Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
143

[quote]pushharder wrote:
One of the truly ominous viewpoints presented here (can’t remember who said it) is that our morals and subsequently our laws and its trappings were developed within us as a method to “advance the species”. Wow. Think about the implications of that gem.

Orion knows exactly where I’m coming from. What about the rest of you?[/quote]

But I do not agree with you.

I am just saying that there is very little practical difference between your views and mine and that you at least know where you are coming from whereas they see their unchecked premises as “being rational”.

I like people who at least know that they are religious better because usually they have thousands of years of moral reasoning to fall back on.

147

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
One of the truly ominous viewpoints presented here (can’t remember who said it) is that our morals and subsequently our laws and its trappings were developed within us as a method to “advance the species”. Wow. Think about the implications of that gem.

Orion knows exactly where I’m coming from. What about the rest of you?[/quote]

But I do not agree with you.

I am just saying that there is very little practical difference between your views and mine and that you at least know where you are coming from whereas they see their unchecked premises as “being rational”.

I like people who at least know that they are religious better because usually they have thousands of years of moral reasoning to fall back on.[/quote]

…seriously? I mean, come one… really?

149

…message for pushharder; message for pushharder: i put you on ignore yesterday and i quite enjoy the respite from your often innane ramblings. These measures will stay in effect until i deem you worthy of my attention once more. End of message…

151

The existence,or lack thereof,of a god/gods almost seems superfluous.As human beings we seem to have a built in need or predisposition to believe in something greater and outside of,ourselves.There was an article I read on this recently,can’t remember where.

There is obviously some benefit to be accrued from this in forwarding our species,both individually and collectively.Whether by allowing us to build a stable,enduring mythology that gives us a framework of morality in the absence of any supporting evidence,or some other more obscure mechanism,who knows.

There are many different paths that have been followed through the ages.Christianity,Buddhism,Hinduism,Judaism,etc,etc,all look like different approaches to fill the same need.It almost appears that it’s the structure they give that’s important,not so much the actual belief or rationale behind it.

152

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
The existence,or lack thereof,of a god/gods almost seems superfluous.As human beings we seem to have a built in need or predisposition to believe in something greater and outside of,ourselves.There was an article I read on this recently,can’t remember where.

There is obviously some benefit to be accrued from this in forwarding our species,both individually and collectively.Whether by allowing us to build a stable,enduring mythology that gives us a framework of morality in the absence of any supporting evidence,or some other more obscure mechanism,who knows.

There are many different paths that have been followed through the ages.Christianity,Buddhism,Hinduism,Judaism,etc,etc,all look like different approaches to fill the same need.It almost appears that it’s the structure they give that’s important,not so much the actual belief or rationale behind it.

[/quote]

Yeah, I guess Occam’s Razor only applies when we’re talking about “science.”

153

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
No one is arresting the pope.[/quote]

But Mak would give himself a facial or two if it ever happened. He wouldn’t wipe it off for months.[/quote]

I would. The idea of someone who aids child molesters going to jail gets me off.[/quote]

I’m convinced it has a lot more to do with your hatred of religion especially Christianity than your hatred of child molesters. I do however think your hatred of child molesters is sincere. I also think it is a righteous hatred.

Having said that how do you reconcile your hatred of Christianity and religion in general with a sense of righteousness? How does one have a moral compass as you obviously do and yet eschew the foundation of morality?

As an atheist and evolutionist how is the morality of one animal (you or I) transcend the morality of another animal (the guy down the street who feels differently than you and I)?

How does all this work in your mind?

Where is your foundation? Why is it superior (to you) to that of the other guy, e.g., the pedophile and his foundation of morality?

These are all serious questions. No baiting. No sarcasm. No derision.[/quote]

Serious question. No baiting. No sarcasm. No derision.

Why do you hold atheists’ morality in contempt, when you yourself seem to adhere to Biblical morality only when it doesn’t interfere with your chosen lifestyle.

