www.ditl.org

Uzume wrote:Nope, it is not

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you referring to my post or the original question?

What arguments would you have made in favour of it, then?

Sionnach Glic wrote:What arguments would you have made in favour of it, then?

In favor of the Church being a "force for good?" That's fairly simple: the Church offers the consolation and emotional support of faith for million (perhaps billions.) While there are many here who will say that this a crutch, rather than real support, that's immaterial to the people who derive comfort from it.

In addition, while there have been people who have used the Church (or any faith) as an excuse to do terrible things, there are also many people who have been guided toward true right thinking and genuine righteousness by their faith.

Does that feeling of warm fuzzyness really ballance out all the evil that the Church is still doing elsewhere, however?

Indeed, I'd actually argue that your point proves just the opposite. The friendliness and feeling of community is generally done on the ground level, by simple preists on the lowest rungs of the hierarchy who have no real input on the Vatican's decisions and decrees. It's the core of the RCC itself that's rotten, and it goes all the way to the top. And the core of the RCC is where the majority of its evils have, and still are coming from.

#1 - I was playing devil's advocate. You asked about arguments on the other side of the debate.

#2 - Balance? No, I don't think there's an issue of balance at all. I don't believe in moral balance. If I murder one man, and save the life of another, I'm still a murderer. In this case, I would say that the Church can be a force for good - as I've delineated - as well as a force (or better, excuse or cover) for bad. BTW, I'm not sure I wouldn't call the laity and the grass-roots clergy, rather than the upper heirarchy, the "core" of the Church.

#1
Fair enough.

#2
When I was reffering to the "core", I was reffering to the guys in charge. The guys at the centre of things, so to speak.

Mikey wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:What arguments would you have made in favour of it, then?

In favor of the Church being a "force for good?" That's fairly simple: the Church offers the consolation and emotional support of faith for million (perhaps billions.) While there are many here who will say that this a crutch, rather than real support, that's immaterial to the people who derive comfort from it.

So do drugs. OK, the number of people are smaller but does that make it any more right? No, I'm not saying the two things are the same, but the argument is the same. People like it so it's a force for good.

In addition, while there have been people who have used the Church (or any faith) as an excuse to do terrible things, there are also many people who have been guided toward true right thinking and genuine righteousness by their faith.

But we've no proof that they wouldn't have done that anyway.

IanKennedy wrote:

Uzume wrote:Nope, it is not

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you referring to my post or the original question?

Original question.

She should try specifying...

Uzume:

IanKennedy wrote:So do drugs. OK, the number of people are smaller but does that make it any more right? No, I'm not saying the two things are the same, but the argument is the same. People like it so it's a force for good.

Have you ever been a habitual drug user, Ian? I have. I've seen what it did to my life and to the people around me. For you to equate that with worship is bith incorrect and irresponsible. In fact, one of the positives of faith is that it can help replace the more destructive emotional supports that are available to people.

IanKennedy wrote:But we've no proof that they wouldn't have done that anyway.

That has to be a joke. How about the testimonials of the people themselves who claim that it was their faith that brought them around?

I have to ask: I know you're an atheist, and it seems to suit you. That's wonderful for you, and I'd never dream of trying to proselytize you. But why do you need to find fault with other people's adoption of faith?

Mikey wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:So do drugs. OK, the number of people are smaller but does that make it any more right? No, I'm not saying the two things are the same, but the argument is the same. People like it so it's a force for good.

Have you ever been a habitual drug user, Ian?

No, I haven't.

I have. I've seen what it did to my life and to the people around me. For you to equate that with worship is bith incorrect and irresponsible.

I specifically did say that it wasn't the same. How in any way is that irresponsible. I was directly talking about someone saying it must be good because people like it. I was saying that just because people like it is not a good reason for claiming something as good. In my example I pointed out that people also like drugs. They are demonstrably not good. Can you not see the logic there?

In fact, one of the positives of faith is that it can help replace the more destructive emotional supports that are available to people.

It can and it can't, like everything it can be used for good or bad. There are plenty of 'oddball' religions out there that are absolutely not a good thing.

IanKennedy wrote:But we've no proof that they wouldn't have done that anyway.

That has to be a joke. How about the testimonials of the people themselves who claim that it was their faith that brought them around?

No it is not. The people themselves don't know what would have happened if they hadn't gone the way they did. I am absolutely saying that there is more than one way of beating something. It is also a fact that you cannot beat some things unless you really want to yourself. In you examples the thing that helped them achieve their desire to change was faith. I am saying that given their desire to change if faith had not intervened then it could have been something else instead.

I have to ask: I know you're an atheist, and it seems to suit you. That's wonderful for you, and I'd never dream of trying to proselytize you. But why do you need to find fault with other people's adoption of faith?

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out facts and made logical arguments to counter other peoples points, just like everyone here does. My being an athiest or not does not invalidate my right to do that. You seem to be taking an attitude of just because I do not have faith I cannot comment on other peoples attitudes to faith or their claims for what it can or has done. So much of an objective viewpoint.

Ian, you have come right out and said that people of faith are delusional in other threads. It seems to color your view of anything religious in nature, like faith or belief. Mikey just wants to know why you are so incredibly judgemental of religious people. Now this may be a very personal thing, and if that is the point just say so, I'm sure that Mikey won't push it.

IanKennedy wrote:I was directly talking about someone saying it must be good because people like it.

That's an oversimplification of my statement to the point at which it doesn't really resemble what I actually said. I didn't say, "It's good because people like it;" rather, I said it can be good because it can provide positive benefits for people.

IanKennedy wrote:There are plenty of 'oddball' religions out there that are absolutely not a good thing.

Absolutely correct. That doesn't invalidate the point that some do provide a modicum of good to many people.

IanKennedy wrote:No it is not. The people themselves don't know what would have happened if they hadn't gone the way they did. I am absolutely saying that there is more than one way of beating something. It is also a fact that you cannot beat some things unless you really want to yourself. In you examples the thing that helped them achieve their desire to change was faith. I am saying that given their desire to change if faith had not intervened then it could have been something else instead.

All absolutely correct. But if faith is the assistance which those people use, why decry it?

IanKennedy wrote:My being an athiest or not does not invalidate my right to do that. You seem to be taking an attitude of just because I do not have faith I cannot comment on other peoples attitudes to faith or their claims for what it can or has done. So much of an objective viewpoint.

That's absolutely - and clearly - not what I said. That idea wasn't intimated in what I said, nor was any insult to the way you choose to live, so please don't become defensive. I simply asked why you seem to choose to find fault with other people's adoption of faith, so long as they don't try to convince you of their "rightness."

Vic wrote:Ian, you have come right out and said that people of faith are delusional in other threads.

I have said that in other threads, that is correct. I also said at that time that it was my opinion and believed that way.

It seems to color your view of anything religious in nature, like faith or belief.

No, I simply put other views forward and request that people can back their claims for faith with some sort of evidence.

Mikey just wants to know why you are so incredibly judgemental of religious people. Now this may be a very personal thing, and if that is the point just say so, I'm sure that Mikey won't push it.

I am not judgmental, and this certainly isn't an example of that. I simply stated that his example of something which supported the catholic church as a force for good wasn't, necessarily, a good point. I did not in any way claim that belief in religion was akin to taking drugs. Please see my previous post for what I did say.

Mikey wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:I was directly talking about someone saying it must be good because people like it.

That's an oversimplification of my statement to the point at which it doesn't really resemble what I actually said. I didn't say, "It's good because people like it;" rather, I said it can be good because it can provide positive benefits for people.

I disagree, simplification perhaps, but it is a part of what you said.

IanKennedy wrote:There are plenty of 'oddball' religions out there that are absolutely not a good thing.

Absolutely correct. That doesn't invalidate the point that some do provide a modicum of good to many people.

I would rather hope for more than a "modicum of good" from something with the funds and manpower of the Catholic church.

IanKennedy wrote:No it is not. The people themselves don't know what would have happened if they hadn't gone the way they did. I am absolutely saying that there is more than one way of beating something. It is also a fact that you cannot beat some things unless you really want to yourself. In you examples the thing that helped them achieve their desire to change was faith. I am saying that given their desire to change if faith had not intervened then it could have been something else instead.

All absolutely correct. But if faith is the assistance which those people use, why decry it?

I did not I simply said that other options existed and that they would likely have ended up with one of them, given that they are of the type that would have succeeded.

IanKennedy wrote:My being an athiest or not does not invalidate my right to do that. You seem to be taking an attitude of just because I do not have faith I cannot comment on other peoples attitudes to faith or their claims for what it can or has done. So much of an objective viewpoint.

That's absolutely - and clearly - not what I said. That idea wasn't intimated in what I said, nor was any insult to the way you choose to live, so please don't become defensive. I simply asked why you seem to choose to find fault with other people's adoption of faith, so long as they don't try to convince you of their "rightness."

We will have to agree to differ over that because it seemed to be implicit in what you said.

I didn't find fault with their adoption of faith, I simply challenged the correctness of their point of view. Is that not what happens here on all sorts of topics? Why should religion be exempt from that examination?

IanKennedy wrote:I disagree, simplification perhaps, but it is a part of what you said.

Mikey, earlier wrote:one of the positives of faith is that it can help replace the more destructive emotional supports that are available to people.

Not exactly the same as "It's good 'cause some people say it's good."

IanKennedy wrote:I would rather hope for more than a "modicum of good" from something with the funds and manpower of the Catholic church.

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. I rather meant "an (unspecified) amount, sometimes great, sometimes little," but that's kind of unwieldy. Be that as it may, I would too; I can't speak for the Catholic Church (and I should point out that 99% of the references here seem to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, specifically) because I'm not Catholic, but the discussion had seemed to me to progress to faith in general.

IanKennedy wrote:I did not I simply said that other options existed and that they would likely have ended up with one of them, given that they are of the type that would have succeeded.

Certainly possible; but there's no way to know if that's certain or even likely. However, for those people which faith helped, it is certain that faith helped. I myself am one of the folks to whom you refer; while my religion has always been some part of my life, it wasn't what got me through what I needed to get through. However, I know personally (and know of many more) people for whom faith was definitely the assist needed.

IanKennedy wrote:We will have to agree to differ over that because it seemed to be implicit in what you said.

Mikey, earlier wrote:I have to ask: I know you're an atheist, and it seems to suit you. That's wonderful for you, and I'd never dream of trying to proselytize you. But why do you need to find fault with other people's adoption of faith?

Nothing in there that I could construe as meaning either "you're not a valid speaker on the topic" or "you are wrong for what you believe." In fact, saying such things are anathema to me.

IanKennedy wrote:I didn't find fault with their adoption of faith, I simply challenged the correctness of their point of view. Is that not what happens here on all sorts of topics? Why should religion be exempt from that examination?

As immediately above, it shouldn't, and I don't suggest that it should. In fact, I consider you to be a more valid speaker on the matter than a religious zealot who can't discuss things in a civilized, intelligent manner.