Catholic ? You will have to settle for Monday Night Footbal

[SonomaCat]

"Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary education. That so many of us are still dying on account of ancient myths is as bewildering as it is horrible, and our own attachment to these myths, whether moderate or extreme, has kept us silent in the face of developments that could ultimately destroy us. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past.

Care to elaborate on the "beliefs that should not survive an elementary education" part?

You'd have to read the book to get the full answer. The previous chapter goes into all of that, and I can't remember the details. He was speaking of scientific advances that had been made since the writing of the Koran and Bible that contradict both texts, and how a knowledgable man of the Koran-writing era would appear ignorant even to an elementary student by today's standards due to the advancement of our knowledge. So his point was that people back then believed it because it was the best information they had at the time, but read in the present, it is obviously not current in terms of science and other knowledge, even for someone in elementary school.

[SonomaCat]

And to cut off the predictable and completely anticipated suggestions that I am saying that "Christians are bad people," I have not, nor will I ever say that.

What I will say is that being a self-described Christian does not make one a good person, nor better than anyone else.

Similarly, atheists are neither better nor worse than other people based solely on their lack of belief in a particular religion.

So same goes for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. People can describe themselves however they want, and it doesn't make any difference in my mind.

I judge all people by their actions and by the way they treat others. It's just that simple for me.

[Ponycat]

Anybody care to go back a couple months and bump another thread. WOW

[catsrback76]

And to cut off the predictable and completely anticipated suggestions that I am saying that "Christians are bad people," I have not, nor will I ever say that.

What I will say is that being a self-described Christian does not make one a good person, nor better than anyone else.

Similarly, atheists are neither better nor worse than other people based solely on their lack of belief in a particular religion.

So same goes for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. People can describe themselves however they want, and it doesn't make any difference in my mind.

I judge all people by their actions and by the way they treat others. It's just that simple for me.

Amen BAC, you are starting to sound like Jesus. You might find him an interesting read. Jesus said, "there is none righteous, no not one." When asked by the rich young ruler "good teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus replied, "why do you call me good, there is none good but God."
He also said, " you will know them by their fruits for not all who say to me "Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Many will come to me in that day and say, "Lord, I did miracles in your name, I cast out demons in your name...etc and I will say, "depart from me you who are accursed for I never knew you."

All very much the sentiment you listed above.

On the point of atheisms inherent arrogance, my point was simple. Because you cannot prove an absolute negative by any statement, atheism as a system is self defeating. To posit "there is no God" which at the core is the definition of atheism, is to know all evidences in the universe prove the point. Agnosticism honestly states "ignorance" on the subject. To say, "I do not see the evidence that points to God's reality" is an honest statement, but it also leaves open the the possibility that in the light of new evidence you are open for consideration. FYI even Stephen Hawking is not a confessed atheist but is a confirmed agnostic.

BAC you are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.

[PapaG]

I have to add something to this thread.

I was raised Catholic, have been agnostic for years, but I see a few hardcore Atheists trying to preach their dogma in this thread.

Atheism is no different than any religion IMHO.

How can anyone be so arrogant to try and assert that which can't be asserted outside of intangible faith?

A lot of respect was lost in this thread. What I see are the God believers defending their faith, and the Atheists asserting their righteousness.

Not a good scene. Throw in a Hitler or two, and this thread is a disaster.

I am firmly in the middle, but the anger seems to be on the side of 100% non-belief. This view is a dangerous as any blind faith, and possibly even more dangerous.

[SonomaCat]

catsrback: As I've said many times before, and to paraphrase a line from Major League, "Jesus? Yes, I like Jesus very much." The base philosophy of the New Testament is great stuff, and is truly inspirational.

And I agree on arrogance argument ... although I would still maintain that for either a devout religious person or an atheist to proclaim that their opinion, and only their opinion, is unquestionably correct, arrogance must play a role. They are both beliefs that can not, by definition, be proven to be correct, and so both require an equal amount of faith/self-assurance/arrogance/assertiveness/however we want to spin it in order to maintain.

[SonomaCat]

A lot of respect was lost in this thread. What I see are the God believers defending their faith, and the Atheists asserting their righteousness.

But what about the atheists defending their [lack of] faith [yet not conceding that they are inherently evil as a result], and the God believers asserting their righteousness?

And I agree ... GWB should never introduce Hitler into a thread ever again.

[SonomaCat]

I am firmly in the middle, but the anger seems to be on the side of 100% non-belief. This view is a dangerous as any blind faith, and possibly even more dangerous.

On this point I will firmly disagree ... at least in our contemporary context. What is the ratio of senseless terrorist acts committed by believers as compared to non-believers in recent years? Non-believers, although perhaps annoying, have no beliefs over which they are willing to do harm to others. I would like nothing more than the entire Muslim world to go atheist/agnositic overnight ... and I'm sure most everyone else would as well.

And perhaps it angers some people that others are running around killing people in the name of their faith while people in this country are mocked and belittled if they reject faith (or even if they simply choose not to accept other people's flavor of faith). It's a crazy world in which we live.

