It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some will rape you, others will kill you…

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Oh religion, you perplex me so! When will the people of this world realize that religion is the worst possible disaster that’s ever plagued us?

Here is ANOTHER atrocity its clergy have committed upon us:

wcco.com



A prosecutor says he will present "strong circumstantial evidence" next week that a Catholic priest killed a funeral home director and an intern more than three years ago.

St. Croix County District Attorney Eric Johnson told The Associated Press the evidence, which he said will include a motive but no murder weapon, will be presented during a so-called John Doe hearing behind closed doors before Circuit Judge Eric Lundell.
Lundell will rule whether evidence gathered by police provides probable cause that the late Rev. Ryan Erickson killed the two victims at their funeral home and committed other crimes, Johnson said. He said the hearing is expected to last three days and involve 15 witnesses, both men and women and people of all ages.



Imagine: Take peoples biggest fears about life, good, evil, and love and twist them into a cult of belief that follow people who rape, steal from, and now murder you in return.

GO ORGANIZED RELIGION!! YAY…




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
"Some will rape you, others will kill you"


Of which institution is this the motto?




Oh religion, you perplex me so! When will the people of this world realize that religion is the worst possible disaster that’s ever plagued us?


Your religion? Or merely that of others?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
It's not religion that is bad, per se. Most religions express philosophies that are quite peaceful, caring and loving. However, human beings are not always peaceful caring or loving. Sure, we have a situation here of a Catholic Priest that may have murdered someone. His religion, in this case the Catholic Church, does not promote murder. To kill someone was the individual's choice or free will.

There are many instances that people's actions betray their "beliefs". We have lawyers, politicians and policemen , for example, whose professions have the highest ideals of justice, fair play and decency as their motto or raison de etre who are nothing short of criminals. Certainly, they can taint the profession but they do not act in the spirit of their vocations.

If a parent of a child harms his or her child, are all parents evil? Do the actions of one parent mean that parenthood should be abolished and all men and women must be sterilized because they have betrayed the expections of their paternal or maternal charges and of society?

The actions of one Catholic priest might taint the religion but the philosophy of that religion is certainly not responsible for the actions of it's so-called adherents.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Take peoples biggest fears about life, good, evil, and love and twist them into a cult of belief


Sorry, are you talking about your post or religion when you say this ?

"strong circumstantial evidence" isn't proof that justifies the certainty of what you're saying.

All men are flawed including priests. You are deluded to think otherwise or perhaps every profession is gauged by the most depraved person within it ? Can the same be said for nations ? Does one British murderer make us all criminals ?

I'm no big fan of organised religion but I think criticism should be balanced to be justified.

PS I don't like your title. It's misleading.



[edit on 30-9-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Just to add to the subject line:

"Some will rape you, others will kill you, but the majority will love you and try to help you."



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Some may even invite you over for dinner and share some lovely stories about the war. Others might have you over for tea and crumpets. A few may let you use their house in the Hamptons. Life can be quite glorious!



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
why are we comparing a religion based on the "strong circumstantial evidence" of a single person. isnt that rather petty and arrogent?

Might want to come down to my church services, we dont even have a Church buidling yet, but we still enjoy attending and even fellowship. Every sinner is welcome



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
It's not religion that is bad, per se.


Of course it is. Religion is now and always has been about power. That isn't to say that everyone within a position of religious leadership realizes this, most probably don't, but it doesn't change the result. Power over the minds of the followers still concentrates in the hands of the church leadership. Power accumulated through political means rather than through service to others tends to corrupt those who wield it.

But even outside organized religion, religion is still bad, as it fosters childish ways of thinking and is based on the lie that death is not permanent. It's a disease.


Most religions express philosophies that are quite peaceful, caring and loving. However, human beings are not always peaceful caring or loving. Sure, we have a situation here of a Catholic Priest that may have murdered someone. His religion, in this case the Catholic Church, does not promote murder. To kill someone was the individual's choice or free will.

There are many instances that people's actions betray their "beliefs". We have lawyers, politicians and policemen , for example, whose professions have the highest ideals of justice, fair play and decency as their motto or raison de etre who are nothing short of criminals. Certainly, they can taint the profession but they do not act in the spirit of their vocations.

If a parent of a child harms his or her child, are all parents evil? Do the actions of one parent mean that parenthood should be abolished and all men and women must be sterilized because they have betrayed the expections of their paternal or maternal charges and of society?

The actions of one Catholic priest might taint the religion but the philosophy of that religion is certainly not responsible for the actions of it's so-called adherents.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   


Religion is now and always has been about power.


Agreed. I hate religion. But, I have faith. Faith gets lost in religion. Just like justice gets lost in politics.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XanaX
Agreed. I hate religion. But, I have faith.


I hate faith as well. Faith is at the root of the greatest atrocities.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
faith is the seed of the greatest accomplishments.

Without faith that it could be done, it never would have been done.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I hate faith as well. Faith is at the root of the greatest atrocities.

