• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

True Christian Diocese fires 42 lying, faker, godless pedophiles.

 
 
 
Lion IRC said:
The Roman Catholic diocese in Buffalo has released the names of 42 'priests' dismissed for alleged sexual abuse of a minor.
Good riddance!

https://www.northcountrypublicradio...-lists-42-priests-dismissed-for-alleged-abuse

Cue the NTS fallacy chorus of atheists wanting to disown them.
Click to expand...

And your baseless attacks on nonbelievers continue. In another thread you have been asked to support your repeated claims that Christian priests who molest children are atheists. You have ignored these requests and have escalated your misrepresentations and falsehoods further. What do your actions tell us about the TrueChristian tree you apparently fell from?


atrib said:
Lion IRC said:
You're late to the thread and have obviously just assumed I must have said stuff that I didn't.
You don't seem to have read my post #28
So you're the one bearing false witness.

Lion IRC said:
Here's a few statements all of which I think are true.

Some people claim they are Christians while secretly molesting children.
Some publically claim molesting children is wrong but do it in private.
Some people think God punishes child molesters. Some don't think there is a God.
Some people don't regard child abuse as a sin. They even think you can harm defenceless children while they are in the womb.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you never sin. It means you can't be in two different places at the same time. The tree is known by its fruit.

"I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of My mouth!"

See more about the tree and its fruit in Matthew 12:33-37 / Luke 6:43-45
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You didn't explain why you think the pastor wasn't a Christian, or why you think he is an atheist. But then again, you almost never do, i.e. support the nonsense you spout when you get called on it.

The basic premise of Christianity is that humans are sinners who will be punished for eternity unless they accept the zombie god-clone JC as their savior. Our sinful nature is the disease, and Christianity is the cure, or so Christianity would like you to believe. That is the whole fucking point! The psychopathic Christian god demanded and received a human sacrifice so he bring himself to forgive all the supposedly fucked-up humans he had created. The Pastor could be doing bad things because he knows he has a get out of jail free card; all he has to do to atone for his actions is to get on his knees and accept said JC as his lord and savior, and all is well. So your incessant claims that anyone who does bad things, as this pastor apparently did, could not possibly be a Christian flies in the face of established Christian dogma. Apparently you don't know shit about Christianity, or you are just making up shit as usual.
Click to expand...
 
Lion IRC said:
Cue the NTS fallacy chorus of atheists wanting to disown them.
Click to expand...
This is what your brain seems to be doing:

They weren't acting "godly".
People who don't act godly are godless.
Godless is a synonym of atheist.
Therefore they're atheist.

When someone concludes all religion is sick based on select examples that are not sufficient to demonstrate such a broad stroke of the brush, that's a hasty generalization.

So maybe it'd be more strategic on your part to drop the ham-handed trick in your OP, and just own that there some bad Christians. But some bad Christians doesn't make all Christians or all Christianity bad.
 
Oh...wow. LIRC thinks that a true xtian diocese should get props for belatedly doing the right thing after discovering that a large number of their true xtian priests are standard-issue kiddy-fiddlers.

They are true xtians alright. This behaviour is ingrained in religion.

LIURC automatically reaches for the "No True xxxx" fallacy to try to head off the truth...but xtians have zero scruples about lying for jebus.
 
I think that LIRC should get credit for saying good riddance to the child molesters, although he deserves a demerit for the gratuitous swipe at atheists. Why create such a straw man, except to provoke a defensive reaction from folks here?

Most Catholics are outraged by the pedophilia scandal, but it is a serious problem that won't go away over dismissal of these 42 priests. The question is why there are so many. This list of priest pedophiles is far from comprehensive. Why is this such a big problem for the RCC? Part of the problem is surely that the weird taboo against marriage for priests provides ideal cover for men who are more interested in having sex with children than adult women. Such men would be naturally attracted to an occupation that puts them in contact with a lot of children and in a position of trust with them. There are other occupations that would attract such men, but the RCC has apparently become something of a magnet for them.

The diocese of Buffalo should get credit for at least acknowledging the problem and advertising action that the church has taken against them. However, such stories need to be balanced against stories like this latest one:

Catholic bishops in Australia reject compulsory abuse reporting, defying new laws

There are two sides to this controversy within the RCC, and the side that wants to continue sweeping the problem under the rug is alive, active, and in positions of power within the RCC.
 
There is some discussion that letting priests marry wouldn't solve the problem....

