Like Protestants I thought atheists would also believe that the Pope is never infallible.
That’s for sure! I really find it hard to bend my head around being both an atheist and accepting “infallibility” in any sense other than the purely analytic.
(i.e., statements that are tautologically true: Shakespeare is the writer of the writings of Shakespeare. Valid syllogisms are “infallible.”)
But synthetic statements, like “Canada is the second largest country in the world by area?” No statement of that sort can ever be “infallible,” except only if you defend it by faith.
We really oughta have a Sticky about Papal Infallibility. It’s one of those things that is only ever brought up by people who have no fucking idea what it means. People who actually know what it is hardly ever give it any thought as it is an entirely unremarkable concept with really no substance to be mined for any controversy.
Catholics don’t believe the Pope is infallible. To quote Pope John XXIII:
“I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.”
The concept of Papal Infallibility has extremely narrow applications and is almost never invoked. From Wiki:
It has nothing to do with affirming facts and being absolutely unquestionably factually correct about the subject matter. It’s simply an establishment of a point of faith of this particular religion being proclaimed by the person recognized by the adherents of this particular religion as being the head of this particular religion.
What’s so controversial about an established organized religion having an established organized dogma? If you don’t believe the beliefs of one particular religion then that particular religion isn’t the religion for you. You might as well say, “How dare J.R.R. Tolkien tell me that Hobbits have hairy feet! What does he think, that he’s infallible!?”
If the Pope speaking ex cathedra defines a doctrine that Oreos are better than Chips Ahoy, that doesn’t mean that Oreos are better than Chips Ahoy it simply means that the belief that Oreos are better than Chips Ahoy is thenceforth an affirmed belief of the Catholic Church. It has no bearing on anyone who isn’t Catholic and people who have been Catholic who don’t agree that Oreos are better than Chips Ahoy might need to question whether or not they still want to consider themselves to be Catholic.
And the fact that Infallibility is so rarely invoked means that the vast majority of Catholic beliefs are open to interpretation and dispute among Catholics and open to evolving over time.
It’s really a bland concept.
On that note…is the notion of an omnipotent, infalliable God actually in the Bible? I’d think resetting Earth would kind of be an admission of a mistake.
and slightly related…I think some Christians think the belief in other Gods is blasphemy (or ironically…stupid) even though right there in the Bible God sorta admits there are other Gods (I am a jealous God…yes I know it can be interpreted otherwise)
Then there’s Pharoahs dude who can actually perform magic…not as powerful as Moses natch.
*Christ…Cracked could write a hundred “Everything you think you know is in the Bible is not” articles.
Or the Witch of Endor who actually could summon up the ghost of Samuel.
Heck, the first time around took Him six days, and then He rested on the seventh. Now, granted, that’s still incredibly impressive – but I didn’t see a note in there spelling out that uh, He was just pretending to rest, and He could’ve created everything in six hours or even six seconds if He’d felt like it, only He didn’t.
I need help in Wikipedia!
I created the following section:
There’s a guy that keeps on removing all mention of the Horus-Jesus problem. One of his reasons is:
“…this is not the venue to debate theories which may have been mentioned in the film…”
Part of my reply:
You’re writing your own Wikipedia entry…and citing a SDMB debate as factual basis…and you wonder why it’s getting deleted?
Lad, this is some of the worst scholarship I’ve ever seen in my entire life.
No it is referring to a sd column not this thread!!! And it is a section of the religulous article not a standalone article. It is talking about opinions not claiming that this is about facts.
Here is the column it is referring to:
It is by Cecil, the “world’s smartest human”.
What exactly is incorrect or misleading about it? Multiple problems please. Do you dispute that “the Straight Dope column stated” or that StrangeNotions.com “republished an in-depth response to the claims of the Horus segment concluding…”.? I didn’t assert their opinions are facts though I implied that they are probably reliable.
I assume that you agree that the Horus section of the documentary is not accurate. Do you have any better references that are specifically talking about this film because if they aren’t that guy would delete them saying that they should be in a different article.
BTW here is an old long section about the Horus section that was also removed:
Note that the references for my version specifically mention the movie (part of the reason why the original was removed)
Isn’t it relevant to an article about a documentary if parts of it clearly aren’t factual despite making viewers believe that it is factual? As I said earlier, almost every controversial documentary that I can think of is allowed to talk about this. It is just for this particular movie that this guy has a problem with.
Okay; my bad. I apologize.
(However, the SDMB is not a good resource for a fact-based reference or claim. This is a debating society. We’ve got flat-earthers and creationists here. Primary sources are much to be preferred.)
I definitely agree that Maher choked, by over-stating a valid point. However, some of his critics have also erred, by claiming that all of his claims were wrong.
(It’s an extreme case, and not really representative, but I’ve actually heard Christians argue that the resemblances between Horus, Mithras, and Jesus were caused by a vast wave of psychic shock, reverberating from the Crucifixion, travelling backward in time. Now that’s crazy!)
