Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
All Religion is Bad.
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I can understand why people call me a religious apologist. Sometimes, it's even appropriate. I can understand why people call ceo_esquire a religious apologist, although it is rarely appropriate.
The idea that The Atheist is a religious apologist is really, really, funny.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Indeed. Blind faith can get people to do all sorts of things--like fly planes into buildings, give their kids tainted kool aid, refuse medical treatment of a child by offering prayer instead, etc. Once someone is convinced that "faith is good"-- even the key to salvation-- then what wouldn't they do to ensure that their ETERNITY is glorious. Especially if failure can lead to eternal suffering of said person (and their loved ones.)?
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,409
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
Here's some more evidence:
Remember how you pointed out how well Brazil, a supposed catholic country, performed in HIV/AIDS prevention? You tried to give the credit to this to the catholic church. Well, here is the truth about that:
http://www.seechange.org/media/The Case Against The Vatican.htm
"Brazilian Catholic officials in 1995 criticized the government’s new AIDS prevention campaign because the campaign advocates the use of condoms to protect against the spread of HIV and AIDS."
So, Brazil does well in its fight against HIV/AIDS not because they are a catholic country but despite the fact that they are a catholic country.
Herzblut
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,234
Sorry, but no. You did not provide evidence and you did not answer my questions satisfactorily.
N.p. I honestly apologize!
Well, the BBC sites are not issued by the Vatican, correct?
But I'm glad you eventually found the Trujillo document "FAMILY VALUES VERSUS SAFE SEX" from Dec 2003. Here's another reference to it on vatican.va, where you can find it in Spanish (original version), French, English and Italian:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...31201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html
It is subtitled "A Reflection by His Eminence,...TRUJILLO". Does that imply, it is an official Pope policy? Is Trujillo the Pope? Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than myself can comment on what a "reflection" is meant to be. Can you, ceo?
Coming to the content, what do you say about this kind of journalism:
The mass media have circulated news that I granted an interview to the BBC, which was broadcasted last October 12, 2003, on the eve of Pope John Paul II’s 25th Anniversary in his service as Bishop of Rome. On that occasion, I answered different questions for more than an hour, especially those dealing with the family. But, surprisingly, what was shown from the whole interview on the BBC Panorama’s film, Sex & The Holy City, were merely three questions of less than half a minute each, the answers to which were certainly much more complete. The program apparently tried to deliberately and systematically criticize the Catholic Church for supposedly contributing to the death of people by not allowing the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Also, looking into this BBC document about Uganda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3844959.stm
how would you re-answer my very initial proposal in our discussion, namely to combine teaching both, abstinence and condom usage? That might reach more target groups, I argued. So?
Herzblut
Last edited:
Herzblut
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,234
Please stop deliberately misinterpreting my statements! I never said nor thought anything like that.
You needed quite some time to come to that formulation, but OK, you finally got there.
What I say is: this might be the case. But it nevertheless, or even more, refutes your accusation! You obviously overestimated the Pope's influence on people's everyday life drastically. Even in the biggest catholic country on the planet. That is my argument, qayak.
Herzblut
Last edited:
Faithkills
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 429
Last I checked death is irreparable, but it's the Pope so who knows;p
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
You stated that catholic countries were as good as any country in their area. That is not true and any credit for the ones that are up near the top cannot go to the catholic church.
You needed quite some time to come to that formulation, but OK, you finally got there.
Not at all. I have all this in documents down loaded. I just had some extra time last night.
In fact, this is wrong. Your argument has been that the vatican's position on condoms does no harm in the fight against HIV/AIDS. You even go so far as to claim that the vatican's position has consistently been the best way to combat the disease.
Regardless of the actual numbers though, why is the catholic church always on the opposite side of agencies providing real aid to those in need? Why do these agencies have to waste time and energy combatting the stone aged ideas of the RCC? Why does the vatican insist on using lies to play on the fears of ignorant people?
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
But religions tell you that if you believe the right unbelievable story you get to live happily ever after after you die. It's a wonder more of them aren't looking forward to starting this happily ever after, eh?
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,409
No good. Log-in only.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
I was raised Catholic, and I always wondered if those priests who molest kids and such really believe in hell? And if threats of hell are supposed to make people be good, why doesn't it seem to work? I spent too much of my youth trying to make sense of religion because the adults around me seemed to believe it. But it doesn't make sense. It's all blustery nothingness that manipulates trusting people. If it was good or true, there would be no need to threaten people into believing it and punishing them for dissent.
Please point to one wrong thing I've said in these pages. I won't hold my breath, though.
Now, it's not clear how the problem with your remark is cured by virtue of being an "add on" to the original. Added on nonsense is still nonsense. And we are still left wondering what special, private insight you have into the pope's mind that allows you to talk about his subjective mental states in the way you do.
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.
As an initial matter, one can't help noticing that all three of the linked sources predate the current papal administration, which is already a problem. Still, maybe we can justify giving you half marks if any of the sources contain an actual statement by JPII, or perhaps by the former Cardinal Ratzinger, to the effect that condoms cause HIV/AIDS.
The first link is to a news story that contains no statements by Ratzinger or JPII at all. In addition, the closest thing to a statement that condoms cause HIV/AIDS is an allegation by a Kenyan interviewee that
"Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids".
The second link is to a news story that, likewise, contains no statements by Ratzinger or any pope. he closest thing that emerges here to a statement by anyone that condoms cause HIV/AIDS is the suggestion by another cardinal that reliance on condoms may in a number of cases have contributed to someone's contracting HIV/AIDS, by encouraging high-risk sexual behavior. How close that proposition comes to being a statement that "condoms cause HIV/AIDS" is debatable. It's also questionable whether it should be considered even the old pope's words, much less those of Pope Benedict. Perhaps most interestingly, it's not even a clearly wrong suggestion. But at any rate, it isn't responsive to the request for a source.
The third link is simply to that cardinal's essay on which the second source was reporting. The previous comments naturally apply.
Oh well. Perhaps you had other sources in mind for that elusive pontifical pathogenic-prophylactic statement.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,409
I have such a strange feeling of deja vu...
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
ceo_esq--
The new Pope has been asked to reconsider their decree against use of condoms because of the AIDs problem. He has issued nothing new and confirmed that "hell is real". You can tap dance around it all you want, but Catholic papal policy and misinformation is responsible for increased deaths from AIDS. Normal people don't need to have a map drawn and colored in to understand this. Your apologetics don't make qayak look bad--they just make you look like a garden variety apologist. It takes an inordinate amount of evidence to prove to you that religions cause harm, but none at all to declare that they do good... and to declare qayak dishonest as opposed to the religions he exposes.
The new Pope has been asked to reconsider their decree against use of condoms because of the AIDs problem. He has issued nothing new and confirmed that "hell is real". You can tap dance around it all you want, but Catholic papal policy and misinformation is responsible for increased deaths from AIDS. Normal people don't need to have a map drawn and colored in to understand this. Your apologetics don't make qayak look bad--they just make you look like a garden variety apologist. It takes an inordinate amount of evidence to prove to you that religions cause harm, but none at all to declare that they do good... and to declare qayak dishonest as opposed to the religions he exposes.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,409
Do I get the mio yet?
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.
Faithkills
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 429
This is just one of the many lies that are so destructive. Few people believe enough that they will hasten the process but the ones that will martyr themselves are the most dangerous.
I really don't care about god if he exists, in and of himself he has never harmed nor hurt anyone. It's the lies that he is used to justify that cause evil.
Religion is the problem, god is just a patsy.