By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Hollywood anti catholic bullshit needs to stop

WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:
It's just tiring. So very very tiring. And all of it supported by poor and terribly tought out arguments echoed around.

"The church did terrible things". Sure they did, but for everything they were directly responsible for, they didn't do anything out of the ordinary. Nothing that any other group hasn't done. Can I remind you people the church did many a good thing too? Maybe did a whole lot more good then bad? Do you people realize what the middle ages would have looked like in Europe without a binding faith (it would be a whole lot worse). Do you all realize the church was often a moderating force in Europe's colonial past, without which many more atrocities against natives would have been comitted. Do you realize in many a time no-one would take care of the poor and orphans of not for the church? There.

And then there are still people who like to "debunk" religion and go around "God doesn't exist". Well? Try me. I'm in the moral sciences. I've read Aquinas Quinque Viae and I know the Cosmological argument inside out. "God doesn't exist" isn't a scientific or philosophical statement, it's not even applied reasoning. It's just a strawman argument not even worthy of consideration.

"We should be able to criticise religion". Sure, but many of you know that isn't the problem. If I would go on an anti-atheïst rant you know I'd get tons of flack. Free speech works in both directions, realize your own position is flawed as well and many of you aren't as "tolerant" as you think. Free speech is not the right to insult.

Ok, I'm going to stop here.

The scientific statement is "there is no proof of a god". Believing in something without any verifiable proof is something US presidents do and is generally nothing that could be recommended to the general public.

All the good things the church once did aren't things that couldn't have been done by other institutions. Being socially minded is not something the Church invented, you know. I don't see how commending the Church for sometimes showing human decency does somehow absolve the net negative effect religion had on humanity.

If we completely ignore all the terrible and positive things Religion has done in the past we will still come to the conclusion that right now in today's society, religion has a negative effect on basically everything, human decency included. Nothing any Church does today cannot be done by any other institution, yet we're still stuck with all the negative things it brings.

And even that completely misses the point. There is no possibility of scientific proof of God. God's essence is fundamentaly unknowable to us since it is literally everything. Even philosophers like Bertrand Russel don't bring up scientific arguments, this is exclusively a debate in the realm of theology and philosophy.

But these other institutions exist. And your logical fallacy is that if it would have been an atheïst institution, these negative things wouldn't have happend. Sorry to burst your bubble. And there is no "net negative effect". That's a popular thing to say, but the public is not always right. Think for yourself.



Around the Network
vivster on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
vivster said:

The scientific statement is "there is no proof of a god". Believing in something without any verifiable proof is something US presidents do and is generally nothing that could be recommended to the general public.

All the good things the church once did aren't things that couldn't have been done by other institutions. Being socially minded is not something the Church invented, you know. I don't see how commending the Church for sometimes showing human decency does somehow absolve the net negative effect religion had on humanity.

If we completely ignore all the terrible and positive things Religion has done in the past we will still come to the conclusion that right now in today's society, religion has a negative effect on basically everything, human decency included. Nothing any Church does today cannot be done by any other institution, yet we're still stuck with all the negative things it brings.

And even that completely misses the point. There is no possibility of scientific proof of God. God's essence is fundamentaly unknowable to us since it is literally everything. Even philosophers like Bertrand Russel don't bring up scientific arguments, this is exclusively a debate in the realm of theology and philosophy.

But these other institutions exist. And your logical fallacy is that if it would have been an atheïst institution, these negative things wouldn't have happend. Sorry to burst your bubble. And there is no "net negative effect". That's a popular thing to say, but the public is not always right. Think for yourself.

I do think for myself and especially on my life all religions had a terribly negative effect on me. It pains me to even think that bullshit like that still exists in an age of enlightenment.

Christian religions are constantly trying to meddle in politics that affect my life, Islam is trying to kill me directly and while I'm not much affected by Hinduism and Shinto I know those aren't that well like in their respective states either. Generally it affects me by throwing my sense of justice out of whack since one crazy person who talks with imaginary people will be sent to a medical institution, while another crazy person who talks with imaginary people will get tax breaks and special state protection and for some reason major political power.

Common sense and basic science that are meant to advance humanity are constantly under attack by people who are allowed to say thinks like "you cannot disprove my god because my god cannot be disproven. Now give me tax breaks and political power because I believe in that arbitrary thing that cannot be proven". Yes, it affects my life and that of millions of others exclusively negatively.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

And even that completely misses the point. There is no possibility of scientific proof of God. God's essence is fundamentaly unknowable to us since it is literally everything. Even philosophers like Bertrand Russel don't bring up scientific arguments, this is exclusively a debate in the realm of theology and philosophy.

