Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth says, "They don't claim to have special powers. They claim God has special powers. Big difference."

They must have special powers to know anything about a god.

How do they know that a god has special powers?

How do they know the god is "God" and not some other god?

They must have some source of knowledge that other humans don't have to know that their particular god is the real god, and is in fact God rather than some other god, or gods.

[Svartalf]

Seeth likes the majority when it's in his favor, otherwise it's just a flock of sheep. Selective morality in action.

So what? if people agree with me, they are right, if not, I'm just the voice of reason facing a bunchamorons... do I see a parallel?

[amused]

The problem with organized religion is that it's organized thievery. Organized religion plays upon the natural fear of death by making promises about an afterlife, and then uses that against people to rob them of their vitality for living in the present moment. Organized religion promises people that they should not demand heaven on this earth because they will get a reward for their sacrifices after they are dead. Meanwhile, organized religion collects the fruits of other people's labor to enrich itself in the now. Thieves.

And, from a purely evolutionary advantage perspective, I don't want other people who have given up on this life to be crafting the rules of society that my kids will have to live in. So it is to my evolutionary advantage to defeat organized religion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seeth likes the majority when it's in his favor, otherwise it's just a flock of sheep. Selective morality in action.

So what? if people agree with me, they are right, if not, I'm just the voice of reason facing a bunchamorons... do I see a parallel?

Do you selective apply that to support a position which you really don't believe in, or is it a reflection of beliefs you actually hold, i.e., not fained in order to "score points"? The former is Seeth's methodology.

[Svartalf]

Feigning is for wussies and diplomats.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Feigning is for wussies and diplomats.

I am sure my esteemed colleague from France is aware that such is not the case in this situation and that further reference of such would, in the most extreme and utterly regrettable case, lead to some scale of unpleasantness or other, something which this august body has so far avoided through the use of diplomacy and a genuine desire for peace coupled with a very real effort to understand the nature of all viewpoints in this matter so as to facilitate communication to the utmost.

[Svartalf]

As béarla lé do thoil, and

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As béarla lé do thoil, and

I need a Babble/English-English/Babble translator.

[apophenia]

Regarding this, Seth, you said, "Fortunately, your definition of "fleece" and "con" doesn't apply. As for child sexual assault, you've yet to prove that it's an organizational objective to "fuck their kids." "

Using your logic, I don't have to prove shit. You can't prove me wrong. I "know" it. If you say I don't, unless I prove it, then you're just being prejudiced. Right?

Minor point, but since you are making the assertive claim in both cases (the church has an organizational objective to fuck kids, the clergy have no special knowledge), ordinarily speaking, the burden of proof lies on you in both cases. Nice dodge though. +2

[Animavore]

When my granddad died the priest at the funeral said, "John is up there with God now." This is claiming special knowledge he can't possibly know. There is no way he could know that. We didn't mention to him my granddad was an atheist. According to the priest's own religion he should be in hell now.

Now I don't have proof the priest doesn't have special knowledge but I somehow seriously doubt it. The priest made the claim and it is he that should provide evidence that he is privvy to information I'm not.

[Seth]

Using your metric, the entire United Kingdom and everyone in it should be exterminated as a scourge and blight on the planet based on the many thousands of years of British imperialism, monarchic despotism, murder, rape, pillage, warmaking, and assorted other moral and ethical wrongs committed by British monarchs and the British people over the centuries.

Not "British," since Britishness does not involve necessarily pernicious beliefs and belief systems. MONARCHY, now - yes. Even though there have been "many changes" over the years, and the power of the British monarchy to impose itself and project its power has been reduced, I still oppose "monarchy" in all of its aspects. Like religion and the Catholic church, monarchy is weak now despite itself, not because of itself.

I disagree. "Britishness" is relevant because monarchy cannot exist without those who agree to be ruled. The servility and obedience of the Brits is manifest in it's culture, whereas the independence and spirit of Americans is manifest in ours. The same is true of most cultures to one degree or another.

[Seth]

Absolutely stunning displays of multiple nested quotes and retorts!

Well done!

We have a new 'manager' here at work who does the same thing in emails. I get copied now and then on them, and she's been able to exhaust people to the point where they admit in their last response that they've forgotten what the original issue was.

Thanks. It's a lot of work but worth the effort. On other occasions I've copied and extracted my arguments for use as lengthy blog posts. When I get on a roll, it's a wonderful thing.

[apophenia]

When my granddad died the priest at the funeral said, "John is up there with God now." This is claiming special knowledge he can't possibly know. There is no way he could know that. We didn't mention to him my granddad was an atheist. According to the priest's own religion he should be in hell now.

Now I don't have proof the priest doesn't have special knowledge but I somehow seriously doubt it. The priest made the claim and it is he that should provide evidence that he is privvy to information I'm not.

Except in this case, it isn't the preist making the claim, but Coito, as a premise in his argument against the church. Bluntly speaking, I don't think they have any special knowledge, but I'm not going to include that as a premise of any substantial argument I choose to make either, at least not without better support. At minimum, it's tactically unwise.

[Animavore]

When my granddad died the priest at the funeral said, "John is up there with God now." This is claiming special knowledge he can't possibly know. There is no way he could know that. We didn't mention to him my granddad was an atheist. According to the priest's own religion he should be in hell now.

Now I don't have proof the priest doesn't have special knowledge but I somehow seriously doubt it. The priest made the claim and it is he that should provide evidence that he is privvy to information I'm not.

Except in this case, it isn't the preist making the claim, but Coito, as a premise in his argument against the church. Bluntly speaking, I don't think they have any special knowledge, but I'm not going to include that as a premise of any substantial argument I choose to make either. At minimum, it's tactically unwise.

Yeah but I suspect when Coito makes the claim about special knowledge it is this type of thing he is referring to. It's no different to Baptist ministers claiming an earthquake happened because of what ever thing he happens to be angry about at that time. I think it is very fair to say they have no special knowledge denied the rest of us unless they can show they do.

[Seth]

Seth, regarding the priest's claim to know about the afterlife, how to reduce time in purgatory, etc. you said, "So? What's your point? Perhaps they do know. Can you prove that they are wrong?"

What is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Of course...or not.

They are human beings, and there is no evidence that they have any knowledge or information about supernatural or spiritual matters that anyone else doesn't have.

Based on the lack of any basis for their claims, their claims are baseless. QED.

In your view. But then again you don't have faith. In reality, priests are just people who are dedicated to education in their religion, and they DO have a hell of a lot of information about their religion that you don't have, and they spend many years studying in the seminary to achieve that knowledge. Whether you believe the knowledge they have or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that THEY believe it, and so do the members of their church.

And religion, particularly Catholicism, is much more complex and nuanced than just supernatural claims. It is deeply involved in human psychology and behavior and priests have a good deal of psychological training in addition to their "spiritual" training.

Catholic priests, particularly Jesuits, are some of the most intelligent and well-educated people on the planet, which belies your casual dismissals and insults, and some of the greatest philosophers of all time were Catholic priests.

So whether or not you believe their spiritual claims is not the metric by which they are judged by their followers, who are the only important people in the equation. If they don't think they are being "fleeced," then they aren't being fleeced and they are receiving value for their investment in the church, which is the definition of a fair deal.