Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world

[wanstronian]

And what is their learning based on? Superior intelligence to recgonize superstition where their Parents and Grandparents and most people for the last 2,000 years saw saw God?

And most people for thousands of years before that saw many gods. Were they right or wrong?

I already said that people aren’t getting smarter - not noticeably anyway, that’s not how evolution works. However, the tools available to us are certainly helping us to answer questions we wouldn’t even have thought to ask 50 years or so ago.

I don’t know for sure what’s changed, but at a guess I’d say:

1. There’s less social pressure to conform to religious doctrine than there was even a few decades ago. Atheism is (rightly) socially acceptable these days.
2. The success of science has illustrated the value of empirical evidence over blind faith. Too much of the latter has been debunked by a proper analysis of the former.
3. A few bold pioneers have dared to publicly point out that evidence for God is absent, and to also point out that belief in something for which no evidence exists, is irrational.
4. Much of the evidence that comprehensively debunks Creationism has become accepted by the scientific majority relatively recently. For example, radiometric dating was discovered only about a hundred years ago; same goes for Plate Tectonic theory - in fact this was only shown to be irrefutable about 50 years ago.

The above is just my speculation - as I said, I don’t know for sure what’s behind the drive away from superstition. But I can think of no advantage in holding superstitious beliefs so it’s good that they’re slowly dispersing.

 

[tonyrey]

I assumed you meant religion as i us.

Religion is certainly not just belief in God nor is it restricted to a life bound by religious vows. Deists and even theists often have no religion because it makes not a jot of difference to the way they live. And that is precisely where the correlation arises.

I never heard of a class called ‘Moral Education.’

But you have heard of a class called Religious Education in which children were taught the Ten Commandments and moral precepts… It is a subject well known for its neglect and disfavour among many teachers - which is to be expected in a secular society…

Do you have it in the States?

I don’t live in the States - which is a far more religious society than the UK!

Regarding the increase in crime - correlation does not imply causation, even if such a causation is convenient to your mission.

If I have a mission so have you - to promote your anti-Christian doctrines zealously…
Correlation need not imply causation but it often does. When the decline in religious belief is accompanied by the increase in moral ignorance and crime it is the most likely explanation. Can you offer a better alternative?

Why do you think an increasing number of doctors are refusing to carry out abortions?
I haven’t heard this - can you provide a citation for your claim? And if it’s true, can you direct me to the reasons these doctors have provided?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6558823.stm

And putting pressure on old people by making them feel they are a burden on society.

Citation?

Unnecessary. It is a well-known fact that many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes. Euthanasia is made to seem like a merciful release for those who have outlived their utility… You probably share that view…

When life becomes a matter of human convention and convenience no one is safe… as the Nazis made abundantly clear…

Euthanasia is not about the convenience of bumping someone else off, it’s about the ending of suffering of the individual, at the request of the individual, and with the proper medical opinions to support their request. How can you argue against something when you don’t even understand what it is?

You don’t even understand what I am referring to. Not just euthanasia but also abortion and eugenics. In all these cases the individual very often has **no choice **in the matter.

I don’t know what you’re talking about here - you’ve just invented lots of things that atheists don’t say or believe.

How do you explain human rights, particularly the right to life? What is the purpose of human existence? Is there any reason why the universe exists? Your answers to these questions will bear out the truth of my statement. Please note that I am not referring to evolution or atheism but to your caricature of Christianity as “some iron-age superstition that baldly states that only an unproven invisible magician in the sky has the right to end one’s suffering”. You are obviously ignorant of the teaching of the Catholic Church that our conscience is our ultimate authority when we are confronted with choosing the lesser of two evils…

On what do you base your morality? Or do you reject it as a set of human conventions which have no binding obligation on an “enlightened” individual?

As for statistics check on the percentage of churchgoers - and note their average age of 60+… What does that tell you?

Wrt the average age, it tells me that people are learning to question the dogma that their parents and grandparents unthinkingly accepted. People are learning to think for themselves and break free from superstition. Happy days.

I knew you would be delighted! You have forgotten that you rejected my view that this is a pagan society brainwashed by fanatics like Dawkins who produce TV programmes about the evils of religion. A clear case of inconsistency.

Happy days for you perhaps - but unhappy days for the victims of our sick society…

 

[tonyrey]

I assumed you meant religion as in a belief in God. Did you mean it in the context of a life bound by religious vows, regardless of belief?

Religion is certainly not just belief in God nor is it restricted to a life bound by religious vows. Deists and even theists often have no religion because it makes not a jot of difference to the way they live. And that is precisely where the correlation arises.

I never heard of a class called ‘Moral Education.’

But you have heard of a class called Religious Education in which children were taught the Ten Commandments and moral precepts… It is a subject well known for its neglect and disfavour among many teachers - which is to be expected in a secular society…

Do you have it in the States?

I don’t live in the States - which is a far more religious society than the UK!

Regarding the increase in crime - correlation does not imply causation, even if such a causation is convenient to your mission.

If I have a mission so have you - to promote your anti-Christian doctrines zealously…
Correlation need not imply causation but it often does. When the decline in religious belief is accompanied by the increase in moral ignorance and crime it is the most likely explanation. Can you offer a better alternative?

Why do you think an increasing number of doctors are refusing to carry out abortions?

I haven’t heard this - can you provide a citation for your claim? And if it’s true, can you direct me to the reasons these doctors have provided?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6558823.stm

And putting pressure on old people by making them feel they are a burden on society.

Citation?

Unnecessary. It is a well-known fact that many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes. Euthanasia is made to seem like a merciful release for those who have outlived their utility…

When life becomes a matter of human convention and convenience no one is safe… as the Nazis made abundantly clear…

Euthanasia is not about the convenience of bumping someone else off, it’s about the ending of suffering of the individual, at the request of the individual, and with the proper medical opinions to support their request. How can you argue against something when you don’t even understand what it is?

