Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Seth]

amused, for once that's not funny.

God dammit! How many times still until the festering ulcer that is the catlicker church gets cleaned out and cauterized for good? People should be leaving the fold in troves...

And yet they don't, probably because the number of pedophile priests in the Netherlands is about the same in proportion to everybody else in the Netherlands,

Seems to me to be pretty damn good evidence in favor of the proposition that the religion doesn't make them better people, and isn't a source of good moral behavior. If the proportion of such criminals is not less among the CLERGY of solemn religion pledged to do good and be good, then what the fuck is religion around for?

Many things. The failings of a few does not impeach the entire church.

It's not the failings of a few which I'm concerned about. It's the fact, which you said was the case, that child rapists in the priesthood is about the same proportion as everyone else in the society.

And that's a very small percentage to begin with.

If that's the case, then we can conclude that the religion didn't make them better people.
And, since the group we're talking about are the PRIESTS, and not just rank and file churchgoers, it says a lot that they, with their in-depth study of the religion, and their daily practice of it, and their vows and all that, aren't any better than the rest of society.

There are sociopaths in all walks of life. Some people are beyond help or redemption. That they used the guise of a priest to perpetrate their wrongdoing doesn't impeach the utility of priests or the church generally. What is true of sociopaths hiding behind a priest's robes is not true of all priests, which I though would have been obvious to one of your substantial intellect.

Fat lot of good all that seminary schooling did for them. Fat lot of good all the praying and penance and pondering over sin did for them. Fat lot of good the Bible readings did for them and the 10 commandments and all that. It did nothing. As a group, they're no better than the general public.

As it turns out, the general public is, by a strong majority, not sociopathic in nature. The same is true of Catholic priests. Only a very, very small number of them are sociopaths. So, as a group, priests are not as you characterize them at all, as you well know.

You are expounding the classic example of the Spotlight Fallacy, as well as the fallacy of Composition.

If the best the PRIESTHOOD can do is measure up to the standard of society at large, then they are in no position to be trying to teach anyone how to behave. We're obviously all just as qualified to figure it out ourselves, and we're doing no worse a job at it.

Again, the failings of a few does not impeach the entire church. Nor is everyone necessarily qualified to be a priest, which has to do with religious practice as well as moral training and support.

You're missing it. You stated that the prevalence of child rapists among the priesthood is no less than among the general public. I'm not impeaching the church as a whole, or the general public as a whole. I'm stating that obviously, if the religion can't keep PRIESTS from committing these HORRIBLE sins, and the prevalence of these sins is the same among the priesthood as it is among the general public, then the religion isn't doing jack shit to improve anyone's behavior. At all. QED, man.

The church has never claimed to be perfect at preventing people from committing sins or crimes and I don't know why you would make this false assumption except to erect a strawman argument to compliment your compositional fallacy. The fact that there are sociopaths in both society at large and in the church does not mean that the church has no positive beneficial utility to either society or its members, as you well know.

You're making a ridiculously weak argument here by trying to imply that because a few sociopathic priests are not the model of perfection you think they ought to be, that therefore the church is of no use to anyone. The church is not defined by the presence of a few sociopaths any more than society itself is defined by the presence of sociopaths within it.

I've never trusted priests, and I never will. That is as far back as I can remember, thinking about it - mid 1980s, at least.

That would seem to speak to your prejudices more than the honesty of priests.

No, it's because priests plainly don't have access to any information I also don't have access to, and yet they claim to have knowledge about things which they can not possibly have knowledge about.

And you know that how, exactly? Are you a priest? If not, how can you say that you have access to all the information that a priest does? Moreover, how can you hope to prove that their claim to knowledge is impossible? You're making assumptions based on your atheistic prejudices and beliefs, nothing more.

They either know they don't have that knowledge and are lying, or they really believe that they know that which they cannot know.

How do you know that they cannot know something?

Those are the only two options, and neither one speaks well of the trustworthiness of priests.

False dilemma fallacy because you are excluding a third choice: that they know things that you, by virtue of your atheistic skepticism and ignorance, cannot ever know because grace is not given to you by God to know them.

THAT is why I don't trust them. It's not out of PREjudice. It's out of judice. I judge them based on their actions and their words.

No, you judge them based on your paltry understanding of their words, which is likely to be incomplete and is obviously prejudiced and bigoted.

I wouldn't let a priest have unsupervised access to my child for anything. Not a chance.

You're not expected to. So what business is it of yours if others have a different opinion on the matter?

I'll not have them pretend that they know what happens after death, or that they know what some god wants people do or say or think or feel or eat or wear or whatever. They don't know that.

You don't know that they don't know that, not that it matters. That's what they believe, and they are entitled to believe whatever they like, and others are entitled to believe them if they choose to do so.

And, the fact that they claim to know it, but can't, makes them untrustworthy.

Again, you don't know what they do or do not know, you know only what your atheist prejudices allow you to know, which may or may not be proximate to the truth.

Priests. Worthless dregs of society. Liars, pretending to know that which they cannot know, and selling it to the public as "Truth." Beggars, suckling on the private teat by demanding tithes under pain of an imaginary retribution from old women and credulous believers, and suckling at the government teat with income tax breaks, property tax exemptions,

Your opinion is noted. Some one billion people have a different opinion, and their opinion outweighs yours I'm afraid.

The number of people holding an opinion has nothing to do with the rightness of that opinion.

Quite right, which means that your single opinion is no more necessarily "right" than the opinion of the billion. However, the weight of their opinion does have effect on their beliefs, to which they are entitled, whether or not your opinion disagrees with them.

You have a habit of calling things "fallacies" which are not. Here's one that is: fallacy ad populum. You just committed it.

No, it's not, because I did not say that their claims are true based on the popularity of their opinion, I merely said that there are more of them who hold an opinion opposite to yours, and that therefore your opinion is of limited utility when it comes to disparaging their opinions.

and special services from local governments (who pays for that cop that is always directing traffic outside of churches on Sundays...not the fucking church, I can tell you that).

Actually, churches pay various taxes, although they don't pay income or property taxes. As for the cop, take that up with your city council or the chief of police. I've never seen a cop directing traffic at any church ever, except perhaps for special events like the Papal Mass, where traffic control is a necessary and reasonable function the police serve for ANY large gathering of people.

Come to Florida. It happens every Sunday at many churches. You'll see a city paid officer with a cruiser, or sometimes even more than one, and they're directing traffic. No funeral. No special event. No large gathering of people - just church.

Take it up with the City Council. I'm pretty sure that what they will tell you is that there is a need for traffic control at such times to prevent accidents and injuries, and that this service protects not just the churchgoers, who are also taxpayers and have an equal right to police services even when they are leaving church, but also the general public not attending church but using the highways.

