Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!

[Dre89]

So because people and the world are not perfect, let's just indulge in imperfection.

In fact, it was a great idea to invent contraception, so we can encourage imperfection and make it far more accessible.

Did you think that perhaps partners would be less likely to be unfaithful if contraception wasn't around?

Criticism of the Church's stance on contraception is not just justified, because had we listened to the Church in the first place contraception wouldn't be needed to supress the aids endemic.

 

[Aesir]

So because people and the world are not perfect, let's just indulge in imperfection.

Stop thinking in black and white terms. That's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is contraceptives are necessary because we live in an imperfect world.

In fact, it was a great idea to invent contraception, so we can encourage imperfection and make it far more accessible.

It doesn't encourage imperfection it encourages to be safe, if you use contraceptives your chance of causing unwanted pregnancy and aids will go down. If you have a monogamous sex life you'll greatly reduce your chance go get aids. This is what's been taught to children the last 20 years.

Did you think that perhaps partners would be less likely to be unfaithful if contraception wasn't around?

No just a lot more unwanted children.

Criticism of the Church's stance on contraception is not just justified, because had we listened to the Church in the first place contraception wouldn't be needed to supress the aids endemic.

Again if we lived in a perfect world I would agree, however we don't so contraceptives are necessary some people just don't give a ****, and we need protection from people like that.

 

[Dre89]

But all contraception has done is promote premiscuity and has thus contributed to the transmission of STDs due to people's willingness to enjoy multiple partners.

The good it has done, prevent unwanted babies, is only a solution to something that it itself started, and in fact more unwanted babies have probably been conceived since the invention of modern conception, due to the increased desire for lust.

I'm curious to know what effect removing contraception would have.

Abortion clinincs would loev it, considering they're trying to bait girls into having 3 abortions before the age of fifteen nowadays.

 

[GoldShadow]

What makes you think contraception has caused people to become promiscuous?

People have been having sex, unprotected, out of wedlock and without desiring to procreate, for millennia. Moreover, I would argue that contraception has been a consequence of, not a cause, of increasingly liberal attitudes towards sex and sexuality. Do you think the hippie movement and the sexual revolution had anything to do with contraception? There was a major increase in sexual activity during that time, and a great many of these encounters did not utilize contraception.

 

[Dre89]

I was careful to not say 'no one was premiscuis before contraception'.

But this is essentially what contraception was designed for, premiscuity.

You can't tell me that premiscuity hasn't received a dramatic increase of late because of contraception.

But I think this debate is pointless. All I wanted to do was defend the Church from the criticism it was getting here, because had we listened to the Church contraception wouldn't be needed.

 

[GoldShadow]

You can't tell me that premiscuity hasn't received a dramatic increase of late because of contraception.

That is exactly what I'm telling you. People have been becoming more promiscuous as a result of changes in social mores and increasingly liberal views of sex. Contraception has made it safer for them to do so, but was not necessarily the cause.

 

[Dre89]

But I Think the increasingly liberal view probably is related to the fact that premiscuity is more accessible and has far less risk.

 

[blazedaces]

But I Think the increasingly liberal view probably is related to the fact that premiscuity is more accessible and has far less risk.

But as GoldShadow ALREADY pointed out... the move towards promiscuity occurred prior to the popularization of contraception. Basically, people were promiscuous without having safe sex long ago. The only reason today we are a culture that somewhat encourages safe sex is because as a result of promiscuity, STI's began spreading, and it was realized that the sex was going to happen either way. But at least with safe sex, STI spread is reduced.

Find me one study which links an increase in STI's OR AN INCREASE IN SEX to the availability contraception.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

Just to add/clarify some things in this discussion: (source)

