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.

Hawkins wrote:Sorry guys your speeking over my head, what the hell is a Troll, and why should he be thankfull im not Gwar? oh and you changed your post ivan... why?

I was joking about GWAR and I have thought diffrently how to write my post so I did.

Ok i see, but you didnt answer the first question, whats a troll?

Hawkins wrote:Ok i see, but you didnt answer the first question, whats a troll?

An http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 or more funny http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Troll

What Ivan said...

Weird, i didnt think that post was at all trolling, inflamitory maybe but i thought it had a point concerning your origional post, and on topic.......
thanks for the clarification.
Still I'll be sure to add the quote im commenting on in the future.

One quick point:

One of the reason the early church, as seen in Paul's epistles, was so against sex/having kids/doing anything other than waiting for jesus to come again is because they thought that the second coming was going to be in their lifetimes (mostly due to that being one of Jesus's messages).

It's one thing to tell people "I got this message from god, we need to spread to everybody we can, he'll be here in a few years, so drop everything and focus on this." It's another thing, 2000 years later, to expect people to stay as committed. Let's not forget that those early christians had first or second degree associations with the Divine. Paul was literally knocked off his horse while riding to Damascus before he converted.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Churches are particularly choice targets for pedophiles due to the kids. We have serious back ground tests and procedures for any volunteers with children. We also will exclude people who check out but don't feel right.

We don't let damnyankees in either, but thats a whole different issue.

See, that's why certain churches/denominations are going to be lower risk, the open style and freedom of expression seen in a modern baptist church for example, or methodist, would be extremely difficult for a predatory paedophile to operate in, since they rely on being left alone with children in a religion that teaches silence and ingrains guilt and a sense of sin. JWs and Catholic backdrop is based around absolute authority of the elder or priest as the living word. Much emphasis in those faiths is built around suppression and obedience and silence.

Your average, open, lively church that encourages interaction and community is far less likely to be targeted and far more difficult for a sexual predator to commit crimes in.

I apologize but thats not particularly accurate. What is safe are certain procedures put in place that everyone knows about and violations of, even if minute, are dealt with harshly. Two people in a room with children at all times is an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Good post Boss, as i have always said, education is our ally here. There is a proven link between the level of your education and the likelihood of you being religious. It sounds arrogant to say it, but it is a proven fact. Hopefully Ireland is better suited for moving forward now than it ever has been.

Another post like this and I am closing this thread and suspending the poster. I am as serious as a heart attack.

@ Frazz: I find the average Dakkite's contempt for religion as puzzling and troubling as you do, but the man raises a valid point. Was his tone hostile? Sure, but he's speaking about and from facts. Sanctioning people for that isn't keeping the peace, it's a gag order.

There is no shortage of posts that show offensive things written about religion. Let's not go looking for things to be offended by. Particularly since the problem in Ireland wasn't just one of religion, but one of religion's hold on the state.

Polonius wrote:One of the reason the early church, as seen in Paul's epistles, was so against sex/having kids/doing anything other than waiting for jesus to come again is because they thought that the second coming was going to be in their lifetimes (mostly due to that being one of Jesus's messages).

Where does Christ say when He will come back? He very clearly says that He has no idea when, and that only the Father knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:@ Frazz: I find the average Dakkite's contempt for religion as puzzling and troubling as you do, but the man raises a valid point. Was his tone hostile? Sure, but he's speaking about and from facts. Sanctioning people for that isn't keeping the peace, it's a gag order.

I do think that the idea in it of itself is hostile. To put forward the idea that religion is a restraint, or that religious people are somehow backwards or blindly opposing progress is offensive. It makes sense to keep people from equating stupidity with religion, which is what the post essentially did.

He didn't equate religion with stupidity. He said that people with a higher level of education tend to be less religious, which is not really a comment on intelligence at all. I know plenty of well educated, yet horribly incompetent people.

Of course, I may be giving the poster in question too much credit, but given that I can only read what he has written I think its best to take the comment as one which isn't hostile.

I think it makes sense. Many people turn to religion for answers, and the more educated a person is, the more places he knows of to seek those answers. It doesn't mean he's seeking them in better places.

The study also seems to use the term religious, when plenty of educated people consider themselves spiritual or faithful, but not religious. The educated a person is, the more iconoclastic they tend to be.

As for the timing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming#Timing

JEB_Stuart wrote: To put forward the idea that religion is a restraint,

Religion is a restraint, in all its forms. It effectively drives any given believer towards a predetermined path of action through moralistic pronouncement.

Of course, that doesn't mean religion is bad. Though it certainly means that it can be.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Polonius wrote:One of the reason the early church, as seen in Paul's epistles, was so against sex/having kids/doing anything other than waiting for jesus to come again is because they thought that the second coming was going to be in their lifetimes (mostly due to that being one of Jesus's messages).

Where does Christ say when He will come back? He very clearly says that He has no idea when, and that only the Father knows.

And you know that that has never stopped anyone from trying to predict it. You also know that interpretations of these things vary not only in modern times but also in the past. Many early Christians were not unlike Jainists and just gave up everything because they were convinced it was going to happen very soon. We have the records and the tombs to prove this.

dogma wrote: I know plenty of well educated, yet horribly incompetent people.

I asked you not to talk about me behind my back.

And none of those sources even mention the Scripture that I referenced. I will look in greater depth later, but from my quick gloss, I find several points of their study to be unfounded, and some using poor conclusions on incomplete research.

Polonius wrote:I think it makes sense. Many people turn to religion for answers, and the more educated a person is, the more places he knows of to seek those answers. It doesn't mean he's seeking them in better places.

The study also seems to use the term religious, when plenty of educated people consider themselves spiritual or faithful, but not religious. The educated a person is, the more iconoclastic they tend to be.

I agree completely.

I'd also add that, in my experience, well educated people are prone to experience an obsession with categorical reasoning. Item X fits in category Y, and only category Y. The notion that something can seem, or feel, one way while actually being another way, when considered objectively, strikes them as incorrect rather than relevant. Its an emphasis on comprehension, as opposed to perception.


One more point: I've seen studies which correlate religiosity with poverty, which makes me think a devotion to faith has more to do with hardship than intellectual capacity.

Ahtman wrote:
I asked you not to talk about me behind my back.

Your reflexes are too good for me to do it from the front.

dogma wrote:Religion is a restraint, in all its forms. It effectively drives any given believer towards a predetermined path of action through moralistic pronouncement.

Poor wording on my part, shackles would have been more appropriate. I just found the cynicism and unfounded superiority in his comment to be in poor taste and offensive.

dogma wrote:Of course, that doesn't mean religion is bad. Though it certainly means that it can be.

You know I won't disagree with that.

Ahtman wrote:And you know that that has never stopped anyone from trying to predict it. You also know that interpretations of these things vary not only in modern times but also in the past. Many early Christians were not unlike Jainists and just gave up everything because they were convinced it was going to happen very soon. We have the records and the tombs to prove this.

I know that, and I find those people, including some of my own family members, who believe such things to be horribly misinformed. I see it this way: Christ claimed to not even know when the Second Coming would be, and therefore none of us are competent enough to try guess for him.

dogma wrote: I know plenty of well educated, yet horribly incompetent people.

Ain't that the truth...

JEB_Stuart wrote:And none of those sources even mention the Scripture that I referenced. I will look in greater depth later, but from my quick gloss, I find several points of their study to be unfounded, and some using poor conclusions on incomplete research.

I'm not talking about "religious" sources such as the bible; I am referring to historical sources. These events were after Christianity spread so obliviously they aren't in the bible. By sources I am talking about actual historical research as well as excavations of sites. Some of these sources are Christians writing each other and others are historians noting them. You can find pictures of these places. It is actually quite remarkable that the Church made it through the early celibacy and general ascetic phase to proliferate.

As to it not saying it in the bible, well the bible doesn't call for Rome to be the center of religious power but there it was (and kinda still is) for many years.

dogma wrote:One more point: I've seen studies which correlate religiosity with poverty, which makes me think a devotion to faith has more to do with hardship than intellectual capacity.

What is funny is that another study showed a correlation between wealth and the certainty of getting into heaven. The lower end of the economic scale had more doubts whereas the wealthier had much greater certainty that they were a shoe-in.

dogma wrote:One more point: I've seen studies which correlate religiosity with poverty, which makes me think a devotion to faith has more to do with hardship than intellectual capacity.

Well that has been apparent for some time now. That is what Christ meant, IMHO, when he said that a rich person will have a harder time getting into heaven then a poor person. The poor man relies on his faith in God because he just needs to survive, whereas the rich man has all that he needs and wants, so why should he rely on God for any physical needs. That is just my interpretation, but I think it is what was meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ahtman: That post wasn't directed at you, sorry that was for Polonius' citation of Wikipedia....

Frazzled wrote:Another post like this and I am closing this thread and suspending the poster. I am as serious as a heart attack.

I've not commented on mod policy before, other than to defend it once or twice, but locking threads and suspending posters for factual statements is a pretty bizarre policy. The relationship between education and religion has been strongly established in multiple studies.

There is also a positive correlation between religion and charity - even excluding religious donations the faithful give a greater proportion of their income. Is that a ban-worthy topic, as it could be seen as reflecting poorly on the non-religious?

What about the positive correlation between conservatives and charity? Because there's one there too. Is my pointing that out offensive to progressives?

I don't think I would call the post a statement of fact. The correlation between education and religious belief was, but his post also implied A. that religious belief was directly caused by a lack of education (and further education alone would reduce religious belief), and B. that religious belief is undesirable, and must be removed in order for society to "move forward".

You could question exactly what he was railing against (since it seemed like Da Boss was angry at the Irish branch of the Catholic Church and the Irish government moreso than religion in general), but since Mattyrm only referred to "being religious" I can see why it could be considered offensive (not so much as to warrant suspensions maybe, but that's sort of another issue).

I've been reading the report a bit more. It is a scathing indictment of the Irish Catholic Church in particular and the Catholic Church in general. I know frazzled is keen to lock this thread, and I present the following information from the report which was carried out by a panel of judges.

Let's get to the scary material. Pedophiles are statistically over-represented in the Irish Catholic Church. The commission started with an investigation of 102 priests. It then narrowed this down to 46. Page 12 of the report: "The Commission examined complaints in respect of over 320 children against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Substantially more of the complaints relate to boys – the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl." http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2009/diocese/1234.pdf . The commission concluded that in only one case of the 46 was the accusation false, and it further stated that there was strong suspicion regarding two priests were accusations were absent. Of these 46 priests, only 11 have been convicted of abuse. Fifteen of these abusers are still being supported by the Catholic Church, either in Ireland or abroad.

What is worse, documents that the Commission wanted for its investigation were transferred from the Dublin archdiocese to the representative of the Vatican in Ireland. This placed these documents under diplomatic protocols and thus out Irish civil subpoena authority.

Apologies for the delayed reply, i was out on the ale last night..

I am aware that this is a touchy subject, but calm down Frazz eh? I dont just make things up to upset people. I read that comment a while back here

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521842709&ss=fro

So i figured it was pretty reliable information.

I dont want the thread locked, and it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, i was merely refering to something i read in a book from a University Library which seems to be a credible piece of work.

Of course it is absurd to suggest all religious people are stupid, and i didnt say that. I just pointed at what i thought was a reliable statistic.

Anyway, we are also off topic, but rest assured i will wind my neck in.

Also, if God is not real, then all the scripture being quoted is simply moralistic text that the quoter believes to be significant. The fact that God is involved is simply a matter of semantics, and changes nothing about the moral impetus of any given statement.

Explain to me how god being involved is 'simply a matter of semantics'.

We don't believe that humanity is above God in any way, therefore the rules of science do not apply to Him since He is above human explanation. To rely purely on physical evidence shows a level of arrogance, to a Christian, that is on the border of being disturbing.

And your statement is even more arrogant. Your beliefs are based upon scripture ultimately, even if you aren't an orthodox christian. What evidence do you have that god exists outside of the physical world? Or that there even is a world outside of the physical world? I found that statement totally offensive, but I won't be complaining to the MODs - you're entitled to your opinion after all.

If you read out: 'And God said:"Let there be light"

I'm not taking a faith position by saying:

'Prove that god exists, prove that god can interact with the physical world, prove that god spoke, then prove that god said those exact words, please.'

Yes, because it requires faith to also believe that it couldn't have happened.

(sigh) I didn't say that. I just said there's no evidence that it happened. That's a fact. If you make an outlandish claim that is unsupported by evidence, it would be prudent to
disregard it. If you told me you'd been kidnapped by aliens, I would ask for evidence. If you couldn't provide it, I would remain skeptical.

Albatross wrote:
Explain to me how god being involved is 'simply a matter of semantics'.

God = all powerful being. Anything endorsed by an all powerful being must be correct. Anything which is correct must be tacit to that which would be endorsed by an all powerful being. Ergo, anything which is correct is tacit to that which might be endorsed by an all powerful being.

If you believe X to be correct, then you believe X would be endorsed by an all powerful being.

Albatross wrote:
And your statement is even more arrogant. Your beliefs are based upon scripture ultimately, even if you aren't an orthodox christian. What evidence do you have that god exists outside of the physical world? Or that there even is a world outside of the physical world? I found that statement totally offensive, but I won't be complaining to the MODs - you're entitled to your opinion after all.

What evidence do you have that you aren't a Christian?

Albatross wrote:
(sigh) I didn't say that. I just said there's no evidence that it happened. That's a fact. If you make an outlandish claim that is unsupported by evidence, it would be prudent to
disregard it. If you told me you'd been kidnapped by aliens, I would ask for evidence. If you couldn't provide it, I would remain skeptical.

You aren't operating from skepticism. You are operating from disbelief. These are not the same.

Sorry JEB, i am trying to be respectful here, but i have to say, surely it doesnt require faith to believe that something did not happen?

I mean, if something didnt happen, you dont believe it based on the evidence right? Ergo, there is none. If i dont see any evidence for an event, i dont believe it happened. How can that be defined as faith?

Faith
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I say this because it annoys me terribly when people say that my "religion" is atheism. I dont subscribe to that because the reason i believe in evolution is a staggering amount of evidence. If it has evidence, by definition (see above) it cannot be faith. (logical proof or material evidence)

This in turn makes me doubt Theism because Jesus quoted Genesis and we know that the earth is not 6000 years old and we know that women didnt come from ribs etc etc Hence i cannot bring myself to believe in books that i know (well, i think i know, due to some physical evidence) are wrong about things.

But blah blah blah.. i wont bore you with my life story.

Oh and Dogma, i will change my avatar if you think that it is "proof" that i cannot be reasonable or is offensive in some way. Surely that is typecasting someone far more than anything i have said? Are you implying that if someone thinks that Creationism is ridiculous they cannot be reasonable people? I assure you that many millions of people find it worthy of ridicule. This does not make them incapable of reason.

Anyway yeah, ive already apologised.. i will allow this already hugely derailed thread to attempt to salvage itself from inevitable bannage.

it would be great if we could save the tired old atheism vs. religion arguments for a thread on that topic. This thread has a very specific topic, clerical abuse of children in the Republic of Ireland.

Jeb, all the posts I am making are from the irish perspective. I would definitely agree that from what I have seen Americans seem to be much more religious altogether, and I do not see this as a negative thing. It seems to me the institutions in the states have a much healthier relationship with the government than the Irish Catholic Church ever did. Ireland is in something of a backlash against the church- this report isn't the first one to come out and damage their public image here, just the most recent and possibly the most shocking.

I will say though, my post about declining numbers of priests was based on a Church statement in a respectable newspaper. I don't have a study, but I would tend to take them at their word. I also went to University in Maynooth, which is a seminary too, and they had photos of the graduating class of each year on the wall. You could clearly see the huge drop off from the eighties onwards down to a tiny number of people graduating these days. And numbers attending mass are much much lower than they were. Back in the day, EVERYONE went, even atheists a lot of the time, that was the social pressure. I'm pretty sure my dad is atheist, but he used to stand at the back of the church with his arms folded anyway, probably to avoid causing a stir by not going to mass. These days he just doesn't go, and no one cares.

My point about education is linked to the fact that the Church controlled all education here and it was a VERY BAD THING. It's historical fact that they opposed measures like free education and education of women, as well as gay rights and the like. This is the catholic church in Ireland I should stress. If you're arguing for the Church being better in the states, I could easily believe that, because they aren't as intertwined with a weak and corrupt government.

mattyrm wrote:Sorry JEB, i am trying to be respectful here, but i have to say, surely it doesnt require faith to believe that something did not happen?

Wait for it.

mattyrm wrote: surely it doesnt require faith to believe

I can make it clearer

mattyrm wrote: surely it doesnt require faith to believe

In case I haven't made my point, believing something did or didn't happen, absent empirical evidence, is a leap of faith. Logic can only take you so far, which is usually the statement "there is no empirical evidence to support this, and so I'm not going to believe it"

Polonius, did you read the rest of my post?

I AGREE with you. Something that is "absent empirical evidence" IS a leap of faith.

But if you believe in something that has STACKS of evidence, then how is that "faith" ?

I put the dictionary term for faith right there in the post... it is

Faith
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So, if you DO have logical proof, and you DO have material evidence. How can it be called faith? Surely according to the dictionary definition, it is the exact opposite of faith?

I dont understand the point of your post. If it was to make your point that "believing something did or didn't happen absent empirical evidence is a leap of faith"

Then i wholeheartedly agree with you!

Albatross wrote:And your statement is even more arrogant. Your beliefs are based upon scripture ultimately, even if you aren't an orthodox christian. What evidence do you have that god exists outside of the physical world? Or that there even is a world outside of the physical world? I found that statement totally offensive, but I won't be complaining to the MODs - you're entitled to your opinion after all.

Did you find it offensive simply because I made a point? To have faith in something is actually the antithesis of arrogance. It is the acknowledgment that you don't know everything, and that something lies out of your realm of control or understanding. To truly have faith is a hallmark of humility. So stop flaming.

Albatross wrote:(sigh) I didn't say that. I just said there's no evidence that it happened. That's a fact. If you make an outlandish claim that is unsupported by evidence, it would be prudent to
disregard it. If you told me you'd been kidnapped by aliens, I would ask for evidence. If you couldn't provide it, I would remain skeptical.

And there is no evidence that it didn't happen.

mattyrm wrote:I AGREE with you. Something that is "absent empirical evidence" IS a leap of faith.

Like disbelief in God?

mattyrm wrote:But if you believe in something that has STACKS of evidence, then how is that "faith" ?

What are these stacks you are referring to? I haven't seen stacks anywhere...

mattyrm wrote:So, if you DO have logical proof, and you DO have material evidence. How can it be called faith? Surely according to the dictionary definition, it is the exact opposite of faith?

If you are referring to disbelief in God, origins of the universe etc., you don't have conclusive proof at all. You have theories and and ideas that you try and draw human conclusions on, but that doesn't mean they aren't still based on faith. It requires just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian, and in my opinion even more.

@Da Boss: I can live with that.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Did you find it offensive simply because I made a point? To have faith in something is actually the antithesis of arrogance. It is the acknowledgment that you don't know everything, and that something lies out of your realm of control or understanding. To truly have faith is a hallmark of humility. So stop flaming.

Patience is also a pillar of 'true' humility. Saying 'to "truly" have faith' is about as vague as it gets without any reference. I truly have shoes, and they make me happy; but at no point did I describe how those shoes equate directly to my happiness. Having shoes, and truly having shoes, mean exactly the same thing; just with room for a lot of error in the latter.

It requires just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian, and in my opinion even more.

This is a game of equitable opinions...