Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
God, that was a bit frustrating. I felt both of them were talking past each other, and I also think Fry didn't address a lot of points that he should have and spent too much time faffing around.
Needless to say they walked the debate. As its impossible not to do when you actually sit and have a sensible logical discussion about mass dellusion.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Ah, mattyrm: fighting the good fight against the DakkaDakka rules once again, eh? As you know, calling religion "mass delusion" is flamebait and flamebait is against our rules.
@all: please keep in mind that flamebaiting (and flaming) can result in suspension of your account -- especially if you are a repeat offender.
Da Boss wrote:God, that was a bit frustrating. I felt both of them were talking past each other, and I also think Fry didn't address a lot of points that he should have and spent too much time faffing around.
I think it was 'edited highlights'. Poorly edited.
The killer point in the debate for me comes when the christianites start arguing that the church has to be forgiven for falling into all the same old human foibles and failings for the past two thousand years as it's members are only human as well.
Fry then inquires as to why they claim such moral and spiritual authority and special status if they admit that they're no more clued up than the next man.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/08/01 14:58:58
Is that really a convincing point in your mind? Actually it's a rather a tired old line trotted out nearly every time an atheist or agnostic comes across a believer.
The actions of an individual don't necessarily correlate to her beliefs. An ideal is not always achieved but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the ideal itself. For example: the fact that I am not as tolerant of other people's ignorance as I would like to be does not mean that I should give up on being tolerant of other people's ignorance.
So let's apply that very simple analysis to the question of authority: the authority in question is a matter of the teachings preserved in the institution; the exercise of that authority is done by human beings and subject to the same potential failings as any human action. Those failings do not necessarily speak to the teachings or institutions themselves (although, sometime they do and reforms are undertaken). For example, a Muslim who participates in terrorism does not invalidate the teachings of Islam.
The confusion about this point is part of a larger confusion: contemporary Americans and Western Europeans are used to commercialized PR, where marketing and products become less and less distinguishable. If a company is mismanaged or poorly marketed, their product must also be bad. They must be a bad company. But this is not necessarily the case.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/08/01 15:13:38
Carmine the Wolf wrote:The killer point in the debate for me comes when the christianites start arguing that the church has to be forgiven for falling into all the same old human foibles and failings for the past two thousand years as it's members are only human as well.
Fry then inquires as to why they claim such moral and spiritual authority and special status if they admit that they're no more clued up than the next man.
That's the point about Ash Wednesday actually. On Ash Wednesday the church takes the ashes from the burned palms from Palm Sunday and the parishioners get a cross of ashes on their forehead to symbolize the fact that they are a sinner. The church's main thing is that man cannot be perfect because only God is perfect, the Pope and Catholic church only have authority over Catholics and then again its up to the individual to listen or not. As far as them having any authority, well its a consolation prize for not getting laid for 70+ years. Either that or they've been living a life prescribed by the church for that amount of time so they exhibit the qualitites of a good religious leader. John Paul II was put up for sainthood because of how he acted despite the fact that he was deteriorating mentally and physically, the guy also forgave his would be assassin which is something not a lot of people would even think of doing. That's why the higher church is supposed to have authority, because they're supposed to be devout followers of the creed who have dedicated their entire life to doing so.
That's why the higher church is supposed to have authority, because they're supposed to be devout followers of the creed who have dedicated their entire life to doing so.
Nope. They have authority because they were given authority by others who had it, all the way back to Christ's founding of the Church. That is the Catholic view at least. Whether or not a bishop is a saintly person has nothing to do with whether or not he is legitimately a bishop.
Carmine the Wolf wrote:The killer point in the debate for me comes when the christianites start arguing that the church has to be forgiven for falling into all the same old human foibles and failings for the past two thousand years as it's members are only human as well.
Assuming you meant "Christians" instead of "christianites" (unless you're talking about phillipsite, in which case I'm totally confused), but shouldn't you be referring to "Catholics" rather than "Christians"?