• The first historical mention of use of condoms (in the form of a linen sheath) dates back to as early as 1000 BC!
• Perhaps the spread of syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease across Europe around the 1500s prompted for the invention of the [modern] condom. A simple sheath made out of linen was claimed to prevent spread of the infection. Such sheaths were soaked in a chemical solution and later allowed to dry, paving the way for incorporation of the first spermicides
  on condoms.
• The 1800s saw a rapid progress both in the production and utilization of the condom. The development of a process called vulcanization (process which converts rubber into a strong yet elastic material), accompanied by a parallel development in the economic and social grounds in Europe and US have been responsible for the glory the condom enjoys today.
• Only in 1957 was the first lubricated condom launched in UK. The condom has traveled a long way from what it was to the colored and flavored forms, which exist as of date.
• It is true that the development of the oral contraceptive pill, other forms of contraception such as coil and loop, and innovations in surgical techniques for birth control have somewhat eroded the popularity of the condom. However, the ever-increasing rate of sexually transmitted diseases, more specifically AIDS, and the rising figures of teenage pregnancy have restored the condom its previous importance.

In essence people have always sought to have "safe" sex, due to the fact that people enjoy it regardless of the moral complications/theistic ramifications. STD transmission has also been widely accepted as a reason to use contraception, even before the discovery of AIDS. It is also true the this most recent disease of AIDS and the recent epidemic of teen pregnancy (especially in the US) have led to an increase in condom use (specifically).

I know most of you know all that already, but I sense there was some confusion over which came first, the condom or the promiscuous lifestyle, and it's just noteworthy that they both go back a long time, so its difficult to really say that one created need for the other.

 

[Dre89]

I was aware condoms were not new, that's why I said 'modern' contraception.

What's evident now though is that the media promotes premiscuity because the liberation of sex opens up doors for monumental financial gain, but I wonder if the accessibility of modern contraception ocntributed to this endorsement.

 

[blazedaces]

I was aware condoms were not new, that's why I said 'modern' contraception.

What's evident now though is that the media promotes premiscuity because the liberation of sex opens up doors for monumental financial gain, but I wonder if the accessibility of modern contraception ocntributed to this endorsement.

How does "the liberation of sex opens up doors for monumental financial gain"?

I can't believe we're even discussing this. Contraceptives are a great thing, they help stop the spread of STI's! Regardless of their existence, promiscuity occurs, and furthermore, that's a good thing! Why in the world should sex be discouraged?

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

The debate of loyalty vs. premiscuity was covered in the homosexuality thread.

The liberation of sex opens up a number of business opporunities. Strip clubs, gay clubs, porn, erotic literature, contraception, casual dating sites etc.

 

[blazedaces]

The debate of loyalty vs. premiscuity was covered in the homosexuality thread.

The liberation of sex opens up a number of business opporunities. Strip clubs, gay clubs, porn, erotic literature, contraception, casual dating sites etc.

These all existed long before sex was viewed in a liberal nature... stop having a narrow minded view on this issue, it's getting frustrating.

And stop referring to old threads every time a topic comes up... I don't care if it was referred to in an earlier thread. Either link to a previous post or prepare to repeat yourself.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Unless I'm mistaken, the last time brothels were public and not discrete was ancient Rome, where sex was liberated. I could be wrong though. The reason I refer to previous debates is because often they defect from the debate at hand, so they're not worth re igniting.

 

[blazedaces]

Unless I'm mistaken, the last time brothels were public and not discrete was ancient Rome, where sex was liberated. I could be wrong though. The reason I refer to previous debates is because often they defect from the debate at hand, so they're not worth re igniting.

You're mistaken... prostitution is literally referred to as "the oldest profession"...

A simple google search would have found you plenty of information on this subject:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/History-of-Prostitution.htm

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

I don't understand what good that source did for your argument. It just basically shows that prostitution was really only endorsed by the society before the Christian era, when sex was liberated.

 

[Aesir]

I don't understand what good that source did for your argument. It just basically shows that prostitution was really only endorsed by the society before the Christian era, when sex was liberated.

Because historically speaking it's the oldest profession, it's gone as far back as Mesopotamia.

Furthermore it's showing that promiscuity is going to happen regardless if there's a safe outlet or not.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The two problems with this remaining are:

1. What would this fine accomplish? Yeah, you got back at them, but how is that helping society or the kid in any way? The kid will still be born, so it seems pointless.

It would act as a deterrent. It seems to work in China.

2. What if the family has a minimal paycheck and needs every last dollar to stay in their home and support their family?

There is going to be suffering, but without the fine, it's unlikely that people will comply with the law.

