Religious Apologetics / What Do You Believe?

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2012 6:00:56 GMT -5 Yoyti said:

Sae, do you think I would be responsible for genocide if I took antibiotics to get rid of harmful bacteria?

That's...kind of a hard question, because it can be told from two different points of view.

I guess I could say no because you're not getting rid of the WORLD'S population of those bacteria. Genocide seems like, to me, wiping out the worldwide population of a species or culture group.

Still, people and bacteria would have a different view of what's right and what's wrong, and what must be done for each species to survive, so it's kind of two-sided.

EDIT: I looked at your Freethought place and I agree with Teow that it IS hateful. I saw a poster that said "They pray for a world where the rich aren't taxed and where gays can't get married". ?! I don't know a single Christian on here who is praying for that.

As a Pagan, I generally make prayers to faery queens and to the Muses Calliope and Clio (the site had next to no information on Paganism, which probably means they don't want to admit they were wrong and not all religions have hateful people). And what do I pray to them for? I pray for them to protect and assist the people (and animals) I love. I pray for more trees to grow and less litter on the ground. I pray for no more animals to die due to car accidents. I pray for my dreams and the dreams of others to come true.

Freethought people, I dare you to explain how any of that is hateful or violating another person's rights.

(Yoyti, I was just curious and found myself ranting against the site itself. This isn't an attack against you at all.)

[Deleted]

I've been thinking about this for a little wile so sorry if the topic has already moved away from it, but I wanted to just point something out which I found rather ironic.

Freethoughtpedia. Its name suggests that it advocates free thought (duh xD), and free thought has a couple of definitions.

1. The freedom to believe or not believe in whatever you want, and by extension, the freedom to express and practice those beliefs without discrimination.
2. The philosophy of making choices about beliefs based on science and reason. (paraphrased)

Freethoughtpedia is neither of these. It does not seem to follow any sort of logic that I know of, uses false statements and they don't seem to back up these statements ... probably because, as Teow pointed out, it is impossible to back up the statement that religion is responsible for most deaths. That award goes to a combination of heart disease, malnutrition, HIV/AIDs and malaria. None of which, to my knowledge, have anything to do with religion.

So freethoughtpedia isn't scientific or justified in its claims, and I think it's pretty obvious it is intolerant of religions of all natures and their practices. Even other atheists have found the site to be less than tasteful.

So while it might be called freethoughtpedia, and that might bring to mind images of freedom and harmony and reason, the reality is that this site in no way advocates free thought.

Which just goes to show that non-religious people are just as capable of the hateful behaviour they like to pin religious folks as being the ultimate cause of.

[Breakingchains]

Hm. I hadn't seen that site so far, but after a brief browsing, I'm tempted to agree. Some articles seem a bit more calm and follow a traceable pattern of logic (though they still omit things when convenient--see the article about whether Hitler was atheist or Christian; no sign of quotes like the ones Nimras pointed out, only those that suggest he was Christian, which I guess proves... something?) whereas others are chaotic and disorganized, or have a noticeable undercurrent of anger as if they were written just to blow off steam. I'm guessing that the quality control is set very low, and there don't seem to be any requirements for citations at all.

The site is just kind of... like a lot of other opinion pieces: it's probably pretty entertaining if you already agree, and are frustrated with the other side, and especially if you want reading material safely removed from the heart of the matter or a realistic representation of people who don't think like you. But it's not a whole lot else.

[Enn]

Apr 25, 2012 19:23:36 GMT -5 @adoqhina said:

... as Teow pointed out, it is impossible to back up the statement that religion is responsible for most deaths. That award goes to a combination of heart disease, malnutrition, HIV/AIDs and malaria. None of which, to my knowledge, have anything to do with religion.

To play devil's advocate, it can have an impact on these. Charitable groups help combat things such as disease and malnutrition, religious groups included; and on the other hand, religious groups that say you must not use birth control can have an impact on that can have an impact on HIV/Aids.

Obviously the point is that Freethoughtpedia is pretty off base, just like Conservapedia or basically most 'pedias online, and it seems like people are pretty much in agreement on that (me too). But there is something to discuss in this point raised.

