Catholic church and child abuse.

I'm always amused by that particular Dawkins loving brand of atheist crying "straw man", as RIchard has made a successful, and lucrative, career out of setting up religious straw men and then effortlessly knocking them down. His recent Channel 4 series was a prime example, where he sought out the most bizarre extremes of the Christian faith and ridiculed them.

To put it in perspective, it would be rather like pointing to people like Stalin and Pol Pot and suggesting they represent normal atheist behaviour. As an aside, I suspect that if you add their death toll together with Hitler's and an assortment of other atheistic ideologies, you may find that atheism's kill count actually surpasses that of any other worldview.

Someone earlier asked the question "why would I need to understand any theology" – the simple answer to that is that if you do not understand a system of thought, you cannot effectively argue against it. In practice, people tend to end up setting up 'straw men' that are easily cast aside. I think it was Woppit who claimed the Church supported Hitler – a claim which overlooks the opposition to Hitler which came from what became known as the Confessing Church. it is hard to imagine someone being able to comment on the significance of the opposition to Hitler without any understanding of the ideas and actions of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann, and their impact on the development of Christian theology since 1945.

As to Woppit's assertion that the perpetuation of religion can be attributed soley to the indoctrination of children – my response is "nonsense" and I speak as a professional youth worker who has spend 20-odd years working in a church setting. If you ask the question, can I point to examples where education of young people has been distorted and become indoctrination – yes absolutely, but to suggest they represent an accurate overview of the church's work with young people is laughable nonsense.

And to respond to the OP – the Catholic Church's institutional response to the allegations, and evidence, of widespread child abuse is a f*king disgrace and the pope should hang his head in shame to be leading an organisation that has not acted vigorously to rid itself of such people and practices. Any local congregation or worldwide denomination that doesn't do everything in its power to protect and nurture children in a wholesome environment is a grotesque distortion of what the church is meant to be.

Oi! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious – I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist – It doesnt take much on here, does it?

Pretty much the same as me then.

Rubbish. All it takes is someone more persuasive. History should tell you that.

I refer you to my previous reference re: Islam.

You ARE coming over aggressive and confrontational, regardless of whether or not you want to.

To you…

Comparing football to religion is fatuous in the extreme mate. Seriously, that is fairly obvious. How many people would die for their team? How many wars are fought over football? Stupid argument, stop using it please.

I'm not talking about the results of various types of beliefs, I'm talking about the alleged difference in "tone" required when discussing religion as opposed to anything else ieg: football. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

Barnsleymitch is coming over as a decent bloke, he's really not trying to tear your belief system to pieces like you seem to be doing to him.

I do not have a belief system (perhaps you missed that bit). I was not trying to "tear his belief system to pieces", merely trying to elicit his opinion regarding a proposition. Which he chose not to deal with. And asked me to "leave him the **** alone". Which I did.

That is sheer bullcrap of the highest order. Absolutely not true at all, in any way. And you should know it. There's no evidence collected so far of life on other planets. You gonna tell me that conclusively proves that it's not there?

There may be bacteria on Mars.

… and the conditions for planets on which there may be other forms of life elsewhere, exist – evidentially so.

There is no indication whatsoever that anything that happens is the result of a god. It used to be thought that water in rivers moved as the result of the actions of "water-sprites", who need placation to perform this remarkable task. This belief has long-since died out. Nevertheless, the water still moves.

You ARE coming over aggressive and confrontational, regardless of whether or not you want to.

That is sheer bullcrap of the highest order. Absolutely not true at all, in any way. And you should know it. There's no evidence collected so far of life on other planets. You gonna tell me that conclusively proves that it's not there?

Ahem.

So you are being as bad as any religious fundamentalist. You believe you are right and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

Not so. I have said many times that I am happy to accept the existence of whatever god is being proposed. All one needs to do is demostrate the evidence.

That is the difference between, for instance, science and religion. Each different religion claims to have the absolute truth – where they cannot all be so. Science says merely that a theory is there to be disproved on the presentation of new evidence. A far superior approach, in my opinion.

Progress and knowledge, or ignorance and lies. Take your choice.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

Hahaha.. yeah right. Hormones, what are they then?

Not sure that was one of mine?

It doesnt take much on here, does it?

Just asking for fairness, consideration and equanimity, that's all…

You've totally missed my point here one of the key words was "Western" which am I meant to be fixing first the horrors of colonialism ? The situation on the Middle East ? The problems with the catholic church ?

I see what you did there… seeking some spurious connection between the entirely unrelated issues of governmental behaviours, and the voluntary membership of a morally bankrupt organisation. The flaw in that argument is that in fact large segments of the population have in fact protested vehmently and consistently against those actions, thus doing away with such ills as slavery, colonialism and the like. Unlike the Catholic Church where to the best of my knowledge few if any have stood up and done anything similar about the institutionalised corrupt behaviours that are so apparent. In fact far from protesting they have in fact made one of the worst and most morally bankrupt members into their leader.

