Church influence down, morals changed?

B.A._Baracus

seamus wrote: »

Well, it's not really. That's a guy who wants to be a firefighter and has his own motivations for doing so.

It's not like without religion there would be no firefighters. So it's not a "good" from religion.

A fair point.

seamus wrote: »

We can point to plenty of good works done by religious groups, but that doesn't say that religion itself comes with inherent goods. There is no "good" in the world that is unique to religious or religious people.

But doesn't that also mean that any good from religious groups is also self motivated - feel good about themselves.

seamus wrote: »

Religion is an emergent property of how humans learn and interact with their environment and nothing else. Religion doesn't shape humans into what it wants them to be. Humans shape religion into what they want it to be.

I really agree with that line.
Overall, that also means religions aren't necessarily bad - it's people that are bad. Not everyone of course.

B.A._Baracus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You were on about some mythical firefighter and I asked about atheists in that profession and you start on with your victim spiel.

You're clutching at straws mate.
Look, you think of am some bible thumper (or whatever) and I think you love to post your hated of religion at any chance.

Woop-dee-doo. Now what? around the merry go round we go? or we can both accept we don't care what the other thinks...

ancapailldorcha

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

You're clutching at straws mate.
Look, you think of am some bible thumper (or whatever) and I think you love to post your hated of religion at any chance.

Woop-dee-doo. Now what? around the merry go round we go? or we can both accept we don't care what the other thinks...

Where have I posted that I hate religion here? Quote please.

stoneill

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is about the only part of that post that is true. religion is about control. Control by those who run the religion. Any benefits to others are incidental.

Totally agree, I always though how brilliant the concept of confession is.
Imagine the total power you have with all the kings and queens of Europe willingly telling you everything that's going on under the guise of confession - the church knew everything, no wonder they had so much power and influence.

ohnonotgmail

stoneill wrote: »

Totally agree, I always though how brilliant the concept of confession is.
Imagine the total power you have with all the kings and queens of Europe willingly telling you everything that's going on under the guise of confession - the church knew everything, no wonder they had so much power and influence.

Scientology does the same thing with its "auditing".

B.A._Baracus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where have I posted that I hate religion here? Quote please.

Well ...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's like a f*cking cult, it really is.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As I recall, yes. Funny how the defenders of Christianity will gleefully ignore all of it save for the handy bits they can use to justify atrocities and oppression.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Shame aul JC didn't take an interest in his priests when they were molesting children and his pope when he was promoting and waging wars.

... Come on now I don't think it would take an FBI profiler :pac:

ancapailldorcha

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Well ...






... Come on now I don't think it would take an FBI profiler :pac:

The first refers to the equating of criticism with hatred, the second is about religious hypocrites and the last is about inconsistency.

If that's really the best you can do, leaving it there might be best.

ohnonotgmail

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Well ...






... Come on now I don't think it would take an FBI profiler :pac:

is there any anything incorrect in the posts you quoted? You have an issue with a poster stating things we already know. would you prefer if we didnt speak of such things again?

RonaVirus

zanador wrote: »

Yes, they definitely have, since the fall of the church we have started caring for our LGBTQ communities, have supported women in their choices, have allowed unhappy couple to divorce, and also are hopefully on the road to stop judging women for having sex. That's a bit far off though I'd say from some posters..

Anyhoo, our morals have changed to more care for each other and less judgement on actions so my answer is yes.

Changed for the worse right?

B.A._Baracus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is there any anything incorrect in the posts you quoted? You have an issue with a poster stating things we already know. would you prefer if we didnt speak of such things again?

If he don't hate religion then i'm chinese

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The first refers to the equating of criticism with hatred, the second is about religious hypocrites and the last is about inconsistency.

If that's really the best you can do, leaving it there might be best.

Dude, you clearly hate it (and thats ok) but not admitting to it, after all that you have have said, speaks volumes to what type of character you have.

but you're right. leaving there is best.

ohnonotgmail

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

If he don't hate religion then i'm chinese

perhaps try to answer the question instead of deflecting

strandroad

stoneill wrote: »

Totally agree, I always though how brilliant the concept of confession is.
Imagine the total power you have with all the kings and queens of Europe willingly telling you everything that's going on under the guise of confession - the church knew everything, no wonder they had so much power and influence.

It gives you power over regular people too. I was 7 when I had my first confession and the priest was already asking me about unclean thoughts. At 7 I had no idea what he even meant... but that's how they start controlling sexuality. Strangers interrogating 7 year olds on their sexual habits and penalising any - it's a ridiculous concept if you take it out of church context yet here we are!

Glad to see the demise of that for sure. It has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with control.

B.A._Baracus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps try to answer the question instead of deflecting

Ok... heres the answer.
You don't post things like he did unless you really despise something. You can not post those things and love religion. He hates religion fair enough! Just call a spade a spade... that's my point. is that ok with you tho? :pac:

ohnonotgmail

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ok... heres the answer.
You don't post things like he did unless you really despise something. You can not post those things and love religion. He hates religion fair enough! Just call a spade a spade... that's my point. is that ok with you tho? :pac:

yeah that wasnt the question I asked.

ancapailldorcha

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ok... heres the answer.
You don't post things like he did unless you really despise something. You can not post those things and love religion. He hates religion fair enough! Just call a spade a spade... that's my point. is that ok with you tho? :pac:

And yet you can't quote a single post demonstrating that.

B.A._Baracus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah that wasnt the question I asked.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps try to answer the question instead of deflecting

Now who's deflecting haha.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's like a f*cking cult, it really is. The fact that you have to come out with victimhood sh*te like this is just weak to be honest.

You can either make a positive case for religion in the 21st century or you can turn it into yet more anti-woke/PC, culture war scutter and you've clearly plumped for the latter option.

Well, that is an incoherent rant.

ohnonotgmail

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Now who's deflecting haha.

not me. I asked you a straighforward question and you have refused to answer it.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As I recall, yes. Funny how the defenders of Christianity will gleefully ignore all of it save for the handy bits they can use to justify atrocities and oppression.

I am pretty sure that Bush didn't say that at all. The war against Iraq wasn't pushed as a religious war at all. The vast majority of European wars have not been religious wars, even though people who fight may themselves be religious.

Religious wars, properly described, were wars primarily about religious differences. Not even Northern Ireland can be easily described as that. Only to my mind, the 30 years war, the English civil war, and the Crusades amongst some others have definite religious only reasons.

wiki says 7%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

Capitalism, imperialism, stalinism and other modern philosophies, often humanistic, have killed more people.

B.A._Baracus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not me. I asked you a straighforward question and you have refused to answer it.

I did. Just like you did

Actually, so how do I become a level 100 die hard atheist? I assume you're level 100 cause you are very good at deflecting. Like is there a group or rally I have to join?
It's just my job takes up most of my time so I wouldnt be able to correct those 'religions people' online full-time :pac:

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I am pretty sure that Bush didn't say that at all. The war against Iraq wasn't pushed as a religious war at all. The vast majority of European wars have not been religious wars, even though people who fight may themselves be religious.

Religious wars, properly described, were wars primarily about religious differences. Not even Northern Ireland can be easily described as that. Only to my mind, the 30 years war, the English civil war, and the Crusades amongst some others have definite religious only reasons.

wiki says 7%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

Capitalism, imperialism, stalinism and others have killed more people.

Europe had 300 years of religious wars after the reformation. are you forgetting those? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

uptherebels

Mad_maxx wrote: »

a small minority of fiends in the catholic church should not mean we completely dismiss the stability in society that a strong church provided

im a non believer too by the way

Except it wasn't just a small minority of fiends. They were protected by the organisation as a whole, helped by those in the church being unwilling or unable to speak out. Where protecting it's power and money was more important than the lives of the women and children in their care.
What stability are you referring to? The only thing a strong church provided was a boot on the neck of those under it.

partyguinness

You do not need the RC (or any religion) to impart morals.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is there any anything incorrect in the posts you quoted? You have an issue with a poster stating things we already know. would you prefer if we didnt speak of such things again?

