KennyJC said:
Well clearly I am more familiar with the problem than you are if you consider abstinence the best option in the fight to reduce AIDS. In theory, it is the best option. In practice it ranks far... FAR below that of education on safe sex and distribution of condoms. The church is clear, most religious people agree and the US promotes abstinence over condom use, and their charity work for teaching abstinence almost drowns out that of charities who place a higher importance on contraception and safe sex education.
I was talking about the theory. As I said, practice and necessity may force a compromise for those churches who have not yet been willing to compromise. In Africa, at least, most Christians advocate the A-B-C strategy (Abstain, Be faithful, or use a Condom). The focus of educators is still on behaviour change, since that addresses the problem at the root. Condoms are a last line defense (mainly distributed at bars and brothels). In places where the emphasis is placed on condoms, rates of abstinence and fidelity go down, with predictable results. Not that they have much chance: many believe, like you, that A and B are simply "Western" ideological or religious propaganda. And in effect, they are like condoms that aren't being used.
I mean all/most advances in genetics which people consider 'playing God'.
It sounds like a stereotype. None of the Christian scientists or doctors I know or have read about are that ignorant. Whatever information we have about ourselves and our nature is ours to use as creatively and beneficially as we can. But also as ethically and repsonsibly.
Well this is the major problem that theists pose. They hold the preservation of a few cells in higher regard to that of living adults and children with cancers, diabetis, arthiritis etc.. Clearly, the theist does not have a healthy view on what is ethical and what is not when treating disease.
What is a human life worth? To put it into religious terms you might understand better: the church is trying to prevent the practice of human sacrifice. No matter how noble the purpose seems. A medical ethicist is concerned with the question: does the end justify the means? An unhealthy view, in my opinion, would be to make an emotional argument about how much good can come from a little evil, without first finding out if it has really come to that. You were also just "a few cells" once...
A few points here: 10% is equal to 30 million people who openly admit to supporting a war based on religious reasons. I think the figure of 10% is surprisingly high since most would no doubt rather not say their religion was a prime role in their support for the war. A more interesting poll would be to ask secular or non-religious Americans and ask religious Americans wether they supported the war (preferably before the invasion). I would imagine the percentage would be significantly higher for the more religious of Americans.
Here is the survey online... keep in mind that the stereotypical "Evangelical" attitude in America seems to be peculiar to America ("Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center and Christian Left as well. In other countries there is no particular political stance associated with evangelicals" - Wikipedia: Evangelicalism):
Different faiths, different messages (PDF).
On page 4:
"Religious differences have little effect on attitudes toward the morality of war. Fewer than one-in-five white evangelical Protestants (15%), non-Hispanic Catholics (16%), and mainline Protestants (18%) believe that war is never morally justified. A slightly larger minority of seculars (25%) holds the view that war is never morally warranted, but more than seven-in-ten seculars (73%) say war is sometimes morally justified."
In other words, from a secular perspective it seems Christians may never, but seculars may or may not (44% in favour of war, 44% against - p.3).
No. How many people have died (civilian and troops) in the mere 3 years since the beginning of the war? How many have died due to the increased tension between the west and the middle east due to this war? This is not the benefit of hindsight, this was known by virtually every sensible person beforehand. Why would Saddam's weedy WMD's (which didn't exist) pose more a threat to human life than a rampaging American army and the anti-western hatred & violence that we see everyday in the news since?
The survey shows that most Christians had the same reservations. But those fears were outweighed by political concerns (Republican vs. Democrat - p.5). A different foreign policy would have caused a different result.
Making this too easy for me.
It's not a test.
Christianity is baseless in fact, logic and reason, as the only thing you have to support your superstition is a fairy tale book.
That is a belief - your belief - and the only evidence you present for this assertion is the assertion itself, apparently based on the
strength of your belief. Even if you did provide what you considered evidence, it could still be disbelieved just because someone wishes to. One might say with equal conviction that "the only thing" you have to support your naturalism is science, as if that settled it - and it wouldn't. Both are simply descriptive accounts of observation, which must interpreted and believed or disbelieved.
How we interpret or believe it is everything, and may be equally logical/reasonable or illogical/unreasonable. Which facts, what logic, what reason, what context, what premises? Without specific examples, it's impossible (or at least, unreasonable) to make the blanket statement as you have.
Why do you group atheism with fascist dictatorships? I am atheist but would strongly reject an atheist totalitarian rule. The healthiest option for any society is secularism. The nations with the better societal record, and most peaceful nations tend to be particularly irreligious.
Atheism isn't the same as secularism. All atheists may be secular, but not all seculars are atheist. Mussolini was an atheist, and he coined the term Fascism. I certainly don't know why he thought it was a good idea, but
he did not strongly reject totalitarian rule. So in that example, they were grouped. In your example, religion and intolerance was grouped. The deciding difference was whether life had inherent sanctity or not.
If you look at this list of
atheist/atheist-friendly countries, you'll see that your statement might need some qualification.
At the very least, seculars and atheists seem just as divided and prone to hatred as the worst theists. At best they are evenly divided over the issues you feel so strongly about. It seems to indicate a stalemate, and the only way forward is by a
mutual recognition and tolerance of beliefs. Either/or does not have a very good track record.