During his La Repubblica interview Pope Francis said that 2% of priests are paedophiles. I have to admit that yes, about two in every 100 priests I have known or reported on have later been exposed as abusers of children, especially adolescent boys. Psychiatrists who specialise in this field estimate its prevalence at about 4% of the general population. One of the most simplistic claims about abusers in the Catholic church is that their acts are directly linked to celibacy, as if these any celibate male has repressed urges that burst out if there’s an altar boy handy. But that doesn’t account for Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, or the social workers, teachers, Anglican vicars, and fathers and uncles who have all assaulted young people. As Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, once said to me, people who want to abuse children find ways to access them. Becoming a Catholic priest was one way of gaining a position of trust and authority in the parish, in the school and in the confessional.
Yet that figure of 2%, compared to the 4% norm, remains troubling. The most convincing explanation I have ever read for this frequency among Catholic clergy is that of the German professor Klaus M Beier of the Institute of Sexology at the Berlin Charité hospital, whose research shows that people with desires for children and adolescents have known for a long time of their fantasies and impulses, and they seek out ways to control them. Celibacy ordered by a religious institution is attractive because it is imposed on them, says Beier, but that imposition makes it bound to fail, as they are not willing themselves to deal with their problem. It seems to me, then, that a paedophile is akin to an alcoholic, or any other addict. Abstinence imposed by external rules, not really wanted by yourself, will fail.
This indirect link between celibacy and abuse is why I’m not convinced that Pope Francis’s remarks about heterosexual married clergy have anything to do with the paedophilia problem in the Catholic church. Rather, the two are connected because Pope Francis is a man open to discussion and with a focus on people and their nourishment. He speaks often of the poor and their needs, but he senses a spiritual hunger as well as a physical one, and if you’re Catholic, you need communion. Whether you’re in the west with increasingly elderly priests, or in the developing world with huge distances to be travelled to attend mass, you need more priests. The easiest way to deal with that is to let married men be priests. Celibacy, though, does have one advantage: it’s a level playing field for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Bring in heterosexual married priests, and there’s another issue then, about gay clergy. We’ll have to see what Pope Frank has to say about that.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...marry-catholic-church-paedophile-pope-francis
 
phands said:
There is some discussion that letting priests marry wouldn't solve the problem....

[FONT=&]During his La Repubblica interview Pope Francis said that 2% of priests are paedophiles. I have to admit that yes, about two in every 100 priests I have known or reported on have later been exposed as abusers of children, especially adolescent boys. Psychiatrists who specialise in this field estimate its prevalence at about 4% of the general population. One of the most simplistic claims about abusers in the Catholic church is that their acts are directly linked to celibacy, as if these any celibate male has repressed urges that burst out if there’s an altar boy handy. But that doesn’t account for Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, or the social workers, teachers, Anglican vicars, and fathers and uncles who have all assaulted young people. As Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, once said to me, people who want to abuse children find ways to access them. Becoming a Catholic priest was one way of gaining a position of trust and authority in the parish, in the school and in the confessional.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Yet that figure of 2%, compared to the 4% norm, remains troubling. The most convincing explanation I have ever read for this frequency among Catholic clergy is that of the German professor Klaus M Beier of the Institute of Sexology at the Berlin Charité hospital, whose research shows that people with desires for children and adolescents have known for a long time of their fantasies and impulses, and they seek out ways to control them. Celibacy ordered by a religious institution is attractive because it is imposed on them, says Beier, but that imposition makes it bound to fail, as they are not willing themselves to deal with their problem. It seems to me, then, that a paedophile is akin to an alcoholic, or any other addict. Abstinence imposed by external rules, not really wanted by yourself, will fail.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This indirect link between celibacy and abuse is why I’m not convinced that [/FONT]Pope Francis’s remarks about heterosexual married clergy [FONT=&]have anything to do with the paedophilia problem in the Catholic church. Rather, the two are connected because Pope Francis is a man open to discussion and with a focus on people and their nourishment. He speaks often of the poor and their needs, but he senses a spiritual hunger as well as a physical one, and if you’re Catholic, you need communion. Whether you’re in the west with increasingly elderly priests, or in the developing world with huge distances to be travelled to attend mass, you need more priests. The easiest way to deal with that is to let married men be priests. Celibacy, though, does have one advantage: it’s a level playing field for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Bring in heterosexual married priests, and there’s another issue then, about gay clergy. We’ll have to see what Pope Frank has to say about that.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...marry-catholic-church-paedophile-pope-francis
Click to expand...