Science says merely that a theory is there to be disproved on the presentation of new evidence

There is a theory that God created the universe with the big bang. Disprove that Woppit.
It can't be disproved, and therefore a fanatical Athiest is as dilusional as any religious fanatic.

I could imagine "Mr Whoppit" becoming a Christian after he realised the ignorant Pagans MUST be wrong I mean HOW can there be more than ONE god

On the contrary, I would have said that both beliefs were incorrect.

setting up religious straw men and then effortlessly knocking them down

Odd interpretation. Looked more to me like asking religious people to explain themselves. The fact that all they ever come out with is gibberish is hardly Richrd's fault.

most bizarre extremes of the Christian faith

Ah, I see. Believing that a virgin gave birth to a god who'd had ghost-intercourse so that he could have himself born as a human is not bizarre.

To put it in perspective, it would be rather like pointing to people like Stalin and Pol Pot and suggesting they represent normal atheist behaviour. As an aside, I suspect that if you add their death toll together with Hitler's and an assortment of other atheistic ideologies, you may find that atheism's kill count actually surpasses that of any other worldview.

Hitler was a catholic, not an atheist. He attempted to institute a form of Paganism as a state religion.

Stalin and Pol Pot killed many different people – religious, atheist, gay, Jewish, Gypsy, intellectuals of all sorts and so on. Not because of atheism, but to acheive complete personal control over their respective populations. This is a classic "straw man" argument and I'm surprised you are trying to use it.

Someone earlier asked the question "why would I need to understand any theology" – the simple answer to that is that if you do not understand a system of thought, you cannot effectively argue against it.

To paraphrase what I actually said – I don't need to have any "Leprechaunology" to argue against the existence of Leprechauns. The Emperor has no clothes.

I think it was Woppit who claimed the Church supported Hitler – a claim which overlooks the opposition to Hitler which came from what became known as the Confessing Church. it is hard to imagine someone being able to comment on the significance of the opposition to Hitler without any understanding of the ideas and actions of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann, and their impact on the development of Christian theology since 1945.

It may be possible to find other individuals like barnsleymitch who follow a "cherry-picked" version of catholicism, but it is a fact that the Vatican, during the 2nd world war, had many opportunities to oppose the persecution of the Jews, but did nothing. The Vatican's history of anti-semitism is long and ugly.

As to Woppit's assertion that the perpetuation of religion can be attributed soley to the indoctrination of children

More misrepresentation. At no point did I suggest that this was the "sole" atttribute, so to suggest that this is what I said, is simply a lie. The indoctrination of children at the acquiesence of the parent(s) is, however, arguably one of the strongest tools of subjugation possessed by the cult.

f you ask the question, can I point to examples where education of young people has been distorted and become indoctrination

Of course – by inculcating self-evident nonsense and prejudicing them against open enquiry. In my day it was called "Sunday School".

There is a theory that God created the universe with the big bang.

Oh boy. *sigh*

That is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. To make it into a theory, you need evidence.

Good luck.

I refer you to my previous reference re: Islam.

Islam was founded by a persuasive man.

To you…

And everyone else on the thread!

I'm talking about the alleged difference in "tone" required when discussing religion as opposed to anything else ieg: football

It's obvious that religion is a deeply personal and sensitive thing that a lot of people hold dear. If I came on and started ranting about how awful your wife or mother were, would you not be a bit annoyed? You must understand that persistently and 'stridently' asserting that what someone believes very personally is rubbish is going to uspet people? Upsetting people apparently for the hell of it is bad.

There is no indication whatsoever that anything that happens is the result of a god

Likewise, there's no indication that it isn't. So what you have to have is belief. You (and I) believe that there isn't, some believe that there is. Seems the same to me. Let's reduce it to a logical debate:

You assert A is the case, I assert B. Now there is a third case C, where there is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove A or B. So given that A is not conclusively proven, nor is B, then the only remaining option is C. Surely this is apparent?

You may passionately believe in the case against God, but by your own arguments, that's not enough.

All one needs to do is demostrate the evidence.

Well let's see, a lot of people are satisfied with the evidence at their disposal. A lot of people also maintain that the world around you is evidence enough. You aren't satisfied with their evidence, fine; they are not satisfied with yours.

See, the thing is, you are putting yourself on the side of science, logic and reasoned thought. But by evangelising so much you are actually behaving the same way as religious people. To be honest you are coming over as a bit of a neophyte with this logical thought stuff…

Each different religion claims to have the absolute truth

Hmm.. do all religious people make the same claim? I think not. Bear in mind you are not attacking the religious establishment on this thread, you are attacking religious people fairly personally.

