I always wonder about the phrase “free thinkers”. 
-
I was in college and decided to ‘freely’ walk away from the ‘faith of my father (and mother)’.  After a year or so of freely thinking, reading and watching others who were also freely thinking, I ‘freely’ walked back to the Catholic Church.  I walked (not literally) from a secular ‘let’s see how much you can drink and sleep around’ SUNY college to Franciscan U. in Steubenville, OH.
-
And every day since then, I freely think about my life, the world and much, much more and decide to be the best Catholic I can.
-
Do you think they want me (and any other free thinkers like me) at their event?

No Hemant?! He was my favorite atheist blogger back in the day…

You know, the website reminds me of the French Revolution and the goddess of Reason.

Hemant is a math teacher! I imagine he’s working.

What. They sit around and discuss what they don’t believe exists?

“I imagine that one day someone will get on the stage at one of these conferences, and propose a new moral code in which the the strong exterminate the weak and take all their possessions for themselves, thus ushering in a glorious age where only the most superior genes remain in the gene pool.”

Just as I imagine some Catholics will conspire to rape children and conceal their crimes from the authorities, even going so far as to castrate some of the victims.

Oh wait, that has already happened.  Repeatedly.

As for Hemant, he’s one of the organizers and speakers for the Reason Rally this weekend in Washington, DC.

This was doing sorta ok until it got to the massive strawman of social Darwinism. The author has a narrow and erroneous perspective of what the new atheists are advocating in a godless moral view, how is “kind and loving out of the goodness of their hearts” compatible with “the strong exterminate the weak and take all their possessions”? It is not. It is also not the inevitable result of secular/new atheist thinking. Thanks for not literally mentioning nazis, but no thanks for implying it.

Atheists don’t have to rely on hypothetically offensive statements delivered from a stage. We can go right to the source. A Christian preacher could stand up and cite the Biblical moral code in Deuteronomy 20: “When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males….As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves….In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.”

To paraphrase Fulwiler, “Everyone in the crowd will gasp and fidget uncomfortably…and then realize that they cannot argue against it without stepping outside of [the Biblical] worldview.”

“But who’s to say that harmony and survival for the greatest number of people should be our highest goals? You could just as easily advocate for a values system in which the survival of the fittest is the highest aim, and the weak are considered worthless and expendable. It sounds revolting, and it is. But it’s also perfectly defensible from an atheistic point of view.”
—-
Where did you get this idea? You are confusing your interpretation of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection with Atheism. How many times do you have to be told that atheists are only different from you because they don’t believe in any god/supernatural deity? PERIOD!
—-
All you other observations are irrelevant and petty. Yet you all call ME arrogant and full of anger. Take a look at yourself, Jennifer.

“You could just as easily advocate for a values system in which the survival of the fittest is the highest aim, and the weak are considered worthless and expendable…. I imagine that one day someone will get on the stage at one of these conferences, and propose a new moral code in which the the strong exterminate the weak and take all their possessions for themselves, thus ushering in a glorious age where only the most superior genes remain in the gene pool.”
——-
You are correct. If we are to base laws and society on pure science, then the basis from which those laws should (and would) be generated would be one of purist Darwinian natural selection.  I think that a lot of atheists do believe this privately, but are too afraid of the social consequences of that moral stance.

I also have a problem with the argument that all laws should be based on “rational thought and evidence.”  Read any scientific paper (I have 2 grad degrees; I’ve read a few) and you will find faulty evidence gathering, biased conclusions and erroneous reasoning.  And those are the “best of the best” peer-reviewed works.  What’s more, it implies that there is such a thing as an objective reality.  You can’t argue that every person’s perception of reality is the same, nor that any one is necessarily more valid than another.  And so we have politics, where everyone brings their perception of reality and their values and principles to the table, and - in a democracy - we take a vote to see who’s perception will be used in creating the laws of the land.  To argue that the “values” and perceptions of the New Atheists ought to be the only basis on which we create laws is totalitarianism.

“Read any scientific paper (I have 2 grad degrees; I’ve read a few) and you will find faulty evidence gathering, biased conclusions and erroneous reasoning.”

Just reading your comment, I see straw men.

@John McDonald, well, from an atheist viewpoint, can you please give me a reason why the strong should not exterminate the weak and take their possessions? Without citing values that stem from supernatural-based belief systems?

@Brian If you see “straw men” then you are fabricating “straw men”. My point is very concise and clear.  The basis of Atheist thought MUST be science, but science is not as exacting as most would like you to believe.

@Brian If you see “straw men” then you are fabricating “straw men”.”

Nope:
“To argue that the “values” and perceptions of the New Atheists ought to be the only basis on which we create laws is totalitarianism.”

The above is a straw man, unless you can find someone who has actually advocated such nonsense.

The whole “if you don’t believe in God, there’s no one to tell you that you shouldn’t run around and start killing people” argument is galling. I’ve never heard or read an atheist even suggest atheism makes the case for social Darwinism. The only people who even bring that up are Christians. It implies that if they themselves one day stopped believing in Yahweh, they would lose all sense of morality. Pretty frightening prospect.

And as I noted above, atheists don’t have to construct a straw man who condones atrocities. We can point to the Old Testament, where families are slaughtered for the sin of one member, daughters are sold into slavery, and non-virgins are stoned in front of their father’s houses.

@Brian
“unless you can find someone who has actually advocated such nonsense.”
——
Jennifer quoted from the conference’s own promotional spot:
“Have you ever thought that some religions have too much influence in our society, that laws should be based on rational thought and evidence, and not unproven personal beliefs?”
——
So the New Atheist conference is NOT advocating that?  For what reason did they put that in their promotional spot, in that exact phrasing?  I think I made it very clear that all beliefs are “personal beliefs,” and that even the claim that it be “scientifically rational” is flawed and based in research that is inevitably biased to “personal beliefs.”  You so badly want to negate my argument that you’re screaming “straw man” to dismiss it, but you’re either missing the point or you’re evading it.

“So the New Atheist conference is NOT advocating that?”

No.  They are advocating “that laws should be based on rational thought and evidence, and not unproven personal beliefs.”

Compare and contrast:
“To argue that the “values” and perceptions of the New Atheists ought to be the only basis on which we create laws is totalitarianism.”

See, even if someone like you comes up with a rational thought and evidence, that would fall within what they’re advocating.  But you’re trying to claim it’s only “the “values” and perceptions of the New Atheists”, which isn’t at all accurate.

Didn’t around 2000 people attend last year? Doesn’t seem that big for a Global convention?

Clay would disagree with Sartre, who believed that in the absence of a creator, man is free to do ANYTHING, and should. If someone reaches the existential decision to go into a cafe and start shooting people, that is no worse than the decision to NOT shoot people. I’m glad Clay does not subscribe to this, but in the absence of objective morality, I’m not sure WHY he doesn’t.

“I’m glad Clay does not subscribe to this, but in the absence of objective morality, I’m not sure WHY he doesn’t.”

You seem to have no innate moral sense; are you a psychopath by any chance?

Normal people both 1) don’t go into cafes and start shooting people, and 2) understand why other people don’t do so.

@Brian
Please, then, define “rational thought and evidence” and the basis on which one would come to a decision on values.  On what premise would a New Atheist establish a set of values?  Since their argument is that laws be based on “rational thought and evidence” it is imperative for the discussion that we have a clear definition of what that actually is and from where it comes.

“Please, then, define “rational thought and evidence” and the basis on which one would come to a decision on values.”

No.

I was just pointing out your straw man.  Having done that, I have no interest in trying to teach you anything.  If you don’t like that, that’s your problem, not mine.

@Clay
So can you actually make the case that social Darwinism is “wrong”?  That’s the entire point.  Not whether some famous atheist has publicly advocated it or not.

@Brian
I was giving you an opportunity to clarify the New Atheist argument and thus demonstrate how my argument was a misrepresentation of it.  It isn’t that you “have no interest in teaching… anything,” it’s that you don’t really have an answer.  My goal is not to misrepresent anyone. My goal is only to argue that the logical conclusion of the New Atheist argument that “laws should be based on rational thought and evidence, and not unproven personal beliefs” is not possible because the “evidence” - scientific studies - is inevitably biased and flawed, and because demanding that alternative modes of determining values be dismissed from discourse on laws is a form of political repression.  I think your only goal is to attempt to derail that argument by screaming “straw man” rather than making any clear and logical argument.

“I was giving you an opportunity to clarify the New Atheist argument”

Yes, I know.  I have no interest in explaining anything to you beyond pointing out your straw man, which I have done.  Deal with it.

Though I am not an atheist, I can’t imagine why anyone of faith would need to spend the time writing a derogatory narrative about another faith.  Let’s face it, atheism is indeed a faith.  They have no more proof that there is no God than we have that there is.  Both groups, “us” and “them,” take what we believe on faith.  However, why would you disparage them and functionally invite others to do the same?  Are Catholics and other people of faith not secure enough in our God and His ability to manage things that we have to make fun of our brothers and sisters?  After all, that IS what you are doing in the guise of “thoughts” and they ARE our brothers and sisters even if we don’t agree with them.  Maybe, instead of picking others apart, the world would be a better place if we analyzed ourselves and our part in the problems of this world.

@Brian
You’ve done nothing. Deal with it.

@Brian
“You seem to have no innate moral sense; are you a psychopath by any chance?”
Ha cute. Maybe someone serious can have an intellectual spar with me here. Is there an atheist counter-argument to Sartre? WHY would someone who does not believe in objective morality act in a way that is considered morally acceptable by Western standards?

Why are atheists so ANGRY?  Why do they need to parade the sins of a small minority as if they represent the values of the many?  Why do they need to attribute the murderous nature of men to our God?  Clay, many Catholics are NOT fundamentalists. But the most mind blowing of all, (and even worse if they are scientists)—How on earth can Atheists look at the fantastic perfection of nature, and think it all happened from NOTHING.  Randomly.  If atheists can believe THAT, how do they even know for certain that THEY exist.

Christian and JoeP,

where does this “objective morality” come from? It’s not in the Bible. thou shall not kill…unless Yahweh orders you to kill the Canaanites and Amalekites, in which case killing is required. Whether an act is moral or immoral depends on what God says. That’s subjective, not objective, morality. (“Divine command morality” is the phrase, if you want to make yourself sick reading Christian justification for genocide.)

And I am constantly being informed that I have to take the OT atrocities “in context” of the time, which implies that what was once moral is no longer so. It is no longer moral to stone nonvirgins or men who pick up sticks on the Sabbath. Sounds like Yahweh is a moral relativist.

The idea that the Bible gives one objective moral answer to questions like divorce, tattoos, slavery, women’s rights, is ludicrous.

why not just be happy with the knowledge that atheists are just as moral as theists in practice, and not worry so much about whether it works in theory?

One big way in which Atheists and Fundamentalist Protestants are exactly the same: They’re both Biblical Literalists who purposefully refuse to comprehend historical context or metaphorical and responsive writing forms.

Clay, it’s imperative to take EVERYTHING historical in context. It’s bad science not to. You can’t project 21st century Western sensibilities onto a tribe trying to survive in the ancient Middle East (especially in an environment where the scarcity of resources made competition between nations incredibly fierce).
If all of existence has one Creator, which is the Christian belief, than all morality stems from that source.
“why not just be happy with the knowledge that atheists are just as moral as theists in practice, and not worry so much about whether it works in theory?”
I’m perfectly content accepting that one can be moral and not be a theist. But again - Sartre and I both ask, why? Of all the attitudes you are free to adopt, why adopt one that is similar to Western morality?

Clay, there is NO “Christian” justification for genocide.  There never has been.  Catholics are not guilty of Bibolotry.  This is why there is a teaching church that continually calls her people out of barbarism to a higher understanding of God.  Notice what Jesus did when presented with the woman caught in the act of adultery.  The problem with the atheist belief system is that they would refuse to agree with Jesus saying “Go, and sin no more”.  Atheists want to live “freely” without having to answer to anybody.  The problem with this is clear.

w00t atheism :-)

@Jennifer, I think a few disillusioned souls at the convention will find themselves falling back on their knees.  My guess is that a greater majority of the 2000 or so who show up, will be happy to find a hook up culture to dive into.  Kind of like the Burning Man party.

“The New Atheists and their brethren in the secular humanist movement like to advocate for a godless value system where acceptance and goodwill toward others are prized, where people are free to be kind and loving out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because some man in the sky tells them to do so.”
.
This is why I believe that most atheists are really just smug pantheists or not very deep thinkers. Their behaviors are logically inconsistent with their atheistic beliefs. While they may be kind and loving despite not having a man in the sky telling them to do so, many still strive to be kind and loving for a reason. If we take them at their word, then they still have values and have values that cannot be justified by a completely materialistic atheistic worldview.

@ Clay, “I am constantly being informed that I have to take the OT atrocities “in context” of the time, which implies that what was once moral is no longer so. It is no longer moral to stone nonvirgins or men who pick up sticks on the Sabbath. Sounds like Yahweh is a moral relativist.”
.
Because in the New Testament, Jesus (you know, the Savior of the World? ) says to the men gathered around to stone the prostitute, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” and that kinda set a new standard.

If (at least some) true moral propositions are necessarily true (true in all possible worlds), then there’s no *need* to account for them. It’s a fundamental mistake to expect a world-view to account for necessary truths. It’d be like an atheist demanding a theist tell him what grounds God’s necessary existence. You’d rightly say ‘Wut?’

@Stevo, Lol.

@anna lisa: I you can make the effort to watch a video for a few minutes, here is an answer to your question:
—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE
—-
Also, the universe may be beautiful, but it is indifferent to human life, or any life for that matter. Species live for a while and then become extinct when the can’t adapt to changes. Eventually the sun will expand and the Earth will be burned to a crisp and any life that we know of will be obliterated. There are no “souls” or non-material intelligence.
—-
And as for that stupid, tediously repeated chant that it can’t be proved that there is no god—-puleeze! Look up the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn, or Russel’s teacup, or Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, Isis, Anansi, etc., and prove they don’t exist.

@Jim, of course not. An atheist poster expressed his disgust with genocide earlier (he seemed to think that Christianity had a justification for it). If you do some sleuthing down the timeline of human ideologies, he might have noticed that having a problem with genocide per se is a Christian innovation. Do you think Vikings or Mao Zedong’s party members had qualms about genocide? An altruistic concern for people who don’t affect you at all is a characteristic of religious societies - moreover, a society that asks you to love thy neighbor is completely unique. A modern atheist may accuse theists of being motivated by a reward-punishment system provided by a Sky Father to produce moral behavior, but most things they would agree are moral come from Judeo-Christian tradition.

But in the absence of Judeo-Christian values, societies think it is reasonable and acceptable to advocate things like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Oh Angela, you’re my favorite atheist.  Yes, the universe is indifferent, because the watch is not the watch maker, it simply reflects the genius of the creator.

@Clay
You said, “why not just be happy with the knowledge that atheists are just as moral as theists in practice, and not worry so much about whether it works in theory?”

But what does being “moral” actually mean?  Can you even define it?  Again, can it even be argued that a form social Darwinism (strong overcome the weak) is NOT “moral” while staying in the confines of the material world?  Try it.

Clay - you’re bang on bro. The scriptural cherry-pickers are remarkable in their ability to read a clear moral directive to commit atrocities that would make Hitler blush, and somehow claim there is no Christian justification for genocide.

Zeke, what are you talking about?

@ LH: I disagree on your premise that atheism is a religion—people can gather for other reasons, you know.
—-
Kudos, however, for acknowledging the shallowness of this article. Jennifer claims to be an ex-atheist, but she really has no idea what it is to be an atheist. There will be no “popcorn” embryos served at the convention.

Paul Draper sunk the fine-tuning ship in his debate with (world renowned proponent of the fine-tuning arguments) Robin Collins: they commit the fallacy of understated evidence. Bayes’ theorem is the death of theism.

I don’t see how criticizing the GAC can make your (or anyone’s) religion less ridiculously conceived and followed. We all know (c’mon, let’s be real, catholic folks) religion’s nothing more than a widespread invention supported by economically (I bet they don’t need attendees to pay at gatherings, although they do get big loads of $)and military empowered interest groups.
I had many more concerns about the stupidity behind your article (facebook likes? really?) but there’s no use in going on about it as we all know (yeah, even you, in your hidden self) that religion is a myth.

Lol. Ok Angela, why exactly does Jennifer’s article prove that she’s not really an ex-atheist?

@Angela, I actually read about an abortionist who was adding the contents of aspiration abortions to his cup-0-noodles.  (Serious)  Do you have a problem with that?  If you do, why?

anna lisa
—
Then why do you attribute some benevolent purpose for the universe? Why is there a universe, from your Catholic perspective? You have yet to prove there was any “watchmaker” in the first place, or explain how the “watchmaker” came to exist.
——
And you still have to prove to me that the deities I named above don’t exist, and I will prove to you that god does not exist.

anna lisa—please cite your article so I can comment.

Christian—she would have not written the above article if she knew anything about us.  DUH!

Renae wrote: “Because in the New Testament, Jesus (you know, the Savior of the World? ) says to the men gathered around to stone the prostitute, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” and that kinda set a new standard.”

Renae, are you suggesting God and Jesus are two different personalities, one genocidal, the other gentle? Or is he one personality whose sense of morality evolved over time (so much for God as an objective source of morality)? Neither answer strikes me as theologically sound. And didn’t Jesus say he came not to abolish but to fulfill the law? That means the OT.

Oh, word. It’s funny, I have a theory that that’s not really her headshot. The pixels are totally Photoshopped. Also, can I provide an article for Anna Lisa? It’s actually more of a youtube video, or series of such. William Craig Lane debates with Christopher Hitchens. Lane makes some good points about why theism is more reasonable than atheism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
Take your time with those and then we’ll discuss! It’ll be a nice debate.

@ Christian:
—
“Of all the attitudes you are free to adopt, why adopt one that is similar to Western morality?”
—
Take away the religious parts of a society, and you will find morality is more or less the same among all humans.

The claim that the religious believe in the supernatural is nonsense.  I probably come at this from a different background than most Catholics OR Atheists, but I do not believe that God and the events surrounding his (its) presence in our lives is supernatural at all; it’s completely within the realm of the natural.  Just because we don’t understand it does not mean it doesn’t exist.  I’m not so arrogant as to think that human beings have 95% of the universe figured out.  I believe we have barely scratched the surface of our comprehension of the universe and life, and we may never be able to do so (due to limited intellectual capacity and/or limited time).  To claim you can have all the answers based on existing human knowledge is to arrogantly believe you know much, much more than you actually do.

Angela, I agree. The Truth is inherent in everyone, no matter how far removed they are from it. That’s why societies that accepted “immoral” activities, such as human sacrifice, had to mask it somehow. Like the Babylonians beating the drums so loud that the audience couldn’t hear the babies screams. Or pro-abortionists using euphamisms like “terminating an embryo” instead of “killing a baby.”
But what I meant to ask earlier was this: if you do not believe in objective morality, why ACT as if you do? Why not do as Sartre says, and literally do ANYTHING?

Anna,
  Not all atheists are angry, I used to have some very nice athiest neighbors who my family would hang out with. We were both homes schooled, so we had our “Gym Class” together. We would go to the park, walk around our block, ride bikes, ect. The kids were mine and my siblings’ friends and we got along. Even though they were athiests, when we asked one of the older kids why their family was switching homeshcooled she said “We are homeshooled because we know that the theory that the earth was made makes just as much sense as any other theory, but the teachers will penalize anyone if you say so.” They were atheists, but they ACTUALLY CARED that the schools nearby had anti-Christian tendancies….. I suppose that this story is contrary to my point a little, since it still has nasty/snide athiests in it, but it also shows that there are nice ones, too.

Angela, you said:
  “Where did you get this idea? You are confusing your interpretation of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection with Atheism. How many times do you have to be told that atheists are only different from you because they don’t believe in any god/supernatural deity? PERIOD!”

  Yes, but I am afraid that “only” differance is a big differance. It also means you need a different reason if you want to hold the same beliefs, since you got rid of our reason. If you don’t draw on something set, if their isn’t an indisputable code given by someone you KNOW is correct, then anyone could change it. Who, exactly, decided that the weak and the lowly are valuable? Christianity was the first, all other societies that adopted that adopted that because of their influence. Even the Jews, who knew it was good to care for the poor only did it because God told them THE ACTION of almsgiving was good, a large part of ‘em (obviously not all)didn’t really believe poor people had equal dignity at first. So why couldn’t somebody come along and say that richer/healthier people are more dignified/important? After all, they have their humanity AND have physical/material wealth on top. Someone could argue that it was a matter of simple math, get rid of/ignore the people who have less, keep the people who contribute significantly to society. Of course, someone could also argue that wealth has no actual impact on a persons value, but what would make that position anymore valid? After all, he can’t claim wealth had NO value, since wealth is value. How would he defend the idea that wealth’s/health’s value is seperate from a person’s value in such a way that is unshakable? He can’t, not reliably. Maybe you can, Angela. I actually would really like to see that. No, that is not meant as a snide/deaming challange, I mean it when I say I would really like to see it. What is your moral code, and from what logic do you draw it’s values?

@Angela
You said, “she would have not written the above article if she knew anything about us.”

I’m sure Jennifer knows more about “you” (atheists) more than you know more about “you”.  And I’d wager that I know more about “you” as well.  As Jennifer touched on in the article, many of you guys don’t question assumptions.

You said, “Take away the religious parts of a society, and you will find morality is more or less the same among all humans.”

Again, what is “morality”?  Is female infanticide practiced in numerous eastern countries/cultures “moral” to you?  If not, how can you argue that it isn’t?

Angela, I simply can’t explain what it means to not have a beginning.  Can you explain what existed before the big bang?  My three-year-old can’t explain how to get to San Diego.  There comes a point when we, (all of us here) have to admit that we simply can’t wrap our puny brains around EVERYTHING.  *WHO* is like God?  Not you, not me.  I can’t explain His benevolence, what I can see are reflections of God in myself and in others. I see the marked absence of His presence in some. St. Augustine says that we are like God in our will, our understanding and wisdom.  Why, for instance did love compel me to have another child, when I clearly had “enough”, in the world’s eyes already?  Love.  The desire to share love with another, knowing that true love multiplies and doesn’t divide.  I can grasp this: the will to love, and share with another, just for the sake of love.  As for all the gods you mentioned, yes, there have been plenty.  At least ancient man was able to understand better than modern man that there was something greater than his own mind and will.  This is why even the ancient Greeks were able to get as close as they did to the truth, without discovering Him through Hebrew revelation.Sighhhhhh, now my Christian-nurtured conscience is compelling me to turn of my computer, and attend to the needs of a sick eight-year-old, and make some lunch for three of us.  Ciao, catch you later.

I don’t think Bill Craig’s arguments for theism are good in the sense that they should convince a rational and reflective person of their conclusion when that person wasn’t already convinced of them. There are all kinds of good objections to Kalam, fine-tuning, the resurrection etc.

Joe P: “I’m sure Jennifer knows more about “you” (atheists) more than you know more about “you”. And I’d wager that I know more about “you” as well.”

God has evidently not blessed Joe P. with a sense of humility along with his sense of morality.

No one here has commented on how “objective morality” relates to the atrocities and racial genocides committed on Yahweh’s command. Not sure how a Christian can condemn child sacrifice of an ancient tribe but condone child murder ordered by Yahweh.

I assume Christians think that our conscience is a reflection of God within us. So when that same conscience is repelled by the atrocity tales in the Old Testament, what does that signify?

Okay, I am Catholic to the death, but I also have a hard time finding a point to this article, other than to be inflammatory. I totally don’t understand how people can say “there is no God” without getting that the statement alone creates a universal truth and all the rational goings on after that.
However, I do not believe that this entry has come from a loving place, and that is a shame, because it is love that is all truth. Jennifer, I love your blog, but I am sad for this entry, because I don’t believe that it is a reflection of the love and faith that has been revealed to us by Christ.

Kathryn, I think it’s healthy to rigorously examine opposing ideologies. If there’s some sporting rivalry thrown into the mix, well that just adds to the fun! :D

I honestly thing the ensuing discussion was less disdainful, and more intellectual, which I love . I just think some of the comments, like a link to head shots, and comments about money were particularly off-putting. Catholic rallies and conferences can be just as expensive, and there is nothing wrong with having a nice picture.  They were cheap shots, and I believe detracted from the real intellectual significance of the article.

Pardon me, I honestly *think*....stupid auto correct!

Atheism is a religion. The point of view that God does not exist is based on belief and not on evidence. They need their convention just as other religious people have their own conventions. I will be playing golf that weekend and could care less about the convention .

I agree Catherine, the intention was inflammatory. The derogatory implications that atheists couldn’t possibly agree on a moral code that would protect the weakest in society are ridiculous and meant to provoke hateful comments. As if any thinking person is going to change their beliefs based on snide comments about facebook likes, headshots, and ticket prices. Shameful.
Piotr - no, it’s based on a lack of evidence.

To the question of why would a good God allow bad things to happen, an equally valid question is that in a universe without a God, why shouldn’t bad things happen? This applies both to acts of nature and to the willful deeds of men. Survival of the species is not a self-evident good – c.f. the many zero-pop folks calumniating the masses as parasites on the planet. But if species continuation is an apparent boon, then do why don’t more atheists want to rid individuals of same-sex attraction? Anyway, the Achilles’ Hell of many atheist arguments is that they often assume a Christian moral code when condemning theists; when they don’t (e.g. Nietzsche), they get little enough traction. Perhaps this is a root motivation for the conferences. With any luck, when they follow reason to its necessary and logical but unsatisfactory conclusion, perhaps they will be open to the Christian solution.

@Zeke: “implications that atheists couldn’t possibly agree on a moral code that would protect the weakest in society are ridiculous and meant to provoke hateful comments.”

Not at all—the clear meaning is that when atheists do agree on reasons to protect the weakest, if the solution is to have any substance, it will look uncannily like the Christian solution. That is because the theistic perspective is rational.

“the Achilles’ Hell of many atheist arguments…”

I’m sure Freud would be proud, but yes, that was an accidental typo. Mea culpa…

Let’s see…“it will be the largest ever gathering of atheists, rationalists, skeptics, free thinkers and other like-minded people”...seems like a rehash of the Enlightenment to me…don’t they know this way of thinking has failed society and created the many problems we face today…it’s like the left over communists/socialists who keep wanting to make a comeback on a false and destructive idea, also is this convention for really sharing ideas or just to bash religion or Christianity in particular.

@Zeke
You said, “The derogatory implications that atheists couldn’t possibly agree on a moral code that would protect the weakest in society are ridiculous and meant to provoke hateful comments.”
You (and Katheryn) are clearly missing the point.  Jennifer is not implying that that atheists cannot agree to such a moral code, but rather they cannot justify such a moral code solely on “rational thought and evidence, and not unproven personal beliefs” (their own stated pillars) without actually appealing to “unproven personal beliefs” and immaterial things.  For example, where does the notion of “human dignity” come from?  Can science explain human dignity?  Isn’t it simply an “unproven personal belief”?  I have yet to hear a scientific explanation of human dignity…provided one actually believes in such hocus pocus.

Katheryn, Zeke,
I don’t think that the intention was inflammatory, but it was kinda all over the place, which is why I am glad the word “ponder” was in the title. That dosen’t really excuse it’s pointlessness, though. If an athiest article about a Catholic gathering was this spotty, we wouldn’t let them get away with the guise of “pondering”, we’d tell them to choose a point, (wide or broad, as long as it is one)and discuss it thouroughly so that the readers could get a full picture of that aspect.

As for saying that “atheists couldn’t possibly agree on a moral code”(-Zeke), I don’t think that it is impossible. I just think that they, who can’t give any reason for a trait having value other than because we assign value to it or through it’s impact, could easily be inconsistant, because it dosen’t always have the same impact and people could always choose another trait or moral practice to favor. They don’t have a God saying “this is good”. For them, so far, things are good because PEOPLE say it is good, and if a different person says another thing is good, they can dissagree, but neither can prove it. All because they don’t have the common faith against which to measure. We judge our own actions against our faith’s values, we measure our laws against our Constitution, we determine an actions legality based on those laws, we know an inch is an inch because twelve of them make a foot, and penny is one cent because you need a hundred to make a dollar. What dose athiesim hold as it’s standard? It dosen’t have one yet, it can’t, it will always argue, like people who use the metric with people who use the imperial measuring system. Can athiesim agree on the ideal man?

Joe P/Sean: I agree with you both when you observe that if atheists created a moral code for society to live by, it would have much in common with the Christian moral code. What’s wrong with that? Was there some confusion about the morality of killing, stealing, lying, etc. prior to the 10 Commandments? Were Christians the first group in society to come to that realization? Of course not. There’s very few Christian principles that atheists even disagree on, why would you expect theirs to be radically different? Except of course that they would not seek to justify it by cherry-picking the good bits from the Bible that they subjectively agree with.
Sorry, I was just reading all the comments for the first time, and I gotta give props to anna lisa for the comment about “actually reading” about an abortionist who put the remains in his Cup-o-Noodles. Wow, you are Cup-o-bonkers lady! Hey, I “actually read” about a priest who sexually abused dozens of deaf children under his care at a Catholic school. That doesn’t suggest that Catholics are monsters. Both of these people are twisted in some profound way, has nothing to do with whether they’re believers or not.

Posted by Brandon W on Wednesday, Mar 21, 2012 10:44 AM (EST):“If we are to base laws and society on pure science, then the basis from which those laws should (and would) be generated would be one of purist Darwinian natural selection.”

I think this sentence captures the reigning confusion over the relationship among science, laws and values. As an example, scientific observation and experiments gradually demonstrated beyond a doubt that lead in gasoline was damaging human bodies. “Science” did not determine what we did with this knowledge. However, most people want to live in an environment that is good for their health and that of other humans. Based on that shared value, laws were passed in the U.S. that gradually phased out leaded gasoline.

But of course this process isn’t usually that simple. Sometimes the science remains inconclusive and/or unconvincing for years. Sometimes we have values that override the goal of preventing health damage to some or all persons. The legality of tobacco, alcohol and private gun ownership are good examples of issues where Americans have decided that personal freedom is more important than reducing the scientifically proven damage caused by keeping these things legal. However reason can play a role even here by factoring in the possible unintentional damage caused by making something illegal. For example if legal production of alcohol were again prohibited, how many people are likely to ignore the law, and once again open a broad door to a black market to be exploited by organized crime?

I have to agree that some atheists don’t seem to understand that laws can’t be based on science alone. Laws are just a strategy for achieving an end. The end is the kind of society we want to live in. In other words, what do we value? Science can’t tell us what to value or how to balance competing values, Sam Harris notwithstanding. Humans will always struggle over these questions. It is overwhelmingly obvious that religion offers no help in this struggle, since different religions value different things. There is a wide variation of feeling among Catholics alone over whether we are called by God to live in a society that prohibits abortion, allows gay marriage, punishes blasphemy, executes murderers, makes contraceptives available to all, provides health care to the poor, or wages pre-emptive war. Islam is an Abrahamic religion, yet the majority of Muslims in the Middle East value a theocratic society where women have no rights, and where everyone’s personal freedoms are restricted by religious precepts.

It is silly to pretend that appealing to revelation helps resolve conflicts over right and wrong when even people who agree on the same revelation can’t agree on right and wrong. The only thing that helps us resolve such conflicts is the average human’s ability to empathize with others. This ability is both genetic and learned. Almost universal empathy explains why we don’t have much trouble making laws that punish someone who walks into a restaurant and opens fire on the patrons. Nor do we fight much over laws against stealing, assault, lying under oath, or having sex with children.

What I believe most atheists want is to use what knowledge science can provide in judging the effectiveness of a law. And they want all values to compete on a level playing field. Your value isn’t special because it’s in the Bible, or the pope said it, or some imam issued a fatwah. Your value needs to win over believers of other faiths and unbelievers through its appeal to their human empathy.

Darwinism is purely a red herring here. All it means is that species that exploit their environment effectively tend to survive. If environment changes, if the species can adapt it survives. There is no value or goal implied by this process. Objectively, it is not something to aspire to, or, for that matter NOT to aspire to. If we agreed in a society that we valued most of all a bunch of humans who exploited that society most effectively, then we would not value helping the less effective to survive. Do atheists agree on that value? Apparently not.

Hello All! 

There is nothing quite like a room - internet or otherwise - full of believers and atheists.  All I have to contribute is this:

If you believe, then God Bless You.

If you don’t, then Bless You Anyway!

Kevin: Amen to that. Now I feel bad about the bonkers comment, sorry anna lisa :(

@ Christian “from an atheist viewpoint, can you please give me a reason why the strong should not exterminate the weak and take their possessions? Without citing values that stem from supernatural-based belief systems?”

We naturally have a sense of empathy for one thing, which stems from our evolved biology. We can reason our way through a system of supporting the greatest well-being for all and reducing suffering as much as possible. Exterminating the weak violates the objective of increasing well-being/happiness/thriving/joy/etc for all and violates the objective of reducing suffering/misery/unhappiness/pain/etc. No gods necessary.

@John McDonald
Fair enough. But history offers plenty of examples of people who did not believe in the ALL part of your “greatest well-being for all,” like Margaret Sanger. And while you need no god to arrive to the conclusion that ALL life has value, I have to point out that your ideological environment was based on Judeo-Christian values, and the value of every life would be an alien concept to most prior to Christianity.

@Zeke
You said, “There’s very few Christian principles that atheists even disagree on, why would you expect theirs to be radically different?”
The key is not the differences in moral codes between Christians and atheists, but rather how these moral codes come about.  Christian morality is fundamentally based on the belief that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God, and thus ALL people have inherent value and dignity.  Atheists don’t have such a belief to serve as a foundation from which their morality can be derived, so how exactly do they derive their morality?  Again the GAC states “...laws should be based on rational thought and evidence, and not unproven personal beliefs.”  If a law was proposed to legalize the infanticide of disabled infants, what exactly would be the rational thought process (without appealing to unproven person beliefs) that would denounce this law?

Whoa!  Catholic women are much prettier than atheist women.  I feel bad for all the atheist men.  =(

@Loud
All I was saying was that I was disappointed at the cheap shots taken, which lead me to believe the entry was coming from a place of disdain.

anna lisa: You supported my views while you were trying to refute them. I don’t know and you don’t know. There are people whom I love and who love me too—what has any “god” to do with it? One of my friends who is Catholic recently died of leukemia at a relatively young age. Do you think god was benevolent with him, or his family?
—
You live in your closed little world and think your life and religion applies to the rest of the world, or that some how we are to blame if they do not. The Pope and Church is even worse.
——
You still haven’t proven to me that the other deities I mentioned above don’‘t exist.

@Christian
Examples in history that show some did not live to this ideal does not refute that we can strive for this ideal now. If one needs no god to come to the conclusion that all our lives have value then that can be the basis for an ideology with no connection to any supernatural entity and there’s no reason to think those thoughts didn’t precede religion. Our caring/empathy for each other came before any creation of a Judeo-Christian concept. Our biology has not changed that much that fast. The concept that valuing all life had to be global wouldn’t occur to peoples that had no concept of what global really is, which includes the times that Judeo-Christian stories were invented. We now know our tribe is 7 billion and spans the planet, in early religious and pre-religious times tribal views were regional at most. What happens to be moral in Christianity is not original to Christianity.

anna lisa—you also did not cite your article on the Cup O’ Noodles.
—-
I suppose you son’s illness is also due to god’s benevolence?

Why are we giving this convention free advertising by discussing it so much on our blogs?

Also, let’s all notice how the media will cover it with all kinds of photos that make it look like a million people were there, while this year, as usual, they ignored or misrepresented the March for Life. Just a prediction. Remember, you read it hear first!

PS, I don’t think our attitude should be so nicey-nice, either, because these events will lead to more souls being led astray or being confirmed in their error. Not that we should hate atheists - we love them and wish for their good, most of all that they come to know the Lord. But it’s not just a matter of pleasant debate. Souls are in peril, and there is indeed a heaven and hell.

Very good, Mr MacDonald. But here is the problem: Why would Athieism mean is nessasary to secure the well-being of ALL people? While no nation should do another undue harm, no one should claim that it is a nation is required to look after people of OTHER nations. Each governing power is a part of our world’s global society, but thier rights and happiness of their own land MUST be their priority before they go dashing off to assist the citizens of another, or they risk depriving their people. What is the differance, then, in a group of people or doctors saying: “Our first job is to ensure our patients’ health, so it is inefficeint and a misuse of resourses to offer care for the ones who will never be healthy” or for a government say “We will be able to ensure the happiness and approval of MORE people if we take all the property of one small group and give it to the larger one who has less” since it is merely a smaller scale of the same logic? If merely ensuring happiness is the goal, or wellness is the goal, what is to stop this from happening?

@Brandon W: Are you a Catholic or a Deist?
—-
Loud: you replied to me
—
“Yes, but I am afraid that “only” differance is a big differance. It also means you need a different reason if you want to hold the same beliefs, since you got rid of our reason. If you don’t draw on something set, if their isn’t an indisputable code given by someone you KNOW is correct, then anyone could change it. Who, exactly, decided that the weak and the lowly are valuable? Christianity was the first, all other societies that adopted that adopted that because of their influence. Even the Jews, who knew it was good to care for the poor only did it because God told them THE ACTION of almsgiving was good, a large part of ‘em (obviously not all)didn’t really believe poor people had equal dignity at first.”
—-
Absolutely NOTHING in that tirade is true or even a strong inductive argument. Judeo-Christianity (and its evil offspring Islam) never was the source of moral values. As members of the class of mammals, we instinctively value each other, and even have affection for other species (i.e. people love their pets). There was no god to “tell us” that we “should.” This behavior evolved in us because mammals who don’t care for each other are less likely to survive and reproduce, and therefore are a minority of our population.
—-
Joe P: That should answer your question as well. If you look more closely, you’ll find that female infanticide and other cultural atrocities are the result of religion and/or politics.
—-
And if you think Jennifer knows more about me, then you obviously don’t know anything about us either.

