Catholic Church in Spain Steals 300,000 Babies

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< No wonder America is turning into an atheist country. Americans are mostly decent people and want nothing to do with a mystical version of NAMBLA.
[/quote]There are far more “decent” people in the CC than in the country at large though that ain’t sayin much and you and I will certainly disagree about the definition of decent. The NAMBLA comment is outrageous, inflammatory, irresponsible AND false. Once again, nobody hates the Catholic church more than I do, but over the top statements like this are not useful at all. Our Christmas service is this Sunday. You’ll love it.

Check your mail Chris
[/quote]

Okay.

42

â??..an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.â??

Atlas Shrugged, P3C7

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Personally, I don’t see how any “sane” person could reconcile having to use such a corrupt institution as their “intermediary” with God. I mean, these priests you give confession to diddle choir boys! And not just one or two… AND THEN TRANSFER THE PRIEST TO ANOTHER CHURCH WHEN HE GETS CAUGHT TO DIDDLE MORE BOYS. I mean honestly, how do you reconcile that in your little brain?

[/quote]

Exactly. There are a few of them who are good but most are genuinely scum. The CC covered this up for decades and now they are being exposed for what they are.

No wonder America is turning into an atheist country. Americans are mostly decent people and want nothing to do with a mystical version of NAMBLA.
[/quote]

NAMBLA is run by atheists, just thought I should point that out.
Why such interest in child sex? You mention it at every turn.

44

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
â??..an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.â??

Atlas Shrugged, P3C7[/quote]

Which comes from people unable to distinguish that fact that empiricism is essentially a faith based proposition and every moment and everything in your life is based on faith.
What an idiot. I really cannot believe people take Rand seriously.

45

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Personally, I don’t see how any “sane” person could reconcile having to use such a corrupt institution as their “intermediary” with God. I mean, these priests you give confession to diddle choir boys! And not just one or two… AND THEN TRANSFER THE PRIEST TO ANOTHER CHURCH WHEN HE GETS CAUGHT TO DIDDLE MORE BOYS. I mean honestly, how do you reconcile that in your little brain?

[/quote]

Exactly. There are a few of them who are good but most are genuinely scum. The CC covered this up for decades and now they are being exposed for what they are.

No wonder America is turning into an atheist country. Americans are mostly decent people and want nothing to do with a mystical version of NAMBLA.
[/quote]

NAMBLA is run by atheists, just thought I should point that out.
Why such interest in child sex? You mention it at every turn.[/quote]

Lol…oh boy, the jokes.

46

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
�¢??..an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.�¢??

Atlas Shrugged, P3C7[/quote]

Which comes from people unable to distinguish that fact that empiricism is essentially a faith based proposition and every moment and everything in your life is based on faith.
What an idiot. I really cannot believe people take Rand seriously. [/quote]

“The Catholic clergy seldom bother to make their arguments plausible; it is plain that they have little respect for human intelligence, and indeed little belief in its existence.”
â?? H L Mencken, from George Seldes, editor, The Great Quotations, quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief, quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief

47

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
�?�¢??..an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.�?�¢??

Atlas Shrugged, P3C7[/quote]

Which comes from people unable to distinguish that fact that empiricism is essentially a faith based proposition and every moment and everything in your life is based on faith.
What an idiot. I really cannot believe people take Rand seriously. [/quote]

“The Catholic clergy seldom bother to make their arguments plausible; it is plain that they have little respect for human intelligence, and indeed little belief in its existence.”
â?? H L Mencken, from George Seldes, editor, The Great Quotations, quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief, quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief

[/quote]

Catholic Church founder of the University System. Catholic Church promoter of Socratic Method. Catholic Church largest benefactor to the Sciences. Operates more universities/colleges in the world than any other group. I’ll have to look, but I’d guess they are probably the largest scientific community in America/World, as well. Yes, we have little respect for human intelligences.

48

You should really think about the state of the world in relation to what you’re saying Chris. Check your messages when you get a chance if you would please.

49

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You should really think about the state of the world in relation to what you’re saying Chris. Check your messages when you get a chance if you would please.[/quote]

The Protestant Revolution?

50

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
�?�¢??..an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.�?�¢??

Atlas Shrugged, P3C7[/quote]

Which comes from people unable to distinguish that fact that empiricism is essentially a faith based proposition and every moment and everything in your life is based on faith.
What an idiot. I really cannot believe people take Rand seriously. [/quote]

“The Catholic clergy seldom bother to make their arguments plausible; it is plain that they have little respect for human intelligence, and indeed little belief in its existence.”
â?? H L Mencken, from George Seldes, editor, The Great Quotations, quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief, quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief

[/quote]

Are you interested in sex with children? You work with them after all, this obsession gives me pause for concern.

51

Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. [Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]

Catholicism made these people irrational. Faith destroys the brain, making people demented.

52

When are you gonna show up in the epistemology thread so I can choke this mess outta you by the power of the Holy Ghost in Jesus name?

53

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. [Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]

Catholicism made these people irrational. Faith destroys the brain, making people demented.[/quote]

Religion is not an ‘early form of philosophy’, it’s a totally different discipline based on a set of philosophical principals, just like math, science, history, language and anything else. All of these with the exception of math, are faith based. Science is based on correlations in order to establish a perceived link, history is based on the retelling of stories who’s accuracy is can only be validated by a smattering of archaeological evidence, language is a arbitrary organization of sounds that people agreed means something, etc.
Further proof that Rand was dumber than mule shit.

What destroys is hatred and fear. Nothing is more destructive than that.

54

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. [Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]

Catholicism made these people irrational. Faith destroys the brain, making people demented.[/quote]

Religion is not an ‘early form of philosophy’, it’s a totally different discipline based on a set of philosophical principals, just like math, science, history, language and anything else. All of these with the exception of math, are faith based. Science is based on correlations in order to establish a perceived link, history is based on the retelling of stories who’s accuracy is can only be validated by a smattering of archaeological evidence, language is a arbitrary organization of sounds that people agreed means something, etc.
Further proof that Rand was dumber than mule shit.

What destroys is hatred and fear. Nothing is more destructive than that.[/quote]

Math is also faith based. In a sense, even more faith based than other scientific disciplines. Math is entirely abstract and based on things being true simply because they are defined as true.

55

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Math is also faith based. In a sense, even more faith based than other scientific disciplines. Math is entirely abstract and based on things being true simply because they are defined as true.[/quote]And DoubleDuce is the winner of this weeks Tiriblus highly coveted “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award.

56

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. [Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]

Catholicism made these people irrational. Faith destroys the brain, making people demented.[/quote]

Religion is not an ‘early form of philosophy’, it’s a totally different discipline based on a set of philosophical principals, just like math, science, history, language and anything else. All of these with the exception of math, are faith based. Science is based on correlations in order to establish a perceived link, history is based on the retelling of stories who’s accuracy is can only be validated by a smattering of archaeological evidence, language is a arbitrary organization of sounds that people agreed means something, etc.
Further proof that Rand was dumber than mule shit.

What destroys is hatred and fear. Nothing is more destructive than that.[/quote]

Math is also faith based. In a sense, even more faith based than other scientific disciplines. Math is entirely abstract and based on things being true simply because they are defined as true.[/quote]

Which makes it deductively true and therefore not a matter of faith. Things true by definition are absolute. Only abstracts can be absolute, nothing physical can be.

57

[quote]pat wrote:

Which makes it deductively true and therefore not a matter of faith. Things true by definition are absolute. Only abstracts can be absolute, nothing physical can be. [/quote]

I disagree. Not part of the natural world (supernatural) makes it entirely faith. Absolute means not subject to change. It is, but only because it is nothing. It is only as absolute as it is utterly meaningless.

Addition cannot change, because addition has no actual meaning. Change requires existence. I can as easily define addition that makes 2+2 equal 11 in Duce-gebra and have it be equally true and absolute as algebra. BUT, if we were to get together and discuss and pursue the knowledge of duce-gebra, it would not be a pursuit of fact or the universe.

I think you confuse absolute with fact.

58

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Which makes it deductively true and therefore not a matter of faith. Things true by definition are absolute. Only abstracts can be absolute, nothing physical can be. [/quote]

I disagree. Not part of the natural world (supernatural) makes it entirely faith. Absolute means not subject to change. It is, but only because it is nothing. It is only as absolute as it is utterly meaningless.
[/quote]
The opposite is true.

[quote]
Addition cannot change, because addition has no actual meaning. Change requires existence. I can as easily define addition that makes 2+2 equal 11 in Duce-gebra and have it be equally true and absolute as algebra. BUT, if we were to get together and discuss and pursue the knowledge of duce-gebra, it would not be a pursuit of fact or the universe.

I think you confuse absolute with fact. [/quote]

You cannot arbitrarily change the definition of things you are not in control of, which is pretty much everything. You can make 2+2 equal 11 if you want to, but no matter how hard you try it’s still wrong. You cannot drive 11 from 2 things added to 2 other things, be they physical or metaphysical. The shapes used in math are just symbols that represent things. The symbols do not matter, the definition of them demands them be what they are. These are not arbitrary, but completely absolute. 2 no matter how it’s represented, or what it represents, is still 2 and if you add another 2 to it, you have 4.
The physical is not absolute, the metaphysical is.

59

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Math is also faith based. In a sense, even more faith based than other scientific disciplines. Math is entirely abstract and based on things being true simply because they are defined as true.[/quote]And DoubleDuce is the winner of this weeks Tiriblus highly coveted “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award.
[/quote]

Hah. I feel honored.

60

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Which makes it deductively true and therefore not a matter of faith. Things true by definition are absolute. Only abstracts can be absolute, nothing physical can be. [/quote]

I disagree. Not part of the natural world (supernatural) makes it entirely faith. Absolute means not subject to change. It is, but only because it is nothing. It is only as absolute as it is utterly meaningless.
[/quote]
The opposite is true.

[quote]
Addition cannot change, because addition has no actual meaning. Change requires existence. I can as easily define addition that makes 2+2 equal 11 in Duce-gebra and have it be equally true and absolute as algebra. BUT, if we were to get together and discuss and pursue the knowledge of duce-gebra, it would not be a pursuit of fact or the universe.

I think you confuse absolute with fact. [/quote]

You cannot arbitrarily change the definition of things you are not in control of, which is pretty much everything. You can make 2+2 equal 11 if you want to, but no matter how hard you try it’s still wrong. You cannot drive 11 from 2 things added to 2 other things, be they physical or metaphysical. The shapes used in math are just symbols that represent things. The symbols do not matter, the definition of them demands them be what they are. These are not arbitrary, but completely absolute. 2 no matter how it’s represented, or what it represents, is still 2 and if you add another 2 to it, you have 4.
The physical is not absolute, the metaphysical is.[/quote]

Wrong. Pure math, as you were discussing and specified, does not related to physical things. 2+2 is defined as equaling 4 arbitrarily in pure math. There is no such thing as an integer or addition in the real world.

If, as you seem to be doing here, relating math to physical objects, you are venturing into other branches of science.

You have contradicted yourself. You have defined math as purely abstract and absolute, then set about to prove it by physical means. You are moving the playing field. We must either discus, as I first stated, abstract (absolute) math, or physical science. When you assign objects to number or assign actions to operations, your system is provable, but it also becomes disprovable and none-absolute. In my head 2 objects + 2 objects results in 11 objects. In abstract (pure) math, you cannot prove or disprove that statement. It is only defined as untrue by the invented rules of mathematics. It is not as you assert, proven untrue.

If you wish to delve into the math of the physical sciences, I ask this, what is the physical definition of adding 2 things together?