Something I want to say

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Toz

Next, this apparent "hatred" of Christians. First of, you have to realize that most of what you see on the internet is from America. Whether you look on Reddit, or you look on 4Chan, or otherwise. That being established, no one is really raised an atheist in America. Most atheists in America are former Christians. Atheists in America are isolated as well. This is just me, but I go to a university of 35 thousand, and I know personally maybe 4 atheists. So what you see on the internet is also the only time atheists get together to have some laughs. Sure, it's done at the expense of Christians and other faiths, but so what? I don't understand the need to feel so offended, in today's world. It's faith- if you have it, and people make fun of it, what does it matter? It doesn't change anything. So I don't understand why people get so offended. It isn't as if by making a few jokes, that Christians and others of faith are being condemned the way atheists have been, historically- murdered, etc. It's all done in good humor, and/or to make people think.

The problem is a lot of what is posted goes beyond "having some laughs" and in some instances is bordering on libel. I for one am getting tired of the numerous articles I've read asserting that the Catholic Church is a grotesque Gorgon of systemic child abuse, promotion of AIDS, trampler of individual liberty and enemy of all science and reason. As a Catholic, therefore, I must either be complicit in or giving my consent to all of the above, and you can probably imagine how I feel about that. Granted, I may not be killed in the process, but it's pretty bloody insulting however you look at it, and I can assure you in a lot of cases it's said in full seriousness. If I compared all atheists to Stalin, you'd be understandably aggrieved at the comparison. It's the double standard I find particularly annoying, and it does seem to stem from a need, as Marguerite suggests, to feel better than their target. It's not really on whichever side uses it.

On a wider note, very good post Marguerite - I take my hat off to you for that one.

[JKmadu619]

Originally Posted by Toz

So... you're admitting to your idiocy?

It's really funny to me, that even if we hate the sin and not the sinner, it's the sinner who ends up hurt. Yet here we are.

We aren't supposed to judge, either? Tell that to the Pope, WBC, and every odd Imam in the world.

My point = missed.

No, I meant that those who hate homosexuals are no more intelligent than those who, in Cosmic's words "Cherry Pick the Bible." niether are necessarily "true" Christians, but I am no more idiotic than a homosexual hater.

I don't understand what you mean by "The sinner who ends up hurt." you mean being damned to hell? IN which case, yes a sinner does end up hurt, and yet it is not our responsibility to pass judgement on them.

Plus, your gross overuse of the word "Idiocy" and "Idiot" is becomming tiresome.

- Justin

[Toz]

Originally Posted by dr2005

The problem is a lot of what is posted goes beyond "having some laughs" and in some instances is bordering on libel. I for one am getting tired of the numerous articles I've read asserting that the Catholic Church is a grotesque Gorgon of systemic child abuse, promotion of AIDS, trampler of individual liberty and enemy of all science and reason. As a Catholic, therefore, I must either be complicit in or giving my consent to all of the above, and you can probably imagine how I feel about that. Granted, I may not be killed in the process, but it's pretty bloody insulting however you look at it, and I can assure you in a lot of cases it's said in full seriousness. If I compared all atheists to Stalin, you'd be understandably aggrieved at the comparison. It's the double standard I find particularly annoying, and it does seem to stem from a need, as Marguerite suggests, to feel better than their target. It's not really on whichever side uses it.

On a wider note, very good post Marguerite - I take my hat off to you for that one.

First of all, the Catholic Church has done all of those things. They've allowed child molesters to get of the hook, they've made contraception out to be the devil's work, and historically, they have been the enemy of science and reason. The pope is a symbol of hypocrisy at its finest: Preach that you should be charitable and loving, yet he lives a life of chintz and charm. Crowns, thrones, private jets, and jewelry to match.

Stalin? Really? You want to go there? Stalin was a mass murderer. His actions were not motivated by his atheism, so much as they were by his political and economic ideologies. And what about Hitler? He said on multiple accounts that he was doing God's work by killing the Jews.

I feel that one of the fundamental differences between atheists as a group and Catholics as a group, is that atheists are much more varied. When you say someone is a Catholic, you can usually pin their beliefs down to a t without really knowing them. This, if you ask me, is because to be a Catholic, you have to follow a set of universal guidelines. The thing with atheism that is that it's simply a person who believes in no deity. You can't make any other assumptions beyond that about a person who says they are atheist.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

My point = missed.

No, I meant that those who hate homosexuals are no more intelligent than those who, in Cosmic's words "Cherry Pick the Bible." niether are necessarily "true" Christians, but I am no more idiotic than a homosexual hater.

I don't understand what you mean by "The sinner who ends up hurt." you mean being damned to hell? IN which case, yes a sinner does end up hurt, and yet it is not our responsibility to pass judgement on them.

Plus, your gross overuse of the word "Idiocy" and "Idiot" is becomming tiresome.

- Justin

Your gross overuse of long debunked and circular arguments is also tiresome, but I'm still here having a good time.

What I mean by "the sinner who ends up hurt," is that however you justify it, it's the person who does the crime against God who pays for it. "Oh, I'm not punishing you, I'm punishing the sin." Different reasons, same outcome and action.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Toz

Your gross overuse of long debunked and circular arguments is also tiresome, but I'm still here having a good time.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Toz

First of all, the Catholic Church has done all of those things. They've allowed child molesters to get of the hook, they've made contraception out to be the devil's work, and historically, they have been the enemy of science and reason. The pope is a symbol of hypocrisy at its finest: Preach that you should be charitable and loving, yet he lives a life of chintz and charm. Crowns, thrones, private jets, and jewelry to match.

Right, here goes:

1) In order to advocate claims of systemic child abuse, one must be able to demonstrate conclusively that such child abuse was a part of official policy and encouraged or at the very least condoned therein. The evidence for that is frankly laughable and does not even approach the burden of proof. Individual priests and bishops abusing children and due process is no more an example of systemic child abuse than it is for child abusers within the state care home system (and for the record, such cases form more of the child abuse caseload than the Church). Child abuse has happened, yes, and certain dioceses have frankly been awful in their response, but at the same time I know of a number of dioceses who have some of the strongest child protection policies on the books and the Vatican's own policies on the matter are pretty clear and don't say even half the things claimed of them. I know this because I bothered to read them when the scandal erupted, and had they said what was claimed I would have left the Church. End of story. Equally, the state has played its own substantial role in child abusing clergy getting "off the hook", as authorities in the USA, Ireland and other countries dismissed a number of allegations without particularly bothering to investigate. So for a number of reasons, this claim is without substance.

2) Even with the Church's opposition to contraception taken as given, how exactly does that on its own substantiate claims of "promoting AIDS"? The Church funds and in some cases runs a lot of the AIDS treatment and relief clinics in parts of Africa, supplying antiretroviral medication and other support. That's something of a contradiction with the claim being made. The claim also overlooks the fact that AIDS can be contracted by other means outside of sex, such as sharing drug needles or other forms of blood transfer, in which the contraception argument is irrelevant anyway. I do see your point, and on some levels I agree it is a questionable position to take, but it hardly amounts to what I have seriously heard it claimed to be. The way some people put it, you'd think all the world's ills would be solved by a rubber plantation and a condom factory...

3) So the Church has been the historical enemy of science and reason, and yet has its own observatory, academy of sciences across a broad spectrum of beliefs and ethnicities and helped establish some of the first universities in Europe? The only thing I can think of which supports this assertion is the Galileo case, and even that is based on a very narrow understanding of the facts. Galileo ultimately ended up on the wrong side of the Inquisition because of his pride more than his science - had he followed the advice of Urban Pope VIII to publish arguments for and against heliocentrism and to consider alternatives to his hypothesis fairly (and at that time, his was purely a hypothesis - his findings undermined Aristotelian and Ptolemean geocentrism but his own theory was not vindicated until much later), he would likely have been protected. Instead, he had the equivalent of a fit of pique, mocked his main supporter and in so doing left himself open to attack. The science itself was not heretical - Copernicus published his theory of heliocentrism with the support of Pope Paul III, after all, and indeed it drew stronger criticism from Protestants such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. I don't defend the actions of the Inquisition once they caught up with Galileo anymore than I defend it in other fields, but to use one incident as proof that the Church is "the enemy of science and reason" and overlook the vast majority of its record in the process is hardly rational.

