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

[enwiabe]

The catholic church delivered food and water to Africa. But not before drastically contributing to the AIDS epidemic by banning condoms

I am not arguing or anything, but do you have any reputable journals or information or news that corresponds to that statement? I'd like to know how much is 'drastically' contributing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_AIDS

[thushan]

Want to make a meme out of this:

ASKED FOR REPUTABLE SOURCE



COMES UP WITH WIKIPEDIA

(ok all jokes aside, the statement makes sense, its just a matter of giving hard evidence)

[pi]

Religion has gone about breaking the arms of many and then purported to fix it by paying their hospital bills, and throwing in a tip to the rest of the community "for their trouble".

...

Religion cannot resist breaking people's arms. It's the very nature of the stuff. It's about controlling the masses, and it always has been. You must live by our way of life or fuck you, you're going to hell. It's in almost all the major religions. I say this is dangerous, and a few dollars in charity does not make up for it.

Could you give some examples of this "arm breaking" that is solely the cause of religion?

And note that the topic of discussion is religion as a whole, not nit-picking somewhat controversial examples from Catholicism or Islam or any other religion, a holistic adverse effect from religion that classifies as "arm breaking"? (only asking because I have given some somewhat intuitive holistic benefits of religion in my posts)

[enwiabe]

I mentioned what kind of atheist i was because there are other people in the movement, the so called "new atheists". To quote wikipedia (yeah i know blah blah but at least its sufficiently neutral ground):  "New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of 21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." This is in contrast to the old school (or atheism 3.0) who just hold God does not exist for philosophical reasons, there is no particular interest in seeing religion exterminated. Whilst i think religion has brought some bad things (humans would of done at least some of those bad things to each-other anyway, if we look at relatively irreligious and atheistic places like China, bad things still happen, this is despite harsh government and law enforcement as well), it is not wholly bad, it has brought some good and it encourages some good. This is where i disagree with the so called "new" atheist movement. Applying the idea of the horse-shoe theory, i think there is much more philosophically in common between the two more extreme positions (namely militant atheism/new atheism and militant religious discourse) than there is between the large proportion of religious moderates and atheists who are not "new" atheists. Hopefully, this might illustrate just one of the reasons i'm much more opposed to any movement of the extreme.[/size]

Just quickly, every time you bring up the "new atheists" crap, I can only think of this:

http://xkcd.com/774/

It's just such a useless contribution.

The reason why there is a "new atheist" movement is because it had never been globalised like it has now. Christianity has been globalised for hundreds of years. It used to be in the "old atheism" that it was the exclusive domain of academics (philosophers, scientists etc.) because for the laypeople, rejecting god often meant rejecting their entire community. It simply wasn't feasible in any way.

Now that we have the internet and a rapidly growing number of atheists, those of us who recognise it, see humanity heading for a very big step in our cultural evolution.

What part of "the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."" sounds like a bad idea to you?

Honestly, what would be so bad about getting more people to think critically about their beliefs? Do you not see that this would cause a lot of injustice to stop? People would have to justify their actions not based on "my god said so" but whether it will have a positive or negative impact on other people.

I'm happy to be a part of the new atheist movement because it's about so much more than "railing against religion" it's about increasing the consciousness of humanity.

I think we have much to gain from a more enlightened society, and for me, this is about contributing to it.

[enwiabe]

Religion has gone about breaking the arms of many and then purported to fix it by paying their hospital bills, and throwing in a tip to the rest of the community "for their trouble".

...

Religion cannot resist breaking people's arms. It's the very nature of the stuff. It's about controlling the masses, and it always has been. You must live by our way of life or fuck you, you're going to hell. It's in almost all the major religions. I say this is dangerous, and a few dollars in charity does not make up for it.

Could you give some examples of this "arm breaking" that is solely the cause of religion?

And note that the topic of discussion is religion as a whole, not nit-picking somewhat controversial examples from Catholicism or Islam or any other religion, a holistic adverse effect from religion that classifies as "arm breaking"? (only asking because I have given some somewhat intuitive holistic benefits of religion in my posts)

Islam and Christianity account for half the world's population, so I think I can use that to generalise the effects of religion given that they affect nearly every single person on the planet.

