Hasn't been a day since the new pope was elected and we already have to witness this.

[FFRN00B90210]

Originally Posted by MracY

I don't see the logic of trying to show the intentions of a possible devil. My question's purpose was to gauge Mollo's understanding of the fundament of the issues.

Most people can see that this apparant pope's statement taken at face value is nonsense. The core meaning underneath, however, is roughly a statement that gay marriage should not be allowed, because it is against nature.

One could find arguments for this. It would take a decent intellectual effort to elegantly discredit it without relying on intuition or a fundamental belief. In doing so, you would be showing you have an understanding of the actual worth of liberal values.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Dynam0]

Homosexuality is a mental illness!!

*signs himself*

[C.I.A.]

People who are disgusted by any type of sexual behavior whether it be homo or hetero are usually disgusted with themselves too. It's called being repressed.







In other words, the pope secretly fantasizes about sucking cock and taking it up the butt. He wishes to be soaked in the cum of all the little choir boys of the world yet his papal vows forbid him. all this repressed energy needs some type of outlet so he takes it out on people who aren't scared to express their sexual desires; he wants to instill in them the shame that he feels every waking moment of his life.

[Crashfan3]

The Catholic church, like most other Christian organizations, will always be against homosexuality. I mean, really, can you imagine any pope in the distant future standing up in front of a crowd and saying "mkay, we're cool with gay marriage now, aiite?" All the conservative Catholics out there would have a stroke.

I'm neutral on the gay marriage issue; whether or not gays are allowed to marry doesn't matter to me, but trying to change an entity that has been anti-gay for centuries is a completely unrealistic goal.
However, because the church is so unchanging, as society inevitably becomes more and more progressive, the church will fade further and further into obscurity.

[Mollocephalus]

I don't really buy the theory that church is unchanging and will fade into oblivion like that; it's a documented fact that church clings on its values as long as it can, however, when they are not realistically usable anymore in the society, it will just move on like nothing happened. Afterall, the church is one of the wealthier organizations in the world, if not the wealthiest. It's their full interest to keep it alive, and they already changed their views in several occasion throughout history to get along with the times. They are just good at it.

The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss how someone in their right mind can, in this age, find any logical sense in what the pope says. And by that i mean the things that can be discussed, cause we are sure as hell done with debating faith at least for a while (then i suppose it will happen again! it's such an hot spot :P)

[Izzy]

Abandon Thread!

[25thhour]

Originally Posted by devonin

Counterargument 1: God and the Devil are made up. Nothing is their plan because they aren't real.

Guess I don't really need a second one.

Was gonna say that exact same thing...

[MracY]

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss how someone in their right mind can, in this age, find any logical sense in what the pope says. And by that i mean the things that can be discussed, cause we are sure as hell done with debating faith at least for a while (then i suppose it will happen again! it's such an hot spot :P)

It might had been worthwhile to answer my question for your argumentation on the matter, then.
I had actually asked it with the sole purpose of instigating such a discussion.

Ironically the person who answered my question that was directed at you was Devonin,
putting up random nonsense and sophistry to discredit faith.

[kommisar]

I'll say it again, homophobes aren't welcome here

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by MracY

It might had been worthwhile to answer my question for your argumentation on the matter, then.
I had actually asked it with the sole purpose of instigating such a discussion.

Ironically the person who answered my question that was directed at you was Devonin,
putting up random nonsense and sophistry to discredit faith.

Faith needs no discrediting because it has not proven itself worthy of credit to begin with. And since it has yet to prove itself (and I doubt it ever will), any resulting morals and values from it are also devoid of any substance.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". -Christopher Hitchens

But for the sake of argument, I'll address your other posts

Originally Posted by MracY

I don't see the logic of trying to show the intentions of a possible devil. My question's purpose was to gauge Mollo's understanding of the fundament of the issues.

Most people can see that this apparant pope's statement taken at face value is nonsense. The core meaning underneath, however, is roughly a statement that gay marriage should not be allowed, because it is against nature.

One could find arguments for this. It would take a decent intellectual effort to elegantly discredit it without relying on intuition or a fundamental belief. In doing so, you would be showing you have an understanding of the actual worth of liberal values.

There are no logical arguments for these kind of statements as they are based on falsehoods and ignorance. The only reason there is any sort of stigma on sexuality to begin with is because of values and rules laid down by the church. It's neither sophisticated nor rational. They are unfounded, unchanged beliefs that have been shoved down people's throats for hundreds/thousands of years. The only reason we feel shame for sexual related issues is because of the stigma created by these beliefs.

The bible says a woman on her period is unclean.
The bible says slavery is a-ok.
The bible says homosexuality is wrong.

See how these statements tell you only what is wrong and right but do not explain why (except tell you that it's god's word (which is to be proven as of yet anyway))? Shifting the burden of proof is something often done to favor religion, but that's not how it works. If you make a claim, you have to prove it, others do not have to disprove it. They need to prove that it is wrong, not us disprove that it is not wrong because how are we supposed to find evidence for a claim that is based on nothing?

