world youth day

fryup

A million:eek: brain washed catholic kids celebrating mass with an ex-member of the nazi youth

i ask you...have the lunatics taken over the asylum??

After all the child abuse scandals and cover ups, what will it take for people to wise up to the whole catholic fraud/cult.

CiaranMT

His membership of the Nazi Youth isn't really relevant.

But what I was happy to hear of was the protests around the visit which caused quite a stir.

Turtwig

I'm just glad no one was hurt. If I recall correctly there was some nutter loon Catholic who was so offended by the idea of protesters being present that he had a plan to kill them.:eek:

Turtwig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTFB8NuZNes

Pope Dawkins has still got a lot of work to do it seems.

World Atheist Conference : Take up a Hotel.

Catholic World Youth Day : Take up a city.

smokingman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14606335

"After a scorching day, his speech was disrupted by a violent thunderstorm, which blew off his skullcap."

:pac:

What's the bets some will wonder if he's the prophesised anti christ now...

robindch

Local priests granted special powers while Ratzinger's in town:

http://www.newser.com/story/126011/vatican-offers-pilgrims-abortion-forgiveness-for-6-days.html

Zillah

Abortion: Instant excommunication.
Mass murder: Regular confession is grand.

ironingbored

Anytime I have the misfortune of seeing the Prince of Darkness on TV I am reminded of Doug Stanhope's brilliant quip in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPmyry0yaQE

philologos

So fryup, I suspect it's impossible to be a "Catholic kid" without brainwashing? :pac:

Sarky

How else did you think it happened? Informed debate, weighing of evidence and letting them make up their own minds?

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

How else did you think it happened? Informed debate, weighing of evidence and letting them make up their own minds?

In a lot of cases I'm sure for many a lot of thought happened as it did in my case in respect to Christianity.

If in others if it happened just through upbringing eventually independent living will prompt some form of thinking about ones faith even if one could argue it's limited. If you will, mum and dad won't be with you forever. That's as much true for the child raised in a non-religious home as it is for a child that's raised in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim home.

5uspect

philologos wrote: »

In a lot of cases I'm sure for many a lot of thought happened as it did in my case in respect to Christianity.

If in others if it happened just through upbringing eventually independent living will prompt some form of thinking about ones faith even if one could argue it's limited. If you will, mum and dad won't be with you forever. That's as much true for the child raised in a non-religious home as it is for a child that's raised in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim home.

In a lot of cases? Really? I sincerely doubt that.

Pygmalion

5uspect wrote: »

In a lot of cases? Really? I sincerely doubt that.

Well 1% of the population could still be considered "a lot" of people.
Misleading as hell, but not necessarily incorrect.

5uspect

I've yet to meet an actual Catholic. Every Catholic I've spoken to is some sort of al la carte Catholic, Cultural Catholic or closet Atheist. Even the very religious ones don't buy all the bull****.

philologos

5uspect wrote: »

I've yet to meet an actual Catholic. Every Catholic I've spoken to is some sort of al la carte Catholic, Cultural Catholic or closet Atheist. Even the very religious ones don't buy all the bull****.

So in essence they're not brainwashed?

There's a strange contradiction on this forum. From time to time it's Ah shur, there's no real Catholics (sic). Then when you are introduced with a case of a million Catholics coming to Madrid out of sincere conviction you go Ah shur, they're just all brainwashed (sic).

I'd actually normally fall nearer the former understanding myself. The people at Madrid are a small subsection of the larger "Catholic" demographic. The people who are likely to go to it are people who take their faith more seriously than others by and large. 1 million of the wider "Catholic" population is actually tiny but it is still a lot of people. As for the comparison made between the World Atheist Convention and this, there isn't a comparison. Firstly herding Catholics is a good deal easier than herding cats. I can't say the same is true of atheists.

As for meeting Catholics who are serious about their faith in the average day to day experience. A good friend of mine would fall into this category and was one of the factors that gave me a curiosity. In the other case I studied with a few of the seminarians at university which was also a positive experience.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

In a lot of cases I'm sure for many a lot of thought happened as it did in my case in respect to Christianity.

If in others if it happened just through upbringing eventually independent living will prompt some form of thinking about ones faith even if one could argue it's limited. If you will, mum and dad won't be with you forever. That's as much true for the child raised in a non-religious home as it is for a child that's raised in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim home.

So we should see similar percentage of take up of the various religions across the globe as the more realistic ones hold stronger? Right? Unlike the crazy idea that most take up the religion they were brainwashed into brought up with.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

So we should see similar percentage of take up of the various religions across the globe as the more realistic ones hold stronger? Right? Unlike the crazy idea that most take up the religion they were brainwashed into brought up with.

Also highly inaccurate for a number of reasons. Let's look to the case of Christianity:

1) Christianity is most in decline in regions where it was traditionally strong. The brainwashing isn't working too well if that's the case.

