₦airaland Forum

Ubenedictus: i think u have a very wierd sense of "law". If i'm not a citizen of the said country or a resident alien, that law doesnt bind me at all! For all we know obama know d person personally responsible 4 d most recent bombings in niaja (this is an example) but he isnt subject to nigerian law and thus is not bound by law to report d person. Atleast understand d law! If a priest of d diocese of texas molest a kid d bishop of texas who is a citizen of the united states is bound by u.s law to report the case to texas police and ratzinger in rome isnt at all. And by america's law on religious freedom those who are aware of d case thru d ecclesiatical court but cant morally speak of it since they are under d seals are also protected from prosecution by d laws of religious freedom. This is a simple case if u know what d law states. Only d bishops who as can b clearly seen are neither morally prohibited from speaking and are even mandated to speak both by church and states laws, only them can be prosecuted morally and/or legally for covering up.

I give you the case of Assange. Even many americans are screaming bloody murder at the attempts to extradite him, on what grounds do the US govt want him? Really, on what possible grounds could they prosecute him were he to show up on their shores? He's just a publisher, freedom of speech. Is the publisher responsible for the actions of the whistleblower? No. Even worse, he isn't even American, he isn't bound to their laws. However, in this case, they could charge him as a spy, as he seemingly encouraged bradley manning to perform treason. It seems he was actively involved in the process of acquiring the documents, encouraging manning to go through with it rather than just publishing. Likewise, Ratzinger seems to have been actively involved in cover ups. He may not have broken a law in his own country but he did so in many, many others, including EU ones. They have every right to prosecute him should he show up in one of these countries where he broke laws. They also have the right attempt to extradite him, etc him. Yes? It's then left to the diplomats and governments to haggle.

He may be the law in his country, he certainly isn't in others.

Ubenedictus: that is why d bishop is d person that can b held responsible 4 any cover up.

So could he if he, they're superior, was aware of the happenings and did not report them or even worse, encouraged or ordered them.

Ubenedictus: not they are not, unless d minister of education was prosecuted 4 d case then i'll see d similarity. Or if d president was prosecuted then u would have shown that the pope is responsible 4 d priest.

They do seem to be so, even if you removed direct contact. Did he instruct the Bishops hide these offenses? Did he order they just be reassigned rather than their being prosecuted?

Consider this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Catholic_archdiocese_of_Milwaukee


On another note, rather bizaarly, clergy are still not mandated to report child abuse cases everywhere, only in countries where it is illegal to not report them. Seems like they are willing to do anything possible to keep this hush hush. Na wah...

Ubenedictus: i have put my point clearly, i do not think card. Joseph was responsible in an way for the child abuse. His congregation serve as a court of appeal 4 d episcopal court. And he was in no position by church law to report any case, the bishops are responsible 4 dat.

First off, you seem confused about the nature of these accusations. He isn't accused of pedophilia, he's accused of covering up pedophilia. If he knows of any cases, in most countries he is bound by law to report them. Instead, it seems he actually went out of his way to even cover them up. You say otherwise though.

So, if he's innocent, then you should have no problem with facing the charges in say the hague, or any other similar court, yes?

Ubenedictus: what an analogy!!! U are comparing security with morality? That is really silly! President obama is responsible 4 d security of america, but he is not responsible legally or morally for d immorality of americans unless it can be proved dat obama legislated the immorality, like legislating abortion!.
ratzinger's congregation was responsible 4 d ecclesiatical case only as a court of appeal! He cant even tell d press talkless of d police about d ecclesiatical case because he is bound to secrecy. Only d bishops can report d cases and ratzinger's congregation has for ages given d directive dat such case be reported to d police by d bishop concerned even b4 d ecclesiatical case b4. In all righteousnes

Bound to secrecy does not override your duty to report certain crimes in most countries. If you witness a murder for instance, you're usually bound by law to report. Pedophilia? Definitely, in many countries yes.

