The Hazards of Belief

Hotblack Desiato

Rikuo, that is just lies!!! DHMO is a CHEMICAL and chemicals are BAD. Don't believe what they are telling you! It's a well known fact that a lot of industrial processes produce large volumes of waste DHMO, this stuff is just pumped into the environment without a care, and we end up drinking it! Even aircraft are pumping the stuff into the upper atmosphere, you can see the trails, this toxin 'rains' down on us causing untold misery! The CIA use it as a torture method!! Many people have been murdered with it, many thousands accidentally killed every year. This stuff is really dangerous.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

No, the fact that he bothers to bring up his religion at all is quite enough for me.

To put it another way, if the judge had informed everyone that he was an Arsenal supporter and ruled that the father would have to take the children to one Arsenal game a year how would you react?

Again, obplayer, you need to sharpen your sceptical instincts. Neither the Telegraph nor the Scepticink piece say that the judge ordered them to attend mass because he was a Catholic. The don't say in what context the judge's reference to his own religion was made, and they don't say what reason he gave for making his order. But the two facts are put in apposition because somebody wants you to think that he made his order becasue he was a Catholic. And you give the impression of being very keen to oblige that person by drawing the conclusion he wants.

marienbad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, obplayer, you need to sharpen your sceptical instincts. Neither the Telegraph nor the Scepticink piece say that the judge ordered them to attend mass because he was a Catholic. The don't say in what context the judge's reference to his own religion was made, and they don't say what reason he gave for making his order. But the two facts are put in apposition because somebody wants you to think that he made his order becasue he was a Catholic. And you give the impression of being very keen to oblige that person by drawing the conclusion he wants.

Aw come on Peregrinus , no matter what the right and rights of it the Judge was wrong to bring his own faith into in and at length as far as I can see.

Peregrinus

marienbad wrote: »

Aw come on Peregrinus , no matter what the right and rights of it the Judge was wrong to bring his own faith into in and at length as far as I can see.

My point is that "as far as you can see" is not very far at all. We have two reports about this, both of which seem to originate from the same not impartial source - the father. One of them give no context at all for the judge's reference to his Catholicism; the other quotes the father as saying that he "mentioned his own Catholicism in an irrelevant anecdote". Maybe he was wrong to mention his Catholicism, maybe he wasn't - I don't know, because for whatever reason I don't think I'm being told enought to make that judgment. And I respectfully suggest that you haven't been told enough either.

And, just to nitpick, there's nothing in either the Telegraph report or the Scepticink piece to suggest that the brought his Catholicism up "at length". Scepticink brings it up repeatedly, but that's not the same thing.

You may think I'm banging on about this but, really, I think people who profess to promote scepticism should be a bit sceptical in the face of a transparent attempt to manipulate their opinions by appealing to their preconceptions. We're told that this case has been twice to the appeal court, where the judge's stated reasons for the order he made will have been scrutinised, and in neither case has the order been overturned. And we're conspicuously not told what reasons the judge gave for his order, or what the appeal court said about those reasons. Those are extraordinary ommissions in a piece inviting us to take a negative view of the judge's order. Do those omissions not raise your sceptical hackles just a tiny little bit?

Brian Shanahan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Rikuo, that is just lies!!! DHMO is a CHEMICAL and chemicals are BAD. Don't believe what they are telling you! It's a well known fact that a lot of industrial processes produce large volumes of waste DHMO, this stuff is just pumped into the environment without a care, and we end up drinking it! Even aircraft are pumping the stuff into the upper atmosphere, you can see the trails, this toxin 'rains' down on us causing untold misery! The CIA use it as a torture method!! Many people have been murdered with it, many thousands accidentally killed every year. This stuff is really dangerous.

Sure, any group calling themselves the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division can't be lying to us. They're scientists for Thor's sake!

RikuoAmero

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Sure, any group calling themselves the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division can't be lying to us. They're scientists for Thor's sake!

Wrong thread dude. This is Hazards of Belief, you should have posted that in the Funny thread.

Brian Shanahan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Wrong thread dude. This is Hazards of Belief, you should have posted that in the Funny thread.

But Dihydrogen Monoxide is a hazard!

Well at least the fact that people, even today, are still gullible enough to fall for the hoax. Shows you just how easy religion spreads.

RikuoAmero

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But Dihydrogen Monoxide is a hazard!

Well at least the fact that people, even today, are still gullible enough to fall for the hoax. Shows you just how easy religion spreads.

Whoops. Turns out I was the one mistaken. I read your comment and I got things mixed up in my head. I thought that I had originally posted that bit about Dihydrogen Monoxide in the funny thread.
Sorry!

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, obplayer, you need to sharpen your sceptical instincts. Neither the Telegraph nor the Scepticink piece say that the judge ordered them to attend mass because he was a Catholic. The don't say in what context the judge's reference to his own religion was made, and they don't say what reason he gave for making his order. But the two facts are put in apposition because somebody wants you to think that he made his order becasue he was a Catholic. And you give the impression of being very keen to oblige that person by drawing the conclusion he wants.

We shall have to agree to differ on this. I believe the information we have is sufficient to make a judgement, if I turn out to be wrong then I shall of course admit my error. (Bet I'm not wrong though!)

Hotblack Desiato

The fact that the complainant is even aware of the religion of the judge is a cause for concern in itself, how would they be unless he himself announced it? and if he announces his religion in open court, especially in a case involving children being obliged to attend services of that religion, it is a significant cause of concern. This judge should have excused himself from this case if he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing it.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The fact that the complainant is even aware of the religion of the judge is a cause for concern in itself, how would they be unless he himself announced it? and if he announces his religion in open court, especially in a case involving children being obliged to attend services of that religion, it is a significant cause of concern. This judge should have excused himself from this case if he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing it.

The case has been to the court of appeal, twice. The judges there have full acces to the details of the case. Whilst I can't get the details of this one, I have read dozens upon dozens of court of appeal judgements. So whilst I, like you and everyone else, can't speak to the specifics of this case, I can say with reasonable confidence that the judges in the court of appeal are not shy about knocking the judges in the lower courts down a peg or two.

In general, the judiciary in the uk is exremly proud of its independence and it impartiality. They have a fairly good reputation, one which the higher courts guard very carefully.

I would go the opposite way to obplayer here. We don't have enough info here to make a judgement. As a result I will default to what I know of the court of appeal, and how they work in general, and say something is not right here and I genuinely beleive making a judgement on the information we have is a mistake.

I think, unfortunately, we are unlikely to get much more information on this. There have been a couple of family cases, where the legal principle is considered important and of the public interest, where the judge had released a comprehensive reazoning of the judgment, but that does not seem to have happened in this case. This in itself is not suspicious as this level of sharing is, in the family courts, a fairly new idea and still very, very rare. So unless the court decides to release more mformstion I fear we are stuck with inadequate knowledge to make any kind of meaningful judgement. Of course one is free to make up any kind of judgment one feels like, but when it goes against past form of the courts, the appeal court in particular which is pretty much based on past form, then I fear it falls more into the realm of conspiracy theory.

MrP

robindch

Nun gives birth to surprise baby after complaining of stomach pains

The nun belonged -- snigger, snigger - to the Missionary Sisters of the Love of Christ.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/nun-gives-birth-to-surprise-baby-after-complaining-of-stomach-pains-30934639.html

Indo wrote:

The nun, who came to Italy from South America, belonged to an order called the Missionary Sisters of the Love of Christ in Macerata, located in the Italian region of Le Marche. She says she had no idea she was pregnant.

She was taken to hospital by her sisters, where doctors quickly told her she was pregnant, according to Italian newspaper Il Corriere Adriatico. The baby is healthy and the nun’s convent has expressed an interest in taking care of him.

The nun arrived at the convent in June, when it is now believed she was already pregnant. According to the Italian newspaper L’Unione Sarda, the convent said the woman "is not a nun, is a girl that we are helping” possibly because she had not yet taken her vows.

The woman, who is reported to be from Bolivia, has now been discharged from hospital.

PopePalpatine

It must be very tempting for them to get a few thousand euros by selling that baby.

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It must be very tempting for them to get a few thousand euros by selling that baby.

Does that still go on today?

A miracle!

robindch

The Twelve Worst Religious Ideas

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/these-are-the-12-worst-ideas-religion-has-unleashed-on-the-world/

Raw Story wrote:

Bibliolatry, aka Book Worship
Blasphemy
Blood sacrifice
Chosen People
Eternal Life
Genital mutilation
Glorified suffering
Hell
Heretics
Holy War
Karma
Male Ownership of Female Fertility

The article expands a little.

robindch

The Timeline of the Universe:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-72-the-timeline-of-the-universe-9870d1b8f52

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

The Timeline of the Universe:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-72-the-timeline-of-the-universe-9870d1b8f52

rabble rabble
Mods constantly abusing their privileges.
rabble rabble
They think they can get away with posting anywhere!
rabble rabble
Feedback thread.
rabble rabble.
:mad:

Hotblack Desiato

Ms. Fornication caught making 2k worth of calls to Kenya at taxpayers' expense.

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ms. Fornication caught making 2k worth of calls to Kenya at taxpayers' expense.

Hmm. Clearly an outrageous slur against herself and Mr. Fornication. As they are born again Christians, we should all know that there's no impropriety there and reading the bible to each other over the phone is a worthy use of tax-payers money.

Bannasidhe

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Clearly an outrageous slur against herself and Mr. Fornication. As they are born again Christians, we should all know that there's no impropriety there and reading the bible to each other over the phone is a worthy use of tax-payers money.

Sure two grand wouldn't even get you past the begats when you are calling a mobile in Kenya :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The fact that the complainant is even aware of the religion of the judge is a cause for concern in itself, how would they be unless he himself announced it? and if he announces his religion in open court, especially in a case involving children being obliged to attend services of that religion, it is a significant cause of concern. This judge should have excused himself from this case if he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing it.

Of course he should. The thing is, we have no evidence at all that he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing the case. "He mentioned his Catholicism" =/= "he allowed his Catholicism to influence his judgment". Indeed, the author of the Skepticink piece treats the judge's Catholicism as a "conflict of interest" which ought to be declared, so if anything the fact that he was open about it would seem more proper than improper.

I come back to the fact that the judge will have stated reasons for his order, and the people who want us to take a particular view of the order are conspicuously not telling us what reasons he stated, or what comment was passed on those reasons on appeal, while throwing out snippets of information like "he mentioned his Catholicism!" in the hope that we will put 2 and 2 together to come up with 22.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course he should. The thing is, we have no evidence at all that he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing the case. "He mentioned his Catholicism" =/= "he allowed his Catholicism to influence his judgment". Indeed, the author of the Skepticink piece treats the judge's Catholicism as a "conflict of interest" which ought to be declared, so if anything the fact that he was open about it would seem more proper than improper.

I come back to the fact that the judge will have stated reasons for his order, and the people who want us to take a particular view of the order are conspicuously not telling us what reasons he stated, or what comment was passed on those reasons on appeal, while throwing out snippets of information like "he mentioned his Catholicism!" in the hope that we will put 2 and 2 together to come up with 22.

Ok, can we simply agree we will have to agree to differ on this until the unlikely event of more of the court transcripts becoming available?

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, can we simply agree we will have to agree to differ on this until the unlikely event of more of the court transcripts becoming available?

We don't have to agree to differ, ob; we can differ without any agreement to do so!

But, yeah, I note that you don't share my evidence-driven position on this, and neither does Hotblack. It doesn't bother me that you don't share it, and I don't resent it. You are still a splendid chap or chappess and I would be happy to buy you a pint should the occasion arise.

Turtwig

Besides aumann's theorem says you can't

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, yeah, I note that you don't share my evidence-driven position on this, and neither does Hotblack.

The evidence we have is by no means conclusive, but it is still a cause for concern. LOL at choosing to ignore what you don't like then calling yourself 'evidence-driven'.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The evidence we have is by no means conclusive, but it is still a cause for concern. LOL at choosing to ignore what you don't like then calling yourself 'evidence-driven'.

How am I ignoring what I don't like? In the very first line of my first substantive post on this subject I said that it may be true that the judge in this case is a twat, and that's still my position. It's just that the evidence we have been given so far doesn't establish this, and if anybody's ignoring what they don't like it's those who are so determined to reach that conclusion that they ignore the fairly glaring gaps in the evidence presented. For example it was left up to the skeptics to point out that the Telegraph report flatly contradicted the central claim of the Scepticink piece, which was that the father in this case was ordered to attend mass every week. (In fact he was ordered to arrange for his sons to attend mass at Christmas, if they were with him at Christmas.) So who exactly is "ignoring what they don't like"?

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Florida shows one tiny, tiny part of the RCC one possible route forward.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wife-grandma-catholic-priest-rebel-women-defy-church-ban-n286766

I am all for women priests but since the rules of the RC is that they can't be priests, I can't see how these women can continue to call themselves Roman Catholics if they don't play the game and follow the rules. They accept membership of the club on their terms.

The RC church has to change, and that change has to be forced by the majority, i.e. the laity. But through the proper channels. The faithful of the RCC have the right to and should reclaim their church for themselves.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

One would have thought so, but these good ladies think otherwise.

You might want to ask katydid that question as his/her area of interest, if not clarity, is the nature of christianity and its evidently perplexing membership rules.

Nothing perplexing about it. Different denominations have different rules. How hard is that to grasp?

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

They seem to get excommunicated as fast as they're ordained. Perhaps this it the break-away Catholic church of our dreams? Maybe we'll run out of priests so badly well here that the congregations will be forced to consider it! To be fair to Katy, if Christianity is what you make of it, and there are congregations now breaking off from Rome to the extent that they'll choose a woman priest themselves, religion could become a whole new thing rather quickly.

I'd love to hear katydid's take on that alright.

As long as Christianity has existed, there have been breakaway groups. Even though it would deny it, the RCC itself is a breakaway group, the product of a power struggle between east and west. The Anglican church is a breakaway group from the RCC, the Methodists from the Anglicans, and so (ad infinitum?)

It would be interesting to see a latter day breakaway movement from the RCC, but there doesn't seem to be a focused and organised campaign for such a movement. Simply individual initiatives in various parts of the world.

In Ireland, people who are dissatisfied with the RCC but who don't want to abandon the entire thing tend to gravitate to the Church of Ireland, which offers them the things they would have a problem with in terms of the RCC (celibacy and gender of clergy, lack of democracy in the church). I've never seen any drive towards an alternative "Catholic church" here; I suppose because this option more or less exists already