Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Crisis of Faith- Time Mag
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2007 :  02:45:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Gorgo

I think Sam Harris sums it up best:

Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?

Thanks for the Sam Harris link, Gorgo. I think this part was especially telling:
Teresa's response to her own bewilderment and hypocrisy (her term) reveals just how like quicksand religious faith can be. Her doubts about God's existence were interpreted by her confessor as a sign that she was sharing Christ's torment upon the cross; this exaltation of her wavering faith allowed Teresa “to love the darkness” she experienced in God's apparent absence. Such is the genius of the unfalsifiable. We can see the same principle at work among her fellow Catholics: Teresa's doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God's grace.



Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2007 :  04:49:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Halfmooner wrote:
Father Martin fails to even mention how MT raised untold millions, possibly billions, without providing medical care to the poor, only to herself.
Regardless of how accurate this perception is, the woman is admired for her humanitarianism. She won a Nobel Peace Prize for it, not for her fanatic, conservative Catholicism. She drew greater attention to the problem of third world poverty. And today there are many thousands more hospices, orphanages, and many other charities because of how the idealized myth of her work has inspired people. Whether she meant to or not, and whether she could have done a lot more or not, it is undeniable that her work has alleviate much human suffering in this life and continues to do so.

If something truly humanitarian has developed from the work of this highly flawed, and perhaps even nasty and unscrupulous woman, should we deny it because we don't like her and what she really stood for? Or should be more honest than the people who worship her, and admit the good that came from her work, as well as criticizing the bad stuff?

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2007 :  04:52:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sam Harris an extremist full of arrogance and vitriol.
We can see the same principle at work among her fellow Catholics: Teresa's doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God's grace.
Everyone interprets things within the scope of their own worldview. Atheists love to speculate about the secular reasons for religious belief even when we don't have any evidence. Interpreting something to fit your own perceptions isn't problematic unless you regard those interpretations as fact and become self-righteous about it. You know, like Sam Harris has done!

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2007 :  04:54:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote

If something truly humanitarian has developed from the work of this highly flawed, and perhaps even nasty and unscrupulous woman, should we deny it because we don't like her and what she really stood for? Or should be more honest than the people who worship her, and admit the good that came from her work, as well as criticizing the bad stuff?


So, we should all be stupid and unethical because some good might accidentally come out of it?

Would you have made some attempt to give the money that Keating gave in at least some attempt to help the people he ripped off?

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Edited by - Gorgo on 08/30/2007 04:55:19
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2007 :  04:59:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Marfknox wrote:
Regardless of how accurate this perception is, the woman is admired for her humanitarianism. She won a Nobel Peace Prize for it, not for her fanatic, conservative Catholicism.
But isn't accuracy about this very important, if we are going to try to prevent her kind of abuses in the future?

Isn't the question of whether she in effect denied treatment to thousands of people important? And isn't her hypocritical (her word) apparent pose as a "fanatic, conservative Catholics" important?

Seems to me we should be assessing the grim reality of MT, not bowing our heads and accepting the false beliefs of even millions of people who are being mislead. She was not a whit better than Benny Hinn, IMO.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2007 :  05:06:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Sam Harris an extremist full of arrogance and vitriol.
We can see the same principle at work among her fellow Catholics: Teresa's doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God's grace.
Everyone interprets things within the scope of their own worldview. Atheists love to speculate about the secular reasons for religious belief even when we don't have any evidence. Interpreting something to fit your own perceptions isn't problematic unless you regard those interpretations as fact and become self-righteous about it. You know, like Sam Harris has done!


Please give us some evidence that Sam Harris has become "self-righteous" and "full of arrogance" and "vitriol." If you would.

Did anyone see Richard Dawkins response to his critics?

You're as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise.

No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.


I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Edited by - Gorgo on 08/30/2007 05:08:44
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2007 :  08:15:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Reposted in the correct thread...

here

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000