After all, many non-Catholic Christians have problems with Catholics and the Church in general.
Also, I have no idea how anyone listened to that whole exchange. I stopped after 10 seconds, that woman's voice is impossible to listen to.
I'm scared to listen to it after all the voice complaints. Not only that, but is it really anything new? Did either side bring up a new position or point that hadn't been brought up before?
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I can't really recommend it. The subject seems quite childish to me, as (in my view) the Archbishop's presentation makes clear. One side is talking about finding solutions to global problems and the other is devoted to Euro-centric fashions and opinions while throwing around non-terms like "sexual destiny." Christopher Hitchens is particularly funny (that is, ironic) talking about being a "serious, grown-up person."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/08/01 17:54:12
It's just Stephen Fry talking about being homosexual. He doesn't define it. I assume this means that people are born homosexual. Hitchens at another point says that the Church does not condemn what people do but, in the case of homsexuals, what they are. That's simply false and reiterates the unfamiliarity that both the journalist and author regularly exhibit with regard to the object of their scorn. Hitchens is particularly funny in this regard. Here's a man who's made his entire career out of criticizing something that he does not understand on even a basic level. That he's so popular is a testament not only to the very poor reputation (damn marketing department) of Christianity in America and Western Europe but also the quality of the intended audience.
The Church, in line with the scientific evidence, does not acknowledge that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. The relevant moral theology acknowledges it as a desire that, like any desire, might be expressed via actions. It is the expression of the desire via actions that troubles (some not all) Catholic moral theologians -- i.e., what people do rather than who they are. So what if we had conclusive proof that human sexuality was codified into our DNA rather than being the result of complicated interactions between complex factors like individual aesthetics, psychology, and culture? Well, then it could hardly be a moral issue at all, in fact. The moral value of something that one has no choice in is precisely null.
The truth remains that homosexuality is a greater concern of secular than religious culture. When secular people, whether agnostics or atheists or believers, look at the Catholic Church they pay attention to what they are interested in and ignore what they are not. Most secular people are not very interested in theology and exegesis but they are very keen on politics and sexuality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/08/01 17:56:07
Manchu wrote:It's just Stephen Fry talking about being homosexual. He doesn't define it. I assume this means that people are born homosexual. Hitchens at another point says that the Church does not condemn what people do but, in the case of homsexuals, what they are.
To draw this thread wildly off topic, I've never understood the rationale of people insisting that homosexuality is genetic. Because if it's genetic, that carries with it a host of other issues, like parents doing genetic tests to find out if their kid has a "gay gene" (see sex-selective abortions in China), chemical or other therapy to control the expression of the gene, and the perception that homosexuals just aren't right (evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality is a dead end, ergo a 'gay gene' is undesirable).
Instead, like all traits, people should look at human sexuality as a product of both genetics and the environment. Even if you have a "gay gene," without appropriate environmental stimuli, you could turn out to be a heterosexual. Just like people with a "tallness" gene might end up short if they don't get the right environmental stimuli (e.g. proper nutrition).
The urge to find a "gay gene" is rooted in a political agenda that itself speaks to the very lowest common denominator regarding moral topics.
In contemporary Western culture, it's pretty well-established that you cannot be held morally culpable for the commission of an act that is not the object of choice. Thus breathing cannot be a moral act. But no need to be basic: we apply it to more complicated issues all the time. For example, it's wrong to treat people differently based on their race because, after all, they don't get to choose what race they are.
Now that's obviously very poorly stated but you hear it all the time and you can assume the reason goes something like: justice means treating people who are bad in a bad way; people can only be bad by choice; one cannot choose to be a certain race; being a certain race cannot be bad; treating someone badly because of their race is not just.
Whether or not it's a strong argument (there are much better ones) it is a very widely acceptable one. And people who manage political agenda understand that is the more important characteristic, anyhow. Now just replace the word "race" with the word "gay." The trick is that we need an explanation for why people don't choose their sexual orientation. I mean, we all know that people don't consciously choose this. Very few people have any memory of deciding whether they would be sexually attracted to boys or girls. But that's just anecdotal. We need something that will hold up on TV.
Enter genetics! People don't choose what race they are because of genetics -- such a simple (overly simple) phrase and so, so powerful and because of our great faith in SCIENCE! it's not really questionable. So if there's a "white gene" and a "black gene" then why not a "gay gene?"
Now, terms like "black" and "white" don't make a lot of sense when we start talking about race more seriously. After all, there are no people out there who are literally either black or white. The same thing happens when we try to talk seriously about sexual orientation while burdened with terms like "gay" and "straight." They just don't seem to capture reality very well at all.
But in politics, we're not concerned with reality (i.e., the way things are) -- the concern is with the way things ought to be. The "gay gene," if you get past its inherent absurdity, is a devastating counterpoint to notion that "being gay" (whatever that means) is any kind of moral issue much less "bad" in and of itself.
That's why people love to talk about the Church's "discrimination" against gay people, whether they are being critical or (in their own view) supportive. It's just so easy. You take a total misunderstanding of one thing and contrast it to a total misunderstanding of another thing. This is the kind of magic that turns molehills into mountains, people -- the kind of magic that gets people on TV or into Congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:isn't the whole 'overpopulation' argument some throwback from junk science of the 60's?
Yes, and that was a throwback to even further before (Malthus). It's a very popular notion among rich, white people in Britain. Go figure.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/08/01 18:26:19
Ahtman wrote:Now back to Catholic vs Christian vs Athiest vs my Apathy.
Guess which is winning?
I believe it is probably Islam. Although a link to wikipedia, this page is reasonably interesting as it gives growth rates/populations according to different studies.
Nothing new was said but like most of these discussions the Christians/Catholics seem to come out losing big time imo. At least they didn't delve into how the Catholic organization handled their pedophiles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/08/01 18:39:24
@olympia: As a young atheist, I read "Why I am not a Christian" and it made me deeply question my faith. I mean, if this was the best argument for atheism then how could I believe in it so deeply? Russell's arguments were just so poor and obviously poor at that. I couldn't help but question my atheist beliefs. I felt like I had been intentionally blind, just going along with whatever was told me without really thinking about it. I started to read a lot more and especially more challenging books. Eventually, I lost my atheistic faith completely and found that I no choice but to become a Roman Catholic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cane wrote:It was in the OP's clip or the entire debate? Must've missed it then if it was the former, didn't check out the entire discuession
It was in the long form. I couldn't stand OP's post because it seemed to mischaracterize Fry's and Hitchens's points. I was thinking this was some kind of Christian hitjob. So I listened to the whole thing (see my post above for the link) but found that neither Fry nor Hitchens had anything more salient to say than what was quoted in OP's vid. Now I'm thinking OP's vid was probably an attempt at even-handedness since the creator of that vid did drop in all of the points that got Fry and Hitchens loud applause (must mean it's a good point, right?).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/08/01 18:51:36
While I appreciate your conviction Manchu, I could swap atheist and christian (or Catholic) and I have heard the same statement. If anything it is just one more example of how people can all watch/listen/read the same thing and get completely different results.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Yes, that's exactly what I was driving at. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek but not by too much. It's true that I was raised in a non-religious household but nonetheless became very interested in religion. It's also true that I was a very "devout" atheist. And finally, it's also true that I am a convert to Roman Catholicism. But I don't really believe that atheism, no matter how self-described atheists (like myself at one time) outline their beliefs, is itself a religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and "Why I am not a Christian" is truly a very silly and poorly written essay.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/08/01 18:57:56
Manchu wrote:Yes, that's exactly what I was driving at. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek but not by too much. It's true that I was raised in a non-religious household but nonetheless became very interested in religion. It's also true that I was a very "devout" atheist. And finally, it's also true that I am a convert to Roman Catholicism. But I don't really believe that atheism, no matter how self-described atheists (like myself at one time) outline their beliefs, is itself a religion.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
