Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Society After Religion

12346»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    koth wrote: »
    That link doesn't support the argument that the Catholic church was always opposed to slavery. In fact the opening paragraph, it says that the church had no firm stance on slavery until 1965 where it finally said that slavery is wrong without exception.

    Well you know in fairness to the Catholic Church they had a lot of other things to sort out that were a lot more important than slavery. The first Ecumenical Council decided that gentiles didn't need to be circumcised (important questions that needed clarification).

    It is no surprising that it took them 20 other Ecumenical Councils, and over 1900 years to get around to the trivial matter of slavery. I mean what colour robes priests wear don't just sort themselves out.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Gbear wrote: »
    It's irrelevant what religion says on anything. It doesn't matter whether it justifies slavery or not or weather god was vengeful or demanded daily hugging. You shouldn't be basing your morals on anything that's 1500+ years old.

    we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    ISAW wrote: »
    we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.

    Scientific texts change to reflect our changing knowledge. Religious texts do not.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Scientific texts change to reflect our changing knowledge. Religious texts do not.

    Wrong! there is ample tracts of thological discussion on almost everything. ensoulme, ayrianism, nesrtorianism etc; *The anti nicean fathers have a long list of things discussed at that time.
    Augustine of hippo was a person who I think held heretical views - Manichaeism and changed them;
    iraeneus on Heresies
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Detection_and_Overthrow_of_the_So-Called_Gnosis
    details a good deal of different thoughts of that time.

    And those anti nicean tomes are only from the first two centuries of christianity.

    Scientific texts also have a "received view" or "paradigm" which remains for centuries until changed or updated.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    Scientific texts also have a "received view" or "paradigm" which remains for centuries until changed or updated.
    WTF?

    Its mutability in the face of new evidence is the whole point of science.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    WTF?

    Its mutability in the face of new evidence is the whole point of science.

    The church have changed their opinion too as i pointed out.
    There is little central dogma.

    Do you believe that science can prove logic and reason is wrong?
    so therefore it has some dogma?

    also what to you mean by "it" i.e "science" what is it?
    And why is changing the central reason for science given reason does not change?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    The church have changed their opinion too as i pointed out. There is little central dogma.
    Which suggests that its claim to be the voice of their deity's unchangeable voice is somewhat dodgy.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Do you believe that science can prove logic and reason is wrong?
    Given that the scientific framework is based up on logic and reason, I'm unsure about how you might think it could.
    ISAW wrote: »
    And why is changing the central reason for science given reason does not change?
    Because the facts available to science change as humans develop and build more and more accurate devices to help evaluate one scientific theory against another.

    In structural terms, form is science and is not open to debate, content is facts and these are open to debate.

    You're welcome to apply the word "dogma" to the idea "If this explanation doesn't work, then change it", but it would be peculiar to do so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    ISAW wrote: »
    we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.

    I should clarify - what I meant was that the age of it doesn't infer any value.
    You shouldn't practice the morality of something just because it's 1500 years old and called the Bible (or the Koran etc..).

    There needs to be some merit in the idea and luckily, that's mostly what we do. Otherwise we'd be regularly beating (or killing) our children and the most trivial of offences would result in death, as per various holy books and as is still done in some Muslim countries.

    Why religious people use the bible as a source of morality on subjects like sexual preference, contraception etc, and proclaim that by doing so they are following the word of God, yet completely ignore the very same word of God when it comes to the big chunks of the bible (you know what you are Leviticus!) that are really very awful indeed, I will never understand.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    Which suggests that its claim to be the voice of their deity's unchangeable voice is somewhat dodgy.

    not really; some scientists believe in underlying unchangeable universal laws of physics for example. Is that "dodgy"?
    Given that the scientific framework is based up on logic and reason, I'm unsure about how you might think it could.

    Theology is based on the same logic and reason.
    Because the facts available to science change as humans develop and build more and more accurate devices to help evaluate one scientific theory against another.

