151. World History

Comment #98654 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 1:58 am

Philip,

In a nutshell, there's a gulf that separates the Church that you (and most others on here) describe, and the Church I am a part of.

I grew up, and still live, in one of the more deprived areas of East London. I've seen who's there when people need help. The callous church you speak of is just not reality, it's merely a reflection of media portrayals of some people and some events.

More specifically, on the subject of that young girl. You seem to be blaming the Church for what happened to her. You also pay no attention to any psychological damage that she might suffer as a result of her own child being killed. It's a difficult situation undoubtedly, but the unavoidable flip-side is the millions of children's lives are terminated every year, and the Chruch is the major, and in some cases, only opponent of this.

152. World History

Comment #98640 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 1:09 am

46. Comment #98432 by Goldy on December 13, 2007 at 3:26 pm

No, Greek Catholics, not Greek Orthodox.

153. World History

Comment #98431 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Steve, I really have to go. I was hanging arund in the hope that you might find a quote from the Pope telling me how I should view you. Ask Goldy what search engine he uses, he managed to find one. I like it myself, and will endeavour to follow it closely.

154. World History

Comment #98429 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Greek rite Catholic priests (in full communion with Rome) amongst others are allowed to be maried. Fully legit.

155. World History

Comment #98426 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Thanks Goldy, interesting how when the Pope says, 'forbids any disrespect', you say, 'you can treat him as a person' as if it's an option. The oasis grows ever murkier.

156. World History

Comment #98419 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Oh, and there already are married priests (not just ex anglicans either).

157. World History

Comment #98416 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:11 pm

So what has the Holy Father told me to think about you Steve? You seem to think there's a problem with me not having a problem with your sexuality. Reminds me of a certain Little Britain character.

158. World History

Comment #98407 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Depends what dictionary you read I suppose. I understood that celibacy means not getting married.

159. World History

Comment #98405 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:53 pm

It's time for this faith head to rest his junkie bones. I look forward to seeing the results of your googling for Papal wisdom tomorrow. Whack in fides et ratio and Pope John Paul II while you're at it. It's worth a read.

160. World History

Comment #98383 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Really, how did he tell me to react to you?

161. World History

Comment #98374 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:31 pm

24. Comment #98358 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:05 pm

I take it you mean chaste, and if so, I'm not bothered what you do.

162. World History

Comment #98351 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Philip, you've steered away from the point again.

Tyler, that's ridiculous. The link you provided said that half of HIV infections in Estonia were down to needles and the rest were the addicts infecting their partners. It's just a hunch, but I'm not sure that too many of those people might curtail their drug fuelled passion to put on a condom as a result of reading the latest encyclical from the Pope urging them to do so.

And another thing, those statistics are absurd.

And another thing, we were talking about Africa, not Europe. Compare the campaign for fidelity approach in Uganda and its effects, to the condom approach in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and its effects. Reason can tell you the most effective approach to dealing with HIV. The Holy Father knows it, and so would you if you conducted an honest appraisal of the evidence.

163. World History

Comment #98176 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 7:49 am

Phillip,

I thought the evidence suggests that AIDS is lower in countries with higher percentages of Catholics than those with lower Catholic populations. It seems that if more followed His Holiness' advise, less would suffer. Would be rather inconvenient for his detractors though.

164. World History

Comment #98147 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 6:22 am

Also interesting that the Pope has apologised for most of the actions describes above, yet apparently he's blaming them on others. Yet more evidence of the murkiness of this paricular oasis. I't can't really be good for those who drink from it.

165. World History

Comment #98143 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 6:19 am

After the war,English diplomat said to Stalin that he should't be so harsh against religion. Stalin said, 'how many division does the pope have?'

Is it really so difficult to see the link between Stalin's athiesm and his despotism, or is it just that some have allowed themselves to be duped by the 'Hitchins Delusion'. Those mental gymnastics that bring all faults back to the doors of religion.

166. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93462 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 7:30 am

93. Comment #93455 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 7:14 am

'Supposed I came up to you and said "I can tell you the truth sometimes. Who says when I am telling the truth? Well, me of course. Why should you trust me on this? Well, we have a family tradition of believing this." What would you think?'

I'd think that I wouldn't trust a man who covered his eyes with his hat, and if it fell a bit lower it would maybe explain why the words seem to be coming from it. God knows what the little green men would think of that.

167. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93452 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 7:12 am

'What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' Verse 19 goes on to say.

168. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93445 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 7:03 am

86. Comment #93435 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 6:40 am

Come on Steve, you're an intelligent man. Clearly self-proclaimed means, well, self-proclaimed and clearly papal infallibility is based on the words of Jesus (not a pope) to Peter, a pope. Surely your literacy isn't confined to science.

169. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93434 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 6:37 am

82. Comment #93411 by Tyler Durden on December 3, 2007 at 5:33 am

Good, now that's resolved I'm sure we can both see nothing hypocritical about the use the internet, an aeroplane, a telephone or a pocket calculator. (See Comment 76)

170. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93430 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 6:31 am

81. Comment #93405 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 5:13 am

No, self-proclaimed is when you proclaim about your self. Papal infallibility was conferred by Jesus on Peter and his succesors.

171. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93403 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 5:02 am

Anyone interested in an honestly engaging with what The Holy Father actually said could also do with reading paragraphs 20 and 21 of the document on Marx. Unlikely though, in the self-proclaimed 'oasis', truth rarely gets in the way of self-righteous ranting.

172. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93398 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 4:50 am

Just for the purpose of clarification, what His Holiness didn't say was, 'Don't use technology, it's evil.'

173. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92828 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I think.

174. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92827 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Hello again, my scientific literacy is undoubtedly much lower than your own. The points I raised were more a response to Dawkins own words, rather than any scientific commentary.

'We scientifically literate don't confuse complexity of outcome with complexity of cause'

Dawkins speaks about the complexity of God, this is outcome, not cause. In fact, he uses his musings on the outcome that is his idea of God, to attempt to debunk the cause.

175. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92815 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:06 pm

So the debating format doesn't lnd itself to Dennet who needs more time. Fair enough. Not really D'Souza's fault though.

176. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92813 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:00 pm

55. Comment #92805 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Despite yours and numerous other posters' low opinions of D'Souza's debating skills, Christopher Hitchens says he's one of the most formidable debaters he has faced.

177. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92803 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 1:46 pm

24. Comment #92764 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Firstly, things causes aren't necessarily more complex than what they cause. Look at evolution what we can learn from evolution on this.

Secondly, Why does complexity necessarily mean improbability, it doesn't.

Thirdly, Dawkins himself helps us to see that improbability doesn't mean non-existence. He's stated that the existence of humanity is very, very improbable. One of his colleagues has said that, 'it is virtually impossible to quantify how improbable the existence of humanity is.' But exist we do. Improbability then does not entail, nor has it ever entailed non-existence.

178. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90344 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 12:02 pm

It seems to me very relevant. Anyway, presumably if this discussion continues you'll continue erecting mobile goal-posts, so I guess that's that.

179. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90318 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 9:42 am

Galileo, as a Catholic, was a member of the Church (a term you seem to have a partial understanding of). You might also find this article written in the conservative Catholic publication, The Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1909, if not interesting then maybe informative.

180. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90311 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 8:35 am

I'm not aware of His Holiness' teaching on great ape research. It's great that his insight into human nature is further illuminated by this small study though. Another example of science and religion, faith and reason, walking hand-in-hand on the journey of truth.

181. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90309 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 8:03 am

A fascinating piece of research echoing The Holy Father's teaching in 'Veritas Splendor' when he pointed out that, 'In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil.'

182. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87571 by fides_et_ratio on November 12, 2007 at 1:42 pm

As a Catholic teacher, I couldn't resist. I detected some fishiness in trying to say that degrees are weak because A levels are weak. Degrees may be weaker but not for that reason. More fishiness in the figures about how many teachers receive their training at faith-based institutions, the figures are presumably quoted to prove a point, they prove nothing and are evidence only of their own existence. In a previous school of mine the entire PE dept had received their training at a faith-based college. They used to spend their free-periods trying to knock the crucifix off the gym wall with footballs.

Interesting also that the author has chosen to ignore the longstanding Christian tradition of valuing and providing education for its own worth. Some who have benefited from this being Newton, Darwin, Dawkins, Hawkins and anyone else who has walked through the doors of Oxford, Cambridge and many other places.

A disappointing article that makes a mockery of what little evidence it presents, and consequently only succeeds in showing the author's bias in carefully avoiding any earnest search for the truth.

183. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83781 by fides_et_ratio on October 31, 2007 at 9:01 am

Not to mention of course the athiest obsession with God.

184. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83780 by fides_et_ratio on October 31, 2007 at 9:00 am

You're right Philip, as for Mr. Angry, right and wrong though not in equal measure, but mildly amusing nonetheless.

Of course the Holy Father's correct to stand up for those wishing to make sound moral choices without fear of prosecution.

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here. This isn't directed at you Philip, I am aware of your wider interest in Catholic teaching as evidenced through your understanding of the guidelines for drivers. As for the others, I think a little psychoanalysis is in order.

185. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79473 by fides_et_ratio on October 17, 2007 at 11:28 am

Nice to see that I get a mention in dispatches. Hlfway through now, still no evidence from 'machine-gun' Hitch, plenty of ranting rhetoric though. Apart from AM dealing with his points so well, my favourite part thus far (apart from my mention) is AM's highlighting of the wishful thinking of athiesm.

As you were.

186. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79386 by fides_et_ratio on October 17, 2007 at 6:28 am

It's a shame that Hitchens didn't prepare for a debate on the motion. I'm sure he'd be very interesting when talking on a subject that he knows something about, but when debating the effects of religion with a man like McGrath, his non-evidence-based rants equate to a Sun editorial on immigration. No evidence from a man who claims reason. Very disappointing.

187. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76365 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:51 pm

You just can't do it, the only way you could stop your kids oing to science lessons would be to stop them going to school. Which is illegal, unless you taught them at home which is legal as long as you teach the curriculum I think.

188. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76357 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm

they can't be pulled from science classes, only sex education.

189. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76354 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I hate to labour the point, well that's not strictly true, but nonetheless, according to the article Norway is only 26% athiest, at which % does something become widespread?

190. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76347 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm

If teachers are afraid of teaching something because students might not want to hear it, they really should find another job.

This is a non subject created by someone with a book to sell.

191. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76233 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 7:00 am

'Depending on the definition of atheism'

Surely there's only one definition of athiesm, and by that definition only 26% of Norwegians are athiest. Not that many really.

192. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75411 by fides_et_ratio on October 2, 2007 at 2:54 pm

In the Richard Dawkins tradition of 'Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacities' read 60. Comment #75406 by aitchkay on October 2, 2007 at 2:42 pm.

On reading the quoted passage I found it to be a parable, not an instruction. Taking a quote out of context and misrepresenting what it says is unscientific and dishonest. This sort of thing makes this site a muddy pool of ignorance, not the oasis of clear thinking it purports to be.

193. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75401 by fides_et_ratio on October 2, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I couldn't help thinking that the following group of letters couldn't be re worded (my hyphen button is broken), for greater accuracy and clarity.

'Religion changes, for people, the definition of good. Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer. Most religious people think them bad, too, but some religions (for example the religion of the Taliban) sanction all of them under some circumstances.'


or


Atheists, humanists and most religious people tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer. Some sects and world views (for example the Taliban or North Korea's communist party) sanction all of them under some circumstances.

Does detract a little from the blind rant value though.

194. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #71006 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity"

Try googling.

"Publicly challenged by an American preacher to admit that, if approached by a gang of men in a dark alley, he would be reassured to learn that they had emerged from a prayer meeting, Hitchens's return volley was unplayable"

And clicking on your own article (you need to include the omitted results),

Followed by re-listening to

http://richarddawkins.net/article,861,Wed-be-better-off-without-Religion,Richard-Dawkins-Christopher-Hitchens-AC-Grayling

(You only need to listen to the first 3 minutes)

Then an audio search of "Dennis Prager" on your own site again.

Top it off by checking out "About Dennis" at http://www.dennisprager.com/about.html

And you should have found enough, Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacities, to keep you going for quite some time.

195. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70908 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 8:21 am

It also might be worth googling

"Publicly challenged by an American preacher to admit that, if approached by a gang of men in a dark alley, he would be reassured to learn that they had emerged from a prayer meeting, Hitchens's return volley was unplayable"

And clicking on your own article (you need to include the omitted results),

Followed by re-listening to

http://richarddawkins.net/article,861,Wed-be-better-off-without-Religion,Richard-Dawkins-Christopher-Hitchens-AC-Grayling

(You only need to listen to the first 3 minutes)

Then an audio search of "Dennis Prager" on your own site again.

Top it off by checking out "About Dennis" at http://www.dennisprager.com/about.html

And you should have found enough, Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacities, to keep you going for quite some time.

196. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70903 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 7:58 am

"Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity".

I goggled;

"Affection that I still retain for the Church"

and found;

"(at least by comparison with the competition)"

I read on and found, within the space of three paragraphs, a criticism of notions of God because they were too small, "My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way", and because they were too big, "Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him."

I think it is understandable that the criticism you so obviously abhor, seems to arrive so often from people who, unlike myself and your kindly chaplain, are not so simple-minded.

197. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69886 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2007 at 4:44 am

36. Comment #69862 by pewkatchoo on September 13, 2007 at 2:59 am

I wouldn't assume to know what motivates anyone, athiest or thiest, to give. Fear of hell as an aid to charitability is not something I'm overly familiar with either. Seeing as I think it arrogant to assume that I know what motivates someone I've never met, I thought the only thing worth pointing out is that the person in need who receives, probably couldn't care less anyway. After all, food doesn't become more or less nourishing because of the spirit it was given in.

198. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69849 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2007 at 2:07 am

Not that your assumptions about why religious people might give are correct, but I wonder if the receiver in need cares about the motives of the giver. I think at that stage they probably don't.

199. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69833 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2007 at 1:24 am

6. Comment #69813 by Inferno on September 12, 2007 at 11:01 pm

'I'm sick of hearing comments that religious people give more time, money and blood to charity.'

If I was you I'd be sick of it too. That sort of thing must really shake the faith of even the most ardent atheist.

200. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69412 by fides_et_ratio on September 11, 2007 at 6:58 am

77. Comment #69343 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:22 am

I must have missed the book called 'The Religion Delusion'.