All Religion is Bad.

[Herzblut]

which equals 10 mins in the sin-bin. Herz; let it go, mate.

No prob. I did hammer my stake in the ground, I think. Cheers mate.

Herzblut

 

[andyandy]

3- Shintoism is a full blown religion with many, many gods. Every village in Japan had its own Shinto god and there were festivals for each. Shintoism was the state religion of Japan and was used to control the population. In the Shinto belief, the emperor was a living god.

Just a comment about Shintoism - Shintoism in japan today still persists (from CIA factbook over 80% of the population regard themselves as both Buddhist and Shinto) but it is very much a cultural identity closely allied with nationalism/regionalism - the festivals continue but the "religion" aspect is really more about tradition - perhaps an analogy would be Christmas in secular society. There is also a woolly supernatural-naturalist ethos - an "at one-ness" with nature which is closely linked with cultural tradition. From a western perspective perhaps it is more akin to new age superstition than more conventional concepts of religion. The part most identifyable as religious is reserved for the three biggies - births, deaths and marriages and even here it is difficult to delineate belief from tradition.

If one opens up "religion" to include modern day Shintoism as it exists in Japan today what we see is a secular society which maintains cultural and traditional links, and strengthens national and regional identity through Shintoism, whilst being provided with an outlet for irrationality (with regards to death, "luck" etc) within a socially accepted framework.
I think you can see the same general appropriation in western Europe - as secular society co-opts dogmatic religious belief for nebulous personal belief with a framework for irrationality and a shared cultural identity.
Shintoism certainly fulfils a role within Japanese society for which there are societal and individual benefits beyond in my opinion its deleterious effects.

 

[articulett]

Faithkills,

I'm a she-- and I have the apologists on ignore... just wanted to give the smart people a heads up on who the incompetents are-- because the incompetents always think it's everybody but them. They criticize and judge others while never adding much of value to any conversation as far as I can tell.

Then I only have to read them when they show up in other posts... which is, thankfully, not often. And sometimes I like to goad them, because--well--it puts a spring in my step. However, I realize that even mentally ill people have access to the internet, so I try to keep formosa's law in mind... http://catb.org/jargon//html/F/Formosas-Law.html

TA's silly poll is about proving some point to qayak that exists only in his head. Instead of being called "The Atheist", I think he should be called "The Apologist"-- but people seem to be very touchy about being called an apologist for some reason... they make much stronger accusations against critics of religion than the term "apologist", that's for sure and have a temper tantrum when the insults come back. Heck, it's just my opinion. But apparently, many people agree. It's a good thing I have Mijo on ignore, because I'm sure he'd be demanding evidence from the APA for me to voice that opinion.

Every once in a while it's good to allow people to see whom they might like to put on ignore. And if I'm very lucky, maybe the people I put on ignore will return the favor, so that I can talk about them at my leisure.

 

[articulett]

Religion hasn't harmed me yet.

Explain how religion has harmed you in such a profound way. You can disagree with something and still have an open mind. Yet to blanket all religions as bad regardless of any good that may come out of them is mum....

If you look like your avatar (yellow skin, etc.) it may have harmed you in ways you may not be aware of. This poll was generated by a discussion involving parents who indoctrinated their children with threats of hell so that they believe very unscientific things about the creation of life... and think they will live happily ever after for doing so.

Actually, the internet is rife with people having suffered via religion... check out the recovery from christianity, scientology, mormonism etc. websites... or Dawkins website "convert corner". Female genital mutilation? Stoning to death for adultery-- still happening... thanks to religion. Scientific ignorance-- thank religion for that. 911 hijackers... again, religion. Andrea Yates sending her kids of to heaven so they wouldn't go to hell-- thank religion. It's just that people learn not to see the harm of religion and associate all that is good and great with belief-- because they are told there is no morality or good without god. What wouldn't you do if you truly believed you would live happily ever after for faith?

 

[this charming man]

Do you mean bad like in the Micheal Jackson way?