I don't see the pedophile problem as being caused by the inability to have sex with adult women, but more as a screen against social pressure to form marriage relationships. Moreover, the RCC does seem to produce a more authoritarian atmosphere that makes it easier for predators to operate. They run a lot of schools and orphanages. The practice of Confession gives priests a more intrusive presence in the private lives of parents and offspring. My feeling is that the problem has less to do with sexual frustration than opportunities to have the kind of sex that pedophiles seek.
 
And we should believe this self-reported nugget that puts the number below the general population why?
 
Sarpedon said:
And we should believe this self-reported nugget that puts the number below the general population why?
Click to expand...

Oh, I take all references to statistics from the RCC with a huge grain of salt, but the fact that the Buffalo diocese was publishing this information was something to be encouraged. The RCC has long conspired to cover this kind of information up.
 
Anti-religion polemicist - you spent years doing nothing
Church - doing nothing about what?
Anti-religion polemicist - the accusations you've been covering up
Church - what accusations
Anti-religion polemicist - you know what I'm talking about
Church - what ARE you talking about?
Anti-religion polemicist - all those abuse cases
Church - seems like you know more than us
Anti-religion polemicist - everyone knows
Church - well then why did YOU do nothing?
 
Lion IRC said:
Anti-religion polemicist - you spent years doing nothing
Church - doing nothing about what?
Anti-religion polemicist - the accusations you've been covering up
Church - what accusations
Anti-religion polemicist - you know what I'm talking about
Church - what ARE you talking about?
Anti-religion polemicist - all those abuse cases
Church - seems like you know more than us
Anti-religion polemicist - everyone knows
Church - well then why did YOU do nothing?
Click to expand...
Just curious if you could be honest about something...

Do you know for yourself how others will likely criticize that argument? Or do you have to wait until they say it to find out?
 
abaddon said:
Just curious if you could be honest about something...

Do you know for yourself how others will likely criticize that argument? Or do you have to wait until they say it to find out?
Click to expand...
Ok, I don't want anyone holding up just cuz I asked that. They should feel free to show what's wrong with it.

My guess is he's knowingly playing a game of "get the atheists" and cares about that more than presenting convincing ideas (which is the point of the discussions). But it could be he's really so incapable at thinking that he means what he says. I'm kind of the reverse sort of Dunning-Kruger. The "syndrome" doesn't only describe incompetent people with no self-awareness. It's also more self-aware competent people who are baffled by the incompetents so that we tend to overestimate them.
 
abaddon said:
abaddon said:
Just curious if you could be honest about something...

Do you know for yourself how others will likely criticize that argument? Or do you have to wait until they say it to find out?
Click to expand...
Ok, I don't want anyone holding up just cuz I asked that. They should feel free to show what's wrong with it.

My guess is he's knowingly playing a game of "get the atheists" and cares about that more than presenting convincing ideas (which is the point of the discussions). But it could be he's really so incapable at thinking that he means what he says. I'm kind of the reverse sort of Dunning-Kruger. The "syndrome" doesn't only describe incompetent people with no self-awareness. It's also more self-aware competent people who are baffled by the incompetents so that we tend to overestimate them.
Click to expand...

I'm rather more interested in what you see wrong with the argument rather the people who make such arguments. I happen to believe that LIRC really thinks that the imaginary exchange he posted was a reasonable criticism of a typical "anti-religion polemicist" and some clueless defender of the faith being unfairly attacked. To me, it just looked like the polemicist making charges that the defender was well aware of but didn't wish to acknowledge.
 
So the Pope, who is know to have harbored unreported pedophiles by the scores in his church, states that the “churh-admitted” rate of pedophiles is 2%, or half of the norm. When we KNOW the church has been hiding numbers for centuries.

So add the church-admmitted numbers to the rate of hidden criminals... and the criminals who hid the criminals...
Not so small a number anymore.


And then there;s Lion who wants to claim that suddenly the definition of Christian isn’t “believing in Christ” it’s “being without sin” which includes the fantastical implication that Lion considers himself without sin. Ofr maybe he doesn’t consider himself a Christian.

What a fragile house of cards.
 
Rhea said:
And then there;s Lion who wants to claim that suddenly the definition of Christian isn’t “believing in Christ” it’s “being without sin” which includes the fantastical implication that Lion considers himself without sin. Ofr maybe he doesn’t consider himself a Christian.

What a fragile house of cards.
Click to expand...
^^^ needs repeating
 
Lion IRC said:
blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Are you going to tell us why you think these pedophiles are atheists anytime soon? Or are you going to run away and hide again? You are not helping your cause here; all you are doing is reinforcing the stereotype of the Christian apologists who use lies and misinformation to support their worldview.
 
