All Religion is Bad.

[RandFan]

They must stop. Why are you asking such weird questions?

Herzblut

Why do you think that the question is weird?

 

[Herzblut]

Why do you think that the question is weird?

Because the answer is self-evident. If the impact of the RCC on people within a society turns out to increase overall HIV infections, the church needs to change its attitude.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

Because the answer is self-evident. If the impact of the RCC on people within a society turns out to increase overall HIV infections, the church needs to change its attitude.

Herzblut

I'm likely confusing you with CEO, sorry.

 

[Herzblut]

I'm likely confusing you with CEO, sorry.

Well, do you have any evidence for the damaging impact of the RCC? I don't.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

Well, do you have any evidence for the damaging impact of the RCC? I don't.

Herzblut

I think you are employing cognitive dissonance here.

We know empirically that abstiance only education is less scucesful than comprehensive programs.
The Church's position is counter to those programs.
The Church has considered their policies on condoms, why?

I think that there is a profound sillyness that stone age sensibilities make a sin of modern tecnology that has proven to work. JMO. I concede that it rhetorical and is proof of nothing.

 

[ceo_esq]

?

No, they WOULD be responsible. Of course.

I thought it was relatively apparent from that hypothetical that the anti-car campaigners could not reasonably be held responsible for increased highway deaths. If I guess we just disagree there.

She may very well bear some responsibility. If she knows that her husband is likely to cheat on her with someone of a high risk group then she should leave or tolerate the condom. Absolutely. I see that as a no brainier. I'm not sure why you chose that analogy.

I chose it because it was prompted by your mention that the Church could be responsible for a man not having a condom in his wallet at the moment he decides to do something the Church strongly urges him not to do. I thought that the analogy would help you realize the absence of a valid basis for responsibility. Again, it is apparent to me that the consequences of the husband's act in no way should rest on the wife's conscience. I suppose this comes down to our fundamental disagreement once more.

If the church is entirely incapable of controlling behavior then why doesn't the church simply pack it in.

What makes you think the Church sees controlling people's behavior as its mission?

I never said the church was incapable of controlling conduct and I have no idea where you pulled that idea from.

I didn't say that you said the Church was incapable of controlling conduct. I noted that you suggested it was capable of doing so.

(I'm amazed you don't call me on my claims. I assume you know I'm right and don't want to call me on it, right).

I don't know that you're right, but so far I don't think we need reach that determination yet, because I think that even if your characterization of statistics is basically correct it does not result in a valid argument that the Church may reasonably be held culpable for the consequences of free individual actions that it in fact advises against.

You are conflating two different responsibilities. That individuals bear responsibility for their choices does not release a civic organization from separate ethical and moral responsibility. I'm surprised you would try and make that argument.

I'm not sure how we can apportion more than 100% of the liability. I have assumed you mean to shift some portion of the liability onto the Church.

We know that abstinance only programs result in increased pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Regardless of the Church's intent we know that they are making the problem worse.

Worse than what? Worse than if the Church did not exist? Worse than if the Church had no position on sexuality at all?

Also, I query whether we ought to consider the Church's universal moral teachings on sexuality assimilable to a "program" of the sort that has been previously studied. That seems reductive to me. Before looking further into that, however, I will endeavor to review some of the previously linked sources.

When you use terms like holistic it makes it sound like a program that is NOT comprehensive is comprehensive.

...

I understand. The "approach" is not comprehensive. The "approach" does not include teaching safe sex which is shown to be an effective method to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

By "approach" I did not mean the Church's program, or anyone's program, for reducing STDs. I meant our approach - yours and mine, among others - to this discussion right here in this thread - our way of critiquing the Church's teaching. Nothing to do with whether the Church's program itself is comprehensive, or what have you.