But these other institutions exist. And your logical fallacy is that if it would have been an atheïst institution, these negative things wouldn't have happend. Sorry to burst your bubble. And there is no "net negative effect". That's a popular thing to say, but the public is not always right. Think for yourself.

I do think for myself and especially on my life all religions had a terribly negative effect on me. It pains me to even think that bullshit like that still exists in an age of enlightenment.

Christian religions are constantly trying to meddle in politics that affect my life, Islam is trying to kill me directly and while I'm not much affected by Hinduism and Shinto I know those aren't that well like in their respective states either. Generally it affects me by throwing my sense of justice out of whack since one crazy person who talks with imaginary people will be sent to a medical institution, while another crazy person who talks with imaginary people will get tax breaks and special state protection and for some reason major political power.

Common sense and basic science that are meant to advance humanity are constantly under attack by people who are allowed to say thinks like "you cannot disprove my god because my god cannot be disproven. Now give me tax breaks and political power because I believe in that arbitrary thing that cannot be proven". Yes, it affects my life and that of millions of others exclusively negatively.

Well, sorry to tell you that your enlightment positivism probably killed more people then Christianity ever did. And when I say science can't prove or disprove God, it's because that's actually very sensible. Sorry that it affects a lot of people negatively, but the vast majority of humanity benefitted from it positively.If you think you can just take a dump on religion without pushback. I'm sick and tired of hardline atheïsts telling me whats good or wrong and what exists or don't. You people don't hold any more truth then we do. And I personally have had a lot of ground to doubt atheïst morals even exist. It always relies on an externel system, often even based on religious morals.



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
Ka-pi96 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

And even that completely misses the point. There is no possibility of scientific proof of God. God's essence is fundamentaly unknowable to us since it is literally everything. Even philosophers like Bertrand Russel don't bring up scientific arguments, this is exclusively a debate in the realm of theology and philosophy.

But these other institutions exist. And your logical fallacy is that if it would have been an atheïst institution, these negative things wouldn't have happend. Sorry to burst your bubble. And there is no "net negative effect". That's a popular thing to say, but the public is not always right. Think for yourself.

If it exists then science can prove it, maybe not modern day science, but eventually. If you think otherwise you clearly don't know much about science.

And at a religious person saying "Think for yourself". That really is hilarious.

That's not how the argument works. The cosmological argument is a debate that's purely philosophical. It's safe to say no future science will ever have anything to say about it. That's not an anti-science standpoint, this is something generally agreed on in philosophical circles. I'd think most scientists agree.



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
Ka-pi96 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

That's not how the argument works. The cosmological argument is a debate that's purely philosophical. It's safe to say no future science will ever have anything to say about it. That's not an anti-science standpoint, this is something generally agreed on in philosophical circles. I'd think most scientists agree.

Philosophy: A bunch of old farts yammering on about bullshit.

Sure, use that as your source...

Scientific positivism isn't a sign of a great mind, it's a sign of immaturity.



Around the Network
OneTime on 08 January 2018

Re: science proving God doesn’t exist. Science basically has given up proving this.

Earth goes round the sun.
Universe is older than 4000 years
No attempts to contact God have succeeded
No attempt to measure God’s affect on the Universe have succeeded
Humans evolved like all the other animals
Humans therefore unlikely to be in the image ofGod
Bible was cherry picked from a whole load of scripts
Christianity was chosen by Emperor (Saint) Augustine e because he thought a pacifist religion would be preferable to the Roman Gods
Emporer (Saint) Augustine basically presented himself as “the one God”
The one god in the burning bush was the God Ra in Egypt

Pretty every investigation that has been done has disproved religion...

vivster on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
vivster said:

I do think for myself and especially on my life all religions had a terribly negative effect on me. It pains me to even think that bullshit like that still exists in an age of enlightenment.

Christian religions are constantly trying to meddle in politics that affect my life, Islam is trying to kill me directly and while I'm not much affected by Hinduism and Shinto I know those aren't that well like in their respective states either. Generally it affects me by throwing my sense of justice out of whack since one crazy person who talks with imaginary people will be sent to a medical institution, while another crazy person who talks with imaginary people will get tax breaks and special state protection and for some reason major political power.

Common sense and basic science that are meant to advance humanity are constantly under attack by people who are allowed to say thinks like "you cannot disprove my god because my god cannot be disproven. Now give me tax breaks and political power because I believe in that arbitrary thing that cannot be proven". Yes, it affects my life and that of millions of others exclusively negatively.

Well, sorry to tell you that your enlightment positivism probably killed more people then Christianity ever did. And when I say science can't prove or disprove God, it's because that's actually very sensible. Sorry that it affects a lot of people negatively, but the vast majority of humanity benefitted from it positively.If you think you can just take a dump on religion without pushback. I'm sick and tired of hardline atheïsts telling me whats good or wrong and what exists or don't. You people don't hold any more truth then we do. And I personally have had a lot of ground to doubt atheïst morals even exist. It always relies on an externel system, often even based on religious morals.

Atheism doesn't have morals or any agenda for that reason. It's a way of thinking based on reality. The rules and agendas made up by atheists are theirs alone. Atheism isn't a religion with a doctrine and people who are atheist are as unique and different as any other person.

The big difference in religion and atheism is within a statement.

Atheism: I think we should do this because my thinking had brought me to that conclusion.

Religion: I think we should do this because there is an invisible man in a cloud watching and judging us.

If there are atheists that are assholes then that's their decision. At least they cannot blame their actions on a higher power and have to be responsible for their actions. Religious assholes however will use some doctrine as an excuse. A doctrine that for some reason is arbitrarily protected from other doctrines.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Well, sorry to tell you that your enlightment positivism probably killed more people then Christianity ever did. And when I say science can't prove or disprove God, it's because that's actually very sensible. Sorry that it affects a lot of people negatively, but the vast majority of humanity benefitted from it positively.If you think you can just take a dump on religion without pushback. I'm sick and tired of hardline atheïsts telling me whats good or wrong and what exists or don't. You people don't hold any more truth then we do. And I personally have had a lot of ground to doubt atheïst morals even exist. It always relies on an externel system, often even based on religious morals.

Atheism doesn't have morals or any agenda for that reason. It's a way of thinking based on reality. The rules and agendas made up by atheists are theirs alone. Atheism isn't a religion with a doctrine and people who are atheist are as unique and different as any other person.

The big difference in religion and atheism is within a statement.

Atheism: I think we should do this because my thinking had brought me to that conclusion.

Religion: I think we should do this because there is an invisible man in a cloud watching and judging us.

If there are atheists that are assholes then that's their decision. At least they cannot blame their actions on a higher power and have to be responsible for their actions. Religious assholes however will use some doctrine as an excuse. A doctrine that for some reason is arbitrarily protected from other doctrines.

It seems we won't get along in this topic and I don't want this to dissolve in a shouting match. I wish you all the best anyhow.



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
OneTime said:

Re: science proving God doesn’t exist. Science basically has given up proving this.

1. Earth goes round the sun.
2. Universe is older than 4000 years
3. No attempts to contact God have succeeded
4. No attempt to measure God’s affect on the Universe have succeeded
5. Humans evolved like all the other animals
6. Humans therefore unlikely to be in the image of God
 7. Bible was cherry picked from a whole load of scripts
8. Christianity was chosen by Emperor (Saint) Augustine e because he thought a pacifist religion would be preferable to the Roman Gods
9.. Emporer (Saint) Augustine basically presented himself as “the one God”
10. The one god in the burning bush was the God Ra in Egypt

11. Pretty every investigation that has been done has disproved religion...

I've added points to make it easier to reply.

1, 2. Of course

3. If revelation is the only way to come into contact with God, there have been hundreds of times over the centuries. But it's not possible out of your own accord.

4. It's not measurable in a mathematical sence, but the Cosmological argument would hold that his effect on the universe is absolute.

5. Like and unlike, of course.

6. That's a logical fallacy.

7. Not cherry picked, more like composed. Even my own bible's footnotes aknowledges multiple scripts when they were used and which ones are the more probable ones.

8. Constantine and Augustine were two different persons.

9. Constantine and Augustine were two different persons.

10. What? How would you know?

11. What investigation?



Vincoletto on 08 January 2018
Ganoncrotch said:

really doesn't help when things like this are unveiled outside a Catholic School in the later half of 2017 as well....

They really did a good job on the childs hands cupping the bal.... bread, it's bread.....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/statue-suggestive-saint-child-adelaide-catholic-school-australia-blackfriars-priory-school-simon-a8069071.html

This.... cant be real... is it?