Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[Meadmaker]

Typical poor reasoning and dishonest tactics from you.

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

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

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

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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

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

 

[elliotfc]

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

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

Condoms block HIV. Jesus does not.

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

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

-Elliot

 

[Meadmaker]

For the last time ...

Promises, promises.

 

[I less than three logic]

Now, you can also get AIDS by not fornicating, but fornication is at the root (cheating spouse, etc).

Well, sex is not the only way to contract HIV, just the most common. One’s spouse doesn't necessarily need to cheat in order to pass the virus on to you. Just a nit pick though.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Promises, promises.

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

"God loves you."

"Then why is there AIDS?"

"Um. . ."

 

[Freethinker]

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

"God loves you."

"Then why is there AIDS?"

"Um. . ."

To punish the sinful, perverted homosexuals of course!

 

[Meadmaker]

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

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

 

[Complexity]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[elliotfc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

 

[Complexity]

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

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

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

-Elliot

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

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

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

I am not merely getting things off of my chest.

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

 

[elliotfc]

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough.

I am not merely getting things off of my chest.

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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

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

 

[elliotfc]

Say what? Atheists /= nihilists and fatalists.

I didn't say they were necessarily those things.

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I didn't say they were necessarily those things.

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

You said:

You could theorize that without religion you'd have many more fatalists and nihilists, particularly in positions of authority.

Just a momment ago.

 

[elliotfc]

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

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

 

[Complexity]

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

 

[Beth]

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

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

 

[Complexity]

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

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

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

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