Brazil girl, alleged rape victim, aborts twins

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Claeren

It is especially puzzeling to me that church-types think they can change when each generation is further and further from Jesus (if you believe in Jesus). Only this generations people would have the audacity to think they are correct to change things despite being the furthest generation from the last truly spoken words of god (if you believe in that). Wouldn't the church in 100AD be a LOT closer to Jesus and the word of god than ours? So wouldn't their rules be more correct that this generations?

Well, Jesus left very little to actually build a church from. He told them to ignore the Old Testament ("God is making a new covenant with his people"), and go off of his very basic teachings of love, tolerance and respect.

What happened, is the Church ignored that (since that kind of dogma goes against what they did), and chose randomly things from the Old Testament, as well as from other religions, hodge-podged it with the gospel, and came up with a mess. Jesus revered women, yet, the Catholics made it clear they were good for two things, procreation and servitude. As time went on, people have become more knowledgeable and more able to question how the church developed to the point of where we are today.

Therefore, it is not illogical to say the religions of today are hopelessly flawed, and yet still believe in the basic teachings of Jesus Christ, regardless of his divinity.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Well, its basically semantics, but we can agree what I was discussing could not be labelled as atheism, as Claeren suggested.

There is quite the divide though between agnosticism and atheism, filled in with many subsects from the "there is most definitely a God, but none of the religions are close enough," to "there is almost certainly no God."

I would contend that some Atheists have definitely said "there is no God", though certainly not posterchildren or academics like Dawkins. Since, even in Science, something like gravity is only a theory, and not a certainty, its not rational to deal in absolutes. But hey, who said faith or anti-faith as it were, was rational?

People might use the word definitely, but lets remember to those who don't believe in God we say with great certainty that fairies and elves don't exist.

Its just to be a reasonable skeptic you have to say there is no absolute certainty that those things cannot exist. That still doesn't weaken an Atheist stand point or give any strength to God existing. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Good points.

However, the Bible itself is full of contradictions, and if you will, signs of change in mentality. God is wrathful, vengeful, petty (look at the story of Job) and very rule based, essentially, very human, in the old testament. Then, in the New Testament, its all about love, tolerance, forgiveness, self-sacrifice. He sacrifices his own son for the sake of humanity. Jesus replaces the Ten Commandments with one overriding rule, love thy neighbor. Does that not constitute a serious dogmatic change? God changed over time, why can't the church?

By strict definition, that isn't atheism though, what I am arguing is more agnostic theism. Atheism is by definition the absence of faith. It says there's no god, and all belief systems are wrong. Agnostic theism is the belief that the existing religions can and may likely be horribly misguided, because there is too much uncertainty. Thus, a degree of rational thought is required to bridge faith and reality. Nothing says there isn't a God, simply that we know too little to be sure, and if there is a God, such hypocrisy, contradiction and hatred that has been demonstrated by some of these churches must be wrong.

As has been stated by others, that is not atheism. It is not even close to what atheism is.



I do not understand how god could have changed over time? If god changed over time than he was at one time worse than he was before or after those changes. IF that is the case he is falliable and flawed and therefore not worthy of being believed in.

I am not going to argue the bible is not full of contradictions, obviously it is. A rational person would realize it is likely so convoluted because it was written by a bunch of different generation's quack jobs over many generations with many different agendas, none of which had anything to do with a future 2000+ years away and that they should just be atheists and rationally see the world around them for themselves rather than listen to the superstitions of a long dead cleric educated by our standards to the level of an 8 year old who lived his entire life within 20km of a sand temple in the desert 2000+ years ago.

If you want to make sense of that mess go ahead, just don't be surprised when rational people get a bit pissed off when you are condemning child incest rape victims and pardoning father-rapists! OR WORSE, when you SAY you don't agree with that ruling yet still associate yourselves with them. (For example: Being a Nazi is bad enough, but saying that nazi's leaders are wrong while supporting Nazi's and the Nazi agenda makes you a Nazi AND a hypocrite. --- And for perspective i bet not even nazi's would have blamed the 9 year old.....)



Claeren.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Claeren

long post

I understand what you're getting at, and you make several excellent points, but I don't like you dealing in absolutes (like equating rational thinking with atheism).
One can be both theist and rational.
Have faith with common sense and compassion.

It is no more reasonable to say every theist is irrational than every atheist is.

Conflicts such as you described are not beyond the comprehension of any Church or their patrons. It doesn't necessarily make them irrational or "######ed". They have strong beliefs and would prefer to be labeled monsters than hypocrites (how come some abortions are ok?)


In a straight-faced defense of the Vatican, strictness such as seen in this case will ensure that a more radical branch of the Church doesn't split off and unleash their brand of God's "justice".

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I understand what you're getting at, and you make several excellent points, but I don't like you dealing in absolutes (like equating rational thinking with atheism).
One can be both theist and rational.
Have faith with common sense and compassion.

It is no more reasonable to say every theist is irrational than every atheist is.

Conflicts such as you described are not beyond the comprehension of any Church or their patrons. It doesn't necessarily make them irrational or "######ed". They have strong beliefs and would prefer to be labeled monsters than hypocrites (how come some abortions are ok?)


In a straight-faced defense of the Vatican, strictness such as seen in this case will ensure that a more radical branch of the Church doesn't split off and unleash their brand of God's "justice".

hmmm...

I would easily agree atheists can be both individually rational or irrational.

(Although a true atheist would have a drive to evolve their understanding of the world as new information is made available and thus would always attempt to be rational, even if their lack of individual capacity prevented them from coming to the proper conclusions.)

But I am not sure believers in relatively strict doctrine like that of the catholic church can be rational?

People can be spiritual and rational. They can belong to more flexible faith-groups and be rational.

I just don't think it is possible to be rational and strictly religious. In fact if you truly 'believe' then you would have to continue to believe even if it was irrational, correct? 'Belief' is basically defined as believing despite it being irrational to do so. (If it was rational to believe it wouldn't be belief, it would be fact. And if it was rational to believe than it would not take any work to do so, because it would be obvious).

Dogmatic faith like what the (real) catholic church espouses is therefore almost by definition irrational, and if not at any one moment, then in the contradictions created as generations and their individual interpretations mount. If there is one true word of god than there is only one true word of god, no? ANY change in that word of god to suit an individual or a circumstance or a time is an irrational departure from the original premise of belief in their being a believable singular word of god?




Claeren.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Claeren

As has been stated by others, that is not atheism. It is not even close to what atheism is.

Atheism: 1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

Apparently, according to these sources, its exactly what I said it was. That isn't to say you are wrong either.

Like Christianity, Catholicism, or even basic theism, there are a myriad of different viewpoints, often overlapping, and the contention here is that in this case, and in its outlook, the Vatican is wrong and has skewed its sources of faith.

The irony is that we're actually not far off in where we stand. It appears (much like the main christian sects) that the sources of disagreement are in semantics and small details.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Claeren

hmmm...

I would easily agree atheists can be both individually rational or irrational.

But I am not sure believers in relatively strict doctrine like that of the catholic church can be rational?

People can be spiritual and rational. They can belong to more flexible faith-groups and be rational.

I just don't think it is possible to be rational and strictly religious. In fact if you truly 'believe' then you would have to continue to believe even if it was irrational, correct? 'Belief' is basically defined as believing despite it being irrational to do so. (If it was rational to believe it wouldn't be belief, it would be fact. And if it was rational to believe than it would not take any work to do so, because it would be obvious).

Dogmatic faith like what the (real) catholic church espouses is therefore almost by definition irrational, and if not at any one moment, then in the contradictions created as generations and their individual interpretations mount. If there is one true word of god than their cannot be two words of god, no?

You speak as if all people are diligently analytical when it comes to these things, how a Vulcan or a robot would cope with these issues. I'm much the same way, but its almost hypocritical to hold a theist's feet to the flames for being dogmatic when your analysis seems equally inflexible.