And yet you have it. You have faith that you're right and everyone else is wrong. You have faith that there is no supernatural, though there's nothing to prove or support that belief. You have faith in the people and scientists who support your claims, and have faith in your own personal discernment when you dismiss those who do not support your claims and beliefs.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by XanaX
Agreed. I hate religion. But, I have faith.


I hate faith as well. Faith is at the root of the greatest atrocities.


Would 30 million Russians agree?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
And yet you have it. You have faith that you're right and everyone else is wrong.


No I don't.


Originally posted by junglejake
You have faith that there is no supernatural, though there's nothing to prove or support that belief.


I don't have faith in the nonexistence of the supernatural, I simply have no reason to believe it exists, whatever "it" is. Further, "supernatural" has no coherent meaning as far as I can tell.


Originally posted by junglejake
You have faith in the people and scientists who support your claims,


Are these the same scholars and scientists you've previously referred to in another thread who believe in the supernatural, or different ones? I'm curious what your obsession is with scientists on metaphysical matters.

Believe it or not, I've actually come to my own conclusions on these topics rather than simply believing what "scientists" tell me.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I'm curious what your obsession is with scientists on metaphysical matters.


It is because scientists by their very nature rely on evidence, and many of those same people have come to a conclusion, based on evidence, that Christianity is not false. Their also considered to be reputable, adding weight to their conclusions.

If you reread the comment, though, it was those scientists who refute the existence of the supernatural I was referring to.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It is because scientists by their very nature rely on evidence, ...

If you reread the comment, though, it was those scientists who refute the existence of the supernatural I was referring to.


So, we have scientists who accept the supernatural, hypothetically due to evidence, and we have scientists who reject it, also hypothetically due to evidence (or lack thereof really).

What's a poor confused non-scientist to do in such a case?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
The same thing we do with most theories where professionals disagree, which, if you follow cutting edge science (and I suspect you do) is quite common. We take in all the evidence, looking into why both sides believe as they do, and make an assessment. We don't decide those who most closely tie in with what we believe are right, and dismiss the others arguements, points and reasoning as irrational or incorrect because the first group says so.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The same thing we do with most theories ...

We don't decide those who most closely tie in with what we believe are right, and dismiss the others arguements, points and reasoning as irrational or incorrect because the first group says so.


There you go. Hence my previous statement that I don't care what professionals and scientists believe in metaphysics, I only care why they believe. I have not seen a coherent explanation for belief from such people.

More importantly though, the deafult position for all positive claims is that they are false. Why? Because it's darn near impossible to prove a negative, thus the burden of proof falls on those making positive claims.

If you wish to be taken seriously when making supernatural claims, you have two burdens. The first is to define your claims in a noncontradictory way. The second is to provide nonfallacious evidence in support of it. Until you achive both of these, everyone else is justified to summarily dismiss your claims.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
The reciprocal could also be said. On whom does the burden of proof lie? In my case, it lies in those who would state they know the supernatural doesn't exist, for your's, it would be on those who say that it does.

Could you cite some examples of the default position that it is false? It would make more sense from a scientific standpoint, in my understanding, to assume the possibility until it was proven false. That's just how I have always approached science, even when I was active in refuting Christianity. However, back in the day when I maintained that attitude, I had an exception to that burden of proof rule, and that fell upon the supernatural. That, and some of the other claims that did not fall within my world view, such as the moon landing being a hoax, I dismissed unless someone could prove it did exist. Yet science tends to keep possibilities open until they've been summarily dismissed through a mountain of evidence. Why are these few items considered the exceptions?

I have since addressed the moon hoax in my quest for the truth, and have allowed it to be a possibility in my mind. The evidence has proven, in my mind, that the moon hoax is but a conspiracy idea, and holds no scientific basis. I addressed, too, the supernatural in my quest, and found the answers to be lacking. The scientific community seems polarized; some dismiss it as even being a remote possibility with no reason, or feeble reasoning, while many others accept it as true with feeble reasoning. The rest are on the fence, not able to disprove it, but unable to prove it as well. I’ve done my research, and it has fallen to faith that I believe it does exist. Why have you invested your faith in the group that says it absolutely does not exist?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
What's a poor confused non-scientist to do in such a case?


Oh, thats easy. You hedge your bets, right? You believe, or claim to "just in case" you might be held accountable in some way after you die.

Sure some religious based philosophies have positive aspects. My question is, do people believe because if feels right and natural, or do they believe because they fear punishment if they don't? I submit that the second reason is the predominant one among those who claim to be religious. I say this because most religious people are afraid to question the dogma they have been indoctrinated with. Religion doesn't like questions it can't answer.

No, I can't answer those questions either, but then I don't claim to be able to. I don't claim to have THE TRUTH [tm]. Religion claims to have THE TRUTH [tm] but proves over and over again by action just how little truth is involved in what they do. Anything Religion does is tainted from the begining by the inherent dishonesty they engage in by claiming certainty. The stench of this lie has followed religion through the ages. No human can be certain. We just aren't equiped to comprehend enough of the universe to be able to claim absolute knowledge. Furthermore, anyone who is remotely honest with themselves will admit to uncertainty.

Here is some absolute literal truth for ya:

[truth] We just don't friggin know. [/truth]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join