|
On September 20 2010 05:38 Pioneer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:30 Kraid wrote:On September 20 2010 05:13 Pioneer wrote:On September 20 2010 04:51 Half wrote:
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%. I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum. And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity. Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact. I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now. Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person. If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing. Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account. You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape. Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists. Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away. I'm sure that it's a factor in their actions, but there is still something wrong with them overall. There are many priests, pastors, etc. that don't do this. My statement still stands that they aren't Catholics that are pedophiles, but rather pedophiles that are Catholics. Really the issue is that you get people in a position of power that have skewed beliefs and ideals. It all comes down the line, the Bible doesn't state that you should beat/kill Jews, gays, etc. nor does the Qur'an state that it's people must kill all non-believers. These issues arise because you have someone in a position of power that perpetuates these beliefs to those that listen to him thus causing issues. The real issue is with organized religion rather than religion or a belief in god.
I agree. I don't think Christianity can be held accountable for the actions of their priests. It just goes to show that in the end, priests are just people, albeit sex starved people at that.
However, it is an issue when one of the most common arguments for religion as a whole is that the world is a better place if people believe in god. If that is the case - why do priests that devote their entire lives to god still do the kind of sick things you read about? And, why does the church not completely reject these people and prosecute them to the furthest extent of the law?
|
On September 20 2010 05:56 Cantankerous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:38 Pioneer wrote:On September 20 2010 05:30 Kraid wrote:On September 20 2010 05:13 Pioneer wrote:On September 20 2010 04:51 Half wrote:
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%. I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum. And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity. Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact. I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now. Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person. If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing. Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account. You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape. Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists. Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away. I'm sure that it's a factor in their actions, but there is still something wrong with them overall. There are many priests, pastors, etc. that don't do this. My statement still stands that they aren't Catholics that are pedophiles, but rather pedophiles that are Catholics. Really the issue is that you get people in a position of power that have skewed beliefs and ideals. It all comes down the line, the Bible doesn't state that you should beat/kill Jews, gays, etc. nor does the Qur'an state that it's people must kill all non-believers. These issues arise because you have someone in a position of power that perpetuates these beliefs to those that listen to him thus causing issues. The real issue is with organized religion rather than religion or a belief in god. I agree. I don't think Christianity can be held accountable for the actions of their priests. It just goes to show that in the end, priests are just people, albeit sex starved people at that. However, it is an issue when one of the most common arguments for religion as a whole is that the world is a better place if people believe in god. If that is the case - why do priests that devote their entire lives to god still do the kind of sick things you read about? And, why does the church not completely reject these people and prosecute them to the furthest extent of the law?
Well you have to take into account that there is a large Catholic presence world wide, it's not just isolated to the Vatican State, even in Georgia (where I live) there are probably 3-4 Catholic Churches that I can get to within a 20-30 minute drive and I'm not in Atlanta. Taking into account the amount of Catholic churches and the multiple levels of priesthood (this is more so including from the very bottom all the way up to the cardinals) there is a significant number of priests period. Granted that the numbers aren't exactly small in the amount of priests that have committed these acts you must take into account the number of priests. In an ideal world none of these individuals would have done this, but this isn't an ideal world. Within in a group of people there are always going to be a portion of the group that will do various things that would be deemed unacceptable by most people (not just molestation), this coupled with the rule of celibacy quite possibly caused an increase in the cases. My real issue is not so much with the amount of cases there are, it's with how the church handled it. You can't control peoples actions for the most part, the only thing you can surely control is how you react to it and the church reacted very poorly. I think this is the issue surrounding the Catholic church, more so than acts of pedophilia, is the general thought process behind how the church reacted. If the church had actually done a decent job punishing these individuals there wouldn't be so much a stink as there is now. It would be instead focused on the local church(churches) rather than the whole Church.
I'm sorry for the wall of text.
|
Ya, the criticism isn't that Priests are more likely to be pedophiles. The criticism is that in the secular world, they would be charged for their crimes and go to jail. In the Catholic world, the Vatican shuffles them around to a new location to continue raping kids while obstructing the police trying to investigate.
|
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
He was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today.
As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
|
I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well.
As many people said before, the most extreme Atheists you'll find are on this thread. Atheism is nothing but the disbelief in god. That itself is not a motive for people to do anything.
Communism=/=Atheism. I do not have to be a Communist to be an Atheist.
|
On September 20 2010 06:11 Zzoram wrote:
Ya, the criticism isn't that Priests are more likely to be pedophiles. The criticism is that in the secular world, they would be charged for their crimes and go to jail. In the Catholic world, the Vatican shuffles them around to a new location to continue raping kids while obstructing the police trying to investigate.
Ya. If a member of your extended family turns out to be a rapist, well, you can't be held accountable. If you help a member of your family rape and get away with it, you are an accomplice to rape, and you go to prison where you take it like the bitch you are.
Unless you're the pope, because for some shitty reason, the civilized world refuses to try him for his crimes.
|
The author of the link you provided disagrees with that conclusion.
|
On September 20 2010 06:11 hadoken5 wrote:http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.htmlHe was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today. As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
I wouldn't call him an atheist because he believed in the supernatural and destiny, even if it wasn't exactly the Christian God. Believing in the supernatural and destiny suggests that he believed in some sort of god or gods, since it doesn't make sense to think there is a divine plan for your life if you don't believe in a diety that crafted the plan.
|
How am I arguing against cultural relativism? I'm arguing for it. I'm making a case for the value Atheism within a subjective and cultural set of variables in a specific point in time. Arguing for the primacy of a value system is pretty much the opposite of adopting relativism. You haven't made reference to subjective and cultural factors which produce a superior outcome for Atheism, but rather you pointed to absolutes.
