Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[Tantum_ergo]

Still waiting to hear, Angry, what you have to say regarding your ‘all religions can be false’ claim.

If you’re judging something as false, you must be judging it against something that is true.

Where did that truth come from? How do you know it?

And if not everything in a religion is false, how can you claim it is false without acknowledging the parts that are true? What’s the cutoff? Is every single religion or belief in the world–INCLUDING ATHEISM–more than 50% false?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So here’s the thing, Angry. If someone pointed out that I had fallen into, say, the basic “they’re, their, there” grammar error, I’d simply admit my error and say, “Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn’t know” and refrain from using doing that in the future.

To say, "Nope. Sometimes it’s correct to say ‘Few religious conservatives would agree with that logic (at least if their honest).’ and use ‘their’ instead of “they’re’ because I believe it’s correct in my own mind” is…well…

I’ll let you fill in the rest with how you would view someone who says that.

As I said before, I don’t really care what you think of me.
That post was meant to represent my personal opinion and viewpoint.

Moreover, if I make a grammar error and someone points it out, of course I would correct myself. But religion and its truths is far more subjective than English grammar.

And I certainly do not expect an objective opinion of Catholicism from Catholics:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Still waiting to hear, Angry, what you have to say regarding your ‘all religions can be false’ claim.

If you’re judging something as false, you must be judging it against something that is true.

Where did that truth come from? How do you know it?

And if not everything in a religion is false, how can you claim it is false without acknowledging the parts that are true? What’s the cutoff? Is every single religion or belief in the world–INCLUDING ATHEISM–more than 50% false?

Yes, I am judging it against reality (i.e. the physical universe).

The assumption that if a given religion (such as Catholicism) is not true, that nothing can be relied on, is arrogant and narrow-minded at best. And frankly, assuming that most religions are wrong about absolutely *everything *(such as the existence of the physical universe) is giving them far too much credit for consistency.

 

[PRmerger]

As I said before, I don’t really care what you think of me.

Not the point.

You, of course, as a thinking person, want to present yourself as having some sense of what’s true, what’s correct, what is understood.

That’s why you endeavor to spell things correctly, use correct grammar, try not to assume that someone who’s Asian is by default Chinese, and use correct terminology when discussing religion with folks, esp. if you’re on their forum.

But go ahead and continue to use RCC. You’ll put yourself in the same camp as lots of clueless Fundamentalists who object to the CC and use the term RCC, when they mean, specifically, the CC.

Moreover, if I make a grammar error and someone points it out, of course I would correct myself.

Good.

'cause you did use a grammatical error here.

You’re welcome. :tiphat:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, I am judging it against reality (i.e. the physical universe).

The assumption that if a given religion (such as Catholicism) is not true, that nothing can be relied on, is arrogant and narrow-minded at best. And frankly, assuming that most religions are wrong about absolutely *everything *(such as the existence of the physical universe) is giving them far too much credit for consistency.

I’m sorry but you still aren’t answering my question.

You don’t know the whys and hows of the physical universe, you don’t know how it starts, you don’t know how it ends, you don’t know your own ultimate interaction with it, and you don’t know EVERYTHING about it, yet you insist on it and it alone as reality?

And I did NOT state the ‘assumption’ that you made.

I stated that you are judging things by a standard of truth. What even gave you the idea of what is and isn’t true, and how you judge whether something contradicts that when you don’t even know everything about physical reality? How did ‘physical reality’ become your truth?

Remember, up until about 100 or so years ago, physical reality demonstrated over and over that flying was impossible. What physical reality are you talking about? Your physical reality changes from decade to decade and century to century and what was ‘real’ at one time isn’t real another. How true can that be?

And again, how did humanity, which by your physical reality came about by chance, come to believe in truth at all?

I really wish you’d address what I actually try to discuss with you instead of restating (incorrectly at that) what you THINK I said and then tearing it down. That’s too much like strawman arguments and I know you are more than capable of discoursing intelligently on real arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Good.

'cause you did use a grammatical error here.

You’re welcome. :tiphat:

Incidentally, as I read this clueless anti-Catholic’s page, where his use of “Roman Catholic” when he means “Catholic” tells me that he’s a very uninformed critic, I see he also has a poor grasp of grammar.

Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that what he’s saying ought to be dismissed simply based on his inability to understand simple grammatical rules. (i.e. the word “anathema”, when it’s in the plural, simply needs to be written as “anathemas”, NOT “anathema’s”.)

HOWEVER, it does make him appear, well, rather stupid, you know?