Your comments remind me of the conclusion to South Park's All About Mormons:

Originally Posted by Gary

Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it.

Now, I realize this current circumstance is hardly "teaching being nice and helping people" but it illustrates my rational theist. In honesty, I agree with 90% of what you say, but that last 10% is unfair.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Atheism: 1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

Apparently, according to these sources, its exactly what I said it was. That isn't to say you are wrong either.

Like Christianity, Catholicism, or even basic theism, there are a myriad of different viewpoints, often overlapping, and the contention here is that in this case, and in its outlook, the Vatican is wrong and has skewed its sources of faith.

The irony is that we're actually not far off in where we stand. It appears (much like the main christian sects) that the sources of disagreement are in semantics and small details.

Except when there is a difference in opinion between atheists it is simply a difference of opinion.

When there is a difference in opinion between the strictly religious only one (at most) can be speaking the word of god while the other must then be wrong and be no longer in alignment with gods word. More importantly, in a heirarchy based church like the catholic church the central authority is right and you are wrong. There is no bending on that. Only in places like Canada, as I have said that are desperate to not collapse, have people in the catholic church wrongly been given the impression they can think for themselves and still be catholic. This has become an issue inside the catholic church itself btw, where the Vatican is looking to change this grey area.




More importantly though, that definition is based on a momentary labeling of a person. It says nothing of the larger subset of self rationalization inherient within that person. In short, yes, an atheist does not believe in god. What it leaves out is that if you had well grounded proof based on sound scientific theory then that atheist would then open themselves to that belief, because it is no longer 'belief, it is now fact.

The wiki does a much better job in its definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism





Claeren.

[MarchHare]

In short, yes, an atheist does not believe in god. What is leaves out is that if you had well grounded proof based on sound scientific theory then that atheist would then open themselves to that belief, because it is no longer 'belief, it is now fact.

There's a gross misconception between what most people think atheism is and what atheists think atheism is. It's the subtle but significant difference between stating "There is no god" vs. "I don't believe in a god." Most atheists hold the latter viewpoint, yet many people (even dictionary editors!) think we hold the former.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Except when there is a difference in opinion between atheists it is simply a difference of opinion.

When there is a difference in opinion between the strictly religious only one (at most) can be speaking the word of god while the other must then be wrong and be no longer in alignment with gods word. More importantly, in a heirarchy based church like the catholic church the central authority is right and you are wrong. There is no bending on that. Only in places like Canada, as I have said that are desperate to not collapse, have people in the catholic church wrongly been given the impression they can think for themselves and still be catholic. This has become an issue inside the catholic church itself btw, where the Vatican is looking to change this grey area.




More importantly though, that definition is based on a momentary labeling of a person. It says nothing of the larger subset of self rationalization inherient within that person. In short, yes, an atheist does not believe in god. What it leaves out is that if you had well grounded proof based on sound scientific theory then that atheist would then open themselves to that belief, because it is no longer 'belief, it is now fact.

The wiki does a much better job in its definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism





Claeren.

Yep, well said. Like I said, I don't disagree with you. Its much more complicated than those definitions, which is why I originally said "strict definition." When it comes to Mankind's attempt to understand the surrounding universe, any definition of belief can become incomplete and simplistic.

Of course, South Park made an interesting allegory with an atheistic future, and having the sides have their own war based on small details, much like the religious ones.

Yes, its South Park, but it brings up an interesting question about human nature. When does an opinion become faith, and when does faith become a religion, and when does a religion become a rally point for war?

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You speak as if all people are diligently analytical when it comes to these things, how a Vulcan or a robot would cope with these issues. I'm much the same way, but its almost hypocritical to hold a theist's feet to the flames for being dogmatic when your analysis seems equally inflexible.

Your comments remind me of the conclusion to South Park's All About Mormons:

[B]

Now, I realize this current circumstance is hardly "teaching being nice and helping people" but it illustrates my rational theist. In honesty, I agree with 90% of what you say, but that last 10% is unfair.

