I recall a story some years back where a preist was caught having an affair with one of his adult female parishoners.

He was defrocked and they were both excommunicated.

I'm sure that if he had been caught molesting choirboys he would have been merely transferred, which is what usually happens.

The implication being that in the eyes of the catholic empire(sorry, church) sex with a child is a lesser crime than sex with a consenting woman.

Conclusion; the catholic hierarchy is a bunch of pedophiles looking out for each other.

Zen Badger;114449 Wrote:I recall a story some years back where a preist was caught having an affair with one of his adult female parishoners.

He was defrocked and they were both excommunicated.

I'm sure that if he had been caught molesting choirboys he would have been merely transferred, which is what usually happens.

The implication being that in the eyes of the catholic empire(sorry, church) sex with a child is a lesser crime than sex with a consenting woman.

Conclusion; the catholic hierarchy is a bunch of pedophiles looking out for each other.

This is silly ignorance. Grow up. It is certainly not a valid or sound argument. You atheist claim to be so concerned about reason, and truth, act like it. Thank you.

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:Well, in one sense it's an illusion ...

Under any sense it is an illusion, under your view (when held consistently). Your conception of meaning is simply an illusion of what under your view meaning actually is; that is, your act of conceiving, reflecting upon, and articulating meaning is in reality nothing more than electrical and chemical signaling throughout specific neural tissue and manifest physiologically.

I have no idea what "tautological meaning" is supposed to be. Given what those two words mean, that is a self-contradiction; tautologies merely state what is necessarily true (e.g., "A bachelor is an unmarried male."), repeating the same thing in different words, stating something about itself without stating new information.

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:Illusions are normally thought of as things that fool you. But once you're aware of them, are they still illusions?

No. Then they become delusions, a false belief persistently held despite invalidating evidence, and creating a cognitive dissonance if you try to maintain both views simultaneously. If you do not experience that cognitive dissonance, then it is still an illusion fooling you.

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:If objective reality exists independent of us, then it does.

That is a tautology, yes—and a tautological tautology, since "objective" and "independent of us" mean the same damn thing. So your tautology should be rewritten, "If objective reality exists, then it does." However, that is a logical statement that is definitional and therefore vacuous. And it does not provide any rescue for you since we are talking about meaning which, under your view, is nothing more than neurological activity (i.e., biochemical signaling in your mammalian brain is what 'meaning' refers to).

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:Either something exists independently to us, or it doesn't.

"Something"? I am talking about the fate of meaning and truth under your atheistic view, which cannot give a coherent account for such things as meaning and truth being real in themselves. You can claim whatever you like, but to suggest that your view supports the claims you make requires a bit of work on your part. Show me, using your own atheistic view, how things like meaning and truth have an objective referent (i.e., that they point to something apart from you).

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:My experience of meaning I really do experience ...

And what you are experiencing is illusory, under your own view (when held consistently). What you conceive, reflect upon, and articulate meaning to be is not at all what you claim meaning actually is. There is what your experience tells you meaning is on the one hand, and what your view tells you it is on the other—and they are not the same. If your view is correct, then your experience is an illusion. If your experience is correct, then your view is faulty.

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:You are just making a Use/Mention distinction error and confusing the concept of meaning and truth with meaning and truth itself.

Incorrect, since I am exploring your own view, under which committing a use-mention confusion is not possible; that is, the concepts of meaning and truth and what they are themselves both refer to the same thing: biochemical signaling of your mammalian brain. In this case the use-mention confusion is possible under my view but not yours.

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:[For gnostic theists] to actually know that God existed they would also have to be correct, since knowledge implies truth.

Correct. Let's avoid ambiguities here and speak specifically. I know God exists; as you correctly observe, that means what I believe to be true actually is true and there exists a proper line of justification between the two (i.e., justified true belief). I realize that under your agnostic views this is not possible, that under your view I simply believe that I know; not to put too fine a point on it, however, your agnostic views could not be any more irrelevant. It is not as if my views are required to satisfy the criteria of yours.

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:My point is that unless you can back up your point I don't see why I should take your point seriously.

Whether or not you take some point seriously is just more autobiographical information, which continues to be irrelevant to my point. Have you not engaged me long enough in these forums over the last couple years to know that I'm not here to convert or convince anyone? Whether or not you are convinced, interested, amused, compelled or what have you is really quite beside the point. I am here to critically evaluate other arguments and to refine my own.

DoubtVsFaith Wrote:What on earth are you talking about? Agnostic atheism isn't related to knowledge ...

