1. I dispute your assumptions and statistics. Boy scouts, schools, hospitals, day care, and many other institutions have been the vehicle for pedophiles, not just the catholic church. 2. Outrage over pedophile and sex abuse, under the cover of a 'caring' institution is very common, and has elevated the issue, and exposed the tactics of the offenders. 3. By attacking and smearing ONLY the Catholics and their institutions, you expose your own bias and bigotry. Your first sentence is blatant bigotry, casting a wholesale smear against 'religious belief!', which you seem to mean, as, 'Christian!' 4. How can you dismiss the concept of 'sin', but embrace 'morality'? If there are no absolutes, but only choosing the values you prefer, excluding any concept of 'sin', how do you condemn pedophilia? If it is a relative choice, why would it be 'wrong'? What is the basis for this belief, if it is not a 'sin?' 5. Human beings are the perpetrators of 'sin!', or immorality, if you prefer. Some ideologies may justify it, but most worldviews have standards of behavior, based on Natural Law. Blaming an entire ideology for the abberant behavior of a few, cherry picking common human aberrations from only 'religious!' institutions, is nothing but religious bigotry, attempting to smear the opposing worldview, in favor of another.
I use our common language as in the dictionary and not I do not have a 'religious' belief. Why is it so important to you to mislabel people? And I would address your last question to you since it is you who believes in something here.
Exactly. That is the progressive indoctrination: 'Christians have religion!' 'Atheists have science!' ..and the mantra for this belief/smear is repeated over and over until the indoctrinees believe THEIR beliefs about the universe are, 'Facts!', not mere beliefs. So, you believe that your opinion about atheistic naturalism is not a religio/philosophical opinion, but is somehow, 'settled science!', or some other label of Absolute Truth? It is not a belief? It is undeniable, empirical fact, to you? This is the Indoctrination talking. In actual reality, the belief in atheistic naturalism is no more 'proven fact!', than belief in alien seeding or intelligent design. Those are philosophical beliefs.. an opinion about the mysteries of the universe. You can dodge this reality with orwellian redefinitions, but it does not change the reality that you have religio/philosophical beliefs. I label us all, as human beings, with diverse opinions about the nature of the universe. I do not try to take an Intellectual high road, by pretending mine are on a higher plane, and are above the huddled masses. The vanity of elitism has a great appeal, and is an underlying component in progressive religious Indoctrination.
Calm down and don't put words in my mouth and I most certainly AM NOT a progressive and would probably rank amongst the top 3 conservatives around here so trying to label me refutes nothing. You have not been smeared but noted that any attempt to discuss the matter comes off as a smear to you. Who's moving the goal post now? now it's 'religion/philosphy'? You seem to only want to take any discussion as some attack, why is that? The fact is if you could actually discuss the matter you would probably find out we have much in agreement and where we do disagree is whether there are supernatural beings over looking us. Yet you go off on your rant here. THAT is where religion, especially Christianity goes over the edge. YOU are the one with a need to prove me wrong not the other way around. I could care less that you believe in supernatural beings, if that is what you need to be a moral and ethical person that's fine with me. I don't, but you want to attack my beliefs and project some phony 'religion' on me. So again my question to you why do you have such a need to do so? And quite frankly the conservative position would be to keep the government out of your religion not to entwine them as the founding fathers took measure to ensure that did not happen.
You asked this question, after i observed that EVERYONE has a religio/philisophical belief: I highlighted the definition, to show that you (and other atheists), do indeed, have beliefs/opinions about the universe, just like everyone else. I replied with this: Now, you come like this: Religious bigotry is ALWAYS about differences in BELIEF, in a religious/philosophical/opinion/theory/worldview/ideology, or however you want to define it. I did not change the topic, but you did, when you injected 'morality!', presumably to deflect. Absurd. I respond with clear logic, and do not address the motives, education, or intelligence of the hominid, even though that is directed at me, constantly. I ignore the more incivil attacks, here. Your replies do not even rate as, 'attacks!' No rant.. you are just trying to force me into a caricature, to avoid my reasoning. Hardly. 'Attack my beliefs!' You just told me you don't have any beliefs, so how can i attack them? No, i have only exposed the flawed reasoning on display, and the assumptions made to justify religious bigotry. It is a progressive knee jerk reaction, to take any refutation of logic as an 'attack!', so perhaps you are not as immune from progressive Indoctrination as you believe? Your 'religion', btw, seems to be atheistic naturalism, from the few exchanges we have had. But you can label it as something else, as long as you return the favor.
