Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel.

[Uchi Mata]

Some irony in a man who discounts the very notion of morality as an objective fact bemoaning another for apparently not being moral enough.

How so? The objectivity or subjectivity of moral beliefs has nothing to do with the strength with which they're held. And frankly, I disagree that there is no objective morality within secular humanism. With either religion or humanism you first have to start with a subjective premise and start your moral reasoning from that point. With religion it's belief in a deity and the revelation of that deity's moral dictats through some sort of scripture, with humanism it's the belief in the primacy of man and man's happiness. Just because you're really, really confident in your religious beliefs doesn't change their subjective nature.

 

[FinalFight]

-Bruce Lee

You do know Bruce Lee wasn't religious and didn't believe in god?

http://youtu.be/02D_sMlowGU?t=2m49s

Interviewer: "What is your religion?"

Bruce Lee: "None, what so ever"

Interviewer: "Do you believe in God?"

Bruce Lee: "To be perfectly Frank, I really do not."

 

[Uchi Mata]

Science is consistent by the methods of science. A lot of systems can prove themselves within themselves. That is quite easy.

Actually none of them can.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Long story short, all axiomatic systems have true propositions which cannot be proven via the axioms of the system.

In any case, people don't 'believe' in science because it's consistent (though it is). They believe in science because it works. Which is more than you can say for religion. But really, they're treating two different areas. Science explains how things work, religion and philosophy seek to explain why things are. Science has no room for teleological 'whys'.

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, I guess the tens of millions of dollars people were donating to her order just wouldn't have gone very far in a country like India.

The condition of her hospice was exactly what it was because that's what it was intended to be. A place of poverty and suffering - since these two wonderful attributes bring the dying person "closer to the heart of God". A place where prayer was deemed superior to pain meds.

I'm guessing this is where you show me how the money was spent/wasted?

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Great (banned) Ted Talk from Dr. Sheldrake on the scientism of people like Dawkins and Harris.

That was painful to watch. If you want to discredit Dawkins and Harris you can do much better than citing that hack.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I watched the whole video. In it he claims that there is evidence of telepathy. Where is the evidence for this claim?

He also denied DNA contains the biological blueprint for your morphology, denied the verifiability of E=Mc2, human consciousness is contained/created in/by the brain etc. The guy is a total whackjob

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I'm guessing this is where you show me how the money was spent/wasted?

Here's an article that attempts to delve into that. One thing appears to be certain: It wasn't spent on those who she claimed to be caring for.

http://www.deeshaa.org/wuellenweber-where-are-her-millions/

 

[FinalFight]

He also denied DNA contains the biological blueprint for your morphology, denied the verifiability of E=Mc2, human consciousness is contained/created in/by the brain etc. The guy is a total whackjob

lol yeah..

He did receive a big round of applause from the audience at the end which i found interesting, seeing as it was in London. Maybe they were being kind.

 

[computer fogie]

You should fill us in.
A statement like that deserves qualification.

All that she did for the poor and destitute... and gets to catch flack from basement dwellers well fed on chips and soda.

I don't mean she did anything wrong, you don't shit on Mother Teresa. I should have blamed the hype-makers, as someone already did. She gave as much comfort as she could, one person at a time. She became a symbol and an icon. Her name defines selfless giving. This is all wonderful and I don't mean to damn her in any way.

From what I've read, she could have done much more to help the same people, by getting involved proactively to help them before they needed her comfort in death. She only wanted to comfort individuals who were dying, but she shoulda-coulda done more with her icon status by getting involved politically to get aid to large numbers of people. That's the extent of anyones criticism of her AFAIK.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Do you believe propagating the notion that condom use is evil is a moral thing to do?

Yes.
The purpose of the act is for the creation and generation of new humans. Muddling with that act so as to remove the fruit of the action but keeping only the sensual experience is immoral.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

How so? The objectivity or subjectivity of moral beliefs has nothing to do with the strength with which they're held. And frankly, I disagree that there is no objective morality within secular humanism. With either religion or humanism you first have to start with a subjective premise and start your moral reasoning from that point. With religion it's belief in a deity and the revelation of that deity's moral dictats through some sort of scripture, with humanism it's the belief in the primacy of man and man's happiness. Just because you're really, really confident in your religious beliefs doesn't change their subjective nature.

Well... of course the "subjectivity of moral believes has something to do with the strength with which they are held".
That's the point of them being subjective.

It's a bit odd that someone would say otherwise, as you did.


"With religion it's belief in a deity and the revelation of that deity's moral dictats through some sort of scripture, with humanism it's the belief in the primacy of man and man's happiness."

