Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

silverharp · 16-04-2015 02:49PM

MaxWig wrote: »

The beliefs of people can be horrendous.

People, not religions, are prejudiced.

People, not religions, are cruel.

Your implication is that non-religious people are more prone to enlightened beliefs, and I find that dubious to say the least.

By and large educated people tend to have enlightened beliefs , give them a religion of hate and they will wear those clothes very well. Bad religion is like bad government it gets good people to do bad things. Do you think someone like David Quinn would campaign against gay rights if he wasn't a christian? No would be the reasonable answer.

MaxWig · 16-04-2015 02:59PM

silverharp wrote: »

By and large educated people tend to have enlightened beliefs , give them a religion of hate and they will wear those clothes very well. Bad religion is like bad government it gets good people to do bad things. Do you think someone like David Quinn would campaign against gay rights if he wasn't a christian? No would be the reasonable answer.

But for every David Quinn, there are thousands of christians who hold no ill will towards others (outside the usual set of petty prejudices that constitute the average individual's psychology).

The only difference with Quinn and his ilk is that they seems incapable of recognising their own fears and prejudices for what they are.

They hang their fears on one group, in much the same way that a child places theirs on the boogie man, or the average racist places theirs on an ethnic minority.

For me, Quinn's issue is a psychological one, not a religious one.

Its unfair to take what is a benign concept, in this case - religion, and blame it.

Quinn is a bigot! Not his religion.

It's the same religion (to a degree) as my grandmother looked to, and she didn't have a bigoted bone in her body.

SO I'm not sure 'No' is a reasonable answer.

We don't need religion for the other bigotries - we just need human fear

(And if you think it's (classroom based) education that is responsible for the advancement of gay rights in this country, I'd think again. I know for me it was exposure to culture - cinema, books and music, friendships etc.)

silverharp · 16-04-2015 03:03PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Saying something positive or over the top about a car is completely different from insulting other people for the choices they make.

WRT to religion... or holding a belief......there are some who not only ridicule the religion.... but also ridicule the people who chose to believe in said religon.

If you don't believe in gardening... that's fine... that is your choice.... but that does not give you the right to insult all gardeners, referring to them as weak feable minded liars.

I don't think you understand the difference here.

It depends in the situation I have no reason to call Christians liars , but if commenting on someone that believes the earth is 6000 years old or that Noah's ark was real I would be happy to describe them as feable minded. Because their befiefs are designed to be not open to evidence

silverharp · 16-04-2015 03:37PM

MaxWig wrote: »

But for every David Quinn, there are thousands of christians who hold no ill will towards others (outside the usual set of petty prejudices that constitute the average individual's psychology).

The only difference with Quinn and his ilk is that they seems incapable of recognising their own fears and prejudices for what they are.

They hang their fears on one group, in much the same way that a child places theirs on the boogie man, or the average racist places theirs on an ethnic minority.

For me, Quinn's issue is a psychological one, not a religious one.

Its unfair to take what is a benign concept, in this case - religion, and blame it.

Quinn is a bigot! Not his religion.

It's the same religion (to a degree) as my grandmother looked to, and she didn't have a bigoted bone in her body.

SO I'm not sure 'No' is a reasonable answer.

We don't need religion for the other bigotries - we just need human fear

(And if you think it's (classroom based) education that is responsible for the advancement of gay rights in this country, I'd think again. I know for me it was exposure to culture - cinema, books and music, friendships etc.)

Why is religion benign? Its intended to be controlling , it creates an artificial power block based on nothing and as it is isnt based on sound psych. assumptions it could be damaging to people as it creates artificial guilt which is unhealthy and a cycle of dependacy to relieve that guilt. Scientology would be criticised for the same reasons

MaxWig · 16-04-2015 03:41PM

silverharp wrote: »

Why is religion benign? Its intended to be controlling , it creates an artificial power block based on nothing and as it is isnt based on sound psych. assumptions it could be damaging to people as it creates artificial guilt which is unhealthy and a cycle of dependacy to relieve that guilt. Scientology would be criticised for the same reasons

We have (created) religion because we are guilty - we are not guilty because we have religion.

We put into religion, not vice versa.

You say religion is intended to be controlling. That is again, plainly wrong.

People use religion to control for sure, but keep it rational. It is the human that is the problem, not the religion.

