[Closed] Catholic church and child abuse.

His basic message was that it is up to all Catholics to stand up for what they belive in and stand against the 'monsters' that have infiltrated the church.

And that's exactly what I said on page 1!

His basic message was that it is up to all Catholics to stand up for what they belive in and stand against the 'monsters' that have infiltrated the church.

Including the Pope?

But did he mention his anger about the supposedly infallible Pope, who has been shown to be complicit in covering up child abuse?

Nope, but at that time I don't think the allegations about the Popes knowledge and involvment had come out. Be interesting to see what he says this sunday; it's difficult to tell, and I'm sure it is for him at the moment, but I do not think he would try to defend or gloss over any abuse of power.

Calm down? **** off woppit.

uh, I don't want to labour the point, but Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" - which I do despite my disdain for religion.

He's not devout though.

"uh, I don't want to labour the point, but Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" - which I do despite my disdain for religion."
Sometimes, simon, were all infallible. It had been a long day, I shouldnt have bitten, etc, etc. Do I have to beg your forgiveness now?

Lifer - Member

barnsleymitch - Member
So let me get this right lifer - you initially criticise me for being a catholic, and now you're criticising me for not being a devout catholic. Which one is it, or are you just arguing (or is that debating) for the sake of it?

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you not have to receive the sacraments in order to have a chance of 'salvation'?

Or is arguing on a forum that 'Even though I don't go to church it's unfair of you to tell me that I can and should do something about these scandals by registering my disgust with my congregation/priest/bishop/cardinal' enough to get you to paradise these days?

Is my point that every Catholic responsible okay now that a priest has said the same?

Do I have to beg your forgiveness now?

Careful bm, sfb will get quite excited by your using words like that. 🙂

FWIW, I commend you on your unceasing patience yesterday...I can't believe it took you that long to bite.

Sometimes, simon, were all infallible

Not the pope though remember.

"I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you not have to receive the sacraments in order to have a chance of 'salvation'? Or is arguing on a forum that 'Even though I don't go to church it's unfair of you to tell me that I can and should do something about these scandals by registering my disgust with my congregation/priest/bishop/cardinal' enough to get you to paradise these days?"
I didnt say that I dont attend church, I said that I dont go as often as I should. This is due more to the fact that I often work on sundays, I dont follow a regular shift pattern and I often have to look after the kids while my wife's at work - it's what's called real life. I personally dont expect to 'get to paradise' merely by attending church on set days each week, so please stop talking to me as if I'm some sort of gullible idiot. I'm not even sure why I'm carrying on rising to your bait, to be honest, as I feel you're now just trying to score points, or have I got that one wrong as well?

But did he mention his anger about the supposedly infallible Pope, who has been shown to be complicit in covering up child abuse?

as little as I'm inclined to defend heirophants, the central tenet of the church is to save people's immortal souls, so one might expect its adherents to be slightly unworldly and inclined to forgiveness - following Jesus's exhortation

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope."
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous"

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."

So when the Pope helps cover up child abuse, he is acting in the place of Jesus Christ on earth? Seriously doesn't this call into question the entire Catholic religion? Either you believe that the Pope isn't really God's representative on earth, or that he is but God doesn't mind child abuse?

so one might expect its adherents to be slightly unworldly and inclined to forgiveness

Except for homosexuals and people who use condoms or have abortions?

or have I got that one wrong as well?

Yes, you do realise you don't have to attend mass on sundays?

And 'attending church' is not one of the sacraments.

I've been told on this thread that I don't understand, I'm 'hideous in my vitriol' when the worst I have said is that every religious person is misguided.

I don't think I've been baiting, I think I've been asking pertinent questions. Like -

Is my point that every Catholic responsible okay now that a priest has said the same?

Couple of questions for barnsleymitch, not having a go, just interested...

Can you seperate your faith from the Catholic Church as an organisation?

In other words, would there come a point at which you could walk away from the church as an organisation, but still satisfy your ...um.. spiritual needs?

..and leading on, is catholicism as a religion totally dependent on the whole Vatican/Pope business?

I should really know more about it, but is this sort of thinking something to do with Martin Luther?