You don’t even understand what I am referring to. Not just euthanasia but also abortion and eugenics. In all these cases the individual very often has no choice in the matter.

I don’t know what you’re talking about here - you’ve just invented lots of things that atheists don’t say or believe.

How do you explain human rights, particularly the right to life? What is the purpose of human existence? Is there any reason why the universe exists? Your answers to these questions will bear out the truth of my statement. Please note that I am not referring to evolution or atheism but to your caricature of Christianity as “some iron-age superstition that baldly states that only an unproven invisible magician in the sky has the right to end one’s suffering”. You are obviously ignorant of the teaching of the Catholic Church that our conscience is our ultimate authority and that we are entitled to choose what we consider the lesser of two evils…

On what do you base your morality? Or do you reject it as a set of human conventions which have no binding obligation on an “enlightened” individual?

As for statistics check on the percentage of churchgoers - and note their average age of 60+… What does that tell you?

Wrt the average age, it tells me that people are learning to question the dogma that their parents and grandparents unthinkingly accepted. People are learning to think for themselves and break free from superstition. Happy days.

I knew you would be delighted! Yet you rejected my view that this is a pagan society brainwashed by fanatics like Dawkins who produce TV programmes about the evils of religion. A clear case of inconsistency.

Happy days for you perhaps - but very unhappy days for the victims of our sick society…

 

[estesbob]

And most people for thousands of years before that saw many gods. Were they right or wrong?

I already said that people aren’t getting smarter - not noticeably anyway, that’s not how evolution works. However, the tools available to us are certainly helping us to answer questions we wouldn’t even have thought to ask 50 years or so ago.

I don’t know for sure what’s changed, but at a guess I’d say:

1. There’s less social pressure to conform to religious doctrine than there was even a few decades ago. Atheism is (rightly) socially acceptable these days.
2. The success of science has illustrated the value of empirical evidence over blind faith. Too much of the latter has been debunked by a proper analysis of the former.
3. A few bold pioneers have dared to publicly point out that evidence for God is absent, and to also point out that belief in something for which no evidence exists, is irrational.
4. Much of the evidence that comprehensively debunks Creationism has become accepted by the scientific majority relatively recently. For example, radiometric dating was discovered only about a hundred years ago; same goes for Plate Tectonic theory - in fact this was only shown to be irrefutable about 50 years ago.

The above is just my speculation - as I said, I don’t know for sure what’s behind the drive away from superstition. But I can think of no advantage in holding superstitious beliefs so it’s good that they’re slowly dispersing.

You are consumed by presentism-that is the attitude that our geneartion is the wisets, most enlightened ever. you condemn the beleifs of all those Chrisitans who went before us as “superstition”. And you rationale-well we are just smarter now than they were. The ironic part is that the poor undeducated sheperd tending the fields 2,000 years ago knows more about the orogin of the universe than the “intelectuals” do now.

 

[wanstronian]

Religion is certainly not just belief in God nor is it restricted to a life bound by religious vows. Deists and even theists often have no religion because it makes not a jot of difference to the way they live. And that is precisely where the correlation arises.

So maybe you can actually clarify what you meant, rather than just rejecting my attempts to understand your claim?

But you have heard of a class called Religious Education in which children were taught the Ten Commandments and moral precepts… It is a subject well known for its neglect and disfavour among many teachers - which is to be expected in a secular society…

Oh, you mean the class where religious people claim evolved modern morals come from the bible. Yes, that isn’t taught much any more - it’s entirely unnecessary because morals are learned in other ways that are not tainted with religious indoctrination.

I don’t live in the States - which is a far more religious society than the UK!

Apologies, I don’t know why I thought you did! Yes - luckily the UK is far more secular than the US - you don’t get turned down for jobs purely on the basis of atheism in the UK, for example.

If I have a mission so have you - to promote your anti-Christian doctrines zealously…

It’s hardly a doctrine! Pointing out that religion has no rationale is not a doctrine, it’s just an observation, and one that can be backed up readily.

Correlation need not imply causation but it often does. When the decline in religious belief is accompanied by the increase in moral ignorance and crime it is the most likely explanation. Can you offer a better alternative?

I can point out that homicide rates in Sweden, Norway etc. are lower than in the UK, even though atheism is more prevalent. And I can point out that homicide rates in the US are amongst the highest in the world… in the largest Christian nation in the Western world. Where does that leave your hypothesis?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6558823.stm

Ok - but this article fails to support your original claim that “many people advocate abortion.” It states that the abortion rate has remained constant. You are left with a non sequitur and still have to substantiate your original claim.

Unnecessary. It is a well-known fact that many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes.

If it’s well-known then you can surely cite some independent statistics, rather than dodging with a pathetic, “Unnecessary.” It is necessary, because I am asking for evidence. If you can’t supply it, then you can’t expect your claim to be taken seriously.

Euthanasia is made to seem like a merciful release for those who have outlived their utility…

Oh, so it’s a conspiracy theory now? I don’t know where you live (as I have demonstrated!), but I suspect that if it’s the UK, you read the Daily Mail… (for those outside the UK, the Daily Mail is gutter press masquerading as a respectable broadsheet.)

You don’t even understand what I am referring to. Not just euthanasia but also abortion and eugenics. In all these cases the individual very often has no choice in the matter.

Euthanasia where the person in question is not given the option is called murder, and it’s illegal in the UK, with no prospect of that changing. I’d be interested in your source for claiming that people advocate the ‘mercy killings’ of people who have no say in the matter.

Regarding abortion - you’re right, the foetus has no say. The foetus would be unable to express a preference either way because it is not sentience. I’m playing Devil’s advocate somewhat here because I don’t personally advocate abortion.