You will be burning books and records next, because they are controlling young people's minds

ABC101 · 16-04-2015 03:48PM

silverharp wrote: »

Why is religion benign? Its intended to be controlling , it creates an artificial power block based on nothing and as it is isnt based on sound psych. assumptions it could be damaging to people as it creates artificial guilt which is unhealthy and a cycle of dependacy to relieve that guilt. Scientology would be criticised for the same reasons

Religious people would say the opposite, Religon offering a pathway / roadmap out of the material world (and all its limitations/ rules) to the spiritual world.

In addition I think you are using the word 'controlling' inappropriately.

Almost all organisations / clubs / societies / nations have rules / regulations / procedures / codes of practice which are clearly laid out.

If you are a member of a card playing club which meet every Wednesday night... Does that mean you would complain about the club being 'controlling' as it meets on a Wednesday night?

tommy2bad · 16-04-2015 03:58PM

silverharp wrote: »

Your analogy breaks down because everyone that owns a "ford" will say that great things will happen if you own one. If might fly or drive across water or if its in a crash it might repair itself. Oh and because fords are so cool they will be the only cars allowed on certain motorways....

I had a Ford, now I'm an afordist, bloody thing never went right.

marienbad · 16-04-2015 03:59PM

ABC101 wrote: »

If you are a member of a card playing club which meet every Wednesday night... Does that mean you would complain about the club being 'controlling' as it meets on a Wednesday night?

I would only complain if that club tried to have its rules applied to everyone - members and non members alike .

For example - if it could dismiss non card playing people from tax payer funded institutions.

If it could have a say in procedures totally unrelated to card playing .

If it insisted that a call to card playing be broadcast twice daily by the tax payer funded TV station.

And that's just for starters .

silverharp · 16-04-2015 04:09PM

MaxWig wrote: »

We have (created) religion because we are guilty - we are not guilty because we have religion.

We put into religion, not vice versa.

You say religion is intended to be controlling. That is again, plainly wrong.

People use religion to control for sure, but keep it rational. It is the human that is the problem, not the religion.

You will be burning books and records next, because they are controlling young people's minds

I'm guessing one of the main reasons religion began was because they thought they were offending the local gods and suffered bad weather or food shortages or volcano's etc.
As nature didn't change an increasing list of things to feel guilty about were learned and passed on. Now Christians have a god that convicts them of thought crimes , their sexuality or because they don't have enough faith in something that there isnt any evidence for.
Why would I want to burn records? Kids are generally raised to separate fact from fiction

ABC101 · 16-04-2015 04:38PM

marienbad wrote: »

I would only complain if that club tried to have its rules applied to everyone - members and non members alike .

For example - if it could dismiss non card playing people from tax payer funded institutions.

If it could have a say in procedures totally unrelated to card playing .

If it insisted that a call to card playing be broadcast twice daily by the tax payer funded TV station.

And that's just for starters .

Marien..... I don't think anybody frog marches you to Mass every Sunday morning!

Ireland historically was / is a Christian country..... because the overwhelming majority of the population were / continue to be Christian, in particular R.C.

I went to a R.C. school, and there were CoI pupils in it as well. They got exactly the same education as I did.... they attended Religion class.... which mainly discussed Christianity issues. There were a few foreign students in the class as well... who did not believe in any form of spirituality.... they just sat at the back of the class... doing homework for other subjects. Religion class was only 2 or 3 times a week. No big deal really! Having been though it myself... I don't recall anybody getting upset about it.

Yes times are a changing.... but it is going to take a lot more time before the population of Christians drop below 50% of the total population.

The Angelus as you refer to them... about 2 minutes of every day.... hardly a massive taxpayer provision to RTE now is it? Anyway there are other radio stations which don't have the call to prayer (as PK puts it) at all. It's not as if the RC demands that all the radio / TV stations have to have it.... is it?

Do you think St Patrick's day should be done away with as well? After all it is about the coming of Christianity to Ireland!

Should Christmas / Easter Holidays be banned? Schools / businesse's work right right through the end of year etc?

ABC101 · 16-04-2015 04:41PM

silverharp wrote: »

I'm guessing one of the main reasons religion began was because they thought they were offending the local gods and suffered bad weather or food shortages or volcano's etc.
As nature didn't change an increasing list of things to feel guilty about were learned and passed on. Now Christians have a god that convicts them of thought crimes , their sexuality or because they don't have enough faith in something that there isnt any evidence for.
Why would I want to burn records? Kids are generally raised to separate fact from fiction

Ah... you know very well the R.C. does not convict people for sexual orientation. It is not a religious offense to be gay. Practising homosexuality and being homosexual are two distinct things.

marienbad · 16-04-2015 05:01PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Marien..... I don't think anybody frog marches you to Mass every Sunday morning!

