent people never recognize that they are the incompetent ones while the socially competent people are wondering if the problem is them. You just can't say anything bad about religion or good about Dawkins in front of some people--

You are as dishonest and obfuscating and tangential as Behe.

For anyone who cares to investigate for themselves who these people might be or who are trying to figure out TA religious apologist reasons for creating this poll-- I submit the following.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85338
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87572

I'm sure all people can make up their minds freely as to what is more disingenuous and harmful... the subject of the OP, the comments about the OP, or the apologists attempts to make the OP about whether the thread should be derailed to discuss whether a person is calling ALL religion harmful.

It's the biggest and oldest and stupidest apologist ploy ever. And they always hold themselves, like you, to be morally superior without ever really saying anything at all. You insult some of the best posters because they call you on your BS all the time. And you make it so easy, because you think you are smarter than everyone else, and you can't hear what people might teach you.

articulett

23rd July 2007, 02:35 PM

Patently and obviously true.

The effect is the same. They vote in greater numbers. Period. Religion is very effective in providing votes.

We're aren't discussing what doesn't work we are discussing what does. The xtian right can and does wield tremendous power in the U.S.

He is in power because of the religious right.

I can't believe you would even argue this. Don't you value your credibility at all?

No they do not. They are religious apologists as defined in my post above. They are dishonest hypocrites claiming to be moral defenders of the good religion does or something or other. They would rather obfuscate the truth and change the topic than discuss the fact that religions proffers lies dressed up as "higher truths" and the nutty notion that faith is the keep to salvation and/or a good way of knowing the truth.

I have Herzblut on ignore because I can't make sense of him, but he's one of them as well. Nobody can say anything bad about religion because then the apologists will rush in to demonize those who proffer such opinions rather than whatever it is that religion is responsible for. Everybody thinks their religion is true and moral and that the people of their sect are the chosen. It's inane. But the aplogists all dance around this fact to demonize those who speak out and they call the truth tellers: shrill, militant, that they are calling All religion evil, ...anything to play semantic twisting games to make truths into lies and lies into truths.

Learn who they are and put them on ignore. Most of JREF is not of that ilk. And warn all new posters that you like so they'll stick around despite such blathering nothingness. There are brilliant people here who are funny and have a lot to share and teach and learn. And then there are those who think they are moral and that their opinions are facts-- they are the apologists, the religious right, the nutters, the young earth creationists, the creationists that won't call themselves creationists like Behe, and a few other wackos.

TA only chooses the best to deride.

articulett

23rd July 2007, 02:42 PM

Oh... and another clue... they seem to be having a different discussion where they are always winning on some point rather than sharing info. and understanding. The apologists use a lot of words to say nothing at all and obscure the message of those who are actually proffering useful information.

Rest assured, Faithkills, they are a minority... but they are loud and offensive--everlastingly noticing the sawdust in another's eye and derailing threads while ignoring the giant log sticking out of their own. "The Atheist" has declared himself morally superior than those who mark his silly poll as true--in a contest that only the apologists seem to be playing.

Faithkills

23rd July 2007, 03:12 PM

I'm not arguing it, and you're quite right - I wouldn't waste my time that way. I merely pointed out what you were saying is idiotic. If you wish to keep doing it, I think you may find it's your credibilty which suffers.

Next off you can explain why atheism caused Stalin to murder millions of his people.

Omg you are so astoundingly intellectually dishonest.

First off Bush is no Stalin. I don't particularly like Bush but the equation is laughable.

Stalin wanted to suppress the extant religions because they had power. His state 'atheism' was just the new religion that supported his position. Stalin murdered to eliminate any threat to his regime, plain and simple. If the church had not been in bed with the old monarchy he might have found it easier to coopt them. It probably would have worked better, but they were so they had to go and were replaced by worship of the state.

Bush otoh rode the religious right to power, and he has been beholden to them. He could not have done any of the ills he has without the support of the religious right. They elected him. No religion, no religious right, no W. Plain and simple.

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 03:13 PM

I have Herzblut on ignore because I can't make sense of him, but he's one of them as well.
Now that's amazing! She knows my attitude without understanding me! :rolleyes:

Herzblut

skeptifem

23rd July 2007, 03:16 PM

i would say all religious extremism is bad, but religion itself- no.

Tsukasa Buddha

23rd July 2007, 03:31 PM

Yay, the poll is going the other way now :yahoo !

andyandy

23rd July 2007, 03:32 PM

an apologist page count

you being an apologist

apologists

apologists

apologists

dishonest religious apologist.

I have outed you both as a religious apologist

religious apologist.

apologist

religious apologist:

religious apologist

They are religious apologists

aplogists

apologists

apologists

apologists .

15 times on one page.

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 03:41 PM

Omg you are so astoundingly intellectually dishonest.

First off Bush is no Stalin. I don't particularly like Bush but the equation is laughable.

Isn't that funny. You accuse me of dishonesty then immediately a construct a stawman to prove your point. Well played.

:bigclap

Faithkills

23rd July 2007, 03:41 PM

Kinda foolish and mean reaction. Irrational, deluded people, you say? Haha! The religious right behaved fully rational and not deluded at all: they voted for their candidate! Their guy has the power in his hand, not yours, right?

So their voting for a president who has their sons and daughters dying in a war that most americans don't understand or believe in at the expense of countless billions of their tax money and a president who is unfettering the states power to spy on it's populace via the patriot act and who can barely speak more coherently than Herzblut is a rational thing?

They are voting because W sends money back to churches and churches tell them to vote because the innocent herds of cute innocent free range stem cells that are being hunted down this very minute by evil scientists with chainsaws!

I wonder who is irrational and deluded here.

I don't wonder at all.

Darth Rotor

23rd July 2007, 03:52 PM

So their voting for a president who has their sons and daughters dying in a war that most americans don't understand or believe in at the expense of countless billions of their tax money and a president who is unfettering the states power to spy on it's populace via the patriot act and who can barely speak more coherently than Herzblut is a rational thing?
That was a coherent linkage.
They are voting because W sends money back to churches and churches tell them to vote because the innocent herds of cute innocent free range stem cells that are being hunted down this very minute by evil scientists with chainsaws!
That was an incoherent linkage.

Check your meds.

DR

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 03:56 PM

So their voting for a president <... they liked but I am frikkin mad at...> is a rational thing?

Now you got it! Compared to that it is totally irrational and deluded to not vote.

They are voting because

It is their civil right and duty to do so.

Herzblut

mijopaalmc

23rd July 2007, 03:57 PM

articulett-

Yes, I would demand evidence if someone said "liberalism is a mental disorder" just as I demanded evidence from qayak when he implied "religion is child abuse". The egregious error that you have made through this discussion and for which all you rambling posts have never compensated is that you and qayak insist that religion is child because of a case or collection of cases where it is obvious that someone religious is abusing the truth around children (whether that constitutes child abuse is debatable) and then generalize from that case or collection of cases that all religious people abuse all children and therefore all religion is bad.

Nevertheless that is not what my question was about. I asked you what you would think if someone said "liberalism is a mental disorder" and then address that statement much as you have the statement "religion is bad" by saying the things that The Atheist has quoted you saying and then denies that that they never said that "all religion is bad".

It's a simple question. Now answer it.

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 04:13 PM

--everlastingly noticing the sawdust in another's eye and derailing threads while ignoring the giant log sticking out of their own.

That's odd. I could have sworn that you voted "True".

That would mean that you are either:

A) a liar, or;

B) a hypocrite

Religion is "all bad" but the words of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, are fine to be used to make a point.

Well played, you!

:bigclap

Highly apposite statement, I feel.

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 04:14 PM

Yay, the poll is going the other way now :yahoo !

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037745273b48d5bd3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1810)

MMMPHHHFFF

MMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!

(I'll explain tomorrow)

Faithkills

23rd July 2007, 04:16 PM

Isn't that funny. You accuse me of dishonesty then immediately a construct a stawman to prove your point. Well played.

:bigclap

You are not just dishonest, you are absurdly dishonest. I said:

Bush is in power because of the religious right.

You said:

Patently false.

He's in power because 50%[ish] of Americans can't be arsed voting. That the majority of the population allows the minority religious right to choose the government is the majority's fault, not the religious right.

So using this 'logic' what could the religious right ever be blamed for hmm?

This 'logic' basically can be used to say that everything that anyone does is bad is someone else's fault because someone else could have stopped it somehow.

It's crap. You know and I know the religious right is directly responsible for W being president. No religion. No xtian right. No W.

And you are way out of your league:

Next off you can explain why atheism caused Stalin to murder millions of his people.

Let me help. That a straw man. Well a weak one but you tried.

My subsequent dismemberment of your straw man was not a straw man. For it to be a straw man I would have to try to say something and then make it somehow equivalent to something obviously wrong and then equate it to what you said. I wasn't. I just refuted your comparison between stalin/bush and religion/athiesm. That's not a straw man, although yes, it was instigated by one.

andyandy

23rd July 2007, 04:17 PM

You and andyandy both made jibes about anyone who said anything good about dawkins and then made an attack on Gayak and accused him of saying "all religions are bad and cause harm"... .

One poster in a thread about dawkins said that Dawkins was in many ways like a God. My single question was 'In what way is he like a God?'

This is not a 'jibe' about anyone who 'says anything good about dawkins' - this is questioning dawkins being compared to a deity. I know you understand this as we have discussed this in a PM in which i have already made this very point. From my PM you will also be aware that I am a fan of dawkins;

I can accept that Dawkins has made massive positive contributions towards science and has certainly has apparently started a positive debate in America with regards to religion. As I have already said, I am a fan of his books and lectures. I'm reading the ancestor's tale right now. But all this qualification really should not be necessary. Whilst I agree with a good deal of what dawkins says, I don't agree with everything.

and so saying that I was criticising anyone who said anything good about dawkins is patently false - unless i should now criticise myself for holding that opinion. Why then so you think it necessary to misrepresent my position? I have already said

And I don't attack "anyone who likes Dawkins" because I like him myself - I simply don't agree with everything he says. Surely you can accept that he is not above criticism? Perhaps some people who attack him do so to defend their own religious beliefs but that doesn't mean that every criticism requires that the individual is an "apologist"

Were anyone to be described in the terms such as being in many ways like a god i would question what led an individual to that opinion. That could be dawkins, jimmy saville or the bloke at our local chippie.
Please stop knowingly misrepresnting my own and other people's opinions.

The Grave

23rd July 2007, 04:28 PM

Well, that's a fairly small argument. I guess it depends whether you class Buddhism and its clones a religion or not. Let's agree that I'm meaning the 99% of religions which believe in god/s. Those are the ones which matter as I'm not aware of Buddhism telling lies about sky-daddies and angels.

The truth is that ALL religions that place ANY non-evidenced faith above rational evidence are bad.

Don't buddists believe in the after life or karma or fate or sum-such-nonsonse....

Any religious rubbish is bad.

Even scientific religious rubbish... strings.

Griff...

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 04:50 PM

The truth is that ALL religions that place ANY non-evidenced faith above rational evidence are bad.

The truth rather is that this is your personal credo, based on non-evidenced faith above rational evidence. Thus, your credo is per its content self-refuting by declaring itself as "bad".

Herzblut

The Atheist

23rd July 2007, 05:14 PM

I just refuted your comparison between stalin/bush

Aha! Another friend of Arti's I see - say something often enough and it might come true.

Hint: At no stage did I compare Bush and Stalin.

:pythonfoot:

The Grave

23rd July 2007, 05:17 PM

The truth rather is that this is your personal credo, based on non-evidenced faith above rational evidence. Thus, your credo is per its content self-refuting by declaring itself as "bad".

Herzblut

Evidence:

pope supported roman catholic Hitler
islamic virgin loving religious terrorists
crazy hindus trying to infect the world with TB
christian terrorists (US & UK ) fighting yet another holy war in the East
arab slaughtering jews and vise-versa
creationism
jehovah's child abuse
on and on et al eternity........
Griff.

Herzblut

23rd July 2007, 06:03 PM

Evidence:

pope supported roman catholic Hitler
islamic virgin loving religious terrorists
crazy hindus trying to infect the world with TB
christian terrorists (US & UK ) fighting yet another holy war in the East
arab slaughtering jews and vise-versa
creationism
jehovah's child abuse
on and on et al eternity........Griff.
Now, what's that wunderfully objective and well-balanced list supposed to be evidence for?

Herzblut

EeneyMinnieMoe

23rd July 2007, 09:34 PM

I don't think it makes you an "apologist" to not hate all religion and be fair enough to admit that people who practise it aren't all automatically crazy, racist, ignorant, hypocrites, etc. and, in fact, have a right to their religion.

Unless religion actually physically hurts someone or the people who practise it try to push it on others, I have little problem with it.

qayak

23rd July 2007, 09:54 PM

And thanks for franking the impression everyone has of your ignorance - I pointed out to you a while ago, you can't even get your cheerleader's name right twelve months later - IT'S QAYAK.

I am dead-set lmao. You lie, you bluster and you cannot even learn the difference between a "g" and a "q".

Seems to me that you made the same mistake when I first joined the list along with a lot of other people. I could have corrected Articulett at anytime but did not simply because it means absolutely nothing to me.

It is quite ridiculous to point and laugh at a simple spelling mistake while ignoring your own intellectual dishonesty. Lying about references is bad enough when you do it to further your own cause but you took the especially cowardly road and used it to damage the reputation of your opponent in a debate.

Obviously you do not have the moral strength to correct this issue so I will ask the membership of JREF.

Did anyone say the things about Articulett that The Atheist claims?

mijopaalmc

23rd July 2007, 10:56 PM

Thanks for dropping by and illustrating my point for me. I wasn't even going to mention that it was you who derailed that particular thread...

(shh.... don't say anything bad about religion... because to Mijo you mean ALL religions are equally bad...he's got an over-generalization thing going on--he thinks if something has any randomness in it, you can rightfully define it as random... pregnancy results are random...poker is random... and evolution is as random as a tornado in a junkyard producing a 747)

You know, articulett. if you think that this is that answer that you claim to have provided to the question about whether unqualified collective nouns are universal then you have drastically redefined the word "answer". Instead, you have constructed the same old straw men that you have use in What evidence is there that evolution is non-random? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82155). You are ignoring that it is a standard convention of the English language that when you refer to group without qualification as to what members of the group your are referring, you are referring to the whole group. This is why statements like "Jews are cheap" and "liberalism is a mental disorder" are so offensive.

sphenisc

24th July 2007, 04:12 AM

You don't see much acanine art either.

Does performance art count?
http://www.jokeshop.co.uk/cgi-bin/sitewise.pl?act=det&p=3252

or cartoons?
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban756l.jpg

sphenisc

24th July 2007, 04:20 AM

Did anyone say the things about Articulett that The Atheist claims?

Do you mean all the things or some of the things?

What things?

Faithkills

24th July 2007, 10:02 AM

The truth rather is that this is your personal credo, based on non-evidenced faith above rational evidence. Thus, your credo is per its content self-refuting by declaring itself as "bad".

Herzblut

No it's coherent, certainly does not refute itself, and we have a world of evidence of the destructive power of faith.

In general, how can you think being deluded is positive thing?

Faithkills

24th July 2007, 10:27 AM

You know, articulett. if you think that this is that answer that you claim to have provided to the question about whether unqualified collective nouns are universal then you have drastically redefined the word "answer". Instead, you have constructed the same old straw men that you have use in What evidence is there that evolution is non-random? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82155). You are ignoring that it is a standard convention of the English language that when you refer to group without qualification as to what members of the group your are referring, you are referring to the whole group. This is why statements like "Jews are cheap" and "liberalism is a mental disorder" are so offensive.

Oh please. First I don't think articulett is in any way saying all religion is not bad. His statement however does not mean that all religion is equally bad which is just an asinine assertion. Any more than "Jews are cheap" means that all jews are equally cheap. And even an idiot that would make that claim would admit that some jews somewhere are not cheap, like their personal jewish friend or whatever.

Moreover he has made it clear what he means but apparently some people think raising this specious point over and over will detract from the valid points he makes.

"You said blah!"

"No I didn't say blah, I said bloo. And in case it wasn't clear by bloo I meant in general and all bloo is not equally bloo and same may be blah and some may be blee."

"But you said BLAH! You bigot! Hey everyone look at the bigot!"

This whole poll is designed to make that sort of fallacious attack possible by excluding the middle.

For myself I had no qualms in answering. All religion is bad. All religion is not equally bad. All religions do not fail to evidence a positive result on occasion. But in general all religions do promote unfounded belief in something in order to perpetuate themselves, if adherents benefit it's merely incidental, and if not it's irrelevant.

Even white lies are still lies. I don't like lies. I don't like the fact that so many people are trained to believe lies. I don't like the results of that on an individual or large scale level.

'Is all religion bad'? It's essentially the same question as 'are all lies bad'? Regardless of whether the teller is the genesis of the lie or actually believes the lie and is merely propagating the lie.

Yes there are occasions people justify lying because they think somehow the lied to would be better off. There may even be occasions where that the lied to actually is better off.

But I don't want to be lied to. And I don't like that other people are lied to.

Is all religion bad? Yes/No?

Pretty much.

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 11:43 AM

No it's coherent, certainly does not refute itself, and we have a world of evidence of the destructive power of faith.

It's a fallacious selective perception leading to a big methodological flaw.

If you want to derive a fair value judgment about an institution you need to balance negative and positive impact. What you're doing is trying to prove "Herzblut is ALL bad" by just listing the things I did wrong and completely ignoring the things I did well. You might understand that I'd refuse to accept any such judgment.

In general, how can you think being deluded is positive thing?

Every human being is inevitably deluded by its brain, day by day and night by night. This is kinda "natural" and hard to overcome for any individual.

For instance, you fell into the delusion trap about "all evil religion". It's an irrational faith you adhere to, you're deluded. You will - of course - vehemently protest, just like religious believers probably will, but that does not change the fact. You're possibly biased by your own personal experiences, maybe in childhood. Again, that does not change the fact.

You're a skeptical man? Then you should ask yourself: what would it take to prove myself wrong? Then you yourself should seek what it takes. You should be able to shift your paradigm once you accept you're wrong. But instead, you're just selectively perceiving what is in favor of your mindset and ignoring what's against it. Like almost everybody else. Well, I don't even blame you, it is incredibly difficult to be neutral and requires alot of training.

Herzblut

MilwaukeeMike

24th July 2007, 11:58 AM

Faithkills

24th July 2007, 12:39 PM

It's a fallacious selective perception leading to a big methological flaw.

If you want to derive a fair value judgment about an institution you need to balance negative and positive impact. What you're doing is trying to prove "Herzblut ia ALL bad" by just listing the things I did wrong and completely ignoring the things I did well. You might understand that I'd refuse to accept any such judgment.

No, I would start with the fact you lie. That's enough of a fair value judgment for me. I am sure you think it's for a good reason, but that doesn't change it.

It's very simple.

Religions are a big mass of lies. How many people are aware or not aware is not germane to that fact, except to note how well the lies are composed and continually recomposed to be nice circular logic loops, and how part of the lie is that not believing the lie is dangerous. How many people think the lies are in good causes are not germane. How many people knowingly lie to gain power is not terribly germane either.

What is germane is that they are lying.

Every human being is inevitably deluded by its brain, day by day and night by night. This is kinda "natural" and hard to overcome for any individual.

For instance, you fell into the delusion trap about "all evil religion". It's an irrational faith you adhere, you're deluded. You will - of course - vehemently protest, just like religious believers probably will, but that does not change the fact. You're possibly biased by your own personal experiences, maybe in childhood. Again, that des not change the fact.