You’ve just now introduced eugenics. I’m not aware of the advocacy rate for this within the UK - you’ll have to cite a source if you’re making a claim.

cont…

 

[wanstronian]

How do you explain human rights, particularly the right to life? What is the purpose of human existence? Is there any reason why the universe exists? Your answers to these questions will bear out the truth of my statement. Please note that I am not referring to evolution or atheism but to your caricature of Christianity as “some iron-age superstition that baldly states that only an unproven invisible magician in the sky has the right to end one’s suffering”. You are obviously ignorant of the teaching of the Catholic Church that our conscience is our ultimate authority and that we are entitled to choose what we consider the lesser of two evils…

Okay. Your comment followed your usual pattern of word replacement in order to try and ridicule the original comment. And as always, it doesn’t work because you are attacking a straw man. Atheists do not believe in an invisible magician in the dust. Belief in invisible magicians, whatever their whereabouts, is the remit of the theist. Atheists do not believe that evolution produces freaks of nature. Atheists do not believe that life has no purpose - just that it’s not God’s purpose. Atheists do not believe that people have no rights - just that these rights are not imposed by God. The undeniable evidence of history shows that human rights have evolved as human intellect has evolved.

So there are many characteristics you have ascribed to atheism that simply do not exist. And you know this because I have told you several times. However, the truth gives you no attack platform, so you continue to fabricate caricatures (spot the irony) because it’s the only way you can argue.

On what do you base your morality? Or do you reject it as a set of human conventions which have no binding obligation on an “enlightened” individual?

As I said above, morality has evolved from the need to form and maintain a cohesive and consistent society. It has evolved alongside - and as a result of - evolving human intellect.

I knew you would be delighted! Yet you rejected my view that this is a pagan society brainwashed by fanatics like Dawkins who produce TV programmes about the evils of religion. A clear case of inconsistency.

I didn’t reject it, I just ignored it because it was beside the point. Please get your facts right if you intend to base an attack on them. The point was that you hadn’t watched the video you chose to judge. A point you now seem very keen to cover up.

Happy days for you perhaps - but very unhappy days for the victims of our sick society…

Perhaps, but of course you still have provided no causal link between the diminishment of religious belief and your perceived (though not proven) degradation of society.

What benefit do you think religious belief brings to society, that non-religious philanthropy does not?

 

[wanstronian]

You are consumed by presentism-that is the attitude that our geneartion is the wisets, most enlightened ever.

And you infer sentiment where it was not implied. As I specifically said, evolution more or less prevents modern man being noticeably smarter than man of just two millenia ago. The main differences, as I also stated, is that our toolset is more comprehensive, and that our interest in discovering the facts has been piqued.

you condemn the beleifs of all those Chrisitans who went before us as “superstition”.

You haven’t answered my question - what makes monotheism right and polytheism wrong? Other than the unprovable belief that God just popped up one day and set everybody straight?

And you rationale-well we are just smarter now than they were.

Will you continue to misquote me, even after I have specifically corrected you?

The ironic part is that the poor undeducated sheperd tending the fields 2,000 years ago knows more about the orogin of the universe than the “intelectuals” do now.

It would be ironic if there were any way of proving it to be true!

 

[estesbob]

And you infer sentiment where it was not implied. As I specifically said, evolution more or less prevents modern man being noticeably smarter than man of just two millenia ago. The main differences, as I also stated, is that our toolset is more comprehensive, and that our interest in discovering the facts has been piqued.You haven’t answered my question - what makes monotheism right and polytheism wrong? Other than the unprovable belief that God just popped up one day and set everybody straight?Will you continue to misquote me, even after I have specifically corrected you?It would be ironic if there were any way of proving it to be true!

Bascically what you have told us is that people are “learning” becuase they are, in your opinion, agreeing with you.

 

[Leela]

The debate can befound here:

intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church

I haven’t watched the debate but that result is predictable in a society where over 90% have no religion, moral education is neglected, teenage pregnancies are the highest in Europe and many people advocate abortion and euthanasia…

What is interesting is the debate changed people’s existing opinions rather than just confirming preconceptions. Votes were taken on the proposition “The Catholic Church is a force for good.”

Initial Vote: 678 For, 1102 Against, Undecided 346

Final Vote: 268 For, 1876 Against, Undecided 34

The opposition won the debate, but of course the truth of the matter is independent of such votes. I don’t think that there is a simple answer to the question “is the Catholic Church a force for good?” any more than there is a simple answer to “are sports good or bad?” or “is politics a good or bad thing?” I’m willing to believe that religion can be a force for good and at least sometimes is, but of course, as the priest sex scandal indicates, it is not always good.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Religion is certainly not just belief in God nor is it restricted to a life bound by religious vows. Deists and even theists often have no religion because it makes not a jot of difference to the way they live. And that is precisely where the correlation arises.

It is not difficult to deduce from my statement that deists and even theists often have no religion because it makes not a jot of difference to the way they live.…

But you have heard of a class called Religious Education in which children were taught the Ten Commandments and moral precepts… It is a subject well known for its neglect and disfavour among many teachers - which is to be expected in a secular society…

Oh, you mean the class where religious people claim evolved modern morals come from the bible. Yes, that isn’t taught much any more - it’s entirely unnecessary because morals are learned in other ways that are not tainted with religious indoctrination.

“in other ways” is significantly vague and aptly sums up a haphazard process which leads to widespread amorality with the mentality “It’s all right if you don’t get caught”… Amorality dovetails neatly with secularity… No categorical imperatives to worry about…
As for “indoctrination” there is a large element of discussion with the pupils in present-day Religious Education.

If I have a mission so have you - to promote your anti-Christian doctrines zealously…

It’s hardly a doctrine! Pointing out that religion has no rationale is not a doctrine, it’s just an observation, and one that can be backed up readily.

You regard yourself as an enlightened person whose mission is to enlighten others. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here! Your observations are based on a set of very strong beliefs that you wish to communicate, i.e. doctrines. How would you back up your doctrine that the right to life is a human convention?

Correlation need not imply causation but it often does. When the decline in religious belief is accompanied by the increase in moral ignorance and crime it is the most likely explanation. Can you offer a better alternative?