    As do the facts available to Christianity.
    You're welcome to apply the word "dogma" to the idea "If this explanation doesn't work, then change it", but it would be peculiar to do so.
    [/quote]

    How about "there are universal laws of physics"?
    Are you happy to accept such beliefs as acceptable to science?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Gbear wrote: »
    I should clarify - what I meant was that the age of it doesn't infer any value.

    so if something is tried and tested and known to work even in the absence of religion e.g. the family as a basic unit of society we should not say that has any value?
    You shouldn't practice the morality of something just because it's 1500 years old and called the Bible (or the Koran etc..).

    who claimed anyone does?
    There needs to be some merit in the idea and luckily, that's mostly what we do. Otherwise we'd be regularly beating (or killing) our children and the most trivial of offences would result in death,
    what is so wrong about slapping children ?
    i dont think it results in death.
    as per various holy books and as is still done in some Muslim countries.

    and atheist Marxists also killed people; but apparently do it it is because of the Bible and their belief but oif atheists do it it is because of anything but atheism.
    Why religious people use the bible as a source of morality on subjects like sexual preference, contraception etc, and proclaim that by doing so they are following the word of God,

    Biblcal fundamentalists might but most Christians would not claim the Bible has rules non cloning.
    yet completely ignore the very same word of God when it comes to the big chunks of the bible (you know what you are Leviticus!) that are really very awful indeed, I will never understand.

    Well then you are fairly ignorant of christianity and it appears of the bible. It isnt biblical fundamlentalism; and the need to follow leviticus was updated later on by Paul; it is mentioned in the Bible.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    ISAW wrote: »
    what is so wrong about slapping children ?

    Would you like it if I slapped you? I'd love to oblige!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    How about "there are universal laws of physics"?
    Are you happy to accept such beliefs as acceptable to science?
    You're still not getting the difference between the form of science and the content of science.

    However, you seem more interested in simply disagreeing with everything that people say, rather than actually engaging in dialog, so have a read of my previous post again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭swampgas


    ISAW wrote: »
    not really; some scientists believe in underlying unchangeable universal laws of physics for example. Is that "dodgy"?

    Theology is based on the same logic and reason.

    Science is built on observable evidence, and what can be repeatedly demonstrated by independent experiments. Science is internally consistent.

    Theology is a joke because it starts with a whole bunch of dodgy conclusions and then uses a sort of pretend logic to justify them. Theology is "pre-science" and it shows.

    More tellingly though, there is only ONE mainstream version of science, across multiple nationalities, cultures, languages and (dare I say it) religious beliefs.

    There are umpteen incompatible versions of theology out there, because it's all untestable waffle.

    And theology didn't put a man on the moon either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ISAW wrote: »
    In spite of a stronger condemnation of unjust types of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, some American bishops continued to support slave-holding interests
    Can you clarify for us which types of slavery are just and which are unjust ;)
    1839 seems very late for a European to be joining the abolitionists?......in any case the British Navy had already destroyed the African slave trade by then, so his half-hearted condemnation was a bit pointless.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    recedite wrote: »
    Can you clarify for us which types of slavery are just and which are unjust ;)

    I already have;
    And i already made my points about inconsistency of science and how Christianity is rooted in the sale greek reason as science.

    If you think I havent post it in the christianity forum.
    Ill waste no mer tile with threaths and bullies here.

    And robin as you are foind of telling m what you already posted ill await your "6.5% of abusers are priests" evidence there.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    And robin as you are foind of telling m what you already posted ill await your "6.5% of abusers are priests" evidence there.
    For the umpteenth time, I didn't say that 6.5% of abuses are priests. I did repeat the claim from the Irish Catholic that 4% of those convicted for abuse in Ireland are priests (thanks to oldrnwisr for locating a link to that story). I also mentioned that ~6.5% of priests have either been convicted of abuse or had credible allegations of abuse levelled against them, with figures which back this up from Cloyne and Dublin, figures which have been broadly accepted and admitted by the Vatican. I have no interest in continuing a discussion in which your only apparent purpose is to disagree with everybody, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable to do so.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Ill waste no mer tile with threaths and bullies here.
    I'm sorry you feel this way, but if you followed some of the points that were suggested to you privately and publicly, you might find A+A a lot more welcoming.

    Best of luck and thanks for contributing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    I never got a reply to my post #72 regarding what gives ISAW the power to decide to is Catholic and who is not. It would be good if he could reply to that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12 Steef


    jank wrote: »
    OK, so there is a constant theme on this board that religion rightly or wrongly is precieved as the great inhibitor to human progression. There may or may not be a case to argue in that favour however, it is not as straight forward as that.

    Modern western culture and indeed modern eastern culture (think China) is being more and more driven in a secular fashion where some are even suggesting that organised and the controlling religion we have know throughout history is dead.

    However, what comes next? How will society organise itself? Will it lead to an explosion of discovery, peace and universal human enlightenment or would a world without religion descend into an age without morals, chaos and general malaise where humans still fumbling around in the dark.

    Discuss!
    I may be discredited for this but Southparks episode(s) on atheism summed it up nicely. Bottom line people will always have disagreement and abolishing religion wont magical lead to "an explosion of discovery, peace and universal human enlightenment" nor will the lack of religion cause "an age without morals, chaos and general malaise where humans still fumbling around in the dark". The world would change with out religion I just believe that it would not change that much.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    For the umpteenth time, I didn't say that 6.5% of abuses are priests. I did repeat the claim from the Irish Catholic that 4% of those convicted for abuse in Ireland are priests (thanks to oldrnwisr for locating a link to that story).

    Im fairly sure that like the fake 6.5% you are misreporting this!
    4% of child sex abusers are not priests!
    4% of those convicted arent priests!
    I also mentioned that ~6.5% of priests have either been convicted of abuse or had credible allegations of abuse levelled against them, with figures which back this up from Cloyne and Dublin,

    No you didnt!
    what figures show 6.5% of priests in cloyne or dublin are pedophiles?
    and the original claim was dublin but Im happy to look at any evidence.
    figures which have been broadly accepted and admitted by the Vatican.

    You are misreporting this I believe.
    wher did the vatican accpet that 6.5% or 4% of child sex abusers are priests or that 4% of those convicted were priests?
    I have no interest in continuing a discussion in which your only apparent purpose is to disagree with everybody, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable to do so.I'm sorry you feel this way, but if you followed some of the points that were suggested to you privately and publicly, you might find A+A a lot more welcoming.

    It is very simple.
    You made a 6.5% claim you couldnt back up.
    You told me it was in this thread.
    It wasnt.
    You then made a 4% claim but you didnt wadmit the 6.5%one was wrong.
    You were asked for evidence for the 4% claim.
    You didnt provide it.
    All you did was restate the claim.

    the 4% figure is usually related to the percentage of victims not the percentage of abusers!
    You made the claim and you coldnt back it up and no ammount of restating a false claiml will prov it.

    all you simply have to do is produce the Vatican/ dublin diocese report saying that either 6.5% or 4% of abusers are priests.

    So,
    where is it?????

    No amount of "we dont like your tone" comments will make you false claims true.

    All you simply have to do is produce the evidence. Not hearsay claims about evidence . Just the actual evidence.

    so wher is the evidence you keep saying the Bishops or Vatican have?


  • Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    Isaw, If this is the way that you try to have a debate in real life then i have to say i'd be tempted to headbutt you at a live debate...

    Your posts can be absolutely infuriating to read, and i hope that you come across a lot better in real life than you do from behind a keyboard!

    Sorry i'm not contributing to the thread but i don't think that Isaw is either?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    My point here applies to this thread, too.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    GarIT wrote: »
    I never got a reply to my post #72 regarding what gives ISAW the power to decide to is Catholic and who is not. It would be good if he could reply to that.

    sorry i cant reply to that here. Im happy to reply in the Christianity forum.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    ISAW wrote: »
    sorry i cant reply to that here. Im happy to reply in the Christianity forum.

    Yea were any back talking gets you a red card from PDN. do not follow him in there, it's a trap.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    RichieC wrote: »
    Yea were any back talking gets you a red card from PDN. do not follow him in there, it's a trap.
    Talking about moderation in *other* forums gets you a card in here so leave it at that.


Advertisement