I seem to recall from my childhood that there were prohibitions against adultery and coveting thy neighbors wife in the Bible.
[/quote]

Wrong thread.

I’ve answered your questions in detail elsewhere. Vast detail.[/quote]

It WAS a thread about arresting the Pope. You’ve turned it into a anti-atheist thread.

Could you point out where you’ve answered my question. Searching doesn’t do any good.

155

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Why are people berating the Pope and the Catholic Church? I don’t know why, maybe because we have so much influence when it comes to morals. However, no one has proven to me yet that the Pope had anything to do with those cases, actually the case that he is being mostly blamed for Murphy, he came in three years to late, Murphy had been dead for sometime before Benedict was put in position to enforce doctrine on Sin and Morality.

156

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?

Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”

This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.

Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]

…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]

Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.

What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]

…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades![/quote]

So you are saying I am responsible for someone’s else actions because I am part of the Catholic Church? I should go to jail, even if I disagree with sexual assault? Interesting, you take what the Media says instead of looking at the facts of the dates when people were given power to do things, and if things were even brought to a certain person with power do something. No you didn’t otherwise you would see that Pope Benedict was not given information on certain circumstances he is being blamed for ‘letting’ go, and other circumstances he was not in power to deal with. Yes, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of people underneath him, however criminally you’ll have a hard case to prove. He is taking responsibility by establishing new ways to stop these violations, and apologizing to the families of victims.

157

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?

Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”

This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.

Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]

…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]

Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.

What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]

…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades![/quote]

Have fun making your point, Eph. You are arguing something I never brought up nor had any intention of arguing.
[/quote]

…no worries mate, the hole Rome is digging for itself is too deep to crawl out from unscathed…
[/quote]

The people who perpetrated these crimes should be punished and the victims or potential victims protected. I’m pretty sure I already said that once.[/quote]

…and apparently those crimes reach the highest echelons of the catholic church, and as such the pope should be held accountable for those crimes…
[/quote]

He is being accountable for the actions of those priest, however how can you throw a man in prison who had no knowledge and at some points no power to correct the situation.

158

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

If it’s so obvious, you should have no problem justifying for us just why this is so.

(btw, “religious damnation” is not the reason most Christians use to justify our own moral opposition to this practice)[/quote]

…because i say it’s wrong to sexually abuse a defenseless child. Because the law states it’s wrong. What more do you need?[/quote]

Someone else says it is not wrong, and other countries do not have laws that state it…we need to know how you get your morality, even you stated in another thread about strongest of the fittest like the cannibals, and many have practices that involve children sexually. I’m not following.

159

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Well, the term wrong seemed to beg for further definition.

And you conveniently skipped over part of 12: HARM.

It seems obvious to me that to harm another being is inherently wrong, and it also seems obvious to me that you agree with me on this feeling.

You just want me to justify it without God. Like that makes our similar feelings different somehow.

I have my reasoning and logic to fall back on, and you have your faith in God.

What’s the difference, if we reach the same conclusion? Are we arguing semantics cuz we’re bored? Obviously.

Oh, and Push, wolves are just badass. It’s how they roll.[/quote]

Your feelings are the same, but you deny the source. A lot of kids believe going to school harms them, look at the tantrums and tears on the first days of school. And, we still make them go to school. So who decides what harms them if it is not them?

160

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Most likely where the dictionary got most of its terms: society. The collective agreement.

What’s your definition? And how does raping a child, not just pedophilia (subtle, disgusting difference: the former is always forced and unwanted, while the latter [as in Greece] can be consensual) fit into that? I’m seriously interested, no bullshit.

And other animals don’t decide. Nor do they contemplate morality. That’s the whole human part of existence.

Of course, you may counter by saying, “How do you know? Are you Dr. Doolittle? Do bears tell you that you’re evil for not raping kids?”

Yes, I speak to bears. But only Pedobear says that. The rest are chill.[/quote]

Where did society get it’s ideas from?