EPTPope compares secularism to Nazism - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
WilbertK
Netherlands210 Posts
| ||
|
Sumsi
Germany593 Posts
On September 21 2010 03:11 DrN0 wrote: wow, I want to see the stats that backup this argumentMy god this man annoys me, when any pope visits africa the AIDs count sky rockets thanks to his views on condoms. maybe you overestimate the might of the pope here a little bit "You shall not murder" is one of the christian commandments if I remember correctly. A lot africans don't seem to care much about it if you look at all the wars and crime going on on that continent. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On September 21 2010 04:15 Sumsi wrote: wow, I want to see the stats that backup this argument maybe you overestimate the might of the pope here a little bit "You shall not murder" is one of the christian commandments if I remember correctly. A lot africans don't seem to care much about it if you look at all the wars and crime going on on that continent. Many areas of Africa are secluded to the point where the only contact they have with the outside world is through christian missionaries (Catholic or otherwise). The missionaries will, of course, teach their religious views to the locals. However, abstinence-only education and the churches view of sex don't mesh well with reality. Missionaries have told Africans "condoms increase your chances of getting AIDS". They actually refuse to promote or even acknowledge that condoms lower yours chances of catching STDs or getting pregnant, simultaneously making the AIDs and overpopulation epidemics worse then they already were. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLH936617._CH_.2400 | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On September 21 2010 04:15 Sumsi wrote: wow, I want to see the stats that backup this argument maybe you overestimate the might of the pope here a little bit "You shall not murder" is one of the christian commandments if I remember correctly. A lot africans don't seem to care much about it if you look at all the wars and crime going on on that continent. Clearly your line of reasoning is far superior to the one you replied to. If you're asserting that there are occasionally more powerful forces than religious indoctrination, then I agree. However, you just limited yourself to making a blanket statement. How the fuck does a reality reflect how much people care? War isn't like democracy. You don't need a majority approval to start it, or keep it going. So stupid. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32027 Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100920/ap_on_re_us/us_christopher_hitchens_cancer | ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
 | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 19 2010 17:58 Half wrote: I think it would too, but I think your mistaking cause with effect. The world will not be better when Religion stops existing. Religion will stop existing once the world gets better. History has proven this to be a trend. Secularism and Social prosperity have coincided with each other with pinpoint accuracy in the Eastern and Western world. I'm reading through this thread largely at once, and this was a claim that sounded particularly interesting but I didn't see discussed much later. What data supports this? (was there any posted I may have missed, or do you have a supporting source) And is there a way for the data to establish which was the cause and which was the effect - like a lag in one of the variables versus the other? But even from a purely philosophical standpoint that was interesting to think about. | ||
|
Mutaahh
Netherlands859 Posts
also means no religion before adulthood (like porn/alcohol) because children are easy brainwashed, and that is the most stupid thing on earth, brainwashing kids. Force them YOUR thoughts, and not their own. | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On September 21 2010 09:37 Mutaahh wrote: you cant say what is better for the future, as long as you can decide for yourself what you want, I'm o.k. with it also means no religion before adulthood (like porn/alcohol) because children are easy brainwashed, and that is the most stupid thing on earth, brainwashing kids. Force them YOUR thoughts, and not their own. In a lot of ways it's impossible to comply to your wishes. No brainwashing means not telling them anything that isn't proven beyond "reasonable doubt". You may equate religious education with brainwashing, but it's not all that different than imposing other frameworks. For instance, are people allowed to tell their children what to wear and what not to wear? Is imposing any conception of morality allowed? Is letting them watch tv allowed? Should they just live in isolation? Parents should be allowed to raise their children the way they see fit. Obviously, there are "reasonable" boundries. The alternative is some sort of Khmer Rouge society... not really, but what you're suggesting is simply impossible and downright disgusting in practice. There's no easy fix. Educating children is about a whole lot more than providing them with facts. It's teaching them how to live. How to cope with adversity and the unknown. Indoctrination rocks! I say, indoctrinate the parents. Or just convince them that your way of living/thinking is superior to theirs. glhf | ||