You see, the service is provided to the CITIZENS who happen to have been at church, not to the church itself. And the CITIZENS involved DO pay taxes precisely so that they can obtain police traffic services to facilitate and keep traffic safe and flowing after church is OVER.

So, your argument is invalid from the get-go because it is not the church receiving the services, it's the taxpayers attending the church who are just getting what they paid for.

I'd give my money to the panhandler on the street before I give it to a fucking priest.

And you're allowed to do so. Isn't that nice? Other people, however, something like a billion of them, choose to voluntarily give to the church. Do you have a problem with how they spend THEIR money?[/quote]

If the fucking churches had their way, they'd get first dibs under penalty of law. Believe that.

I don't believe it. Where's your evidence of this allegation?

Yes, I have a problem with how they spend their money. Just like I have a problem with a little old lady sending her retirement money to some shyster selling shinola on the television at night, yes I have a problem with an organization that peddles lies and false hope and pretensions at knowledge they can't have.

And your proof that they don't have this knowledge and are providing "false hope" is, exactly? You've been to the (non) after-life and discovered that it's not all milk, honey and eternal joy? Somehow I think not. I think that you are merely making unsupported assertions based on your atheistic prejudices.

Besides, what's wrong with offering people hope? Even if Hitchens is right, and after death there is nothing, if providing someone with hope of life eternal and happiness forever eases their life and their passing, who is harmed? I'm certainly not cruel and evil enough to strip someone of their hope and faith if it makes them happy and gets them through the day and gives them solace and comfort at the end. Are you?

Oh, of course, the people can give away all their money to whoever and whatever they want. But, I am entitled to my opinion about it.

And I'm entitled to opine that your opinion is arrogant, disdainful, cruel, hurtful, spiteful, prejudiced, bigoted and harmful. What business is it of yours what someone else believes or who they give their money or their adoration to so long as it neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket...which it doesn't.

And, I think the priesthood takes advantage of a gullible public. The reference to their congregations as "flocks" and "sheep" are very apt. Sheep get fleeced, and that's what the priesthood does. Well, the lucky one's just get fleeced. Sometimes the shepherds fuck their sheep (Exhibit A: Holland). It's all mutton to the church.

You certainly do have an arrogant and supercilious attitude about other people and their beliefs. I suggest you look to the plank in your own eye before scrutinizing the mote in another's.

[Coito ergo sum]

And yet they don't, probably because the number of pedophile priests in the Netherlands is about the same in proportion to everybody else in the Netherlands,

Seems to me to be pretty damn good evidence in favor of the proposition that the religion doesn't make them better people, and isn't a source of good moral behavior. If the proportion of such criminals is not less among the CLERGY of solemn religion pledged to do good and be good, then what the fuck is religion around for?

Many things. The failings of a few does not impeach the entire church.

It's not the failings of a few which I'm concerned about. It's the fact, which you said was the case, that child rapists in the priesthood is about the same proportion as everyone else in the society.

And that's a very small percentage to begin with.

Dude - come on now. Follow.

It's not the small percentage or large percentage that I'm talking about here. It's the fact that whatever percentage it is, it's the same as the general population. Therefore, the religion does fuck all to make people behave better. Savvy?

If that's the case, then we can conclude that the religion didn't make them better people.
And, since the group we're talking about are the PRIESTS, and not just rank and file churchgoers, it says a lot that they, with their in-depth study of the religion, and their daily practice of it, and their vows and all that, aren't any better than the rest of society.

There are sociopaths in all walks of life. Some people are beyond help or redemption. That they used the guise of a priest to perpetrate their wrongdoing doesn't impeach the utility of priests or the church generally. What is true of sociopaths hiding behind a priest's robes is not true of all priests, which I though would have been obvious to one of your substantial intellect.

Of course it does. It impeaches the entire religion. If the religion is going to be good for anything, it ought to do what it is billed to do: make people behave better. It doesn't.

What you appear to be missing is that I have never once opined anything about what "all" priests do, or even most priests. I've taken your stated fact that there are the same percentage of child rapists in the priesthood as in the general population. If that is the case, then the religion hasn't done anything to make people not commit those heinous acts.

Fat lot of good all that seminary schooling did for them. Fat lot of good all the praying and penance and pondering over sin did for them. Fat lot of good the Bible readings did for them and the 10 commandments and all that. It did nothing. As a group, they're no better than the general public.

As it turns out, the general public is, by a strong majority, not sociopathic in nature. The same is true of Catholic priests. Only a very, very small number of them are sociopaths. So, as a group, priests are not as you characterize them at all, as you well know.

You are expounding the classic example of the Spotlight Fallacy, as well as the fallacy of Composition.

Not at all. You keep pretending that what I'm saying is that priests are all bad, or that more priests are bad than other people. That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that overall the priesthood is no better than the general population. Even if the "percentage" of both is very low, the fact remains that the priesthood is apparently not any better morally than the general population.

I did not commit a Spotlight Fallacy because I did not state or assume that all members of the priesthood were like the child pedophiles. I never said that. Man, you are bad with fallacies.

If the best the PRIESTHOOD can do is measure up to the standard of society at large, then they are in no position to be trying to teach anyone how to behave. We're obviously all just as qualified to figure it out ourselves, and we're doing no worse a job at it.

Again, the failings of a few does not impeach the entire church. Nor is everyone necessarily qualified to be a priest, which has to do with religious practice as well as moral training and support.

You're missing it. You stated that the prevalence of child rapists among the priesthood is no less than among the general public. I'm not impeaching the church as a whole, or the general public as a whole. I'm stating that obviously, if the religion can't keep PRIESTS from committing these HORRIBLE sins, and the prevalence of these sins is the same among the priesthood as it is among the general public, then the religion isn't doing jack shit to improve anyone's behavior. At all. QED, man.

The church has never claimed to be perfect at preventing people from committing sins or crimes and I don't know why you would make this false assumption except to erect a strawman argument to compliment your compositional fallacy. The fact that there are sociopaths in both society at large and in the church does not mean that the church has no positive beneficial utility to either society or its members, as you well know. [/quote]

I never said the church has no positive beneficial utility. Listen closely - I said that the priesthood is plainly not better morally than the general population. That doesn't say they're all bad, and it doesn't say the church has no positive effects anywhere. It says they, as a group, are no better than the general population. Plainly, the religion does not make priests better people than the general population.

You're making a ridiculously weak argument here by trying to imply that because a few sociopathic priests are not the model of perfection you think they ought to be, that therefore the church is of no use to anyone. The church is not defined by the presence of a few sociopaths any more than society itself is defined by the presence of sociopaths within it.

