Page 2 of 7

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:26 pm
by nuckfan15
soxie wrote:
nuckfan15 wrote: Oh, and wouldn't it be fair to give someone the benefit of the doubt? In my opinion, assuming most creationists hate gay people is just as bad as calling a gay person a monster. There are a few, but were not all pig-headed.
I DID give him the benefit of the doubt. That's why I asked rather than assumed. Also, I never stated most creationists hate gay people. Quit putting words in my mouth.
You said. "I have come across enough pig-headed creationists". That statement implies most creationists are pig headed.

What you should have said was: "I have come across enough creationists that are pig-headed."

Simple mistake. However; I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that's not what your were intending to say.

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:31 pm
by soxie
nuckfan15 wrote:
soxie wrote:
nuckfan15 wrote: Oh, and wouldn't it be fair to give someone the benefit of the doubt? In my opinion, assuming most creationists hate gay people is just as bad as calling a gay person a monster. There are a few, but were not all pig-headed.
I DID give him the benefit of the doubt. That's why I asked rather than assumed. Also, I never stated most creationists hate gay people. Quit putting words in my mouth.
You said. "I have come across enough pig-headed creationists". That statement implies most creationists are pig headed.
Incorrect. It says that I've come across a large number of pig-headed creationists. Fact. It does not say the majority of creationists I've come across are pig-headed. I unfortunately grew up in a creationist household, I've met my fair share. Thanks for trying.

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:57 pm
by Highway of Life
“Pig-headed creationists” implies that creationists are pig-headed. Otherwise, you would have said “creationists who are pig-headed”

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:35 pm
by soxie
:roll: In the context of the quote it implies that the creationists who hate homosexuals are pig-headed. Now that you've gotten your jollies off playing semantics police, how about we get back on subject?

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:52 pm
by soxie
GanjaGarden wrote:Who here think that he should be jailed for his crimes
If it's found to be true that he covered up cases of sexual abuse (which I don't doubt in the least!) then of course he should be put to trial. Britain is considering the possibility of it, so good for them. I don't see it happening, though. The church has money and money is power.
GanjaGarden wrote: and who thinks that he should be immune to punishment ... what with him being a direct line to god and whatnot.
No one should be immune to punishment, especially with using a rubbish excuse of being a direct line to god or whatever he claims to be.

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:13 am
by Darth Wong
Highway of Life wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:continued behaviour of these monsters
Just an observation, but as an atheist, you don’t believe in evil. Do you? How can you be sure this behavior is wrong?
It is unethical, according to humanistic ethics. Why do you persist in assuming that everyone must believe in a religion like yours in order to have ethics beliefs? Do you even realize how bigoted that is? You're basically saying that everyone who doesn't believe in your God is completely immoral.

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:16 am
by Darth Wong
Highway of Life wrote:“Pig-headed creationists” implies that creationists are pig-headed. Otherwise, you would have said “creationists who are pig-headed”
I'll say it: all creationists are pig-headed. In order to believe in creationism, you must by definition believe that the entire global scientific community, spanning across dozens of countries, has been engaged in a gigantic multi-disciplinary conspiracy of lies for more than a century. It's the mother of all absurd conspiracy theories, and by definition, it makes wild accusations about the integrity of all the world's scientists.

Creationists are so accustomed to their echo chamber that they don't even realize what wildly offensive claims they are casually making about scientists. Creationists literally accuse the entire global scientific community of being liars! To appeal to civility after making such wild and scurrilous accusations is the height of hypocrisy.

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:55 am
by Highway of Life
Bigotry is defined as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself”.
I’m going to quote some of your exact statements and just replace a word here or there. Everyone can be the judge.

“all evolutionists are pig-headed”
“Evolution is the mother of all absurd theories”
“Evolutionists are so accustomed to their echo chamber that they don’t even realize what wildly offensive claims they are casually making about Creationists.”
“Evolutionists literally accuse the entire Creationist community of being liars!”
“Why do you persist in assuming that everyone must believe in no religion like yourself?... Do you even realize how bigoted that is?”
“You're basically saying that everyone who doesn't hold your beliefs of no God is a bigot and a liar... and is the height of hypocrisy!”

Here’s a thought. I think you believe in a lie, I don’t understand how someone can be so blind to God, to the beauty and creation of the world around him and not see God. How somebody can ignore blatant evidence that God exists and try so hard as to push everyone else into the same insanity. How someone can make such absurd statements, how you can make such arguments that defines the logical mind, every argument being very easy to poke holes into. For all your wisdom, you know very little about the way we Christians think.

And you very likely think the exact same thing about me, or Christians. But it goes both ways, doesn’t it? You make accusations against me, Creationists, or Christians, accusations of Bigotry, when you yourself are making the bigoted claims!

...

Regarding ethics, that was not my question. You said there is no evil. So what do you call the behavior of these “monsters”? If it’s not evil. What is it?

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:11 am
by Darth Wong
Highway of Life wrote:Bigotry is defined as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself”.
Correct. However, "Intolerance" is not a synonym for "criticism". If I was making up criticisms with no shred of basis in fact you might have a point, but I can back up what I'm saying.
I’m going to quote some of your exact statements and just replace a word here or there. Everyone can be the judge.

“all evolutionists are pig-headed”
Except I gave a specific reason for that statement: creationists do believe in a gigantic century-long global conspiracy theory among scientists.
“Evolution is the mother of all absurd theories”
Word substitution does not change the fact that there are scientific criteria for a valid theory. Evolution meets them, and creationism does not.
“Evolutionists are so accustomed to their echo chamber that they don’t even realize what wildly offensive claims they are casually making about Creationists.”
I accuse creationists of saying that the world scientific community has been engaged in a massive global conspiracy for the last century: a patently absurd belief. This is not an "offensive" claim; it is a factual one. If I equate that to being pig-headed, so be it. It's a valid statement.
“Evolutionists literally accuse the entire Creationist community of being liars!”
No, I accuse you of being foolish. You don't know any better. Moreover, an accusation of creationist dishonesty does not equate to the kind of conspiracy required for evolution, geology, and astrophysics to all be collaborating on a giant scam.
“Why do you persist in assuming that everyone must believe in no religion like yourself?... Do you even realize how bigoted that is?”
“You're basically saying that everyone who doesn't hold your beliefs of no God is a bigot and a liar... and is the height of hypocrisy!”
Except I never said that. I never said that Christians can't be moral. You, on the other hand, have said that you can't understand how anyone can be moral without your religion.
Here’s a thought. I think you believe in a lie, I don’t understand how someone can be so blind to God, to the beauty and creation of the world around him and not see God. How somebody can ignore blatant evidence that God exists and try so hard as to push everyone else into the same insanity. How someone can make such absurd statements, how you can make such arguments that defines the logical mind, every argument being very easy to poke holes into. For all your wisdom, you know very little about the way we Christians think.
Wrong. I know precisely how Christians think. You believe in something because it feels so right. The logic doesn't completely track, but that doesn't matter because some things are beyond logic. After all, there's love, and hope, and faith, right? Logic is overrated, right? I've read the Bible. I've attended hundreds of church services. I married a Christian. I know Christians vastly better than you know atheists.
And you very likely think the exact same thing about me, or Christians. But it goes both ways, doesn’t it? You make accusations against me, Creationists, or Christians, accusations of Bigotry, when you yourself are making the bigoted claims!
Wrong. I never claimed that Christians had no reason to be moral. You did, on the other hand, claim that atheists have no reason to be moral.
Regarding ethics, that was not my question. You said there is no evil. So what do you call the behavior of these “monsters”? If it’s not evil. What is it?
I never said their behaviour was not evil. I said that evil is not a discrete force in the universe. It is just a word we use to describe that which is extremely unethical. I already explained this to you in the other thread, last week. It's getting really tiresome having to say things more than once before you notice them.

For that matter, I note that I have been doing you the courtesy of carefully answering your arguments point by point, while you invariably ignore specific points I make, in favour of a generalized response which may or may not acknowledge any particular point I make (usually not).

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:04 am
by Highway of Life
Darth Wong wrote:but I can back up what I'm saying.
And I can back up what I’m saying, which makes your argument look really obnoxious.
Darth Wong wrote:Except I gave a specific reason for that statement: creationists do believe in a gigantic century-long global conspiracy theory among scientists.
So do you believe in the Global Warming we now know as “ClimateGate”? As a rational mind, I would think you would learn to question conclusions and not just blindly buy anything the scientific community fed you. I am a fan of science, but I have learned to question everything. There is a reason “Evolution Theory” is known as a Theory. I just watched a liberal program on evolution today that admitted they had not found the “missing link” that they’ve been looking for that would prove that Humans and Apes evolved from a common ancestor. Without taking this so far off topic with evolution vs. creation, my point is that it’s a theory for a reason.
Darth Wong wrote:Word substitution does not change the fact that there are scientific criteria for a valid theory. Evolution meets them, and creationism does not.
That’s purely YOUR opinion, and others, that is only one side to the story. An equal number of others hold an opposite opinion. At least I’m willing to admit that others have a valid opinion, even if I think it’s wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid, it just means that we cannot agree on a common truth, which is the very nature of mankind. I’m surprised a rational mind couldn’t see that.
Darth Wong wrote:I accuse creationists of saying that the world scientific community has been engaged in a massive global conspiracy for the last century: a patently absurd belief. This is not an "offensive" claim; it is a factual one. If I equate that to being pig-headed, so be it. It's a valid statement.
Yes, and with ClimateGate, we were proven that there are indeed valid conspiracy theories. What else does it prove? It means we question everything. I’m not suggesting that there is or is not a conspiracy here. I’m suggesting that it be questioned. But for a man of no-faith, you’re putting a lot of faith into a theory.
A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. It is not “fact”. The Big Bang theory is a theory for a reason. Even though I believe it’s true, it’s still a theory.
Darth Wong wrote:No, I accuse you of being foolish. You don't know any better.
And I could accuse you of being foolish as well, you don’t know any better. It still goes both ways. I’m not going to say: “oh, but my opinion is correct and the only truth”. As a rational mind, I know it’s not. I expected other rational minds to at least think things through. I know for a fact that you believe your beliefs are completely true and there is no other way. But isn’t that what you’re accusing me of?
Darth Wong wrote:Moreover, an accusation of creationist dishonesty
Wow, I’m shocked, is there not any dishonesty among evolutionists? They are just a completely trustful and 100% truthful group? Does that go both ways as well, or is this just your opinion?
Darth Wong wrote:Except I never said that. I never said that Christians can't be moral. You, on the other hand, have said that you can't understand how anyone can be moral without your religion.
And I also did not say that. I question how you can define morality when there is no basis for a code of ethics among non-believers. How can you say that your moral code is any better than an Islamic who holds very different beliefs from both you and me, and would say that his moral code is the true and correct basis for ethics? Who’s to say that your next door neighbor does not commit many of these moral and ethical crimes that you and I can see are wrong, but he believes is not wrong. It’s a very subjective system, isn’t it?
Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. I know precisely how Christians think. You believe in something because it feels so right. The logic doesn't completely track, but that doesn't matter because some things are beyond logic. After all, there's love, and hope, and faith, right? Logic is overrated, right? I've read the Bible. I've attended hundreds of church services. I married a Christian. I know Christians vastly better than you know atheists.
This statement alone proves that you don’t know Christians as well as you think you do. Did you consider that I might know Christians better than you because I am a Christian, and you’re not? Don’t you think I would know what we think and believe? Not all Atheists hold the exact same beliefs or think the exact same way, nor think the exact things you do. I’ve seen you argue with them here in GD. You think Christians throw out logic, actually, I believe it’s atheists who are throwing out logic. Because I can’t see how a logical mind can’t see God. It’s clear to me that you don’t understand Christians any more than you understand God or who he is. Anymore than you claim I misunderstand atheists. It’s subjective again, isn’t it? But no, you are the only one with all the correct answers. That’s called bigotry, when you can’t tolerate those who hold different opinions to yours.

There is a funny billboard that comes to mind:
“I don’t believe in you either.

- God”

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:27 pm
by Darth Wong
Highway of Life wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:but I can back up what I'm saying.
And I can back up what I’m saying, which makes your argument look really obnoxious.
No you can't. There is no giant conspiracy theory required for evolution, unlike creationism which requires a giant century-long global scientific conspiracy. You can't pretend the two are equal on this score, no matter how hard you try.
So do you believe in the Global Warming we now know as “ClimateGate”?
Three points:

1) "ClimateGate" has nothing to do with evolution.
2) The individuals involved in "ClimateGate" were actually cleared of wrongdoing. Naturally, this did not get the press coverage that the original story did.
3) CO2 greenhouse warming theory was never dependent upon anything the ClimateGate researchers did.
As a rational mind, I would think you would learn to question conclusions and not just blindly buy anything the scientific community fed you. I am a fan of science, but I have learned to question everything. There is a reason “Evolution Theory” is known as a Theory.
I addressed this in a previous post. There is nothing perjorative about the word "theory" in science. The question is whether it's a good theory or a bad one. Questioning it because it's called a "theory" is just plain ignorant.
I just watched a liberal program on evolution today that admitted they had not found the “missing link” that they’ve been looking for that would prove that Humans and Apes evolved from a common ancestor. Without taking this so far off topic with evolution vs. creation, my point is that it’s a theory for a reason.
See above, And this conveniently unnamed "liberal program" of yours is simply false. This is what happens when people learn science from TV instead of going to university. Here's a nice list of hominid fossils for you. Anyone who says they've never found this "missing link" is spouting nonsense.
Darth Wong wrote:Word substitution does not change the fact that there are scientific criteria for a valid theory. Evolution meets them, and creationism does not.
That’s purely YOUR opinion, and others, that is only one side to the story. An equal number of others hold an opposite opinion. At least I’m willing to admit that others have a valid opinion, even if I think it’s wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid, it just means that we cannot agree on a common truth, which is the very nature of mankind. I’m surprised a rational mind couldn’t see that.
Science is not a matter of opinion. There is an actual scientific method, and a proper definition of a scientific theory. If you are ignorant of that definition, then you have no business talking about science at all. A scientific theory must have a defined mechanism, which can be used to derive specific predictions. Without that, it's not a scientific theory. Creationism does not meet this requirement. Evolution does.
Yes, and with ClimateGate, we were proven that there are indeed valid conspiracy theories. What else does it prove? It means we question everything. I’m not suggesting that there is or is not a conspiracy here. I’m suggesting that it be questioned. But for a man of no-faith, you’re putting a lot of faith into a theory.
A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. It is not “fact”. The Big Bang theory is a theory for a reason. Even though I believe it’s true, it’s still a theory.
Again, you ignore the fact that ClimateGate was mostly a right-wing smear job, and you keep acting as if "theory" means "weak". You really need to go to school and learn something about the scientific method.
Darth Wong wrote:No, I accuse you of being foolish. You don't know any better.
And I could accuse you of being foolish as well, you don’t know any better. It still goes both ways.
I have university training in the sciences, and I've proven my point by explaining what is actually required for a scientific theory. You, on the other hand, are speaking entirely in terms of politics and opinion. Your arguments would not look at all out of place in a political discussion rather than a scientific one, which is where I suspect you get most of your scientific opinions. Your completely irrelevant inclusion of "ClimateGate" is a good example of that.
I’m not going to say: “oh, but my opinion is correct and the only truth”. As a rational mind, I know it’s not. I expected other rational minds to at least think things through. I know for a fact that you believe your beliefs are completely true and there is no other way. But isn’t that what you’re accusing me of?
You're still talking about personalities and opinions. I have explained what makes creationism scientifically unacceptable, and you have ignored this. You would obviously much rather talk in these vague unscientific political-style arguments about personalities and opinions, and not about what does or doesn't constitute science. You actually think "theory" means "weak", and you think I should not be accusing you of scientific ignorance?
Darth Wong wrote:Moreover, an accusation of creationist dishonesty
Wow, I’m shocked, is there not any dishonesty among evolutionists? They are just a completely trustful and 100% truthful group? Does that go both ways as well, or is this just your opinion?
You do understand that part of the scientific method is independent verifiabiliy, right? That's part of how science works: we don't have to trust any individual to be an anointed holy prophet. So your reverse-claim carries no weight: religion requires absolute faith in individuals, but science does not. Not unless you assume they're all participating in a giant conspiracy.
Darth Wong wrote:Except I never said that. I never said that Christians can't be moral. You, on the other hand, have said that you can't understand how anyone can be moral without your religion.
And I also did not say that. I question how you can define morality when there is no basis for a code of ethics among non-believers.
I can't believe your gall. You just said it again! You just repeated your claim that non-believers are utterly bereft of any basis for a code of ethics, in the same sentence where you denied saying it!
How can you say that your moral code is any better than an Islamic who holds very different beliefs from both you and me, and would say that his moral code is the true and correct basis for ethics? Who’s to say that your next door neighbor does not commit many of these moral and ethical crimes that you and I can see are wrong, but he believes is not wrong. It’s a very subjective system, isn’t it?
Sure, your monstrously distorted version of humanist ethics is very subjective. The original one is not. Human rights (a humanist ethics invention) are actually defined as universal.
Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. I know precisely how Christians think. You believe in something because it feels so right. The logic doesn't completely track, but that doesn't matter because some things are beyond logic. After all, there's love, and hope, and faith, right? Logic is overrated, right? I've read the Bible. I've attended hundreds of church services. I married a Christian. I know Christians vastly better than you know atheists.
This statement alone proves that you don’t know Christians as well as you think you do. Did you consider that I might know Christians better than you because I am a Christian, and you’re not? Don’t you think I would know what we think and believe? Not all Atheists hold the exact same beliefs or think the exact same way, nor think the exact things you do. I’ve seen you argue with them here in GD. You think Christians throw out logic, actually, I believe it’s atheists who are throwing out logic.
Of course you believe that. But you have utterly failed to explain that belief. I can even point out the specific logic principle that Christians are ignoring: Ockham's Razor, aka the logical principle of parsimony. What have you done? All you do is keep harping on opinion and personality.
Because I can’t see how a logical mind can’t see God. It’s clear to me that you don’t understand Christians any more than you understand God or who he is. Anymore than you claim I misunderstand atheists. It’s subjective again, isn’t it? But no, you are the only one with all the correct answers. That’s called bigotry, when you can’t tolerate those who hold different opinions to yours.
See above. I actually pointed out the specific logic principle you're ignoring. You, on the other hand, keep using words like "science" and "logic" but your argument is couched in neither: all of your arguments are focused on personality and opinion.
There is a funny billboard that comes to mind:
“I don’t believe in you either.

- God”
What's really funny is that a human had to put it up.

Here's a challenge for you: try to argue your case using the language of logic and science, without reference to politics, personality, or opinion. If you say I'm ignoring logic, then don't just make vague reference to how you could point out flaws in my logic just as easily as I point out flaws in yours; instead, actually do it by identifying and naming specific logic fallacies I'm employing, just as I did for you. If you say I'm misusing science, then don't just make vague reference to how you could identify flaws in my scientific reasoning just as easily as I did yours: actually do it, by explaining the scientific principle or aspect of the scientific method that I've got wrong. Your argument is heavy on opinions about logic and science, but remarkably short on actual logic and science.

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:10 am
by CaNNon_
For the OP.
You may like this quote,
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

John Dalberg-Acton 1870


The topic goes more to human nature than any office of the holder.
Yes they should not walk away from this including state wise as immunity can also be revoked.

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:18 am
by jbones
All I know is you can't argue faith; and, science from a hundred years ago is different than science of today. Theories are often times debunked as we learn more with the passing of time. Also, news papers play into agendas now a days and politics often times guides them. Politics are too often corrupt and bias. Also, men prefer to believe the worst about each other; so, it is no surprise to me so many are screaming for someone's head, regardless of who's it is, as long as it isn't theirs. Religion - politics, pretty-much the same now a days, from what we hear in the news. :?

1000 years from now, society will be laughing about what we believe, how we believed it and won't be able to figure out why we even believed these things in the first place.

I hope the Christians are right in part, I hope science is right in part... but don't ask me to figure it out - I don't have the answer book and I won't pretend; like so many do, they do have the answer book.

point: none, just flapping my keyboard gums

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:32 pm
by izmaellz
I do. Nobody should be above the Law! Especially the Pope, being such an important figure in the Catholic Church which proclaims to do good and not to commit sins. Hypocrites!

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:43 am
by nuckfan15
izmaellz wrote:I do. Nobody should be above the Law! Especially the Pope, being such an important figure in the Catholic Church which proclaims to do good and not to commit sins. Hypocrites!
I know this is slightly different, but you try being perfect and let me know how that works out for you. ;) The entire Christian faith is based upon a forgiveness that nobody deserves, nor could ever warrant. Just because somebody is a Christian, doesn't mean they won't sin. In fact, I can say with utmost certainty, they WILL sin.

Where in the world did you come to understanding that being a Christian or Catholic means you won't ever sin?