More than 1,000 Children Allegedly Molested in PA by the Catholic Church

[GuanoLoco]

I am not sure religion is a virus, but atheism is more efficient than religion at murder. I have to give it that.


I'll make you a deal, I'm serious. You read the Prager book, I'll read the Dawkins book. We can set a deadline when to have the books finished by.

I've had more than my share of religious exposure growing up in a Catholic household with a great deal of forced conformance and attempts at education and indoctrination. This was followed by some college coursework studying religion and some extracurricular reading on various supporters of atheism. The latter was useful in "crisping up" many things that I intuitively understood but hadn't analyzed that carefully.

I have exactly zero interest or intention to waste further cycles of my life reading yet another set of rationalizations of why god/religion makes sense - with precisely zero evidence to support the rationalizations.

I have exactly zero expectation that reading Dawkins or any other similar material will have any effect on you, as your convictions will easily override any argument you read, no matter how logical or compelling.

Thank you for the offer, but I'm taking a hard pass and suggest you don't waste your time either.

[Totem Polar]

I daresay that nobody in the hierarchy of the church over the past several decades could remain incognizant of the abuses, even via the excuse of deliberate ignorance. There are no clean hands here.

I’m terribly afraid that your conclusion is correct, especially with internal records of accusations, payouts and personel transfers.

(Perhaps because everyone's afraid to bend over and pick up the soap.)

Except for the ones constantly running a little behind...

[TheNewbie]

I've had more than my share of religious exposure growing up in a Catholic household with a great deal of forced conformance and attempts at education and indoctrination. This was followed by some college coursework studying religion and some extracurricular reading on various supporters of atheism. The latter was useful in "crisping up" many things that I intuitively understood but hadn't analyzed that carefully.

I have exactly zero interest or intention to waste further cycles of my life reading yet another set of rationalizations of why god/religion makes sense - with precisely zero evidence to support the rationalizations.

I have exactly zero expectation that reading Dawkins or any other similar material will have any effect on you, as your convictions will easily override any argument you read, no matter how logical or compelling.

Thank you for the offer, but I'm taking a hard pass and suggest you don't waste your time either.

I don't think it will be a waste of time.

That said, I've found that non believers are much more dogmatic and less willing to take the risk of challenging their beliefs.

The irony is atheists have a lot more faith in their beliefs than religious people. At least the seem to question it less.

[RoyGBiv]

<snip>.... I've found that non believers are much more dogmatic and less willing to take the risk of challenging their beliefs.

The irony is atheists have a lot more faith in their beliefs than religious people. At least the seem to question it less.

I think the reply above is framed from the perspective of the "believer" and is biased by preconception.

Perhaps the answer to that question is that it's because non-believers have stopped feeling the need to rejustify (to themselves) their beliefs/decisions.?

From the non-believers perspective, the flip-side question might be... Why do "believers" spend any time at all reassessing the validity of their faith?

[ER_STL]

I have exactly zero interest or intention to waste further cycles of my life reading yet another set of rationalizations of why god/religion makes sense - with precisely zero evidence to support the rationalizations.

I've been following this thread casually but saw your post. I certainly respect your position and desire to be left alone, and my response attempts to do that. To the rest who may be reading along however, I believe the above statement is false and in my opinion it represents as extreme of a view as the blindly faithful sitting in a cultic church who may fail to challenge what it is they're receiving and learning.

There are plenty of great resources available that support the Creation model that may be consumed by the critical thinker in balance with those opinions from the other side to allow one to make up their own mind.

[GuanoLoco]

I don't think it will be a waste of time.

That said, I've found that non believers are much more dogmatic and less willing to take the risk of challenging their beliefs.

Dogma: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

[Organized] religious people operate under dogma, pretty much by definition.

I don't see that saying non believers are "dogmatic" makes any sense at all. What non believer dogma [principle(s) & authority] are you referring to, specifically?

The irony is atheists have a lot more faith in their beliefs than religious people. At least the seem to question it less.

LOL. Atheists do not have a set of beliefs that they would need to have faith in.

Failing to believe in supernatural beings that have no evidence demonstrating their existence is not a matter of faith. I don't believe in gods, God, Satan, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Russel's Teapot either. Faith is simply not involved here. Atheists don't need to periodically question their lack of belief in things that have no evidence to support them.

Personally, I'm partial to The Scientific Method, but this is a process based on skepticism as opposed to faith.

Religions have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever to back their beliefs. I have faith that this is unlikely to change, but if it does I may reconsider.

I'm not holding my breath, but I would love to see the reaction of other religions with contradicting beliefs, assuming one religion/denomination did somehow manage this improbable feat.

[RoyGBiv]

Religions have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever to back their beliefs. I have faith that this is unlikely to change, but if it does I may reconsider.

FWIW, the mere existence of the universe is pretty powerful stuff.
Did the universe always exist? Did it come to be via some not-yet-explainable scientifically provable event?
Even if yes, would that prove or disprove the existence of a divine entity?

None of that, in itself, validates (or invalidates) "religion", of course.

[TheNewbie]

I think the reply above is framed from the perspective of the "believer" and is biased by preconception.

Perhaps the answer to that question is that it's because non-believers have stopped feeling the need to rejustify (to themselves) their beliefs/decisions.?

From the non-believers perspective, the flip-side question might be... Why do "believers" spend any time at all reassessing the validity of their faith?

Why would you not question yourself and challenge your positions?

[TheNewbie]

Dogma: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

[Organized] religious people operate under dogma, pretty much by definition.

I don't see that saying non believers are "dogmatic" makes any sense at all. What non believer dogma [principle(s) & authority] are you referring to, specifically?




LOL. Atheists do not have a set of beliefs that they would need to have faith in.

Failing to believe in supernatural beings that have no evidence demonstrating their existence is not a matter of faith. I don't believe in gods, God, Satan, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Russel's Teapot either. Faith is simply not involved here. Atheists don't need to periodically question their lack of belief in things that have no evidence to support them.

Personally, I'm partial to The Scientific Method, but this is a process based on skepticism as opposed to faith.

Religions have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever to back their beliefs. I have faith that this is unlikely to change, but if it does I may reconsider.

I'm not holding my breath, but I would love to see the reaction of other religions with contradicting beliefs, assuming one religion/denomination did somehow manage this improbable feat.

Many Atheists are dogmatic that God does not exist and religion is bad.

Atheists do have beliefs. See my above line. They just seem scared to question them and get angry at the thought they are wrong.

Two questions for you.

Do you ever doubt your athiesm?

Do you hope you are wrong about there being no God, no afterlife?

[TAZ]

It is going to be about as possible to prove the existence of God as it is for anyone to prove they love their spouse. A belief in God is an act of faith and by definition faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof. You’re wasting your time on a circular argument.

Religion is nothing more than a man made construct intended to leverage mans faith for the “common good”. Since it’s a man made construct it has the faults of man. Leveraging mans faith so that communities get along, work together in cooperation => religion helping man. Leverage mans faith to go rape, pillage, burn, sodomize... the unfaithful cause god will forgive => religion being abused by man.

AFAIC the Catholic Church has no one but themselves to blame for the punishment they hopefully get. And IMO they deserve a hell of a lot of punishment here and in the afterlife.