All Religion is Bad.

[Faithkills]

In sum, there is not a single good reason I can discern for your saying to me any of the things you just said. And since you are becoming increasingly insistent about saying them, I would appreciate it if you or somebody else could explain specifically why.

He called you an apologist that ignores evidence of the negative effects of religion. I don't think that's even debatable. Your entire 'refutation' was on the basis that there was not attribution to the current pope. So what? The church is still doing it and if the current pope has enough sense not to stick his neck out that's not surprising. The fact is the church has only ever been dragged kicking and screaming into line with contemporary ethics or science. Like don't murder people so you can have a few more followers which is precisely what that horribly brainwashed nun was doing when she advised someone with HIV not to use a condom. Sorry that's evil.

When left unchecked you get what the Papacy used to be or what Islam is today. Even reined in their primary purpose is still always to grow. But they offer nothing in return except lies and some nominal charity work that almost always comes with a jesus pricetag. Ever tried to get a 'free' meal from a mission? Have you ever gone on a mission? They aren't called missions for nothing. They have a mission my friend and it's not humanitarian, it's evangelism, which if you'd ever been involved with one you would know.

 

[Herzblut]

Before looking at these sources, let's recall what they are ostensibly responsive to, which was request for a primary-source document in which Pope Benedict (yes, you did say "this pope") states that condoms cause HIV/AIDS.
...
Oh well. Perhaps you had other sources in mind for that elusive pontifical pathogenic-prophylactic statement.

Of course not. Since he cannot find anything let me refer to a well-known interview given by Benny to German TV channels on the 5th of August 2006, published on vatican.va. Here's what he said:

DW: ..Believers throughout the world are waiting for the Catholic Church to answer the most urgent global problems such as AIDS and overpopulation. Why does the Catholic Church pay so much attention to moral issues rather than suggesting concrete solutions to these problems that are so crucial to humanity, in Africa, for example?

Benedict XVI: So that is the problem: do we really pay so much attention to moral issues? I think - I am more and more convinced after my conversations with the African Bishops - that the basic question, if we want to move ahead in this field, is about education, formation. Progress becomes true progress only if it serves the human person and if the human person grows: not only in terms of his or her technical power, but also in his or her moral awareness. I believe that the real problem of our historical moment lies in the imbalance between the incredibly fast growth of our technical power and that of our moral capacity, which has not grown in proportion. That is why the formation of the human person is the true recipe, the key to it all, I would say, and this is what the Church proposes. Briefly speaking, this formation has a dual dimension: of course, we have to learn, to acquire knowledge, ability, know-how, as they say. In this sense Europe and in the last decades America have done a lot, and that is important. But if we only teach know-how, if we only teach how to build and to use machines and how to use contraceptives, then we should not be surprised when we find ourselves facing wars and AIDS epidemics; because we need two dimensions: simultaneously, we need the formation of the heart, if I can express myself in this way, with which the human person acquires points of reference and learns how to use the techniques correctly. And that is what we try to do. Throughout Africa and in many countries in Asia, we have a vast network of every level of school where people can first of all learn, form a true conscience and acquire professional ability which gives them autonomy and freedom. But in these schools we try to communicate more than know-how; rather, we try to form human beings capable of reconciliation, who know that we must build and not destroy, and who have the necessary references to be able to live together. In much of Africa, relations between Christians and Muslims are exemplary. The Bishops have formed common commissions together with the Muslims to try and create peace in situations of conflict. This schools network, dedicated to human learning and formation, is very important. It is completed by a network of hospitals and assistance centres that reach even the most remote villages. In many areas, following the destruction of war, the Church is the only authority - not authority but structure - that remains intact. This is a fact! We offer treatment, treatment to AIDS victims too, and we offer education, helping to establish good relationships with others. So I think we should correct that image that sees the Church as spreading severe "no's". We work a lot in Africa so that the various dimensions of formation can be integrated and so that it will become possible to overcome violence and epidemics, that include malaria and tuberculosis as well.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ts/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060805_intervista_en.html

Well, that's the typical Benny with his usually pretty sophisticated reasoning. So, maybe I just don't get it. Would somebody be so kind please to demonstrate how his statements can be subsumed under "condoms cause HIV/AIDS"? I'd honestly appreciate that.

How would you evaluate his overall message?

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

Well, that's the typical Benny with his usually pretty sophisticated reasoning. So, maybe I just don't get it. Would somebody be so kind please to demonstrate how his statements can be subsumed under "condoms cause HIV/AIDS"? I'd honestly appreciate that.

How would you evaluate his overall message?

Herzblut

That's a very lovely quote. But he was not asked about condoms nor did he address condoms. What's your point?

The issue under discussion is the Church's condemning condom use even for people infected with HIV.

He needs to step up. Period. But we all know why he doesn't want to don't we?

