http://ow.ly/1qtFu1



Because frankly, I think if true (and it is being aired by the BBC...) he should be put on trial as an accessory to statutory rape.

It's guys like this that give religion a bad name. I constantly see (and sometimes take part in) the church doing so much good for people, but when you let man and their hierarchies affect The Word, you get all sorts of problems. I mean, this problem was partially created because catholic priests weren't allowed to marry. Typical man made rules. Catholicism is full of them

No...They will not allow him to be removed. The church will buy,steal,lie and do whatever it takes to save face and save the "holy father". I predict that it will cost the church a hefty chunk of its wealth..but..in the end he will address the throngs..say an apology and all will be forgiven. Such is the Catholic church.

NO! The child abuse scandal was the last straw for me as a Catholic. I was very patient on a number of issues, but abusing kids and having the management (bishops) cover up the abuse that was too much.

The Pope has reigned over kings and leaders for centuries. As a believer in the bible, I can count many times when the Jews were told to not take a king or figurehead, because he would only be interested in himself and his peers. and this is exactly what the Catholics have done.

(03-22-2010 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No...They will not allow him to be removed. The church will buy,steal,lie and do whatever it takes to save face and save the "holy father". I predict that it will cost the church a hefty chunk of its wealth..but..in the end he will address the throngs..say an apology and all will be forgiven. Such is the Catholic church.

I agree, the Catholic Church is one of the largest corporations and property owners in the world. Besides, what are they going to do, invade the Vatican to get him out? They can't do that unless they declare war because the Vatican is its own country.

If I were Catholic (which I am) I would be horrified if the accusations are true and wish that he were punished to the fullest extent of the law.
If I were a Macro-Darwinian disciple and had a full understanding of my worldview, I would concede that because human behavior is a result of genes and environment (things which are beyond ones control), he cannot be held personally responsible. If I were intellectually honest, that is.

(03-23-2010 01:12 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  If I were Catholic (which I am) I would be horrified if the accusations are true and wish that he were punished to the fullest extent of the law.
If I were a Macro-Darwinian disciple and had a full understanding of my worldview, I would concede that because human behavior is a result of genes and environment (things which are beyond ones control), he cannot be held personally responsible. If I were intellectually honest, that is.

That's one of the more impressive twists of logic I've ever seen on this board.

Social contract theory is an extension of Darwinian natural selection applied at the societal level.

But then, you don't care much what I think, because my use of condoms makes me Satan, right?

(03-22-2010 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No...They will not allow him to be removed. The church will buy,steal,lie and do whatever it takes to save face and save the "holy father". I predict that it will cost the church a hefty chunk of its wealth..but..in the end he will address the throngs..say an apology and all will be forgiven. Such is the Catholic church.

Since nobody has noticed yet, I'll go ahead and point out a little something. That was published in 2006. And guess who's still Pope?

You win this thread, Shizzle.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1...stract.htm

Dr. William Provine, Cornell

You may reach Dr. Provine here:
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/provine/provine.html

(03-23-2010 02:06 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

1) Correct
2) Correct
3) Social contract theory. Hobbes. Read it.
4) The meaning of life is simply to propagate and continue life.
5) This is so wrong I'm not even sure where to begin. Because of natural selection .... we're all utterly incapable of restraining ourselves from stealing and killing everything else? Uhhhhhhhh. Revisit my counter on #3.

Regarding #4:
Except in the case of rape.
Or pediophilia. Correct?
Is this the point in the argument where you invoke a mysterious Darwinian process that allows you to circumvent the Darwinian process?

(03-23-2010 04:53 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  Regarding #4:
Except in the case of rape.
Or pediophilia. Correct?
Is this the point in the argument where you invoke a mysterious Darwinian process that allows you to circumvent the Darwinian process?

Or "ministering". Because it is such a good idea to bring up pedophilia in a thread dedicated to religiously sanctified pedophilia.

(03-23-2010 01:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No...They will not allow him to be removed. The church will buy,steal,lie and do whatever it takes to save face and save the "holy father". I predict that it will cost the church a hefty chunk of its wealth..but..in the end he will address the throngs..say an apology and all will be forgiven. Such is the Catholic church.

Since nobody has noticed yet, I'll go ahead and point out a little something. That was published in 2006. And guess who's still Pope?

You win this thread, Shizzle.

You sneaky devil. I guess it proves that this mess has become so commonplace that it is expected.