No, I'm just accepting your stated fact: There are the same proportion of child rapist priests in the priesthood as their are in the general population. If that's the case, then it follows that the most pious and religiously trained in the Catholic Church are plainly no better in this respect than the general population, and the religion and religious training obviously didn't do them any good at all and is not a good teacher of moral behavior.

We're told we get our morals from "religion" and that's how we would know how to do right and what would be wrong. Well, if the Catholic religion can't train its priests to be better people than the general population, then it's not doing too much good in being a moral teacher, is it? They may well be providing other benefits around the world - like Hamas, they're providing health care and food and stuff - but, as a guide for moral behavior, apparently, it's no better than the general population left up to its own devices.

I've never trusted priests, and I never will. That is as far back as I can remember, thinking about it - mid 1980s, at least.

That would seem to speak to your prejudices more than the honesty of priests.

No, it's because priests plainly don't have access to any information I also don't have access to, and yet they claim to have knowledge about things which they can not possibly have knowledge about.

And you know that how, exactly? Are you a priest?

No, I take them at their word when they say they know what God wants, and know how God wants us to behave, what sends us to hell, what things are "sins," and how to get forgiven for them, and I take them at their word when they say they know how to shorten time in purgatory, etc. It's an admission against interest.

If not, how can you say that you have access to all the information that a priest does?

I don't need "all" the information that a priest does. I just know what he claims to know because priests claim to know certain things. They have no way of knowing it, and they know they have no way of knowing it. They read books, and listen to sermons. Priests have no better connection with any almighty than anyone else. Similar to the prevalence of child rapists, my assumption is that priests have access to the almighty in the same proportion as the general population.

Moreover, how can you hope to prove that their claim to knowledge is impossible? You're making assumptions based on your atheistic prejudices and beliefs, nothing more.

No, I'm drawing conclusions based on the information priests say they have, and what they have access to. I'll need proof before I conclude that priests as a body have greater access to divine knowledge than me or anyone else. Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

They either know they don't have that knowledge and are lying, or they really believe that they know that which they cannot know.

How do you know that they cannot know something?

Well, I start with the assumption that they are human beings, and that priests are normal human beings, to the same extent as the general population. Like the rate of child rapists. Magical powers is no more or less prevalent in the priesthood than in the populace at large. That's the only rational assumption I can make, absent proof otherwise. There is no indication that priests are different. Their brains are the same. Their bodies are the same. What makes you think they have special knowledge, other than the fact that they claim it?

Those are the only two options, and neither one speaks well of the trustworthiness of priests.

False dilemma fallacy because you are excluding a third choice: that they know things that you, by virtue of your atheistic skepticism and ignorance, cannot ever know because grace is not given to you by God to know them.

Knowledge by grace is not part of Catholicism. That's a protestant thing.

THAT is why I don't trust them. It's not out of PREjudice. It's out of judice. I judge them based on their actions and their words.

No, you judge them based on your paltry understanding of their words, which is likely to be incomplete and is obviously prejudiced and bigoted.

Not true. I can understand their claims. Their claims are unsubstantiated, and they know it.

I wouldn't let a priest have unsupervised access to my child for anything. Not a chance.

You're not expected to. So what business is it of yours if others have a different opinion on the matter?

The same business that everyone has in expressing an opinion. What business is it of yours when you express opinions all over this board on issues?

I'll not have them pretend that they know what happens after death, or that they know what some god wants people do or say or think or feel or eat or wear or whatever. They don't know that.

You don't know that they don't know that, not that it matters. That's what they believe, and they are entitled to believe whatever they like, and others are entitled to believe them if they choose to do so.

My suspicion is that they really know it's crap. Like Mother Theresa, when her diaries were revealed, showing she never really could get herself to buy it. Yet she kept selling it.

Yes, of course they're entitled to believe what they want, and they can keep sellin' the shinola to gullible rubes. And, I'll keep trying to get people to ignore their empty promises.

Great quote from the movie Gran Torino: Walt Kowalski to the Priest - "I think you're an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life. .... You sure are fond of promising people stuff you can’t deliver on.."

Perfectly sums up what a priest is and does...

[

Priests. Worthless dregs of society. Liars, pretending to know that which they cannot know, and selling it to the public as "Truth." Beggars, suckling on the private teat by demanding tithes under pain of an imaginary retribution from old women and credulous believers, and suckling at the government teat with income tax breaks, property tax exemptions,

Your opinion is noted. Some one billion people have a different opinion, and their opinion outweighs yours I'm afraid.

The number of people holding an opinion has nothing to do with the rightness of that opinion.

Quite right, which means that your single opinion is no more necessarily "right" than the opinion of the billion. However, the weight of their opinion does have effect on their beliefs, to which they are entitled, whether or not your opinion disagrees with them.[/quote]

I never said they weren't entitled to their beliefs. I'm right about priests, though.

You have a habit of calling things "fallacies" which are not. Here's one that is: fallacy ad populum. You just committed it.

No, it's not, because I did not say that their claims are true based on the popularity of their opinion, I merely said that there are more of them who hold an opinion opposite to yours, and that therefore your opinion is of limited utility when it comes to disparaging their opinions.

Nice dodge. See your claim that the number of people holding an opinion means their opinion "outweighs" mine. Fallacy ad populum... what else do you mean by "weight?"

and special services from local governments (who pays for that cop that is always directing traffic outside of churches on Sundays...not the fucking church, I can tell you that).

Actually, churches pay various taxes, although they don't pay income or property taxes. As for the cop, take that up with your city council or the chief of police. I've never seen a cop directing traffic at any church ever, except perhaps for special events like the Papal Mass, where traffic control is a necessary and reasonable function the police serve for ANY large gathering of people.

Come to Florida. It happens every Sunday at many churches. You'll see a city paid officer with a cruiser, or sometimes even more than one, and they're directing traffic. No funeral. No special event. No large gathering of people - just church.

Take it up with the City Council. I'm pretty sure that what they will tell you is that there is a need for traffic control at such times to prevent accidents and injuries, and that this service protects not just the churchgoers, who are also taxpayers and have an equal right to police services even when they are leaving church, but also the general public not attending church but using the highways.

You see, the service is provided to the CITIZENS who happen to have been at church, not to the church itself. And the CITIZENS involved DO pay taxes precisely so that they can obtain police traffic services to facilitate and keep traffic safe and flowing after church is OVER.

Other citizens have to pay for police to show up specially for them. The fact that it's a church gets them stuff like that for free.

So, your argument is invalid from the get-go because it is not the church receiving the services, it's the taxpayers attending the church who are just getting what they paid for.

Organizations don't get free police service in that regard. It's just churches.

I'd give my money to the panhandler on the street before I give it to a fucking priest.

And you're allowed to do so. Isn't that nice? Other people, however, something like a billion of them, choose to voluntarily give to the church. Do you have a problem with how they spend THEIR money?