Killing people based on religion is agreed universally and internationally to be a crime. Not using contraception isn't.

My point is that, if they're religion demands that something happens and it's against the greater good, then they should stop doing that thing. It doesn't matter that they believe it's of great importance, they should stop, simply because it's wrong.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

had we listened to the Church

Oh boy do not EVER use that statement around me. "If we had listened to religious establishment X, which has a long history of being wrong on a scientific level and corrupt on a moral level." If we had listened to the church, we'd still think the world was flat, never would've discovered the americas, would believe that the sun rotates around the earth, would have no trappings of modern medicine (Disease comes from god being angry), would have no clue about tsunami/volcano/earthquake detection and evacuation, and basically all-around be far, FAR worse off (and sans science, thank you very much). I'm astounded how many people are still willing to listen to a group that preaches absolute truth and has been so consistently wrong (i.e. any religious establishment ever).

So. On to the topic at hand.

I honestly believe that incest has lost almost any reason to be illegalized in today's society. The fear of malformed babies can be prevented with contraceptives, and having children is not such a huge deal. And if they do get pregnant, they can get an abortion.
However, to the topic of forcing them to have an abortion, I have to say, yes, we should. In fact, we should force anyone whose child has a major genetic defect or *********** to get an abortion. They can just try to have another kid; no harm, no foul.

 

[SuperBowser]

I'll say it now. I'm biased on this issue. I'm interested in becoming an obstetrician so such decisions could affect me directly. Therefore my views are probably stronger on this.

So what does this mean? Should people with genetic disorders like MD just kill themselves, instead of pursing happiness as if nothing's wrong?

Well technically it wouldn't come to that, if they'd not been born to begin with. We're not talking slight genetic differentiation. We're talking serious life-altering diseases that require constant special care, huge resources, a life of pain and suffering. True they may still have a smile on their face. The pain may become second nature, something you just ... live with. And who are we to take that away from them? To deny them their chance for happiness, their parents' chance to be, well parents.

I'd like to point out that many children born with genetic disorders were a result of new mutations. In muscular dystrophy, this is the case for ~ 1/3 of sufferers; it simply couldn't have been anticipated. While you may reduce the number of children born with such disorders, a significant minority will always remain. Muscular dystrophy (and many other conditions) will not be eliminated by such methods.

What is your definition of a serious life-altering disease? The more and more that I've learnt, the harder it has become for me to draw such a line. Which diseases would qualify and which would not? You will find fierce opposition for many conditions - your definition of serious will not meet others'. Things become even more difficult when you realise the phenotype can be unpredicatable for several diseases, even if the genes inherited are known. Diseases as ''simple'' and well researched as thalassaemia or Down's syndrome carry a range of disability from mild to severe. For such diseases, you cannot be sure of that child's prognosis till well after its birth. I think many Down's children have a good quality of life and their life expectancy is passing ~60 years. Many can form meaningful relationships and marry. I suppose you could argue the parents' QOL is reduced by having these children but I suspect most parents would not have it any other way.

I wonder how you would implement such an idea. Picking up fetal disorders is not simplistic by any means. Screening methods only provide a risk of abnormality, they are not infallible. They carry false positives and false negatives. 25% of Down's children can be missed on the quadruple test (http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/resources/patientinfo/womens/quadrupletest.pdf)! Aside from the unnecessary stress these tests might bring many parents, some children are never picked up by such methods. Right now, that is simply how it is.

The only way I see the prevention of such occurrences would be to introduce mandatory invasive diagnostic tests. However, these carry real risks. 1-2% of fetuses (the vast majority of which were ''normal'') from such procedures will be miscarried. You can appreciate some women are simply are not interested in such a test. Even current guidelines for testing are debated - http://www.down-syndrome.org/editorials/2087/. How many healthy fetuses must we lose before we are crossing the line? Frankly, if the government ever introduce mandatory invasive dangerous tests for unwilling women I will quit my job. That is not my purpose and I will be no part of it.

I've not mentioned abortion because I assume noone would consider it. That would simply be barbaric.

Maybe Cyprus and its health screening policies for thalassaemia would interest you. http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/siegal.html. These policies were driven by a spiralling problem that necessitated such extreme measures. However, I think it would be difficult to implement similar policies into western countries.