That's not the case at all. Catholic natural theology is not solely supported by the words in Scripture. Saying it is so exposes a misunderstanding to the reality of the situation... which would make me wonder why one would talk to certainly on a matter that they don't seem to have much of a grasp on at all.

Natural Theology, and I shouldn't have to even say this, is not the same as Divine Command Theory.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

If you're actually interested on the topic (forgive me if I doubt that) you might want to check out Feser's post:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html

 

[FinalFight]

Yes.
The purpose of the act is for the creation and generation of new humans. Muddling with that act so as to remove the fruit of the action but keeping only the sensual experience is immoral.

People like this guy is the reason why i take religious people less seriously than I used to.

Thanks to the internet I get to read quotes from religious people like this guy who have opened my eyes to how backwards and ignorant religious people can be.

condom use = immoral

 

[Brazilian HKD]

People like this guy is the reason why i take religious people less seriously than I used to.

Thanks to the internet I get to read quotes from religious people like this guy who have opened my eyes to how backwards and ignorant religious people can be.

condom use = immoral

Yet you didn't give substantial counter argument, did you?

 

[Brazilian HKD]

Actually none of them can.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Long story short, all axiomatic systems have true propositions which cannot be proven via the axioms of the system.

In any case, people don't 'believe' in science because it's consistent (though it is). They believe in science because it works. Which is more than you can say for religion. But really, they're treating two different areas. Science explains how things work, religion and philosophy seek to explain why things are. Science has no room for teleological 'whys'.

Best post yet. It's sad that such basic understanding of human knowledge is unknown to people who live in first world countries. Our ignorance happens because of the lack of resources, now first world citizens are ignorant by choice, go figure.

 

[FinalFight]

Yet you didn't give substantial counter argument, did you?

Ok. I'll give you one. The only alternative to not using condoms if you want to avoid getting pregnant or catching an STI is abstinence. It has been proven that abstinence only education doesn't work. Take the state of Mississippi for example, that pushes abstinence only education the most in the US. It has one of the worst teen birth rate and STI rates out of all states. This proves that abstinence education doesn't work. Condoms are a logical way to stop people from getting pregnant and avoiding catching STIs.

A new report on Mississippi’s sex education programs highlights how disastrous the state’s approach to teen sexuality has been over the past decade. The report, produced by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), notes that Mississippi has consistently had some of the worst sexual health indicators in the country. The state has the second highest rate of teen pregnancies, the second highest rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections, and the seventh highest rate of HIV infections.

Proponents of abstinence-only programs typically claim that teaching kids medically accurate information about their bodies will convince them to start having more sex, assuming that young adults need to be protected from sexually explicit content that could corrupt their innocence. But Mississippi throws a wrench into that logic.

Even though teens have been shielded from what might be deemed “inappropriate” sex ed content, SIECUS found that kids in the Magnolia State are actually having sex earlier and more frequently than the national average. Predictably, they’re also much less likely to know how to avoid unintended pregnancies:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/20/3310751/abstinence-failures-charts/

http://www.siecus.org/document/docW...wDocument&documentid=201&documentFormatId=257

 

[Muay o Muay]

Look into the Magdalene asylums and how the nuns thought (up intill the 90's i may add) that they could help 'fallen women' (women who liked sex outside marriage) through a combination of slave labour and physical/mental abuse.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

People like this guy is the reason why i take religious people less seriously than I used to.

Thanks to the internet I get to read quotes from religious people like this guy who have opened my eyes to how backwards and ignorant religious people can be.

condom use = immoral

That's a silly thing to say.
Like, if I wouldn't have just said that you were taking my type very serious to begin with. It's just a way to mock me... which is fine, it's not new or anything.

But yes, to the point, the nature of the sexual act produces another human being. The most important thing that two people could possibly do. Nothing is more imporant than that act. To block the result of that act in mere search for the sensual pleasure that is tied to that act is immoral.

But, by all means... bang your head on a desk and refer to me as "this guy" with a sneer.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Points for consistency though.... you engage with things you disagree with in a manner of depth comparable to that of Bill Hicks.

 

[FinalFight]

That's a silly thing to say.
Like, if I wouldn't have just said that you were taking my type very serious to begin with. It's just a way to mock me... which is fine, it's not new or anything.

But yes, to the point, the nature of the sexual act produces another human being. The most important thing that two people could possibly do. Nothing is more imporant than that act. To block the result of that act in mere search for the sensual pleasure that is tied to that act is immoral.

But, by all means... bang your head on a desk and refer to me as "this guy" with a sneer.

I refer you to my previous post: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/102863023-post56.html

Points for consistency though.... you engage with things you disagree with in a manner of depth comparable to that of Bill Hicks.

Thank you.