| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
IlBeBauck@gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
 |
|
On Jul 7, 2:41 am, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:45 pm, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com
wrote:
IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
The Following explains the concept of Nihlism and how it is
foundationally part of Atheism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihlism
It most certainly doesn't. In fact neither of the words atheist or
atheism appear until the notes at the bottom of the page. The main
content of the piece associates it more with religion: as in
"Nietzsche used the phrase 'Christians and other nihilists'..."
Other than that, your piece is yet again a diatribe of
unsubstantiated and already repudiated allegations.
Specifically, you again seem to allege that religious morals are in
some way superior to rationally derived morals - a notion that we
have already shown to be contrary to all the evidence.
In addition, you still seem to be making an appeal to the existence
of some sort of 'god' figure - a notion that we have already
established has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Each one of your postings seems to spectacularly fail on the
fundamentals. One is driven to wonder why you bother.
regards, Ian
REPLY: Ian, Are you calling Atheisms philosophy of Moral Relativism
(man deciding what he wants to do based on feelings and urges)
'rationally derived morals' !!!?? How utterly silly that is !
Absolute Religious Morals and Standards for living was what we had
prior to Post Modernism / atheisms influence ... and everyone had a
clearcut standard on how to live right, how to treat ones fellow man,
and why crossing over the line was wrong. We can see the consequences
of a society based on MANS authority which is atheism played out to
the end. Its so bad that folks like yourself dont even know why
something is right and wrong . I wonder why YOU bother to keep
ignoring the outcomes of a culture that follows your line of
'rationally derived morals' ! Here, let me help you a bit : 33
STD's , AIDS and HPV leading to countless fatalities, butchering of
developing unborn human beings for the sake of sexual hedonism ,
adultery gone rampant, teenage pregnancies skyrocketing, young girls
being encouraged to be tramps by the media, young boys being
encouraged to view girls as a toy, ad nausuem. Or...is it that you
just dont care (which is yet another inherent atheistic attitude). ?
Firstly, as you've avoided dealing with the points I raised about
the link you provided on Nihilism and have instead just changed the
subject, we can take it that you've conceded that your posting was
misleading nonsense and simply wrong - yet again. Just more Lying
for Jesus - saying what you want to be true rather than what is
actually true. Which brings me to your latest post above...
I've just explained in another post about condoms and Africa, why
relative rational morals are clearly and demonstrably superior.
Religious morals just lead to deaths in Africa, genital mutilation,
barbaric punishments, suppression of women, sexual abuse of women
and blatant discrimination to name just a few examples. Not to
mention how religion (and its strange chastity demands on clergy)
has led to swathes of child abuse in the US, Australia, UK and many
other places (to the point where claims against the churches are
bankrupting them) and the subsequent utterly shameful cover up of
these actions by bishops and the RC church hierarchy all the way up
to the Vatican.
We've also clearly demonstrated, again using the evidence, that
there is no indication whatsoever that christians are in any way
more moral than atheists, in fact the opposite appears to be the
case. We've also pointed out that religious groups running chastity
campaigns fare worse for STD and teenage pregnancy than the
population at large using rationally based education programmes.
So, when faced with the evidence your precepts fall flat on their
face again.
So, if you wish to make a point then - make it and present the
evidence to support it. That way, you may even have a chance of
carrying an argument instead of exposing yourself as a pedlar of
unsubstantiated religious twaddle - a Liar for Jesus, as you've
managed to do so well above.he
regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
REPLY: The evidence is in the tenets of atheism : Moral Relativism
makes anything permissable. If atheists were advocates of morality as
you claim, they certainly wouldnt object to the highest standards of
morality and ethics of the Bible. They wouldnt chastise the 10
Commandments and Jesus'teachings. They wouldnt scorn common morals as
'taliban oriented' and 'oppressive' . The crux of the atheists
lifestyle (as you are aware) is for maximum unhindered lifestyle
freedom ; its like placing a child in front of a Cookie Jar with no
established rules and its up to the child to decide whats right from
wrong. Guess what the child decides 'is right' ?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 7, 2:41 am, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com
wrote:
IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:45 pm, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com
wrote:
IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
The Following explains the concept of Nihlism and how it is
foundationally part of Atheism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihlism
It most certainly doesn't. In fact neither of the words atheist or
atheism appear until the notes at the bottom of the page. The main
content of the piece associates it more with religion: as in
"Nietzsche used the phrase 'Christians and other nihilists'..."
