It implies that people in general support evil in the name of religion and it implies that good things done in the name of religion necessarily would have happened without religion.
St. Jude was founded based on a religious vision. It would not exist without religion. The donations that support it wold not exist without religion. Its mission would be different but for religion. Hospitals might exist without religion, certainly, but not this one and not ones of this kind.
It is easy, really, to decry the attitude and ignorance of a man like Archbishop Francisco Chimoio, and I do so wholeheartedly. But is his ignorance a product of his religion or of uneducated fear?
Shit. I mean, all this let’s be good to each other crap can be too flowery for my tastes.
A good “fuck you” to other side feels good regardless of it being “correct” or not.
If someone believes that some guy or thing in the sky controls and judges our thoughts and actions and wants to tell those stupid, hard headed “scientists” to go shove logic up their own asses. Then fine.
Like-wise, if some wise-guy “knows” that there is no guy or being up there controlling the stuff that is happening and wants to to tell those really, really stupid people that pray for shit that just won’t happen, the so be it.
Well, the church of christ marginalizes gays, and the quakers, while a nice, peaceful bunch of folks, are cherry-picking christians. We can all find good things in christ’s teachings (not that he invented goodness or anything). They flatly deny any of the less-savory teachings of christ, calling him all-loving. That is simply not true, for if christ was all-loving, there would be no pre-requisite of belief in order to go to heaven. There would be no penalty for non-belief. So…emotional terrorism seems to be present in all forms of christianity. And if it isn’t, then the whole business becomes rather pointless, doesn’t it?
I never said “would have happened.” I said that they don’t need religion to happen." All the bad that happens in the name of religion happens BECAUSE OF RELIGION. They said so; not me.
“This one of this kind” doesn’t offset the whole condom issue in Africa. Not by a long shot. Nor does it offset genitalia mutilization. Tell me…would you trade St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital in favor of “secularly” founded hospitals if it meant little girls would no longer be maimed and sewn shut? I know I would.
It’s religion. The information is there; he’s chosen religion over acceptance of scientific fact. He’s a bad man.
Yes, but to think that, even if such a thing were possible, that this consequence would result, is dishonest. The evils would still exist, they’d simply have a different excuse.
And to assume, in your dismissal of my example, that “this one of this kind” means “this is the only one there is,” is dishonest.
You don’t even know who he IS, do you? News flash, sweetheart- his views are shared by plenty of people irrespective of religion and his views are neither tolerated nor endorsed by the Catholic Church.
You are arguing dishonestly, Kalhoun, and there is no way to correct this, because you’re arguing from the position of your conclusion, stopping neither to catch your breath nor to actually figure out what it is you’re talking about.
Surely to pre-historic man, the most recurring natural miracle they would be aware of, would be that of child-birth, hence the numerous findings of Paleolithic Earth Mother figurines. The establishing of more male oriented God’s could have arose to carry on controlling people, after it was eventually realised that sex nine months previously, was the true origin of said miracle?
I’m pretty much in agreement with this. I don’t see how harping on my personal contempt for religious faith gains me or anybody else anything. And to be honest, if I know that someone has a deep religious faith, I’m less likely to to have respect for that person’s opinions in other areas.
OTOH, I have to acknowledge that I do personally know many folks who are deeply religious and who are, in all other areas of life, totally rational. I can’t explain it – I imagine it as some kind of mass learned schizophrenia that allows most people to simply deal with religion and faith by a whole different set of rules than they do with anything else in life, and simply not see any contradictions.
So generally, I give the faithful the benefit of the doubt, that they, on the whole, are probably not total nutcases.
You’re reading things into my statement that simply aren’t there. The point isn’t whether or not there’d be a different excuse. It’s that THESE wrongs (and they’re ENORMOUS), done in the name of religion, would no longer be there if people didn’t buy into it to begin with.
You’ll have to clarify what you’re talking about here. I’m not tracking with you.
I know exactly who he is, and he IS the cathoic church in that area. The vatican hasn’t removed him from his position, so I can only assume they’re about as against him as they are against the priests who assaulted children and were shuffled around to assault again. The problem with your argument is that those outside the church who agree with him aren’t holding his ignorant flock hostage with threats of eternal damnation. He’s got 'em by the short ‘n’ holies.
You keep saying this, but you haven’t pointed out a single dishonest point in my argument. You don’t see that religion causes real harm, in the name of god and eternal salvation. The harm that religion causes outweighs the good, and the good can be accomplished without any help from religion. Religion is impeding progress.
But this assumes the existing belief system is in place. Wouldn’t it be better if religion wasn’t causing people to think this way in the first place? I place the blame of her sadness on her church teachings, not you.
Regarding the earlier comments about “polite society”, the SDMB isn’t it. I doubt that anyone here condemning religion does so so stringently in actual polite society. Despite the bond some have formed here it’s still just a trivia message board.
A question for believers, why do you never address the “fighting ignorance” issue? Most of you would never accept the slipshod anecdotal evidence you provide for your claims about religion as proof for any other topic discussed here.
No, not fundamentalists ( but ALL theists are closeminded ), but simply by promoting their own beliefs they provide support for them. ALL theism is based on denial of reality, and the prevalence of theism means the majority of our population is trained from childhood to put faith above fact. Just by making gibbering lunacy socially acceptable they promote fundamentalism, and other craziness.
And you don’t need to be a fundamentalist to do an immense amount of damage by sheer irrationality. Following a delusion is dangerous.
No, it’s true of all of them, to the extent their beliefs are religious. There’s zero evidence for any of this nonsense. And Jesuits are just as irrational - if they were using “judgment and reason” they wouldn’t be theists; rationalizing isn’t the same as rationality.
Religion is all about irrationality, about the denial of reality. Thus the word “faith”.
Of course. The evil is motivated or excused by their insane worldview; the good they do, even when they actually try to do good, is always at danger from that same crazy viewpoint. No matter how well meaning they are it’s difficult at best to actually succeed in doing good when you are acting according to a fantasy world not a real one. Religion is the poster child for doing evil in the name of good.
Ah, the “Religion is never the bad guy” argument again. Obvious garbage. People do evil and stupid things all the time in the name of religion that they’d NEVER do without religion, for the simple reason that there’s no other motivation to do them.
To say that St. Jude was “founded on a religious vision” is stretching the meaning of that term almost to the breaking point. But I’ll accept it.
But to say that the work done at that hospital, and the donations that are given, would not happen without religion is a flat out lie. A great great many atheists donate money to St. Jude, and a tremendous amount of work done there is done by atheists. You are wrong here. Very wrong.
This is foretold in biblical prophecy, ironically enough, but I think you’ve got the phrasing wrong.
It’s “Ye who shalt convince others to turn away from Me, verily I sayeth unto ye that ye shalt be better toasted…in the Lake Of Fire”
I have no interest in “coming together” with lunatics who’d probably murder me for their delusion if they could get away with it. And who may well get me killed anyway through their efforts to impose their lunacy on the world.
I would like **Der Trihs ** to learn to quit blanket-generalizing everything he doesn’t like or agree with, ie, religion, particularly Christianity, which, while having a history mired in violence like every other religion, has actually grown up, shed it’s Crusader/Heretic past for the most part and tipped the balance in favor of good through their works and deeds for people in need.