I think the balanced fact is, yes, Christianity borrowed elements from other religions, in a certain number of cases. Not as many as Maher claimed, but a good handful. And not just Christianity: the Moses story, of the baby set afloat in a little crib in the river, has roots more ancient than Moses. Noah’s Flood was borrowed from Ut-Napishtim’s Flood. Etc.
All the matters is whether people are on my side and are good at dealing with Wikipedia matters. I’d even welcome flat-earthers or creationists in this instance. And the talk page is involving a debate!
I’m not sure what you mean. Should I try and get Cecil personally involved?
My section only talks about the Horus segment. I think the entire segment is misleading or false and that is backed up by my two sources.
That just muddies up the waters. I just want to focus on what people can agree is false - the Horus segment - the part set to “Walk Like an Egyptian” that StrangeNotions responds to line by line. Yes there might be similarities between Mithras and Jesus or something but that’s not what my section was about.
The two sources I referenced are specifically talking about the film. Like I said do you know of any better sources? The guy who keeps on deleting posts (including other people’s) about this kind of thing insists that it should be specifically related to the film.
nm
This is not going to be fact-based, and Wikipedia isn’t where we should be arguing out opinions. WP should note the existence of the film, its release date, its length, and some of the things it actually says. WP should not go into which particular parts of the film are incorrect.
Basing that kind of opinion on a general-discussion debate forum like the SDMB is double silly; we’re just a bunch of folks with opinions (which are like armpits…)
I think you’re crow-barring opinions into a listing of facts and data.
WP is more moderated these days than back in the beginning, when it was totally open, for anyone to go in and modify, anytime, for any reason. I remember watching the “abortion” topic swing madly, as pro-life and pro-choice people modified the entry to suit their personal ideologies. That made WP of absolutely zero value whatever. Eventually, the people running it caught wise to this, and put in some rules and oversight.
It seems to me that you’re making the error of trying to go back to those bad old days.
If I’m wrong here, I’m sorry. If you really are trying to make a listing of pure facts, yay. But, again, citing this debate forum isn’t going to serve as a citation of actual facts.
I do think that it is a fact that the Horus section with the background music is misleading and mostly made up and it repeated what Massey said so it originated from Massey.
I think you are mixed up. I never cited “this debate forum”. The debate forum is boards.straightdope.com. I cited Cecil’s column which is www.straightdope.com. This column has been “fighting ignorance since 1973”. i.e. it is about the “Truth”. i.e. it involves Facts.
According to:
http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil
“Cecil Adams is the world’s most intelligent human being. We know this because: (1) he knows everything, and (2) he is never wrong.
How do we know that Cecil knows everything and is never wrong?
Because he said so, and he would never lie to us.”
It is a fact that the Straight Dope column said those things.
The Religulous - Wikipedia Reception section is FILLED with people’s opinions about the film.
Well it does actually talk about alleged similarities between Horus and Jesus. Some guy won’t let any mention of this exist.
It is a documentary which implies factual content so it is relevant as to whether things are factual. Where is it stated on Wikipedia that articles on documentaries can’t do this? Like I said here are some examples: not only Bowling for Columbine and Zeitgeist (film series) but also Money as Debt, Sicko, Capitalism: A Love Story, Fahrenheit 9/11, The Secret (2006 film), What the Bleep Do We Know!?, Super Size Me, etc. In fact just about any controversial documentary I can think of. Many of these talk in depth about numerous factual problems on a range of topics.
No it is based on Cecil and the place that attempts to be “the central place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists”. And these in turn are based on a list of references to books, etc. Note that the people in the Reception section are far less qualified. Some of them commented on the Horus section and assumed it was true without doing any proper research.
Like I said the two sources refer to a list of books, etc, in their web pages. They are more informed than the long list of opinions that are allowed to exist in the Reception section.
So I’m saying that the Horus section isn’t factual. If I’m wrong, then provide some evidence. Otherwise I think my two educated sources are sufficient evidence that my view should be taken seriously.
BTW this could be relevant:
“In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.”
And it is verifiable that the Straight Dope column, “is an online question-and-answer newspaper column published in the Chicago Reader and syndicated in eight newspapers in the United States” and that it took a certain stance as to whether the Horus segment was accurate.
I can see heaps of problems in the Reception section that that guy just leaves there:
e.g.
In a review for The New York Times, Stephen Holden notes that when Maher “turns from evangelical Christianity to Judaism and Islam, its tone becomes uncertain and its rhythm choppy”
I think it implies that it is a “fact” that the movie’s tone “becomes uncertain and its rhythm choppy”. Maybe it is a fact but does it deserve a mention while the fact that at least two significant sources did extensive research about the Horus segment can’t be mentioned at all?
BTW the Straight Dope wikipedia article
has the following in its “See also” section:
This implies The Straight Dope column is also an authority on whether topics are myths or facts.