Any reasonably devout Catholic's on this forum?
- Thread starter Pate
- Start date
You mean they're not?
I no longer have to feel weird everytime I get on public transport when there is an asian guy on the plane, train or bus.
Still, I think I'll minimise the risk of being blown up and drive my own car lol, then I just need to worry about traffic once the bus has been blown up
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
"Based on a survey of more than 34,000 people, the report estimates that one in five children in Catholic institutions suffered abuse."
How does that compare to non Catholic childrens institutions....because all the ones I was in (secular, state ones) physical, sexual and mental abuse was also rife.
Not that it excuses anything, and the Catholic Church should hold it's institutions to a higher standard, but it is just interesting to see the comparison....
I know its terrible, I don't understand how people can blindly support an organisation that allows this to happen, and keep happening.
If Tesco managers were molesting kids to such a degree the store would be empty the next day.
Tesco would then have to openly correct the problem and do a massive advertising campaign to restore peoples trust in them.
Without justice seen to be done and this problem fixed, anyone who supports this church has less morals then "none-religious" people.
Still means pretty much nothing unless you have statistics for correlating sexual deviancy (specifically paedophilia and ephebophilia) amongst Catholics in the general population, and even then people would have to prove a causal link - correlations are not evidence.
The concept you're spouting is a false syllogism (sp?). Some Catholics abused children, therefore all Catholics are child abusers. You could easily equate such simple-minded conclusions to media-induced hysteria stimulated by semi-true factoids and suffered by that lowest intellectual rung in modern society - tabloid readers.
The concept you're spouting is a false syllogism (sp?). Some Catholics abused children, therefore all Catholics are child abusers. You could easily equate such simple-minded conclusions to media-induced hysteria stimulated by semi-true factoids and suffered by that lowest intellectual rung in modern society - tabloid readers.
I couldn't agree more. Dawkins is doing more harm to Atheism than most of the religious folk.
Myself, I am another of the "Technically" Catholic crew. Born and raised until I opened my own eyes.
Now I am fully Agnostic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
That's complete bull. The most extremist religious nutjobs fly planes into buildings. Dawkins has, at worst, offended people. So ****ing what?
I'm a non-practising Roman Catholic, I grew up in a devout household, went to an RC primary school and went to church frequently as a kid.
I never really got into it and by the time I started secondary school I was incredibly bored and inconvenienced by it all and haven't done a thing since then. My parents are basically the same.
I think it was just there for me and my siblings' upbringings - there's a hell of a lot of good lessons you can learn from and apply in adult life. Being raised as a Roman Catholic was a good thing.
I never really got into it and by the time I started secondary school I was incredibly bored and inconvenienced by it all and haven't done a thing since then. My parents are basically the same.
I think it was just there for me and my siblings' upbringings - there's a hell of a lot of good lessons you can learn from and apply in adult life. Being raised as a Roman Catholic was a good thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
More people in need of a serious dose of 'man the fudge up'.
Dawkins is awesome, and everyone should be entitled to the freedom to speak their own mind.
Also, Richard Dawkins isnt an atheist.
since you don't believe the nicene creed 'technically', you are not.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Richard Dawkins says he isn't an atheist but in essence and in effect he is. It's delightful that he claims his position isn't that of an atheist because he doesn't want to use faith for a position he espouses but once you've gone as far as he has in proclaiming there is no god then to all intents and purposes you'd picked a side - there's nothing wrong with that but to claim that it doesn't mean anything just rings false, plain and simple. He is an atheist, we can argue weak or strong but I'm not much bothered where he fits in with that.