 

[Kithrus]

And I certainly do not expect an objective opinion of Catholicism from Catholics:shrug:

And I don’t expect an objective view on science from a scientist.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And I don’t expect an objective view on science from a scientist.

Well, we don’t want to make the same mistake that AA meant in his comment on Catholics.

Both Catholics (and scientists) are perfectly capable of giving an intelligent, reasoned, truthful and informative view about Catholicism --or science.

The problem comes in assuming that because a person is a Catholic–or a scientist, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or a man, or a woman, etc. etc., that the person cannot give an OBJECTIVE view because of an extreme ‘bias’.

Now it would be silly to say (I think) that a woman cannot give an objective view of what it’s like to be a woman–that only a MAN could be objective about women. Don’t you think?

Isn’t it just as silly to say that a Catholic cannot give an objective view of Catholicism–that only a non-Catholic, be he Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, atheist etc–can be objective about Catholicism?

For if a Catholic is supposedly biased TOWARD the religion he or she professes, is not a non-Catholic equally, or even more, biased AGAINST or in OPPOSITION to that religion?

If bias is something which precludes objectivity, then the bias AGAINST something should be equally suspect as the bias toward, don’t you think?

 

[hosemonkey]

Because.

In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.

What part of “NO” do you not understand?

 

[curlycool89]

And I don’t expect an objective view on science from a scientist.

Well, that would depend on what you want to call science or objective (this is from the point of view of Philosophy of Science)

If we’re looking at it from a Kuhnian point of view, then there is no objective view on science and we use science as long as it works. Not only that, but you can’t compare and contrast difference views of science because they are incommensurable, so one person saying their science is “correct” is just working within their own paradigm.

If you look at it from the point of view of Lakatos, there are different views of science, research programs, that you can compare based on how it’s doing (progressing or degenerating). But scientists can stick to a degenerating research program as long as they want.

Or, we can go with Feyerabend in that there is no such thing as objectivity and that science is what you make of it. What paradigm you choose is completely arbitrary and just as scientific as any other paradigm (I guess you can call his view the scientific analogue of spiritualism).

Logically speaking, the only objective and logical way to do science is to disprove things (falsificationism, Popper’s baby) . There is nothing logical about trying to prove things.

Those who put their faith in science are in fact just treating it as a religion. All scientific ideas have fundamental and metaphysical assumptions built into them, scientists just don’t like to admit it. Current science just seems to look for good correlation between cause and effect. Bayesianism can give you a probabilistic way of seeing how good the correlation is, but it’s not a confirmation.

Protip: Learning Philosophy of Science will ruin your views of science and make you question everything about it.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What part of “NO” do you not understand?

Pretty much the whole word, all 1 syllable of it.

 

[hosemonkey]

Pretty much the whole word, all 1 syllable of it.

So…Why do we still have folks who continue to question and debate this question? I thought that the Holy Father had made it pretty clear when he said that the Church did not have the power to ordain women. He said “No.” If this woman claims to be Catholic, then she should understand that the Church does not ordain women because of an inate prejudice, but that it does not have the power nor authority to do so. She is like a child kicking her feet and screaming Why! Why! Why!? If, as a Catholic, she believes that the Holy Father has final and supreme authority, then she needs to be still and go about her business. Then, there’s always the Episcopalians, where you can be any gender you please.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I hope once he’s done with the SSPX, he turns his attention toward those “Call to Disobedience” priests – preferably with an army of newly-reconciled traditionalists at his back!

:knight1:

 

[IronHammer]

Incidentally, as I read this clueless anti-Catholic’s page, where his use of “Roman Catholic” when he means “Catholic” tells me that he’s a very uninformed critic, I see he also has a poor grasp of grammar.

Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that what he’s saying ought to be dismissed simply based on his inability to understand simple grammatical rules. (i.e. the word “anathema”, when it’s in the plural, simply needs to be written as “anathemas”, NOT “anathema’s”.)

HOWEVER, it does make him appear, well, rather stupid, you know?

After reading a very thought-provoking 22 pages on this topic, I have to say, PRMerger, that you have stooped too low. Everybody knows that resorting to attacks on a person’s grammar and writing skills, is petty and uncalled for in an intelligent discussion. It is very likely the reason for his withdrawal from the discussion. For the record, I wholeheartedly disagree with AngryAtheist’s views and arguments and agree with everything you have said until you attacked his writing skills.

And I most emphatically do NOT believe that women should be ordained to the priesthood or the diaconate.

 

[IronHammer]

Well, that would depend on what you want to call science or objective (this is from the point of view of Philosophy of Science)

If we’re looking at it from a Kuhnian point of view, then there is no objective view on science and we use science as long as it works. Not only that, but you can’t compare and contrast difference views of science because they are incommensurable, so one person saying their science is “correct” is just working within their own paradigm.