Ireland historically was / is a Christian country..... because the overwhelming majority of the population were / continue to be Christian, in particular R.C.

I went to a R.C. school, and there were CoI pupils in it as well. They got exactly the same education as I did.... they attended Religion class.... which mainly discussed Christianity issues. There were a few foreign students in the class as well... who did not believe in any form of spirituality.... they just sat at the back of the class... doing homework for other subjects. Religion class was only 2 or 3 times a week. No big deal really! Having been though it myself... I don't recall anybody getting upset about it.

Yes times are a changing.... but it is going to take a lot more time before the population of Christians drop below 50% of the total population.

The Angelus as you refer to them... about 2 minutes of every day.... hardly a massive taxpayer provision to RTE now is it? Anyway there are other radio stations which don't have the call to prayer (as PK puts it) at all. It's not as if the RC demands that all the radio / TV stations have to have it.... is it?

Do you think St Patrick's day should be done away with as well? After all it is about the coming of Christianity to Ireland!

Should Christmas / Easter Holidays be banned? Schools / businesse's work right right through the end of year etc?

You are missing the point ABC- what an organisation does within its own premises and with its own members is absolutely no concern to me.

What Ireland was historically is irrelevant to the issue . If it was then contraception divorce etc would still be illegal . Do you think they should be illegal ? If we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion a lot more would be illegal . We would have a Christian version of Sharia law .

As for pupils sitting through religion class 2/3 times a week being no big deal ,then I presume you would have no objection to Christian pupils sitting through Humanism classes 2/3 times a week ?

As for Paddy's day , I have no problem with it ,as I have none with Labour Day, Women's Day ,Mothers Day etc . And the same with Christmas and Easter , after all they are holidays just appropriated by Christianity anyway.

What is so wrong with the separation of Church and State anyway ?

marienbad · 16-04-2015 05:02PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Ah... you know very well the R.C. does not convict people for sexual orientation. It is not a religious offense to be gay. Practising homosexuality and being homosexual are two distinct things.

No they are not , at least not in the real world . Correct me if I am wrong but can an unconsummated marriage be grounds for annulment ?

ABC101 · 16-04-2015 06:56PM

marienbad wrote: »

No they are not , at least not in the real world . Correct me if I am wrong but can an unconsummated marriage be grounds for annulment ?

Not sure what your first point is here....

However I state... Gay people are not persecuted by the R.C. Church. Gay people are not condemmed by the R.C. Chruch.

Pope Francis has mentioned this... most recently on a return trip to Argentina.... "Who am I to judge" I think were his words.

As for your second point about unconsummated marriage being grounds for annulment. Well what is wrong with that?

I ask you..... if you entered into marriage....with the intention of having a loving stable relationship... which is open to having children. Then it turns out that your husband has no interest in having children. Then in effect you would have been lied to. Your husband... would have married you for other reasons.. perhaps money... or what ever.

Having children.... is important for many people. The only way you can have children naturally with a person of the opposite sex. If it turns out.... that the person you married....has lied to you... that they have no interest in being procreative... then you would have every right to look for an annulment.

It would be akin to entering into a contract with a employer... you work for 30 days... and get a monthly salary. If your employer decides not to pay your salary... then that is a broken contract. You have a right to seek a seperation from your existing employer for breach of contract. In addition you would have a right to seek wages not yet recieved ... possibly through a labour court.

Marriage is a contract as well.

The R.C. Church recognises... that some people will get duped / lied to... prior to getting married. And that the process of annulment is a good thing. It allows a person who has been decieved... to annul the contract and be free to enter into a new contract with somebody else.

What's wrong with that?

katydid · 16-04-2015 06:59PM

ABC101 wrote: »

And that the process of annulment is a good thing. It allows a person who has been decieved... to annul the contract and be free to enter into a new contract with somebody else.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing, if it's done fairly and is above board. But it seems that if you're rich and famous you get special treatment - look at the princess in Monaco, who got an easy peasy annulment.

ABC101 · 16-04-2015 07:05PM

katydid wrote: »

Nothing, if it's done fairly and is above board. But it seems that if you're rich and famous you get special treatment - look at the princess in Monaco, who got an easy peasy annulment.