If the fucking churches had their way, they'd get first dibs under penalty of law. Believe that.

I don't believe it. Where's your evidence of this allegation?[/quote]

Past history. Just check out when the churches had the power to do just that. They did it. Look in the old world, where in England and Germany, etc., it's considered normal that religious organizations get state funding. It's one of the abominations we shrugged off when we started our own gig over here.

Yes, I have a problem with how they spend their money. Just like I have a problem with a little old lady sending her retirement money to some shyster selling shinola on the television at night, yes I have a problem with an organization that peddles lies and false hope and pretensions at knowledge they can't have.

And your proof that they don't have this knowledge and are providing "false hope" is, exactly? You've been to the (non) after-life and discovered that it's not all milk, honey and eternal joy? Somehow I think not. I think that you are merely making unsupported assertions based on your atheistic prejudices.

I know that the people making the absurd claims are human, and there is no evidence presented that would lead anyone to believe that they have special powers. Until that happens, I am entitled to believe they are normal humans.

Besides, what's wrong with offering people hope?

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

Even if Hitchens is right, and after death there is nothing, if providing someone with hope of life eternal and happiness forever eases their life and their passing, who is harmed? I'm certainly not cruel and evil enough to strip someone of their hope and faith if it makes them happy and gets them through the day and gives them solace and comfort at the end. Are you?

I'm not cruel and evil enough to support the fleecing of old ladies.

Oh, of course, the people can give away all their money to whoever and whatever they want. But, I am entitled to my opinion about it.

And I'm entitled to opine that your opinion is arrogant, disdainful, cruel, hurtful, spiteful, prejudiced, bigoted and harmful. What business is it of yours what someone else believes or who they give their money or their adoration to so long as it neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket...which it doesn't.

It's my business that their religious organizations fleece them, con them, and fuck their kids. It's my business that their religions are insidious and snake their way into the halls of government, seeking to strengthen and enrich themselves by grasping the reigns of government power.

And, I think the priesthood takes advantage of a gullible public. The reference to their congregations as "flocks" and "sheep" are very apt. Sheep get fleeced, and that's what the priesthood does. Well, the lucky one's just get fleeced. Sometimes the shepherds fuck their sheep (Exhibit A: Holland). It's all mutton to the church.

You certainly do have an arrogant and supercilious attitude about other people and their beliefs. I suggest you look to the plank in your own eye before scrutinizing the mote in another's.

You're not really one to talk about arrogance, now are you?

No, I'll scrutinize the redwood forest in the eye of the Catholic Church anytime I want.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seeth scold people irt arrogance?

[Audley Strange]

Major tag fuckups, so I'll trim...

Ditto...

What do you mean by "now" Audley? Do you mean 1520 "now," 1960 "now" or 2011 "now?" It matters what you mean by "now," you see, because the church has made substantial and important changes in doctrine and policy precisely because of the scandal and is determined not to allow any such thing to happen again. And in the last decade, since the changes were introduced, there have been very, very few accusations of molestation by priests, and they have been rapidly and effectively dealt with by reporting them to police, which upon probable cause has resulted in the arrest and prosecution of the accused, and by defrocking and ejecting those priests convicted criminally from the church. To the best of my knowledge, the number of Catholic priests accuse of sexual abuse in the last 10 years can be counted on the fingers of one hand. So no, it's not relevant because what the church did a thousand years ago does not speak to its character TODAY.

Well I don't know Seth, at which point does your "wayback fallacy fallacy" kick out. I'll need an exact time and date of the transition from irrelevant to relevant and reasoning why said date and time should be considered the starting point for all debate (well this debate since I have no reason to suspect that you won't disregard such when it suits you to do so.)

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.

An exaggeration as to the result, but I think there is an argument to be made that that is exactly how we should be perceived as a nation, we are obsessed with our violent history, it is part of our culture to berate Germans NOW for what happened in the 1940's, the Scots berate the English for what happened 600 years ago, and many of the Irish recognise exactly your issue with the U.K. There is a case to be had.

No, there is only the Ancestral Guilt fallacy to be had, along with the endless perpetuation of strife, war, hatred and conflict based on what some fuckwits did to some other fuckwits a thousand years ago. The Balkans are a classic example of where the Ancestral Guilt fallacy gets society.

I reject utterly that fallacy and all that goes along with it, and I choose to live in the present and judge people, organizations and cultures based on how they behave now, and by "now" I mean as it affects those alive today and perhaps those to come in the future. That's the only way forward for peace, harmony and tolerance on this planet. The Ancestral Guilt fallacy is a scourge on civilization and the direct cause of most of the death, destruction and conflict in the world today, and so it needs to be rejected by everyone of good will and reason.

But to do so is to invoke the Ancestral Guilt fallacy which holds that the sins of the father must be forever visited on their sons.

If the sons perpetrate the same sins? Sure why not.

Because even if they do, they are responsible for THEIR OWN sins, not those of their fathers.

I coined the term "Wayback Machine Fallacy" precisely to reject all such fallacious logic and bring the discussion into the present, which is all that matters. What some Pope or Bishop or priest did a thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago is meaningless and irrelevant in analyzing the utility and morality of the church today. Indeed, what the church did in living memory must be analyzed with due respect to what the church has done in living memory, like the last decade, to correct and rectify the problem and ensure that it does not happen again.

Only the living matter. The dead are dead and what they did and what happened to them is no more than a historical footnote intended as a cautionary tale to prevent present or future wrongs of the same kind.

Yeah I understand what you did. I've got a fallacy too "The Seth makes up Fallacies Fallacy", which is to disregard your creation of fallacies that are not only not fallacies but don't really speak to the issue at hand. You are dividing the Church now from the Church then.

Yup.

There is a tradition and lineage, to discount that is to discount methodology and motive of the organisation.

No, it's to reject HISTORIC methodology and motive, just as science rejects discredited historic scientific methodology like "aeatherism" and geocentrism. You would not argue that science must be bound forever to its own discredited past would you?
[/quote]

The Church has not discredited its own past. One of the things I admire about Catholicism has been its staunch refusal to modernise or adapt to changing culture.

Irrelevant. If it's corrupt today, then punish the corruption of today. The corruption of the past is irrelevant if the people involved are dead. They cannot be held to account, except perhaps by their God, so it's pointless futility and unreason to harp on what Pope Leo X did in 1520 when analyzing what the current Pope actually does today.

Which is what we should do, all we can do, but we should not dismiss that it has deliberately enabled supported and hidden child rapists.

