I don’t have a problem with atheists — each to his own comfort level — nonetheless, it is ridiculous for one of that inclination to get rattled to the extent that others of belief are denied their comfort. Atheism by definition is free from religion. Theists are free to believe as they see fit; atheists should look upon these " misguided" as pathetic but have the right to the "wrong" path. If, however, atheist take on the passion of "religion" in their belief that there is no God, they in reality are in the business of propagating their non-faith as feverishly as the old Marxist line. In this respect they are as trapped in "belief" as the rest of us pathetic old fools. They should therefore lobby for a limited currency series that states "In "God we do not trust," or a postage stamp that shows a black hole with the inscription "Godless."
Ho hum....All empty charges.
The one who opposes the Catholic Church must do so on principle, and cannot logically rail at her for forming her doctrines on faith and morals according to the principles Christ gave her.
The Protestant separation from the RCC was a return to Christianity as per the Bible. And a major contributing factor was that the RCC from the Pope on down were bought and paid for ... which isn't very Christian at all. I think they have a much more valid case for moral values than the RCC ever did. Most who are not Catholic opposes the RCC ... it is not just me. Slavery means the same to everyone.
Most Catholics I know oppose their own church in some ways. Or simply pick and choose which parts of the doctrine they wish to believe or follow.
The evidence suggests that human morality is subjective and that nations which have a larger population of Freethinkers (people who use scientific knowledge and reason to gain their knowledge and to formulate their opinions) are, on average, more societally healthy than nations with large amounts of religious belief. For example: regarding HIV/AIDS infection rates, the highly religious nations of Africa (mostly Muslim and Christian) have incredibly high infection rates, conversely, the highly irreligious nations of Western Europe such as those of Scandinavia -where public sex education is supported and birth control is widely accessible-fared the best, experiencing among the lowest rates of AIDS and HIV infection in the world.
In nearly every measure of societal health, Freethinking 'Godless' nations fare the best in the world and god fearing nations fare the worst, on average, however the one measure of societal health that religious nations fare better on average than Freethinking ones is suicide.
Now the AHA are working to create a 'new world order', a new world of freedom and liberty in which those who've been oppressed under religion's yoke for centuries, women, homosexuals, children, and minorities can be free to live their lives without being afraid of verbal or physical abuse.
Back to morality: human morality is subjective, for example: actions considered moral in the Old Testament, executing POWs, prostitutes, disobedient children and adulterers appear to us as being horrid and immoral. In fact, have you ever heard of the Mosuo? They are an ethnic group in the PRC and they are unique for their courtship traditions, they have 'walking marriages', what they call 'zou hun'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo)
I'd like to ask you question, If I may: how do you explain the fact that, compared to the other developed, industrialized, democratic nations, societal health in the U.S. plummets, even though we are a very religious God fearing nation and the other developed nations are Freethinking 'Godless' nations?
The problem with Catholicism is simply this: "Tradition trumps scripture.".
Catholics will say tradition affirms scripture but in fact, scripture is always required within the Catholic church to affirm Cathlocism.
So if a scripture is interpreted to not support a Catholic dogma, it is "wrong" and if a wrong interpretation supports Catholic dogma then it is "right".
The elevation of tradition and pronouncements of authority by Catholic leadership allow the Catholic church to constantly reinterpret their practices and teaching and doctrines--as well as the bible. This is the same structure and argument used by Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Catholic church in times past has used terror and murder as a valid (God approved) means of "protecting the faith", reversed or changed it's opinions (which when originally stated were not "opinion")--with each change being as divinely inspired as the one which contradicted it.
Popes have taken bribes, started wars, tortured and executed non-Catholics as a doctrinal practice, had mistresses, forbidden laity access to copies of the bible or even having it read in a language they knew--the list goes on.
All along it was "Doing the will of Christ" and "Divinely Approved".
I'm no more deceived by this than I am by a Protestant pastor who seduces women and steals money saying that "God gave him the right".
I don't believe being a member of the Catholic church precludes one from being a Christian but I also am certain that not being a member of it does not prevent one from belonging to Christ either.
I personally don't think the religion has a "problem". I think people should be free to practice the religion if they wish. The problem I see is simply certain individuals within the religion that think their doctrine should be applied through civil code and imposed on others. They are blind to the fact that if specific doctrine is not solving a specific problem after more than 2000 years than it probably doesn't work. It may or may not work for the practitioner but often doesn't work for others.
The problem is human nature. It isn't that God is broken--we are. And we keep elevating "our ideas" to divine status thinking "our way" will make it work.
And I agree with the above--no religion should coerce and compel others against their will with any sort of force or punishment...but neither should the same be used to prevent people from pursuing their beliefs within a non-hostile religion.
Hitchens Destroys The Catholic Church
I believe there needs to be a distinction made between 'religion' and 'RCC-C' and this is a hard point for me ... religion today is based on the NT which is a complete manopilostic endevour of the ancient Catholics ... against the Jews and all earthlings. I have to gather from this that the dispute here is between different Christian interpretations ... considering the source (NT) is the same. I at least have to handle this as separate issues.