We are fickle, perhaps, but when asked "who are YOU to decide what's right for a child to be born into?" Answer: the parents.

I'm surprised nobody else said this: You are not Cheryl's parents. That is the most important distinction because yes, you can make such a decision for your family, but such a right does not extend further.

 

[Dre89]

Oh boy do not EVER use that statement around me. "If we had listened to religious establishment X, which has a long history of being wrong on a scientific level and corrupt on a moral level." If we had listened to the church, we'd still think the world was flat, never would've discovered the americas, would believe that the sun rotates around the earth, would have no trappings of modern medicine (Disease comes from god being angry), would have no clue about tsunami/volcano/earthquake detection and evacuation, and basically all-around be far, FAR worse off (and sans science, thank you very much). I'm astounded how many people are still willing to listen to a group that preaches absolute truth and has been so consistently wrong (i.e. any religious establishment ever)

This is a incredibly skewed argument.

Firstly, only the people in the Church were/are corrupt, not the teachings, the Church has made no secret of that.

Yes the Church initially surpressed scientific progressions such as Gallileo, but the Church also went back on that surpression.

I don't think you're aware of how much the Church has contributed to scientific progression. The only reason why we have universities to study science is because the Church invented them. You're also ignoring the fact that alot of important scientific contributions atcually came from Catholics.

The first science was done by Aristotle, a greek philosopher. When his Physics was discovered in western civilisation in medieval times, it was Catholic philosophers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas who reconclied Aristotle's work with Christian theology and allowed for scientific progression.

Besides, anyone who says that the Church is against science clearly doesn't understand the Church's position. The Church advocates science, there is nothing scientific that contradicts anything in Catholicism, in fact evolution theory heavily correlates to the Creation Story. The Church employs scientific/medical experts of differing beliefs to verify miracles such as the Bleeding Eucharist and the cures at the Spring of Lourdes.

So anyone who thinks the Catholic Church is in confilct with science is stuck in the fourth century.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Besides, anyone who says that the Church is against science clearly doesn't understand the Church's position. The Church advocates science, there is nothing scientific that contradicts anything in Catholicism, in fact evolution theory heavily correlates to the Creation Story. The Church employs scientific/medical experts of differing beliefs to verify miracles such as the Bleeding Eucharist and the cures at the Spring of Lourdes.

I would put the "HA HA HA, OH WOW" meme up, but I like not having points.

Links or it didn't happen. Seriously. I can see some plausibility in the church advocating science, but to say that there is proof miracles exist?

Please point me to a respected, peer-reviewed journal that shows this.

 

[Sucumbio]

You are not Cheryl's parents. That is the most important distinction because yes, you can make such a decision for your family, but such a right does not extend further.

Oh of course, it's definitely up to no one else (currently, and thankfully) but my opinion on the matter is unchanged: her parents had the right, and responsibility of bringing her into the world, and that was their decision, but it was the wrong decision. I also can't fault them for it, I mean, they couldn't help the fact they too were born this way, and wanted to have a family. Having kids isn't a right or privilege (again, YET), it's a choice, and they made it. My position is that as science furthers we'll hopefully learn to screen or even correct these bad genes in utero so as to prevent such diseases from existing. And of course me and my wife have made the decision to terminate any pregnancy that appears to be severely degraded. Our criterion for this should be obvious, but to articualte: things like MD, DS, that kind of thing, I mean we even talked about "what if it had no arms, or no legs" and decided that would actually be ok, we just don't want a drooling ****** on our hands to put it bluntly. Not that there should be a serious risk for this, neither of our families have any such things in their history but... ya never know.

 

[Dre89]

I would put the "HA HA HA, OH WOW" meme up, but I like not having points.

Links or it didn't happen. Seriously. I can see some plausibility in the church advocating science, but to say that there is proof miracles exist?

Please point me to a respected, peer-reviewed journal that shows this.

Wait what are you asking for, peer-rewieved literature that the miracles were true, or peer-reviewed literature that the Church employs science/medical experts of differing beliefs to verify their miracles?