Dude, seriously? Yes it is. Are you not familiar with what agnosticism refers to, what that privative Greek alpha is negating? That's right, gnostos (the root of which is gnosis). It pertains to the category of knowledge; in the case of agnosticism, the absence thereof (agnosis, without knowledge; agnostos, unknown or unknowable). React less, think more.

---

---

dqualk Wrote:Is it enough to lay all the blame on the institution of the Catholic Church?

Yes.

dqualk Wrote:Well, concerning the molestation of children, the Church did not "allow it to happen." As an institution she does everything she can to stop the molestation of children.

Like hell she does.

dqualk Wrote:The "cover ups" are not so bad as they sound. People cover up crimes like this for all sorts of reason, not all of which are evil.

You officially disgust me. Good bye.

Shell B;114443 Wrote:dqualk, it is you that is making yourself sound worse. If anything, the church seeks to quell atheists. Atheism doesn't "flourish." Its prominence has come about through the willingness of a lot of good men to stand true to their beliefs, despite the fact that the church could punish them heavily. Now your stupid ass church cannot kill us blasphemers and lovers of demons. I bet that pisses you off.

I would never ever ever ever desire your death. I would always fight that you would live and live well.

I thought atheist were too rational to believe in the supernatural. This furthers my earlier point that a study showed that athesist are something liek 5 times more likely to use horoscopes, astrology, and beleive in witchcraft, ghosts etc. then Christians.

---

Quote:No. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with the tolerance of Christianity. It has more to do with the scientific enlightenment of the renaissance (which the church hated since so many of the convictions it held onto and told people were true turned out to be false and stupid), and the emergence of free democratic states with strong civil liberties, which meant that the Church could no longer burn heretics at the stake.

The scientific enligtenment happened within the Christian context, civil liberties grew out of the Church's teachings that man has intrinsic value, namely life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are outside of a governments rightful power to interfere with. Most people during the Renaissance were Christians. Nearly all who became atheists were Christnas before they left the faith and left the faith within a Christian society, that had, thankfully matured enough, to recognize taht killing them did not help soceity. Once again the Church in the medieval and earlier only condoned killing if it was necessary for the security of the secular realm. It was a grievous sin to force someone to convert through force. For example, Charles the Great was nearly excommunicated for forcing Saxons to convert. However, the Church allowed England etc. to burn heretics only because the Crowns said that if these heretics lived they woudl cause rebellion that would cause teh death and destruction of more good things. Even then it was not encouraged merely permissible. A good example of teh Church and killing is the Christian Just War theory. Do Christians always do what they beleive? No. Does anyone? No.

---

Ryft Wrote:

dqualk Wrote:Is it enough to lay all the blame on the institution of the Catholic Church?

Yes.

dqualk Wrote:Well, concerning the molestation of children, the Church did not "allow it to happen." As an institution she does everything she can to stop the molestation of children.

Like hell she does.

dqualk Wrote:The "cover ups" are not so bad as they sound. People cover up crimes like this for all sorts of reason, not all of which are evil.

You officially disgust me. Good bye.

Ryft how can the Church stop the molestation. What measures would you put in place? Listen Ryft, I clearly do not mean what you are pretending I mean. What I am saying is that these cover ups are far more complicated then just the Church as a whole covered something up. Bad bishops made bad decisions. This does not mean we blame the whole Church. When one Christian does something evil we do not say that Christianity is herself evil. This is what you and others are doing. The fact is the cover ups should be judged individually for how evil they are. Say a 17 year old gay man is sleeping with a 60 year old gay priest, both are doing so willingly. Lets say 30 years later people are handing out millions of dollars to anyone molested by a priest. Now the gay guys wants money etc. This is not the case in every abuse, and it still does not make it right but its not so evil as it sounds. Its more complciated. Also, the Church as a whole has a code of canon law in place that deals with the issue in a very appropraite way. Bishops and priests were ignoring canon law, without the consent of other bishops and priests. They were "covering it up." So the Pope and other bishops didnt know, if they did they would have put a stop to it sooner. As soon as it came to light the Church acted with immediate action by defrocking and doing whatever necessary to protect kids. Why don't you give me a break Ryft rather than being hateful toward me? Or at least be kind enough to ask me to clear up my position. And maybe give me the benefit of the doubt? Clearly I'm not saying the molestation is not that evil or the act of covering up evil is not that evil. I mean only to say that hte Church is not evil because of the actions of a few, just like the Public School system is not evil because of the actions of some bad principles and teachers et al.

Actually they cared about their image more than the kids...

dqualk Wrote:

Zen Badger;114449 Wrote:I recall a story some years back where a preist was caught having an affair with one of his adult female parishoners.

He was defrocked and they were both excommunicated.