On the other aspects you mention, the Pope doesn't wear a crown so that is a non-starter, and while he does indeed have a throne and a private jet that's no different to other heads of state. I have yet to see similar accusations of hypocrisy levelled to the same extent. As for the jewellery remark, unless you count the Papal ring as jewellery I can't think of anything that matches that description in the current Pope's wardrobe. By all accounts, the Pope himself lives in a fairly plain manner. If he was lording it up in the trendy bars of Rome then I could perhaps agree, but to be honest I can think of countless worse examples of hypocrisy.

I apologise if the above comes across strongly, and I hope you can appreciate throughout that this is basically stemming from frustration at the one-dimensional stereotype concerning my own religion which is portrayed time and again. Like all stereotypes, it has some small vein of truth in it, but it ignores the vast majority of what actually goes on in the Church and to hear it repeated over and over seems to smack of laziness in some quarters, frankly. It'd be like me claiming all Americans are overweight and trigger-happy, and in my view should be treated as such because it's contrary to the nature of rational, informed debate. I am a strong advocate of such debate, hence why it riles me so much. For the record, my feelings are just as strong on this topic in other areas.

Originally Posted by Toz

Stalin? Really? You want to go there? Stalin was a mass murderer. His actions were not motivated by his atheism, so much as they were by his political and economic ideologies. And what about Hitler? He said on multiple accounts that he was doing God's work by killing the Jews.

If you are honestly trying to say that the fact that Stalin was a Marxist, a a self-confessed atheistic and anti-religious philosophy, did not in any way motivate his persecution of the Eastern Orthodox Church and other religious groups then I'm afraid we have left the realm of rational argument. He specifically stated anti-clerical and anti-religious policies on numerous occasions, promoted atheism in public life and practically drove the EOC to the verge of extinction - if you don't believe me, see here. Political and economic ideologies only go so far, and Marxism was more than both.

In any event, you seem to have missed my actual point: just as you and other atheists would, quite rightly, object to such a comparison, so too myself and other Christians can quite rightly object to being compared only to the worst examples of our community, such as the child abuse comparison I mention and the Hitler comparison you mention. To claim otherwise is gross hypocrisy, and it is this I find most frustrating. I don't aim that claim at you, I hasten to add - it's more a general comment on a sizeable proportion of material I have read. By way of balance, I have read some very well-informed and balanced arguments by atheists which I take no issue with - unfortunately, as with many popular debates, they seem to be outweighed by others who give less thought or care to the exercise. I suspect your views are probably likewise in the opposite direction.

Originally Posted by Toz

I feel that one of the fundamental differences between atheists as a group and Catholics as a group, is that atheists are much more varied. When you say someone is a Catholic, you can usually pin their beliefs down to a t without really knowing them. This, if you ask me, is because to be a Catholic, you have to follow a set of universal guidelines. The thing with atheism that is that it's simply a person who believes in no deity. You can't make any other assumptions beyond that about a person who says they are atheist.

I think to claim that Catholics, or members of any religious group, are entirely uniform or even mostly uniform in their beliefs and practices is to drastically oversimplify the reality of the congregation. I have in my own short lifetime heard debates about contraception, married clergy, women clergy, euthanasia, capital punishment and homosexuality, with diverging opinions expressed on all fronts. Despite the common sterotype, we are not sheep merely doing the Vatican's bidding. So while I see what you mean, I do think it gives excuse for not doing further research and that does not seem to me a wise course of action.

[JKmadu619]

Originally Posted by Toz

Your gross overuse of long debunked and circular arguments is also tiresome, but I'm still here having a good time.

What I mean by "the sinner who ends up hurt," is that however you justify it, it's the person who does the crime against God who pays for it. "Oh, I'm not punishing you, I'm punishing the sin." Different reasons, same outcome and action.

First of all, kickass rebuttal in your first sentence is amazing, and in true "Smart rebuttal type person" fashion.

And yes, the person who commits the sin is punished, but it is not humanity's job to punish sinners, as we have a relatively abstract concept of what is a sin, and what is not. Is it still a sin if you kill someone to protect yourself? Is being gay a sin? We don't know for sure, so it is not our place to judge each other. It is however God's job to judge who he wants in heaven with him, and who will be damned to hell.

- Justin

[Toz]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Right, here goes:

1) In order to advocate claims of systemic child abuse, one must be able to demonstrate conclusively that such child abuse was a part of official policy and encouraged or at the very least condoned therein. The evidence for that is frankly laughable and does not even approach the burden of proof. Individual priests and bishops abusing children and due process is no more an example of systemic child abuse than it is for child abusers within the state care home system (and for the record, such cases form more of the child abuse caseload than the Church). Child abuse has happened, yes, and certain dioceses have frankly been awful in their response, but at the same time I know of a number of dioceses who have some of the strongest child protection policies on the books and the Vatican's own policies on the matter are pretty clear and don't say even half the things claimed of them. I know this because I bothered to read them when the scandal erupted, and had they said what was claimed I would have left the Church. End of story. Equally, the state has played its own substantial role in child abusing clergy getting "off the hook", as authorities in the USA, Ireland and other countries dismissed a number of allegations without particularly bothering to investigate. So for a number of reasons, this claim is without substance.

It's a complicated issue. You end up also having to deal with the relationship between state and church. I never said that the the child abuse was official policy, but the blame falls on higher level officials in the Catholic church for not doing anything about it. Pope Benedict himself was put on trial for the alleged covering up of a molestation, but was granted immunity.

Originally Posted by dr2005

2) Even with the Church's opposition to contraception taken as given, how exactly does that on its own substantiate claims of "promoting AIDS"? The Church funds and in some cases runs a lot of the AIDS treatment and relief clinics in parts of Africa, supplying antiretroviral medication and other support. That's something of a contradiction with the claim being made. The claim also overlooks the fact that AIDS can be contracted by other means outside of sex, such as sharing drug needles or other forms of blood transfer, in which the contraception argument is irrelevant anyway. I do see your point, and on some levels I agree it is a questionable position to take, but it hardly amounts to what I have seriously heard it claimed to be. The way some people put it, you'd think all the world's ills would be solved by a rubber plantation and a condom factory...

I never said that they promoted AIDS anywhere. You brought up that claim when you decided to attack a straw man, which, you've been doing this entire time. I responded with one such way in which they inhibit the fight against AIDS. Even then, moving beyond the Catholic Church, there are churches here in the States that have had members die because they "don't believe in medicine," and would rather pray for cancer to magically disappear.

Originally Posted by dr2005

3) So the Church has been the historical enemy of science and reason, and yet has its own observatory, academy of sciences across a broad spectrum of beliefs and ethnicities and helped establish some of the first universities in Europe? The only thing I can think of which supports this assertion is the Galileo case, and even that is based on a very narrow understanding of the facts. Galileo ultimately ended up on the wrong side of the Inquisition because of his pride more than his science - had he followed the advice of Urban Pope VIII to publish arguments for and against heliocentrism and to consider alternatives to his hypothesis fairly (and at that time, his was purely a hypothesis - his findings undermined Aristotelian and Ptolemean geocentrism but his own theory was not vindicated until much later), he would likely have been protected. Instead, he had the equivalent of a fit of pique, mocked his main supporter and in so doing left himself open to attack. The science itself was not heretical - Copernicus published his theory of heliocentrism with the support of Pope Paul III, after all, and indeed it drew stronger criticism from Protestants such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. I don't defend the actions of the Inquisition once they caught up with Galileo anymore than I defend it in other fields, but to use one incident as proof that the Church is "the enemy of science and reason" and overlook the vast majority of its record in the process is hardly rational.

Having their own observatories and academies of science doesn't mean a thing when they still argue with the God of the gaps. They're totally missing the point of scientific investigation when they take any result and proclaim it to be the work of God.

Originally Posted by dr2005

On the other aspects you mention, the Pope doesn't wear a crown so that is a non-starter, and while he does indeed have a throne and a private jet that's no different to other heads of state. I have yet to see similar accusations of hypocrisy levelled to the same extent. As for the jewellery remark, unless you count the Papal ring as jewellery I can't think of anything that matches that description in the current Pope's wardrobe. By all accounts, the Pope himself lives in a fairly plain manner. If he was lording it up in the trendy bars of Rome then I could perhaps agree, but to be honest I can think of countless worse examples of hypocrisy.

