Institutional abuse was "endemic".. - MERGED

mloc wrote: »

The problem with religion is that the believers delusions that thier beliefs are some sort of divine truth or hold some higher meaning is anethma to a fair legal system that treats everyone evenly. It is for these reasons that priests etc were and to some extent are given a special reverence as representatives of God, and as such, were not held accountable for the atrocities they were involved in.

Is it a delusion? Should we accept this assumption or should we be open-minded to accept that people of faith may actually be telling us the truth?

Bear in mind one could just as easily argue that you are deluded for rejecting the true God, it holds just about the same merit in truth value as what you have just said concerning theists surely?

If the priests who carried out these atrocities truly believed in God, they would know that God will hold them accountable for what they have done at the final Judgement. Just because you are not held accountable in this world always doesn't mean that you will not be held accountable at all at least in Christian thought.

mloc wrote: »

A similar system exists currently in many religious-dominated countries such as Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Religion poisons everything, as its very principles are deleterious to free speech and free thought.

Israel is a secular country in formal definition. It is culturally Jewish, but it does not advocate laws based on the Jewish Torah, or the Babylonian Talmud. Also you aren't really comparing like with like. Islam and Christianity are different religions, as is Judaism and Christianity although Christianity is heavily based on Jewish thought.

mloc wrote: »

As far as compensation goes, CPO-ing the lands and properties of orders should of course be persued if neccessary; let us not forget that the majority of their property was bequethed to them by many unfortunate credulous fools over the years, unaware of the damage and corruption to our society the church has caused. It would be only fitting for the church, given the evil they have committed, to give it back to the people.

I don't think the CPO should seize property for people to freely worship in as the Constitution allows. However money should be asked from the Catholic authorities.

As for calling people fools, I don't think they are if their priest remained true and did not violate any of these laws.

mloc wrote: »

This is the fundamental and tragic error here. Involving delusions and what are essentially invisible friends in a justice system is folly; accountability under the law begins and ends in this world.

We have yet to clarify how you could not be considered to be equally delusional for holding your atheism. How do you determine what is delusional from what isn't? One could assume that refusing to recognise something that is apparent in the world and in peoples lives is delusional, or one could equally assume that recognising something that isn't apparent in the world and in peoples lives is delusional. Hence why I argue that such rhethoric is unuseful or unhelpful in any meaningful discussion.

Invisible friend assumes that one is not able to witness God at work within the world at large. I would disagree with you and any atheist on that issue. Again it's mere unuseful rhethoric.

The poll isn't good given the abuse happened in institutions that the state sent children to and didn't monitor properly so it should be both the taxpayer and the religious orders.

The religious orders are like an autonomous group within the church, it is not upto the ordinary church to pay for the religious orders.

The state is getting away lightly when it comes to accountability with all the focus on the money.

mloc wrote: »

You miss my point entirely. Any beliefs of a religious nature should not have impact on the law.

When did I say that they should? I think that the law should represent the kind of nation the people in general want to live in.

mloc wrote: »

Personal faith should simply not enter into it. Simply because you try to draw fantasy conclusions from everyday occurances/coincidences does not mean we all have to suffer it, nor should a legal system, nor should the justice that must be served to the survivors of these atrocitites.

I have to call you out on fantasy again. Fantasy can only be considered as such if it is indeed known to be fantasy. There is no reason to assume that it is unless it can be clearly demonstrated as such which I have seen no person at all whatsoever do yet in respect to modern Christianity.

I agree with you, they all should be prosecuted, I don't agree that land should be seized from religious adherents who use it to exercise their Constitutional right to worship.

Jakkass wrote: »

I expect people not to generalise all religion based on one. I would have thought that was reasonable.

You also make the assumption that those who believe in God, or people who follow religion are "thick, and evil". Am I thick and evil for believing in God? I'm not suggesting this, I'm merely saying that you shouldn't dismiss all religion based on one.

I never said anything about people who believe in God being 'thick and evil'. I said ' People aren't so thick and evil that they need some religion to tell them how to live their lives.', I wasn't making any implications about people who do believe in religion.

If anyone was interested in Christianity (I say if because not all are). I would advise them to read the Bible first, and then decide if they want to follow Christ first. If on deciding they want to follow Christ they should try out different churches in the interest of finding one that suits the adherent.

That's one of the things that I don't like about religion these days. 'Hmmm, I think I'll go for Presbyterianism because it lets me do XYZ'. It's like a lifestyle choice rather than any serious belief in the religion itself. Surely if the thing was real you would be expecting some divine instruction on the right faith to join.

Christianity is the faith. Denominations come second generally. I personally chose to follow Christianity because I found that it made a lot of statements that seemed to suss out human nature, it became apparent to me as I read it and as I assessed the world around me that it was the truth.

So what about the other 4 or 5 billion who happened, purely through chance of birth, to be born into the wrong religion, assuming you believe Christianity is the real deal? Have all these people for years been wasting their time worshiping false gods?

If people are interested in Christianity they should learn what the Bible really says instead of what other fallible people have taught them on the pulpit. I agree with you that people have the ability to have conscience, but whether they know truly what is right and wrong is a different concept. Some people deny that there even is a concept of right and wrong in philosophy.

The thing you fail to realise when you are putting forward the argument that people should forego the church and study a religion on their own is that if a people had've taken that tact down the centuries these religions that people studied on their own would've died off.

No claim concerning God can be proven objectively. The most convincing reason for following God in my case was religious experience. If one cannot prove something, one must indicate for it whether atheist or Christian. I read Christian explanations of many of the doctrines that are discussed in the Biblical text, these made sense. I then read Christian explanations for why it is most likely that God is true. I found these convincing, hence why I have adopted said view.

So it's faith. It's a belief in something without solid proof. Fairytales aren't too far off the mark then. And it's not like Christian's offering Christian explanations for their 'beliefs' would have a vested interest now is it?

Let me see:

Providing for the homeless, where did they get the cash for this?
Providing for the poor, where did they get the cash for this?
Providing for the ill, where did they get the cash for this?
Feeding the hungry, where did they get the cash for this?
Being with family members in times of grief, doesnt come close to making up for the amount of lives ruined by the church in ireland
Starting the educational system in Ireland (land of saints and scholars), what a great system they ran.
Giving people hope where it seemed all was lost, not much hope for you if you were a child stuck in an institution with the religious orders

Helping with alcoholics and drug addicts, a huge amount of people in the report were said to have serious substance abuse problems that stemmed from their treatment at the hands of the religious orders
Giving us the mechanisms to run our judicial system (borrowed from Judeo-Christian virtues of justice), the justice system in ireland is a disgrace and I wouldn't go as far as to try and pin that on the church
Mercy within the judicial system, influenced by the notion that we have received mercy for Christ, and therefore we are to show mercy to others (Matthew 7)

So only organisations are to be considered? Child abuse is something that occurred very much in the general community at the same time. It's an abhorrent act, an act that has nothing to do with Christianity. These people abused their role as church leaders and I think they should be prosecuted to the highest degree.

Go ask one of the people who lived in the instutions if they believe child abuse had nothing to do with Christianity. The church can't on the one hand take credit for all the good stuff their members do, yet on the other hand pass off the buck when it comes to the bad stuff. The Christian system in Ireland was responsible for some seriously despicable crimes.

What do you mean if religion never existed? Religion isn't a concept or a belief, it's just a word used for someone who recognises the authority of a higher power.

Unfortunately, turning the phrase back on me doesn't work in this case as religion is a concept and is a belief.

Morlar wrote: »

Not to be disrespectful to you or your mother but let's keep this in proportion here. There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between a child

a) getting a haricut and

b) being beaten to within an inch of your life and then buggered by one or more old men and most likely threatened with further violence to remain quiet so that the sexual abuse can continue indefinitely.

Isn't this whole thing about abuse? It doesnt matter if it was physical, sexual, psychological or emotional. None of them are acceptable and you can not say one is worse than the other to a child or a person, that depends on how they have suffered and their capacity to deal with it.

corribdude wrote: »

I never said anything about people who believe in God being 'thick and evil'. I said ' People aren't so thick and evil that they need some religion to tell them how to live their lives.', I wasn't making any implications about people who do believe in religion.

Fair enough.

corribdude wrote: »

That's one of the things that I don't like about religion these days. 'Hmmm, I think I'll go for Presbyterianism because it lets me do XYZ'. It's like a lifestyle choice rather than any serious belief in the religion itself. Surely if the thing was real you would be expecting some divine instruction on the right faith to join.