I don't get what you are saying.

I am only speaking about strict religious groups. Those with SPECIFIC RULES that set out very specifically what is and what is not allowed AND where non-adherence to those rules means you are not of that faith.

I agree 100% with what you are saying if people are part of less strict groups OR if people self-identify with a strict religion even though the leadership of that same religion would not accept them as believers by the true word of their religion.


- But you cannot be rational and believe irrational things, correct?
- So either (1) what that church teaches is 100% rational and you believe everything they believe in OR (2) you do not believe in that church.

- The problem with (1) is that over time what the church has taught has changed, and if there is one word of god than it can only have been correct once (thus irrational).
- The problem with (2) is that you have to leave the church (so if you do not you are irrational).

Now 'religious' people in Canada, where free thinking is encouraged and taught from a young age, incorrectly (and irrationally) think there is a (3) option, where you can believe in a some of it but not all of it and that is okay. The problem is that the catholic church (like many old school churches) does NOT believe this to be true. If you think (3) not only are you irrational, you are not catholic either.



I do not see where the hypocracy is? The church set-up its OWN standard for belief, why is holding people of that faith to that standard such a crazy notion?




Claeren.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Claeren

If you think (3) not only are you irrational, you are not catholic either.

*raises hand*

Originally Posted by Claeren

- But you cannot be rational and believe irrational things, correct?

I consider myself rational, and I think the Jays can make the playoffs (clearly irrational). I suppose I wouldn't know if I was irrational though....

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by 4X4

It truly boggles my mind how stupid people can be. If this isn't enough of an example of why the catholic church needs to be completely abandoned and relegated to it's rightful place in history (sandwiched in between the various other forms of mythology) then I don't know what is. FFS, does the catholic church do any good in the world? If they're not raping boys themselves, they're punishing girls that got raped. And when they're not doing that, they're pointing sin fingers at normal adults that have normal sex with other ADULTS.

The f'ing Catholic church. At least they did one thing right... They solidified my atheism for me. After spending a year in Italy and seeing all their ridiculous buildings and what they did to imperial buildings to build them, I needed no further evidence that it truly is a SCAM. I mean, why bother helping the poor when you could instead build thousands of gold trimmed, enormous buildings? Why feed the hungry when you could use that wealth to amass a priceless collection of art? And why bother justifying it when you can just tell everyone that they're going to hell unless they follow their rules and give them more money?

When I was in Italy I enjoyed looking at all the gold trimmed buildings and art.

But I agree, I have never seen so many brainwashed people at one time (I saw the Pope talking to a bazillian people).

Not about the Catholic church, but religion nonetheless, but at work all my co-workers are islamic, and boy can it be fun sometimes listening to the nonesence they speak of. I can tolerate the amount of dribble they speak of, I just talk back to them about what a scam/cult their religion is, then they just attack me. What gets me is they pray like 5 times during my work time. What the hell? I mean my job is pretty laid back so I don't get that pissed, but geez, every like 2 hours it seems they go back to pray. Effing ridiculous, KEEP THAT SH IT OUT OF WORK!!

/rant

[peter12]

Why would the prayer habits of people bother you? Sheesh, live and let live in that case.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

When I was in Italy I enjoyed looking at all the gold trimmed buildings and art.

But I agree, I have never seen so many brainwashed people at one time (I saw the Pope talking to a bazillian people).

Not about the Catholic church, but religion nonetheless, but at work all my co-workers are islamic, and boy can it be fun sometimes listening to the nonesence they speak of. I can tolerate the amount of dribble they speak of, I just talk back to them about what a scam/cult their religion is, then they just attack me. What gets me is they pray like 5 times during my work time. What the hell? I mean my job is pretty laid back so I don't get that pissed, but geez, every like 2 hours it seems they go back to pray. Effing ridiculous, KEEP THAT SH IT OUT OF WORK!!