If you think getting a R.C. Chruch annulment is hard...... you should check out how hard it is to get a Irish State annulment of your marriage.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_annulment/nullity_of_marriage.html

They are as rare as rocking horse **it.

a postere · 16-04-2015 09:40PM

katydid wrote: »

Nothing, if it's done fairly and is above board. But it seems that if you're rich and famous you get special treatment - look at the princess in Monaco, who got an easy peasy annulment.

And if that doesn't work out you could always set up your own "church", real estate company, garrison admin offices, and tax collection agency all rolled into one, like good old Henry VIII

marienbad · 16-04-2015 10:28PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Not sure what your first point is here....

As for your second point about unconsummated marriage being grounds for annulment. Well what is wrong with that?

The point I am making is that the silly charade practiced about homosexuality not being a sin, but homosexual sex being a huge sin (you would think bigger than most other sins with all the attention it gets ) is ridiculous . The Love the sinner hate the sin cliché

As the poet said :

''Oh body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?''

So how do you know the dancer from the dance ? The answer is you can't . That is why an unconsummated marriage can be annulled. The Church recognises that the totality of a person, including their total sexuality is part of a person, indivisible . And thus has a right to full expression .

And it is the same for a LGBT person, or it should be.

ABC101 · 17-04-2015 12:23AM

marienbad wrote: »

The point I am making is that the silly charade practiced about homosexuality not being a sin, but homosexual sex being a huge sin (you would think bigger than most other sins with all the attention it gets ) is ridiculous . The Love the sinner hate the sin cliché

As the poet said :

''Oh body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?''

So how do you know the dancer from the dance ? The answer is you can't . That is why an unconsummated marriage can be annulled. The Church recognises that the totality of a person, including their total sexuality is part of a person, indivisible . And thus has a right to full expression .

And it is the same for a LGBT person, or it should be.

Ok ....so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the RC Church recognises a person has the right to express themselves.

And as the sexual orientation of the person is part of that person, therefore the sexuality has a right also to be expressed.

Am I correct in this interpretation of your understanding on this issue?

a postere · 17-04-2015 12:53AM

marienbad wrote: »

The point I am making is that the silly charade practiced about homosexuality not being a sin, but homosexual sex being a huge sin (you would think bigger than most other sins with all the attention it gets ) is ridiculous . The Love the sinner hate the sin cliché

Yeah but who does it get all the attention from ? The media and the haters of Catholics are the actually the ones that are obsessed with giving it 24/7 attention. The fact is homosexuality/heterosexuality is not a sin, sex outside marriage is. I'm at mass every week, and I've never in my life heard a single sermon on it in my lifetime, and I'm middle aged. Hardly much of priority. Pope Francis keeps telling them he has other things he's more interested in. What exactly do they expect the Church to say every time they are asked the same questions over and over and over and over, "ahh sure Catholics should just hump away outside marriage and never bother about it, great job". Even if the Church was running around actively promoting homosexual acts outside marriage, and abortion as form of contraceptive, they would still be hated for some other perceived yarn, so who cares what the haters think. Haters are going to hate.

MaxWig · 17-04-2015 07:52AM

silverharp wrote: »

As nature didn't change an increasing list of things to feel guilty about were learned and passed on. Now Christians have a god that convicts them of thought crimes , their sexuality or because they don't have enough faith in something that there isnt any evidence for.

We convict ourselves - and each other - of thought crimes. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar, or deluded.

And religion has nothing to do with that. At least not in creating the phenomenon.

Why would I want to burn records? Kids are generally raised to separate fact from fiction

All kids, or just kids from non-religious households?

tommy2bad · 17-04-2015 09:24AM

marienbad wrote: »

The point I am making is that the silly charade practiced about homosexuality not being a sin, but homosexual sex being a huge sin (you would think bigger than most other sins with all the attention it gets ) is ridiculous . The Love the sinner hate the sin cliché

As the poet said :

''Oh body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?''

So how do you know the dancer from the dance ? The answer is you can't . That is why an unconsummated marriage can be annulled. The Church recognises that the totality of a person, including their total sexuality is part of a person, indivisible . And thus has a right to full expression .

And it is the same for a LGBT person, or it should be.

I'm not sure that's the reason, an unconsumate marriage is void because it fails the " become one flesh" part. I doubt proper expression of a person's sexuality was a consideration.

marienbad · 17-04-2015 01:15PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Ok ....so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the RC Church recognises a person has the right to express themselves.

