Papal Visit to the UK

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure, but are these criminals supported/protected by a world wide religious organisation?

No evidence that the Church is systematically protecting them. Quite the opposite. The Church tries their best to get rid of them and expose them.

Yeah, it was way more reasonable when the church dictated how things was done

And you believe this was true at a certain point in time?

[giblets]

Have I stopped beating on my wife? I see no evidence that the Church has shielded pedophiles. Certain bishops, yes, but they don't speak for me or the Church as a whole.

But when some people spray paint a Catholic church you make a generalization about everyone who isn't Catholic?

I went to school there, so this was my classmates who did it. Yeah, it shocked me. I come on this thread here and I see the exact same sentiment. Anti-Catholicism on campus wasn't exactly hard to find. You see it everywhere. You make it sound like this prejudice is rare, sadly it's not.

Catholics really don't have it that bad. No one is trying to stop them from getting married or adopting children, for example.

[MikeH]

lets remind ourselves of who said what, because it's rather important in the context of this debate.

me in bold, you in italics.



your statement is what i took issue with, and what started this exchange. so to say now that you can't remember and can't be bothered to check it (because it's so hard to go back two pages...) is a bit much. i still maintain that there are (a lot) of questions that can't be answered using a scientific method. someone else (bebro?) said that science isn't some sort of magic meant to answer everything and i agree with them. this is not a criticism of science.

Ok so what I said was correct. Good. I said there were no questions that it was impossible to answer, I didn't say that we would definitely answer them. Thanks for checking.

[MikeH]

the question was phrased in a very simple and clear way, so i don't know what you're trying to say here. we talk about love a lot, in our own lives, in books, in music, in all sorts things and ways. it is perfectly legitimate to ask and explore the question of 'what is love'.

you haven't provided anything like a comprehensive answer i'm afraid. you have provided a chemical explanation and talked about some other things which are at best ancillary to the question i asked. it's been pointed out several times why i and others think your answer is inadequate. you'd do better to address that rather than claiming that you've provided THE answer and then bleating that people won't accept your answer.

I answered how it works, how it came about and pointed to how understanding those things show us how to deal with it. I still haven't got a specific answer to what that hasn't covered. I really haven't. Go back in this thread and see if you can find something, because I can't. Generalities and uncomfortableness with the answer, but no "but that doesn't cover x, y and z"

[MikeH]

errr what? where did i say the science was 'wrong'. i very explicitly said that i don't deny the chemical reactions or the effect they have. i am saying that people think about it in a different way, and that it is important to look at it from this point of view because THIS IS HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK AND HOW THEY MAKE DECISION WHEN FACED WITH SITUATIONS IN LIFE. when the question is what is love, do you not think that you need to look at how people in actually interact with each other?

do you think that someone who studies brain chemistry as their work thinks about love just in terms of the chemistry, or that (s)he thinks about it in a similar way to everybody else?

That's what I meant, did you not read all the stuff I said about science dealing with how people interact with each other and why?! Science can already explain and predict how people will make decisions that affect their lives and it's an area we are only starting to get good at. It's complex, because everyone has a complex history that affects the outcome, but even with our limited knowledge we're pretty good at predicting people.

Just because people don't tend to think that it is a science problem, doesn't mean that science can't answer it.

And yes, broadly speaking almost everyone thinks in the same way as everyone else. Our thoughts, feelings and emotions are incredibly similar. Much more than we like to think. We tend to be quite arrogant and think our thought processes and emotions are unique. There are cases where people have damaged personalities either through mental or physical trauma, but basically, we all think the same. With some modification/training based on for cultural upbringing.

It's another area where science is non-intuitive.

[giblets]

[Ben Kenobi]

But when some people spray paint a Catholic church you make a generalization about everyone who isn't Catholic?

Christ. I wasn't a Catholic either. I know perfectly well that there are folks who aren't Catholic who actually like the Church.

When the campus paper runs cartoons that lambaste the pope, yeah I have a problem with the prevalent attitude on campus. Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't people who are bigots wrt to Catholicism? Why wasn't for example the humanist club on campus spraypainted. Or the Communists.