Nor for that matter, was I unaware of any of the facts you pointed out. I wasn't personally taken aback by your post. If your core point is that some of the criticisms against Christianity are perhaps too harsh, in the end simply renders atheism as another tool used to marginalize a varied group of people, I'd be inclined to agree. In fact, I've argued repeatedly in this thread in others for the exact same ideal.
However, what I took issue with is how you expressed them. Specifically, you expressed them without any clear stance, instead, simply as a criticism of the behavior of Atheists in this thread. If your goal was to foster a better mode of dialogue, then posting self justifying pretentious monologues about displays of group thought which are a clear reaction to the shear incoherence displayed by some theistic individuals earlier in this thread was not do so. Despite advocating a position of balance, your own post was not balanced in the slightest. You took issue with the fact that I wasn't willing to label myself with respect to a basket of the most fundamental and primary assumptions facing humans? Well, I'll have to pardon myself, but I find these concepts a bit too important to be simplistic to the point of reducibility.
As for your contention that this was a criticism of atheism, I'm pretty sure I criticized both sides of the debate, because both sides are guilty of acting in the exact same way. After all, they're both human. If you think giving a historical account of why atheism is directly in line with the western theistic conception of the world is a criticism of atheism, then again you're attempting to 'cleanse' yourself and deluding yourself in the process.
Is Atheism driven by rigid conventions that are not questioned and group and oppositional mentality any better then religion? Of course not, but if your goal was to dissuade that, then posting a relevant and balanced critique of both sides was the way to accomplish it. Instead, your post vehemently berates some Atheists in this thread presenting flawed arguments still grounded in rationale to the pure undiluted bullshit that some theists posted early in this thread, and you do so for what I would assume to be for personal gratification. Go back and read my first two posts. You will find that they aren't 'unbalanced'. They lightly remark upon certain things and don't offer a condemnation of a worldview, but rather a simple critique of a single post.
Your posts, however, have been ramping up in terms of their aggressive nature, so I'd ask you to use that rational mindset and think about the value of civility when it comes to having a public discourse. If you think this is a critique of one or two atheists who have presented 'flawed arguments' (who are obviously redeemed of their errors by their resort to rationale? I'm not sure of your objective in that line), you've missed the point entirely.
I'll show you how far off 'the point' you were. You think I'm asking for balance. A harmonization, perhaps. Wrong. I asked for the complete opposite. I told people to go and do research and learn as much as they could, then present arguments in a manner which is consistent with their beliefs. Neither side's tone matches the content of their rhetoric. Both attempt to claim lofty ideals, yet neither are here practicing them. That's not a balance issue. That's actually the opposite. I'm telling people to be more extreme with their views and act on them, maybe even to live them out completely when it comes to the discourse, at least, instead of settling for shit flinging.
I won't even bother touching the stream of adhominems in your post, but I'd suggest against championing yourself as a protector of rationality while making them, because its a tad hypocritical.
|
On September 20 2010 06:11 hadoken5 wrote:http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.htmlHe was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today. As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
Did those people kill in the name of Atheism? If not, then they weren't atheist extremists killing people. They were people killing people who happen to be atheists.
|
On September 20 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 20 2010 04:05 LaLLsc2 wrote:On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS. Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity. ![[image loading]](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif) Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
|
On September 20 2010 06:44 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:On September 20 2010 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 20 2010 04:05 LaLLsc2 wrote:On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS. Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity. Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel. Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
Causes of Western Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things...
EDIT: woops, Western, not Eastern
|
I imagine this is in response to the recent work of Hitchens and the four horseman. They have been working in the UK to remove the pope's diplomatic immunity so that they can prosecute him for harboring child molesters. I'm sure he is a little less than happy about all of that.
|
|
|
On September 20 2010 06:46 Priapus wrote:
I imagine this is in response to the recent work of Hitchens and the four horseman. They have been working in the UK to remove the pope's diplomatic immunity so that they can prosecute him for harboring child molesters. I'm sure he is a little less than happy about all of that.
Nevermind this stupid arrest thing that will never work, but what about TAX DOLLARS?
The UK is spending millions of tax dollars for a visit by the Pope, the spiritual leader of a religion that is in the minority in the country. That's wasteful and plain wrong, unless they tax Catholics extra to pay for this trip.
|
No mention of the Islamic Golden Age in that graph or even a footnote, for shame.
|
On September 20 2010 06:46 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 06:44 Boblion wrote:On September 20 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:On September 20 2010 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 20 2010 04:05 LaLLsc2 wrote:On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS. Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity. Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel. Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too. Causes of Eastern Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things... Case in point. Again.
I'm actually impressed people think the Saxons were fucking with the eastern Roman Empire. Like, how does that even work?
|
On September 20 2010 06:51 L wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 06:46 TOloseGT wrote:On September 20 2010 06:44 Boblion wrote:On September 20 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:On September 20 2010 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 20 2010 04:05 LaLLsc2 wrote:On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS. Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity. Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel. Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too. Causes of Eastern Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things... Case in point. Again. I'm actually impressed people think the Saxons were fucking with the eastern Roman Empire. Like, how does that even work?
Edit your post in light of my edit please.
|
This thread has digressed an awful lot. It might be fun to give all topics that are mentioned here their own threads. Because, frankly, this isn't working. I'm off to bed now. Later guys.
|
On September 20 2010 06:11 hadoken5 wrote:http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.htmlHe was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today. As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
I like how you clearly didnt read the article you linked, and also how you have no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
