Originally posted by rwingett
So are you conceding this battle? Are you tacitly agreeing that 473 saints in 25 years (or roughly 19 per year) is too much? Since you refuse to answer my question, and choose to dance around it in increasingly puzzling tangents, I can only conclude that such is the case.
Your latest attempt to avoid the question is not worthy of comment. It is nothing m ...[text shortened]... further to say, I shall consider this discussion between us closed.
Happy Holidays, Ivanhoe.
All right Mr. rwingett. If you want a political battle you can have one.
The Church wanted to give people and especially young people in our days inspiring "role models" of how they could realise their own ideals of following Christ in their own lives ....... How they could follow the God-inspired Culture of Life living in a world that is more and more materialistic and pursuing its own interests in a man-inspired, man-oriented, egotistical, arrogant Culture of Death ....... Mother Theresa of Calcutta is one of these role models. Another role model is Edith Stein, a woman who was murdered in one of the Nazi death camps during the second world war ....... What's your problem with that, rwingett ?
Originally posted by rwingett
A nice sentiment, Pradtf, but it is impossible. Reason and faith are wholly incompatible. An increase in one equals a decrease in the other.
That's one of the arrogant Freethinker Dogmas. You do not know anything about what the real meaning is of the Christian or Catholic faith. You just keep on producing your dogmas about reason not being compatible with religion. If you are such a Freethinker why don't you put aside that arrogant Freethinker attitude and read the encyclic "Fide et Ratio" for a start. But I don't think that it would help you in any way. You would still go on parrotting your bbarr inspired Freethinker dogmas.
"An increase in one equals a decrease in the other"
How arrogant, presumptuous and showing a total lack of what it is all about in the Christian teachings .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis must be a source of considerable embarassment for you Ivanhoe, since you continue to sidestep my direct question. IF you accept the concept of sainthood, then your two examples may very well be deserving it. But I am not interested in them. I am interested in the pope's other 471 saints, not to mention the Austro-Hungarian emperor.
All right Mr. rwingett. If you want a political battle you can have one.
The Church wanted to give people and especially young people in our days inspiring "role models" of how they could realise their own ideals of following Christ in their own lives ....... How they could follow the God-inspired Culture of Life living in a world that is more and m ...[text shortened]... th camps during the second world war ....... What's your problem with that, rwingett ?
Now I am going to make this very simple for you. I am going to repeat my question one last time. You may respond with only a "yes" or a "no", I will ignore any other response. Now once again...do you think 473 saints in 25 years is too much?
Originally posted by pradtf
bbarr's eloquent reasoning provided a logical, consistent rationale for animal rights that strengthened my beliefs.
in that same thread, you made a compelling case for the same thing based on religion that i found extremely powerful.
when we have agreement on something so basic and fundamental as upholding the rights of those oppressed who are unable to ...[text shortened]... quest to better society and our species with both reason and faith.
in friendship,
prad
I agree with you on that pradtf, but as you have noticed the "reasonable" Freethinkers find themselves and their own ideology more important than the issue at stake. They are always very concerned about a lot of things, but it always boils down to the thing they find the most important and that is their consistent political opposition towards religious and other authority. They mistake that for free thinking. They are a political group of people with a certain ideology, however they prefer to present themselves as independently thinking individuals with a common philosophy or method. What they want ? They want the Culture of Death to become the dominant culture in the Western hemisphere. They accuse the present US government of imperialism. I'm sure that will become even worse when these Freethinking cultural tyrants would take over in the States .... they are working on implementing their ideas in organisations such as the Hemlock society ( What's in a name) and others. They want to eradicate all religion from earth. They are intolerant. What is their ultimate goal ? They want to become the bosses themselves .......
Maybe you think this is a bit exaggerated ? Well, I don't think so and I'm even more convinced of this after meeting a number of these "free" thinkers on RHP ..... I was able to ask a lot of questions and study their ideas and all these ideas fit into the Culture of Death one way or another. I was able to study their attitudes in discussions ( arrogant, looking down on people, treating people with disdain, trying to domineer) ... this tells me even more than all the wonderfull "reasonable" ideas they present to us ...
I've told these Freethinkers how I think about them in these Forums. They were not surprised at all. They reacted with even more arrogance and disdain ...... Thank God there are exceptions in the Freethinker world. These people know that I hold other opinions about them .....
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettRwingett: "Now I am going to make this very simple for you. I am going to repeat my question one last time. You may respond with only a "yes" or a "no", I will ignore any other response. Now once again...do you think 473 saints in 25 years is too much?" Rwingett
This must be a source of considerable embarassment for you Ivanhoe, since you continue to sidestep my direct question. IF you accept the concept of sainthood, then your two examples may very well be deserving it. But I am not interested in ...[text shortened]... Now once again...do you think 473 saints in 25 years is too much?