I can point out that homicide rates in Sweden, Norway etc. are lower than in the UK, even though atheism is more prevalent. And I can point out that homicide rates in the US are amongst the highest in the world… in the largest Christian nation in the Western world. Where does that leave your hypothesis?

You have omitted the fact that criminality in the US is correlated with other factors like poverty, unemployment and social injustice. To what do you attribute the increase in crime and antisocial behaviour in the UK ? Is it unrelated to what people believe?

Ok - but this article fails to support your original claim that “many people advocate abortion.”

You asked me for a citation to support the claim that doctors are opting out of abortion.

It states that the abortion rate has remained constant. You are left with a non sequitur and still have to substantiate your original claim.

Constant over the last few years but a massive increase since the Abortion Act.** One woman in three** now has an abortion. Is that nor many?

Unnecessary. It is a well-known fact that many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes.

If it’s well-known then you can surely cite some independent statistics, rather than dodging with a pathetic, “Unnecessary.” It is necessary, because I am asking for evidence. If you can’t supply it, then you can’t expect your claim to be taken seriously.

If you dispute the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes you are welcome to inspect the statistics… and let me know the result… How about over a million one-parent families for a start?

Euthanasia is made to seem like a merciful release for those who have outlived their utility…

Oh, so it’s a conspiracy theory now? I don’t know where you live (as I have demonstrated!), but I suspect that if it’s the UK, you read the Daily Mail… (for those outside the UK, the Daily Mail is gutter press masquerading as a respectable broadsheet.)

You have evaded the fact that many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes. And often treated without TLC, to put in mildly. How would you feel in such a situation?

You don’t even understand what I am referring to. Not just euthanasia but also abortion and eugenics. In all these cases the individual very often has no choice in the matter.

Euthanasia where the person in question is not given the option is called murder, and it’s illegal in the UK, with no prospect of that changing.
I’d be interested in your source for claiming that people advocate the ‘mercy killings’ of people who have no say in the matter.
What about the comatose victims of an accident?

Regarding abortion - you’re right, the foetus has no say. The foetus would be unable to express a preference either way because it is not sentience. I’m playing Devil’s advocate somewhat here because I don’t personally advocate abortion.

Why not? You have to concede that the Catholic Church defends the right of the unborn.

You’ve just now introduced eugenics. I’m not aware of the advocacy rate for this within the UK - you’ll have to cite a source if you’re making a claim.

You know that abortions are frequently carried out on eugenic principles?

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists do not believe that life has no purpose - just that it’s not God’s purpose.

I am not going to deal with your statements about atheism and evolution for obvious reasons. What I am entitled to say is that the belief that the universe is purposeless undermines the objective value of human life. Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?

As I said above, morality has evolved from the need to form and maintain a cohesive and consistent society. It has evolved alongside - and as a result of - evolving human intellect.

So the needs of the individual count for nothing in your view of morality?

I knew you would be delighted! Yet you rejected my view that this is a pagan society brainwashed by fanatics like Dawkins who produce TV programmes about the evils of religion. A clear case of inconsistency.

I didn’t reject it, I just ignored it because it was beside the point. Please get your facts right if you intend to base an attack on them. The point was that you hadn’t watched the video you chose to judge. A point you now seem very keen to cover up.

Why bother to watch a video when I have researched this subject for many years and am intimately acquainted with the arguments for and against the Church? The correlation between the final vote count and the decline in church-going speaks for itself.

How can inconsistency be beside the point? On the one hand you say “people are learning to think for themselves and break free from superstition” and on the other you argue that most people have a religion… For many years people have written C of E on forms as a matter of course, without ever going to church, thinking of religion or asking themselves what they really believe.

Happy days for you perhaps - but very unhappy days for the victims of our sick society…

.
Perhaps…

Not perhaps but without the slightest doubt - unless you are one of the victims.

… but of course you still have provided no causal link between the diminishment of religious belief and your perceived (though not proven) degradation of society.

You have provided no alternative explanation of the increase in crime, the number of abortions, the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes. Are these factors insignificant? Are people’s beliefs unrelated to their behaviour?

What benefit do you think religious belief brings to society, that non-religious philanthropy does not?

The simple but powerful belief that we are all members of one family who are created in order to respect, help and value one another, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all equal and made in the image of the Creator with free will and responsibility for our thoughts and actions. The alternative is that we happen to exist, that we have no obligations to regard others as any more than strangers in a hostile universe whose interests often conflict with ours, that ultimately life is solely a question of physical survival in which justice is merely an illusion and death puts an end to all our hopes, ideals and aspirations. We become absolute masters of our own destiny, answerable to no one for our decisions and entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live - regardless of the consequences for others…

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists do not believe that life has no purpose - just that it’s not God’s purpose.

I am not going to deal with your statements about atheism and evolution for obvious reasons. What I am entitled to say is that the belief that the universe is purposeless undermines the objective value of human life. Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?

As I said above, morality has evolved from the need to form and maintain a cohesive and consistent society. It has evolved alongside - and as a result of - evolving human intellect.

So the needs of the individual count for nothing in your view of morality?

I knew you would be delighted! Yet you rejected my view that this is a pagan society brainwashed by fanatics like Dawkins who produce TV programmes about the evils of religion. A clear case of inconsistency.

I didn’t reject it, I just ignored it because it was beside the point. Please get your facts right if you intend to base an attack on them. The point was that you hadn’t watched the video you chose to judge. A point you now seem very keen to cover up.

Why bother to watch a video when I have researched this subject for many years and am intimately acquainted with the arguments for and against the Church? The correlation between the final vote count and the decline in church-going speaks for itself.

How can inconsistency be beside the point? On the one hand you say “people are learning to think for themselves and break free from superstition” and on the other you argue that most people have a religion… For years people have written C of E on forms as a matter of course, without ever going to church, thinking of religion or asking themselves what they really believe.

Happy days for you perhaps - but very unhappy days for the victims of our sick society…

.
Perhaps…

Not perhaps but without the slightest doubt - unless you are one of the victims.