Do I have to beg your forgiveness now?

I wasn't berating you, it was more of a rueful observation. I think we're able to forgive ourselves.

<vicreeves>You wouldn't let it lie!</vicreeves>

"Is my point that every Catholic responsible okay now that a priest has said the same?"
No, because I dont need a priest to tell me whats right and wrong. As I pointed out yesterday, I work with both perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse, and during counselling work, etc, will always point out the fact that we all have and make our own choices, and have to take responsibility for what we've done, in spite of our circumstances or experiences. I will not be held responsible for another's actions, and will not accept that I am complicit in covering up these acts.

crikey - Member

Couple of questions for barnsleymitch, not having a go, just interested...

Can you seperate your faith from the Catholic Church as an organisation?

In other words, would there come a point at which you could walk away from the church as an organisation, but still satisfy your ...um.. spiritual needs?

Here's a famous voice on that subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502363.html?hpid=topnews

Again from page 1 -

"You can sit there wringing your hands saying how terrible it is and needs addressing now, but you should be lobbying your priests, bishops, cardinals, pressing for action to be taken.

Without the followers the leaders are nothing. Every catholic gives the church it's power and so every catholic is responsible."

Has Sinead O'Connor got a time machine?

If you want to keep up with the debate in the larger world outside the forum, here's a useful resource:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/

I note the latest tactic by "House Ratzinger" is to blame the media. Presumably he is hoping that shooting the messenger will work for him because, unlike his predecessor, the media doesn't have a magic female ghost protecting it... 😉

Although I've been willing to extend Ratziger the benefit of the doubt, nearly everything I've ever read about him reveals an unpleasant individual - and if such can become pope then hopefully the entire dysfunctional edifice will collapse in upon itself, leaving the grass roots Catholics to rebuild something more closer to the principles offered by Jesus.

principles offered by Jesus

Would that be "Believe in me or you're ****ed"?

Stay calm...

Does Christ actually give any 'rules' as such in the Bible?

I think SimonofBarnes is more correct to call them principles.

The rules came later when mortal man stuck his oar in.

Would that be "Believe in me or you're ****ed"?

well, I was thinking more along the lines of "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" 🙂

Stay calm...

hey, I have no investment in this at all - I'm willing to believe in any number of gods, but until they get in touch I shall return their ignoral, and even then worship is out and compliance moot.

Just being nice to each other would be a good start, if they had stuck with that without all the other damnation shite things could have been a whole load better.

But then it wouldn't be a useful political tool (yeah I freaking went there)

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself"

And "Take no thought for tomorrow". And so on...

Why anyone thinks these trinkets are in any way valuable remains a mystery.

And, as I said, "The only way to the father ([i]sic[/i]) is through me".

Ravings of a lunatic.

Edit: Before I forget - just my opinion, don't take it personally, I'm not shouting or anything. O.K.? ("Those with ears" etc).

Why anyone thinks these trinkets are in any way valuable remains a mystery.

well, if nothing else they act as a useful test of devoutness for those claiming Christianity as a justification for their actions

Good point.

Fine illustration of why it fails - set the game up so you can't win it, then demand that you do. Bit like the way "god" works...

Morning folks. Too many posts last night for me to refer to individually, apart from this one:

I haven't sworn at you, insulted you personally or done anything else to spark such an extreme reaction as far as I can see.

You insulted BM's beliefs which is a pretty big insult to be honest mate. I'm offended and you weren't even directing it at me.

So anyway, Woppit, here's the thing:

Your world view appears to be based on rock solid evidence. You place the highest value on observation and verification of ideas. That's okay, that's a choice you've made. Other people however think of things differently. They feel that something else is more important - tradition, heritage, faith, spiritualism, whatever it is. Now that is their choice (albeit influenced by upbringing and others) and you have to respect that. You must NOT jump down their throats, attack them and make them feel like crap to score some kind of point. It is not how we should behave in a nice kind society.

My point is that your choice of value system is [b]in principle[/b] no different to anyone else's. You are rubbishing the religious viewpoint based on lack of evidence, but the value of evidence is inherent in your own viewpoint. So from the purely objective standpoint, you are both the same.

