The "What should replace religion?" question

[dann]

I put two indicators into my post that show I was not assuming this applied to everyone. The expression 'conspiracy theory of religion' is a new one to me, and appears silly in this context.
Most people in a religion are indoctrinated from an early age. Those lured into a religion do it for many reasons, they may rationalise their decision in many ways.

I used to have the same argument with members of the Danish Communist Party (DKP) 30 years ago! According to their idelology, in principle all workers were already supporters of their party, which turned the night after every election into an extremely embarrassing experience when journalists asked the party leaders, 'Well, how come the workers didn't vote for you, then?!' The answer, as in this case, was that the poor workers had been manipulated into voting for the bourgeois parties in spite of their inherent fundamental commie attitude.
That was the Communist conspiracy theory of the working classes. You seem to want to think that the majority of people are indoctrinated into church from an early age - in spite of the many people who not only leave the religion of their childhood but of their own free will join other religions and superstitions, new age, for instance. I also guess that you would say that poor Carat's 'conversion' to the religion of Harry Potter was caused by the manipulative J. K. Rowling!
It also makes you wonder why so few seem to stick to believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy but remain faithful to the Church. Powerful commercial interests would be willing to make huge donations in support of the belief in Santa. I don't know how powerful the Easter Egg Lobby is ...

I'm sure that part of the play acting and clothing is exactly designed to impress, entertainers try to impress as well.

Yes, (some) entertainers try to impress, and so do many politicians, teachers and businessmen - so according to your way of fabricating arguments I guess they're entertainers too - or priests in sheep's clothing?!

As I don't deny any such thing, either people like me don't think that and/or your mind reading skills are deficient.

Yes, we know you believe that people need to believe. Don't you find it strange that plenty of people don't need to believe?

The one thing I do believe is that you can't seem to function without your strawman argument:
No, I don't think that people need to believe (I, for instance, don't). What I've argued the whole time is that people who believe need to believe. Otherwise they wouldn't! And as soon as they are able to lead fairly secure lives, religion tends to fade away. But since this fairly obvious truth about people and religion seems to make you uncomfortable, you (and many other skeptics) need to come up with your pathetic conspiracy theory of religion!

 

[Acleron]

I used to have the same argument with members of the Danish Communist Party (DKP) 30 years ago! According to their idelology, in principle all workers were already supporters of their party, which turned the night after every election into an extremely embarrassing experience when journalists asked the party leaders, 'Well, how come the workers didn't vote for you, then?!' The answer, as in this case, was that the poor workers had been manipulated into voting for the bourgeois parties in spite of their inherent fundamental commie attitude.
That was the Communist conspiracy theory of the working classes. You seem to want to think that the majority of people are indoctrinated into church from an early age - in spite of the many people who not only leave the religion of their childhood but of their own free will join other religions and superstitions, new age, for instance. I also guess that you would say that poor Carat's 'conversion' to the religion of Harry Potter was caused by the manipulative J. K. Rowling!
It also makes you wonder why so few seem to stick to believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy but remain faithful to the Church. Powerful commercial interests would be willing to make huge donations in support of the belief in Santa. I don't know how powerful the Easter Egg Lobby is ...

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the vast majority of catholics have catholic parents, the vast majority of Muslims have Muslim parents etc etc. Of course they are indoctrinated, or do think that is just coincidence.

Yes, (some) entertainers try to impress, and so do many politicians, teachers and businessmen - so according to your way of fabricating arguments I guess they're entertainers too - or priests in sheep's clothing?!

Yes, of course they are entertainers. They use the same techniques to keep their audience amused and interested while passing information designed to be accepted. Teachers, lecturers and politicians even openly talk about giving a performance.

The one thing I do believe is that you can't seem to function without your strawman argument:
No, I don't think that people need to believe (I, for instance, don't). What I've argued the whole time is that people who believe need to believe. Otherwise they wouldn't! And as soon as they are able to lead fairly secure lives, religion tends to fade away. But since this fairly obvious truth about people and religion seems to make you uncomfortable, you (and many other skeptics) need to come up with your pathetic conspiracy theory of religion!