2) Christianity is growing in areas where it was not traditionally strong.

3) Even if 1 were not true, and if people decided to keep faith X or faith Y that their parents may have held. That also doesn't necessarily mean that people haven't evaluated faith for themselves.

4) Even in regions of the world where faith is traditionally strong such as the US. 50% of people leave the church / faith group that they were raised in.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

Also highly inaccurate for a number of reasons. Let's look to the case of Christianity:

1) Christianity is most in decline in regions where it was traditionally strong. The brainwashing isn't working too well if that's the case.

2) Christianity is growing in areas where it was not traditionally strong.

3) Even if 1 were not true, and if people decided to keep faith X or faith Y that their parents may have held. That also doesn't necessarily mean that people haven't evaluated faith for themselves.

4) Even in regions of the world where faith is traditionally strong such as the US. 50% of people leave the church / faith group that they were raised in.

All that would strongly support the 'brainwashing' hypothesis, not refute it in any way.

philologos

How?

5uspect

philologos wrote: »

So in essence they're not brainwashed?

There's a strange contradiction on this forum. From time to time it's Ah shur, there's no real Catholics (sic). Then when you are introduced with a case of a million Catholics coming to Madrid out of sincere conviction you go Ah shur, they're just all brainwashed (sic).

Are we talking about indoctrinated children or adults here? You seem to be exchanging the two to make some cheap point about this forum.

You know full well many people make the break from a religious upbringing they had absolutely no choice in. For example how many of those attending this event were sent in by their schools as a day out?

How many people decide to abandon this indoctrination, resulting in friction with their brainwashed families who admonish them for simply being honest while happily ignoring the vast amount of the dogma themselves?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

How?

philologos wrote: »

Also highly inaccurate for a number of reasons. Let's look to the case of Christianity:

1) Christianity is most in decline in regions where it was traditionally strong. The brainwashing isn't working too well if that's the case.

The brainwashing is wearing off, due to higher quality of living and education.

philologos wrote: »

2) Christianity is growing in areas where it was not traditionally strong.

Where people are both poor and uneducated enough to be brainwashed.

philologos wrote: »

3) Even if 1 were not true, and if people decided to keep faith X or faith Y that their parents may have held. That also doesn't necessarily mean that people haven't evaluated faith for themselves.

Well it's hard to tell. You for example are a poster boy for confirmation bias. I'd love to see some figures or research on it, so I'd leave this as inconclusive.

philologos wrote: »

4) Even in regions of the world where faith is traditionally strong such as the US. 50% of people leave the church / faith group that they were raised in.

See my response to point 2. US is a first world country.


Actually I promise I wouldn't respond to your posts, what the hell am I doing?

philologos

5uspect wrote: »

Are we talking about indoctrinated children or adults here? You seem to be exchanging the two to make some cheap point about this forum.

As far as I know there's people right up into the 20's and 30's there. Not all of them are children by any means. The children that are there will inevitably be making their minds up for sure at a later point in their lives as most people do irrespective of what their parents happen to feel.

5uspect wrote: »

You know full well many people make the break from a religious upbringing they had absolutely no choice in. For example how many of those attending this event were sent in by their schools as a day out?

My point is that if that is true, the brainwashing wasn't much good, or in another way, it wasn't brainwashing in earnest at all.

5uspect wrote: »

How many people decide to abandon this indoctrination, resulting in friction with their brainwashed families who admonish them for simply being honest while happily ignoring the vast amount of the dogma themselves?

See above.

The "happily ignoring" part really is only applicable to people who are more alacarte. To be honest with you I don't think that's the demographic that would travel out to Spain in some cases from the Middle East or South America for it. That takes some form of dedication.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The brainwashing is wearing off, due to higher quality of living and education.

There are plenty of well educated Christians. As was mentioned by PDN a few months back a lot of growth of Christianity in China is taking place amongst young professionals.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Where people are both poor and uneducated enough to be brainwashed.

Not exclusively at all.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well it's hard to tell. You for example are a poster boy for confirmation bias. I'd love to see some figures or research on it, so I'd leave this as inconclusive.

Ad-hominems aren't worth much. I could say the exact same about you.

As for the US point. I meant to say that roughly 50% people change their church / faith / denomination / lose faith in their lifetime. It's not just a case that 50% become atheists. In quite a few cases people who were raised in secular families think about faith and decide to believe. So it's not a one-sided slant if you will.

Nutgrover

Zillah wrote: »

Abortion: Instant excommunication.
Mass murder: Regular confession is grand.

Raping scores of boys by a priest: regular confession + protection from local law enforcement and escorting to another parish.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

...families think about faith and decide to believe...

philologos

If you're going to quote something at least quote the full sentence

In quite a few cases people who were raised in secular families think about faith and decide to believe.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

In a lot of cases I'm sure for many a lot of thought happened as it did in my case in respect to Christianity.