The Catholic church became the first consummate Christian religion--not just growing and claiming special status but claiming to co-opt all other beliefs in the Christian sphere.
There is a place for "religion" within Christian practice--but it is symbolic of and a reflection of personal commitment--not the definition of it. In Catholicism this is inverted--nothing comes before "the Church"--all things follow it--even Christ (though theological rationalizations are offered as a counter to this).
There are few Christian groups with such absolute certainty that they are not only right in a divine sense but so much so that they can publicly and boldly proclaim that not only are all others wrong but that they are apostate and subject to divine judgment which can even be meted out or called for at the Catholic church's sole discretion..
This is exactly the sort of situation that Jesus criticized the Jewish priesthood for--creating rules and interpretations and commandments and punishments of their own design as if they were speaking for God in His place.
It's egregious because it is counter-biblical and counter-Christian. The exact opposite of what Christ described.
No--I don't see a conflict of interest at all here becasue I love science and facts--though math not so much...but again, I don't value "religion"--which is the only perspective you seem to have towards any serious profession of faith by any individual. It's all "religion" or "superstition". The first implies a willful decision to believe and promote belief in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever supporting it as truth. The second implies and inability to accept reality or intellectually comprehend and cope with it.
I find that pretty dismissive, arrogant and insulting for a person who has had only one half of both experiences. Were I in your place, I'd scratch my head and be perplexed too--but I wouldn't insist all the other people claiming those experiences were disingenuous or intellectually crippled.
If you keep phrasing the argument along the lines of, "I know you people are crazy and can't possibly defend yourselves so why do you keep defending yourself because you are all crazy" then there really isn't a discussion going on--just a regurgitation of the same personal viewpoint rephrased over and over for one's own hearing and approval.
To borrow from our Buddhist friends, "the sound of one hand clapping".
It is totally internal. They have the same problem that many large institutions have in that they will do anything they think they can get away with to protect the institution itself. They will lie, cheat,steal,incite violence and support genocide if it supports or extends the reaches of the institution when they can find a way to do it somewhat covertly. They cannot do things in the same manner as they used to, however their objectives have not changed much if at all.
Yep--"You will know them by their fruit.".
Sinperium, the simple fact remains that the Bible is not consistent with the known facts such as the age of most things (man included) back to and including the universes creation. It has nothing to do with what you or I believe, it has to do with the facts as known today, not things thought to be true two thousand years ago. If there were any religious facts at all I would be glad to hear about them. But, if you believe the Bible, then the earth and the universe are six thousand years old. I know that not to be the truth and can readily prove it ... that’s the big difference. I don’t care what you ‘crazy’ people believe (hahaha) that is entirely up to you or the individual and even for me too. We are all crazy today and the only qualifier seems to be a difference of opinion? But we aren’t discussing some super sleuth case here … we are discussing a complete and abrupt remapping of the mental conditioning of the Human species (brainwashing) so excuse me if I ask for daresay … a tiny shred of proof. The Muslims are just going to love this cleansing process I’ll bet, hahaha, just like old times…
Look, I cannot accept religion in any organized way which will never be as long as there are ‘believers’. Eventually as in any movement, somewhat like minded people will gather together and eventually a new church and new guidelines appear as if off a mountain or whatever. Then they will splinter for control and we end up with what we have, a mess. The problem is most Christians like to pick and choose their favorite parables of blessings and mercy etc. But the Bible consists of much hell and spitfire ‘damnation’, whose moral values can no longer be just kept on the proverbial ‘backburner’. If you are willing to accept the ‘good’ things … you are obligated to accept the bad ones … and justify your reasons … not your belief as that is a given.
It's hard to get past the loaded statements..."If you believe the bible"..."the earth is 6000 years old"..."organized religion". if you keep lumping all these things into one, there is no way to separate them. I don't think a person without the experience can even know what it means to 'believe"...and believing doesn't mean, "I believe everything religious".
You have the equivalent of a scrapbook assembled from pictures clipped from various magazines and news clipping s gathered from many different sources and assembled in a way you think tells the story "they all" meant.
Most real religion has nothing to do with spirituality and spiritual experience has nothing to do with philosophical theory and study. When you stitch them all together, you come up with a figment.
Many religious people have the same sort of figment gathering from their own preferred/trusted sources just as skeptics have their inventions and figments. The fact that you can point to examples that corroborate your views doesn't make them right in a complete sense. "I saw a homeless man in Mississippi, I've only been there once and saw only a couple of people passing though--ergo, 50% of the population of Mississippi must be accepted as fact as being homeless."
You can argue that point, quote statistics and discourse on math and your keen sense of observational analysis but it still doesn't make half of the people in Mississippi homeless--even though you may be absolutely convinced they are.