If the meaning of life is to propagate and continue life, what is "wrong" with a priest raping and impregnating a female 14 year old from the Darwinian perspective?

Wouldn't a male rapist be fullfilling the biological imperative of "continuing" life?

(03-23-2010 05:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 04:53 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  Regarding #4:
Except in the case of rape.
Or pediophilia. Correct?
Is this the point in the argument where you invoke a mysterious Darwinian process that allows you to circumvent the Darwinian process?

Or "ministering". Because it is such a good idea to bring up pedophilia in a thread dedicated to religiously sanctified pedophilia.

Beat me to the irony punch.

Note that rape and pedophilia are violations of social contract theory, which lead to reduced chance of genetic propagation as a consequence. Those impregnated can get an abortion. You'll go to jail for the remainder of your breeding lifespan. Meanwhile a player outside can spread his seed to the masses, thereby defeating the propagation of your genetic code.

I LOVE the evolutionary "just so" game!
Rape victims can have an abortion, but those who had relations with "players" cannot. Got it. ALL rapists go to jail. Every single one of them...even the serial rapists. Who knew?

Reproductive success in a loving, consensual relationship = "good" Evolution
Reproductive success in a violent, forced relationship = "bad" Evolution

Your arrogance toward fellow atheist Provine is breathtaking.
You know maybe he COULD learn from you. Perhaps you should educate Dr. Provine that whenever Neo-Darwinism leads to an "uncomfortable" conclusion, no need to be intellecually honest about the implications of Darwin's theory. Pull Social Contract Theory out your butt. It explains everything!

(03-23-2010 09:11 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  I LOVE the evolutionary "just so" game!
Rape victims can have an abortion, but those who had relations with "players" cannot. Got it. ALL rapists go to jail. Every single one of them...even the serial rapists. Who knew?

Reproductive success in a loving, consensual relationship = "good" Evolution
Reproductive success in a violent, forced relationship = "bad" Evolution

Your arrogance toward fellow atheist Provine is breathtaking.
You know maybe he COULD learn from you. Perhaps you should educate Dr. Provine that whenever Neo-Darwinism leads to an "uncomfortable" conclusion, no need to be intellecually honest about the implications of Darwin's theory. Pull Social Contract Theory out your butt. It explains everything!

You're failing to take into account the ratios between the two. Quick -- how many rapists are there in the world? Quick -- how many people aren't?

I have to chuckle that your argument against evolution boils down to complaining that rapists can breed (albeit at a high statistical disadvantage when compared to the rest of the population at genetic propagation).

And yes, Social Contract Theory explains how morality and ethics come about and why they're the same even in atheist primitive tribes and industrialized societies. It provides a direct genetic propagation advantage in that everybody doesn't have to spend all their time defending their resources. Society gets together and assigns people to police the basic rules, freeing everybody to invest time in socializing and furthering their standard of living. Both things which statistically provide an advantage in making sure one breeds.

In disagreeing with Dr. Provine, one is disagreeing with Charles Darwin himself.

Darwin in The Descent of Man doesn’t directly address the consequences of his account for free will and personal responsibility. He was more open in his in unpublished notebooks. There he wrote that “the general delusion about free will [is] obvious,” and that one ought to punish criminals “solely to deter others”—not because they did something blameworthy.4 “This view should teach one profound humility,” wrote Darwin, “one deserves no credit for anything… nor ought one to blame others.” Darwin denied that such a fatalistic view would harm society because he thought that ordinary people would never be “fully convinced of its truth,” and the enlightened few who did embrace it could be trusted.

4Paul Barrett, et. al., Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, 1836-1844 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1987), 608.
http://www.discovery.org/a/9581

Darwin viewed human behavior as deterministic. But some of you are unwilling to swallow that bitter pill. On one hand, you triumphantly declare your Darwinism. But in the course of your everyday lives, you cannot reconcile that Free Will is, in Darwin's own words, delusional. Because you desperately want to hold people personally responsible for their actions, you invoke the concept of Free Will. But doing so is a bit like a vegetarian trying to convince me that eating meat falls within the vegan worldview.

What I try to point out to the Darwinist is that one can't have it both ways. If one is intellectually honest, one cannot logically embrace Darwin's determinism and Free Will simultaneously. Incidentially, my personal affirmation of Free Will and personal responsibility was one of issues that led me away from Darwinism to theism.

Viva La Papa!

:ncaabbs: