When has religion irked you personally and why?

The Vatican- Paedophile central.

wilso- There is a lot of sad truth to what you have said. The church has become notorious in covering their own butts in the cases of sexual abuse of kids. These "good" folks, who would threaten hell and damnation to their flock over some breach of the faith, thought nothing of destroying many kid's lives. The picture of the higher ups in the church moving a pedophile priest from diocese to diocese, and foisting him on unwitting parishoners is nothing less than disgusting. What a horriffic display of pious hypocrisy!

Cool, you have a sense of humor.



If that's a fair argument then it's also fair to say that the religious should not dip their toes into the realm of logic for much the same reason.



You make precious little sense here. Are you saying that all those Catholics never had those experiences?



God is "beyond" a lot of things. It changes and the best way to sum it all up is that people who reify gods place them 'beyond' anything that threatens the construct.



But Maliagar, the horny aliens are not empirical. You are going about this the wrong way. Stop plowing the seas and open your eyes to the fact that the horny aliens I describe can't be comprehended without faith.

Furthermore the horny aliens believe in the great horny alien god. It's a god that destroyed all other gods way back in the great god destruction of 89. Now only the great horny alien god exists. Your god no longer exists because the great horny alien god destroyed it.

I'd provide proof of this but as you know these gods are beyond such thinsg and you'll just have to trust me on this. :wink:



Yawn, trying to characterize those who do not share your fantasies is the oldest trick. Using it is part of what makes this "train" of your so whimpy.



No I don't. :wink:



Wrong again. Kepp trying and you'll eventually catach a straw.



Nah, it'd take a lot more than that.



I hope you are capable of catching the irony of your attempt to characterise me as persistent in my religion.

In any case you are using all the silly clichés. You want to avoid my arguments that illustrate your denomination's fallacy (as in being false about stating the exact date of the world's creation) so you resort to ploys again. This time it's to characterise rejection of your religion as religion.

It's an altogether too common tactic that falls flat because of how obvious it is. It is a transparent attempt to label the opposition what one most dislikes being branded. It is the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?". It does nothing to help this big bad train you keep promising.



I see that you are still avoiding arguments by trying to characterize me as religious. I don't mind the characterization. I have started a few religions of my own. :wink:



Yes you can. You can also cut the sentence in half to make the argument easier for you to tackle. I suspect that when the "train" you promise arrives it will have similar training wheels.



I know, ultimately it's a matter of what prejudices you choose to share. Like the homophobia. I ahve a personal question that you can feel free to ignore if you consider it untoward. Are you the homosexual you often refer to when you say you know gays who share the belief that homosexuality is bad? The way you have mentioned it made me think so and I am curious. Fell free to answer or ignore.



I was worried for a bit, but I am now happy to see that you have a sense of humor. :wink:



I don't reject the teachings of the church. I just don't buy them wholesale. I can and must be selective (otherwise, I'd be blind).



Lot's of "timeless truths" from god are later debunked. Where does god say that homosexuality is a sin? do you even rememeber the passages other than the editorializing by the Bible's authors (who you have already addmited were from an ignorant era)?

What about the "timeless truth" that menstruation is filthy and that menstrating women are to be shunned? Do you follow that bit of inspiration as well?

Do you eat pork? Lobster? Shrimp?

Do you stone children for being disrespectful?

I'm trying to get a handle on what kind of backwardness you cling to and what you discard.



Aha, the law of love. It's a fine basis for philosophy. I use it myself in my life motto.

A question: since all that is done in love is not sin if two homosexuals love each other what sin do they commit and why? :wink:



Correct. Congradulations! Now please explain why you pick homophobia as a valid one.



Wrong again. Creationism predated the U.S. as a theory making it a distinction between the more defensible creation theories is what's new.

What's new is that there needed to be a way to differentiate the guys who believed the seven day tale and the fellas who came around and moved to a more defensible position.

A literal interpretation of the story of the seven day creation fable was a part of the Catholic church long before the U.S. existed. Your wordplays won't change that. :wonk:



All I see is someone desperate to demean the arguments leveled against him and resorting to silly ad homs and appeals to authority.

I never said that there was only one religious train of thought in history. Pointing out that there were more is a red herring. You asked why I think Genesis is false and I illustrated that the geneology of Genesis is used to caculate the exact age of the earth according to the Bible. The age it comes up with is patently false and is one reason I think Genesis can be considered wrong (incorrect).

As per usual you use a ploy to avoid addressing the argument and say that there have been many interpretations. The ploy is a transparent attempt to avoid the nagging fact that the "age of the earth through Biblical geneology" is NOT interpretation. It's simple arithmetic. Addition. It is not subject to subjective interpretation.

So what do you do when you paint yourself into a corner? You drop a name or two. You call the argument irrelevant and myself a laughingstock but simply do not address the argument at all. See, I need no explaining about how fantastically false the age of the earth according to the Bible is. so no need to make that case. You asked why I think Genesis can be held to be "wrong". I said that I consider Genesis to be "wrong" due to it's clearly illustrated apocryphal allegations.

I have illustrated the spurious nature of the text contained within Genesis. Your response is to drop names. Tell me, what do those names have to do with mathematics? Do you claim that there are diverging interpretations of the basic mathematics used by Catholics to calculate the age of the earth?

I'm still waiting for the "train". Bring it on. :wink:



No need to. You asked me why I thought it fair for me to consider Genesis to be wrong. I illustarted that Genesis is wrong. Now your ploy is to try to get me to bind this belief to your church. I need to do nothing of the sort. I have defended my contention that the Bible can be considered wrong by demostrating one of many ways in which it's clearly incorrect. You are making another red herring here.



Ahh, the ole ad hominem. I've read many web pages. But Usser's lil' boo boo is something I learned before the avent of the internet. I memorized it as a child.

Now are you going to address the arguments or try to make wisecracks about me? As compelling of a playground tactic as that is anyone who is follwing the substance (as opposed to the rhetoric that you and I frquently indulge in) will see that you are not addressing the issue and using the snide comments about me as a distraction.

The trick (save this for when you get that "train" of yours running) is to actually address some of the arguments and use the rhetoric as the icing. Otherwise you are only bringing icing to teh party.



Now you have changed the topic to you. But it's still a red herring. You seem to have lost track of the train of thought. You asked why I can consider Genesis to be wrong. I answered by illustrating that it is wrong. Now you are telling me how the fact that Genesis and the Bible are incorrect about the age of the earth is not something that effects your spiritual life and walk with the lord. I am happy that you got a chance to share but again, it simply doesn't address the issue. I never argued about what does or does not have an impact on your spiritual life.



Ya know you've relied on using the words "metaphysics" and "epistemology" so much in this thread that it's becoming an obviosu crutch. You asked why I think Genesis is wrong. I answered. You respond with ploys, red herrings, fallacious appeals to authority and what seems to be your favorite words: "metaphysics" and "epistemology".

You conveniently claim that I "haven't proven anything" while ignoring that I did not set out to. I was answering your question about Genesis. To avoid the argument you drop names and words and try to use them in an ad hominem about me. Thing is, I am not trying to make you think good of me. Thanks for sharing but please address the issue.



I use the term frequently in discussion with you. That should tell you something.

I use the term in its sense that using an appeal to authority that is not illustrated is fallacious in debate. You repeatedly claim that people should not question certain fantasys Catholics hold unless they are an "authority". That is a fallacious appeal to authority.

To use examples and make it easier for you to grap try this on for size:

Remember my aliens? They are real. You have to ahve faith. Remember how their god destroyed yours in the great god destuction of 89? Well, if I claim that only those who believe in the aliens can have an educated opinion I make for myself a very convenient appeal to authority.

It's kinda like a Democrat saying that only democrats can criticisze their policy. It's convenient, but it is a fallacious appeal to authority unless it's proven or adequately illustrated.



I never said that. I said that I used arguments that were created by members of the Catholic church. You know, the "authority" you make your fallacious appeals to.



Bull, myths are false if they are false. Interpretations can have merit or not depending on how they maintain their focus. Yes, myths can be meaningful. As can they be patently false.


Please disregard the earlier personal question I asked.



Oh? That was the train? Quite a letdown. All it contained was your diet of debating fallacies. Maybe I should have qualified the "train" as something with intellectual substance?

In any case I do note that you are trying to characterize the non-believers as believers simply because a disbelief can be inverted and called a belief. It's a bit og wordplay that theists consider clever and you get to label people the very things you dislike being labeled but it has no substance towrd the arguments posited.



It's just wordplay. I'd say you were good at it but you use the old faithful ones theists have always used. You dislike having your gaith called blind so you retort with: "I know you are but what am I?"

You are tired of your religion being carped so you lash out.



Yes yes, the religion of the non-religious, the damn blind rationalism.....

It's a silly rant mal. Bring on the train. See if you can avoid your pet fallacies. :wink:

What a breathtaking waste of your time . . .

I don't care if it rains or freezes
Long as i got my plastic Jesus
Settin' on the dashboard of my car

Drivin' ninety, it ain't scarey
Long as i got my Virgin Mary
Asettin' on the dashboard of my car . . .

'Tain't the fox but the hunt, I think, Setanta.

Setanta,

Do you not think it a bit presumptuous for you to decide what is and is not a waste of someone else time?

I know very well how you feel about religious discussions. You have repeated it ad nauseum and have chided those who decide to participate in them.

I have never called your efforts to tell people what you think they should talk about a waste of time. I have never called your participation in these threads a waste of time.

