All Religion is Bad.

[The Atheist]

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]

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]

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]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10377455a93eabb360.gif[/qimg]

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]

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]

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]

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.



How's that poll going?

 

[qayak]

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.



How's that poll going?

Have you apologized for your lies yet?

 

[qayak]

Makes no nevermind to me. . .

It has been blatantly apparent that truth makes no never mind to you.

 

[c4ts]

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]

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

qayak! Where is your evidence?

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

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]

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]

...the pope will not retract his words. He is supposed to be infallable ...

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]

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!

 

[mijopaalmc]

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!

Did he speak ex cathedra on the matter?

Ex cathedra statements are the only infallible statements.

 

[Wheezebucket]

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]

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]

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! ) 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]

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.