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I did. Just like you did

Actually, so how do I become a level 100 die hard atheist? I assume you're level 100 cause you are very good at deflecting. Like is there a group or rally I have to join?
It's just my job takes up most of my time so I wouldnt be able to correct those 'religions people' online full-time :pac:

that is the question i asked. you have not answered it.

to answer YOUR question you just need to start thinking for yourself.

B.A._Baracus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is the question i asked. you have not answered it.

to answer YOUR question you just need to start thinking for yourself.

But it was I who thought of the original question, before the question was asked, that lead to the question you asked yourself before you asked such question.





















Am I level 100 yet? :pac:

ohnonotgmail

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

But it was I who thought of the original question, before the question was asked, that lead to the question you asked yourself before you asked such question.




















Am I level 100 yet? :pac:

yeah but if i said what at I would get banned.

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unfortunately what you describe as "political correctness" breaks down to simply "don't be a ****". People moaning because they can't be as publicly hateful as they could in the past.

Yeah , that's the sales pitch alright

B.A._Baracus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah but if i said what at I would get banned.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And yet you can't quote a single post demonstrating that.

Well let me put it this way, I get the feeling that if one were to go into the forum you moderate and post abut Islam they way you post about Christianity here, there would be forum bans before the day was out.

By the way I think this forum as a whole should indeed moderate attacks on Islam. People fail to distinguish between radical and standard islam.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Europe had 300 years of religious wars after the reformation. are you forgetting those? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

No, they were included in the 7%. And even then the wikipedia entry I posted says you cant even say that many of these were primary religious.

Edit:

In fact so does your link.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they were included in the 7%. And even then the wikipedia entry I posted says you cant even say that many of these were primary religious.

We will to agree to disagree on that. I think we can both agree that ireland is a better place without the malignant influence of the catholic church.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We will to agree to disagree on that.

We might agree to disagree but you are wrong. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Religious wars weren't that common.

I think we can both agree that ireland is a better place without the malignant influence of the catholic church.

Yes provided the new Church of Woke doesnt become as intolerant, which I doubt. I think Ireland is a guilt and shame culture.

My feeling is that anti Catholicism in Ireland is fairly rampant amongst people who dont particularly like the fact that we broke away from the Empire, and thus we over estimate the bad parts of our history while most European countries ignore the bad parts of theirs.

Is it better now? The 90s and 00's were better but a new priesthood has arisen.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

My feeling is that anti Catholicism in Ireland is fairly rampant amongst people who dont particularly like the fact that we broke away from the Empire, and thus we over estimate the bad parts of our history while most European countries ignore the bad parts of theirs.

what sort of bollix is that? we dislike the catholic church because we want to be part of the empire? Get the **** out with that nonsense. I've read some ****e on boards but that takes the biscuit. the church history we have an issue with happened after we split from britain. You know, all the buggering of young boys, the church collusion in same, the throwing of babies into mass graves. that kind of stuff.

Mad_maxx

uptherebels wrote: »

Except it wasn't just a small minority of fiends. They were protected by the organisation as a whole, helped by those in the church being unwilling or unable to speak out. Where protecting it's power and money was more important than the lives of the women and children in their care.
What stability are you referring to? The only thing a strong church provided was a boot on the neck of those under it.

it educated an enormous number of people globally , those who taught did so for almost no reward materially

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

it educated an enormous number of people globally , those who taught did so for almost no reward materially

It (the church or the relevant order) got paid to do it. Also, can you just imagine the horrific stories that never/have yet to come to light about what went on abroad.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mad_maxx wrote: »

it educated an enormous number of people globally , those who taught did so for almost no reward materially

I'm not exactly sure I'd call it "education" - more indoctrination - but it wasn't a very pleasant experience for a lot of kids back in the day, and they were most certainly not doing it unrewarded and out of the kindness of their hearts.

The Catholic Chruch is not exactly in a bad place, materialistically speaking.

uptherebels

Mad_maxx wrote: »

it educated an enormous number of people globally , those who taught did so for almost no reward materially

Except it wasn't just education, it was education based on what they wanted to teach mixed with indoctrination. That is before we get to the abuses within religious run institutions.
Don't these people believe their reward comes when they die?