Again a very arrogant way of debating. Mr. rwingett the Freethinker is going to make things easy for me and he is going to ignore any other response ....... They have words for people like you ...
The answer is no.
Now you claim that it is too much. Explain please ...
10 edits
Originally posted by rwingettwell let me try in that case ...
A nice sentiment, Pradtf
Originally posted by ivanhoe
I agree with you on that pradtf
reason must start somewhere. in deductive reasoning it starts with axioms which are 'truths' accepted on faith. with inductive situations one has observational data, yet one must have faith that the data is valid. one of the most dramatic demonstrations of this was the faith kepler had in tycho brae's astronomical data which led to his ellipitical planetary orbits.
in the 'moral' arena they can work hand in hand too. bishop wilberforce's faith led the charge against slavery and this conviction was extended by reason to include the rights of animals - hence the formation of the first SPCA (later to become the RSPCA with queen victoria's clout behind it).
it goes the other way too. the 'cartesian' idea that animals were thoughtless automata (who couldn't even feel pain while they were being cut open alive) was accepted on faith justifying vivisection. it took the reason of voltaire to point out (the obvious) that the results of vivisection itself contradicted the initial premise: "Answer me, you who believe that animals are only machines ... Has nature arranged for this animal to have all the machinery of feelings only in order for it not to have any at all?"
and thomas huxley, darwin's 'bulldog' as he was known, the creator of agnosticism whose reasoning arsenal terrified his opponents always embraced true faith. in fact, it was said of him:
"there is so much real Christianity in Huxley that if it were parcelled out among the men, women and children in the British Isles, there would be enough to save the soul of everyone of them and plenty to spare."
i do not think, rwingett, your fight is so much against religion as it is against the iniquities perpetrated by some of the practioners of these religions. nor do i think, ivanhoe, that you really believe that the 'discussions' that take place on rhp are going to make 'the Culture of Death to become the dominant culture in the Western hemisphere'.
in fact, i am certain that rwingett would fight just as hard to oppose the 'Culture of Death' as you would to fight the iniquities of organized religion. but while you are too busy fighting the 'pixel evils' in each other, you may not acknowledge that both of you really want something that is good.
huxley led one of the strongest attacks against self-serving dogma be it 'scientific' or 'religious' - and he was rather good at destroying people from both 'falsehoods'. he maintained that true reason could never quarrel with true religion - just as reason is a medium for the revelation of truth so is religion a medium for the revelation of morality:
"between science [true reason] and religion as spiritual aspiration or religion as humility, or religion as morality, he saw no conflict ..."
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfThank you for your post pradtf.
well let me try in that case ...
reason must start somewhere. in deductive reasoning it starts with axioms which are 'truths' accepted on faith. with inductive situations one has observational data, yet one must have faith that the data is valid. one of the most dramatic demonstrations of this was the faith kepler had in tycho brae's astronomical data w ...[text shortened]... religion as humility, or religion as morality, he saw no conflict ..."
in friendship,
prad
You write: "nor do i think, ivanhoe, that you really believe that the 'discussions' that take place on rhp are going to make 'the Culture of Death to become the dominant culture in the Western hemisphere'."
No pradtf, the discussions on RHP will not have that result. I can relax as far as this is concerned 😵. The Culture of Death is the name for a culture, a way of thinking, that is developing in the (liberal), capitalistic Western world. In fact it is a very old way of thinking, but it now has a modern philosophical and seemingly logical scientifical wrapping. It pops up in history time and time again under different names and in other disguises, but it always boils down to the same thing: People have a right, and according to Freethinker bbarr even a duty in some cases, to kill, in order to solve our problems. The advocates of this ideology on this site and in the Western World call themselves Freethinkers. You can check the internet for sites that deal with one form or another of the Freethinker ideology, the (American)Hemlock Society site is one of them. There are many others on the internet .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeWow, and you say we are the ones with preset opinions.
Your reasoning is bias, manipulating and aimed at achieving a political goal. You do not want to learn anything at all. You want to win the political battle. I even dare say that Freethinkers abuse reason and logic to rationalise killing to solve the problems in society. They don't have any problems with killing as long as it is based on "reason and log ...[text shortened]... ll about the Roman Catholic Church or Her Teachings. You want to destroy the Church .......
.
WHat if I say I don't believe that euthanasia is right?
Does that make you wrong or does that make me not a freethinker?
The difference is other freethinkers would probably respect what I thought if I could explain why I held such beliefs rather than just going back to 'because the pope said so'.