|
EndlessRain
140 Posts
| ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
On September 21 2010 10:05 EndlessRain wrote: In a couple centuries religion will be a thing of the past at least in developed societies. Already the shit countries have higher percentage of religious people than developed countries. I kinda agree with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "a thing of the past" but in my opinion, developed societies or not, people tend to fall back on religion whenever a crisis occurs. Crises have a way to make people "pray" for help when all other options seem blank. If history has taught us anything; it's that no matter how developed societies may become, shit will always hit the fan and the faith in religion starts to soar. I don't see religion fading away. Ever. (But of course, I do agree with you that until "shit hits the fan", that many people will basically avoid religion like it's the plague or some taboo subject. Somewhere along those lines. | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On September 21 2010 10:05 EndlessRain wrote: In a couple centuries religion will be a thing of the past at least in developed societies. Already the shit countries have higher percentage of religious people than developed countries. Yeah, even if that's a sensible statement, I think there's no reason whatsoever to just assume that current trends will persist. I do think that truely democratic nations will have less religious fanatics. The assumption being that a properly functioning democracy lessens misery and ignorance. I love how you basically claimed that the US is more shitty than Western Europe. Or maybe I've got my stats wrong. Anyway, I'm pretty certain that christian fundamentalism is way higher in the US... | ||
|
r3z3nd3
Brazil522 Posts
On September 21 2010 02:47 Offhand wrote: Because over a billion people believe he's infallible. yeah... you're right i always try to hide from them =( | ||
|
Evil_Monkey_
Denmark296 Posts
On September 21 2010 02:10 7mk wrote: 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. Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that. | ||
|
Hansel
Germany311 Posts
There will always be a market for people dealing in faith. Christianity is nowadays rather about love then hate, at least where i live. This is good in my book. I do not believe in religion, but i can see the benefits of a place where people sing & clap together or moan their dead or marry (like a church^^). If they would replace the praying, silly dresses & moral highground with barbeque & starcraft i would join. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat That was not the purpose of the Reichskonkordat, and if there is any ambiguity on this subject, Mit brennender Sorge makes this clear. If anything, the history of Eugenio Pacelli's relationship with the Germans is a tragic one; he never could identify the German people with the Nazi government, and he was perhaps overly-concerned with the plight of German Catholics under the Nazi regime, whereas the German Catholics were relatively safe in comparison to the Catholics of the occupied territories. On the other hand, his estimate of the extent of his global influence as Pope was sadly realistic. Nonetheless, his silent intervention indisputably saved countless lives- including Jews- during the war. It's his silence which is a subject of continual dispute- what he could have done but didn't. I find that there is one fatal assumption in all such arguments though- that the Pope should have openly identified himself with one of the warring factions during the war- and that he could not do, not only because of traditional Vatican policy, but also because of his special sympathy the German people. P.S. It's obvious that atheist in the context of this speech was meant attributively, hence "atheist extremism" and not "extreme atheism." Of course, it's probably not the most accurate thing he could have stated. "Rejection of traditional Catholic values," for instance, would be more accurate, but somehow I doubt that would have gone down well in England. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On the other hand, the most appalling things to be taken from the enlightenment- Jacobinism for instance- is to be found aplenty. It's always easier to take the bad things from any movement than the good. | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On September 21 2010 12:51 MoltkeWarding wrote: The enlightenment indeed had many achievements, but the most important of them- wit, erudition and what people used to call "the art of conversation" are rarely exhibited by its contemporary champions. On the other hand, the most appalling things to be taken from the enlightenment- Jacobinism for instance- is to be found aplenty. It's always easier to take the bad things from any movement than the good. And who are in your opinion the current champions of the enlightenment? Those who use it as a loin cloth? As an aside, I think it's really hard to have a decent conversation on the internet. Interrupting people doesn't seem to be possible. A lot of the rich dynamic of a discussion is completely absent. Writing does allow for some deeper reflection, but that takes time and effort... | ||
| ||
