nettlebed

Understand. But a crucial difference is that these priests were KNOWN to be buggering boys, ADMITTED IT to the church hierarchy, and were STILL sent off to places where the church authorities must have been as sure as it reasonably could be that soon they would be sticking their penises in other small boys' rectums until it could no longer be covered up in THAT parish, then back on the merry-go-round for a trip to YET ANOTHER set of boys to abuse.

In case anyone is concerned by my use of graphic language, I am trying to get people to understand that the "abuse" or "misbehavior" of these horrible, horrible men really did involve the - to the victims - shattering actions I am describing. Likewise, when I hear people talking about "stoning" girls to death, I believe people should reflect on what it actually means: pubescent girls suffering broken bones, shattered teeth, eyes knocked out, screaming, drowning in blood, and usually their family either just looking on, or even ACTUALLY PERPETRATING THE MURDER. It's sickening, and if you're not sickened too, you aren't paying enough attention!

nettlebed

Yes.

nettlebed

Got my Carma! Thanks, Mallory!

Steerpike

(to a tune ... ) ... "I second that emotion" ...

Steerpike

I could not agree more. Popes throughout the ages have enjoyed incredible privilege while living lives of debauchery. Not much has changed. Tax their wealth, and prosecute their transgressions - like every other normal member of society. Same goes for Royalty too ...

The truly AWFUL part of this is, if you go to an average Catholic church in a third world country, you will see the poor peasants putting money in the collection boxes ...

I'd rather look up to Warren Buffet myself ...

Octang Frye

It's a miracle. A goram papal ****ing miracle. I'm in total agreement with Steerpike.

Octang Frye

What's with the idolatry as well? Icons? Saints? WTF? Worshipping Mary?
Thou shalt worship no other gods before Me....

My gf is Catholic and took me to mass at Christmas. The elaborate construction of the rituals were fascinating, especially the threes/trinity stuff; three priests, chairs, cups, folds etc. And the magic trick / flourish with goblets was awesome.
+1. Robert Houdin couldn't have done better.

I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. A rationalist. I don't believe God saved your ass when he let the other 23 people on your tour bus die. He doesn't give a fark about you scoring the winning TD on Sunday.

The manipulation of the Catholic church, and in fact many churches, is anathema to me. Do a little research, and you will realize that "saints" like Mother Teresa were anything but.

This pope's deliberate sheltering of pedophiles is shocking.
He'll burn in hell, if there is such a place, for his actions.

As for the misdirection of slamming "atheist extremists" and likening them to Nazis - well, that's what I'd expect from someone as despicable as "Benedict".

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-b...-were-atheists

Manc

And to think in bygone time it was young boys whom wanted to enter the priesthood.



how times have changed.

Steerpike

I feel quite strongly that being Agnostic is far more 'reasonable' than being an Atheist. To me, an Atheist is not much better than a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim ... they've all made a somewhat arbitrary decision that "I'm right and you are wrong". Being an Agnostic means, you accept that you cannot possibly know.

Yes, believing (and accepting) that an infallible God could send a flood to wipe out 99.9% of the population, or that prayer can possibly make a difference, is utterly ridiculous, but then believing that there cannot possibly be any form of superior being (that we cannot conceive of) that may be responsible for our existence is equally silly. As an Agnostic, I believe that none of the 'conventional' religions make sense, but I don't rule out that we could live in a world created (and even controlled by) a life form so vastly superior that we will never in our lifetimes begin to understand even the slightest element of their existence or motivation ... Let's face it, 1,000 years ago we believed the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe ...

Steerpike

Life truly is a wondrous thing, is it not!

Manc

Really?

I think being an athiest is mostly based on evidence.

give an athiest evidence that Darwinism is undoubtedly wrong and the athiest will throw Darwinism out.

Give a religious fundamentalist evidence that God is nonsense and they will throw the evidence out.


that's the difference.

kimilseung

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.
For how you express your questioning, I would say one is an atheist.
An atheist is open to changing their mind with new infomation, if proof of the existance of god was found, most atheists would be theists. Somone who does not believe in god and would continue that disbelief in spite of overwhelming evidence would be an illogical idiot, Being an atheist is not disbelieving whatever the evidence one way or another, it is dibelieving on the avaliable evidence, which is zero. I dont know anyone who I suspect of being that kind of atheist who just says no, whatever.
I dont believe in fairies, I am not agnostic on the issue, but if evidence was provided I would change my mind and no longer be a Fairy atheist. [edit: I think I may regret phrasing it like that] so I say being an atheist is the "reasonable" position.

From your post you sound like an atheist to me.

Lets not fall in to the rhetoric of protestant bigotry

Steerpike

This is my favorite topic!

Maybe I am an atheist; I used to call myself one, but then found that some of the absolute positions of atheists bothered me, and found the label 'agnostic' to be more appropriate. I could discuss this topic till the cows come home, but in reality, they both mean ... "thinking, liberated people" and that is the most important element. That, and - we get Sunday mornings off!

kimilseung

semantics! its what gets us going round in circles.

Steerpike

Can't argue with anything you say here. My problem with Atheists is, they insist on evidence before they will accept that something should be given any consideration. There is absolutely no evidence that a superior being exists, but - is it possible? Yes - and an atheist may agree in principle. Where we differ is, perhaps, in the question ... is it LIKELY? Is it REASONABLE to assume? And are we willing to speculate in an intelligent manner, despite evidence?

I'm reading Bill Bryson's 'short history of nearly everything' right now, and I'm a pretty serious physics/science/engineer dude. Despite our incredible powers of discovery, we still cannot begin to conceive in any real, tangible terms, 'what existed BEFORE the big bang' ... where did it come from ... why did it happen? If we can believe that the 'big bang' somehow happened, why can't we believe in the possibility of a force causing it to happen, a force with a purpose ... evidence or not ... Phun Phriday Philosophizing ...