That isn't the main reasoning that I was discussing. Presbyterianism is a form of Christianity. Hence what is forbidden in Christianity is also forbidden in Presbyterianism. What differs between one denomination and another is mainly on practice and on how they worship rather than main beliefs, although there are minor disagreements on Biblical interpretation. Anyhow, I'm not a Presbyterian so I was just using it as an example.

corribdude wrote: »

So what about the other 4 or 5 billion who happened, purely through chance of birth, to be born into the wrong religion, assuming you believe Christianity is the real deal? Have all these people for years been wasting their time worshiping false gods?

There is truth in other world religions, but I believe Christianity to be the ultimate truth.

I don't think religion happens purely because of birth in all cases however there are quite a large number of cases of conversions from other faiths to Christianity. Infact it's a daily occurrence.

I wouldn't say wasting their time, there has been some value in following other traditions, but I would agree that ultimately they are mistaken.

The thing you fail to realise when you are putting forward the argument that people should forego the church and study a religion on their own is that if a people had've taken that tact down the centuries these religions that people studied on their own would've died off.

corribdude wrote: »

So it's faith. It's a belief in something without solid proof. Fairytales aren't too far off the mark then. And it's not like Christian's offering Christian explanations for their 'beliefs' would have a vested interest now is it?

Yes, it is. Fairytales have been written with the intention of being fiction. Religious texts have not.

Atheism also does not come with solid proof for it's position. As I say indication is how we come to our conclusion. The questions you need to think of when thinking about theism vs atheism are these:
1) What indicates to me if anything that God exists?
or
2) What indicates to me if anything that God does not exist?

Providing for the homeless, where did they get the cash for this?
Providing for the poor, where did they get the cash for this?
Providing for the ill, where did they get the cash for this?
Feeding the hungry, where did they get the cash for this?

From charitable Christians who had donated to help others.

Being with family members in times of grief, doesnt come close to making up for the amount of lives ruined by the church in ireland

Starting the educational system in Ireland (land of saints and scholars), what a great system they ran.

Ignoring the sarcasm they actually did provide a good system. The origins of science in Europe actually arose from the church.

Giving people hope where it seemed all was lost, not much hope for you if you were a child stuck in an institution with the religious orders.

You are talking about a minority of cases which were horrible, I'm not going to lie to you. However, it's clear that they had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. However they have given numerous people hope and have given numerous people purpose in their lives.

Helping with alcoholics and drug addicts, a huge amount of people in the report were said to have serious substance abuse problems that stemmed from their treatment at the hands of the religious orders

Again, you are referring to a minority of cases, I am referring to a majority of cases.

Giving us the mechanisms to run our judicial system (borrowed from Judeo-Christian virtues of justice), the justice system in ireland is a disgrace and I wouldn't go as far as to try and pin that on the church

I don't pin it on the church. I pin it on Judaism and Christianity. You have to realise that there is more to Christianity than the church.

corribdude wrote: »

Go ask one of the people who lived in the instutions if they believe child abuse had nothing to do with Christianity. The church can't on the one hand take credit for all the good stuff their members do, yet on the other hand pass off the buck when it comes to the bad stuff. The Christian system in Ireland was responsible for some seriously despicable crimes.

I'd ask them to quote the passage from Jesus Christ commanding Christians to be involved in sexual abuse. That is what true Christianity is. If others have gone astray from this path then they have fallen away from what is the truth.

corribdude wrote: »

Unfortunately, turning the phrase back on me doesn't work in this case as religion is a concept and is a belief.

Many atheists also argue that if Christianity didn't exist people would make up another religion. How do you reconcile this argument with the argument you have just made?

corribdude wrote: »

What kind of backwards logic is this? Basically you're saying if it can't be proven to be fantasy, it can't be considered fantasy. So if I said there were invisible purple unicorns flying all around that can't be detected by sight, smell, sound or touch would you consider that fantasy because no-one can prove they aren't? Because that's the logic you are purposing. Any delusional statement/idea can be rationalized based on your logic as I'm sure you're aware.

It's called reason. Yes your claim would also be unfalsifiable. You would also have no indication for it. Christians have indicated for their beliefs and there is good reason to hold to them if you actually look up and read some Christian apologetics for yourself you will see this much.

WindSock wrote: »

It doesnt matter if it was physical, sexual, psychological or emotional. None of them are acceptable and you can not say one is worse than the other to a child or a person, that depends on how they have suffered and their capacity to deal with it.

Not to be argumentative but you can definitely say that a child being beaten repeatedly & raped throughout their childhood by people in a position of authority and having to endure in silence is far worse off than a child who recieved a forced haircut.

There is no comparison whatsoever between the two.