Here's why I think you haven't understood yet. You keep saying things like "holistic it makes it sound like a program that is NOT comprehensive is comprehensive" ... well, I wasn't applying that adjective to any program, so why does it make any program sound comprehensive? Or you'll say "The 'approach' does not include teaching safe sex ..." - well, why would our approach to analyzing a contrary position (independent of subject-matter, really) include us teaching safe sex in this thread? Do you see why I would infer from these comments that you still think, mistakenly, that I meant to suggest that the Church's anti-STD program was holistic (which would have meant something much different)?

 

[Fnord]

Let's just blame religion for everything wrong with the world and close the thread.

Just remember that Religion is the political expression of Faith. If Religion were banned, then we'd have to blame politicians, and we all know that every one of them is working diligently in our best interests.

( ... yeah ... me neither ... )

 

[Civilized Worm]

I just thought this would be a good place for my 666th post.

 

[The Atheist]

I just thought this would be a good place for my 666th post.

Highly appropriate! You've obviously read your Atheism Handbook.

Pity about those post numbers. I always thought it would be nice if the numbers rose in one's total, but stayed the same as when posted, in the thread.

Still. You have recorded it for posterity, and in case Unter, or some equally rabid evidentiarist asks you for evidence, you will be able to display this:

 

[Civilized Worm]

Ta!

 

[RandFan]

ETA: I call fallacy on myself. My incredulity is neither here nor there. Sorry.

I thought it was relatively apparent from that hypothetical that the anti-car campaigners could not reasonably be held responsible for increased highway deaths. If I guess we just disagree there.

For the life of me I'm not sure why you think this. We will have to disagree. If I give bad directives to someone who sees me as an authority then I should be held, to a degree, culpable.

I chose it because it was prompted by your mention that the Church could be responsible for a man not having a condom in his wallet at the moment he decides to do something the Church strongly urges him not to do. I thought that the analogy would help you realize the absence of a valid basis for responsibility. Again, it is apparent to me that the consequences of the husband's act in no way should rest on the wife's conscience. I suppose this comes down to our fundamental disagreement once more.

Again, not a clue why it is obvious to you. A woman has a responsility to protect herself. If she knows that there is danger then she should mitigate that danger. Why is that a difficult proposition?

What makes you think the Church sees controlling people's behavior as its mission?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's all of the rules. Maybe it's the threat of ETERNAL DAMNATION they hand out WITH those rules.

I don't know that you're right, but so far I don't think we need reach that determination yet, because I think that even if your characterization of statistics is basically correct it does not result in a valid argument that the Church may reasonably be held culpable for the consequences of free individual actions that it in fact advises against.

I can't for the life of me see why the church wouldn't be responsible. Not "solely" responsible. Ultimatly, moral free agents (humans) are responsible for making decisions. However responsibility can be shared and an individual in a position of authority that has the ability to direct behavior is respsonsible, to a point, for that behavior. That's a no brainer. Perhaps the responsibility is simply moral. Do you believe that the Church believes that they (the Church) has moral responsibility for the health and well being of its memebers?

I'm not sure how we can apportion more than 100% of the liability. I have assumed you mean to shift some portion of the liability onto the Church.

Did I say more than a 100%? No, the share some portion of the liability. Of course. I think the church could be legaly and civily responsible under some circumstances but I concede that I'm not a lawyer and will not assert such responsibility. Moral responsibility on the other hand, no question about it. I don't know how much but absolutely.

Worse than what? Worse than if the Church did not exist? Worse than if the Church had no position on sexuality at all?

Could be worse that if the Church did not exist. I think that is a real possibility. I honestly don't know. There are simply far too many variables. Worse than if the Church stessed abstinence, monogomy and provided the truth about condoms and did not make using them a sin. No question.

Also, I query whether we ought to consider the Church's universal moral teachings on sexuality assimilable to a "program" of the sort that has been previously studied. That seems reductive to me. Before looking further into that, however, I will endeavor to review some of the previously linked sources.

In the end it is the bottom line that counts. If you don't want to call it a "program" then I don't care. That's a semantical argument. I only care that the actions of the Church have consequences.

