[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

if it's that obvious, why mention it in the first place?

Why not?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

For crimes against humanity, apparently:

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7094310.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...e-benedict-xvi

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-humanity.html

that lame brained, fallacy, pseudo-scientist Dawkins IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY! That parasite thrives on the whole trend of nihilistic atheism and is popular for literally nothing.. he never offers ANY convincing science to speak of, and I Love science. Everytime I read his stuff hoping to hear a valid or substantial argument, all I find is confounded rhetoric and blah blah woof woof meh meh...

Originally Posted by Glice

I actually want to hit him with something - perhaps a shoe shop - more than I do Cameron right now.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Glice again.

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

Dawkins and Hitchens are two of my favorite people.

why? These douche bags NEVER offer anything of substance? Origen offers more substantial arguments against theism and HE IS A DAMNED CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIAN! these lamewads are simply sensationalists..

Originally Posted by SONIC GAIL

They all are. But I did notice being raised full Catholic, that they teach you more about being a good Catholic than about god or Jesus. I did not read the full bible until I was an adult. I read it on my own accord and to my dismay discovered that half of the shit they were telling me is not even in the bible. Such as "the seven deadly sins" or the story of the angel falling from grace only to become the devil. I stopped going to "church".

actually the seven deadly sins are in the scriptures in Proverbs..

Originally Posted by Glice

That's sort of the point of Catholicism. It's the Protestants that believe in sola scriptura. Hence you get the idea of 'a Catholic taste', because they're not 'limited' (with apologies to any Protestants reading) to the book alone.

Originally Posted by Glice

That's sort of the point of Catholicism. It's the Protestants that believe in sola scriptura. Hence you get the idea of 'a Catholic taste', because they're not 'limited' (with apologies to any Protestants reading) to the book alone.

exactly.. God(s) is not limited to sacred scriptures. Protestants are literally silly for being so literalist regarding scriptures..

"You read in the Good Book, in the Holy Bible about Solomon, and Isaiah, and King David, and Jesus Christ, and all those things, but all of this is merely a fantasy painting of InI reality, seen?" Peter Tosh

Originally Posted by SONIC GAIL

I just had problems with them telling me things that one man deducted from scripture was the only truth. It means different things to different readers.

The Holy Tradition of the Apostles is accepted with equal veneration as the scriptures, the protestants are silly to reject this authority as valid, after all, Sonic Gail, who wrote the Bible? Where does it come from? Should you turn to the source for the authoritative interpretation? How can you NOT accept the Church's teaching of the Holy Book which they authored, translated and distributed? This never made much sense to me, fundamentalist Christianity which accepts the infalibility of the Bible, and yet thinks the very Church which produced the Bible to be tainted with the Devil...

[Keeping It Simple]

How anyone can defend a faith whose clergy systematically sexually abuses children is beyond me. If that wasn't bad enough, I've never known a faith that was as venal, avaristic and megalomanical, systematically persecting other faiths just to get its hands on their wealth and to gain even more power. It was even responsible for the genocide of two ancient civilisations, the Aztecs and Incas, just so it could gets its hands on their wealth. It's a sham faith that should've been dissolved centuries ago.

[SONIC GAIL]

Originally Posted by [INDENT

actually the seven deadly sins are in the scriptures in Proverbs..sorry, I know you read more than I do so I am going to look it up. I was more refering to the fact that they told me specifically during this seven deadly sins training, You WILL go to hell if you murder...no redemption, no forgiveness. Does that not contradict Jesus's message of forgiveness? I think a murderer can be reformed and be redeemed. I think no sin is greater than another. No human is greater than another. Sin is Sin.






The Holy Tradition of the Apostles is accepted with equal veneration as the scriptures, the protestants are silly to reject this authority as valid, after all, Sonic Gail, who wrote the Bible? Where does it come from? Should you turn to the source for the authoritative interpretation? How can you NOT accept the Church's teaching of the Holy Book which they authored, translated and distributed? This never made much sense to me, fundamentalist Christianity which accepts the infalibility of the Bible, and yet thinks the very Church which produced the Bible to be tainted with the Devil...Yes I am torn on this subject. I do trust that god made sure that his words were translated the way he wanted them to be in the early church. THat is why I still do fall back to my Catholic roots. When I read it is from the Catholic version not king james. It is the closest to the beginning that I have any access to. This town is highly Baptist and Penecostal. THere are others peppered aroud town. I don't even know of a Protestant church that I have passed. I do go into it with caution though these days. Times are different, and we must adapt with them. Jesus himself rejected the old ways because they had been tainted by the tides of time. Society was much different in his day than in the days of Moses. Sorry to go on a tangent there, my point being is. I follow what the Catholic church to the extent of common sense and what I feel from god is right.

For instance I was talking to Ryan about my highly devoted Catholic Aunt. She is the type that puts on blinders to reality and questions nothing of the Cathoilic church. She has 9 kids and I was explaining to him why Catholics are against the use of Birth Control. (I could not even get my tubes tied at St Vincents Hospital after my 2nd kid they will not do it) I was taught that it is god's right to choose when we have children not ours, and we are interfering with his plan by preventing birth. Well logically I think that worked well in the 1700's because people had less of a likley hood than today of living to an old age, there were more diseases less medical advancement more babies were born still born or did not make it adulthood. God wanted the population to go on, and the human race to progress in that form. Today it is not practical to have 12 kids, it is hard to feed 2. The population is expanding. Young girls are getting pregnant out of ignorance. I am a firm believer in abstinance, but I think we must have birth control as well. My mother taught me abstinance. I did not listen. But I did go to the clinic and get protection. I am not a saint I wish more than anything that I could undo that transgression, but god knew I would do it, he forgave me, and he knew what I would learn from fucking up.

Back to the point. I do not think the bible is infalible. I also do not think the church is infalible. I think we should accept it, but take it with a grain of salt.

__________________________________________________
[/indent]

[SONIC GAIL]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

How anyone can defend a faith whose clergy systematically sexually abuses children is beyond me. If that wasn't bad enough, I've never known a faith that was as venal, avaristic and megalomanical, systematically persecting other faiths just to get its hands on their wealth and to gain even more power. It was even responsible for the genocide of two ancient civilisations, the Aztecs and Incas, just so it could gets its hands on their wealth. It's a sham faith that should've been dissolved centuries ago.

God needs his name to be carried on through time. That involves keeping a church for him to carry that name. Through all of the lies, greed and deceit the Catholic church has brought over it's history I believe that God let it all happen for some reason. You have to remember that the members of the church do alot of good things and have good intentions as well as many of it's leaders. I have had no problems with any of the priests we had. They were genuine. It is hard to find sometimes, but they do still exist.

[Pookie]

Sorry, what I meant to say was Zing Zing Zoom Zoom.

[Pookie]

We Can't Let the Pope Decide Who's a Criminal

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pookie

It's funny how people attack Dawkins in exactly the way they claim he attacks them (but actually doesn't).

Dawkins has produced quite a large body of work in the field of evolutionary biology. And more imortantly he founded the Richard dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science which has provided funding and resources for research mainly into the psychology of belief and religion.

I've been reading Andy Thomson's research into the cognitive neuroscience theories of religious belief. In particular the idea that belief and superstition are an evolutionary bi-product.

Follows on from some ideas previously explored (see Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors, or Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion).

We're getting closer all the time to understanding why people are so willing (and possibly "hard-wired") to believe.

YES.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

that lame brained, fallacy, pseudo-scientist Dawkins IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY! That parasite thrives on the whole trend of nihilistic atheism and is popular for literally nothing.. he never offers ANY convincing science to speak of, and I Love science. Everytime I read his stuff hoping to hear a valid or substantial argument, all I find is confounded rhetoric and blah blah woof woof meh meh...

you're completely wrong, by the way. why do the religulous always equate atheism with nihilism? you can have much to live for without the god crutch.

it's religion, christianity in particular, that takes away all meaning to life (real life, today, now), and hoards it for itself only to dangle it in front of its herd as the promise of afterlife "salvation", making life supposedly "unlivable" for the unbeliever. who is the parasite?

you don't need some grand explanation of everything to make life livable. i'm fine with not knowing lots of things and i don't need to throw all these mysteries into the big mental trashcan of "god". don't know this? "it's god!" don't know that? "god knows!". no, he doesn't, we don't, and it's just fine.

then there's salvation-- what a fucking joke. you only believe in it after they brainwash you first with the notion that you're damned and that life is dirty and sinful and somehow wrong. that's the real nihilism: the denigration of life for the promise of some future paradise. that's the fundamental abuse.

nihilism today, salvation tomorrow. the religious pawnshop.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you're completely wrong, by the way. why do the religulous always equate atheism with nihilism? you can have much to live for without the god crutch.

it's religion, christianity in particular, that takes away all meaning to life (real life, today, now), and hoards it for itself only to dangle it in front of its herd as the promise of afterlife "salvation", making life supposedly "unlivable" for the unbeliever. who is the parasite?

you don't need some grand explanation of everything to make life livable. i'm fine with not knowing lots of things and i don't need to throw all these mysteries into the big mental trashcan of "god". don't know this? "it's god!" don't know that? "god knows!". no, he doesn't, we don't, and it's just fine.

then there's salvation-- what a fucking joke. you only believe in it after they brainwash you first with the notion that you're damned and that life is dirty and sinful and somehow wrong. that's the real nihilism: the denigration of life for the promise of some future paradise. that's the fundamental abuse.

nihilism today, salvation tomorrow. the religious pawnshop.

