the catholic church is not a a completely unmovable object.
The issue is not that they cannot move, the issue is that they have not moved. They have refused to change their stance on these issues in which they’re clearly in the wrong.
Of course they can change — medieval scholars agreed that abortion was permissible for the first six weeks of pregnancy, because the soul didn’t enter the body until then. They moved the wrong way on that one.
you defend yourself by saying you are defending your beliefs. but then you attack the beliefs of anybody else.
That’s not quite accurate. I’m not saying “I’m just defending my beliefs, so leave me alone.” I’m defending my beliefs by arguing them. You’re just saying “stop being so mean”.
if you want to debate the merits of each of our own beliefs, that is fine, but to throw insults at a differing opinion is not a forum for communication.
Bring it on. I started out by asking you what the hell “respect” for your beliefs is supposed to mean. You still haven’t answered.
i will concede that i do not get science if you concede that you do not get religion. simple enough.
Nope. No concession here. I don’t agree with religion. I don’t like religion. I don’t believe as the religious do, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.
On the other hand, to “get” science is to understand why science uses the epistemological approach that it does. It’s not just one framework among many equally applicable choices, it’s the framework developed over centuries to most reliably gain understanding.
Three hundred years ago, scientists and clergymen were nearly indistinguishable — they were the same people, with the same training. In a process similar in many ways to biological evolution, two separate group emerged. Today, scientists and clergy have very different ways of approaching the world — the theological approach is virtually identical to what it was three centuries ago. It’s the scientists that have changed — precisely because the old approach kept giving them too many wrong answers.
and u obviously don’t understand the concept of elitism. granted, a subset of the elitist mindset could be rule by elite, but that is only an optional subset.
Uh, no. The term “elitist” means “practice of or belief in rule by an elite”. There’s a common secondary usage that means “consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.” I’ll grant that I am conscious of being an atheist, and proud of it. Aren’t you conscious and proud of being a Catholic (setting aside the child rape and those other things)? Is there something wrong with being proud of what you believe in?
and now you shift advocacies to free speech. fine. never have i attacked your right to say anything that you have said. my only indictment was on your tact, not your freedom.
Until you come up with what the hell “respect” is supposed to mean in this context, I can’t see it as anything more than a demand for immunity from criticism, which is in direct opposition to the ideal of free speech. Again, you believe in something that’s just about got the same tenor as believing in Santa Claus or fairies in your garden. What does it mean for me to “respect” that?
This is getting boring. You are presenting nothing new in any of you posts. You just keep cross applying your same logic. I mean, your rhetoric is infallible. Some priests did some bad stuff. and i am sure no atheist has ever done anything morally repugnant.
i am done with this. post all you want, i am no longer responding.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.