Other than that, your piece is yet again a diatribe of
unsubstantiated and already repudiated allegations.
Specifically, you again seem to allege that religious morals are in
some way superior to rationally derived morals - a notion that we
have already shown to be contrary to all the evidence.
In addition, you still seem to be making an appeal to the existence
of some sort of 'god' figure - a notion that we have already
established has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Each one of your postings seems to spectacularly fail on the
fundamentals. One is driven to wonder why you bother.
regards, Ian
REPLY: Ian, Are you calling Atheisms philosophy of Moral Relativism
(man deciding what he wants to do based on feelings and urges)
'rationally derived morals' !!!?? How utterly silly that is !
Absolute Religious Morals and Standards for living was what we had
prior to Post Modernism / atheisms influence ... and everyone had a
clearcut standard on how to live right, how to treat ones fellow man,
and why crossing over the line was wrong. We can see the consequences
of a society based on MANS authority which is atheism played out to
the end. Its so bad that folks like yourself dont even know why
something is right and wrong . I wonder why YOU bother to keep
ignoring the outcomes of a culture that follows your line of
'rationally derived morals' ! Here, let me help you a bit : 33
STD's , AIDS and HPV leading to countless fatalities, butchering of
developing unborn human beings for the sake of sexual hedonism ,
adultery gone rampant, teenage pregnancies skyrocketing, young girls
being encouraged to be tramps by the media, young boys being
encouraged to view girls as a toy, ad nausuem. Or...is it that you
just dont care (which is yet another inherent atheistic attitude). ?
Firstly, as you've avoided dealing with the points I raised about
the link you provided on Nihilism and have instead just changed the
subject, we can take it that you've conceded that your posting was
misleading nonsense and simply wrong - yet again. Just more Lying
for Jesus - saying what you want to be true rather than what is
actually true. Which brings me to your latest post above...
I've just explained in another post about condoms and Africa, why
relative rational morals are clearly and demonstrably superior.
Religious morals just lead to deaths in Africa, genital mutilation,
barbaric punishments, suppression of women, sexual abuse of women
and blatant discrimination to name just a few examples. Not to
mention how religion (and its strange chastity demands on clergy)
has led to swathes of child abuse in the US, Australia, UK and many
other places (to the point where claims against the churches are
bankrupting them) and the subsequent utterly shameful cover up of
these actions by bishops and the RC church hierarchy all the way up
to the Vatican.
We've also clearly demonstrated, again using the evidence, that
there is no indication whatsoever that christians are in any way
more moral than atheists, in fact the opposite appears to be the
case. We've also pointed out that religious groups running chastity
campaigns fare worse for STD and teenage pregnancy than the
population at large using rationally based education programmes.
So, when faced with the evidence your precepts fall flat on their
face again.
So, if you wish to make a point then - make it and present the
evidence to support it. That way, you may even have a chance of
carrying an argument instead of exposing yourself as a pedlar of
unsubstantiated religious twaddle - a Liar for Jesus, as you've
managed to do so well above.he
regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
REPLY: The evidence is in the tenets of atheism : Moral Relativism
makes anything permissable.
|
You seem to ignore everything I posted above as to why this is
simply twaddle. You seem to ignore that the evidence points to STDs
and teen pregnancy being more of an issue for the religious
communities, who discourage sexual education. You seem to ignore
that religious morals are leading to death and misery yet rationally
derived morals would provide compassionate relief. You seem to
ignore that secular societies fare better than religious ones in
most measures. You seem to ignore that the religious go to prison in
much higher numbers than the non-religious.
You could hold up your end of the debate if only you provided
evidence. As it is, everyone and their dog can see that you make
blind assertions, fail to provide any supporting evidence - you
spend your time mud slinging at anyone who doesn't share your belief
in the hope that can make just some it stick.
You seem to ignore reality in favour of your world of delusions,
where the truth and the facts are those things you want to be true
rather than those things that are actually observed to be true and
factual.