If you cannot see the relevance then we are well and truly lost. The point is potus is responsible for his employees of that nature, they are his direct representatives. They speak for him, etc, are even hand picked by he himself (the ambassadors ie). If security fails, it's him they look at. Likewise if one them stumbles, it is him they look at. Why was he not in control? They were his responsibility

Another way to look at, he is the leader of the team, yes? Directly responsible for their actions, like say a platoon leader. If the team gets ambushed, the leader is the first person queried as to how he let that happen. If they succeed, his leadership skills are recognized. Likewise if one of his members screws up, the leader is questioned as well. Let alone a member of his team doing something egregious then the leader actually covering it up. He will definitely be court-marshaled. Do you see now?

Ubenedictus: ratzinger's congregation Fully fulfilled its duties.
good case! My question is, how is d american minister of education and d american president responsible?

Nothing. Potus is not related to that case, however the coach's superiors were very much so. It seems they knew about this, but decided to keep it hush. Needless to say they were all forced to resign, head coach, dean, etc. Their team's titles stripped, opprobrium and ignominy of stellar levels heaped upon them. In fact, there is the likelyhood that the head coach, chief behind the conspiracy to bury the case, could have faced jail time as well were it not for his death. This situation and that of ratzinger are highly similar from what I understand.

Mr_Anony: Lol is it now....My dear friend, if you say something that makes sense, I'll be one of the first to applaud it. However if you say nonsense I'll also be one of the first people to criticize it.

Yes, how charitable. I eagerly await your nonsense...

Mr_Anony: Lol, I thought that was the whole point of quoting you in the first place

You also address, stop doing that please good slave, it's annoying. I'll be good without that, thank you.

Mr_Anony: As I said earlier, it is your choice as is mine to reply or to ignore whichever posts we deem fit. I chose to point out to you and everyone else on the thread that your demand is irrational. I wasn't trolling just pointing out your irrationality. Your person is not of much interest to me, your arguments are.

My good a$$, I don't particularly care, nor do I imply my person is of interest to you, but please do indulge yourself. I do reply your posts as well though, just to let it be known I think you a good and proper eediot, thus I don't see the need to respond to your 'rationality'. You get? Just to make that clear.


EDIT: By the way, if you just aim to attack my points, then you don't need to address me. Just relate to your audience, wiegraff says blah blah blah, but it's garbage, garbage, garbage. Don't you think that's a better solution?

Logicboy03: Are you tired of Anony?

Not in the mood for Anonyism?

E tire me brah

Mr_Anony: I hope you do realize that by giving this reply, you have discredited observation as a means of investigation and hence all science as well. You have basically denied evidence that you can observe and asked for proof with the condition that you cannot observe it.

How does one prove something to you if you insist that you mustn't be able to observe it? This is why I call you an irrational skeptic. You ask questions absent the aim of getting an answer.

My good slave, do you not see other atheists about to troll?
What f***ing part of leave me alone do you not understand? Of course, it's your prerogative, but I don't get it though.

Deep Sight: In reality, it is not the "authourities" alone that were the issue. Every normal common man saw the sun moving in the sky from East to West everyday. As such, this was what every normal common man would believe.

Still doesn't change the fact that it was never proven.

Deep Sight: Lol. In reality, seeing the sun move from east to west everyday would more than count as proof. So don't go there.

No, it wouldn't. For instance I can see a tv, that does not mean there are little people in it. I would have to produce a little more evidence to support that position. A rational one that doesn't rely on my senses for one.

Deep Sight: Just the way seeing intelligent cause and design for things we create everyday also counts as proof.

Now, your position is that both of these are ignorant, no wahala.

Just as one was disproved, so the other should be disproved.

So there is a burden.

That's it.

Of course we're going to have to disagree, as I don't see the bolded, but kudos.

Note that I maybe agree with some of what you've said on the larger context, but certainly not the details

Deep Sight: This has no bearing on the point made. Unpredictability is not nothingness.

To say that something is unpredictable does not show that it comes from nothingness. There is no such thing as nothingness observed anywehere: and the referred substitute for nothingness (quantum vacuums) have been shown NOT to be nothing.

No, it does. You're missing a simple thing, what determines the unpredictability? Where did it come from?