 

[The Atheist]

And if I'm very lucky, maybe the people I put on ignore will return the favor, so that I can talk about them at my leisure.

Don't let me stop you. It hasn't so far, anyway.

You know, I harbour a forlorn hope that you'll actually sit down and read through all of your posts in these two threads.

 

[The Atheist]

Do you mean bad like in the Micheal Jackson way?

Depends how you're describing him as "bad", I guess.

If you mean musically, I agree entirely, although I'd go with "atrocious" rather than "bad".

If you mean, "Is he a child molester?" Alas, I have no idea. As I understand it, he's never been convicted of it, just as OJ hasn't ever been convicted of murder. Accordingly, the evidence would suggest that he's not "bad". Would I let him babysit my five year old boy?

No.

But I wouldn't let OJ, either. Nor Dubbya.

I have standards.

 

[qayak]

Ok. Let's take a step back here. I have never and will never claim that any particular sect, type or denomination of religion is "good". My argument all along is that religion is not all bad.

I fully understand your position on on the religion being all bad. That is a completely different discussion and it is pointless to repeat it.

This question was directed toward you in particular, just a question to the group trying to figure out exactly WHAT they find good about religion. Is there a particular sect, order, etc. that one could point to as being the example?

The list of things religion does which is good is a very long list. It may only be a fraction of the size of the bad list, but my premise was always - as is this poll - that religion is not all bad.

I never said that everything a religion does is bad. I said all religions are bad because of the sum of all the things they do, good bad and indifferent.

Again, I sense a touch of goalpost-shifting in the wind. Qualifiers are irrelevant. The premise was never that a particular brand of religion was inherently good, or bad even.

The goal posts have definitely moved, this is an entirely different point.You need to let your good/bad thing go. I am not arguing that with you. I am asking for specific things that religion has done or specifically, which religion or even sect, denomination can be held up as being good. I want to see if it really is. If it is, I will change my position.

Qualifiers do matter so much. If you say the RCC is doing good work in Africa, I will ask about their position on condom use in light of the AIDS epidemic. If you say they do good in Africa except for their stand on condoms, that is different.

{QUOTE] . . .religion either does no good or it does some good. This is your premise, so if you wish to change your view at this very late stage, please make it perfectly clear.[/QUOTE]

No, that is not my premise. Your statement is also in error and automatically opens up at least one more possibility and probably more.

1- Religion does no good.

2- Religion does some good

3- Religion does some bad

4- Religion does all good

5- Religion does all bad.

My premise is, and always has been, that all religions have a net sum of being bad. Which is why I said, "Religions are all bad."

What do atrocities in the past matter to today? Do you hate all Germans because of Hitler? Do you hate all Japanese? Turks? Should Islam hate the western world because of the Crusades?

First, I don't hate anyone. Second, because of Hitler and his new age wannabes, I dislike Nazis. It was Naziism that caused the atrocities in WWII not the German people. Many Nazis happened to be Germans but some were also Canadian, American, Italian, etc.

No, islam should not hate the western world but it should not trust christians should it? Of course islam has nothing to brag about either.

Again, nobody - other than christians - came to a conclusion that religion was good. I took great pains to explain that I could not accept that religion is all bad, simply because I have seen personally some of the good results religion has brought about. This is your own strawman you keep setting fire to. I repeat the question; are you changing your premise now?

I am not changing my premise at all. All religion is bad. Even the so called mild religions like Taoism and Confucianism are not good. As a philosophy, I think they are very good. Buddhism is as brutal to non-believers as christianity, judaism and islam.

When it does harm.

I agree and all religions do harm which is why I say they are all bad.

According to your own words again, all religion is harmful. I wonder how you equate that with the Catholic nurse giving an injection to save a child's life thanks to her church's charity program, but obviously, in your warped version of the planet, that is harmful, so no conflict exists.

So christianity gets the credit for the good but you only blame the individual for the bad. What about that same nurse finishing the injection and advising the parents of that child not to use condoms because they cause the spread of HIV?

