Sean Brady Steps Down

[muppet]

Again, that is true, but as useful as a lighthouse in a bog in casting any light on anything relevant, since I can't think of any sensible person who believes that. But science is the only reasonable approach to discerning the truth of how the universe works materially. Or have you got a better one?

The new atheist approach is not scientific but they claim science and reason.
All very fine to explore and examine concepts such as qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia but the new atheists are akin to  false prophets making false claims.
Perhaps you are not acquainted with the writings of the new atheists as they claim the science and reason platform  for their beliefs and perhaps you have read here the criticism for Tony who expressed aspects of his belief system. My point is simple the new atheists who claim the science ground are no different than the belief system Tony has
Let's take one popular book "The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason"
The atheist beleif system  centers around naturalism  and I quote from the author
"the view that all of reality is reducible to matter and nothing else--is sufficient to explain everything we observe in the universe, from the most distant galaxies to the inner workings of the brain that result in the phenomenon of mind."
However that statement is false as we don't have an adequate materialist/naturalist explanation of subjective conscious experiences (qualia). And naturalist/materialist proponents have – like most Western thinkers – only addressed cosmological issues regarding efficient cause, never touching on the subject of material cause.
reference Aristotle  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

This new atheism is  scientism, a belief system, religious in nature, not much different than Tony's
New atheists dispute that existence of God is beyond the science and argue that absence of evidence for God is, indeed, evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not.
I would compare that to a belief in the immaculate conception.

Is the above not merely the hypothesis stage of the scientific method? It may, of course, turn out to be complete nonsense, but isn't that the way it works?

[Main Street]

Again, that is true, but as useful as a lighthouse in a bog in casting any light on anything relevant, since I can't think of any sensible person who believes that. But science is the only reasonable approach to discerning the truth of how the universe works materially. Or have you got a better one?

The new atheist approach is not scientific but they claim science and reason.
All very fine to explore and examine concepts such as qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia but the new atheists are akin to  false prophets making false claims.
Perhaps you are not acquainted with the writings of the new atheists as they claim the science and reason platform  for their beliefs and perhaps you have read here the criticism for Tony who expressed aspects of his belief system. My point is simple the new atheists who claim the science ground are no different than the belief system Tony has
Let's take one popular book "The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason"
The atheist beleif system  centers around naturalism  and I quote from the author
"the view that all of reality is reducible to matter and nothing else--is sufficient to explain everything we observe in the universe, from the most distant galaxies to the inner workings of the brain that result in the phenomenon of mind."
However that statement is false as we don't have an adequate materialist/naturalist explanation of subjective conscious experiences (qualia). And naturalist/materialist proponents have – like most Western thinkers – only addressed cosmological issues regarding efficient cause, never touching on the subject of material cause.
reference Aristotle  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

This new atheism is  scientism, a belief system, religious in nature, not much different than Tony's
New atheists dispute that existence of God is beyond the science and argue that absence of evidence for God is, indeed, evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not.
I would compare that to a belief in the immaculate conception.

Is the above not merely the hypothesis stage of the scientific method? It may, of course, turn out to be complete nonsense, but isn't that the way it works?

The new atheists claim science and reason.
Hypothesis is not science it is a starting point, whereas new atheism believe they have the answers already.
BTW,  it is encouraging to read that Hardy reckons that characters such as  Victor J. Stenger, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are not sensible people

[muppet]

Hypothesis is absolutely a part of science. It is where science begins.

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

[Main Street]

Hypothesis is absolutely a part of science. It is where science begins.

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

As i wrote, it is not science, it is a starting point (of science).
from your link
"A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess,"
There is no way that an educated guess is science.

The new atheists are claiming they have the finished scientific product. You get the difference?

[muppet]

Hypothesis is absolutely a part of science. It is where science begins.

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

As i wrote, it is not science, it is a starting point (of science).
from your link
"A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess,"
There is no way that an educated guess is science.

The new atheists are claiming they have the finished scientific product. You get the difference?

'the initial building bock'?

QED

[LCohen]

What questions?

Tony I have asked you loads of questions that you have either avoided completely or set to wriggle out of. Here is a gentle reminder of only the ones I have asked you:

On the anal rape of children/cover-up of anal rape of children/protection of child rapists on which the thread began:
Did Brady request that the key witnesses to any legal inquiry in fact take an oath of silence?
Would asking a child to sign an oath of silence be an act of commission or an act ot omission?
Did Brady report the matter (and all the facts he was aware of) to the police?
Does the fact that guilty actions are "time honoured" somehow make the perpretrator innocent?
Why would not knowing of the scale of child abuse in anyway excuse the failure to report to the legal authorities a single incident?
Should the church and individual members of the church should face the legal consequences of their actions (whether that be committing the abuse, covering it up at the time, failing to report to the police at the time, frustrating legal inquiries at the time, frustrating the subsequent inquries, moving assets beyond the reach of victims and failing to bring forward all the evidence they have today)?
Would you support prison sentences for any individual who was aware of child abuse and did not report it to the appropriate public authorities?
What is your view on those who do not commit the abuse but are confronted with compelling evidence of abuse and either a) say nothing, b) actively cover it up, c) act to leave the perpretrator in a position with access to children (say vulnerable children in one on one scenarios), d) move the pepretrator to a new position where this situation could arise, e) do nothing when its known that children are at risk from this type of perpetrator in this type of situation or f) presurise a victim or a family to keep quiet? Are they depraved?
Was it racist to pack known offenders off to continue their "holy orders" in Uruaquay or the Phillipines?

On your personal beliefs:
How does the fact that other people believe in the same thing as you excuse you from the evidential burden?
What if you have wasted the only life tou will ever have preparing your self for the big nothing? Is that not the big risk in your MO?
Why do accuse atheists of having chosen materialism or hedonism? What is your evidence?
How can a BELIEF in the crucifixtion and resurection of jesus amount to a PROOF of the existence of god?
Do you belive in Adam & Eve?
Do you believe in the immaculate conception?
Do believe that Jesus Christ fulfils the prophecy of coming from the House of David?
What is this redemptive sacrifice?
Why does he want people to believe in "him"?Surely "he" would be more worried about what people do?
Do you really want to stand over your claom that the bible is unambiguous?

On the bible:
What sort of guide do the scriptures provide (given that they endorse ritual sacrifice, rape, sexism, racism, sectarianism, child torture, hissy fits and total illogicality)?
Do peolpe actually use the bible as their moral guide?
Do you see the racism and sexism in the 10 commandments?
Is treating adultery as more serious than murder not a bit mixed up?
Is all christian art sinful?
Is the Sabbath saturday or Sunday?
Stonings to death are a moral guide of what?
Do you need a book to tell you not to steal or bear false witness against your neighbour?
Is the plea not to honour any other god anything more than jealousy and has it not resulted in racism, sectarianism with ethnic cleansing in the name of god?
What does it mean to take the name of god in vain? Were lethal Croat attacks on Bosnian muslims done in the name of god actually breaking this commandment?
Do you need a book to tell you to honour your Ma & Da? How did Jesus do on this one?
What is the evidence of what Jesus said to whom?
What is the evidence that Jesus appeared to the apostles, tom got a shock and then they all saw him ascend into heaven?
Do you really think that secular law is based upon the 10 commandments? (How is the graven images one reflected in moder law? Are there no examples of murder been frowned upon before Moses came down the hill? Also you are aware that Moses was fine with murder and only got concerned if the victims of the murder were fellow jews? Are there any modern, secular laws that forbids the murder of citizens of the state/faith but is fine with the muder of foreigners?)
What is this "salvation" you mention?

On religion/faith generally:
Explain this heavy price for non-belief?
You contend that god exists and will sit in judgement at the end of our early life but are you saying that God will value belief higher than say kindness or charity? If so why?
Those brought up without religion are they not secular? If so how have they abandoned religion?
Do you really think that those untouched by the old testament don't have similar/identical ethical values to some/all of the 10 commandments?

[T Fearon]

Summary.Child abuse,I believe the Church was totally wrong,made every mistake in the book and prioritised its reputation ahead of victims and the criminals,but it us wrong to lay all the blame at Sean Brady's door.There is also a difference between being aware of child abuse and hearing allegations of same.

Personal beliefs.I am happy with my life, and feel blessed in many ways.I am not in any way constrained by my beliefs and am risking nothing if they are incorrect.I don't believe Adam and Eve existed,like a lot of the OT the stories are metaphorical but I do believe in the immaculate conception and the redemption of the cross.I do not understand why anyone' who doesn't believe in God would expect any favours from him at death,even if they lived like a Saint.