Examples of arm-breaking are what I wrote in my previous post:

No condoms in Africa? Because god said so. Enjoy your AIDS epidemic.
No gay marriage? Because god said so.
Stone the gays? Because god said so.
Bully the gays out of their sexual orientation, causing them to suffer all sorts of mental difficulty? Because god said so.
No justice for child rape victims? Because god said so.
Women can't choose what they wear? Because god said so.
Children should feel petrified for setting a foot wrong or they're going to hell? Because god said so.
Kill the apostates? Because god said so.
Stone people for committing adultery? Because god said so.

This is the sort of arm-breaking fostered by religion.

[JellyDonut]

He is right though, the term "Dark Ages" is a misnomer as the regression only occurred in the Western Empire. Things were pretty good in the East due to protection from the Byzantine Empire.

I also dispute the claim that the Church had much to do with the Fall of the Roman Empire or anything immediately after. Although Constantine was officially Christian, it was really only done to appease the Christian public and using the Church as a political tool. Keep in mind that if he were Christian at the time, which was still ideologically pure, he wouldn't be killing so much. The church wasn't able to do much but (voluntarily) subject themselves to the emperor. It was a strong force, but nowhere enough to have that much of a significant bearing

[enwiabe]

He is right though, the term "Dark Ages" is a misnomer as the regression only occurred in the Western Empire. Things were pretty good in the East due to protection from the Byzantine Empire.

I also dispute the claim that the Church had much to do with the Fall of the Roman Empire or anything immediately after. Although Constantine was officially Christian, it was really only done to appease the Christian public and using the Church as a political tool. Keep in mind that if he were Christian at the time, which was still ideologically pure, he wouldn't be killing so much. The church wasn't able to do much but (voluntarily) subject themselves to the emperor. It was a strong force, but nowhere enough to have that much of a significant bearing

Explain why it took us 1500 years to advance if an oppressive force were not keeping us from developing. Did humanity all of a sudden lose its curiosity and desire to innovate and discover?

To say the church wasn't that powerful is a joke. They burnt whoever they wanted at the stake for whatever reason they chose.

[abeybaby]

Honestly, what would be so bad about getting more people to think critically about their beliefs? Do you not see that this would cause a lot of injustice to stop? People would have to justify their actions not based on "my god said so" but whether it will have a positive or negative impact on other people.


I think we have much to gain from a more enlightened society, and for me, this is about contributing to it.

Just want to say that many people have thought critically about their religions, and as a result, have appreciated them even more. I know you didn't say that all religious people don't think critically, I just wanted to point that out.
Also, I entirely disagree with the notion that removal from a religion is synonymous with enlightenment.

Ps, any response to my earlier post?

[pi]

Islam and Christianity account for half the world's population, so I think I can use that to generalise the effects of religion given that they affect nearly every single person on the planet.

If you're stance against religion is only broad enough to cover half (or just more than half) the "issue", then it isn't an overly convincing one. If there is a problem with "religion" it should be for all religions, not the ones where you can easily dot-point a few issues with. And some of the issues should be somewhat universally "evil" among all of them.

And in many of those issues, you've only looked at half the problem.

For example, the first on the list: "No condoms in Africa? Because god said so. Enjoy your AIDS epidemic."

So, you're saying that without "the Church" (not religion) this wouldn't be an issue. So we'll play hypotheticals, but surely without the Church preaching against (and I personally do NOT agree with this decision by the Church) homosexuality, AIDS would have had an even more rapid spread initially? In fact, one can argue that the Church has prevented widespread spread of AIDS in much of the world in it's initial stages.

edit: I haven't provided any research in this (but who can in such hypotheticals? I mean you can argue for days about the "what ifs" regarding the non-existence of the Church...), but to take an example, I believe there would be more people like this if it wasn't for the Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas. Note that this is ONLY in reference to the INITIAL spread, which was nearly all homosexual.

Half the issue f the spread now (which you mentioned), the other half is why it spread in the first place. And in all honesty, the spread in the first place might have been a lot worse had the Church not have intervened (again, I'm not against homosexuality).

[enwiabe]

Sorry, coming in late...