Lol do you have another ploy? This one is tired. I'm not deluded I just don't like lies, or the big fat liars who tell them;P

It's not complicated. You can't equate me not liking you lot of liars because you lie, with being deluded. Well you can but it's just another lie.

You're a skeptical man? Then you should ask yourself: what would it take to prove myself wrong? Then you yourself should seek what it takes. You should be able to shift your paradigm once you accept you're wrong. But instead, you're just selectively preceiving what is in favor of your mindset and ignoring what's against it. Like almost everybody else. Well, I don't even blame you, it is incredibly difficult to be neutral and requires alot of training.

Herzblut

Easy to prove myself wrong. Show me how lies are a good idea, in general.

Saying we've lived with the lies all this time is not showing it's a good idea. We lived with people dying of pnuemonia, we lived without air travel, we lived without the internet's influence on exposing lies, but I for one am glad of all these things, despite they are changes to the status quo.

For every happy childhood church memory you have I can point you at a mutilated corpse. For every bowl of soup given to a homeless person I can point you to a homeless person that is religious and might not have been homeless if he had not been brainwashed to put his fate in gods hands. The sad part of that is the hypocrites know god won't save them and make their own way, tho they still go to church. The honest souls who believe that horse pucky are mostly just hosed.

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 01:19 PM

No, I would start with the fact you lie. That's enough of a fair value judgment for me.

I told you above: it's an irrational faith you adhere to, you're deluded.

Your "method" is completely useless in the eyes of scientific investigation. The latter is the only investigation method I'll accept.

Moreoever, you create your own language. You assign "lying" to "being mistaken", an absurdly stretched definition, just to fill your needs. Such redefinition of language is a common tool used by extremist groups, like e.g. $cientology. Knowing that, I tend to be very cautious analysing any information from such groups.

It's very simple.

I am even more cautious when certain people wanna tell me how simple a complex issue is. "Just look around!", "Everybody can see it!", "We must be right!", "These jews/religious/bolschewists/whoever are evil!".

Using that extremely weak argument to support a very strong claim is infamous! It is all in contrast to how a sceptical thinker should argue: strong claims need equally strong supportive arguments.

No, man. A complex issue is complex is complex is complex. People telling the opposite are normally just agitating. It's atrocity propaganda, blaming some group to be the culprid for the problems in the world. Excuse me, man, but any German, who has gone thru the excellent German school education will be teached how extremists work. We learn how to not fall into the traps and pitfalls of these extremists. For obvious reasons.

You are an extremist. You will never convince me to follow extremism. I don't follow atrocity propaganda!

Religions are a big mass of lies. ..

Stop your atrocity propaganda!

For every bowl of soup given to a homeless person I can point you to a homeless person that is religious and might not have been homeless if he had not been brainwashed to put his fate in gods hands.

No, of course, you cannot point to such homeless. That makes your "argument", again, atrocity propaganda.

How can you ever think that I won't clearly see this?

Herzblut

Faithkills

24th July 2007, 03:22 PM

I told you above: it's an irrational faith you adhere to, you're deluded.

Please explain why thinking lies are bad is an act of faith? This makes no sense at all. I don't like lies or liars. How much faith does this take?

Your "method" is completely useless in the eyes of scientific investigation. The latter is the only investigation method I'll accept.

You'll accept anything that supports your position. You're a liar after all.

Moreoever, you create your own language. You assign "lying" to "being mistaken", an absurdly stretched definition, just to fill your needs. Such redefinition of language is a common tool used by extremist groups, like e.g. $cientology. Knowing that, I tend to be very cautious analysing any information from such groups.

A lie is a lie. Do I care if you believe the lie you try to tell me or not? Not really. You may be mistaken, or you may be a liar. I don't know. But you are lying or you are propagating a lie. Some group of someones came up with the codex of lies comprising the magic book for any particular religion.

Using that extremely weak argument to support a very strong claim is infamous! It is all in contrast to how a sceptical thinker should argue: strong claims need equally strong supportive arguments.

Skeptics don't like lies. Not many people do, if they know they are. This isn't abstract.

You may, and clearly will, debate the cost/benefit of these lies, but they are lies and that, to me, makes them intrinsically suspect. History shows us the tragic results.

If you say "trust me" then I immediately think you are lying. If you were telling the truth you wouldn't have to ask me to trust you. You would show me. Then I would know, and I could show other people.

You are an extremist. You will never convince me to follow extremism. I don't follow atrocity propaganda!

Stop your atrocity propaganda!

Articulett may be right. You really may be insane. Or terrified? You know the truth but we are the whipping boy for your repressed intelligence? Beat us up with lies and maybe the truth will go away?

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 04:27 PM

Please explain why thinking lies are bad is an act of faith?

Religious people are not lying more oftenly than irreligious ones. Your assertion is null and void.

You'll accept anything that supports your position. You're a liar after all.

You don't even know my position. You never ask. You just spit out yours.

Extremist behaviour.

A lie is a lie.

A mistake is no lie. That's why in all languages I know of, there's a word for "mistake" and one for "lie".

Please provide languages where there's only one word for both to give evidence for the existence of at least certain cultures that do not differentiate between the two.

In English, German, Spanish, Italien, French etc. there is such clear distinction. Also, there is no alternative word for "lie", like there is for many other words. This is to avoid any kind of misunderstanding of what it's meant by saying "lie". In particular, "mistake" is not equal to "lie".

These easy reasonings show how extremists like you bent over language for their purposes of agitation and atrocity propaganda.

Do I care if you believe the lie you try to tell me or not? Not really. You may be mistaken, or you may be a liar. I don't know. But you are lying or you are propagating a lie. Some group of someones came up with the codex of lies comprising the magic book for any particular religion.

Do I care what you care about? Not at all. It is irrelevant what you care about for the current discussion. But OK, to make you happy:

Didn't Mr Einstein show that Mr. Newton was fundamentally mistaken? Do you care if Newton believed the lies he tried to tell everybody? No, you don't!

Well, then you assault the book Principia Mathematica by Mr. Newton to be propagating lies. Actually, every scientific theory must be a lie, because sooner of later it is replaced by a better one.

Science is nothing but lies, right?

The inclined reader may recognize the absurdies that follow from consequently applying a language that is stretched by extremists for the only sake of their agitation and atrocity propaganda.

If you say "trust me" then I immediately think you are lying. If you were telling the truth you wouldn't have to ask me to trust you. You would show me. Then I would know, and I could show other people.

You distrust anybody in the first place until proof is given that he/she is trustworthy?

Articulett may be right. You really may be insane. Or terrified?

Ad hom. Agitation. Atrocity propaganda. You can't do any better, it seems.

You're an extremist.

Herzblut

qayak

24th July 2007, 04:53 PM

There are a couple things I would like to put in here:

1- Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism are all philosphies until they begn to believe in the supernatural. At that point they become religions. In this thread we are only discussing the religious branches and not the branches that are solely philosophy.

2- Taoism and Confucianism are far less religious than Buddhism.

3- Shintoism is a full blown religion with many, many gods. Every village in Japan had its own Shinto god and there were festivals for each. Shintoism was the state religion of Japan and was used to control the population. In the Shinto belief, the emperor was a living god.

4- I hear many people claim that religion can be good and yet I do not see anyone point to the denomination they see as the example. Mostly, they all say it "can" they don't say it is.

5- Can anyone give an example of how a religion IS good without any qualifiers? For instance, I agree that a religion that instills a sense of community is good, unless it restricts this community to its own little group.

6- If one is going to ignore the atrocities committed by religions in the past in order to come to the conclusion that it is good, what assurances do they need that those atrocities cannot happen again? What has the church done to ensure they can't happen again? Are you relying on civil law to keep your religion in check?

7- At what point would you say religion is bad?

qayak

24th July 2007, 05:01 PM

Religion hasn't harmed me yet.

Explain how religion has harmed you in such a profound way. You can disagree with something and still have an open mind. Yet to blanket all religions as bad regardless of any good that may come out of them is mum....

I still haven't been killed in a war but I think wars are all bad. Some are just not as bad as the alternative.

I have no problem changing my mind about religion but I will have to see some evidence that it has changed. I don't see that. I don't see religions being a whole lot different that they have been for the past 2000 years or more.

The only difference is that now we have laws that keep religions in check. However, have a look around the world and take note of the situation in areas where governments, for whatever reason, no longer have the power to hold religions in check.

I think that religious people who claim people need religion to make them moral have not been too observant. It is laws and governments that make religious people moral, not religion.

ETA: I think this is why religions constantly attack laws and constitutions. They are hoping to return to the old days where religions had free reign to do as the pleased.

The Atheist

24th July 2007, 05:22 PM

Religion hasn't harmed me yet.

Explain how religion has harmed you in such a profound way. You can disagree with something and still have an open mind. Yet to blanket all religions as bad regardless of any good that may come out of them is mum....

Well, you'd have to know that I was going to agree with that, if only because I don't really want to change my name.

...lies...

Herzblut

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037745aed97d38ce6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3699)

In the lack of Ken Mortis, or some equally-esteemed peacemaker, I'm blowing the whistle on you two!

Degenerated far beyond even bad taste, so give it away, please.

Any more and it will be:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103774577394a01032.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3002)

which equals 10 mins in the sin-bin. Herz; let it go, mate. :hit:

4- I hear many people claim that religion can be good and yet I do not see anyone point to the denomination they see as the example. Mostly, they all say it "can" they don't say it is.

Ok. Let's take a step back here. I have never and will never claim that any particular sect, type or denomination of religion is "good". My argument all along is that religion is not all bad.

Where would you like me to start a list of good things religion is responsible for?

Salvation Army?
Christian organisations running aid missions in Africa and other countries?
Roman Catholic Hospices?
etc.

The list of things religion does which is good is a very long list. It may only be a fraction of the size of the bad list, but my premise was always - as is this poll - that religion is not all bad.

5- Can anyone give an example of how a religion IS good without any qualifiers? For instance, I agree that a religion that instills a sense of community is good, unless it restricts this community to its own little group.

Again, I sense a touch of goalpost-shifting in the wind. Qualifiers are irrelevant. The premise was never that a particular brand of religion was inherently good, or bad even. The premise was that religion is all bad; it has no good parts. It isn't a balance, it's black and white - religion either does no good or it does some good. This is your premise, so if you wish to change your view at this very late stage, please make it perfectly clear.

Again, I have never argued that religion is better than no religion, merely that religion is not all bad.

Thanks to that, some people have tried to label me a "christian apologist". Hard to credit, isn't it?

6- If one is going to ignore the atrocities committed by religions in the past in order to come to the conclusion that it is good, what assurances do they need that those atrocities cannot happen again? What has the church done to ensure they can't happen again? Are you relying on civil law to keep your religion in check?

What do atrocities in the past matter to today? Do you hate all Germans because of Hitler? Do you hate all Japanese? Turks? Should Islam hate the western world because of the Crusades?

Again, nobody - other than christians - came to a conclusion that religion was good. I took great pains to explain that I could not accept that religion is all bad, simply because I have seen personally some of the good results religion has brought about. This is your own strawman you keep setting fire to. I repeat the question; are you changing your premise now?

7- At what point would you say religion is bad?

When it does harm.

According to your own words again, all religion is harmful. I wonder how you equate that with the Catholic nurse giving an injection to save a child's life thanks to her church's charity program, but obviously, in your warped version of the planet, that is harmful, so no conflict exists.

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 05:50 PM

which equals 10 mins in the sin-bin. Herz; let it go, mate. :hit:

No prob. I did hammer my stake in the ground, I think. Cheers mate.

Herzblut

andyandy

24th July 2007, 06:01 PM

3- Shintoism is a full blown religion with many, many gods. Every village in Japan had its own Shinto god and there were festivals for each. Shintoism was the state religion of Japan and was used to control the population. In the Shinto belief, the emperor was a living god.

Just a comment about Shintoism - Shintoism in japan today still persists (from CIA factbook over 80% of the population regard themselves as both Buddhist and Shinto) but it is very much a cultural identity closely allied with nationalism/regionalism - the festivals continue but the "religion" aspect is really more about tradition - perhaps an analogy would be Christmas in secular society. There is also a woolly supernatural-naturalist ethos - an "at one-ness" with nature which is closely linked with cultural tradition. From a western perspective perhaps it is more akin to new age superstition than more conventional concepts of religion. The part most identifyable as religious is reserved for the three biggies - births, deaths and marriages and even here it is difficult to delineate belief from tradition.

If one opens up "religion" to include modern day Shintoism as it exists in Japan today what we see is a secular society which maintains cultural and traditional links, and strengthens national and regional identity through Shintoism, whilst being provided with an outlet for irrationality (with regards to death, "luck" etc) within a socially accepted framework.
I think you can see the same general appropriation in western Europe - as secular society co-opts dogmatic religious belief for nebulous personal belief with a framework for irrationality and a shared cultural identity.
Shintoism certainly fulfils a role within Japanese society for which there are societal and individual benefits beyond in my opinion its deleterious effects.

articulett

24th July 2007, 06:41 PM

Faithkills,

I'm a she-- and I have the apologists on ignore... just wanted to give the smart people a heads up on who the incompetents are-- because the incompetents always think it's everybody but them. They criticize and judge others while never adding much of value to any conversation as far as I can tell.

Then I only have to read them when they show up in other posts... which is, thankfully, not often. And sometimes I like to goad them, because--well--it puts a spring in my step. However, I realize that even mentally ill people have access to the internet, so I try to keep formosa's law in mind... http://catb.org/jargon//html/F/Formosas-Law.html

TA's silly poll is about proving some point to qayak that exists only in his head. Instead of being called "The Atheist", I think he should be called "The Apologist"-- but people seem to be very touchy about being called an apologist for some reason... they make much stronger accusations against critics of religion than the term "apologist", that's for sure and have a temper tantrum when the insults come back. Heck, it's just my opinion. But apparently, many people agree. It's a good thing I have Mijo on ignore, because I'm sure he'd be demanding evidence from the APA for me to voice that opinion.

Every once in a while it's good to allow people to see whom they might like to put on ignore. And if I'm very lucky, maybe the people I put on ignore will return the favor, so that I can talk about them at my leisure.

articulett

24th July 2007, 06:44 PM

Religion hasn't harmed me yet.

Explain how religion has harmed you in such a profound way. You can disagree with something and still have an open mind. Yet to blanket all religions as bad regardless of any good that may come out of them is mum....

If you look like your avatar (yellow skin, etc.) it may have harmed you in ways you may not be aware of. This poll was generated by a discussion involving parents who indoctrinated their children with threats of hell so that they believe very unscientific things about the creation of life... and think they will live happily ever after for doing so.

Actually, the internet is rife with people having suffered via religion... check out the recovery from christianity, scientology, mormonism etc. websites... or Dawkins website "convert corner". Female genital mutilation? Stoning to death for adultery-- still happening... thanks to religion. Scientific ignorance-- thank religion for that. 911 hijackers... again, religion. Andrea Yates sending her kids of to heaven so they wouldn't go to hell-- thank religion. It's just that people learn not to see the harm of religion and associate all that is good and great with belief-- because they are told there is no morality or good without god. What wouldn't you do if you truly believed you would live happily ever after for faith?

this charming man

24th July 2007, 06:56 PM

Do you mean bad like in the Micheal Jackson way?

The Atheist

24th July 2007, 07:09 PM

And if I'm very lucky, maybe the people I put on ignore will return the favor, so that I can talk about them at my leisure.

Don't let me stop you. It hasn't so far, anyway.

You know, I harbour a forlorn hope that you'll actually sit down and read through all of your posts in these two threads.

The Atheist

24th July 2007, 07:13 PM

Do you mean bad like in the Micheal Jackson way?

Depends how you're describing him as "bad", I guess.

If you mean musically, I agree entirely, although I'd go with "atrocious" rather than "bad".

If you mean, "Is he a child molester?" Alas, I have no idea. As I understand it, he's never been convicted of it, just as OJ hasn't ever been convicted of murder. Accordingly, the evidence would suggest that he's not "bad". Would I let him babysit my five year old boy?

No.

But I wouldn't let OJ, either. Nor Dubbya.

I have standards.

qayak

24th July 2007, 07:15 PM

Ok. Let's take a step back here. I have never and will never claim that any particular sect, type or denomination of religion is "good". My argument all along is that religion is not all bad.

I fully understand your position on on the religion being all bad. That is a completely different discussion and it is pointless to repeat it.

This question was directed toward you in particular, just a question to the group trying to figure out exactly WHAT they find good about religion. Is there a particular sect, order, etc. that one could point to as being the example?

The list of things religion does which is good is a very long list. It may only be a fraction of the size of the bad list, but my premise was always - as is this poll - that religion is not all bad.

I never said that everything a religion does is bad. I said all religions are bad because of the sum of all the things they do, good bad and indifferent.

Again, I sense a touch of goalpost-shifting in the wind. Qualifiers are irrelevant. The premise was never that a particular brand of religion was inherently good, or bad even.

The goal posts have definitely moved, this is an entirely different point.You need to let your good/bad thing go. I am not arguing that with you. I am asking for specific things that religion has done or specifically, which religion or even sect, denomination can be held up as being good. I want to see if it really is. If it is, I will change my position.

Qualifiers do matter so much. If you say the RCC is doing good work in Africa, I will ask about their position on condom use in light of the AIDS epidemic. If you say they do good in Africa except for their stand on condoms, that is different.

{QUOTE] . . .religion either does no good or it does some good. This is your premise, so if you wish to change your view at this very late stage, please make it perfectly clear.[/QUOTE]

No, that is not my premise. Your statement is also in error and automatically opens up at least one more possibility and probably more.

1- Religion does no good.

2- Religion does some good

3- Religion does some bad

4- Religion does all good

5- Religion does all bad.

My premise is, and always has been, that all religions have a net sum of being bad. Which is why I said, "Religions are all bad."

What do atrocities in the past matter to today? Do you hate all Germans because of Hitler? Do you hate all Japanese? Turks? Should Islam hate the western world because of the Crusades?

First, I don't hate anyone. Second, because of Hitler and his new age wannabes, I dislike Nazis. It was Naziism that caused the atrocities in WWII not the German people. Many Nazis happened to be Germans but some were also Canadian, American, Italian, etc.

No, islam should not hate the western world but it should not trust christians should it? Of course islam has nothing to brag about either.

Again, nobody - other than christians - came to a conclusion that religion was good. I took great pains to explain that I could not accept that religion is all bad, simply because I have seen personally some of the good results religion has brought about. This is your own strawman you keep setting fire to. I repeat the question; are you changing your premise now?

I am not changing my premise at all. All religion is bad. Even the so called mild religions like Taoism and Confucianism are not good. As a philosophy, I think they are very good. Buddhism is as brutal to non-believers as christianity, judaism and islam.

When it does harm.

I agree and all religions do harm which is why I say they are all bad.

According to your own words again, all religion is harmful. I wonder how you equate that with the Catholic nurse giving an injection to save a child's life thanks to her church's charity program, but obviously, in your warped version of the planet, that is harmful, so no conflict exists.

So christianity gets the credit for the good but you only blame the individual for the bad. What about that same nurse finishing the injection and advising the parents of that child not to use condoms because they cause the spread of HIV?

If they are a nurse, that's fine they give out the best "medical" advice. If they are a nurse that happens to be catholic, that is fine too because the result is the same. However, if they are a catholic nurse, which means they are deciding medical treatment and advice based on their catholic beliefs, then they are not giving the best medical advice. They are giving the advice that their religion allows and that is bad.