… but of course you still have provided no causal link between the diminishment of religious belief and your perceived (though not proven) degradation of society.

You have provided no alternative explanation of the increase in crime, the number of abortions, the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes. Are these factors insignificant? Are people’s beliefs unrelated to their behaviour?

What benefit do you think religious belief brings to society, that non-religious philanthropy does not?

The simple but powerful belief that we are all members of one family who are created in order to respect, help and value one another, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all equal and made in the image of the Creator with free will and responsibility for our thoughts and actions. The alternative is that we happen to exist, that we have no obligations to regard others as any more than strangers in a hostile universe whose interests often conflict with ours, that ultimately life is solely a question of physical survival in which justice is merely an illusion and death puts an end to all our hopes, ideals and aspirations. We become absolute masters of our own destiny, answerable to no one for our decisions and entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live - regardless of the consequences for others…

 

[wanstronian]

Bascically what you have told us is that people are “learning” becuase they are, in your opinion, agreeing with you.

No. That’s not what I have told you, it’s just what you have chosen to hear.

Do you deny that we, as a race, have learnt new things in the last fifty years? Do you deny that the method by which we have acquired a significant portion of that knowledge, has been to question phenomena and try, in a methodical and scientific way, to understand them better? It is only when we ask questions that we can learn. People have merely applied this same, irrefutably successful, empirical questioning method to the existence and nature of God… and the result is a big fat Zero.

I would never claim that something is true purely due to my own subjective belief that it is. That I leave to theists. The evidence for human learning is everywhere, and it is undeniable.

 

[wanstronian]

It is not difficult to deduce from my statement that deists and even theists often have no religion because it makes not a jot of difference to the way they live.…

Yes, it’s quite easy to recognise you repeating your previous statement, but it clearly adds no value. What I want to understand is the correlation you made between ‘people with no religion’ and the result of the post-debate vote. Specifically, why it changed the voting so significantly.

“in other ways” is significantly vague and aptly sums up a haphazard process which leads to widespread amorality with the mentality “It’s all right if you don’t get caught”…

And again, you construct a straw man and treat your own unsubstantiated fabrication as if it were the indisputable truth. If you are claiming that Christian Religious Education classes are necessary to provide moral guidance, and that moral guidance is not available in any other form… then please provide your reasoning. Don’t just keep restating your assertion - it gets us nowhere.

Amorality dovetails neatly with secularity…

Again, you’ll have to provide some evidence of your claim if you want it to be taken seriously. Otherwise I could make a counter-claim with equal validity. Your opinion is just your opinion.

No categorical imperatives to worry about…

Now you seem to be claiming that Cat Imps are non-existent without Religious Education. Another assertion which you need to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Assertion without evidence is just opinion, remember.

As for “indoctrination” there is a large element of discussion with the pupils in present-day Religious Education.

That’s true, and why? Because the secular society has **rightly **made it illegal, at least in state schools (not sure about private) to state religious rhetoric as fact, or even to teach only Christianity. In fact, isn’t it just called ‘citizenship’ now? And has a specific section devoted to moral education. So you see, there is no decline in moral education, there’s just a decline in allowing the Church to get away with pretending morals come from God.

You regard yourself as an enlightened person whose mission is to enlighten others. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here! Your observations are based on a set of very strong beliefs that you wish to communicate, i.e. doctrines. How would you back up your doctrine that the right to life is a human convention?

I don’t have such a doctrine, as that implies it has no basis. Instead I point to historical evidence that clearly shows that some people’s lives were once not considered to have any value. That has now changed, because human moral memes have evolved. This is not my doctrine, this is history.

You have omitted the fact that criminality in the US is correlated with other factors like poverty, unemployment and social injustice. To what do you attribute the increase in crime and antisocial behaviour in the UK ?

How do you know it’s not linked in the same way in the UK?

Is it unrelated to what people believe?

I don’t know, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support your claim that it isn’t. You think nobody did bad stuff when everybody believed in God?

You asked me for a citation to support the claim that doctors are opting out of abortion.

Yes, and you provided it. But you forget, you made that claim in response to my previous comment about your implication about the advocacy of abortion. You haven’t defended that statement yet.

Constant over the last few years but a massive increase since the Abortion Act.** One woman in three** now has an abortion. Is that nor many?

Sorry, you’ve got your facts wrong again. It’s actually less than 2%. Also bear in mind that this site is anti-abortion, so the statistics are unlikely to be under-estimated.

If you dispute the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes you are welcome to inspect the statistics… and let me know the result… How about over a million one-parent families for a start?

Allow me to redirect me to the point. You made a claim about “many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes.” You need to substantiate it.

You have evaded the fact that many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes. And often treated without TLC, to put in mildly. How would you feel in such a situation?

Particularly phrases like ‘neglected,’ ‘unwanted, miserable and useless,’ and ‘shunted off’ are all examples of the ‘loaded words’ fallacy, and would be qualitative statistics - making your substantiation even more difficult. Still, I welcome you to provide substantiation, or shall we just consider your claim retracted?

What about the comatose victims of an accident?

There you have a point. (At last!!) It’s a difficult one - if a brain is dead, what use is the body? Do we consider them a person or merely a strain on limited medical resources? I don’t know. However, given your belief that the soul, the ‘person,’ is not located within the physical constraints of the body, I’m somewhat surprised at your implicit defense of euthanasia in this context. If the soul has Left The Building, what’s the value in maintaining a body

Why not? You have to concede that the Catholic Church defends the right of the unborn.

Yes, but it does so because it’s written in a book of unknown origin, rather than for any considered reason. Just because I agree with the conclusion, that doesn’t mean I agree with the reasons

 

[wanstronian]

You know that abortions are frequently carried out on eugenic principles?

If you’re referring to severely life-limiting foetal defects, then yes, I’m aware of this. It wasn’t clear from your post that this was a sub-set of your abortion argument.