On a windy day throw a leaf into the air and watch its path. It's rather unpredictable, but it is determined by the wind moving it around. What determines how energy moves, and where did this determinant come from?

Deep Sight: IF IT WAS NEVER PROVEN, THEN WHY DID IT NEED TO BE DISPROVEN?

Why did the scientists have to adduce proof? Why could they not reject it simply as " never proven?"

Because it was accepted by the authorities of the day, which were not actually scientific. Acceptance does not equal proven, that much is rather clear even in today's world. Not so with modern science though.

Deep Sight: Thank you. And that, sir, is my point. That any contradiction of a default position must be proven.

Simple.

Too simple actually, it ignores other factors. Like it was never proven as far as the modern scientific method is concerned, it was a default position made in ignorance.

It's still That any contradiction of a default and PROVEN position must be proven. as far as scientific claims are concerned.

Deep Sight: Virtual particles do not emerge from nothing because the quantum vacuums in which they are observed are not nothing. They contain low gaseous pressure. That is not, and cannot be nothing. Aside from this, no perfect vacuum has ever been observed anywhere. Never ever. Check it out.

I know no vacuums have been observed anywhere. But I fail to see how random gases and virtual particles are the same thing.

The way I understand it, so long as a particle exists, there is the potential for it to show up anywhere in the universe. That potential is, more or else, virtual energy. A particle moving anywhere as a wave would need to spread itself and flow. How does that flow work? What determines just how much does this bit move and that other bit move, etc etc? As far as we know, nothing. It's completely unpredictable.

We can try and measure and know at this point the particle has this much energy, it's this long at this moment, etc, but we can only guess what these values would be the next moment, or even concurrent complimentary ones. They fluctuate widely, but overall everything balances out (else this universe would be nonsensical). This unpredictability is seemingly determined by; nothing. It springs out from nowhere. Energy showing up and disappearing all the time. This potential is measurable everywhere and is used by every particle at every moment, more or else.

If I have it right, gas particles, like all other particles, need virtual particles to move around. They are a different thing to virtual particles.

Deep Sight: My first question was whether the church's position was a claim.

I then asked if it was the default position.

(I am glad you recognized that the knowledge community was "mixed" in the church at the time - if we may use that word. Please note though, this was not just a question of the Church. Common observation gave the common man to think that the sun moved from East to West, no?)

I hope you see the reason for the two questions above. I want to know if and why Copernicus or Galileo would have to adduce proof of their perspectives?

The church's position was never proven. It was one built around ignorance.

It may have been a claim, but an invalid one by today's standards. It was default of the church though.

Note importantly, they were providing alternatives, not just showing the default as wrong. They then needed to provide evidence for they're own theories, not just disprove the established claims (if there were valid ones).

Deep Sight: Modern science does not support any such thing my dear. I hope you are not thinking about virtual particles or other such. They do not emerge from nothing. There is no perfect vacuum ever observed by science anywhere.

Note I've already stated that we do not have the full picture, but as it stands, they do emerge from nothing. If not, how does matter move as a wave?

Deep Sight: I discussed this at length in a thread I opened a while back. Believe me, I have always held that the burden of proof rests with the Theists, until I had a conversation which caused me to think a little deeper on the subject.

Let me ask you a few questions.

1. When, contrary to accepted thought at the time, a Nicholas Copernicus asserted that the earth was in fact not the centre of the solar system, but that the sun was, and that contrary to the thinking of the church, the earth was in motion round the sun, and not vice versa -

a. Was the position of the church at that time a claim or not?

b. Was it not a default position?

c. Was the accepted thought right or was the scientist right.

b. Did the scientist have a burden of proof?

Copernicus was making a claim, he did bear the burden of proof but to the scientific community, not the church. Ie assuming he was challenging established science. Church could do as it pleases, it's not exactly a disciple of the scientific method.

Note, there was no proper scientific community before galileo for the most part though, science and church were well mixed in those days. Not so today, of course.

Deep Sight: 2. When, contrary to accepted thought at the time, Galileo asserted again against the idea that the Earth was static, in favour of the ideas of Copernicus -

a. Was the position of the Church a claim or not?

b. Was Galileo right or was the Church right

c. Did he bear a burden of proof?

