All Religion is Bad.

[qayak]

What you just applauded is what articulett and qayak (and I) have been saying from the beginning. No one has argued that no religions do some good.

He missed this in the other thread and, 340 posts into this one, he still doesn't get it. He's the new shining example of obtuse.

 

[The Atheist]

He missed this in the other thread and, 340 posts into this one, he still doesn't get it. He's the new shining example of obtuse.

Uh, no. That's always been my position.

I've already posted four or five times your own quote that all religion is bad and does harm.

Would you like me to post it again? Or are you changing your opinion at this late juncture. As you rightly point out, around 800 posts and you obviously still have no idea what you said. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[qayak]

Uh, no. That's always been my position.

I've already posted four or five times your own quote that all religion is bad and does harm.

Would you like me to post it again? Or are you changing your opinion at this late juncture. As you rightly point out, around 800 posts and you obviously still have no idea what you said. Ignorance is bliss.

And I clarified that to say that I was not talking about individual acts or aspects but about each religion as a whole which, by the way, is why I keep asking for you to name a good religion.

You created a position you wanted to argue against and it has been quite bizarre watching you do so.

 

[articulett]

And I clarified that to say that I was not talking about individual acts or aspects but about each religion as a whole which, by the way, is why I keep asking for you to name a good religion.

You created a position you wanted to argue against and it has been quite bizarre watching you do so.

His whole silly poll was because he thinks that if anyone says anything about religion, they are saying all religion is all bad and all harmful all the time. You can't say anything bad about religion around an apologist without them doing this eternal "holier than thou" tapdance to vilify the person criticizing religion rather than this huge paradigm where people are told that faith is good-- even necessary, for salvation...--where scientific ignorance is seen as something worthy of eternal salvation.! Religion is about people claiming to have "higher truths" without an iota of evidence in support of those truths. But every time someone tries to point that out, the apologists rush in to play semantic games and pretend that you said "ALL religions are bad and harmful" or anything else-- anything to avoid the actual words and the actual topic.

Is there any reason to think there are such things as "higher truths" or something you are supposed to "believe" to live happily ever after? No. Then that makes religion the biggest profferer of lies disguised as "higher truths". I don't care if some are less bad and some don't make such claims and other state their claims as belief... I don't care if most people don't feel harmed-- I care about the fact that mass ignorance is being spread as though it's necessary or good or moral to do so. The only people it's good for, is the people empowered by manipulating others with such beliefs.

And pretending you are moral for sticking up for the LIE like TA does is repulsive. But it's just as religious societies indoctrinate people to do.

 

[The Atheist]

And I clarified that to say that I was not talking about individual acts or aspects but about each religion as a whole which, by the way, is why I keep asking for you to name a good religion.

You created a position you wanted to argue against and it has been quite bizarre watching you do so.

So, you've given up defending your idiotic position and now resorting to lying about what you said? Nice. I confirmed and re-confirmed what you meant. I presume you now wish to change your argument. The position was created by you alone.

Let me just post it for the fifth time:

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

Have you been taking lessons from Unter? You're stuck in your own mire. Harden up and accept it.


While you're at it, ceo_esq is looking for your proof of the pope stating that condoms cause AIDS. Unless you'd like to retract that as well.

Here's your post claiming it:

Have you seen what "The Rat" is up to? Evolution is out, intelligent design is in, etc. Isn't the catholic church the one that believes Jesus was born through immaculate conception? (Lie) ... That condoms cause AIDS? ...

(bolding mine)

Better luck completely failing to find evidence to back that garbage up this time - you've already failed miserably once, what the hell, make yourself look like an idiot again.

Two for the price of one.

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry, almost forgot.

Thanks again for keeping bumping the poll - a lot of people have voted and I note the "false" is starting to pull right away now. I'd pay a large amount to know how many buddies were pulled in to vote "true" here. Mea culpa, I should have put an open poll up. That initial burst of fundies voting "true" would have been quite revealing, I think.

 

[qayak]

So, you've given up defending your idiotic position and now resorting to lying about what you said? Nice. I confirmed and re-confirmed what you meant. I presume you now wish to change your argument. The position was created by you alone.

Let me just post it for the fifth time:

One would think that after the fifth time you would get it right but your stupidity seems to have no end. Not the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?

Run Forrest, Run!

 

[articulett]

One would think that after the fifth time you would get it right but your stupidity seems to have no end. Not the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?

Run Forrest, Run!

Was he talking to me? I put him on ignore after he cut and pasted things where he claimed you and I said "all religion is bad" where we did not (except in his insane brain.) In his head anyone who criticizes religion means ALL religion, but anyone who is an apologist is not an apologist for ALL religions, I guess.