@John McDonald
“Our caring/empathy for each other came before any creation of a Judeo-Christian concept.”
Of course, but I would say that care/empathy was only extended to other members of the family, the tribe, the clan. Whatever “empathy gene” a barbarian was struggling with probably did not stop him from ripping his neighbor’s head off to steal his cattle. Innate empathy came well after more pressing motivators, such as the need for security/food/wealth, which came at the expense of others. And you know what? The violent rapists and pillagers were the “successful” ones: their immoral behavior was rewarded with easily acquired resources. Christianity was innovative in the sense that it stated that love needed to be extended not just to family members or fellow nationals, but to your ENEMIES as well. 
I am delighted that you, an atheist, believe in the value of all people. Global empathy. But delve deeper into the complexity of life, and the difference between a Catholic ideology and a humanist’s will rapidly become apparent. For example, do you extend your global empathy to a child whose mother wants to abort?

“What happens to be moral in Christianity is not original to Christianity.”
Absolutely agree! God’s Truth existed eons before Christ was born.

ps I’m just sparring, not trying to be condescending or rude to atheists.

Joe P: Believing that all people have inherent value and dignity (or acting and living as if they do) does not require a belief that they were made in the image of God, or even made by God. I’m atheist, I believe that, so do most of the others I know, do you really find it that hard to believe? You suggest that atheists can only hold beliefs that are scientifically proven, as if the societal benefit of treating people as if they have value and dignity needs further study.  Stop quoting the GAC promo spot like it’s the atheist creed or something.
To your extreme example of a proposed law to euthanize disabled infants (please don’t respond that this is no different from contraception), the unproven personal belief AND rational thought process is that they are human beings worthy of life and love as any of us, not to mention against the law. The death penalty in the US takes human life; does it not strike you as odd that the nation that is the most Christian executes more of its citizens than any other? I would hazard a guess equal numbers of Christians support the death penalty as atheists. Witness the major conservative Christian candidates for president that open support the death penalty, pre-emptive war, and are critics of welfare, in direct contradiction to Catholic thought. Yet the godless liberals on the other side of these issues are evil?
John: no disagreement hear, Catholics somehow make some uber-hot women, I’ll give you that buddy!

Atheism is not an ideology, it is not a religion or a belief, it is not atheism that requires anything except for no belief in a god. The guiding factor in establishing a moral framework for humanity is simply for the benefit of humanity, it is not a dictate of atheism, an atheist simply does not need to refer to any superstition or religious construct in any endeavor. The goal of achieving the greatest well-being of all people is best achieved unfettered by religion. Your statement could be interpreted to say that charity to other nations is not desirable. That also would violate the goal of the greatest well-being for all. Nations would not have to suffer in the course of helping other nations, we have ample proof of that in the world right now. Your two options ...(who will never be healthy) and ...(take from one…) are both bad examples that would never be realized from any decent moral framework. If ensuring wellness or the maximum possible happiness for all is the goal, then inflicting misery on a subset of all still violates the general principle of achieving the greatest well-being of all, and that action would be rejected before it occurred in any human-centered morality worth a damn. I don’t understand how you can say “all” and then project a nasty pair of atheist driven scenarios that do not represent “all”, the math ain’t with you. I’m not saying that the implementation of the ideal I speak of is easy, but the concept of that ideal is. Again, it does not mean inflicting misery or execution on any subset of people to benefit any other group or all others.

Christian,
Really? You can still say, without a God, that all life has value? And are Humans to be equated with other forms of life?

We eat animals, do we not? Animals, as well as us humans, eat plants, don’t they? An atheist can defend this on one point alone: we are intelligent.  But not all of us are. There are people who are mentally ill or who are a little too young to properly employ reason. Why can we not eat them? Is it because they are LIKE us? We blacks are humans, but WE are not LIKE WHITES.  It is not even contrary to NATURE to be cannibalistic, many creatures are! What other objection would there be, then, if we eat other forms of life? We can release a cat or dog into the wild, or even kill them, if they are inconvenient. Why not release a child? Or kill a child if they are inconvenient? Or perhaps someone who is mentally ill? Or growing senile? Human life has value because God made us in His image. Without that firm assertion, you get crazy eugenicists like Sanger, and someone will try and legislate this twisted and disordered world view, like Hitler. “All life has value”, based on what? And “Human life has special value”, based on what? Without a God, we can only know, because WE KNOW. We KNOW based on that feeling of disgust we all get by thinking of cannibalism, we KNOW based on that primal instinct to protect our young that we cannot eat them. But is emotion, and someone always questions it; sometimes whole societies will question it. How can we defend human dignity if all we have to support it is gut-feeling?

“My GUT says we’ll all be better off if we kill off them there injinns.”

I am not using this as a ‘proof’ God exists (Atheism (in a nutshell) means the world has no meaning, IF it is correct, it won’t assume meaning and ‘get a God’ because people realize the world would be better with it. ) I am just saying, there is no reason to expect consistent (the majority of them won’t even be logical) moral codes from people who don’t believe in a God. Everyone will differ, and nobody will be able to defend any of it. Why should they? A world that isn’t ordered, hasn’t been designed intellegently, dosen’t need to be consitent! (you know, the fact that their IS such a thing as science kinda skews the whole “there is no God” thing. Why an entire universe assume an ordered nature otherwise? THAT is MORE than enough reason to consider(it isn’t proof) the claim that their is a God)

@Umberto:
—-
“Christianity was innovative in the sense that it stated that love needed to be extended not just to family members or fellow nationals, but to your ENEMIES as well.”
——
History shows that “innovation” of loving your enemies was certainly not practiced. Jennifer’s article above proves that a lot of Christians still don’t practice it.
—-
John and Zeke—it’s too bad Catholicism doesn’t make descent men—unless you’re “in” to bondage and submission.

Oh, another Freudian slip—Catholic men are lower than others, but women have to be masochistic to marry them.

Zeke: No, it is wonderful that you beleive in the dignity of all humans not every one dose. But like you said, it isn’t scientifically proven. In fact, it can’t be. It exists outside of the realm of science, and Athiesim can’t DEFEND it like we can. Most of us know humans have worth, though many of the Athiest/Leftists Elite applaud people who deny it (ticks me off, but probably bothers their fellow Athiests and Leftists even more). Here, you take a leap of faith. In Christianiy, we take the similar leaps, and get called stupid things like “dogmatically trained dogs” and…. eh, I won’t delve into some of the nastier comments. Anyhow, we are similar in that we choose to base certain (differing) things off of faith, Athiests can’t defend the things we base off of our God, and so will never really agree with each other.

Zeke, why do you believe human beings are so worthy of life and love (including serial killers) if we are just mammals at the top of the food chain, as Angela would have us believe? (BTW, I’m against the death penalty).
@Angela, seriously? Neither of us know what happened before the big bang, so therefore I am proving your point that we can’t know if God exists either?  Hmmmm So, we live in a perfectly ordered universe, with laws that govern it down to the most breathtaking minutiae, and you are going to try to sell me on the fact that it just appeared one day out of nothing?  That takes a lot of faith.  As for the fetus eating abortionist, just Google it, it comes right up.  He just needed a little extra protein in the diet eh?  What?  Disgusting?  He was hungry!

Oh Angela, I see you’re being a bad girl again. S&M eh?

Okay, I’m also really curious what it was that originally turned you against Christianity…yeah, I know the airplanes, the Muslims etc.  Did you grow up with a really authoritarian Catholic Dad?  Did your Mom make you wear shorts in the pool?  I’m not making fun, I actually have met people like that.  They kind of piss me off too.

@Angela you ask “Are you a Catholic or a Deist?”

Interesting question, to which I’ll say the answer might be either, or none of the above. Why do you ask?

Angela,
“Take away the religious parts of a society, and you will find morality is more or less the same among all humans.”

yeah, take away 16 percent of human society, and you will be left with ONLY religious! Your a small group, Ange, you can’t claim that religion isn’t the reason for basic morality when only 16 percent of the world’s population isn’t part of a religion. Constantly surrounded by people who hold religious ties, you can’t really claim they have no influence on you. Even people who disagree with parts of or don’t practice thier faiths, remian in those faiths because that is where morality is found. Seriously! I expected a stronger argument from you.

“Absolutely NOTHING in that tirade is true or even a strong inductive argument. Judeo-Christianity (and its evil offspring Islam) never was the source of moral values. As members of the class of mammals, we instinctively value each other, and even have affection for other species (i.e. people love their pets). There was no god to “tell us” that we “should.” This behavior evolved in us because mammals who don’t care for each other are less likely to survive and reproduce, and therefore are a minority of our population.”

Like Athiests? Sorry, that was a bit of a cheap-shot. But you were just begging for it! Like my brother says “I don’t especially LIKE calling people names, but they are such idiots that it is way too easy!”

Honestly, basing an ENTIRE moral code on primal instincts and the need to survive? Without any difinitive way to prove it is right? No science? What happened to being “Free-Thinking” and not subscribing to something purely because it is comfortable and easy? And to not dogmatically forcing unproven morality on others? Unless, you don’t think laws should be based on morality (which is what they ARE ALWAYS based on, by the way). This dosen’t even sound like you; I mean, come on!

Jennifer thanks for this blog. Dan Barker is coming to Manila, Philippines on the 21st of April for the first ever Atheist Convention here. It appears the atheist’s here are getting a sort-of free ride maybe on Dan’s return trip. I wanted to attend this to know their arguments about ethics/morality in the public square. I have never gotten a satisfactory answer from any of them when I ask them: how can you talk about ethics and morality devoid of religion when the core arguments you propose for ethics and morality, in this present day, are set within the context of Judeo-Christian ethics and morality? I would like to see them propose a system that takes no part from the Judeo-Christian culture… oops we have that, ancient Greece… does slavery and infanticide ring a bell?

Suddenly I don’t feel so bad anymore about making fun of anna lisa. The whackjob that allegedly ate fetuses (holy crap that’s sick) lost his license. The priest that abuse the deaf kids wasn’t even defrocked. That wasn’t an arbitrary decision, it was made by Cardinal Ratzinger when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition).
Why do I believe that humans are worthy of life, dignity, etc? I don’t know, I just do. Do I need it written down for me so I can “prove” it to others by citing the verse?  Yes, were classified as mammals, but that’s where the similarity ends. We can reason, write poetry, create music, and perform a myriad of wondrous tasks that no other mammal can do.

Loud: sure, you can DEFEND many beliefs that are unscientifically proven by pointing to the bible. Likewise I could defend my beliefs by pointing to crackpot scientific studies that I claim are true. But here’s the big difference – if the basis of my beliefs were proven to be bogus, I would cease to believe they were worthy of consideration.  You base everything on that assumption that the existence of God and the Bible is true, and nothing will make you change your mind. This is the reason Christians (or any religious folk) get labeled dogmatic, they are impervious to reason.

Zeke asked, “Was there some confusion about the morality of killing, stealing, lying, etc. prior to the 10 Commandments?”

Judging by the numerous atrocities committed against God and man in the old pagan era, it would seem so, yes. But keep in mind that when Moses descended from Sinai with the Commandments in stone, the intent was not to introduce novel notions of right and wrong. Rather, Providence had given a clear and binding ratification of what men knew through the natural law. It would seem that the secular, scientific approach was insufficient for getting people to abide by what would become known as the Decalogue; an explicit articulation was required.

Zeke, I have to take off.  But why would you want to make fun of me?  I was being irreverent about that monster who ate fetuses, but just to prove a point about morality.

Sean: who are we kidding here, those were not enlightened times. There was no scientific secular approach then; scientific knowledge about the earth and the universe was minimal, and I doubt there was even a word for secular. There were indeed numerous atrocities committed in the pagan era, and even a cursory reading of the old testament suggests that God not only endorsed them but required them. The modern equivalent of clear and binding ratification would be all the laws that societies enact for their own good. Sure, most of them are based on Judeo-Christian principles, which are wonderful.
Don’t you find it odd that an all-powerful and omniscient God apparently sat and watched humanity for eons, deaf and blind to all the suffering, before deciding to interject with the 10 Commandments? And when he decided it was time to get involved, his best strategy was to reveal his intent to a tribe of bronze-age illiterates in a very obscure corner of his creation?

Loud/Ricardo: you seem to be arguing that Judeo-Christian morals are mutually exclusive, and since they were given from god, atheists should not or cannot accept them. Atheists believe the bible was devised and written by men (which is patently obvious given the multiple conflicting passages and falsifiable claims) so they have no problem agreeing with many of the morals therein.
Numerous other societies existed in other parts of the world at that time, none of which had any contact with the warring tribes in the Middle East. It comes as no surprise to us that their moral codes on the big issues are remarkably the same as early Christians. Actually some of these societies were far more advanced in many ways. But that’s tough to explain for Christians who adhere to the bible. They place the creation of the earth and Adam and Eve at approximately 2,500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer.
Ricardo – careful with the ancient Greek jibes about infanticide and slavery. The church doesn’t have a history with slavery that would make you proud. You may claim that the church position on slavery has evolved over the centuries. It has, thankfully, and hopefully it will continue to do so in other areas lest they continue to alienate once practicing Christians like me.

Help me out.  Every living thing on this earth has a vital place in the circle of life.  Bees pollinate flowers, so vegetables, fruits, and seeds and produced.  Animals eat those and scatter the seeds so more plants can grow.  When the animals die, their bodies are food for scavengers, microorganisms and plants.  Every organism has its place and without it, the circle breaks down.  Every organism that is, except humans.  If we disappeared, everything else would keep going and not miss a beat.  Also, from a naturalist perspective, what exactly is the purpose for humans to develop with highly developed emotions, creativity, curiosity, etc. etc.?  These things are not needed for survival.  Cockraches, for example, do quite nicely without any of those attributes.  Also, if humans evolved from lower creatures over a period of millions and millions of years, where’s the fossil trail showing all the various gradual stages of development?  Where’s the fossil for half fish and half monkey for example?  This theory of naturalistic evolution is not complete.  The naturalistic argument aganist God is weaker then the argument for God.

About the baby-eating abortionist in Kansas City—at first I was skeptical because every article that came up was from a faith-based, pro-life news “source.” I would have expected a sick f**k like that to be world news for weeks—like Jeffrey Dahmer and any other cannibal serial killer.
——
But, there was no evidence except the claims of some employees that Rajanna (they don’t say if he was a real doctor) cooked and mixed a fetus for lunch. They also discovered that there is no law against eating a fetus, so he could not have been charged. So his clinic was closed down and his license revoked because of the horrific unsanitary conditions and the governor vetoed bills to regulate abortion clinics. Instead, the example of Rajanna’s clinic is being used to support a bill that would subject all outpatient clinics to surprise inspections.
—-
So, I wonder why you asked my opinion? Did you think I’d approve of fetus eating?

After reading all the comments since my first, I have to reiterate, what good is a revelation from God that can be interpreted so variously that even Catholics can’t agree among themselves on whether we are called by God to live in a society that prohibits abortion, allows gay marriage, punishes blasphemy, executes murderers, makes contraceptives available to all, provides health care to the poor, or wages pre-emptive war? Fine, God said “. . . humans are made in the image and likeness of God, and thus ALL people have inherent value and dignity.” Therefore we take porn off the internet? Therefore we shouldn’t torture suspected terrorists? Inconclusive. The revelation is no more helpful or convincing than a heartfelt plea from a woman married to a porn addict or an innocent prisoner in Abu Ghraib.

Do you see how the revelation doesn’t help with laws? The only things that help are gradual changes in society that make us more empathetic, and gains in knowledge that help us understand our own natures as well as how stuff works.

New Yorker: if you’re truly curious about the answers to these questions, you’ll have to help yourself out. Evolution by natural selection is far too detailed to summarize on a comment board. Suffice it to say that here that there is broad consensus among biologists, geneticists, and scientists worldwide.

Virtually all of those who claim it is false do so because it conflicts with the bible. But among highly educated Christians, support for evolution is vast. Francis Collins, the current Director of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (mapped the human genome) believes it is true. He is also an evangelical Christian. The Vatican does not dispute that evolution is true, but sees no conflict with religion. Even the American Scientific Affiliation, a strictly Christian organization, affirms that 66% of their members agree with evolution.

I think you misunderstand what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim. It claims that all living species shared a common ancestor, not that half fish/half monkey creatures existed. If you’re wondering where the fossil trail is, go to any museum of natural history or read a book, it’s all there.

It seems incredibly hypocritical to accuse atheists of materialism when the Catholic spiritual leader sits on a golden throne in a private city-state, all whilst preaching “give your riches to the poor!”
Also the author obviously cannot understand the distinction between believing in something like evolution, whilst not becoming manically homicidal in that belief. Understandable, considering the history of their church…

New Yorker: if you’re truly curious about the answers to these questions, you’ll have to help yourself out. Evolution by natural selection is far too detailed to summarize on a comment board. Suffice it to say that here that there is broad consensus among biologists, geneticists, and scientists worldwide.
Virtually all of those who claim it is false do so because it conflicts with the bible. But among highly educated Christians, support for evolution is vast. Francis Collins, the current Director of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (mapped the human genome) believes it is true. He is also an evangelical Christian. The Vatican does not dispute that evolution is true, but sees no conflict with religion. Even the American Scientific Affiliation, a strictly Christian organization, affirms that 66% of their members agree with evolution.
I think you misunderstand what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim. It claims that all living species shared a common ancestor, not that half fish/half monkey creatures existed. If you’re wondering where the fossil trail is, go to any museum of natural history or read a book, it’s all there.

@Loud
It appears that you view atheism as being analogous to christianity as if it had some dictatorial framework or was some sort of guide in and of itself, it is not a framework and it does not guide. It is not an ideology nor does it have dogma, doctrine or rules. Things are not done in the name of atheism. There is nothing in atheism that prescribes or guides to a conclusion anything beyond the lack of belief in any deity. In my opinion the goal of achieving the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people is simply for the benefit of humans and is best pursued unfettered by religious influence. The arbitrary rules that religion inevitably injects into everything as it always tries to would hamper success. Nationalism is tribalism on a grander scale, that’s all. Why do you say no one should claim that a nation is required to look after people of other nations? If a nation has the means to support its own needs with surplus, a goal of extending charity/assistance to all who need it is a great thing and it happens now, and it’s one of the things we should be thinking of as in our own interest. It is compatible with setting a goal of raising well-being for the greatest number of people and reducing suffering as much as possible, it is the humane thing to do. Having the top priority of ensuring our patient’s health does not have to imply that others must suffer, or that people in lower health must be abandoned to misery, you present a false dichotomy. What’s wrong with setting a goal of everyone’s health to be adequately supported? We do not have to perpetuate a haves and have-nots society, or world for that matter. Both your scenarios would be rejected in any decent framework of social morality. It is religion that fosters the in-group out-group mentality that not only allows but actively promotes hostility to out-groups. Clearly, a secular style is broadly more inclusive for managing the goal of achieving the greatest well-being for all.

anna lisa—you replied:
—-
@Angela, seriously? Neither of us know what happened before the big bang, so therefore I am proving your point that we can’t know if God exists either?  Hmmmm So, we live in a perfectly ordered universe, with laws that govern it down to the most breathtaking minutiae, and you are going to try to sell me on the fact that it just appeared one day out of nothing?  That takes a lot of faith.
—-
What makes you think the universe is “perfect?” You refuse to read any literature (e.g. by Richard Dawkins) that can explain how things came to be as they are without a “creator.” It takes no “faith” at all—there is overwhelming evidence. Random mutations are happening constantly with no intelligent pattern except that the most adaptable mutations survive to be replicated. You just want the world to be in order, but your world can change drastically in one day—9/11 is such an event. Or do think that was part of “God’s design” as well?

anna lisa—
“Okay, I’m also really curious what it was that originally turned you against Christianity…yeah, I know the airplanes, the Muslims etc.  Did you grow up with a really authoritarian Catholic Dad?  Did your Mom make you wear shorts in the pool?  I’m not making fun, I actually have met people like that.  They kind of piss me off too.”
——-
Is it really inconceivable that I had a relatively normal childhood and am still an atheist? Are you rebelling against your atheist family by being a Catholic?

@New Yorker—
Do you really think some other Catholic didn’t ask the same stupid questions?
—-
Check out this site:
—
http://talkorigins.org/
——
It has the answers to all your questions. You probably won’t like them, because you will realize that “God” is not necessary for survival.

I’m still waiting for some one to prove to me Zeus, the FSM, Pink Unicorn, Odin, and the other deities don’t exist.
—-
@Brandon W:
I understand that Deists believe in god as the “prime mover” who started the universe and has no further involvement. Catholics obviously have an entire creed where their god is directly involved and concerned about every single human being and needs to be worshiped and obeyed or he gets really pissed sends sinners to eternal torture in hell.
—-
Two very different versions of god—which is yours?

Loud—somehow it doesn’t surprise me that you make up your own statistics and jump to false conclusions—Do you work for FOX news?
—-

@Umberto
You say “of course”, so we are agreed and all you are quibbling about is scale. The neighbor you say gets his head ripped off is your neighbor, that makes him part of your tribe or clan, otherwise he would be away from you, yes? Innate empathy was part of our survival long before religion was invented, besides the instant pleasure your brain generates making it its own reward, it ensured the perpetuation of the immediate group, and was inexorably extended through the ages to our current global village. Do you really think pillaging was easy? War on any scale is not a cakewalk. How does your example fit the fact that famous pillagers, the Vikings, did not dominate large portions of the planet and determine the subsequent culture of that huge area? They thrived for only a very short time. Not a grand hegemonic success. And indeed, they were good at pillaging. Christianity has never extended love to its enemies, that’s BS unless you call killing by the sword “love”. A long bloody trail followed christians everywhere they went and history is chock full of examples.
I will answer your abortion question from my personal opinion, I give priority to the mother. Children do not get aborted, they get that label when they are born. I also believe it is less my business or yours what a woman has to decide for herself, very few women take it lightly. The catholic attitude of promoting large families is ridiculous, we have to stop our population explosion or it will cost us all great misery soon enough. Forcing a pregnancy to term against her will is disastrous for the mother and likely for the child, this perpetuates misery. Does your religious morality also support the propaganda in Africa that tells superstitious vulnerable uneducated people that condoms are worse than AIDS and subsequently the infant death rate is horrific and suffering is unbelievable? This isn’t even to the heart-tugging level of the abortion debate, it is only prevention and catholic ideology is directly to blame for countless suffering and needless deaths, all over prevention. Don’t get on a moral hobby horse when your religion is perpetuating such suffering, you got no cred there.
Since you missed my point I will rephrase: What happens to be moral in religion is not original to religion, and there’s no reason or evidence to suggest any god exists. If your god’s truth exists without religion, then what actual use is religion? Religion run by humans can only corrupt that truth. Perhaps that suggests that secular humanism is truly the closest thing to god’s truth.

“Because when they do, the nearby churches will be flooded with post-convention crowds.”

Boy are you deluded!

So Zeke, you raised the question about whether the 10 Commandments were really needed to drive home the point that killing, stealing, and lying were immoral. Then you conceded that “There were indeed numerous atrocities committed in the pagan era.” So we’re agreed on some point at least. If you also intend to say that the arrival of the 10 Commandments, made no difference, then we part company on that point.

It’s not apparent from your remarks what makes the Holy Land obscure, or why lack of literacy (curious: how do you know if they were illiterate? a written record like what we have militates in favor of literacy) or being from the bronze-age is problematic.

But as humanity is kept in existence by the constant action of God (a blessing if ever there was one), and as everyone has sufficient opportunity to save his soul and win Heaven no matter how much or how little suffering he endures, I say kudos to God for all the good help He has rendered humans through the ages.

Also, if an alternate word for “secular” is “godless,” then I suppose they did have something equivalent in the ancient world. Anyway, I don’t look on secular notions as enlightened; rather, as they deny the spiritual component of human nature, I find them repressive and backwards.

@john - Whoa!  Catholic women are much prettier than atheist women.  I feel bad for all the atheist men.

Dont know about that john but Atheists get better sex - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1388827/Atheists-better-sex-religious-followers-plagued-guilt.html

Angela,
Random mutations of what?  From what beginning?  The instigation of first life being…?  You say that I just want order in my world.  Is there not order in the universe?  None?  Be honest. I am resigned that in this world, I must suffer a painful amount of chaos.  This gives me an inkling of how grave sin must really be.  Every baby that enters this world, enters with pain, perhaps even a kind of agony.  Some die.  Children die of starvation every day.  Does this scandalize you?  Is death a terrible scandal?  I too find these realities painfully sobering.  Again, for me, it provides an insight into the tremendous gravity of sin.  I believe that God comforts the afflicted and ushers them into a transcendent state of being—for eternity—This life is but a heartbeat.  How terrible it must be for you, that you can’t believe this.  Death, suffering, and no substantial comfort.  That sounds like a form of Hell.  I have to admit that all of this pain and death would scandalize me even more if God had merely saved us with a supposed cosmic nod.  I believe He could have, but the fact that He became one of us, and then suffered more agony than any other human being, shows me not only His love, but His solidarity with our condition as well.  As a parent who has sat up all night with a sick child, I can begin to grasp His love. I’m sorry that you can’t bring yourself to love Him for this.  I really, truly am.
@Zeke, you judge mankind, and our evolution with 21st century sensibilities.  God didn’t make us so we would be His own personal puppet show, manipulating us with light shows and grand demonstrations of His worthiness to be followed.  Catholics—if they understand the role of the Bible, and its place, along with the wisdom of natural law inscribed on our hearts, and the role of the teaching church—should not be guilty of worshiping the bible.  It is simply not THE singular deposit of faith. 
P.S. Pope Benedict is not God, and we don’t expect him to be.  Please don’t brush him with the same tar brush as all of the creeps and perverts that can be found hiding out in every walk of life.  They don’t represent the vast body of faithful souls who don’t engage in such foul things. (BTW, NAMBLA members would insist that you not impose your morality upon them!)

Re: Brian Westley
too bad he couldn’t explain his views/response to Brandon>
We could have had a good discussion on Atheists Ideas…
but instead we get the comments from Atheists from Angela.
Too bad so many years of human thought down the drain….
It’s funny that all the Atheists of now are fighting a battle fought so long ago.
rehashing old stuff…
We have to get all the old evidence out and dust it off.
I love reading all this stuff

To Rachel, who pondered about the use of ‘freethinker’, it is as apropos as the word ‘catholic’, meaning universal, being used to describe a particular segment of Christianity, and ‘protestant’ meaning one who protests describing another. Groups of people have long used attributes as group identifiers even if they would exclude people who think the attribute applies to them as well, and the terms used don’t necessarily mean the group members have the attribute in question.

The atheist doesn’t need to be certain that God doesn’t exist to reasonably say God doesn’t exist. He just needs to believe that it’s improbable that God exists. There are *all* kinds of evidence available to the atheist to justify that conclusion. For example, we know that if atheism is true, it’s *entailed* that there is no good we know of that justifies God in permitting the suffering we observe (‘cause…he doesn’t exist). We know that this is *not* entailed if theism is true (perhaps there would be some good we know of). So, that there is no good we know of that justifies God in permitting the suffering we observe is more likely on atheism than theism (evidence for atheism). All we have to do is find real examples where there is no good we know of that justifies God in permitting the suffering we observe and behold, we have a case for atheism.

As long as the Catholic church is hiding and protecting child-raping priests, they are in no position to make moral judgements.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/forced-castrations-reportedly-found-roman-catholic-care

I don’t believe in pink and purple elephants flying through the air playing saxophones. Let’s have a convention dedicated to that! $1000 will get you admission. Please make checks out to me. Thank you

“I don’t believe in pink and purple elephants flying through the air playing saxophones. Let’s have a convention dedicated to that! $1000 will get you admission”
You have just revealed the basic proposition that underlies the business model of most organized religions: a trip to a nicer place in the afterlife for doing X today.  The successful ones move onto acquiring massive real estate holdings and favorable tax treatment.
The Mormons are a really good recent example of how to do it.

Jay: don’t believe in purple elephants flying through the air? Wouldn’t surprise me if you did, you seem to have no problem believing that there’s an invisible God that listens to your prayers. And you believe that the money you give to the church isn’t paid out as hush money to the families of children raped by priests.

Sorry Jennifer, Once again, you fail as an ex Atheist.  You were a non believer, that is just a position of ignorance.  You never thought apparently why there was no evidence of any god.  You just didn’t think about it.  Now, with children, God (sense of community more I suspect) has inspired you.

Once again, I think you put atheist in the title just to get some views on your blog.  Well, well done then.

BTW, PZ has a nice long writeup on your article.

Posted by Jay on Thursday, Mar 22, 2012 7:16 AM (EST):
“I don’t believe in pink and purple elephants flying through the air playing saxophones. Let’s have a convention dedicated to that!”

If there was a powerful lobby spending millions of dollars to influence government activities, ostensibly on behalf of the wishes of the flying, musical, invisible elephants, it would be well worth the while of sane people to have a convention dedicated to strategies for countering that influence.

@Angela
You wrote: “I understand that Deists believe in god as the “prime mover” who started the universe and has no further involvement. Catholics obviously have an entire creed where their god is directly involved and concerned about every single human being and needs to be worshiped and obeyed or he gets really pissed sends sinners to eternal torture in hell.”

I think you have a very superficial understanding of Deists, and an incorrect understanding of Catholics. What is your understanding of (neo)-Paganism, Panenetheism, Pantheism, Gnosticism, Kabbalism (and it’s variation, Cabbalism), and the Greek and Egyptian Mystery Schools?  (Without rushing over to Wikipedia!).  I’ve studied all of the above at-length, among other things.

Why don’t atheists go around killing and raping if there is no objective morality handed down from on high?

Simple. It’s not nice. And I would not want to be killed. Or raped.

I don’t need someone to tell me that slavery, rape and murder are wrong. Apparently, the Christians do.

Rover Serton wrote, “Sorry Jennifer, Once again, you fail as an ex Atheist.  You were a non believer, that is just a position of ignorance.”

Ah, so her atheism not being reduced to a creed, she was not a true atheist. I think that’s rich.

roont wrote: “I don’t need someone to tell me that slavery, rape and murder are wrong. Apparently, the Christians do.”

Apparently, quite a number of people on the planet do. Pity the officially atheist governments of the 20th century didn’t heed the directive to not murder; there would have been 100 million fewer innocents killed in the past hundred years. And that’s not even counting the abortions.

Another advantage of the Christian position over the atheist one is that in addition to a Divine mandate reminding them not to murder, Christians are informed that they will pay an eternal price for their misdeeds if they do. Atheists, not factoring this consideration into their deliberations, have permitted themselves greater latitude in that department. Who has murdered more people than atheists?

Moral philosophy almost never discusses atheism or theism. Positions like moral realism (what folk logic might refer to as ‘absolute morality’) are never defended in terms of theism or atheism. Literally, all it would take is a quick perusal of a intro to metaethics. So, the moral behavior of atheists is more relevant to the moral position they’ve adopted than their atheism. I can’t make sense of the claim that Christianity has an advantage over atheism because it involves threats of eternal conscious torment for immoral behavior. What I can make sense of is comparing Christianity’s ethics to another moral position. Otherwise, we’re just talking about apples and oranges.

“from an atheist viewpoint, can you please give me a reason why the strong should not exterminate the weak and take their possessions? Without citing values that stem from supernatural-based belief systems?”

@Christian: Easy. I feel bad when I do bad things to people. I feel much better when I’m nice to them. We’ve evolved to cooperate and take care of those less fortunate or less able than us. Lesser animals do it too.

Also, there’s this thing called “The Law.”

Nice straw man you’re burning. What a cliché religiot you are.

@Scott
The laws can change on whim.  That’s the point.  Abortion was virtually illegal in this country just 40 years ago.  People apparently started to not “feel badly” about killing the baby in the womb, so the laws were changed.  If more and more people begin to start not “feeling badly” about killing babies outside the womb, should the laws be in favor of infanticide?

@Scott
Ok. I’m not trying to be antagonistic. But personal feelings are highly subjective, and not everyone is as altruistic as you. You feel bad when you wrong others, and feel good when you’re nice to them? I’m glad. But some people honestly feel nothing when they wrong others - some even feel good. And historically, there are stronger motivators for behavior than feelings: the need for food, security, prestige. In 21st century Westernized countries, we have the LUXURY to be nice with no cost. Christianity is unique because it asks us to value all life even when it is inconvenient or disadvantageous, and it makes no exceptions. Do you believe that a unborn baby with Down’s Syndrome deserves to be treated “nicely” or is it a candidate for abortion? There’s very few voices out there nowadays advocating for the former, but the Church is one of them.

@Scott
I’m not trying to be antagonistic. But personal feelings are highly subjective, and not everyone is as altruistic as you. You feel bad when you wrong others, and feel good when you’re nice to them? I’m glad. But some people honestly feel nothing when they wrong others - some even feel good. And historically, there are stronger motivators for behavior than feelings: the need for food, security, prestige. In 21st century Westernized countries, we have the LUXURY to be nice with no cost. Christianity is unique because it asks us to value all life even when it is inconvenient or disadvantageous, and it makes no exceptions. Do you believe that a unborn baby with Down’s Syndrome deserves to be treated “nicely” or is it a candidate for abortion? There’s very few voices out there nowadays advocating for the former, but the Church is one of them.

“Also, if humans evolved from lower creatures over a period of millions and millions of years, where’s the fossil trail showing all the various gradual stages of development?”

There are thousands of them. Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis… need I go on?

“Where’s the fossil for half fish and half monkey for example”

This just shows a gross misunderstanding of evolution, which doesn’t surprise me. Evolution does not dictate that you will ever find a cross between one modern animal and another. A Crocoduck. Or a fishmonkey. This is like me saying that the bible is proven wrong because at one point jesus says he turns himself into a duck. Of course, the bible does NOT say this, and that is no argument to show it wrong. Neither does evolution say that you will ever see a fishmonkey. In fact, if a fishmonkey were actually found, this would completely DISprove evolution.

“Another advantage of the Christian position over the atheist one is that in addition to a Divine mandate reminding them not to murder, Christians are informed that they will pay an eternal price for their misdeeds if they do.”

Oh, I see. So you don’t kill because if you don’t you will be rewarded forever and ever. And if you do, you will be punished forever and ever. You don’t do it because it’s the right thing to do.

“Who has murdered more people than atheists?”

Easy. The religious. Remember all those Islamic suicide bombers are religious. I don’t care if they are not Christian, you worship the same god. How many people throughout history have been killed in the name of who’s god is the best?

James said it already. How can you sit there and tell us that you have the moral high ground when the Vatican, for decades, maybe even centuries, have allowed and covered up the abuse and rape of children?

Why isn’t one of the ten commandments “Do not harm children?” when one of them is “do not boil a young goat in it’s mothers milk”? (If that doesn’t sound familiar, you haven’t read your bible.)

Christian/Sean: You say you want more religion, but you really mean you want more police.

Zeke, social stability is not the true aim of Christianity, but it is a byproduct. John Adams put it this way: “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”

It is obvious that those using the child abuse case against the Catholic Church aren’t really interested in the welfare of the children involved, they just using a tragedy to attack something they disagree with. Yes, those were horrible cases, and by no means am I excusing them. But they consistently use the actions of a relative handful of individuals as a basis for attacking an entire organization of 1.6 billion people. Stalin, Hitler, or any other number of horrible people were atheists who committed murder on tens of millions of people, right? Yet, those same people will argue that “well, atheists aren’t organized so we have nothing to do with them.” Or “the actions of a few are not the actions of every atheist…” Wait, that sounds familiar. Atheists are correct that we should not pin the actions of a murderous, horrible few on the entire group of them. The vast majority of atheists are probably reasonably decent people. But it would be nice if they’d afford others the same charity and understanding.

Brandon, the reason the child abuse (Catholics favor the word “abuse” because it sounds like they roughed up a few kids, not sexually assaulted them) is so often brought up is that it reflects the inherent hypocrisy and lack of moral ground to preach from. Thousands of rogue priests are bad enough, but the cover up by the hierarchy make it truly evil. Stalin & Hitler, Crusades & Inquisition, all examples of how barbaric humanity can be. But Stalin and Hitler, or any atheist who committed atrocities, never claimed that God was on their side. In fact, they could use the bible to support what they did as holy.

@Zeke
“Thousands of rogue priests” is a huge exaggeration. The Church is not merely the leadership hierarchy, but is the entire 1.6 billion Catholic Christians. At some point we need to accept the faults of human beings and move forward. I’m anonymous enough on here to say: I was sexually abused by two people from the age of 9 to the age of 11 (they were not priests, and contrary to the stereotype, they were both women). I got the counseling I needed to understand that these were not evil people, but people who were also profoundly hurt in some way. I was able to accept and forgive their actions and move forward in my life. If I saw them on the street today, I would say hello. We have a relatively short time in this life, and I see no reason to spend it condemning others or playing the victim.

