Re: Casanova compares apples to oranges, gets his facts wrong, fails to look at all of the numbers, and whines and cries

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:03:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.valid@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:20:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:27:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.valid@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 23:52:55 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

interesting review in the NY times on karen armstrong's new book. she
makes the claim, according to the review, that western theology made a
mistake in trying to find god in nature's laws, and this led to a
rigid attempt to systematize god...a disaster when darwin came along
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/books/review/Douthat-t.html?
ref=books):

Armstrong's position about religion is neatly summarized in this quote
from her:

"I say that religion isn't about believing things. It's about what you
do. It's ethical alchemy. It's about behaving in a way that changes
you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness."

The subjectivity of this claim is obvious since one can convince
oneself that almost anything is "good" and give intimation of
holiness. Sanger did so when she wished to sterilize inferior races.
The abortion rights groups have convinced themselves that the
extermination of unborn children is good for the mother (and everyone
else). And an oldie but a goodie: the euthanasia crowd in Denmark
have convinced themselves that shoving the old and infirm into the
oven is good for everyone. So much so that most elderly continuously
carry documents on their person attesting that they don't want to be
shoved into the oven in the event they end up in a hospital and
unconscious.

Would that also include killing thousands of people,
including children, "for the good of their souls", a la the
Albigensian Crusade and the Childrens' Crusade? How about
rendering native Americans to make candles for the Church?
Keeping blacks enslaved because they're inferior? All of
these were done by, or with the official blessing of,
"Christian" churches.

Yes, please inform the group how these were objective acts,
and therefore both holy and right.


The issue was the subjectivity of atheism and the horrors that it
allows in opposition with the absolutes of Christian theology which
does not.

So these were objective acts, and therefore both holy and
right? OK.

Casanova tries to deflect the horrors that his screed of
atheism allows (which is virtually any horror given enough time) by
pointing to the failures of particular Christians and not their
unchanging/unchangeable creed.

Cites, please, to the "horrors" which resulted directly from
atheism and its tenets. Note that this parallels your claim
regarding Christians and Christianity, and that "failures of
particular" atheists will not be considered failures related
to atheism.

Therefore Casanova's argument fails
miserably because he compares apples to oranges. But let's play a
little longer at this.

Oh, yes; let's.

First let's get the facts straight.

Good luck with that; you've never managed this in the past.

The crusade against the Albigensians resulted in a war in which there
was a fair amount of brutal killing on both sides. The war against
the Abigensians was from the start a decision both political and
religious. Unfortunately the religious motive which brought the
crusaders together was soon relegated to the background by their
leader Simon de Montfort. The war became a political war of
extermination and conquest and it dragged on amidst unspeakable
cruelties for twenty years.

Yep. And it was incited by the "official" church, as a
crusade against perceived heresy. Please cite any data
showing that the Albigensians wished anything other than to
be left alone with their beliefs. Does the statement "Kill
them all; God will know his own." sound familiar? It wasn't
made by an Albigensian.

Those are the basic facts. The decision to go to war was made
initially by men in defense of the priesthood, Sacraments, the
Commandments themselves and the social order of much of the continent.
However, no where does Scripture, Tradition, or theology give sanction
to senseless murder, cruelty, or political conquest in the name of
Chrisitianity. This was done by failed men.

.....acting in the name of, and with the backing of, the
Church authorities. It was the fact that the Albigensians
rejected those authorities which invoked their massacre; the
Church authorities refused to allow anyone to question their
supremacy. If this was "done by failed men" the Church
hierarchy was composed of "failed men", and the Albigensians
were correct to reject the Church.

However the subjectivity of atheism (espoused in this forum and by
Armstrong in particular) does give sanction to the unspeakable horrors
of abortion (over 20 million children killed in the US alone since Roe
v. Wade),

I have problems with on-demand abortions myself. Not because
of any position of the Church, but because I believe it
cheapens the concept of life. But that's irrelevant, and has
nothing to do with atheism.

forced sterilization, and euthanasia.

Cites to the data, please.

Not only does the
subjectivity of atheism give sanction to these horrors it rationalizes
them as a "good"

Cites.

and according to Armstrong "gives you intimations of
holiness and sacredness."

And if number of brutal killiings is the proof of which is worse
athesit Stalin murdered 20 million and atheist Mao killed 40 million.

.....neither of which had anything to do with their lack of
religious beliefs. Or are you claiming that sodomy practiced
by Roman Catholic priests is a result of their religion? You
can't have it both ways, Tony, and it's dishonest to try.

And in the US alone over 20 million unborn children have been
murdered. In atheist Russian there are more murdered unborn children
than live births.

Here's a hint, Tony: Most Russions are *not* atheists;
they're Russion Orthodox. Only the Communist leadership
professed atheism, and there's a good bit of evidence that a
significant percentage of those were "closet Christians".

Theology is about absolutes WHICH MUST BE BELIEVED. This contradicts
Armstrong's philosophy about religion. As such nothing she has to
say about religion is of much value.

Nothing about most organized religions is of much value; the
histories of Catholicism and of most of its offshoots are
replete with inhumanity, terrorism and violent intolerance.
All of which "MUST BE BELIEVED" (i.e., "accepted as
correct"), right?

Again Casanova diverts from the issue.

Nop, he doesn't. *You* claimed that "theology is about
absolutes WHICH MUST BE BELIEVED"; the history of the Church
shows the nature of these "absolutes". Or do the Church
authorities regularly violate these "absolutes"? If so, how
can you claim they're absolutes?

Atheism allows any unspeakable
horror and turns it into a socal "good;" however, christian theology
is absolute and unchanging and does not allow such things.

Isn't it amazing, then, that these disallowed things were
regularly practiced by the Church in its official capacity?
How do you contort enough to get around this simple fact?

While men
can murder for any reason they will find no sanction in Christian
theology.

Apparently you haven't read the Bible. You *do* realize that
the Old Testament is part of the Bible, right? And you *do*
realize that there are *many* sanctioned instances of murder
in the OT, right?

Oh, and Tony? Only idiots change thread subjects with every
post to a thread.

The title should be changed to reflect the subject matter of the post.

The subject should remain unchanged; this is and has been
usenet convention as long as I've been on Usenet; around 20
years now. You simply enjoy pissing in the group, and love
seeing "your" subjects posted. A bit juvenile, but expected
of you.

Almost immediately in a thread replies bear little relationship to the
original title and many good posts are missed because useless titles
cause many of us to pass them by.

Since all modern news readers allow one keep "title-changed" posts
with the original thread or uncouple them at your whim one wonders
what the problem is. Or do you object to your name in the title?

Not at all; your predilections are well-known and I wouldn't
dream of trying to change them. You didn't think I seriously
thought that you'd start acting like an adult, did you? My
comment was intended to point out a fact, not to change your
habits.

Until the moderator changes the rules and threatens to censor my posts
I will change the title whenever it reflects the subject matter of my
post. So you're going to have to run crying and whining to DIG you
panty waste.

No need; I'll just continue to consider you to be an
antisocial liar and religion apologist; one who refuses to
acknowledge the bloody history of religion for at least the
past 2 millennia.

Perhaps Hall Monitor Harshman will do the whining and
crying for you.

Doubtful, since he knows you as well as does anyone else who
can think and recognize your tantrums for what they are.
IOW, it's not worth the effort, and DIG doesn't ban people
for juvenile behavior anyway.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages
Loading