[SPLIT] The "finer" points of apologetics and its rebuttal

[ninwa]

Right but the argument was that religion causes harm. It doesn't matter what their position is now; that doesn't change the fact that they still caused harm which is the whole crux of enwiabe's argument. Without the church none of this would have happened.

[slothpomba]

Right but the argument was that religion causes harm. It doesn't matter what their position is now; that doesn't change the fact that they still caused harm which is the whole crux of enwiabe's argument. Without the church none of this would have happened.

The point i was attempting to make was (largely) to show that if they didn't listen to the church on one of the rulings, they aren't likely to do so for the other. Indeed, in light of this, it seems the amount of people who did not use condoms during pre-maritial sex, soley as a result of religious belief, would be small in comparison to all the other reasons people did not use condoms.

In-fact, its arguable the church did some measure of good as well. If people abstained from pre-marital sex, as taught by the church, as a result of their religious beliefs, that would certainly have an impact on reducing the spread of AIDs. Abstinence whilst obviously not being the fun option, is quite clearly the most effective method to avoid getting an STD (100% success rate afterall). Condoms fail and people can use incorrectly, indeed, in real-world epidemiological studies, it hovers somewhere around 80-90% effectiveness in the population. If the church didn't exist and give down its moral teachings, it seems plausible there would of been more people engaging in casual sex (which is risky in countries like this, even with condom use) and would of also played a role in increasing AIDS prevalence.

Considering that relatively few people would of listened to the church on one rule but not the other, compared to the number of people who would of abstained as a result of the moral teachings of the church, you could argue some good was done in cases. I'm also sure some people, for some bizarre reason, rejected one teaching but accepted the other and did not use condoms. If they followed both the rulings of the church (eg. no sex as well), there would have been no harm done. So, its hard to see how its the churches fault when these people weren't following church doctrine to begin with.

[enwiabe]

Right but the argument was that religion causes harm. It doesn't matter what their position is now; that doesn't change the fact that they still caused harm which is the whole crux of enwiabe's argument. Without the church none of this would have happened.

The point i was attempting to make was (largely) to show that if they didn't listen to the church on one of the rulings, they aren't likely to do so for the other. Indeed, in light of this, it seems the amount of people who did not use condoms during pre-maritial sex, soley as a result of religious belief, would be small in comparison to all the other reasons people did not use condoms.

In-fact, its arguable the church did some measure of good as well. If people abstained from pre-marital sex, as taught by the church, as a result of their religious beliefs, that would certainly have an impact on reducing the spread of AIDs. Abstinence whilst obviously not being the fun option, is quite clearly the most effective method to avoid getting an STD (100% success rate afterall). Condoms fail and people can use incorrectly, indeed, in real-world epidemiological studies, it hovers somewhere around 80-90% effectiveness in the population. If the church didn't exist and give down its moral teachings, it seems plausible there would of been more people engaging in casual sex (which is risky in countries like this, even with condom use) and would of also played a role in increasing AIDS prevalence.

Considering that relatively few people would of listened to the church on one rule but not the other, compared to the number of people who would of abstained as a result of the moral teachings of the church, you could argue some good was done in cases. I'm also sure some people, for some bizarre reason, rejected one teaching but accepted the other and did not use condoms. If they followed both the rulings of the church (eg. no sex as well), there would have been no harm done. So, its hard to see how its the churches fault when these people weren't following church doctrine to begin with.

Abstinence-only education works if and only if you completely disregard human nature.

You also once more display your complete lack of understanding about the topic at hand, "for some bizarre reason, rejected one teaching but accepted the other and did not use condoms"

The missions refused to take condoms with them, even though they were going to be made freely available to them to distribute. They chose not to distribute them, and now you have an AIDS epidemic across sub-saharan Africa.

[slothpomba]

Abstinence-only education works if and only if you completely disregard human nature.

I wasn't talking about sex education, i was talking about personal ethics and adherence to church doctrine.

For what its worth though, I agree, abstinence only sex education is a horrible idea. Plenty of people aren't religious/dont give a toss about church doctrine, especially if its only certain churches.  They should have all the information available to them, its up to them whether they use it or not. You can still maintain your ethical principals and not use it whilst everyone else is better off for knowing it.

The missions refused to take condoms with them, even though they were going to be made freely available to them to distribute. They chose not to distribute them, and now you have an AIDS epidemic across sub-saharan Africa.

The catholic church aren't the only charity organisation in Africa. Plenty of other organisations are present and do hand out condoms.

If you removed the church or banned them, they would not be there carrying out charitable work. If you placed the church there, they would be there carrying out charitable work. One seems better than the other.

Of course, the church isn't the only charity present. We live in one history, not some alternative history. If you removed the church tomorrow, there would be a void in charity, it would decrease. Someone won't automatically take up the slack.

But the church knew abstinence-only education didn't work. It was explained to them. There were figures dating all the way back to the '80s that it was a failed idea. They still refused to take the condoms with them.

Again, i wasn't talking about education in any part of my original post (except in response to when you brought it up out of nowhere, maybe you misread what i was saying but i was never talking about sex education, eg. the kind you get in highschool and things like that).

[enwiabe]

Abstinence-only education works if and only if you completely disregard human nature.

I wasn't talking about sex education, i was talking about personal ethics and adherence to church doctrine.

For what its worth though, I agree, abstinence only sex education is a horrible idea. Plenty of people aren't religious/dont give a toss about church doctrine, especially if its only certain churches.  They should have all the information available to them, its up to them whether they use it or not. You can still maintain your ethical principals and not use it whilst everyone else is better off for knowing it.

But the church knew abstinence-only education didn't work. It was explained to them. There were figures dating all the way back to the '80s that it was a failed idea. They still refused to take the condoms with them.

[enwiabe]

Abstinence-only education works if and only if you completely disregard human nature.

I wasn't talking about sex education, i was talking about personal ethics and adherence to church doctrine.

For what its worth though, I agree, abstinence only sex education is a horrible idea. Plenty of people aren't religious/dont give a toss about church doctrine, especially if its only certain churches.  They should have all the information available to them, its up to them whether they use it or not. You can still maintain your ethical principals and not use it whilst everyone else is better off for knowing it.

The missions refused to take condoms with them, even though they were going to be made freely available to them to distribute. They chose not to distribute them, and now you have an AIDS epidemic across sub-saharan Africa.

The catholic church aren't the only charity organisation in Africa. Plenty of other organisations are present and do hand out condoms.

If you removed the church, they would not be there carrying out charitable work. If you placed the church there, they would be there carrying out charitable work. One seems better than the other.

Actually, the catholic charities claimed the monopoly. Other charities went to other places so as not to double up. There are more than one now, and they certainly do hand out condoms. But when the epidemic was spreading, it was catholic charities or bust pretty much. The fact that they were the only charity there does not excuse their immoral behaviour.

We come back to the analogy of breaking somebody's arm and paying their hospital bill and giving them a bit of compensation and saying "see! I did good!"

[enwiabe]

Also, you completely failed to address my rebuttal to your argument about the catholic church supposedly advancing science. Do you concede that point?

[ninwa]

The point i was attempting to make was (largely) to show that if they didn't listen to the church on one of the rulings, they aren't likely to do so for the other. Indeed, in light of this, it seems the amount of people who did not use condoms during pre-maritial sex, soley as a result of religious belief, would be small in comparison to all the other reasons people did not use condoms.

What evidence do you have for this?

I cannot imagine that a lot of people actually religiously (heh) follow every single one of the teachings of their respective religion. An easy example of this is Christians who are for gay marriage/rights, in clear contradiction to what the Bible teaches.

I don't think you can argue that just because they did not observe the church's teachings on one issue (premarital sex) that they would also ignore its teachings on another (condoms) (or vice versa).

In-fact, its arguable the church did some measure of good as well. If people abstained from pre-marital sex, as taught by the church, as a result of their religious beliefs, that would certainly have an impact on reducing the spread of AIDs. Abstinence whilst obviously not being the fun option, is quite clearly the most effective method to avoid getting an STD (100% success rate afterall). Condoms fail and people can use incorrectly, indeed, in real-world epidemiological studies, it hovers somewhere around 80-90% effectiveness in the population. If the church didn't exist and give down its moral teachings, it seems plausible there would of been more people engaging in casual sex (which is risky in countries like this, even with condom use) and would of also played a role in increasing AIDS prevalence.

There is a lot of evidence showing that abstinence-only education is not only ineffective, but actually increases the rate of teen and unmarried pregnancy. (example)

I do not accept this argument that the church did any good in advocating abstinence.