So, we'll keep asking until we are blue in the face. Provide
evidence to support your notion that your god exists. Real positive
convincing evidence. Without this, all your precepts remain as
nothing more than superstition - deluded fairy belief.
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
IlBeBauck@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
On Jul 7, 2:41 am, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:45 pm, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com
wrote:
IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
The Following explains the concept of Nihlism and how it is
foundationally part of Atheism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihlism
It most certainly doesn't. In fact neither of the words atheist or
atheism appear until the notes at the bottom of the page. The main
content of the piece associates it more with religion: as in
"Nietzsche used the phrase 'Christians and other nihilists'..."
Other than that, your piece is yet again a diatribe of
unsubstantiated and already repudiated allegations.
Specifically, you again seem to allege that religious morals are in
some way superior to rationally derived morals - a notion that we
have already shown to be contrary to all the evidence.
In addition, you still seem to be making an appeal to the existence
of some sort of 'god' figure - a notion that we have already
established has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Each one of your postings seems to spectacularly fail on the
fundamentals. One is driven to wonder why you bother.
regards, Ian
REPLY: Ian, Are you calling Atheisms philosophy of Moral Relativism
(man deciding what he wants to do based on feelings and urges)
'rationally derived morals' !!!?? How utterly silly that is !
Absolute Religious Morals and Standards for living was what we had
prior to Post Modernism / atheisms influence ... and everyone had a
clearcut standard on how to live right, how to treat ones fellow man,
and why crossing over the line was wrong. We can see the consequences
of a society based on MANS authority which is atheism played out to
the end. Its so bad that folks like yourself dont even know why
something is right and wrong . I wonder why YOU bother to keep
ignoring the outcomes of a culture that follows your line of
'rationally derived morals' ! Here, let me help you a bit : 33
STD's , AIDS and HPV leading to countless fatalities, butchering of
developing unborn human beings for the sake of sexual hedonism ,
adultery gone rampant, teenage pregnancies skyrocketing, young girls
being encouraged to be tramps by the media, young boys being
encouraged to view girls as a toy, ad nausuem. Or...is it that you
just dont care (which is yet another inherent atheistic attitude). ?
Firstly, as you've avoided dealing with the points I raised about
the link you provided on Nihilism and have instead just changed the
subject, we can take it that you've conceded that your posting was
misleading nonsense and simply wrong - yet again. Just more Lying
for Jesus - saying what you want to be true rather than what is
actually true. Which brings me to your latest post above...
I've just explained in another post about condoms and Africa, why
relative rational morals are clearly and demonstrably superior.
Religious morals just lead to deaths in Africa, genital mutilation,
barbaric punishments, suppression of women, sexual abuse of women
and blatant discrimination to name just a few examples. Not to
mention how religion (and its strange chastity demands on clergy)
has led to swathes of child abuse in the US, Australia, UK and many
other places (to the point where claims against the churches are
bankrupting them) and the subsequent utterly shameful cover up of
these actions by bishops and the RC church hierarchy all the way up
to the Vatican.
We've also clearly demonstrated, again using the evidence, that
there is no indication whatsoever that christians are in any way
more moral than atheists, in fact the opposite appears to be the
case. We've also pointed out that religious groups running chastity
campaigns fare worse for STD and teenage pregnancy than the
population at large using rationally based education programmes.
So, when faced with the evidence your precepts fall flat on their
face again.
So, if you wish to make a point then - make it and present the
evidence to support it. That way, you may even have a chance of
carrying an argument instead of exposing yourself as a pedlar of
unsubstantiated religious twaddle - a Liar for Jesus, as you've
managed to do so well above.
regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
REPLY: Staying on course to the OP, if Atheists are so morally
abiding as you portray Ian, how come they often chastise the Bibles
morals and ethics that are the highest known to Man, call those who
take a stand for morality 'prudish' , and mock those who choose
sexual morality including chastity and waiting till marriage before
having sex ? Or, is it that atheists pick and choose what THEY think
is 'moral' for themselves if they are so inclind to do so ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
"Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
news:IqidneLt9Mre4OnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
| Quote: |
Alwyn wrote:
In article <A5mdnWU9ZM2x8enVnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
We can see the problem with RC priests - who simply can't comply with
the chastity requirements and then inflict harm on society because they
have no normal outlet for their desires.
You've made this claim before. Can you substantiate it? It was my
impression that the rate of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy was no higher
than that by church officials in other denominations, many of whom are
married. (But I admit I haven't researched the matter in depth.)
You make a good point in that I've seen no good analysis of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
...puts the confirmed number at 0.2% but accusations running at 4%, which
is huge number. Bearing in mind the level of suppression of these
accusations in the RC church, the figure of 4% would seem deeply
disturbing and I cannot believe that this is the level seen in the rest of
society.
Almost all the coverage I've seen has been about RC priests abusing little
boys (and some girls). I don't recall seeing other denominations being
involved with as many media reports. Also, the RC church has been very
vocal in claiming that these reports have unfairly targeted it - I can't
understand why they would point this out unless the media coverage had
indeed been more for RC priests than other denominations.
|
Isn't it, to some extent, not the differences between the various credes,
but the fact that devouts such as dilv assert these moralistic christian
attitudes only to find that quite a few of *them* actually couldn't give a
sh*t about them. Infuriatingly, when confronted by this, the devouts
dismiss those who were once *their* bretheren by saying they were not
'really' christians anyway...!
In the spirit of true absolute morality (....!!!) one might be saying never
mind the percentages, never mind the numbers........ one transgressor is
sufficient to show that this type of morality does not work. When we see
numbers in their hundreds/thousands committing such crimes, the whole notion
of this morality is, in my view, blown out of the water.
The practice of then, as the RC appears to have done and continue to do so,
protecting the perpetrators by re-call to Rome, moving to other parish/town/
country even is perhaps more heinous as the organisation of religion turns
full force into power and corruption.
Then there is the cases of those who have gone unheard over centuries..
Some links, found very easily. The first has some (church) figures for ONE
(..yes, just one, albeit a large one) US archdiocese - Los Angeles.....
over 50 years, 4,000 priests faced sexual abuse allegations, 10,000 victims,
mostly boys... you don't want to extrapolate these figures world wide....!!
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/july2007/abuse_victims2.html
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=83876
http://www.dyerburdett.com/blog/category/historic-abuse/
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
In article <IqidneLt9Mre4OnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Alwyn wrote:
In article <A5mdnWU9ZM2x8enVnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
We can
see the problem with RC priests - who simply can't comply with the
chastity requirements and then inflict harm on society because they
have no normal outlet for their desires.
You've made this claim before. Can you substantiate it? It was my
impression that the rate of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy was no
higher than that by church officials in other denominations, many of
whom are married. (But I admit I haven't researched the matter in depth.)
You make a good point in that I've seen no good analysis of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
...puts the confirmed number at 0.2% but accusations running at 4%,
which is huge number. Bearing in mind the level of suppression of
these accusations in the RC church, the figure of 4% would seem
deeply disturbing and I cannot believe that this is the level seen
in the rest of society.
|
Are you acquainted with the following statistics?
'Approximately 20% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually
abused when they were children.'
Furthermore:
'Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims;
approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles
or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the
family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in
approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.'
An awful lot of fathers abuse their children and nobody hears about it;
for that reason, I believe that the figure of 4% alleged against the
Catholic clergy is likely to be quite a bit lower than that for the
general male population.
An ex-priest who has studied the problem claims:
'About 9 percent of priests in the U.S. over the past 50 years have
sexually abused a minor at least once'
<http://exchristian.net/2/2006/12/clergy-sex-abuse-widespread-across.html
| Quote: |
Almost all the coverage I've seen has been about RC priests abusing
little boys (and some girls). I don't recall seeing other
denominations being involved with as many media reports. Also, the
RC church has been very vocal in claiming that these reports have
unfairly targeted it - I can't understand why they would point this
out unless the media coverage had indeed been more for RC priests
than other denominations.
|
'But one researcher, sociologist Philip Jenkins of Pennsylvania State
University, argues that the Catholic Church is being unfairly tarred as
a result of ''religious bigotry.''
''My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence
whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to
be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination
- or indeed, than nonclergy,'' Jenkins wrote in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. ''However determined news media may be to see this affair
as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.'''
<http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/031302_abuse.htm>
'Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman
Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child
sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers
are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.'
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html>
You can hardly accuse the Christian Science Monitor of being a Catholic
source!
'The Journal of Pastoral Care reported on a survey in which 1000 senior
Southern Baptist pastors were randomly selected from 15,000 churches in
6 states. The number of pastors who anonymously reported that they had
engaged in ³inappropriate sexual behavior² was 14.1 percent. And 70.4
percent had knowledge about other ministers who had engaged in
"inappropriate sexual contact" with church members.'
<http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/alarmingnumbers.html>
It has to be noted, though, that 'inappropriate sexual contact' includes
the abuse of adult women.
The same source states:
'A Baptist-published brochure states that 35% of ministers surveyed "had
engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior." It also states that
Protestant clergy are "sexually exploiting their parishioners at twice
the rate of secular therapists." (Broken Trust, published by the
Christian Life Commission of the BGCT)'
This is all pretty damning for the likes of DiLV, who claim that
Christians exhibit a higher standard of sexual behaviour!
| Quote: |
It is also common sense to some extent - the opportunity for such
abuse would be less likely if the the priest's house (frequently
adjacent to the church) was also occupied by a wife.
|
But fathers are known to abuse their children behind their wives' back,
so allowing priests to have families would not necessarily solve the
problem, though the number of juvenile male parishioners molested would
probably drop significantly.
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
Alwyn wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <A5mdnWU9ZM2x8enVnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
We can
see the problem with RC priests - who simply can't comply with the
chastity requirements and then inflict harm on society because they
have no normal outlet for their desires.
You've made this claim before. Can you substantiate it? It was my
impression that the rate of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy was no
higher than that by church officials in other denominations, many of
whom are married. (But I admit I haven't researched the matter in depth.)
|
You make a good point in that I've seen no good analysis of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
....puts the confirmed number at 0.2% but accusations running at 4%,
which is huge number. Bearing in mind the level of suppression of
these accusations in the RC church, the figure of 4% would seem
deeply disturbing and I cannot believe that this is the level seen
in the rest of society.
Almost all the coverage I've seen has been about RC priests abusing
little boys (and some girls). I don't recall seeing other
denominations being involved with as many media reports. Also, the
RC church has been very vocal in claiming that these reports have
unfairly targeted it - I can't understand why they would point this
out unless the media coverage had indeed been more for RC priests
than other denominations.
It is also common sense to some extent - the opportunity for such
abuse would be less likely if the the priest's house (frequently
adjacent to the church) was also occupied by a wife.
| Quote: |
The real scandal in the Catholic case is the tendency of the church
hierarchy to cover the cases up and protect their own; less
authoritarian and hierarchically organised churches are unable to do
this, and in this way they have avoided having to pay the punishing
damages that have been imposed on the RC dioceses.
|
Absolutely. You can also see how the sexism rampant in many churches
would also play a part.
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
In article <A5mdnWU9ZM2x8enVnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
We can
see the problem with RC priests - who simply can't comply with the
chastity requirements and then inflict harm on society because they
have no normal outlet for their desires.
|
You've made this claim before. Can you substantiate it? It was my
impression that the rate of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy was no
higher than that by church officials in other denominations, many of
whom are married. (But I admit I haven't researched the matter in depth.)
The real scandal in the Catholic case is the tendency of the church
hierarchy to cover the cases up and protect their own; less
authoritarian and hierarchically organised churches are unable to do
this, and in this way they have avoided having to pay the punishing
damages that have been imposed on the RC dioceses.
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
- Show quoted text -
REPLY: Staying on course to the OP, if Atheists are so morally
abiding as you portray Ian, how come they often chastise the Bibles
morals and ethics that are the highest known to Man,
|
Some morals have been been absorbed from society at large - not
killing or stealing for instance. You cannot claim that these morals
didn't exist before your religion. They were arrived at by logical
reasoning and then cast in concrete by a religious code.
How do you justify your statement that they are "... the highest
known to man"? That is just unsupportable rubbish.
| Quote: |
call those who
take a stand for morality 'prudish' , and mock those who choose
sexual morality including chastity and waiting till marriage before
having sex ?
|
There's nothing wrong with chastity, if you choose it for yourself.
I'm sure it works well in avoiding pregnancy and STDs. There is
something wrong with systems that try to enforce chastity. We can
see the problem with RC priests - who simply can't comply with the
chastity requirements and then inflict harm on society because they
have no normal outlet for their desires. Common sense would tell us
that they should be allowed to form normal relationships, but they
appear constrained (or not constrained enough if the truth be told!)
by your system of "absolute morals".
| Quote: |
Or, is it that atheists pick and choose what THEY think
is 'moral' for themselves if they are so inclind to do so ?
|
We all pick and choose, atheists and theists. That's why the vicar
and the verger were caught swapping wives at a friends church, why
the organist ran off with a parishioner at my local baptist church,
why the RE teacher at my local RC school became pregnant by one of
the other teachers and why one of your high profile pastors was
caught with a rent boy and snorting some substance or other.
Absolute morals (apparently) require that you do not accept blood
from others (so JW's children die) do not eat pork in some areas and
do not eat beef in others, that you cut out eyes and chop off hands
for various crimes, that you mutilate baby boys and girls genitals
and that some parts of society cannot use condoms. It also
(apparently) prevents good, caring, religious people from supporting
or funding programmes to deal with aids by distributing condoms and
would rather see these poor people die.
Atheists appear to have, by a process of rational debate and
reasoned logic, arrived a moral imperatives and therefore attempted
to run programmes to educate Africans into safe sexual practices and
distribute condoms. The Vatican and US churches have thwarted the UN
again and again in these programmes, preferring to see Africans die
if they will not adopt your religious moral precepts.
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
In article
<03447478-2648-49fb-95ef-6f347644eae4@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBeBauck@gmail.com" <IlBeBauck@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
REPLY: Staying on course to the OP, if Atheists are so morally
abiding as you portray Ian, how come they often chastise the Bibles
morals and ethics that are the highest known to Man,
|
You are misusing the word 'chastise'; you cannot chastise a thing.
chastise
verb [ trans. ]
rebuke or reprimand severely : he chastised his colleagues for their
laziness.
€ dated punish, esp. by beating.
However, given the above, I suppose Bible-thumpers could be said to
chastise the Holy Book. :-)
You have yet to produce an argument why atheists should follow Biblical
morality and why it is 'the best'. I have said in another posting that
there was very little useful moral advice in the Bible and that it
contained much that was irrelevant for an atheist. Of course, you never
bothered to reply.
| Quote: |
call those who
take a stand for morality 'prudish' , and mock those who choose
sexual morality including chastity and waiting till marriage before
having sex ?
|
We're back to sex again. There's an awful lot more to morality than sex.
Why are you Christians so morbidly obsessed with this matter?
| Quote: |
Or, is it that atheists pick and choose what THEY think
is 'moral' for themselves if they are so inclind to do so ?
|
That is exactly what you Christians do. Do you plan for the future? Then
you are breaking Jesus' commandment not to do so. And what about this?
"And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your
cloak as well." (Matthew 5:40)
If Christians did this on a regular basis, they would all have to go
about naked!
And then of course, there is the small matter of divorce, of which the
Lord so strongly disapproved.
He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman
commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and
marries another man, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12)
Now why is it that conservative American Christians are far more prone
to divorce than atheists? Makes you think, doesn't it?
Incidentally, the above quotation from Mark implies (in verse 12) that
Jesus thought that a woman could divorce her husband. This cannot be
true, as to this day, Jewish law only allows divorce by the husband.
Matthew and Luke have spotted this mistake and omitted this verse when
they copied from Mark - proof if any were needed that the Bible is not
inerrant.
Also, Matthew 19:5 has:
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital
unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
This has a parenthesis to make adultery by the wife an exceptional case.
(Matthew 5:32 is similar.) Mark and Luke's gospels do not contain this
parenthesis. Is this really something Jesus said, or was it put in by
somebody who wanted to give men an excuse for divorcing their wives?
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
"Alwyn" <alwyn@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:alwyn-7F6FAE.11140709072008@news.virginmedia.com...
| Quote: |
In article <IqidneLt9Mre4OnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
Are you acquainted with the following statistics?
'Approximately 20% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually
abused when they were children.'
Furthermore:
'Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims;
approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles
or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the
family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in
approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.'
An awful lot of fathers abuse their children and nobody hears about it;
for that reason, I believe that the figure of 4% alleged against the
Catholic clergy is likely to be quite a bit lower than that for the
general male population.
|
That's a completely different argument, with respect.
The allegation (..by dilv) which started these comments, was that atheists
were immoral compared to christian moral codes..... (..my interpretation)
The numbers, under this assertion, stand alone.... do they not?
We need not show atheist or any other transgressor numbers - we need merely
to show that those operating under the confines of this strict moral code do
not do so in certain numbers...
Using the 'absolute' notion that dilv so dearly loves is proven to be
nonsensical as it is factually clear that numbers of church employees (..let
alone church members!) do not 'absolutely' follow the moral codes..
| Quote: |
'But one researcher, sociologist Philip Jenkins of Pennsylvania State
University, argues that the Catholic Church is being unfairly tarred as
a result of ''religious bigotry.''
''My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence
whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to
be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination
- or indeed, than nonclergy,'' Jenkins wrote in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. ''However determined news media may be to see this affair
as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.'''
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/031302_abuse.htm
'Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman
Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child
sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers
are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
|
......!!!!!
It gets more bizarre.
Protestant volunteers versus catholic priests.......
| Quote: |
You can hardly accuse the Christian Science Monitor of being a Catholic
source!
'The Journal of Pastoral Care reported on a survey in which 1000 senior
Southern Baptist pastors were randomly selected from 15,000 churches in
6 states. The number of pastors who anonymously reported that they had
engaged in ³inappropriate sexual behavior² was 14.1 percent. And 70.4
percent had knowledge about other ministers who had engaged in
"inappropriate sexual contact" with church members.'
http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/alarmingnumbers.html
It has to be noted, though, that 'inappropriate sexual contact' includes
the abuse of adult women.
|
Yes, And therein lies some of the misunderstandings, I believe.
Where adults are concerned it is certainly possible to abuse them under
certain circumstances. However, where children are concerned it is not just
*possible*.. it IS abuse.
| Quote: |
The same source states:
'A Baptist-published brochure states that 35% of ministers surveyed "had
engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior." It also states that
Protestant clergy are "sexually exploiting their parishioners at twice
the rate of secular therapists." (Broken Trust, published by the
Christian Life Commission of the BGCT)'
This is all pretty damning for the likes of DiLV, who claim that
Christians exhibit a higher standard of sexual behaviour!
|
This is more like it......
I'll bet you a pound to a penny that the ministers surveyed would NOT have
mentioned one word, not one anonymous word, if the innapropriate behaviour
was abusing children..... not one.
In that context, I'll assume that the 35% were having sex with a consenting
adult.........but were having a severe bout of a conscience of christian
morality.
[I do so hope that dilv DOESN'T conclude that these people were not true
christians in the first place]
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
In article <BumdnQ_AM90XBOnVnZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com>,
"mark" <no-onehere@noads.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
That's a completely different argument, with respect.
|
The argument concerned is Ian's that enforced priestly celibacy is a
direct cause of abuse. A common-sense view makes it appear plausible,
But I'm not convinced the evidence is there. (It wouldn't surprise me,
though, if the celibacy and social isolation of priests leads to
widespread alcoholism among them, and it is well known that people are
more likely to misbehave when intoxicated.)
<snip>
| Quote: |
It has to be noted, though, that 'inappropriate sexual contact' includes
the abuse of adult women.
Yes, And therein lies some of the misunderstandings, I believe.
Where adults are concerned it is certainly possible to abuse them under
certain circumstances. However, where children are concerned it is not just
*possible*.. it IS abuse.
|
If you are ministering to a parishioner and you seduce him or her, then
that is abuse of trust and should be punished. A doctor who seduces a
patient usually gets struck off. Of course, if an adult seduces a child,
that is in and of itself an abuse of trust; there does not need to be a
formal relationship of trust, such as doctor-patient or teacher-pupil.
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
"Alwyn" <alwyn@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:alwyn-803423.12230009072008@news.virginmedia.com...
| Quote: |
In article <BumdnQ_AM90XBOnVnZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com>,
"mark" <no-onehere@noads.com> wrote:
That's a completely different argument, with respect.
The argument concerned is Ian's that enforced priestly celibacy is a
direct cause of abuse. A common-sense view makes it appear plausible,
But I'm not convinced the evidence is there. (It wouldn't surprise me,
though, if the celibacy and social isolation of priests leads to
widespread alcoholism among them, and it is well known that people are
more likely to misbehave when intoxicated.)
|
With respect, alwyn, Ians' reply was in response to the often asserted
notion by dilv that christian morality exceeds that of the morality of
atheists.
I know Ian pushed the discussion on a bit but there was a context to that -
the response to the dilv diatribe.
Here's how the thread developed...
DILV POSTED THIS:
| Quote: |
call those who
take a stand for morality 'prudish' , and mock those who choose
sexual morality including chastity and waiting till marriage before
having sex ?
Or, is it that atheists pick and choose what THEY think
is 'moral' for themselves if they are so inclind to do so ?
|
IAN REPLIED THUS:
There's nothing wrong with chastity, if you choose it for yourself.
I'm sure it works well in avoiding pregnancy and STDs. There is
something wrong with systems that try to enforce chastity. We can
see the problem with RC priests - who simply can't comply with the
chastity requirements and then inflict harm on society because they
have no normal outlet for their desires. Common sense would tell us
that they should be allowed to form normal relationships, but they
appear constrained (or not constrained enough if the truth be told!)
by your system of "absolute morals".
I realise you questioned the RC bit and then took that as the main issue....
I'm merely saying I believe the issue at debate preceeded that statement...
that's all.
| Quote: |
It has to be noted, though, that 'inappropriate sexual contact'
includes
the abuse of adult women.
|
| Quote: |
Yes, And therein lies some of the misunderstandings, I believe.
Where adults are concerned it is certainly possible to abuse them under
certain circumstances. However, where children are concerned it is not
just
*possible*.. it IS abuse.
|
| Quote: |
If you are ministering to a parishioner and you seduce him or her, then
that is abuse of trust and should be punished.
|
We could certainly discuss that notion.....
The whole notion of seduction, and by whom... to whom, is an interesting
consideration.
Under the strict christian morality that dilv talks about it is wrong.....
in the real world, where adults can, and do, make decisions for themselves,
it is not so obviously clear cut.
If, as I think you infer, a minister has sex with someone outside of the
church (..a parishioner?) they should be "punished" but did not seduce
anyone... but was him/herself seduced...would that be a "punishable"
offence...? Purely on the grounds of the accepted relationship prior to the
sex taking place...?
Look, I think there is a world apart when we talk about sexual abuse of
adults - which, I accept, can take place - and the sexual abuse of
children...... which must not.... under any circumstances.
Abuse of trust with an adult, on a scale of 1 - 10, is probably a 1 or 2.
Physical and mental abuse of a child is a resounding 10. In my opinion.
| Quote: |
A doctor who seduces a
patient usually gets struck off.
|
Not under any morality, however...
| Quote: |
Of course, if an adult seduces a child,
that is in and of itself an abuse of trust; there does not need to be a
formal relationship of trust, such as doctor-patient or teacher-pupil.
|
Abusing a child, in my estimation, is a *little* more than abuse of trust
.... which is certainly part of it..
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ken
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
On Jul 15, 11:07 am, Tim <spambegonewith...@trash.com> wrote:
It's called "Daveshite" and it gets spurted around here all too often.
And where's MY cookie jar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tim
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 3:07:23 +0100, IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote
(in message
<57b1e952-8a36-4d84-b747-29f78b048c89@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
| Quote: |
personal freedom to live as one
likes which is the foundational concept behind atheism ; rebellion
and maximum autonomy .
|
Wrong.
It's all about not believing in god(s) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tim
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM SERIES : Atheism played out in |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:07:06 +0100, IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote
(in message
<d7a13d65-4422-449e-a0fa-bae8c692619b@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
| Quote: |
The crux of the atheists
lifestyle (as you are aware) is for maximum unhindered lifestyle
freedom ; its like placing a child in front of a Cookie Jar with no
established rules and its up to the child to decide whats right from
wrong.
|
Utter shite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
76 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