It seems we agree on the subject of abortion - if not its rationale. Can we drop that now, the posts are getting a little long.

I am not going to deal with your statements about atheism and evolution for obvious reasons.

Well, no, you carefully avoided using the actual words.

What I am entitled to say is that the belief that the universe is purposeless undermines the objective value of human life.

Indeed. There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life. We, as humans, like to think there is, but we’re hardly objective bystanders.

Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?

Why must we be more significant?

So the needs of the individual count for nothing in your view of morality?

Define ‘needs.’ If an individual feels he ‘needs’ to commit murder, then yes, those needs count for nothing. The point is that human morality, necessarily, accommodates the needs of the individuals as far as is possible. It’s bound to, because the source is human and humans aren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot for no reason.

Why bother to watch a video when I have researched this subject for many years and am intimately acquainted with the arguments for and against the Church? The correlation between the final vote count and the decline in church-going speaks for itself.

I don’t disagree. I just think it’s a bit rich to start doling out judgments here and there on something you haven’t seen. Without seeing it, how do you know that it correlates with the subject you have researched? Are you not just using this specific video as a soapbox for your own sermonising?

How can inconsistency be beside the point?

You’re getting yourself confused. Your emotive language was beside the point, as it didn’t answer the question I had asked. It’s not inconsistent to ignore that which is irrelevant to the topic.

On the one hand you say “people are learning to think for themselves and break free from superstition” and on the other you argue that most people have a religion… For years people have written C of E on forms as a matter of course, without ever going to church, thinking of religion or asking themselves what they really believe.

So we finally get to the bottom of what you mean! You mean that people have a notional religion, without actually being religious. Why couldn’t you have just said this?

Not perhaps but without the slightest doubt - unless you are one of the victims.

Er… you’ve confused me here. Did you mean, “if you are one of the victims?”

You have provided no alternative explanation of the increase in crime, the number of abortions, the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes.

No, but it’s not me making the claims - I’m just asking you to provide evidence for yours. Are we back to the old theistic, “Prove my claims aren’t true!” fallacy again?

Are these factors insignificant? Are people’s beliefs unrelated to their behaviour?

Who knows? You claim not, I’m just waiting for your evidence.

The simple but powerful belief that we are all members of one family who are created in order to respect, help and value one another, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all equal and made in the image of the Creator with free will and responsibility for our thoughts and actions.

Right - the only additional thing that’s given you is the belief that we are ‘created’, and created in the ‘image of the Creator.’ You’ll have to explain how that belief objectively changes anything materially.

The alternative is that we happen to exist, that we have no obligations to regard others as any more than strangers in a hostile universe whose interests often conflict with ours, that ultimately life is solely a question of physical survival in which justice is merely an illusion and death puts an end to all our hopes, ideals and aspirations. We become absolute masters of our own destiny, answerable to no one for our decisions and entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live - regardless of the consequences for others…

That’s not the alternative, it’s just your continual, desperate, lunatic, theistic misconception of atheism. Despite reams of books, papers and forum posts clarifying this subject, you just keep on pretending that atheism is something it so clearly isn’t. I do understand why you have to do this, but it doesn’t make it any less pitiful.

 

[estesbob]

No. That’s not what I have told you, it’s just what you have chosen to hear.

Do you deny that we, as a race, have learnt new things in the last fifty years? Do you deny that the method by which we have acquired a significant portion of that knowledge, has been to question phenomena and try, in a methodical and scientific way, to understand them better? It is only when we ask questions that we can learn. People have merely applied this same, irrefutably successful, empirical questioning method to the existence and nature of God… and the result is a big fat Zero.

I would never claim that something is true purely due to my own subjective belief that it is. That I leave to theists. The evidence for human learning is everywhere, and it is undeniable.

Have we learned a lot in the last 50 years? Well we learned how to slaughter our children in numbers unimagined 50 years ago, learned how to set up a culture where our children our seduced by sex and materialism, we have learned how to convince people that deviancy is normal and we have learned that Science is no closer to explaining where the universe and all the matter in it came from now than they were 10,000 years.

No one is denying that humans learn-the dispute was you contention that people are learning that their parent and grandparents and all who went before them were consumed by superstition. There is not a single thing that science that has “learned” that puts into question the existence of God. in fact the more science reveal the complexities of the life and the physics the more obvious is it that this could not be the result of random events

 

[KindredSoul]

As someone who watched the entire debate (IIRC) I can honestly say that there was nothing about the debate that logically points an unbiased person to the conclusion that the Church is NOT a force for good in the world. Hitchens uses wit, and Fry uses appeal to emotions, whilst both ignore the great good done by the Church and insist that the bad things done by Catholics in history negate all the good ever done by any person motivated by Catholicism. That is the essential flaw with their reasoning, although the crowd swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. I implore my fellow Catholics of firm faith to watch the entire debate. See first hand, and be comforted (although saddened by the outcome) by the realization that the arguments put forth by these supposed intellectuals avoid the question altogether. They answer the question as though it were: “Is the Catholic Church the only force for good in the world” or as though it were “Is the Catholic Church exclusively a force for good, such that no one has done evil in the name of Catholicism?” They wrap this avoidance of the question in emotional appeals and flippant dry humor, and it has a surprisingly effective result on the crowd, a result quite possibly helped along by the human tendency to not want to be alone; in fact, for reasons not at all related to Reason or Logic, I found myself wanting to give in to Mr. Fry and Hitchenson simply because fighting the popular opinion seemed so very hopeless and tiresome, not to mention depressingly lonely. The desire not to be laughed at as a stupid fool is strong, even when the arguments for why you are a stupid fool are quite weak. But that’s all it is, and there was little, if any, truly compelling substance to their arguments.