Yup, they are dead. Their opinions don't matter anymore and their deaths are not the justification for our war on Al Quaeda. Our justification for that war is that Al Quaeda shows every intention of doing the same sort of thing in the future, if they aren't wiped out. Punishing a member of Al Quaeda for acts he performed is different than claiming that something Al Quaeda did a thousand years ago justifies making war on them today. Al Quaeda is still alive and functioning as a terrorist organization with the avowed and published intent of killing Americans.

The Catholic church has no such intentions, nor does it have intentions to molest children. In fact it has done a great deal to ensure that no child is ever molested by a priest or anyone else associated with the church in the future.

Kudos for you for being consistent on that first point.

Well when you have people still working for you who knowingly did actively conceal complaints of child abuse from the authorities, I'm afraid I'll have to take both claims with a pinch of salt. I've never been party to a meeting of cardinals in a closed session, so I cannot know their intent. Nor I think can you. You assume that the religion is not a front a group of child fuckers, but you don't actually know do you?

Therefore, I can argue that those still alive who were wronged are due justice as are those who are alive who wronged them, but the rest is meaningless and I can look at the church today and see the great strides it has taken to prevent such abuse and to compensate those who have been provably wronged by criminals in the church and I can refuse to hold those billion people who comprise the church today who did nothing wrong responsible into eternity for the crimes of the past.

Except that the crimes continue.

Do they?

Yes.

Can you point to specific instances of child molestation in the last 10 years (as opposed to 40 years ago) that have gone uninvestigated or unpunished?

Is child rape not serious enough? That the Church might officially now be taking a stand on it has not stopped priests sexually assaulting children. Certainly now they've lumbered into some form of action, but even at that they've tried to play down the situation, blame it on homosexuals, lying children trying to get money from the church. They are not an organisation who can be considered trustworthy.

Are you simply denying all the efforts of the church to root out such corruption and prevent it in the future? Or are you simply ignorant of them?

Wayforward machine fallacy?

Seriously though, the church has made little attempt to "root out" those who enabled the child fuckers. Certainly it has made moves to get shot of some of the Priests who have been accused of sexually assaulting children.

And few organizations on earth offer a better education to the poor and uneducated than the Catholic church, oftentimes for free or low cost. You are aware that many of the finest colleges and universities on the planet are Catholic, right?

Yes indeed I've seen it first hand in Africa, I will not fault them for that other than to say, they are really, questionably fond of getting in amongst children and young adults aren't they? As an organisation I mean.

An outcast in the West is not the same as an outcast in other cultures. In essense it can be "Believe what we tell you or starve " not completely voluntary.

That's a condemnation of the culture, not of the church, which would never condone or support such oppression and would in fact freely offer to feed, shelter and clothe those so oppressed. What is done in the name of Catholicism is not always consistent with Catholic doctrine or practice, and as such is an abuse of the church and does not reflect upon the church itself, but upon those who would falsely claim to be Catholic while using that falsity to oppress others.

Except that the Church does not condemn said members for doing such, you know a bit like they never condemned priests for child fucking? Also No true Scotsman fallacy. Which is a real one.

And I want to point out that social pressure comes from the society, not from the church. The church welcomes anyone who believes, or wants to believe, with open arms and a warm heart. It even accepts those who have no theistic beliefs, like me, and welcomes them into social communion, although it does restrict formal Communion to believers.

You cannot always differentiate between a culture and its religion in fact many make the argument that the latter is an expression of the former.

It provides solace and charity even to non-believers in a very non-discriminatory manner.

Unless they are homosexuals. They do so hate gays. So your wrong about that. Now I'd say more power to them. I don't want my predatory anachronistic philosophies going all modern and liberal, it makes a mockery out of them.

Catholic charities like shelters and soup kitchens DO NOT inquire as to one's faith and DO NOT exclude ANYONE based on their faith or lack thereof if they are in need. Nor do they (as some evangelical charities do) demand that those receiving charity listen to sermons or proselytizing as a condition of receiving charity assistance.

That's irrelevant and having spent a lot of time in Catholic schools and convents, I can attest to it being false, at least here in West Central Scotland, though I do accept a lot of that is ingrained sectarianism, which I think relevant but won't waste time discussing.

So, if you want to complain about social pressure, complain about the society, not the church, because the church does not advocate that its members be intolerant or discriminatory towards non-believers. That's a decision that each individual gets to make as a matter of social rights.

"Here's a stick and a gun and YOU do it, but wait til I'm out of the room." Lenny Bruce.

Where's your evidence that the church does this?

Does their complicity with terrorist groups or organised crime or paramilitary groups or Juntas count or can we just discount anything that happened prior to this discussion?

What's wrong with parents being "complicit" in raising their children in the church? It's their right as parents to do so. And its the right of the children to voluntarily decide not to become members of the church or to leave the church whenever they wish.

Rights are not reality, they are demands made upon it. If a child or adult does not know there is an alternative because it is all it has been taught, it is very difficult of them even to conceive of leaving.

A diversion, we are talking about child abuse, are you happy that parents should be defined as complicit in a clandestine paedophile ring?

Since the Catholic church is not a "clandestine paedophile ring," your question is a non sequitur and a red herring.

No? so their was not a group of paedophiles working in an organisation that were enabled by their higher authorities by the evidence of their child rape being hidden? Paedophiles in a ring working clandestinely. Nor is it a red herring. Those parents trusted those priests because the organisation told them they were trustworthy. Either you are arguing that the parents should be considered as part of the church, at which point they handed their children over to paedophiles willingly, or that the organisation was acting in a way to conceal that fact from parents.

Neither looks very good.

No, not "live and let live" in all cases. I think one can distinguish between peaceable clubs and non-peaceable ones. And I'm only concerned with what the KKK, NAMBLA and Al Quaeda do today, not what they may have done a hundred or a thousand years ago, which is meaningless when evaluating what sort of a threat they pose right now.

Peaceable clubs do not obfuscate investigations into child abuse.

Nor does the Catholic church. Certain criminal elements WITHIN the church may do so, but they do so in violation of church canons and law, and they are subject to excommunication and expulsion from the church for doing so.

Still you wrote this about an hour ago, in that time Al-Qaeda have committed no atrocities, should any discussion about such take that into consideration and dismiss their actions prior to that arbitrarily because of the temporal distance?

What is the official policy and intent of Al Quaeda towards those alive now and to come in the future? Likewise, what is the official policy and intent of the Catholic church towards those alive now and to come in the future?

Wayforward machine fallacy. Though I think it pretty much the same. Deny the material world, live by the tenets of an insane book, kill everyone who doesn't agree. I just think that Al-Qaeda have some catching up to do P.R. wise.

[Seth]

Dude - come on now. Follow.

It's not the small percentage or large percentage that I'm talking about here. It's the fact that whatever percentage it is, it's the same as the general population. Therefore, the religion does fuck all to make people behave better. Savvy?