By "approach" I did not mean the Church's program, or anyone's program, for reducing STDs. I meant our approach - yours and mine, among others - to this discussion right here in this thread - our way of critiquing the Church's teaching. Nothing to do with whether the Church's program itself is comprehensive, or what have you.

Here's why I think you haven't understood yet. You keep saying things like "holistic it makes it sound like a program that is NOT comprehensive is comprehensive" ... well, I wasn't applying that adjective to any program, so why does it make any program sound comprehensive? Or you'll say "The 'approach' does not include teaching safe sex ..." - well, why would our approach to analyzing a contrary position (independent of subject-matter, really) include us teaching safe sex in this thread? Do you see why I would infer from these comments that you still think, mistakenly, that I meant to suggest that the Church's anti-STD program was holistic (which would have meant something much different)?

I'm sorry but I'm so tired of this argument.

You are making a comparison beteen two postions, let's call them "A" and "B". I don't care what they are. For the purposes of this discussion I only note that one is labled holistic and the other not. We can strip away "comprehensive" or "program" or "position' or anything else. A vs B. Got it?

To label one holistic and the other not is to tell us nothing. It is to say nothing. Further it lends a an air of superiority to one postion that is simply not deserved.

The word only clouds the issue. It does not clarify anything.

Save it for someone else.

 

[RandFan]

Let's just blame religion for everything wrong with the world and close the thread.

Just remember that Religion is the political expression of Faith. If Religion were banned, then we'd have to blame politicians, and we all know that every one of them is working diligently in our best interests.

( ... yeah ... me neither ... )

I've got a better idea. How about we discuss and debate the issues in a market place of ideas using logic and reason and avoiding fallacy and rhetoric?

Oh, wait, that's offensive, perhaps we should ban discussion and debate.

Right back at ya.

 

[The Atheist]

....and avoiding fallacy and rhetoric?

What? You want to stop me posting entirely?

 

[ceo_esq]

I can't for the life of me see why the church wouldn't be responsible. Not "solely" responsible. Ultimatly, moral free agents (humans) are responsible for making decisions. However responsibility can be shared and an individual in a position of authority that has the ability to direct behavior is respsonsible, to a point, for that behavior. That's a no brainer. Perhaps the responsibility is simply moral.

This scenario wouldn't seem to result in legal responsibility under any theory I know, so I think we're probably both trying to approach this from the standpoint of moral responsibility (though of course there's a connection). I've alluded several times to the principle of superseding or intervening acts or causes here (novus actus interveniens or novus causa interveniens), which really involves a general metaphysical concept of moral causation. One of the things that is widely viewed as "breaking" the chain of causation is a deliberate human intervention (in this case, by the individual) that occurs subsequent to the act of the person (in this case, the Church) whose responsibility is being examined, and where that intervention may reasonably be viewed as the proximate cause of the harm.

Of course, in order to break that chain, the intervenor's action has to be voluntary. It cannot be coerced or compelled by the act of the original actor. The intervenor should be in control of his faculties enough to be considered a generally responsible agent (he should be sane, etc.). The ordinary conditions of responsibility should apply.

Now, all but the most hardcore libertarian metaphysicians will generally allow that there is at least a weak sense in which even free and deliberate human actions may be said to be caused by one or more other external factors, insofar as such a factor can make possible, or be a necessary precondition to, the deliberate choice. But these are not "causes" of the kind traditionally sought when assigning moral responsibility. Human choices can certainly be influenced or occasioned. But, absent any of the disabilities or outright external compulsions I spoke about above, they are rarely regarded as strictly an "effect" (in a moral-causative sense) of the influence, under prevailing (more or less libertarian) views of human freedom.

I'm not a big fan of specific rules about with whom one should or shouldn't have consensual sex. But it seems to me that, in most cases, an intervening deliberate choice to engage in a risky act that ends up damaging one's health or the health of another supersedes what otherwise might (possibly, though not necessarily) be culpable proximate causes. Under what I perceive as the prevailing school of moral thought - at least in the West - relating to novus actus interveniens, the earlier actor doesn't share responsibility under those circumstances.