The other point is that for catholic nurses and doctors, it is the pope who is deciding what is good medical advice for patients. How much training does he have? He gets to decide on stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, etc., and he has no training in any of it.

You can substitute muslim cleric, Pat Robertson, etc. for pope and it will illustrate my problem with the other religions.

P.S. When are you going to correct you intellectual dishonesty?

The Atheist

24th July 2007, 07:34 PM

Religion is a lie. It is all made up with not a shred of evidence to support it. All Lies = All Bad.

I never said that everything a religion does is bad. I said all religions are bad because of the sum of all the things they do, good bad and indifferent.

P.S. When are you going to correct you intellectual dishonesty?

:dl:

thaiboxerken

24th July 2007, 07:34 PM

Is there a religion that is good? Can anyone name one?

articulett

24th July 2007, 07:45 PM

Do you mean bad like in the Micheal Jackson way?

Michael Jackson is bad in a pedophiliac priest kind of way... so yeah...

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 07:47 PM

Qualifiers do matter so much. If you say the RCC is doing good work in Africa, I will ask about their position on condom use in light of the AIDS epidemic. If you say they do good in Africa except for their stand on condoms, that is different.

How do you judge the idea of combining religious and state campaigns? The former ones propagating abstinence and the latter ones educating towards condom usage. That may reach more target groups.

Based upon your presented evidence, of course. Phrases like "I think <list of unsupported claims>" are of no interest for this topic.

Oh, let me tell you my very initial reasoning of this topic because you might profit.

First of all, I completely dislike the sex moral of the RCC. My whole life is an act of disobedience. :D

Having said that, I nevertheless leave out any emotions analysing the RCC's tactic against HIV, namely

(1)abstinence,
(2)then faithfull marriage
(3)no condoms

which cannot be refuted right away because it is protective for those who stick to it.

OK, those who break these demands obviously disobey the Pope. For the problem at hand, non-abstinence is important. So, somebody *********** around, breaking the abstinence demand, why the hell should he/she stick to the no-condoms demand? That makes no sense, obviously.

"Hey, I am the big black womanizer in town! Don't care what da papa says! But wait, didn't he demand no condoms? Holy ****! Then I must stick to it, because I really care what da papa says!"

That is absurd!

Conclusion: there is no case to make against the RCC right away, proper investigation of available data is required.

What it means: show me data when you argue. No data, no argument.

Herzblut

andyandy

24th July 2007, 07:50 PM

My premise is, and always has been, that all religions have a net sum of being bad. Which is why I said, "Religions are all bad."

ok, I submit that on a net sum, Shintoism as it exists today in Japan is more good than bad.

To qualify,

Just looking to create a very general and arbitrary cost-benefit on individuals and society.

1 = all bad
5= neutral
10 = all good

I would give Shintoism a 5.5

and of the monotheistic religions I would give

CofE about a 4
Catholicism about a 2
Evangelicalism about a 2

fundamentalist sects would be in the 1.x range....

with (1) and (10) existing as a limit rather than a value.....

I'd be interested in other people's ratings.....
sometimes there's a significant disjoint between individual affect, societal effect and global effect - catholicism suffers significantly IMO globally as a result of its contraceptive policy - indeed, I could be persuaded to rate it lower....so this is really quite rough and ready - and remember - it's just a bit of fun :)

articulett

24th July 2007, 08:12 PM

ok, I submit that on a net sum, Shintoism as it exists today in Japan is more good than bad.

To qualify,

Just looking to create a very general and arbitrary cost-benefit on individuals and society.

1 = all bad
5= neutral
10 = all good

I would give Shintoism a 5.5

and of the monotheistic religions I would give

CofE about a 4
Catholicism about a 2
Evangelicalism about a 2

fundamentalist sects would be in the 1.x range....

with (1) and (10) existing as a limit rather than a value.....

I'd be interested in other people's ratings.....
sometimes there's a significant disjoint between individual affect, societal effect and global effect - catholicism suffers significantly IMO globally as a result of its contraceptive policy - indeed, I could be persuaded to rate it lower....so this is really quite rough and ready - and remember - it's just a bit of fun :)

I think I would base it on what you are threatening for non belief-- excommunication? stoning to death? Eternal suffering? Any of those are bad.

Also, I'd base it on how much the notion that "faith is a good way to know truth" is part of the doctrine... does it make people ignorant of scientific facts.

And the bigotry factor--does it tell you only believers can be moral or are saved or that you "need" belief?

All of this a forms of brainwashing and the more any religions do it, the worse they are. Also if they encourage members to spawn and or proselytize that's bad. Believers are religions way of making more believers.

If they get tax breaks or have power that's bad.

Sex with minors is bad--from polygamous Mormons to pedophiliac clergy. Extremes are worst. None are necessary. We will be more civilized when they are gone.

All fundamentalists get a 1-- but in their head they get a 10 for following the world of the supposed creator of a universe to a T. We need to tell young people that faith is a bad way to know the truth and sometimes the least trustworthy people are the people you trust the most. The best are the middle eastern ones that don't seem to have much to do with supernaturalism... but they are still sexist. The men are the leaders and gain the powers and are the "enlightened masters"-- not women.

The best thing about religion is that we live in the age of the internet and former believers can share with others who have been through similar "indoctrination".

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 08:55 PM

I would give Shintoism a 5.5

and of the monotheistic religions I would give

CofE about a 4
Catholicism about a 2
Evangelicalism about a 2

fundamentalist sects would be in the 1.x range....

Sorry, but what is CofE?

OK, I would raise Protestants by 1 and Catholicism by 2. That's funny, because I used to be protestant.

But, to be honest, I like these nice catholic carnival costumes. They also spin around fancy balls that fan out sweet smells. Then they have huuuge churches and cathedrals with massive organs. Chorals are singing gospels during mass. I like that kind of music somehow.

Anyways, all in all, I think the Cathols' service delivers a pretty good spiritual bang for the buck!

(That's not just spinnery of mine, I got that impression also from chats with cathols.)

catholicism suffers significantly IMO globally as a result of its contraceptive policy - indeed, I could be persuaded to rate it lower....

Yeah, I saw that. I perfectly agree, the policy is very outdated. It has to change sooner or later or the RCC will suffer from further massive member losses, esp in Latin America. The fundamental catholic doctrine is that sex shall only serve reproduction. That's just rediculous.

Herzblut

qayak

24th July 2007, 09:07 PM

:dl:

There's your intellectual dishonesty again. One is unrelated to the other.

qayak

24th July 2007, 09:32 PM

How do you judge the idea of combining religious and state campaigns? The former ones propagating abstinence and the latter ones educating towards condom usage. That may reach more target groups.

Based upon your presented evidence, of course. Phrases like "I think <list of unsupported claims>" are of no interest for this topic.

Oh, let me tell you my very initial reasoning of this topic because you might profit.

First of all, I completely dislike the sex moral of the RCC. My whole life is an act of disobedience. :D

Having said that, I nevertheless leave out any emotions analysing the RCC's tactic against HIV, namely

(1)abstinence,
(2)then faithfull marriage
(3)no condoms

which cannot be refuted right away because it is protective for those who stick to it.

OK, those who break these demands obviously disobey the Pope. For the problem at hand, non-abstinence is important. So, somebody *********** around, breaking the abstinence demand, why the hell should he/she stick to the no-condoms demand? That makes no sense, obviously.

"Hey, I am the big black womanizer in town! Don't care what da papa says! But wait, didn't he demand no condoms? Holy ****! Then I must stick to it, because I really care what da papa says!"

That is absurd!

Conclusion: there is no case to make against the RCC right away, proper investigation of available data is required.

What it means: show me data when you argue. No data, no argument.

Herzblut

The problem is that the church's position is completely unreasonable. I will give you another way of looking at this.

As Hitler came to power there were very many catholics that fought hard against him and continued to do so after he gained control. Then the very first deal he made was with the Vatican. 9Don't think this is the only deal the Vatican made. they had deals or at least agreements with almost all fascist parties at the time.) This agreement allowed the Vatican control over several things and stopped the Nazis party from criticizing the abuse in catholic schools. On the other side, the Vatican agreed to stop all catholics from opposing Hitler on all political issues. It ordered the disbanding of the catholic party in Germany.

In other words, the catholics who saw the evil of Hitler had all their weapons taken away by their own leader.

Fast forward now to 21st century Africa. There are many catholic missionaries working in there. This time the battle is against a terrible disease that the average person there doesn't understand simply because of a lack of advanced education. So these catholic missionaries are fighting the good fight with all the weapons they have, one of the most effective being the use of condoms. Simply put, the averge person in Africa does not adhere to the abstinance idea.

Then the pope comes out with a statement saying that condom use is against the policy of the church and that condoms actually spread HIV.

Hasn't this pope then done exactly what his counterpart did in Germany? Hasn't the church once again hamstrung the good fight?

qayak

24th July 2007, 10:13 PM

How do you judge the idea of combining religious and state campaigns? The former ones propagating abstinence and the latter ones educating towards condom usage.

Sorry, I didn't answer this in my previous post.

I think that the "state" system as you call it had this right from the beginning. Abstinence has always been a part of the teaching.

With his anti-condom statement the pope has made the claim that the chance of getting HIV with a condom is as high as having unprotected sex. He further stated that it was the condom CAUSING the infection.

With one stupid statement he did irrepairable damage to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The Atheist

24th July 2007, 10:29 PM

Is there a religion that is good? Can anyone name one?

It's amazing.

No matter how many times I emphasise it, people still get it wrong.

My premise has never been that a or any particular religion is good, it is, as it has always been: religion is not all bad.

Is it clear now?

There's your intellectual dishonesty again. One is unrelated to the other.

Hey, I tell you what. Instead of carping on with the same old BS, please explain where I have changed my opinion or stance at any stage during these two threads. I stated that opinion above and will repeat it here:

Religion is not all bad, and accordingly, it does some good.

If you can find anything other than that opinion, then you may accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Quotes from any thread will be fine - other than obvious parodies.

Cheers.

In the meantime, maybe you'd like to address the conflict between your two statements as posted above? What was that about intellectual dishonesty?

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 10:42 PM

Simply put, the averge person in Africa does not adhere to the abstinance idea.

Then this person doesn't care what da papa says about condoms neither and could use condoms, if he wanted. But, simply put, the average male in Africa does not adhere to the idea of condoms. Regardless of what da papa says.

Then the pope comes out with a statement saying that condom use is against the policy of the church and that condoms actually spread HIV.

Hasn't this pope then done exactly what his counterpart did in Germany? Hasn't the church once again hamstrung the good fight?

Possibly, but not necessarily. If a strong believer follows the Pope's doctrine - it's fine. If somebody ignores the Pope's doctrine - it's also fine.

As I said: you cannot devaluate the Pope's doctrine with pure logic. You need data to support the claim, that the RCC causes damage in the fight against AIDS. I tried to get that thru to Arti, in vain of course.

And I studied the WHO's report on AIDS thoroughly and I could not find any evidence that catholic countries suffer from higher infections rates that non-catholic countries in the same area. This would have been strong evidence against the RCC. So, try better if you want!

I also studied extensive reports on particular African countries which make clear what really matters. Did you know that many African governments officially denied the existence of AIDS for many years calling it "Western propaganda against Africa"? And then, after the problem could no longer be ignored, did not do anything against it for quite a while? And now these countries face an incredible devastation caused by the ignorance and incompetence of their governments?

Did you know that women have practically no rights in many African societies? That African men hate to use condoms? That women have no chance at all to force condom usage even if they know their men are *********** around?

That AIDS is a stigma in many African countries? That many Africans therefore hate to get tested and spread the virus without knowing and without caring at all? And that usage of condoms is therefore also stigmatized because it is socially regarded as a confession to have AIDS?

Etc. etc. etc.

If you don't look into the details of how African societies function, you won't be able to make any case, I'm afraid. Don't look at that Pope, look at Africa!

Herzblut

Herzblut

24th July 2007, 10:46 PM

With one stupid statement he did irrepairable damage to the fight against HIV/AIDS.
You didn't get my point, did you? So, again, in simple words:

please provide evidence!

Herzblut

andyandy

24th July 2007, 11:19 PM

I think I would base it on what you are threatening for non belief-- excommunication? stoning to death? Eternal suffering? Any of those are bad.

Also, I'd base it on how much the notion that "faith is a good way to know truth" is part of the doctrine... does it make people ignorant of scientific facts.

And the bigotry factor--does it tell you only believers can be moral or are saved or that you "need" belief?

All of this a forms of brainwashing and the more any religions do it, the worse they are. Also if they encourage members to spawn and or proselytize that's bad. Believers are religions way of making more believers.

If they get tax breaks or have power that's bad.

Sex with minors is bad--from polygamous Mormons to pedophiliac clergy. Extremes are worst. None are necessary. We will be more civilized when they are gone.

All fundamentalists get a 1-- but in their head they get a 10 for following the world of the supposed creator of a universe to a T. We need to tell young people that faith is a bad way to know the truth and sometimes the least trustworthy people are the people you trust the most.

the points you raise are certainly worthy of consideration with regards to assesing a religion - I wonder if any such analysis has actually been done, with the imposition of an arbitrary comparative framework - Judaism would be an interesting one to rate relative to a securalized Christian denomination like CofE.
(CofE is Church of England btw Herzblut)

The best are the middle eastern ones that don't seem to have much to do with supernaturalism... but they are still sexist. The men are the leaders and gain the powers and are the "enlightened masters"-- not women.

I think that the main positive eastern religions like Shintoism is their non-dogmatism - which circumvents religious judgmentalism, and creates a much more flexible and fluid religion which is adapted by the individual on a personal level. All the monotheistic faiths suffer considerably from their dogmatic constraints - and though liberalism does occur, it is normally after significant resistance. It's difficult to express in English with regards to Shintoist supernaturalism - it does exist, but perhaps best understood as the feeling one gets stood on top of a mountain or soaking in a Japanese hot spring as a "one-ness" with nature - which is why I think supernatural-naturalism whilst unwieldy is more appropriate. There is also a concept of death being a return to this one-ness - and Shinto ceremony and festivals serve as a social vehicle to venerate and remember ones' ancestors (you also see Buddhist festivals like Obon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Festival) being used to fill the same role)
With regards to religious patriarchy - that is true, but i would regard this as a case of Shintoism representing society rather than have any leading influence - Japan is an exceptionally patriarchal society relative to western norms and you see the same male stacked power structures throughout all aspects of life. It is an interesting point to consider though - and might have some merit.

The best thing about religion is that we live in the age of the internet and former believers can share with others who have been through similar "indoctrination".

I think the internet is very much a double edged sword - on one hand it does indeed open up information and I think help secularize societies, but on the other hand it also allows pocket extremism to flourish - in the past crazies were isolated, now whatever one's belief or opinion you can find group membership and validation online....

articulett

25th July 2007, 12:06 AM

I think the internet is very much a double edged sword - on one hand it does indeed open up information and I think help secularize societies, but on the other hand it also allows pocket extremism to flourish - in the past crazies were isolated, now whatever one's belief or opinion you can find group membership and validation online....

Well I agree with that. But I hope that it leads to people understanding that people have been deluding themselves and others and appealing to the supernatural for eons-- and that's why I think it's important to spread the message that faith is a bad way to know anything true. The actual truths are the same for everybody. Science aims to understand those truths. We cannot do so until we stop deferring to religion and pretending it's harmless. By not speaking out, we imply that we agree that faith is good. At least that's how it seemed to me as a kid. People spoke like all this stuff was true,
but no one seemed to be concerned that people believed different things and our supposed eternities were at stake. It's dangerous for humans to think that the the creator of the universe have revealed some higher truths to somebody... it makes for ready manipulation of trusting people. And I might point out that no such entity seems to care that people are killing people over who has the "Truth"... Not very benevolent. It's just madness. I want people to scoff at the notion of higher truths for the benefit of us all.

articulett

25th July 2007, 12:38 AM

I would say Marjoe Gortner was a victim of religion as child abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdI8ag1k0A

and he showed exactly how he did it... and sucked others in when he became an adult. It's funny, but sad. People trust anything or anyone who associates themselves with god. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0p4ZDnDoQ&mode=related&search=

And then there's the spectacle of Jesus camp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

Who do you think these kids will grow up to be? When you protect religion and vilify those who speak out or mischaracterize their arguments as applying equally to all-- you allow this stuff to perpetuate.

Changing the subject as to whether someone is saying ALL religions whenever they criticize religions is a dishonest tactic that covers for this crap and all other abuses in the name of a lie.

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 01:13 AM

Changing the subject as to whether someone is saying ALL religions whenever they criticize religions is a dishonest tactic that covers for this crap and all other abuses in the name of a lie.

Must be the day for shifting goalposts.

Would you like me - for the third time - to post your comments where you agreed that all religion is bad?

Or would you prefer to now lie about what I have demonstrably proved that you said?

You don't anger me, you sicken me.

articulett

25th July 2007, 02:12 AM

an apologist page count

15 times on one page.

If it quack like a duck...

I gave my definition; it is an opinion; others agree. Moreover, I might add, that "apologist" is much less offensive than what I've been called by said apologists. I stand by everything I have said.

andyandy

25th July 2007, 02:50 AM

Who do you think these kids will grow up to be? When you protect religion and vilify those who speak out or mischaracterize their arguments as applying equally to all-- you allow this stuff to perpetuate.

Changing the subject as to whether someone is saying ALL religions whenever they criticize religions is a dishonest tactic that covers for this crap and all other abuses in the name of a lie.

was this addressed to me? It would be a gross misrepresentation if it was- which given your above post extolling the virtues of honesty would be somewhat ironic.
You've already misrepresented my position once on this thread - talking about me in derogatory terms when I wasn't even contributing to the thread, attributing a position to me which you knew was false. If you wish to lecture in honesty then please practice what you preach.

here is your last misrepresentation and my response. You have neither apologized nor tried to defend your opinion.

You and andyandy both made jibes about anyone who said anything good about dawkins and then made an attack on Gayak and accused him of saying "all religions are bad and cause harm"... .

One poster in a thread about dawkins said that Dawkins was in many ways like a God. My single question was 'In what way is he like a God?'

This is not a 'jibe' about anyone who 'says anything good about dawkins' - this is questioning dawkins being compared to a deity. I know you understand this as we have discussed this in a PM in which i have already made this very point. From my PM you will also be aware that I am a fan of dawkins;

I can accept that Dawkins has made massive positive contributions towards science and has certainly has apparently started a positive debate in America with regards to religion. As I have already said, I am a fan of his books and lectures. I'm reading the ancestor's tale right now. But all this qualification really should not be necessary. Whilst I agree with a good deal of what dawkins says, I don't agree with everything.

and so saying that I was criticising anyone who said anything good about dawkins is patently false - unless i should now criticise myself for holding that opinion. Why then so you think it necessary to misrepresent my position? I have already said

And I don't attack "anyone who likes Dawkins" because I like him myself - I simply don't agree with everything he says. Surely you can accept that he is not above criticism? Perhaps some people who attack him do so to defend their own religious beliefs but that doesn't mean that every criticism requires that the individual is an "apologist"

Were anyone to be described in the terms such as being in many ways like a god i would question what led an individual to that opinion. That could be dawkins, jimmy saville or the bloke at our local chippie.

I will ask again. Please stop knowingly misrepresnting my own and other people's opinions.

articulett

25th July 2007, 03:26 AM

Andy, that wasn't addressed specifically to you. It was a general statement for those who attack people for criticizing religion rather than the abuses such people are criticizing by making it into an issue about whether ALL religions are ALL bad to ALL people; it's tangential.