/rant

About the praying 5 times a day, repetition is a very effective tool in indoctrination, take that for what you will.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

About the praying 5 times a day, repetition is a very effective tool in indoctrination, take that for what you will.

Or it's just a measure that provokes discipline and contemplation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

When I was in Italy I enjoyed looking at all the gold trimmed buildings and art.

But I agree, I have never seen so many brainwashed people at one time (I saw the Pope talking to a bazillian people).

Not about the Catholic church, but religion nonetheless, but at work all my co-workers are islamic, and boy can it be fun sometimes listening to the nonesence they speak of. I can tolerate the amount of dribble they speak of, I just talk back to them about what a scam/cult their religion is, then they just attack me. What gets me is they pray like 5 times during my work time. What the hell? I mean my job is pretty laid back so I don't get that pissed, but geez, every like 2 hours it seems they go back to pray. Effing ridiculous, KEEP THAT SH IT OUT OF WORK!!

/rant

Boy aren't you the enlightened tolerant one.

If I was still a member of the church and you decided to attack my belief structure based on what you believe in I'd tell you to get lost. And its not like you make it sound like you have any sort of respect for others at all. Lets see what terms are in there, you tell them that something that they are obviously dedicated to and believe in strongly is a scam or a cult, you call it dribble and nonsense. You basically attack them.

If you don't believe in it fine, whatever but stfu and keep your opinions to yourself, they don't want to hear it.

[BBQorMILDEW]

Can we please stick to the bloody subject... Stop bringing up all this religious mumbo-jumbo.... I am pretty sure the Aethist vs God debate has been beaten to death..

[MarchHare]

Now 'religious' people in Canada, where free thinking is encouraged and taught from a young age, incorrectly (and irrationally) think there is a (3) option, where you can believe in a some of it but not all of it and that is okay. The problem is that the catholic church (like many old school churches) does NOT believe this to be true. If you think (3) not only are you irrational, you are not catholic either.

My father was, until recently, a very devout Catholic. He was indoctrinated in the Church's teachings since his birth, attended mass every Sunday, was an altar boy, went to Catholic school where he was taught by nuns, the whole deal.

A few years ago, I confronted him with an article along the same lines as the one in the OP, except this one was about the Vatican's stance on birth control. The story described how Catholic priests and bishops in Africa were telling the local populations that it was sinful to use condoms. Some were even spreading misinformation by saying that condoms were not effective at preventing the transmission of HIV. Confronted with this info, I asked my father how he could continue to support an organization whose policies will lead to the deaths of thousands -- if not millions -- from AIDS.

He replied that he didn't support the Vatican's position on birth control and that he considered himself to be a "smörgåsbord Catholic" (what you described as the (3) option), meaning he could pick and choose which beliefs of the Church he followed and which ones he ignored. I countered that his position was similar to a German, circa 1938, describing himself as a "smörgåsbord Nazi" because he didn't agree with the oppression of the Jews but remained a loyal member of the Nazi Party because Hitler revatilized the German economy and got the trains running on time.

I like to think that illuminated a lightbulb for him.

This morning, upon seeing the OP, I sent him the following email:

The Vatican has excommunicated several doctors in Brazil for performing an abortion to save the life of a nine year-old girl who was raped by her step-father and became pregnant with twins. They also excommunicated the girl's mother for granting the doctors permission to perform the operation. In an act of mercy towards the child, the victim was not excommunicated, but Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho very carefully stated that she was only spared that fate because she is a minor.

The Church did not excommunicate the child rapist.

I didn't think it was possible for the Catholic Church to become any more morally bankrupt than it already is, but then I heard about this.

This was his reply:

Right you are. Completely, utterly criminal. A-holes.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW

Can we please stick to the bloody subject... Stop bringing up all this religious mumbo-jumbo.... I am pretty sure the Aethist vs God debate has been beaten to death..

Funny thing is i read about this incident a few days ago. Was going to post it here then realised it would degenerate into another athiest vs religion debate.