I never said the miracles were true, I just said the latter, so I don't need to spend 4 pages trying to prove how miracles are true.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Wait what are you asking for, peer-rewieved literature that the miracles were true, or peer-reviewed literature that the Church employs science/medical experts of differing beliefs to verify their miracles?

Both please.

And something tells me that anything you show has been refuted before here. But I have an open mind. So go ahead, shoot.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not going to try prove that the miracles happened, that'd take far too long.

In truth, so far the only sources I myself have personally read have been things like either Wikipedia or Catholic, so I know you won't accept them.

However, there are books like the 6-volume series History of Christendom which reference credible sources which verify historical and miraculous events, the idea being that you can then go and look at those sources yourself.

There are certain phenomena such as the Miracle of the Sun which don't need the actual event proven to be verified. The Miracle of the Sun was about a young portugese girl who was claiming to have marian aparitions.

She claimed that Mary told her on a certain day the Sun would 'dance', and so thousands of people gathered to witness. Now the debate is whether it was supernatural, or what's known as a 'sundog', which is a naturalistic explanation for it.

She then also correctly predicted an aurora happening before the war, which is known to have happened, the only debate is whether it was supernatural or not.

You then have St. Bernadette, who correctly predicted where to dig to open up a new spring (the Spring of Lourdes) which is said to have cured about 67 people. The debate is whether these cures do occur, but no one's denying that it was St. Bernadette who told them where to dig.

If you look up marian apparitions you'll find that there's plenty of these. Now the supernature of these events is debated, but for a Catholic it doesn't need to be supernatural, because what is known is that several people who claimed marian apparitions correctly predicted multiple future events that were highly improbable. In fact it would probably make more sense to the catholic if these events were naturalistic, considering that was always the way God applied Himself in the Old Testament.

But to be honest I don't want to get into another miracle debate, so we'll leave it at that.

 

[rvkevin]

And something tells me that anything you show has been refuted before here. But I have an open mind. So go ahead, shoot.

First Google hit for "bleeding Eucharist news" To say that the Church employs scientists to verify miracles is as much an oxymoron as a skeptical theist (not to mention unscientific to the highest degree). One only need to bring up Project Alpha to show how easy scientists can be fooled, which is why who or how many people say something is irrelevant and only amounts to an argument from authority or popularity. One must always ask, where is the evidence?

 

[Dre89]

All I was trying to prove was that the Church embraces science, not that the miracles are tue.

I was just using it as an example of the relationship between faith and reason.

 

[rvkevin]

All I was trying to prove was that the Church embraces science

This doesn't combat BPC's claim. He was basically saying that revelation (or whatever method the Church comes to its conclusions) is a worthless method of epistemology. Saying that the Church embraces science when it conflicts actually supports his claim that if we used the Catholic Church, divine revelation, as a means for discovering the world that we would still be ignorant. To combat his claim, one would need to show how the Church's conclusions have any bearing on reality.

 

[Dre89]

Well nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat.

The Creation story correlates to evolution theory.

BPC's argument is a straw-man because he's saying that we can only take one avenue. Yes if we only followed theology and not science our progress in science would be hindered, but the Church doesn't say we shouldn't practice science.

Same if we only embraced science, we wouldn't make progress in other fields. Funnily enough, the only reason why we have universities to study science in is because the Church invented them.

BPG is still stuck in the 8th century (and I don't mean that offensively) where the Church despised philosophy and avenues of knowledge outside of theology. The Church moved on from that stance ages ago, and now the talk is of how faith and reason are intertwined, the last Pope even wrote a book called 'faith and reason'.

This is the problem with religion debates. The athiests/skeptics just don't know enough about Catholicism to be making accurate claims. The only person here who seems to know a sufficient amount about the Church is Adumbrodeus, but I think he's a Catholic.

Rvkevin a good example is the TheoreticalBull**** guy you linked me to. I watched some his videos and I quite liked him, he was respectful to the theistic position. Now despite his impressive philosophy, theologically he was terrible; he got alot of things wrong about the Church, most of which resulted in straw-mans which helped his arguments alot. His knowledge of Catholicism seems restricted to reading the Bible. That's a perfect example of a good skeptic being hindered by a lack of knowledge on the Church.