Of course that is just my opinion. But I'm not alone in that opinion. I think you have misrepresented me far more than I have misrepresented you and said worse things about me as well. Calling you an "apologist" is not the same as calling someone a liar. But then again, Ted Haggard calls Dawkins a liar. Some people see their own traits in others perhaps. Apologist is an opinion. So is "abuse". Word meanings are also interpretive. And not everybody who says "religion is a lie" or "religion is harmful" is saying ALL religions. You have diverted conversations with this canard while avoiding commenting on what the person was actually saying--usually they were talking about something a lot more harmful than voicing an opinion about religion being bad. But you chose to go after their phrasing!

But it's all about opinions. Science is about the facts that are the same for everybody. Religion often keeps people from learning these facts because they have a vested interest in belief. This poll is all about ignoring this so TA can prove some silly point that doesn't even mean anything as far as I can tell since nobody ever said All religion is bad and harmful... that was Mijo's extrapolation and yours and TA's. TA pulled up quotes, and they don't say what he is claiming they say. Moreover, quayak's quote is in direct response to TA's accusations that he WAS saying ALL religions. That's just blatant dishonesty as far as I'm concerned. This whole silly poll started with a derail by Mijo and continued by you and TA-- neither on topic... both addressed at quayak and I --neither of us once said what you all misrepresented us as saying.

Nobody said "ALL religions" despite Mijo's semantic dance to somehow prove we must have meant "all" --and even if we had said "all"-- who cares? That wasn't the topic! That would be an OPINION about the topic. Opinions are not the same as the lies about the factual nature of reality that religions lie about. Either you don't get that; or you don't want to get that. You insulted qayak rather than the misdeeds of those he was talking about. Smoke and mirrors.

You get upset when I call people an apologist--well others get upset when they can't criticize religion without people coming in with this tangent that not ALL religions are bad. Who cares if not all are bad? None are true. There is no evidence that they are necessary. Religions are the direct cause of many harms--although nobody will say that their religion is. They promote the notion that faith is a good way to know things. They promote scientific ignorance--all of them, as far as I can tell. And religious people aren't more moral by any measurement except the one in their heads.

And I know you keep saying that you disagree with Dawkins on some things... but you never say what they are. And you have to admit, most people whom you would call an apologist would do something similar, would they not? His quotes are all over the web. If you disagree with something, there should be no problem bringing up the quote. Instead people paraphrase and give a caricature of him or post a link like Mijo did where he seems much less "strident" than this image others seem to have--less strident and making more sense than Mijo to me. Maybe you just can't see yourself through my eyes. But how do you think a "true apologist" would be different?

And, btw, I respect Dawkins the same way I respect Randi, and I resent being accused of worshiping anybody. I have no masters, gurus, or saviors. And I would and have reacted the same way when someone is accusing me of worshiping Randi. I'd put Sagan and Feynman on that list too. They add to real factual important understanding. Those who criticize them never seem to offer anything of similar value as far as I can see.

andyandy

25th July 2007, 03:49 AM

ok - i see you've just edited the bit i replied to...so I'll edit my response. Probably just as well. ;)

Andy, that wasn't addressed specifically to you

ok - apologies :)

And I know you keep saying that you disagree with Dawkins on some things... but you never say what they are.

I did say in the PM that I sent to you

And you're right about the criticisms of Dawkins pailing into insignificance relative to the harm that religion can do - from Islamic fundamentalists to YEC there is a lot that needs to be said, and dawkins certainly plays a role in that. He seems to have found great resonance within America, perhaps with the silent minority who have suffered at the religious majority's hands for far too long - and this is a good thing.
But he is not above criticism nor should he be. And neither should any criticism mean that therefore one agrees with religion or fundamentalism. I dislike his use of rhetoric eg. "Chamberlain apologists," and agree with Wilson that he could provide an excellent insight into religion through merging his interest in religion with his scientific insight in evolutionary biology. His response, effectively "it's my book, who are you to tell me what to put in it?" is fair enough from his perspective, but if we simply leave it at that then no one can offer criticism of any author without the same accusation hurled back.
I agree that there are big lies that need to be addressed - I am grateful that Dawkins has gone someway to addressing them, especially in the States. But he is not above criticism nor should he be. You may disagree with that criticism but you don't need to take it so personally as if it were an endorsement for fundamentalism.

I have discussed this in much greater length in dawkins threads in the past, really the strange thing that I find is that one should have to justify not agreeing competely with an author on a book - were i to say i enjoyed Fabric of the Cosmos but thought it would have provided a greater insight with the inclusion of some more mathematical forumlae, I don't suppose anyone would give two hoots. Equally with Dawkins, that I dislike his use of rhetoric

Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased.

should hardly be especially noteworthy. Any JREfer posting such a paragrapgh would have Godwin shouted at them so loud their ears would be ringing for days....

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 03:52 AM

Nobody said "ALL religions"

Jesus Christ.

12 pages of argument on this subject and this subject alone.

I have copied and copied and copied your own precise words where you stated that.

As Andy is busily pointing out, the number of times you cry "dishonesty" while lying through your teeth is laughable.

My entire argument with you has been because I would not say that all religion is bad and you and qayak [sic] both classed me a "religious apologist" as a result. And you keep denying you said something which you demonsrably did!

As I said earlier, sickening.

I guess you feel that by repeating that single lie time after time that somehow you'll escape from your own words.

The bad news is that I will keep calling you on it.

You can retire gracefully and by next week nobody will even remember what all the fuss was about. But you won't. I hesitate to tell you that you're destroying any shred of respectability and credibility you had left, because I'm quite happy for you to keep bowling it over, so keep right on posting.

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 04:08 AM

And not everybody who says "religion is a lie" or "religion is harmful" is saying ALL religions.
Sorry...I've avoided this debate thus far because I knew before it started how it would degenerate in pretty much the exact way that has occurred here. However, I can't leave this statement alone.

Please...if someone says, "religion is a lie" or "religion is harmful", with no modifiers (ie. "some religions", "Christian religions", etc.), then exactly what do they mean? It seems the ultimate in sophistry to me to make arguments like that, sweeping generalities that encompass every religion, then when someone objects with specific examples, say, "Oh, well we don't necessarily mean all religions."

If you are referring only to specific religions, then state which religions those are. Don't lump them all together. And if you do make such statements -- which by any reasonable interpretation mean all religions -- then don't get upset when people actually call you on it.

It is a fairly established, acknowledged fact that within these forums, none of us claim to be mind readers. Most of us consider mind reading to be quite impossible. So if you say, "religion is a lie", or "religion is harmful", I am entirely incapable of somehow reading your mind to realize that you do not actually mean what your words actually say. I have this rather crazy tendency to actually assume the stated meaning of what someone has written is the meaning that they intend.

Or, perhaps, from this point onwards, every time you or your ilk make statements of fact, I should insert all sort of unstated assumptions. As follows:

You say, "Religion is harmful", I assume you actually mean only some religions are harmful, others are not.

You say, "I like pasta", I assume you actually mean you like spaghetti, but don't like raviolli.

You say, "I know what I'm talking about", I assume you mean that you only know some of the things you are talking about, and fake the rest.

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 05:17 AM

OK, after reading the rest of the food fight here, I think I can finally vote. Yeah, I know, you are all thrilled with this. ;)

Using qayak's definition of religion as requiring a belief in the supernatural, I will say that all religion is bad. Sure, there have been good actions taken by religious people and religious organizations, but the good actions do not require a supernatural cause. The same good actions, good organizations, and good art can come from other philosophical causes. I cannot see how a belief in the supernatural can ever be classified as "not bad".

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 05:50 AM

Ok, Hokster...would like some clarifications. You've stated that you believe that a belief in the supernatural cannot be classified as "not bad". You've stated that you don't accept examples of religion causing people to do good things.

But you haven't explained exactly why it is "bad".

Is it because it is a false belief? Is a belief which is false, by definition, "bad"? I'm sure there must be some things you believe that, if we had enough knowledge, would prove to be wrong (in that I believe no human being has 100% correct comprehension of our universe); does that mean that those beliefs are "bad" (or, to put it in your words, cannot be classified as "not bad")?

Is it because religion has caused people to do bad things? If that's the argument, how can you summarily dismiss 'good' acts inspired by religious belief, but accept 'bad' acts inspired by religious belief?

It is hard for me to debate with you, or engage in a discussion, when you don't give actual reasons for your conclusion.

To me, even accepting your statement as is, there's a world of difference between "can't be classified as not bad" and "being classified as bad". You assume a black/white model of diametrically opposed opposites, with no middle ground.

I, on the other hand, would argue for a third category -- neutral. Its not "good", but its not "bad" either. A Buddhist (that is, a Buddhist who does believe in the supernatural, we'll avoid 'atheist Buddhists' for present) has beliefs that you and I, as atheists, believe are wrong. But those beliefs do not cause him to hurt others, force his beliefs on others, deny the rights of others, etc. They do not hurt him, and they do not hurt anyone else.

Is it "good" that he has such beliefs? That is a philosophical question for which I believe no really quantitative answer is possible. Is it "bad" that he has such beliefs? I'd say the same thing.

I would tend to measure "good" and "bad" in terms of A) how beliefs affect the individual and B) how beliefs affect people around you. And I would argue that beliefs that result in a net "positive" result (ie. they benefit yourself, and they benefit people around you), regardless of whether or not they are factually verifiable or true, are "good" (I'd like to see an argument that net positive results are bad). Likewise, I'd argue that beliefs that result in a net "negative" result (ie. they hurt you, or they hurt people around you), are "bad".

And then there are those beliefs that just don't make much difference one way or another -- a category that would apply to quite a number of theists and atheists alike.

I've explained how I reach my determination of what beliefs are "good", and what beliefs are "bad" (and what beliefs are "neutral", for that matter)...would appreciate a similar explanation of your own position :)

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 06:31 AM

Once upon a time, there were two twin brothers. Physically, they appeared exactly the same; but mentally, they had diametrically opposed beliefs.

The first brother believed in a fictitious god, one that did not exist. There were numerous rules and laws that this man was told he should follow, because this fictitious god had supposedly said that this is what people should do. Those laws said things like, "treat others with love", "share what you have with those who have less", and "take one day each week to worship me". He followed those laws as best he could. In some cases, it led to helping others; in other cases, it helped nobody, but didn't hurt anybody either. His beliefs were 100% wrong, with no factual or logical justification, held in blind faith. When others tried to convince him otherwise, he refused to even listen. He just did what his erroneous beliefs told him to do.

The second brother believed in no god whatsoever. He believed in the superiority of logic, and of science. A leader in his country arose who pointed out how other countries had abused and mistreated them. He had tons of facts and figures, 100% verifiable and indisputable facts. This leader called for people of his nation to rise up and punish those who had abused them. This brother looked at all the information. There was no appeal to a mythical god, no appeal to supernatural forces. It was all based on 100% facts, 100% truth. Weighing all of the information, he made the rational, logical decision that what their leader said was true, and it was time for them to punish those who had abused them for so long.

So...which one had the "good" beliefs, and which one had the "bad" beliefs?

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 06:45 AM

I've explained how I reach my determination of what beliefs are "good", and what beliefs are "bad" (and what beliefs are "neutral", for that matter)...would appreciate a similar explanation of your own position :)

I know, my argument is clearly not perfect, but that is more a fault of how this OP and the accompanying poll are constructed. I completely agree with just about all of your post (and am work, so can't comment more fully just yet), but TA already excluded all of the middle (neutral), so if my only choices are "true" or "false" for "all religion is bad", and if I accept the fact that "religion" requires a belief in the supernatural (as opposed to beliefs which are simply factually wrong), I say "True, all religion is bad." I can then console myself with the thought that I am only saying supernatural belief is bad, but the philosophical constructs inherent within the religion (non-supernatural stuff) are the "good" part. :)

(By now, this is mostly just to piss off TA for playing semantic games with a serious subject.)

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 06:47 AM

...and before someone inevitably misunderstands my previous post and attempts to claim that I'm saying something ridiculous like "religious people do good things" and "atheists do bad things", that's not my point at all. My point is that theists and atheists alike do good things, and do bad things. Atheists are no less inclined to "evil" than theists are. And are no less inclined to charity and altruism, also.

My contention is with the claim, apparently assumed by some here, that because something is "wrong", it is "bad". I'm an atheist. I do think that belief in any god, any supernatural being, is "wrong". But it is not therefore implicitly "bad".

I would far rather be surrounded by a bunch of theists doing good things, than a bunch of atheists doing bad things. The thing that people who make these arguments seem to miss out on is that even "concrete, verifiable" facts can be twisted and manipulated to make any moral argument you please. Just as theistic beliefs can be twisted and manipulated to make any moral judgment you please.

I welcome arguments that a net "good" result from "wrong" theistic beliefs is "bad"; whereas a net "bad" result from "correct" atheistic beliefs is "good".

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 06:49 AM

Weighing all of the information, he made the rational, logical decision that what their leader said was true, and it was time for them to punish those who had abused them for so long.

Why would it necessarily follow that simply because the facts of the abuse are correct, punishment is required? This brother could still act in a "good" fashion by taking actions to address the previous abuse without resorting to punishment. ;)

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 06:56 AM

Why would it necessarily follow that simply because the facts of the abuse are correct, punishment is required? This brother could still act in a "good" fashion by taking actions to address the previous abuse without resorting to punishment. ;)
Hokster -- thank you very much, that was exactly the point I was hoping someone would raise :) One of the common complaints about "theists" is the way that they can twist and interpret their "scriptures" any way they want, in order to justify any action they want to take.

The thing that such people ignore is that moral judgments cannot be scientifically or quantifiably determined. Atheists are just as capable of taking 100% true information, and twisting and interpreting it in order to reach a wide range of possible moral conclusions.

Yes, the atheist brother could have looked at this information and chosen peace. And he could have looked at this information and chosen war and revenge. There is nothing implicit in his being an atheist, or in the factuality of the information he has, that dictates what is the "scientifically correct choice". It is a moral choice.

And the fact that he makes the decision based on true facts in no way renders it superior to or inferior to a decision made by a theist based on false beliefs.
--snip--
but TA already excluded all of the middle (neutral), so if my only choices are "true" or "false" for "all religion is bad", and if I accept the fact that "religion" requires a belief in the supernatural (as opposed to beliefs which are simply factually wrong), I say "True, all religion is bad."
--snip--
Well, obviously, i disagree with the way that TA set up the poll. I think it leads to a discussion that includes only extreme positions, which automatically lends itself to use of exaggeration and polarization of respective positions.

ETA: I made some fairly major changes to my initial post, when I realized I'd made some errors myself; I hope that nobody is responding to the former comments, if so, my apologies for the confusion.

qayak

25th July 2007, 07:11 AM

If you can find anything other than that opinion, then you may accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Quotes from any thread will be fine - other than obvious parodies.

Your intellectual dishonesty has to do with the your claim on a public list you received e-mails from other members which make derogatory statements about Articulett and then refusing to disclose what they actually said or who they were so your statements can be checked.

It would be like me stating that I have received 100 PM's that say they beleive religion is all bad and adding those to the numbers in the poll, means that the "true" side wins. No, sorry, I can't send you the PM's or tell you who they are, that would be breaking a confidence. You will just have to take my word for it. Nice little poll though, too bad you lost.

In the meantime, maybe you'd like to address the conflict between your two statements as posted above? What was that about intellectual dishonesty?

The conflict is in your mind. In order to address it you will have to seek professional help. Perhaps getting some reading comprehension help from a kindergarten teacher. Perhaps some psychological help for your delusions. I don't know exactly, you will have to figure it out.

qayak

25th July 2007, 07:18 AM

Is there a religion that is good? Can anyone name one?

Apparently not. Of course, they are not all bad . . . we just don't know of a good one. It would seem to me a simple matter to find one but . . .

Shintoism might be, the way it is practiced today. I wonder if anyone realizing that there religion doesn't make the good list will discard it for Shintoism.

Silly question! Of course they won't. Because if they do, they will be out of the favoured group and won't make it to heaven. It is amazing what evils one will apologize for in order to protect their everlasting soul. :dl:

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 07:36 AM

Your intellectual dishonesty has to do with the your claim on a public list you received e-mails from other members which make derogatory statements about Articulett and then refusing to disclose what they actually said or who they were so your statements can be checked.
I would agree that it was bad form for TA to make such claims when he was not willing or able to support them; however, in pretty well every forum I've ever been a member of, Private Messages are just that -- PRIVATE.

Public disclosure within the forum of private messages, without the permission of the person who sent the PM, is usually grounds for severe reprimands, often banning. in this case, I think that both of you are showing complete disregard for private communications. TA for referring to them, when he had neither permission to do so, nor intention of revealing them; and you for demanding that private communications should be revealed just because you say so.
Apparently not. Of course, they are not all bad . . . we just don't know of a good one. It would seem to me a simple matter to find one but . . .
This has got to be one of the flat-out stupidest arguments that I've heard here. If you are going to look at religions as a whole, of course you can always find examples of abuses and atrocities. But that does not mean that individuals who hold those beliefs are guilty of that, or in fact that their beliefs cause any harm to anyone at all.

The only way you can make your argument is by gross generalization. "Christians have done bad things, therefore Christianity is bad". Your argument falls apart entirely if forced to look at individuals, rather than large, faceless groups. This is a tactic successfully used throughout history by those seeking to promote intolerance of others.

The only valid criteria for judging whether any individual's beliefs are "good" or "bad" is the effect of those beliefs on that individual, and on the people around them. Arguing that because someone else did something wrong, therefore this person's beliefs can be dismissed as "bad", is an exercise in promoting bigotry and intolerance.

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 07:38 AM

Hokster -- thank you very much, that was exactly the point I was hoping someone would raise :) One of the common complaints about "theists" is the way that they can twist and interpret their "scriptures" any way they want, in order to justify any action they want to take.

The thing that such people ignore is that moral judgments cannot be scientifically or quantifiably determined. Atheists are just as capable of taking 100% true information, and twisting and interpreting it in order to reach a wide range of possible moral conclusions.

Yes, the atheist brother could have looked at this information and chosen peace. And he could have looked at this information and chosen war and revenge. There is nothing implicit in his being an atheist, or in the factuality of the information he has, that dictates what is the "scientifically correct choice". It is a moral choice.

And the fact that he makes the decision based on true facts in no way renders it superior to or inferior to a decision made by a theist based on false beliefs.

Again, agreed. I my main problem with religion as it applies to the OP is that it seems to allow practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad. In my mind at least, this is always bad.

Of course, if you start another thread with a better worded OP, you may get a different answer from me. :)

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 07:55 AM

Again, agreed. I my main problem with religion as it applies to the OP is that it seems to allow practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad. In my mind at least, this is always bad.

Of course, if you start another thread with a better worded OP, you may get a different answer from me. :)
Hokster -- I know that you and I don't really disagree, just wanted to comment on your conclusions above. It seems to me that you are equating a limited number of religions (ie. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) with "religion" in general. Not all religions believe in infallible gods. Not all religions teach unquestioning obedience to their gods. Not all religions teach an absolute morality.

Take the Greek or Roman religions. They were very religious. But they had numerous gods, all of whom were fallible, all of whom had weaknesses and were limited in power. There were tons of stories of humans challenging these gods and proving the gods wrong, or beating the gods in various contests. It was quite acceptable to question a god's teachings, or even to disobey a god (in fact, again, there were a number of stories where humans ended up being rewarded for disobeying a god).

I will grant that these are not religions we'd generally consider terribly 'active' today, but they serve to illustrate my point: having theistic beliefs does not, in and of itself, mean mindless obedience to dictates of an omnipotent god who cannot be questioned or challenged. Even within Christianity, there are some who question and challenge biblical teachings, and declare some of those teachings to be "wrong" or "immoral". Of course, such individuals would not be considered "real Christians" by fundamentalist types, but they are most certainly theists.