The Papal Tiara


Papal Crown

These belong to Popes as well



He doesn't live in a fairly plain manner, either. He has a grand piano in his living quarters, for crying out loud! You also can't say that it's okay for him to live in a grand fashion because other heads of state have, as well. They aren't heads of religious organizations that preach giving up earthly possessions. Kinda like around here: http://www.openbible.info/topics/earthly_possessions

http://www.openbible.info/topics/earthly_possessions

Originally Posted by dr2005

I apologise if the above comes across strongly, and I hope you can appreciate throughout that this is basically stemming from frustration at the one-dimensional stereotype concerning my own religion which is portrayed time and again. Like all stereotypes, it has some small vein of truth in it, but it ignores the vast majority of what actually goes on in the Church and to hear it repeated over and over seems to smack of laziness in some quarters, frankly. It'd be like me claiming all Americans are overweight and trigger-happy, and in my view should be treated as such because it's contrary to the nature of rational, informed debate. I am a strong advocate of such debate, hence why it riles me so much. For the record, my feelings are just as strong on this topic in other areas.

It's fine. I deal with it as well.

Originally Posted by dr2005

If you are honestly trying to say that the fact that Stalin was a Marxist, a a self-confessed atheistic and anti-religious philosophy, did not in any way motivate his persecution of the Eastern Orthodox Church and other religious groups then I'm afraid we have left the realm of rational argument. He specifically stated anti-clerical and anti-religious policies on numerous occasions, promoted atheism in public life and practically drove the EOC to the verge of extinction - if you don't believe me, see here. Political and economic ideologies only go so far, and Marxism was more than both.

Stalin is a complicated person. Little is known about his life until he was around 44, when he became head of the Communist Party. There are accounts of him attending seminary, but they vary as well: some say he became a priest, some say he didn't. Was he a self confessed atheist? Yes. Did he commit terrible crimes against humanity? Yes. He did. Those crimes weren't motivated by atheism, though. He wasn't following an atheist doctrine that dictated death for apostasy or not being an atheist. Unlike our friendly neighborhood Exodus 22:19.

Stalin also was a strange type of atheist. Part of what made it so that he was an atheist, but he wanted the utmost loyalty from the Russian people, so he made himself to be like a God in their eyes. He didn't do away with the Orthodoxy, so much as he planted his own people in. He used religion for control.

Originally Posted by dr2005

In any event, you seem to have missed my actual point: just as you and other atheists would, quite rightly, object to such a comparison, so too myself and other Christians can quite rightly object to being compared only to the worst examples of our community, such as the child abuse comparison I mention and the Hitler comparison you mention. To claim otherwise is gross hypocrisy, and it is this I find most frustrating. I don't aim that claim at you, I hasten to add - it's more a general comment on a sizeable proportion of material I have read. By way of balance, I have read some very well-informed and balanced arguments by atheists which I take no issue with - unfortunately, as with many popular debates, they seem to be outweighed by others who give less thought or care to the exercise. I suspect your views are probably likewise in the opposite direction.

I'm not comparing you or anyone to the worst of your kind. I know better than to assume all Christians are hypocrites. My main point is only that most Christians are Christian Agnostics and they don't know it.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I think to claim that Catholics, or members of any religious group, are entirely uniform or even mostly uniform in their beliefs and practices is to drastically oversimplify the reality of the congregation. I have in my own short lifetime heard debates about contraception, married clergy, women clergy, euthanasia, capital punishment and homosexuality, with diverging opinions expressed on all fronts. Despite the common sterotype, we are not sheep merely doing the Vatican's bidding. So while I see what you mean, I do think it gives excuse for not doing further research and that does not seem to me a wise course of action.

Varied as they may, my point was that there's no overarching premise or doctrine for atheism beyond the general rejection of a deity.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

First of all, kickass rebuttal in your first sentence is amazing, and in true "Smart rebuttal type person" fashion.

And yes, the person who commits the sin is punished, but it is not humanity's job to punish sinners, as we have a relatively abstract concept of what is a sin, and what is not. Is it still a sin if you kill someone to protect yourself? Is being gay a sin? We don't know for sure, so it is not our place to judge each other. It is however God's job to judge who he wants in heaven with him, and who will be damned to hell.

- Justin

Yes, we've already established that it is God's duty to punish sinners. That doesn't deter from the fact that people still take it upon themselves to do so. And it's also a terrible way to approach dealing with wrongdoings because it allows people to get away scott free, with the understanding that they'll have to deal with it in the end. And I'm not so sure you have a clear idea of right and wrong if you think we have a relatively abstract concept of what is and isn't sin. It's listed clear as day what is right and wrong in the Bible. You should also try dealing with the Euthypro Dilemma: Is something right because God's will says it is, or is it that God wills it because it is right?

[Liz94]

I have studied the 6 passages in the Bible where it discusses homosexuality and researches different meanings etc. That is why I can confidently state that I am a devote gay Christian, as I find that the passages do not condem loving, commited same sex relationships.

When it comes to Catholics, I have found myself being condemed by more Catholics than any other denomonation of Christianity, my homosexual friends have found the same thing. Not saying all Catholics have reacted in a negative way, just more.

As for nit picking at tiny little points meaning that you are distracted from the main point that a person is making I personally think that you are trying to be clever. I don't mean this is a rude way at all. I am just saying that the main points should be what you break down, think through and comment on.

[Megan1]

Although I am against homosexuality (the act, not the people), you are right that God loves you anyways. However, God loving you and God thinking that you are doing the right thing is not the same.

1 Timothy 1:10 is where I get my information about homosexuality being a sin (again, I mean the act, not the person or the feeling). This is the new testament, so there's no argument about whether or not it still applies...and it's the only verse about homosexuality that still says "homosexual" when you use the most literal translation available to us today.

There are also many verses that say things like "A man should have one wife" not "one wife or husband"...but I know many people think that is debatable because they think that the writers just left out that detail or something. Also, I personally believe that the old testament law that says "man shall not lie with man as man lies with woman" still applies because the only laws in the old testament that don't still apply are the ones that have to do with Jesus dying on the cross (for example, we can now eat pork and wear different fabrics and such, because those laws had to do with spiritual uncleaness...and Jesus made our spirits clean when He died)...but again, that part is debatable, which is why I stick to 1 Timothy 1:10.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Toz

It's a complicated issue. You end up also having to deal with the relationship between state and church. I never said that the the child abuse was official policy, but the blame falls on higher level officials in the Catholic church for not doing anything about it. Pope Benedict himself was put on trial for the alleged covering up of a molestation, but was granted immunity.

Care to provide a source for that last claim? I have heard many claims that he should be put on trial, and lawsuits attempting to name him as a co-defendant, but none of these have succeeded or even resulted in a summons, primarily because the causal chain has not been demonstrated on any occasion. Leaving this aside, Pope Benedict has immunity from prosecution generally as a head of state (fairly standard principle of international law), so claiming he was "granted" immunity is itself highly misleading.

Originally Posted by Toz

I never said that they promoted AIDS anywhere. You brought up that claim when you decided to attack a straw man, which, you've been doing this entire time. I responded with one such way in which they inhibit the fight against AIDS. Even then, moving beyond the Catholic Church, there are churches here in the States that have had members die because they "don't believe in medicine," and would rather pray for cancer to magically disappear.

I think it's fair to say it stops becoming a straw man when it is a claim which has been made quite strongly in various circles - or, if you prefer a less controversial version, the claim that the Church's policy towards contraception has resulted in the increased prevalence of AIDS. The difference becomes one of semantics really. The claims I pointed out are all ones I have seen directed towards Catholics, so please refrain from further straw man accusations. I do know what I am talking about on this one.

Originally Posted by Toz

Having their own observatories and academies of science doesn't mean a thing when they still argue with the God of the gaps. They're totally missing the point of scientific investigation when they take any result and proclaim it to be the work of God.

I suggest you do a little more research about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and what it actually does - I seriously doubt Professor Stephen Hawking, among others, would be a member were it merely a rubber-stamping exercise. On another note, "God of the gaps" is something I've seen expressed more in atheistic rebuttals of religion than by theologians themselves.