In the event that you think either of the excellent gentlemen above had a burden of proof, why is that the case?

Or would you say that that they had no burden of proof?

Please address. And no, do not address it with "#Empty Rhetoric, debunked"

Many thanks.

Same as above.

Deep Sight: Indeed, as I have argued on this forum before, anybody making a claim against a default position, must bear and discharge a burden of proof - even where the default position is wrong. This is exemplified by the likes of Nicolaus Corpernicus - bless his soul, its his birthday today.

The default position of mankind based on its common experience is intelligent causality: and even if this position is wrong, anyone who says the contrary would therewith be saddled with a burden of proof.

Key word here is 'default'. And you need only show that it is wrong, not provide an alternative. If the wrong found is not critical, it's possible the position is true but some bits require further study, but it certainly wouldn't be the full picture if it's shown to be wrong.

When nothing has been proven yet the burden of proof does not lay with the claim against. There's nothing to disprove. Consider string theorists for instance, who have done just about everything except provide physical evidence to back their assertions. We don't accept their assertions as true though, impressive as they may be to those versed in the sciences. Even the theorists themselves don't assume their assertions are true for the most part. They assume them as likely true, but don't go around stating them as fact. Until they provide good evidence, no one need do anything to disprove them, they haven't proven anything yet.

Deep Sight: something or the other must be self-existent.

I do not think that's the only option. To be more precise, I do not think the idea of something physically existing for all time is a prerequisite.

For instance, modern science does not have a full picture, but it does support the idea of something from nothing. It supports the idea of potential energy being turning into real energy. Something like that, potential ie, I can also see as existing by default. Any other thing, including time, would not be necessary in this scenario.

It's possible some potential turned into physical imo, but as a totally abstract device it might be virtually impossible to explore it or even make sense of it. Note that without time etc, nothing physical existing before it, there'd be a definite start time, and who knows, it might even have an end time. Then 'elsewhere' potential becomes real, physical energy, etc, etc. It could be even happening right now.

I would still describe this state of just potential as nothing, no time, no energy, no matter, etc. Nothing as far as we're concerned, except potential. It's an option as likely to me as something existing forever.

Worries about what btw?

Deep Sight: God "popping" out of nothing is as bad as the universe "popping" out of nothing, no?

Besides that, have you sat down to really reflect on what is at play here? You do realize, do you not, that whichever way the dice is rolled, something or the other must be self-existent, do you not?

Surely you do know this, do you not?

No, I am not sold on infinities physically existing, but that's another issue. To me, something popping out of nowhere is as likely as an infinity, like infinite time. Or when was the 'first' anything?

You are arguing for deist god btw, which isn't judeoxtian god. But whatever popped out of nothing, or was self-existent since forever would much more likely have to have been basic, elementary imo. Not complexity to simple, but the opposite.

Mr_Anony: Actually this is untrue. You know that 122222222222222334445433333333333333333336355555555555566^833333333333333333333330000000000000004 x 122222222222222334445433333333333333333336355555555555566^833333333333333333333330000000000000004 is not -1 because it can be mathematically proven that it isn't -1 (i.e. the product of two positives is never a negative and also the product of two positive numbers is always a number either equal to or greater than each of them)

You cannot disprove something in a vacuum. In order to disagree with a claim, you must provide valid reasons why you do and not merely object then sit back and ask the claimant to convince you on why you should not object without telling him why you objected in the first place. It doesn't work that way my dear.

Anony, for the love of your god, leave me alone.

davidylan: both are one and the same... it gets tiring reading the incredibly dishonest waffling. A credible rationale/credible alternative is one and the same thing....

They are not, david. Stop it, it's embarrassing and weak.

davidylan: If you have nothing to say just come out and say so. Both on there are one and the same... a credible scientific alternative is simply the same as credible evidence for why my position is wrong.

Its like me saying 2+2 = 5. You say it is wrong then go right ahead to provide working proof of why the answer is 4 instead of 5. You did 2 things there... not only did you prove me wrong, you also provided a credible reason why in one fell swoop.