@Christian—people who don’t feel bad when they hurt others are called psychopaths and sociopaths. Religion gives many of them justification for their crimes (see 9/11 references above). Atheist psychopaths and sociopaths are very good at evading the law, but on the whole almost any secular society has moral judgements against them. Many Islamist praise the 9/11 terrorists because they put their “faith” over any regard for human life—even those of fellow Muslims that were in the towers at the time. An atheist psychopath/sociopath may put him/herself over any regard for human life, but they would not get social support or praise for it.
——
Brandon W: OK I have a lot more to learn about Deism. I’ll check online, but what do you think is the nature of the god you believe in?
—-
I don’t think Jennifer is reading any of these comments. There have been responses by other bloggers to questions and criticisms. She is not even apologizing or explaining her motives to the Catholics who are rebuking her.

Atheists grouping Catholics with the 9/11 attackers? Sigh…

@Angela
If God were so easy to comprehend that I could sum it up into a pithy comment for you to focus on, we wouldn’t have 2000+ years of philosophical thought and writing about it.

anna lisa:
—-
“Random mutations of what?  From what beginning?  The instigation of first life being…?  You say that I just want order in my world.  Is there not order in the universe?  None?  Be honest.”
—
There is no time or space her to give you science lessons, which you obviously never had (either in public/private or home schooling), which I think is a scandal to be blamed on who ever was responsible for your education.
—-
There is both order and chaos in the universe—it is not perfect. I find it interesting that you write that you are “scandalized” by the pain, suffering and inevitable death that is the experience of all life, and yet you think you live in a perfect universe. Some of the patters are awe-inspiring and you attribute them to god’s genius. The chaos shocks and terrifies you and you blame the suffering of humans on the contrived concept of “sin,” not the “all loving God” that created this world for you. Even babies (who are NOT “born in sin” as you believe) are born deformed, congenitally disabled and/or sick, and die.
—-
Guess what—I am “scandalized” (dictionary definition is “shocked or horrified by something considered immoral or improper.”) Did you think, as an atheist, I would not be?
—-
I am also scandalized that Catholics/Christians in general accept it is some kind of “God’s will” because we are “bad” to start with (blaming the victim). Life is too short, no matter how long we live, because death eventually happens to all of us, and primitive people invented god(s) and the false hope of an afterlife to cope with this reality.
—-
I have to cope with this reality too, but I don’t find any religion (and, believe me, I did a lot of searching) that helps me deal with it without lying to myself. It seems to me that you are OK with lying to yourself about the nature of reality because you don’t want to deal the the more terrifying aspects. Any form of tergiversation will serve so you can “transcend” and feel safe—and self-righteous in your belief.
——
Ignorance is also a major part of your “faith,” and I am scandalized by that too. There are books and blogs you won’t read because they are “Left/Liberal” and you prefer to think of the Left/Liberals as enemies of the faith. You think doubt is a bad thing (see Jennifer’s earlier post—and Jennifer has advised doubters to seek Catholic therapists for that psychological “problem.” I’m scandalized by that post too.
—-
Maybe that is why I keep coming back.

@Angela,
No, I think you keep coming back because you’re the kind of person who thinks they have Everything figured out at the age of 21 and you aren’t happy until you can convince everyone else that you’re “right.” When, at the age of 19, I had serious questions I spent the next 20 years doing serious study in sociology, psychology, philosophical and religious thought; I studied all the background and history and found my way into the innermost “secrets” of several religions.  When you’ve done that kind of serious study and built up that kind of a background, we’ll talk.

Dear Angela,
I have read a lot of your responses, on this thread and a few others.  Your default position when others disagree with you is to try to insult and humiliate them.  When you encounter an actual scientist you slink away, after delivering a load of cheap shots.  The fact that you watch and agree with Youtube videos hardly gives you credibility.  If you are a math or science major, you don’t come across that way.  Many preeminent Scientists and Mathematicians are devout Christians.  Why?  Their gifts bring them even closer to the majesty of God’s creation.  They know that for this world and universe to exist with the laws and forces that govern them, could not be a random occurrence.  It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE, even if there were a trillion years to accomplish it.  Nor does this answer what actually caused the big bang.  Angela, I don’t want to insult you, or your intelligence.  I simply want you to know the joy of kneeling to your all loving creator.  I feel pain for you that you believe that this is all there is, and that all of the death and suffering in this world has no meaning.  Simply, and humbly ASK HIM to show you light. Keep asking and He will answer your humble prayer.  All the best, and yup, I’m happily praying for you (don’t get mad).

@Brandon W,
“The Church is not merely the leadership hierarchy, but is the entire 1.6 billion Catholic Christians.”

A significant part of which are Catholic in name only, one should point out.

I can understand that the church cannot know beforehand whether someone going for the priesthood is actually a pedophile, and I do not blame the church for that. That doesn’t change the fact that once discovered, the actions taken were those of obfuscation and intimidation. That doesn’t change the fact that there was a consistent and persistent effort by the church to shield pedophile priests from legal prosecution. Furthermore, To the extent that this 1.6 billion have not risen up in anger to demand that their priests act as moral as they are purported to be, they are part of the problem, and when you spend less words in denouncing these things than you do expressing your annoyance at atheists who won’t let it go already, you are part of the problem.

anna lisa: perhaps many mathematicians are devout Christians, but not scientists, certainly not biologists or geneticists. Even the religious biologists overwhelmingly agree on evolution. The American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian group, reports that 66% of their members believe evolution to be true. Among all scientists who study these things, the support is nearly unanimous. Francis Collins, who was critical in mapping the human genome and now Director of the Institute for Health, affirms that evolution is true, and he is an evangelical Christian. For you to say that evolution is mathematically impossible betrays your lack of knowledge on the subject, or maybe just that your Christian schools never taught it. Just curious, how old do you think the earth is?

Brandon W wrote: “When you’ve done that kind of serious study and built up that kind of a background, we’ll talk.”

The purpose of a comment board is to foster discussion of the article topic. This does not get accomplished when people, i.e. you, use your “credentials” to shout people down. Angela has every right to take part in this conversation, and if you feel the need to resort to browbeating her in order to deflect her points, then maybe you need to examine your position a bit more.

Furthermore, what did your studies into the “secrets” of religion uncover? You seem to think this experience is relevant to the conversation, so please share.

Zeke, I believe in evolution.  Not only do I believe in it, I believe that it is a proof of God’s genius.  It is literally poetry in motion. I know you would probably feel better if I said that Jesus rode dinosaurs with his shotgun.

@Donald
I’m not using “credentials” for anything. My point is that someone who hasn’t done any serious study for any length of time ought not demand pithy, superficial explanations out of me; her real purpose being to play games and attack superficial explanations with her superficial understandings. I won’t play that game. Her “points” are shallow, thoughtless, and uninformed. I spent years on forums trying to have thoughtful conversations with people like her, and it was clear they have no interest in any thoughtful conversation whatsoever. They want to convert people as badly as any Evangelical Protestant and they act pretty much the same. I don’t have the patience for them any longer.

I can’t wade through this entire thing, so please excuse me if anyone else has said this.

The main reason to adopt an empathetic and altruistic moral code in the absence of a supernatural mandate is simple:  The best way to make sure MY rights are protected is to make sure YOUR rights are protected.

Why a moral code based on a supernatural mandate makes no sense whatsoever:  If good and evil are determined by a god, then good and evil change according to that god’s whim.  At one moment in history, killing babies is ok; at another point it is murder.  Does that make sense?  And please, before I get any “context” arguments, tell me exactly in which context killing massive amounts of babies would be a morally good action.

@Zeke
Catholics have no problem with evolution. I think you’re on the wrong board. Go chase down some Baptists.

Brandon W wrote: I’m not using “credentials” for anything. My point is that someone who hasn’t done any serious study for any length of time ought not demand pithy, superficial explanations out of me”

Besides the fact that you were, indeed, using your “credentials” to browbeat Angela, I don’t see any evidence that she was demanding a “pithy, superficial” explanation. Her exact words were “What do you think is the nature of the god you believe in?” This strikes me as a straightforward question, one that both Angela and I would like to see answered so discussion can move forward. We can’t have a meaningful discussion about the deity you worship without knowing what you believe about him.

Roont and James. Would you like to discuss the activities of Lenin Stalin Chairman and Pol Pot, Now could you hazard a guess how many those Atheists Murdered.

@Donald
To answer that question in 5 mins on a message board would inevitably be superficial, if not impossible. Which is precisely why I gave Angela a curriculum as a starting point. You may refer to it, too. Even if I tried the concepts would sound like I was speaking an alien language to you, and then we’d go round and round ad nauseam trying to clarify conceptual points until I want to stab myself in the eye with a spork. Been there, done that, broken a lot of sporks. I’d rather get some scotch.

Fair enough, even the pope admits as much. I interpreted anna lisa’s comments “..the laws and forces that govern them, could not be a random occurrence.  It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE, even if there were a trillion years to accomplish it” as denying evolution. Mea culpa.
But I’m still curious - how do you square this with the bible? Don’t you find it disingenuous that the church denied it for centuries? And only when secular human knowledge progressed to the point where it can show the bible is false did they begin to say “it’s only a parable”?

Christian wrote: Atheists grouping Catholics with the 9/11 attackers? Sigh…

Sadly, People that use guns responsibly give cover to those that abuse them. The same is true with religion.  Moderate religions give extreem religions cover i.e. Southern Baptists vs. Westboro Baptist Church.  Us (examined, unlike Jennifer) atheists see unfortunate things in all religions (homophobia and mysogony in the rcc for example) but, some are much worse than others.

Zeke, this is a common misunderstanding.  The role of the church is to define faith and morals.  The whole Galileo debacle should never have happened, as the Catholic church was not asked by God to be the definitive body explaining science.  By the way, Galileo and his daughter forgave, and died as faithful Catholics.

Brandon W wrote: “To answer that question in 5 mins on a message board would inevitably be superficial, if not impossible.”
—
Sounds to me like you could use some more studying, if you don’t understand your own personal God enough to give a quick summary for the purposes of spreading the good word. I’ll keep reading for a bit, if you change your mind.
—
Con O Sullivan wrote: “Roont and James. Would you like to discuss the activities of Lenin Stalin Chairman and Pol Pot, Now could you hazard a guess how many those Atheists Murdered.”
—
I am not Roont or James, but all that needs to be said is that those four individuals committed those atrocities for political reasons. Atheism has no dogma or creed, thus these men could not have done what they did because of their atheism. Additionally, Stalin fostered a cult of personality focusing on him as a figure of worship, and the Orthodox Church was complicit with a lot of his actions.

During my college years, I was wasted on secular purposes and abandon my faith, looking back I was lost and helpless.  By the grace of God, I am now back to my faith stronger than ever, God is waiting for us to activate that “free will” button.  I am seeing my brother and sister going through and same phrase I did, and it is very painful, but I cannot do anything except praying for God’s grace to bless them with the desire to come to him, freely.

@Zeke
The Fundamentalist Protestants (along with the atheists) are the Biblical literalists. The Catholic Church has a history of understanding and accepting metaphorical and responsive writing, going back at least to Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (374-397 AD). As to whether they believed in evolution prior to Darwin, let’s be honest, no one believed in evolution because it wasn’t something anyone had discovered or pieced together yet. People had a story and they went with it. When the process of evolution was discovered, the Catholic Church was fine with it. There’s nothing disingenuous about that. I think you need to go chase down some Fundamentalists. Maybe a Baptist from Mississippi or something.

For those of you defending the Faith, you should remember St. Peter’s admonitions that Christians should have a “tender heart” and “humble mind”, and when making a defense of your faith or conduct, “do it with gentleness and reverence”.  I am not going to pick any comment in particular, but if a neutral person were to scan these comments and see what has been written, I doubt very much that many of the comments would be considered civil – let alone “kind”, “humble” or “reverent”.

And what this means is that when you present a defense that is rejected, you don’t attack the person’s motives, beliefs, or arguments – and you certainly don’t lower yourself to an ad hominem attack.  An inability to persuade is neither the equivalent of personal failure nor is it conclusive evidence that your interlocutor is dense or stupid.  One can approach a problem, sift through evidence, and reach opposite conclusions. It happens all the time. That’s the gift of being a rational being – regardless of whether you believe that rationality was bestowed by God or obtained through some evolutionary process (and, I might add here, that both could be true).  Too many here seem to think that because they think their arguments to be rationale, all those who disagree must, therefore, be irrational. That is fallacious logic and bad theology.

Moreover, there is no “us” and “them” here regardless of what tack you take in this debate.  As a believer ALL are God’s children.  To the unbelievers the same principle applies – and it has been expressed several different ways above – that we are, as humans, all sharing a unique commonality.  We are the rational mammals, capable of a host of things that do not exist in the other categories of organic existence.  By focusing on commonality as opposed to divisions, we all come closer together.  That ultimately should be our goal as a civilization.

Finally, I personally know many self-professed atheists and pagans whose charity, kindness, sweetness of disposition, and love of their fellow man that would put many a Christian to shame. We do not have a monopoly on this, and it is idle – even sinful - to think we do. I have no doubt that were these folks tasked with redefining “morality” they would do a splendid job of it.

@ Zeke, let me give you an example:  When scientists learned in decoding the human genome, that every single human being on the planet descended from a single woman, I smiled and thought “Eve”.  Now whether or not she was actually Eve does not affect my core beliefs—that despite sin and selfishness reigning in this world, God, who loves us unto death came to pay a price that was so high, only He could have accomplished it.  Truly shocking.

@Donald
Nope. Too many broken sporks. I’ll leave you to your own studies.

It is people who make arguements for laws, not belief God, science or reason. Those are the things that arguements are based one. It could be that arguments from all of those reach the same conclusion-or maybe not. And people decide one the validity of those arguments based on their own rational system. Injecting reason can Only help an argument. Most (unfortunately not all) need more then “because God says so.” In the end it is reason that people use, so it makes sense to grow our reasoning abilities.

@ Con O Sullivan
Roont and James. Would you like to discuss the activities of Lenin Stalin Chairman and Pol Pot, Now could you hazard a guess how many those Atheists Murdered.

Not particularly. As someone already mentioned we can attribute their deeds as much to their atheism as to their facial hair. I see you rightfully left out the much blamed Hitler. You must know then, that he was a Christian and used his Christianity to promote his actions.

I would like to discuss why one of the ten commandments is “do not boil a young goat in the milk of its mother.” and not “Do not harm children”.

But anna lisa, if there was no Adam and Eve, and therefore no original sin or “the fall”, the whole doctrine of Christianity fails. The need for Jesus to atone for original sin is at the very core of Christianity.

@Kevin, You are so right. @Angela, seriously, sorry I said “slink” after you called me stupid. I forgive you.  You know what I am right now?  One really bad housewife, who should have gone to the grocery store, watching my little inmates running the asylum. lol

Zeke, look around, read the thread above.  We are a fallen race with a penchant for evil in spades.

@Zeke
You wrote: “if there was no Adam and Eve, and therefore no original sin or “the fall”, the whole doctrine of Christianity fails. The need for Jesus to atone for original sin is at the very core of Christianity.”
——-
This is a literalist reading and understanding (and argument). The premise of original sin does not rest on a literal reading of the story of Adam and Eve. In fact, I’ve always felt a metaphorical reading of it provided a much deeper story. You don’t read the story of the Tortoise and the Hare and think, “well that was a stupid, pointless story about a stupid rabbit.” Well, I hope you don’t.

@Brandon W

“In fact, I’ve always felt a metaphorical reading of it provided a much deeper story.”
___
Who is to say which parts of the bible are to be read literally and which metaphorically? How do we know then, that the entire concept of god as written in the holy books is not metaphorical?

Brandon W wrote: “The premise of original sin does not rest on a literal reading of the story of Adam and Eve. In fact, I’ve always felt a metaphorical reading of it provided a much deeper story.”
—
If Original Sin was not caused by the actions of the first two humans, then who was it caused by? Why not tell us the true story, and not a metaphor instead? What is your metaphorical reading of the story, and what is the deeper story that results?

Roont Atheism is a material and an inseperable part of Marxism L:enin
Religion is the enemy of Communism Trotsky enough said

It should be pointed out that there are many people, with decades of studies on the subject that are nonetheless Catholics, Evangelicals, atheists, Muslims etc. But we can be certain that in all but one of these cases the decades of studies have not yielded fruit, since the student is still wrong! (this is true whichever one of the above positions is true, or even if none of them are).

I’ll have to echo roont’s question. What is the standard by which you determine which bits of the Bible are literal, which are metaphorical and which are simply parables? In my experience, which may not have 20 years of study on the subject (but I’m close), the main criteria is expediency. Any rationalization, no matter how tortured, that allows the believer to maintain the initial premises of their particular faith, is touted as the current ‘deep’ understanding.

Con O Sullivan: In Marxism, atheism existed to allow statism, in which the state took the place taken by the church. What does not follow is that Leninism and its consequences are an inseparable part of atheism

@ Con O Sullivan
—
Whether you realize it or not, religion is the enemy of all human endeavors, so communism would not be unique in that regard.

@Donald
I remind you: Sporks.
But 3 seconds of effort on my part yields this for you. It should give you a brief overview and also point you to multiple sources in which you could delve deeper:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0507.asp
(Since you were unwilling to make the original 3 seconds of effort, I doubt you’ll actually dig deeper, but there you go.)

@Cafeeine
I’m sure if you wanted an honest answer to that, you’d make an honest effort to find the answers. I’m not the person and this isn’t the place to give them to you.

@Brandon W
For starters, I don’t have to take effort and time (even “3 seconds”) to validate your assertions for you. In a discussion, if one side makes a claim, that is not a cue for the other side to scamper off and find proof. That is the job of the claimant.
—
As for the link you supplied, it basically restated your argument in longer form. Nowhere is there an explanation of where Original Sin first came from, why God allowed it to enter creation, etc. The article tells us that Adam and Eve are real in the sense that we face similar challenges to them, but that is just sophistry. The article claims “We are all born into a world which in fact is already broken; it is present at our birth, and we enter into it. It is about our existence right here and now. This is a present, existential understanding.” Nowhere is this explained or supported, just stated as if it were a commonly understood fact. Why is the world broken if Adam and Eve are metaphors?

@Donald et al
If you wanted serious answers you would be in a forum where you could get serious answers from serious thinkers who have the time, experience, and inclination to help you.  Instead you’re hanging out in the comments section of a casual blog, harassing laypeople for answers they have neither the time nor the inclination to give you. What it says to me is that, much like the Evangelical Protestants, you’re just here to proselytize.

@Brandon W
If you don’t have the time, experience, and inclination to answer questions about your faith, why are you here? You claimed earlier to have 20 solid years of experience and research, yet you have not once used this research to answer a question asked in good faith. Additionally, calling the discussion taking place on this blog “harassment” is not only spurious, but it supports what is obvious to anyone reading your posts - you are here to generate white noise, and you duck and cover when people ask you simple questions about your assertions and beliefs. Finally, I doubt many, if any atheists are here to proselytize. Few atheists are interested in actively converting people, and just like the last time Jennifer wrote an article on atheists/atheism, we are here to correct common misconceptions, which this comment thread is rife with. I’m sorry if dissenting opinions on the internet offend you (wait no I’m not).

@donald
My 20 years of research was for myself. You could do a little for yourself, too. If you were really here just to “correct common misconceptions” you’d be talking about your own beliefs instead of ours.

See Brandon, I have given this an honest effort to research, and that research is why I’m an atheist today. A good additional reason I remain an atheist is the constant assumption of bad faith by Christians of my questions.

My experience from Christian forums shows that a critical question often leads to 3 things: a) evasion b) calls to pray on it and have faith and c) a ban. Furthermore, the reason I make such comments in blogs is to find out what believers think about these things. I don’t think I should be required to do scholarly research to disbelieve and not to believe. The average Catholic has not read Aquinas or knows anything about Eusebius, Tertullian or even Constantine.

@Brandon W
That is your attitude toward knowledge? You won’t give it to people who haven’t “earned it” in your eyes? Considering that your faith specifically calls you to preach and spread the good word, are you sinning by willingly withholding information regarding your belief system? What about an innocent child that asks you to explain Jesus to him? Would you snidely dismiss him too? By the way, I engaged Con O Sullivan to correct the popular “Stalin et al’s genocides were caused by atheism” misconception, but that doesn’t even matter, because I can’t participate in a discussion about my own beliefs unless the other people in the discussion are a) willing to discuss their own and b)engaging in good faith, neither of which you seem to be interested in.

@Brandon
“My 20 years of research was for myself”
Then you shouldn’t bring them up in a discussion as if they are relevent.

anna lisa—Do you feel humiliated at my response? Brandon W—What makes you think I believe I’ve figured everything out and want to convert you?
—-
I gave you an honest response against your religion—I used the pronoun “you” as representing the Catholic faith as I see it. I was expressing my frustration with the Catholic faith and Church, and if you took it personally, I apologize.
—-
anna lisa—you asked about the “childhood trauma” you think I must have experienced to turn me to atheism. Don’t you think that is an insulting question? You also wrote you were “sorry” for me because I don’t love God. I keep telling people on this site who insist on praying for me that you don’t have to pity or pray for my sake. I am not experiencing the anguish that you seem to think I am. Why can’t you understand that? 
—-
Brandon W—I am older than you think and I still don’t think I know everything. I would appreciate a response rather than a brush-off. Do you have a rebuttal? Also, if you don’t know the nature of your god, how do you know how to act appropriately? Is the Catholic Church your authority on how to interpret the nature of god, or do you have another philosophy? If God is such a mystery, how do you know there is one?
___
“What you seek you shall never find.
For when the Gods made man,
They kept immortality to themselves.
Fill your belly.
Day and night make merry.
Let Days be full of joy.
Love the child who holds your hand.
Let your wife delight in your embrace.
For these alone are the concerns of man.”

anna lisa—when did you post anything by an actual scientist? I must have missed it, so please post it again or tell me where it is.

@Cafeeine
Well, if you’re comfortable in your Atheism, why bother being here? If you’ve done your research, then why are you here to “ask questions”? Seems like an awful waste of your time, unless you’re here to proselytize. I see Atheists like yourself as no different from Protestant Fundamentalists waving Bibles in my face or Jehovah’s Witnesses banging on my door. You’ve actually been given a lot more of my time than I give them. But as with them, I’m well out of time and out of patience.
-
Go live your life with whatever you want to believe or not believe. If you ever have serious questions, there are those (with far more patience than I) who will be happy to sit down and have conversations with you or point you to the proper resources.

@Donald
@Angela
See my last response to @Cafeeine

I have dinner to make, a 2 year old to read to, and a business to run. Time’s up.

Brandon W wrote: “If you’ve done your research, then why are you here to “ask questions”?”
—
Cafeeine may have his/her own answer to this, and I am not seeking to put words in their mouth, but a healthy mind never stops asking questions. Rational discourse, even when you disagree with the person you are talking to, is never a waste of time. Additionally, learning why someone believes what they do can be quite illuminating. Asking questions leads to understanding, and understanding leads to better interactions. I just wish more theists believed this, rather than curling into a ball whenever an atheist asks a question.

1 Corinthians 15:12-20 - Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
—-
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;—
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is empty, and your faith also is empty.—
15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
—
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
—
17 and if Christ has not been raised your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
—
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
—
19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
—
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
——
The above was copied from an online Bible.

@Brandon
I’m here because I learn, among other things, through interaction with other people. There’s not much value in conversing with people you agree about, is there?
I do assume that in a discussion both parties are in principle agreeing to change their minds. Proselytization assumes this only goes one way, so no, I’m here to proselytize.
While you may see people like me as you wish (I can’t control your imagination) you should note that this is a public forum. Neither of us is the host (unless you’re Jennifer in disguise). You have the right to ignore me and my questions and you have the right to ignore my existence, but don’t expect to make bad arguments and silly statements in public without being called on it.
I brought up a genuine issue, and your response was a brush-off and an insinuation that I was arguing in bad faith. After calling you on it, you claim that you have no time to waste anymore. Fine, but the questions remain open and your brush off is noted. Maybe someone else can answer them.

Here’s the thing: You claim decades of experience, but you make a claim like “If we are to base laws and society on pure science, then the basis from which those laws should (and would) be generated would be one of purist Darwinian natural selection”
Really?
Have you not encountered the naturalistic fallacy in your studies? And why ‘purist Darwinian’ natural selection rather than the current model accepted by scientists? Is it because you’re trying to evoke an image of violent ‘survival of the fittest’ that will horrify? Never mind that by the same theory, altruism is also a result of natural selection. Never mind that the statement is as nonsense as saying “If we are to base laws and society on pure science, then the basis from which those laws should (and would) be generated would be one of purist Newtonian gravitation”
This is a patently silly statement, and this is what compelled me to comment. People claiming intellectual authority are defending myth, dogma and atrocities with absurdities.

So, Brandon W—won’t you be back tomorrow? Funny—Catholics on the site always loose patience and leave when the thing I wrote come up—I’m not the first or last atheist who writes about the things about religion that “scandalizes us.”
——
anna lisa—if you feel I humiliated you, I’ll be around so you can humiliate me—

@Cafeeine
I don’t have any time left, because I really do have other things in the real world I need to do. But suffice it to say, we’re speaking different languages and I should have remembered that from years of jousting on other forums (no one ever “won” those debates, either). We’ll go round and round both arguing that the other is “patently silly,” perpetuating “fallacies” or “calling me/you out” on this, that or the other.  And in the end, we’ll just both end up annoyed, unconvinced, and believing the other is a complete [insert profanity here]. In fact, I think what we’ve just gone through is a testament to that. I think you’re completely missing my points and misunderstanding me, and failing to make any good faith effort to follow my thoughts. I’m sure you probably feel the same way about me. We come at the world from totally different perspectives, and as long as we have no common ground we’ll never accomplish anything. You’d probably do well to take that to heart the next time you decide to debate something in a forum… or on a comment section of a blog. I’ll certainly remember it for the future.

@Angela
Actually, no. I’ve done more commenting today than I’ve done on the entire rest of the Internet in the past 6 months, combined. I don’t really have time for this, normally. And don’t flatter yourself… Most people don’t have never ending time to sit here awaiting your every last comment and responding to them; especially since you ask for a freakin’ bibliography on every idea that comes out of someone’s mouth (or fingers, in this case).

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not begrudging you having a life, and I don’t expect a response now. Family & work comes first
I do however think that most of your spork-related injuries were self-inflicted.
I don’t think you’re misunderstanding me because you haven’t actually engaged with me at all. I do think your initial claim was a silly one and I corroborated it. You just asserted some claims and left them undefended. You spoke more about how you couldn’t talk anymore than actually defending your position(and quite frankly, no one expected you to give immediate responses. internet chat can wait).
I used to be a Christian. I changed my mind after research and discussions, so it does happen. It doesn’t happen if you don’t wish to engage in the conversation.

Brandon W
—-
I’m not flattering myself—I’m just noting that you don’t have a cogent reply to my comments and you’re leaving. Like Jennifer wrote above, it’s just an observation…..

Ah Angela, here I am being irresponsible again, as I have not yet cooked dinner and the kids are already whining.  The last time someone asked me to provide scientific “proof” (of the biological advantages of Breastfeeding) I simply laughed and said “You have Google, I have laundry”.  I am a Catholic that believes in God, sin and redemption, and the beauty of creation that continues to evolve.  HUGE SUBJECT, wouldn’t you say?  I am always interested in what makes OTHER people tick. I squeeze in reading, on subjects such as the above, which is my favorite past time after child wrangling.  Blogs like this are where I at times, indulge in a little curiosity to try to understand what makes people say and think the things they do.  Remember when you asked me if I like to fantasize about your sex life? Lol I suppose if I were a better Catholic, I would have run the other way, heeding the advice of others who call you a troll (you have to admit, it was pretty over the top). I don’t want to think you are. When you were abusive to some of the Catholics on some of the other threads, it led me to straight up ask you if you yourself had been abused.  Fair enough?  Your answer back satisfied me, though I still can only wonder why you treated Claire, Joan and that priest’s mother that way.  To answer your question, I’m just a daughter raised in a regular Catholic household.  I guess you could say I’d rather empathize with you than feel “superior” as you accuse me.  And I don’t.  I just see us as sinners in need of salvation, and I wish you the best….(ug, now I’m going to have to buy burgers for dinner.  Darn)... Oh, and one more thing, I have a weakness for chatting with feisty people.

No one is taking me up on on proving that Zeus, Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. don’t exist!

Brandon W wrote: “And don’t flatter yourself… Most people don’t have never ending time to sit here awaiting your every last comment and responding to them; especially since you ask for a freakin’ bibliography on every idea that comes out of someone’s mouth (or fingers, in this case).”
—
Your constant retreats into hyperbole and your (seeming) inability to even modestly support an assertion combine to make it quite easy to bid you good night. If you decide that you want a real discussion later, maybe we’ll be here ;)

OK, I’m not surprised, anna lisa. You’re going back to the past threads instead of answering rants about how I am scandalized by the Catholic faith and Church. I’ll agree I’m not always nice, and maybe you even think worse of me—but I have asked legitimate questions that you are trying to avoid. Brandon W is doing pretty much the same. Suddenly your domestic and family responsibilities are more important—after we’ve spent many hours back and forth, and you hint that you don’t have time for this discussion and won’t come back later. Now you decide you should have followed Claire’s advice and “not feed the troll.”
—-
I really hurt you didn’t I? Not so sure your faith can answer my questions? Well you know where to find Jennifer’s list of suggestions on what to do about doubt.

@Angela, @Donald, @Cafeeine
Meh, I disagree heartily that I’m evading anyone; I just don’t think we have any common ground on which to discuss this. Nevertheless, I’ll leave the never-ending circular arguments with you guys to others from now on. I have neither the time nor the energy to beat my head on that brick wall.

@Angela, sitting here translating Spanish for the 7th grader, keeping fluids in the second grader who has 101 temp.  Got the three year old in the tub, and I’m placating the kindergartner who is crying because the ninth grader needed to get on a bus at 5am and decided to wake up everybody…oh and I forgot, needed to make a SANDWICH at 4:30am for the one going on the bus.  Good thing is that my uber sexy signifigant other is at the grocery store for me, even though he is TIRED from driving said ninth grader to the bus launching spot at 4:45.  Yes.  I signed up for this.  I actually LOVE this, and you know what else, I’m not in ANY way evading you (survival mode) “You come back HERE!” No, not you Angela, J.P., the 7th grader who just took off to peek at the cartoons the sick one gets to watch cause I’m freaking typing THIS….sighhhhhhhh. Angela, I’d love to discuss the latest book I’m reading on Religion and evolution ANOTHER time. XOXO

I think that is a valid point—so why do so many of you think we need to be saved, pitied or degraded because we don’t agree with you? We come for debate, and you get defensive, offensive, and retreat when we come to the point where you have no reply that will address the heart of the matter—which is why do you believe and why does it upset you that others don’t?
——
And more important, why should your beliefs affect human politics and civil rights to healthcare?

@Angela: I have read a bunch of these comments, and you and the other atheists don’t come for “debate”. You come to attack, but frame it as “debate”, ask loaded questions, and then accuse everyone of who doesn’t give you the answer you want to hear of evasion, delusion, or another of your favorite words of the day.

Hi, Angela, why did you stop talking to me on the other thread?  Did I say something to make you run away?  Was it the idea of true dialogue rather than hit-and-run assertions that bothers you? 
—-
If you want someone to pick on, pick me for a day… anna lisa has to take care of some sick people…give her a break already!  (Not that she needs me to help her.) 
—-
I have to say, though, that after reading this thread I think I might not be the most fun for you.  People who call names are losers in any argument, i.m.o. and not really worth the time you are putting in after that.  So…actually, maybe your best bet is to go back to making unfounded and untenable assertions about other people’s education and insulting them and calling that an argument?  I dunno.  It’s your call.

Oh, hey anna lisa, hope kiddo feels better soon!  I would love to know what you are reading.  I think we ought to have a little “Mama needs some brain stimulation” book list here.  You and I can’t be the only ones trying to squeeze in a little Stephen M Barr in the off hours….

Been away at a work thing, wow, popular comment board.
But c’mon Christians, you dismiss the non-existence of Adam and Eve with Sunday school replies like “we are a fallen race with a penchant for evil in spades” and “I’ve always felt a metaphorical reading of (the bible) provided a much deeper story”? The story of the Tortoise and the Hare is analagous to biblical teaching Brandon? Really? I mean, yeah, I agree, parables are stories meant to teach a moral lesson, but to base your life around it is worthy of contempt. If you’re just making !@#$% up, how is that superior to atheist thought on a moral code?

BTW anna lisa, hope your kid gets better soon too. Got a sick one too.

These comments sicken and sadden me. Regardless of what people choose to believe (stupidly or blindy without reason or otherwise) the simple fact is that Religion is and always has been a blight on humanity. No other single factor can be attributed to as much murder, hurt and suffering as organized religion can. I am not Athiest, but the way I live my life, like the vast majority of people I know and see, I may as well be. I try to be a good person, loving and caring husband and friend. I donate to charity and I accept that people are different and will have differing ideals, philosophies and opinions. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that an omnipotent being created us and sits in the sky watching and judging us, it is however possible and those that believe so are ok with me. What I am 100% certain of, with every fibre of my being, is that organized religion is a human invention to fulfill our needs against the possibilty we are an accident here with no greater purpose than what we do with our time here. Religion is so far removed from what any possible god That deserves our respect and worship would tolerate.

In this There are only two possibilities; yes there is a god or no there isn’t. Religion merely requires that neither be verifiable. If there is no god we waste time and effort better spent on improving ourselves and this planet attempting to follow man made religious doctrine. If there is a god, I see only two possible outcomes. Our god is unable or unwilling to promote us above the violence, hatred and evil in the world or he is of such a superior state of being it is impossible or irrelevant. Either way the outcome is the same. Either way living to please this being is pointless. A god that is all powerful and wishes me to live a certain way to avoid damnation only has to show me how. Either himself or via trustworthy means other than self serving religious organizations and zealots.

I do not and have not ever needed anyone to tell me what is right and wrong. It is intrinsically wrong to suggest that we require gods word (or the words of man as gods) to be moral creatures. I live life treating people as I wish to be treated. If that one golden rule held true we would have no need of religion.

So I will probably be called agnostic at best and cowardly fence sitter at worst. I am not atheist, I believe it is possible a god exists. I merely see my of serving such a god as doing the best I can with my life for myself, family and the human race.

As for the petty arguing of the religious and atheist (forgetting politics) only religion has a history of evil between the two. Do not take me out of context here; religion is not evil, nor is god. It is merely the only one with a provable history of evil deeds, regardless who’s name is in. Atheism is merely a term describing the belief that a god does not exist. there are no other creeds no agendas that an atheism must, or should, have. Being atheist also does not exclude one from having any other traits, beliefs or morality than any non atheist persons. That is why this writer, in her mindless passive aggressive blog has shown her complete lack of understanding of a term and what it represents.

Straw man arguments?  Putting words in their mouths?  Is this what you have to do to make them look bad?  Surely you can do better than that.

Morality is in our genes.  We don’t need imaginary friends to create them.  This has been shown by numerous studies on animals, as even mice will rescue each other, celebrate, and share their food after said rescue. (verifiable through the journal ‘Science’)...even bees show altruism…

I would have hoped that the faith that was at the root of scientific study and the university in the middle ages would have had better scientific education than this.  This is a tad bit embarrassing.

@ Zeke, Where do you get “the non-existence of Adam and Eve”?  Do you think that evolution contradicts the Christian story of two first, uniquely human ancestors?  If so, you are wrong.  What makes us “human”?  The theological answer to the question—our human dignity, as defined by our souls and expressed by our free will—does not exclude evolution, it simply means that there was a point in time (we consider it to be a unique point in time, as articulated in Humani Generis) in which the creatures of this earth were given the ability to think and choose freely…that freedom means that our real choices have eternal significance rather than just being expressions of impulses.  Anyway, there is no conflict the theory of evolution—even if somehow related to the development of human beings—and free will and the soul.
—-
Evolution is considered to be “a serious theory, worthy of consideration” as stated by Pope John Paul II when describing Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.  In his 1996 remarks to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (copy of text here:http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm), he also said,

“The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection..”
—-
Listen, you are not the only atheist parachuting into the board to tell us (in error) what we believe.  But Google is your friend, and all that.  Or ask.  Skepticism is a noble trait if it is properly oriented toward reality.  If you just believe whatever somebody told you about Christianity—including your mom or that one crazy pastor—then you are not really being a skeptic, you are being an unquestioning swallower-of-ideology.

@Zeke, my longer comment is in the spam folder currently but I wanted to call you on your comment to Brandon, “the tortoise and the hare is analogous to biblical teaching…I agree, parables are stories meant to teach a moral lesson, but to base your life around it is worthy of contempt.”
—-
You make it sound like Brandon is calling the Bible another kind of Aesop’s fables or something.  That is ridiculous.  Catholics believe the Bible is a total collection of many different kinds of human literature: fables, historical tales, stories passed down for generations, poetry, recollections, letters, dreams…and as such is not to be approached with a completely literal OR a completely metaphorical mindset
—-
Look, if you really do not know that then you should ask.  Or look it up.  Maybe you don’t realize how much you don’t know.  Maybe realizing that is the beginning of wisdom!

