Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2021222324 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 12:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Look, the guidelines apply to everyone. Show me one instance over the course of this discussion where anyone has specifically denigrated your personal beliefs then I will take appropriate action based upon my judgement of the situation, its context and the general tone of the preceding conversation.
 
Nobody is asking a sanction Dean, just leave clear who is being aggresive and who is just replying.
 
You just said that I was the only one who mention the word ignorant, but later it ewas obvious I was not.
 
And it's not the first time, when the Pope was dying this was read in the forum:
 
Originally posted by gdub414 gdub414 wrote:

So, did the old bugger kick it yet?
 
And nobody did a thing, as a fact an anti Catholic  moderator (that is no longer here), refused to delete it or say something except comparing the Pope with Marilyn Monroe and Fidel Castro, only Easy Livin' said something nice.
 
You were not a Moderator (as a fact only Bob and Maani, but it happened manytimes) So we are used
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2010 at 12:41
            
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 12:44
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

comparing the Pope with Marilyn Monroe and Fidel Castro, only Easy Livin' said something nice.

Comparing the Pope at the time to MM and FC, that's just weird.  I never saw that post.  Now if the new pope would just grow a beard, I might buy it for him. LOL
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 12:49

Marilyn Manson sorry, my memory is good, but not perfect

Originally posted by Maani Maani wrote:

Without casting any aspersions on the Pope, the "loved by millions" argument doesn't wash.  Fidel Castro is also loved by millions.  So is Donald Trump.  And Marilyn Manson.  And...........

Mariah Carey!...

Peace.

 
Lucifer Sam laughed about how Catholics were praising a vegetable, and again nothing was done.
 
Reed Lover (who was not a Moderator) protted, but Maani did nothing
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2010 at 12:58
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 13:32
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Look, the guidelines apply to everyone. Show me one instance over the course of this discussion where anyone has specifically denigrated your personal beliefs then I will take appropriate action based upon my judgement of the situation, its context and the general tone of the preceding conversation.
 
Nobody is asking a sanction Dean, just leave clear who is being aggresive and who is just replying.
 
You just said that I was the only one who mention the word ignorant, but later it ewas obvious I was not.
No, I did not say you were the only one who mentioned the word ignorant - I said in every thread you were the first. I was searching to find where when and who called you ignorant for your beliefs and was unable to find it (the site search and the topic search work fine for searching for keywords in the body of a thread btw). For example in this discussion (ie this thread) it occurs here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68947&PID=3719193#3719193 in a post by you accusing Mike of calling you ignorant(s), when it is clear that in this thread he has not.
 
Mike did use the phrase "The argument from ignorance" on the previous page to the one I found, but in reply to Friede, who is neither a theist nor a catholic and not as an insult, but as an observation.
 
I will say again - being in ignorance of certain facts does not make you ignorant, anymore than wearing smart clothes makes you smart or a stupid hat will make you stupid.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
And it's not the first time, when the Pope was dying this was read in the forum:
 
Originally posted by gdub414 gdub414 wrote:

So, did the old bugger kick it yet?
 
And nobody did a thing, as a fact an anti Catholic  moderator (that is no longer here), refused to delete it or say something except comparing the Pope with Marilyn Monroe and Fidel Castro, only Easy Livin' said something nice.
 
You were not a Moderator (as a fact only Bob and Maani, but it happened manytimes) So we are used
 
Iván
That is completely irrelevant and totally out of context of this discussion. There is no anti-catholic bias in any of these Theist/Atheist discussions - it just happens that many of the people who post here are catholic, lapsed catholic, ex-catholic or from catholic families (including Mike if my memory serves me correctly), which means that many of the discussions will be from a catholic viewpoint. I am the odd one out here since I was Anglican, then "born again", (then almost Wiccan with Gaian tendancies)
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 13:35
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I told you that Jesus changed the rules and quote him, we are Christians, so the word of Christ ie our main law, the Old Testament is a book created for the Jewish people of the Nronce Age that we share, but only as a reference.