 

[qayak]

Not like we didn't know this before but another study shows the folly of abstinence only programs in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070803/hl_nm/abstinence_hiv_dc

"In contrast to abstinence only programs, programs that promote the use of condoms greatly reduce the risk of acquiring HIV, especially when such programs are culturally tailored behavioral interventions targeting people at highest risk of HIV infection," Dr. Stephen E. Hawes, from the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues note in a relate editorial.

From the British Medical Journal: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/335/7613/217

 

[ceo_esq]

Ceo-esq:
First, I did not state that Pope Benedict said condoms causes AIDS

No one said that you stated that Pope Benedict said condoms cause AIDS. Qayak stated that Pope Benedict said condoms cause AIDS:

[The pope] further stated that it was the condom CAUSING the infection.

(emphasis in original)

 

[T'ai Chi]

But how did you fabricate the idea that I was a Christian?

If you have a point to make that goes against theirs, however small, and a *gasp* debate ensues, they'll call you a fundamentalist, Creationist, or something of the sort.

And it doesn't matter if you've never held those beliefs in your entire life.

That is their level of honesty and intelligence.

 

[ceo_esq]

I don't care if the words came directly out of his mouth or not--but the church forbids the use of condoms.

I'm just throwing this out for consideration here, but does it not make sense to take a somewhat more holistic view of the Church's sexual teachings? The Church has always promoted one and only one model of sexual behavior at the expense of all others, and that is that only married people should have sex, and then only with their respective spouses (of whom there should never be more than one), and then only without artificial contraception (which is actually the least important of the conditions). Query whether harping on the fact that the Church discourages the use of condoms conveys a slightly misleading picture, in some respects as though an anti-automobile campaign were attacked chiefly for its opposition to the use of safety belts. I have some difficulty refuting the notion that if the model of sexuality that the Church proposes were heeded, the incidence of sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS would be reduced.

 

[Herzblut]

If you have a point to make that goes against theirs, however small, and a *gasp* debate ensues, they'll call you a fundamentalist, Creationist, or something of the sort.

And it doesn't matter if you've never held those beliefs in your entire life.

That is their level of honesty and intelligence.

Right, some (not all) users behave in such a weird way. The term "apologist" seems to be fed by the same kind of screwed thinking.

It's arguably something like an appeal to authority and a poissoning of the well. In any case a person's religion is completely irrelevant for the validity of the person's argument at hand.

This is all well-known, self-evident stuff in the area of skeptical thinking. Thus, those blamers cannot be called skeptics by all reasonable definitions of the term skeptic.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

I'm just throwing this out for consideration here, but does it not make sense to take a somewhat more holistic view of the Church's sexual teachings? The Church has always promoted one and only one model of sexual behavior at the expense of all others, and that is that only married people should have sex, and then only with their respective spouses (of whom there should never be more than one), and then only without artificial contraception (which is actually the least important of the conditions). Query whether harping on the fact that the Church discourages the use of condoms conveys a slightly misleading picture, in some respects as though an anti-automobile campaign were attacked chiefly for its opposition to the use of safety belts. I have some difficulty refuting the notion that if the model of sexuality that the Church proposes were heeded, the incidence of sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS would be reduced.

Tell us what you mean by "holistic"? Given the perception of holistic on this web site and my understanding of the word I'm not likely to agree with you on those grounds alone.

That said, there is little argument that proscriptions of abstinence and fidelity have potential benefits for familial cohesion and health. One can't acquire STD's easily if at all if one remains celibate until married and monogamous after.

The problem, IMO, is that these proscriptions given the weight of peer pressure and the undue importance and condemnation for failure to follow the rules worse than the negative aspects of sexual immorality.

Such religious prohibitions on sex have brought a great deal of misery, loss of freedom and death. I can't find a reasonable justification for them especially when we understand that in the long run they do little to actually reduce fornication and adultery.

 

[ceo_esq]

Tell us what you mean by "holistic"? Given the perception of holistic on this web site and my understanding of the word I'm not likely to agree with you on those grounds alone.

I mean the word in a sense along the lines of:

-Concerned with wholes or complete systems rather than analysis or separation into parts
-Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

(Thanks to Dictionary.com for help.)

 

[Herzblut]

FYI, excerpts from a spiked-online article.

Did the Pope spread AIDS in Africa?

The evidence is less than compelling.

The most striking thing about these articles claiming the Vatican makes Africans die from AIDS is the dearth of factual material. ... Is the incidence of AIDS higher in Catholic countries in Africa than in non-Catholic countries? Are a majority of AIDS victims in Africa observant Catholics? How are the Pope’s eccentric edicts on condoms relayed on the ground in Africa, and what do Africans think of them?

None of that is interrogated. It is simply asserted that the Pope says something about condoms and - boom! - another few thousand get AIDS.