What atheists don’t understand are that most of their seemingly “innate” beliefs are culturally transmitted wisdom that took centuries to develop in Western Europe.  Those beliefs were larglely developed and informed by Christian ethics and values.  Now they feel as though it is obvious that every one should look to the greater good.  But the historical evidence suggests that cultures did and still do look after their own to the exclusion of outsiders.  If you started a new society without any cultural or historical influences from the past, with only “scientific” principles say, there is very little guarantee that you would arrive at anything like the selfless ethic that pervaded pre-modern Western culture.

Posted by Angela on Thursday, Mar 22, 2012 6:48 PM (EST):
“No one is taking me up on on proving that Zeus, Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. don’t exist!”

Serious Angela, that would require more than a lifetime of work! I could come up with something new every day and tell you you must believe in it if you can’t prove it doesn’t exist.

Don’t feel bad. No one ever took up my questions either.

Posted by cowalker on Wednesday, Mar 21, 2012 10:09 PM (EST):
“After reading all the comments since my first, I have to reiterate, what good is a revelation from God that can be interpreted so variously that even Catholics can’t agree among themselves on whether we are called by God to live in a society that prohibits abortion, allows gay marriage, punishes blasphemy, executes murderers, makes contraceptives available to all, provides health care to the poor, or wages pre-emptive war? Fine, God said ‘. . . humans are made in the image and likeness of God, and thus ALL people have inherent value and dignity.’ Therefore we take porn off the internet? Therefore we shouldn’t torture suspected terrorists? Inconclusive. The revelation is no more helpful or convincing than a heartfelt plea from a woman married to a porn addict or an innocent prisoner in Abu Ghraib.

“Do you see how the revelation doesn’t help with laws? The only things that help are gradual changes in society that make us more empathetic, and gains in knowledge that help us understand our own natures as well as how stuff works.”

@Steven,
I find your statements show a complete immaturity.  Of course you have needed someone to tell you what was right and wrong.  You have obviously never raised children.  Without parents or schoolteachers or authority figures to show them, children grow up incredibly self-centered and unempathetic. 
Even as adults we can be callous toward others until something shows us the harm we are causing in a way that we understand or the tables are turned on us.
Morality is continually formed throughout our life as we come in contact with others.
You are 100% wrong in saying religion has caused all the violence in the world.  Judeo-Christian values gives us an ability to contain our violent impulses.  Unfortunately their MISUSE or MISINTERPRETATION have led to violence among believers.  Aggression between different belief systems have led to more.  But that violence is as nothing compared to the violence perpetrated in the absence of these restraining values. 
Read more history.
Organized Christian religion immediately allows you to come into contact with 4500 years of accumulated wisdom and meet with others to discuss it if nothing else.  You can not gain that perspective from reading bible passages out of context and trying to understand them.  Linguistic problems, lack of historical context and the absence of thousands of years of exegesis would hinder the process. 

Don’t buy into the meme of religion causing all the violence in wars.  Humans will always find a reason to be selfish and violent, if you read history in context you will find that Western Christendom was immaturely working through Christs teaching and failing most of the time, but getting better through the years.  The violence of the 19th and 20th century reached it’s peak with non-Christian ideological movements.

Corita: please spare me the condescending attitude that suggests I’m a life-long heathen who read about Christianity last week. I was raised Catholic, received all the sacraments, and went to church regularly until I was in my 20’s.  Only after many years and much thought did I realize that I didn’t believe a wit of it. Not the teachings, which I admire, but the entire basis for the belief.
The inevitable Christian reply to obvious falsehoods in the bible is “it’s meant to be read metaphorically”. Face it Corita, there was a time when all Christians, Catholics included, regarded the bible as the inerrant word of god and anything but a literal translation was heresy. Only in the face of modern human knowledge does the church grudgingly have to accept that once literal passages must be taken metaphorically. You yourself feel that it’s a collection of “human literature” – that’s the main point that atheists make! Who decides what’s literal and what’s metaphorical?
Do I think that evolution contradicts the Christian story of two first, uniquely human ancestors? Um, yeah, and so does biology, genetics, and paleontology. And there’s this bomb:
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve
The entire REASON for Jesus and the need for a savior is predicated on atonement for original sin. St. Paul the apostle’s teachings are predicated on a historical Adam. Are you saying he’s wrong? If you insist on reading the bible as a collection of poetry, dreams, letters and fable, fine. Just don’t claim that it’s more than that, and the bronze-age morality within it is any more worthy than others.

@Corita Actually…the science *does* say that “...evolution contradicts the Christian story of two first, uniquely human ancestors”.  The latest theory traces the base population down to a few thousand ancestors that were the basis of humanity.  So, we can be relatively sure that there was no distinct Adam or Eve (and no talking snake).

Now…I’ll get back to reading about how the Exodus probably never happened (just google “did exodus really happen” and see what you find).

@Aaron,
I think it you that’s missing the point. Atheists generally agree that our current moral attitudes have developed throughout the centuries. This includes the Christian values you mention, that were in their turn informed by Greek & Enlightenment values. What is innate to people is our social nature, our empathy and our tendency to altruism. In your example, I think that if we started over without any cultural historical memory, we’d likely develop new superstitions and religions to begin with, but we’d eventually arrive back at the ideas behind an ordered cooperative society.

Wow. What a badly written article! Filled with poorly constructed arguments and half-truths….though what more could you expect on the National Catholic Register site?

RE: How to understand the books of the Bible
While not Catholic and some of his stances aren’t in line with Catholic teaching, I recommend reading the works of Dr. Marcus Borg (http://www.marcusjborg.com/). As a professor emeritus of comparative religion, he provides a strong intellectual basis on understanding the writings in the Bible. I would start with “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time” and “Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time” to get a solid basis, and work from there.

@ Angela
“
And more important, why should your beliefs affect human politics and civil rights to healthcare?”

Are you kidding?  Everyone’s beliefs impact how they think and vote.  The hidden question that you are really trying to ask is why should your irrational beliefs affect these things.  Because you have an irrational belief that everyone has a civil right to healthcare (a very recent invention and on what moral system do you base that belief?) Why should your crazy beliefs be allowed to impact civil discourse. 

Oh yeah, because we all have innate dignity given by the creator and we all have the right to express our opininon and believe what we believe. 

Question of the day.  If you had the power, would you remove our right to vote our conscience if it could any way be traced back to our belief in a loving God? I think the answer seems to be yes.  That makes you a tyrant in my book.

Sorry for the poorly written paragraph.  What I meant was: Angela, why should your beliefs impact us?

Evolution makes me marvel over creation even more.  The fact that Genesis speaks of the seven days it took for God to make the world actually made me wonder as a child, “Why couldn’t God have created this world in ONE day? ONE instant?”  After all, omnipotence is well, omnipotence.  Or how about the fact that we as humans must pass through millions of stages from a single cell, in order to become fully rational adults? (Think of all the different ways creatures produce offspring)  My point is that even THIS LIFE that we live is an allegory of sorts.  Growth, change, the beginnings of rationality and finally, hopefully a well formed conscience…God is EVER drawing us up to become more like Him until we are as St. Paul says like the fire, though not the fire itself.  This is PURE POETRY, and reflects so much about the “artist” of this world.
.
Animals can’t sin for obvious reasons.  Why is it so hard to understand that once man gained rationality, he was finally able to sin?  Anybody who has watched their child mature can see this process in action.  The question is not, “Did ‘Eve’ commit the first sin?” Does that matter?  Or does it matter that man eventually sinned, and the evidence of this is QUITE evident.  The “I will not serve” of sin, was remedied by the “fiat” of the one who submitted her entire self, body and soul—the ‘Eve’ that matters.
.
Jesus used allegory and metaphors CONSTANTLY to try to get through to those “stiff necked” people.  Why would it be ANY surprise that God used the same technique (through fallen instruments) OVER and OVER, to communicate a higher purpose in life to ancient peoples?

@Corita and Zeke, thank you for the kind words last night!

anna lisa—very noble of you being a outstanding parent. I respect that—but what does that have to do with the points (charges, if you will) that I cited as scandalizing to me? If you love this conversation, why bring up your domestic responsibilities to distract me? You to, Brandon W.
——
This may surprise you, but there are many atheist parents out there who do the same kind of parenting you-do, except they don’t tell them a load of junk about God. Instead of church, they take their kids to the zoo or museums on Sundays. They encourage their kids to read any books they want—including religious ones—and ask questions.
——
Corita—I got so involve by the conversation with anna lisa and lost track of the thread I made with you. Please give me a little time to go back over our exchanges and I’ll come back.

@ Angela,
“This may surprise you, but there are many atheist parents out there who do the same kind of parenting you-do, except they don’t tell them a load of junk about God. Instead of church, they take their kids to the zoo or museums on Sundays. They encourage their kids to read any books they want—including religious ones—and ask questions.”

I bet atheist parents DO tell their children that they (the parents) don’t believe in God and pass on all their personal prejudices like all parents do.  How is that any different?  If they allow thier children to read ANY books then they are idiots, because there are age inappropriate books and some generally harmful ideas in others that, once ingrained,could require extreme effort to counter act (what if they embrace skinhead literature?)
The assumptions evident in your statement are stereotypical and demeaning to people of faith.  Like people of all persuasions, there are some that are rigidly protective and some that are more open.  Most Catholics I know are not afraid of the truth and are open to their children seeking knowledge and asking questions, they just don’t want formative minds damaged without SOME guidance.

@Aaron: I guess I didn’t put my question correctly—what I mean is why is the why should your beliefs have any more weight in secular law because they are Christian/Catholic?
—-
You are not only asking to be excluded in “paying” for contraception by being “forced” to pay for insurance companies to provide it to employees of Catholic businesses. You are also using your faith as justification for your attacks against Planned Parenthood, and the more extreme politicians are trying to force women to take vaginal ultrasounds, even after rape, regardless of the woman’s religion or non-religion.
——
You’re putting your religion above everything else and trying to make it the standard for secular laws. You want the 10 Commandments posted in every public school and courthouse and protest if atheists want to publicly announce that people can be Good without God. You insist that President Obama is not “really a Christian” as though it were a bad thing, when his religion should be a personal matter and not have any more weight in secular government than any other ideas.
——
Why should your Christian/Catholic-based morals be any more important than my humanist-based morals in the establishment of laws?

Angela, why is it, that four hours pass, and you start crowing like you’ve won some kind of fight?  People have lives, and they aren’t necessarily looking for a pat on the back.  Thanks I think for connecting the word “noble” to what I do.
.
I don’t censor what my kids read (of course within reason)  We go to the zoo, parks and much more, your point?  Angela, calling what pertains to God “junk” is offensive, and not just to me.  As usual, you are hurling insults. (kind of wondering where you fall in the birth order, as you remind me a bit of my slightly feral fourth-born…Remember?  The one who I have to beg for hugs from?—the one that turned all the lights on at 4 am yesterday?)As for asking questions, what makes you think I don’t discuss all of these big questions with my children?  We thoroughly enjoy it, and debate these subjects with a lot of passion.  (BTW, the “Flying Spaghetti monster” is so five years ago, and doesn’t even make me chuckle anymore.)
.
Yes, I think death scandalizes you.  I think it bothers everybody.  Death contradicts a deep realization in our soul that we are made for eternity.  No amount of Prozac or Zoloft is going to cancel this out, though I appreciate those who make themselves more pleasant this way.
.
Lol, just so you know in advance, since you love to accuse others of evasion, I have three kids with fevers now (two below the age of reason)so it could really hit the fan any time now.  Thank God my Mom is taking care of dinner!

@Aaron: You’re an idiot. It’s not even worth arguing with you because you’re not hearing a word atheists are saying. You don’t listen and you have a doomsday view of the world, fearing that children raised without faith will grow up to be evil and that exposure to “age-inappropriate” material will destroy their moral compass in potentially irreparable ways. Don’t give me your “you’ve obviously never raised kids” crap and try and pretend it makes you a better person to indoctrinate faith into an otherwise free mind when you can’t draw realistic conclusions between a lack of ethics in a grown person and the absence of faith in their home. Which you can’t.

And as to Jennifer Wiler, you don’t even deserve to call yourself a “former atheist” because, as many have pointed out, you clearly have no idea what it means in the first place.

I’ve never heard of a “former atheist.” It’s generally a one-way trip.

I would also point out that violence increased over the centuries because more powerful weapons that can kill more people in less time with more destruction and “collateral damage” to civilians. The invention of these weapons was made possible by science, but the invention and the use of these weapons of mass destruction was encouraged by leaders using religion as justification. Would we worry so much about WMDs in Iraq and Iran if an Islamic government didn’t have the authority to “push the button?” Christians still claim to be “attacked” by the Left because they believe the Left is “not Christian.”
——
The us vs. them mentality of war is religious based (the Cold War was based on the Christian fear of “godless’ Communism). Humanists don’t encourage the killing of other humans in the name of humanist ideals any more than Catholics would encourage the killing of other Catholics.

Corita—I’ve looked at past threads and can’t find anything relevant to add. It is partly my fault the conversation fell off into irrelevant bantering—when I get tired in the evening I tend to get distracted (with your help, I might add) and would guess the same happens to you. Do you want to start up again?
——
I really think Jennifer just writes her posts and pays no attention to the comments. Criticizing or thanking her does not matter.

BTW Angela, while my other comment is in spam limbo, I wanted to ask you what your degree is in.  I was an English Lit major.  My father and father-in-law have degrees in the sciences.  I grew up discussing the subject of evolution and intelligent design.  We had bookcases full of books on the topic—not that I actually cared to obsess on the subject BTW read what Pope Benedict writes about the “Just war theory” and the implications of WMD.  @Randall, didn’t anyone teach you manners?

anna lisa—does the comment in “spam limbo” have responses to my questions or is it another set of distractions, like your question about what is my degree and your BTW about Pope Benedict and the “Just war theory”?
——
Ok, I looked it up. As far as I understand, ex-Nazi Ratzinger points out that it is just to defend against “unjust aggressors”—Duh!
—-
The rest of his statement compares the acknowledged moral ambiguity of the decision to participate, or even make a “preemptive” attack and the immoveable Catholic stand against abortion and euthanasia. Here is the site I refer to:
—-
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/notable/2011/ratzinger-on-war-and-violence.html
—-
His stated position on war in this age of WMDs is a humanist position—yes, they sometimes overlap. He understands that Catholics can have different opinions, depending on circumstances, whether a war is just or not, and that it must be considered that the whole human race and maybe even the planet can be destroyed by what is decided. Again, Duh!
—
He then distracts from the conversation about a just war by bringing the more individual issues of abortion and euthanasia. Abortion or euthanasia are moral issues, but they do not cause mass destruction of whole countries or planets. Nice example of tergiversation there.

Lol.  I bet it is in “women’s studies”.  @which question did I evade?

Come on anna lisa. Of course it matters who committed the first sin. The entirety of Christianity is based on the premise that God created man (he didn’t), man sinned against him (as if he couldn’t see that coming), all his descendants somehow inherited that sin (even the Vatican is unclear on the mechanism for that), and only by sending a savior (Jesus) to die can we be absolved of it. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of this is true, and worse, none of this even makes a shred of sense without the existence of a literal, biblical Adam.
You attempt to square your acceptance of evolution with “man eventually sinned”. So God created life on earth and got the evolutionary ball rolling, with the goal of creating a creature in his image a few billion years later? And finally when there are several thousand of these creatures on the planet, they sin against him (one of them, a family of them, all of them? - you didn’t say). I suppose he must have specifically instructed them what that sin was, to at least make him/them clear on what was expected.  But darn it all, someone sinned and now the whole darn species is stained, and now he has to send his son down there among them so they can kill him. Talk about best laid plans! The mental gymnastics required to wrap one’s mind around this makes even the Adam & Eve story sound plausible in comparison.
From the catechism of the catholic church: “Original Sin – an essential truth of the faith”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Zeke,
Sorry didn’t mean to be condescending.  Critical of your ignorance, yes, but nowhere did I suggest I have any pre-conceived notion about your upbringing or background.  And I was a Catholic h.s. Theology teacher, friend, and I taught kids who went to 12 years of Catholic school, sacraments and all, many of whom didn’t know one iota of the information that I put up there in my comment.  This surprised me the first year I taught, when my students did their research papers and said, “Gee I had no idea!” but I got used to it.  Your upbringing without being taught is not uncommon.  Especially if you were raised by Baby Boomers, who have notoriously done a piss poor job of passing along the actual faith (as opposed to a shallow, illogical series of social work ideas in theological language).
—-
So, back to being critical:  Nothing you said really has any traction; you began with an erroneous concept (“No Adam and Eve!  Proven by science!!  Every other theological idea must be a lie”), you refused to examine a correction on its merits, and now continue to remain dismissive.  Your fellow atheists coming on this site are boring, garden-variety non-thinkers who don’t know what they are talking about—Just as you did above, most atheists here for the easy pickings of a casual internet journal and aren’t taking the time to effectively separate the scientific argument (the evolutionary process) from a theological belief (the bestowing of a soul) which does not contradict it.  You could say neither did I, that would be fair to say, but again you are the one claiming to know what you are talking about, and I am trying to offer you a brief corrective explaining an entire history of thought.  Without your cooperation or interest in understanding.  Basically you enter with stereotypes, throw around accusations, and wait for someone to answer back so you can try to bluster your way into cowing them.  That’s really thoughtful!  (hear the sarcasm?)
—-
Here is just one example, out of numerous ones above, in which you do that AND add in some mixing of fact and theory (not very skeptical!!!):  You say above “Only in the face of modern human knowledge does the church grudgingly have to accept that once literal passages must be taken metaphorically. You yourself feel that it’s a collection of “human literature” – that’s the main point that atheists make! Who decides what’s literal and what’s metaphorical?”

There are sooo many underlying assumptions that are probably in there (I couldn’t be sure without further talking about it to clarify first) but they undoubtedly include an erroneous and incomplete knowledge of Church history, especially warped by the scientific and philosophical sin of historicism—which attempts to interrogate history from a modern consciousness without any understanding of the relevant time-period’s orientation toward their time.

Then also, you refer to a point of fact—barely—that the Institutional Church has changed its attitude toward how literally the Bible can be read.  (Here you seem not to know that there are levels of teaching about how human knowledge over time reveals truth). and fit into it an assertion characterizing the philosophical orientation of the straw man “Church” toward that fact:  “..does the church *grudgingly* accept..”  Grudgingly is an assertion about motive and orientation, and would have to be be supported by actual proof in order to gain any traction in a discussion.
—-
Look, I might sound severe but really, I have had the delightful experience of talking with atheist friends and internet interlocutors over the years…people who spoke not in attempts to convert but to explore ideas, understand each other, and to try to get at truth.  Your assertions are dull.  Aggressive ignorance is offensive.  The type of person who parachutes into a random online journal to throw out stereotypes is more akin to a pedantic bully than a free-thinker. 
—-
So, look, if you aren’t just trolling to get your bully on, and if you are actually more like one of thoughtful types then I would love to talk about it more.  Hell, it would be nice to have a decent conversation, I am always looking to learn something.  But if you aren’t interested in dialogue as a labor of love and searching then you are boring… and worse, not any better than any fundamentalist bible-thumper who cares more about the self-righteousness their “salvation” gives them than about actual knowledge.  If this latter is the case you should take your missionary dogma, your straw men and your sanctimony somewhere else.

@Angela—the exchange was in Simcha Fisher’s post on “Prayers Answered”, I believe.

I volunteer to open the Convention with a prayer: Come Holy Ghost and fill the hearts of these fools, with thy divine Love through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Amen.

And you have nothing relevant to add, I wager, because the last thing I said to you was, in essence, “Do you realize that your conversational style and argumentative tactics are in complete contradiction to your espoused values of skepticism and free-thinking?”
—-
I wonder, do you mean for that to be the case, do you think it is justified somehow, or are you—like many people with strongly held views—just in ignorance of the contradiction?
—-
I would love to try again, if you will stop being so tiresome.  Even that perpetual annoyer, Socrates, was aware of how very much he did not know.

I guess your comment came out of spam while I was writing.
——
We agree, death is a scandal. I think it is a terrible thing and I certainly don’t look forward to mine or any of my loved ones. I fall to pieces when a pet dies, let alone when people die.
—-
My point is—death happens whether we are scandalized or not. The invention of a divine intelligence that loves us and the false promise of life after death does not stand up against the reality of death.
——
I’ve had Catholic friends who have died and attended their funeral services. I certainly do not debate over religion with grieving people, but they do respect that I am an atheist and invite me as a friend to pay my respects. There is a great deal of love and hope expressed at these services, but it doesn’t convince me that the person who died still exists—as matter or non-matter. I save that issue to debate about on Catholic blogs.
—
If their faith helps them grieve and move on, good for them. I cannot grieve and move on until I can accept that the death has happened.
——
The same is true of all the other suffering and tragedy that is life on earth. I am not convinced that there is a divine, intelligent creator, or that death happens because we are “born in sin” but will be “saved from death” if we just have “faith.” Moreover, I don’t think such a belief would be a comfort to me in my times of grief.
—-
That’s what doubt means—not being convinced that an idea is reality. Everything about religion—especially the religions “of the Book” demands that there be no doubt. Can you understand that scandalizes me?

Aaron: Randall’s right, you are an idiot, you don’t even know your church’s position on the atheist irrational belief that everyone has a civil right to healthcare (hint - they’re for it)  http://old.usccb.org/sdwp/national/brochure1.pdf

“Question of the day.  If you had the power, would you remove our right to vote our conscience if it could any way be traced back to our belief in a loving God? I think the answer seems to be yes”

Man, you’re really bad with this notion of rights. Your right is to exercise your religion freely. There is no right to outlaw things that violate your conscience. Vote however you want, same as everybody.

Corita—I have been laying of Simcha’s column for a while. I’ll check again. If there is anything, I’ll bring it up here. Conversations can get confusing when they come from different fronts.

anna lisa—what problem do you have with women’s studies? I did take a class that studied the roles of biblical women. If you didn’t take any women’s studies, how can you judge against them? After all, I took some Catholic studies—as well as other religions.
——
Do you think I take the values of women’s studies at their word as a kind of “faith?” Don’t you think I would question any of them?

Come on anna lisa. Of course it matters who committed the first sin. The entirety of Christianity is based on the premise that God created man (he didn’t), man sinned against him (as if he couldn’t see that coming), and therefore all his descendants somehow inherited that sin (even the Vatican is unclear on the mechanism for that), and only by sending a savior (Jesus) to die can we be absolved of it. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of this is true, and worse, none of this even makes a shred of sense without the existence of a literal, biblical Adam. From the catechism of the Catholic Church: “Original Sin – an essential truth of the faith”.
You attempt to square your acceptance of evolution with “man eventually sinned”. So God created life on earth and got the evolutionary ball rolling, with the goal of creating a creature in his image a few billion years later? And finally when there were several thousand of these creatures on the planet, they sin against him (one of them, a family of them, all of them? - you didn’t say). I suppose he must have specifically instructed them what sin to avoid, to at least make him/them clear on what was expected.  But dang it, someone sinned and now the whole darn species is stained and now he has to send his son down there among them so they can kill him. Talk about best laid plans! The mental gymnastics required to wrap one’s mind around this makes even the Adam & Eve story sound plausible in comparison.

Corita—I meant laying off Simcha’s blog. My keyboard sometimes sticks.

@anna lisa—I will keep your family in my prayers.  Especially for fortitude, ugh.  Family illness is so draining.

Mt 7:6 - “Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

“Everything about religion—especially the religions “of the Book” demands that there be no doubt.”

Wrong.  This is an extremely basic idea.  The distinction between the tenets of a faith and the diversity of lived experience, grappling with the tenets and bringing them into fruition in one’s life.  It’s a very basic distinction.

Angela, also, I can see why you would be scandalized by the idea of a faith that demanded total surrender of the will, and an absence of doubt.  The idea of it repulses and scandalizes me.  It’s just not Catholicism, or even Christianity.  Jesus never spoke about doubt.  He spoke about transformation of the heart, and doing good.  In fact, stories of him show a human man who feared, wondered, and cried out in anguish at His Own loneliness.  Not exactly an indictment of the agony of living out the hard parts of the faith.  You should read some of the saints’ writings, btw.
—-
If I had the time I would make an “Garden Atheist Misconception” bingo card.  Also known as the “Atheist Canards Card” for the willfully disingenuous, heh.

Corita—I looked back on the thread at Simcha’s, and with a fresh eye, I think much of the confusion is my uses of the pronoun “you” in many of my statements. I have to learn to use “Christian/Catholic” to emphasize that it is my opinion of Catholic thinking from what I have experiences from the expressed thoughts of other Catholics—on this site and elsewhere.
——
I don’t claim to know what you think, personally, and it’s not the first time other people thought I was making personal attacks. My fault, especially when I’m tired and don’t take the time to specify that I am opposing ideas, and not individuals. Many of the Catholics are hostile conservatives, and it is less often that I encounter more reasonable people. And, you must admit, some of the responses can be as rude and angry as my own.
—
Needless to say, I don’t know everything, and I apologize if I come off that way. You don’t need a degree in Quantum Mechanics to have a discussion here.
——
You mentioned Socrates—who was not Catholic and was sentenced to death for being an atheist and “corrupting youth.” He is one example of how many humanist philosophies were incorporated into Catholicism, so I wish people here would stop saying morals are based on Christian faith.
——
I said before that I really don’t understand the concepts of sin, grace, and redemption. I think the ideas are early concepts invented to explain the realities that anna lisa and I are discussing above. They are getting unpopular as we gain more knowledge and find ways of fighting disease and understanding the nature of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes,and other natural disasters so that we can at least develop “warning systems” to increase our chances of survival.
—-
If I didn’t address anything else you want to discuss, please bring them up here—although I am curious to look at Simcha’s thoughts on the convention.

@Zeke:  Still confusing historical truth and theological.  Gotta step it up, buddy.

@Caffeeine:“In your example, I think that if we started over without any cultural historical memory, we’d likely develop new superstitions and religions to begin with, but we’d eventually arrive back at the ideas behind an ordered cooperative society.”

Do you really think the idea of an ordered and cooperative society is a modern invention?  How about the implication of your comment: that human thought is in a solid, onward-press of ideas that only get better and more True over time?

Thanks for the reply, Angela.  When you say you don’t “understand” sin, grace, and redemption, do you mean just that you have tried to get the concepts through study and reflection, but you just can’t understand why people believe in them?  OR do you mean that you just don’t know enough about them to really talk about them in depth?  Or what?
—-
Because I personally cannot figure out how the Christian narrative of sin and redemption is some kind of explanation for tsunamis and cancer.  (except when it is…oh yeah…haha Christian inside joke)  But how can YOU claim that they are, when you don’t even understand them?
—-
I mean, it is one thing to say that religious superstition is at least partly based in our desire to understand those powers that are outside of our immediate control…that is a fairly basic and non-controversial idea, really.  For a Christian, all that means is that the religious impulse is basic to our nature, and that our history as a humanity has included a long, dialectical (not hegelian, necessarily) process of trying to understand Creation and our relationship to it.

Also, a tiny correction:  Socrates did not call himself an atheist.  He asked questions, including some about the gods, and was considered to be scandalizing youth for doing so.  He was labelled “atheist” by his culture—as were Christians, btw, because the concept meant “against the gods” of Greece or Rome—and his counter-cultural existence was stopped in a typical way of the time: death. 
—-
Furthermore, humanism was an invention of the Christian world.  Not to play petty, but seriously.  Catholic culture was the bed out of which it grew.  Catholic arts, study and universities were the place where the term came into being.  Christians aren’t the only ones taking their idea and mining back into history for examples of it—atheists lay claim to the “humanistic tradition” of the ancient Greeks as well.  Which tradition they got at least in part from Catholic Christianity.

@Angela,
If your question was why should my Christian beliefs have any more weight in law then your beliefs, then the answer is of course, they don’t. 

I have one vote and one voice just like you.  It is fortunate for me that our laws have developed in a Christian culture for many centuries and have a bias to my worldview, but changing those laws is open to all citizens.  So why make that statement? 

Yes, I see nothing wrong with the ten commandments in our courthouses, they have historic, cultural and religious significance in american history and jurisprudence.  Feel free to assert your belief that there is no God or that life can be good without God, I have never been afraid of the free expression of ideas.  I am not sure why you conflate me expressing my beliefs with me suppressing your beliefs at the same time, but it simply isn’t true and never has been.  So what precisely are you objecting to.  Every time someone speaks to one of your objections, you just add more complaints that are not pertinenet to the list.

Do you feel a christian vote carries more weight than yours, like my vote is worth one and half of yours.  Do you think it is unfair that I use my Christian beliefs to form my decision on what to vote for or that I speak openly about it the public square?  what exactly was your point?

Also I would add that you are correct that weapons have increased in lethality over the centuries, but the aggression that caused there release was caused by secular ideologies in the last two centuries and can’t be laid at the feet of religion, Christianity in any case.

That’s it Corita, just stick your fingers in your ears, it will all just go away if you pretend it isn’t there honey.

Corita—I know that Jesus had doubts and about his praying to get out of the the suffering that was coming to him. The Catholic Church, however, is based on the Resurrection (see the quote from Corinthians I pasted above). The church would not exist if people didn’t have faith that Jesus did not rise from the tomb and talk to his apostles. Catholic people have to believe that they will retain their identities and live on after they have died.
—
Maybe it works as a metaphor, but there are people who take it seriously. And the constant reminder every Sunday of the last supper and the horrible suffering of crucifixion of a “sinless” man only serves to keep the thought of the death that we all must face on our minds—like the Sword of Damocles.
—
How can one enjoy life to the fullest when they have to pray for the grace of God upon waking and before meals and before they go to sleep? How can they love themselves if humans are “born in sin?” How can they be loved unconditionally if is a sin to doubt?
——
I know Catholics have times of joy with their loved ones and by themselves—but those are the times when the faith is not intruding on the moment or the times they are convinced that they are in God’s grace. (I remembered to change “you” to “them” and “they” this time around;) Isn’t the joy cut short when they remember they have God to thank for the joy they are experiencing?

Zeke, people who can’t reason can’t sin. Apes can’t sin. Period. YOU can reason.  At what point did man acquire reason?  I don’t know.  Perhaps there is a single woman that we all descended from, and her name was Eve.
.
Neither you nor I know exactly how it happened, but man suffers from disordered desires and the proof is in his behavior.  Let’s not even discuss the extremes of this disordered state of being manifested in the human race.  You, me, our kids, EVERYBODY shows signs of the disease.  We are an “evolution” in progress, in various stages of the disease..The proof is in the proverbial pudding.
.
My three-year-old just came up,demanding milk.  She’s sick, grouchy and punched me a little when I didn’t get up quickly enough.  I stopped her, spoke firmly, and said, “say ‘please’, Charlotte”—and she obeyed.  She’s learning.  My eighteen-year-old daughter used to take for granted my husband’s great salary.  She used to grouse a bit when I bought her expensive dresses from the sale rack at her favorite store.  When her Dad lost his job, she suddenly realized a few things.  She suffered.  This clarified her vision. She got a job, she learned the value of what before had been simply given to her.  She grew.  She’s a better person for it now—a gem being refined by life.
.
Pain.  Suffering.  Loss.  Some people grow worse with these contradictions.  They stubbornly refuse to grow.  They rail.  They curse.  They hurt the human beings around them.  They despair.  They turn their back on the bitter medicine that is required to cure the malady.  Perhaps they decide that life is for the here and now only.  Fill my belly, negate there is such a thing as adultery,fulfill my selfish needs, earn money greedily on the backs of others.  You name it.  The more they do it, the less their strangled conscience cries out to them. “What IS truth?”, they ask.  Eventually, they develop “mental gymnastics” in the form of pop psychology to explain away their anguish.  All the while they breathe oxygen, drink water, smell the mesmerizing scent of trees after a light rain, while their heart in their chest is pumping blood in the most wondrous way to their whole body—They take it all for granted.  They snatch the gift instead of saying “thank you.”  “This is my right”, they say.  With a sweeping gesture to their surroundings, and the cosmos above they tell themselves “All of this came to be from nothing.  SOMETHING from NOTHING.  I’m rational, and I can get tremendous SOMETHING, from absolutely NOTHING.  They trade the truth, and the hope of advancing to a higher state of being by obstinately clinging to a fistful of earth that they can see, touch, and seemingly control.  But they can’t.  In the back of their mind they know even this will be wrested from their hand, and they learn to live with the darkness that is ever advancing.  They choose the darkness.  God forever welcomes them with his language of beauty and joy, bought with GREAT SACRIFICE, but they shake their head, refusing to accept the medicine and step into the light.  They choose death, decay, and emptiness.  God’s remedy, and who suffered like none other, wasn’t good enough for them.

My most charitable interpretation of this post:

Jennifer was aware of the flaws of her argument, and was counting on a bunch of upset secular humanists showing up and acting upset so that Catholics could point and say “Looks like we hit a soft spot! They know the truth but they just won’t accept it!”.

That. Doesn’t. Follow.

Aaron—thank you for your opinion that my humanist ideas carry the same weight as yours. You are speaking for yourself, however, and either don’t look at the news of court cases on the teaching of creationism in schools, the Christians who threatened and cursed as Jessica Alhquist, and the panel of religious men who are deciding about women’s health and the so-called “war against religion.” Or do you side with these people?
——
Most Christians protest against atheist posters and billboards, often defacing and destroying them, while taking legal action to a religious display on public property is an attack against religion.
——
Also, it is not really a question of one person—one vote. It’s more like Catholics/Christians are being told that won’t really be Catholic/Christian if they don’t vote the “right” way. They are being told that supporting such and such a person who is pro-choice will be voting against their faith. That’s one helluva effective way to prevent people from making an informed decision on their own.
—-
I can only hope that Christian/Catholic women will remember that they will be subject to the same restrictions that their religious leaders are pushing on all women in this country, and that the secular right of privacy of the individual vote is still the law.

Angela, you are correct that there is no real Christianity without the Resurrection.  Does that mean that I “know” what the Resurrection is, and what it signifies, in all of its true meaning?  No.  No more than a layperson knows what quantum mechanics means. 
—-
I don’t understand, still, what that has to do with doubt.  It sounds like you are taking both the experience of doubt *and* the experience of confusion or not understanding, and calling them both doubt.  I would wager also that you equate understanding with a kind of subjective internal *feeling* of knowledge, satisfaction and assent going along with a concept.  If I am right, then I see there a huge area of misunderstanding.
—-
Am I correct?  What is your definition of doubt?  Do you think that you are confusing the two: the tenets of the faith and the lived experience of human spirituality?

And who said that Catholic women are more attractive than atheist women? Maybe it’s not so bright to insult the members of a group that is 1) angry and 2) willing to remind jerk Catholic men that atheist women will do things in the bedroom that a “good” Catholic women won’t.

@Zeke—read my longer comment above my jibe.  Maybe you already did and just wanted to take the little jibe as an excuse to ignore what else I wrote.  Either way, my earlier comment remains the same.

Also, I tend to agree—the desire to conquer and take over is tribal, and therefore human. Religion is what justifies and encourages the people to do the killing. The bible tells how God commanded the mass murder and destruction of cities, the rape and murder of the innocent even down to the last sheep.
—-
As I said, Christians would not encourage the killing of other Christians, but they had no problem encouraging the killing of Jews, native Americans, witches, heretics, pagans, and so on. Today, Islam is the same way, but when Christians were pillaging during the Crusades, Islam was preserving and increasing scientific discoveries and humanistic philosophies that Christians had to re-learn and reconcile to Christian doctrine during the Enlightenment. They were also tolerant, if not welcoming to the Jews who fled from Christian persecution.
——
The Pope is merely acknowledging that the power of WMDs will destroy all people—including Christians—and maybe that is not a good thing. Religious people are perfectly willing to kill others in the name of faith—Islam is more dangerous today because many followers have been convinced to die while killing others will ensure their place in a fictional afterlife. Religion releases any inhibition humans may have against killing other humans.

Corita,
—
“It sounds like you are taking both the experience of doubt *and* the experience of confusion or not understanding, and calling them both doubt.  I would wager also that you equate understanding with a kind of subjective internal *feeling* of knowledge, satisfaction and assent going along with a concept.”
——-
First, you are right—confusion and not understanding is doubt—to me they are not separate ideas. And yes, the subjective internal feeling of not being satisfied with an answer to a question is the experience of doubt. I would wager you, as a Catholic, are uncomfortable with both the cognitive and subjective aspects of doubt—as am I. What it seem to me that you don’t understand about me is confusion, dissatisfaction, and rejection of the “answers” of Catholic or any religious “faith.”
—-
Bully, if your religion satisfies you and you don’t feel doubt. I have a feeling none of you (as Catholics) would be bothering us atheists if that were really so. It is in the nature of Catholic/Christian religion to exclude people who don’t believe and consider them “the other,” which is a helluva lot easier to kill than a brother/sister Catholic/Christian.
——
That’s why “coming out” as an atheist is as difficult as “coming out” as a homosexual in our society.

@Angela
Do you think I or even the majority of Catholics make political decisions because our “leaders” tell us to?  Like we are some unthinking robots?  I am a former atheist that came to believe Christianity while trying to disprove it.  I wanted to develop some rules for morality for my young sons so I studied the Christian belief systems so that I could take what was good out of it, without tainting my sons with some superstitious crap about a “flying spaghetti monster”, I ended as a believer, but that doesn’t mean I left my critical faculties at the door and I don’t vote because I am told to vote.  I vote for what I believe in the same as you.  Where I get offended is you characterizing, by your choice of words, Christians as unthinking followers.