And in regards to using religion as an excuse to do these things, atheists are equally capable of that. They just substitute politics, or philosophy, or any other such reason. If someone wants to find a rationalization or justification for their acts, they will find it -- theist, or atheist. The fact that the people who do such things are atheist does not mean it is because they are atheist; just as the fact that others who do such things are theists does not mean it is because they are theists.

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 08:25 AM

Hokster -- I know that you and I don't really disagree, just wanted to comment on your conclusions above. It seems to me that you are equating a limited number of religions (ie. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) with "religion" in general. Not all religions believe in infallible gods. Not all religions teach unquestioning obedience to their gods. Not all religions teach an absolute morality.

Take the Greek or Roman religions. They were very religious. But they had numerous gods, all of whom were fallible, all of whom had weaknesses and were limited in power. There were tons of stories of humans challenging these gods and proving the gods wrong, or beating the gods in various contests. It was quite acceptable to question a god's teachings, or even to disobey a god (in fact, again, there were a number of stories where humans ended up being rewarded for disobeying a god).

I will grant that these are not religions we'd generally consider terribly 'active' today, but they serve to illustrate my point: having theistic beliefs does not, in and of itself, mean mindless obedience to dictates of an omnipotent god who cannot be questioned or challenged. Even within Christianity, there are some who question and challenge biblical teachings, and declare some of those teachings to be "wrong" or "immoral". Of course, such individuals would not be considered "real Christians" by fundamentalist types, but they are most certainly theists.

And in regards to using religion as an excuse to do these things, atheists are equally capable of that. They just substitute politics, or philosophy, or any other such reason. If someone wants to find a rationalization or justification for their acts, they will find it -- theist, or atheist. The fact that the people who do such things are atheist does not mean it is because they are atheist; just as the fact that others who do such things are theists does not mean it is because they are theists.

Hmm, I think part of the problem is that there is a major difference between stating that the religion is bad, and that the people practicing it are bad. Many of your arguments relate to the individuals, whereas I am mostly arguing about the principles. Of course, it is easy to say that many religions promote "good" principles that can be twisted to be used in a "bad" way, but those principles tend to be the ones that do not rely upon the supernatural (or the "philosophy" part of religion). Sure, you can argue with Zeus, and even beat him in a game of tiddly-winks, but I don't remember seeing this behavior as being promoted as "good". Often times, the final result of beating a god in both Greek and Roman mythology ends up with fairly dire consequences.

And yes, I know we don't really disagree, but it is an interesting discussion, and I have had to rethink several of my opinions. However, I still hold my final conclusion, at least as it relates to this thread.

Nosaj

25th July 2007, 09:03 AM

Nice, black and white comment. Not, "most religions are bad" or "some religions are bad", but ALL. I have covered the matter several times and that is a fair description. "Bad" will equate to "causes mental or physical harm", the contention being that belief in god is bad, of itself.

Everyone,

From my perspective, all religion is not bad per se. I think that religion can influence people to do things that cause mental harm or physical harm, but religion can also influence people to do things that cause non-harm.

For example, while religion can influence people to harm other people who do not hold the same views or beliefs, religion can also influence people to actively go out and help (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-07-18-faith-building_N.htm) other people that are in serious need of help.

Therefore, I am unable to say that the statement "all religions are bad" is true, even though religion does have the potential to influence people to cause harm, because it comes down to what people do with those beliefs.

Sincerely,

Jason

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 09:15 AM

Hokster,

I'm not sure how you can separate the religion from the people who practice it; as it is quite literally impossible to quantify a specific religion's beliefs. Oh, of course, you can quote various scriptures, but if you take any religion, any scripture, any religious teaching, you will find numerous different interpretations of what that means, and how it should be applied.

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

If the former, please elucidate; if the latter, then one must look at the individuals, as it is impossible to ascribe specific actions to all members of a particular religion. Different people, taught exactly the same religion, will still make very different decisions, and take very different actions, based on those religious beliefs.

Let me illustrate. Does the Bible teach that killing others in the name of God, even committing genocide, is acceptable? Yes, it does. Does the Bible teach that we should love one another, turn the other cheek, and treat everyone as our brother? Yes, it does.

There are those who will read the Bible, focus on the former, and use it as justification for actions that are reprehensible and evil. And there are those who will read the Bible, focus on the latter, and use it as justification for actions that are noble and inspiring.

Now, consider atheists. There are atheists who look at the facts of evolution, who will use scientific facts to justify acts of racism, genocide, and euthanasia, based on the principle of "survival of the fittest", getting rid of weak or inferior genes in order to make the human race stronger as a whole. There is a very valid and supportable scientific argument for such actions, if you remove any sense of morality from it, which has nothing to do with any belief in god, and which is based entirely on verifiable scientific data.

And there are atheists who will look at the facts of evolution, and see that despite superficial physical appearances, all humans regardless of race are virtually identical on a genetic level, and use that to promote an agenda of equality and egalitarianism. (For that matter, there are atheists who will entirely disregard terrestrial evolution as a natural process, and instead attribute it to aliens...some people make the mistake of equating atheism with a belief in evolution)

But I am straying a little...illustrating a point I've already provided previous illustrations for. Let me return to the main question, which will help me better understand your argument. To whit:

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 09:25 AM

Hokster,

I'm not sure how you can separate the religion from the people who practice it; as it is quite literally impossible to quantify a specific religion's beliefs. Oh, of course, you can quote various scriptures, but if you take any religion, any scripture, any religious teaching, you will find numerous different interpretations of what that means, and how it should be applied.

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

No, I am saying belief in something that is supernatural is bad, mainly because there is no way you could ever prove it either true or untrue. A belief that can be proven true or not true is not bad. (OK, I know that in reality, there are different shades/level of badness and not badness that would apply to a belief system.)

If the former, please elucidate; if the latter, then one must look at the individuals, as it is impossible to ascribe specific actions to all members of a particular religion. Different people, taught exactly the same religion, will still make very different decisions, and take very different actions, based on those religious beliefs.

Let me illustrate. Does the Bible teach that killing others in the name of God, even committing genocide, is acceptable? Yes, it does. Does the Bible teach that we should love one another, turn the other cheek, and treat everyone as our brother? Yes, it does.

There are those who will read the Bible, focus on the former, and use it as justification for actions that are reprehensible and evil. And there are those who will read the Bible, focus on the latter, and use it as justification for actions that are noble and inspiring.

Now, consider atheists. There are atheists who look at the facts of evolution, who will use scientific facts to justify acts of racism, genocide, and euthanasia, based on the principle of "survival of the fittest", getting rid of weak or inferior genes in order to make the human race stronger as a whole. There is a very valid and supportable scientific argument for such actions, if you remove any sense of morality from it, which has nothing to do with any belief in god, and which is based entirely on verifiable scientific data.

And there are atheists who will look at the facts of evolution, and see that despite superficial physical appearances, all humans regardless of race are virtually identical on a genetic level, and use that to promote an agenda of equality and egalitarianism. (For that matter, there are atheists who will entirely disregard terrestrial evolution as a natural process, and instead attribute it to aliens...some people make the mistake of equating atheism with a belief in evolution)

But I am straying a little...illustrating a point I've already provided previous illustrations for. Let me return to the main question, which will help me better understand your argument. To whit:

Are you arguing that the simple belief in something that is "not true" is, by definition, "bad"? Or are you arguing that the actions that come as a result of that belief are "bad"?

As an aside, the whole atheist bit is somewhat of a red herring. I am not suggesting that the lack of religion would be bad/good/none of the above. Just because I am stating that religion is bad, I am not stating that the lack of religion is good. It might be equally bad for all I know. I know that sounds strange, but again, I would blame the black/white dichotomy forced upon me by the OP.

sphenisc

25th July 2007, 09:49 AM

No, I am saying belief in something that is supernatural is bad, mainly because there is no way you could ever prove it either true or untrue.

This makes mathematics bad, and Gödel the evilest person who ever lived.

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 10:20 AM

This makes mathematics bad, and Gödel the evilest person who ever lived.

Nah, those are just theorems. ;)

Faithkills

25th July 2007, 11:32 AM

Religious people are not lying more oftenly than irreligious ones. Your assertion is null and void.

They are always spreading lies, whether they are aware of this or not.

You don't even know my position. You never ask. You just spit out yours.

People ask you don't answer, though it's apparent from your posts. Prove me wrong. Tell me your position please.

A mistake is no lie. That's why in all languages I know of, there's a word for "mistake" and one for "lie".

You need martyrs to further your aims. You tell me that that if I martyr myself killing infidels I will go to paradise and be supplied with virgins.

I believe the lie. I tell my buddies, with utmost sincerity, the same fable. He believes it. Has it become not a lie now? Because I believe it it is now true?

It's crap. It's a lie and it's lethal. What difference does it make if I believe it or not? Except that my sincerity can convince other people to believe the lie as well.

In English, German, Spanish, Italien, French etc. there is such clear distinction. Also, there is no alternative word for "lie", like there is for many other words. This is to avoid any kind of misunderstanding of what it's meant by saying "lie". In particular, "mistake" is not equal to "lie".

We've been over this. The word covers both uses, and you decided to produce dictionary references to support your narrow usage and I provided dictionary references to show other uses. Do we need to do it again?

Regardless you are (attempting to) using semantics to evade the point. You are waving your hands to avoid addressing the fact that they are lies (noun) being told, regardless of whether you want to restrict the term of liar such that the unwitting teller are not liars.

The damage is the same, arguably worse. You won't address this because you cannot, and it's the part that upsets you so much.

Didn't Mr Einstein show that Mr. Newton was fundamentally mistaken? Do you care if Newton believed the lies he tried to tell everybody? No, you don't!

Newtons ideas were not right in all cases but they were mostly valid for our context at the time and demonstrated scientifically and were a building block for later developments. There is no religious analog. Religion 'progresses' by learning better slicker lies to tell to manipulate people.

Well, then you assault the book Principia Mathematica by Mr. Newton to be propagating lies. Actually, every scientific theory must be a lie, because sooner of later it is replaced by a better one.

Science is nothing but lies, right?

Ok so now you don't understand science? See I don't believe you anymore. I don't think you actually believe the absurd intellectually dishonest things you say. But just in case you have managed to live this long and failed to comprehend the scientific method..

Theories are named 'theories' specifically for this reason. Theories are not cannon. It's not the Universal Truth of General Relativity Accepted theories are just the best available working information. Scientists live for disproving other theories, and so they should. They aren't lies because it's known up front this is just the best thing we understand till now.

Is the Standard Model a lie? I don't see how it could be because they know it fails in some situations! No proton has been seen to decay. No Higgs has been found.

What will not happen is they say 'Well the Higgs is there in this data, but only if you believe. If you can't see it, it's because you don't believe in the Higgs. Clap your hands if you believe in the Higgs!'

Sciences retreats from falsehood. Religion embraces it and rolls in it like a warm blanket of manure.

Can you explain at what part of the propagation of a lie it becomes ok? Is it the first time there is a gullible believer? Is it when I believe I will go to paradise for martyring myself? From then on it's true? Or not destructive?

Can you adress that question? Or will you hand wave some more?

articulett

25th July 2007, 03:40 PM

The most successful religions promise rewards to believers they cannot verify and punishments to doubters they cannot mete out (except in this life time). Like a chain letter, they encourage you to recruit and spawn other believers and you can infect the new spawns with the memes from birth. Religions proffer this notion that you cannot be good, or happy, or saved, or fulfilled without them--that non-believers are bad people and that believers are "chose"--more moral than those who don't believe. And they all have to cover for each other, because to criticize another religion means that your own is up for scrutiny... but as long as all religions attack the non-believers nobody has to look to closely at their own faith... and that is what all these semantic games (not ALL religions) are about from my perspective. Any sort of sidetracking will do just so long as you vilify those who speak out against religion-- (because not ALL religions are bad and do harm)-- rather that examine the harms of delusion on a mass scale--especially in a world where people can bring huge amounts of suffering on their fellow humans in the name of some invisible somebody who we are told it's arrogant to question.

Why this dickering over the word ALL instead of discussing whether this mass delusion is worth it... shouldn't we all be planting the seeds to show others that faith is a bad way to know anything true and that people can and are perfectly moral human beings without religion... in fact, there is much suffering specifically because of religion. Sure, not every religion is equally responsible for causing suffering to other human beings... but everyone who pretends that faith is a good way to know truth promotes this falsehood... and encourages its infliction on innocent kids... who may well be the religious zealots of tomorrow.

I think religion should be treated the same way as all similar beliefs --astrology, Scientology, crystal healing, propaganda, racism, schizophrenic delusions, doublespeak, and other claims not supported by facts. We should be able to discuss it's claims in public without being vilified for expressing our opinions and we should be free to mock and challenge religion and believers. It's the only way to let religion die from within and quit spreading. It was the way humans eventually stopped having slavery... and understood that the bible did not have the correct interpretation as to the shape of the earth or other scientific facts. Religion has a strong need to keep believers spawning and converting more believers--and silencing those who speak out. Who cares if it's "all"-- who cares about the semantics? It isn't true and it prevents people from learning actual true and useful facts that scientists have worked long and hard to bring forth and that humans can understand for the first time. I don't want to dicker over whether it's ALL. I just want the paradigm dismantled.

Who cares about semantics and opinions. Don't you care that humans have access to all knowledge without fear that they will suffer forever if they accept it? Everyone suffers from an ignorant populace... certain that they have "the truth". Such people vote, hold office, rise to power, and inflict their prejudices and ignorance on the trusting.

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 04:32 PM

(By now, this is mostly just to piss off TA for playing semantic games with a serious subject.)

That's fine, but I wasn't playing semantic games at any stage. I checked, re-checked then clarified that the words as I wrote them were identical to the meaning I saw. All religion is bad - i.e. it does no good at all. I even tried to make sure "bad" was qualified by equalling "causes harm".

Well, obviously, i disagree with the way that TA set up the poll. I think it leads to a discussion that includes only extreme positions, which automatically lends itself to use of exaggeration and polarization of respective positions.

Which was exactly my point to begin with, in the other thread when I pointed out that some parts of religion are not actually that bad.

Your intellectual dishonesty has to do with the your claim on a public list you received e-mails from other members

No, mate. That's not intellectual dishonesty, that's just plain common-sense, and telling you to mind your own business.

Intellectual dishonesty would be claiming to have said one thing while demonstrably having said something esle.

Sound like anyone?

Nice little poll though, too bad you lost.

:dl:

Really?

I gather that along with flexibility of opinion and past posts, your universe indulges in inverse mathematics!

As I see the poll, it appears to be an ever-widening margin in favour of my position. The voting pattern has been interesting - at first, a flood of "true" votes came in, but as time has passed and a wider spread of people have voted - less extreme people probably visit less frequently - the gap first opened and is now widening.

The conflict is in your mind. In order to address it you will have to seek professional help. Perhaps getting some reading comprehension help from a kindergarten teacher. Perhaps some psychological help for your delusions. I don't know exactly, you will have to figure it out.

And you respond with ad hominem. Proof of a losing position, I'd say. So, between you and your buddy, I either have a brain tumour or need professional psychiatric help and reading comprehension.

Nice team you have going there. Thank god I'm not part of it.

Again, agreed. I my main problem with religion as it applies to the OP is that it seems to allow practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad. In my mind at least, this is always bad.

Of course, if you start another thread with a better worded OP, you may get a different answer from me. :)

I may try again, one day. What wording would you suggest?

I'd be also interested to hear how any of the OP, my position or the poll & question in any way enables you to make this claim:allow[s] practicioners an excuse for their actions and an option to disclaim responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, good or bad

I excuse nothing. I don't claim the good outweighs the bad and I certainly don't claim any sect or religion is "good", per se.

qayak

25th July 2007, 05:18 PM

Possibly, but not necessarily. If a strong believer follows the Pope's doctrine - it's fine. If somebody ignores the Pope's doctrine - it's also fine.

A few points. First, you're telling me that the catholic charities are only helping catholics. If this is true, it isn't charity.

Second, the catholic workers themselves are not allowed to hand out condoms because of the popes declaration regardless of the denomination of the people they are treating.

Third, you seem to be saying that AIDS is punishment from god for people not listening to the pope. What about the catholics who are not listening to the pope and using condoms. Shouldn't god be punishing them with some horrible disease too?

As I said: you cannot devaluate the Pope's doctrine with pure logic. You need data to support the claim, that the RCC causes damage in the fight against AIDS. I tried to get that thru to Arti, in vain of course.

The people on the front lines say it does.

And I studied the WHO's report on AIDS thoroughly and I could not find any evidence that catholic countries suffer from higher infections rates that non-catholic countries in the same area. This would have been strong evidence against the RCC. So, try better if you want!

Seeing as you are so fond of it, you won't mind if I ask for a reference to those reports would you?

I also studied extensive reports on particular African countries which make clear what really matters. Did you know that many African governments officially denied the existence of AIDS for many years calling it "Western propaganda against Africa"? And then, after the problem could no longer be ignored, did not do anything against it for quite a while? And now these countries face an incredible devastation caused by the ignorance and incompetence of their governments?

Yes, just like religious people here said it was a gay disease and didn't want money spent on research. If this diseaes had of been attacked properly from the outset, things wouldn't be nearly as bad as they are. However, none of this has any bearing on the subject.

Did you know that women have practically no rights in many African societies? That African men hate to use condoms? That women have no chance at all to force condom usage even if they know their men are *********** around?

Apparently that is changing and condom use was on the rise. African people aren't stupid, they just don't have the information we do. They also have the baggage of their old religions along with the new ones brought by Europeans. That's going to take a long time to overcome. The pope is fighting it at every turn.

If you don't look into the details of how African societies function, you won't be able to make any case, I'm afraid. Don't look at that Pope, look at Africa!

If the discussion was about Africa we would be looking at it but it is about religion so we are looking at the pope aspect right now.

You seem to have a habit of ignoring any discussion about the problems of religion and trying to confuse the issue with a bunch of off topic rhetoric. Try sticking to the subject.

qayak

25th July 2007, 05:25 PM

No, mate. That's not intellectual dishonesty, that's just plain common-sense, and telling you to mind your own business.

It's definitely intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty would be claiming to have said one thing while demonstrably having said something esle.

Or failing to correct an error when you notice it. Or refusing to correct an error when it is pointed out. Or lying to try to make people come to a conclusion you want them to arrive at. Or lying to discredit an opponent in a debate.

Sound like anyone?

Everyone of them sounds just like what you have been doing.

I gather that along with flexibility of opinion and past posts, your universe indulges in inverse mathematics!

As I see the poll, it appears to be an ever-widening margin in favour of my position. The voting pattern has been interesting - at first, a flood of "true" votes came in, but as time has passed and a wider spread of people have voted - less extreme people probably visit less frequently - the gap first opened and is now widening.

You have failed to add in all the people who didn't vote in the poll but have instead PM'ed me telling me they agree with my position. Your side isn't even close.

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 05:34 PM

You have failed to add in all the people who didn't vote in the poll but have instead PM'ed me telling me they agree with my position. Your side isn't even close.

:dl:

Gotta hand it to you - you'd make a great comedian.

I'm happy to rest. All of the posts are there for anyone concerned to read them.

Nice chatting with you! Please do keep posting - it bumps the thread nicely.

qayak

25th July 2007, 05:46 PM

I would agree that it was bad form for TA to make such claims when he was not willing or able to support them; however, in pretty well every forum I've ever been a member of, Private Messages are just that -- PRIVATE.