[M is for Morphine]

Apr 26, 2012 4:11:30 GMT -5 Enn said:

To play devil's advocate, it can have an impact on these. Charitable groups help combat things such as disease and malnutrition, religious groups included; and on the other hand, religious groups that say you must not use birth control can have an impact on that can have an impact on HIV/Aids.

Obviously the point is that Freethoughtpedia is pretty off base, just like Conservapedia or basically most 'pedias online, and it seems like people are pretty much in agreement on that (me too). But there is something to discuss in this point raised.

I was thinking the same thing about AIDS, but at the same time even counting every AIDS death that may have been brought about by religious groups refusing to supply condoms (up until very recently when Catholic charities got the ok to distribute them from the Pope, but then only for AIDS and not for contraceptive use), it's a drop in the bucket compared to their actual wording, which was "Religion has played a primary role in most wars and death in the history of human civilization"

The opposition to life-saving measures such as condoms (in fact, the abstinence-focused sex ed in my highschool had our teacher actually telling us that condoms were useless against AIDS, so don't even bother!) and other faith-based issues have certainly led to deaths and the further spread of the disease.

However, any actual point is drowned in an ocean of hyperbole.

[Enn]

Apr 26, 2012 4:50:43 GMT -5 M is for Morphine said:

Apr 26, 2012 4:11:30 GMT -5 Enn said:

To play devil's advocate, it can have an impact on these. Charitable groups help combat things such as disease and malnutrition, religious groups included; and on the other hand, religious groups that say you must not use birth control can have an impact on that can have an impact on HIV/Aids.

Obviously the point is that Freethoughtpedia is pretty off base, just like Conservapedia or basically most 'pedias online, and it seems like people are pretty much in agreement on that (me too). But there is something to discuss in this point raised.

I was thinking the same thing about AIDS, but at the same time even counting every AIDS death that may have been brought about by religious groups refusing to supply condoms (up until very recently when Catholic charities got the ok to distribute them from the Pope, but then only for AIDS and not for contraceptive use), it's a drop in the bucket compared to their actual wording, which was "Religion has played a primary role in most wars and death in the history of human civilization"

The opposition to life-saving measures such as condoms (in fact, the abstinence-focused sex ed in my highschool had our teacher actually telling us that condoms were useless against AIDS, so don't even bother!) and other faith-based issues have certainly led to deaths and the further spread of the disease.

However, any actual point is drowned in an ocean of hyperbole.

Just to be clear here, I meant 'there's something to discuss in the point Sarn raised about those things having nothing to do with religion'- I don't think there's merit of any kind in Freethoughtpedia's comment.

Don't want to come across as having given that place the time of day.

[M is for Morphine]

Apr 26, 2012 5:30:34 GMT -5 Enn said:

Just to be clear here, I meant 'there's something to discuss in the point Sarn raised about those things having nothing to do with religion'- I don't think there's merit of any kind in Freethoughtpedia's comment.

Don't want to come across as having given that place the time of day.

Oh yes, of course. Like I said, I was thinking the same thing. XD

[Crystal]

Apr 26, 2012 5:30:34 GMT -5 Enn said:

Apr 26, 2012 4:50:43 GMT -5 M is for Morphine said:

I was thinking the same thing about AIDS, but at the same time even counting every AIDS death that may have been brought about by religious groups refusing to supply condoms (up until very recently when Catholic charities got the ok to distribute them from the Pope, but then only for AIDS and not for contraceptive use), it's a drop in the bucket compared to their actual wording, which was "Religion has played a primary role in most wars and death in the history of human civilization"

The opposition to life-saving measures such as condoms (in fact, the abstinence-focused sex ed in my highschool had our teacher actually telling us that condoms were useless against AIDS, so don't even bother!) and other faith-based issues have certainly led to deaths and the further spread of the disease.

However, any actual point is drowned in an ocean of hyperbole.

Just to be clear here, I meant 'there's something to discuss in the point Sarn raised about those things having nothing to do with religion'- I don't think there's merit of any kind in Freethoughtpedia's comment.

Don't want to come across as having given that place the time of day.

That's true what you say; religion does at least have an impact on the issue Sarn raised. I would argue that it's a 'good faith' kind of impact, though; where, for instance, in the AIDs issue, not distributing condoms may be a bad choice, but they're still generally good people faithfully doing what they believe is right.