Given that we have been over your reasons for accepting Christianity, the phrase "a lot of thought" wouldn't be the first that comes to mind.

Which is where the study into the psychology of religion and religious faith, which so many religious people seem threatened by, comes into play. Cause heaven forbid you guys believe what you believe for irrational reasons. Can't be admitting that, can we (despite a lot of Christians actually doing that without feeling the need to hide it).

Brainwashing is a rather inaccurate term, but clearly there are strong psychological tricks at work in these youth organisations. How immoral that is (if at all) is up for debate, but I'm afraid you won't get particularly far with this notion that all these kids are Catholics because they had a good old reasoned think about it. Sorry, it doesn't work like that, which is why using the same psychological tricks you can get a million kids to be Muslim or Hindu.

philologos

Wicknight: Even if you were right and Christianity was wrong. You'd be no further to atheism, which to my mind makes zero sense and for what it's worth, I haven't heard a single good reason on this forum never mind several bad ones as to why atheism is reasonable. Stones and glass houses comes to mind.

I recognise that some of the arguments I made back in 2009 weren't up to scratch. However, several were and several weren't responded to adequately.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Wicknight: Even if you were right and Christianity was wrong. You'd be no further to atheism

You would be further to an understanding of how things really are. That is an admiral goal. It humans have an evolutionary reason to imagine human like agents in nature that act in a benevolent way it seems that knowing this is helpful in understanding humans.

philologos wrote: »

which to my mind makes zero sense and for what it's worth, I haven't heard a single good reason on this forum never mind several bad ones as to why atheism is reasonable. Stones and glass houses comes to mind.

Atheism is reasonable because humans imagine the existences of gods, find such notions mentally pleasing and falsely believe they experience interactions with these gods.

I know you don't believe that is what is happening with Christians, but if that were true do you not think it makes atheism reasonable?

philologos wrote: »

However, several were and several weren't responded to adequately.

I seem to remember you left the discussions over you reasoning without responding to a lot of the criticisms. But if you have further reasoning that you want criticality assessed I think you will easily find volunteers on this forum for that.

philologos

It's an admirable goal only if atheism is reality. I don't buy it for a second because it's inherently unreasonable as is the narrative that you present to each other here of all theists being brainwashed, and all theists being deluded and all theists lacking intelligence and so on. I hope eventually mankind will see through the rhetoric.

I have no further reasoning to the responses I got to some of the answers because they weren't satisfactory in that they didn't address some of the arguments presented. A rehash of the argument would be a point of futility as many have more of an interest in obscuring the argument rather than responding to it in earnest. Indeed, and the longer the discussion goes on, the more aggressive it tends to get.

But it really is stones in glass houses when you accuse me of presenting a "bad" argument when you've presented absolutely nothing hiding behind Russell's teapot :pac:

All I can say is I have to agree to disagree and I hope the very best for you in absolutely everything.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It's an admirable goal only if atheism is reality.

I think understanding reality is an admirable goal, irrespective of whether atheism is true or not, don't you think?

philologos wrote: »

I don't buy it for a second because it's inherently unreasonable as is the narrative that you present to each other here of all theists being brainwashed, and all theists being deluded and all theists lacking intelligence and so on. I hope eventually mankind will see through the rhetoric.

Evolutionary biology does not distinguish between an atheist human and a theist human. Humans are humans.

If the human brain works this way (and it appears it does) then it works this way. Atheists don't have different brains, though they may have more knowledge about how the brain works.

philologos wrote: »

But it really is stones in glass houses when you accuse me of presenting a "bad" argument when you've presented absolutely nothing hiding behind Russell's teapot :pac:

I've presented you the current state of the study of the psychology of religion.

You 'don't buy it' because it supports atheism (which is why a lot of people are atheists I would imagine).

That, I suspect, is going to be a common occurance with religious people as studies into this area advance, just as Creationism appeared in response to general evolutionary biology. But that is an issue for religious people, not the science. The reality stays the same, whether you accept it or not.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I think understanding reality is an admirable goal, irrespective of whether atheism is true or not, don't you think?

Simply put absolutely. However, that said I don't believe atheists of necessity have any more knowledge than theists.

Evolutionary biology doesn't support atheism any more than anything else. I find it monumentally dishonest for people to attempt to pass off science as atheism's handmaiden when it simply isn't.

I don't buy atheism, because atheism intrinsically makes very little sense. Not for any other reason.

5uspect

So what about scepticism?

philologos

5uspect wrote: »

So what about scepticism?

A valid and highly useful tool which should be applied in both directions.

Sometimes skepticism can itself be irrational from concluding that vaccines are harmful for your children or being skeptical that the earth is round.