Originally posted by rwingettSince when did anything to do with religion have to make sense? I thought the whole point was a suspension of rationale and intellect
That is absurd. If it is "god" who makes saints, then the process by which saints are chosen can not be changed. Man could not change it, and god would have no need to change it as he would have chosen the proper criteria in the first place. If the criteria for sainthood has changed due to the political situation vis-a-vis the Roman Empire, then it seems ...[text shortened]... t god had nothing to do with the process (which should come as no surprise in the first place).
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Good to see you back Rob.
The pope is onviously "out of control", he is only just about alive let alone in control. Big organisations need strong clear leadership, not a poor old man who is quite clearly not in any state of physical or mental health to do the job he is suposed to.
Everytime I see that man wheeled out I just think, not again, it boders on abuse of the ederly.
Andrew
1 edit
Originally posted by Varg
Wow, and you say we are the ones with preset opinions.
WHat if I say I don't believe that euthanasia is right?
Does that make you wrong or does that make me not a freethinker?
The difference is other freethinkers would probably respect wha ...[text shortened]... liefs rather than just going back to 'because the pope said so'.
What I was talking about is the views and opinions of the majority of the Freethinker Movement. Of course I know that there are different opinions within the Freethinker movement. If you take a look on the internet I don't think that you will find many Freethinker Internet sites dealing with anti Active Euthanasia stances. If they exist, please give me the internet adresses.
Varg: "WHat if I say I don't believe that euthanasia is right?
Does that make you wrong or does that make me not a freethinker" Varg
It makes you a Freethinker that is not able or willing to discuss this matter in full in the Forums with other Freethinkers, with bbarr for instance .
I personnally would be very interested to follow such a discussion between two people who claim to believe nothing and to use only reason and logic to reach their conclusions. I know that someone can be an opponent of active euthanasia as an atheist or an agnostic person. There are a lot of those people that hold these views, but they seldom come forward with their opinions in discussions about this important issue. Maybe they are afraid of being labelled as irrational and placed in the same corner as these other irrational people, the religious people. Maybe they are afraid of being ridiculed, of being called "stupid" or "clown" or maybe they are afraid that the opponent Freethinker tells them that their "brains must have rotted because of their opinions". It takes courage to start a discussion with these prominent Freethinkers. That's why I call those Freethinkers intolerant. If you protest against such a treatment they will tell you not to be "too sensitive". However, if they are being paid back with change of their own currency they start complaining and start demanding apologies. I call that not civil, arrogant, hypocritical, and narrowminded if you don't mind.
I've told bbarr that logic cannot prove that it is logical, a fact that I, in the beginning of our discussions, called the "Leak in Logic". BBarr answered me that he was aware of these limitations in logic and reason. The way he and other Freethinkers idolise reason and logic in their discussions and proclaim their logical conclusions as "The Rational Truth", makes me having doubts about whether Freethinkers are really aware of these limitations. They even draw "logical" conclusions about an Entity that does not form a part of the reality that is the object of scientifical observation, the Creation. That Entity is God Himself . They assume (!) that if God exists we can find God in His creation if we investigate the Creation with scientific methods. This is an animistic approach of the relation between God and His Creation. But the Freethinkers don't care ... they just go on and on and on ....
All people do not know a lot about a lot of things, but the Freethinkers only apply that knowledge to their political opponents, who do not possess the gift of reason and logic. Their political opponents do nòt hold that logical wisdom. In the eyes of the prominent Freethinkers their opponents are wrong from the start. Their attitude in the discussions show that.
The prominent Freethinkers on this site are not very modest people. I claim that they are arrogant. They look down on other people especially on religious people. They even found it politically correct to discriminate against religious people on this site in the past. The discussions in the past with Feivel, bbarr and Royalchicken show this very clearly. We can all reread these discussions in the old threads about various subjects ...
They claim that the opponent cannot claim "The Truth", but they do exactly the same thing in discarding their most important political opponents, religious people, as "irrational" ... The exact position Freethinkers say their opponents claim, is claimed by the Freethinkers themselves ...
We all have our preset opinions, because a person cannot function without them. The difference between me and the prominent Freethinkers on this site is, that I acknowledge this. If I remind the Freethinkers on this site of this simple truth they look upon this as an insult and an accusation .......
1 edit
Ivanhoe,
You just felt it was the "christian" thing to do by bringing my name up twice with negative connotations. You sir are a perfect example of the common traits among christians of backstabbing, lying and rumorwhoreing.
Feivel the everlasting ivanhoe hater
Originally posted by Feivel
Ivanhoe,
You just felt it was the "christian" thing to do by bringing my name up twice with negative connotations. You sir are a perfect example of the common traits among christians of backstabbing, lying and rumorwhoreing.
Feivel the everlasting ivanhoe hater
Looking at your behaviour on this site, your attitude in discussions, your attitude towards people and the delicate words you're using to describe persons, I cannot believe that you are who you claim to be ...