Catholics really don't have it that bad. No one is trying to stop them from getting married or adopting children, for example.

So you find vandalism 'not that bad'. There you go. This is why I'm no longer on your side, because you condone the action. Disgusting.

See, what I believed is this. I believed that the Church was wrong and that they had a right to speak out their mind. Wrong on marriage, wrong on science, wrong on religion. Yet, did Catholics storm out and destroy my stuff? No. Yet people who hated the church went out and destroyed their stuff. All because they disagreed with them. I'm sorry, that's not defensible. Ever. All the Catholics I knew, even when I was on the other side put up with a ton of crap and garbage and bull****.

You think I'm not sitting there noticing? Watching how the tolerant people absolutely explode when confronted with an opinion to which they do not agree?

Perhaps I'm not really a conservative after all. I have an affinity for the classic liberalism of many of the radicals of former ages. I want a university where controversial ideas are not only discussed but brought forth because that is what universities are for. Yet, sadly that isn't the case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's obviously not as bad as stopping you from getting married or adopting children; and if you think it is, then you are a moron.

[BlackCat]

No evidence that the Church is systematically protecting them. Quite the opposite. The Church tries their best to get rid of them and expose them.

Oh, of course - sending priests and nuns that are suspeceted of crimes to other places are just routinely "rotating duty".

[giblets]

Christ. I wasn't a Catholic either. I know perfectly well that there are folks who aren't Catholic who actually like the Church.

When the campus paper runs cartoons that lambaste the pope, yeah I have a problem with the prevalent attitude on campus. Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't people who are bigots wrt to Catholicism? Why wasn't for example the humanist club on campus spraypainted. Or the Communists.



So you find vandalism 'not that bad'. There you go. This is why I'm no longer on your side, because you condone the action. Disgusting.

See, what I believed is this. I believed that the Church was wrong and that they had a right to speak out their mind. Wrong on marriage, wrong on science, wrong on religion. Yet, did Catholics storm out and destroy my stuff? No. Yet people who hated the church went out and destroyed their stuff. All because they disagreed with them. I'm sorry, that's not defensible. Ever. All the Catholics I knew, even when I was on the other side put up with a ton of crap and garbage and bull****.

You think I'm not sitting there noticing? Watching how the tolerant people absolutely explode when confronted with an opinion to which they do not agree?

Perhaps I'm not really a conservative after all. I have an affinity for the classic liberalism of many of the radicals of former ages. I want a university where controversial ideas are not only discussed but brought forth because that is what universities are for. Yet, sadly that isn't the case.

Yep, let's take one incident where some paint is sprayed on a Catholic church and judge an entire group of people by it. This is like when you judged homosexuals as a group because of what your gay landlord did.

And no I don't condone vandalism.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's obviously not as bad as stopping you from getting married or adopting children; and if you think it is, then you are a moron.

Imran, do you think it's ok for someone to spraypaint a church because they disagree with what the church teaches? Doesn't matter what the excuse is, it's still wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

judge an entire group of people by it

No, I judge people by their actions. You've proven time and time agaon that you hate the Catholic church. As have Mike H and numerous people here. Same with my ex-landlord.

As I said I was one of you. I'm as embarrassed today by your conduct here as I was back then. It simply makes no sense to me. I can understand honest disagreement, but this goes well beyond. Arguing but they believe in traditional marriage is a horrible argument. It's like, it's ok for me to vandalise the Commie displays because I disagree with them.

[giblets]

No one is saying vandalism is okay.

I do dislike the Catholic Church, in much the same way that I dislike the church of scientology. That doesn't mean I think Catholics should have their rights taken away from them. I do not condone vandalism.

[Dinner]

The good news is he's left the UK and he didn't rape any little boys nor did he cover up the rape of any little boys. That has to be a record in and of itself.

[Dinner]

While I agree with virtually all of that it's hard to say that isn't a traditional Protestant argument against Catholicism which an atheist has coopted.