Of course, most non-Catholics will disagree with me, excepting a few who are refreshingly not threatened by the admission that Catholicism, while not convincing to them, is neither objectively contrary to reason nor is it evil or without merit (i.e. good). Unfortunately, it’s often not enough to disbelieve in Catholicism, but realize that others have come to different conclusions and found value in and been convinced of Catholicism. It seems increasingly apparent that in order for unbelievers to be secure in their unbelief, they must not only believe Catholicism is “stupid and/or absolutely contrary to reason”, now they must believe it is evil or absolutely unproductive as well. I grow weary of the “Catholicism is stupid and/or evil” argument as it is nothing more sound or reliable than political mudslinging translated into the metaphysical realm. As with political candidates, if any non-Catholic worldview–including Atheism–is so grand, it should be able to stand on its own terms and merits, not on blatant attempts to disrespect the intelligence of or mar the reputation of Catholicism, or any other belief system for that matter. I am aware that Catholics have probably partaken in similar mudslinging in the past, and my point stands: Such mudslinging is not an effective or rational way to establish one’s own position as true or good, and only points to an underlying lack of security in the attacker’s own beliefs/disbelief, such that he feels he must attack every alternative with the utmost animosity in order to bolster his own self-worth and confidence. Instead of building up his own position, he feels he must tear others’ down. Christopher Hitchenson in particular is a glaring example of this, and Stephen Fry shows signs of it as well, wrapped in a great deal more charm and politeness to soften the blow and make it less obvious and seem more reasonable.

In short, the debate and outcome of this discussion on Intelligence Squared is nothing new, and nothing compelling.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[tonyrey]

You know that abortions are frequently carried out on eugenic principles?

Abortions are not only carried out because of severely life-limiting foetal defects…

There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life. We, as humans, like to think there is, but we’re hardly objective bystanders.

That belief confirms that in a secular society it is easier for people to ignore morality.
What is to stop you doing what you like? Apart from fear of the consequences?

Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?

Why must we be more significant?

We are not if you are correct!

The point is that human morality, necessarily, accommodates the needs of the individuals as far as is possible.

What happens if there is a conflict between the needs of society and those of the individual? Which is more important?

Are you not just using this specific video as a soapbox for your own sermonising?

What you are using this specific forum for? Expounding your ideas? The only difference is that I ask more civilly…

You mean that people have a notional religion, without actually being religious. Why couldn’t you have just said this?

It is obvious from the statistics of church-goers. The inconsistency remains.

Did you mean, “if you are one of the victims?”

I mean that you may be one of the possible victims but you don’t seem to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless!

You have provided no alternative explanation of the increase in crime, the number of abortions, the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes.

No, but it’s not me making the claims - I’m just asking you to provide evidence for yours. Are we back to the old theistic, “Prove my claims aren’t true!” fallacy again?

In other words you again take refuge in obscurity!

Are these factors insignificant? Are people’s beliefs unrelated to their behaviour?

Who knows? You claim not, I’m just waiting for your evidence.

More obscurity! If a man strongly believes he will be punished in an afterlife doesn’t he have a motive for being more careful to avoid serious crime than a man who is sure death is the end?

The simple but powerful belief that we are all members of one family who are created in order to respect, help and value one another, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all equal and made in the image of the Creator with free will and responsibility for our thoughts and actions.

Right - the only additional thing that’s given you is the belief that we are ‘created’, and created in the ‘image of the Creator.’ You’ll have to explain how that belief objectively changes anything materially.

It provides an objective basis for free will, responsibility, fraternity, value and purpose which is lacking in a pointless universe (Weinberg - and that is where the strange freaks of nature come in…)

The alternative is that we happen to exist, that we have no obligations to regard others as any more than strangers in a hostile universe whose interests often conflict with ours, that ultimately life is solely a question of physical survival in which justice is merely an illusion and death puts an end to all our hopes, ideals and aspirations. We become absolute masters of our own destiny, answerable to no one for our decisions and entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live - regardless of the consequences for others…

That’s not the alternative…

Then please explain whether you believe:

1. Death is the end of life
2. Whether we are entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live
3. Who is the absolute master of your destiny

What I want to understand is the correlation you made between ‘people with no religion’ and the result of the post-debate vote. Specifically, why it changed the voting so significantly.

In a predominantly secular society would you expect the voters to vote otherwise? If so why?

If you are claiming that Christian Religious Education classes are necessary to provide moral guidance, and that moral guidance is not available in any other form… then please provide your reasoning.

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything of the kind!

Again, you’ll have to provide some evidence of your claim if you want it to be taken seriously.

Secular means “pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred”. In an amoral universe morality is possible but it cannot be accommodated as easily as in a spiritual dimension.

Now you seem to be claiming that Cat Imps are non-existent without Religious Education. Another assertion which you need to justify if you want it to be taken seriously.

I have only to quote your own words:
“There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life. We, as humans, like to think there is, but we’re hardly objective bystanders” and
“Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?
Why must we be more significant?”

 

[tonyrey]

You know that abortions are frequently carried out on eugenic principles?

Abortions are not only carried out because of severely life-limiting foetal defects…

There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life. We, as humans, like to think there is, but we’re hardly objective bystanders.

That belief confirms that in a secular society it is easier for people to ignore morality.
What is to stop you doing what you like? Apart from fear of the consequences?

Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?

Why must we be more significant?

We are not if you are correct!

The point is that human morality, necessarily, accommodates the needs of the individuals as far as is possible.

What happens if there is a conflict between the needs of society and those of the individual? Which is more important?

Are you not just using this specific video as a soapbox for your own sermonising?

What you are using this specific forum for? Expounding your ideas? The only difference is that I ask more civilly…

You mean that people have a notional religion, without actually being religious. Why couldn’t you have just said this?

It is obvious from the statistics of church-goers. The inconsistency remains.

Did you mean, “if you are one of the victims?”

I mean that you may be one of the possible victims but you don’t seem to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless!

You have provided no alternative explanation of the increase in crime, the number of abortions, the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes.

No, but it’s not me making the claims - I’m just asking you to provide evidence for yours. Are we back to the old theistic, “Prove my claims aren’t true!” fallacy again?

In other words you again take refuge in obscurity!

