EPTPope compares secularism to Nazism - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Redunzl
862 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32084 Posts
On September 20 2010 23:38 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion. Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread. In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense. Edit: I just searched this on Wikipedia and realize now, that I have bugger all chance of winning this definition argument. It's still awful though, in my opinion, that so many people use the same term for things that are so incredibly different both in the way that it's practiced but also historically and culturally. *sigh* You realize that I never once made this distinction, I just quoted the source, right?? And I'm hardly some religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure what he stated was accurate. Catholics and protestants all practice some derivative of christianity, so at the very heart of the argument, they are christians in that sense. The quote you're referencing, the guy is responding to a question where he's asked if anyone who follows the teachings of jesus is discriminated against... not once particularly sect. | ||
|
Evil_Monkey_
Denmark296 Posts
On September 21 2010 00:22 Hawk wrote: You realize that I never once made this distinction, I just quoted the source, right?? And I'm hardly some religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure what he stated was accurate. Catholics and protestants all practice some derivative of christianity, so at the very heart of the argument, they are christians in that sense. The quote you're referencing, the guy is responding to a question where he's asked if anyone who follows the teachings of jesus is discriminated against... not once particularly sect. I made a mistake, but defining Protestants and Catholics as the same thing is just really destructive and confusing to a debate like this. For example, when I read the 'quote' that you posted. I'm assuming, that he's talking about the Church of England and protestants etc., because the word Christianity is used, when in fact he's probably only talking about The Roman Catholic Church and its members, if the same term is used about the whole lot, how are people going to be able to tell what's what and which group of people is being refered to? Using the term 'Christian' is far less accurate than using the term 'Roman Catholics' because it's a much wider term and this whole debate is about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Edit: I searched for the news on this quote on Sky News and found this: 'http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Pope-Cardinal-Walter-Kasper-A-Key-Member-Of-The-Popes-Entourage-Calls-Britain-Third-World/Article/201009315729437?lid=ARTICLE_15729437_Pope:CardinalWalterKasper,AKeyMemberOfThePopesEntourageCallsBritainThirdWorld&lpos=searchresults' The interview isn't there and without having the interview I honestly don't know if he means Roman Catholics are being discrimanted against or all followers of Christianity. It's really annoying to be honest. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32084 Posts
On September 21 2010 00:38 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: I made a mistake, but defining Protestants and Catholics as the same thing is just really destructive and confusing to a debate like this. For example, when I read the 'quote' that you posted. I'm assuming, that he's talking about the Church of England and protestants etc., because the word Christianity is used, when in fact he's probably only talking about The Roman Catholic Church and its members, if the same term is used about the whole lot, how are people going to be able to tell what's what and which group of people is being refered to? Using the term 'Christian' is far less accurate than using the term 'Roman Catholics' because it's a much wider term and this whole debate is about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. I'm almost positive that he's talking about all of the christian based groups there, rc's, protestants and eastern orthodox. He mentions discriminating against anyone wearing a cross. Could be wrong, but whatever. I'm just making note that it wasn't me who said it  | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Evil_Monkey_
Denmark296 Posts
On September 21 2010 00:44 Hawk wrote: I'm almost positive that he's talking about all of the christian based groups there, rc's, protestants and eastern orthodox. He mentions discriminating against anyone wearing a cross. Could be wrong, but whatever. I'm just making note that it wasn't me who said it I would have thought it was generally about Christians, but when the cross comment comes out, you can be almost sure he's talking about The Roman Catholic Church, due to protestants here not frequently carrying crosses etc. for all to see. In addition, with the religious climate as it is in England, many Catholics feel like they're being discriminated against, recently, in the media with all the negative stories in the press. I also doubt he would make statements on behalf of other religious groups. | ||
|
WilbertK
Netherlands210 Posts
On September 20 2010 17:05 Wombatsavior wrote: I remember when i first fell out of "religion." Thinking that I was just born christian, all though I was never made to go to church. I went straight to atheism because frankly, organized religion for me is a more nonsensical trip I don't need to go down. I do think though, that before you decide you are atheist to consider Agnostic, in that you believe your own ideas of what life is. Atheism after all means there is absolutely nothing more, and when you look at the magnitude of the universe, it's a little hard to say "Yeah man, all on accident." I'm going to shamelessly link to my first contribution to this thread, because I think it'll shed some light on the link between agnosticism and atheism. Also, I'm going to add something. Atheism doesn't mean there's nothing more. Atheism just means not believing in gods. Most buddhists are atheists. What I think you intend to describe is scientific naturalism. A lot of atheists are naturalists. However, that doesn't mean that naturalism is a part of atheism, or even that it has anything to do with it. These are some common misconceptions. What made me write this reply, however, is the last sentence in your post. The idea that atheists believe it all 'just accidentally happened' is popular amongst evangelical christians such as Ray Comfort (look him up, he's funny). But that is not the view of the scientific community to which they attribute this idea. This phrase most often comes up in discussions about evolution. And while chance plays a role in the mechanism of evolution. The process isn't an accident. It is bound to happen. I'm not going for a thread hijack, so I'm not going into depth on this. I might open up a science thread in the near future though, if I think people will appreciate that. | ||
|
DoubleZee
Canada556 Posts
| ||
|
zqfmgb
United States34 Posts
On September 20 2010 22:22 goldenkrnboi wrote: stop trolling. A) You don't know what trolling means. B) You don't read your Bible. C) All of the above. I recommend reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy. On September 20 2010 15:50 Electric.Jesus wrote: That, combined with the fact that neither the theist nor the atheist position can be empirically proven. Too bad, people forgot about the existentialist view: whether god exists or not should not f***ing matter! Existentialism has very little to do with religion. However, the most influential people of existential thought were very irreligious, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Nietzche. The theist position can be disproven through basic logic. All theisms have the same amount of empirical evidence like any other supposed supernatural occurrences. Therefore, if you can believe in a god, you can probably believe in unicorns, leprechauns, Superman, Zeus, and the like. Deny the existence of unicorns? Well you can't necessarily prove or disprove that, because they probably don't exist! Also, science has explained the natural world empirically enough that if some sort of god did exist, she/he/it would have done absolutely nothing in the creation or influence of this universe. | ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
On September 20 2010 12:12 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church. Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Popes-Visit-Skys-Adam-Boulton-Chairs-Debate-On-Whether-The-Papal-Visit-Is-A-Force-For-Good/Article/201009315729586?lid=ARTICLE_15729586_PopesVisit:SkysAdamBoultonChairsDebateOnWhetherThePapalVisitIsAForceForGood&lpos=searchresults http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Pope-Debate-Child-Abuse-In-The-Catholic-Church-Is-Discussed-By-A-Panel-On-Sky-News/Video/201009315729669?lpos=video_Article_Related_Content_Region_1&lid=VIDEO_15729669_Pope_Debate:_Child_Abuse_In_The_Catholic_Church_Is_Discussed_By_A_Panel_On_Sky_News I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope. The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church. l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church." ?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs. That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows. | ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
It's better to delude yourself with fairytales that we are special, have souls and will go to a happy place up in the sky, right.. I mean, Catholic church in particular is the biggest joke ever, it's pretty scary that it has so much power even at this day.They have already shown what their agenda is, just because they don't go around killing people who don't agree with them anymore doesn't mean they suddendly became 'good'. Also I just love when people use religion as a source for "moral values". Moral values exist because society cannot exist without them. Piranhas don't go around and kill each other either, they work as a group to achieve their goal, that doesn't exactly mean they have read the holy book though. I honestly think that every intelligent civilization out there (yea, I do think there are a lot of other intelligent life forms in the universe, unless earth is some sort of mega-anomaly) has to go through the same phase of questioning their origins, explaining everything via some sort of divine power and then bit by bit figuring everything out. Religion is definitely a halt in achieving something more as a race. | ||
|
r3z3nd3
Brazil522 Posts
| ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On September 21 2010 02:20 r3z3nd3 wrote: who's this pope guy? and why he deserve all this attention? Because over a billion people believe he's infallible. | ||
|
eH
88 Posts
On September 20 2010 15:50 Electric.Jesus wrote: That, combined with the fact that neither the theist nor the atheist position can be empirically proven. Too bad, people forgot about the existentialist view: whether god exists or not should not f***ing matter! What the hell does the atheist position have to prove? I'm not positing anything, and not putting forth any idea which requires empirical evidence to back up. I'm simply saying, "theres no evidence for the existence of any god. Until such evidence exists, it would be completely illogical and totally contradictory to live my life based on the idea that there is one." The guy who stands there telling me that an all powerful man in the sky exists and that I should live my life by bigoted, arrogant rules in order to stay in his good graces better be showing me something to back up that claim, otherwise I'll listen to him about as much as I'll listen to that guy in the mental health facility who thinks he's napoleon. | ||
|
leve15
United States301 Posts
I'm Napoleon when I play starcraft. | ||
|
psychopat
Canada417 Posts
What the hell does the atheist position have to prove? I'm not positing anything, and not putting forth any idea which requires empirical evidence to back up. I'm simply saying, "theres no evidence for the existence of any god. Until such evidence exists, it would be completely illogical and totally contradictory to live my life based on the idea that there is one." That sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist. The atheist posits that there is no deity. The agnostic acknowledges that he doesn't know whether there is a deity, nor does he really care. | ||
|
DrN0
United Kingdom184 Posts
Not to mention his ridiculous speech that guy deserves a **** slap. | ||
|
WilbertK
Netherlands210 Posts
On September 21 2010 03:02 psychopat wrote: Saw the speech, snickered, went back to business as usual. As with almost anything, you have to consider the source and its motivations. That sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist. The atheist posits that there is no deity. The agnostic acknowledges that he doesn't know whether there is a deity, nor does he really care. That isn't true. The atheist isn't convinced that there is a god, and doesn't believe. That's all there is to it. You don't have to be sure there is no god to be an atheist. Being sure there is no god makes you a strong atheist, or a gnostic atheist. An agnost is someone who believes that you cannot ultimately know whether or not there is a god. You can be an agnostic theist, and believe there is a god, while saying you're not 100% sure. I explained this more thoroughly in this post. | ||
|
WilbertK
Netherlands210 Posts
| ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On September 21 2010 00:10 chrisSquire wrote: what is the big fuss. this is what speeches are all about... riling up civilians to talk about nothing whilst they usurp your power. this sort of comment from the pope is certainly not without precedent. When people start leaving your group in droves, possible because of that pedophilia thing you've been hiding for at least a century you need to do something to drum up support from the base! What easier way then demonizing easy groups like atheists and gays? | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2913/lackoffaith5yd2.jpg)
