More Catholic thoughts
Offline So now I've been browsing that forum for about a week. Very interesting. http://forums.catholic.com/index.php
One thing that stands out though is how they laity resolves theological conflict. When someone asks a difficult question, the edicts and articles of the church are considered...I don't know, I guess I would say they are considered like original research that stands on its own.
An example would be:
Q: Why are non-practicing homosexuals not allowed to be priests?
A: Because this article from the Vatican says so http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...uzione_en.html
The thing that gets me is the dissenter is just expected to roll with that. In this particular case you read the article and the Pope himself just makes a bald assertion plus a slippery slope argument based on fear and...that's it.
To say I am disappointed in the quality of discourse is perhaps an understatement. The fact that the supposed ultimate theological bad-ass can't do any better, and that Catholics are supposed to buy it is just horrific.
The impression I get is that discourse among the laity isn't about rationality or logic at all, it is simply about rote memorization of edicts. There is no encouragement to actually figure this stuff out or analyze it, rather they are expected to be parrots.
The most blatant example I've seen is when they are asked about "NFP" versus contraceptives. For those not up to date on Catholic lingo, NFP is natural family planning. It means you monitor the woman's menstrual cycle and only engage in sex when she is infertile. The debate happens when people ask why this is OK but something like a condom is wrong. The result and intent is the same, right?
The 'answer' is, again, just an assertion and some logical fallacies. The reality is most educated Catholic women just ignore this particular edict.
That brings me to my main thought. The Catholic church is doomed in industrialized nations. There are many ancillary reasons, but the most striking thing I see is that Catholic doctrine is simply incompatible with a modern education. The church tries to convince educated and wealthy people to hold to ideas based on dogma hundreds or thousands of years old, and when push comes to shove the reasoning is 'because we say so'. The church is in a quandary because some of the ancient edicts are based on ignorant ideas that no longer exist and it makes them look pretty damned stupid to an educated individual, but they can't back down without eliminating their whole argument for moral and theological authority. This problem will only become worse for them as societies mature.
I doubt this is a newsflash for anyone who knows much about Catholicism, but it was eye-opening to me because I have never had much interaction with it. You see some Catholic posters who, I think, intuitively know this. The bad thing is they blame modern society...they hold up third world countries as more pure and holy states of being because they are still willing to take everything the church says as fact. Vile.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
As a former Catholic that was raised with such medieval, superstitious notions, I agree with you 100% .
The Catholic posters that are blaming the modern world and it's evil immorality for the decline of the faith sound exactly like the people in my church when I was a child.
One of the reasons why I have not gone over to that board yet. I am not so sure I wish to be surrounded by my old cult that I long rejected.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
What you just said, post it there as well.
Devil dog dare ya.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=533975
Heh, they don't seem to ban people very easily. I'm getting excited.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Spock is doing really well.
I hope I don't start reading around over there and decide to jump into the middle of that madness.
But I do have a bit of personal problem with the Catholic Church after wasting years of my life on it. So, if I go over there, it is gonna be personal
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I've just been banned, it took a while though. It wound up being a thread about scientific proof of miracles that I just exploded on and let them have it. I dissected their claims about the shroud of turin, and incorruptable bodies. I completely demolished the claims that they are scientifically verified miracles, then I guess I kind of implied they were all quite stupid for presented such poor cases for the miracles. Oh well,it was bound to happen.
I noticed the same thing about the question and awsewr thing on this site. Tens of thousands of people asking rediculous questions:
"How bad is masterbation"
"Is masterbation a mortal sin"
"Is watching violent movies a mortal sin"
etc...
And the awnsers all boil down to "yaddayadda, because we say so," and the people asking are simply expected to follow in line. The site, in general is quite disturbing, the most depressing part is the immense number of such folk on the site, millions. It's easy to forget when not surrounded by these people how many of them exist, and how outnumbered we are.
I went in there and started to register an account but started feeling sick to my stomach. Sorry fellas, I don't think I'm going to be of much use in a place like that. The fact the rules said I would have to "be respectful" to Catholicism was too much to bear. Even just the words brought a little throw up to my mouth.
I dunno...I'm having fun there right now and maybe I'll do some good. I'm not interested in being banned quite yet and I don't think they would be as lenient with new posters as they are with Spock.
I might think about re-wording it and posting something similar as a question though. We'll see.
I doubt they've never seen the argument before though, like I said, it is only novel to me because I'm unfamiliar with Catholicism...I'm deep in Protestant country.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
You couldn't be more right. Their "we speak for god" act worked amazingly well when the common population was uneducated and living in feudal systems but in a modern society of relatively free and educated people any idiot with a little bit of initiative can see them for the frauds they are.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Lol, when I'm posting politely, any forum that bans me has to have their panties twisted really tight. I'm nicer than Spock, from what I can see, and he hasn't been banned yet.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I'm also a little weirded out by all the smiley emotes...prostrating, bowing, praying, crossing themselves, just damned weird.
I think if I was Catholic I'd ban those because they reek of pride...like a big giant gold cross on a half unbuttoned shirt.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
If I could say whatever that I wanted to, I probably would give it a try.
But to try and be respectful to that old cult that I was raised around ? Nope, not going to happen.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I don't understand how Catholism is losing followers with such brilliant, tell-it-like-it-is spokespeople like Bill O'Reilly...
http://www.thinkatheist.com/video/for-those-who-missed-it-one-of
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
The thing that really bugs me is watching so many well intentioned people suffer through the process of reconciling, "The church is holy and speaks for God" and "I am an intelligent person who acts rationally".
I would not even care, but so many threads have young people in genuine distress over moral issues and they are essentially told the solution is to stop thinking and stop trusting their own intellect.
That is poison.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Oh. My. God.
I just peed my pants a little.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Any word about the Vatican trying to meddle in politics where none (if any) of the priests/monks are citizens of?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
From the point of view of building a 'Catholic Empire', South America's perfect; also good in that view is "meddling with other nation's politics".
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I'm pretty sure the answer would be, 'We're all God's children'.
Just a hunch.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
ROFLMAO !!! I had not seen this latest one from Colbert. That was hysterical.
O'Reilly : How did the sun get there, why do we have it and Mars does not ?
Man, what a brilliant philosophical question O'Reilly poses.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
So Big Invisible Skydaddy left out the part where he forgot to tell Christians they aren't the chaperones of the remainder of the species. Seems par for the course...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Not that I've ever credited the vatican with an overabundance of brains, but after this damaging their reputation, it's questionable anyone BUT the south americans are going to be intreseted in what they have to say...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
We have some of our most qualified experts, working on the case.
In all seriousness, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we are in a civil conflict with people who are proponents of religion.
It's a 'people' thing. Not a 'religion' thing.
It's based on pure ignorance.
We (agnostic/atheist types) all seem to agree that it is simply due to a lack of critical thinking, knowledge, and understanding that anyone could drink the 'koolaid'.
It's an ignorance problem, in a high percentage of the population (sheeple).
And the most effective way to eliminate that problem, would be to lower the level of ignorance among the population (sheeple).
And we can do that through various channels, and put stop gaps in places to prevent the spread of ignorance.
Ignorance is very similar to a disease, in that, it is highly contagious among those would have low defenses to guard against infection, it is communicable to others, it's symptoms have serious effects to the mental and emotional health of the individual, the side effects are serious, and lead to premature illness, suffering, and even premature death, and it can spread into an epidemic, or worse, a pandemic.
We have to try and make people immune to being infected (preconditioned) with dogma, before they can fully develop their ability to think critically, similar to fully matured adults.
The channels we can use to fight ignorance are in schools, books, articles, other modern media, campaigns and advertising, the internet, social groups etc...
The stop gaps are needed to prevent young minds from becoming (indoctrinated) ignorant, by the substitution of dogma, in the place of intelligence, methods of rationalization, science, knowledge and understanding.
Which is why it's so important to have people in positions of authority, who are completely secular, and completely against the indoctrination of religious dogmas, into our youth.
Debating theists, on forums, and on places like YouTube, is a powerful resource, and tremendous wealth of knowledge and understanding of all things, and demonstrations of the irrational, and ignorant nature of theism and theists.
100% agreed.
I've only recently made any effort to make any sort of strategic effort to combat the effects of 'theism', in the world.
And, it's something I intend to pursue diligently, and aggressively, in this civil conflict, and in defense of human rights.
I believe it's a violation of human rights, to attempt to substitute religious dogma into any child in such a way that is incompatible and cognitively dissonant with proper academic and scientific education, and a secualr society, and that exemplifies bigotry, instills arbitrary intolerant hatred of groups, (either directly, or by proxy) and advocates violence, and either illustrates, commands, or condones acts of violence.
These types (theists) are currently (and always have been) against a secular government, education sector, and scientific endeavour, whether we like it, or not.
It's 'game on'.
And I'm in the game now.
I play hard, and I play to win.
I've taken a long hard look to find the biggest, baddest members of theism, and haven't found one, who I would consider much of a challenge at all.
So, the only thing we (atheists) need to do, is just get out there, and use as many channels as we can, because I suspect that there are millions of so called 'moderates' that we can convert over to secularist sympathizers, if not, to outright atheists.
Let's 'exorcise' our secular rights!
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I'm in physical pain after a sojourn into the philosophy forum. I may enter a major depressive state soon.
When people passionately believe in the magical and the supernatural it makes argumentation impossible. At the root of all these debates is dualism and monism. Once someone comes down hard on the line for dualism, the conversation is over.
I think maybe it is just childhood indoctrination...once that idea is in someone's head, you can't get it out again because as usual they refuse to let their position be falsified.
It's depressing that the most sophisticated arguments in theism literally come down to naked assertions. You can show them why their arguments are factually incorrect, logically incorrect and pragmatically incorrect and it doesn't matter one bit.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
wtf is being south american have to do with anything? Do you believe them to be inferior? Or genetically inclined to be more gullible?... I think you should elaborate on that comment.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Praise the lord and pass the prozac.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
It's actually a matter of South America being almost exclusively Roman Catholic and (most of the time) unwilling to give up the RCC until death. Now, that isn't to say there aren't some things that are seriously bass ackwards about the various banana republics down there, because there are (many nations do not have laws against spousal rape, for instance), it's just not the focus of my previous post.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)