 

[articulett]

I think you must have a very strange notion of what constitutes apologetics. Why are you telling me these things when all I've done here is (1) to ask qayak to identify precisely where Pope Benedict said that condoms cause AIDS and (2) very secondarily to examine the relevance of qayak's reference to papal infallibility? Is either one of those things a justification of Catholic policy on contraception? Obviously not. Do either of those things even say anything about Catholic policy on contraception? Not really. Did I at any point declare that qayak was dishonest about these things? No; I just asked him to provide support and clarification. But in the event that the Church is dishonest, should anyone else get a free pass? I can't see why. In sum, there is not a single good reason I can discern for your saying to me any of the things you just said. And since you are becoming increasingly insistent about saying them, I would appreciate it if you or somebody else could explain specifically why.

Multiple sources have been provided regarding the Papal verdict in regards to condom usage and how it is involved in the spread of AIDs. Misinformation and unrealistic notions about sexuality promote ignorance and repression rather than an open forum so that people may protect themselves. It's information and ready access to condoms which has shown to be the number one way to decrease the spread of AIDs, venereal diseases, teen pregnancy, and abortion. The Catholic church and other church charities instead promote abstinence which doesn't work. People die. You seem to want more and more evidence... but of what exactly. You have the churchs policy on condoms and their information they tell their charities in AIDS regions. You have the information as to what works and what doesn't. You have the papal decree on the use of any contraception or any homosexual sex via the "infallibility". You understand quite well what Catholics are being told in regards to contraception and how this information conflicts with known ways to prevent venereal disease and other societal ills--especially in countries
where AIDS is decimating populations.

But you dance around words and pretend it's not so and obfuscate and ask for tangential evidence. People are suffering and dying due to misinformation, lack of information, and fear based threats by the Pope and other religious institutions. No evidence is apparently enough for you to admit this or admit how horrible it is... but you sure do go after the folks that call religion "bad"...

Either honestly or dishonestly, you seem to have no ability to see what you are covering for. And that is the basis of many an evil. Nobody thinks they are on the "bad guys" side. But you are defending lies that cause the suffering of many... no matter how good you are at justifying it to yourself or throwing some aspersions at qayak? Why are you defending religion and making those who bring it's ugliness to light the bad guys?

Isn't that what any evil regime gets its members to do? Similar distractions to yours could have been said by the Nazis or the Taliban or antebellum South. You seem to be protecting religion by going after dissent--whether you see it or not. And I don't think any evidence would allow you to understand this. But, boy, would you see it in any of the examples above. It's just not evident when you are the "brainwashed" one certain that you are fighting for "good".

 

[The Atheist]

​

<<note to Mods - can we please move this thread to Humour? It has long since passed parody and is now clearly farce.

Thanks>>

 

[Faithkills]

I'd still love an answer as to why it's somehow wrong to question institutions whose main product is lies.

 

[cyborg]

Because lies just taste so damn good - even if they are fattening.

 

[articulett]

plus it's rude to comment on the emperor's dangling genitalia...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

it's not polite to discuss such things--especially not while eating things that taste so damn good.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, that's the typical Benny with his usually pretty sophisticated reasoning. So, maybe I just don't get it. Would somebody be so kind please to demonstrate how his statements can be subsumed under "condoms cause HIV/AIDS"? I'd honestly appreciate that.

Perhaps it was lost in translation? Was English the original language of the interview? If memory serves correctly, he speaks four languages fluently. Perhaps it was more obvious in the original German, Latin, or Italian?

ETA: My mistake:

- Languages: As well as his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks Italian, French, English, Spanish and Latin, and has a knowledge of Portuguese. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew.

 

[The Atheist]

I'd still love an answer as to why it's somehow wrong to question institutions whose main product is lies.

My best guess as to why that question hasn't been answered is because nobody has espoused that position.

 

[Herzblut]

Perhaps it was lost in translation? Was English the original language of the interview?

Thanks for this excellent question! The interview was given in preparation of Benny's trip to Bavaria, Germany, one month later. The abbreviations used for the questioners are BR=Bayerischer Rundfunk, ZDF=Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, DW=Deutsche Welle, VR=Vatikanischer Rundfunk(?). Apart from VR, these are all German TV channels. DW is committed to provide international news in many countries in German language.

Thus, the interview must have been in German. And the translation into English is perfectly accurate, from what I can see. Anything else would have led to the accusation of manipulation by the BBC anyway.

So, your question should be answered by saying:

no, there was no message lost/changed in translation.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

you seem to want more and more evidence..
you understand quite well..
you dance around words..
you pretend it's not so..
you obfuscate..
you ask for tangential evidence..
you sure do go after the folks that call religion "bad"..
no evidence is apparently enough for you..
you seem to have no ability to see ..
you are defending lies..
how good you are at justifying it to yourself..
you are throwing aspersions at qayak..
you are defending religion..
whether you see it or not..
similar distractions to yours could have been said by the Nazis..
you seem to be protecting religion..
no evidence would allow you to understand this..
you are the "brainwashed"..