"Important things don't warrant impoliteness."

a) The point I was making was that it's not a matter of politeness or impoliteness. Regardless of how you phrase it, people are going to take offense.
b) Factually incorrect. Is it important to subdue and arrest an armed robber? Is it polite to deck them and put them in handcuffs? Would you call any retaliatory action in war polite? These are just two important things where politeness is not "warranted", or more accurately, not a meaningful descriptor of the required action.
 

a) I disagree with you - sure, some people might take offence no matter how it's phrased. I happen to not be one of those people. Already, I have enjoyed reading this thread much more than previous religion threads, because no ones been criticizing each other.  In short, since it matters to some, we may as well be polite anyway for their sake.
b) there's a key difference between that scenario and the one on AN. If you ask an armed robber to kindly drop his weapons and turn himself in, you're not going to be very successful. So the force is necessary. Here, it is neither necessary, nor productive to use force like that. It's certainly not "required action"

I haven't been firm with anyone until kp's post because he was being disingenuous.

If you ask an armed robber to kindly drop his weapons and turn himself in, you're not going to be very successful

And I would say that "kindly" asking somebody to consider that everything they have learnt in their life for all time is wrong is also ineffective.

There is no need to be anything but abrupt in firmly saying "No, this is wrong". It's not polite or impolite. It's not the difference between "Excuse me sir, but I do believe that you are suffering from a mental delusion." or "You are deluded."

It's very simply about saying that your beliefs do not square with the facts and not only are they wrong, they are quite patently dangerous.

I also want to address some of the frankly ludicrous points you brought up in the previous thread.

im actually super super happy with this - valid points, without aggressive personal attacks.

We've been over this. I didn't attack you, or anyone else personally. I attacked your beliefs. You TOOK it personally, but that is entirely on you. Stop claiming I attacked you personally. You are lying.

yes, people have innate morality, and no, scripture cant come out and set everyone straight.

Then why call it a holy guide book to live by? Surely if it's the divine word of god, it shouldn't be so challenging to follow it and live a good, moral life...

of course religion is supernatural - if you accept that some almighty god exists, then of course its going to be supernatural. does that make it false? no.

It makes it completely unverifiable. And, yes, when it starts making claims that are clearly false it too is demonstrated to be false. Stone the gays. What moral edict is that? Instructions on how to keep slaves? Instructions on how to kill heretics. This is not a benevolent, all-loving god. This is a capriciously malevolent bully (to quote DickDawk).

why do people interpret things differently? i think many interpretations are simply wrong. with abortion:
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1corinthians 3:16.
from a purely christian perspective, abortion is wrong. i dont think its possible to argue the opposite, and i find this to be true in many other moral cases.

Except that holding up a book and saying "SEE! IT SAYS IT HERE!" doesn't cut it. I have a napkin which says that I'm the son of god. Who are you to say that's wrong? It's a supernatural claim, so obviously it can't be wrong... Now bow to me.

so now, i will tell you what i told you before. religion should not be judged by what its followers do.

So, now I will tell you what I told you before. Given that there is not a lick of credible evidence that god exists, it has EVERYTHING to do with its effects on its followers. And your religion has a lot to answer for. Just think of all the atheists that burned alive in the last 2000 years because of your religion. You should feel ashamed.

all the stoning and killing and murder is in the old testament - which is no longer applicable and exists to show the contrast between before salvation and after. that is universally understood, which is why no sane person would stone anybody else in the name of christianity.

Why did the catholic church burn heretics?

[JellyDonut]

Explain why it took us 1500 years to advance if an oppressive force were not keeping us from developing. Did humanity all of a sudden lose its curiosity and desire to innovate and discover?

To say the church wasn't that powerful is a joke. They burnt whoever they wanted at the stake for whatever reason they chose.

When the Roman Empire fell, no one really had the city blueprints anymore and the Germanic tribes weren't that down with maintaining aqueducts. I'm not saying that they weren't powerful, probably only second to the emperor, but they couldn't possibly have been the primary source of Roman decline.

[ninwa]

So, you're saying that without "the Church" (not religion) this wouldn't be an issue. So we'll play hypotheticals, but surely without the Church preaching against (and I personally do NOT agree with this decision by the Church) homosexuality, AIDS would have had an even more rapid spread initially? In fact, one can argue that the Church has prevented widespread spread of AIDS in much of the world in it's initial stages.