@Zeke, my last comment is lost in spam. @Corita, thank you for your thoughtful, beautifully expressed responses.  @Angela, I do grieve for you.  How on earth can you look at a crucifix and believe that the “Christian god” ordered the rape and murder of entire villages?  You have been tricked by an EVIL lie, and the LIAR doesn’t LOVE YOU.  The LIAR wants to see you rot in a pit of despair.
.
The reason I asked you about the “women’s studies” is that my MIL seems to see life through the same lens as you, and she took many of these courses. She makes many of the same “out there” allegations about the Pope, the Church and Christianity in general.  My poor husband says, “she’s addicted to the pus in her own heart.”  She’s a very bitter, angry, and depressed woman (who was sexually abused, and can’t forgive her Catholic family for it.)  One of her only joys in life is my little girl, who she railed about when I was pregnant (AGAIN!)—Which shows me not to give up—there is still hope for her.

anna lisa wrote: “How on earth can you look at a crucifix and believe that the “Christian god” ordered the rape and murder of entire villages?”
—
Because it says so in the Bible?
—
Aaron wrote: “Do you think I or even the majority of Catholics make political decisions because our “leaders” tell us to? 
—
While you may take pride in being a free and critical thinker, many people don’t. Many people are attracted to religion because it makes hard decisions for them and tells them how to think. You seem to be an intelligent individual, so any claim that religious people are not, by and large, influenced to believe the same or similar things that their religion tells them to, are disingenuous.
—
Aaron also wrote: “I wanted to develop some rules for morality for my young sons so I studied the Christian belief systems so that I could take what was good out of it, without tainting my sons with some superstitious crap about a “flying spaghetti monster”,”
—
This is outright confusing. What morals had you been living by to that point, and why were they insufficient? It sounds like you never stopped to consider that morality is independent from religion. Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real thing that people worship, it is a parody. Were you seriously under the impression that an atheistic worldview incorporated a goofy pasta monster? If not, then your dismissal of the educational opportunities offered by secular morality is also disingenuous.

@Donald, NOPE. @Mephi: If you can’t take the heat in the kitchen, get out of the kitchen.  Ask a few Catholic husbands with big smiles on their faces why they smile all the time.  With enough interrogation they will fess up to everything.

Aaron—I don’t think you have lost all your critical thinking skills, and I don’t know how you will vote, and I cannot generalize about the majority of Catholics. I have already been rebuked for the impression that I judge you all personally.
——
I am saying that Christian/Catholics who are involved in politics and spewing their Christian/Catholic moral values in the conservative/Republican/Tea Bag arenas and being promoted by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. and they have a sizable number of stupid people who do follow their lead—even against their economic well-being—because they believe in their religion. A good number of Catholics are behind Rick Santorum because of his Catholic “values.”
——
FYI—the Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented as an pseudo-religion to protest creationism and religion in schools. By demanding the “right” to pray to the FSM in school, the demand for (Christian) prayer in schools is ridiculed. The tactic has worked against a Florida school board that was against teaching evolution:
—-
http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/flying-spaghetti-monster-defeats-anti-evolution-fl-school-board

@anna lisa:
Try Numbers 31 and 33:50 onward and Deuteronomy 2:31 onward and 3:3 onward, for starters. You’ll have to try harder than NOPE to dismiss these passages.

anna lisa—How can you look at a crucifix and be comforted? Do you look at your sick child and feel comforted?
——
OK, that was harsh—but I honestly don’t see what comfort can come from the bloody suffering of a (fictional) person. Why would the christian god inflict such suffering on anybody, let alone is supposed son? How does that “save” you or any other believer? The idea of Christ’s “Passion” and the sickness of your child and the needless suffering of all people scandalizes me. I can’t understand why pondering a crucifixion can help anyone—regardless of the Resurrection. Why did Jesus have to suffer?
——
Your mother in law may be angry and depressed—and being raped as a child is a damn good reason, I think you’ll agree. She probably looked and took on the perspective of women’s studies to help her deal with her experience—as the Catholic faith did not answer her doubts. Do you think I had the same kind of trauma? You did ask me before as to what childhood trauma caused me to become atheist.
——
As a side—why are “women’s studies” presumed to be feminist and anti-religious while “women’s magazines” that promote sexuality and “how to please your man in bed” acceptable reading?

@Angela—I have had the experience of loving someone deeply and yet knowing it is impossible to live with them any longer.  I grew up with someone whom I knew loved me, even as hurt me with his addictions.  I regularly make decisions about how to work, feed my children, discipline them and school them even when sometimes I do not feel quite happy with my choices, not convinced, not “settled” in my conviction I know all the information involved or what I am getting us into.
—- -
Have you had any experiences like these?  These are real life experiences!  They are the lives we live and they sometimes invaded by what you call doubt.  What you mean is a lack of conviction that everything you do and think is right, that you have all the information.  Now, is that a reasonable expectation for life?  How would you respond if a religious person told you that life was supposed to proceed; work, parenting, moral choices—with a constant sense of intellectual conviction and emotional satisfaction?  You would think it mad if applied to other contexts, but you insist that religious people carry those doubts *in contradiction to their faith*  (which is not true) AND that the doubt itself is some sort of trump card that proves faith is just a house of cards set up as a bulwark against our ignorance and fear.
—- -
I would never disagree that all of us human beings feel we have to do something to manage our sense of ignorance and fear, and that “religion” is frequently part or all of that, used like a tool or a weapon rahter than (in my faith it’s) a transformative experience that lasts our entire lives.  But I want to point out that the desperate desire to manage our ignorance, fear, and indeed our own utter inability to be as good as we want to be—these are human experiences.  They are not confined to religious people and idol-religion is not the only false (god) shield thrown up against it.  We have the tendency to use whatever we can think of, whatever makes sense, whatever tools are at our disposal:  money, sex, power, sure, but also work, prestige, relationships, magical thinking and the very seductive thing called “I know something the rest of you stupid unwashed morons are too useless and blind to know.”  Yep, you guessed it, it’s the stony conviction that we are better than other people.  Now THAT is a universal, cross-cultural, historical funnel for evil, right there.  No religion needed, although any philosophical system can be bent to serve it.
—- -
Well I am making speeches…that is my cue to get into bed!  Good night.

anna lisa—how do you know you’re not the one who has been tricked by an EVIL LIE?

Oh, Angela, I forgot.  When I talked about doubt, I contrasted it with the *LACK* of a satisfied *emotional* feeling.  They are not the same, to me, if you are speaking of faith.  My faith rarely makes me *feel* satisfied, it often disquiets me with its call to become the better version of myself.  It also disquiets me that I believe in a Creator who became a human, allowed himself to be killed, and now makes Himself available to us in an intimate physical form here on earth (the Eucharist).  It *is* scandalous—much more so than the scandal of people who do evil in the name of G-d or the actual existence of suffering in the world!  They make sense.  The faith I have IS a scandal—in one sense it turns the whole world upside down….it is also the only way the world makes sense.  Consider this:  when Christianity called for an end to infanticide and senseless war in its earliest days, when it was telling people that there were not many frivolous and intemperate gods, but One mysterious one who taught us to love and forgive…when that message caused murderers to repent and change their ways…when ruler re-wrote the laws to be more just, because of that faith…What do you think they were fearing, and hiding from?  How is the modern atheist movement to come up with a humanist moral code, somehow an improvement on that—OTHER than the fact that it is not based in belief in a god?  Even if Christianity were a wholly human invention, it would still be ludicrous to claim that people were too stupid, unenlightened, unscientific in the past, too afraid, to be moral and good without a vengeful threat hanging over them?  How?

Corita:
“Thanks for the reply, Angela.  When you say you don’t “understand” sin, grace, and redemption, do you mean just that you have tried to get the concepts through study and reflection, but you just can’t understand why people believe in them?  OR do you mean that you just don’t know enough about them to really talk about them in depth?  Or what?”
****
I would say your first guess is the correct one—I believe the concepts of sin, grace, and redemption are religious concepts that apologists use for the circular reasoning of their faith. The human condition (i.e. pain and death) is because we are “born in sin.”—which I translate into the human condition (pain and death) is because we are human. Grace, in the sense of “there but for the grace of God” is the temporary absence of suffering and appreciation of the goodness of living and life. Redemption is recovering after the pain of suffering and loss. A way of expressing this in humanist term would be that we are human, therefore we experience joy and grief, grief passes and we move on. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong.
I just don’t know why a god or “savior” is necessary, except as a false hope against the finality and inevitability of death.
****
—-
“Because I personally cannot figure out how the Christian narrative of sin and redemption is some kind of explanation for tsunamis and cancer.  (except when it is…oh yeah…haha Christian inside joke)  But how can YOU claim that they are, when you don’t even understand them?”
****
The Christian narrative does is not a kind of explanation for natural disasters—unless you follow Jerry Farwell and his ilk. I was just pointing out that our scientific understanding of how they work gives humans more control over the damage they cause, as opposed to prayer.
****
—-
“I mean, it is one thing to say that religious superstition is at least partly based in our desire to understand those powers that are outside of our immediate control…that is a fairly basic and non-controversial idea, really.  For a Christian, all that means is that the religious impulse is basic to our nature, and that our history as a humanity has included a long, dialectical (not hegelian, necessarily) process of trying to understand Creation and our relationship to it.”
****
The religious impulse may or may not be a basic impulse to our nature. It’s been said that even if Christianity dies out another religion will replace it. (I know a lot of Catholics who don’t like that!) Christians/Catholics do seem to be horrified by the ideas that scientific discoveries on how the universe works (Hawking, Dawkins, etc. have been writing about this) and the nature of atoms, electrons, protons, and other sub-particles exclude the (Christian) concept of “god(s)” and the divine intelligence of a creator.
****
Science and religion are becoming farther and farther apart as explanations about the nature of the universe discount “god” as part of the equation. Humans are re-defining the creation and our relationship with it.

I tried to post this before and it was marked as possible spam. I’m trying again.
****
Corita:
“Thanks for the reply, Angela.  When you say you don’t “understand” sin, grace, and redemption, do you mean just that you have tried to get the concepts through study and reflection, but you just can’t understand why people believe in them?  OR do you mean that you just don’t know enough about them to really talk about them in depth?  Or what?”
****
I would say your first guess is the correct one—I believe the concepts of sin, grace, and redemption are religious concepts that apologists use for the circular reasoning of their faith. The human condition (i.e. pain and death) is because we are “born in sin.”—which I translate into the human condition (pain and death) is because we are human. Grace, in the sense of “there but for the grace of God” is the temporary absence of suffering and appreciation of the goodness of living and life. Redemption is recovering after the pain of suffering and loss. A way of expressing this in humanist term would be that we are human, therefore we experience joy and grief, grief passes and we move on. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong.
I just don’t know why a god or “savior” is necessary, except as a false hope against the finality and inevitability of death.
****
—-
“Because I personally cannot figure out how the Christian narrative of sin and redemption is some kind of explanation for tsunamis and cancer.  (except when it is…oh yeah…haha Christian inside joke)  But how can YOU claim that they are, when you don’t even understand them?”
****
The Christian narrative does is not a kind of explanation for natural disasters—unless you follow Jerry Farwell and his ilk. I was just pointing out that our scientific understanding of how they work gives humans more control over the damage they cause, as opposed to prayer.
****
—-
“I mean, it is one thing to say that religious superstition is at least partly based in our desire to understand those powers that are outside of our immediate control…that is a fairly basic and non-controversial idea, really.  For a Christian, all that means is that the religious impulse is basic to our nature, and that our history as a humanity has included a long, dialectical (not hegelian, necessarily) process of trying to understand Creation and our relationship to it.”
****
The religious impulse may or may not be a basic impulse to our nature. It’s been said that even if Christianity dies out another religion will replace it. (I know a lot of Catholics who don’t like that!) Christians/Catholics do seem to be horrified by the ideas that scientific discoveries on how the universe works (Hawking, Dawkins, etc. have been writing about this) and the nature of atoms, electrons, protons, and other sub-particles exclude the (Christian) concept of “god(s)” and the divine intelligence of a creator.
****
Science and religion are becoming farther and farther apart as explanations about the nature of the universe discount “god” as part of the equation. Humans are re-defining the creation and our relationship with it.

Maybe I used too many asterisks to separate my points. Twice I’ve been marked as spam. I’ll try again.
====
Corita:
“Thanks for the reply, Angela.  When you say you don’t “understand” sin, grace, and redemption, do you mean just that you have tried to get the concepts through study and reflection, but you just can’t understand why people believe in them?  OR do you mean that you just don’t know enough about them to really talk about them in depth?  Or what?”
=====
I would say your first guess is the correct one—I believe the concepts of sin, grace, and redemption are religious concepts that apologists use for the circular reasoning of their faith. The human condition (i.e. pain and death) is because we are “born in sin.”—which I translate into the human condition (pain and death) is because we are human. Grace, in the sense of “there but for the grace of God” is the temporary absence of suffering and appreciation of the goodness of living and life. Redemption is recovering after the pain of suffering and loss. A way of expressing this in humanist term would be that we are human, therefore we experience joy and grief, grief passes and we move on. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong.
I just don’t know why a god or “savior” is necessary, except as a false hope against the finality and inevitability of death.
=======—-
“Because I personally cannot figure out how the Christian narrative of sin and redemption is some kind of explanation for tsunamis and cancer.  (except when it is…oh yeah…haha Christian inside joke)  But how can YOU claim that they are, when you don’t even understand them?”
======
The Christian narrative does is not a kind of explanation for natural disasters—unless you follow Jerry Farwell and his ilk. I was just pointing out that our scientific understanding of how they work gives humans more control over the damage they cause, as opposed to prayer.
=====
—-
“I mean, it is one thing to say that religious superstition is at least partly based in our desire to understand those powers that are outside of our immediate control…that is a fairly basic and non-controversial idea, really.  For a Christian, all that means is that the religious impulse is basic to our nature, and that our history as a humanity has included a long, dialectical (not hegelian, necessarily) process of trying to understand Creation and our relationship to it.”
======
The religious impulse may or may not be a basic impulse to our nature. It’s been said that even if Christianity dies out another religion will replace it. (I know a lot of Catholics who don’t like that!) Christians/Catholics do seem to be horrified by the ideas that scientific discoveries on how the universe works (Hawking, Dawkins, etc. have been writing about this) and the nature of atoms, electrons, protons, and other sub-particles exclude the (Christian) concept of “god(s)” and the divine intelligence of a creator.
======
Science and religion are becoming farther and farther apart as explanations about the nature of the universe discount “god” as part of the equation. Humans are re-defining the creation and our relationship with it.

Corita—again we cross each other when typing our replies.
—-
Do you think that maybe your faith fails to give you a satisfied feeling because you find it difficult to accept? Why should you feel bad about yourself? Why should it be so difficult to be happy?
—-You wrote:
“Consider this:  when Christianity called for an end to infanticide and senseless war in its earliest days, when it was telling people that there were not many frivolous and intemperate gods, but One mysterious one who taught us to love and forgive…when that message caused murderers to repent and change their ways…when ruler re-wrote the laws to be more just, because of that faith…What do you think they were fearing, and hiding from?  How is the modern atheist movement to come up with a humanist moral code, somehow an improvement on that—OTHER than the fact that it is not based in belief in a god?  Even if Christianity were a wholly human invention, it would still be ludicrous to claim that people were too stupid, unenlightened, unscientific in the past, too afraid, to be moral and good without a vengeful threat hanging over them?  How?”
——
You bring up one of the major historical events in western thought—the change from polytheism to monotheism. Religion with multiple gods was loosing it’s usefulness as a social control—though it is still a great source for literature, theater, and opera ;) It’s still working in other cultures, though.
——
How often does it have to be repeated that humans didn’t need to be “taught” to love and forgive—any more than they need to be taught to kill for food or for war? Humans were not constantly killing each other—even tribe against tribe—before an organized religion started. There was no “mysterious One”—what ever that means—to tell us that killing is bad.
——
To put it in the context of Genesis, the “fall” of humanity was eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The story doesn’t state that good and evil didn’t exist—just that the (metaphorically) first humans became “like gods” as the serpent promise and LEARNED of the existence of good and evil. The knowledge forced them out of paradise (i.e. ignorant bliss) and brought them down to earth and the forced them to face the reality of the human condition. Later, the firstborn human son killed his younger brother because his offerings were rejected.
——
It’s a lovely story, really—the first humans learned to love each other once they realized the realities of living, and the Cain and Abel story tell of the first murder and it’s consequences. Love and hate summarized in the first few chapters. Thank you for leading me to contemplate it again.
——
I’m digressing again, but my point is that the LEARNING impulse is innate in the human species (and others if you watch nature shows) and religions are products of that learning. I don’t remember who said it, but it has been proposed that religion is a failed hypothesis—much like the belief that the earth is the center of the universe was eventually disproved by human learning and experiment.
—-
Maybe you faith doesn’t make you feel satisfied because of your impulse to learn.

I’ve been marked as spam again, so if this second paste goes through, I’m calling it a night.
—
Corita—again we cross each other when typing our replies.
—-
Do you think that maybe your faith fails to give you a satisfied feeling because you find it difficult to accept? Why should you feel bad about yourself? Why should it be so difficult to be happy?
—-You wrote:
“Consider this:  when Christianity called for an end to infanticide and senseless war in its earliest days, when it was telling people that there were not many frivolous and intemperate gods, but One mysterious one who taught us to love and forgive…when that message caused murderers to repent and change their ways…when ruler re-wrote the laws to be more just, because of that faith…What do you think they were fearing, and hiding from?  How is the modern atheist movement to come up with a humanist moral code, somehow an improvement on that—OTHER than the fact that it is not based in belief in a god?  Even if Christianity were a wholly human invention, it would still be ludicrous to claim that people were too stupid, unenlightened, unscientific in the past, too afraid, to be moral and good without a vengeful threat hanging over them?  How?”
——
You bring up one of the major historical events in western thought—the change from polytheism to monotheism. Religion with multiple gods was loosing it’s usefulness as a social control—though it is still a great source for literature, theater, and opera ;) It’s still working in other cultures, though.
——
How often does it have to be repeated that humans didn’t need to be “taught” to love and forgive—any more than they need to be taught to kill for food or for war? Humans were not constantly killing each other—even tribe against tribe—before an organized religion started. There was no “mysterious One”—what ever that means—to tell us that killing is bad.
——
To put it in the context of Genesis, the “fall” of humanity was eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The story doesn’t state that good and evil didn’t exist—just that the (metaphorically) first humans became “like gods” as the serpent promise and LEARNED of the existence of good and evil. The knowledge forced them out of paradise (i.e. ignorant bliss) and brought them down to earth and the forced them to face the reality of the human condition. Later, the firstborn human son killed his younger brother because his offerings were rejected.
——
It’s a lovely story, really—the first humans learned to love each other once they realized the realities of living, and the Cain and Abel story tell of the first murder and it’s consequences. Love and hate summarized in the first few chapters. Thank you for leading me to contemplate it again.
——
I’m digressing again, but my point is that the LEARNING impulse is innate in the human species (and others if you watch nature shows) and religions are products of that learning. I don’t remember who said it, but it has been proposed that religion is a failed hypothesis—much like the belief that the earth is the center of the universe was eventually disproved by human learning and experiment.
—-
Maybe you faith doesn’t make you feel satisfied because of your impulse to learn.

I’m being marked as spam again. I’ll save my post and look to see if it shows up tomorrow.

This had all become too tedious to read.
Best of luck to all those hoping to establish a Christian theocracy in America. Get out and vote for the right zealot Santorum, so we can start another holy war in Iran. Your God would be proud.
Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them. - H.L. Mencken

@Zeke, We had a birthday party for my nephew who has Downs tonight.  I had this strange sense of sickness in my soul for all the hellish blasphemy so called “Angela” spouted today, so much so that I had to force myself to feel joy, even though we were about 30 people, celebrating the sweetest boy in the world.  I’d like to think that you are not as over the edge as “Angela”  is, (young college woman, SERIOUSLY?) especially since you said you have a little one in your care.  If I were a confused soul, feeling a lack of connection with God, and the pain that comes with this, I’d say that this thread is extremely *enlightening*. Atheism?  Okay, this is what is in store: fasten your seat belt, and put on your acid-proof goggles. Vitriol is vitriol, no matter how you dress it up.  Reparation is all I can think of for the blasphemy exhibited here.
@“Angela”, yes, my MIL was abused when she CHOSE to have an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, as a teenager.  As bitter as she is, she would NEVER blaspheme God, or make a mockery of Christ crucified.  That has only one hateful source.

anna lisa: yes, these threads can be enlightening. They give people a chance to put their thoughts in writing in a way they probably never have in polite conversation. Who knows, perhaps some atheists will take a closer look at Christianity, and Christians will think more deeply about their faith.
At the very least, I hope that Christians (or any religious believers) understand that an atheist moral code for society would be much the same as one based on the teachings of Jesus. This shouldn’t be a problem for them; it does not require the existence of God to see that they benefit society. To argue that the Bible or the Koran or any man-made holy book provides the ultimate source of morals requires even the faithful to disregard vast tracts that endorse behavior that we all can agree are wrong. All the best to you and your family.

Here’s the post I tried to put up last night, but got spammed. Sorry if it come up as a duplicate:
——
Corita—again we cross each other when typing our replies.
—-
Do you think that maybe your faith fails to give you a satisfied feeling because you find it difficult to accept? Why should you feel bad about yourself? Why should it be so difficult to be happy?
—-You wrote:
“Consider this:  when Christianity called for an end to infanticide and senseless war in its earliest days, when it was telling people that there were not many frivolous and intemperate gods, but One mysterious one who taught us to love and forgive…when that message caused murderers to repent and change their ways…when ruler re-wrote the laws to be more just, because of that faith…What do you think they were fearing, and hiding from?  How is the modern atheist movement to come up with a humanist moral code, somehow an improvement on that—OTHER than the fact that it is not based in belief in a god?  Even if Christianity were a wholly human invention, it would still be ludicrous to claim that people were too stupid, unenlightened, unscientific in the past, too afraid, to be moral and good without a vengeful threat hanging over them?  How?”
——
You bring up one of the major historical events in western thought—the change from polytheism to monotheism. Religion with multiple gods was loosing it’s usefulness as a social control—though it is still a great source for literature, theater, and opera ;) It’s still working in other cultures, though.
——
How often does it have to be repeated that humans didn’t need to be “taught” to love and forgive—any more than they need to be taught to kill for food or for war? Humans were not constantly killing each other—even tribe against tribe—before an organized religion started. There was no “mysterious One”—what ever that means—to tell us that killing is bad.
——
To put it in the context of Genesis, the “fall” of humanity was eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The story doesn’t state that good and evil didn’t exist—just that the (metaphorically) first humans became “like gods” as the serpent promise and LEARNED of the existence of good and evil. The knowledge forced them out of paradise (i.e. ignorant bliss) and brought them down to earth and the forced them to face the reality of the human condition. Later, the firstborn human son killed his younger brother because his offerings were rejected.
——
It’s a lovely story, really—the first humans learned to love each other once they realized the realities of living, and the Cain and Abel story tell of the first murder and it’s consequences. Love and hate summarized in the first few chapters. Thank you for leading me to contemplate it again.
——
I’m digressing again, but my point is that the LEARNING impulse is innate in the human species (and others if you watch nature shows) and religions are products of that learning. I don’t remember who said it, but it has been proposed that religion is a failed hypothesis—much like the belief that the earth is the center of the universe was eventually disproved by human learning and experiment.
—-
Maybe you faith doesn’t make you feel satisfied because of your impulse to learn.

Corita: I’m still being marked as spam, so I’ll have to make an new reply later that this d—-n blog will take or break the thread and start up on another blog.
——
anna lisa—you wrote:
@“Angela”, yes, my MIL was abused when she CHOSE to have an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, as a teenager.  As bitter as she is, she would NEVER blaspheme God, or make a mockery of Christ crucified.  That has only one hateful source.
——-
I have just lost my last shred of respect for you. No wonder you worship the agony of a man nailed to a crucifix. Your comment disgusts me. I feel sorry for your kids to have a mother who has so little compassion. May they be gay atheists when they grow up.

Angela, so you thaink Christians have the monopoly of being murderers, well Lenin,Stalin were Atheists and they murdered millions, because they were Christians and they closed their Churches and in their places opened museums of Atheism, and what about the the regime of Mao in China , how many people did he murder. If you hate Catholisism so much why do you not clear off and read Hitchins and Dawkins, or do you know that the your hero Dawkins family fortune was made by the slave trading in the West Indies, You can live your life the way you want not like Christians in the home of Atheism, the now demolished Soviet Union who were murdered because of their faith

Con—you are obviously replying to the wrong post or making the usual obnoxious ass of your self. I haven’t been discussing genocide on this post—and I won’t start with you now.

“Angela”, I’m not going to address you any longer.  Not even if you argue that the Pope a lesbian.  This will probably unleash a bile storm, but I have a special compassion for atheists now.  I did before, but in a different way.  After exchanging thoughts with some of you, and trying to see the world through your eyes, it made it more personal.  I am not rejecting you as a human being, but I’m rejecting your need to indulge in hate—-I’ll say it again: That has only ONE SOURCE.  Now this is neither “here nor there”, but I’d bet $5 you’re male, and I’ll venture a guess that you are gay, and getting over a bad break up.  That’s not a jibe, that’s just your vibe.

anna lisa—now you are showing your true self—a homophobic, selfish heartless, victim-blaming, shallow Catholic. I don’t have to start a bile storm—every one will see your comments as they are.
—-
I AM rejecting you as a human being—your moral views are sick.

Sir, I love my homosexual brothers and sisters.  I have a hard time with hate, and blasphemy.

Lol I said I wouldn’t address you again—I don’t reject you for being gay or an atheist either.  Homophobe, I am not.  Call me out for my impatience, I’m really working on it—and really do forgive you for calling me those things—not just to sound like a goody goody either, or to try to make you like me lol.  I know you have a story.  You’re not a female co-ed.  Why don’t you just “come out” as yourself, instead of going in and out of troll mode. Let yourself be appreciated for who you are.  Saying F-U to people all over the place on these threads is why people get disgusted (I can take that)—But BLASPHEMY—that is in a completely different class.  Really chaps my hide as you can see (see?  You did find my weak spot)Does that help society advance?  Does it elevate the human condition?  Make joy spring forth?  You call me a “victim blamer”?  No way. My MIL is a victim.  She is a woman in a lot of emotional bondage, who can’t forgive or accept responsibility for any of the “domino effect” decisions she has made, since that original bad choice. She is the one who clings to the idea that there is no such thing as “sexual sin”. I try to love her despite all the pain she metes out.  It’s tough sometimes. (She speaks a lot like you—its like you have the same road manual).  In my experience most everybody has sinned sexually.  I don’t like pointing at any one group to say “Your sexual sin is worse than mine”.  All I do know is that the issue is more about WHO we hurt, when we do it.

Angela—really I think you aren’t getting the true picture of anna lisa.  Don’t jump to conclusions.
—- -
Anyway, at least two of my comments are in spam or deleted.  One I wrote last night, before teh “I forgot” one.  Another I am almost certain was published but has disappeared (I could be misremembering).  Oh, well. 
—- -
I want to say at this point, and not in a mean way but correctively, that your writing about Christians and Catholics in particular is full of stereotypes.  AS the limitations of the internet medium can make our writing seem less precise, I can understand if that is part of it.  But I want to encourage you to try to understand religious ideas (especially about sin and Jesus) on their own terms before you dismiss them. 
—- -
Your repeated ideas about the relationship between science and religion, also, are uniformed when it comes to Catholicism, specifically.  It is the official teaching of the Church that there is nothing in religion that can contradict what science reveals to us as true.  And indeed, despite the attempts of various, understandably nervous authorities throughout history, not official teachings have held that say otherwise.  I know scientists who are Catholics, and can’t think of anyone I know who is Catholic who is “afraid” of or rejecting what scientists have discovered about the universe.  Most, like me, find the subjects fascinating and provocative of wonder about Creation.
—- -
I do not know if you have not had enough life experience to know people who are genuinely knowledgeable about the Catholic faith, or even any Christians who can explain in real terms what their faith means.  Of course there could be willful persistence in your stereotypes on your part, I have no idea.  I hope not.
—- -
Somebody like Richard Dawkins strikes me as willfully ignorant.  I am always interested in giving the atheist arguments a hearing if I think they are thoughtful and intelligent humane people.  I read other Dawkins academic works in the past and found them interesting, so when I heard he was on the “Believers are stupid, atheists are smart” circuit,  I read The God Delusion.  Ugh.  It is absolutely riddled with inaccuracies about history and religious beliefs—stuff even the atheist professor of religion I studied under in my college major would roll his eyes at.  Horrible. Irresponsible.  I can’t even figure out how it got published.
—- -
I want to encourage you to stop leading with an attack and recognize that, like everybody, there are subjects about which you do not have enough knowledge to form opinions.  I say this all in a friendly way, I am not meaning to be condescending either.  If find myself undereducated about something and talking in aggressive terms about it I would want the encouragement to learn more…I have been in that position, actually, and more than once.  (Sorry to say…I am an aggressive opiner by upbringing and temperament.)

Here are some links to those wondering about Catholicism and evolution:

“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. “

from the Catholic Answers site, http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Here is an interesting discussion of Intelligent Design, focusing on the director of the Vatican Observatory (who says that ID is not church teaching, evolution is) 
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

And here are John Paul II’s remarks to teh Pontifcal Academy of the Sciences. 
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

I think the two of them, along with the Catholic Answers link, provide a very simple introduction to the kind of “official” attitude toward science, and the discussions that abound within the theological framework, for those who are un- or under-educated on the topic.

Angela—I have two longer comments in spam but wanted to say to give anna lisa the benefit of the doubt.  It is impossible to know someone well after a few days of internet discussion—especially if one is deliberately hostile and provocative at the outset.  It prejudices the whole exchange thereafter and the participants have to work even harder to get past that.
—- -
And, if you are going to throw around the homophobia label, I will say what I refrained from before:  I would guess that most of my same-sex attracted friends and loved ones would take your statement amiss that “it is as hard to come out as atheist as it is to come out as gay.”  There might be truth in it, if there were I would say it would depend *entirly* on the community in which the coming out were to happen.  BUT it is extremely blindly privileged of you to play the “oppression games” like that, and I think you ought to re-examine making such statements carelessly.  *You* might sound like the one with anti-gay prejudices..at least unacknowledged privilege…

Angela, Suffering from a loss of memory now, your post was Friday at 5.08 est, I think you should sit down for a while and contemplate on your anti Catholisism, especially after the mayhem your anti Christian fellow Atheist have caused

Corita—my last comments were directed at anna lisa personally. I find her callous judgement of her mother-in-law appalling and that she is using her Catholic status to justify it. This time I have to apologize to the other Catholics—I am angry at anna lisa.
—-
As for the homophobia “label”, anna lisa has just transformed me into “a gay man getting over a break up.” I’m guessing those are the worst things she can think up so far. Misquoting Shakespeare—me thinks she dost protest too much about her “love” for her “homosexual brothers and sisters.”
—-
And I might remind you that there is an intense controversy as to whether it is OK to bully because of religious faith:
—-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/24/bullying-children-because-of-religious-faith/
—-
If this reply comes off as hard, I’m still disgusted with anna lisa and it’s hard to get over the scandal.

My scandal. Lol.  Ah, the human condition.  BTW, I am going to confession at 5. :)

anna lisa—you need to.

Con:
Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I have seen threads with you before and I will not get started with you.

@Angela, you said
“And I might remind you that there is an intense controversy as to whether it is OK to bully because of religious faith:
—-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/24/bullying-children-because-of-religious-faith/”

This is not an “intense controversy”, you have linked to Hemant Mehta’s blog who is also (uncharacteristically) cryptic by introducing a lecturer from Dawkins’ insane society.  The atheist lecturer is arguing that religious people might try to make arguments that bullying is ok. 

Where is the controversy?  It is all an argument made from tying together a “religion is hurtful” ideology into some news events.  If you were to link me to some thoughtful, knowledgeable religious Catholics arguing it is ok to bully, based on religious principles..that would be something.  Here, no.  I am a little dismayed you think this is an indictment of religion, or even a decent argument.  My spammed comment includes what I think of Dawkins.  (In two words: inexcusably ignorant.  He’s not even a decent scientist, although I was taken in by his writing in TSG)

As to anna lisa, well she can speak for herself but I have been reading here a while and can assure you her “protest”—which is forced because of your accusastions—is not some version of “But I have black friends!”  You are again making accusations without basis.  anna lisa has always come across as very loving toward everyone, even the most vile spewing people… she often recognizes those who post under a guise…she is usually right.  Frankly, if what I read from other commenters—that you have admitted you are more than one person, that you are lying about your identity—are true after all, then I think it useless to engage you.  Using an internet pseudonym is one thing…being a liar about yourself is another, it implies that you do not care about us or the truth.  Not very brave or free-thinking of you.

I’m disappointed that you find dislike Dawkins and feel that anna lisa’s attitude towards her MIL is defensible. I may get angry some time, but none of us is a gay man getting over a break up—and anna betrays herself by her expression of that as an insult. You’re good at defending fellow Catholics, but your contempt for others shows through when you claim to forgive us and “feel for our suffering” because we don’t “know God’s love.”
——
Well, every time the conversation gets to important issues, like the morality of blaming a victim for the “domino effect started by her blasphemy” you (I mean most Catholics I encounter on this site) get very defensive and blame me for “attacking” you somehow—-but you don’t have any good justification for the morals I find reprehensible. You change the subject.
——
I’m with Hitchens on this—Religion poisons everything. You could be good people if you didn’t value a fictional construct more than real human beings. I prefer to be good without god.
——
I’ll check back from time to time to see if you have anything to say for yourselves, but I’m moving to other posts. I should know better than to try to reason with people who worship suffering as a virtue, but I can’t let you be contented with yourselves.

Angela, you are completely wrong.  I did not say her attitude was defensible, I said, Cut her a break and try to understand better before you jump to conclusions. 
—- -
You are correct, however, that I dislike Dawkins.  He is *not* an intellectual.  He knows nothing about religion; his work The God Delusion is absolutely riddled with the most basic of sophomoric errors.  first year students in my college Religion major didn’t sound as stupid as he; if they ever did they were given a sound tongue-lashing from my atheist professor.  Chris Hitchens was 1000 times the intellectual Dawkins is, and that *even with* his (Hitchens’) massive ego handicapping his ability to see what really poisons our lives.  Dawkins.  Ugh.
—- -
Anyway, if you were referring to me at all in that moralizing diatribe above, let me point out that I didn’t “blame” you for anything—I did point out that coming into a conversation with rhetorical guns blazing then makes it hard for you to have a decent conversation.  Yet anna lisa tried to, and she of the lovely patience became impatient only when you made what she heard as utterly disrespectful comments about someone she loves and worships. 
—- -
If you want to bow out without answering *any* of the challenges I or others have made to you, feel free.  Join Zeke in his exit, happening immediately after he was shown up for being totally ignorant about Catholic doctrine *despite his “years of school and sacraments”*.  If my longer comments *Ever* get out of spam then I hope you read them, even if you don’t reply.  Or, otherwise, go ahead and keep your comfy life looking down on people.  Don’t do anything that disturbs your preconceived notions and unexamined stereotypes, or that would make you too uncomfortable.  Is that what being a “freethinker” is all about?  I don’t think it is, but maybe you do!

Ah, and I just realized that you wrote back, “None of us is…” and I am just stumped.  Why not write as yourselves?  Unless you are a person with multiple personality disorder whose personalities enjoy a lovely rapport tag-teaming Christians on religious websites, then you are being completely disingenuous.  Also, maybe you should all get together and pick one mood, and maybe come to a decision so that one of you doesn’t get all huffy and stomp off if others want to stay.
—-
If you have to lie about yourself then you obviously are not all that comfortable with what you believe.  OR you don’t actually care about the truth as much as you do about finding the easy pickings in a casual religion website to try to bully.  In either case you do not represent atheists well; my etheist friends would find you embarrassing.

*atheist, of course.  Maybe “etheist” would be a good name for the kind of atheists trolling here; sort of like the crazy Westboro Baptist-type fundies are for us Christians, you guys can have your own category of atheism devoted to bile, trafficking in stereotypes, and using the language of smart and good people to trump up your own version of it.

Oh- and- sorry, last comment:  If the more reasonable, non-hateful Angela(s) want to post under a different name to talk *for real* then fabulous, I was enjoying the conversation with the reasonable, questioning version of Angela.
Even though we didn’t get far.  But talking to a bunch of them with alternating personalities is like living with an addict all over again.  Hell, no.

Corita, your last series of posts on this comment thread have been the most bile-soaked invectives I’ve ever seen a Catholic spew. Your constant defense of “the person arguing with me is totally ignorant” is both disingenuous and lacking support. Try and subsatantiate your assertions next time, especially when you are attacking the credibility of a noted scientist (I assume you are a layman).