As opposed, of course, to Freethoughtpedia's profoundly negative implications on the whole matter. Thank you, Freethoughtpedia. xD I think that Breakingchains had a good point about it being mostly an opinion piece.

[Enn]

Apr 26, 2012 8:17:01 GMT -5 Crystal said:

That's true what you say; religion does at least have an impact on the issue Sarn raised. I would argue that it's a 'good faith' kind of impact, though; where, for instance, in the AIDs issue, not distributing condoms may be a bad choice, but they're still generally good people faithfully doing what they believe is right.

As with all these situations there's usually a story out there that says otherwise. Here it's this story from 2003 about the Catholic Church lying about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing AIDS. Lying like that does not seem (to my eyes at least) to be something you could honestly believe you're right in doing.

The 'prayer cure' Teow pointed out above is also pretty awful. I get that if you honestly believed that prayer would cure these people of HIV then you can think you're 'doing good' but... it's in the face of huge amounts of evidence, it's actively ignoring evidence to put your faith first in a matter of life and death. Can it count as 'good faith' in that situation?

Of course, those are just a few stories. Almost all religions have groups supporting those affected by HIV/AIDS (Buddhist from my first Google search). The problem comes when the religion and its beliefs go counter to what is healthiest for the person at risk/facing life with HIV or AIDs. I don't like getting involved in these debates beyond 'this is what I believe' really but I have to say, if the Vatican came out and said 'please use condoms to avoid HIV/AIDS', imagine the impact that could have. It'd be incredible.

Of course this is all the HIV/sex side of it. Charities and religions do fantastic work towards poverty, nutrition, all sorts of issues. But the impact can be negative, and... I dunno, it seems wrong to say 'they meant well by it' when it can cost lives. Talking about my own experience, in the UK there's the Christians Against Poverty group who I have regular contact with here, and they can be great for people who need debt help. Their website and my experience shows that they help everyone, not just Christians, not just people of the right sexual orientation or whatever, help them overcome debt and ensure they're receiving all the income they're entitled to. That's superb! That's exactly where religion can do good. (I have a minor issue with them encouraging monthly donations to them from clients who're already in debt, but it's not exactly destroying all the good they've done up to that point). Religion can be a force for great good, and...

I dunno. I wanted to say 'religion should stay out of areas where it can hurt more than help', but would I honestly say we should remove all Christian HIV support groups because some might encourage their members to stop taking medicine and just pray? Or should we regulate what religious groups can do in their support of others? It's very difficult for me to say. But then I think of the people who died thinking they were going to be cured by prayer and I get grumpy and pessimistic.

/tangent

[M is for Morphine]

Apr 26, 2012 10:16:42 GMT -5 Enn said:

Of course, those are just a few stories. Almost all religions have groups supporting those affected by HIV/AIDS (Buddhist from my first Google search). The problem comes when the religion and its beliefs go counter to what is healthiest for the person at risk/facing life with HIV or AIDs. I don't like getting involved in these debates beyond 'this is what I believe' really but I have to say, if the Vatican came out and said 'please use condoms to avoid HIV/AIDS', imagine the impact that could have. It'd be incredible.

They almost, kinda-sorta said that. A little.

Condoms are not the sole answer to the AIDS epidemic, he said, but, “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”

Later, a Vatican spokesman said the pope’s words were meant to apply broadly — beyond gay sex workers. “This is if you’re a man, a woman or a transsexual,” the spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said. “The point is it’s a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another.”

It's still pretty weak when they know encouraging condom use could save a lot of lives. I don't know how kindness could enter into letting people die because they might have sex.

[Enn]

I did read that quote, and I remember it making the news, but really that's incredibly weak. It'd have had more impact if the Pope himself was clarifying that no, it's not just 'some individuals like gay sex workers', but as it stands that quote (which was the headline, and the thing people are going to pay most attention to) seems to be very, very limiting. And that article itself points out that the year before the Pope, on a trip to Africa, said that condoms don't help the AIDS situation but make it worse. But I guess it's progress? Better than nothing at all.

[Stal]

To play Devil's advocate, how can they support the use of condoms if birth control itself is considered a sin by their hierarchy?

