Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Seth]

We don't have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they're right. So far, zero evidence for them.

Actually, they don't have to prove anything. It's Atheists who are making the claim that God does not exist, so it's up to Atheists to prove that claim. People of faith are under no obligation whatsoever to prove the existence of God to unbelievers.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

I never made the affirmative allegation that there was an "organizational objective to fuck kids." I accepted Seth's factual assertion that the proportion of child sex abuse among the priesthood is the same as the general population. That was his assertion. I merely accepted it as true, and drew the conclusion that a religion that can't do better than the general population relative to the rate of child rape doesn't appear to be too good at getting people to behave morally better.

As for your second point, if a human being claims to have access to spiritual knowledge or the supernatural that other people don't have, then the burden of proof is on them to show it. Otherwise, we are perfectly justified in assuming that they aren't materially different than other humans in that regard. I.e., the priests are the ones making the affirmative claim.

To start with the assumption that human beings are just human beings, rather than human beings with supernatural powers, is not an assertive claim. The assertive claim would be that certain human beings are not merely human beings, but rather human beings with supernatural powers or special access to spiritual knowledge.

[Coito ergo sum]

We don't have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they're right. So far, zero evidence for them.

Actually, they don't have to prove anything. It's Atheists who are making the claim that God does not exist, so it's up to Atheists to prove that claim. People of faith are under no obligation whatsoever to prove the existence of God to unbelievers.

Neither side is under an obligation to do anything.

However, the positive claim is that a god or gods, or God, or some other particular god, exists. The claim that there isn't any proof for there being any such entities is not the positive claim.

It's irrational to accept positive assertions without evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Accept something without evidence is arbitrary. One might as well accept a madman's claim to be Napoleon. Maybe he is.

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.

In any view. A claim without any basis, is baseless, by definition.

But then again you don't have faith.

Right, I don't believe something without proof or evidence.

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.

My suspicion is that most of them know they have no real reason to believe it. I can't prove that. But, I suspect it.

Those that do actually believe it concern me, because they are basing belief in some extraordinary things on nothing except some ancient writings and tradition.

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.

I didn't opine about their intelligence.

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.

Well, certainly they may be snowed into thinking it's a fair deal. In my view, it's a snow job. Everyone is entitled to opine otherwise, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

The only assertion I made was that priests are human beings.

Unless someone proves that a human being has some powers beyond that of a human being, I think I'm justified in stating that they only have the powers of a normal human being. If someone wants to claim a pipeline to spiritual knowledge of the afterlife, then it's incumbent upon them to show they have that. Priests do make that claim, every time they opine on what "God" wants, or what the afterlife is like, or purgatory or hell, etc.

[amused]

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot, cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiability of a teapot to God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Seth]

Seth, regarding the insidious way that priests and religion seek to snake and slither into all levels of our government, you answer, "Ah, well, that's just democracy in action isn't it? Don't tell me you don't like democracy. If the majority wants to enshrine religion in the halls of government, why, that's their right and you're just screwed and will have to find somewhere else to live."

No, it's not OUR democracy in action. It's unconstitutional, because we have a little thing called the 1st Amendment, and another little thing called the 14th Amendment.

Which keeps priests and religion from seeking to "snake and slither into all levels of government," which makes your accusation false from the get-go. Well done, I knew you'd shoot yourself in the foot on this one right away.

You've asked me this stupid-ass question before "Don't tell me you don't like democracy?" And, I've answered it before. Of course I don't like democracy when it comes to my fundamental rights. Don't tell me you LIKE democracy when it comes to your right to own a gun, or speak your mind. Or, do you place your gun rights up for a legitimate vote, despite the second Amendment?

I definitely don't think it's the right of the majority to enshrine religion in government, just as I don't think it's the right of the majority to ban certain political opinions, or to allow warrants to issue on something other than probable cause, or to unreasonably search people's persons, houses, papers and effects, etc. You'd let the majority vote those things away?

Well, I think we've discussed before that there is a distinction between religion taking over government and the religious beliefs of citizens and elected officials informing their political and social decision making.

I think that our Constitution does a very good job of balancing the influence of religion on government by preventing overt religious practice by the government while still allowing people's religious beliefs to inform their social and political choices. That's what the Lemon Test is for. It looks at a government action to see if there is a legitimate secular purpose for the government action, whether the action has the primary purpose of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and whether it entangles government too much in religion. But it does not reject an action because it has incidental religious purposes, or because it incidentally either advances or inhibits religion, or because it causes some entanglement of government and religion.

The Supreme Court has openly stated that it's impossible for government to be completely free of religious influence, and that to do so is to violate the rights of people of faith, so there is always a careful balance to be struck when religion and government touch.

The point of my hyperbole was to make it clear that religious people have rights, and one of the rights they have is to have their society reflect, to some degree, their social beliefs about how society should be constructed, which are heavily influenced in most cases by their religion. To say that society must only be strictly secular and that any public expression of religion is "unconstitutional" is simply wrong, both morally and legally, because people in the United States have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

This means that constitutionally, the government has a duty to protect the free public religious expression of its citizens while at the same time avoiding "establishing" a state religion itself. That can be a delicate and complex matter not amenable to pat answers and dogmatic claims.

Atheist have no more right to suppress public displays of religion (including for example Nativity scenes on public property at Christmastime) than Catholics have a right to suppress atheist sentiments or atheists themselves using the power of government. We all have to tolerate the peaceable free expression of religion by others, and Atheists cannot use the power of the vote to remove religious rights just as religious people may not impose their faith on atheists.

[Seth]

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?