What do you mean “cut her a break?” Why? I found her comment about her mother-in-law the final straw and totally reprehensible, and she goes even further to defend it with her blasphemy rant. What is atheism, if not blasphemy?
——
I’m not the most perfect person(s) either and I often go “fu!” from frustration, (you have a real problem with swearing—how I express anger politely?) but you give as good as you get—until a real moral issue comes up. It’s your position that things should not be forgiven unless the “sinner” repents—I don’t think anna has any regrets, that she will acknowledge to her self, about her judgement of her mother-in-law and her hatred of people in general. She holds up crucifix to justify herself.  If blasphemy “chaps her hide,” her love of Christ over everybody else pisses me off.
——
You know enough about my past threads—I am not here to make Catholics feel better. I’m here to ask Catholics to justify your “faith” as a basis for morality and behavior, as it is declared to be.

Donald—I haven’t addressed you before because I think your replies are considerably more eloquent and straightforward than mine. I am easily frustrated by some of these comments and loose my cool.
—-
Just want to tell you I think you have a lot of class.

Donald, I have been writing in the same lovely style as most of the atheists who have attacked the blog readers.  It’s not my favorite one.  But it has been deliberate.  It often works on people used to bullying other people.
—- -
“Stop looking ignorant and read something” is about as hateful as it gets, with me.  Maybe sharp-tongued or in-your-face, Ok, but not hateful.  I am shocked (just shocked!) that you would not have a problem with an atheist being hateful, though. Did you notice the nastiness from the cabal of Angelas?  Is it because it is ok to be angry and mean if you are an atheist?  Or because, while Christians must always be docile by creed, it’s understandable when the stupid Christian makes the righteous atheist lose her temper?  (Many atheists would disagree with either of those explanations)
—- -
Your “you are a hateful” Christian guilt-trip won’t work on me, buddy.  If you were a close friend, or even somebody with a seemingly respectable desire to enter into meaningful exchanges…maybe.  But, it is obvious that you aren’t and the bully-hater in me finds the whole lot of you extremely tiresome, especially when you take a forum like this by storm because you know that earnest people here will be easy to bowl over with your harsh words. 
—-
If you would like to point out any unsubstantiated assertion that I have tried to put over as anything but my opinion, go ahead.  Otherwise, take it somewhere else.  It’s not hate that makes me say it, believe me.  It’s the annoyed teacher and mother who is sick of watching bullies crowing around the lunch room like the lunch room is the whole world.  Get a life.

Oh, horsesh&t, Corita.

Oh and I realize that perhaps you want “substantiation” for my opinion of Dawkins.  I f you actually do want to play cite your sources I will have to check out that piece of crap from the library again.
—- -
By the way, Dawkins may be a “noted scientist” but his fundamentalist views on Darwin are not favored by many sociobiologists or, more importantly, other more scientific scientists.  And at any rate he needs to stick to writing about science, especially if he can’t be bothered to gain even one iota of knowledge about the subject matter of religion.  Even atheists are embarrassed by him; google “Dawkins an embarrassment” and see what you find—I did it right now just on a hunch remembering the discussions of him a few years ago… and looky! A whole lotta atheists talking about what a complete jerk he is.

And here are some sources on Dawkins!

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1508

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

This one REALLY goes at him:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-dawkins-refuses-to-debate.html
...all atheist or skepticism sources.

Here is a nice roundup of errors in TGD; I would prefer ro do my own but I only checked that piece of you-know-what out of library, thank goodness.

First an atheist review of it:
http://capro.info/Cults/Atheism/Heathen Rage_A Critique of Richards Dawkins Book_The God Delusion.html

And here is a religious scholar listing the errors he found; what religion, if any, he is, I couldn’t tell.  It’s 68 pages long. 
http://christthetao.homestead.com/articles/thegoddelusion.pdf

You are welcome!

@anna lisa, I am sorry that I taint you by association with me when I am in my knife-between-the-teeth mode!  Hope your family is feeling better.

@Corita
Thanks for the links, I look forward to perusing them when I am not limited to phone posting. That aside, you need support for your assertions regardless of whther it is opinion or not, because that’s how rational discussion works. Additionally, if you don’t care that you are acting (or at least coming off) hateful, that’s your problem, not mine. You are certainly free to gleefully abandon your Christian call to love thy neighbor, as apparentlythere is an exception for people who say things you don’t like. I didn’t notice anything especially nasty from Angela, besides her justified abhorrence of anna lisa’s moral views, but you are welcome to correct me.

Donald, please name any of my assertions that linger, unsubstantiated, in the “discussion.”  Any time.  Look forward to it. 
As to the rest, re-read my earlier comment at 10:24 pm.  I said all I have to say about that. 
Good night, ya’ll!  Going to get in bed with my bio of John Wayne!

@Corita
I reviewed those links and found them to be pathetic at best. Just because a few people either misunderstand Dawkins or or attack him from an obvious position of disenfranchised rage doesn’t mean that TGD falls apart. The mere fact that a number of the critics don’t seem to understand why asking “what caused God?” is a valid question is enough to dismiss their critiques almost out of hand. I still plan to read more of that pdf, but the fact that the critic launches into exegetical theology right off the bat proves that he is willfully disregarding the point of the God Delusion - to attack the God that Christians actually believe in, not the one Theologists have spun to justify their beliefs.
—
Also, for clarification, I was explaining why opinions need substantiation, not further calling you out. Though, you have yet to explain why Dawkins is a sub-par scientist in your eyes.

@ Angela
Thank you :). Why are Corita and anna lisa accusing you of being not only multiple people, but a recently dumped gay man?

Corita, Well done.  My hat is off to you. If you lived in my neck of the woods I’d rouse you out of bed, put John Wayne on the night stand for the next day and go out for PREMIUM margaritas.  I may be on a low budget at the moment, but I’ve paid my dues and haven’t had to drink poor excuse cheap swill in a long time.

It must be Spring.  I hear male mating calls.

Isn’t it typical of fundamentalist Judeo-Christians to make science a “fundamentalist religion,” like their own? Why is it that only Christians insist that Dawkins is an embarrassment to atheists—and all because he had a problem about remembering the full sub-title to Darwin’s Origin of the Species during a debate with Giles Fraser? After all, Bishops who covered up for priests who raped children were “only humans who made mistakes,” but struggling to remember the full sub-title of a book as a sideline to a debate on a different subject is an embarrassment to all atheism!
——
I did Google “Dawkins an embarrassment” and that’s all I found—one incident,on a detail that was not the subject of the debate—and it’s the Christians who are calling Dawkins an embarrassment. I call Pope Benedict and all the past popes an embarrassment to Catholicism with much better reasons.
——-
Corita, I am further disappointed that you are using the same shallow tactics to justify your faith, and vice-versa. We were having a fairly interesting conversation before, but now you are back attributing my thought to the “worship” of Dawkins, Hawking, Harris, and Hitchens at the same time you resent that your ideas are attributed to your religion and worship of the church.
——
This thread has reached another shallow point.

Donald—I was typing while you made your reply.
—-
I gave the idea that I was a number of college students using the name Angela on the same computer to troll on this site. Whether it’s true or not, they are going with it.
—-
As for being a gay man, that was anna lisa’s rant when I wrote that her comment about her mother in law had disgusted me. You can back to see the transaction. You will also note that she thinks we are making “mating calls.”

Which brings us back to the original post.  Atheist convention baby.  “Hey good looking…it looks like you don’t have any religious values.”...“Funny you should say that, big fellow, I’ve been indulging in some hhhhhot free thinkin’....

Angela. Of course you dislike my comments about the Atheist murderers Lenin , Stalin , Mao and Pol Pot, and you snd you do not like the idea that your hero’s Dawkin family fortune was made from slave trading. The truth is bitter for you, and by your silence on Lenin and co I can only come to the conclusion that you agree with their geoncide of Christians

Good morning, friends!
Donald, make your argument against the aginst-Dawkins a bit better, please.  So far you have not disproved my claim that his book is riddled with ignorant untruths about religion and also errors in logic, not to mention that his approach is irrational.  The atheists who took his book to task are numerous, I only posted two, and your only response has been what amounts to ad hominem against them:  “attack him from an obvious position of disenfranchised rage”.  I supported my harsh words about Dawkins with facts as well as others who are far more articulate than I about the man.  Please give more support for your calling the links “pathetic”.

If you want to claim that the book stands, despite the numerous errors of fact and reasoning, then make that claim.  If you can argue against the numerous errors cited by others atheist and non-, then do it.  We can proceed from there.

Otherwise we are not having a discussion, we are having a belligerence contest and I have four sons so I get enough of that here at home.

Angela, I am not sure why your google doesn’t work.  Here is my search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dawkins+an+embarrassment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
.
You said I used “the same shallow tactics” to “justify my faith” as YOU were using.  That is incorrect.  I was not justifying my faith so much as attacking the indefensible positions of atheists who descended here like a bunch of crows onto a telephone line.  Same tactic used by the crows: noise to scare them away.  (My noise is bigger if it is supported better, doncha know.) 
The conversations about my beliefs and yours were reasonable, I thought.  But every time you fly off the handle and start calling people stupid, assigning them bad motives on the slimmest shred of evidence and insisting that you have a right to do so—while berating others for their marginal association with those who do wrong—you undermine yourself as a respectable interlocutor. 
.
Look, Angela, I see real discussion as a labor of love.  Truly.  I would never waste my love on someone who would try to turn it against me, who thought the worst of my motives, who began the relationship with boiling anger and resentment over the past which he assigned to me…who in their right mind would?  Same thing with meaningful conversation.  It’s an attempt to get at truth, engaged with another person.  Why doesn’t it deserve more respect than the garbage you keep bringing into it?  AS for my sharp words, I have never once called you or anyone else names.  I have been mocking, at the worst, and perhaps too much.  But I see it as equivalent to taking out the bb gun to fire into the air and scatter that bunch of noisy crows.  Either contribute like a human with the reasoning ability G-d gave you, or stop dominating the atmosphere of a blog with your shrieks.  Go pick through someone else’s trash and convince yourself you have found the truth in it. 
.
I am only talking about it this much because I have a feeling that it will help you in the future to pursue what you care about.  Note, this is *not* a religious argument I am making.  It’s just a slightly pedantic argument from an old teacher-type who can’t shake the desire to “school” people.  I hope you can forgive me that, take what you want out of what I am saying, and leave the rest.  It’s ok!

@ anna lisa:
mmmm…great margaritas…
Maybe someday, in that great little Mexican place in the sky…..:)

@Corita
From where I am standing, it looks like you actually supported your argument with the opinions of a handful of atheists. Sorry, but supporting opinion with opinion does not equal facts. Also, pointing out an obvious bias (rage) is not an ad hominem ;). I still plan on reading that pdf but I won’t be home until tonight. Cheers until then!

“What amounts to an ad hominem” is what I said, as it is basically the same when you claim bias but offer no substantiation of said bias.  I know the difference. WINK WINK.
—- -
I gave those links to atheists to support my claim that other atheists find him insufferably ignorant and also a boor.  Those links, and others if you want them, give support to that claim.  Arguments are acceptable as supporting evidence if you are trying to build a case that others feel the a certain way.
—- -
Within those atheists arguments arguments about what an embarrassing atheist he is (he is called an anti-theist by some, which amounts to prejudice of the NON intellectual kind) are also specifics pointing out his ridiculous errors, also.  Again, I would prefer to do my own but don’t have the book.  The fact that he was criticized by so many people for not knowing what he was talking about is common knowledge.  In fact, I *think* it is the basis for the invention of The Courtier’s Reply.
—- -
You say that the point of the book is whether there is a case for the existence of G-d.  That is actually not true, if I recall that was about the first half.  He makes a summary chapter claiming that there certainly can be no god because “Who made the maker?”  and lets that stand as most of his argument against a complex creator G-d of Judeo-Christian flavor.
Even *if* you think that is a strongly argued section, the rest of the book, about morality and religion, is completely downhill. 
—- -
Please let me know if you can make any arguments about the errors in Dawkins’ work.  As a scientist I find his literalism about Darwin to be unimaginative and lacking in common sense.  But that is really an opinion; some think common sense is an illusion and I don’t really have a case to make there, not one I am interested in wasting my time on.  So I would rather stick with Dawkins the Uneducated writer about religion.  Easy pickings there.

anna lisa—looks like you and Croita are planning a “gay” time in paradise with margaritas. Do your husbands know?

Corita—I pasted your link and got the same articles—did you actually look at any of them, of did you just count the the number of articles that contain the words “Dawkins” and “embarrassment?” There is no atheist blogger blushing with shame over Richard Dawkins, only a bunch of conservative Christians picking over minor details that have nothing to do with the conversation—much like Con above who wants to focus on atheist atrocities as though that proves there is a Catholic god.
——
anna lisa wants to go back to the subject of Jennifer’s post—which Jennifer is not paying any attention to—and ignore me, except for implying I’m a gay man.
——
If we’re contemplating imaginary scenarios,  I’ll bet going to confession made her feel better, but I’ll also bet the did not tell the priest about her thoughts on her mother-in-law—or her “lesbe” friends suggestions to you.
——
Corita—if you will think about it, we did not start getting hostile to one another until I expressed by disgust at anna lisa’s comment and my loss of any respect for her moral character. Why should I cut her any slack over what she wrote about her mother-in-law? Why do you think she now imagines I’m a gay man on the rebound over a broken heart—and why do you think she counts that as a reason to disregard me?

I’m sure it has not escaped your attention that they drew a whopping 10,000 people. :)
Meanwhile 600 showed up in my city alone to the religious freedom rally Friday, but the major newspaper apparently could not be bothered to spare any resources.  Just sayin’.

My apologies, I am referring to the U.S. “Reason Rally” (gotta love a title that condescends right off the bat).

Almost hilarious.  Actually nauseating.  Corita, your grasp of the subject is so beyond “Legion” (for we are many)aka——?, that I have to commend you for your ability to rise with grace and manners above the unending stream of poor excuse swill.  “Legion” always resorts to the same tiresome tactics to hide behind.  I love that term “howling gibberish” that Simcha coined.  So apropos.  Ahhhh Sunday.  I’m going to close my laptop as it seems to have opened a vent into Hell.  Gross. Who on earth makes fun of the sufferings of Jesus?  Someone with serious mental health issue—or worse.  I have zero tolerance for blasphemers, and am shaking the dust from my sandals.

Ah, “Blasphemy!”—the cry of the truly desperate who needs the crutch of a religion to justify herself.
—-
Who is making fun of the suffering of Jesus? I just think it’s sick to need to be reminded of such cruelty every Sunday and believe he suffered “because he loves you.” Think about it—a god who has his own “sinless” son tortured and killed isn’t going to have a problem with the suffering of us “sinful” humans.
——
You are certainly going out of your way to prove to yourself “right.” Let us know when you’ve convinced yourself.

Angela, sorry, I forgot the important detail that you have to look at your sources in a google search result.  I know I am always trying to teach it to my students; it doesn’t seem to be common sense, go figure.  I went past the Christian sites on the pages to the atheist discussions because I wasn’t interested in the Christian world’s response to him.  If you look at the stuff I posted about Dawkins, in my comment above, you will see two or three. Or go to the second or third page of your search and look for the obviously skeptical/atheist pages.  It shouldn’t be too hard. 
.
Obviously not all atheists feel that way about Dawkins, many think he is just wonderful.  I can only guess that it is at least partly due to his providing enough of a “legitimate” framework for those who are looking for one that they can funnel their prejudices into, a good structure and release for their desire to look down on others.  See…it’s not a religion thing, that.  It’s a human thing.  You don’t need a traditional G-d to do it, all you need is an idol.
.
Finally, you really have no idea what anna lisa meant about her MIL, because jumped on her instead of asking for clarification. **I don’t know what she meant either**, and would never pass judgment on her without knowing better. I can give her a benefit of the doubt based on “knowing” her online, and would go from there if it interested me enough.  But I certainly won’t talk about her with you anymore because your intentions do not seem to be good, and.. well, because it is petty and stupid.
.
The conversation essentially ended following your immature name-calling fits at anna lisa and others AND when I realized that you are claiming to be one person, then many, then ???an enigma!!...again, there is nothing about religion that I need to make the decision not to converse with someone who is not even honest enough to present him/herself in a basically true way.  Like I said, use a pseudonym, shave a few pounds off, whatever….just don’t be a liar.  I don’t do well with liars and bullies.  My “Christian charity” muscles are really taxed by that.  Other far better people than I would do better.  I just don’t.

BTW, here is a basic lesson on the suffering of Christ. I use it with middle and high school students.  It is *purely* theological, so try to read it on its own terms before you reject it, so you can understand it better.  I offer it as a kind of correction to your misunderstanding and shallow view of the Sacrifice as merely some transaction.  (It *is* that, too, but that is not the point.  This is one other part of the proverbial blind men’s elephant, as it were.)
.
Jesus’ mission, in one sense, was to show us what it means to live a life of loving integrity, and accept the inevitable consequences of love in a fallen world.  Love can be glorious and uplifting, it also (sometimes simultaneously) can bring us suffering.  Even children know this: sharing with other when we don’t want to, forgiving friends who have hurt us, making sacrifices as they see their parents do on a regular basis, standing up for what is right even when people will dislike us for it.  Adults know, too, that we must sometimes give up personal advancement for the good of others, or be called upon to risk our lives for others or for an ideal.
.
In this life we, understandably, want to avoid suffering.  But doing that all the time will mean falling far short of the loving, best selves we are called to be. Jesus’s suffering is the inevitable result of choosing a life of total loving integrity in a fallen world.  His suffering is precious to us because it shows us that He was willing to follow through on speaking and living the Truth no matter what it cost, even terrible pain and death.  If He died and left us alone, the cross would be nothing but a murder weapon.  But the cross becomes beautiful as a sign and instrument of His life of love with total integrity. 
.
It is also beautiful to us because His free choice to live and die with integrity means that we may now take our sufferings in this life and give them to Him, so that they might be More than suffering, that they too will be conquered by True Love which is stronger even than the fear of, and the reality of, suffering and death.
.
It is this transformation of suffering that has been the basis of the transformation of countless lives throughout history, lives of depravity, despair and victimhood into lives of courage and meaningfulness.  My own life is like that.  I know many others.

BTW, here is a basic lesson on the suffering of Christ. I use it with middle and high school students.  It is *purely* theological, so try to read it on its own terms before you reject it, so you can understand it better.  I offer it as a kind of correction to your misunderstanding and shallow view of the Sacrifice as merely some transaction.  (It *is* that, too, but that is not the point.  This is one other part of the proverbial blind men’s elephant, as it were.)
.
Jesus’ mission, in one sense, was to show us what it means to live a life of loving integrity, and accept the inevitable consequences of love in a fallen world.  Love can be glorious and uplifting, it also (sometimes simultaneously) can bring us suffering.  Even children know this: sharing with other when we don’t want to, forgiving friends who have hurt us, making sacrifices as they see their parents do on a regular basis, standing up for what is right even when people will dislike us for it.  Adults know, too, that we must sometimes give up personal advancement for the good of others, or be called upon to risk our lives for others or for an ideal.
.
In this life we, understandably, want to avoid suffering.  But doing that all the time will mean falling far short of the loving, best selves we are called to be. Jesus’s suffering is the inevitable result of choosing a life of total loving integrity in a fallen world. 

(cont)

(cont, part 2)

His suffering is precious to us because it shows us that He was willing to follow through on speaking and living the Truth no matter what it cost, even terrible pain and death.  If He died and left us alone, the cross would be nothing but a murder weapon.  But the cross becomes beautiful as a sign and instrument of His life of love with total integrity. 
.
It is also beautiful to us because His free choice to live and die with integrity means that we may now take our sufferings in this life and give them to Him, so that they might be More than suffering, that they too will be conquered by True Love which is stronger even than the fear of, and the reality of, suffering and death.
.
It is this transformation of suffering that has been the basis of the transformation of countless lives throughout history, lives of depravity, despair and victimhood into lives of courage and meaningfulness.  My own life is like that.  I know many others.

Corita—aren’t you reading anything? anna lisa has every opportunity to explain herself, or refute my objections to her remarks about her MIL. Instead the is avoiding the issue altogether by imagining I am a heartbroken gay man, flirting with Donald, and finally declaring her intolerance of blasphemy.
——
I’ve noticed the articles against Dawkins that you cited all have to do with “The God Delusion” and not his other works. ‘Nuff said.
——
Corita, the idea that I’m a number of people is a passing comment I made on another blog when two posters suggested my I was pretending to be another person they considered a troll. I forget if one of them was anna lisa or if she was referring to comments from “Claire” and “Deb,” with whom I traded barbs. A lot of people on this site are suckers for conspiracy theories and I just jumped in. I keep forgetting irony and sarcasm are not easily recognized here—many religious people can’t handle ambiguity or uncertainty.
—-
That’s another thing about religion—apologists have no sense of humor.

I wonder why the heroec Dawkins does not go to Saudi Arabia to preach his anti religious bile, I note that he was one those who were the arrest the Pope when to Pontif came to London in 2010 of course he had not the courage to attempt it all he could do was spreak to a tiny crowd of 2000, while a mile away Benedict had 80,000 listening to him, and as I said Yesterday his family fortune came from the slave trading of his ancesters. What a role model to have

Corita—
—-
“His suffering is precious to us because it shows us that He was willing to follow through on speaking and living the Truth no matter what it cost, even terrible pain and death.  If He died and left us alone, the cross would be nothing but a murder weapon.  But the cross becomes beautiful as a sign and instrument of His life of love with total integrity.”
——
That is a lot of work to make an instrument of torture and murder a “beautiful” thing to contemplate, and to convince gullible people that the victim was a willing participant in the sacrifice. Get real—didn’t Jesus pray for a way out? If he managed find a way, don’t you think he would have jumped at the chance? The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.
——
Jesus is a prototype of a martyr—used by all religions as an example of “death with dignity,” except for Christopher Hitchens who kept his integrity while Christians believe he is in hell for his atheism.
——
Sure, people get “epiphanies,” if you will, that they can stop living in sadness, misery, and guilt by changing how they think. That’s how many Catholics become atheists. Maybe, vice-versa, but there are many fictions that one can identify with, and I find the Christian fiction oppressive and depressing—not to mention heartless, as exampled by anna lisa’s moral judgement of her MIL (it still pisses me off).

“I’ve noticed the articles against Dawkins that you cited all have to do with “The God Delusion” and not his other works. ‘Nuff said.”

Um, how is that again?  You don’t get how it works.  Follow the arguments I made and it makes perfect sense.  I started off talking about his book, and I followed up on it.  He doesn’t know what he is talking about.  he even claims that he—get this—*doesn’t need to study a subject in order to make an intelligent argument about it.  Some skeptic.

Look, make an argument (instead of a sarcastic remark) and you get respect and dialogue.  Otherwise, no.

“Get real—didn’t Jesus pray for a way out? If he managed find a way, don’t you think he would have jumped at the chance? The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”
.
Since you are convinced that pulling a few sentences out of an entire series of paragraphs is a real tool of criticism, I will highlight just this one of yours.  Jesus prayed that “The cup would pass…If it is Your will, Father.”
.
Again you jump on the attack without knowing the subject matter. “The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”  This is also a very silly argument.  You can assert that any smart person would have done something else rather than go to his death…run away… hide, maybe?  It might even make sense—heck I definitely might do it, and I can’t claim that I wouldn’t, if given the chance to live with integrity and face death, or run away, that I wouldn’t run.  BUT you can’t argue that it is untrue or ludicrous, or anything, really, contrary, because most people wouldn’t.  *That is the point.*
.
By the way, Socrates came way before Jesus.  He was a brilliant man.  He *accepted* his death sentence from the state, the story goes, because he believed in the state’s authority to execute him.  He chided those who were weeping over his demise.  He drank the poison with his own hand. 
.
It is difficult to contemplate the death of *any* martyr but the truth is they exist, Christian and non-.  To dismiss it all with the wave of your rhetorical sniffing is extremely foolish.  Dying in support of something larger than yourself is real, and has happened throughout all of recorded history.  You might as well claim that soldiers who die in battle are mere archetypes and nothing more than a symbol to base a war machine on.  People do that, of course, and they are nothing but ideologues
.
Hm.  Like fundamentalist Dawkins, actually.  Willing to come up with theories of free will without the proper scientific support.

“Get real—didn’t Jesus pray for a way out? If he managed find a way, don’t you think he would have jumped at the chance? The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”
.
Since you are convinced that pulling a few sentences out of an entire series of paragraphs is a real tool of criticism, I will highlight just this one of yours.  Jesus prayed that “The cup would pass…If it is Your will, Father.”
.
Again you jump on the attack without knowing the subject matter. “The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”  This is also a very silly argument.  You can assert that any smart person would have done something else rather than go to his death…run away… hide, maybe?  It might even make sense—heck I definitely might do it, and I can’t claim that I wouldn’t, if given the chance to live with integrity and face death, or run away, that I wouldn’t run.  BUT you can’t argue that it is untrue or ludicrous, or anything, really, contrary, because most people wouldn’t.  *That is the point.*
.

“Get real—didn’t Jesus pray for a way out? If he managed find a way, don’t you think he would have jumped at the chance? The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”
—- -
Since you are convinced that pulling a few sentences out of an entire series of paragraphs is a real tool of criticism, I will highlight just this one of yours.  Jesus prayed that “The cup would pass…If it is Your will, Father.”
—- -
Again you jump on the attack without knowing the subject matter. “The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”  This is also a very silly argument.  You can assert that any smart person would have done something else rather than go to his death…run away… hide, maybe?  It might even make sense—heck I definitely might do it, and I can’t claim that I wouldn’t, if given the chance to live with integrity and face death, or run away, that I wouldn’t run.  BUT you can’t argue that it is untrue or ludicrous, or anything, really, contrary, because most people wouldn’t.  *That is the point.*

Corita—OK I looked a few pages back, and all who call Dawkins an embarrassment to atheism are on conservative and/or Christian faith-based blogs. For example:
—-
www.chrstianforums.com.
Neiman\‘s Blog (SayAnything Blog)—obviously a Right-wing conservative blog when you look at the other posts.
www.protectthepope.com
www.afaithtoliveby.com
www.conservapedia.com (puleeeze!)
www.arn.org—a Creationist/ID promoting website.
——
Here is Richard Dawkin’s own response:
—-
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/504646-richard-dawkins-is-an-embarrassment-to-atheism
——
The “embarrassment” issues/debates are all based on Dawkins as the author of “The God Delusion.” NONE of the sites bring up any of his books on the reality of evolution. There are some opinion comments by atheists disagree with Dawkins’s and “New Atheist” position that all religions are corrupt and evil, but, I told you before that atheists, like Christians, are a mixed group. And again, these are about Dawkins’ atheist, “God Delusion” works, not his standing as an evolution biologist.
—-
You really should read his “The Greatest Show On Earth” (I haven’t had a chance to read “The Magic of Reality” yet.) before you knock him off your list.
——-
What do you think of my response to your worship of the crucifix? Isn’t god just another idol Christians funnel their prejudices into—a good structure and release to look down on others?

Sorry, that post on Richard Dawkins site was from another blogger. Here’s a video of RD reading his hate mail.
——
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/504646-richard-dawkins-is-an-embarrassment-to-atheism
——
If you have a problem with MY swearing, I suggest you skip it.

Angela, my response about the crucifix is in spam.  I couldn’t find any way to get it to take, not even breaking it up into parts.  I will try again later.  You should try to come up with something better than just replying to one sentence, though.
—-
I told you that my criticism of Dawkins as an anti-theist writer about religion was the argument I was making.  (I read the Selfish Gene but found the fundamentalist Darwin thing off-putting, as in “See, it is in a mother’s interest to let another woman raise her child.”  This was back before he seemed to have any understanding of empathy, I think.  But it is a digression.)  My recurring point has been about his ignorance—you keep ignoring it with your diversionary tactics, and it’s obvious for anyone to see that is what you are doing.  I can’t stomach Dawkins, reading his hate mail or dancing a jig.  His self-satisfied smirk makes my stomach turn.  I have the same reaction to other religious cult leaders and bigots.

Again I am sorry your google skilz aren’t very good, let me help.  Here are some links that have NOTHING to do with that Frazier thing:

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1508

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-dawkins-refuses-to-debate.html

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/richard-dawkins-an-embarrassment-to-the-atheist-community

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/504646-richard-dawkins-is-an-embarrassment-to-atheism

If these mention Fraser it is only in passing, they are about his personality, the bigotry he regularly displays, his refusal to debate people by claiming they are too stupid to be debated, and etc.  Some of the links I posted already.  Sigh.

Ans you continue to come clean on whether you are, indeed, on person or more, and at this point your deliberate obfuscations, about that AND about discussion points, makes me not likely to believe you anyway.

*continue to avoid coming clean, that is.

Let’s try this post one more time.  Maybe this edit is the charm:
.
“That is a lot of work to make an instrument of torture and murder a “beautiful” thing to contemplate, and to convince gullible people that the victim was a willing participant in the sacrifice.”
This is an odd thing to say.  I can’t figure out what “work” you mean, or why it is “a lot.”  I tried to explain a spiritual understanding of the Cross and you reply that it is “work…to convince gullible people.”  Do you have anything to say that is not colored by your prejudices?  Are you *still* here with the sole intent to insult?  Or do you just. not. know. how. to be open to an idea on its own terms, even for a few minutes, to understand it? 
.
“Get real—didn’t Jesus pray for a way out? If he managed find a way, don’t you think he would have jumped at the chance? The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”
Do you mean Matthew 26:39?  Jesus prayed “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will.”
.
I wonder what you think your statement that I quoted here really signifies? You can assert that any smart person would have done something else rather than go to his death…run away… hide, maybe?  It might even make sense—heck I definitely might do it, and I can’t claim that I wouldn’t, if given the chance to live with integrity and face death, or run away, that I wouldn’t run.  BUT you can’t argue that it is untrue or ludicrous, or anything, really, contrary, because most people wouldn’t.  *That is the point.*  The death becomes about something else.  If you were imprisoned for years in a dark hole in the ground, you would love the agent of your rescue, as well. 
.
Socrates came way before Jesus.  He was a brilliant man.  He *accepted* his death sentence from the state, the story goes, because he believed in the state’s authority to execute him.  He chided those who were weeping over his demise.  He drank the poison with his own hand.  Out of honor and integrity.  You might choose differently, but that does not make it less honorable (to those who think so) that he did it.

Let’s try this post one more time.
“That is a lot of work to make an instrument of torture and murder a “beautiful” thing to contemplate, and to convince gullible people that the victim was a willing participant in the sacrifice.”
This is an odd thing to say.  I can’t figure out what “work” you mean, or why it is “a lot.”  I tried to explain a spiritual understanding of the Cross and you reply that it is “work…to convince gullible people.”  Do you have anything to say that is not colored by your prejudices?  Are you *still* here with the sole intent to insult?  Or do you just. not. know. how. to be open to an idea on its own terms, even for a few minutes, to understand it? 
—
“Get real—didn’t Jesus pray for a way out? If he managed find a way, don’t you think he would have jumped at the chance? The bible portrays him as a good man, but not an idiot.”
Do you mean Matthew 26:39?  Jesus prayed “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will.”
—
I wonder what you think your statement that I quoted here means?  It seems silly on its face. You can assert that any smart person would have done something else rather than go to his death…run away… hide, maybe?  It might even make sense—heck I definitely might do it, and I can’t claim that I wouldn’t, if given the chance to live with integrity and face death, or run away, that I wouldn’t run.  BUT you can’t argue that it is untrue or ludicrous, or anything, really, contrary, because most people wouldn’t.  *That is the point.*  The death becomes about something else.  If you were imprisoned for years in a dark hole in the ground, you would love the agent of your rescue, as well. 
—
Socrates, a brilliant man of integrity, also *accepted* his death sentence from the state; as the story goes, because he believed in the state’s authority to execute him.  He chided those who were weeping over his demise.  He drank the poison with his own hand. You might choose differently, but that does not make it less honorable (to those who think so) that he did it.

OK, Corita, you are suckering me into doing work for you. I remind you that you acknowledged my comment that these blogs are focusing “The God Delusion” and not his other works. Going back to the Frazier debate, where the first articles that came up on my search were citing, is a rather cheap move on your part.
——
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1508
——-
I was unable to check out who the Andy Walsh that wrote this blog (it’s a common name), but he has fairly neutral credentials a philosopher and not a religious zealot. However, he is criticizing Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” as an attack on religion:
<quote> “I sometimes imagine him, pre-publication, preparing to launch his rant, both irreligious and anti-religious in form, cloaked in the assumption that nobody would take it seriously. Were he ever to have displayed a sense of humour I would be tempted to make this thesis the central argument of this blog.” </quote> The article starts out as an attack, and even though there is no indication as to whether Mr. Walsh is a Christian, agnostic, atheist, or something else, he indicates his bias against Dawkins from the very beginning of the post.
———
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse
——-
Mr. Ruse of the Guardian post, is an atheist. I’m guessing this is the quote that interests you:
<quote>Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them.</quote>
This certainly flies in the face of the people on this site that claim atheism is another religion and that we “worship” Dawkins, et al. Aside from that, Mr. Ruse is arguing for a more tolerant atheism than how Dawkins and others present it. As an atheist living in the American South and “surrounded by ardent Christians” he is more interested in denying that science and Christianity are incompatible—opposing Dawkins’ assertions. He doesn’t live in a community where atheism is popular and has social pressure to be more diplomatic about his atheism.
—-
Mr. Ruse’s blog post and the comments it generated prove that atheists debate with each other—duh! He also keeps his opinion that “The God Delusion” made him “ashamed to be and atheist” as his own opinion—he is not representing ALL atheists, as you, Corita, seem to imply.
———
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/05/richard-dawkins-refuses-to-debate.html
———-
I almost brushed off this one—“archbishop-cramer” is religion biased by name—and the post crows about Dawkins’ refusal to debate Prof. W.L. Craig. Dawkins said the debate would look good on Craig’s CV, but not on his own.  Clearly the editor(s) of this post are biased (to put it politely) against Dawkins under any circumstances, and the insults to Dawkins mirror and vitriolic comments made on this site—by me or others. Dawkins’ reasons for refusing the debate are similar to my reasons for not debating with Con, above—it would be a waste of time and energy that can be put towards better conversations.
———
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/richard-dawkins-an-embarrassment-to-the-atheist-community
———
You must have made a mistake with this site—the post is about a post on the Friendly Atheist about Ray Comfort (!!!) challenging Dawkins to a debate for $10,000. Ray Comfort is one of the creationist fundamentalist inflicting himself on in this country—and he is the one who said that Dawkins is an embarrassment to atheists. The blogger is a Dawkins fan.
———
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/504646-richard-dawkins-is-an-embarrassment-to-atheism
———
It look like I accidentally pasted this link on my own post above,—apparently it wasn’t replaced on my clipboard when I attempted to copy another site. Shows you I did look at it before, and I have to be more careful to edit my replies.
Mr. Wallace “dared” to criticize Dawkins on the richarddawkins.net site! Should I be yelling “blasphemy!” like anna lisa? I did follow the links to Wallace’s profile on the site, and he explains the post:
<quote>I’m just saying “I’m an atheist but maybe Richard Dawkins isn’t a good ambassador”.</quote> Here is the link to Wallace’s profile:
———-
http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/142377
——-
So there you have it—I concede that some atheists agree with some Christians that Dawkins is too harsh and condescending to on the subject of religion. You are obviously going to side with the atheists who want to compromise, rather than read up yourself and challenge us atheists who hate religion for the poison it is. (Now you know—though I mentioned it before.) It can make nice ladies like anna lisa harbor wicked judgements against the suffering of others.
——
I share Richard Dawkins’ contempt for people who are willfully ignorant and force their ignorant beliefs on others people’s lives.

My reply to your links was spammed so I try it in pieces:
OK, Corita, you are suckering me into doing work for you. I remind you that you acknowledged my comment that these blogs are focusing “The God Delusion” and not his other works. Going back to the Frazier debate, where the first articles that came up on my search were citing, is a rather cheap move on your part.
——
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1508
——-
I was unable to check out who the Andy Walsh that wrote this blog (it’s a common name), but he has fairly neutral credentials a philosopher and not a religious zealot. However, he is criticizing Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” as an attack on religion:
<quote> “I sometimes imagine him, pre-publication, preparing to launch his rant, both irreligious and anti-religious in form, cloaked in the assumption that nobody would take it seriously. Were he ever to have displayed a sense of humour I would be tempted to make this thesis the central argument of this blog.” </quote> The article starts out as an attack, and even though there is no indication as to whether Mr. Walsh is a Christian, agnostic, atheist, or something else, he indicates his bias against Dawkins from the very beginning of the post.

My replies to your links are getting spammed, so I’ll try the short version. I took closer looks at the sites your listed and found them either biased against Dawkins as an atheist, or as a bad ambassador of athism. One of the references must have been a mistake on your part, because Ray Comfort’s opinion is considered ludicrous by anyone with common sense. The blogger herself is a Dawkins fan. I made mistakes myself when I accidentally pasted unintended links—one of your references. He was one of the atheists who objected to Dawkins’s uncompromising manners.
Obviously this flies in the face of those who claim all atheists worship Dawkins and consider his words as dogma. But it’s not a consensus among all atheists that he is an embarrassment.

Of course my opinions are colored by my prejudice—aren’t yours?
—-
You want me to “call a spade a spade” but you don’t want to call a crucifix a crucifix? Socrates took poison because the only alternatives were more painful—I’m sure he would have taken anyway out of it if he could. Like Hitchens, there was no way of “not dying” and he put his efforts to die with dignity and help his friends deal with their grief. So many Catholics are dancing on Hitchens’ grave and like to believe he is suffering eternally for his atheism.
—-
I’m here to agitate, which may or may not include what you call insults. People here give as good as they get.
——
Obviously, your esoteric explanations are too intellectual for me. I still don’t understand how Jesus’ torture and execution, with or without his willing participation, “rescues” anybody from anything. Who is in a dark hole in the ground—literally or metaphorically? How many times do you need to be told that we are not suffering, or in a dark hole, because we haven’t “found Christ?”

