Mankinds Worst Mistake

[Tommycat]

Don't think that by saying it is the worst mistake I don't believe it has done good as well. Greed has produced many wonderous things. Without altering man's mental state, ownership will be the driving force. I love our capitalist society. But the concept of ownership would be the driving force behind the largest number of deaths.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

There's no capitalist society without ownership. Can you imagine people working and getting nothing in return?

[Sabretooth]

Mankind never made a mistake, because there is no such thing as a mistake in the grand game of fate. If the topic is socially-geared, then I'd say it's impossible to say that as well, since mankind has never united as a singular entity, and so there cannot be a single 'greatest' mistake from mankind.

[igyman]

Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa. The Cameroon gov't doesn't have enough resources to treat them all, and no other secular organization has cared enough to go help.

 

You know Jae, back when I was in high school my logic professor told me to write an essay called "Religion is an opium for the people". Basically what it's about is trying to determine if religion is good or bad for mankind. In the end I acknowledged the efforts done to help some people, but it was still my opinion that religion is indeed an opium for the people, that over the course of human history it has done a lot more harm than good. I still have that essay somewhere, if you want me to present the arguments I used there.

[Inyri]

I think it's hard to say that religion has done more harm than good since harm is typically better documented. Religion does a lot of people a lot of good every day, whereas the 'bad' is fairly isolated. I'd say religion does far more good than harm, but just as with the news media you typically only hear about the bad things.

[Achilles]

Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa.

I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.

 

So yes, while your point that many christians are doing more than their fair share to help with the crisis in Africa is valid, it is also accurate to say that many christians are putting faith before medicine and thereby exacerbating the problem as well.

 

The Cameroon gov't doesn't have enough resources to treat them all, and no other secular organization has cared enough to go help.

Doctors Without Borders? UNICEF? Aids Healthcare Foundation? I'm sure there are others, but these are the first three that spring to mind. Is there a source that you're referencing that I may have missed?

[jonathan7]

I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.

 

So yes, while your point that many christians are doing more than their fair share to help with the crisis in Africa is valid, it is also accurate to say that many christians are putting faith before medicine and thereby exacerbating the problem as well.

 

That is though from the long and 'wonderfully thoughtout' non-Christians should act like Christians frame or referance, its about as logical as expecting a deer to behave as a dolphin....

 

I've never really got some Catholics (especially those in charge) aversion to condoms either, and given what they should beleive, surely if an individual isn't a catholic, you would want them to live longer so you have more time to make them a catholic. Then again, the Vatican speaking out against 'new sins' such as obsence wealth; multi-national corperations with lots of money and too much political influence didn't make much sense either!

 

I think it's hard to say that religion has done more harm than good since harm is typically better documented. Religion does a lot of people a lot of good every day, whereas the 'bad' is fairly isolated. I'd say religion does far more good than harm, but just as with the news media you typically only hear about the bad things.

 

Aye, I also think that even if religion had never exsisted people still would have found things to fight about; and populations would still have been manipulated by other means.

[Inyri]

Achilles, it's a little silly to condemn all Christian activities simply because some of the more extremist Catholics are a little behind in the way of the modern world. I don't particularly like being lumped in with them just because you can't tell the difference. =_=

[Web Rider]

I would argue that religion has done more large scale bad things than large scale small things. Though this I would attribute to the religious leadership more than it's practitioners. That most of the good done by religion is by or through the little people.

[Inyri]

That most of the good done by religion is by or through the little people.

Does that somehow reduce its value simply because history hasn't documented it?

[Web Rider]

Does that somehow reduce its value simply because history hasn't documented it?

 

yes, and no. Yes, because it takes the good-doing away from the framework of the religion. In essence, it is not the religious institution that is doing the good, it is the base belief system that is motivating people to do good.

 

No, because it is the belief system, which is the only part of a religion that even matters, that is promoting people to do good.

 

And I wasn't addressing what history has recorded at all, though if you were to look at history, particularly modern history, help, aid, and the good of religion comes from just plain people desiring to help others. While history records that the bad has come from the top, control, oppression, violence, all that from the institution of religion.

[Inyri]

No, because it is the belief system, which is the only part of a religion that even matters, that is promoting people to do good.

I think you've hit on the difference between organized religion and personal religion. It's the same as the difference between a government and a country -- one is an institution, and one is the people.

 

So basically you're saying the 'government' of Christianity is doing more harm than good, but the people of Christianity are typically doing more good than harm? Because honestly I think people give far too much attention to the former and not enough credit to the latter.

 

The beliefs of most religions are sound. It's minority groups within the larger whole that cause problems. The funny bit is you wouldn't condemn all Irish people, for instance, if a couple of them bombed a building, but somehow all of Christianity gets condemned because a few evangelists do something silly. I'll never understand it, personally.

[Achilles]

That is though from the long and 'wonderfully thoughtout' non-Christians should act like Christians frame or referance, its about as logical as expecting a deer to behave as a dolphin....