Fallacy of Composition:

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

It is not true that "religion does fuck all to make people behave better" to begin with, nor does sociopathic behavior in a small number of people in ANY group prove that efforts to "make people behave better" are inherently flawed. You completely ignore the fact that religion does indeed help people to behave better in many ways by giving them moral structure and support. By focusing on one specific narrow sociopathology in a small number of people you are engaging both the spotlight fallacy, the compositional fallacy, and the guilt by association fallacy...and I could probably find some others that apply as well.

Human beings are imperfect beings, and the Catholic church recognizes this and tries to give people proper moral guidance as well as dealing with their spiritual needs. That's what Confession and absolution is all about...the acknowledgment that all men are sinners, but that they can still strive to live good lives, even when some of them fail.

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."

If that's the case, then we can conclude that the religion didn't make them better people.
And, since the group we're talking about are the PRIESTS, and not just rank and file churchgoers, it says a lot that they, with their in-depth study of the religion, and their daily practice of it, and their vows and all that, aren't any better than the rest of society.

There are sociopaths in all walks of life. Some people are beyond help or redemption. That they used the guise of a priest to perpetrate their wrongdoing doesn't impeach the utility of priests or the church generally. What is true of sociopaths hiding behind a priest's robes is not true of all priests, which I though would have been obvious to one of your substantial intellect.

Of course it does. It impeaches the entire religion. If the religion is going to be good for anything, it ought to do what it is billed to do: make people behave better. It doesn't.

Sure it does. It's just not universally successful, but then what human activity is?

What you appear to be missing is that I have never once opined anything about what "all" priests do, or even most priests.

Er, you just did...again...and have done so many times by refusing to recognize that a few sociopaths in a group does not define the group as sociopathic, which is what you are implying. Perfection is not a realistic goal for any human activity because humans are imperfect. Some are more imperfect than others.

I've taken your stated fact that there are the same percentage of child rapists in the priesthood as in the general population. If that is the case, then the religion hasn't done anything to make people not commit those heinous acts.

So what? The test of religion is not its success in preventing any one individual from being a sociopath.

Besides, you cannot accurately say even that, because you cannot quantify religion's effect on the rate of sociopathology in either society or the clergy. It may be that the existence of the church does in fact reduce the incidence of child sexual exploitation, and that in the absence of religion such sociopathology would be much, much higher than it is now. You would need a better study of the differences in sexual sociopathology between religious communities/groups and non-religious communities/groups to come to any sort of a rational conclusion about the value of religion in controlling sexual psychopathology.

Fat lot of good all that seminary schooling did for them. Fat lot of good all the praying and penance and pondering over sin did for them. Fat lot of good the Bible readings did for them and the 10 commandments and all that. It did nothing. As a group, they're no better than the general public.

As it turns out, the general public is, by a strong majority, not sociopathic in nature. The same is true of Catholic priests. Only a very, very small number of them are sociopaths. So, as a group, priests are not as you characterize them at all, as you well know.

You are expounding the classic example of the Spotlight Fallacy, as well as the fallacy of Composition.

Not at all. You keep pretending that what I'm saying is that priests are all bad, or that more priests are bad than other people. That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that overall the priesthood is no better than the general population. Even if the "percentage" of both is very low, the fact remains that the priesthood is apparently not any better morally than the general population.

I did not commit a Spotlight Fallacy because I did not state or assume that all members of the priesthood were like the child pedophiles. I never said that. Man, you are bad with fallacies.

It may be that the priesthood is "no better" than the general population, but it does not follow from that fact that religion has no effect on reducing the incidence of sexual psychopathology in either the priesthood or the general population. This is because you cannot assume a priori that the general population is not affected by religion and religious moral teachings. Indeed it would be a mistake to even suggest that, since the secular law itself has its basis and foundation in religious history and teachings, particularly in countries where Judeo-Christian theology has been the predominant religion for hundreds or thousands of years.

Therefore, it is not rational to claim that religion does not make people "behave better" because this is clearly not the case. The fact that some people still behave badly does not impeach the fact that religion does in fact make people behave behave better by giving them moral guidance and through being enshrined in the civil laws.

I never said the church has no positive beneficial utility.

That's precisely what you are trying to imply with your narrow argument about sexual psychopathology, which you then conflate to the general claim that religion does not make people "behave better." It may not make sexual psychopaths in either the general population or the priesthood behave better, but that does not expand to the general accusation that religion IN NO WAY makes people "behave better," which is precisely and exactly the claim you have been making until now.

Listen closely - I said that the priesthood is plainly not better morally than the general population. That doesn't say they're all bad, and it doesn't say the church has no positive effects anywhere. It says they, as a group, are no better than the general population. Plainly, the religion does not make priests better people than the general population.

And here you do the same thing again. You take the evidence of sexual psychopathology in the general population and in the priesthood, which the report says are roughly equal, and then you try to fallaciously expand that narrow argument to a general claim that "the priesthood is plainly not better morally than the general population" as a group. That may be true when it comes to sexual psychopathology. It may even be true in other ways. But now you are shifting the goalposts from your claim that religion does not make people "behave better" to "religion does not make priests better people than the general population." Why are you attempting this shift? Are you admitting that your previous claim is invalid?

And here's the thing, nobody but you has suggested or demanded that priests be "better people" than the general population. Not even the Vatican, which fully realizes that priests are just people, subject to error and sin. In fact there's a whole church hierarchy and set of procedures for dealing with the failings of priests, including their own Confessors and counselors to whom they may go when challenged with the burdens of the flesh. It's only you that is demanding that priests be perfect, which weakens your argument substantially.

You're making a ridiculously weak argument here by trying to imply that because a few sociopathic priests are not the model of perfection you think they ought to be, that therefore the church is of no use to anyone. The church is not defined by the presence of a few sociopaths any more than society itself is defined by the presence of sociopaths within it.

No, I'm just accepting your stated fact: There are the same proportion of child rapist priests in the priesthood as their are in the general population. If that's the case, then it follows that the most pious and religiously trained in the Catholic Church are plainly no better in this respect than the general population, and the religion and religious training obviously didn't do them any good at all and is not a good teacher of moral behavior.

We're told we get our morals from "religion" and that's how we would know how to do right and what would be wrong. Well, if the Catholic religion can't train its priests to be better people than the general population, then it's not doing too much good in being a moral teacher, is it? They may well be providing other benefits around the world - like Hamas, they're providing health care and food and stuff - but, as a guide for moral behavior, apparently, it's no better than the general population left up to its own devices.

And once again you spotlight the small number of sociopaths in the priesthood and then expand that claim to cover all priests and all "moral behavior" without recognizing that there are other aspects to moral behavior and that the majority of priests are not sexual sociopaths, and that the church's moral teachings do in fact teach good moral behavior to the vast majority of people and priests alike. Again, the existence of sociopaths in society or in the priesthood does not indicate that the moral teachings of the church are useless or ineffective IN ALL CASES, which is exactly what you just claimed, again, when you said that religion "is not a good teacher of moral behavior."

You've again explicated the Fallacy of Composition by claiming that:

Individual F things (sexually sociopathic priests) have characteristics A, B, C, (they engage in immoral sexual acts not prevented by the church's moral teachings).

Therefore, the whole class of F things (all priests) has characteristics A, B, C, (they all engage in immoral sexual acts not prevented by the church's moral teachings).

The fallacy of your argument is obvious, because non-sexually sociopathic priests do NOT engage in immoral sexual acts.

You are fallaciously attempting to generalize about the value of religious moral teachings by pointing to the failure of such moral teachings to be universally and absolutely infallible at producing moral behavior in all persons. You blame religion for failing to instill these universally adhered-to moral teachings in priests by pointing to the exceptions; sexually sociopathic priests.

You are demanding perfection that does not exist as a premise to your generalized argument that religion "is not a good teacher of moral behavior." But the only thing you've proven is that religious moral training is ineffective at controlling sexually sociopathic behavior by sexual perverts both in society and in the priesthood, not that religion is an ineffective teacher of moral behavior in other areas and with other populations.

So, your reasoning continues to fail.

I've never trusted priests, and I never will. That is as far back as I can remember, thinking about it - mid 1980s, at least.

That would seem to speak to your prejudices more than the honesty of priests.

No, it's because priests plainly don't have access to any information I also don't have access to, and yet they claim to have knowledge about things which they can not possibly have knowledge about.

And you know that how, exactly? Are you a priest?

No, I take them at their word when they say they know what God wants, and know how God wants us to behave, what sends us to hell, what things are "sins," and how to get forgiven for them, and I take them at their word when they say they know how to shorten time in purgatory, etc. It's an admission against interest.

So? What's your point? Perhaps they do know. Can you prove that they are wrong?

If not, how can you say that you have access to all the information that a priest does?

I don't need "all" the information that a priest does. I just know what he claims to know because priests claim to know certain things. They have no way of knowing it, and they know they have no way of knowing it. They read books, and listen to sermons. Priests have no better connection with any almighty than anyone else. Similar to the prevalence of child rapists, my assumption is that priests have access to the almighty in the same proportion as the general population.

But you don't know any of that. You don't know that they have no way of knowing it, nor can you know that they have "no better connection with any almighty than anyone else." You are making unfounded assumptions here. You may disbelieve their claims, but you are far from disproving them.

Moreover, how can you hope to prove that their claim to knowledge is impossible? You're making assumptions based on your atheistic prejudices and beliefs, nothing more.

No, I'm drawing conclusions based on the information priests say they have, and what they have access to. I'll need proof before I conclude that priests as a body have greater access to divine knowledge than me or anyone else. Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You're free to dismiss anything you like, but that doesn't mean that your claim or your assumptions are therefore proven, it just means you are ignorant of the facts. You presume that their claims are false, but you have no actual evidence other than your atheistic skepticism and prejudice to prove that they are false, which is not enough to support your claim.

They either know they don't have that knowledge and are lying, or they really believe that they know that which they cannot know.

How do you know that they cannot know something?

,

Well, I start with the assumption that they are human beings, and that priests are normal human beings, to the same extent as the general population. Like the rate of child rapists. Magical powers is no more or less prevalent in the priesthood than in the populace at large. That's the only rational assumption I can make, absent proof otherwise. There is no indication that priests are different. Their brains are the same. Their bodies are the same. What makes you think they have special knowledge, other than the fact that they claim it?

The question is not whether I think they have special knowledge or not, it's whether you can prove, using critically robust evidence, that they do NOT have special knowledge, because you are the one making the claim that they do not. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to support your hypothesis.

Those are the only two options, and neither one speaks well of the trustworthiness of priests.

False dilemma fallacy because you are excluding a third choice: that they know things that you, by virtue of your atheistic skepticism and ignorance, cannot ever know because grace is not given to you by God to know them.

Knowledge by grace is not part of Catholicism. That's a protestant thing.

Nonsense. If God exists, and God does not want you to know what priests know, then you will not know it. It's irrelevant what Catholics or Protestants think about it. You're iterating the Atheist's Fallacy here.

THAT is why I don't trust them. It's not out of PREjudice. It's out of judice. I judge them based on their actions and their words.

No, you judge them based on your paltry understanding of their words, which is likely to be incomplete and is obviously prejudiced and bigoted.

Not true. I can understand their claims. Their claims are unsubstantiated, and they know it.

They may be unsubstantiated to your satisfaction, but you're just one man, whereas a billion Catholics feel differently about it. And since it's their religion, it's their opinion that counts, not yours.

I wouldn't let a priest have unsupervised access to my child for anything. Not a chance.

You're not expected to. So what business is it of yours if others have a different opinion on the matter?

The same business that everyone has in expressing an opinion. What business is it of yours when you express opinions all over this board on issues?

Evasion. The question is why you feel compelled to attack the religious faith of Catholics when you're not a Catholic?

I'll not have them pretend that they know what happens after death, or that they know what some god wants people do or say or think or feel or eat or wear or whatever. They don't know that.

You don't know that they don't know that, not that it matters. That's what they believe, and they are entitled to believe whatever they like, and others are entitled to believe them if they choose to do so.

My suspicion is that they really know it's crap.

Your "suspicion" doesn't qualify as critically robust evidence supporting your claim.

Like Mother Theresa, when her diaries were revealed, showing she never really could get herself to buy it. Yet she kept selling it.

Faith like Mother Teresa's is pretty unique in the world. That she had doubts about her faith doesn't diminish the magnitude of the good she did in the name of Catholicism.

Yes, of course they're entitled to believe what they want, and they can keep sellin' the shinola to gullible rubes. And, I'll keep trying to get people to ignore their empty promises.

How do you know they are "empty promises?" Clue: You don't. You have absolutely no critically robust evidence that their promises are not true, so you are basing your claim only on your own ignorance, prejudice and atheistic skepticism.

Great quote from the movie Gran Torino: Walt Kowalski to the Priest - "I think you're an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life. .... You sure are fond of promising people stuff you can’t deliver on.."

Perfectly sums up what a priest is and does...

Movie quotes are not determinative of the truth or falsity of Catholic claims about eternal rewards.

[

Priests. Worthless dregs of society. Liars, pretending to know that which they cannot know, and selling it to the public as "Truth." Beggars, suckling on the private teat by demanding tithes under pain of an imaginary retribution from old women and credulous believers, and suckling at the government teat with income tax breaks, property tax exemptions,

Your opinion is noted. Some one billion people have a different opinion, and their opinion outweighs yours I'm afraid.