Oh, looks like my long text reply was cleared and posted.

Angela,

The Catholic concept of hell is eternal separation from God. Isn’t this what atheists actually want to be separated from God? even though there is not a single Catholic who can objectively claim where Hitchens is right now. We don’t speculate much on this topic.

“I still don’t understand how Jesus’ torture and execution, with or without his willing participation, “rescues” anybody from anything.”

It’s God becoming man and reaching out to the depths of humanity, in everything, including it’s suffering, death, and resurrection and forever transforming how humanity views these things.

What separates Christianity from other religions is that it holds the literal resurrection of the body, that takes place on the last day for all those who die in a state of grace and friendship with God.

“For example: Yes, you can defend a peace- and love-based moral code from a purely atheistic point of view. You can point to the fact that more humans survive when we live in harmony together, that we may have an “altruistic gene” that makes us want to do nice things for others, etc. But who’s to say that harmony and survival for the greatest number of people should be our highest goals? You could just as easily advocate for a values system in which the survival of the fittest is the highest aim, and the weak are considered worthless and expendable. It sounds revolting, and it is. But it’s also perfectly defensible from an atheistic point of view.”

Indeed I think that ‘atheist morality’ is highly volatile and bent towards failure… and PETER SINGER (and Dawkins who likes to agree with him) is living PROOF for that.

Although appalling to some, Peter Singer’s ideas that justify infanticide (or other ‘appalling’ acts) are quite logical and consistent… IF AND ONLY IF you accept his premises of course.

Peter Singer hence shows that atheist morality does not even exist. If you accept his premises they only things that exist are ad hoc rules that will inevitably follow more from personal taste rather than real logic.

I thank Singer for offering such proof ;)

As you say Jennifer:
“I imagine that one day someone will get on the stage at one of these conferences, and propose a new moral code in which the strong exterminate the weak and take all their possessions for themselves, thus ushering in a glorious age where only the most superior genes remain in the gene pool. Everyone in the crowd will gasp and fidget uncomfortably…and then realize that they cannot argue against it without stepping outside of their own atheist-materialist worldview.”

indeed if you accept(reductive) materialism and moral relativism as many ‘free-thinkers’ do in a quasi-dogmatic way then you cannot really argue that killing an infant is wrong.

You can argue that murder of a certain person has ‘certain effects’ upon people and society, but you can never argue in terms of right and wrong and possibly not even in terms of ‘better or worse’, really.

So an atheist view of the world cannot tell you that eugenics, slavery or genocide are wrong.

Of course they ARE wrong and *not* because they sound appalling, but also because Peter Singer premises (and materialism and moral relativism) are intrinsically wrong (and often irrational).

—-

“
Have you ever wondered why it supposedly took God seven days to create the earth? I mean, if you’re God, why not just do it in one day?
“

I suppose those atheists never read St. Augustine works :P

THE FUNNY THING IS:

They think they are the only ones or the first ones to ‘ask questions’... and they do not realize they are asking questions that have been asked (and often answered!) by religeous people (especially Catholics) for centuries.

Sorry about all of my numerous attempts to post getting released from spam at once!  What a mess!
.
@Angela.  I NEVER claimed there is “a consensus among all atheists that he is an embarrassment.”  If you don’t want to go back and read upthread, fine.  Take my word for it, or don’t.  My comments about Dawkins were that he doesn’t know what he is talking about (I posted a link to 160 errors he made in his book) AND that some other atheists find him unintellectual and a boor.  (Also links I posted)  You say “he indicates his bias against Dawkins”  ..EXACTLY!!!  My point is bias!  I am not saying, “here is a neutral review of Dawkins, read it, I am saying, “People think he is awful!  Here is proof!”
.
Why don’t you try to prove me wrong instead of weak arguments.  Or realize that you are out of your league and be more humble.  If I had to repeatedly admit that I didn’t understand something and was trying to get answers about it, I wouldn’t ALSO claim that I knew what I was talking about, was better than other people, and was “hanging around to agitate.”
.
You can’t seem to figure out who you are.  Your writing style shifts contantly, and is full of insults.  You can’t stop long enough to talk to other people about things you think are important.  So, please.  Stop insulting people.  Stop lying.  Figure out what you want, even on some very basic level.  THEN talk.

“Obviously, your esoteric explanations are too intellectual for me. I still don’t understand how Jesus’ torture and execution, with or without his willing participation, “rescues” anybody from anything. Who is in a dark hole in the ground—literally or metaphorically?”

These are GOOD questions.  Anyone who is a Christian would want to talk to you about them….if you weren’t simultaneously being rude and misrepresenting yourself.  Cut the crap, if it matters to you to understand.  Notice I don’t say believe, accept or agree with.  Just understand.  It’s a basic intellectual act.

(and ALSO the basis for morality without a god!)

**It was bothering me how cranky I was in the last longer post.  My teacher self is on overdrive—not your fault at all—

I meant the sentiment about figuring some things out.

I’ll say I was in overdrive in my student mode-I spent too much time on this and it’s getting trivial.
—-
OK, you side with atheists who find Dawkins “too harsh” and I side with the atheists that finds we need a strong representative to stand up against the Christians who are trying to re-write history and science to their liking and brush reality aside. But the issue is over “The God Delusion” and not his other work as the “rottweiler for evolution.” and you shouldn’t brush him off completely just because he offends your religion.

@savvy—it’s not what atheists want, it’s what you Catholics want to believe—that he is shocked to find out he was “wrong” and there is a god and it is an “eternal torment” to be separated from him. Catholics/Christians are dancing on his grave because he is not only dead, he is suffering in their version of hell.
——
I’ve had pleasure reading obituaries too, but dead is dead. There is no “afterlife” with or with out a god.
—-
“What separates Christianity from other religions is that it holds the literal resurrection of the body, that takes place on the last day for all those who die in a state of grace and friendship with God.”
—-
Go back to the bible passage I pasted from Corinthians—You HAVE to believe in a god or your whole religion/church falls to pieces. It’s written by the Saint himself. You simply are to terrified to consider that there isn’t a god because your world will be shattered. Many an atheist who has left the church found personal freedom by breaking out of that mindset.
——
If he existed, Jesus died on a crucifix—and I can’t believe he was a willing participant in his own execution as there is no indication in the gospels that he was suicidal—and he has been dead for 2012+ years now. GET OVER IT!

If you watch a video of Dawkins reading his hate mail, It’s obvious that people think he’s awful—he is offending their religious beliefs. The attacks are ad hominem, like many here, and they have no valid or cogent arguments against what he is saying. I think you find him awful the same way—you just think he is wrong because he offends you. You’ve often written the same thing about me.
——
My real problem with the worship of a man crucified—god’s son or not—is that Christians have turned his torture and execution into a virtue. Google “Mother Teresa on suffering” and scroll past the Catholic sites that praise her and them, and you will find the secular blogs (not just Hitchens) of people who have been there:
——
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/racket.htm
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm
—-
And even on this blog, you have a video of her perverted ideas on suffering:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mother-teresa-on-suffering
——
Teresa is just one example of the devastating suffering Catholics spread, and her legacy endures because of her twisted logic. (She was PDQ about leaving India and getting the best medical care money could buy when her own health started to fail.)
——
I’m beginning to see why anna lisa things her mother-in-law’s suffering is supposed to “bring her back to god.” It’s a sick philosophy on which to base moral behavior and judgement.
——
Your explanation of “transcendence” is a lot harder to accept than the simple fact that Jesus (if he existed) was crucified because of political, not spiritual, purposes.

Look, Angela, if you want to continue to insist I just dislike Dawkins because he doesn’t like Christianity, go ahead.  You are wrong.  I can keep saying it over and over:  I dislike him because I dislike ignorant bigots.  He is one. 
-
If you want to continue to insist that you know what and why I think, and it is in direct contrast to what I am saying (over and over and over), then I am done with this.  In the old days I would be calling you out for a duel.
-
BTW, There are many atheists who are not insufferable, uniformed prigs.  Hitchens was kind of a prig, too, but he had moer reason to be. He was better read, better informed, and knew more about religion; moreover *he was a real intellectual* unlike Dawkins. 
-
My husband is an atheist.  Sometimes quite offensively so.  Do I think he is obnoxious because he disagrees with me about religion, or he can be annoying about it?  NO.  (He is obnoxious, though, sometimes.  As am I).  But he is an *real* skeptic.  He acknowledges what he doesn’t know enough about to talk with conviction.  He also agrees with me that Dawkins is a fundamentalist. 
-
“Your explanation of “transcendence” is a lot harder to accept than the simple fact that Jesus (if he existed) was crucified because of political, not spiritual, purposes.”
I don’t know anyone who knows history who would say Jesus was NOT crucified for political reasons.  Almost everything you say, as if it means something, is insignificant to, or does not contradict, a spritual belief of Christianity.  Not to mention throwing in ever more non sequiteurs (Mother Teresa) in order to stir the pot.
-
I am putting it to you blankly:  Are you one person, or more?  And IF SO, do you care at all about having a discussion that is mutually informative—NOT qualified by the desire to insult, annoy, or convert?

I think you have gotten more attention than your behavior deserves.  Now you ought to be honest, or give it up.

“Conversion” (metanoia) means…to come out of self-sufficiency to discover and accept our indigence-the indigence of others and of the Other, his forgiveness, his friendship.  Unconverted life is self-justification (I am not worse than the others); conversion is humility in entrusting oneself to the love of the Other, a love that becomes the measure and the criteria of my own life.” -Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

FM—You’re a great example of how an intelligent person can twist logic to convince themselves of what they want to believe, and suppress information contrary to what they want to believe. Many of us atheists know believers are not stupid, which is why it drives us nuts when we discuss issues.
——
I looked up Peter Singer (whom I don’t know much about) and Richard Dawkins and all that came up is ONE video of a debate between them. Not having time to watch the whole 40 minutes, I looked for a transcript or summary in text and found this site:
——
http://cheglabratjoe.blogdrive.com/archive/63.html
——
So, supposedly, Singer is a utilitarian vegan philosopher who is an atheist and advocate of the theory of evolution. Dawkins is NOT a utilitarian philosopher or a vegan, but he is an atheist and one of the major expert advocates of the theory of Evolution. The debate was about “The Genius of Darwin” and a lot of people like to think Dawkins was zinged when he conceded that meat eating may be immoral in the light that all creatures come from the same origin, and are therefore our relatives.
——
In the Wikipedia articles about Singer and his utilitarianism: “...[Singer is] a major proponent of preference utilitarianism and himself influenced by the views of Hare, has been criticised for giving priority to the views of beings capable of holding preferences (being able to actively contemplate the future and its interaction with the present) over those solely concerned with their immediate situation, a group that includes many animals and young children. Hence, in cases of abortion, the views of the parent (however selfish or not, as the case may be) are prioritised over those of the fetus, without recourse to any (perceived) rights (here, the “right to life”). There are, he writes in regard to killing in general, times when “the preference of the victim could sometimes be outweighed by the preferences of others”. Singer does, however, still place a high value on the life of rational beings, since killing them does not infringe upon just one of their preferences, but “a wide range of the most central and significant preferences a being can have”
—-
So, where the hell do you (and Jennifer) get the idea that atheists and freethinkers (what you call “materialists” and “moral relativists”) who accept the reality of evolution go around killing, or advocating eugenics, slavery, or genocide?
——
Since the theory of evolution was introduced, science has been able to understand the nature of diseases and develop medicines and vaccines that practically obliterated diseases that maimed and killed young children world-wide. Evolution is astronomically more valuable to human well-being than Christian theories on the efficacy of prayer and suffering bringing a person “closer to Jesus.”
——
Do we have to go over the McBride case again? Singer is a nut, but I side with him that in cases where it is either one or the other that can be saved, or both dying if nothing is done, abortion is the ethical choice. If you don’t like me because of that, I really don’t give a damn.

Corita,
I believe you’re very well-intentioned, but I think you’re finally learning something others of us have learned (also the hard way):
Angela (and many of the other atheists) come to attack, but frame it as “debate”. They ask loaded questions, and then accuse you of evasion, delusion, or foolishness when you do not give them the answer they want out of you. They’re like Jehovah’s Witnesses. They show up uninvited and act really nice at the door, but they’re really just here to proselytize.

Corita—please cite some incidents/quotes that make you label Dawkins as an “ignorant bigot.” Otherwise—how do you support that opinion? I am doing my best to tell you why I am angry and frustrated with Catholics, and I think I have some valid points. I obviously am not well-read,informed, intellectual, and apparently we are at cross-purposes at what we understand about our debate.
——-
Are you another one who think that I think I know everything? Your husband may sometimes be offensive as an atheist, but he has a vested interest in not fighting with you—I don’t.
——
I think the explanation you gave me (is that better put?) of the meaning of the Passion and the crucifix for Christians is a lot of work in twisting logic to convince others, and yourselves, that there was some virtue for Jesus’ political execution. I know Catholics know that Jesus was killed for political reasons—what I don’t understand is why his particular political execution was turned into a religion. I find it hard to believe he “willingly” sacrificed himself, and how does that help anybody spiritually?  What are people (believers) “saved” from and how did his self-sacrifice “rescue” us?
——-
I am equally baffled at what what you consider insults by me. Is my attitude too sharp for you? I brought up MT because she is one of Catholicism’s prize examples—in line for sainthood—when in reality she caused more suffering and allowed more people to die because of her twisted “faith.” If you are insulted by that because you are also Catholic, then I think you should be—or can you defend her?
——
If you’re wondering whether I’m multiple persons, or one person with a multiple personality, that’s your problem.

Redbox—if you feel that way, there is a simple way to stop me.

Angela - Correct. Ignore you. :) Which is why I’m suggesting it to Corita.

Angela,

Your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.  Jesus in John 10:18 says,  “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

If you live in a physical world as you claim, then the essence of things is based on it’s purpose and end. This is classical natural law.

Looks like you have been infected by cultural subjectivism.

Redbox—I was thinking of another way.

Savvy—are you angry because I think Catholics are obsessed with the political execution of someone over 2012 years ago? You got that right.
Deal with that to.
——
How do you know you are not just a brain in a dish in some god’s laboratory?

Angela - I am sure you were.

By the way, you are also “Donald”. Deal with it. It’s foolish. Deal with it. It’s delusional. Deal with it. Deal with it. *GACK* It’s baffling. Deal with it. I’m utterly scandalized. And all that. Deal with it.

Whew.

Ah, dear Angela, our time is through.  A few thoughts in parting:
—-
You have proven here on these threads to have all the worst qualities that people have criticized religion and religious people (rightly so, when true) for having and being, throughout time immemorial.  To wit:

-an uniformed clutching at your ideology without the desire to learn more,
&
-prejudices about those who believe differently from you that you have no interest in examining,
&
-the overwhleming drive to proselytize, held as so important as to keep you from seeing the true humanity of others around you; indeed, placing it above all other moral values leads you to degrade, denigrate and otherwise try to eliminate the humanity of said people
&
.....worst of all….
-an intense need to continue doing all of the above, to occupy your mental time so completely with those thoughts and feelings, so that you may continue to justify those actions against the cry of your conscience. The need is apparently so strong that you will even become a liar!—- so that you will not have to think. at. all….or examine….or face the fact that you could be wrong….
-
If you will ignore ideas, refuse to become more informed, denigrate, dismiss and even LIE to avoid facing up to your fears—what wouldn’t you do?

And What Are You?

You are exactly what atheists despise in religious people.

Angela,

S"avvy—are you angry because I think Catholics are obsessed with the political execution of someone over 2012 years ago? You got that right.”

Argument from calendar date.

“How do you know you are not just a brain in a dish in some god’s laboratory?”

I have a body. Its through my body that I interact with the world around me.  It is not a foreign place I occupy. It is not external to my being. I can stub my toe and it hurts, because I live in a physical world.

@Redbox-
I saw the other warnings but I always have to give it the old college try.  It is both a virtue and a vice.

BTW “Angela”,
I do hope and pray that you find your heart’s true desire.

Corita,
It’s also known as masochism. ;)

@Redbox-
Ahahaha!  Well don’t you know that is ALL Christianity is?!!?  BLINK BLINK

Oh- also, all the Jehovah’s Witnesses I ever met were straightforward, honest and good-natured people.  So I think you kind of give them the shaft if you compare them to Angela, Inc.

Corita, sister, you’re a giver.  Prayed with all my guts for atheists at mass tonight…“And the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us.”  Happy Feast of the Annunciation!  Your work is not in vain. Edified by everything you wrote. XO

@someone has way too much time on his hands.

Redbox—first anna lisa tells me I’m a gay man getting over a break up and now you’re telling me I’m Donald. I don’t know if Donald is still following this site, but I’m sure he’d be amused.
——
Corita, maybe what is confusing me is why you chose the Catholic faith instead of any other? Sometimes it takes a lot of exchanging barbs and questions before we really know what is bothering us.
——
I know you don’t like what I am saying, and how I’m saying it, but it still seems to me that I’m only getting yelled at when no-one can come up with an answer. That is probably my fault, or maybe it’s the misunderstanding that comes up when people are talking different languages. Neither of us understands the context of the other, so we clash and feel insulted by ideas that are “foreign.”
—-
An aside: There’s a Monty Python sketch about an English-translation book that “translated” common tourist phrases into obscene statements in the other language. It’s very funny.
——
Maybe I’m dense, but I still think it’s a fair question as to why the particular execution of a man over 2012 years ago somehow became the basis of your religion. St. Paul acknowledged that without the death and resurrection, there would be no church. I honestly (if you believe I can be honest as an atheist) don’t understand—why then, why him, and why did he have to “willingly” die for human “sin?” I don’t understand why we’re supposed to be born in “sin” and need “saving.”
——
These beliefs obviously are basic to your self-perception, moral values and judgements, but it seems to me that my only real “insult” to you is when I ask questions about why you believe what you believe. I’m honestly repulsed by anna lisa’s attitude toward her mother-in-law, and Mother Teresa’ infliction on India. And yet, atheists (if not me personally) are accused of being moral relativists.
—-
To me, you don’t seem to be able to accept my inability to believe some kind of religious event happened because a particular person was tortured and executed. The ideas attached to that event—that he was willing to sacrifice himself, that he was really (the son of) God, that he did it to save “us” and somehow it does—take a lot of effort to believe. That’s what I meant about “a lot of work.”
——
I notice you have no rebukes for the people who think atheists advocate genocide, slavery, and killing the “not fittest,” but you’re quick to tell me that I don’t know anna lisa well enough and I should give her a break, then someone comes up with a lot of conspiracy theories about me.
I got tired of trying to explain myself, usually because of the ad hominem attacks.
——
OK, it’s late in my time zone and I should get some sleep.

Look, “Angela”- you seem like there might be a decent person there inside of you—but you are not going to get anywhere until you stop lying.  Go back and read what I wrote about being the worst caricature of human ignorance, atheist or religious.
—
“..maybe it’s the misunderstanding that comes up when people are talking different languages. Neither of us understands the context of the other, so we clash and feel insulted by ideas that are “foreign.”” 
.....Yeah, you can keep telling yourself this if you want. It might even be true that this is the problem sometimes when you talk to some people.  But I assure you that your ideas are not “foreign” to *me.*  That is not the problem.  You, and your aggressive prejudices are the problem.
—
If you really want to talk to Christians—not hold them hostage for debate, not trade barbs, and certainly not attack with the intent of “stirring them up” (IE, bullying)—then start over—here or somewhere else—and do it with honesty and integrity.

I would be willing to talk about your questions if you were to do the above, btw.  But if you don’t think you can bring yourself to be honest and start over here, then try another Catholic site like this one:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/

It is a pretty good site for getting your apology questions answered…If you truly want that.  I haven’t been on it for a while because the political vibe is often too conservative for me, BUT there are a lot of very well-educated and articulate people there.  Best of all, *that is what it is for.*
 
**Beware, though.  They will not tolerate your nonsense over there.  They can smell the disingenuous a mile away.**

** Oh, darn it, when I say “there might be a decent person there” I did not mean to to imply that I know otherwise, or specifically that I know the truth of your goodness or moral standing.  I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully.  What I was referring to is the orientation toward learning and knowledge.  I do not claim to know anything but what your actions here appear to be.  My apologies.  ****

@“Angel”, I love it that above,I have the privilege, of being insulted in the same breath as Mother Teresa. As I told you before, one of my weaknesses is trying to understand what makes people tick. I’m really curious about something.  You are obsessed with how I treat my mother-in-law.  Strange.  How exactly do I treat her?  You act as if you know.  I really don’t want to go back and forth on anything, and least of all, do I want to be a gossip, but I guess there is sufficient anonymity to simply state again with concrete examples, that when the framework of choices available to us change from the “natural law” that I believe is written on each human heart to the secular humanist morality that my MIL promulgated in her household you get the train wreck results that my husband and his siblings have genuinely been tortured with—not to mention my poor MIL who is very alone and depressed as a result.  My family shows her a lot of tenderness.  Two days ago, my eighteen-y.o. spent the entire afternoon with her, just keeping her company and chatting with her.  I was stunned by this, because, my daughter spent a month with her in Europe and it was not easy to say the least.  I for my part kiss and hug her, and have never had ONE sharp word with her.

(cont’d)  I can’t count the amount of times we have had dinners, Christmases etc. that we have had to endure her “potshots” about the Church, religion, my side of the family and Americans in general.  I know you discount this but I pray for her every day with a true desire that she experience a conversion from all of her hellish bitterness.  My MIL’s only daughter doesn’t speak with her.  Why?  Because the pornography, license, adultery, abortions, brothels, drugs, etc. created an atmosphere of such degeneracy that she was raped by her own brother.  When my husband was a child of eleven, his brother gave him a live demonstration of how he would rape the maids.  All the while my MIL obsessed with her children having “elite” perfect manners etc. Their family is/was very prominent.  I could indulge you with so many more shocking details, but to what end?  The story is truly horrendous.  The good news, is, that my husband, at a critical point in his life, was put in an academy that was considered the best in town. He was befriended by some Evangelical Christians that were utterly noble and who lived their faith with a lot of simple beauty. So my husband came to the Catholic faith via Baptists.  Now he is an ardent Catholic, who loves to go to daily mass.  He is a joyful, loving man, and proof that God never abandons anyone, even when the deck is utterly stacked against them.

@Corita - You’re right, that was cruel and unfair to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

You’re really convinced I’m lying because 1. I responded to snide remarks, between Clarie and I forget who else on another post, that first started the idea that I might be more than one person; 2. the meme was spread to this post—-I think the person in common was anna lisa, who took it up and changed me into a gay man getting over a breakup when she got upset about my response about her judgement of her MIL; and 3. now Redbox has suggested I’m Donald. In general, everyone on this site is convinced I’m here because, as an atheist, I really despise you and I’m being a troll.
——
How are you going to believe me whatever I say?
——
I see anna lisa came back as A.L.—I’m not saying you “treat” your MIL badly, I’m saying you harbor a hateful judgement against her because she will not turn to your religion and “forgive” the abuse that has been done to her. Maybe you hide it well when you are with her, but you did claim she is bitter and angry (see your post of 3/23) and you won’t give up on her returning to the faith. If you and your husband share the view that “she is addicted to the pus in her own heart,” I sure that comes across, even if you don’t preach to her. That would make me angry too.
—-
I’m willing to bet that A.L. didn’t look at the posts about MT and the Missionaries of Charity being a pigsty where people die of diseases that can be treated or even cured. You expect me to look a critical posts of people I admire, but you won’t even look to critical posts of your near-saints and popes—you forgive anything as long as the criminal is Catholic.
—-
To both Corita and “A.L.—You are complaining about my attitude, but you are not answering my questions. Believe it or not, I don’t ask them because I intend them as “rude questions.” I said before that I honestly want answers to them. There are a lot of mythologies before Christianity that have virgin-born gods who die by ritual sacrifice and return to go through the cycle again. Your’s is nothing new, and people had civilized morals before your religion took hold.

“that first started the idea that I might be more than one person; 2. the meme was spread to this post…”
Sorry, “Angela”, you were given the opportunity to prove you are not just being deliberately obnoxious or, worse, manipulative.  You didn’t take it.  So matter what, you are engaging in deceit.
—-
I could go on about your other passive aggressive machinations, your boring ideas and your complaints about how nobody will talk to you now as if there is no reason, but there is no point.  If you want your questions answered, be honest and forthright.  If you do actually care about what is true, don’t offend the truth with your “all is fair when I am doing X” moral blindness.  You have no leg to stand on, accusing other people of the evils of history, if you come in under totally false and manipulative pretenses.  You might just be young and undereducated, but the truth is that here are behaving as a hypocrite.  So: stop it, and let’s talk…. or go away.  It’s really simple.
—-
So- I have said all I have to say on it. My conscience is now clear.  Re-read the stuff I wrote if you are still confused about where I stand.

A.L., I read your continued posts and can understand that your MIL and husband came from a really f**k up family—and your husband was lucky enough to get into a loving, stable family that happened to be Baptist and he made the choice to become Catholic. Were all of your husband’s family atheists? Is it possible your MIL became atheist to split from her f**ked up family (sorry, that the only way I feel it can be expressed), just as your husband became Christian/Catholic because of her bitterness, drug-abuse, etc., which obviously was bad for him as a child, and he wanted a total split from her? Is your mother still a junkie? Is your husband’s family from a different country (you said she takes potshots at Americans in general). You description suggest she was involved with the sex-industry—not willingly. It is a horror story and I can hardly imagine how she deals with it. It never ends in one generation—the disease is passed on. But do you really hold her to blame because she cannot “forgive?” That’s a helluva lot to ask of her after the horrible life she lived. Would you expect her to fall for MT’s explanation that her suffering brings her closer to Jesus? 
——
It’s a healthy, survival move to rebel and to do everything you can to be “not part” of an abusive family—even to reject or take up the religion or atheism of the abuser(s). Some times society places too much value on keeping children with their parent(s)—a lot of children have been returned only to get killed by their abusers later on. Did social services take him from his family? I’m glad you husband has found some peace, and I wouldn’t begrudge him his faith.
——
Do you know if your MIL’s parents/husband were Christian/Catholic? Were they part of this sex-drug-pornograpy business? Was your father-in-law an atheist and also involved in the business. I’m asking because I what to find out how religion or non-religion affected the morals and actions of the people involved.
——
You gave me a better description of the kind of dark hole you feel the need to be “saved” from, and why you need to be reminded of the suffering of a tortured, dying man every Sunday, if not more often. I haven’t had anything like the experiences you describe, or had any long dealings with anyone who has. Believe it or not, I’m beginning to understand your judgement of her. 
—-
So, pleases stop assuming I despise you personally How can you expect me to just take up your beliefs without anything to go up on.?

Angela,

A book you might want to read is G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy or C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” They should have the answers you need.

Moreover Catholics don’t think something is false, because other people discovered it.  It just might be true, since there is a natural law written in all our hearts and the human quest for God is universal.

Savvy—I read the C.S. Lewis books before, but not all of Chesterton’s.
I think I’m beginning to understand how your faith works on an emotional level—after AL’s horror story. I won’t argue over anything that “gets you through the night.”

Sigh.  (Ha, ha, to even attempt this in a paragraph is comical)Someone please kick me for going for the bait…I feel like the devil is playing me, and even Angel himself has ADMITTED he enjoys “taking people down” for the fun of it.  Corita you were vulnerable on two fronts, mother AND teacher.  For me it is just mother.
.
Okay class, let’s talk about animals.  Male lions crack me up.  Once they’ve beaten up the competition, they get to lie around, mate with a bunch of females, and have their meals brought to them.  Are they sinners? No. I have known a few *human* males that operate on the same level.  Seriously.  Are they sinners?  Absolutely, however the seriousness of the sin depends upon their ability to grasp what they have done (the million shades of gray).  (Is it any wonder that women say, “what an animal!”  when men paw at them…)
.
I’ve read that the human brain has layers.  The innermost portion controls impulses similar to what governs a reptile: think food,survival, and mating.  The next layer is mammalian, you get my drift.  So what sets us apart as humans?  That which makes us most like God, RATIONALITY. So here lies the conundrum:  The tree of “knowledge”, which is rationality, ushers us into a whole new level of existence.  At some great “tipping point” we became capable of something fearful and wonderful: the ability to choose “right” from “wrong”, while still frighteningly close to that beast that we evolved from.  The more we choose love, even if this unselfishness is difficult,(and our inner reptile is compelling us to a different choice) the more Godlike we become.  We evolve.
.
As for the issue of pain itself, I will repeat myself: it gives me the faintest inkling of how serious sin actually is—how *incongruent* it is with God, and relationship with Him.  For a reptile, or a mammal this self reflection would be impossible.  Communion with God, impossible.
.
In my tiny, puny, human brain, I have witnessed how pain that is endured with the proper perspective, refines the soul—the simple example that I used in the depths of the thread:  My daughter used to moan, and complain about acquiring more designer clothing.  After her Dad lost his job, she had to get a job, which deepened her understanding of the value of money, and work well done.  She couldn’t really learn this from a book.  She needed to live it.  She is a much more refined young lady because of it.
.
Pain refines when it is not rebelled against and is approached with unselfishness.  Pleasure seeking for its own sake corrupts,makes us less human and becomes a replacement for God (idol worship).
.
Ah the conundrum…(the scandal of)the cross vs. The survival instinct.  “Greater love has no man, than to lay down his life for his brother.”  The assent we make to this self sacrifice, in this world (“Plato’s cave”): Is the ****FREE***** “yes” God desires from “His” adopted children.  Not only are we free to say “yes”, we are stupendously given the sublime power to “co redeem”. Our pain freely offered (our life laid down), united to the cross of God, brings grace into the world and helps to save others as well.  This is called “the communion of the saints”.

Angel, (lol, Half the time, I can’t even come through on actually enforcing it, when I “ground” my kids)I will second Corita’s wish, that you find true happiness.  I wrote you something else on suffering that is in Spamland. But after that, I second what Corita recommended to you about Catholic apoolgetics. Really quickly, (if my kids are going to get dinner…) As for my husbands family:  My F.I.Law had advanced degrees.  He ran an American firm in South America. My MIL went to Swiss “finishing school” when she was younger, and did the women’s studies later.  She in particular was from (what appeared to be) an extremely “upstanding family”.  Everything was about “pomp and circumstance” and status…Think Italian suits and pedigree, not money from the “sex trade”.  Think Latin machismo in terms of how women are treated. My husband was never removed from his home.  Interestingly enough, my MIL used to keep a portrait of her parents,(mother in a floor length mink coat), standing next to the Pope above the fireplace in her home.  My mother-in-law is a woman in pain, who can’t come to terms with the *reason* why she is in pain…and I’ll say it again.  I love her,I forgive her, for the abuse she subjected my husband to, and hope she can find peace in God some day.  ps As for MT, read the article in NEW ADVENT about the 22 year old who is “mother” to 13 orphans in the squalor of Uganda—take note on her observances of joy, sanitation, and what she thinks true poverty is.

@“Angela-o”, you are always up to your same vituperative tricks.  To equate or reduce love of God with “horror stories” and “what gets you through the night” makes me stop questioning your gender and start questioning if you are an actual human being.  Your vomit on Mother Teresa’s legacy, really gives you away.  I bet it REALLY ticked you off when she picked up that first human being, made in the image and likeness of God, out of the gutter, lovingly removed the maggots out of his wounds and held his hand while he died. LOVE TRIUMPHS OVER HELL! P.S.I wrote two comments in the spam folder while “cradling” my sick three-year-old.  They were not just for you.  I offered our sufferings with the sufferings of God-made-man. What I wrote can be boiled down to one reality:  “Man, when he chooses SELFISHNESS, chooses Hell. (even if that man looks “successful”, or “elite” on the outside.) Man when he chooses self sacrificing LOVE (no matter the cost) chooses Heaven.  Your derision have actually helped me to understand the theology of why some men and angels fail the test.  Their pride, misguided self sufficiency and obsession with “self” causes them to choose eternal separation from God—otherwise known as Hell.  God sends no soul there.  Your soul was made eternal, whatever your choice is FIXED in, will last for eternity.

Oh, and awesome realization at mass tonight:  The sin in “the garden” of our humanity was twofold, the sin, and what is critically needed before the remedy, represented by a woman named Eve and a man named Adam:  The sin itself:1.“I am the master of my existence” (I don’t need God)—(self worship) and 2.  Lack of proper contrition—inability to take accountability for the sin: “It was——who is at fault”.  We can’t be forgiven, unless we acknowledge we are culpable, and ASK for forgiveness.  Jesus Christ is the remedy.

anna lisa- I read the Holy Father (Blsd JPII) on the Garden:  The story shows us that the *immediate* effects of sin are alienation: from innocence, from the Creator, from each other…. Our first parents were ashamed of their nakedness, hid from G-d, and tried to blame each other!
—-
Our alienation is the mark of our Original Sin.  Everything else about Salvation History is, I think, a story of Reunion.
—-
I think you are on to something in this thing about acknowledgement of culpability.  It’s not just a guilt/justice thing….It’s an act against disunity, against alienation.
—-
I am going to have to remember this.  I struggle *mightily* with apologizing to my husband, because he does not do it himself very often and I keep thinking that it will somehow mean an “imbalance of power” between us.  Ha…the lie of power…I didn’t really realize how that ties in so well with that story of that first temptation!  It is the story of humanity!

anna lisa—you either did not read my reply about what kind of family you said your husband and MIL came from, of that I let off on how his conversion to Christianity/Catholicism made his life better for him. You also still think I’m a man—what is the Angel—Angelo sh%t?
——-
A.L. and Corita—Can’t you believe that many of my questions arise because of my ignorance of your situation and many of your questions to me arise because of your ignorance of my situation. Be fair—If my anger toward Catholics in general upset you, don’t you think your anger towards atheists would upset me? It seems obvious to me that general statements have set both sides over the edge of patience and resulted in our insulting and/or feeling insulted by each other.
——
The only thing you know about me is that I am atheist—everyone on this site has made up everything else you think about me—that I’m a compulsive liar, have a hateful agenda toward Catholics, kill and eat unborn children, have a depraved sex life, and am generally evil, all because of my atheism. Like Con above, you believe that all the atrocities started by “godless” national leaders, like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (sp?) were in the name and because of their atheism.
——
You’ve given examples of evil atheists, and I’ve given examples of evil Catholics, and we’re both painting the general populations with the same brush. Can’t you understand that both Catholics and atheists can abhor genocide, sex abuse and physical abuse, and other evils?
——
Yes, I came her because I was angry and wanted to agitate the Catholics here in general. Why?—because you, in general, seem so damn arrogant and self-righteous that your religion makes you better people than everyone else. The posts on this blog denounce atheism, left-wing, liberal politics and politicians, “Darwinism,” “scientism” (a word made up by conservatives because they can’t accept having “no-religion, so try to make science a religion), contraception, and other liberal ideas and practices. You keep “praying for me,” as though you think I can’t be happy or a good person unless I believe in your god/faith/church.
——
And yes, I “vomit” over MT because she was a despicable person who exploited suffering people, and prayed with dying patients when she could have used her considerable influence and funding to create proper hospitals and provide medicine that could possibly cure them. If you can tolerate reading Hitchens, look it up.
——
Do you think I wouldn’t take care of my sick child—let it die like they do in some Christian cults in Oregon? I take no joy in my child being sick so I can play the martyr taking care of him—I want him to get better as soon as possible, with all the help I can get, so I can get on with my life and he can get on with his. It doesn’t take “faith” to care for your child—any good parent would do so. I have no plans to sell my kids for drugs.

A.L:
“That which makes us most like God, RATIONALITY. So here lies the conundrum:  The tree of “knowledge”, which is rationality, ushers us into a whole new level of existence.  At some great “tipping point” we became capable of something fearful and wonderful: the ability to choose “right” from “wrong”, while still frighteningly close to that beast that we evolved from.  The more we choose love, even if this unselfishness is difficult,(and our inner reptile is compelling us to a different choice) the more Godlike we become.  We evolve.”
——
Now I’m confused again—was eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil the original sin of humankind (especially Eve’s sin) or not? Is their new ability to choose “right” from “wrong” what caused the fall, instead of their blind acceptance of God’s commands—which included not eating the fruit of that particular tree?
——
Also, you must really hate me if you think I’m not human—and you must be enjoying your hate, as I’m sure you enjoy your martyrdom in taking care of your sick child and blaming your MIL for her “loneliness and bitterness.” I’m beginning to think you are lying about yourself.
—-
What sets us apart as humans is a relatively bigger frontal cortex than most other animals. If you watch any science/nature programs on Public Television (gasp!) you would know that scientists are learning that many animals have various levels of intelligence and self-awareness. You might also figure out that the common “reptile” brain layer that controls our basic body functions indicates the common origin of reptiles, mammals, and other primates. That’s the basic premise of Darwin’s theory.
——
You also acknowledged that life experience can teach better than reading a book—duh! Maybe if you stopped reading Catholic-based books and articles and experienced atheists as everyday people (say, in college maybe?), you may get the idea that our moral values are not much different than yours. You may also notice, if you read books that are not about the Bible or Catholic faith might just give you the idea that maybe other religions and even atheists are capable of self-reflection, moral values, and choosing between right from wrong.
——
Christians/Catholics don’t have exclusive knowledge of good and evil.