It seems to me that all these long long meaningless tomes are just a sneaky way of saying you really have no scientific alternative to share with us. It shouldnt take us 22 pages and yet we still have no idea what the atheist stands for besides abusing the christian.

If I told you 122222222222222334445433333333333333333336355555555555566^833333333333333333333330000000000000004 x 122222222222222334445433333333333333333336355555555555566^833333333333333333333330000000000000004 was a negative number I wouldn't need to show you the solution to that to tell you that you are wrong.

In your words, "You can dismiss it as much as you want obviously because it makes nonsense of you and your ilk". You are being blatantly dishonest, disingenuous, etc. Some call it "whor.ing for christ".

As to alternatives, I have hypotheses, not theories, and I don't go around stating them as fact. They clearly aren't, not until we have evidence that cannot be questioned. (Btw, we all know that for some reason religious people seem to find this concept rather difficult to comprehend.) I would also say the hypotheses I tend support are far more likely than judeo-xtian god, which is complete rubbish for the most part.

EDITS

davidylan: Scientists regularly question publications (sometimes by publishing responses to peer-reviewed journals)... you are absolutely expected to provide a sound and credible rationale as to why you think the published article is wrong and provide your alternative. If i were to just write "you are wrong" 20 times and send it in... i probably would get a ban from that journal. Most of you tout the scientific process but truth be told, many of you do not have the mental rigor to take real science classes.

Just seeing your edit (you should indicate when you can please). The bold is false, while the green is true.

davidylan: I dont see it... this is senseless circular illogic.

This is how the atheist works - he dismisses your notion of God... BUT provides no credible evidence as to why.

When you ask him why he holds such a view, he claims it is because you have not provided God's telephone number to him... i wonder if these folks ever passed an integrated science test in their lives.

If i questioned a science publication and then said i disproved it because they did not prove their point WITHOUT me clearly detailing why i disagreed with them, i'd be laughed out of the room.

Look at the bold david, and you dared to call me dishonest just now...

You've now changed the parameters. Before one needed to give you an alternative solution, now one need only provide credible evidence as to why the challenged solution is false (or very likely false). These two things are in no shape, way or form the same thing, yet you perhaps thought you could get away with it. What's this called? Shifting posts or something I think.

So with the bold, (which isn't nonsense by the way, that's indeed how it's supposed to work most of the time) we can do plenty of that. It's been done on this very page for instance; how did your god pop out of nowhere? Magic? Magic isn't science, yes?

And note, usually the publication you question must at least be a valid hypothesis before you even waste time addressing it, or do you waste time with claims that are blatant pseudo-science?

davidylan: It is fact period. You can dismiss it as much as you want obviously because it makes nonsense of you and your ilk.

If i say 2+2 is not equal to 4, dont you ask why or do you simply shrug and walk off?

No it is not a fact. Even by the standards of nonsense it is silly.

I ask you why, if you cannot show me why then I disperse of your nonsense.

If I ask you what created the universe and you reply (as you love to) god, I ask you "why?". If you cannot show me why then I disperse of your nonsense.

See how it works?

davidylan: Dishonest idiocy. The atheist wants the right to "dismiss" religious theories while offering nothing of substance in return... all the while crowing about his superior intellect. How that makes logical sense to anyone beats me. If you dismiss a theory it must be because you have an more credible theory... that is the scientific process.

No it isn't. Stop being silly

davidylan: He was asked a simple question - what is the alternative explanation (scientific in this case) for man's existence?

If you deny the existence of God, you automatically assume that we appeared by some other form... what is it? Its a simple question so i wonder why he's been acting like a weasel all along.

You well know he need not provide an alternative, so long as it does not add up then he can dismiss it. If I told you that beyond every black hole there was an infinite field composed of bunnies you need not provide an alternative to tell me that that is very unlikely.

davidylan: Irrelevant rambling. If i remember correctly, the question was that you explain the scientific evidence that proves God doesnt exist... i.e. what is the scientific evidence for the existence of man and the solar system independent of God?

Of course i can bet my entire salary this month that you have no answer to that question.