 

[rvkevin]

Can you link me to a source for the Church's teachings?

 

[Dre89]

It depends on what you're looking for, there's a number of texts.

Alot of what I know isn't from the texts themselves, but from hearing it from knowledgeable Catholics, theology lecturers etc.

 

[rvkevin]

Anything on morality, epistemology, and anything you see as being commonly misrepresented by non-Catholics.

 

[Dre89]

Well I won't have the documents but I have a general idea of what gets misrepresented. Here are a few corrections to common misconceptions.

The Church is not against science. Faith and Reason (the title is in latin though and I can't remember how to spell it) by John Paul II would be a good text.

The Church isn't against evolution.

Skeptics generally don't know of 'baptism by desire', so they think the Catholics believes everyone who doesn't practice their faith will burn in a sea of fire. Everyone who doesn't practise the faith burning in a sea of desire is a Protestant thing, not a Catholic, Catholics aren't exclusivists like Protestants are.

Skeptics seem to think that the Catholic notion of Hell is literally a place where people burn in a sea of fire. It's not a place, it's a state, a state of despiar as result of the absence of God.

The Trinity is one God three persons, not three Gods.

The devil is not a God.

Old Law vs. New Law Theory.

The Bible is not to be taken entirely literally.

The Church came before the Bible. The Bible was only put together because it was considered the most efficient way of preserving the method of Tradition.

Catholic faith is based both on Tradition and Scripture, not just Scripture like Protestant faith. The reason for this dual reliance is because Scripture came from Tradition.

Justification for believing Catholicism comes from philosophy and study of history, not just blind allegiance to its theology.

That's all I can think of now.

 

[rvkevin]

Kind of looking for something with a little substance. Just link me to a Catholic website you know of that has something about Catholic Epistemology and morality, with extra emphasis on the former.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat.

Yeah, k. But the church was still against that. Oh and the heliocentric model.

The Creation story correlates to evolution theory.

God created the world and all its inhabitants in 7 days
vs.
<short explanation of abiogenesis which is about 5 pages long>

Yep, seeing a lot of correlation.

BPC's argument is a straw-man because he's saying that we can only take one avenue. Yes if we only followed theology and not science our progress in science would be hindered, but the Church doesn't say we shouldn't practice science.

Depending on which church. Go to Alabama or Kansas sometime and you'll see what I mean. I don't trust religious establishments as far as I could throw them. And seeing as most of them are buildings...

Same if we only embraced science, we wouldn't make progress in other fields. Funnily enough, the only reason why we have universities to study science in is because the Church invented them.

Other fields? What non-scientific fields are even worth progressing in? Give me one example.
Also, the church was a little late on those universities, the arabs had them first. And what's to say that we wouldn't have universities without the church?

BPG is still stuck in the 8th century (and I don't mean that offensively) where the Church despised philosophy and avenues of knowledge outside of theology. The Church moved on from that stance ages ago, and now the talk is of how faith and reason are intertwined, the last Pope even wrote a book called 'faith and reason'.

Faith and reason can't be intertwined though, that's the problem. Not true faith. Faith is almost the antithesis of reason; in reason, you believe something because all the evidence points to it; in faith, you believe in something despite there being no evidence whatsoever that it exists.

Funny that a large number of churchgoers didn't move on. This whole "accept god or you will burn in hell" is alive and well today.

And lastly, I see no reason to forgive the church for not just the 8th century, but for the entirety of the dark ages. It's like forgiving Genghis Khan and his warriors for destroying centuries of valuable scientific information in the middle east-not gonna happen any time soon on this account. The only valuable thing we got out of the dark ages was "don't let the church run europe".

This is the problem with religion debates. The athiests/skeptics just don't know enough about Catholicism to be making accurate claims. The only person here who seems to know a sufficient amount about the Church is Adumbrodeus, but I think he's a Catholic.

Rvkevin a good example is the TheoreticalBull**** guy you linked me to. I watched some his videos and I quite liked him, he was respectful to the theistic position. Now despite his impressive philosophy, theologically he was terrible; he got alot of things wrong about the Church, most of which resulted in straw-mans which helped his arguments alot. His knowledge of Catholicism seems restricted to reading the Bible. That's a perfect example of a good skeptic being hindered by a lack of knowledge on the Church.