Science says merely that a theory is there to be disproved on the presentation of new evidence

Ok, so where's the conclusive evidence of the non-existence of a supreme being?

A far superior approach, in my opinion.

Well there you have it folks. I win. End of thread 🙂

It may be possible to find other individuals like barnsleymitch who follow a "cherry-picked" version of catholicism

So you are on the one hand arguing for independent thought, and then complaining that people are choosing their own interpretation of world views?

How many handbags ?

What tyres for Glentress? Or should I ask God?

I think the problem a lot of non-Catholics have is that the Roman Catholic Church has such a rigid heirachy, with the infallible Pope at the head. I find it a bit odd that a Catholic can be excommunicated or put under interdict for supporting a woman's right to abortion, or engaging in pre-marital sex, but not for repeatedly and systematically covering up paedophile priests.

I think that's why people brand the Catholic Church as a whole, because the top layers are rotten. The question is, if you're on the bottom level of the heirachy and you question the moral authority of the Church leaders, are you still really a Catholic?

I agree with this.

Simonfbarns.
I owe you an apology simon, you appear to be a good man I was simply in a very bad way and lashed out without thinking.

Handbags indeed

good grief, what brought that on 🙂 ?

I've been watching this bitchslapping fest developing today with mild amusement. Perhaps we all care about morality to some degree, but it's more fun scoring points and slagging each other off ?

As for the roman catholic church! from the people that brought you the earth is flat, say it isn't and you're toast. Murder witches as they are evil and torture countless people when you can. My favourite accomplishment of all time the dark ages! No wait there is one even more spectacular than that. Wasn’t it the romans as in the roman catholic church’s predecessors that got rid of jesus in the first place? same fools different shoes.

Thank god they don't have a large army any more and jesus christ could it die off any slower!

Islam was founded by a persuasive man.

It was the religion that did the persuasion, not the long-dead founder. This is really very simple. Why can't you come up with a meaningful rebuttal?

And everyone else on the thread!

Not so, there have been some who are in agreement. I really can't find anything that doesn't sound like an insult to describe your approach of arguing against my view by making up things that simply are not true. Why DO you do it?

It's obvious that religion is a deeply personal and sensitive thing that a lot of people hold dear. If I came on and started ranting about how awful your wife or mother were, would you not be a bit annoyed?

Then I do not see why they cannot defend it as robustly as I attack it without resorting to misrepresentation, avoidance, refusal to understand the simplest of reasoning or retreat into expressing "hurt". Used to be, xtians at least were made of strener stuff (Romans, lions, etc).

1: I am not married. 2: My mother is dead. In any event, the most you might achieve is an enquiry into your own antecedental relationships…

Likewise, there's no indication that it isn't.

In fact that is precisely what IS indicated, because the former condition is the one that obtains.

with the evidence at their disposal.

Which is?

A lot of people also maintain that the world around you is evidence enough.

Evidence of there being a world around me establishes that there is a world around me. Shall I say that again for you?

See, the thing is, you are putting yourself on the side of science, logic and reasoned thought. But by evangelising so much you are actually behaving the same way as religious people. To be honest you are coming over as a bit of a neophyte with this logical thought stuff…

Not a bit of it. I have presented a series of arguments and asked for evidence that I am incorrect. So far, all I have seen is a series of poorly-thought-out and innaccurate suppositions partly based on misrepresentation and appeals to sensibility.

Hmm.. do all religious people make the same claim? I think not.

It may be there is a religion somewhere that bases itself on it's claims to truth not being absolute, but if that is so, I certainly haven't heard of it. Can you name one?

you are attacking religious people fairly personally.

Not so. I am attacking religion itself. If you think otherwise, please substantiate your claim.

Ok, so where's the conclusive evidence of the non-existence of a supreme being

The burden of proof is on the proposer of the hypothesis. A scientist does not say "A photon can appear to be in two places at once" and then ask you to disprove it, why would he (or she)? The event can be demonstrated.

To ask for evidence that a non-evidential thing does not exist, is an admission of defeat. Merely saying that because a thing cannot be proved to NOT exist and so therefore it does, is a self-defeating argument and clearly deluded. See my earlier argument re: the giant snail on the roof of the National Gallery.

Well there you have it folks. I win. End of thread

Not at all. 1: My opinion is supported by evidence. 2: This posting.

I'm now waiting for Mark Datz's contribution.

I reckon Datz is probably above wading into a sermon from someone declaring "I do not have a belief system"– possibly the most incredible claim ever made on stw.

So you are on the one hand arguing for independent thought, and then complaining that people are choosing their own interpretation of world views?

No. I was not complaining (why would you think that?) It's an observation. It could be argued that in the case of "cherry-picking", the cult member who does this, is displaying a certain capacity for indpendent thought. This is encouraging in the case of those like barnsleymitch, who seem to be displaying some resistance to the full-blown requirement for blind obedience.

I must admit though, that constant misrepresentation and attribution to me of things that I simply have not said or suggested, being presented as an argument that holds weight, is begginning to become a little wearisome…

All is not lost.

kaesae – Member

As for the roman catholic church! from the people that brought you the earth is flat, say it isn't and you're toast. Murder witches as they are evil and torture countless people when you can. My favourite accomplishment of all time the dark ages! No wait there is one even more spectacular than that. Wasn’t it the romans as in the roman catholic church’s predecessors that got rid of jesus in the first place? same fools different shoes.

Thank god they don't have a large army any more and jesus christ could it die off any slower!

Quite (except for the "thank god" bit, obviously…) 😆

And as far as I'm aware, they haven't apologised for what they did to Galileo yet, either. 😉

"I do not have a belief system"- possibly the most incredible claim ever made on stw.

Why?

leggyblonde – Member

I'm now waiting for Mark Datz's contribution.

Oh, YES! 😆

There is a theory that God created the universe with the big bang.
Oh boy. *sigh*

That is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. To make it into a theory, you need evidence.

Point taken.

However, as a not hugely bothered agnostic, to me you still come across as an over-zealous, agressive atheist.

Pause for a bit of light relief:

"I believe the earth is supported on the back of a giant turtle".

"What's supporting the turtle?"

"You can't fool me, it's turles all the way down!"

o me you still come across as an over-zealous, agressive atheist

How?

i! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious – I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist – It doesnt take much on here, does it?

Do you go to church?

Don't be so aggressive.

to me you still come across as an over-zealous, aggressive atheist

How?

Because your ability to logic and reason is mistaken for something else.

I for one am very impressed with your analytical technique but I do have to wonder why you waste your time when you have nothing to gain?

"I do not have a belief system"- possibly the most incredible claim ever made on stw.

could one not base one's philosophy on scepticism ? By definition, beliefs are unsupported conjecture, so it might be better only to accept those you cannot escape, like gravity and Mondays…

Lifer – yes I do,but not that regularly, and Mr Woppit – you watch QI too often, and please dont patronise me ( "This is encouraging in the case of those like barnsleymitch, who seem to be displaying some resistance to the full-blown requirement for blind obedience".) – I'm sure if you hadnt been so keen to go for my throat, your little 'debate' may not have come over in such an aggressive manner.

BTW everyone. Vickie's on BBC2 NOW!!!!

So you don't attend Mass every Sunday? Do you attend Confession before receiving the Eucharist?

Why the interest? Sorry, but I'm not biting. This has become so far removed from the original post, I dont know what point I'm supposed to be arguing from anymore. Find someone else to poke Lifer.

I think I've been perfectly reasonable all day. I just find it strange you have such big objections to what I said (about every Catholic being responsible) when it seems that you are Catholic in name only.

kaesae – Member

to me you still come across as an over-zealous, aggressive atheist

How?

Because your ability to logic and reason is mistaken for something else.

I for one am very impressed with your analytical technique but I do have to wonder why you waste your time when you have nothing to gain?

Nothing better to do. Need something to keep the old grey matter ticking over, and anyway, it's fun. Up to a point.

I won't respond to barnsley's post (well, perhaps by proxy), because he asked me to leave him the **** alone and I promised I would… If he wants to change his mind, however – I know how easy it is to get drawn back into these things…

Barnsleymitch

May I ask you a question about your religion?

Yes, but I'd ask you to read through the rest of this thread first.

Mr whoppit – how you cannot see that you come across as

as an over-zealous, agressive atheist

shows a staggering level of unawareness it was enough to even make the atheists say something.

Junkyard – Member

it means your view is so extreme blah blah blah…
NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND OR REDUCE YOUR CONTEMPT/HATRED OF RELIGOUS PEOPLE
A fine example of the misrepresentation I mentioned from the hysterical religious types on here.

Again i am not religous I am an atheist it is on this thread a number of times and on others can you not read or do you not believe me?

I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS.

Oh well, of course THAT'S going to work. How very practical. Exactly what planet are you on?

The same one as you, you know held up by turtles all the way down.
Are you saying that if we all married as virgins and had only one sexual partner it would have no impact on sexually transmitted infections? you cannot deny if people did this..actually perhaps you could 😉
I dont really disagree with you re the nonesense of religion as a world view. I only object to the way you are so offensive/zealous in putting across your own non belief syatem as the correct answer. You pastronise those who comment against you

the cult member who does this, is displaying a certain capacity for indpendent thought. This is encouraging in the case of those like barnsleymitch, who seem to be displaying some resistance to the full-blown requirement for blind obedience.

for example.
It does you no credit

You pastronise those who comment against you

pastry?