And this is where you are completely wrong. People believe for many reasons. Indoctrination doesn't work only on those who need to believe. Many give it no thought, it is ingrained in them from an early age. Some don't check the evidence. Try telling a serious catholic that very little hard evidence exists for the existence of Jesus, the responses might enlighten you.

Leading a secure life is insufficient to let go of irrationality although the reverse is certainly correct, poverty and oppression make it easy to convince people that your irrationality leads to a better life.

So your 'truth' is little better than the other 'truths' peddled by so many. Certainly it is not rooted in either evidence or logic. So it can hardly make me uneasy.

 

[kirstenholme]

In Africa there are Western teams of witch doctors that call themselves homeopaths. They advocate against anti-retrovirals which are available. Yes, not to all but allowing ignorance to fester means no-one gets a benefit. I've not any proof that this particular group advocate against vaccination but generally they flog their water and sugar pills as replacements for vaccines.

As someone who has witnessed first hand what goes on in Africa for many decades, I can assure you that you are grasping at the edges of several different situations, knotting them together and calling the result 'complete.'

First of all, the homeopaths in Africa are no different from those in the UK and US. They offer sugar pills whilst recommending first tier medical care, as long as they stick to their ethics, of course. There are no 'teams' of sangomas or homeopaths in Africa. There may be practices set up in the same building (for holistic healthcare providers practicing western woo) but sangomas neither use methods anywhere close to those of homeopathy nor do they work in teams.

Secondly, if you would like to discuss the actual witchdoctors or Sangomas we have living here, they are only a handful who advocate no vaccinations. The question of whether HIV and AIDS are linked was largely limited to SA borders and most of the mythology was overcome when Thabo Mbeki stepped down as president.

Finally, the ONLY place you are likely to find a slightly larger concentration of patients who approach sangomas instead of doctors for help is in small, disconnected rural communities and, even there, the UN and other local NGOs have set up hospitals to treat and diagnose HIV and AIDS, administer vaccinations and treat the illnesses that come as a consequence of AIDS. Their queues are long enough to last days--locals often queue for a day and then return in the morning whilst others wait months for appointments--demonstrating the demand for western medicine in Africa. There are no such queues for those wishing to see sangomas. Yes, there are those few patients who get an HIV diagnosis in hospital and then follow with sangoma treatments because sangomas promise a cure and doctors do not but they are far in the minority.

Speaking from a Congolese, Zimbabwean, Nigerian and Lesotho vantage point, these are countries who have largely advanced beyond the low income groups in Africa's most developed country--SA.

Taking bits of history, bits of myth, tons of assumptions and lots of stitching all that together is not going to end in the truth of the matter.

 

[kirstenholme]

hey offer sugar pills whilst recommending first tier medical care, as long as they stick to their ethics, of course.

Incidentally, the statement was very tongue in cheek and not intended to label homeopathic practices ethical on any level.

 

[Acleron]

As someone who has witnessed first hand what goes on in Africa for many decades, I can assure you that you are grasping at the edges of several different situations, knotting them together and calling the result 'complete.'

As I was talking about a very specific item then this makes little sense.

First of all, the homeopaths in Africa are no different from those in the UK and US. They offer sugar pills whilst recommending first tier medical care, as long as they stick to their ethics, of course.

If they are the same as UK homeopaths they definitely don't recommend proper medical care and in most cases advocate against it. The Sher team have even tried to stop ARV for AIDS patients.

There are no 'teams' of sangomas or homeopaths in Africa. There may be practices set up in the same building (for holistic healthcare providers practicing western woo) but sangomas neither use methods anywhere close to those of homeopathy nor do they work in teams.

I'm sorry, I may have confused you by pejoratively and deliberately referring to homeopaths as witchdoctors. But for teams of homeopaths look up Homeopaths Without Borders and the infamous Shers. There are a stream of homeopaths in the UK requesting donations to fund them on trips to Africa to spread their anti-medicine nonsense.