All religious people are not the same, all skeptics are not the same and all people professing faith aren't necessarily the same as those having it. You can press your nose to the window glass all day and count everything you see but as long as you dismiss the idea there might be more than you can see through your window, you will never be able to know.
The basis of religion is spirituality. In any case what exactly do mean "real" religion? Most religions are real. Many may be bizarre, absurd, obscure or whatever but to those that practice them they are very real.
If you believe in a completely literal translation of the Bible, then sure...but not everyone takes every single thing in the bible literally...the Quran is an even better example in that it explicitly states certain things are not to be taken literally (though it doesn't specify which things, still leaving it up to interpretation)...
Furthermore, one can be a "Christian" and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ without needing all the other "baggage" included in the bible...
There are things in the bible that are pure allegory (Jesus used allegory constantly). There are minor (and they are) transliteration and translation errors. There are historical accounts that appear very much to be an oral retelling of actual historical events but as in many oral tales may indeed have erroneous elements to them. There are other things that are historically sound, philosophical and moral statements. The bible is fossilized, ancient words--removed from us by centuries of time and details of culture often no longer understood fully by us.
There is no more way to just "read the bible and get it" than there is to "argue facts with a God you're unable to understand".
If all the bible offered was tales and moral lessons and theology and philosophy then it would be one book, one religion amongst many. The bible is a gateway to experience--for those willing to enter in. For those unwilling, it is a continual stumbling stone--which is exactly what Jesus said it would be.
The core of scripture--the validation of it--is the person of Christ. Not merely the historical or traditional accounts of him. If you look for textual facts alone in the bible to prove to you "Jesus is real" you will never get enough "facts"--not the full sort your intellect and will require anyway.
The bible is a clue, a sign, a question that requires a response to test if it has any truth. Holding the book, staring at the pages and telling it over and over that "It can't be right" will get you nowhere. there is only one evidence promised in scripture that can be apprehended by anyone sincerely looking and that evidence is Jesus. Jesus is the point where your experience and understanding can be accommodated. The bible (NT) points to that--the experience with Christ and gives a guarantee if you proceed by sincere faith the experience will follow. You can argue that "it's impossible" but that's what happened to me--and I was quite surprised.
I couldn't "unbelieve" now even if I wanted to. I don't currently attend a church (though I have and can) and I don't need anyone to explain for me that Jesus is real--I know.
Sit in your corner and intellectualize and rationalize all you want. I've had an experience--shared with millions of others by the way--for which the best answer is "Jesus". I get that you don't get that and can't believe it but your disbelief and lack of experience don't make you the expert. All you have is an opinion.
I think there could be alien life somewhere out in the universe. But I can't describe it, predict its form or nature or even know if its there. It would be absurd for me to begin a movmement to "prove" or "disprove" aliens exist. I can do neither. You are in the same position with God.
Which is why this conversation will only stay about "religion" because that's the only angle a non-believer can get their hands on and head around. The rest will always be "ridiculous" and "offensive" because it will never be considered.
The bible points to Christ--Christ is the proof of the bible. I don't expect you to understand that but that's how it works..."Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."
"If, however, atheist take on the passion of "religion" in their belief that there is no God, "
There are those who do not believe are resentful of those who do.
Doesn't this action render Jesus vulnerable w/o a source? Where would Socrates be w/o Plato?
Boobz...your response is completely biased and emotional. You assume things about me that aren't in any way true, you attribute doctrines and mindsets to me that are simply a projection of what you imagine "I" am. You couldn't possibly know. You also sound angry and invested in this far beyond a "scientific view" and certainly aren't approaching it that way. What you are having is a slanted rhetorical debate where you state your perceptions as fact and ignore the other side.
I'm also not asking you to believe anything. Nothing in what I have said is an appeal for you to act--I'm simply relating what differentiates a Christian from a rote practitioner of religion or those who have no belief and pointing out where some of your assumptions don't apply (along with those of some others).
My point is very simply you don't have all the facts and are not asking all the right questions What's really happening is that when confronted by someone who says, "I have had a real experience" you insist they must be irrational, superstitious, incapable of critical thought, self-analysis or coherence and they must "shut up because they aren't scientific.".
I'm beginning very much to relate here to how Galileo must have felt at the Vatican.
A lot of the baggage is "extrabibilical"--sectarian theologies, denominational imperatives, etc. [Catholicism or Creationism for example] You can be a believer without those things and it isn't contradictory at all.
stevendedalus, sorry but this won’t fly anymore. What atheist zealotry are you bemoaning in your article? The way I see it, we have ‘science’ which views things in the real world, physical things, detectable things. Then we have the various theologies that seem to believe that they have a better solution garnered from their particular book of enlightenment. No connection here: science and mysticism. You cannot prove magic and you cannot mystify the history of the Universe and everything in it because some book says otherwise. These battles are usually brought about by the religious community in their misplaced exuberance they try and use science to justify (or not) their obsessions … most feverishly indeed.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