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

Except it wasn't just education, it was education based on what they wanted to teach mixed with indoctrination. That is before we get to the abuses within religious run institutions.
Don't these people believe their reward comes when they die?

By and large the Irish education system was secular in focus. People did State exams. The subjects were not religious, except for a class which wasn't in fact examined.

No education system is devoid of some indoctrination though.

uptherebels

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By and large the Irish education system was secular in focus. People did State exams. The subjects were not religious, except for a class which wasn't in fact examined.

No education system is devoid of some indoctrination though.

Except 1. We were talking globally not just Ireland.
2. Being thought by religious controlled institutions has wider issues than just religion class. Sex education, lgbt issues etc etc.
3. You didn't mention anything of the abuses carried out.
But hey it's all good because the students sat state exams.

iamstop

The sooner the notion that people need the church for moral guidance dies out the better.

runawaybishop

Morals, the Catholic church? You must be joking, a pyramid scheme with a history of murder, prostitution, extortion, paedophila, orgies, nepotism, fraud and just in general being a bunch of ***** to people.

It's just an extortion racket, do what we say or else you go to hell. Don't forget to #donate. The Church is worth billions but local churches always have the hand out for more money to fix their roof. Various leaders have sold people titles, clemency, promised to get a loved out out of purgatory quickly etc.

The history of corruption goes back centuries. The current Vatican bank closed around 10% of its accounts as they were involved in fraud. It is riddled with dodgy dealings. The longest running con trick ever.

ancapailldorcha

iamstop wrote: »

The sooner the notion that people need the church for moral guidance dies out the better.

I feel like if you removed the community and charity aspects of it, there'd be nothing worth saving about the Church in Ireland.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I feel like if you removed the community and charity aspects of it, there'd be nothing worth saving about the Church in Ireland.

Aspects which could be done just as well if not better without them.

To be fair though, these are my opinions on all rleigions, not just catholicism. People rely on the crutches too much.

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

Except 1. We were talking globally not just Ireland.

No we aren't. But Catholic schools tend to be fairly academic anywhere.

2. Being thought by religious controlled institutions has wider issues than just religion class. Sex education, lgbt issues etc etc.

Maybe, but every form of education has some indoctrination in it.

3. You didn't mention anything of the abuses carried out.
But hey it's all good because the students sat state exams.

No I didn't but that wasn't the point I was replying to. I was replying to the claim that all catholic schools did in Ireland was teach religious indoctrination.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

don't forget the blessing for the Brits and the Normans to invade ireland came from the pope and our own church convinced us we deserved it for being sinners

Yeh, the first is true. That said that particular Pope was English. So they have always been at it.

Antares35

Mad_maxx wrote: »

agreed but there are aspects of a religious society which bring benefits , a society where " anything goes " will bring problems of its own and who,s to say that is the better way ? , we just assume it is because our liberal betters of today tell us it is

received wisdom of today etc

An absence of religion doesn't necessarily mean "anything goes". We have a legal system. You'd swear it was the fear of God that keeps people on the straight and narrow

Mad_maxx

uptherebels wrote: »

Except it wasn't just education, it was education based on what they wanted to teach mixed with indoctrination. That is before we get to the abuses within religious run institutions.
Don't these people believe their reward comes when they die?

do you think proponents of a wholly secular education system do not wish to indoctrinate ?

your last line is just reductive

jaxxx

Religion did not come before moralily.. .. .. GTFO with that ludicrous concept.

Mad_maxx

iamstop wrote: »

The sooner the notion that people need the church for moral guidance dies out the better.

so who will then provide moral guidance because vacuums are always filled ?

perhaps Una Mullaly will appoint herself the new Mc Quaid ?

ancapailldorcha

Mad_maxx wrote: »

so who will then provide moral guidance because vacuums are always filled ?

perhaps Una Mullaly will appoint herself the new Mc Quaid ?

People are not empty vessels for a would-be overlord to fill. They're capable of rational thought. The days where we needed the Church's perversion of morality are long gone.