[pi]

The point i was attempting to make was (largely) to show that if they didn't listen to the church on one of the rulings, they aren't likely to do so for the other. Indeed, in light of this, it seems the amount of people who did not use condoms during pre-maritial sex, soley as a result of religious belief, would be small in comparison to all the other reasons people did not use condoms.

I think this is a good point, and largely what I was trying to say before (albeit I got very side-tracked into hypotheticals and whatnot). If you take the religious instructions in full, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is in Africa nor would the initial spread (which I was trying to address) be anywhere as bad.

For those affected in Africa to selectively choose to follow "no condoms" and not "pre-marital sex" shows that religion cannot be solely blamed for this, as there must be confounding factors (re: my first response in this thread) which are causing people to follow "half of it". To blame religion (or a religion) solely for this, is a bit unfair.

I think that's what kp was trying to get at, but kp, feel free to correct me

I don't think you can argue that just because they did not observe the church's teachings on one issue (premarital sex) that they would also ignore its teachings on another (condoms) (or vice versa).

Well now we're just picking and choosing aspect of a religion to tackle. That isn't fair. If the full religious instruction was followed and "evil" was shown to be the direct result, then sure, religion is flawed there. But when individuals pick and choose and hence, ignore some of the original teachings, then you can't just blame religion.

[enwiabe]

Well now we're just picking and choosing aspect of a religion to tackle. That isn't fair. If the full religious instruction was followed and "evil" was shown to be the direct result, then sure, religion is flawed there. But when individuals pick and choose and hence, ignore some of the original teachings, then you can't just blame religion.

The. Catholic. Church. Didn't. Take. The. Damn. Condoms. With. Them. How. Hard. Is. This. To. Understand.

If they'd preached their abstinence policy AND brought condoms, they would've prevented the AIDS epidemic.

Some would've abstained from sex completely, the others would have used the condoms.

They didn't bring the condoms and immorally condemned sub-saharan Africa to an epidemic of one of the worst diseases in human history. But hey, keep defending them! I'm sure they need it.

While you're at it, you wanna defend pope benedict for covering up the child rape at the hands of its pastors? And then simultaneously shipping those pastors off to other parishes to rape again and again and again? And all because the church didn't want to look bad. Some superior morality.

[pi]

You misquoted me pi... Edit your post and delete this plz

Oops sorry, got the author mixed up in the quote, fixed and apologies for that.

Well now we're just picking and choosing aspect of a religion to tackle. That isn't fair. If the full religious instruction was followed and "evil" was shown to be the direct result, then sure, religion is flawed there. But when individuals pick and choose and hence, ignore some of the original teachings, then you can't just blame religion.

The. Catholic. Church. Didn't. Take. The. Damn. Condoms. With. Them. How. Hard. Is. This. To. Understand.

Is this in reference to their charity in Africa? If so, if it was against their teachings why should anyone be surprised? Surely they would have expected that their full teachings would be observed.

Now, of course this is a very limited and unrealistic view on their behalf, but it isn't inherently against what they preach. They ask that the full instructions be followed, and sadly, humanity let them down in this regard.

[enwiabe]

You misquoted me pi... Edit your post and delete this plz

Oops sorry, got the author mixed up in the quote, fixed and apologies for that.

Well now we're just picking and choosing aspect of a religion to tackle. That isn't fair. If the full religious instruction was followed and "evil" was shown to be the direct result, then sure, religion is flawed there. But when individuals pick and choose and hence, ignore some of the original teachings, then you can't just blame religion.

The. Catholic. Church. Didn't. Take. The. Damn. Condoms. With. Them. How. Hard. Is. This. To. Understand.

Is this in reference to their charity in Africa? If so, if it was against their teachings why should anyone be surprised? Surely they would have expected that their full teachings would be observed.

Now, of course this is a very limited and unrealistic view on their behalf, but it isn't inherently against what they preach. They ask that the full instructions be followed, and sadly, humanity let them down in this regard.

It's unreasonable to demand that humanity play by their rules. Why should it be "follow our rules or get AIDS"?

Why should homosexuals be condemned to a life of suffering because the Catholic fucking church hates them? Only an evil, disgusting organisation would do such a wicked thing as to deny them life-saving contraception purely because they disagree with them.