The number of people holding an opinion has nothing to do with the rightness of that opinion.

Quite right, which means that your single opinion is no more necessarily "right" than the opinion of the billion. However, the weight of their opinion does have effect on their beliefs, to which they are entitled, whether or not your opinion disagrees with them.[/quote]

I never said they weren't entitled to their beliefs. I'm right about priests, though.

Only in your own mind.

You have a habit of calling things "fallacies" which are not. Here's one that is: fallacy ad populum. You just committed it.

No, it's not, because I did not say that their claims are true based on the popularity of their opinion, I merely said that there are more of them who hold an opinion opposite to yours, and that therefore your opinion is of limited utility when it comes to disparaging their opinions.

Nice dodge. See your claim that the number of people holding an opinion means their opinion "outweighs" mine. Fallacy ad populum... what else do you mean by "weight?"

Um, it outweighs yours because a billion people with a different opinion choose to believe in the Catholic faith, which means your opinion of Catholicism is beyond irrelevant and of no weight when it comes to whether or not Catholicism continues to exist. That's what I meant.

and special services from local governments (who pays for that cop that is always directing traffic outside of churches on Sundays...not the fucking church, I can tell you that).

Actually, churches pay various taxes, although they don't pay income or property taxes. As for the cop, take that up with your city council or the chief of police. I've never seen a cop directing traffic at any church ever, except perhaps for special events like the Papal Mass, where traffic control is a necessary and reasonable function the police serve for ANY large gathering of people.

Come to Florida. It happens every Sunday at many churches. You'll see a city paid officer with a cruiser, or sometimes even more than one, and they're directing traffic. No funeral. No special event. No large gathering of people - just church.

Take it up with the City Council. I'm pretty sure that what they will tell you is that there is a need for traffic control at such times to prevent accidents and injuries, and that this service protects not just the churchgoers, who are also taxpayers and have an equal right to police services even when they are leaving church, but also the general public not attending church but using the highways.

You see, the service is provided to the CITIZENS who happen to have been at church, not to the church itself. And the CITIZENS involved DO pay taxes precisely so that they can obtain police traffic services to facilitate and keep traffic safe and flowing after church is OVER.

Other citizens have to pay for police to show up specially for them. The fact that it's a church gets them stuff like that for free.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the specific circumstances. But the fact remains that the police are serving at the request of the taxpayers, for their benefit, not the church. The church has no financial interest in getting people into or out of its parking lots after Mass, but the taxpayers do.

So, your argument is invalid from the get-go because it is not the church receiving the services, it's the taxpayers attending the church who are just getting what they paid for.

Organizations don't get free police service in that regard. It's just churches.

Hogwash, they get it all the time.

I'd give my money to the panhandler on the street before I give it to a fucking priest.

And you're allowed to do so. Isn't that nice? Other people, however, something like a billion of them, choose to voluntarily give to the church. Do you have a problem with how they spend THEIR money?

If the fucking churches had their way, they'd get first dibs under penalty of law. Believe that.

I don't believe it. Where's your evidence of this allegation?[/quote]

Past history.

Wayback Machine fallacy.

Just check out when the churches had the power to do just that. They did it. Look in the old world, where in England and Germany, etc., it's considered normal that religious organizations get state funding. It's one of the abominations we shrugged off when we started our own gig over here.

Yup, which means things have changed, and churches no longer expect to get tax money in the US. And so what anyway? If the people of a nation wish to grant churches taxing authority using democratic means, then it's as valid as any other tax levy.

Yes, I have a problem with how they spend their money. Just like I have a problem with a little old lady sending her retirement money to some shyster selling shinola on the television at night, yes I have a problem with an organization that peddles lies and false hope and pretensions at knowledge they can't have.

And your proof that they don't have this knowledge and are providing "false hope" is, exactly? You've been to the (non) after-life and discovered that it's not all milk, honey and eternal joy? Somehow I think not. I think that you are merely making unsupported assertions based on your atheistic prejudices.

I know that the people making the absurd claims are human, and there is no evidence presented that would lead anyone to believe that they have special powers. Until that happens, I am entitled to believe they are normal humans.

They don't claim to have special powers. They claim God has special powers. Big difference.

Besides, what's wrong with offering people hope?

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

Ever hear of the "placebo effect?"

Even if Hitchens is right, and after death there is nothing, if providing someone with hope of life eternal and happiness forever eases their life and their passing, who is harmed? I'm certainly not cruel and evil enough to strip someone of their hope and faith if it makes them happy and gets them through the day and gives them solace and comfort at the end. Are you?

I'm not cruel and evil enough to support the fleecing of old ladies.

But what if they don't think they are being fleeced? Who are you to tell them how to spend their money?

Oh, of course, the people can give away all their money to whoever and whatever they want. But, I am entitled to my opinion about it.

And I'm entitled to opine that your opinion is arrogant, disdainful, cruel, hurtful, spiteful, prejudiced, bigoted and harmful. What business is it of yours what someone else believes or who they give their money or their adoration to so long as it neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket...which it doesn't.

It's my business that their religious organizations fleece them, con them, and fuck their kids.

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."

It's my business that their religions are insidious and snake their way into the halls of government, seeking to strengthen and enrich themselves by grasping the reigns of government power.

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.

And, I think the priesthood takes advantage of a gullible public. The reference to their congregations as "flocks" and "sheep" are very apt. Sheep get fleeced, and that's what the priesthood does. Well, the lucky one's just get fleeced. Sometimes the shepherds fuck their sheep (Exhibit A: Holland). It's all mutton to the church.

You certainly do have an arrogant and supercilious attitude about other people and their beliefs. I suggest you look to the plank in your own eye before scrutinizing the mote in another's.

You're not really one to talk about arrogance, now are you?

No, I'll scrutinize the redwood forest in the eye of the Catholic Church anytime I want.

Of course you will, but that doesn't mean that your scrutiny is objective, rational, logical or anything but prejudiced and bigoted.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[amused]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Back in 1992 I spoke with a professor who thought it was incredible how people could do line-by-line dissections of posts. These pyramid posts would have depressed her even farther.

[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.

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

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?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

[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?

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

We know that religion doesn't make them less likely to rape children. Does it make them less likely to steal? Kill? Lie? Commit insider trading crimes? Rob banks? What?

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? We know that religion doesn't help them commit proportionately fewer child rapes, right? So, how do religious folk behave better or more morally?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

And, in the case of prayer, it has the opposite effect. When people think they're being prayed for, apparently it makes matters worse: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/04/03/p ... -worse.htm