I'm confused, is he supposed to prove to you that god doesn't exist?

Lovethywilbedon: My friend keep Quiet. This shows that you don't know anything about the Catholic Church. The Pope has no business with any priest whatsoever, and no priest own any allegiance to the Pope, exccept the ones ordained in the diocese of Rome where the Pope is the Bishop. This is one of the many things you outsiders don't know about the Catholic Church, and you come here to talk Authoritatively as if you have a pHD in Cannon Law. Now let me school you little in Cannon Law. Every Catholic Diocesian Priest, on the day of his ordination, makes a promise of obedience to his Local Ordinary, ie his Bishop and his successor, and not to the Pope. So the Pope has no right "Cannonicaly" to call that priest to order or excommunicate him, but his Bishop can easily do both just with the snap of his fingers. It is only a priest ordained in the diocese of Rome (where the Pope is the Bishop), that he has the Cannonical right to decipline. Consequently, it is only the Bishop of a Diocese, who trained and elevated a priest to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, can "indirectly" be held responsible for the crime commited by the priest. Not and NEVER a Cardinal of any Congregation, talkless of the Pope. He is neither Directly nor Indirectly connected to these crimes, So you see the Pope is protected from every side. Know this today, The Catholic Church is the Oldest and the Most Organised Institution on Earth. With more than 2,000years of Experience, do you think any Man born of a Woman, can Outshine this "OLD LADY" in WISDOM?. Don't mind what the media is feeding you with. All they want is to make some money with something New (News). Since the Catholic Church in imitation of her Founder Jesus Christ, has remained silent, without litigating against, tonnes of false informations being carried by the media, these people keep making their money Big.

Seriously, wow... What's this, 'The Godfather'?

Ubenedictus: hahaha, a coverup that doesnt exist.

It doesn't?
So, considering the fact that there's been widespread abuse documented you'll have no problems with that option being thoroughly investigated then, yes?
Or do you still insist that he was not responsible at some level for their actions?

With your US presidents example for instance, I believe when his representatives (and employees), the diplomats, were killed a lot of criticism was leveled at his office related to security concerns. In essence, he was responsible for their safety, they were his responsibility, just like those priests were Ratzinger's (I assume, don't know the details). Wikileaks documents that were posted which showed clinton ordering some underhanded clandestine activity and what not, critisism leveled at her and her office. Let's not even consider Bush.

Now, the situations may be different, diplomatic immunity working differently in different situations, and I don't know how your church works. But to imply Ratzinger was not accountable, especially if his office was directly responsible for handling these matters, seems rather disingenuous, no? Also consider that these accusations are from before Ratzinger was actually pope.

A good case study would be the abuse cases recently with the american college football coach, the fallout described here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal

Yes?

Mr_Anony: And you are welcome to address mine because my comment was specifically meant for you.

So? Is it not obvious that I don't want to

kalunomics: i think he's only trying to make you understand something here, since david may not be online now

You tell me what it is, I might respond. I'm not interested in indulging him in particular. It's a waste of time.

chukwudi44: @evilbrain

I can see you are very much passionate about having pope benedict arrested!! So what have you done personally to bring that to fruition? Don't tell me opening this thread is part of it as it will only remain here in nl.

I will still repeat it is very much easier to arrest an american president than to try to arrest a pope or even an ex-pope

You don't seem particularly interested in whether he's guilty or innocent.

Mr_Anony: I don't think that is the case at all and secondly I find it funny that suddenly you are concerned about these impressionable "young teens". Do you also show the same care and concern when your abuse and insult their beliefs with some of the most vile and disgusting words ever spewed on this forum? Or you don't think there are impressionable young religious teens too?

The point still remains that you lot are yet to show any valid example of atheist discrimination in Nigeria. Davidlyan is not accusing you guys of cowardice in the sense that you will be discriminated against(there is no evidence for that in Nigeria) rather he is accusing you of cowardice in the sense that you cannot defend your "scientific claims" outside the internet where copy and paste resources like google and wikipedia are out of reach.

You're very welcome to address of course, but that post wasn't meant for you