Of course science is philosophy. Before it was called science it was called "natural philosophy". Atheists don't worship, they have no doctrinal compunctions, they have no rituals. It is NOT a religion but it is a philosophy. Kinda like all racists are bigots but not all bigots are racist.
What if you have a theist, who believes in a Higher Power, but has no rituals, acts of worship, holy book, or institution.. is he 'religious!', by the same definition?
Yes as he would qualify on the first defined qualification of religion - belief in a higher power as God the creator. That kind of theist personally ascribes powers and characteristics to his imaginings of that power.
Dodging 'religious bigotry', by redefining, 'religious', is semantics. If a person demeans, mocks, or ridicules another's beliefs, and declares his as 'truth', or wise, common sense, or any positive light, while casting the opposition in a negative light, how is that anything but an expression of religious bigotry? There is no 'absolute truth!', or even consensus, as to the Big Mysteries of the universe. I have no problem, as a philosopher, in following the implications of a belief, or the conclusions drawn from a particular perspective. That is an exercise in logic. But to demean, ridicule, or disparage another's beliefs, just because they are different, is nothing but bigotry toward another POV. Origins Meaning Morality Destiny These are The Big Ones. How, Why, What, & When. They are questions of matter, purpose, law, & time. HOW did i (and everybody else) get here? WHY are we here? Is there a purpose to our existence? WHAT do we do? Are there rules for our existence? WHEN we die, what happens? Is there a soul? OPINIONS about these things are as varied as humanity. But is there an empirical, absolute Truth, regarding these opinions? I think not. There are beliefs, and people are either tolerant, or intolerant, of the beliefs of others..
nobody is redefining "religious". You are trying to define atheism as religious, when it is by definition, NOT religious. It is the lack of belief in a god or gods.
I respect everyone's right to believe whatever gets them thru their day. That respect does not necessarily extend to the beliefs themselves. I do not respect mythological beliefs stated as fact. I shall forever ridicule the Creation Museum - noah's ark indeed. If that offends people who believe it to be "truth", then sobeit. Its a given we don't have definitive objective answers to the big questions only subjective ones that may or may not be true. That is the whole motivation for the invention of religion in the first place, isn't it? My personal philosophy provides me with answers to the questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny that I am comfortable with and most assuredly have absolutely NOTHING to do with a god. Is it "truth"? - no idea but it works for me.
No YOU believe in something for which there is not proof. Supernatural beings, gods looking over use. You assume an atheist is a bigot, that us quite a bigoted view. You have shown little logic here and you are the one claiming someone else is attacking and bigoted. What caricature would that be? Why your claims of religious bigotry. A little holier than thou now for lack of a reasoned logical response? I have no religion and ask again why is it so important to you to assaign one to others who do it adhere to you religious beliefs. Do you feel threatened by those who do not believe in supernatural beings?
And I don't see anyone here doing that, just trying to have a reasoned civil discussion. It is you who seems to have a problem with the other sides view and trying to define it for them and insinuate they are being indoctrinated without their knowledge.
The point has to do with the coverup and its acceptance by Christians. Are you suggesting that pedophiles in the BSA, schools and hospitals have been moved around within their organizattions in order to protect them from the law, and that such behavior has been considered accceptable? I don't believe so. Nonresponsive to the issue. AGAIN, it is the church that has worked to prevent justice in these cases, and the Christian community has accepted that intervention while opposing the standards of legal intervention we have long established to protect children. Asked and answered. "Sin" depends on the existence of the devine. Morality has strong roots that may or may not have anything to do with the devine. An act may be immoral regardless of what any religion espouses. I didn't blame Catholics for pedophilia. I commented on what came AFTER.
How else is one indoctrinated? Do you think they give a disclaimer? "Children coming into this institution are targets of indoctrination, into the beliefs of progressive ideology. If this is not your desire, you should avoid this institution.." Stalin did that, I'm sure.. Mao too, as they guided and directed beliefs with carefully controlled propaganda. ..couldn't happen here.. today.. with the balanced, altruistic institutions in America. Indoctrination is a fascinating issue.. more complex than religious bigotry, and probably more triggering, for the victims..
Are you saying were it not for your faith in a god who threatens to punish you you would have no problem raping someone or robbing someone or murdering someone? Tell me what morals and values do you believe you as a Christian l hold that I as an 'athiest' do not.
Ah, yes. The famous 'atheists have morals too!' argument. It is a lovely straw man, with the perfect placement of straw, and a cute flannel shirt. I've replied to this ad nauseum, though not to you, personally (that i remember). Maybe in another thread, so we don't go off topic, here. It seems more like a deflection, to avoid the uncomfortable consideration of religious bigotry.
You are talking morals and values don't go running away now. You are are saying without some absolute there can be none that they just be based in some faith in a higher being. So no dodging this time. Are you saying were it not for your faith in a god who threatens to punish you you would have no problem raping someone or robbing someone or murdering someone? Tell me what morals and values do you believe you as a Christian hold that I as an 'athiest' do not.
..not wanting to drift too much. If this is a topic of interest, then it fits better in this thread, where bases for existence is examined. Reply here, if interested, so we don't derail the topic of bigotry. It connects somewhat, as the only negative connotation for religious bigotry can be found in a God made universe, where standards of behavior are expected. In a godless universe, there are no absolutes, and one person's 'values' are as good (or bad) as another's. Religious bigotry could be viewed as a positive, to eliminate inferior ideals that weaken the species. But i have not heard that argument presented here, yet.
You seem to struggle with simple basic questions. You said atheist cannot hand morals and ethics because we do not believe if gods and sin. What I would call religious bigotry. Are you saying were it not for your faith in a god who threatens to punish you you would have no problem raping someone or robbing someone or murdering ? Tell me what morals and values do you believe you as a Christian hold that I as an 'athiest'
One gods values are as good or bad as another, until you establish and prove the existence of one particular god you are nowhere. It is astonishing the amount of religious bigotry you show when you push the god you believe in.
Quite a bit of ad hom in these replies, and not much following of the topic. I submit that this is evidence of, religious bigotry. Unable or unwilling to follow simple reasoning, you lash out at your ideological 'enemy!' The reasoning is simple, so i will repeat it, since it reflects the core differences in the 2 worldviews we are contrasting: IF.. we assume a God made universe, THEN the answers to these questions can be logically projected. IF.. the God made assumption is true, THEN, How? - Goddidit Why? - There may be a reason or purpose that God has made us. What? - There may be rules, or standards of morality, for our behavior. When? - We might have a soul, and face an eternal destiny. Now, IF.. we assume a godless universe, the answers are logically different. How? - Nuthindidit. Natural processes, without intelligent intervention Why? - No purpose or meaning is possible. We are a random accident in a meaningless, purposeless universe What? - No absolute morality is possible. Good, evil, virtue, and morality are human constructs When? - No soul, no existence beyond the physical. These are the logical possibilities, and the conclusions, from either assumption. This is examined in more detail, here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/delusion.548484/ I suggest debating those points there, rather than drift from the topic here. The deflections and ad hom merely emotionalize the debate, and remove it from objective, rational examination. If religious bigotry is something real and tangible, then we should be able to define it, and recognize it, when it comes up. Otherwise, it becomes just another ad hom smear.. an accusation to deflect from a rational discussion, like 'hater!', or 'racist!'
