5 Things believers can do that atheists cant.

[john]

Here is a link to a thought provoking article on an atheist site.

As a taster one of the headings is "Molest Children", critics say so do atheists, maybe so but other atheists will not support them. Whilst "believers have organisations that support molesters, help them move home and job to avoid criticism, help them hide evidence to avoid prosecution etc.

Some of the stuff is tongue in check....but it makes you think. 

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/deandrasek/5-things-believers-can-do-atheists-cant?awt_l=lsD9uo&awt_m=3zI0i2DLN5WHhWh

[Rhiannon]

I don't know. It's becoming apparent that working for the police, becoming a politician or working for a public service broadcaster will also earn your protection, or it has in the past, same as for the church.

More recently protection is afforded you if you belong to a particular ethnic group that the authorities rely on for votes. I mean, don't want to offend.

[Leonard James]

Here is a link to a thought provoking article on an atheist site.

As a taster one of the headings is "Molest Children", critics say so do atheists, maybe so but other atheists will not support them. Whilst "believers have organisations that support molesters, help them move home and job to avoid criticism, help them hide evidence to avoid prosecution etc.

Very true!

[Hope]

As a taster one of the headings is "Molest Children", critics say so do atheists, maybe so but other atheists will not support them. Whilst "believers have organisations that support molesters, help them move home and job to avoid criticism, help them hide evidence to avoid prosecution etc.

I think the question in regard to this point is this - what proportion of religious people molest children, and how does this compare to the proportion within society as a whole?

Regarding the 5th example - taking something that is not yours - I can think of a number of atheist states that have done the same over the last 100-odd years.  Take, for instance, the previously independent nations that were swept up into the USSR, or the Warsaw Pact bloc. Think of the efforts of the likes of Mao, Enver Hoxha or Pol Pot to take private enterprise into state ownership without compensating the original owners. 

Or what about animal cruelty; think of the anarchical practise of releasing captive animals - many of which will have been bred in captivity - thus ensuring that they die slow and painful deaths as they slowly starve to death or are predated upon by local prdators (or end up predating on local wildlife until they all-but wipe out their prey, with all the environmental problems that that can create).

Practising medicine (or anything else for that matter) without a license.  The author of this article has clearly not lived in - perhaps even visited - many parts of the world where people regard the failing of professional exams as no bar to their practising of that 'art'.  They will even advertise themselves as MBBS (Failed)/LLB (Failed)/ ... (Failed) on their clinic or practice board.

I suspect that the topics covered in this article are at least as prevalent in the general populace (religious and not) as they are within the religious community.

[jeremyp]

I think the question in regard to this point is this - what proportion of religious people molest children, and how does this compare to the proportion within society as a whole?

No that is not the question.  The question is what happens to the molesters.  In most walks of life they eventually get put in prison.  But, if you are a catholic priest, you get assigned a new post.

Regarding the 5th example - taking something that is not yours - I can think of a number of atheist states that have done the same over the last 100-odd years.

But we don't condone that.  With Israel, we even helped them do it.

I suspect that the topics covered in this article are at least as prevalent in the general populace (religious and not) as they are within the religious community.

You have completely missed the point.  It's not that other non religious people don't do bad things but that we don't make excuses for them.

[Hope]

No that is not the question.  The question is what happens to the molesters.  In most walks of life they eventually get put in prison.  But, if you are a catholic priest, you get assigned a new post.

I think that recent developments indicate that in most walks of life they don't eventually get put in prison.  Furthermore, it is interesting that you, and the author of the OP article equate Catholic practices with 'Christian'.  I can think of a number of Anglican/Baptist/Methodist/etc ministers and church leaders who have, over the years, been defrocked and/or stripped of their positions in leadership and consequently charged with the appropriate crimes.  Mind you, not all have been found guilty by the juries concerned - but they have rarely been able to restart their miniserial/leadership roles.

But we don't condone that.  With Israel, we even helped them do it.

Whils we may not have condoned what I mentioned, we rarely spoke against it.  Regarding Israel and the Jews, Jews had been pouring into Palestine, mostly from and via Russia, since the mid 1800s.  One reason, and I accept that this was only one, that Palestine was picked on as the Jewish homeland following the Holocaust was because a majority of the population of the area was already Jewish.  That in no way excuses the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs and other non-Jews, but the two groups had lived happily alongside each other for centuries until the point that the Jewish 'freedom fighters'/'terrorists' of the 1920s began their insurrection that effectively culminated in the attack on the King David Hotel in 1946.