Hmm... forgive me if I'm wrong, but the bible is the holy book of an institution claiming absolute truth, correct? If you read the bible, you should know almost anything there is to know about christianity. Correct? If not, they should revise the thing, because a ****ton of people take that crap literally (without, mind you, actually ever reading it themselves). It's just a little strange to me-how could a holy book be so wrong? What were they thinking?

Skeptics generally don't know of 'baptism by desire', so they think the Catholics believes everyone who doesn't practice their faith will burn in a sea of fire. Everyone who doesn't practise the faith burning in a sea of desire is a Protestant thing, not a Catholic, Catholics aren't exclusivists like Protestants are.

They both follow the bible, which clearly states that you will burn in hell if you don't believe in god, and specifically their god.

Skeptics seem to think that the Catholic notion of Hell is literally a place where people burn in a sea of fire. It's not a place, it's a state, a state of despiar as result of the absence of God.

Actually, that sounds like the most beautiful place in the world to me...

The devil is not a God.

How does he wreck god/humans all the time then?

The Bible is not to be taken entirely literally.

Someone tell the christians this.

The Church came before the Bible. The Bible was only put together because it was considered the most efficient way of preserving the method of Tradition.

...by spouting a bunch of really bizarre and cruel nonsense? Makes sense to me!

Catholic faith is based both on Tradition and Scripture, not just Scripture like Protestant faith. The reason for this dual reliance is because Scripture came from Tradition.

Justification for believing Catholicism comes from philosophy and study of history, not just blind allegiance to its theology.

That's all I can think of now.

Oh, so it's the Protestants I hate? Good to know. What exactly comprises/describes the catholic "tradition"?

 

[Dre89]

I don't look at websites. I get my knowledge from books and by word from credible Catholics.

The only website that comes to mind is this-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm but I'm not sure how useful it will be.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, k. But the church was still against that. Oh and the heliocentric model.

Key word there champ.

God created the world and all its inhabitants in 7 days
vs.
<short explanation of abiogenesis which is about 5 pages long>

Yep, seeing a lot of correlation.

I explained that the Catholic interpretation isn't literal. Read the Creation Story and you'll notice that the order in which animals were created corrleates to the order in evolution theory.

Depending on which church. Go to Alabama or Kansas sometime and you'll see what I mean. I don't trust religious establishments as far as I could throw them. And seeing as most of them are buildings...

Are they Catholic? I'm not defending other than Catholicism. Catholicism is hugely distinct from virtually any other religion.

Other fields? What non-scientific fields are even worth progressing in? Give me one example.

Morality for example. We would probably still be throwing people into pits with lions had not Christianity emerged. The relevance of the Church's progression is dependant on whether it is the truth or not, which can't be answered in this question.

Also, the church was a little late on those universities, the arabs had them first. And what's to say that we wouldn't have universities without the church?

Because they were an adaption from the monastery, a Church intervention.

Faith and reason can't be intertwined though, that's the problem. Not true faith. Faith is almost the antithesis of reason; in reason, you believe something because all the evidence points to it; in faith, you believe in something despite there being no evidence whatsoever that it exists.

Can you tell me what Catholic philosophy, theology, and history you've read, to prove to me that your conclusion is credible?

Funny that a large number of churchgoers didn't move on. This whole "accept god or you will burn in hell" is alive and well today.

So because there are uneducated Catholics (I'm assuming you're talking specifically about Catholics, otherwise it's a moot point), the Church is bad?

That's like saying atheism is wrong because there are atheists undeducate don the issue.

And lastly, I see no reason to forgive the church for not just the 8th century, but for the entirety of the dark ages. It's like forgiving Genghis Khan and his warriors for destroying centuries of valuable scientific information in the middle east-not gonna happen any time soon on this account. The only valuable thing we got out of the dark ages was "don't let the church run europe".

Catholics have made no contribution to science?

You do know that Darwin was a Christian monk don't you? He even said after that what he did was mere speculation, yet people took it as fact. That's just one contribution.

