1. The vast majority of so-called cases of this are absolutely false. A few very true instances of this happened a few years aback, and all of a sudden a bunch of people decide to make false claims of this happening to them, for the sake of harming priests' reputations or attempting to make a quick buck with a fraudulent lawsuit.
Is that what you think?
Maybe thousands of people
were abused but were afraid to come forward because they thought they wouldn't be believed. This behaviour is very common amongst abuse victims.
And maybe a couple of landmark cases gave these victims the confidence to come forward and say that they were abused too.
2. What's more, even if this were the case, THIS IS NOT CAUSED BY RELIGION.
Sure, a religion that demonises sexuality and tells young children that their natural urges are evil isn't going to cause any problems in later life at all.
And people working in a profession where they're forced to be celibate in order to keep their job certainly aren't going to end up being more sexually fucked up still.
And the position of moral and religious authority that priests have over choirboys certainly doesn't make it easier for them to abuse a child. No, not at all. Religion has nothing to do with this.
any supposed cover-up was not the result of religion. It's no different from a large company covering up for a valuable employee, something which happens all the time.
That takes away any claim to holiness (LOL!) that the Catholic church had. You're saying that Il Papa behaved like a corrupt PR man for a major corporation, covering up horrific crimes in order to preserve the company's reputation? Gotta keep those donations coming! The papal palace has quite a big electricity bill, or so I've heard.
This is the church that you follow, is it? Governed like a corrupt business?
You say there would be a lower murder rate, but you haven't any statistics or evidence to back it up.
I have, and I have given evidence. All around the world, religious countries have more murders than more secular ones with roughly equal standards of living. And within these countries, prison populations are more religious than populations out of prison. Is this a co-incidence?
And what about the religion motivated genocides still going on? It's a major factor in the Darfurian genocide. It was a major factor in the Bosnian genocide and in the Serbian attacks on Croats (there's an old joke that if a Croat is not a Catholic, he has no way of proving that he's not a Serb, implying the difference between Serbs and Croats is that the former are Orthodox and the latter are Catholic). It's a major factor in Chechnya. And religion is still a cause of violence in Northern Ireland. I'm sure you're going to cling on to the fact that there are ethnic factors in these conflicts and try to twist this fact in an attempt to prove that the religious element doesn't exist, but you should bear in mind that many of these ethnic divisions only exist because of religious divisions.
And of course, it's the only factor in Islamic terrorism around the world. Thousands die every year at the hands of people so devout that they're willing to die for their faith. It's the only factor in the reign of terror of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. That's a Christian terrorist group, if you were wondering. Most people have never heard of it, since the Western media ignores Africa. The continent is full of violence motivated by religious differences.
The best you've come up with is that people murder in the name of religion, and have ignored the fact that this is not caused by religion but blamed on it
I smell a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here.
an insane person can twist ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to their warped viewpoint, and religion just happens to be an easy target for that.
And that's a con of religion, isn't it?
Saying "I have evidence" over and over again doesn't make it true, and saying "that doesn't count" to evidence contrary to your beliefs doesn't make it false or irrelevant.
People in glass houses should not throw stones.
I've stated exactly what would happen. You ignored it or called it vague.
When you have no evidence, I'm justified in ignoring your point.
When you say "something will takes religion's place" and don't say what, I'm justified in calling your point vague.
Do you see how that works?
The shifting of priorities and tens of thousands of years of cultural evoltion and genetic evolution would undoubtedly produce a different human than we have today.
That's only relevant if we're talking about what would happen if religion had never existed at all. It has no relevance in a conversation about what would happen if religion ceased to exist in the near future.
I understand that you see the world in superficial terms, so it makes sense why you think that.
And I suppose that you're too DEEP for me?
Do you think that you don't see the world in superficial terms?
Based on your responses, it seems you simply can't comprehend what it is that I am saying. You speak about topic as if you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all
Based on
your responses, it seems
you simply can't comprehend what it is that
I am saying.
You speak about topic
s as if
you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all.
I mention it, and all I hear is, "Examples! Where are the examples!"
You'll keep hearing that until you give some.
You know exactly where the examples are, you pretend like I don't.
No, I don't. You're obviously far smarter than me, so you'll have to enlighten me. My superficial brain can't find these examples on its own, so I'll need help from a genius like you.
By your rules, every post would include every post made before it
What? That doesn't follow at all! Are you cleverbot?
but it doesn't matter anyway because you have your "Idiot's Guide to Debate" beside you which has a nice list of ways you can make yourself feel right about anything without actually making any truely relevent points.
Actually, it's called "Debating for Dummies".
You use a lot of phrases that include, "It looks like" and "It seems to me" when discussing someone's post.
And yet you keep accusing me of being certain about everything.
They usually end, "...you can't beat me" "...you lack evidence" "...that thinking makes you an idiot."
I say it like I see it.
Quotes from historical intellectuals
Both are still alive, actually. Mind you, one of them doesn't have much time left.
It's as if you have a point system and everytime you insert a quote or call for examples, you earn 5 points and shout "Yahtzee!!!!"
You're currently on 0 points.
And just to clarify since you can't seem to remember anything without EXAMPLES!?!?@# in your face, I posted moral views -> You posted a pic of Osama in response.
I posted an "Oh you" macro in response. Do you think that the person in an "Oh you" macro is supposed to represent the person one is responding to? That isn't how "Oh you" macros work.
And I could only find two "Oh you" macros in my reaction images folder (I'd better stock up). The other one had Hitler in it. I shudder to think how much whining that you'd have done if I'd posted that one.
You said, "That type of thinking" as in, my type of thinking, could get me a rape charge.
Didn't I tell you that I was being facetious?
And the entire forums are littered with your implications that I am stupid.
And your clear statements that I'm mentally ill. And Covarr's clear statements that I'm an idiot. Those are personal attacks and are against forum rules. You two are lucky not to get moderated.
I have to agree with what Covarr said at this point. I don't think there is any real point to dicussing anything with you in the future. I just wish I hadn't believed that you were some type of sensible human being for so long.