Public disclosure within the forum of private messages, without the permission of the person who sent the PM, is usually grounds for severe reprimands, often banning.

Absolutely! It was bad enough that AT brought the private messages up, that is completely unethical but to add to that, he brought them up to discredit an opponent in a debate. He should be censured and made to apologize.

If his defence is that the e-mails are true, it is up to him to prove it by making them public. If he cannot, he needs to apologize for his dishonesty.

in this case, I think that both of you are showing complete disregard for private communications. TA for referring to them, when he had neither permission to do so, nor intention of revealing them; and you for demanding that private communications should be revealed just because you say so.

I am not showing disregard for anything. You did not see me try to discredit AT with such a disgusting tactic. In all my discussions on the internet, I have never seen someone who is so desperate as to pull this stunt actually have any e-mails. They are always lying. Now, TA maybe the exception to this and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but . . . if he cannot produce the messages or if the authors will not allow them to be made public, he must apologize for his dishonesty.

I also cannot believe that on a forum like this, this type of dishonesty is allowed to go unchecked.

This has got to be one of the flat-out stupidest arguments that I've heard here. If you are going to look at religions as a whole, of course you can always find examples of abuses and atrocities. But that does not mean that individuals who hold those beliefs are guilty of that, or in fact that their beliefs cause any harm to anyone at all.

Well, you are the one making the argument so if it is ridiculous, you should change your view. I never said all people who hold religious beliefs are bad. I sad all religions are bad.

The only way you can make your argument is by gross generalization. "Christians have done bad things, therefore Christianity is bad". Your argument falls apart entirely if forced to look at individuals, rather than large, faceless groups. This is a tactic successfully used throughout history by those seeking to promote intolerance of others.

You are making a error in logic. If you are not going to allow the bad things done by people in the name of religion then you certainly cannot allow the good things. In that case it has a sum of zero and has no impact on people which is obviously absurd.

The only valid criteria for judging whether any individual's beliefs are "good" or "bad" is the effect of those beliefs on that individual, and on the people around them. Arguing that because someone else did something wrong, therefore this person's beliefs can be dismissed as "bad", is an exercise in promoting bigotry and intolerance.

Not an argument I have made so you will have to argue it with someone else.

Herzblut

25th July 2007, 06:02 PM

Seeing as you are so fond of it, you won't mind if I ask for a reference to those reports would you?

Here:

http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp

Herzblut

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 07:34 PM

I never said all people who hold religious beliefs are bad. I sad all religions are bad.

Religion is a lie. It is all made up with not a shred of evidence to support it. All Lies = All Bad.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377455a93eabb360.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2617)

Wolfman

25th July 2007, 07:44 PM

You are making a error in logic. If you are not going to allow the bad things done by people in the name of religion then you certainly cannot allow the good things. In that case it has a sum of zero and has no impact on people which is obviously absurd.
It is amazing -- you have just summarized the very point I am trying to make! You are quite correct -- if you are not going to allow the bad things done by people in the name of religion, then you cannot allow the good things.

And, conversely, if you are not going to allow the good things done by people in the name of religion, you cannot allow the bad things!

Go back and actually read what I've posted...you've ignored the vast majority of it, where I've given very clear and explicit illustrations of my argument. Nowhere have I argued that "bad things done in the name of religion" should be ignored. I have argued that any examination must include the following factors:

1) If you're going to use examples of bad things done in the name of religion, you must include good things done in the name of religion (it would be pretty damn hypocritical for you to argue this is not true when you've just argued that discounting bad things also means discounting good things).

2) If you're going to use examples of how religious people can use their beliefs to justify abuses, you must also consider examples of how atheists can use their beliefs to justify abuses.

You argue in a vacuum. You entirely ignore all my illustrations of how atheists can be guilty of exactly the same abuses, and of how "concrete facts" and an atheistic worldview can still be used to justify abuses just as easily as any religious person.

The only intellectually honest method of examining this question is to look at all the groups involved. Which you, consistently, fail and refuse to do. Instead, you rely on gross stereotypes of one group ("religions"), while entirely ignoring another ("atheists").

Let's say we remove all religion from the world tomorrow. Every single human being was an atheist. What would be the result?

We'd have Communist atheists, Fascist atheists, racist atheists, mysogynistic atheists, wife-beating atheists, slave-owning atheists...as well as the democratic atheists, the peace-loving atheists, Humanist atheists, etc. And every single one of those groups would still be able to find rationalizations for their actions, without any need to appeal to a god or religion at all.

Heck, if we're classifying "religion" as "belief in the supernatural", we'd even have atheist religions still existing. Raelians, for example, are 100% atheist, do not believe in any supernatural being; they do, however, believe in a superior alien race that is responsible for the genetic engineering of every life form on our planet.

Being "atheist" does not implicitly mean being more rational, more "good", or any other such term.

articulett

25th July 2007, 08:27 PM

Gayak... don't even try to argue with an apologist... they can only hear you saying ALL religions are ALL bad... they will avoid talking about anything bad about religion and demonize you. The more you try to clarify the less likely they are to understand. They cannot admit to you or anyone that religion is a lie. They will twist words and opinions to call you a liar while ignoring their own actual dishonesty and the the dishonesty disguised as "higher truths" proffered by religions. --All to support the lie that religious delusions are good for something or someone--they sure ARE good for something-- it's a good way for a guy to get allegiances, funds, and respect without having to do anything real-- plus you get a whole slew of mental midgets fighting your battles for you in brainwashed knee-jerk defense.

Don't worry about dogging TA for quotes. Given his tendency to miscarachterize and twist things, I don't give any credence to anything he says. Apparently not many people do... certainly not the people I find the most informative and knowledgeable on this forum. His goal is to win the imaginary argument that is always going on in his head and to shout down all perceived dissent while telling everybody how open minded and fair he is.

If you put him on ignore, you'll be surprised at how seldom he appears in other quotes... he's only making sense to himself.

BS still stinks no matter how pretty the package you wrap it in.

And, with TA, it isn't fixable... the more you call him on it... the more crazed he gets. Just put him on ignore and warn the people you like so he doesn't drive away good posters. And when someone insults you, consider the source--I find that usually the insult is better suited for them. They are just too blinded to know it.

What else is an apologist to do but berate you? The facts just really don't support the notion that religion is good overall--and they most certainly claim to have truths that they do not have. The lie depends on demonizing those who speak out against "faith in faith".

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 08:32 PM

The facts just really don't support the notion that religion is good overall

Funny, I thought I could hear crickets, now I know why.

13 pages of two threads and she still hasn't realised that nobody has said at any stage that religion is good overall.

Strawmen, windmills... anything else you'd like to have a crack at? Loch Ness monster, maybe?

qayak

25th July 2007, 08:37 PM

You argue in a vacuum. You entirely ignore all my illustrations of how atheists can be guilty of exactly the same abuses, and of how "concrete facts" and an atheistic worldview can still be used to justify abuses just as easily as any religious person.

Olease explain to me, besides not believing in god, what is an atheist world view.

Being "atheist" does not implicitly mean being more rational, more "good", or any other such term.

I think that examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that there is no god is far more rational than having faith that there is. Might just be me though.

Being atheist means removing one of the biggest dividers of people known to man which I also see as an improvement which means it is gooder. :)

qayak

25th July 2007, 08:38 PM

Funny, I thought I could hear crickets, now I know why.

13 pages of two threads and she still hasn't realised that nobody has said at any stage that religion is good overall.

Strawmen, windmills... anything else you'd like to have a crack at? Loch Ness monster, maybe?

Actually, except for the possibility of Shintoism as it is practiced today, no one has said any religion is good. Which pretty much means they are all bad.

qayak

25th July 2007, 08:42 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377455a93eabb360.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2617)

Hmmmmmm........ another lie on your part. The first quote is referring to people. The second quote is referring to religions.

Have you apologized to the forum, the authors of your imaginary PM's or Articulett yet?

articulett

25th July 2007, 08:46 PM

Wolfman, YOU miss the point. Sure everyone can rationalize their beliefs and deeds. But you cannot talk rationally with people who believe faith is necessary for salvation. You are merely seen as someone trying to get them to bite from the tree of knowledge.

Faith is a bad way to know the truth. Believing this can make people do horrific things to prove they have faith. All religions claim to have truths they do not have. They teach their members that faith is good and questioning faith is arrogant. So what if some religions do some good for some people-- that still doesn't make faith a good way to know anything. And people should feel free to say religion sucks or whatever without apologists running in because some religions don't suck. It's an opinion. It's based on some pretty strong evidence. If I say racism is wrong, it doesn't mean I think all racism is equally wrong or that some people can't grow up in racist households and end up just fine or that there might be a fine line between racism and ethnic pride-- but if I could never say racism is wrong on a skeptics forum because of diversions like this then that would be pretty damn sad. Religion gets extra special respect and attention that is not warranted. Astrology causes no real harm and can be fun too. But I wouldn't expect people to do the "holier than thou dance" if someone said that teaching astrology is a science class is harmful and ignorance promoting.

You miss the whole point... you give religion special respect. Atheism has nothing to do with belief. It's the claim that there are no divine truths. Religions are about faith in divine truths. Don't be dishonest and confuse the two... even though religious apologists love to do that.

Faithkills

25th July 2007, 08:48 PM

13 pages of two threads and she still hasn't realised that nobody has said at any stage that religion is good overall.

So you agree that religion is bad overall?

If you poll had been is religion mostly bad or generally bad you would have a different result and a different debate. Why wasn't that your poll? What was this silliness of excluding the middle?

It's very simple. Why should not lies and liars be suspect? Or if you prefer the unwitting dupes who spread the lies?

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 09:33 PM

Hmmmmmm........ another lie on your part. The first quote is referring to people. The second quote is referring to religions.

Makes no nevermind to me, every religion I can think of is made up of people. I've posted plenty of other examples which more accurately reflect your various opinions. Doubtless you even believe some of them. (I'm not the one getting my panties all twisted now the vote's going against me because all my buddies have already voted.)

Your premise, your words, your failure.

Have you apologized to the forum, the authors of your imaginary PM's or Articulett yet?

Boy, if there's one good way to realise that the barbs haven't just landed on target, but hit the bullseye, it's when people post the silly stuff you're indulging in at the moment.

As to apologies; none will be forthcoming. Unlike yourself and Articulett, I haven't posted a single falsehood, or change of opinion. I note that while I'm just able to pick and choose quotes to prove your changes of opinion, time after time, you aren't able to bring up a single one of mine, for the very best of reasons - no conflict. No imaginary posts. Black and white, sunshine.

Eat 'em up.

You've just joined ImaginalDisc's league! The worst of the worst of the worst. Elite league, having only four members: you, Arti, Unter and ID. Amazing but true; not even Amy Wilson makes that list, with the only christian potentially to become a member being rittjc.

Bye now.

:pythonfoot:

How's that poll going?

qayak

25th July 2007, 09:50 PM

Makes no nevermind to me, every religion I can think of is made up of people. I've posted plenty of other examples which more accurately reflect your various opinions. Doubtless you even believe some of them. (I'm not the one getting my panties all twisted now the vote's going against me because all my buddies have already voted.)

Your premise, your words, your failure.

Boy, if there's one good way to realise that the barbs haven't just landed on target, but hit the bullseye, it's when people post the silly stuff you're indulging in at the moment.

As to apologies; none will be forthcoming. Unlike yourself and Articulett, I haven't posted a single falsehood, or change of opinion. I note that while I'm just able to pick and choose quotes to prove your changes of opinion, time after time, you aren't able to bring up a single one of mine, for the very best of reasons - no conflict. No imaginary posts. Black and white, sunshine.

Eat 'em up.

You've just joined ImaginalDisc's league! The worst of the worst of the worst. Elite league, having only four members: you, Arti, Unter and ID. Amazing but true; not even Amy Wilson makes that list, with the only christian potentially to become a member being rittjc.

Bye now.

:pythonfoot:

How's that poll going?

Have you apologized for your lies yet?

qayak

25th July 2007, 09:54 PM

Makes no nevermind to me. . .

It has been blatantly apparent that truth makes no never mind to you.

c4ts

25th July 2007, 11:35 PM

Can't say if religion is all bad. Religious organizations do assemble humanitarian efforts, and not all of them are conversion tactics. Yet somehow I can't shake the feeling that some of these efforts are just keeping the poor dependent on charity instead of enabling them to leave poverty...

Herzblut

26th July 2007, 03:04 AM

With one stupid statement he (da papa) did irrepairable damage to the fight against HIV/AIDS.
qayak! Where is your evidence?

Herzblut

qayak

26th July 2007, 06:56 AM

qayak! Where is your evidence?

http://www.afamichigan.org/images/CDC_Condom_Study.pdf

Conclusions on STDs Transmitted by Genital Secretions
The published data documenting effectiveness of the male condom were strongest for HIV. The Panel concluded that, based on a meta-analysis of published studies “always” users of the male condom significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in men and women. These data provided strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission in both men and women who engage in vaginal intercourse.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/p8442/lect01/WHOStrategicTB-HIV.pdf

Since HIV fuels the tuberculosis epidemic, interventions to decrease HIV
transmission should contribute to decreasing the tuberculosis burden. Increased condom use, treatment of STIs, reduction in the number of sexual partners, safe injecting behaviour, and drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission have all been shown effective in preventing HIV infection in pilot projects, controlled trials, or national programmes in less-developed countries.

qayak

26th July 2007, 05:59 PM

Here:

http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp

Herzblut

Herzblut,

Can you help here? Can you give me a list of the countries you feel are catholic so I can compare my findings to yours?

Your report does state:

USE OF CONDOMS

For young people who are sexually
active, consistent condom use is a critical
HIV prevention measure. Demographic
and Health Surveys/AIDS Indicator
Surveys conducted between 2001 and
2005 indicate that young men are more
likely than young women to report condom
use with a non-regular partner
(Measure DHS, 2006). Among 20 sub-
Saharan countries for which survey data
are available, the percentage of young
people who use a condom with non-regular
partners ranges from 5% of females
and 12% of males in Madagascar, to 75%
of females and 88% of males in Botswana
(Figure 3.6). Among 11 sub-Saharan African
countries that have conducted
repeated surveys, condom use among
young people increased in eight countries,
although rates of condom use
remain below 50% in most countries. In
all but one national survey, fewer females
than males reported condom use during
intercourse with a non-regular partner.

In 2002 Botswana had 240,000 people with HIV/AIDS. (Pretty scarey in a population of 1.6 million!) In 2003 the government started a comprehensive program of education, prevention and treatment. By 2005 Botswana had a condom use that was head and shoulders above other countries. 88% for males and 75% for females. As the studies I cited proofed condom use is one of the most powerful tools in preventing HIV/AIDS, how can you claim that the pope stating condoms cause HIV/AIDS is not a detriment to the fight?

The other problem is that the pope will not retract his words. He is supposed to be infallable and cannot change course without putting that in question.

He believes his own publicity and will allow his own pride to stand in the way of what is morally right. He will allow his words to cause suffering and death rather than admit he was wrong.

You have also stated that the areas with the highest rates of HIV/AIDS have the highest condom use. This woulkd seem to be true except that you leave out one very important thing. The rate was high in these areas before condom use became widespread. In fact, condom use came in to those areas specifically to fight the high HIV/AIDS rates. (See my comments on Botswana above.)

The Atheist

26th July 2007, 07:11 PM

...the pope will not retract his words. He is supposed to be infallable ...

:dl:

Classic.

First, your list-partner, ID, claimed that "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland started because of religion.

And now you're saying the pope's infallible on condom use! (Beware: straw is both flammable and inflammable.)

Marvellous stuff, keep 'em coming. Maybe you guys could start a thread up next to my English one: Wrong and Wronger!

Adieu!

qayak

26th July 2007, 07:33 PM

And now you're saying the pope's infallible on condom use! (Beware: straw is both flammable and inflammable.)

This:

"The other problem is that the pope will not retract his words. He is supposed to be infallable and cannot change course without putting that in question."

means I said the pope was infallable on condom use?

You're not dishonest! You're stupid! :dl:

mijopaalmc

26th July 2007, 07:35 PM

This:

"The other problem is that the pope will not retract his words. He is supposed to be infallable and cannot change course without putting that in question."

means I said the pope was infallable on condom use?

You're not dishonest! You're stupid! :dl:

Did he speak ex cathedra on the matter?

Ex cathedra statements are the only infallible statements.

Wheezebucket

26th July 2007, 07:50 PM

Bad gifs of laughing dogs improves everyone's argument! If only one of these threads could avoid devolving into a 'you're stupid!' 'No, you're stupid!' back and forth...

qayak

26th July 2007, 07:59 PM

Did he speak ex cathedra on the matter?

Ex cathedra statements are the only infallible statements.

"The other problem is that the pope will not retract his words. He is supposed to be infallable and cannot change course without putting that in question.

He believes his own publicity and will allow his own pride to stand in the way of what is morally right. He will allow his words to cause suffering and death rather than admit he was wrong."

Do you not read either? Where in here did I say he was infallable or that he spoke ex cathedra on condom use?

My statement is a simple observation about what his actions have been on everything from creationism and evolution to condom use. Simply put, I am saying that he will not admit he made a mistake and he will not correct any error he does recognize making.

Has he changed his position that evolution cannot be proved? Has he changed his erroneous belief that condoms cause HIV/AIDS?

qayak

26th July 2007, 08:39 PM

I'm not the one getting my panties all twisted now the vote's going against me . . .

Shame on me, I guess, for assuming a majority of posters weren't that shallow.

Another one of your lies and further intellectual dishonesty. According to your imbecilic reasoning, anyone who disagrees with you is shallow and you do get your panties in a knot.

I am loving this. I told you before the voting even started that popular opinion does not decide moral issues. (You denied this of course, saying democracy was the best way to decide right or wrong! :rolleyes: ) But, the "true" side has almost gotten a 50/50 split! That is amazing! There is hope for science and reason after all!

On the other hand, I couldn't care less. It won't change my opinion on religion. However, if you could point to one religion that is good, that would change my mind.

You further think that by changing the definition of religion you can sucker people into voting for you. I had never realized that giving to charity is a religion, helping those in need is a religion, kissing the popes ring is a religion, praying to god is a religion, . . .

I had always thought these were just things people did. Some are even aspects of religion but they are not the religion itself. Other aspects of religions are, child abuse, lying, denial of basic human rights, enforced inequality of genders, belief in scarey skymonsters, genocide, . . .

In my opinion, when you add up all the good aspects, neutral aspects and bad aspects, the bad far outweighs the good in any religion. Like I said though, if you could just point to this mythical "good" religion, I would change my view and we could end this silliness.

But, I think this "good" religion is just a figment of your imagination, just like all the private e-mails you claim to have which insult Articulett.

Now its time to pat the little retarded Kiwi on the head and send him off to contemplate his belly button.

The Atheist

26th July 2007, 08:53 PM

Ah man, if there's one thing I love it's when someone is so stoopid that they don't even realise the howlingly funny mistakes they're making.

At least you got the joke, Mijo!

Did he speak ex cathedra on the matter?

Ex cathedra statements are the only infallible statements.

But qayak misses it not just once, but twice more!

He is supposed to be infallable

He is supposed to be infallable

Qayak. Please note this. I will use very small words so that you don't get lost during the explanation. The pope is NOT "supposed to be infallible". That is a fallacy caused by ignorance. What possible point is there in trying to attack the pope and the RCC, when you demonstrably have no idea what you're talking about?

The pope is only ever infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, on doctrine.