A cursory glance at the incidence of AIDS in various African countries suggests that things are more complex than some of these Vatican-attackers allow. According to the AIDS charity Avert, southern African countries have the highest national adult HIV prevalence rate (7). The two worst-hit countries (not only in Africa, but the world) are Swaziland, where the rate is 38.8 per cent, and Botswana, where it is 37.3 per cent. Yet these countries have low numbers of practising Catholics: in Swaziland, between 10 and 20 per cent of the population is Catholic, while 40 per cent are Zionist (a blend of Christianity and indigenous ancestral worship) and 10 per cent are Muslim; in Botswana fewer than 5 per cent are Catholic, with 85 per cent of the population subscribing to ancient indigenous beliefs.

In South Africa, Avert says the HIV infection rate is around 20 per cent. South Africa is one of Africa’s more secularised nations; .. only around 7 per cent of the population are Catholic.

One idea that these anti-Pope radicals refuse to entertain is that perhaps some Africans choose not to use condoms.

Perhaps the lack of condom-use is not a consequence of Africans being in thrall to Vatican edicts, but because they are equally not in thrall to the population control lobby, those NGOs, charities and commentators who would have us believe that Africa’s problem is primarily one of there being too many black babies around. If it is absurd for the Vatican to depict the condom as evil, it is equally absurd for others to describe it as Africa’s saviour.

Apparently, we are told, therein lies the rub - Africans are not as clued up as the rest of us and therefore are more likely to believe the lies that the rest of us can see through.

Whisper it: Africans are gullible, fickle, easily led astray by wicked men and incapable of working out for themselves what a condom does and doesn’t do. Indeed, the only reason you could believe the fantastically simplistic idea that Vatican edict = AIDS in Africa is if you consider Africans to be little more than automatons (or God’s little children) who do as they are told.

Yet Africans do many things (such as sleeping with prostitutes, ...) that Vatican officials frown upon. It turns out that some of the Vatican’s critics have prejudices as objectionable as those of Vatican cronies.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1125/

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

I mean the word in a sense along the lines of:

-Concerned with wholes or complete systems rather than analysis or separation into parts
-Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

(Thanks to Dictionary.com for help.)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the definition. It's a throw away definition. Simply stating that one's approach is concerned with the complete system tells us absolutely nothing. I want my entire car to run right. My mechanic wants my entire car to run right. However, after running a complete diagnostics on my car she finds that the fuel pump is broken. If she fixes the fuel pump and tells me to monitor the fluid levels and check the air pressure in my tires and other preventative measures can it be said that her approach is not holistic? A doctor who sets my broken bone and then councils me on preventative medicine would also be "holistic" right?

In any event, how is monogamy holistic? A woman can still develop a yeast infection and pass it to her husband (and vice versa though to a much smaller degree). Monogamous couples can still pass many pathogens that are not typically known as sexually transmitted through sexual contact. Aids in many parts of the world is an epidemic and health experts tell us that what you call holistic isn't a realistic approach to stop the spread the AIDs and might actually exasperate problems.

 

[RandFan]

Whisper it: Africans are gullible, fickle, easily led astray by wicked men and incapable of working out for themselves what a condom does and doesn’t do. Indeed, the only reason you could believe the fantastically simplistic idea that Vatican edict = AIDS in Africa is if you consider Africans to be little more than automatons (or God’s little children) who do as they are told.

Yet Africans do many things (such as sleeping with prostitutes, ...) that Vatican officials frown upon. It turns out that some of the Vatican’s critics have prejudices as objectionable as those of Vatican cronies.

Ad hominem argument.

In many areas where aids in epidemic there is ignorance. Many believe that raping a virgin can cure them of aids.This ignorance is not an inherent property of the citizens. It is simply the state that the currently find themselves. Any of us could easily be in the same state.

The article does nothing to shed any light on the problem.

 

[Herzblut]

Ad hominem argument.

In many areas where aids in epidemic there is ignorance. Many believe that raping a virgin can cure them of aids.This ignorance is not an inherent property of the citizens. It is simply the state that the currently find themselves. Any of us could easily be in the same state.

The article does nothing to shed any light on the problem.

Yes it does. It convincingly refutes the fantastically simplistic idea that Vatican edict = AIDS in Africa and consequently denies the naive plan that by just having the Vatican change its policy all will be good and fine. It says the problem is much more complex than that and a more holistic view on the HIV/AIDS situation is required. You don't seem to agree.

Herzblut

 

[The Atheist]

Aids in many parts of the world is an epidemic and health experts tell us that what you call holistic isn't a realistic approach to stop the spread the AIDs and might actually exasperate problems.

*Methinks you mean exacerbate rather than exasperate! The latter applies to Arti, but not the issue.

Grammar Stalin mode off!

Just one question here - how could celibacy and monogamy possibly do anything other than reduce AIDS? While I agree that the idea of monogamy and celibacy is totally unrealistic, there's no question that if it were implemented, new infections would stop. I've always seen opposition to the RCC's stance based around its unlikelihood, not that it wouldn't work.