They also don't support the idea of people running around and having promiscuous sex. And if I remember my catholic teachings, sex for any reason but having children is considered a sin ("officially").

So laying blame at the Catholic church for sticking to their guns on their beliefs and values seems ridiculous.

Logically speaking, the spread of HIV/AIDS isn't their problem from their teachings, because people are already disregarding their teachings and doing what they want anyway. They teach abstinence, but the people don't follow. So 1) why would people listening to them on birth control be the Catholic's fault, if they're already disregarding the teachings, and 2) they already promote a method (that if used), would stop the spread: don't have sex.

Now you can say that they need to modernize, you can say they need to recognize that people will have sex anyway (whether married or not, and not just for kids), but in the end, you're telling them because your values are different, they need to stop standing for their values and say "since we know you're going to sin anyway, and even though we see birth control as a sin, we encourage you to sin so you don't catch The AIDS and die."

It's like saying "Drugs are illegal, but since we know you'll use drugs anyway, we encourage you to get clean needles and verify the quality of what you're going to get." or "Since there's a number of injuries in theft, which we completely condemn, we recommend this equipment for climbing, and window breaking. Practice these drills so you don't injure yourself or die unnecessarily."

Personally, that line of reasoning is completely wrong, promotes compromising beliefs and values for expediency, and puts the blame on the wrong people who are simply holding their values. I'm not even saying this as someone who agrees with the Catholic position. But they're really not the ones to blame.

In any case, if I remember from my international economic development class, what has been shown to have the biggest impact on these numbers is actually educating and empowering the women in those countries. If we focused on the main driver (lack of education and equality), there would be a bigger impact on these numbers and also promotes personal responsibility and critical thinking anyway.

[M is for Morphine]

It's like saying "Drugs are illegal, but since we know you'll use drugs anyway, we encourage you to get clean needles and verify the quality of what you're going to get."

This could be another debate in itself. Clean needle programs are a public health issue that is ham-stringed by that argument a lot, but both arguments seem to ignore the fact that the 'sinners' who have sex and those who do drugs do not exist in a vacuum.

Let's say a man has an affair and contracts HIV. It can lay dormant for months or even years. He has sex with his wife, perfectly 'clean' procreative sex. She catches it as well, gets pregnant, gives birth, nurses the baby... mother to child via milk is a major source of transmission (There have been milk mix up scares in hospitals before, so the hypothetical infections grow from here). It hurts people who don't sin. It hurts little children.

Rather than just not encouraging condom use, the Catholic Church has been actively lying about their effectiveness. Last time I checked, lying is in the Top Ten list of sins, no?

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."

Sex and the Holy City (teow's note: a BBC documentary) includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".

There is a huge difference between not supporting and actively oppressing. If it was just about the Catholic Church not saying "hey, use these" I might agree with you. But it's not.

In any case, if I remember from my international economic development class, what has been shown to have the biggest impact on these numbers is actually educating and empowering the women in those countries. If we focused on the main driver (lack of education and equality), there would be a bigger impact on these numbers and also promotes personal responsibility and critical thinking anyway.

Part of educating and empowering women is educating them in proper condom use. Which is part of what the Catholic Church opposes in the first place.

[Stal]

Of course. I fully disagree with the lying and active suppression. That's just not commonly the argument I hear. Normally it's about how they need to leave their antiquated anti-contraceptive views and support condoms. I fully agree that they need to allow the free flow of information and stop lying. I just disagree that it's their duty to come out in favor of them.

And while I personally do agree that women (and men) should be educated about the types of contraceptives out there and their uses and benefits, the great thing is that doesn't have to be a part of it for the education to make a difference.

Over all, as the education level and empowerment of women increases, it helps reduce the rates (again, if I remember that study paper and research from that class correctly). Obviously sex ed does help moreso given it's direct applicability, but at the very least, education itself (even generally) is a powerful tool.

Though that is getting off the religious track, I suppose.

[M is for Morphine]

I just disagree that it's their duty to come out in favor of them.

Now here is where I disagree. When you spread disinformation that hurts people, it is your responsibility to own up to your mistakes and tell the truth. They almost did, quite halfheartedly, one might even say in a lukewarm manner if one wanted to be cute about it.