His comments on condoms, AIDS, contraception, homosexuals, nuns, women clergy and any other matter have no infallibility conferred upon them.

The mistake is entirely yours, again (again) [again], me old china. I really don't mind if you keep posting evidence of your complete ignorance, so back to you.

The Atheist

26th July 2007, 09:18 PM

Bad gifs of laughing dogs improves everyone's argument! If only one of these threads could avoid devolving into a 'you're stupid!' 'No, you're stupid!' back and forth...

Ok. Next time I'll just ignore other posters' blatant disregard for facts. Unfortunately, as long as qayak keeps making really obvious mistakes, I'll keep pointing them out.

Yes, I indeed have claimed qayak is ignorant, but his ignorance is also self-evident as I just pointed out above. Look at his [her] last post:

Another one of your lies and further intellectual dishonesty.

I note that no posts have been quoted to show where I have lied. Mainly because none exist.

On the other hand, I have posted several totally self-contradictory posts by qayak.

According to your imbecilic reasoning, anyone who disagrees with you is shallow and you do get your panties in a knot.

Ad hominem of someone completely bereft of actual argument.

I am loving this. I told you before the voting even started that popular opinion does not decide moral issues. (You denied this of course, saying democracy was the best way to decide right or wrong! :rolleyes: ) But, the "true" side has almost gotten a 50/50 split! That is amazing! There is hope for science and reason after all!

In other words "I'm losing, but at least we finished second."

On the other hand, I couldn't care less. It won't change my opinion on religion. However, if you could point to one religion that is good, that would change my mind.

There's that strawman again! God, he's a persistent little bugger.

Qayak, yet again, I challenge you to find any of my posts in which I state that there are any "good" religions.

Couldn't find any? No surprise.

Hint: there are none. Sorry to not argue the non-point

You further think that by changing the definition of religion you can sucker people into voting for you. I had never realized that giving to charity is a religion, helping those in need is a religion, kissing the popes ring is a religion, praying to god is a religion, . . .

Several bizarre tactics in one paragraph! The description of religion in use was the one you and articulett (god, I love the irony of that name) decided upon: ones with belief in the supernatural.

Gosh, it must be a real shame to forget one's own posts. Bad enough getting someone else's mixed up, but your own? Sheesh!

More straw here than most barns.

I had always thought these were just things people did. Some are even aspects of religion but they are not the religion itself. Other aspects of religions are, child abuse, lying, denial of basic human rights, enforced inequality of genders, belief in scarey skymonsters, genocide, . . .

And more straw to make the pile even bigger. Has this bloke been taking lessons from Unter?

In my opinion, when you add up all the good aspects, neutral aspects and bad aspects, the bad far outweighs the good in any religion. Like I said though, if you could just point to this mythical "good" religion, I would change my view and we could end this silliness.

The funniest part here is that if qayak could read, he would see in six or seven different places where I agree with his first sentence! Don't tell him that though, else he might have to go on arti's "religious apologist" list.

The second sentence is yet more straw. Another non-argument on a non-existent opinion.

But, I think this "good" religion is just a figment of your imagination, just like all the private e-mails you claim to have which insult Articulett.

Two claims. Both wrong. Again, he shows that he failed to read what I said. My exact words were: "are a couple of choice TAM-inspired phrases describing you." There is quite a difference between a couple and "all" and I see no mention of e mails. Even when you're given the facts you can't get it straight.

Now its time to pat the little retarded Kiwi on the head and send him off to contemplate his belly button.

When utterly routed, finish with ad hominem.

Wolfman

26th July 2007, 09:35 PM

Wolfman, YOU miss the point. Sure everyone can rationalize their beliefs and deeds. But you cannot talk rationally with people who believe faith is necessary for salvation.
Articulett, quite honestly, I feel like I'm banging my head against a mentally challenged brick wall here.

Let me make this as clear as possible.

CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT EQUAL RELIGION

ALL RELIGIONS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN BELIEFS DO NOT REPRESENT ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

The topic here is "religion", not "Christianity". Yet you, and your partners, rely again and again and again on generalizations and characterizations that are typical of Christianity, not of religion. Do Buddhists believe that faith is necessary for salvation? No. There are, in fact, quite a number of religions that have a wide variety of beliefs.

To paraphrase your own comment: You cannot talk rationally with people who cannot differentiate between a discussion of "religion" and a discussion of "Christianity".

Wolfman

26th July 2007, 09:44 PM

Olease explain to me, besides not believing in god, what is an atheist world view.
Dude, its like you're right on the brink of seeing the light, but you're photophobic.

You are quite correct that there is absolutely no world view that is shared by all atheists, beyond a non-belief in god. I have, myself, stated that very clearly several times when I stated that communists can be atheists, fascists can be atheists, racists can be atheists, etc.

The problem is that exactly the same is true of theists!!! There is no belief, no world view, no theology, no doctrine that is held in common by all theists, beyond the belief in the existence of a god. You guys rely on grossly ignorant stereotypes where "Christian beliefs" are substituted for "religious beliefs", and whatever problems you have with certain groups of Christians are extended to everyone with "religious beliefs".

Let me challenge you: Besides belief in some sort of god, please tell me any religious belief, doctrine, or worldview that is shared by all religions, by all theists. Besides Christians, this would include Buddhists, Hindus, animists, Wiccans, polytheistic religions, etc.

Time and time and time again I see you preaching about what "religious people" believe; and time and time again, you only demonstrate your ignorance of the topic being discussed. Whether that is willful ignorance (being aware of the information, but refusing to consider it), or you really don't understand the topic, remains to be determined.

JoeEllison

26th July 2007, 10:34 PM

I had to take a break from this thread, to get my thoughts together. Now that I have done so, here's my take on this issue.

Religion is bad. All religion is bad. All religion is bad because it requires a mindset and worldview which is inherently negative. Whatever "positives" you can claim for religion, they are ALWAYS negative in that they are less than what would exist in the absence of religion.

I come by this, in large part, thanks to the writings of Harlan Ellison(no relation), and his views on television, that he referred to as the "glass teat". This is my take on his writings, and what they mean to me:

Forget that most of what you see on television is garbage. Forget that it is directed at the lowest common denominator. Forget the superficiality, the banality, the abject stupidity of teevee. Ignore the laugh tracks that exist to tell you when to laugh, to evoke a Pavlovian reaction that replaces any conscious feelings of amusement. Go out of your way to ignore the pseudo-reality of unscripted shows, where everyone knows exactly how to act when they know that cameras are rolling. Pretend that you aren't being insulted when you are spoon-fed pre-chewed crap 99% of the time that you tune in to "prime-time" ads for junk you don't need and lifestyles that you can neither have nor enjoy.

Forget all that. That's icing. That's sprinkles on the top of the cow patty.

The thing you need to know, the thing that your life as an autonomous, worthwhile addition to the community of thinking people depends on, is this: watching is always inferior to doing, and accepting the "dreams" of the lowest common denominator is never as fulfilling as dreaming your own dreams.

The act of watching television is harmful. No matter how good the images on the screen may seem, they are ALWAYS less than what your mind can create. Yes, television can inform... but accepting what you are fed on television is ALWAYS settling for knowing only a pathetic fraction of what knowledge is available. No matter how impressive an adaptation of the written word seems on a screen, what you could imagine if you read the original words yourself is always superior. Everything positive that you could possibly get from television is weighted down with so much pure feces, that it is impossible to say with a straight face that there is ever any potential positive at all.

This is the way I feel about religion.

People may act in a positive way because of religion. The REASON behind it, however, is so contemptible that it is horrifying for most good and decent people to consider. Even if you aren't just buying your way into "heaven" or whatever, as mercenary and unworthy as that might be, the best you can be doing in acting in a "right" way based on religion is still behaving in a way that was dictated to you in such a way that acts of pure 'evil' could be justified in the exact same way When you act out of a propriety based in religious belief, you are behaving in an amoral way. ALL of the so-called "moral behavior" or religious believers is amoral in the same way: it is based on what they are told to do by the leaders who claim communication with the deity.

If saving a life is called for by their religion, they will do so. If murdering children is called for by their religion, they will do that as well. If we condemn murder by religious calling, how can we be so hypocritical as to celebrate "good deeds" based in that same corrupt calling? I condemn the sort of mindset that can call rescue and murder equal, based on the sanction of the self-proclaimed spokespersons of a deity.

That is why, as far as I am concerned, all religion is "bad". Bad, evil, and an insult to the mind, ethics, and better nature of humanity.

qayak

26th July 2007, 10:38 PM

I note that no posts have been quoted to show where I have lied. Mainly because none exist.

:dl: You are truly handicapped!

The Atheist's post- "I'm not the one getting my panties all twisted now the vote's going against me . . ."

Directly contradicted by this post from the other thread- "Shame on me, I guess, for assuming a majority of posters weren't that shallow."

Your panties are always in a knot. The pressure is backing your excrement up so it comes out your mouth.

Ad hominem of someone completely bereft of actual argument.

That pretty much nullifies everything you have ever said on this forum.[/QUOTE]

In other words "I'm losing, but at least we finished second."

No, I am genuinely surprised and happy at the fact that no matter how you twist the question around, no matter how you lie about what I said, no matter how you try to shift the definition of religion, or how many sock puppets you create to vote for you, the best you can get is . . . well, just so damn unimpressive.

Qayak, yet again, I challenge you to find any of my posts in which I state that there are any "good" religions.

Couldn't find any? No surprise.

Hint: there are none. Sorry to not argue the non-point

Once again you offer to capitulate and once again I will only accept once you have apologized to Articulate for your intellectual dishonesty. Plus, you have go spend the next year looking for a "good" religion.

Several bizarre tactics in one paragraph! The description of religion in use was the one you and articulett (god, I love the irony of that name) decided upon: ones with belief in the supernatural.

I don't find it ironic at all. I find it amazing that you still create these fabrications. If it is our description of religion in use, why do you keep saying that good things people do are religions.

Gosh, it must be a real shame to forget one's own posts. Bad enough getting someone else's mixed up, but your own? Sheesh!

You would know.

The funniest part here is that if qayak could read, he would see in six or seven different places where I agree with his first sentence!

I read fine. I just can't explain why you continue to argue after admitting I am right. I think you have slipped a cog. When you admit your opponent is right, it is pointless to continue arguing, especially when your argument is complete fabrication.

The second sentence is yet more straw. Another non-argument on a non-existent opinion.

So, you admit that there are no good religions. I have continually stated from the outset that "Religions are all bad" and you say I am wrong . . . okay! :rolleyes:

Two claims. Both wrong. Again, he shows that he failed to read what I said. My exact words were: "are a couple of choice TAM-inspired phrases describing you." There is quite a difference between a couple and "all" and I see no mention of e mails. Even when you're given the facts you can't get it straight.

It doesn't change the fact that you are intellectually dishonest. In fact, let's just call a spade a spade, you lied in order to discredit Articulett because she PWNED you! :D

When utterly routed, finish with ad hominem.

I don't know what your damage is but see my earlier response.

Wolfman

26th July 2007, 11:03 PM

People may act in a positive way because of religion. The REASON behind it, however, is so contemptible that it is horrifying for most good and decent people to consider. Even if you aren't just buying your way into "heaven" or whatever, as mercenary and unworthy as that might be, the best you can be doing in acting in a "right" way based on religion is still behaving in a way that was dictated to you in such a way that acts of pure 'evil' could be justified in the exact same way When you act out of a propriety based in religious belief, you are behaving in an amoral way. ALL of the so-called "moral behavior" or religious believers is amoral in the same way: it is based on what they are told to do by the leaders who claim communication with the deity.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Joe! Well thought out and presented; allow me to present my own response.

First and foremost, as in other cases, I'm afraid that you are guilty of generalizing from certain specific religions, to all religions. Not all religions teach an unquestioning obedience to a god's teachings. Greek and Roman religions, in fact, taught that their gods were very fallible, and that it was quite acceptable to question your gods. Gods could do things that were "wrong", and it was "right" for humans to question and oppose them.

Granted, these are not religions that would be generally followed today, but there are other religions with similar beliefs. It is not inevitable that belief in a god means not being allowed to question or disagree with that god, or to make moral determinations of your own.

A good modern example of this would be "religious Humanists". To some, this seems a contradiction in terms, as Humanism is generally equated with atheism. However, there are religious Humanist groups. Christian Humanists. Jewish Humanists. Buddhist Humanists. Etc.

Such people do believe that there is a god; but they also believe either that that god can be fallible; or that men can be fallible in interpreting what that god wants. Therefore, it is not only acceptable, but necessary, to examine and question all moral teachings of that religion. These people would essentially say, "God gave me a brain with the intention that I should use it", and would feel that a human can rationally determine what is actually god's will, and what is not (rather than mindlessly accepting what some religious leader says).

For religious Humanists, their standard for making these determinations are the basic principles of Humanism -- that is, a focus on equality, human rights, democracy, etc. Where their religious beliefs do not conflict with Humanist moral principles, they consider these beliefs to be proper. Where religious beliefs are in conflict with Humanist principles, they consider those beliefs to be improper.

Thus, they are theists. But they are able to question religious teachings, and to make their own determinations, based on a rational system of evaluation, as to what is moral, and what is immoral.

articulett

27th July 2007, 01:02 AM

But Wolfman... we can say "religions are bad" just like we can say "racism is bad" without denying that they are degrees of badness. And as for religious humanists... so what... the religion is superfluous. Religion has no claims on producing more moral people. Moreover all religions as far as I can tell proffer the notion that there are some things you can know just by believing them... by faith and feeling and studying a divine text. This isn't true. Moreover, they all act like this is "higher knowledge" and that it's arrogant to question the givers of this so-called "higher knowledge". All religions, as far as I can tell, have men at their heads... men who benefit from the allegiance and funds of others... they are inherently sexist. And even if they aren't or the Unitarian Universalists or some buddhists etc. allow female pastors or monks or something-- or just use it more for a social and consciousness raising kind of event-- it doesn't mean that religion in general is good. Because we know for certain tons of harms come from religions--witchhunts, suicide bombings, female genital mutilation, stonings, judgement, lies, threats of hell, sexual repression and twistedness, blood "atonement", praying instead of doing something, believing instead of knowing or not knowing, creationist ignorance, brainwashing, cults, death from lack of medical attention or blood transfusions, etc. Some twisted things are only done because of religion, but no good things are only done because of religion. You don't need religion to be good or moral or happy. It isn't true. It's wrong to manipulate people with things that are not true.

And if you think you're talking to the slow-- trust me, every atheist lives in the world of such "slowness". Every time you mention something bad about religion, the apologists come out of the woodwork to say, "not ALL religion". Who cares if it's all or half or most or an unfathomable amount? Don't you care that tons of innocent trusting people are having lies inflicted upon them for their own "supposed" good? Why does that always get lost in the discussion as you apologists run to defend ALL religions because someone dared to speak badly about religion in general. When I look at this thread, I think the crazy ones that make no sense and each seem to be having their own conversation are the apologists. You guys at least ought to talk to each other... because then maybe you wouldn't sound so much like you are trying to cover up some egregious acts by calling bringing those who talk about them to task. I think former believers have much to say on the topic--and they tend to feel that they wish it had not been inflicted on them. Does that matter at all to you apologists?

Sure not all religions are bad and cause harm, because "all"is a blanket statement... But they all are claims of higher truths without evidence to support them--and that is wrong no matter how you tap dance around it and justify it. If talking about religions harms applies to ALL religions then defending religion means you are defending ALL religions including the ones you find abhorrent. Because when it comes to faith... nothing is based on evidence... and that is supposed to be a good thing. You cannot ask people to respect your beliefs and not question them if you don't allow the same for them--

The hijackers of 9-11 had faith... who are you to question their faith? If faith is good than who are you to say when it's not?

As far as I'm concerned, the apologists just allow the situation and delusion to flourish. It's not those who speak the truth that are the bad guys; it's those proffering the lies to kids and making them ignorant for life.

Wolfman

27th July 2007, 01:18 AM

qayak

27th July 2007, 01:24 AM

Let me challenge you: Besides belief in some sort of god, please tell me any religious belief, doctrine, or worldview that is shared by all religions, by all theists. Besides Christians, this would include Buddhists, Hindus, animists, Wiccans, polytheistic religions, etc.

The fact that the members of all religions see the world through the eyes of their religion and try to make it conform to the beliefs taught by their religion. Some are more militant and successful than others but that is covered by your rule of not using a tiny portion to make generalizations about the whole.

There is no requirement that to be a religious view, all religions must share it because all religions do not share the same view, that is why they are different religions. A religious world view simply has to be a view based on the religion of the person looking at the world.

qayak

27th July 2007, 01:28 AM

articulett

27th July 2007, 02:09 AM

So, let's see if I can summarize your arguments, Articulett. First, you state that one of the reasons why religion is "bad" is because people who are religious "must follow their beliefs unquestioningly, are not allowed to determine things through a rational process". When I point out that is not true of all religious people, you then say that this is irrelevant. "They are guilty because of this, but if they don't do this, it doesn't matter, they're still guilty".

I'm not a "religious apologist". I condemn equally the abuses and atrocities committed by anyone, be they theist or atheist, Christian or Communist, etc.

I condemn those specific people because of their specific actions. What I do not do is say, "Some Christians did some bad things; you are a Christian; therefore, your beliefs are bad".

An apologist seeks to make excuses for, or to justify abuses. Nowhere here have I ever done that, and I have consistently stated that some theists do commit acts that are "bad", and have beliefs that are "bad".

As a Humanist, I am adamantly in favor of human rights, freedom, equality, etc. I don't care what label you wear -- even if you call yourself a Humanist like me -- if you commit acts that hurt others, oppress others, etc., then it is wrong. It is not "because you are a theist". It is "because that is wrong."

You use strawman arguments, attributing beliefs and statements to me that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm actually arguing.

Again, my challenge: apart from "a belief in some kind of god", tell me any belief, theology, or morality that is implicit or necessary in being a theist. You constantly generalize, giving reasons "why theists are bad"...then when I point out that not all theists actually do that, you just dismiss it as irrelevant.

I'll admit, its a great way to debate. It is literally impossible for you to lose if you can make any claim you want to 'prove' your point, and then when its demonstrated that claim is not true, just turn around and say it doesn't matter.

You failed miserably at summarizing my arguments. I don't call people guilty. I call religions guilty of proffering lies which they tell members are higher truths.

Well, by your argument, when you defend religion in general, you must be defending ALL religions no matter how bad, because this whole poll is about people like you claiming that whenever anyone criticizes religion they must mean ALL religions. Or are you claiming flexibility in your defense of religion but not in others critique. Is it ALL or not?

I'm not talking about abuses committed by people... I'm talking about abuses
do specifically to religion... abuses that are not seen as abuses because they supposedly come from directive via a higher source. You can't really define a group of people by what they don't believe in. You can only define a group by the beliefs or ideals that unite them. There is nothing about a lack of belief that unites people... there is no divine directive. And theists are not more moral. Religion is not necessary for people to be good, and in fact in is responsible for many cruelties.

And you mischaracterize me. I never said theists are bad. I said religions proffer lies as higher truths--and the notion that faith is good. I think this does theists and atheists a great disservice. I think it encourages people to be fearful and to not think.

This whole poll was because Atheist, Mijo, and then later you... presumed that whenever people said "religion is bad"--they must mean ALL religion. That is a silly tangent to avoid talking about the subject of religions harms. It's a way of protecting people passing on their false beliefs to others. And for what? If it was rain dances would you be doing the same kind of pontificating over a delusion. Sure, it might not be harmful... better than sacrificing people to weather gods... but not as productive as growing drought resistant crops. Downright harmful if the scientists who might teach them such methods are demonized for testing their faith.