Secondly, if you would like to discuss the actual witchdoctors or Sangomas we have living here, they are only a handful who advocate no vaccinations. The question of whether HIV and AIDS are linked was largely limited to SA borders and most of the mythology was overcome when Thabo Mbeki stepped down as president.

Finally, the ONLY place you are likely to find a slightly larger concentration of patients who approach sangomas instead of doctors for help is in small, disconnected rural communities and, even there, the UN and other local NGOs have set up hospitals to treat and diagnose HIV and AIDS, administer vaccinations and treat the illnesses that come as a consequence of AIDS. Their queues are long enough to last days--locals often queue for a day and then return in the morning whilst others wait months for appointments--demonstrating the demand for western medicine in Africa. There are no such queues for those wishing to see sangomas. Yes, there are those few patients who get an HIV diagnosis in hospital and then follow with sangoma treatments because sangomas promise a cure and doctors do not but they are far in the minority.

See above re witchdoctors.

Speaking from a Congolese, Zimbabwean, Nigerian and Lesotho vantage point, these are countries who have largely advanced beyond the low income groups in Africa's most developed country--SA.

Taking bits of history, bits of myth, tons of assumptions and lots of stitching all that together is not going to end in the truth of the matter.

Indeed.

 

[dann]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the vast majority of catholics have catholic parents, the vast majority of Muslims have Muslim parents etc etc. Of course they are indoctrinated, or do think that is just coincidence.

No, it's no coincidence, but it's not the argument for people-believing-because-of-indoctrination that you seem to think. You may have noticed that people tend to eat the same kind of stuff that their parents used to feed them, which, of course, in your optics would make the reason for preferring those kinds of foods (or even for eating at all!?) a question, not of taste, tradition or availability, but of manipulation!!!, i.e. the conspiracy theory of favourite meals. There are other tendencies, however. People may acquire other tastes as soon as other foodstuffs become available. Or they may stick to the old ones, which may be a matter of taste. (They very rarely give up eating completely because everybody (in this case) feel the need to eat.)
As pointed out to you several times before in my references to Zuckerman's book, Scandinavians, too, in particular in Sweden and Denmark, tend to stick with the religion of their parents, but as their need to believe diminishes, they may drop out of the church completely or consider it merely a place where you celebrate certain rituals of life: coming of age, weddings and funerals. Or they may remain firm believers but decide that they prefer a different brand: Catholicism, Islam, Sothern Baptists, new age, whatever.

Yes, of course they are entertainers. They use the same techniques to keep their audience amused and interested while passing information designed to be accepted. Teachers, lecturers and politicians even openly talk about giving a performance.

And we all know that the reason why people go see teachers, lecturers and even vote for politicians is that they've been indoctrinated by the entertainment they offer ...
Try not to forget your original argument, please!

And this is where you are completely wrong. People believe for many reasons. Indoctrination doesn't work only on those who need to believe. Many give it no thought, it is ingrained in them from an early age. Some don't check the evidence. Try telling a serious catholic that very little hard evidence exists for the existence of Jesus, the responses might enlighten you.

No, not really, but I'm not unenlightened as it is. Sure, in my country where the majority of people no longer feel the need and therefore have a very relaxed attitude to religion, like I said, they may choose to stay in the church as a mere formality, and the reason why they "don't check the evidence" is that they don't really care. The preacher doesn't tell them about heaven and hell anyway, because he doesn't believe in them (or in a god) himself. The people in his congregation don't seem to mind, but he probably shouldn't have been as open about as he was.

Leading a secure life is insufficient to let go of irrationality although the reverse is certainly correct, poverty and oppression make it easy to convince people that your irrationality leads to a better life.

It not only makes it easy for your alleged manipulators, it may also turn people to search, positively, for a meaning of life in the Beyond - or even invent one themselves if the ones on offer don't please their discerning tastes.

So your 'truth' is little better than the other 'truths' peddled by so many. Certainly it is not rooted in either evidence or logic. So it can hardly make me uneasy.