You demand evidence; but if you were really honestly interested in understanding the other side's point of view, you could have found out a lot more and NOT sparked a massive acrimonous argument by asking a lot more nicely (and without the sarcasm about smililes and whatnot).

Perhaps something like this: "Barnsleymitch, I see that your faith is very important to you. I'm really interested to try and understand what this means to you and how you reconcile the differences between Catholic doctrine and the scientific body".

If you can avoid really pissing people off, you tend to get a lot better responses from people.

You insulted BM's beliefs which is a pretty big insult to be honest mate

since beliefs are both abstract and necessarily unsupported conjecture, they cannot really [b]be[/b] insulted. Believe whatever suits you but don't expect anyone else to agree or not ridicule

You insulted BM's beliefs

You must NOT jump down their throats, attack them

Make your mind up.

As to the rest, what are you, my Mother?

If my style of dialectic upsets you, don't put yourself in danger of becoming upset, is my advice. Steer clear. Be a shame though, I love these STW barneys. Don't you?

simonfbarnes - Member
since beliefs are both abstract and necessarily unsupported conjecture, they cannot really be insulted. Believe whatever suits you but don't expect anyone else to agree or not ridicule

QFT

Believe whatever suits you but don't expect anyone else to agree or not ridicule

This is about playing nicely and not upsetting people. I fundamentally believe that not upsetting people is good, unless they have done something really bad; but to be honest Barnes you are not the most sensitive of people when it comes to emotions.. 🙂

Woppit - what do you mean make my mind up?

And yes, I do feel like a bloody schoolteacher on here sometimes. I find it hard to believe how small minded and base some people's thought processes can be when they act intelligent in other ways. I'm trying to drag you up to a higher level of critical thought here; and yes that is an insult!

Woppit - what do you mean make my mind up?

You can't have it both ways. 1: I'm attacking the belief, 2: I'm attacking the person.

Which is it? I maintain that it's the first condition that applies. As to whether or not it's ethical so to do, I refer you to simonfbarnes' excellent and illuminating note above.

I find it hard to believe how small minded and base some people's thought processes can be when they act intelligent in other ways. I'm trying to drag you up to a higher level of critical thought here; and yes that is an insult!

Pot. Kettle.

Just hope one day an extra terrestrial shows up and we can be done with all this religious nonsense for ever.

Thought Darwin might have helped, but seems that evolution can be explained away.

(Purely as a matter of human interest and not as part of any argument), is the amount of time you're devoting to this an indication that you're currently waiting to start something new, or is the "endgame" still playing out? I hope the former. 🙂

but to be honest Barnes you are not the most sensitive of people when it comes to emotions...

of course, but I think the responsibility lies with the believer not to get upset if their beliefs are questioned

On the original subject:

I think it's interesting that the "principles of (the alleged) Jesus" have resulted in an organisation that has always been open to infiltration by paedophiles, leading eventually to the current exposure and outrage.

Doesn't say much for the founder's competence. In my opinion.

Of course, this specific infiltration can be found in most (if not all) other religions, as far as I'm aware, so I think it's probably "hard-wired" into the religious virus's "DNA".

Any thoughts?

George Catlin said it best:

[url] http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm [/url]

the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull**** story.

Just a short extract.

1: I'm attacking the belief, 2: I'm attacking the person.

They are one and the same thing in many people's eyes. Possibly mine too.

Pot. Kettle.

Did you miss the bit where I said I'm an atheist? I went through the thought processes that you're talking about when I was about 16. Then I realised a few things...

I used to want a good old argument with a religious person, I had all my arguments lined up about how I could conclusively prove that there was no God and it was all rubbish - cos I'm so clever and they are so gullible and stupid. Then I realised - what if I really truly won that argument? What if I stripped all the happy security and ineffable love from their lives? Would I feel big and clever crowing over the person whose life I'd just torn down? Just to try and make myself feel big and clever? Absolutely not! In fact, I'd feel bloody awful.

That's when I realised that faith is important to people and I did not have the right to try and take it away from them, or attack them because of it.