It'd be nice if you'd reciprocate. What you think is a waste of time for people to discuss is something you've said many times. As you might have noticed it was not heeded (mainly because of how people like to decide for themselves what is a waste of their time).

Oh, how very typically pompous of you Craven . . . it was a mild remark, of the amused kind, suggesting that what you wrote won't get through to the one to whom you addressed it--and not a criticism of what you wrote . . . why don't you get off your high horse, and walk in here once in a while, instead of riding . . .

Bit thin-skinned today, aren't ya?

I wholeheartedly agree--argument for its own sake.

Not at all Setanta, in fine spirits today. Why are you so testy? Are you upset that I don't agree with what you think I should do with my time? You've said it over and over and make a point about joining religious discussion to tell people how stupid it is for people to "beat the dead horse of religion".

I'm simply trying to tell you that I read it the first time.

As to pompous I admit to it any day. One of the differences between us.

This was the last quote from Maliagar. Since then we've not seen hide nor hair of him, and I suspect that we won't. So it's all a moot point now!

Geeze, Crave, you're a hoot . . .

I don't give a tinker's damn what you do with your time, and if you wanna spend it yelling into a void, you help yerself . . . as i already noted, my comment was to suggest that you won't be listened to by the one to whom you speak . . . but if this entertains you, go ahead on . . . as for beating the dead horse of religion, i doesn't bother me that people spend their time doing that, and the one time i mentioned that in frustration was when you and Frank and others had hijacked a thread which was not about religion in order to flail your favorite deceased equine . . .

Are you so damned virtuous, Craven, admitting to a pomposity of which you thereby eliptically accuse me . . . you're a pip, boyo, what would we do without you . . .

Gee Setanta what's with the burr? It was just a mild remark, of the amused kind, suggesting that what amuses me might not be the same as what amuses you.

I did not eliptically accuse you of pomposity.

Boy you are a character.

There's yer eliptical accusation. And a futher example of your pomposity.

I have it on the authority of the author of this thread that he started it because the person whom you were addressing had hijacked another thread in exactly this manner. His intent was light-hearted, and the joker showed up and ruined this thread, as well, so my comment was about him, and not you. However, it appears that you're very sensitive, and willing to quickly take umbrage without due consideration. Whatever floats yer boat. I came here to have fun, and that's not changed.

Anglican minister and a Catholic priest standing on the deck of the Titanic are pushed toward a life boat by the Purser.

The minister says: "But wait, what about the children?"

Purser: "Screw the children !"

Priest: "Is there going to be time?"

I've already both said that I am pompous and that I did not eliptically accuse you of pomposity.

Emphasis changed to a more notable one.

I come here to have fun too. And I don't take umbrage at all with what you say about what I do with my time.

I hope you don't take umbrage with me for commenting about what I think do you? Because that could lead to a waste of time arguing with someone you think does it for the sake of it.

There once was a black pot....

Wow great way to start a day out here on the west coast! :wink:

Setanta - that is not what I meant by that remark at all!!!!

What I meant to say - obviously very clumsily, since it has been misinterpreted - is that for some people (myself included, though I cannot debate at Craven's and Maliagar's level - don;t have the concentration for one thing) - the process of such a debate is intrinsically interesting - "the hunt" - even if a conclusion, or agreement, "the fox" is not attained.

I am loving this debate - I drop in and catch up every couple of days because I appreciate it.

Ya gotta take yer fun where ya kin find it Husker . . .

CdK, saying you made no eliptical accusation, even in the face a proof, will not change the fact, bold face notwithstanding . . .

It is determined that in order to preserve the church, the Pope must have sex with a woman. Reluctantly, he agrees, but he puts conditions on it:

First, she must be blind, so that she cannot see who does this terrible thing.

Next, she must be must, so she can tell no one of the terrible thing which has been done.

Finally, she must have HUGE knockers . . .

I'm just wondering if that diatribe of Craven's wasn't more appropriate in Frank's Homosexuality vs. Christianity thread. Craven isn't the only one who has suspected maliagar as prone to 'delicate crimes' but too repressed to act on them (some are rather suspicious of the overuse of emoticons, and the claims to love drama). maliagar does indeed not have to respond, but if (and I am not saying it is) what Craven suggested is true, and maliagar wishes to discuss that issue as something that irks him about his religion, feel free to post it here. Otherwise, Frank's thread, again, would be more appropriate.

Frustrating as Maliagar is to argue with, I will miss him, if Phoenix is right and he has gone.

Well, Cunning Coney, that's what i understood by what you wrote, and so i replied that it is argument for its own sake, as no one will convince anyone else.


After John Paul was elected, they opened a bowling alley in Rome, across from the Vatican . . .



























So the Pope would have some place to cash his check . . .