We can only state facts, such as that we now know a woman's period is a natural occurring biological process or that we now realize slavery is not ok as it is an unfair treatment of equal human beings. And same for homosexuality being "wrong": It does not affect you in any personal way (physically or morally) and it does not go against nature. The argument of it being unnatural is such bullshit because it's based on an assumption that everything is meant to procreate without exception. Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species. So these animals are all of the devil now as well? There is nothing inherently wrong with someone's sexual preference as this church-defined definition of "wrong" is unfounded to begin with.

Also, if anyone says church's influence does not matter to them, ask yourself why it's not acceptable to walk around naked for example (regardless of whether you want that or not)? Other animals do it too, but that's apparently ok. There's no real well-founded moral objection to it. Sure it might be cold and you're leaving nothing to the imagination for others but hey, what's wrong about it per se?
Or what about masturbation? Since when is it shameful to pleasure yourself? There's no real reason to feel ashamed about it except for socially constructed shame as a result from church beliefs.
I don't think half of you realize how deeply rooted these religious morals really are.

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

And to be even fairer, gay marriage is kind of (that means UTTERLY!! ^-^) a jackoff issue compared to stuff like climate change, energy scarcity, and ocean acidification, and people whose lives revolve around debating it need to be kicked in the teeth, especially politicians and religious leaders.

Gays you are perfectly fine but go be gay somewhere other than the news or the vatican. You're distracting people from important things.

I hope you're trolling. Just because an issue is less important (in your opinion anyway), doesn't mean it's any less of an issue. It may not affect you directly but it certainly affects oh I dunno the homosexuals. Yes, the other issues need to be addressed as well but that's entirely unrelated to the issue of bigotry itself.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by MracY

Devonin, putting up logical arguments to rebut opinions.

I agree, there isn't much use in trying

[yo man im awesome]

oh dear this thread...

[devonin]

I find your lack of lack of faith disturbing.

[devonin]

MracY, you're doing one of two things here:

You're either trying to engage in a logical debate armed only with faith, which is foolish and will fail utterly because faith is incompatible with logic, as they are approaching things from opposite and mutually exclusive directions.

Or else you're trying to have a faith-based discussion, in which case, anybody trying to approach this question from the direction of logic might as well just stop talking to you about it, because, as above, the two are exclusive.

Please let us know which it is.

[igotrhythm]

Originally Posted by devonin

I find your lack of lack of faith disturbing.

Is Devonin gonna have to force-choke a bitch?

[MracY]

Originally Posted by devonin

MracY, you're doing one of two things here:

You're either trying to engage in a logical debate armed only with faith, which is foolish and will fail utterly because faith is incompatible with logic, as they are approaching things from opposite and mutually exclusive directions.

Or else you're trying to have a faith-based discussion, in which case, anybody trying to approach this question from the direction of logic might as well just stop talking to you about it, because, as above, the two are exclusive.

Please let us know which it is.

Your posts in this topic have been pretty childish. I thought you were the one to create logical fallacy threads, Devonin. Please commit yourself to your intellectual integrity.


I would like to point out that something has probably gone wrong here in the interpretation of my posts. I don't agree with the statements made in the OP, nor am I not an atheist. My posts in this topic were to try and invoke a discussion about the ways of the church and the possible rationalities and irrationalities concerning it.

I've had no will to enter such a discussion here from the beginning. You can keep up the discussion if you feel like it. Glancing over Spitfire's post, I think I saw some statements that may be interesting to contest.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by MracY

Your posts in this topic have been pretty childish. I thought you were the one to create logical fallacy threads, Devonin. Please commit yourself to your intellectual integrity.

Please show me any instance where I lacked intellectual integrity besides the obviously jokey post I instantly called myself out on and reposted?

I would like to point out that something has probably gone wrong here in the interpretation of my posts. I don't agree with the statements made in the OP, nor am I not an atheist. My posts in this topic were to try and invoke a discussion about the ways of the church and the possible rationalities and irrationalities concerning it.

That seems to me to be what we all thought too, and then when we tried to discuss with you, you fell back on the same tired old circular question-begging 'faith doesn't need proof' stuff and a bunch of personal attacks with no basis.

I've had no will to enter such a discussion here from the beginning. You can keep up the discussion if you feel like it. Glancing over Spitfire's post, I think I saw some statements that may be interesting to contest.

Your posts were to try and invoke discussion, but you had no will to enter such a discussion? Why would you try to invoke discussion when you weren't intending to actually discuss?

[Izzy]

The mentos was Mracy's post. The bus was devonin.

[Choofers]

A saw someone comment about the new pope on a different website, and how he should be trying to usher the religion into modernity.

Which is funny because religion itself has no place in modernity.

[devonin]

Religion is fine, it's Theism that is the problem.