If they are a nurse, that's fine they give out the best "medical" advice. If they are a nurse that happens to be catholic, that is fine too because the result is the same. However, if they are a catholic nurse, which means they are deciding medical treatment and advice based on their catholic beliefs, then they are not giving the best medical advice. They are giving the advice that their religion allows and that is bad.

The other point is that for catholic nurses and doctors, it is the pope who is deciding what is good medical advice for patients. How much training does he have? He gets to decide on stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, etc., and he has no training in any of it.

You can substitute muslim cleric, Pat Robertson, etc. for pope and it will illustrate my problem with the other religions.

P.S. When are you going to correct you intellectual dishonesty?

 

[The Atheist]

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

I never said that everything a religion does is bad. I said all religions are bad because of the sum of all the things they do, good bad and indifferent.

P.S. When are you going to correct you intellectual dishonesty?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is there a religion that is good? Can anyone name one?

 

[articulett]

Do you mean bad like in the Micheal Jackson way?

Michael Jackson is bad in a pedophiliac priest kind of way... so yeah...

 

[Herzblut]

Qualifiers do matter so much. If you say the RCC is doing good work in Africa, I will ask about their position on condom use in light of the AIDS epidemic. If you say they do good in Africa except for their stand on condoms, that is different.

How do you judge the idea of combining religious and state campaigns? The former ones propagating abstinence and the latter ones educating towards condom usage. That may reach more target groups.

Based upon your presented evidence, of course. Phrases like "I think <list of unsupported claims>" are of no interest for this topic.

Oh, let me tell you my very initial reasoning of this topic because you might profit.

First of all, I completely dislike the sex moral of the RCC. My whole life is an act of disobedience.

Having said that, I nevertheless leave out any emotions analysing the RCC's tactic against HIV, namely

(1)abstinence,
(2)then faithfull marriage
(3)no condoms

which cannot be refuted right away because it is protective for those who stick to it.

OK, those who break these demands obviously disobey the Pope. For the problem at hand, non-abstinence is important. So, somebody ****ing around, breaking the abstinence demand, why the hell should he/she stick to the no-condoms demand? That makes no sense, obviously.

"Hey, I am the big black womanizer in town! Don't care what da papa says! But wait, didn't he demand no condoms? Holy ****! Then I must stick to it, because I really care what da papa says!"

That is absurd!

Conclusion: there is no case to make against the RCC right away, proper investigation of available data is required.

What it means: show me data when you argue. No data, no argument.

Herzblut

 

[andyandy]

My premise is, and always has been, that all religions have a net sum of being bad. Which is why I said, "Religions are all bad."

ok, I submit that on a net sum, Shintoism as it exists today in Japan is more good than bad.

To qualify,

Just looking to create a very general and arbitrary cost-benefit on individuals and society.

1 = all bad
5= neutral
10 = all good


I would give Shintoism a 5.5

and of the monotheistic religions I would give

CofE about a 4
Catholicism about a 2
Evangelicalism about a 2

fundamentalist sects would be in the 1.x range....

with (1) and (10) existing as a limit rather than a value.....

I'd be interested in other people's ratings.....
sometimes there's a significant disjoint between individual affect, societal effect and global effect - catholicism suffers significantly IMO globally as a result of its contraceptive policy - indeed, I could be persuaded to rate it lower....so this is really quite rough and ready - and remember - it's just a bit of fun

 

[articulett]

ok, I submit that on a net sum, Shintoism as it exists today in Japan is more good than bad.

To qualify,

Just looking to create a very general and arbitrary cost-benefit on individuals and society.

1 = all bad
5= neutral
10 = all good


I would give Shintoism a 5.5

and of the monotheistic religions I would give

CofE about a 4
Catholicism about a 2
Evangelicalism about a 2

fundamentalist sects would be in the 1.x range....

with (1) and (10) existing as a limit rather than a value.....

I'd be interested in other people's ratings.....
sometimes there's a significant disjoint between individual affect, societal effect and global effect - catholicism suffers significantly IMO globally as a result of its contraceptive policy - indeed, I could be persuaded to rate it lower....so this is really quite rough and ready - and remember - it's just a bit of fun

I think I would base it on what you are threatening for non belief-- excommunication? stoning to death? Eternal suffering? Any of those are bad.

Also, I'd base it on how much the notion that "faith is a good way to know truth" is part of the doctrine... does it make people ignorant of scientific facts.

And the bigotry factor--does it tell you only believers can be moral or are saved or that you "need" belief?

All of this a forms of brainwashing and the more any religions do it, the worse they are. Also if they encourage members to spawn and or proselytize that's bad. Believers are religions way of making more believers.

If they get tax breaks or have power that's bad.

Sex with minors is bad--from polygamous Mormons to pedophiliac clergy. Extremes are worst. None are necessary. We will be more civilized when they are gone.

All fundamentalists get a 1-- but in their head they get a 10 for following the world of the supposed creator of a universe to a T. We need to tell young people that faith is a bad way to know the truth and sometimes the least trustworthy people are the people you trust the most. The best are the middle eastern ones that don't seem to have much to do with supernaturalism... but they are still sexist. The men are the leaders and gain the powers and are the "enlightened masters"-- not women.

The best thing about religion is that we live in the age of the internet and former believers can share with others who have been through similar "indoctrination".

 

[Herzblut]

I would give Shintoism a 5.5

and of the monotheistic religions I would give

CofE about a 4
Catholicism about a 2
Evangelicalism about a 2

fundamentalist sects would be in the 1.x range....

Sorry, but what is CofE?

OK, I would raise Protestants by 1 and Catholicism by 2. That's funny, because I used to be protestant.

But, to be honest, I like these nice catholic carnival costumes. They also spin around fancy balls that fan out sweet smells. Then they have huuuge churches and cathedrals with massive organs. Chorals are singing gospels during mass. I like that kind of music somehow.

Anyways, all in all, I think the Cathols' service delivers a pretty good spiritual bang for the buck!

(That's not just spinnery of mine, I got that impression also from chats with cathols.)

catholicism suffers significantly IMO globally as a result of its contraceptive policy - indeed, I could be persuaded to rate it lower....

Yeah, I saw that. I perfectly agree, the policy is very outdated. It has to change sooner or later or the RCC will suffer from further massive member losses, esp in Latin America. The fundamental catholic doctrine is that sex shall only serve reproduction. That's just rediculous.

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

There's your intellectual dishonesty again. One is unrelated to the other.

 

[qayak]

How do you judge the idea of combining religious and state campaigns? The former ones propagating abstinence and the latter ones educating towards condom usage. That may reach more target groups.

Based upon your presented evidence, of course. Phrases like "I think <list of unsupported claims>" are of no interest for this topic.

Oh, let me tell you my very initial reasoning of this topic because you might profit.

First of all, I completely dislike the sex moral of the RCC. My whole life is an act of disobedience.

Having said that, I nevertheless leave out any emotions analysing the RCC's tactic against HIV, namely

(1)abstinence,
(2)then faithfull marriage
(3)no condoms

which cannot be refuted right away because it is protective for those who stick to it.

OK, those who break these demands obviously disobey the Pope. For the problem at hand, non-abstinence is important. So, somebody ****ing around, breaking the abstinence demand, why the hell should he/she stick to the no-condoms demand? That makes no sense, obviously.

"Hey, I am the big black womanizer in town! Don't care what da papa says! But wait, didn't he demand no condoms? Holy ****! Then I must stick to it, because I really care what da papa says!"

That is absurd!

Conclusion: there is no case to make against the RCC right away, proper investigation of available data is required.

What it means: show me data when you argue. No data, no argument.

Herzblut

The problem is that the church's position is completely unreasonable. I will give you another way of looking at this.

As Hitler came to power there were very many catholics that fought hard against him and continued to do so after he gained control. Then the very first deal he made was with the Vatican. 9Don't think this is the only deal the Vatican made. they had deals or at least agreements with almost all fascist parties at the time.) This agreement allowed the Vatican control over several things and stopped the Nazis party from criticizing the abuse in catholic schools. On the other side, the Vatican agreed to stop all catholics from opposing Hitler on all political issues. It ordered the disbanding of the catholic party in Germany.

In other words, the catholics who saw the evil of Hitler had all their weapons taken away by their own leader.

Fast forward now to 21st century Africa. There are many catholic missionaries working in there. This time the battle is against a terrible disease that the average person there doesn't understand simply because of a lack of advanced education. So these catholic missionaries are fighting the good fight with all the weapons they have, one of the most effective being the use of condoms. Simply put, the averge person in Africa does not adhere to the abstinance idea.

Then the pope comes out with a statement saying that condom use is against the policy of the church and that condoms actually spread HIV.

Hasn't this pope then done exactly what his counterpart did in Germany? Hasn't the church once again hamstrung the good fight?

 

[qayak]

How do you judge the idea of combining religious and state campaigns? The former ones propagating abstinence and the latter ones educating towards condom usage.

Sorry, I didn't answer this in my previous post.

I think that the "state" system as you call it had this right from the beginning. Abstinence has always been a part of the teaching.

With his anti-condom statement the pope has made the claim that the chance of getting HIV with a condom is as high as having unprotected sex. He further stated that it was the condom CAUSING the infection.

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

 

[The Atheist]

Is there a religion that is good? Can anyone name one?

It's amazing.

No matter how many times I emphasise it, people still get it wrong.

My premise has never been that a or any particular religion is good, it is, as it has always been: religion is not all bad.

Is it clear now?

There's your intellectual dishonesty again. One is unrelated to the other.

Hey, I tell you what. Instead of carping on with the same old BS, please explain where I have changed my opinion or stance at any stage during these two threads. I stated that opinion above and will repeat it here:

Religion is not all bad, and accordingly, it does some good.

If you can find anything other than that opinion, then you may accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Quotes from any thread will be fine - other than obvious parodies.

Cheers.

In the meantime, maybe you'd like to address the conflict between your two statements as posted above? What was that about intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Herzblut]

Simply put, the averge person in Africa does not adhere to the abstinance idea.

Then this person doesn't care what da papa says about condoms neither and could use condoms, if he wanted. But, simply put, the average male in Africa does not adhere to the idea of condoms. Regardless of what da papa says.

Then the pope comes out with a statement saying that condom use is against the policy of the church and that condoms actually spread HIV.

Hasn't this pope then done exactly what his counterpart did in Germany? Hasn't the church once again hamstrung the good fight?

Possibly, but not necessarily. If a strong believer follows the Pope's doctrine - it's fine. If somebody ignores the Pope's doctrine - it's also fine.

As I said: you cannot devaluate the Pope's doctrine with pure logic. You need data to support the claim, that the RCC causes damage in the fight against AIDS. I tried to get that thru to Arti, in vain of course.

And I studied the WHO's report on AIDS thoroughly and I could not find any evidence that catholic countries suffer from higher infections rates that non-catholic countries in the same area. This would have been strong evidence against the RCC. So, try better if you want!

I also studied extensive reports on particular African countries which make clear what really matters. Did you know that many African governments officially denied the existence of AIDS for many years calling it "Western propaganda against Africa"? And then, after the problem could no longer be ignored, did not do anything against it for quite a while? And now these countries face an incredible devastation caused by the ignorance and incompetence of their governments?

Did you know that women have practically no rights in many African societies? That African men hate to use condoms? That women have no chance at all to force condom usage even if they know their men are ****ing around?

That AIDS is a stigma in many African countries? That many Africans therefore hate to get tested and spread the virus without knowing and without caring at all? And that usage of condoms is therefore also stigmatized because it is socially regarded as a confession to have AIDS?

Etc. etc. etc.

If you don't look into the details of how African societies function, you won't be able to make any case, I'm afraid. Don't look at that Pope, look at Africa!

Herzblut