(March 5, 2013 at 7:19 am)EGross Wrote: You want to argue that the side where the pile of dead and wrecked bodies is not as heavy as the side that represents the charity work.

The other thing to consider is that his argument claims that without the catholic church none of that good work would ever have happened, and I disagree. I think that all the church has done is taken the credit for real people's good work and given it to a god that has done nothing.

---

(March 5, 2013 at 7:10 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Its is essentiallly a "bash the Catholic Chruch" event, not a serious debate. The anti-Catholic speakers were:

- Christopher Hitchens; an alcoholic, arrogant narcissist and attention seeker who would say anything - anything - no matter how outrageous, ridiculous or controvrsial, if he thought it would have got him some attention. His style of debate is to take the piss and act self-righteously - not look at the facts. He was a performing monkey essentially. His attacks on the Church convince only those who know nothing about the Church, Christianity, or History.

Hitch said more things of substance in that debate that both of the religious speakers combined. Your inability to accept that doesn't make him any of those negative things, and how dare you ascribe motivations to a man when he can't fight back or correct you? That's the height of arrogance.

Quote:- Stephen Fry; a self-regarding homosexual man who - like many homosexual people - cannot seem to adopt an objective view of his disordered sexuality. In the modern day he is famous for nothing, bar being a famous homosexual (20 years ago, he was a decent small-time bit-part actor in comedies - Blackadder, Jeeves and Wooster etc) .

Wrongo. Don't cast aspersions against Stephen Fry; currently the guy writes books, and he also hosts the quizz show QI. He's also starred in a number of documentary films, including producing a few himself. He's also been in a number of movies even up to the current day. Just because you're ignorant of his work doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you're ignorant.

Quote:He dislikes the Catholic Church because it has the courage to tell the truth about human sexuality -a truth which he would prefer not to hear. He even has the audacity to say "What is it for?" to applause from the crowd, as though the point of the Catholic Church is not obvious, or cannot easily be found out. (Hint - its for doing the type of massive good listed above, you stupid-ass bufter).

Bigot.

Quote:secular people base their opinions on what they have been told by the likes of Fry and Hitchins, they do not like to inestigate and find things out for themselves.

You don't get to speak for us, papist. We'll tell you what we believe and how we came to those beliefs, not the other way around.

Wow gabriel nice stats. Really building a great argument. Then you totally deviated from that to criticize a dead man who suffered from a MENTAL ILLNESS!

Steven Fry famous for nothing? Disordered sexuality? The majority of sexual assailants and pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexuals, and you think two men having consensual sex is disordered?

On the pro side you have an Archbishop of the Catholic church, and one of the most famous Catholic figureheads up against a "performing monkey," and a guy "famous for nothing." Don't get butthurt just because your experts are experts in shit.

The only thing the Cataholic "church" is good for is to give Psychiatry / Psychology fresh meat to work with.

Guilt is such a wonderful tool

If you want to know of quite a number of non-religious (secular) organizations do good, such as (one of my favorites) "Doctors without Borders", then CLICK HERE

In other words, while religion may encourage some work in that area (providing it does not conflict with Church dogma), it is the people who do that work, and if the Church disappeared, people would continue to do that work.

One big problem with Christians going to other countries to help, pushing Jesus into people's lives. While it may not be overt, it is always there.

There are some break-aways, such as a group of nuns who have openly disobeyed the Church and are ministering to people to give them what they need, and ignoring dogma, which sometimes goes against Church doctrine. They are hoping that the next Pope isn't such a dick as the last one.

So there is always an exception! When you keep the Church out of it, good occurs without the inferred required payment. Because of it's dark history, that garbage is always going to get in the way of non-Catholics seeing anything that the Church does as a good deed without an ulterior motive.

And a couple of side benifits about organizations, such as Doctors without Borders, they do not push religion on the people that they help (no hidden agenda), and they don't sodomize the kids.

(March 5, 2013 at 7:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: ...You don't get to speak for us, papist. We'll tell you what we believe and how we came to those beliefs, not the other way around.

Atheist beliefs. Yep.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(March 5, 2013 at 7:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: ...You don't get to speak for us, papist. We'll tell you what we believe and how we came to those beliefs, not the other way around.

Atheist beliefs. Yep.

Get off the grass lion. Your losing touch with reality again.

(March 5, 2013 at 6:23 am)EGross Wrote: The problem is, and I experience this when I was a believer, is that when representatives of your faith, who are true practtioners of that faith, say or do disgusting things, you need to be loyal, or segregate them as part of a different segment of the same core faith, since your group doesn't do that, or leave.

I, like you, don't have such a problem anymore. There is freedom in being disconnected from idiots who claim that Hurricane Sandy was the result of [insert sin here].