Yes backatya.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Pookie

We're getting closer all the time to understanding why people are so willing (and possibly "hard-wired") to believe.

This is Rahner's 'natural religion', or more loosely, 'the natural yearning for humanity towards God'. I can't remember if he talked about it on a neurological level, but he certainly did on a socio-biological level.

I only mention this because part of the problem I have with 'ration' and 'reason' foisted against religion is that the Church has got an awful lot of ideas that it can appeal to that existed well prior to the enlightenment.

Anyway. All I really want to say is that Quentin Meillassoux's criticism of religion in 'After finitude' is really good, without actually bothering with the incommensurable, negative-dialectical relationship that Dawkins et al seem to (to my reading at least).

[the ikara cult]

He told his underlings to hide child abuse from the police.
He goes to court.
He is charged
end of.

[verme (prevaricator)]

it's THE GAYS, says the vatican.

[the ikara cult]

This really shouldnt be an issue of the religious views of any of us; they are still child rapists. If the same thing were committed by an explicitly atheist group i would want the exact same things to happen.

They were fucking children for recreational fun. Just because its Dawkins calling for it doesnt mean its wrong.

[the ikara cult]

my family were around in Ireland at the time alot of this was happening. The ignorance of it has been an insult. So its a little personal, if all you internet pontificators dont mind.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

How anyone can defend a faith whose clergy systematically sexually abuses children is beyond me.

my friend, 1/4 women is sexually assualted in her life time, there are child molesters/rapists in EVERY human institution. In the family unit (somebody's uncle/dad/brother/cousin etc etc), in the school (somebody's teacher, principal, counseler, couch etc etc), in the government (somebody's politician, bureuocrat, intern, cop, firefighter etc etc), in the Churchs/Mosques/Synagogues/Temples/Shrines etc etc (somebody's priest, imam, rabbi, minister, yogi, monk, etc etc).. this shit is EVERYWHERE!

Either we abandond our human society as we know it, or accept its limitations and work to correct our faults without needlessly destroying the very sources of our culture.. It is not the institutions which are flawed, it is the scumbugs who creep into ALL manners of them. Protestants got rid of the Catholic Church, turns out it had nothing to do with the Institution of the Roman Church, there are scumbag molesters in the Lutherans/Anglicans/Baptists etc etc.....

Even within Rastafari mansions and organizations we have seen this happen

Originally Posted by Pookie

It's funny how people attack Dawkins in exactly the way they claim he attacks them (but actually doesn't).

Dawkins has produced quite a large body of work in the field of evolutionary biology. .

meh.. I've read a good deal of Dawkins' work, its hardly impressive, groundbreaking nor even well-written.

further, why doesn't he every use this rational, scientific perspective in his critiques of religion? No substance, just sensationalist fluff and rah rah rhetoric! As I said, Origen offers far more substantial arguments against theism than any thing I've read from this atheism fad.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you're completely wrong, by the way. why do the religulous always equate atheism with nihilism? .

Dawkins isn't a nihilist because he is atheistic, he is an atheist because all bullshit aside he is a nihilist, onery bastard!

Nihilism and religion are not polar opposites, many many religious people are horribly self-destructive nihilists, especially those fire and brimstone types..
I-man is about 100% positiveness everytime seen? I don't care what God(s) you do/don't believe in, piss on a statue of Jesus for all I care, but please, don't be such an antagonistic, destructive, grouch about it..

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

meh.. I've read a good deal of Dawkins' work,

If this is true...How can you then follow that statement with this one:

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

No substance, just sensationalist fluff and rah rah rhetoric!

Although we disagree about religious belief you can always be relied upon to come up with informed opinion and after discussions with you I often come away with something to think about.

On this point though you appear to have switched your brain off. Your arguments have no substance, it's just sensationalist fluff and rah rah rhetoric (seewhatididthere?).

[the ikara cult]

im not actually that enamoured by Dawkins' writing style. But he's a biologist by trade and the stuff he's done in that field is really oustanding. His contribution to humanity is a thousand times that of any religious leader.

And if I found out he was fucking children, i wouldnt ask for some "therapy"

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Glice

This is Rahner's 'natural religion', or more loosely, 'the natural yearning for humanity towards God'. I can't remember if he talked about it on a neurological level, but he certainly did on a socio-biological level.

Not familiar with Rahner. From what I've just Googled though, didn't he believe that our knowledge of God is innate?

If so it's not the same thing as the delusion of belief albeit on a neurological level.

(Didn't really understand the rest of your post).

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Not familiar with Rahner. From what I've just Googled though, didn't he believe that our knowledge of God is innate?

If so it's not the same thing as the delusion of belief albeit on a neurological level.

(Didn't really understand the rest of your post).

Well, it's that critical epistemological point of 'delusion' isn't it? I know it's a bit of a glib argument, but is there really such a massive difference between a 'delusional' belief in God or an empirical delusion of phlogiston?