All Religion is Bad.

[The Atheist]

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! ) 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]

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]

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]

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]

I note that no posts have been quoted to show where I have lied. Mainly because none exist.

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!

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!

When utterly routed, finish with ad hominem.

I don't know what your damage is but see my earlier response.

 

[Wolfman]

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]

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]

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.

 

[qayak]

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]

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".

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.

 

[articulett]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Edited by Miss Anthrope: 

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]

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]

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 )

 

[Faithkills]

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"

Edited by Miss Anthrope: 

Attempt to subvert the auto sensor removed

 

[articulett]

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]

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.