I don't know how you can look any homosexual friends of yours in the face, or live with yourself, and say such a disgusting thing. Really, pi? You're honestly going to claim that they've "sadly let [the catholic church down]", just because they didn't kowtow to this fucking absurd dictum to give up their sexual orientation. Something which harms nobody, and lets them live a full and loving life.

That is the sort of disgusting victim-blaming that causes homosexuals to become depressed and commit suicide because of how society views them.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[pi]

Well then I think your issue isn't with religion, but rather with the ethics of the Catholic Church as a charity and with the inability of humanity to avoid temptations. The religious instruction is clear here, and if it was followed, this wouldn't have happened.


(please note again that I'm being Devil's advocate here)

[enwiabe]

Well then I think your issue isn't with religion, but rather with the ethics of the Catholic Church as a charity and with the inability of humanity to avoid temptations. The religious instruction is clear here, and if it was followed, this wouldn't have happened.


(please note again that I'm being Devil's advocate here)

No, this is just one example I've given. It's one of the more famous and well-documented ones.

This is indeed one of my main problems with religion. Its ability to legitimise powerful bodies to commit such atrocities in the name of their religion. This is the perfect example of how they were answerable only tot heir god, and not their peers, the africans they severely fucked (irony). This is how it manifests, and this is how it destroys lives.

I'm also not partial to the indoctrination of children with religion, either. But that's another debate. I have many gripes, and we've scratched the surface of just one here.

And I don't care if you're playing devil's advocate. What you said is morally reprehensible in any scenario and is tantamount to hatespeech. Imagine that you were gay. Now imagine that somebody said, in any context, that you've sadly let people down by being gay. Imagine how you'd feel, how you'd react, what you'd think. And then never do that again.

[pi]

And I don't care if you're playing devil's advocate. What you said is morally reprehensible in any scenario and is tantamount to hatespeech.

Okay, it seems I have missed one of your edits, allow me to clarify myself:

I don't know how you can look any homosexual friends of yours in the face, or live with yourself, and say such a disgusting thing. Really, pi? You're honestly going to claim that they've "sadly let [the catholic church down]", just because they didn't kowtow to this fucking absurd dictum to give up their sexual orientation. Something which harms nobody, and lets them live a full and loving life.

That is the sort of disgusting victim-blaming that causes homosexuals to become depressed and commit suicide because of how society views them.

Firstly, let me reaffirm that in no way do the Africans deserve AIDS (or any bad thing for that matter), and I never once put forth a supporting statement for the Catholic Church in allowing it to spread as it has. So if I have committed hatespeech, I sincerely apologise, I am not a racist and as a medical student, I fully understand the pain that homosexuals have gone through, and are going through in regards to mental illness and stigmatisation. And I don't agree with it on a personal note.

However, the point I was trying to make is that not ALL the responsibility of the AIDS crisis falls upon the Church. There ARE CONFOUNDING FACTORS, a point that I've made in my first reply and have been consistent with throughout this debate. In this case, the confounding factor is the inability of humanity to avoid temptation. They knew of the consequences of unprotected sex and still went ahead and took the risk.

So, I'm not saying the Church is infallible. It's not. And in my first reply I said no religious institution is without it's flaws. The Church's ethics are without question horrendous, they have essentially blackmailed the population into their teachings. BUT, had their instruction (and THIS is religion) been followed, none of this would have happened. BUT because humanity isn't like that, and of course it's never going to work out to what the Church simplistically hoped for, the crisis is what is today.

This is from IRC, and clarifies my stance a bit further (I'll leave it as anonymous):

<> i thought his point was that humanity 'let them down' by not being abstinent when they had hiv
<> not by being gay. that's an inference
<> what do you call it when you attribute a position to your opponent which they don't actually hold, in order to make it more easy to refute them? oh yeah, straw man
<>the church was wrong to try to prevent condom use when they knew it would do good. but they were right to advise abstinence for people - of either gender and any sexual orientation - who were hiv positive
<> just because it was ultimately ineffective, doesn't mean it wasn't sound advice

Both are partly at fault and no-one deserved anything. I don't think it's possible to say who's more at fault either unless we go into "what if"s again.

I will stop to argue this from here, as I find that continuing to defend the Church in this regard goes against my own moral code (in fact my last few posts have, but I was trying to facilitate debate somewhat).