Now, if people try and impose their morals on me (or anyone else) then I'll react pretty badly. If I am not going to impose mine on anyone else they have to reciprocate and give me equal respect. And to be honest, the vast majority of them do. I do very much have a problem with certain churches teaching people not to use condoms, or that AIDs is divine punishment, or that to kill infidels is holy and just etc etc. That is different; that is imposing your beliefs on other people. Religion should be personal and it has to stay that way. And I've not met anyone who disagrees with that. Well, actually I suspect I might have, but it has not yet come up in conversation 🙂

Now, before you post that I am trying to impose my morals on you, I am not. I am trying to encourage you to think a little bit harder on how your beliefs and you as a person fit in with the rest of society. Now I appreciate that you may be a little further along that road than it seems, but to be frank your vehemence and vitriol really cloud your message. Which was another of my points.

Doesn't say much for the founder's competence. In my opinion.

well, I think Jesus is supposed to have been fully a man, and I'm not sure anyone could create an organisation that never faltered from its original intent (and Jesus didn't even try) - but also I wonder if anyone supposes god(s) to be so all knowing as to be able to predict every twist and turn of happenstance between creation and the last trump ? If such were the case - what of free will?

I used to want a good old argument with a religious person, I had all my arguments lined up about how I could conclusively prove that there was no God and it was all rubbish - cos I'm so clever and they are so gullible and stupid. Then I realised - what if I really truly won that argument? What if I stripped all the happy security and ineffable love from their lives? Would I feel big and clever crowing over the person whose life I'd just torn down? Just to try and make myself feel big and clever? Absolutely not! In fact, I'd feel bloody awful.

That's when I realised that faith is important to people and I did not have the right to try and take it away from them, or attack them because of it.

+1, very well said/written molgrips.

of course, but I think the responsibility lies with the believer not to get upset if their beliefs are questioned

There's questioning, and there's attacking. This is the kind of subtle difference I tihnk you're likely to miss barnes 🙂

BTW I don't think Jesus 'founded' a religion. I think that was more likely to be Peter, Paul etc. As far as I can tell Jesus was Jewish, and just wanted everyone to be nice to each other. I think he existed, and he sounded like a pretty nice bloke. Son of God tho - personally I don't think so.

but also I wonder if anyone supposes god(s) to be so all knowing as to be able to predict every twist and turn of happenstance between creation and the last trump ? If such were the case - what of free will?

That's exactly the subject of many many major theological arguments over the millenia. People supposing that, if God pre-ordained everything then ANYthing they did was God's will and hence they could do whatever they felt like... etc etc. but then God gave free will to see what we would do with it.. it went on for a long time that one.

Try this as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism

If religion was benign I'd agree with you Molgrips, but it is most definitely not!

Christian Soldiers ring any bells?

Ah, well there you've hit upon a very important point.

Faith and doctrine are very very different things.

EDIT: Faith, doctrine and the establishment are very different things.

What if I stripped all the happy security and ineffable love from their lives?

[b]are[/b] there any such people ? Are they truly living or merely inhabiting a dreamworld ?

I used to want a good old argument with a religious person, I had all my arguments lined up about how I could conclusively prove that there was no God and it was all rubbish

Really? Conclusively? I think we should all be told, then.

hen I realised - what if I really truly won that argument? What if I stripped all the happy security and ineffable love from their lives?

What if? Are you saying it's better to go through life with a comforting illusion? Isn't it better to ask oneself why it is I think I need comforting?

It may well be comforting, but that doesn't make it true, and isn't the truth what religion claims to be the keeper of?

Just to try and make myself feel big and clever? Absolutely not! In fact, I'd feel bloody awful.

If that's why you're doing it, then that's what you deserve.

Now, if people try and impose their morals on me (or anyone else) then I'll react pretty badly. If I am not going to impose mine on anyone else they have to reciprocate and give me equal respect. And to be honest, the vast majority of them do. I do very much have a problem with certain churches teaching people not to use condoms, or that AIDs is divine punishment, or that to kill infidels is holy and just etc etc. That is different; that is imposing your beliefs on other people. Religion should be personal and it has to stay that way. And I've not met anyone who disagrees with that.

Me.