In most cases yes, skepticism is useful, but one shouldn't draw up limits as to how it should be used. For example excluding atheism, or excluding a particular form of religious belief. From time to time I do question my position.

5uspect

philologos wrote: »

A valid and highly useful tool which should be applied in both directions.

Sometimes skepticism can itself be irrational from concluding that vaccines are harmful for your children or being skeptical that the earth is round.

In most cases yes, skepticism is useful, but one shouldn't draw up limits as to how it should be used. For example excluding atheism, or excluding a particular form of religious belief. From time to time I do question my position.

Erm... okay, that bolded bit is not something I would have expected from you.

Scepticism of religion is the very definition of Atheism.
Climate "sceptics", anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, Cters and the religious do not meet the requirements of scepticism as they believe without and in the face of evidence.

philologos

Skepticism of atheism is an entirely valid position also I'm afraid. Skepticism of a particular faith doesn't of necessity mean non-belief. It just means ensuring that you give something a thorough investigation first. Essentially if you were to sum it up it would be saying not to trust anything anyone says without prior examination. I think it's a good principle. Atheism isn't excluded though

5uspect

How can you have faith but also be sceptical? Whatever about having a belief in gravity as an observable phenomenon one can be sceptical about the framework under which we define it. Faith is different, it requires belief regardless of evidence, and to reiterate, in the face of evidence.

Unless you're still defining Atheism as a belief that a God doesn't exist? I would define my lack of belief as a straight extension of my sceptical outlook on everything.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I don't buy atheism, because atheism intrinsically makes very little sense.

You believe that Zoroaster doesn't exist, right?

We don't believe that the christian deity doesn't exist.

Why exactly does one position regarding a deity "intrinsically make very little sense", when you believe yourself the the exact same position regarding a different deity with virtually identical properties?

CiaranMT

philologos wrote: »

I don't buy atheism, because atheism intrinsically makes very little sense. Not for any other reason.

I fail to see how lacking a belief in a god or gods doesn't make sense. It's like being asexual, amoral... It's like being a non-stamp collector, as described by the very good series on Youtube.

Like Robin above has said, why Christianity and not another religion? Why don't you go for Zen Buddhism, Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism or Sikhism? Or any of the other hundreds of religions on this planet?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Simply put absolutely. However, that said I don't believe atheists of necessity have any more knowledge than theists.

It is not about having, it is about accepting what is supported by the science.

For example it is becoming more and more common for theists to have the alternative explanation for why they had their "lowest point" conversion (something common on the other forum).

But they simply do not accept that explanation because to them they already have what, to them, is a perfect good explanation that also fits with the mentally pleasing aspect of why they had the conversion in the first place.

philologos wrote: »

Evolutionary biology doesn't support atheism any more than anything else.

You keep saying that, and I keep explaining that evolutionary biology supports the idea that humans, for evolutionary reasons, invent agents in nature as a way of processing the world around them.

Can you explain how that doesn't support atheism over theism?

philologos wrote: »

I don't buy atheism, because atheism intrinsically makes very little sense. Not for any other reason.

Again if what I say is true above about evolutionary biology can you explain how atheism still doesn't make sense?

mewso

philologos wrote: »

I don't buy atheism, because atheism intrinsically makes very little sense. Not for any other reason.

Just to echo Robin here and to get it clear in my head. Your position on every single God except the Christian one makes very little sense?

Dades

Atheism is not meant to 'make sense'.

Religions are meant to 'make sense' - and if none of them do (which they don't) you are left with atheism.

philologos

Dades - When I say "making sense" I mean trying to piece together the reasoning. For me atheism isn't reasonable, therefore I'm not an atheist.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

A million:eek: brain washed catholic kids celebrating mass with an ex-member of the nazi youth

i ask you...have the lunatics taken over the asylum??

After all the child abuse scandals and cover ups, what will it take for people to wise up to the whole catholic fraud/cult.

Ah I'll be honest I dont care if they want to have their day


jakkass: you don't make sense

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Ah I'll be honest I dont care if they want to have their day


jakkass: you don't make sense

Who's Jakkass?

old habits :pac:

sorry sorry, dr phil :pac:

(it's still 'opal fruits', 'the point', etc though )

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

old habits :pac:

sorry sorry, dr phil :pac:

(it's still 'opal fruits', 'the point', etc though )

Lol I'm still confused are you calling him or me Dr. Phil?:o

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Lol I'm still confused are you calling him or me Dr. Phil?:o

jakkass is philologos is dr phil...

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

jakkass is philologos is dr phil...

Now, I'm utterly confused...

oh gosh

nevermind malty, nevermind
/pat
it's ok

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

oh gosh

nevermind malty, nevermind
/pat
it's ok

Who's pat?