Are these factors insignificant? Are people’s beliefs unrelated to their behaviour?

Who knows? You claim not, I’m just waiting for your evidence.

More obscurity! If a man strongly believes he will be punished in an afterlife doesn’t he have a motive for being more careful to avoid serious crime than a man who is sure death is the end?

The simple but powerful belief that we are all members of one family who are created in order to respect, help and value one another, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all equal and made in the image of the Creator with free will and responsibility for our thoughts and actions.

Right - the only additional thing that’s given you is the belief that we are ‘created’, and created in the ‘image of the Creator.’ You’ll have to explain how that belief objectively changes anything materially.

It provides an objective basis for free will, responsibility, fraternity, value and purpose which is lacking in a pointless universe (Weinberg - and that is where the strange freaks of nature come in…)

The alternative is that we happen to exist, that we have no obligations to regard others as any more than strangers in a hostile universe whose interests often conflict with ours, that ultimately life is solely a question of physical survival in which justice is merely an illusion and death puts an end to all our hopes, ideals and aspirations. We become absolute masters of our own destiny, answerable to no one for our decisions and entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live - regardless of the consequences for others…

That’s not the alternative…

Then please explain whether you believe:

1. Death is the end of life
2. Whether we are entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live
3. You are the absolute master of your destiny (Who else?!)

What I want to understand is the correlation you made between ‘people with no religion’ and the result of the post-debate vote. Specifically, why it changed the voting so significantly.

In a predominantly secular society would you expect the voters to vote otherwise? If so why?

If you are claiming that Christian Religious Education classes are necessary to provide moral guidance, and that moral guidance is not available in any other form… then please provide your reasoning.

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything of the kind!

Again, you’ll have to provide some evidence of your claim if you want it to be taken seriously.

Secular means “pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred”. In an amoral universe morality is possible but it cannot be accommodated as easily as in a spiritual dimension.

Now you seem to be claiming that Cat Imps are non-existent without Religious Education. Another assertion which you need to justify if you want it to be taken seriously.

I have only to quote your own words:
“**There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life. **We, as humans, like to think there is, but we’re hardly objective bystanders” and
“Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?
Why must we be more significant?”

 

[tonyrey]

In fact, isn’t it just called ‘citizenship’ now? And has a specific section devoted to moral education. So you see, there is no decline in moral education, there’s just a decline in allowing the Church to get away with pretending morals come from God.

You don’t even seem sure where it is taught! Do you know how seriously “citizenship” is taken in schools? A section sums it up nicely! Relegated to an obscure corner of the curriculum instead of being at the core of education… Why do you think there is a lack of discipline in schools and a shortage of teachers? Why do so many leave the profession?

How would you back up your doctrine that the right to life is a human convention?

I don’t have such a doctrine, as that implies it has no basis.

A doctrine is one of “a body of teachings”, whether or not it has a basis…

Instead I point to historical evidence that clearly shows that some people’s lives were once not considered to have any value. That has now changed, because human moral memes have evolved.

The fact that human beliefs have changed does not show that the right to life is a human convention…

You have omitted the fact that criminality in the US is correlated with other factors like poverty, unemployment and social injustice. To what do you attribute the increase in crime and antisocial behaviour in the UK ?

How do you know it’s not linked in the same way in the UK?

It is but in the US there is not the same percentage of abortions, divorces, teenage pregnancies, etc.

I don’t know, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support your claim that it isn’t.

Refuge in obscurity!

You think nobody did bad stuff when everybody believed in God?

What does that prove?

You asked me for a citation to support the claim that doctors are opting out of abortion.

Yes, and you provided it. But you forget, you made that claim in response to my previous comment about your implication about the advocacy of abortion. You haven’t defended that statement yet.

That was but one example - as you will soon see:

Constant over the last few years but a massive increase since the Abortion Act. One woman in three now has an abortion. Is that not many?

Sorry, you’ve got your facts wrong again. It’s actually less than 2%.

“One woman in three now has an abortion.”
bpas.org/bpaswoman.php?page=18

Also bear in mind that this site is anti-abortion, so the statistics are unlikely to be under-estimated.

Sorry! They are taken from the site of UK’s premier abortion provider

!
I

f you dispute the breakdown in family life, the increase in divorces and the number of elderly people in care homes you are welcome to inspect the statistics… and let me know the result… How about over a million one-parent families for a start?

Allow me to redirect me to the point. You made a claim about “many old people are neglected by their offspring and made to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless by being shunted off to residential and nursing homes.” You need to substantiate it.

It is directly related to the breakdown in family life and the increase in divorces, believe it or not…

Particularly phrases like ‘neglected,’ ‘unwanted, miserable and useless,’ and ‘shunted off’ are all examples of the ‘loaded words’ fallacy, and would be qualitative statistics - making your substantiation even more difficult. Still, I welcome you to provide substantiation, or shall we just consider your claim retracted?

Is it natural for parents to be deprived of the company of their children and grandchildren and compelled to live with strangers? You take it for granted because you live in Britain but
family life is the norm in most countries of the world. People are horrified when they hear of what is happening here…

What about the comatose victims of an accident?

There you have a point. (At last!!) It’s a difficult one - if a brain is dead, what use is the body? Do we consider them a person or merely a strain on limited medical resources? I don’t know.

I’m glad you hesitate to write them off!

However, given your belief that the soul, the ‘person,’ is not located within the physical constraints of the body, I’m somewhat surprised at your implicit defense of euthanasia in this context. If the soul has Left The Building, what’s the value in maintaining a body?

Why do you surmise that I’m defending euthanasia?

You have to concede that the Catholic Church defends the right of the unborn.

Yes, but it does so because it’s written in a book of unknown origin, rather than for any considered reason. Just because I agree with the conclusion, that doesn’t mean I agree with the reasons

The issue is whether the Catholic Church is a force for good, not your opinion of its reasons for defending the right of the unborn - which is incorrect anyway.