I am trying to encourage you to think a little bit harder on how your beliefs and you as a person fit in with the rest of society

Oh. I thought you were trying to drag me somewhere and insult me.

As far as the rest - it's about how my [s]beliefs[/s] understanding fits in with this forum discussion that is under the spotlight. Actually.

Any response to my attempt to get back to the subject re: religion/virus/DNA?

molgrips - Member
Ah, well there you've hit upon a very important point.

Faith and doctrine are very very different things.

But surely if you class yourself (not [i]your[/i]self obviously) as a certain denomination then you subscribe to the doctrines of that church?

This is the kind of subtle difference I tihnk you're likely to miss barnes

yeah, sometimes I wonder how I manage to tie my shoelaces 🙂

it went on for a long time that one.

my point being that perhaps woppit was setting the bar so high even authentic gods might fail to reach it...

and he sounded like a pretty nice bloke.

Hm. I think he comes across as a masochistric, self-harming, self-loathing lunatic who has read a bit of old testament gibberish and thinks it's about him.

Kind of perverted, in a way. Oh. I wonder if there's a link there...

With regard to what he "taught" - see my reply earlier on the worthlessness of his "ideas".

No offense to you personally, etc...

Edit: And probably a homosexual, although of course there's nothing wrong with that, except in the eyes of his inheritors...

Really? Conclusively? I think we should all be told, then.

I said I [i]used to think[/i] that...

Are you saying it's better to go through life with a comforting illusion?

For some, yes, absolutely. It depends what you value in life. To you (and me), that is absolutely unconscionable. To others, it's perfect. Just because you value truth above all else doesn't mean that everyone else does, or should. We all need to find what works for ourselves.

Of course, this specific infiltration can be found in most (if not all) other religions, as far as I'm aware, so I think it's probably "hard-wired" into the religious virus's "DNA".

I think that religions vary so massively that what you say is unlikely.

Judaism: Based on a few tribes, canonized by scholars and evangelists
Christianity: Started as an individualist cult, taken over by a shadowy establishment
Bhuddism: Started as a cult above religion, but thrown open, without (to my knowledge) a controlling group
Islam: another individualist cult
Hindu: a culturual religion, controlled by social structure (I think, not too sure)

The Catholic church as an organisation is run the way it is run - seems quite different to a lot of other religions. Don't forget that it's only one part of Christianity. Protestantism is a splinter from it, sure, but there's also Russian/Greek orthodox churches which are as old, as are the one in Ethiopia (forget its name) then there are Coptics and all sorts, lots of which go way way back possibly even before Catholicism.

The Catholic church is pretty big, but I don't think it it at all typical.

Hm. I think he comes across as a masochistric, self-harming, self-loathing lunatic who has read a bit of old testament gibberish and thinks it's about him.

I think that the things people SAID that he said (about being the son of God etc) he didn't actually say. My feeling is that he was a decent chap whose popularity was heavily manipulated by others.

I said I used to think that...

There's hope for you yet, then.

To others, it's perfect. Just because you value truth above all else doesn't mean that everyone else does, or should.

Thankyou for agreeing with me that a religious person is living a lie. If coming up against an argument that points this out is so upsetting that it causes a personality implosion, well - you might want to think about the uselessness of the comforter you've been living with. That might be comforting.

I think that religions vary so massively that what you say is unlikely

In my opinion, from what I've seen and read, it seems to me that all religions are open to infiltration by paedophiles. Their uncritical position of the offence being a matter between the offender and whatever magical being they worship, is responsible for the situation.

My feeling is that he was a decent chap whose popularity was heavily manipulated by others.

At least a century after his death

Your world view appears to be based on rock solid evidence.

But his apparent reliance on rock solid evidence goes out of the window when it comes to the supposed qualities of ridiculously expensive speaker cable. Despite it being unable to be proven in double blind tests, he just [i]knows[/i] that they are better.

Funnily enough I have recently come to think that perhaps many people could benefit from religion, despite being a pretty firm atheist (or at least agnostic but leaning so far towards atheism as to make it pretty much indistinguishable).