Not wanting to take this thread off course I will stay out of it, but to compare the 2 scenarios above is disrespectful to the genuine victims of physical beatings & multiple repeated rapes etc.

Morlar wrote: »

Not to be argumentative but you can definitely say that a child being beaten repeatedly & raped throughout their childhood by people in a position of authority and having to endure in silence is far worse off than a child who recieved a forced haircut.

There is no comparison whatsoever between the two.

Theres more to it than just a haircut. Emotional and psychological torture/abuse/manipulation is nothing to be sneezed at. Parts of sexual abuse would fall into those categories.

WindSock wrote: »

Theres more to it than just a haircut. Emotional and psychological torture/abuse/manipulation is nothing to be sneezed at. Parts of sexual abuse would fall into those categories.

Talk yourself around in cirlcles all you want there is ZERO comparison between a child enduring ;

a) forced haricut
or
b) multiple repeated severe beatings and rapes.

mloc wrote: »

This is a massive cop out. Even though there are clear and often violence-inciting fundamental diferences between religions, you hold them to be in general true?

No it isn't. I consider there to be truth contained within all religions. I don't believe them to be completely true however, and some religions are more true than others. For example I would consider Judaism and Islam to contain a lot of truth in comparison to what I consider the ultimate truth, Christianity. Makes sense no?

mloc wrote: »

Fairytales are told to children with the intention of, to some extent, being allegorical, symbolic and holding interpretative truth just as religious texts are often allegorical, symbolic and holding interpretative truth. Religion, in both function and form, are fairly tales for grown ups.

Fairytales are clearly written in the intention that they are fiction however. Religious texts are written in the intention that it is revealed truth that has been received to us by prophets. They are profoundly different, hence why bookshops seperate the religion section from the fiction. If you can certifiably show me that the intention of the Biblical text was to be fiction I will accept that you are indeed correct. I have serious doubts that you can though, hence why I think using words like "delusional", "fairytales" and other things are just patronising nonsense.

mloc wrote: »

I would suggest from credulous fools often seduced into sacrificing property by fear and power.

Hang on a second. Are you suggesting that people who follow Christianity are credulous fools?

mloc wrote: »

Religion corrupted, maligned and twisted science to fit its own needs for centuries; any break away thinkers for many years were excommunicated or worse. Science has long out grown religion and in almost all ways, deprecates it.

I don't know where people get this notion, you or anyone actually. Science is a secular discipline, it doesn't aim to prove or disprove religion. As such I can conclude you are again, talking anti-theist nonsense.

As for excommunications and the like, as someone who has never been a member of Catholicism in my entire life, I don't think that I should really have to be accountable for the actions of any Pope.

Luckily Christianity has moved on from such corruption, and Christianity will continue to progress and to accept the faith that Jesus really taught and keep true to the Gospel that we have been commanded to protect.

mloc wrote: »

Just as much of Islam thinking is plagiarised from Christianity, much of Christianity is plagiarised from Judaism, much of Judaism is plagiarised from both Pagan and Egypto-African beliefs. It all stems back to basic homan morality with a few fantastical elements tagged on for good measure.

It isn't plagiarised I wouldn't say. Christianity clearly said that it was descended from the former Judaism that had existed at the time, as did Islam. Infact three quarters of the Christian Bible shares texts which Jews would also commonly study. Y'shua ben Nazerat (Jesus of Nazareth) according to Christians is the Jewish Messiah, as such to be able to make such a claim one would have to show that Jesus was consistent with Judaism and that He indeed had fulfilled the prophecies which are contained in the prophetic books of the Jewish Tanakh.

As for Judaism being plagiarised from paganism there is no evidence whatsoever for this, and there are passages where the Jewish people were commanded to avoid paganism such as the religions of Ba'al, Molech, Asherah and the other pagan gods that were being professed at the time and not to forget the Lord their God who had delivered them from the land of Egypt. I'd like you to substantiate your claim.

mloc wrote: »

This is perhaps true, from a historical perspective. Humans often use fantastical explanations to cover holes in understanding. However, we have evolved beyond this and there exists no need for religion any longer. If you compare religious (in particular christian) beliefs now to that 100 years ago, the differences have arose through science demolishing the superstitions and lies that tethered us to the church.

Christian beliefs are pretty much consistent between 100 years ago and now. Again if you could actually discuss some of these it might be a help.

"Lie". Bear in mind that lying actually indicates that the people professing Christianity believe it to be a lie. I certainly don't, I consider it to be the truth.