Do you believe that the Church believes that they (the Church) has moral responsibility for the health and well being of its memebers?

I think the Church believes that it has responsibility in some general sense for the well-being of human beings, but not in the sense that it believes that it is necessarily a culpable party for everything that adversely effects that well-being. Also, I think that the Church believes that its primary responsibility in that regard concerns the spiritual well-being and eventual salvation of human souls, and I think the Church sincerely believes that each of its doctrinal teachings is relevant to that goal (whether the Church is right about that is, of course, beyond my ability to say).

Did I say more than a 100%?

Not as such, but your comments seemed to imply it, since I read them in the aggregate as suggesting both (1) that the Church should assume some portion of the responsibility for the consequences, and (2) yet the share of the responsibility allocated to the individual (which would otherwise be 100%, absent exculpatory circumstances) would not be diminished. In other words, that Church should be allocated a portion (say, 10%) of the overall responsibility, but that the individual's share of the overall responsibility (100%) should not thereby be reduced - which prompted my comment.

Could be worse that if the Church did not exist. I think that is a real possibility. I honestly don't know. There are simply far too many variables.

Well, if we can't be reasonably sure that the Church's actions placed someone in a worse position than if it had taken no actions at all, then it's probably premature to be assigning responsibility.

Worse than if the Church stessed abstinence, monogomy and provided the truth about condoms and did not make using them a sin. No question.

All that tells us is that the Church could adopt a more helpful stance with regard to this problem, not that the Church's position is in any way morally culpable or even unhelpful.

Of course, from the Church's perspective, it hasn't made using condoms a sin. It thinks using them happens to be a sin (assuming the general conditions of sinfulness are present, etc.). Whether or not condom use really is sinful, the Church sincerely believes that it objectively is sinful and thus significantly detrimental to a person.

Imagine that I think I have very good cause to believe that the antibiotics you're taking have been contaminated with a toxin that will seriously harm you in some respect. However, I decide to keep that information to myself while I'm watching you take them; I even assure you that the pills will do you nothing but good. Now imagine further that my belief is mistaken - your pills are, unbeknownst to me, entirely uncontaminated. So there's no toxin to adversely effect you, although I believe there is. Are my actions morally justifiable?

In the end it is the bottom line that counts. If you don't want to call it a "program" then I don't care.

Well, it raises the question of whether we can reliably extrapolate to the Church's doctrine the conclusions about specific "programs" that have been studied.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not a big fan of specific rules about with whom one should or shouldn't have consensual sex. But it seems to me that, in most cases, an intervening deliberate choice to engage in a risky act that ends up damaging one's health or the health of another supersedes what otherwise might (possibly, though not necessarily) be culpable proximate causes. Under what I perceive as the prevailing school of moral thought - at least in the West - relating to novus actus interveniens, the earlier actor doesn't share responsibility under those circumstances.

So, if I understand you, so long as person A makes a decision of his own free will and choice then that individual bears all moral responsibility for their behavior regardless of the actions of anyone else?

Sylvia Browne claims that she can talk to the dead. She prays on people in grief and makes a lot of money pretending to talk to the dead.
Her customers (marks) are free to decide whether to believer her or not.
If they, of their own free will choose to believe her then that fact release Sylvia Browne of all responsibility, right?

I think the Church believes that it has responsibility in some general sense for the well-being of human beings, but not in the sense that it believes that it is necessarily a culpable party for everything that adversely effects that well-being. Also, I think that the Church believes that its primary responsibility in that regard concerns the spiritual well-being and eventual salvation of human souls, and I think the Church sincerely believes that each of its doctrinal teachings is relevant to that goal (whether the Church is right about that is, of course, beyond my ability to say).

Yes, save a life or save a soul? Does the use of latex truly doom souls? I know, you don't speak for the Church but I think that the Church is capable of change. They have changed doctrine in the past. If there were enough outcry from people I think they would change. If they can vacillate on limbo and eating meat on Friday they can change their stance on condoms.

IMHO, it is our moral duty as humans to stand up to the church and tell them that they are wrong.

Not as such, but your comments seemed to imply it, since I read them in the aggregate as suggesting both (1) that the Church should assume some portion of the responsibility for the consequences, and (2) yet the share of the responsibility allocated to the individual (which would otherwise be 100%, absent exculpatory circumstances) would not be diminished. In other words, that Church should be allocated a portion (say, 10%) of the overall responsibility, but that the individual's share of the overall responsibility (100%) should not thereby be reduced - which prompted my comment.

Understood but no. If my friend goes to the bar without arranging for a designated driver and gets in an accident on the way home he is responsible. If I could have offered to give him a ride but was lazy then I might feel some moral responsibility. That I do doesn't change my friends responsibility. It might be in societies best interest to convince people that they have some responsibility for their friends and loved ones and to "not let friends drive drunk".

Well, if we can't be reasonably sure that the Church's actions placed someone in a worse position than if it had taken no actions at all, then it's probably premature to be assigning responsibility.

That's not my position. Clearly the Church does many good things. I can't weigh the net effect of removing the Church entirely from the equation. Something would be worse somethings would be better. The net? I don't know. Let's assume that the net would be worse for humanity. That it would doesn't excuse any problems of the Church's stance on condom use.

All that tells us is that the Church could adopt a more helpful stance with regard to this problem, not that the Church's position is in any way morally culpable or even unhelpful.

Of course, from the Church's perspective, it hasn't made using condoms a sin. It thinks using them happens to be a sin (assuming the general conditions of sinfulness are present, etc.). Whether or not condom use really is sinful, the Church sincerely believes that it objectively is sinful and thus significantly detrimental to a person.

To a point, this isn't about what the Church believes (I would have to disagree with "objectively"). This is about what I believe and what society believes. If I believe that the Church's actions are causing harm then I have a moral responsibility to speak out against the Church and try to persuade them and others that it is so.

If they can change rules about eating meat on Friday then they can change this rule.

Imagine that I think I have very good cause to believe that the antibiotics you're taking have been contaminated with a toxin that will seriously harm you in some respect. However, I decide to keep that information to myself while I'm watching you take them; I even assure you that the pills will do you nothing but good. Now imagine further that my belief is mistaken - your pills are, unbeknownst to me, entirely uncontaminated. So there's no toxin to adversely effect you, although I believe there is. Are my actions morally justifiable?

I would say no because your intent was to cause harm.

If someone believed that slavery was moral are they right? Many people sincerly believed that slavery was ok at one time. Many used the bible to justify their beliefs. Others used the Bible to argue against slavery. Who was right?

One of the goals of citizens in a free society is to speak out what they believe is morally correct. If the Catholic Church truly believed that it was necessary to harm someone to enable that person to have eternal salvation they I would think that I was morally obligated to speak out against the church.

Well, it raises the question of whether we can reliably extrapolate to the Church's doctrine the conclusions about specific "programs" that have been studied.

I would have to see evidence that Catholics are some how different than other people (in a cultural or social sense).

 

[ceo_esq]

So, if I understand you, so long as person A makes a decision of his own free will and choice then that individual bears all moral responsibility for their behavior regardless of the actions of anyone else?

Someone else ("B") might bear separate moral responsibility for its own actions - for example, for failing in some duty B had to act otherwise - but failure in such a duty would not make B a cause of the later harm. Thus, B's responsibility would be for B's actions as such, not causal responsibility for the harm occasioned by A's subsequent free actions (in this case, for A's contracting HIV).

Sylvia Browne claims that she can talk to the dead. She prays on people in grief and makes a lot of money pretending to talk to the dead.
Her customers (marks) are free to decide whether to believer her or not.
If they, of their own free will choose to believe her then that fact release Sylvia Browne of all responsibility, right?

Good plug for RSL's website.

Assuming that the other conditions I referenced were fulfilled - for example, that grief did not so extremely impair the faculties of a customer that his choices were not free and deliberate - then I would suggest that Sylvia Browne might be culpable for her own actions, but should not be considered a cause of the harms that might later flow from the customer's decision. You didn't specify what the subsequent harms were, so I won't speculate. I'm not sure this is a great example, though. We're assuming here - which I have no problem with - that Sylvia fully understands that she's pretending. I'm not sure we should make the same assumption about the Church.

Yes, save a life or save a soul? Does the use of latex truly doom souls? I know, you don't speak for the Church but I think that the Church is capable of change. They have changed doctrine in the past. If there were enough outcry from people I think they would change. If they can vacillate on limbo and eating meat on Friday they can change their stance on condoms.

Has the Church really ever reversed itself on a doctrine in the past? Neither Limbo nor the rule against eating meat on Fridays furnishes a precedent. The former was a popular theological speculation but never a doctrinal theological teaching; the latter was never more than a disciplinary rule (just like clerical celibacy) and thus expressly subject to change at any time. The stance on artificial contraception is, as I understand it, doctrinal - which has very different implications within Catholicism.

That's not my position. Clearly the Church does many good things. I can't weigh the net effect of removing the Church entirely from the equation. Something would be worse somethings would be better.

I suppose I had in mind just removing the sexuality model taught by the Church entirely. If the sexuality teaching doesn't make someone worse off than they would otherwise be, one may reasonably question whether the teaching adversely affected that person.

To a point, this isn't about what the Church believes (I would have to disagree with "objectively"). This is about what I believe and what society believes. If I believe that the Church's actions are causing harm then I have a moral responsibility to speak out against the Church and try to persuade them and others that it is so.

No question about that; I don't think anyone would suggest the contrary. I suppose, though, on that basis, the Church also has a moral responsibility to speak out against what you're saying and try to persuade you and others that you're wrong.

If they can change rules about eating meat on Friday then they can change this rule.

I refer to my comment above about this.

Imagine that I think I have very good cause to believe that the antibiotics you're taking have been contaminated with a toxin that will seriously harm you in some respect. However, I decide to keep that information to myself while I'm watching you take them; I even assure you that the pills will do you nothing but good. Now imagine further that my belief is mistaken - your pills are, unbeknownst to me, entirely uncontaminated. So there's no toxin to adversely effect you, although I believe there is. Are my actions morally justifiable?

I would say no because your intent was to cause harm.

I agree. Now apply the same kind of reasoning to the Church here. The Church thinks it has good cause to believe that condom use is sinful and, accordingly, will cause you serious harm (in the form of sullying your immortal soul, or whatever the case may be). But let's say the Church decides not to warn you about this; perhaps it even affirmatively encourages you to think that no such harm will come to you by using condoms. Now let's assume (arguendo) that the Church is mistaken; in reality there is no sin associated with condom use that could adversely effect you (maybe there's not even any such thing as "sin"), although the Church believes there is. Is it morally justifiable for the Church to refrain from warning you that condom use is sinful, or to tell you affirmatively that condom use is not sinful? No, according to the reasoning we employed just above.

If someone believed that slavery was moral are they right? Many people sincerly believed that slavery was ok at one time. Many used the bible to justify their beliefs. Others used the Bible to argue against slavery. Who was right?

Well, I think the people who held the belief that slavery was moral (as well, incidentally, as the belief that the Bible provides justification for it) were incorrect.

I would have to see evidence that Catholics are some how different than other people (in a cultural or social sense).

I wasn't questioning whether Catholics were different than other people, I was questioning whether the Catholic Magisterium was different than, just for example, the specific outfits that have received federal SPRANS grants and which may be the subject of existing studies.

 

[Dan Edmunds]

Wow, I can't believe the results of this poll. I have just joined a forum of sceptics that are suggesting that its worth over-looking all the wars, persecution, sexism and slavery created in the name of religions, for the sake of argument?
Religion did give us sexual repression and an irresponsibility of thinking for ourselves so not all bad, I guess...

I suppose religions aren't bad, the problem is that people do insist on believing in them.

 

[The Atheist]

Wow, I can't believe the results of this poll.