No, according to your logic I must have been indoctrinated into thinking the way I do because somebody manipulated me into doing so by means of entertainment, right?!
It's kinda weird that my favourite music hasn't yet turned me into a worshipper of Yemaya!
And since conspiracy theorists like you tend to be so very susceptible to logic and evidence that they don't for one moment consider the actual evidence and arguments presented to them, you may feel free to disregard my many examples of both.

 

[Acleron]

No, it's no coincidence, but it's not the argument for people-believing-because-of-indoctrination that you seem to think. You may have noticed that people tend to eat the same kind of stuff that their parents used to feed them, which, of course, in your optics would make the reason for preferring those kinds of foods (or even for eating at all!?) a question, not of taste, tradition or availability, but of manipulation!!!, i.e. the conspiracy theory of favourite meals. There are other tendencies, however. People may acquire other tastes as soon as other foodstuffs become available. Or they may stick to the old ones, which may be a matter of taste. (They very rarely give up eating completely because everybody (in this case) feel the need to eat.)
As pointed out to you several times before in my references to Zuckerman's book, Scandinavians, too, in particular in Sweden and Denmark, tend to stick with the religion of their parents, but as their need to believe diminishes, they may drop out of the church completely or consider it merely a place where you celebrate certain rituals of life: coming of age, weddings and funerals. Or they may remain firm believers but decide that they prefer a different brand: Catholicism, Islam, Sothern Baptists, new age, whatever.



And we all know that the reason why people go see teachers, lecturers and even vote for politicians is that they've been indoctrinated by the entertainment they offer ...
Try not to forget your original argument, please!



No, not really, but I'm not unenlightened as it is. Sure, in my country where the majority of people no longer feel the need and therefore have a very relaxed attitude to religion, like I said, they may choose to stay in the church as a mere formality, and the reason why they "don't check the evidence" is that they don't really care. The preacher doesn't tell them about heaven and hell anyway, because he doesn't believe in them (or in a god) himself. The people in his congregation don't seem to mind, but he probably shouldn't have been as open about as he was.



It not only makes it easy for your alleged manipulators, it may also turn people to search, positively, for a meaning of life in the Beyond - or even invent one themselves if the ones on offer don't please their discerning tastes.



No, according to your logic I must have been indoctrinated into thinking the way I do because somebody manipulated me into doing so by means of entertainment, right?!
It's kinda weird that my favourite music hasn't yet turned me into a worshipper of Yemaya!
And since conspiracy theorists like you tend to be so very susceptible to logic and evidence that they don't for one moment consider the actual evidence and arguments presented to them, you may feel free to disregard my many examples of both.

I really can't be bothered to detail a point by point answer to you as you have no interest in discussing the individual points I make but attempt to conflate different points while ascribing beliefs to me which have no factual basis.

 

[asydhouse]

I really can't be bothered to detail a point by point answer to you as you have no interest in discussing the individual points I make but attempt to conflate different points while ascribing beliefs to me which have no factual basis.

Plus ca change.

I gave up trying to discuss with him ages ago,

 

[dann]

Yes, you were both unconvincing and resorted to the same kind of strawman arguments, but at least Acleron never succumbed to singing Kumbaya, My Lord around the campfire.

 

[kirstenholme]

As I was talking about a very specific item then this makes little sense.

I'll respond with your own words:

In Africa there are Western teams of witch doctors that call themselves homeopaths. They advocate against anti-retrovirals which are available. Yes, not to all but allowing ignorance to fester means no-one gets a benefit. I've not any proof that this particular group advocate against vaccination but generally they flog their water and sugar pills as replacements for vaccines.

On the one hand, you say this is an African problem and on the other, you mention this team as 'a very specific item.' Africa is no more bothered by homeopathy than the rest of the first world and an 'across borders' initiative makes the particular group you mentioned widely applicable on a global scale. I am not arguing your opinion on homeopathy's lack of morality and ethics, as I've stated before in this thread. Your depiction of this group of homeopaths as operating 'in Africa' creates a narrow view of my continent and its healthcare issues (of which there are many.)

I'm not arguing that we do not have homeopathy or that the Sherr team is not in operation but, in Africa, they are the least of our worries in terms of the link between poverty and lack of healthcare. It is not the uneducated, poverty-stricken illiterate communities who are seeing homeopaths. It's the upper/middle class minority groups who have been educated about vaccines and medical healthcare and have access to the same--these are groups who seldom do without the necessary vaccines despite their supposed faith in holistic care--in much the same way that theists, when seeing a seriously wounded person, call an ambulance instead of (or while) saying a prayer. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and there are those who put their absolute faith in homeopathy alone--in fact much of my family belongs to this very set and we have all paid a heavy price for that--several times over.

If they are the same as UK homeopaths they definitely don't recommend proper medical care and in most cases advocate against it. The Sher team have even tried to stop ARV for AIDS patients.

Again, you missed the part where I mentioned that I was not calling homeopathy ethical. My point is to offer a better direction about poverty in Africa, our healthcare system and what is really causing some to forego proper medical care. If you went into government housing districts, townships or rural villages, you would be hard-pressed to find a poverty-stricken individual who would choose homeopathy over sangomas or even actual medical doctors. Even in the poorest of communities, you will find at least one sangoma--a role that is deeply entrenched in almost every aspect of those communities' lives. Convincing people to go against the culture they have been brought up in is difficult but hospital presence and healthcare availability have made some huge strides to turn medical care into a more widely used solution. Homeopathy simply hasn't put in the groundwork required to establish itself in opposition to either medical healthcare or sangomas. Whatever the Sherr team's hopes and goals, they will struggle to convince most of our locals to choose homeopathy above their other options.

As for those who refuse ARVs, the problem is hugely complex and profoundly entrenched and it has very little to do with a group of UK homeopaths. A first hand experience of a poor African community's struggle against HIV and the UN healthcare system is told from first hand experience in the book 'The Three Letter Plague.' It really does take a whole book to get to the bottom of it.

 

[Acleron]

I'll respond with your own words:



On the one hand, you say this is an African problem and on the other, you mention this team as 'a very specific item.' Africa is no more bothered by homeopathy than the rest of the first world and an 'across borders' initiative makes the particular group you mentioned widely applicable on a global scale. I am not arguing your opinion on homeopathy's lack of morality and ethics, as I've stated before in this thread. Your depiction of this group of homeopaths as operating 'in Africa' creates a narrow view of my continent and its healthcare issues (of which there are many.)

I'm not arguing that we do not have homeopathy or that the Sherr team is not in operation but, in Africa, they are the least of our worries in terms of the link between poverty and lack of healthcare. It is not the uneducated, poverty-stricken illiterate communities who are seeing homeopaths. It's the upper/middle class minority groups who have been educated about vaccines and medical healthcare and have access to the same--these are groups who seldom do without the necessary vaccines despite their supposed faith in holistic care--in much the same way that theists, when seeing a seriously wounded person, call an ambulance instead of (or while) saying a prayer. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and there are those who put their absolute faith in homeopathy alone--in fact much of my family belongs to this very set and we have all paid a heavy price for that--several times over.


Again, you missed the part where I mentioned that I was not calling homeopathy ethical. My point is to offer a better direction about poverty in Africa, our healthcare system and what is really causing some to forego proper medical care. If you went into government housing districts, townships or rural villages, you would be hard-pressed to find a poverty-stricken individual who would choose homeopathy over sangomas or even actual medical doctors. Even in the poorest of communities, you will find at least one sangoma--a role that is deeply entrenched in almost every aspect of those communities' lives. Convincing people to go against the culture they have been brought up in is difficult but hospital presence and healthcare availability have made some huge strides to turn medical care into a more widely used solution. Homeopathy simply hasn't put in the groundwork required to establish itself in opposition to either medical healthcare or sangomas. Whatever the Sherr team's hopes and goals, they will struggle to convince most of our locals to choose homeopathy above their other options.

As for those who refuse ARVs, the problem is hugely complex and profoundly entrenched and it has very little to do with a group of UK homeopaths. A first hand experience of a poor African community's struggle against HIV and the UN healthcare system is told from first hand experience in the book 'The Three Letter Plague.' It really does take a whole book to get to the bottom of it.