Originally Posted by Toz

The Papal Tiara
Papal Crown
These belong to Popes as well

The Papal Tiara hasn't been used since 1963, and as far as I am aware it was sold and sits in a museum in America - the same applies for its predecessors I believe, which are either in storage or on display elsewhere. All of these were gifts from other kingdoms and congregations, and while there have been further bequests it is not a requirement for a Pope to have a Tiara and he cannot wear it anyway. The "Papal Crown" you refer to appears to be a mitre with jewellery of indeterminate origin on and more likely to be costume jewellery than anything (mitres have a pretty hard life, even the Pope's), while the other two are not items I have seen the current Pope or his predecessor wear. Note that I referred to his wardrobe, not the collection of the Vatican.

Originally Posted by Toz

He doesn't live in a fairly plain manner, either. He has a grand piano in his living quarters, for crying out loud!

First of all, it's actually an upright piano and it's one he owned prior to becoming Pope, as this article states at the end. Secondly, what bearing does a musical instrument equivalent to that in a bar have on determining the manner in which he lives? My parents have a miniature grand piano, for example - are you therefore claiming we are lording it over the Pope? Get real.

Originally Posted by Toz

You also can't say that it's okay for him to live in a grand fashion because other heads of state have, as well. They aren't heads of religious organizations that preach giving up earthly possessions. Kinda like around here: http://www.openbible.info/topics/earthly_possessions

The criticism would be more valid were the Pope actually the owner of any of these items. He isn't (upright piano and books notwithstanding). They're owned by the Vatican State, and he has no more claim to them than the President of the United States has over his limousine.

Originally Posted by Toz

Stalin is a complicated person. Little is known about his life until he was around 44, when he became head of the Communist Party. There are accounts of him attending seminary, but they vary as well: some say he became a priest, some say he didn't. Was he a self confessed atheist? Yes. Did he commit terrible crimes against humanity? Yes. He did. Those crimes weren't motivated by atheism, though. He wasn't following an atheist doctrine that dictated death for apostasy or not being an atheist. Unlike our friendly neighborhood Exodus 22:19.

No, but he was following an atheist doctrine which deemed religion a tool of oppression - "the opium of the masses" - and a shackle on the progression of society towards the true communist ideal, and therefore those serving it as oppressors. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could be utilised to motivate his anti-clericalism and religious intolerance, and I think it's bordering on the absurd to claim it played no part whatsoever. It's invoking one hell of a coincidence for him to develop such thoughts independent on his preconceived atheist and anti-religious views, and I have my doubts that the human mind works in such a segregated manner.

On Stalin's seminary career, according to Wikipedia he was expelled in 1899 after failing to sit his final exams, so I think we can safely say he did not become a priest. He apparently started reading Lenin's writings thereafter and joined the Bolsheviks in 1903.

Originally Posted by Toz

Stalin also was a strange type of atheist. Part of what made it so that he was an atheist, but he wanted the utmost loyalty from the Russian people, so he made himself to be like a God in their eyes. He didn't do away with the Orthodoxy, so much as he planted his own people in. He used religion for control.

I've heard this claim many times, and it still strikes me as odd. He practically demolished the Eastern Orthodox Church in the run-up to the Second World War, with the number of active parishes down from 54,000 in 1917 to the low hundreds by 1939, and thousands of clergy imprisoned or executed. Over 100,000 were reported to have been killed in 1937-1938 alone. That does not strike me as the conduct of a man using the Orthodoxy as a means of control - it strikes me as an attempt at extermination, tied in with his view of it as a bourgeois instrument. Fear and the military were arguably Stalin's main tools for control, what with the various purges and his direct control over various state organs - religion only came back into vogue after Hitler's invasion in 1941 as a propaganda tool. His relationship with religion was certainly complicated, but up to 1941 I do not believe it is controversial to say he was hunting it down with something of a vengeance.

Originally Posted by Toz

I'm not comparing you or anyone to the worst of your kind. I know better than to assume all Christians are hypocrites. My main point is only that most Christians are Christian Agnostics and they don't know it.

I know - it was a general rant.

Originally Posted by Toz

Varied as they may, my point was that there's no overarching premise or doctrine for atheism beyond the general rejection of a deity.

Fair point, and one I did not dispute. I was merely querying the other bit.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Care to provide a source for that last claim? I have heard many claims that he should be put on trial, and lawsuits attempting to name him as a co-defendant, but none of these have succeeded or even resulted in a summons, primarily because the causal chain has not been demonstrated on any occasion. Leaving this aside, Pope Benedict has immunity from prosecution generally as a head of state (fairly standard principle of international law), so claiming he was "granted" immunity is itself highly misleading.



I think it's fair to say it stops becoming a straw man when it is a claim which has been made quite strongly in various circles - or, if you prefer a less controversial version, the claim that the Church's policy towards contraception has resulted in the increased prevalence of AIDS. The difference becomes one of semantics really. The claims I pointed out are all ones I have seen directed towards Catholics, so please refrain from further straw man accusations. I do know what I am talking about on this one.



I suggest you do a little more research about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and what it actually does - I seriously doubt Professor Stephen Hawking, among others, would be a member were it merely a rubber-stamping exercise. On another note, "God of the gaps" is something I've seen expressed more in atheistic rebuttals of religion than by theologians themselves.



The Papal Tiara hasn't been used since 1963, and as far as I am aware it was sold and sits in a museum in America - the same applies for its predecessors I believe, which are either in storage or on display elsewhere. All of these were gifts from other kingdoms and congregations, and while there have been further bequests it is not a requirement for a Pope to have a Tiara and he cannot wear it anyway. The "Papal Crown" you refer to appears to be a mitre with jewellery of indeterminate origin on and more likely to be costume jewellery than anything (mitres have a pretty hard life, even the Pope's), while the other two are not items I have seen the current Pope or his predecessor wear. Note that I referred to his wardrobe, not the collection of the Vatican.



First of all, it's actually an upright piano and it's one he owned prior to becoming Pope, as this article states at the end. Secondly, what bearing does a musical instrument equivalent to that in a bar have on determining the manner in which he lives? My parents have a miniature grand piano, for example - are you therefore claiming we are lording it over the Pope? Get real.



The criticism would be more valid were the Pope actually the owner of any of these items. He isn't (upright piano and books notwithstanding). They're owned by the Vatican State, and he has no more claim to them than the President of the United States has over his limousine.



No, but he was following an atheist doctrine which deemed religion a tool of oppression - "the opium of the masses" - and a shackle on the progression of society towards the true communist ideal, and therefore those serving it as oppressors. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could be utilised to motivate his anti-clericalism and religious intolerance, and I think it's bordering on the absurd to claim it played no part whatsoever. It's invoking one hell of a coincidence for him to develop such thoughts independent on his preconceived atheist and anti-religious views, and I have my doubts that the human mind works in such a segregated manner.

On Stalin's seminary career, according to Wikipedia he was expelled in 1899 after failing to sit his final exams, so I think we can safely say he did not become a priest. He apparently started reading Lenin's writings thereafter and joined the Bolsheviks in 1903.



I've heard this claim many times, and it still strikes me as odd. He practically demolished the Eastern Orthodox Church in the run-up to the Second World War, with the number of active parishes down from 54,000 in 1917 to the low hundreds by 1939, and thousands of clergy imprisoned or executed. Over 100,000 were reported to have been killed in 1937-1938 alone. That does not strike me as the conduct of a man using the Orthodoxy as a means of control - it strikes me as an attempt at extermination, tied in with his view of it as a bourgeois instrument. Fear and the military were arguably Stalin's main tools for control, what with the various purges and his direct control over various state organs - religion only came back into vogue after Hitler's invasion in 1941 as a propaganda tool. His relationship with religion was certainly complicated, but up to 1941 I do not believe it is controversial to say he was hunting it down with something of a vengeance.



I know - it was a general rant.



Fair point, and one I did not dispute. I was merely querying the other bit.

**Spot reserved for reply**
sorry, dinnertime :P

[Senia]

I personally think homosexuality is wrong. This is just my personal opinion as others opinions are that it is right. The reason why is that first of all nobody is born as a homosexual it has not been scientifically proven. man and women have been made for each other to love, to support and to have children to teach them right from wrong. If otherwise it is the fault of the person. Man to man love or women to women is just desires. As humans we have the power to suppress our desires. Man and women naturally complete each other. As humans we have been given hearts that have a capacity to love so much why not in the right way.

[ReluctantPegasister]

Originally Posted by Senia

I personally think homosexuality is wrong. This is just my personal opinion as others opinions are that it is right. The reason why is that first of all nobody is born as a homosexual it has not been scientifically proven. man and women have been made for each other to love, to support and to have children to teach them right from wrong. If otherwise it is the fault of the person. Man to man love or women to women is just desires. As humans we have the power to suppress our desires. Man and women naturally complete each other. As humans we have been given hearts that have a capacity to love so much why not in the right way.