42 fired. How long did that take?

I mean, the investigation into Watergate took about two years.
The investigation into Whitewater took 4 years (to come up with a blowjob).
Mueller has had 17 months, and come up with 8 convictions.

So, is the RCC just kicking people out on the flimsiest suspicion? In which case justice is not served...
Or is this the end result of a long investigation, to really suss out the guilty ones, either for abuse or for coverups? Which would be nice to think... but then, when did all these investigations start, and how did they come to completion so close to each other?

Like, did they already have a complete list of the verified guilty?

Because it sure seems like the shit hit the fan, the word came down, 'no shit, this time, we need to clean the roster.'
And someone ponied up a complete list of the known malefactors...
Suggesting that at the very least, those who compiled the lists for people to fire had this information all along... and did bupkes.

Which means justice won't be complete until they're fired, too.
 
atrib said:
Lion IRC said:
blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Are you going to tell us why you think these pedophiles are atheists anytime soon? Or are you going to run away and hide again? You are not helping your cause here; all you are doing is reinforcing the stereotype of the Christian apologists who use lies and misinformation to support their worldview.
Click to expand...

I don't have tell you why I think they are atheists. I can just assert it - in exactly the same way phands asserts they are True Christians. If an atheist and/or a pedophile can masquerade as a priest and simply call themself something they are not, then I'm not going to have reservations about saying "no you're NOT".

Now, if there were some huge, glaring logical contradiction between being a True Atheist and;
- sexual perversion
- hedonism
- self interest
- living like there's no tomorrow (afterlife)
- lying
- blaspheming and treating holy religious institutions like your own personal brothel

...then I might be willing to reconsider the otherwise obvious link.

But you know, over these last few weeks, I've been struck by how furiously atheists (non-stamp collectors) here at Talk Freethought have fought against the suggestion that pedophiles hiding in the clergy might be atheists.

Why is that?

Are you defending atheism? Why so sensitive? Atheism isn't a club you belong to. You don't owe your "fellow atheists" undying loyalty. If an atheist (non-stamp collector) on the other side of the world just so happens to be committing fraud and reciting bible sermons about evil lust on Sunday then molesting children on Monday, what does that have to do with YOUR atheism?

It's a contradiction of your own mantra about the NTS fallacy.
 
Lion IRC said:
atrib said:
Lion IRC said:
blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Are you going to tell us why you think these pedophiles are atheists anytime soon? Or are you going to run away and hide again? You are not helping your cause here; all you are doing is reinforcing the stereotype of the Christian apologists who use lies and misinformation to support their worldview.
Click to expand...

I don't have tell you why I think they are atheists. I can just assert it - in exactly the same way phands asserts they are True Christians. If an atheist and/or a pedophile can masquerade as a priest and simply call themself something they are not, then I'm not going to have reservations about saying "no you're NOT".

Now, if there were some huge, glaring logical contradiction between being a True Atheist and;
- sexual perversion
- hedonism
- self interest
- living like there's no tomorrow (afterlife)
- lying
- blaspheming and treating holy religious institutions like your own personal brothel

...then I might be willing to reconsider the otherwise obvious link.

But you know, over these last few weeks, I've been struck by how furiously atheists (non-stamp collectors) here at Talk Freethought have fought against the suggestion that pedophiles hiding in the clergy might be atheists.

Why is that?

Are you defending atheism? Why so sensitive? Atheism isn't a club you belong to. You don't owe your "fellow atheists" undying loyalty. If an atheist (non-stamp collector) on the other side of the world just so happens to be committing fraud and reciting bible sermons about evil lust on Sunday then molesting children on Monday, what does that have to do with YOUR atheism?

It's a contradiction of your own mantra about the NTS fallacy.
Click to expand...

But it's not your word against phands.

It's your word against both phands and the actual individuals themselves.

If someone becomes a priest; goes to church several times a week, where he leads congregations in prayer; devotes his life to Christianity; and when asked about his religion says 'I am a Christian', it's going to take more than the half-baked claims of a random bloke on the Internet who is desperate to absolve Christians of any blame for their many crimes to convince people that he isn't a true Christian, just because he committed some sins.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is reasonable to assume that we have an aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

Wee Jock McTavish from Glasgow remains a Scotsman no matter how much sugar he sprinkles on his porridge.

Your epistemology is broken, and your fear of discovering that your life is based on a lie is insufficient to modify the truth.

Your only options are to change your position, or be wrong. I expect you to continue with the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom