Skipjack wrote:Well, while we're taking cheap shots, I will point out the vast majority of the pederasty by Priests is of the homosexual variety. I.E. molesting young boys. Did that escape everyone's attention?
And that changes what I said in what exact way?
What you said was asinine. If you recall correctly, I mentioned how the Catholic Church did a lot of good in the world, and you said something like "yeah, molesting children", which is just an assholish response. Since the topic of what was wrong with homosexuality came up earlier in the thread, I thought I would point out that it was a bunch of homosexually inclined individuals raping little boys.
Needless to say, none of this is relevant to the GOOD the Catholic church does in the world, but it IS evidence of what *I* was saying regarding how the evil manifests itself.
Skipjack wrote:
Last I checked, Catholic Charities is the biggest and most extensive charity organization on the planet.
I know plenty of non catholic organizations that do just as much good. SOS Kinderdorf (childrens villages), e.g. This has helped literally millions of children in the entire world. There are no ideologic strings attached to it.
The catholic organizations do work that I often doubt for its usefulness. Caritas, e.g. seems to help all the wrong people.
Just my personal opinion.
It obviously IS your personal opinion, and it lacks objectivity. As I had never heard of SOS Kinderdorf, I thought it would be incredible that such an organization could have the reach of the Catholic church, and so I did a little quick googling. SOS KinderDorf started in 1949. That alone tells me it isn't even a footnote compared to the Catholic Church. This tells me that the Catholics have at least a thousand year head start. But wait! There's more! It has over 100 National associations. I dare say the Catholics have over a hundred associations in every country in the world.
I could go on and on about this, but it wouldn't do you any good, so I'm not going to bother. I just find it incredible that you would even suggest that the two are somehow equal either in breadth or depth.
Skipjack wrote:
Do you think NOT teaching people that murder is wrong will improve this situation?
DID I EVER SAY THAT? Hello?
It is axiomatic to what you have said.
Skipjack wrote:
I just dont see that you need religion for that.
Obviously.
Skipjack wrote:
If people were not taught to control themselves, you would never have enough policemen.
The prospect of worldly punishment can be just as much a deterrend as the prospect of otherworldly punishment.
Through SCIENCE, crime fighting and forensics will improve further, increasing the rate of solved crimes to the point where commiting a crime will result in a almost 100% chance of getting cought. That will make the world saver. Giving people a fair chance in life also helps (though to a smaller extent, since a lot of the willingness to comitt crimes is genetical).
Such great faith you have in secular authorities. Obviously you believe in that fantasy, why criticize people who want to believe in another and more beneficial fantasy? If the police force is made up of people that don't have an inherent basis for understanding the difference between good and evil, they we shall all be guilty of some crime.
Skipjack wrote:
Archeological evidence is steadily confirming biblical accounts of events. At least the historical parts of the bible seem to be confirmable, as for the supernatural parts, some of them seem to be confirmable too. I think there are a lot of people that WANT it to be wrong, and are declaring it so before the fact of having proven it to be wrong. Do you have an example of something in the bible that is wrong?
Ok, first I have to ask, which version of the bible are we talking about?
So the world is only 4000 years old, yes? There is scientific evidence for that? LOL
Well, the one I am most familiar with is the King James version, and I don't recall seeing that 4000 year figure in there anywhere. If it's not in there, I don't see why anyone should want scientific evidence to prove that it is.
Skipjack wrote:
A creator did not create the world in seven days. Of course you can argue that this is metaphorical and I may agree with that, but many die hard christians will tell you that it has to be literal, coming up with all sorts of nonsensical explanations.
Perhaps they know as much about the bible as you seem to know about American History and Political Philosophy? If that is the case, I can see why they make mistakes.
Skipjack wrote:
There is not even evidence that Nazareth existed at the time that Jesus was supposedly born.The entire world was definitely not flooded by the biblical flood. So wrong.
You really CAN'T see things through other people's eyes. I'm not talking about empathy, I'm referring to the ability to think from a different perspective.
There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence to indicate a Massive and Major flood over virtually every part of the known human sphere in ancient times. Most science minded people associate the evidence with the great melt of the last ice age, or of the breaking open of the strait of Gibraltar, both events which are known to have happened.
To the people recording any such event, it would surely have seemed as if the entire world had been flooded, because THEIR entire world HAD been flooded.
Skipjack wrote:
It is impossible that Noah was able to fit all animals of the world into a wooden box with the dimensions mentioned in the bible, unless he compressed them somehow
.
I believe it says 7 pairs of the clean animals, and 1 pair of every unclean animal. You may be surprised to learn that there were far more animals than this in the world, even several thousand years ago.
Skipjack wrote:
Archeological evidence suggests that Jerichos walls had already been torn down a long time ago, when the jews finally arrived there.
How could they possibly know that?
Skipjack wrote:
Since evolution is still an angoing progress, the supposed creation never ended after 6 days. So god cant be resting yet.
A creationist could argue that once God started the motor, the motor simply kept on running.
Skipjack wrote:
I've read several accounts of how the Plagues of Egypt had basis in scientific explanations.
There is actually some truth to that.
The "blood" in the rivers was supposedly caused by a kind of algae that is reddish and causes a reddish discoloration.
The biblical manna that fell from the sky is supposedly the excrements of locusts that had and have been roaming the area frequently.
Both of those notions are new to me. I had read and seen documentaries that the redish color of the Nile was the result of contamination from volcanic and seismic activity which was occurring at this time. This theory has the advantage of being able to explain the Plague of Darkness, The Plague of Blood, the Plague of Frogs, the Plague of Flies, the Plague of Fire and Brimstone, and the Plague of Death of the First born, etc.
It also helps with the pillar of fire and the draining of the red sea.
Skipjack wrote:
Now there's a broad statement. Certainly nothing can go wrong with THAT!
It may be broad, but it is true.
In the minds of some. Whether it be objectively true has yet to be established.
Skipjack wrote:
Since Modern physicists are having trouble explaining this same period of time, (The Singularity and instantaneous expansion) you know, CREATION, I would give the religionists the same benefit of the doubt.
This is non sensical. One thing is a clearly wrong fantasy interpretation. The other is the attempt at a scientifical explanation. Both may be equally wrong, but only one allows itself to be corrected by science.
The funny thing about science. The deeper it goes, the more like fantasy it appears. As Richard Fineman remarked. " How can it be like that? "
Skipjack wrote:
If it is truly genetic, as many scientists are suspecting, then you are as wrong as you can be about this.
I have not heard or seen any evidence for a religion gene. What chromosome is that supposed to be in?
What a silly question! Science has not yet mapped out the functions of all the genes. Aren't you in some sort of Medical field or something, and yet you did not know this? For years, many scientists thought that junk DNA sequences were just junk. Now we know that they do have important functions. Apart from that, we don't even know for sure that everything about being a human is connected to the genes. There is some theorizing going on out there that humans (and other living things) rely on quantum effects for certain functions. For all we know, there is an eerie quantum linkage between parents and offspring that transcends genetics, and we have yet to even fully understand the genetics!
Skipjack wrote:
Yeah, like Communism. How's that working out again?
That is my point. Not well. But then none of the other ideologies are looking to good.
Really? The Christian religion took mankind from an agrarianism condition of mostly primitive towns and huts (predominately) during the Roman times, to develop advanced science and industrialization.
China had basically the same stable system for two thousand years prior to Christianity and nearly two thousand years after Christianity, yet it was the Christian nations that became the major world powers.
Coincidence? People have long remarked that Christianity held science back, but they always fail to notice that it was the most Christianized nations that were the most highly advanced and developed, especially after the Renaissance. The rest of the world was far worse. It wasn't lack of resources, it was lack of the right mindset.
Skipjack wrote:
I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?
Dogmas are always wrong. Any real scientists will be willing to revert his theories if he is presented with new evidence that contradicts it.
The History of Science is FULL of examples of prominent scientists refusing to believe something until it was fully impossible for them to shout it down any further. As the saying goes, " Science starts as heresy and ends as dogma."
Skipjack wrote:
Really? I have a completely different take on that. I hate psychiatry too.
To some extent you are right here. The correct science would probably be neuroscience.
However, you only need low level psychiatry to disprove Scientology.
Proud to be an SP, btw..
My observation is that Psychiatry has apparently never cured anyone in the entire history of it's existence, and probably has as much validity as phrenology.
Maybe not cured, but successfully treated.
It is at least attempting to use scientific methods for explaining the complex happenings inside the brain.
And whose word do we have to take for it that the patient has been successfully treated? Why the people GIVING the treatment! Far be it from me to insinuate that they have a vested interest in not telling people that their treatment is a complete failure. Of COURSE the patient is getting better! It's like the government telling me that they are managing my money sensibly! They will NEVER tell you anything else!
Skipjack wrote:
I think that is a mischaracterization of their motives. They object to it on the basis of their belief that it is in essence, a human being.
And? What does that have to do with genetics? I think you are thinking of stem cells, where this argumentation may(!) be applicable to.
It was the latest topic of discussion touching on this issue. Beyond that, I know of no other objections that the Catholics have to medical research. What ELSE could we be talking about?
Skipjack wrote:
The socialists hate genetics? Who's doing all the stem cell research then?
People that do not follow any ideology (or are at least trying to avoid ideologies). You know, people like me.
Also stem cells and genetics are two different disciplines (though closely related).
Like bread and butter. In fact, more closely related. Like intertwined. Like virtually the same thing. Like, they are in fact the same thing.
This just goes back to that discussion i've had with MSimon where I keep trying to point out that such barriers are completely subjective. There are in fact no barriers whatsoever except for the human perception of them.