If you look at it from the point of view of Lakatos, there are different views of science, research programs, that you can compare based on how it’s doing (progressing or degenerating). But scientists can stick to a degenerating research program as long as they want.

Or, we can go with Feyerabend in that there is no such thing as objectivity and that science is what you make of it. What paradigm you choose is completely arbitrary and just as scientific as any other paradigm (I guess you can call his view the scientific analogue of spiritualism).

Logically speaking, the only objective and logical way to do science is to disprove things (falsificationism, Popper’s baby) . There is nothing logical about trying to prove things.

Those who put their faith in science are in fact just treating it as a religion. All scientific ideas have fundamental and metaphysical assumptions built into them, scientists just don’t like to admit it. Current science just seems to look for good correlation between cause and effect. Bayesianism can give you a probabilistic way of seeing how good the correlation is, but it’s not a confirmation.

Protip: Learning Philosophy of Science will ruin your views of science and make you question everything about it.

Positively fascinating subject, curlycool89. Could you provide a link or two so I could study this subject further?

Thanks!

 

[PRmerger]

After reading a very thought-provoking 22 pages on this topic, I have to say, PRMerger, that you have stooped too low.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I believe comments such as the above would be better served by sending a PM, but, I take your correction and will consider it.

BTW, do you believe that what you are saying, here on the rather public thread, is taking the high road? Or would you call it, also, stooping “too low”?

Everybody knows that resorting to attacks on a person’s grammar and writing skills, is petty and uncalled for in an intelligent discussion. It is very likely the reason for his withdrawal from the discussion.

Well, that speaks to someone’s character, then, if someone would leave in a huff about something like that, no?

 

[IronHammer]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I believe comments such as the above would be better served by sending a PM, but, I take your correction and will consider it. BTW, do you believe that what you are saying, here on the rather public thread, is taking the high road? Or would you call it, also, stooping “too low”?

I thought it important, for the benefit of casual readers of the thread, to publicly point out, in a civil and respectful manner, that it is improper to criticize a person’s writing skills or call them “stupid”. Sometimes posters get in a hurry and mistakes are made. These boards are an informal place to discuss things and so mistakes in grammar are common and irrelevant. Usually people who resort to these types of attacks in an intellectual debate usually have nothing more to offer for their argument. It is considered a sure sign that they have lost the debate.

If we are to win our arguments, we must always take the high road and never be the ones to go “below the belt”, even in the face of absurdity.

Well, that speaks to someone’s character, then, if someone would leave in a huff about something like that, no?

And yet, AngryAtheist smiles inwardly, knowing who resorted to cheap shots.

 

[PRmerger]

And yet, AngryAtheist smiles inwardly, knowing who resorted to cheap shots.

I liken it to being in a kickball game and my telling AA, “Hey, I saw you riding your bike without your helmet yesterday. You might want to consider wearing one!”

And, because he was offended by my correction (which was, of course, true), he takes his ball and goes home.

Well! That’s curious, especially in light of the fact that he had given me permission, just hours before, to “go all Safety Nazi on me, that’s fine!”.

Thank goodness we have another ball and can still play.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought it important, for the benefit of casual readers of the thread, to publicly point out, in a civil and respectful manner, that it is improper to criticize a person’s writing skills or call them “stupid”.

You did note that I was not calling AA “stupid” but rather the comment was directed to Mike Gendron, yes?

Also, you are aware that I was given permission to correct Angry’s grammar by Angry himself.

So it’s peculiar what you’re objecting to.*

If you want to go Grammar Nazi on me that’s fine.

*NB: it is a false grammatical law that states that no sentences should end in a preposition.

 

[IronHammer]

You did note that I was not calling AA “stupid” but rather the comment was directed to Mike Gendron, yes?

After reviewing post #306, it appears to me that your statements are in response to AA.

Also, you are aware that I was given permission to correct Angry’s grammar by Angry himself.

So it’s peculiar what you’re objecting to.*

You told AA in post #311:

"You can continue to misspell things, too. And use grammatically incorrect words.

People will draw their own conclusions about your abilities by what you continue to proffer. "

Of course, he would respond with “If you want to go Grammar Nazi on me that’s fine.” He is taking the moral high road, knowing that it’s a cheap shot.

I am trying to be gracious and amicable about my point. I hope you see it too. This discussion is totally off-topic to the thread but critical if we want to successfully argue our postions.

Dominus Vobiscum