There's a very easy way to discern between the Christian who momentarily lapses into sin and the sinner who is an atheist in disguise.

Only the Christian admits that what they did actually was a sin against God and accepts their punishment/repentance.

The atheist does not accept Gods existence. The atheist assumes the right to ignore the Church's official condemnation of sin.
And the atheist does not even care about, let alone fear, an afterlife punishment for;

- lying,
- breaking a vow of chastity,
- having unmarried sex,
- teaching a disgusting adult sin unto these little ones. (Matthew 18:6)

(March 5, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Atheist beliefs. Yep.

What did I just fucking say about telling me what I believe, god botherer?

I have plenty of beliefs, they just happen to stem from rational thought, not meaningless dogma.

Quote:There's a very easy way to discern between the Christian who momentarily lapses into sin and the sinner who is an atheist in disguise.

Only the Christian admits that what they did was a sin against God and accepts their punishment/repentance.

Heading into a no true scotsman fallacy there, but let's examine that: by your logic, the pope that just left was an atheist in disguise, given that he never accepted punishment for his part in the sex abuse scandals within his church. Interesting...

Quote:The atheist does not accept Gods existence. The atheist assumes the right to ignore the Church's official condemnation of sin.

Last I checked, your church wasn't in any sort of power: I have the right to ignore any part of their pitiful demands that I want. Get off your damn high horse.

Quote:And the atheist does not even care about, let alone fear, an afterlife punishment for;

- breaking a vow of chastity,

Excuse me? Are you assuming I've made a vow of chastity? I haven't, you know.

Quote:- having unmarried sex,

How is this any of your fucking business?

Quote:- teaching a disgusting adult sin unto these little ones. (Matthew 18:6)

Two things: one, who is teaching anything more than tolerance for other people?

Two, do you kill every gay person you meet? Because that's what the bible demands, and if you're not doing that, you're far from holy yourself, no?

(March 5, 2013 at 11:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 5, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Atheist beliefs. Yep.

What did I just fucking say about telling me what I believe, god botherer?

Atheism is entitled to be considered a belief. I'm glad to see an atheist affirming this. Welcome to the belief party pal. Michel Onfray goes as far as to say atheism has a unique ''atheology''
Of course you need to persuade a lot of atheists that ''belief'' is the right word.
“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith'' - Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

(March 5, 2013 at 11:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I have plenty of beliefs...

Yep. I know. Since you can't formally disprove the evidentiary basis of theism thats all you got left is a belief that God doesnt exist - and all the ensuing BELIEFS which necessarily arise from that original no-God hypothesis. (Eg. How we got here. Is the universe past-eternal? How long does it take for someone in a perpetually existent universe/multiverse to invent a time machine and why havent they done so yet?)

(March 5, 2013 at 11:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...[atheist beliefs] just happen to stem from rational thought, not meaningless dogma.

Well right back at ya. I am skeptical of the no-God hypothesis. I think atheism is irrational. But the difference between you and me is that I actually DO understand what atheism as an idea, consists of. The atheist worldview is not meaningless to me.

You on the otherhand, honestly admit that you dont understand theistic dogma. It's ''meaningless'' to you. So either someone hasnt explained it to you in a way you can grasp or you might not be capable of understanding it. (You certainly cant blame the dogma itself because heaps of people with a wide range of IQ's CAN understand it.)

(March 5, 2013 at 11:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:There's a very easy way to discern between the Christian who momentarily lapses into sin and the sinner who is an atheist in disguise.

Only the Christian admits that what they did was a sin against God and accepts their punishment/repentance.

Heading into a no true scotsman fallacy there, but let's examine that: by your logic, the pope that just left was an atheist in disguise, given that he never accepted punishment for his part in the sex abuse scandals within his church. Interesting...

No, I'm not pleading the NTS fallacy.
I laid out a measurable way to differentiate between a) sinners who accept the existence of God and agree that they DID sin and b) atheists who have no intention of admitting either.

The Christian sinner, nonetheless agrees that the Church's biblical teaching on the sin which they committed is valid. They dont deny the sinfulness of their act in the eyes of God.

Of course, they are free to leave the Church and reject God in order to alleviate their conscience and continue doing what they wish liberated by their newly-adopted atheism. (Stop worrying. theres probably no afterlife. No God.)

Quote:The only thing the Cataholic "church" is good for is to give Psychiatry / Psychology fresh meat to work with.

Guilt is such a wonderful tool

So is sexual abuse, exploitation, condemnation, dis-communication, and lets not forget: lifelong vows.

Quote:- teaching a disgusting adult sin unto these little ones. (Matthew 18:6)

Considering how it has been revealed that you guys seem to have a resident pedophile on hand at all times (http://atheistforums.org/thread-17243-page-3.html post#27) I think you sir, are hypocrisy embodied.