Hmm... forgive me if I'm wrong, but the bible is the holy book of an institution claiming absolute truth, correct? If you read the bible, you should know almost anything there is to know about christianity. Correct? If not, they should revise the thing, because a ****ton of people take that crap literally (without, mind you, actually ever reading it themselves). It's just a little strange to me-how could a holy book be so wrong? What were they thinking?

Ok you've shown here you have no knowledge of Catholcism. You clearly can't distinguish between Portestantism and Catholicism. If you had done some research, you'd know that Catholic faith is based both on Scripture and Tradiiton.

I've realised now all your claims are moot becuase you're referring to Protestantism and clearly have done no reading on this at an advanced level. Come back to me when you've done some research on the issue.

You're making the skeptic/athiest community look bad by passing judgement without having any knowledge at all of the issue. You probably still think Catholics believe God is a guy in the sky with a beard or something childish like that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Key word there champ.

And I hold grudges.

I explained that the Catholic interpretation isn't literal. Read the Creation Story and you'll notice that the order in which animals were created corrleates to the order in evolution theory.

I... suppose? I tried to look this up, but

Are they Catholic? I'm not defending other than Catholicism. Catholicism is hugely distinct from virtually any other religion.

Morality for example. We would probably still be throwing people into pits with lions had not Christianity emerged. The relevance of the Church's progression is dependant on whether it is the truth or not, which can't be answered in this question.

While I will say that yes, morality is a great, non-scientific branch, I'm not going to agree that morality would not have progressed had christianity failed to show up, and would like to compare the "throwing people into pits with lions" favorably to the inquisition.

Merely because christian morals have become a large part of our western society doesn't mean that these advances wouldn't have happened without the church. I mean, "don't kill people" is also a part of Judaism, Hindu, and Buddhism (and I think Islam, although I may be wrong).

Because they were an adaption from the monastery, a Church intervention.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Can you tell me what Catholic philosophy, theology, and history you've read, to prove to me that your conclusion is credible?

Nothing Catholic. I think about it mostly like this: the fact that proof denies faith points to a lack of reasoning behind it. If you knew god existed, there would be no faith in him, only knowledge. Proof denies faith, and I'd argue that reason does too.

So because there are uneducated Catholics (I'm assuming you're talking specifically about Catholics, otherwise it's a moot point), the Church is bad?

That's like saying atheism is wrong because there are atheists undeducate don the issue.

I'm gonna drop this point because obviously I've been mixing up catholic and other parts of the church, but this has a lot to do with the fact that many faiths (in fact, most of them) try very hard to make you close your eyes to anything contradicting said faith.

Catholics have made no contribution to science?

You do know that Darwin was a Christian monk don't you? He even said after that what he did was mere speculation, yet people took it as fact. That's just one contribution.

Dark ages. Not enlightenment.

Ok you've shown here you have no knowledge of Catholcism. You clearly can't distinguish between Portestantism and Catholicism. If you had done some research, you'd know that Catholic faith is based both on Scripture and Tradiiton.

I've realised now all your claims are moot becuase you're referring to Protestantism and clearly have done no reading on this at an advanced level. Come back to me when you've done some research on the issue.

You're making the skeptic/athiest community look bad by passing judgement without having any knowledge at all of the issue. You probably still think Catholics believe God is a guy in the sky with a beard or something childish like that.

Yes, yes, probably, probably, okay, oops, and yes.

Whoops? I'll read up a little bit.

 

[blazedaces]

You do know that Darwin was a Christian monk don't you? He even said after that what he did was mere speculation, yet people took it as fact. That's just one contribution.

He never claimed "what he did was mere speculation". This, along with the idea that he ever recanted his words on his death bed are myths by evangelists to discredit evolution somehow...

I have also never heard he was a Christian monk... and I've read quite a lot about him. Provide evidence for this please.

And I've already POINTED OUT TO YOU that there were universities prior to established christian ones, so how are you still spouting off that they should be credited for them?

Stop telling people to go research, you're just being arrogant and pathetic. If you can not provide proof for your statements NO ONE HERE WILL BELIEVE YOU AND NO ONE SHOULD!

-blazed