Jesus' message differs substantially depending on which of the four canonical Gospels you read. Most of Matthew is advocating that followers of Christ adhere to the law laid out in the old testament, while the Gospel of John and Paul's letters (which form a substantial part of the new testament) have it the other way round - you are absolutely not to follow the old testament rules.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 09 2010 at 13:35
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 13:45
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That is completely irrelevant and totally out of context of this discussion. There is no anti-catholic bias in any of these Theist/Atheist discussions - it just happens that many of the people who post here are catholic, lapsed catholic, ex-catholic or from catholic families (including Mike if my memory serves me correctly), which means that many of the discussions will be from a catholic viewpoint. I am the odd one out here since I was Anglican, then "born again", (then almost Wiccan with Gaian tendancies)


I actually come from a Catholic family, but my parents did not have me baptized and allowed me to decide for myself. As a result I never went to Sunday school or anything like that (in Germany kids which have no religious affiliation go to ethics classes instead of the religious ones). My parents also didn't practice the religion - it's very common in Germany (and many other European countries) to not go to church except for weddings and funerals, even for typical Catholic or Protestant people.

I think that Catholicism draws much attention to itself as a target for Atheists' critical statements because they're the largest Christian denomination of the world, they're highly structured with a galleon figure at the top, they are always in the news because of the child abuse problem that simply follows from the celibacy. Add to that the fact that they're actively anti-abortion, anti-stemcell research etc. ... a lot of high profile bad (IMO) stuff.
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 14:03
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That is completely irrelevant and totally out of context of this discussion. There is no anti-catholic bias in any of these Theist/Atheist discussions - it just happens that many of the people who post here are catholic, lapsed catholic, ex-catholic or from catholic families (including Mike if my memory serves me correctly), which means that many of the discussions will be from a catholic viewpoint. I am the odd one out here since I was Anglican, then "born again", (then almost Wiccan with Gaian tendancies)


I actually come from a Catholic family, but my parents did not have me baptized and allowed me to decide for myself. As a result I never went to Sunday school or anything like that (in Germany kids which have no religious affiliation go to ethics classes instead of the religious ones). My parents also didn't practice the religion - it's very common in Germany (and many other European countries) to not go to church except for weddings and funerals, even for typical Catholic or Protestant people.

I think that Catholicism draws much attention to itself as a target for Atheists' critical statements because they're the largest Christian denomination of the world, they're highly structured with a galleon figure at the top, they are always in the news because of the child abuse problem that simply follows from the celibacy. Add to that the fact that they're actively anti-abortion, anti-stemcell research etc. ... a lot of high profile bad (IMO) stuff.
 
From Wikipedia:
 
Celibacy theory

Opinion seems divided on whether there is any definite link or connection between the Roman Catholic institution of celibacy and incidences of child abuse by Catholic clergy.

A 2005 article in the Irish weekly the Western People, proposed that clerical celibacy contributed to the abuse problem by suggesting that the institution of celibacy has created a "morally superior" status that is easily misapplied by abusive priests: "The Irish Church’s prospect of a recovery is zero for as long as bishops continue blindly to toe the Vatican line of Pope Benedict XVI that a male celibate priesthood is morally superior to other sections of society."[161]

On 11 March 2010, Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, said that priestly celibacy could be one of the causes of the sex abuse scandals to hit the Catholic Church. A spokesman clarified that he was "in no way" seeking to question the celibacy rule or call for its abolition.[126] The theologian Hans Küng had made the same assertion.[citation needed]

However sexual scandals among priests, the defenders say, are a breach of the Church's discipline, not a result of it, especially since only a small percentage of priests have been implicated. Both supporters and many detractors of clerical celibacy state that Roman Catholic priests suffering sexual temptations are not likely to turn immediately to children simply because Church discipline does not permit clergy to marry. Furthermore there is no data supporting a higher rate of child-oriented sexual activity among the unmarried Roman Catholic clergy than that of the married clergy of other denominations[162] or of schoolteachers.[163] Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said, "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else. I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others." Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, do not charge Catholic churches higher premiums than other clients.[164]

Philip Jenkins asserts that his "research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination—or indeed, than non-clergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported."[165]

But Mr ProgFreak presents this as a fact.
Back to Top
DisgruntledPorcupine View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2010
Location: Thunder Bay CAN
Status: Offline
Points: 4395 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 14:22
So much for it being settled. Unhappy
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 14:26
Originally posted by DT-PT DT-PT wrote:

So much for it being settled. Unhappy
 
It was settled on Page One.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 14:30
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:


But Mr ProgFreak presents this as a fact.


Mr. Progfreak presented this as an opinion.
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 14:53
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:


But Mr ProgFreak presents this as a fact.


Mr. Progfreak presented this as an opinion.
 
You earlier stated categorically that you would not use the word ''delusion'', until I highlighted a post where you had. Dean then stated that the medical definition of ''delusion'' is different from the standard dictionary definition. Whether or not you use a definition that suits your argument, this seems like backtracking. It is nonetheless a derogatory term. As I already asked, would you call a work colleague ''delusional'' for believing in God?
 
As for the celibacy theory, you stated: the child abuse problem that simply follows from the celibacy. That doesn't seem like an opinion to me.
 
Can I ask you a sincere question? Does me calling you Mr ProgFreak in posts annoy you? It is not intended to Smile I will happily call you Mike, but you have never addressed me by name/username which is why I am quite formal with you.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 15:08
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:


But Mr ProgFreak presents this as a fact.


Mr. Progfreak presented this as an opinion.
 
You earlier stated categorically that you would not use the word ''delusion'', until I highlighted a post where you had. Dean then stated that the medical definition of ''delusion'' is different from the standard dictionary definition. Whether or not you use a definition that suits your argument, this seems like backtracking. It is nonetheless a derogatory term. As I already asked, would you call a work colleague ''delusional'' for believing in God?


I would not call anyone "delusional" for believing in (a) God unless they asked me whether they were, or if the situation would be appropriate for a discussion on that level (let's say a forum thread about Theism vs. Atheism). As has been pointed out here (but not by me), Theists are also making assumptions about Atheists that could be seen as derogatory - but under the proper circumstances, I don't mind. I prefer honesty over political correctness. Having said that, at the workplace other factors come into play.

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

 
As for the celibacy theory, you stated: the child abuse problem that simply follows from the celibacy. That doesn't seem like an opinion to me.


Well, I could attach an "IMO" to every other sentence of my posts ... but I won't. Instead I'll trust that most readers will infer that unless I'm explicitly stating that something's a fact, it is opinion.

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

 
Can I ask you a sincere question? Does me calling you Mr ProgFreak in posts annoy you? It is not intended to Smile I will happily call you Mike, but you have never addressed me by name/username which is why I am quite formal with you.


I usually only call forum users by their real name if a) I know it and b) I'm reasonably sure that most participants of the discussion also do. I don't think that the your user name instead of the real name implies any formality.
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 15:18
I'm not entirely sure I understand your last sentence, but I'll clarify my own stance. The reason I asked was because you called yourself Mr ProgFreak in that post above. I realise you were maybe using this as a literary device, but I just wanted to be sure it wasn't a response to me using it. Just trying to keep things friendly.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 15:21
^ I see. Well, what made your post a little bit provocative was more that you addressed me in the third person, and that might have given me the idea to make my reply mimic your style.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 15:53
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

[ 
You earlier stated categorically that you would not use the word ''delusion'', until I highlighted a post where you had. Dean then stated that the medical definition of ''delusion'' is different from the standard dictionary definition. Whether or not you use a definition that suits your argument, this seems like backtracking. It is nonetheless a derogatory term. As I already asked, would you call a work colleague ''delusional'' for believing in God?
 
Oh my, you guys are hitting low this week Ouch
 
You asked Mike whether he would use the word IRL, not whether he had used it in these or any similar internet forum discussion. His honest reply was that he would prefer not to but it does enter into discussions here - infact in the example you highlighted he was responding to you bring the word and definition into the discussion.
 
You chose the definition of "delusion" from the Wikipedia entry that suited your argument (or trap if I read the original post correctly) while carefully ignoring the everyday language definition (which is the one we all are using here and the one that applies in discussion about belief systems, religious or otherwise).
 