You use strawman arguments to say religion means ALL religions when someone is saying something bad about it... but when someone is defending it it doesn't mean ALL religions.

Are any religions true? Do any of them promote something that a secular person cannot do or have? At what point do we stop deferring to silliness. Why should we respect religion more than anything secular that makes similar claims or proffers similar evidence (or lack thereof). You can like Opera... but that doesn't mean I have to respect it. If I say opera sucks, I don't expect a bunch of flag waving opera apologists coming forth to demonize me and claim they are NOT apologists. I don't here Opera buff saying ALL Opera is great. You guys are just wacked when it comes to religion and you don't see it.
You do these mental gymnastics where you demonize those who speak badly about it in order to never admit that it causes harm... or that it's a lie. You avoid the real topic to play semantic games over opinions and the word all-- anything and everything to avoid discussing whether there is any good reason to be indoctrinating masses of people with notions that discourage critical thinking?

.

.

articulett

27th July 2007, 02:17 AM

What I got from her post is that she is applying your rules against using a small number to generalize about the whole. In other words, the miniscule number of religious humanists is completely irrelevent to how the vast amjority of religions typically behave.

There are other things wrong with religious humanism though, so it doesn't escape the "bad" label either.

Plus all religions promote the notion that faith is good or that the faithful are more moral despite much evidence to the contrary. I don't want to support or defer to that misleading paradigm. Moreover, I think it's tangential as to whether one is saying ALL when they say "religion"-- but if that's the case, than the apologists are defending ALL religion... including the ones that told its members that ALLAH wanted them to teach the Americans a lesson on 9-11... and the ones that the kids die because their religion teaches that getting a blood transfusion will land them in hell... and the ones where people feel like they've wasted much of their lies trying to convince themselves of a lie instead of learning facts and critical thinking... the ones that produce rttjc and Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson --plus the minions inculcated as graduates of his university... the ones that teach hatred and bigotry against homosexual and atheists and science....

If you think religion is worth defending or is "good"--then by your own generalization you inflicted on me and gayak and faithkills-- YOU THINK ALL RELIGIONS are worth defending and good.

It's your definition, apologists. How does it feel? And why would you be defensive about being called an apologist. Most of you have called others much worse things than that merely because they pointed out that religions are systems of lies proffered as "higher truths".

The Atheist

27th July 2007, 03:52 AM

You use strawman arguments to say religion means ALL religions when someone is saying something bad about it.

Do you really want me to provide copies of your own posts to expose this lie for the fourth time?

Your words, you live with them or retract them.

Irony: Atriculett and Qayak calling me a liar while posting the same lie about their own words.

Faithkills

27th July 2007, 11:07 AM

Why wouldn't it be better to have a social entity that didn't do that but accomplished the same positive goals, since we already have examples of such, non religious charities, etc? The only think unique about religion is that it sows lies.

People are forever and always finding justifications for lying to other people, which other other people may agree are valid, but rarely does the subject agree that it was a good thing once they know. 'I lied because I didn't want to upset you, honey'

Despite the fact religions can do some good things, TA can you explain why it's it's not reasonable to be suspect of any entity which creates and propagates fabrications?

Herzblut

27th July 2007, 12:14 PM

http://www.afamichigan.org/images/CDC_Condom_Study.pdf

Conclusions on STDs Transmitted by Genital Secretions
The published data documenting effectiveness of the male condom were strongest for HIV. The Panel concluded that, based on a meta-analysis of published studies “always” users of the male condom significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in men and women. These data provided strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission in both men and women who engage in vaginal intercourse.

No doubt about it. If I hadn't used condoms systematically, I'd probably be dead now. On the other hand, I could also have avoided to ***** around like a wild animal. Right?
Rule 8 violation, see rule changes regarding profanity

In 2002 Botswana had 240,000 people with HIV/AIDS. (Pretty scarey in a population of 1.6 million!) In 2003 the government started a comprehensive program of education, prevention and treatment. By 2005 Botswana had a condom use that was head and shoulders above other countries. 88% for males and 75% for females. As the studies I cited proofed condom use is one of the most powerful tools in preventing HIV/AIDS, how can you claim that the pope stating condoms cause HIV/AIDS is not a detriment to the fight?

Botswana doesn't do your argument any good because it has got a desastrous HIV/AIDS prevalence rate and is not catholic at all. What you said about "in 2003 (!) the government started a comprehensive program" rather supports my reasoning about ignorant, corrupt and incompetent local governments which converted an epidemic into a devastating pandemic.

Can you help here? Can you give me a list of the countries you feel are catholic so I can compare my findings to yours?

I suggest Burundi, Angola, Brasil, Italy, Spain.

Herzblut

Faithkills

27th July 2007, 01:29 PM

Do you really want me to provide copies of your own posts to expose this lie for the fourth time?

Your words, you live with them or retract them.

Irony: Atriculett and Qayak calling me a liar while posting the same lie about their own words.

Wait.. lies are bad? Assuming they are lying, what if Articulett and Qayak truely believe what they are saying, as I suspect they do? Doesn't that make it ok? Doesn't that make it not a lie?

aries

27th July 2007, 02:00 PM

Let me just say this then:

Yes, all organized religions might be bad (mostly are, I believe) since they force a certian way of thinking down onto their believers without much food for critital thought. [I'm inculding Al Qeada here, too as well as the Holy Roman Catholic Church as well as certain Jewish sects and some of the Rightwing Evangelical Christian sects in the US as well).

No, all religious attitudes, spiritual statements etc. carried out by a (or should it be the ?) single religious or spiritual person might be good (mostly are).

The point is that I belive that most organized religion(s) hinder the individual's freedom & freedom of creative expression. A person's spiritual belief does not. As most people (like me ;) ) who has his own spiritual beliefs will let others have their (own) spiritual beliefs, in peace - because we do realize that we're all humans and that we all share the same DNA and the same blood flows in our veins (in principle, anyway). And that my spiritual view of the world is as valid as the next guy's view of the world.

And as sort of final note:
being from Denmark, I'm truly amazed of what sillyness etc. religious people, especially organized religious people claim be able to do. Somehow all of this seems to stem from one place: The US of A. No, people do not get well from snake bites, because they stare at a cross, no people who loses blood need bloodtransfusions, not prayers, no creationists haven't gotten it right, the (natural) scientists have. And no, people do not grow gold teeths just because they pray for it. I don't why, but it seems to me that much of this sillyness (in religions etc.) do come from the US.

And you what: I really don't care what other people believe, as long as other people aren't harmed by their beliefs. Then I do care, a great deal. Children shouldn't go without medical aid, just because some religius nutjobs think so.
And you may quote me on that (of you ever need to ;) but I doubt it :p)

Faithkills

27th July 2007, 02:05 PM

Admittedly the USA has lots of woo's but I think the Vatican has the patent on miracles.

"Vatican, when you absolutely have to heal every ***** in the room, except no substitutes"
Attempt to subvert the auto sensor removed

articulett

27th July 2007, 05:52 PM

Wait.. lies are bad? Assuming they are lying, what if Articulett and Qayak truely believe what they are saying, as I suspect they do? Doesn't that make it ok? Doesn't that make it not a lie?

Well, it's a good thing I have him on ignore. I think he's insane. Does anyone think I'm more of a liar than TA or religion? I think you have to play some mighty semantic twistings to call me a liar... this silliness that I said ALL religion is just so irrelevant as well as a mistatement as evidenced by his links.

I do find it interesting that the most dishonest and defensive people are the first to call other liars over opinions while ignoring actual factual lies. Thankfully, I don't think I've been called a liar by anyone I find particularly honest... just the loons... and what else are they going to do when they don't have actual facts to support their delusions? As I said before, Haggard calls Dawkins a liar. The woos are strikingly good at noticing the sawdust in anothers' eye while failing to see the log in their own. They are excellent at diversion and demonization of those who call them on their inanity as well.

Since they think that to say "religion is bad" means that a person is saying ALL religion is bad, then we can assume that when they are defending religion, they are defending ALL religion no matter how vile --per their own tangential overgeneralization theory where mentioning anything about religion applies to all religion equally. The stupid overgeneralization this inane poll is about... all to help TA prove an imaginary point about his own imagined superior morality. And all of this to avoid the fact that religions are lies proffered as higher truths. He will not or cannot discuss this topic without demonizing those who say as much.

qayak

27th July 2007, 06:42 PM

I suggest Burundi, Angola, Brasil, Italy, Spain.

Well, Brazil accounts for 1/3 of all people living with HIV/AIDS in Latin America. So, I guess a lot of people don't listen to the pope.

Do you suppose Brazil's success can be attributed to the adherence of people to the pope's admonishment to not have sex outside of marriage or do you suppose it is more likely that it is the money the Brazilian government has committed to the problem including : "Under Brazil’s policy of providing antiretroviral drugs to all in need, people with advanced HIV infection are eligible for antiretroviral drugs via the country’s national health system."

And remember what I said about condom use being very important? Well, read on:

"While the percentage of young people who are sexually active in Brazil changed little between 1998 and 2005, condom use rates increased dramatically—by more than one third among 15-24 year-old men and women. Among Brazilians of all ages, condom use ncreased by almost 50% during the same period."

As well, El Salvador is a catholic country and it has one of the highest HIV rates.

I think your theories on AIDS being controlled by the pope and his teachings on sex only with marriage and condoms causing HIV/AIDS, are baseless.

Herzblut

27th July 2007, 07:55 PM

"While the percentage of young people who are sexually active in Brazil changed little between 1998 and 2005, condom use rates increased dramatically—by more than one third among 15-24 year-old men and women. Among Brazilians of all ages, condom use ncreased by almost 50% during the same period."

This clearly refutes your speculations! Where the hell is the pope's evil influence in the biggest catholic country in the world? Brazil's prevalence rate is lower then the US' one. Highest infection rates are found in injecting drug users. The pope?

As well, El Salvador is a catholic country and it has one of the highest HIV rates.

Prevalence or infection rates? What causes the infections?

I think your theories on AIDS being controlled by the pope and his teachings on sex only with marriage and condoms causing HIV/AIDS, are baseless.

I have not mentioned such theories. You are the one speculating that the pope has a desastrous impact on the fight against HIV/AIDS. You have not at all proved this. Brazil stands against you. Latin American prevalence rates range in the area 0.X% where X<5.

1.6 million people in Latin America have to live with the virus compared to 25 million people in sub-Saharan Africa and 8 million in Asia, 2/3 of them in just one country, India. India's prevalence rate is approx. twice as high as Brazil's. The pope again?

Please check Burundi and Angola which starkly refute you.

Proove that catholical countries in Europe (Italy, Spain) are worse than other countries in Europe due to the Pope's negative impact.

Herzblut

articulett

27th July 2007, 08:02 PM

Admittedly the USA has lots of woo's but I think the Vatican has the patent on miracles.

"Vatican, when you absolutely have to heal every motherfkucer in the room, except no substitutes"

But Americans are home of the creationist woo--creation museums, speaking in tongues, white supremacist/religion combos-- a president who believes in "teaching the controversy" (as if there was one)... Fred Phelps... Regent University... candidates who don't accept evolution...

The notion that faith is necessary for salvation and "good" is a frequently used meme in human history-- but the U.S. has the most virulent and embarrassing forms of it, I fear. The stupid spawn more... passing on their stupid memes and genes in the process.

Of course Muslims countries are even more extreme with their creationism, misogyny, Sharia laws, stonings, and other much scarier nuttiness.

On the bright side, we've produced some top notch scientists and Dawkins' and Hitchens' and Harris' books have all been recent best sellers in the U.S.

qayak

27th July 2007, 08:46 PM

This clearly refutes your speculations! Where the hell is the pope's evil influence in the biggest catholic country in the world? Brazil's prevalence rate is lower then the US' one. Highest infection rates are found in injecting drug users. The pope?

Actually, it says the highest rate is found in men having unprotected sex (not using condoms) with other men.

The pope's influence is quite simple. First, condoms greatly reduce the risk of being infected. Second, the pope lied to his followers and told them that condoms do not reduce the risk but they, in fact, cause infection.

Because of his position of authority, if one person doesn't use a condom because of the popes advice, he is responsible for their being infected.

Now, suppose this is a god fearing catholic woman who gets infected by her husband. Suppose it is a god fearing catholic woman who also gets pregnant and passes the disease along to her unborn child.

What causes the infections?

It certainly isn't condom use as the pope would have us believe.

I have not mentioned such theories. You are the one speculating that the pope has a desastrous impact on the fight against HIV/AIDS. You have not at all proved this. Brazil stands against you. Latin American prevalence rates range in the area 0.X% where X<5.

You stated that the catholic countries had the lowest rates. That is true as long as you cherry pick your evidence and ignore the programs set up by the governments of the countries you mention.

1.6 million people in Latin America have to live with the virus compared to 25 million people in sub-Saharan Africa and 8 million in Asia, 2/3 of them in just one country, India. India's prevalence rate is approx. twice as high as Brazil's. The pope again?

You're the one that brought up Brazil and made outrageous and unsupported claims. You have committed so many errors of logic it is beyond hope that you will ever realize that what the pope did is completely unethical and immoral. Holding the catholic church up as a moral beacon is laughable. The leadership is about as good for the followers as the leadership of the Taliban is for suicide bombers.

Please check Burundi and Angola which starkly refute you.

They do not refute anything. You make the same errors with those numbers. Have we checked to see if Botswana is a catholic country? Let's do that shall we?

Ooooooooh! Look at this: "The two most active and popular churches are now the Zion Christian Church (both Star and Dove branches), based in South Africa, among the working class, and the Roman Catholics among the middle class. There are also numerous other small Zionist and Apostolic churches in rural villages, as well as United Reformed (Congregational & Methodist), Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist and Anglican churches, and predominantly expatriate Muslim, Quaker, Hindu and Bahai congregations in major towns."

That blows your idea right out of the water. Catholic countries do not have trhe lowest rates.

Proove that catholical countries in Europe (Italy, Spain) are worse than other countries in Europe due to the Pope's negative impact.

It's not about whether one country is worse than another. We already know there are differences from area to area. The issue is whether the pope's words led to one person who would otherwise not be infected with this terrible disease, was infected because of the pope's blatant lies.

Draw your own conclusions.

Herzblut

27th July 2007, 09:36 PM

Actually, it says the highest rate is found in men having unprotected sex (not using condoms) with other men.

Page 42 of the WHO Overview document says about Brazil:

However, the highest HIV infection levels are still being found in injecting drug users.

Furthermore, i don't know what the RCC says about condom usage for gay sex, it dislikes gay sex overall. The RCC's notion towards condoms is based upon its fundamental decline of all kinds of contraceptives, which is obviously nonrelevant for gay sex.

Because of his position of authority, if one person doesn't use a condom because of the popes advice, he is responsible for their being infected.

Repeated nonsense. I explained to you that people being non-abstinent have no reason to obey the pope in the condom question. Anything else is absurd.

You stated that the catholic countries had the lowest rates.

I didn't state anything like that. You threw up the bashing statement that

With one stupid statement he (da papa) did irrepairable damage to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

I only asked for evidence. You cannot deliver it.

That is true as long as you cherry pick your evidence and ignore the programs set up by the governments of the countries you mention.

You asked me to mention countries! Look for other countries on your own to provide evidence for your claim.

You're the one that brought up Brazil and made outrageous and unsupported claims.

I didn't make any claim. I just explained that Brazil does not support your claim at all.

You have committed so many errors of logic it is beyond hope that you will ever realize that what the pope did is completely unethical and immoral.

I couldn't care less about what you think of moral. Provide facts and data to support your monstrous claim.

They do not refute anything. You make the same errors with those numbers. Have we checked to see if Botswana is a catholic country? Let's do that shall we?

I did this, you ignored it. Bostwana is not catholic but has desastrous HIV/AIDS stats. Better read my posts before you make a clown of yourself.

Ooooooooh! Look at this: "The two most active and popular churches are now the Zion Christian Church (both Star and Dove branches), based in South Africa, among the working class, and the Roman Catholics among the middle class.

South Africa is more a protestant country due to its history. Check the basics. The crisis in South Africa has been caused i.e. by the ignorant government and the extremely patriarchal society, again.

That blows your idea right out of the water. Catholic countries do not have trhe lowest rates.

I say they don't have higher rates than other countries. Prove me wrong - good luck! - or your massive accusation against the pope goes down the drain.

Draw your own conclusions.

You give up? You're refuted. Whenever you repeat your accusation

With one stupid statement he (the pope) did irrepairable damage to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

I will remind you.

Herzblut

qayak

27th July 2007, 09:46 PM

The RCC's notion towards condoms is based upon its fundamental decline of all kinds of contraceptives, which is obviously nonrelevant for gay sex.

In this context, condoms are not contraception, they are a barrier against disease.

The pope is a lying, unethical, immoral, sorry excuse for a human being who heads up an organization with a long history of atrocities and barbarism against the indigenous people it encountered around the world.

Herzblut

27th July 2007, 09:55 PM

The pope is a lying, unethical, immoral, sorry excuse for a human being who heads up an organization with a long history of atrocities and barbarism against the indigenous people it encountered around the world.
Shrieking is no substitute for evidence.

H.

quixotecoyote

27th July 2007, 10:18 PM

Gosh, what historical revisionism are you going to pull out your butt that denies Catholic involvement in the plunder and reshaping of Latin America

qayak

27th July 2007, 10:48 PM

Here's an interesting document. If you will notice, in the section on prevention, I have highlighted the guideline relevent to condom use. I have also highlighted the section on raising awareness because any catholic organization would be unable to meet these obligations if they followed the directives of their leader.

Just so you know, civil society includes faith based organizations and many have signed the agreement including some Catholic organizations.

NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION HIV/AIDS CODE OF PRACTICE: PROGRAMMING PRINCIPLES*

Cross-cutting issues

■ Our HIV/AIDS programmes are integrated to reach and meet the diverse needs of people living with HIV and affected communities.
■ Our HIV/AIDS programmes raise awareness and build the capacity of communities to respond to HIV/AIDS.
■ We advocate for an enabling environment that protects and promotes the rights of people living with HIV and affected communities and supports effective HIV/AIDS programmes. Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT)
■ We provide and/or advocate for voluntary counselling and testing services that are accessible and confidential.

HIV prevention

■ We provide and/or advocate for comprehensive HIV prevention programmes to meet the variety of needs of individuals and communities.
■ Our HIV prevention programmes enable individuals to develop the skills to protect themselves and/or others from HIV infection.
■ Our HIV prevention programmes ensure that individuals have access to and information about the use of commodities to prevent HIV infection.
■ We provide and/or advocate for comprehensive harm reduction programmes for people who inject drugs.

Treatment, care and support

■ We provide and/or advocate for comprehensive treatment, care and support programmes.
■ We enable people living with HIV and affected communities to meet their treatment, care and support needs.

Addressing stigma and discrimination

■ We enable people living with HIV and affected communities to understand their rights and respond to discrimination and its consequences.
■ We monitor and respond to systemic discrimination.
■ We enable communities to understand and address HIV/AIDS-related stigma.
■ We foster partnerships with human rights institutions, legal services and unions to promote and protect the human rights of people living with HIV and affected communities.

Source: Nongovernmental organization HIV/AIDS Code of Practice Project, 2004.
*The Code was developed jointly by ActionAid International, CARE USA, the Global Health
Council, the Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (GNP), Grupo Pela Vidda, the
Hong Kong AIDS Foundation, the International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO),
the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Harm
Reduction Association, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance and the World Council of Churches.