Half the issue f the spread now (which you mentioned), the other half is why it spread in the first place. And in all honesty, the spread in the first place might have been a lot worse had the Church not have intervened (again, I'm not against homosexuality).

By that logic, all the nations where homosexuality is accepted / not reviled (such as Australia) should have a high rate of AIDS infections. Which is obviously not true

[enwiabe]

Islam and Christianity account for half the world's population, so I think I can use that to generalise the effects of religion given that they affect nearly every single person on the planet.

If you're stance against religion is only broad enough to cover half (or just more than half) the "issue", then it isn't an overly convincing one. If there is a problem with "religion" it should be for all religions, not the ones where you can easily dot-point a few issues with. And some of the issues should be somewhat universally "evil" among all of them.

And in many of those issues, you've only looked at half the problem.

For example, the first on the list: "No condoms in Africa? Because god said so. Enjoy your AIDS epidemic."

So, you're saying that without "the Church" (not religion) this wouldn't be an issue. So we'll play hypotheticals, but surely without the Church preaching against (and I personally do NOT agree with this decision by the Church) homosexuality, AIDS would have had an even more rapid spread initially? In fact, one can argue that the Church has prevented widespread spread of AIDS in much of the world in it's initial stages.

Half the issue f the spread now (which you mentioned), the other half is why it spread in the first place. And in all honesty, the spread in the first place might have been a lot worse had the Church not have intervened (again, I'm not against homosexuality).

What? Religions manifest in PEOPLE. I'm concerned with how people react. So yes, considering 3.5 billion people is more than enough fuel for the argument.

I've already established that religion makes people unaccountable to their peers. That is a thematic argument that you wanted. I already made it.

Once you are unaccountable to your peers, you can wrong them in whatever way you think your god wants you to do so. My rationalist advocacy is about setting the bar higher and saying that it is not enough to hold up a holy book and say "because god said so". You must justify it based on humanist principles.

It then follows that religion is unsustainable in this model, because it stifles critical appraisal. That is not the way forward for an advanced society.

Finally, your point about AIDS is... I have no words. I just don't. You 1) do not understand how AIDS came to be and 2) have no idea about the effects social stigma on homosexual sex caused people to have anonymous and unsafe sex.

[Soul_Khan]

Lemme try and remember.

With all due respect to religion, this is what happened:

I was about...10 or 11 years old. Very impressionable. And the Jehovah's Witnesses kept talking to me since I was 8 on the front door. One day, whilst reading the Mormon Bible, I came across something really scary - something to the effect that you should cut yourself and draw blood if you want God's forgiveness. I was like wtf and told my sister.

She was like to me - "religion is bullshit, do you have any proof god exists? does god answer all your prayers?" etc. Then I thought to myself "Hold on...yeah...religion is bullshit."

And I was an instant atheist.

That was my thought process - I say this with all due respect to religion.

You should commit to further inquiry on religion, because to be honest with you, an experience that you had when you were 10 shouldn't still be a driving force to your atheism (if it is)

What I don't understand in this whole god debate, is why do people make the assumption that you only have a choice between religion and atheism, because clearly you can be a deist or a theist without believing in religion (the scriptures, rituals, and traditions)

enwiable, what are your thoughts on a deistic god - a god who created the universe but let it go to its own course - a god who hasn't revealed himself to a bunch of desert nomads - a god who does not care about human affairs?

[enwiabe]

Explain why it took us 1500 years to advance if an oppressive force were not keeping us from developing. Did humanity all of a sudden lose its curiosity and desire to innovate and discover?

To say the church wasn't that powerful is a joke. They burnt whoever they wanted at the stake for whatever reason they chose.

When the Roman Empire fell, no one really had the city blueprints anymore and the Germanic tribes weren't that down with maintaining aqueducts. I'm not saying that they weren't powerful, probably only second to the emperor, but they couldn't possibly have been the primary source of Roman decline.

So the Roman Empire infrastructure decayed. Why did it take us 1500 years to regain that level of technology? Think for a second, here. The catholic church was the only constant. Emperors were born and then died off. The power of the catholic church that burnt heretics made people fear to pursue what most believed to be "dark arts". The physical sciences to most people was magic, and you got burned for practising magic. So only the people sanctioned by the church were allowed to do so. That stifling of progress is what caused us to be set back 1500 years.