A: I won't take you on "is it inborn" or not.
B: Gay couples can and have raised wonderfully moral (and straight) children. Your point is invalid, especially since many single parent get along just fine.
C: Gay attraction is just desire? Then what the heck to you call straight attraction?

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by Senia

I personally think homosexuality is wrong. This is just my personal opinion as others opinions are that it is right. The reason why is that first of all nobody is born as a homosexual it has not been scientifically proven. man and women have been made for each other to love, to support and to have children to teach them right from wrong. If otherwise it is the fault of the person. Man to man love or women to women is just desires. As humans we have the power to suppress our desires. Man and women naturally complete each other. As humans we have been given hearts that have a capacity to love so much why not in the right way.

1: Nor has it been disproven

2: Studies have shown Homosexual parents are more likely to raise better off children than heterosexual parents. I believe this is largely due to the face that homosexual parents often really WANT their kid, while heterosexual parents often make a mistake and have a kid, but it's a statistic none the less that homosexuals often make better parents once they decide to have kids.

3: As said before, if homosexuality is just a desire, what do you call heterosexuality? If you're saying there is no love in homosexuality, you are surely mistaken. I've often seen better love in gay people than I have in straight people.

4: There have been incidences of natural animals, out in the wild, having gay sex and finding gay lifelong mates. If you don't call the unblemished wilderness natural, I don't know what you consider natural.

5: Whose to decide what is right and wrong? You are not God, if you believe in such, and therefore you have no right to say what is right and wrong for everyone, especially since Homosexuality isn't actually hurting anyone at all, other than making you uncomfortable.





That being said, this is to everyone. I don't care whether you're against homosexuality or not. It irks me if you are, but I believe that homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, and that this is just a phase. I don't believe anyone can change your thoughts and opinions, no matter how hard we try. Granted, I just tried above But, a good hearty debate is always fun at first. It doesn't bother me THAT much if someone is against it, because I do honestly believe everyone is entitled to their opinions.

The only thing that really bothers me, is the whole gay marriage debate, and other such rights gays don't have. Why? Because while everyone is entitled to their opinion, it should stop right there. Opinions can be kept to yourself if others are obviously bothered by it, and opinions should not inflict on the rights of others. Separation between church and state, anyone remember that?

[Liz94]

I agree with Marissa here.

I only ever stick up for homosexuals if I believe someone is taking it too far, it is offending someone or if someone questions me being a gay Christian.

I have no problem with people saying they find the act of homosexuality wrong, that it makes them uneasy etc.
It is when someone "plays God" and tells me that I am going to go to hell that I have a problem or when someone says it is disgusting, unnatural, that I am diseased etc.

I think that just because of my sexuality, which is a very very small part of me, I have the right of marriage taken away from me. That people turn there nose at me when I talk about my NATURAL desire to have children and that this would mean adoption, and IVF ( which I will pay for as there is nothing wrong with me fertially)

[Toz]

Wow, I forgot about this. Okay, here goes.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Care to provide a source for that last claim? I have heard many claims that he should be put on trial, and lawsuits attempting to name him as a co-defendant, but none of these have succeeded or even resulted in a summons, primarily because the causal chain has not been demonstrated on any occasion. Leaving this aside, Pope Benedict has immunity from prosecution generally as a head of state (fairly standard principle of international law), so claiming he was "granted" immunity is itself highly misleading.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pop...958097061.html Here is link on an article about the Pope being charged. He requested, and yes, gained immunity. Regardless of whether he was a head of state. It's interesting though- this goes against something the founding fathers were proponent of- popular sovereignty.

Now, about the sex abuse scandals- I'm not idiotic enough to assert that the Vatican itself commanded and or condoned these. What I submit to you is that it wasn't handled well, and as an organization that is supposed to speak for a religion that supports helping the helpless, and limitless and boundless love and humility (though the gay community couldn't really ever testify and say they felt said love), they handled themselves terribly.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I think it's fair to say it stops becoming a straw man when it is a claim which has been made quite strongly in various circles - or, if you prefer a less controversial version, the claim that the Church's policy towards contraception has resulted in the increased prevalence of AIDS. The difference becomes one of semantics really. The claims I pointed out are all ones I have seen directed towards Catholics, so please refrain from further straw man accusations. I do know what I am talking about on this one.

I'm afraid not. See example two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

You have committed this fallacy. You (inadvertently, maybe) even set it up so that I could make it as well. It began in this post:

Originally Posted by dr2005

The problem is a lot of what is posted goes beyond "having some laughs" and in some instances is bordering on libel. I for one am getting tired of the numerous articles I've read asserting that the Catholic Church is a grotesque Gorgon of systemic child abuse, promotion of AIDS, trampler of individual liberty and enemy of all science and reason. As a Catholic, therefore, I must either be complicit in or giving my consent to all of the above, and you can probably imagine how I feel about that. Granted, I may not be killed in the process, but it's pretty bloody insulting however you look at it, and I can assure you in a lot of cases it's said in full seriousness. If I compared all atheists to Stalin, you'd be understandably aggrieved at the comparison. It's the double standard I find particularly annoying, and it does seem to stem from a need, as Marguerite suggests, to feel better than their target. It's not really on whichever side uses it.

You set forth things you noticed atheists had to say about Catholicism. That in itself is committing the fallacy.

1. It is a machine of "systemic child abuse."
2. It promotes AIDS.
3. An enemy of all science and reason.

First off, I have yet to see anyone make that assertion. It has been put forth that they attempted to cover up the charges. Here is an archive of information on that. http://www.boston.com/globe/spotligh...ps_archive.htm
Secondly, this is another claim that I have never seen. But it is, however, without doubt that the Church's actions have only spurred the problem of AIDS. The Church has argued that morality is a better contraceptive than a condom- do we really need to argue this? Morality has been historically faulty. Condoms are 99% effective.
Thirdly, this claim is only made in a historical sense, but that is something we have already discussed.

It aggravates me to no end when Christians get themselves worked up over atheistic humor on the internet- this isn't nearly as terrible as the things that non-Christians and people who have committed apostasy have had to deal with in the past. I see no reason for Christians to feel hurt when they've killed people for not believing the way they do. If they can deal out death for these things, they can take a few humorous comics and pictures.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I suggest you do a little more research about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and what it actually does - I seriously doubt Professor Stephen Hawking, among others, would be a member were it merely a rubber-stamping exercise. On another note, "God of the gaps" is something I've seen expressed more in atheistic rebuttals of religion than by theologians themselves.

I did. It found its roots in an academy that a Roman Prince had started. An academy, ironically, whose first president was Galileo. I also read the words of Pope Pius XI concerning the organization, which is full of errors- the assertion that science and the Christian faith have never contradicted, when viewed correctly. The disgustingly redundant, surprisingly raging debate over the Big Bang vs Young Earth Creationism is proof of this. And about the God of the Gaps argument- it wouldn't be an atheistic rebuttal if it didn't warrant it. It's been submitted time and time again.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The Papal Tiara hasn't been used since 1963, and as far as I am aware it was sold and sits in a museum in America - the same applies for its predecessors I believe, which are either in storage or on display elsewhere.

That doesn't deter from the fact that the Vatican still used and owned these unnecessarily luxurious items. It
boggles the mind, to think of how much progress the prices that the private jets, exorbitant locations, and countless treasures that the Vatican owns could fuel.

Originally Posted by dr2005

All of these were gifts from other kingdoms and congregations, and while there have been further bequests it is not a requirement for a Pope to have a Tiara and he cannot wear it anyway. The "Papal Crown" you refer to appears to be a mitre with jewellery of indeterminate origin on and more likely to be costume jewellery than anything (mitres have a pretty hard life, even the Pope's), while the other two are not items I have seen the current Pope or his predecessor wear. Note that I referred to his wardrobe, not the collection of the Vatican.

I'm not discussing specifically the Pope's attire. The point I am making is that the Pope and his organization are in possession of vast amounts of wealth, and it leads one to ask: couldn't that money have gone to a better cause?

Originally Posted by dr2005

First of all, it's actually an upright piano and it's one he owned prior to becoming Pope, as this article states at the end. Secondly, what bearing does a musical instrument equivalent to that in a bar have on determining the manner in which he lives? My parents have a miniature grand piano, for example - are you therefore claiming we are lording it over the Pope? Get real.