I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument. Are you saying that catholics aren't christians (i.e. they believe that jesus was the messiah, the one and only son of the lord god who died for our sins so that we might know salvation)?

 

Achilles, it's a little silly to condemn all Christian activities simply because some of the more extremist Catholics are a little behind in the way of the modern world. I don't particularly like being lumped in with them just because you can't tell the difference. =_=

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that I had done that. I think my post pretty clearly stated that while some christians were helping, others were hurting. Could you please help me understand how that constitutes "lumping all together because I couldn't tell the difference"? Thanks in advance.

 

So basically you're saying the 'government' of Christianity is doing more harm than good, but the people of Christianity are typically doing more good than harm? Because honestly I think people give far too much attention to the former and not enough credit to the latter.

I think the argument is that "people" are capable of doing good regardless of what "country" they belong to, therefore it doesn't make a lot of sense to congratulate the "country" for what the "people" are doing. You can't have it both ways.

 

The beliefs of most religions are sound.

I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion. What criteria have you used to for determining this?

 

It's minority groups within the larger whole that cause problems.

This is certainly one perspective. One might argue that if one isn't part of the solution, then they are part of the problem.

 

The funny bit is you wouldn't condemn all Irish people, for instance, if a couple of them bombed a building, but somehow all of Christianity gets condemned because a few evangelists do something silly. I'll never understand it, personally.

Of course not, but I think it would be similarly foolish not to notice that you're significantly more likely to see a pissed off Irish person bomb a car than see an enraged Tibetan monk do so. I, personally, don't understand how people fail to grasp that.

[Web Rider]

I think you've hit on the difference between organized religion and personal religion. It's the same as the difference between a government and a country -- one is an institution, and one is the people.

yes.

 

So basically you're saying the 'government' of Christianity is doing more harm than good, but the people of Christianity are typically doing more good than harm? Because honestly I think people give far too much attention to the former and not enough credit to the latter.

yes. And I tend to agree that the institution of religion gets too much attention, but that's because it is big, it is noisy, and problems always attract more attention than solutions. The quiet Christian who donates to a cause and does a little good will never get attention...unfortunately.

 

The beliefs of most religions are sound. It's minority groups within the larger whole that cause problems. The funny bit is you wouldn't condemn all Irish people, for instance, if a couple of them bombed a building, but somehow all of Christianity gets condemned because a few evangelists do something silly. I'll never understand it, personally.

Well, again, yes and no. I tend to only make that distinction(his fault, not the religions fault), when it can explicitly be said that the motivation was/is not easily found in the religious belief or institution itself. And how much ability the nearby people's had to stop the violence.

[Inyri]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that I had done that. I think my post pretty clearly stated that while some christians were helping, others were hurting. Could you please help me understand how that constitutes "lumping all together because I couldn't tell the difference"? Thanks in advance.

Let me refresh:

Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa.

I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.

Jae is talking about "Christians" and you immediately jump into "Catholics are killing the world!!!!" Ignoring your next paragraph, that sounds awfully like you're lumping all Christians in with the Catholics, doesn't it? I mean you really can't have it one way in one paragraph and another way in the next.

[jonathan7]

I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument. Are you saying that catholics aren't christians (i.e. they believe that jesus was the messiah, the one and only son of the lord god who died for our sins so that we might know salvation)?

 

I wasn't arguing; evangelicals do much the same thing... That is to say, to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians, or dictating to non-Christians as to how to behave. e.g. Expecting non-Christians not to sleep with one another before marriage, and then condemining non-Christians when they fail this, at least to me seems illogical, as non-Christians will have their own frame of referance, and will follow their own morality.

 

Nor was I saying that Catholics aren't Christians (though I do have quite a few issues with the Vatican, but thats another discussion entirely).

 

I hope that clarifies

[Achilles]

Let me refresh:Jae is talking about "Christians" and you immediately jump into "Catholics are killing the world!!!!" Ignoring your next paragraph, that sounds awfully like you're lumping all Christians in with the Catholics, doesn't it? I mean you really can't have it one way in one paragraph and another way in the next.

First, Catholics are Christians. Second, I think you and I can both recognize that you're taking liberties with what I actually said. Third, since I clearly acknowledged that christians (and thereby catholics too) are doing both good and bad there (the paragraph you're asking us to ignore so that you argument might stand a better chance of holding up), I still don't see how you've concluded that I'm "lumping" the groups together.

 

Clearly I am willing to acknowledge that some christians are doing some good. Are you willing to acknowledge that some christians are doing some bad?

 

I wasn't arguing;

Hey buddy. "argument" doesn't equal "arguing".

2 a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade

<snip>

b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

I hope that helps clarify what I was trying to say.

 

evangelicals do much the same thing... That is to say, to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians, or dictating to non-Christians as to how to behave. e.g. Expecting non-Christians not to sleep with one another before marriage, and then condemining non-Christians when they fail this, at least to me seems illogical, as non-Christians will have their own frame of referance, and will follow their own morality.

