Atheists have lowest divorce rate. Evangelical Christians have highest divorce rates.

[Dr Strangelove]

Seriously?

Yuh, seriously.[quote]
You’ll see all countries, races and faiths represented over a period of time. No group is exempt. However, the media like the Catholic angle, because it stems from the Left’s love of attacking the Church. They want to see it destroyed. First, the Catholic Church, then Christianity as a whole. Day by day, we see the attacks eroding public confidence in Christian institutions. Yes, it’s taken time, but study the news closely and every other day you’ll find another anti-Christian headline.

Where is that from? Surely they're not accusing all countries, races, and faiths of systematically abusing little Irish delinquents, truants and bastards?
Are you saying that the victims of this abuse who have come forward only recently (because the atmosphere in Ireland previously wouldn't allow them to do so) are just a bunch of rabble rousing lefties?


Why are you attacking the Catholic church, in a thread that is completely off topic? Is your hatred of the Catholic church so great that you had to threadjack this thread to make your point?

You just don't get it do you? This is a current event. The Irish commission recently published their report and the Irish government just agreed to indemnify the victims, yet they made an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church to not prosecute or publish the names of the perpetrators. If you read the report you find that even though only 45% of former students have made claims, 90% of the former students at these facilities who were questionned by the commission reported being abused. This is not a case of isolated random abuse. It was systematic and nearly universal.

[Ben Kenobi]

You just don't get it do you? This is a current event.

Then start your own thread. Don't jack this one on a completely unrelated topic.

[devilmunchkin]

Does it say anything about us atheists having a rough time finding a mate to begin with? *eep*

[Dr Strangelove]

Then start your own thread. Don't jack this one on a completely unrelated topic.

Did you notice that the previous 20+ posts were about Richard Dawkins? This thread was already jacked, I just jacked it from the jackers.

[Martin Gühmann]

Dude, I don't believe in God. I'm not angry that Richard Dawkins points out there's no evidence for God or anything else silly like that. Richard Dawkins is a moron because he believes that expertise in biology gives him expertise in theology. The two are very, very different subjects.

So the experts in theology should decide whether there is a god? Of course, those experts say that there is a god. In fact theologians are paid to say that there is a god. It doesn't matter whether their god does exist, it just matters that there are enough people who believe them.

In fact, if a priest or a professor in theology would claim there is no god, either their church would fire them, or their congregation would make them fired, or their congregation would runaway. So if a theologian wants to keep his job even if he has lost faith, he has to lie.

In fact there are some subareas of theology where it doesn't matter for instance church history or church music, even the origin of the bible, how many writers it has and how the single parts came into existence is a valid research area.

But what for the rest? They don't convince you that there is a god. So those experts are pretty bad in demonstrating that they are experts. Real experts like engineers may explain how their machines work, they aren't necessarily able to explain it to lay people so that they can understand it, but they can build machines that do work as they advertise.

In contrast, theologians cannot build machines that work, they cannot develop drugs that work better than placebo, and in their own field they cannot show that prayer works. And fact they cannot show that anything what they advise works, abstinence doesn't work to prevent AIDS or unwanted pregnancies. So far theologians haven't shown that they are experts in an aspect of the real world. There is as much for it as for farytology or hobgoblinology, namely nothing. So they can also be a bunch of liars who want to betray us. Or they are just betrayed betrayers who believe that stuff themselves and spread it well not in good faith but in bad faith.

In fact, we have reason to think that theologians are no experts, they just pretend. But with refusing to test their claims, we allow them to betray us. And I don't like it to be betrayed. So we better check their claims and that's all what Richard Dawkins does.

-Martin

[Traianvs]

Richard Dawkins is a moron because he believes that expertise in biology gives him expertise in theology.

If you cared to give his book on the subject a read then you'd know he's not making that claim.

The problem with theologians is that they assume God exists beforehand. When reading their writings, including linchpin Thomas Aquinas', you'll find that their explanations are correct only if you already assume God's existence. Might as well discard it all and be done with it already.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think you two have read anything by theologians for the last 200 years.

Many theologians are atheists, and many who aren't atheist believe in a god that is very different than the Christian God that most people believe.

Bringing up philosophical arguments which were discussed, in some cases, thousands of years previously and treating them as interesting, new, and valuable insight is foolish.

JM

[Traianvs]

I don't think you two have read anything by theologians for the last 200 years.

Many theologians are atheists, and many who aren't atheist believe in a god that is very different than the Christian God that most people believe.

Bringing up philosophical arguments which were discussed, in some cases, thousands of years previously and treating them as interesting, new, and valuable insight is foolish.

JM

Actually I have, since I went to a Catholic university, and everyone here gets a compulsory subject on religion and philosophy of life.

We were of course talking about theologians trying to make a case for God, and in most cases that is the Christian God since that's the one we are most familiar with.

Most of us do indeed realize that the God you are talking about is very different from the God most ordinary people believe in. Again this is something Dawkins outlined in one of the earliest chapters of his book. He refers to Einstein's concept of God to explain the difference FYI.

[Wezil]

Allow me to be first legal Forum.

[Japher]

what? why the bump?

[Lorizael]

There was a niggling spambot, but your humble servant Lorizael did away with it.

[DaShi]

That's racist!

[Dinner]

I say we ban him. Ban the banner?

[isabellered]

The dissolution of a marriage is a legal act that may not always coincide with a couple's emotional tearing asunder. Divorce is typically a painful process for all concerned. While it can take adults time to regain psychological equilibrium, whether or not children ever recover a stable perspective continues to be debated. Post-divorce hostility between adults, in addition to directly harming kids, is a sure indicator that the emotional split is incomplete.

[Alexander's Horse]

The thing that gets me about these literal bible christians is Jesus is clearly recorded IN THE BIBLE saying that divorce is a no, no. He couldn't have been any clearer about it.

I'm 20 years married next year