[G.W.Bush]

A lot of respect was lost in this thread. What I see are the God believers defending their faith, and the Atheists asserting their righteousness.

But what about the atheists defending their [lack of] faith [yet not conceding that they are inherently evil as a result], and the God believers asserting their righteousness?

And I agree ... GWB should never introduce Hitler into a thread ever again.

Says the poster who acclaimed most wars in the world are started over religion...

[Grizlaw]

And just for something to chew on, especially in reference to GWB's comments, are the acts of the 9/11 bombers and all of the terrorists around the world the acts of:

a) Religious people

b) Atheists

Neither -- I think the 9/11 hijackers were actually a bunch of agnostic Californians. It's the liberal media that wants us to believe they were Arabs...that d@mn liberal media.

--GL (what a train wreck...)

[SonomaCat]

A lot of respect was lost in this thread. What I see are the God believers defending their faith, and the Atheists asserting their righteousness.

But what about the atheists defending their [lack of] faith [yet not conceding that they are inherently evil as a result], and the God believers asserting their righteousness?

And I agree ... GWB should never introduce Hitler into a thread ever again.

Says the poster who acclaimed most wars in the world are started over religion...

They are, GWB. It's quite well documented. See the earlier post pulled from the book for just a current list. I'm kind of confused how or why anyone would attempt to refute that fact.

Almost forgot: gratuitous emoticon:

[catsrback76]

A lot of respect was lost in this thread. What I see are the God believers defending their faith, and the Atheists asserting their righteousness.

But what about the atheists defending their [lack of] faith [yet not conceding that they are inherently evil as a result], and the God believers asserting their righteousness?

And I agree ... GWB should never introduce Hitler into a thread ever again.

Says the poster who acclaimed most wars in the world are started over religion...

They are, GWB. It's quite well documented. See the earlier post pulled from the book for just a current list. I'm kind of confused how or why anyone would attempt to refute that fact.

Almost forgot: gratuitous emoticon:

Is it an issue of religion or man's endemic nature? That is the bigger question. Man has a problem, "what causes the quarrels and fights among you? Isn't it the whole army of evil desires at war WITHIN you? You WANT what you do not have, so you scheme and kill to get it. You are jealous for what others have, and you can't possess it, so you fight and quarrel to take it away from others. ANd And yet the reason you don't have what you want is that you don't ask God for it. And even when you do ask, you don't get it because your WHOLE MOTIVE is wrong, you want only what will GIVE YOU PLEASURE." James the brother of Jesus.

The issue of the identifying who caused more wars is superfluous. Does it matter if Stalin an atheist killed 3 times more people on this planet in one reign than Hitler, or Mousillini (another Nietsche follower), or all the Crusades put together? No, all are wrong and come from the same root cause. Jealousy, selfishness, and hedonism is more the problem than irrationality caused by religion. In fact, except in the case of the doctrine of Jihad found in Islam, most religious systems pronounce methods to relate to god and fellow man peacefully. Christianity stands alone to say that the way to have peace with God and man is to admit that the basic nature of your heart is wrong. And needs His intervention for anything positive to happen. "Love God with all your heart mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself" is according to Jesus, the key to fulfilling his requirement as a disciple.

Crusaders were not fulfilling anything other than jealous retribution, expressed in hate, against infidels. Stalin the same. Who cares who killed the most. The problem still remains, the heart of man wanting what he doesn't have and refusing to ask God for His provision in his life. It is our own selfish, humanistic independence that starts wars.

[SonomaCat]

Catsrback: We agree that all wars are bad, regardless of the philosophy espoused by the leaders who start them.

However, virtually (and perhaps literally) no religion on earth is immune from having gone to war with another religion due to their faith. It may well be the sins of man being expressed through war, but when the teams are decided exclusively by what religion one believes in, it is impossible to exclude religion from blame in that conflict.

If religion did not exist, the teams would not exist, and people wouldn't even know who to kill, so clearly the wars would not have happened.

This is not to say that there haven't been many wars fought using other methods of choosing teams (ethnicity, governmental philosophy, economic class, etc.), but religion has definitely topped the list throughout history, and continues to lead the pack today.

And yes, the radical Muslims are obviously carrying way more than their share of the blame for things right now, but other religions have carried their fair shares in the past.

I am not one who believes that religions are inherently bad, although I think the book I am reading is trying to make that case. Contrary to the book's assertions, I do draw a line between moderate religious people (who I consider almost universally good ... if they actually adhere to the tenets of their faith and aren't just calling themselves religious for appearance sake) and extremists who take certain parts of the religion and amplify and distort it in order to justify their generally quite evil intentions. I believe it is the latter group both currently and throughout history that have done harm to all organized religions.

Although in our modern context, as we have seen in this thread, even criticizing those historical and contemporary extremists will draw the ire of the moderates as the philosophies are mere shades of the same color, so criticism of the extreme will also have some collateral damage to the moderates, and in a defensive response, a moderate might actually end up defending the extremist.