Bible.I concede it is complicated and contradictory and for this reason I don't pay a lot of attention to the minutiae beyond the life and example of Christ in the gospels, which is all anyone really needs.

Religion/Faith.In the gospels Christ makes it clear that belief in him (that's the key) and obeying the commandments is all that is required to win salvation.I would never presume to second guess how God will judge.

[Eamonnca1]

Gawd! Is this thread still going?

[lynchbhoy]

Jeez this thread is as idiotic and as much a spectator sport as that over hyped ott ryder cup lark - where people are fawning over overpaid pseudo athletes in a meaningless irrelevant 'competition'

This Sean Brady crap - it's over. No one knows 99% of what he did or didn't do.
In true Irish fashion ( as with tribunals and banking corruption fiascos) - no one will be held accountable ( save the odd fall guy).
The legal system is being changed so this will never happen again.
The pope is changing the church system so it will never happen again.

Can't change the past. Just make sure it's better in future

[Aaron Boone]

+1

[T Fearon]

The debate has moved on from Brady into a display of contempt for religious faiths and their adherents.To that extent it is instructive.

[muppet]

Jeez this thread is as idiotic and as much a spectator sport as that over hyped ott ryder cup lark - where people are fawning over overpaid pseudo athletes in a meaningless irrelevant 'competition'

This Sean Brady crap - it's over. No one knows 99% of what he did or didn't do.
In true Irish fashion ( as with tribunals and banking corruption fiascos) - no one will be held accountable ( save the odd fall guy).
The legal system is being changed so this will never happen again.
The pope is changing the church system so it will never happen again.

Can't change the past. Just make sure it's better in future

I suspect time will prove you wrong there LB.

It has taken a decade and a half for him to admit anything. I suspect there is more to come.

[lynchbhoy]

Jeez this thread is as idiotic and as much a spectator sport as that over hyped ott ryder cup lark - where people are fawning over overpaid pseudo athletes in a meaningless irrelevant 'competition'

This Sean Brady crap - it's over. No one knows 99% of what he did or didn't do.
In true Irish fashion ( as with tribunals and banking corruption fiascos) - no one will be held accountable ( save the odd fall guy).
The legal system is being changed so this will never happen again.
The pope is changing the church system so it will never happen again.

Can't change the past. Just make sure it's better in future

I suspect time will prove you wrong there LB.

It has taken a decade and a half for him to admit anything. I suspect there is more to come.

He's a tool muppet
But he wasn't the actual problem
Pointless focussing on him
Esp now

[muppet]

Jeez this thread is as idiotic and as much a spectator sport as that over hyped ott ryder cup lark - where people are fawning over overpaid pseudo athletes in a meaningless irrelevant 'competition'

This Sean Brady crap - it's over. No one knows 99% of what he did or didn't do.
In true Irish fashion ( as with tribunals and banking corruption fiascos) - no one will be held accountable ( save the odd fall guy).
The legal system is being changed so this will never happen again.
The pope is changing the church system so it will never happen again.

Can't change the past. Just make sure it's better in future

I suspect time will prove you wrong there LB.

It has taken a decade and a half for him to admit anything. I suspect there is more to come.

He's a tool muppet
But he wasn't the actual problem
Pointless focussing on him
Esp now

Sure Smyth was the problem. Just like any sexual offender, if viewed in isolation.

But if it emerged that an organisation successfully and deliberately concealed the activities of a serial sex offender, not least by silencing victims, then it is a must that you focus on all of those involved. But we know that this particular organisation concealed the activities of many, many sex offenders. We know that they did everything to avoid revealing the truth. It would be naive to think that is the end of it.

[lynchbhoy]

Seriously what's naive about it?
Full disclosure will never happen.
The guilty will be dead. No one will ever fully know- the evidence is not document based.

Nothing can or will be done about the past.

Just to take measures it never happens again- or if an inkling of such occurrences appear, they are dealt with swiftly and accurately ( due to new legs land church policies and procedures).

Yours and others sentiments are correct and admirable muppets, but you are focussing on what is past and cannot be resurrected
Move on! You'll drive yourself mad otherwise