The example of the homeopaths was given to rebut the suggestion that healthcare should be provided before education. It didn't claim to represent the totality of the situation in Africa. In fact nothing can, the only common feature throughout Africa is that it is one piece of land.

You claimed there were no teams of homeopaths, but as you see, there are.

It may not have achieved great importance but they are opening clinics and 'training' local homeopaths. They certainly see it as a fertile ground for expansion.

HIV is a huge problem, its rate of infection is adversely affected by those who spread misinformation and here the Catholics have a shameful record advocating and lying about condoms. For the infected, advocating against ARVs and medicine, when they are available, is despicable. If the local witch doctors are not doing this, then great, they will be the first alt-med group in history to give up their livelihoods voluntarily having reached the logical conclusion that their system doesn't work.

And thinking about the OP, if nothing replaced the Catholics in Africa, conditions would be improved and not only for health.

 

[dann]

And thinking about the OP, if nothing replaced the Catholics in Africa, conditions would be improved and not only for health.

If nothing replaced the Catholics in Africa, you'd probably be pleased since it's the only thing you seem to care about, but conditions wouldn't be improved. However, if access to healthcare replaced access to Catholic churches in Africa, conditions would improve immensely - and the need to believe, be it in Catholicism or witchdoctors, would diminish.

 

[Acleron]

If nothing replaced the Catholics in Africa, you'd probably be pleased since it's the only thing you seem to care about, but conditions wouldn't be improved. However, if access to healthcare replaced access to Catholic churches in Africa, conditions would improve immensely - and the need to believe, be it in Catholicism or witchdoctors, would diminish.

You really are quite monotonous and nearly always completely wrong.

 

[dann]

You really are quite monotonous and nearly always completely wrong.

Well, the OP is an easy question to answer: Since religion replaces a safe and secure life (logically, not historically, since mankind was born in unsafe and uncertain living conditions - and therefore also needed religion from the word go), you shouldn't replace religion with anything. You should remove the need for religion (and its substitutes) by giving people a good life in the real world so people don't pine for a good (after) life beyond reality.
So far you've done nothing to disprove this very obvious truth - and your ignorance of conditions in Africa only serves to make it obvious how unreliable you are.

It appears as if the (often Libertarian) need to persuade themselves that they are magnificent, superior individuals, merely because they are able to recognise the equally obvious truth that there is no god, tends to make many skeptics prone to condemn believers as primarily studid and ignorant even though atheism is first and foremost a luxury for people fortunate enough to be free from the existential worries of the rest of mankind - not because they don't believe, but because they don't need to believe.

 

[kirstenholme]

If the local witch doctors are not doing this, then great, they will be the first alt-med group in history to give up their livelihoods voluntarily having reached the logical conclusion that their system doesn't work.

Don't get me wrong--again, I've mentioned a particular group but have not advocated its methods. I have made no claim that our local sangomas advocate the use of condoms--I've merely tried to give a rounder perspective of the factors that are affecting us most in the AIDS/poverty fight.

Catholicism, too, is alive and well in South Africa, along with its legalism around divorce and contraception. A South Sotho woman who worked for my mother and was a member of an SA branch strongly wound around Catholicism needed to have her tubes tied in secret because her faith did not allow the use of contraception and her and her husband's earnings could not support more children. This is far from an exception but it represents a minority. Depo-provera has played a major role in reviving women's reproductive rights precisely because it can be administered without husbands and boyfriends finding out but it enlivens the AIDS struggle by advocating non-barrier contraceptives. It is a step in the right direction in many ways but in terms of the AIDS crisis, it leaves the position to stagnate.

Perhaps more harmful was when our current president, who had been charged with rape some time back, claimed publicly that he had not used a condom. In response to inquiry about his risk of contracting HIV, he said he'd taken care of that by taking a shower afterwards.

As mentioned before, our previous president simply claimed that there was no link between HIV and AIDS and that western countries had invented the concept to cull the African population by encouraging the use of barrier methods of contraception. With AIDS being viewed as a fallacy by governmental leaders, ARVs were 'unnecessary,' so they were not available through the public healthcare system for many years. The then health minister created a diet of broccoli, garlic and carrots (if I remember correctly) which would prevent transmission of the virus.

 

[Acleron]

Don't get me wrong--again, I've mentioned a particular group but have not advocated its methods. I have made no claim that our local sangomas advocate the use of condoms--I've merely tried to give a rounder perspective of the factors that are affecting us most in the AIDS/poverty fight.

Catholicism, too, is alive and well in South Africa, along with its legalism around divorce and contraception. A South Sotho woman who worked for my mother and was a member of an SA branch strongly wound around Catholicism needed to have her tubes tied in secret because her faith did not allow the use of contraception and her and her husband's earnings could not support more children. This is far from an exception but it represents a minority. Depo-provera has played a major role in reviving women's reproductive rights precisely because it can be administered without husbands and boyfriends finding out but it enlivens the AIDS struggle by advocating non-barrier contraceptives. It is a step in the right direction in many ways but in terms of the AIDS crisis, it leaves the position to stagnate.

Perhaps more harmful was when our current president, who had been charged with rape some time back, claimed publicly that he had not used a condom. In response to inquiry about his risk of contracting HIV, he said he'd taken care of that by taking a shower afterwards.

As mentioned before, our previous president simply claimed that there was no link between HIV and AIDS and that western countries had invented the concept to cull the African population by encouraging the use of barrier methods of contraception. With AIDS being viewed as a fallacy by governmental leaders, ARVs were 'unnecessary,' so they were not available through the public healthcare system for many years. The then health minister created a diet of broccoli, garlic and carrots (if I remember correctly) which would prevent transmission of the virus.

Mbeki and Tshabala-Msimang were responsible for that dreadful policy in South Africa and no doubt influenced some states around. (I think her main ingredient was beetroot ) Simple preventative methods such as condoms and even abstinence were hard to introduce because of those uneducated views. Throughout Africa this lack of education has led to HIV infection that could be prevented and even rapes of young children in the uneducated belief that having sex with virgins 'cures' the disease.

It all goes to show that relatively cheap education can improve the health of people without having to introduce a full health care system, not that the health care improvements should be delayed.

The Catholic Church is directly responsible for much of the misinformation about HIV and have often lied about condoms. Of course, a religious system is the last place to rely on education as it is considered merely as a method of selling their religion and reinforcing the indoctrination.

 

[Dcdrac]

The question for me is why do we need religions at all anymore?

What it the use of them, not much as far as I can tell, do we really need some old books to create a moral centre?

 

[dann]

It all goes to show that, in the case of AIDS, relatively cheap education (and cheap, or even better: free condoms) can improve the health/prevent the risk of getting sick of people without having to introduce a full health care system, not that the health care improvements should be delayed.

Fixed it for you! And I would be willing to sign it now!
And if you actually think that "the health care improvements should (not) be delayed", I wonder why it's so important to you to deny that a full health-care system is a precondition for the success of health education (e.g. overcoming the belief in witchdoctors) in most other cases?

 

[Acleron]

Fixed it for you! And I would be willing to sign it now!
And if you actually think that "the health care improvements should (not) be delayed", I wonder why it's so important to you to deny that a full health-care system is a precondition for the success of health education (e.g. overcoming the belief in witchdoctors) in most other cases?

When you start responding to what people actually say and not what you believe you may find responses in turn, quote mining to change the meaning of another poster is not worthy of a response.

 

[Acleron]

The question for me is why do we need religions at all anymore?

What it the use of them, not much as far as I can tell, do we really need some old books to create a moral centre?

The answer is we don't. Unfortunately, high profile, charismatic preachers, just like the quack sellers who emulate them, are effective in convincing people they do need absolute morals. Those morals are, of course, not absolute but cherry picked to conform with the prejudices that are prevalent in the target group. I've mentioned before that individuals who leave a particular cult can lose friends and even fall out with close relatives. That social aspect appears to me the only real loss and is temporary until each can form a new network of friends. So there could be a case for support for such people. The US has The Clergy Project which aims to support clergy who become non-believers, these have special problems because they lose their income stream.