This is the messy area that we are dealing with in religion in the world today. We clearly see that Muslim extremists are flat-out crazy. But at the same time, we can't really point out that they are killing themselves (and more importantly, us) for something that makes no sense. So we dance around by trying to shave off shades of gray without really speaking to the overall problem. While in the Muslim world, even though the moderates don't agree with the extremists, any action made by non-Muslims to counter the actions of the extremists generally pisses off the moderates as well, as it is very difficult from a perception point of view to fight against only the most extreme shade of Islam without imposing collateral damage on the moderates.

And when the moderates get pissed and move closer to the extremist positions, then we're really screwed.

[PapaG]

I am firmly in the middle, but the anger seems to be on the side of 100% non-belief. This view is a dangerous as any blind faith, and possibly even more dangerous.

On this point I will firmly disagree ... at least in our contemporary context. What is the ratio of senseless terrorist acts committed by believers as compared to non-believers in recent years? Non-believers, although perhaps annoying, have no beliefs over which they are willing to do harm to others. I would like nothing more than the entire Muslim world to go atheist/agnositic overnight ... and I'm sure most everyone else would as well.

And perhaps it angers some people that others are running around killing people in the name of their faith while people in this country are mocked and belittled if they reject faith (or even if they simply choose not to accept other people's flavor of faith). It's a crazy world in which we live.

I was speaking to the micro-example of this thread. Your larger point is spot-on and I agree with it.

You're my boy, Blue!

[Hello Kitty]

A little knowledge is dangerous, Mr. Brown, for religion and for life. But a lot of knowledge (and a little humility) makes wise men; men and woman who see God not only in scientific gaps, but in their ability to grasp, if only in part, the grandeur of creation, including themselves.

- Father Jonathan Fox News Blog on the Da Vinci Code-

[catsrback76]

A little knowledge is dangerous, Mr. Brown, for religion and for life. But a lot of knowledge (and a little humility) makes wise men; men and woman who see God not only in scientific gaps, but in their ability to grasp, if only in part, the grandeur of creation, including themselves.

- Father Jonathan Fox News Blog on the Da Vinci Code-

Well said.

[catsrback76]

["Bay Area Cat"]Catsrback: " We agree that all wars are bad, regardless of the philosophy espoused by the leaders who start them.

If religion did not exist, the teams would not exist, and people wouldn't even know who to kill, so clearly the wars would not have happened."


Really? Brad I'm not trying to be argumentative on the point but that is the very point that I am trying to make. Not however as you state it. My point previously was that regardless of what the label (team -your term) is the issue isn't the label/team.

War exists because man exists. True religion has been a horrible contributor to "reasons" for war. Atheism has also. That is not the point. The point is war was not invented, catalyzed, or sponsored by religious beliefs. War started between Cain and Abel because the seed of jealousy took root. Had there been no labels ever, the wars would have been carried on other wings.

So rather than blaming the label/team blame the one pointing the gun, missles, sword or nuke...your brother... and sadly you and me.

As someone much smarter once wrote, " I looked in the mirror and discovered the problem staring back at me."

[SonomaCat]

As someone much smarter once wrote, " I looked in the mirror and discovered the problem staring back at me."

What was that dude's name? We've got to go find that guy and eradicate him! He's the problem!

[SonomaCat]

On a serious note, I respect what you are saying, and I know that war is about selfish power more than it is any ideology in particular, but I can't give any ideology a free pass on this issue. We must understand our history and our current friction points in the world accept that ideologies, including religions, are a cause of much of the violence that we see. To ignore that fact is to allow people like GWB to make suggestions that atheists are inherently bad people while suggesting that his team can do no wrong. All ideologies can and do do wrong in their abuse and lust for power. The more that people are aware of that, the better able they will be to root out the evils within their own teams (such as the extremists among the moderate Muslims or Racial Separatists among the Christians).

However, if we give ideologies a free pass in terms of bearing responsibilty for these acts of violence and evil, we are merely acting as accomodators to those people who do use the religious ideologies for destructive purposes, and that is bad both for religious folks and non-religious folks alike.

So I think we probably agree on 99% of what we are both saying, but we are merely working towards slightly different points.

[G.W.Bush]

On a serious note, I respect what you are saying, and I know that war is about selfish power more than it is any ideology in particular, but I can't give any ideology a free pass on this issue. We must understand our history and our current friction points in the world accept that ideologies, including religions, are a cause of much of the violence that we see. To ignore that fact is to allow people like GWB to make suggestions that atheists are inherently bad people while suggesting that his team can do no wrong. All ideologies can and do do wrong in their abuse and lust for power. The more that people are aware of that, the better able they will be to root out the evils within their own teams (such as the extremists among the moderate Muslims or Racial Separatists among the Christians).

However, if we give ideologies a free pass in terms of bearing responsibilty for these acts of violence and evil, we are merely acting as accomodators to those people who do use the religious ideologies for destructive purposes, and that is bad both for religious folks and non-religious folks alike.

So I think we probably agree on 99% of what we are both saying, but we are merely working towards slightly different points.

Were did I say that all atheist are all bad people BAC? You are ridiculous.
I also said in an earlier post that there have been poor decisions made by Catholics and the Catholic Church. I guess that falls under your interpretation that my sector can do no wrong.
You are as confused on this issue as Anne Heche is with her sexuality.