 

Nor was I saying that Catholics aren't Christians (though I do have quite a few issues with the Vatican, but thats another discussion entirely).

 

I hope that clarifies

I think it does. Thanks for taking the time to do so.

[Samuel Dravis]

Avery, I'm sure you'll notice that determinism is a philosophical position. As such, determinism can't be proven by any possible means, nor disproven. That's not to say that things don't happen the way they do - for causes, reasons, etc - but simply that limited observations never become more than they are.

 

I've never really got some Catholics (especially those in charge) aversion to condoms either, and given what they should beleive, surely if an individual isn't a catholic, you would want them to live longer so you have more time to make them a catholic.

Well, the reason given is that they aren't only concerned with the person using condoms. Seems relatively easy to understand, even if you disagree with their assessment.

[jonathan7]

Hey buddy. "argument" doesn't equal "arguing".

I hope that helps clarify what I was trying to say.

 

Hehe, sorry, got wires slightly crossed my end; I hadn't quite understood what you meant; I hadn't really percieved us as 'arguing'; but I kind of took it as you thinking I was disagreeing with you, which I wasn't. Just wires crossed at my end.

 

I think it does. Thanks for taking the time to do so.

 

No worries, always a pleasure conversing with you, apologies for insufficiently articulating myself in the first instance.

 

Well, the reason given is that they aren't only concerned with the person using condoms. Seems relatively easy to understand, even if you disagree with their assessment.

 

Aye, I understand, its the source of frequent debate with some of my friends; I distinctly disagree with their assessment

[Ray Jones]

I think mankind's biggest mistake *is* that they constantly whine about how bad they are and they whine and whine and cry to god and mommy instead of simply changing something. In fact, this is the only real human mistake.

[Da_man]

I think mankind's worst mistake is not relizing we can all get along.

 

A little off-topic, but I think the gaming industry's worst mistake was allowing Atari to make the E.T game.

[The Doctor]

Capitalism.

[Corinthian]

I'd counter with Communism, but frankly, Karl Marx's idiocy wasn't that big of a mistake in the grand scheme of things.

[Jae Onasi]

I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.

 

What does that have to do with the work she's doing with patients who already have the disease?

 

Let's face it--the single best way to avoid spreading it sexually is not to have sex. Abstinence needs to be part of the education process as well as safe use of condoms and avoiding multiple partners.

 

So yes, while your point that many christians are doing more than their fair share to help with the crisis in Africa is valid, it is also accurate to say that many christians are putting faith before medicine and thereby exacerbating the problem as well.

Those are two different issues. Furthermore, the Catholic stance is not reflective of all of Christianity.

 

Doctors Without Borders? UNICEF? Aids Healthcare Foundation? I'm sure there are others, but these are the first three that spring to mind. Is there a source that you're referencing that I may have missed?

Well none of those organizations are in the region she's in or helping at the hospital she's at--it is the only one for miles, per her visit to our church a few months ago. I'll happily provide you with her address if you would like to ask her more. I'm sure she'd be delighted with any donations, too. Atheist dollars spend the same as Christian ones.

[Achilles]

What does that have to do with the work she's doing with patients who already have the disease?

"She"? I don't follow

 

EDIT: Disregard. I just went back and re-read your post. I see now that you were referring to a specific doctor, not all christian missionary doctors.

 

Your statement was that christians are the only ones offering assistance with the AIDS epidemic in Africa. My response was to point out a) that this isn't necessarily true (however I'll happily stand corrected if your reliable source states otherwise) and b) some christians are actually making the problem worse, so let's not rush out to congratulate them all as being outstanding example of humanitarianism too quickly.

 

Let's face it--the single best way to avoid spreading it sexually is not to have sex. Abstinence needs to be part of the education process as well as safe use of condoms and avoiding multiple partners.

Absolutely. Let's all take a moment to acknowledge that my criticism was leveled at "abstinence only". I think you and I both agree that abstinence should be part of every comprehensive safe sex educational program, just like proper condom use.

 

Hopefully, the condoms will help staunch the spread of the disease while we spend the next [insert necessary length of time here] years reprogamming thousands of years of native cultural habits and practices with Proper Western Values .

 

Those are two different issues.

I thought the issue (which you brought up) was AIDS in Africa

 

Furthermore, the Catholic stance is not reflective of all of Christianity.

Indeed. I don't recall stating otherwise. I do think that 17% (and growing) is significant though.

 

Well none of those organizations are in the region she's in or helping at the hospital she's at--it is the only one for miles, per her visit to our church a few months ago.

Where who is at? Jae, was your earlier comment related to someone specific? Nothing in your post indicated that it was.

 

I'll happily provide you with her address if you would like to ask her more. I'm sure she'd be delighted with any donations, too. Atheist dollars spend the same as Christian ones.

From the sound of things, your friend isn't affiliated with any of the charities I already donate to. The only religion-affiliated charity that I send my money to is the local food bank. Everything else goes to organizations that don't try to indoctrinate the recipients of their aid.

 

(I do love getting those "god bless you for your donation" letters in the mail though )