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 16:06
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
 
No, I did not say you were the only one who mentioned the word ignorant - I said in every thread you were the first. I was searching to find where when and who called you ignorant for your beliefs and was unable to find it (the site search and the topic search work fine for searching for keywords in the body of a thread btw). For example in this discussion (ie this thread) it occurs here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68947&PID=3719193#3719193 in a post by you accusing Mike of calling you ignorant(s), when it is clear that in this thread he has not.
 
Mike did use the phrase "The argument from ignorance" on the previous page to the one I found, but in reply to Friede, who is neither a theist nor a catholic and not as an insult, but as an observation.
 
I will say again - being in ignorance of certain facts does not make you ignorant, anymore than wearing smart clothes makes you smart or a stupid hat will make you stupid. [/quote]
 
No Dean, this comes from three previous threads, and Mike has accepted he used the term ignorants to refer to us, as well as the term delusional and fanatics.
 
This is the second part of another thread, but honestly I don't have time to search 100 + pages to search for the exact quotes, so this is not new.
 
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 That is completely irrelevant and totally out of context of this discussion. There is no anti-catholic bias in any of these Theist/Atheist discussions - it just happens that many of the people who post here are catholic, lapsed catholic, ex-catholic or from catholic families (including Mike if my memory serves me correctly), which means that many of the discussions will be from a catholic viewpoint. I am the odd one out here since I was Anglican, then "born again", (then almost Wiccan with Gaian tendancies)
 
Not irrelevant at all, on another hread Mike said it's hard to be an atheist in this foruim,. what is incorrect, we are constantly insulted and we just keep debating without ever insulting a member or his belef
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 16:34
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 what is incorrect, we are constantly insulted and we just keep debating without ever insulting a member or his belef
 
Iván

You've compared him to the hateful WBC members, and accused him on more than one occasion of bigotry. Those are insults where I come from. 
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 17:58
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 what is incorrect, we are constantly insulted and we just keep debating without ever insulting a member or his belef
 
Iván

You've compared him to the hateful WBC members, and accused him on more than one occasion of bigotry. Those are insults where I come from. 

Thems is fightin' words? Tongue
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 18:03
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 what is incorrect, we are constantly insulted and we just keep debating without ever insulting a member or his belef
 
Iván

You've compared him to the hateful WBC members, and accused him on more than one occasion of bigotry. Those are insults where I come from. 

Thems is fightin' words? Tongue

Not as far as I am concerned. I have no desire to fight. Just pointing out something that I consider to be a contradiction. 
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 18:29
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
 
No, I did not say you were the only one who mentioned the word ignorant - I said in every thread you were the first. I was searching to find where when and who called you ignorant for your beliefs and was unable to find it (the site search and the topic search work fine for searching for keywords in the body of a thread btw). For example in this discussion (ie this thread) it occurs here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68947&PID=3719193#3719193 in a post by you accusing Mike of calling you ignorant(s), when it is clear that in this thread he has not.
 
Mike did use the phrase "The argument from ignorance" on the previous page to the one I found, but in reply to Friede, who is neither a theist nor a catholic and not as an insult, but as an observation.
 
I will say again - being in ignorance of certain facts does not make you ignorant, anymore than wearing smart clothes makes you smart or a stupid hat will make you stupid.
 
No Dean, this comes from three previous threads, and Mike has accepted he used the term ignorants to refer to us, as well as the term delusional and fanatics.
 
This is the second part of another thread, but honestly I don't have time to search 100 + pages to search for the exact quotes, so this is not new.
I've searched through 3 previous threads and several related ones and I cannot locate the post where Mike called you ignorants, delusional and fanatics. I have found in each of those thread posts from you claiming that he called you those things, but none were he actually said it himself. Even this one: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66247&PID=3607886#3607886 where you actually say: "Believe me, I know you and you can't offend me, but I understand why some people more religious than me may be offended."
 
Honestly, from what I have discovered so far this has become a mantra for you to quote whenever Mike opens a discussion on Atheism to the point that it is beginning to look more like trolling to disrupt the discussion rather than a legitimate accusation. Please show me the offending post that resulted in this claim.
 
 
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2021222324 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.