I suspect that the topics covered in this article are at least as prevalent in the general populace (religious and not) as they are within the religious community.

You have completely missed the point.  It's not that other non religious people don't do bad things but that we don't make excuses for them.

Whereas you have missed the points that 1) societies around the globe have often made excuses for the misdeeds of prominent people like politicians, financiers, sports stars, military folk, etc. and 2) that using specific groups - such as Catholic priests - as exemplars of the 'religious' or even Christian population of the world is as meaningless as 'blaming' the Chinese for the current financial down-turn.

[jeremyp]

I think that recent developments indicate that in most walks of life they don't eventually get put in prison.

  I can think of one obvious example in which the perpetrator escaped justice by dying.  Other than that, I think you are bullshitting again.

it is interesting that you, and the author of the OP article equate Catholic practices with 'Christian'.

Catholics are Christians.  I think you are deploying the no true Scotsman fallacy again.

Whils we may not have condoned what I mentioned, we rarely spoke against it.

Did we not?  We have gone to war to stop people from taking countries they don't own

Regarding Israel and the Jews, Jews had been pouring into Palestine, mostly from and via Russia, since the mid 1800s.

So what?  And we have to ask why?  Basically their holy book said it was their land and because it is the Christian holy book too, they were allowed to take it.

Whereas you have missed the points that 1) societies around the globe have often made excuses for the misdeeds of prominent people like politicians, financiers, sports stars, military folk, etc. and 2) that using specific groups - such as Catholic priests - as exemplars of the 'religious' or even Christian population of the world is as meaningless as 'blaming' the Chinese for the current financial down-turn.

So you think other people doing bad things makes it OK for Christians to do bad things too.  I really don't think that one flies, Hope.

[Hope]

I think that recent developments indicate that in most walks of life they don't eventually get put in prison.

  I can think of one obvious example in which the perpetrator escaped justice by dying.  Other than that, I think you are bullshitting again.

I think that recent developments show that many such people never even get caught until they are either too old to serve a prison sentence, have dementia thus being exempted from standing trial, or - as you point out - die.  Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile, perhaps Ted Heath, ... fit the latter.

By the way, here are some examples of perps getting off with non-custodial sentences and no sentences at all:

http://tinyurl.com/pxppjxj
http://tinyurl.com/q53x6x9 - OK, these figures date from 2010, but I'm not sure that even the high-profile cases have made that much difference to the proportions see this 2014 report - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11174715/Thousands-of-paedophiles-will-escape-justice-crime-chief-admits.html

Catholics are Christians.

Sorry, I realised too late that I had used the wrong term.  I shouldn't have used the term 'equate'; what I was trying to get over is that across a variety of media Chritians have been castigated on this issue on the strength of the behaviour (a minority - note) of Catholic priests.

Did we not?  We have gone to war to stop people from taking countries they don't own

Generally when those offending countries have been smaller and weaker than ourselves.  The World Wars were different because we had treaties with a variety of nations that meant that we were obliged by international law to intervene.

Regarding Israel and the Jews, Jews had been pouring into Palestine, mostly from and via Russia, since the mid 1800s.

So what?  And we have to ask why?  Basically their holy book said it was their land and because it is the Christian holy book too, they were allowed to take it.

When they started entering Palestine, the land as part of the Ottoman Empire.  Lest your history has evaded you, that wasn't a Christian Empire.  It was only when Britain was given the larger Middle Eastern area as a protectorate following the 1st World War that any Christian involvement was introduced.  If you go back to the 19th century, there were plans to establish a haven for European Jews in 1) Argentina, 2) Grand Island in the Niagara River, 3) British East Africa, 4) Jewish Autonomous Oblast in USSR, 5) Fugu in Japan (though this is open to debate), 6) Madagascar, 7) British Guiana and Port Davey in Tasmania.  These are just a few of the ideas - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_state - for more.  The Middle East itself was actually a fairly late suggestion and was agreed on by some countries that have no Christian background.

So you think other people doing bad things makes it OK for Christians to do bad things too.  I really don't think that one flies, Hope.

I have - at no point - suggested that, so even implying that I have shows poor judgement on your part.  The thread title is "5 Things believers can do that atheists cant (sic)", and I think that in my post I showed that not only can atheists do these 5 things, they have done.  They are by no means exclusive to religious people.

[jeremyp]

I think that recent developments indicate that in most walks of life they don't eventually get put in prison.

  I can think of one obvious example in which the perpetrator escaped justice by dying.  Other than that, I think you are bullshitting again.

I think that recent developments show that many such people never even get caught until they are either too old to serve a prison sentence, have dementia thus being exempted from standing trial, or - as you point out - die.  Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile, perhaps Ted Heath, ... fit the latter.

Many people?  Define many?

So you think other people doing bad things makes it OK for Christians to do bad things too.  I really don't think that one flies, Hope.

I have - at no point - suggested that, so even implying that I have shows poor judgement on your part.  The thread title is "5 Things believers can do that atheists cant (sic)", and I think that in my post I showed that not only can atheists do these 5 things, they have done.  They are by no means exclusive to religious people.

You are doing it right now on this thread Hope.  Your argument about point 1 is "Rich famous people got away with it so cut the catholic priests some slack".

[Hope]

Many people?  Define many?

I repeat a link I gave in my previous post
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11174715/Thousands-of-paedophiles-will-escape-justice-crime-chief-admits.html

You are doing it right now on this thread Hope.  Your argument about point 1 is "Rich famous people got away with it so cut the catholic priests some slack".

Wrong, that is a jeremyisation of what I said.  It at no time crossed my mind.  All I did was to say that - following the article that I've repeated the URL to above - this is something that encompasses the whole of society.

[floo]

Has anyone read 'Philomena' by the broadcaster Martin Sixsmith? I have just finished it and if I could be more shocked by the actions of the Catholic Church, I was! It catalogues the true story of a child born to an unwed mother in an Irish convent. The boy was sold to an American family, together with a baby girl, and he was given the name Michael Hess. Apparently thousands of babies were sold by the Catholic Church to rich Americans, before the evil practice was outlawed.

[Outrider]

I think the question in regard to this point is this - what proportion of religious people molest children, and how does this compare to the proportion within society as a whole?

No, in the main it really, really isn't. The majority of people accept that there is not a significantly higher proportion of the clergy that molest children than in the general public, and in proportion with other roles that allow access to children (care workers, swimming teachers etc.).

The question is why do the churches - the Roman Catholic church in particular - think that the systemic, widespread, long-standing policy of covering up the abuse by its employees is justified? That's still happening in a wide range of places, one needs only to look at the ongoing enquiry in Australia at the moment, or the recent responses by the Scottish Catholic church.

Or what about animal cruelty; think of the anarchical practise of releasing captive animals - many of which will have been bred in captivity - thus ensuring that they die slow and painful deaths as they slowly starve to death or are predated upon by local prdators (or end up predating on local wildlife until they all-but wipe out their prey, with all the environmental problems that that can create).

That's nature, that's what animals are 'supposed' to do. I don't agree with activists disrupting what can be valuable science, although I appreciate that not all the animal testing that goes on is genuinely valuable, but that animals freed are subject to predation is not an issue. Torture of animals for no reasonable benefit is wrong - whether that's religious slaughter or make-up testing.

Practising medicine (or anything else for that matter) without a license.  The author of this article has clearly not lived in - perhaps even visited - many parts of the world where people regard the failing of professional exams as no bar to their practising of that 'art'.  They will even advertise themselves as MBBS (Failed)/LLB (Failed)/ ... (Failed) on their clinic or practice board.

Even someone who has failed has still studied - they will have come across some valid, tested, proven information.

O.

[Hope]

Has anyone read 'Philomena' by the broadcaster Martin Sixsmith? I have just finished it and if I could be more shocked by the actions of the Catholic Church, I was! It catalogues the true story of a child born to an unwed mother in an Irish convent. The boy was sold to an American family, together with a baby girl, and he was given the name Michael Hess. Apparently thousands of babies were sold by the Catholic Church to rich Americans, before the evil practice was outlawed.

Haven't read it, but have read several reviews of it; but I have see the film of it.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431286/

It isn't the reason I'm not a Roman Catholic (note that that is the correct term, since there are other forms of Catholic Christianity - including Anglicanism), but it does reinforce my thinking about it.

[Hope]

The question is why do the churches - the Roman Catholic church in particular - think that the systemic, widespread, long-standing policy of covering up the abuse by its employees is justified? That's still happening in a wide range of places, one needs only to look at the ongoing enquiry in Australia at the moment, or the recent responses by the Scottish Catholic church.

I would fully agree with you in this criticism, but I'm not sure that that was the original question which was more about the suggestion that this was a particularly religious, or even Christian, behaviour.

[floo]

Has anyone read 'Philomena' by the broadcaster Martin Sixsmith? I have just finished it and if I could be more shocked by the actions of the Catholic Church, I was! It catalogues the true story of a child born to an unwed mother in an Irish convent. The boy was sold to an American family, together with a baby girl, and he was given the name Michael Hess. Apparently thousands of babies were sold by the Catholic Church to rich Americans, before the evil practice was outlawed.

Haven't read it, but have read several reviews of it; but I have see the film of it.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431286/

It isn't the reason I'm not a Roman Catholic (note that that is the correct term, since there are other forms of Catholic Christianity - including Anglicanism), but it does reinforce my thinking about it.

Your brand of religious dogma can be very abusive too, Hope!

[Hope]

Your brand of religious dogma can be very abusive too, Hope!

I've been learning it from you, Floo 

[Shaker]

What a piss-poor attempt at a come-back that was.

[Hope]

What a piss-poor attempt at a come-back that was.

Unlike you, I'm not particularly bothered about one-up-manship, Shaker.

[floo]

Your brand of religious dogma can be very abusive too, Hope!

I've been learning it from you, Floo 

?

[Shaker]

What a piss-poor attempt at a come-back that was.

Unlike you, I'm not particularly bothered about one-up-manship, Shaker.

You don't seem to be particularly bothered about a mass of things, including reason, evidence, logic, substantiating your assertions with evidence, answering questions put to you foremost amongst them.

I hope that you're more use playing with your superannuated choo-choos, because as a member of this forum capable of mounting a defence of their beliefs and constructing a reasoned argument based on evidence you're as much use as Stevie Wonder's driving licence.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Can you be any more arrogant there Shaker? You write about Hope's choo-choos while you hide in your cellar cause you can't handle being in the sunshine and warmth.

[floo]

Can you be any more arrogant there Shaker? You write about Hope's choo-choos while you hide in your cellar cause you can't handle being in the sunshine and warmth.

What sunshine and warmth? There is none where Hope's unpleasant dogma is concerned!

[Hope]

What sunshine and warmth? There is none where Hope's unpleasant dogma is concerned!

Sorry to disappoint you Floo, but since by your own admission, you have no idea what Christianity is about, I will point out that whilst there is plenty of rain in my life - as I am sure there is in yours (and not only on account of living in Wales), there is plenty of sunshine and warmth in it, too; certainly more, I believe, than would be the case if I wasn't a Christian.

[Hope]

I hope that you're more use playing with your superannuated choo-choos, because as a member of this forum capable of mounting a defence of their beliefs and constructing a reasoned argument based on evidence you're as much use as Stevie Wonder's driving licence.

Sorry not to come up to your high standards of argumentation, Shaker.  I would have to admit, though, that I prefer arguments to have rather more body and guts than yours have had over the months.  Responding to your arguments is rather like trying to kick a ball that is already travelling in the direction one is trying to kick it.  You can't put much power into it.

[Shaker]

Sorry not to come up to your high standards of argumentation, Shaker.

Yes, I'm sorry too, but that's what comes of trying to engage in debate with those who have renounced reason, evidence and logic in favour of fallacy and lazy thinking with all the rigour of Dream Topping. Trying to debate with such people is like sitting in a rocking chair; it gives you something to do for half an hour, but you won't get anywhere.

I would have to admit, though, that I prefer arguments to have rather more body and guts than yours have had over the months.

... which is ironic - or monumentally hypocritical - given that your posts contain neither. An abundance of logical fallacies - the beloved negative proof chief amongst them - and a matchless ability to dodge, deflect and simply ignore direct questions put to you, yes, but less body and guts than a butcher's pencil.