No. I am not. Do not put words in my mouth. The bearing it has is that for someone who is supposed to follow the word of a man that prescribed a simple, pious life, it doesn't bear well.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The criticism would be more valid were the Pope actually the owner of any of these items. He isn't (upright piano and books notwithstanding). They're owned by the Vatican State, and he has no more claim to them than the President of the United States has over his limousine.

See above.

Originally Posted by dr2005

No, but he was following an atheist doctrine which deemed religion a tool of oppression - "the opium of the masses" - and a shackle on the progression of society towards the true communist ideal, and therefore those serving it as oppressors. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could be utilised to motivate his anti-clericalism and religious intolerance, and I think it's bordering on the absurd to claim it played no part whatsoever. It's invoking one hell of a coincidence for him to develop such thoughts independent on his preconceived atheist and anti-religious views, and I have my doubts that the human mind works in such a segregated manner.

No. The Communist Manifesto is an economic doctrine. You yourself admitted earlier that there is no single overriding atheist doctrine. And it's interesting you bring up preconcieved atheist notions- aren't we all born atheists? Just a joke. On a more serious note, I see it like this: religion was a casualty of war in his uprising. Not a target. It could very well have been that Marx wrote "Buddhism is the opiate of the masses," and he done the same thing to Buddhists.

Originally Posted by dr2005

On Stalin's seminary career, according to Wikipedia he was expelled in 1899 after failing to sit his final exams, so I think we can safely say he did not become a priest. He apparently started reading Lenin's writings thereafter and joined the Bolsheviks in 1903.

No, we can not. Simply because sources vary too much.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I've heard this claim many times, and it still strikes me as odd. He practically demolished the Eastern Orthodox Church in the run-up to the Second World War, with the number of active parishes down from 54,000 in 1917 to the low hundreds by 1939, and thousands of clergy imprisoned or executed. Over 100,000 were reported to have been killed in 1937-1938 alone. That does not strike me as the conduct of a man using the Orthodoxy as a means of control - it strikes me as an attempt at extermination, tied in with his view of it as a bourgeois instrument. Fear and the military were arguably Stalin's main tools for control, what with the various purges and his direct control over various state organs - religion only came back into vogue after Hitler's invasion in 1941 as a propaganda tool. His relationship with religion was certainly complicated, but up to 1941 I do not believe it is controversial to say he was hunting it down with something of a vengeance.

To exterminate would be to eradicate totally. He was an absolutionist- if he did something, he did it to as close to completion as possible. I would say he kept the few he did for control purposes. But, this is just speculation on both our parts.

[dr2005]

I did wonder what had happened - that must have been the longest dinner ever.

Originally Posted by Toz

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pop...958097061.html Here is link on an article about the Pope being charged. He requested, and yes, gained immunity. Regardless of whether he was a head of state. It's interesting though- this goes against something the founding fathers were proponent of- popular sovereignty.

Incorrect. If you read the article again, the spokesman for the US State Department makes it quite clear the Pope already has immunity. Talking of him "gaining" immunity is frankly a distortion of the facts, and one I am quite surprised that you would be willing to make. You describe yourself as a student of reason, after all.

Originally Posted by Toz

Now, about the sex abuse scandals- I'm not idiotic enough to assert that the Vatican itself commanded and or condoned these. What I submit to you is that it wasn't handled well, and as an organization that is supposed to speak for a religion that supports helping the helpless, and limitless and boundless love and humility (though the gay community couldn't really ever testify and say they felt said love), they handled themselves terribly.

I don't dispute that - in my view, the Catholic Church's response to the situation at the time was frankly diabolical. At the same time, so was the response from civil society. I don't mean that as any attempt at condoning the Church's conduct, as the previous statement should make quite clear - only to demonstrate the fallacy in singling out the Church as a special case, or in attempting to draw causation when none exists in attempts to justify doing so. (I'm not accusing you of any of this, by the way - I'm making general observations)

Originally Posted by Toz

I'm afraid not. See example two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

You have committed this fallacy. You (inadvertently, maybe) even set it up so that I could make it as well. It began in this post:

You set forth things you noticed atheists had to say about Catholicism. That in itself is committing the fallacy.

1. It is a machine of "systemic child abuse."
2. It promotes AIDS.
3. An enemy of all science and reason.

First off, I have yet to see anyone make that assertion. It has been put forth that they attempted to cover up the charges. Here is an archive of information on that. http://www.boston.com/globe/spotligh...ps_archive.htm

Really. Care to explain the existence of this, then? That took me all of 5 seconds to find on Google. I also found this, which contains views in the comments section akin to the first statement, as well as a comment along the same lines at the end of this page.

If you're going to throw around accusations of distortion or committing fallacies, I'd hope you could at least do a Google search first.

Originally Posted by Toz

Secondly, this is another claim that I have never seen. But it is, however, without doubt that the Church's actions have only spurred the problem of AIDS. The Church has argued that morality is a better contraceptive than a condom- do we really need to argue this? Morality has been historically faulty. Condoms are 99% effective.

I would recommend looking at this page, in that case. If that isn't making the claim I alluded to, I'm not sure what does.

Originally Posted by Toz

Thirdly, this claim is only made in a historical sense, but that is something we have already discussed.

It is still a claim being made to this day, particularly among the so-called "New Atheists". Ergo, claim is not a distortion.

Originally Posted by Toz

It aggravates me to no end when Christians get themselves worked up over atheistic humor on the internet- this isn't nearly as terrible as the things that non-Christians and people who have committed apostasy have had to deal with in the past. I see no reason for Christians to feel hurt when they've killed people for not believing the way they do. If they can deal out death for these things, they can take a few humorous comics and pictures.

I think it stops being "humour" when you accuse someone of being complicit in criminal offences, quite frankly - or, if you would prefer another example, being accused of treason (as your idol Richard Dawkins alluded to around the time of the Pope's visit). As I have not personally killed anyone, nor condoned others for doing so, you will perhaps forgive me if I feel aggrieved at my reputation being besmirched in a form of guilt by association from those too cowardly to even say it to my face.

Apologies if that comes across strongly - this has probably been building for a few years now.

Originally Posted by Toz

I did. It found its roots in an academy that a Roman Prince had started. An academy, ironically, whose first president was Galileo. I also read the words of Pope Pius XI concerning the organization, which is full of errors- the assertion that science and the Christian faith have never contradicted, when viewed correctly. The disgustingly redundant, surprisingly raging debate over the Big Bang vs Young Earth Creationism is proof of this. And about the God of the Gaps argument- it wouldn't be an atheistic rebuttal if it didn't warrant it. It's been submitted time and time again.

Young Earth Creationism is nothing to do with the Catholic Church, and so for the purposes of this debate is effectively redundant as an example. (For one, you assume prima facie that the YEC interpretation of the Christian faith is itself correct, and I think a lot of people would challenge that) On your last sentence, I must admit I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say - I commented that "God of the gaps" is more commonly used by atheists as a rebuttal to arguments for God as opposed to being used by theologians, yet you then claim it's been submitted "time and time again". Either two hectic days really have caught up with me or we have a problem here...

Originally Posted by Toz

That doesn't deter from the fact that the Vatican still used and owned these unnecessarily luxurious items. It boggles the mind, to think of how much progress the prices that the private jets, exorbitant locations, and countless treasures that the Vatican owns could fuel.

I'm not discussing specifically the Pope's attire. The point I am making is that the Pope and his organization are in possession of vast amounts of wealth, and it leads one to ask: couldn't that money have gone to a better cause?

I put these together because they're basically the same point rehashed. Do I think the money could have gone to a better cause? Almost certainly. Does that make it the Pope's fault? Not particularly, given that all of these items predate his papacy (particularly the more ostentatious ones like the Papal Tiaras et al) and also that - having done a bit more research into the matter - the Vatican doesn't actually own any jets. They're provided by Alitalia as and when required. (Source) That removes therefore the one example I would object strongest to. Most of the other items of wealth are either works of art integral to buildings (e.g. the Sistine Chapel) or otherwise the responsibility of the Vatican to upkeep (and therefore a cost). I agree that I wish the money had gone into something more beneficial to wider society, but I think claims that it would have vastly accelerated the pursuit of human progress may be a touch of hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Toz

No. I am not. Do not put words in my mouth. The bearing it has is that for someone who is supposed to follow the word of a man that prescribed a simple, pious life, it doesn't bear well.

The comment was merely to demonstrate the flaw in the logic, not to put words in your mouth. Apologies if this came across that way. My point was more that beyond a fairly limited range of possessions, none of which I would deem as extravagant per se (unless bars have suddenly become extravagant), the Pope's lifestyle is fairly simple in terms of his day-to-day activities. Had he commissioned the retiling of St Peter's Square in gold plate then perhaps we might be in agreement on this one, but as things stand I'd hardly compare the Pope with Hugh Hefner or the like.

Originally Posted by Toz

See above.

Given that you haven't actually demonstrated personal ownership by the Pope, or even tried to as far as I can see, the above is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Toz

No. The Communist Manifesto is an economic doctrine. You yourself admitted earlier that there is no single overriding atheist doctrine. And it's interesting you bring up preconcieved atheist notions- aren't we all born atheists? Just a joke. On a more serious note, I see it like this: religion was a casualty of war in his uprising. Not a target. It could very well have been that Marx wrote "Buddhism is the opiate of the masses," and he done the same thing to Buddhists.

Picking out one work by Marx and Engels as definitive as to the entirety of communist doctrine is a pretty cheap trick, I must say. Taking the range of works and philosophy into consideration, I feel it is fair to say that religion is regarded as more than just a casualty of war; it was viewed as an active impediment to the communist revolution, and therefore something to be actively shunned. Otherwise, why would Stalin promote atheism to the extent that he did if it were merely the victim of collateral damage? Also, communism is a philosophy regarding the nature of society as a whole, not merely in terms of its economics. Your interpretation does not appear to fit the evidence.

Originally Posted by Toz

No, we can not. Simply because sources vary too much.

When the source is the records of the seminary he attended, as the article says, I think we can. They are in the best position to know one way or the other, I would have thought.

Originally Posted by Toz

To exterminate would be to eradicate totally. He was an absolutionist- if he did something, he did it to as close to completion as possible. I would say he kept the few he did for control purposes. But, this is just speculation on both our parts.

Indeed - the one thing I would say is that the consensus is his policy was one of eradiction (and one he came pretty close to achieving, based on the trend demonstrated) up to the attempted invasion by Germany in 1940, after which he sought its use as a propaganda tool. As you say, though, it's just speculation.

[chickenonsteroids]

Yaaay debates between toz and Dr2005

Awesome I tell you

[Revolution]

...On snap is a pretty good description of this thread and its responses.

OP: The truth is followers of Christ aren't always very Christ-like. I think somebody truly believing in the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ would be accepting of the "sin" of homosexuality. Plus, the fact that Christians basically pick and choose what they believe, saying "Oh now women aren't property" but "Homosexuality is still a sin" is fairly, well, entertaining. Pick what you want to believe, which is tolerance and acceptance. I think Jesus would approve.

[Iris. ♥]

Wow, this debate is getting intense. Lol.

OP: I'm a Christian and I see no issue whatsoever with homosexuality. Your interpretation of the passage about Sodom is completely valid: they were at fault for many other things. You sound like you have an amazing relationship with Christ, something that many "Christians" cannot claim, homosexual or not. God does love you because you are His child. So, just ignore the people that say you're going to Hell, because that is between YOU and GOD.

[Sythan]

Originally Posted by Senia

I personally think homosexuality is wrong. This is just my personal opinion as others opinions are that it is right. The reason why is that first of all nobody is born as a homosexual it has not been scientifically proven.

Yes, it has. There is scientific evidence that people are born homosexual. It's your own fault for not researching it.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/12/01...ture-part-one/

Originally Posted by Senia

man and women have been made for each other to love, to support and to have children to teach them right from wrong. If otherwise it is the fault of the person.

Wrong on all counts. If you had the slightest intelligence when it comes to science, you'd know this is false. Scientific studies have shown that homosexuals raise happier, healthier, and better adjusted children than heterosexuals. So your argument is proven false.

Human beings are not "made for each other", we are naturally polyamorous, meaning we are supposed to have sex with many different people and not get into long term relationships, that is why many people cheat on their spouses and 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, because we are whores by nature.

Originally Posted by Senia

Man to man love or women to women is just desires. As humans we have the power to suppress our desires.

Wrong yet again. Male and female homosexuals' pleasure and attraction centers of the brain light up like a Christmas tree when exposed to sexual or romantic content.

You cannot control what or who your brain is attracted to, therefore it is not a controllable desire. We can suppress our actions, not our desires.

Originally Posted by Senia

Man and women naturally complete each other. As humans we have been given hearts that have a capacity to love so much why not in the right way.

1) Men and women complete each other...during sex. That's it, I fall back on my polyamorous argument for the rest of the explanation.

2) When you say "Love the right way" that implies that homosexuality is unnatural and deviant from the "right way", which again is completely false.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I did wonder what had happened - that must have been the longest dinner ever.



Incorrect. If you read the article again, the spokesman for the US State Department makes it quite clear the Pope already has immunity. Talking of him "gaining" immunity is frankly a distortion of the facts, and one I am quite surprised that you would be willing to make. You describe yourself as a student of reason, after all.



I don't dispute that - in my view, the Catholic Church's response to the situation at the time was frankly diabolical. At the same time, so was the response from civil society. I don't mean that as any attempt at condoning the Church's conduct, as the previous statement should make quite clear - only to demonstrate the fallacy in singling out the Church as a special case, or in attempting to draw causation when none exists in attempts to justify doing so. (I'm not accusing you of any of this, by the way - I'm making general observations)



Really. Care to explain the existence of this, then? That took me all of 5 seconds to find on Google. I also found this, which contains views in the comments section akin to the first statement, as well as a comment along the same lines at the end of this page.

If you're going to throw around accusations of distortion or committing fallacies, I'd hope you could at least do a Google search first.



I would recommend looking at this page, in that case. If that isn't making the claim I alluded to, I'm not sure what does.



It is still a claim being made to this day, particularly among the so-called "New Atheists". Ergo, claim is not a distortion.



I think it stops being "humour" when you accuse someone of being complicit in criminal offences, quite frankly - or, if you would prefer another example, being accused of treason (as your idol Richard Dawkins alluded to around the time of the Pope's visit). As I have not personally killed anyone, nor condoned others for doing so, you will perhaps forgive me if I feel aggrieved at my reputation being besmirched in a form of guilt by association from those too cowardly to even say it to my face.

Apologies if that comes across strongly - this has probably been building for a few years now.



Young Earth Creationism is nothing to do with the Catholic Church, and so for the purposes of this debate is effectively redundant as an example. (For one, you assume prima facie that the YEC interpretation of the Christian faith is itself correct, and I think a lot of people would challenge that) On your last sentence, I must admit I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say - I commented that "God of the gaps" is more commonly used by atheists as a rebuttal to arguments for God as opposed to being used by theologians, yet you then claim it's been submitted "time and time again". Either two hectic days really have caught up with me or we have a problem here...



I put these together because they're basically the same point rehashed. Do I think the money could have gone to a better cause? Almost certainly. Does that make it the Pope's fault? Not particularly, given that all of these items predate his papacy (particularly the more ostentatious ones like the Papal Tiaras et al) and also that - having done a bit more research into the matter - the Vatican doesn't actually own any jets. They're provided by Alitalia as and when required. (Source) That removes therefore the one example I would object strongest to. Most of the other items of wealth are either works of art integral to buildings (e.g. the Sistine Chapel) or otherwise the responsibility of the Vatican to upkeep (and therefore a cost). I agree that I wish the money had gone into something more beneficial to wider society, but I think claims that it would have vastly accelerated the pursuit of human progress may be a touch of hyperbole.



The comment was merely to demonstrate the flaw in the logic, not to put words in your mouth. Apologies if this came across that way. My point was more that beyond a fairly limited range of possessions, none of which I would deem as extravagant per se (unless bars have suddenly become extravagant), the Pope's lifestyle is fairly simple in terms of his day-to-day activities. Had he commissioned the retiling of St Peter's Square in gold plate then perhaps we might be in agreement on this one, but as things stand I'd hardly compare the Pope with Hugh Hefner or the like.



Given that you haven't actually demonstrated personal ownership by the Pope, or even tried to as far as I can see, the above is irrelevant.



Picking out one work by Marx and Engels as definitive as to the entirety of communist doctrine is a pretty cheap trick, I must say. Taking the range of works and philosophy into consideration, I feel it is fair to say that religion is regarded as more than just a casualty of war; it was viewed as an active impediment to the communist revolution, and therefore something to be actively shunned. Otherwise, why would Stalin promote atheism to the extent that he did if it were merely the victim of collateral damage? Also, communism is a philosophy regarding the nature of society as a whole, not merely in terms of its economics. Your interpretation does not appear to fit the evidence.



When the source is the records of the seminary he attended, as the article says, I think we can. They are in the best position to know one way or the other, I would have thought.



Indeed - the one thing I would say is that the consensus is his policy was one of eradiction (and one he came pretty close to achieving, based on the trend demonstrated) up to the attempted invasion by Germany in 1940, after which he sought its use as a propaganda tool. As you say, though, it's just speculation.

Sweet Cthulu, this is starting to drag on and on. Alright, for the sake of moving on with our lives, I'm willing to close the book on this- I've learned a lot, and I've thought about even more, so hurrah! I'll make a closing statement on subjects that we haven't reached a satisfying conclusion to, and you are welcome to make your own, and we shall be on our merry ways.

The Catholic Church and Condoms: The fact of the matter is, the Vatican has talked down condoms before- like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez de Trujillo, who warned his audiences that condoms were full of microscopic holes. It does, however hearten me to see this perspective changing in recent years: The Reverend Federico Lombardi said not two years ago, that adopting the condom would be “the first step of responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of the person with whom there are relations.”

The Pope and Immunity: It says right there in the headline: the pope seeks immunity. I'm not sure where the confusion is. It may have just been his attorneys jumping the gun, but there you have it.

The Voiceless Victim Blog: I don't see how the intent of any of this is slanderous: according to the author, he is a survivor of clerical abuse, and is only trying to raise awareness of it. I only really gave it a cursory glance, though- my lunch is calling me. Breakfast, for accuracy's sake.

Atheist Humor at the expense of Christians: Okay. Here's my final take on this. It's simple joking. We as a society should be past the point of getting our knickers in a knot over such things. A joke is just that: simple humor. We don't see Charlie Sheen getting puffed up every time a stand up comedian makes a crack at his drug abuse, and I should think it wouldn't hurt to follow the example. The whole point of humor in this format is to satire the negative aspects: comically over-exaggerate them. So all in all, I think it says something about the faith of a Christian, if he allows jokes on the internet to hurt him. In my worldview, we in the real world don't have room to worry about someone's "feelings." Though it is inconvenient to be rude in our day to day dealings, I would argue that it is insurmountably more inconvenient to get puffed up because someone made a joke about my belief system. I think a few jokes at the expense of the Vatican is nothing compared to the laundry list of the Vatican has done historically to non-believers and the like. It reminds me of this image.


And if you want to talk true slandering, look at the things that Christians do to other belief systems.





http://hooglyboogly.co/tag/christian-slandering/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtSbVUbx0hI

Lastly, I leave you with the words of Dr. Sam Harris.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Toz

Sweet Cthulu, this is starting to drag on and on. Alright, for the sake of moving on with our lives, I'm willing to close the book on this- I've learned a lot, and I've thought about even more, so hurrah! I'll make a closing statement on subjects that we haven't reached a satisfying conclusion to, and you are welcome to make your own, and we shall be on our merry ways.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Toz

The Catholic Church and Condoms: The fact of the matter is, the Vatican has talked down condoms before- like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez de Trujillo, who warned his audiences that condoms were full of microscopic holes. It does, however hearten me to see this perspective changing in recent years: The Reverend Federico Lombardi said not two years ago, that adopting the condom would be “the first step of responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of the person with whom there are relations.”

I agree - personally, I think the Church did shoot itself in the foot with a lot of its statements on condoms, and I hope Reverend Lombardi's remarks signify a decision to try and set that right. Be that as it may, it doesn't justify in my view accusations such as those I highlighted, and I trust you can appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Toz

The Pope and Immunity: It says right there in the headline: the pope seeks immunity. I'm not sure where the confusion is. It may have just been his attorneys jumping the gun, but there you have it.

I'm not sure why I'm having to spell this out to you, given you strike me as a pretty intelligent guy, but here goes: from a legal point of view, the headline is bullshit. The declaration sought would consist solely of an affirmation of exiting recognition as a head of state, with automatic immunity, for one very simple reason - the President cannot take it upon himself to recognise a head of state. That is reserved by Congress. Ergo, it can only have been a request for an affirmation of the status quo because the President does not have the authority to do anything else. The Sydney Morning Herald goofed on international law, simple as.

Originally Posted by Toz

The Voiceless Victim Blog: I don't see how the intent of any of this is slanderous: according to the author, he is a survivor of clerical abuse, and is only trying to raise awareness of it. I only really gave it a cursory glance, though- my lunch is calling me. Breakfast, for accuracy's sake.

If one is making accusations of systemic child abuse, as this blog appears to be, without evidence that it is systemic, that is slander. Technically speaking, it's actually in the realm of libel as it's printed word (I know, Internet isn't printed, but it's classed as such) but that's by the by. Point is, if you seek to make such claims you should have evidence to back it up or at least a very good lawyer on speed-dial. Problem is, in the case of the Church, a) suing a website is notoriously difficult from a jurisdictional perspective and b) suing a purported victim of child abuse is a PR fission bomb.

Originally Posted by Toz

Atheist Humor at the expense of Christians: Okay. Here's my final take on this. It's simple joking. We as a society should be past the point of getting our knickers in a knot over such things. A joke is just that: simple humor. We don't see Charlie Sheen getting puffed up every time a stand up comedian makes a crack at his drug abuse, and I should think it wouldn't hurt to follow the example.

No - he just puts up random ranting videos on YouTube instead. I see your point though, and were it in any other context I could dismiss it as such. However, see next comment...

Originally Posted by Toz

The whole point of humor in this format is to satire the negative aspects: comically over-exaggerate them. So all in all, I think it says something about the faith of a Christian, if he allows jokes on the internet to hurt him. In my worldview, we in the real world don't have room to worry about someone's "feelings." Though it is inconvenient to be rude in our day to day dealings, I would argue that it is insurmountably more inconvenient to get puffed up because someone made a joke about my belief system.

I don't see why I'm having to restate this, but here goes: I'm not talking about the jokes. I can point fun at my own beliefs as much as the next man, and have done so on many occasions. Same goes for a lot of the priests, in my experience. However, I defy you to construe statements such as "the Church is guilty of systemic child abuse" and the like as a joke. If you swap "the Church" with a well-known childcare organisation or such like and publish it, they're not going to treat it as "simply joking". You are committing an act of defamation unless you have good grounds for backing it up. From my experience of the "real world", there is still such a thing as going too far and it is perhaps something the Internet generation would do well to remember sometimes. Otherwise, frankly, we're all screwed.

Originally Posted by Toz

I think a few jokes at the expense of the Vatican is nothing compared to the laundry list of the Vatican has done historically to non-believers and the like
...
And if you want to talk true slandering, look at the things that Christians do to other belief systems.

So because someone did it to you, it's perfectly fine to do it back? How very Old Testament of you. I was under the impression the Enlightenment was supposed to be humanity moving forward in terms of its knowledge and conduct, but hey, what do I know...

For the record, I don't condone in the slightest way messages such as those you linked to, and were it up to me I would have such adverts taken down and those responsible fined for inciting religious hatred (oh the irony). Unfortunately, the First Amendment and my non-American citizenship preclude either. Nonetheless, I find such adverts equally distasteful, as would most theists I know, and ask only that you bear that in mind.

Originally Posted by Toz

Lastly, I leave you with the words of Dr. Sam Harris. (Picture removed as it was overwhelming the quote)

Leaving aside the blatant propaganda element, I don't see what this has to do with the debate at hand. It's about as meaningful as me posting a clip of Barack Obama talking about "one nation under God", really - especially seeing as I've never disputed the usefulness or merit of science. I am myself an advocate of the sciences, despite my qualification being in law, and take a great interest in them. I simply take no interest in the concept of a battle between science and religion, which I feel is founded in vested interest and ignorance on both sides.

Anyway, as you say this has dragged on a lot already and so I am happy to offer a virtual handshake and agree to call it a day.