Some of the core christian values (often opposite to the values displayed by church institutions) I was brought up with: tolerance and respect for others, forgiveness, compassion, anti-materialism, truthfullness, etc etc - seem to be pretty lacking in a lot of people, as often displayed on this forum.

I just wish people could embrace all that stuff without all the superstitious nonsense, but if they can't then maybe religion does have a role to play.

I think that the things people SAID that he said (about being the son of God etc) he didn't actually say.

Oh. So what did he actually say, then? And how do you know?

Given that the earliest known record of this story was written down some 70 years after the events it claims to portray and is simple hearsay, the judgement is about a largely - if not completely - fictional character anyway.

to the supposed qualities of ridiculously expensive speaker cable. Despite it being unable to be proven in double blind tests, he just knows that they are better.

"he" - I AM in the room, by the way and my name is Woppit. The above is not true.

I never said that I just [i]knew[/i] there was a difference between Hifi cables, I said I could hear it. I also said that I was perfectly happy to take on board the idea that this was a subjective phenomenon.

Thankyou for being the first today to try and support your argument by directly misquoting me. Why DO you do that? (I almost called you a name there, but managed to restrain myself, being as how I'm not being "aggressive" today).

tolerance and respect for others, forgiveness, compassion, anti-materialism, truthfullness,

These are not "christian" values. Evidence - they are present in many cultures past and present who are not remotely "christian". Must do better.

They are christian values, just not exclusively christian. Obviously, with regard to the OP not all christians follow them!

Must do better

Quotes like the above show your(childish)aggression perfectly.

[i]I never said that I just knew there was a difference between Hifi cables, I said I could hear it. I also said that I was perfectly happy to take on board the idea that this was a subjective phenomenon.[/i]

Based on the fact that you believe that you can hear a difference, and presumably base your purchasing choices on this belief, would you accept that other people may able to hear or sense god, and make their choices based on that equally valid personal experience?

Mr Woppit, why are you so bothered about this? Haven't you got work to do or something?

Based on the fact that you believe that you can hear a difference, and presumably base your purchasing choices on this belief, would you accept that other people may able to hear or sense god, and make their choices based on that equally valid personal experience?

Bit of a spurious comparison.

Quotes like the above show your(childish)aggression perfectly.

Dear me.

I think what you are trying to say is that these are values that are held by christians. That they are not exclusively christian, which is what I read grum's post to mean.

Did grum not mean that? In that case , he obviously doesn't need to do better.

Except with his own "aggression" (first para. when talking about me). And tendency to lie about what I said on an unrelated subject. Which I note leggy has not castigated HIM for. Being partial and evidently prone to attacking me, like...

Terry Wrist - Member

Mr Woppit, why are you so bothered about this? Haven't you got work to do or something?

Hey Terry. No, I am at present, still not with meaningfull employment, sad to say. I'm bothering with it because I find these tussles interesting and I've got the spare time to engage...

Based on the fact that you believe that you can hear a difference, and presumably base your purchasing choices on this belief, would you accept that other people may able to hear or sense god, and make their choices based on that equally valid personal experience?

Interesting point. I'll have to think about it.

[i]Bit of a spurious comparison.[/i]

Why? Both are belief based on personal experience, rather than externally verifiable evidence.

One is a life choice that affects a person's everyday choices.

The other is a freakin speaker lead.

I thought about it.

In the Hifi cable scenario: both myself and the (postulated) person who hear different things from each other, both agree that a sound is being generated that can be heard and measured.

In the god scenario, there is no such agreement. My conclusion is that the claimant for an invisible presence is either arguing from faith (ie: they can't sense a god either, but maintain it's existence without evidence) or they are having some sort of hallucination.

Just done the clicky thing on the thread "Priest child abuse - outrageous..."

Second time I've laughed out loud today.

Sorry, I know it's horrible and tragic and all that, but come on.

Fnar, fnar.

I am at present, still not with meaningfull employmen

Ah right, sorry, not trying to have a dig. You seem to be putting a lot of effort into arguing. If you don't mind me asking, why does religion seem to wind you up so much? Is it something you really hate, or is it just an interesting argument? Again, not trying to wind you up, just wondered?

Personally there's lots of stuff associated with religion that is pretty offensive to me. Equally with non-religious groups. So may be it's just bloody people in groups.

Ah right, sorry, not trying to have a dig.

Not at all. I didn't take it that way.

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into arguing. If you don't mind me asking, why does religion seem to wind you up so much? Is it something you really hate, or is it just an interesting argument?

Religion is filth, the gains of the enlightenment and human dignity is under threat from it on all fronts. I do hate it, but it's also an extremely interesting argument. The most important subject for argument of our time, in my opinion.

So may be it's just bloody people in groups.

😆 You may be right. Perhaps the argument about god/religion is just the one around which we humans have decided to re-engage in our periodic halfway split.

"The more people that are gathered together, the less the IQ value". ([i]ibid[/i])

"I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member". Groucho Marx.

Mr Woppit, are you really truly convinced by your argument there? 😉
At the end of the day both you and those of religious persuasion have personal belief without external evidence (i.e faith). The fact that both you and I can agree that the sound exists is irrelevant. I'm sure we can also both agree that we can hear our own voice in our head. The extra sound that you can hear in music, would appear to be logically no different from the quiet voice of god that others experience, in that neither are verifiable by an evidence based metric.

The question is religon good or bad or if it's followers are better people because of it is all irrelevant. The main question is, is the premise that religion is based upon true or false.

I cannot take anyone who truly belives that there is a supreme being seriously because that is patently bullshit.

The rest of it is all just semantics, dogma and politics really.

Ian
You are right but its only an issue if the "hearers" of this subjective sound become exempt from paying tax and are elevated to the position of decision makers for the rest of us!

That they are not exclusively christian, which is what I read grum's post to mean.

I obviously didn't mean they were exclusively christian - I am no longer a christian, but still generally try to live by them.

At the end of the day both you and those of religious persuasion have personal belief without external evidence (i.e faith)

Not so.

As an enthusiastic theorist, I am aware that, despite the fact that no evidence exists to underpin the proposition of "god" and that the probability of the existence of such an entity is so infinitesimally tiny (due to lack of evidence) as to mean the same thing as "it does not exist" as near as makes no difference, the following: I am happy to accept that "god" exists if evidence can be provided.

This is different from the religious, who maintain that "god" exists and that this assertion is ultimately true, without any verification.

So we are not the same.

The fact that both you and I can agree that the sound exists is irrelevant

Not so. This fact demonstrates objective reality. If the sound from the Hifi could be generated sufficiently loudly, any number of people would agree that the sound is there, despite disagreeing about what it sounds [i]like[/i], unless of course, they are deaf.

I'm sure we can also both agree that we can hear our own voice in our head.

Of course. Bone conducts the vibration to the ear, but air conducts it to other ears also. Unless of course you are referring to the thought of one's own inner conversation, which I suspect may be your meaning, but I wouldn't expect anybody to be privy to that. Such "mind-reading" (amongst other similar flim-flam), is a party trick, not a reality.

The extra sound that you can hear in music, would appear to be logically no different from the quiet voice of god that others experience, in that neither are verifiable by an evidence based metric.

You are missing the point. In the first case, there is an identifiable and verifiable shared reality from which to base an individual judgement.

In the second, there is only a postulation ("god") based on an individual's subjective experience which itself is not based on a shared reality, but is a projection from that individual's brain activity onto the objective world around them, or onto their own self-awareness in the manner of, for instance, schizophrenia. Neurologists have determined that this sort of hallucination takes place during episodes of "Temporal Lobe Epilepsy", measureable and evidenced.

Voices in the head issuing instructions, invisible presences in the room and so on.

grum - Member

That they are not exclusively christian, which is what I read grum's post to mean.

I obviously didn't mean they were exclusively christian - I am no longer a christian, but still generally try to live by them.

I didn't find it obvious, but I think you may have phrased it ambiguously. Or perhaps my mistake was caused by my projection onto what you wrote, however. Sorry.

despite disagreeing about what it sounds like, unless of course, they are deaf.

Actually, if I might correct my own argument, they would still sense it through their body structure, in the manner of (for instance) Evelyn Glennie...