I feel myself so well understood by Aunt Arti.

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

My best guess as to why that question hasn't been answered is because nobody has espoused that position.

Well apparently some are. If lies are bad then all religions are bad, at least to that extent. So maybe people should re-evaluate their votes, since the poll is

"All religions bad"

and not

"Religions all bad"

It seems all religions are indeed bad at least to the extent lies are bad.

 

[sphenisc]

So maybe people should re-evaluate their votes, since the poll is

"All religions bad"

No, it's not.

 

[The Atheist]

Well apparently some are. If lies are bad then all religions are bad, at least to that extent. So maybe people should re-evaluate their votes, since the poll is

"All religions bad"

and not

"Religions all bad"

It seems all religions are indeed bad at least to the extent lies are bad.

Jeeesus.

333 posts and you STILL don't know what the question is!

 

[Faithkills]

Jeeesus.

333 posts and you STILL don't know what the question is!

Well your poll still reads "All Religion is Bad", so I am pretty sure that is the question people are responding to whether that's what's in your head or not.

So unless lies are not bad "All Religion is indeed bad" though it could be argued all religions are not all bad. (ie they do some good)

 

[ceo_esq]

Multiple sources have been provided regarding the Papal verdict in regards to condom usage and how it is involved in the spread of AIDs.

Yes, but none of them are good confirmation of exactly what the pope said to the effect that condoms cause AIDS. They say many other fine things, none of which I asked about.

It's information and ready access to condoms which has shown to be the number one way to decrease the spread of AIDs, venereal diseases, teen pregnancy, and abortion The Catholic church and other church charities instead promote abstinence which doesn't work.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that all these assertions are true. What do they have to do with anything I've said?

You seem to want more and more evidence... but of what exactly.

Of Pope Benedict's stating that condoms cause AIDS. Not of his opposition to condom use; not of the importance of condom use in preventing AIDS.

You have the churchs policy on condoms and their information they tell their charities in AIDS regions. You have the information as to what works and what doesn't. You have the papal decree on the use of any contraception or any homosexual sex via the "infallibility". You understand quite well what Catholics are being told in regards to contraception and how this information conflicts with known ways to prevent venereal disease and other societal ills--especially in countries where AIDS is decimating populations.

All of which are irrelevant to my question.

But you dance around words and pretend it's not so and obfuscate and ask for tangential evidence.

I'm not asking for tangential evidence, I'm asking for direct evidence of one particular assertion. If the assertion itself was tangential to the rest of the argument, blame the person who made it. But don't act as though that assertion is not fair game. Did your skeptical credentials get revoked?

But you are defending lies that cause the suffering of many...

How on earth am I defending lies? No, don't point out to me what you think those lies are, we get that much. Explain how I'm defending them.

Either honestly or dishonestly, you seem to have no ability to see what you are covering for. And that is the basis of many an evil. Nobody thinks they are on the "bad guys" side.

Try for a moment not to be so concerned with "sides"; I think it is negatively impacting your ability to be objective. I'm not picking sides; I have no dog in this fight at the moment. I'm just trying to ascertain the facts, which puts me on the side of ... well, people who want to get the facts straight.

 

[articulett]

Ceo-esq:
First, I did not state that Pope Benedict said condoms causes AIDS. I am saying that the Vatican forbids condom usage and has spread misinformation about condoms not protecting against AIDS. Pope Benedict has not rescinded the information and continues to forbid condoms and preach against their use.

Didn't you read any of the links? You can play all the semantic games you want, but the Catholic church and it's charities are implicated in the spread of misinformation, AIDS, and fear mongering. I don't know what exact fact you need or would want to make you understand this. I think that you just can't or won't for some reason. I don't care if the words came directly out of his mouth or not--but the church forbids the use of condoms--and the Vatican encourages misinformation which has yet to be corrected. Moreover, their charities do not provide the one thing known to be the most effective at preventing this deadly disease... in fact, they discourage against the use of condoms and birth control in general but don't seem to care about the lives made and destroyed in the horrible aftermath. Many victims of AIDS didn't have the opportunity to just say no-- possibly the majority.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

"These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

The Vatican's Cardinal Trujillo said: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact."

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.

 

[The Atheist]

So unless lies are not bad "All Religion is indeed bad" though it could be argued all religions are not all bad. (ie they do some good)

See, you got there in the end. Didn't need me at all, did you?

I'm nowhere near convinced that all lies are bad, either. Is lying about Santa Claus bad?

I know two people who have gained great comfort from the thought of their dead children being in heaven. I'm quite happy to lie about my convictions to those people. I would hurt them by telling them my real opinion, while no harm - and some good - is done by them believing a myth.

You, I take it, would just say " Harden the #### up! There is no god, your kid's now dust and you'll never see him again."

 

[quixotecoyote]

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.