And as the sexual orientation of the person is part of that person, therefore the sexuality has a right also to be expressed.

Am I correct in this interpretation of your understanding on this issue?

Sexuality is as much an intrinsic part of a person as the colour of their eyes . The RCC recognises than by accepting that non consummation is grounds for annulment . A person has a right to fulfil their sexuality .

All I am saying is follow that logic and there is no separating homosexual people from homosexual acts , the act is the person. So lets stop the charade about loving the sinner and hating the sin

marienbad · 17-04-2015 01:17PM

a postere wrote: »

Yeah but who does it get all the attention from ? The media and the haters of Catholics are the actually the ones that are obsessed with giving it 24/7 attention. The fact is homosexuality/heterosexuality is not a sin, sex outside marriage is. I'm at mass every week, and I've never in my life heard a single sermon on it in my lifetime, and I'm middle aged. Hardly much of priority. Pope Francis keeps telling them he has other things he's more interested in. What exactly do they expect the Church to say every time they are asked the same questions over and over and over and over, "ahh sure Catholics should just hump away outside marriage and never bother about it, great job". Even if the Church was running around actively promoting homosexual acts outside marriage, and abortion as form of contraceptive, they would still be hated for some other perceived yarn, so who cares what the haters think. Haters are going to hate.

This just sounds like something on the conspiracy forum. Maybe the RCC are 'hated' for all that went wrong in the last 70 years ? Is that a possibility do you think ?

a postere · 17-04-2015 01:27PM

marienbad wrote: »

This just sounds like something on the conspiracy forum. Maybe the RCC are 'hated' for all that went wrong in the last 70 years ? Is that a possibility do you think ?

I wouldn't worry about it, they've been hated by Christainphobes for 2000 years, and will continue to be so, even if they started to advocate for homosexual sex, and abortion as a contraceptive, as they are supposed to, according to some.

ABC101 · 17-04-2015 01:46PM

marienbad wrote: »

Sexuality is as much an intrinsic part of a person as the colour of their eyes . The RCC recognises than by accepting that non consummation is grounds for annulment . A person has a right to fulfil their sexuality .

All I am saying is follow that logic and there is no separating homosexual people from homosexual acts , the act is the person. So lets stop the charade about loving the sinner and hating the sin

O.K. I think I finally understand your train of thought / logic here.

In fairness to you.... I kind of admire your logical deduction.... but I see a major flaw in the logic, well from my perspective anyway!!

It is not a case that the R.C. church allows grounds for annullment because one of the spouses is refusing to have sex.

The R.C. church allows grounds for annullment because one of the spouses is refusing to be open to procreation, i.e. having a child by virute of having sexual intercourse.

It is not the act, or the lack of "the act" ... it is the end result which is important i.e. procreation / having a child.

Up until relatively recently... the only way a woman could get pregnant is by having intercourse with a man. That was the natural order / natural progression of having children.

So by virtue of one spouse refusing to consummate a marriage... they are denying the end result... i.e. having a child.

There are people... who do not want to have a child... but they are willing to engage in sexual activity with another person. The R.C. Church sees this as against the natural order / natural purpose of sexual intercourse... and as a result does not approve of it.

As homosexual acts are by themselves unable to arise to procreation... i.e. two men alone or two women alone cannot create a child naturally, therefore the church sees it as against the natural order of things. Therefore it does not approve of homosexual acts.

This is why the R.C. Church does not condem a Gay person... but condems a homosexual act instead.

MaxWig · 17-04-2015 01:51PM

ABC101 wrote: »

This is why the R.C. Church does not condem a Gay person... but condems a homosexual act instead.

Which is why it's pretty understandable that they are loathed in 2015

marienbad · 17-04-2015 04:20PM

a postere wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it, they've been hated by Christainphobes for 2000 years, and will continue to be so, even if they started to advocate for homosexual sex, and abortion as a contraceptive, as they are supposed to, according to some.

And they have done a fair bit of hating themselves ,too don't you think ?

a postere · 17-04-2015 04:32PM

marienbad wrote: »

And they have done a fair bit of hating themselves ,too don't you think ?

Yeah but not all Atheists are haters, some of them simply don't believe, and aren't obsessed with Christianity, and just get on with their own lives.

marienbad · 17-04-2015 04:33PM

a postere wrote: »

Yeah but not all Atheists are haters, some of them simply don't believe, and aren't obsessed with Christianity, and just get on with their own lives.

Wouldn't it be great if the Christians behaved likewise ?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments