So, what would you do if you were running a religion facing multiple scandals and dwindling attendance to the point that you were becoming almost completely irrelevant. Well, if you're the catholic church, you spend money on a website and make ads in order to get people to come back.
Apparently, they've discovered that people can be influenced by television ads, so they've decided to give it a try in order to bring more suckers...I mean worshipers in the door.
Of course, their website is designed to not really address the issues. I mean, in the FAQ on morality, there's nothing in there about how old is too old for young children to be molested by their priests who will then be shuttled around and shielded from both any type of enforcement (law or otherwise.) But, hey, they're giving us "god's words" right?
I really hope that people don't fall for this obvious BS and the church continues to dwindle into oblivion. The catholic church is a beacon of dogma, irrationality, intolerance, and criminal activity. It has been for a long time now and it's high time that civilized, rational folks toss the idea of the church into the waste bin.
22 comments:
yeesh, why would you hate jesus? spending the rest of your life hating on someone you never met. no thanks!
No one actually hates or loves Jesus considering it's impossible to do either of those with a fictional character. The title is hyperbole.
I despise the fucktards who invented the Jesus character and their equally retarded fan-club.
-The title is hyperbole.
Is there any part of this site that is not hyperbole?
Anonymous:
---"yeesh, why would you hate jesus? spending the rest of your life hating on someone you never met. no thanks!"
Well, I never met Joey "Rats" Ratzinger, or Karol "No Condoms" Wojtyla, but I find their authoritarian philosophy to be revolting. For how many decades (at the height of the AIDS crisis!!) did Karol Wojtyla forbid condom use? And this man is admired? Why?
Millions and millions of the credulous faithful placed their trust in these men. They entrusted their children's well-being to these men! The cavalier way they misused and abused that trust, knowingly protecting serial child molesters, is deserving of a little hatred!
But, that's just me. Unlike Jesus, I don't feel a great compulsion to love my enemies. I believe in trusting what I actually feel about people's hateful actions, and then telling the truth about it.
Forgiveness can be a good thing, but these two jackasses get no forgiveness from me. They've causes way too much pain and suffering. (Let me count the ways!)
The Catholic Church is a power-hungry, controlling, despicable, greedy, criminal and immoral institution, and the world would be so much better off without it.
Unfortunately, the TV ad hucksterism will probably work. As the Catholic Church understands all too well, religious people don't like to think for themselves. They like to be told what to think. They're just sheep. No thinking.
The Catholic Church is looking to increase the flock!
Joey Rats will do all your thinking for you! HA HA.
Sheep. (And proud of their ignorance!)
Baaaaah! Baaaaah!! Baaaaaaaah!!!
"Is there any part of this site that is not hyperbole?"
Only the title is hyperbole.
Do you have something to dispute within the actual content of the site, or will you simply talk about superficially about the title and complain?
The hyperbole of the title is there to get a rise out of Christians. From what I can see, that is the intent of the content as well. It succeeds at that level. No complaints here.
"The hyperbole of the title is there to get a rise out of Christians. From what I can see, that is the intent of the content as well. It succeeds at that level."
IOW, you can't dispute the actual arguments made so you're downplaying them and handwaving them away as theatrics. Nice try, but no dice. When you can actually refute the arguments I've made and make a case for Xianity, then you might have some standing.
GCT is exactly right.
"I don't believe in supernatural claims."
"There is no evidence to back them up."
"I have logical arguments to refute supernatural claims."
Why are these positions viewed as only intending to "get a rise" out of Christians?
Those statements reflect a reality upon which unbiased, intellectually honest people can agree.
Why is there an assumption that the religious status quo must not be disturbed?
GCT,
You are fairly confident that your arguments against Christianity are solid. By your arguments, the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God. Christians look at the Gospel and see something there that you don’t. Because you don’t see it, you conclude there is nothing there, and nothing they say can make you see it.
Why do Christians insist that their God is real when his existence cannot be proven? Is there any explanation other than that they are just incredibly stupid? I think you are fairly comfortable with that as an explanation. If there is an alternative explanation, it would be less attractive because it doesn’t offer the same satisfaction, the pleasure of identifying a group of people as idiots (and yourself as distinctly separate and superior).
Let me suggest a less attractive explanation in the form of an analogy. Let’s suppose that we are both looking at this holographic image that neither of us has ever seen before.
http://www-theory.lbl.gov/~origa/develop/Front.html
We are both told that there is an image of a teapot there, but neither of us can see it. Eventually, I see the teapot in the image. You, however, are still unable to see it. You begin to conclude that there is nothing to be seen in the first place. What can I say to you to prove that the image is there? The onus is on me to prove it exists, but I can’t. There is no proof of its existence. You either see it or you don’t.
Christians are really seeing something in the Gospel that is clearly visible to them, like the teapot in the holographic image, but you are not seeing it.
Suppose those who can see the teapot must donate money, follow certain rules, and acknowledge the authority of the holographic image designers.
Suppose those who can see the teapot then are able to collect vast sums of money and demand subservience from those who do not.
What if nobody really sees the teapot, but everyone is made to feel that they are evil unless they pretend to see it?
What if those who are sufficiently bullied into swearing that they do see the teapot (because they don't want to be burned at the stake) all describe it so differently that we have to assume they are making shit up?
You want the holographic image to be something objective that not everyone can see. And, guess what. It is!
A consensus of the unbiased who can see the image can objectively describe it to those who cannot, and they will be close enough in their descriptions that even those who do not see the image will easily recognize the objectivity.
Religion is nothing like that.
Nobody is demanding that we see the holographic image designers as morally perfect and infallible. The holographic image designers do not claim sainthood. The holographic image designers are not passing the collection plate and spreading hatred and guilt by saying those who can't see the image are hell-bound sinners.
Religion has bias written all over it.
It's about wielding authority over others.
There are plenty of ways to objectively demonstrate the holographic image. It exists in reality and that can be demonstrated.
Religion is a fiction told be someone trying to grab power and money.
There is nothing objective about it.
Anon: Christians look at the Gospel and see something there that you don’t.
Same way two people see a cloud that looks like an elephant.
Christians believe the cloud really is an elephant. The cloud, of course, isn't really an elephant.
Anon: Why do Christians insist that their God is real when his existence cannot be proven?
Same reason(s) theists of any other bend insist their gods are real. Fear of death/not existing, mostly.
"You are fairly confident that your arguments against Christianity are solid."
If I didn't believe my arguments were correct, I would not hold them.
"By your arguments, the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God."
Actually, that's by simple logic.
"Christians look at the Gospel and see something there that you don’t. Because you don’t see it, you conclude there is nothing there, and nothing they say can make you see it."
I object to this. I've said all along that if Xians can present evidence for their beliefs that I would have to accept that evidence and reform my beliefs. You seem to be conceding that no evidence will be forthcoming.
"Why do Christians insist that their God is real when his existence cannot be proven?"
I'm not asking for proof, just evidence.
"Is there any explanation other than that they are just incredibly stupid?"
There are lots of potential explanations.
"I think you are fairly comfortable with that as an explanation."
Don't presume to put words in my mouth. There can be and are very smart people who believe in things that are wrong.
"We are both told that there is an image of a teapot there, but neither of us can see it."
And, we can objectively identify whether the holographic manufacturing process really does include a teapot in the image. This analogy is pretty well dead in the water.
But, let's look at it from a different light. Xians want to tell me that they have these beliefs that stem....from what? They simply believe (for a potential variety of reasons). They can offer no evidence of any sort beyond, "You just have to have faith." Then, Muslims tell me the same thing, as do Pastafarians, Hindus, Jews, Jains, Mithraians, etc. There's nothing to distinguish between any of those.
Further, I reject the notion that Xians (for the most part) are seeing something in the gospel. I'd be willing to wager that many Xians are pretty ignorant as to what is even in the Bible (and that was backed up by a survey recently conducted) and further that most Xians don't think that much about it. They were raised Xian and therefore they are Xian, end of story. Had they been raised in a different culture with a different religion, they'd be that religion. So, what stock should I put into a religion that many of its adherents only hold due to accidental circumstances of their birth?
GCT: I'd be willing to wager that many Xians are pretty ignorant as to what is even in the Bible (and that was backed up by a survey recently conducted) and further that most Xians don't think that much about it.
This reminded me of a great comment I recently saw... somewhere. Paraphrased from recollection:
"The bible is like a software licensing agreement. Most christians just scroll down to the bottom and click, 'I Agree.'"
Tyler:
--"The bible is like a software licensing agreement. Most christians just scroll down to the bottom and click, 'I Agree."
I like that, too. It's quite accurate.
And, as every religion knows very well, without proper indoctrination during youth, the number of people who "see something" in the religious books drops almost to nothing.
Religion is the lie that parents tell their children that haunts them forever.
HE SUCKS FILTHY COCK AND SWALLOWS, AFTER GETTING FUCKED IN THE ASS.
Why do people leave comments like this?
All that such a comment demonstrates is a serious lack of anything valuable to contribute on the part of this anonymous commenter.
It's like writing on a bathroom wall. It's just about shock value. I, for one, am not that easily shocked.
However, we are adults. We are trying to have an intelligent conversation.
Most people stop writing on bathroom walls after about the 10th grade. It's really childish and really pathetic. If you must write on bathroom walls, do it at your mother's house.
You people need jesus in your lives. One day, something substantal will happen in your lives, and then you'll understand how powerful he is and how badly you need him.
What do you mean, "You people?"
And, I love the veiled threats. It seems, however, that god is rather impotent, so I fail to see how I would ever need a god that doesn't actually do anything.
Law 1: Heat energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes states.
Proven fact.
This means:
a. It has always existed.
or
b. There is a creator.
Doesn't it?
Under the physics of this universe, that rule holds, but it doesn't necessarily entail that one of your two options is correct.
Post a Comment