I'm sure that if he had been caught molesting choirboys he would have been merely transferred, which is what usually happens.

The implication being that in the eyes of the catholic empire(sorry, church) sex with a child is a lesser crime than sex with a consenting woman.

Conclusion; the catholic hierarchy is a bunch of pedophiles looking out for each other.

This is silly ignorance. Grow up. It is certainly not a valid or sound argument. You atheist claim to be so concerned about reason, and truth, act like it. Thank you.

Oh really?

Then please demonstrate how it is invalid as a denial doesn't count.

The priest WAS defrocked for his actions, whereas many,many priests that are found by the empire to be raping little boys are simply transferred.

Since I have shown that the empire will protect child rapists but not men having affairs with adult women what other conclusion can logically be drawn.

Re the empire and the nazi party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ch...zi_Germany

Specifically this bit,

Quote:At the end of the war, top Catholic officers organized the so-called ratlines that allowed Nazi war criminals to flee towards South America and other destinations via Francoist Spain. Bishop Alois Hudal and Cardinals Luigi Maglione, Eugene Tisserant and Antonio Caggiano, as well as the Roman Seminar in San Girolamo degli Illirici of Father Krunoslav Draganović were specially active in this task. Thousands of presumed European Catholic immigrants, actually Nazis in disguise, were able to escape from Europe using these networks.

Though if you're prepared to cover up for child rapists, helping murderers isn't such a great leap is it.

Zen Badger;114468 Wrote:Oh really?

Then please demonstrate how it is invalid as a denial doesn't count.

The priest WAS defrocked for his actions, whereas many,many priests that are found by the empire to be raping little boys are simply transferred.

Since I have shown that the empire will protect child rapists but not men having affairs with adult women what other conclusion can logically be drawn.

Re the empire and the nazi party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ch...zi_Germany

Specifically this bit,

Quote:At the end of the war, top Catholic officers organized the so-called ratlines that allowed Nazi war criminals to flee towards South America and other destinations via Francoist Spain. Bishop Alois Hudal and Cardinals Luigi Maglione, Eugene Tisserant and Antonio Caggiano, as well as the Roman Seminar in San Girolamo degli Illirici of Father Krunoslav Draganović were specially active in this task. Thousands of presumed European Catholic immigrants, actually Nazis in disguise, were able to escape from Europe using these networks.

Though if you're prepared to cover up for child rapists, helping murderers isn't such a great leap is it.

You are using a fallacy by assuming that the actions of one man constitutes the whole.

Another question, why does Jesus allow these men to become priests in the first place?

So much for him protecting the little children.

---

dqualk Wrote:You are using a fallacy by assuming that the actions of one man constitutes the whole.

Well that's a non answer.

It's not just one man though, it's many many men.

About 5% of the priestly population have been positively identified( the actual % could well be higher).

The thing that enrages people is that the empire protects them and tried to deny that there was a problem. And chances are that many of those priests that didn't get caught are now in positions of authority.

No comment on the ratlines?

dqualk Wrote:Ryft, how can the Church stop the molestation? What measures would you put in place?

How about not simply moving such priests from one locale to another, where they can continue their behavior with a new batch of kids? How about paying attention to the letters that were streaming in to Vatican officials for several decades, warning about what was taking place and that the priests should be defrocked? How about letting your priests get married so they can satisfy their natural sexual desires in covenant matrimony (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:9)? And so on.

dqualk Wrote:When one Christian does something evil we do not say that Christianity is herself evil. This is what you and others are doing.

First, don't lump me in with others. Second, that is not what I am doing. I did not suggest that the RCC should be blamed for what this or that priest did; the RCC should be blamed for what its Vatican authorities did or didn't do.

dqualk Wrote:The Pope and other bishops didn't know. If they did, they would have put a stop to it sooner.

A claim Rome has made for years, and proven to be an outright lie in court in 2007. They had known since at least the 1950s.

dqualk Wrote:Why don't you give me a break, Ryft, rather than being hateful toward me?

Because you are doing what bishops and priests have done for decades—defending Rome and NOT the victims. And you are clearly not informed of the issues, since you are spewing Vatican talking points that are at minimum four years out of date and refuted by evidence in court. When you start showing more concern for the abuses than for the integrity of Rome, then I'll give you a break.

dqualk Wrote:I thought atheist were too rational to believe in the supernatural. This furthers my earlier point that a study showed that athesist are something liek 5 times more likely to use horoscopes, astrology, and beleive in witchcraft, ghosts etc. then Christians.

I thought my sarcasm was barely veiled. Did you really take my post to mean I really believe atheists have sex with demons?

I don't do or believe in any of those things. Furthermore, sources or it didn't happen.