And, your fiat claim that my definition of "fleece" and "con" don't apply is just more hand-waving. Of course my definitions apply.

Fleece: Obtain a great deal of money from (someone), typically by swindling them.

That's the applicable definition of "fleece," and it's what churches do. They make promises they can't deliver on, and get money from credulous people. It's a legal scam. They sell empty promises.

It doesn't apply because you cannot prove that the promises are empty. You just THINK the promises are empty because you don't have faith in the claims of religion. But the religious do, so they are not being "fleeced." People practice and support religion because it helps them in their daily lives, not strictly because it promises eternal life. They support Catholic charity programs because they seen the very real and present good that the church does for poor and oppressed people worldwide. The billions that the church spends on relief and aid in poor regions of the world is some of the largest charitable donations made by anyone, ever, and that's not "fleecing" anyone, now is it?

One can support the Catholic church on that single premise alone and be fully justified in doing so, and the charity works of the Catholic church fully vindicate its existence on that premise alone.

So no, the Catholic church doesn't "fleece" people at all, it helps them, gives them support and solace, and provides assistance to the poor worldwide in a manner that Atheism doesn't and never will.

Whether or not the promises of salvation are true is a religious matter that's not really up for you to judge, since you can't prove otherwise.

[Seth]

Let's try to get at the heart of the issue, shall we. You made this claim, "You completely ignore the fact that religion does indeed help people to behave better in many ways by giving them moral structure and support."

Please, by all means, show me the evidence that religion makes people behave better.

The evidence is all around you. It's called "civilization" and religion, and indeed Catholicism, is deeply involved in the existence of civilization from the beginning.

We know that religion doesn't make them less likely to rape children.

No we don't. This is a false claim based on no evidence. You cannot say that religion doesn't make people less likely to rape children because you have not properly or scientifically evaluated the influence of religion on society in general in preventing child rape. You are attempting to expand the incidence of sexual sociopaths in both the Catholic (and other) churches and in society generally into an argument that religion has no effect on moral behavior in society generally. This is quite obviously a fallacy. You do not know how many potential child rapists have been persuaded NOT to rape children by religion, so you cannot make a strong claim that religion is ineffective at preventing child rape.

Does it make them less likely to steal? Kill? Lie? Commit insider trading crimes? Rob banks? What?

Yes, it does.

Similarly, you say "Your argument is simply nonsense because it fails to take into account the billion people who aren't sociopaths and who are helped by religion to "behave better.""

Really? What's the evidence that they actually behave better, or more morally?

Because civilization exists and religion is a large part of that equation and always has been. Also, because when atheism reigns, such as during Stalin's time, society acts far, far LESS morally and ethically, and people are murdered by the millions. Therefore, it is clear that religion does indeed have a beneficial effect on social behavior.

We know that religion doesn't help them commit proportionately fewer child rapes, right?

Again with the false dilemma. No, we know no such thing. Answered above.

So, how do religious folk behave better or more morally?

In many ways.

[Seth]

I wrote -

It's wrong when it's selling snake oil cure alls, which is what they're doing.

Seth wrote --

Ever hear of the "placebo effect?"

Yes, but that's a measurable thing. Placebo effect in the case of medications is measured and measurable. Find me the proof that religion acts as a placebo. I get that you're making the allegation. Prove it.

The proof is in the persistent existence of religion on earth. If religion were not useful to human beings, it would not exist as a meme after all this time, it would have faded away long ago. Religion exists because it has beneficial social utility to human populations, which is why 80 percent of the human beings on the planet have some form of religious belief. Whether the claims of eternal life of any particular religion are true or not is but a minor part of the overall beneficial social effects of religion, which is, I think, in effect a form of neo-tribalism based on common belief not on family membership.

I would go further and postulate that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that's built into our DNA because it provides substantial survival utility for the species.

So, whether the specific claims of a religion are true or not is largely irrelevant to the social utility of religion. If people find religion useful in their lives, and it gives them comfort and solace and makes their lives better and provides them with moral guidance and assistance, then the absolute truth of the claims of religion are largely irrelevant.

It appears that a great many people disagree with Dawkins' argument that cold, stark reality and science ought to be enough to satisfy anyone.

[Seth]

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.

Not if God is capable of revealing knowledge about himself to them as he wills it.

How do they know that a god has special powers?

Evidently God has told them this.

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

Evidently God has told them this.

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.

That would be God, I suppose.

God, you see, would be capable of revealing himself and his special powers only to the faithful and not to unbelievers or scientists. So, you cannot claim that their "special knowledge" is false merely because you haven't been let in on the secret.

[DaveD]

Gish gallop is tl:dr.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...You just THINK the promises are empty because you don't have faith in the claims of religion. But the religious do, so they are not being "fleeced...

You've become a postmodernist now?

[Seth]

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.

This argument conveniently ignores the immediate temporal benefits of religion that people of faith enjoy every day that causes them to voluntarily, charitably and willingly support their religion, which happens to include emotional and mental comfort, but which also includes strictly temporal things like community, civic involvement, charity, assistance and other entirely physical and present benefits of religion, including giving to others who are in need, which Catholics do in abundance, to a greater degree than almost any other group on the planet. One of the things about the promise of eternal reward for doing good here on earth is that people do good here on earth. You have a problem with that, it seems, although it's puzzling as to why you would object to people doing good here on earth, regardless of why they choose to do so.

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.

Sucks to be you I guess, since the evolutionary advantage seems to go to religion, which has been around a long time precisely because it has substantial evolutionary utility and strong social benefits.

[Seth]

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.

You're free to be skeptical, but they are under no obligation to prove anything to you.