Funny that. Nor can I.

There do however, appear to be different reasons for our astonishment. I'm astonished that the level of religious bigotry is so high that fully half the people here are not only willing to ignore the good works done in some god or other's name, but also willing to walk with Dawkins and class all religion under the abuse banner. If there's a lack of scepticism involved in this thread, that's where it is - people not examining their own prejudices, because the idea that religion does no good at all is so patently absurd that I'm surprised more than half-a-dozen people have voted "true".

Hell, I even used to feel much the same and it was only disgust at the attitude of many fellow atheists which encouraged me to walk a more moderate line. Who knows, maybe someone else might feel the same way after seeing the vitriol atheists reserve for religions.

I have just joined a forum of sceptics...

Yeah, welcome in and all that!

... that are suggesting that its worth over-looking all the wars, persecution, sexism and slavery created in the name of religions, for the sake of argument?

Nope. Not even close. What you've done is immediately fail to understand the question. It doesn't ask about harm in religion in the past. As I keep asking, do we persecute people on their past? Do we judge Germany, Italy and Russia on today's form, or where they were 70 years ago?

The other point is that nobody's asking anyone to overlook anything - the question is very plain - either all religion is bad, or some of it does some good and it isn't all harmful. Simple concept, really.

No matter, you're in a group which comprises almost half of the votes.

Religion did give us sexual repression and an irresponsibility of thinking for ourselves so not all bad, I guess...

Plenty of people are sexually repressed who've never been near a church in their lives, too.

Sure, religion has caused plenty of sexual repression, but some parts of some religions have also done tremendous good, but we mustn't discuss that, else my "christian apologist" label might spring back up.

I suppose religions aren't bad, the problem is that people do insist on believing in them.

There, you have at least hit on a problem - people believing utter garbage. Feel free to suggest a realistic scenario where all religion is removed. Take away god and they'll be flocking to Sylvia Browne or Uri Geller: people just wants to believe. You can't legislate against stupidity.

 

[qayak]

As I keep asking, do we persecute people on their past? Do we judge Germany, Italy and Russia on today's form, or where they were 70 years ago?

If Germany, Italy and Russia were still armed to the teeth with a psychopath at as their leader, we would still judge them in the same way. but, they have changed so we can look at how they are now when judging.

Perhaps religion could take a lesson from this. Make some changes and clean up its act.

The other point is that nobody's asking anyone to overlook anything . . .

Look back at your last statement that I quoted, you definitely asked him to overlook things.

Sure, religion has caused plenty of sexual repression, but some parts of some religions have also done tremendous good, but we mustn't discuss that, else my "christian apologist" label might spring back up.

We've been willing to discuss it all along! Unfortunately you haven't been able to give any examples of this supposed goodness that religion is.

 

[The Atheist]

If Germany, Italy and Russia were still armed to the teeth with a psychopath at as their leader, we would still judge them in the same way. but, they have changed so we can look at how they are now when judging.

Oh god, don't be so dense. Is the Inquisition over? Do we still burn witches? Of course religion has changed. Women and gay clergy in some churches. Christ, the list could be unending, depending where you want to measure from.

Perhaps religion could take a lesson from this. Make some changes and clean up its act.

See above; they are.

Look back at your last statement that I quoted, you definitely asked him to overlook things.

Oh, go ahead, please show me where I'm asking for anything to be overlooked. Do you not understand the different between past and present, or is it just the tenses are troubling you?

We've been willing to discuss it all along! Unfortunately you haven't been able to give any examples of this supposed goodness that religion is.

Utter bollocks again! Where do you dream this stuff up?

Before I get started, I'll repeat for about the hundredth time in this thread, that the question doesn't ask for examples of "goodness that religion is", and you know that.

Here are just a couple of examples, and since the question in the poll only needs one to negate it, any one will do, take your pick:

Soup kitchens
Salvation Army homes for alkies, pregnant girls and down-and-outs
Hospices
Aid programs in third world nations
Old people's homes