Oh, and awesome realization at mass tonight:  The sin in “the garden” of our humanity was twofold, the sin, and what is critically needed before the remedy, represented by a woman named Eve and a man named Adam:  The sin itself:1.“I am the master of my existence” (I don’t need God)—(self worship) and 2.  Lack of proper contrition—inability to take accountability for the sin: “It was——who is at fault”.  We can’t be forgiven, unless we acknowledge we are culpable, and ASK for forgiveness.  Jesus Christ is the remedy.
——
I see you are taking Jennifer’s advice on how to deal with doubt.

To anyone reading, who does not understand the teaching on reason and free will (ability to choose right from wrong):
We were created with the ability to choose.  It was not a consequence of Original Sin, it is part of our nature.  Indeed, it is part of the way we are “in the Image and Likeness of G-d”:  We are free, not slaves.  That was the plan all along.
—-
Our ability to reason is part of that same originally-intended nature, our “image and likeness.”  That gaps and imperfections of our ability to reason are there as a direct result of the alienation and fallout from choosing evil over good.  (eg, it’s the archetypal example of things we experience now: how your mind becomes befuddled by drink, stress, or justifying things that you know in your heart to be wrong.)
—-
p.s. To Angela:  *I* don’t hate you because you are an atheist.  I don’t even dislike you for that reason.  I dislike your behavior, which is deceitful, bigoted, and (unrelentingly) manipulative.  If you want to say that is due to atheism, then that is you saying it.  Not us.

“Angel”, whoever you really are:  Thank you for improving the quality of your conversation from when you were taunting men, asking them if they were virgins, discussing sex positions, and taunting that mother of a priest by saying her son didn’t like sex.  How about when you said you would drink a glass of water while Claire burned?  To Con: “you are so stupid, you give stupid people a bad name”.  WHO is PROUD and looking down on OTHERS? Listen, I abhor hate, but most of all I am grieved when you ridicule the passion and death of Christ.  That stands alone, in a whole separate level of “disgustingness”. That you would claim that I “enjoy” the sickness of my child and denigrate the life long advocate for the poor, Mother Teresa, (that even the world saw fit to give a Nobel Peace Prize), shows how truly blinded by hate you are.  The only reason why I continue to address you, and others like you is that I am saddened that you are alienated from God.  That you, and the other rebels like you can look at this beautiful Earth, and the cosmos around it, and conclude that it all just appeared from NOTHING (yeah, that really makes sense), and that you are waiting for God to give an even greater sign or simply don’t care, (and want to continue being promiscuous) is simply obstinate.  That you rail at me for observing why my mother-in-law’s promiscuous life (obstinately selfish choices) has caused her (not GOD!)to be lonely, angry, and alienated is beyond me.  Yes, I pray that she repents, and my husband, one of her victims, has already forgiven her.  I am not God.  I’m simply a housewife and mother, who wants you to be united with your loving creator—(and I have a dirty floor to prove it) I will continue to offer our sufferings, united with the cross of my beloved Jesus, so that you, and others like you can be reconciled with THE Love, and that perhaps one day you can recognize that you were made for so much MORE than this pilgrimage on Earth.  What I have done here is laughable compared to the sufferings of Christ who redeemed you—but even He won’t force you.  I can’t coax you out of your cave, “Angela”.  All the best.  Now I REALLY have to correspond to my primary duty.

@Corita, Thank you for your clarification.  Our poor world is indeed groaning under the weight of so many choices of sin.  Thank you, God that the remedy is more powerful than the illness.

Angela, What a disguisting woman you are bashing Mother Teresaand telling to read a book by a drunk who contributed nothing to this worls only to spread his Marxist hate, Hitchins was nothing but a liar and a coward bashing the kind acts of a good old lady to get a few bucks for himself, so why don’t you just clear off this thread you hatefull ignorant person, you have nothing to contribute here JUST GO

How could we know to choose between right and wrong and have freewill if Adam and Eve didn’t eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
——-
Again, I don’t think you’d be preaching the Bible and sermons to me unless you have doubts because our conversations. Suddenly con is making ad hominen attacks against Hitchens instead of dealing with what he writes, anna lisa and Corita are making ad hominen attacks against me and all of you are painting all atheists with the same brush.
——
Go to church, see your priest, read your Bible, see a Catholic psychiatrist, pray, surround yourself with people who think just like you, try to convince yourself that you believe completely and without a doubt that Catholics are the only good people on the earth and everyone else is reveling in depraved sex, drugs and other “chosen” evils. Then pretend that you don’t look down on others. 
—-
From anna lisa:
“p.s. To Angela:  *I* don’t hate you because you are an atheist.  I don’t even dislike you for that reason.  I dislike your behavior, which is deceitful, bigoted, and (unrelentingly) manipulative.  If you want to say that is due to atheism, then that is you saying it.  Not us.”
—
Yeah, right—so how come you think I’m a gay man?

Angela, “Could you tell me what Hitchins did not humanity before he shuffled of this mortal coil” last year. Hitchins was not in Mother Teresa’s home for the dying in Calcutta,how do you write a book about MT if you have never been to Calcutta and met the woman, but you in your hatred and bigotry would swallow any old trash from your fellow Atheist

Con—my first reply is being reviewed and will probably be rejected as spam, so I’ll just paste the link and hope it gets through.
——
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/the-squalid-truth-behind-the-legacy-of-mother-teresa/
——
You Catholics are exceedingly good at not finding out what you don’t want to know.

anna lisa—I am united with my loving creator. My mother and I are very close.
——-
You went a long way back to look at my earlier posts—still trying to prove to yourself that I’m evil? I thought you liked “feisty atheists”—or was that Corita?
——
In any case you are going to great lengths to count my “sins” so you can find reasons to disregard everything else about me. If you don’t have any doubts, why go through all that trouble? If I’m totally wrong, why should that matter to you?
——
Jennifer’s newest post is on the difficulty of staying with your convictions when it’s inconvenient. You might find it interesting. Why is it convenient for you to think I’m a gay man? Is looking up my past comments to other people as well as to you, easier than checking yourself?

“Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity in 1950 in Kolkata, answering her own calling to “serve the poorest of the poor”. In 1969, a documentary about her work with the poor catapulted her to global celebrity. International awards fol-lowed, including the Nobel Peace Prize and a Congressional Gold Medal. But when, in her Nobel acceptance speech, she described abortion as “the greatest destroyer of peace today” she started to provoke controversy. She died on 5 September 1997, her name attached to some 60 centres worldwide, and India honoured her with a state funeral. Her seven homes for the poor and destitute of Kolkata, however, are her lasting monument.”

“[Donal MacIntyre]: I worked undercover for a week in Mother Teresa’s flagship home for disabled boys and girls to record Mother Teresa’s Legacy, a special report for Five News broadcast earlier this month. (May 2010) I winced at the rough handling by some of the full-time staff and Missionary sisters. I saw children with their mouths gagged open to be given medicine, their hands flaying in distress, visible testimony to the pain they were in. Tiny babies were bound with cloths at feeding time. Rough hands wrenched heads into position for feeding. Some of the children retched and coughed as rushed staff crammed food into their mouths. Boys and girls were abandoned on open toilets for up to 20 minutes at a time. Slumped, untended, some dribbling, some sleeping, they were a pathetic sight. Their treatment was an affront to their dignity, and dangerously unhygienic.”

“Volunteers (from Italy, Sweden, the United States and the UK) did their best to cradle and wash the children who had soiled themselves. But there were no nappies, and only cold water. Soap and disinfectant were in short supply. Workers washed down beds with dirty water and dirty cloths. Food was prepared on the floor in the corridor. A senior member of staff mixed medicine with her hands. Some did their best to give love and affection – at least some of the time. But, for the most part, the care the children received was inept, unprofessional and, in some cases, rough and dangerous. “They seem to be warehousing people rather than caring for them,” commented the former operations director of Mencap Martin Gallagher, after viewing our undercover footage.”

Volunteers (from Italy, Sweden, the United States and the UK) did their best to cradle and wash the children who had soiled themselves. But there were no nappies, and only cold water. Soap and disinfectant were in short supply. Workers washed down beds with dirty water and dirty cloths. Food was prepared on the floor in the corridor. A senior member of staff mixed medicine with her hands. Some did their best to give love and affection – at least some of the time. But, for the most part, the care the children received was inept, unprofessional and, in some cases, rough and dangerous. “They seem to be warehousing people rather than caring for them,” commented the former operations director of Mencap Martin Gallagher, after viewing our undercover footage.

I first learned of the plight of the Kolkata children from two international aid workers, both qualified nurses and committed Catholics. They came to me after working as volunteers for the Missionaries of Charity last Christmas. Both made the comparison with images that emerged from Romanian orphanages in the early 1990s after television news teams first gained access.

“I was shocked. I could only work there [Daya Dan] for three days. It was simply too distressing. . . We had seen the same things in Romania but couldn’t believe it was happening in a Mother Teresa home,” one told me. In January, she and her colleague had written to Sister Nirmala, the new Mother Superior, to voice their concerns. They wrote, they told me, out of “compassion and not complaint”, but received no response. Like me, they had been brought up in Catholic schools to believe that Mother Teresa was the holiest of all women, second only to the Virgin Mary. Our faith was unwavering, as was that of the international media for about 50 years. Even when the sister in charge of the Missionaries of Charity’s Mahatma Gandhi Welfare Centre in Kolkata was prosecuted and found guilty of burning a young girl of seven with a hot knife in 2000, criticism remained muted.

Susan Shields, formerly a senior nun with the order, recalled that one year there was roughly $50m in the bank account held by the New York office alone. Much of the money, she complained, sat in banks while workers in the homes were obliged to reuse blunt needles. The order has stopped reusing needles, but the poor care remains pervasive. One nurse told me of a case earlier this year where staff knew a patient had typhoid but made no effort to protect volunteers or other patients. “The sense was that God will provide and if the worst happens – it is God’s will.”

The Kolkata police force and the city’s social welfare department have promised to investigate the incidents in the Daya Dan home when they have seen and verified the distressing footage we secretly filmed. Dr Aroup Chatterjee, a London-based Kolkata-born doctor, believes that if Daya Dan were any other care home in India, “the authorities would close it down. The Indian government is in thrall to the legacy of Mother Teresa and is terrified of her reputation and status. There are many better homes than this in Kolkata,” he told us.

——
Hey—when I posted the article in parts I didn’t get spammed out. There from the site I posted to Con.
—
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/the-squalid-truth-behind-the-legacy-of-mother-teresa/

You don’t like Hitchens, but I’m posting this link anyway. He did do his research and no one has shown anything against it.
—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANpj1qqFr1c

Angela, please. Have mercy.  (At least on my family that needs me), but I am absolutely LOVING, LOVING, LOVING, defending the honor of Mother Teres, my sister, whom you have vomited upon again—still so HAPPY you insulted me with her!!!) Mea Culpa on the “gay man suffering from a bad break up—Not a jibe, just your vibe” Lol. Come on, tell me it isn’t true!! My sense of humor gets me in trouble some of the time. (Who are you really, anyhow, cause sistah you aint no college co-ed :) Heh. O.K.  Back to the matter at hand—Mother.  Teresa.—“50 million in the bank”—Oh yeah.  I’m picturing her in Vegas in the eighties, slugging down Long Island Ice Teas in the pool. (There it goes again) Oh please!  Who are you actually kidding, or are you that big of a Hitchins Head??... Please consider this:  My husband handled revenue on some big bond trading contracts for almost all of the Wall Street “biggies” (lol, even they don’t pay their bills on time)  Revenue can be complicated, funds inaccessible.  Big banks are NOTORIOUS for playing dirty pool to hang on to funds.  Second, I have pee, sitting in an Elmo potty RIGHT NOW, cause I care about your soul.  You should hear my daughter shouting “I’m DONE, Mommy….I’m DONE!!!!!!—When she’s camped, and needing me to wipe her—because I don’t want you to spit on the legacy of Jesus in torment on the cross.  Yes, I have had kids, fall asleep almost into their plate at the dining room table.  I forget about them on play dates occasionally. FYI, infants LOVE to be bound tightly when they are little, it reminds them of the womb, and calms them. I have eight kids.  We all exchange war stories about the times when this, that and the other happened, and it REALLY HIT THE FAN. Despite it all we are really close, and it has refined our sense of humor.  We tease each other, but hug a lot (often after we step on each others’ toes). We LOVE each others’ company.  My nearly 25-year-old and I marvel over science (he had the periodic table memorized in the 7th grade), philosophy, History, etc.  He keeps me on my toes, and maybe even corrupts me a bit…  I have learned not to judge narrowly for the sins of my brother. I “get” the “human condition” more than ever.  I know that’s like “troll me please Angela” (cause that’s what you’re famous for)  But let me put this ALL, ALL, in perspective. WE LABOR IN OUR WEAKNESSES.  THIS IS NOT HEAVEN. I DO NOT excuse any human who had impatience with ANYONE at ANY ORPHANAGE in CALCUTTA or their other outreach locations.  LEAST of all a sick orphan.  But are we human?  Do we fail?  Oh DEAR GOD yes.  Human selfishness and comfort seeking is nefarious, AND NOTORIOUS.(oh I love confession, cause I really, REALLY want to be GOOD!—Just got to get up and keep on trying) Just because they put on the blue and white mantle doesn’t make them any less a “WORK in progress”, like you or I.  Are you *really* that NAIVE?  Better that they never set up shop?  Let the Hitchins society SHOW THEM UP.  Really show those lame slackers how it’s done.  (Almost funny)  Let me end this on a couple of notes.  Mother Teresa has helped me to be a better person and a better mother.  A better lover of God and neighbor.  I love her.  I love her writings. I love her simple, ardent outlook.  My first experience of her was in the third grade when I first saw a film about her.  It made a HUGE impact on me.  You can say it was instrumental on my seeing the world differently, and not on 20th century, first world terms (pretty heady topics for an 8-year-old). I “got” what she was trying to convey. She was at an old folks home in England. She was simply DEVASTATED at the loneliness and abandonment of those poor old people, with all their wealth, and medical needs being taken care of, but *nobody* who cared to visit them… Poverty is not just about sanitation and the BEST of the BEST.  (Ever notice how those Africans dance and smile?)  Which countries suffer the *mos*t from mental illness?  Google that.  Google WHO needs BOATLOADS of BIG PHARMA’S PANACEA.  I hope you clicked on that article about the 22-year-old in Uganda.  Take note of the cockroaches and the rats.  I think the piece is called “Jesus ruined her life”.  And then consider this:  I have never been to MT’s “House For the Dying”.  Have you?  Do you really trust your sources?  How about this:  I know a young woman in Marin county which is one of the most “liberal” places on Earth (I do agree on *plenty* of the things they advocate for) Anyhow, I’m pretty sure she is a Buddhist. You know the stereotype—nose piercing, big yoga fan, not married to the dude with dreads to his waist who is the baby Daddy…Anyhow, she spent a summer at the “House for the Dying” in Calcutta the summer after she graduated college.  Her eyes literally GLOWED with admiration, when she described her experience there.  In addition to her first hand experience I’ve read enough from enough sources.  Goodnight “Angela”.  Go ahead, call MT anything else, I’ve defended my dear sister and now there is nothing else to say—you made my night getting to defend HER of all people, but I’m NOT NOT NOT going for the Hichins groupie B.S. ( P.S.,  My husband sort of thanks you for me doing this, because he got to watch an episode of “White Collar”.  My kids thank you because they are running around with dirty teeth and no PJS and it is 9:06. Some of them have fled next door for a bonfire.  Thank God it’s Spring Break.  Now I’m free, and yes, now I pray for atheists, tenderly, EVERY DAY.)

Angela.You are being funny of course. First let me deal with Dr Chatterjee. a Kalkotta born Doctor based in London. If this medic is so concerned with the quality of MThomes, why does he not go back to his city and open a home for destitite children, of course he will not, too busy earning lots of money in London such a hypocrite, now Mc Intyres report was made in 2005 , 8 nyears after Mother Teresa,s death, how is this lady responsible for the running of a home in Kolkutta if she is dead answer me that. Hitchins did his research, how did he do his research when he did not go to Calcutta,and another question for you , If your Atheist hero was so concerned why did he not,and Dawkins and the other Catholic hating Atheists open a home to care for the sick.As Lisa what Have Atheists done. what did Hitchins do for his fellow human being, of course Dawkins ancesters were slave traders, What did those great Atheists Lenin and Stalin do for humanity, of course you would answer as an Atheist say murdering Christians, Come Angela give us some answers Anna Lisa and I are waiting

anna lisa—your making up false ideas to defend your precious MT—no one said she was drink in and gambling—she was raising funds from honest people who believe she was helping the poor, and socking it away in bank accounts when it could have been used to pay for decent healthcare and help the patients—babies and very sick people—to get better, or at least get pain relief and proper nutrition.
——
It’s doesn’t matter if I’m a fan of Hitchens or not—you have to prove his documentary is either a colossal lie or justify MT’s twisted policy that suffering is good because it brings people closer to Jesus. Justify why she would not send a 15-year-old boy with a treatable kidney problem to a hospital for proper treatment.
——
If you think MT’s influence stopped at her death, there is a current campaign that exposes the continued cruelty of the Missionaries of Charity established by MT:
——
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFTc6W9-6JQ&feature=fvsr
——
Is October 2011 to long ago for you? The nuns continue her work, in her name. Can you explain them? MT set them up and they are hard to bring down because of the money they bring in from suckers who have been convinced that Hitchens, as an atheist, must be lying and won’t look at real videos, and that the church is incapable of error and are making her a saint.
——
Can you deal with the issues and documented proof rather that the life and possible motives of her accusers?

Angela,

Have you see this bank account?  The missionaries of Charity take vows of poverty. The only thing MT owned was two pairs of sari’s and slippers. They only see their own families every 10 years.

So if the issue is top medical care, how could a group of nuns provide this with their lifestyle?

Why did not other doctors in India and around the world do something to provide this top medical care.

They could have, so why did they not?

This is like mugging an old lady for the social and economic conditions in a city.

As for views on suffering and poverty, the first person to hold those views was a man from Nazareth, called Jesus Christ.

These are articles written by atheists who refute Hitchens allegations.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7638/

“I imagine that one day someone will get on the stage at one of these conferences, and propose a new moral code in which the the strong exterminate the weak and take all their possessions for themselves, thus ushering in a glorious age where only the most superior genes remain in the gene pool”

Really?  Wow.  I usually really enjoy reading the NCR, but I found the above statement to be very negative/judgemental against people who don’t share your same belief.  That’s just as bad as when Atheists sling the wrathful God of the Old Testament at us (claiming that he condoned genocide and slavery). 

If you want to get “real” please realize that your statement could be, in theory, made by a Christian, Muslim, or any religion as well because it is the use of one’s interpretation as to what is or isn’t best.  Not all Christians and religions agree on this anyway. 

I’m so disturbed that this was published.

savvy—watch the video! A nun who used to be there knew of the account—how do you expect me to have seen? If I could do that, yours would be empty!
——
Look into the video—there are laws, but they take long because of government regulations and Vatican connections, and people so blinded by their religion that they don’t look at what’s going on.
—-
Press and pictures released to the public by the nuns were very carefully chosen for the best publicity. It took undercover investigators to get the true story because MT had more protection than many U.S. presidents before Obama came to office.
——
In any case, the documentaries and publications will have references to their sources of information. Think for yourselves-I’m just bringing it to your attention to give you reasons to doubt your perfection.

savvy—watch the video! A nun who used to be there knew of the account—how do you expect me to have seen? If I could do that, yours would be empty!
——
Look into the video—there are laws, but they take long because of government regulations and Vatican connections, and people so blinded by their religion that they don’t look at what’s going on.
—-
Press and pictures released to the public by the nuns were very carefully chosen for the best publicity. It took undercover investigators to get the true story because MT had more protection than many U.S. presidents before Obama came to office.
——
In any case, the documentaries and publications will have references to their sources of information. Think for yourselves-I’m just bringing it to your attention to give you reasons to doubt your perfection.
——-
Shall we continue this conversation at Jennifer’s post on convenience?

This reminds me of that big stink that happened years ago when the Catholic-haters in Calcutta started to press the government to kick out Mother Teresa, because the House for the Dying is in a former temple of The Goddess Kali.  They tried to stir public outrage that such a desecration should exist. When the government blithely informed them that when they were ready to fill her desperately needed shoes they would give them the time of day—they slithered away hissing.  It doesn’t matter what religion, society, or ethnicity a hater is from.  Haters all have the same father, and they ALL act the same.

This line of reasoning vis a vis Mother Teresa reminds me of someone saying, “Humanity is a disgusting, disrespectful and abusive race of people.  We must call them evil.  JUST LOOK at the ways they have fallen down, missed opportunities, made bad choices, hurt each other.  EVIL, I tell you.  Don’t you dare say good things about those people.  You are kidding yourself if you hold the human race up as Doing Good.”
—
And if we are talking religion here, anna lisa and all, the “imperfection” of *any* Christian does nothing to take down Christianity. I don’t care if it *is* Mother Teresa.  Iconoclasm is not some new, modern brilliance.  It was invented by the Jewish people, who fell prey to idols from time to time themselves.
—
Those who wish to smash up the sacred spaces of our minds and hearts ought to tread carefully.  They think they are schooling the Other when in fact, there is no difference between the Sins of Others and our own sins!

Again, I think there is no point in trying to argue reasonably with a non-reasoning person.  But I thought a list of some super-shocking exposes of other legacies would be nice:

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Here are two.

I looked for some atheist charities that might be in the news for their clean facilities and comforting aid.  Interestingly, they were very hard to find.  There is the Atheist Centre of India, the oldest in the world, it seems, althought I can’t tell how much activism they do vs. actual 24-hour care of those who are not cared for by anyone else.  Do you know they say *nothing* about Mother Teresa on their website?  :/

http://www.google.com/search?q=shocking+neglect+of+the+elderly&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Hey feel free to add your own!

Instead of doing research that you can do yourselves if your knuckles are not too sore from scraping the ground, I’ll ask you a question:
—-
If Hitchens, et. al. are guilty of making false claims against Mother Teresa, her Missionaries of Charity hospices, and the Vatican/MT association with genocidal leaders of the time, why don’t they slap a Hitchens, et. al., who made these “false claims” with a libel and/or slander lawsuit? There ought to be big bucks involved in slandering the Catholic Church.  I can give you two ideas just now—
—-
1. If the Church, reps for the MOCs, etc. were to sue Hitchens’s estate and/or any other parties who made the documentaries and other public statements, it would draw unwanted (by the Vatican) attention to the issue.
—-
2. Europe has a policy of “loser pays” in civil suits—in other words the party who loses the case—whether the plaintiff or defendant—must pay not only the fine(s) imposed by the court, but also for the expenses of the party who took, or was forced to pay for legal representation and work to justify their case. The Vatican is already losing $$$$ because of their scandals of abuse and the Magdalene Laundries. It’s better business to ignore bad publicity when they can’t justify themselves anyway.

“Haters all have the same father, and they ALL act the same.”

WORD, a.l.  The funny thing is that, for me, whether you are a Baptist, a Hindu or an atheist, I could care less… my only question is, “Do you care about truth?”  We can disagree on what is true but if you revile, reject and abuse the truth then I will wish you well and cross the street.

Oh, and also, if you are a disrespecter of truth while you try to moralize and in other ways philosophically bully others, then you are *definitely* going to be passed on by.  You got big problems, there.

“I imagine that one day someone will get on the stage at one of these conferences, and propose a new moral code in which the the strong exterminate the weak and take all their possessions for themselves, thus ushering in a glorious age where only the most superior genes remain in the gene pool.”
—
What if they were argue doing this, rhetorically?  I mean, not a literal extermination but the all-out war of words against the intellectually and morally “weak”, those who subscribe unthinkingly to backwards systems and “poison everything” with their stupid superstitions and excuses to monger wars?  Couldn’t those, uh,let’s call them “brights” argue that the lesser beings, the less intellectual, the backward, the craven mongers of suffering and love, ought to be followed everywhere, hounded and heckled, and made to answer for their stupidity and the crimes of their compatriots throughout history?  Maybe even we should make laws against them talking about their stupid, oppressive beliefs in public, and consign them to stay in the religious ghettos of worship where they belong?
—
I mean, what about that argument?  Can that happen someday?
...What?

Sociopaths always deflect from their own sins. They can’t sustain themselves via their own hard work and virtues…Can you imagine if the Catholic church spent all of her time fighting libel in worldly courts?  Oh wouldn’t the devil like that use of time and energy—as if there were not really a “heavenly court” to clarify justice.  Saint Teresa of Avila said “why say ‘the devil’ when you can say ‘God! God!’”  I for my part come to NCR to seek wisdom and exchange truth with my brothers and sisters in Christ.  If those obsessed with hate and the spewing of that hate are given free reign, beyond the point of decency in anybody’s book, it is my guess that all of those who come for the fresh air of truth, and have enough difficulties with what life already doles out, will start to drift away from this “watering hole”.  NCR has a great “spam filter”, what it REALLY needs is a “Troll filter”—or at least a really good policy for what is considered egregious and not worth the time and energy of those who love decency.  Sometimes “Enough” is “Enough”.  Jesus wasn’t a pansy either when the greedy and rapacious were abusing others.

Angela, You are a total joke, hoc can anyone sue Hitchens he is dead, an ex nun , that says it all.

@anna lisa, Isn’t there a sociopath in all of us?  I mean, that alienating force that values self-preservation above all else, even if it means destroying everyone around us?  It is the voice that channels our thoughts AROUND the big truth of our own sin.  I do believe that the sacraments and other methods of cultivating virtues does help…but no one is immune.
And: where is the line between desperate hanging on to denial, and mental illness?  I mean, lemme tell you, living with and knowing addicts I know the level of denial and desperation that the non-addicted person can get to *are* enough o make someone say, “That woman is CRAZY.”  That has certainly been me.  It *is* people I know right now, people whose complex responses to alcoholism and other addictions in their loved ones are literally driving them nuts.  My own mother went to the doctor yesterday to get valium so she can “cope” with living with her husband and son, both addicts.  Is she mentally ill?  Is she culpable for the things she just can’t see about her thoughts and behaviors?  Where is the line? 
—
I don’t have answers to these questions, not ones that I can state with conviction, anyway.  I just know that we are *so* prone to falling into self-obsession and denial of sin…some more than others, certainly, and I would count myself among them…but no one is immune to it; we are all still broken in that way and I *am* convinced that we will be for the entirety of our earthly life.

Ms. Fulwiler wrote: “You could just as easily advocate for a values system in which the survival of the fittest is the highest aim, and the weak are considered worthless and expendable. It sounds revolting, and it is. But it’s also perfectly defensible from an atheistic point of view.”

Even more so given the fact that many New Atheists treat Darwin like a prophet. 

I’d ask the convention if they believed in natural law (that is, whether some activities are just wrong).  If they answered in the affirmative (which I’m sure many would do), I’d ask them how that could be without a Creator of some kind.

Then, I’d listen to the crickets… :)

Corita, I think you are being a little bit too hard on yourself.  Look up the symptoms of “sociopath”.  These people are so hardened in their selfish, self preservation, that survival, and even *more importantly*, selfish pleasures are pursued in a single minded fashion with NO, or very little self reflection.  *Prayers* for your Mom and family, who could blame her for a second, being under that kind of strain?  I’m so sorry.  I hope she is a lot like you.

Thanks for your prayers, a.l.  My mother and I are quite alike in good and not-so-good ways, both.  I am so grateful for her kindness especially.  She is inspiring. 
I was trying to reflect on the ways that so many people are right on the line of abuse and obsession (both self- and other,) and for various reasons… many of them understandable, often they are also unseen by the outside world.

“if your knuckles are not too sore from scraping the ground”
-
Ah, the old “Catholics must be stupid” argument from Angela.  When all else fails, be sure to resort to ad hom.
-
Angela, really, if you actually majored in a difficult field of study instead of Women’s Studies, you would not have time for these long, ad-hom filled posts. *AND* you might actually have a more well rounded (shall we say liberal) worldview. 
-
I, for one, enjoy your presence here as a reminder of my own superior intellect.  Please keep posting, it does wonders for my ego!

“You could just as easily advocate for a values system in which the survival of the fittest is the highest aim, and the weak are considered worthless and expendable. It sounds revolting, and it is. But it’s also perfectly defensible from an atheistic point of view.”

That’s just moronic. No atheist I know has ever advocated that. You have shown that you have no idea what an atheistic viewpoint is. That opinion could only come from the religious, who believe they have a monopoly on morality and are superior to others. Your opinion is revolting, and you make me sick.

Thor Lanin and Stalin advocated the murder of millions of Christians and they were Atheists and they did what they advocated

“The New Atheists and their brethren in the secular humanist movement like to advocate for a godless value system where acceptance and goodwill toward others are prized, where people are free to be kind and loving out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because some man in the sky tells them to do so. While I appreciate the sentiment behind wanting to add more peace and love to the world, I just don’t think this works.”

You forgot to temper this comment with the reminder that over 2,000 years of Christianity and some 1,400 years of Islam have done absolutely nothing for world peace so how about giving atheists and secular humanists a few hundred years to see if they can do any better.

They could not do any worse than religious people have done could they ?

conned

Lenin and Stalin never advocated murder in the name of atheism they were ruthless dictators, yes.

They murdered millions who they thought opposed their political power Yes.

But can you find me one quote or one speech where they claimed it was their atheistic duty to eradicate people of religion ?

We often hear Religious fanatics telling us how they plan to rid the world of unbelievers.

Religious books like the bible make terrible threats to unbelievers.

Yet for all their evil atheist dictators like Stalin Lenin and Mao etc use politics to inflame hate not atheism.

As for the record of slaughter of innocents look up John 8;7

Doug,

The new atheists are not impressive. All they do is insult and then insult some more. They are an affront to the intelligence of sensible atheists.  They pretend like they know everything, and if you correct them about their falsehood. They only respond with more insults.

The clinical definition of this behaviour is known as mental illness. People following this breed has already resulted in the murder of millions.  China is a an ongoing affair, when Christians are routinely tortured, imprisoned etc.

On the bright side, this is an opportunity for Christians to display charity and love their enemies. It’s easy to have compassion on mad people.

Doug. In the 20th Century Atheists have murdered millions, and they murdered them because they were Christians. They murdered the Christians, took over their Churches and in their place in those buildings opened Museums of Atheism.So there is your answer

@con; You’re an idiot. Communists are no more representative of atheism than Matthew Hopkins was representative of Christianity. Or Torquemada. Or Hitler. And as for your “museums of atheism” claim, [citation needed]. And I mean a real source, not some seedy amateur conspiracy website. And they didn’t just kill Christians, retard. While I’m sure that feeds your persecution complex and makes you feel like your worthless, discredited death cult is something special, it’s not. Communists have persecuted Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and political dissidents just as much as they persecuted members of your religion. Funny how when some Christian retard goes on a straw-man rant about communism, they almost invariably neglect to mention that. One could almost get the impression that these high and mighty self-appointed arbiters of morality don’t care. /sarcasm/

And just to clarify; everyone on this thread who has said that the values atheists hold dear come from “Judeo-Christian” “morality” is full of it. Don’t murder, lie, steal, or cheat, are universal morals that pre-date the Christian death cult and are present in virtually every culture. Although, I suppose Judeo-Christian values are to thank for witch-hunts and antisemitism. Also, somebody said up above that “love your neighbor” is unique to Jesus, and never showed up before him. Ignorant. Ever hear of Buddhism? Buddha taught the golden rule six centuries before your “god” was even born. Not that I expect Christian to bother reading history and doing some thinking for themselves…

Duelist,

All this rambling back and forth is missing the point.  There is a natural law written on the hearts of all people, who are under obligation to inform their conscience. Christian or otherwise.

The secular humanist refusal to pay heed to the natural law has resulted in the worst destruction of the 21st century against all religionists.

You might want to read, C.S. Lewis, on the Abolition of Man.

Christianity never officially taught the things you bring up as doctrine. Opinion piece is not the same thing.

“All this rambling back and forth is missing the point.  There is a natural law written on the hearts of all people, who are under obligation to inform their conscience. Christian or otherwise.”

No it doesn’t. Obviously, you never bothered to read my comments, because that’s what I said.

“The secular humanist refusal to pay heed to the natural law has resulted in the worst destruction of the 21st century against all religionists.”

So you’re saying that communists were secular humanists? Do you even know what that means? I responded to, and refuted, points asserted by previous posters that were false and based religious upon lies. If you can’t see that, then I feel sorry for you.

“Christianity never officially taught the things you bring up as doctrine.”

Clearly, you’ve bought into Christian historical revision and know nothing. The Inquisitions were not a grassroots movement; they were all, to a one, endorsed by the Church. Same thing with the Crusades, and multiple witch-hunts and pogroms against the Jews and pagans. Antisemitism wouldn’t even exist if not for Christianity. Hatred of the Jews in Germany was present from the moment Christianity sunk it’s claws into that country. Martin Luther was antisemitic, as was the Catholic Church at that time. Ever hear the phrase “Christ-killers”? Gee, I wonder where that came from. In addition, during the Black Death, Jews were the first to take the blame. In Nuremberg, they burned 12,000 Jews to death in three days.

http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

The fact that the author apparently just figured all this out and believes it’s a valid point is kind of funny.  The fact that she somehow believes that people who don’t believe in gods have never though of it, and would be shocked and dismayed to hear it, is just sad. 

The simple fact is that anyone can make an argument for horrible selfish behavior, whether they choose to blame that behavior on a higher power or not. Since we have lots of historical precedent for religion being used to justify awful behavior, the fact that the lack of religion also might allow for awful behavior is simply irrelevant.

The Duelist,

I do know Christian history in context. 

The purpose of the church-based Inquisition was to deal with Christian heretics only.  There was also a secular inquisition at this time . Historians estimate the inquisition killed about 3,000 people over a period of 500 years.

The Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Muslim aggression and occupation of Christian lands. The excesses of the crusades were condemned.

The witch-hunts were mostly Protestant and secular too. Wiccan historian Jenny Gibbons writes about this.

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/feminist/gibbons_witch.html

The term Christ-Killers was coined by Marcion, in the early church, who held the view that there were two God’s, one of the Old Testament, the bad good and the good God of the New Testament. Jesus was sent by the good God, who was not the same as the God of the OT. The Jews who were followers of the bad God killed him.

The Apostolic church rejected this view, but it would continue to be a part of conspiracies held against the Jews.

I am simply trying to say is that the official teachings of the church are found in the 21 ecumenical councils, none of which sanction these things. Christians are now a different story, including church leaders.

Christianity is not whatever people do and say.

Duelist,

All the Christian atrocities you bring up still killed lesser people than communism and state atheism did.

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia 1

@Savvy,

The fact that the religious people believed they were justified in their violence illustrates my point exactly.  The muslims waged war on christians despite or because of their religion.  The Christians responded with violence despite or because of their religion.  The Inquisition is a textbook case of violence perpetrated specifically due to religion.  In none of these cases did deeply held religious beliefs prevent people from committing violent acts.  Thus, the point of the article - that atheists must confront the potential for violent behavior, but religious people are somehow protected from such decisions due to their belief in a higher power - is simply nonsense.

Geack,

A lot of these things also over laped with political interests etc, not just religion etc. History is more complicated.

Religious people are no more holier than atheists, but if you want to get into scoring points on who killed more people, atheists outdo Christians.

They should think about this when they go around attacking Christians.

I will also add that Christianity holds that we are ALL sinners in need of constant redemption.

One of the reasons why Christianity gives people more hope.  Atheism at the end of day says, everything is random and means nothing.

Savvy,

Yes, they are overlaid with all that stuff, which as I said is my whole point.  The author tried to make an argument that lack of belief in a god leads to the potential for justifying awful behavior, which makes lack of belief inferior to belief.  But belief also leads to the potential for justifying awful behavior.  This has nothing to do with keeping score on atrocities (though you clearly like to do that) and everything to with the author’s entire point being false on its face.

Also, Christianity might give you more hope, but it’s silly to expect everyone to feel that way.  The fact that human life has improved since people began questioning the need for religion gives me hope.  Your understanding of why people don’t believe in gods is a parody of how people actually feel.

“The purpose of the church-based Inquisition was to deal with Christian heretics only.”

And your point is…?

“There was also a secular inquisition at this time.”

[Citation needed].

“Historians estimate the inquisition killed about 3,000 people over a period of 500 years.”

[Citation needed].

“The Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Muslim aggression and occupation of Christian lands.”

That doesn’t justify what the Crusaders did.

“The excesses of the crusades were condemned.”

Only when the Crusaders sacked a Christian city. The Church never cared one or another about what they did to Muslims.

“The witch-hunts were mostly Protestant and secular too.”

But still inspired by a single bible verse.

Very informed atheist themselves do not deny that Judeo-Christianity shaped Western civilization.

Atheists can be moral, but have trouble defining what moral is, since it’s relative to what each person wants, what’s popular or what is the cultural norm etc.

Give me a Socrates any day over modern atheism. It’s dumb and acts like fundamentalists.

“And your point is…?”

It was done to prevent random mobs of Christians picking on supposed heretics. It established the Roman law of proofs, where a person was innocent until proven guilty. Anything from abandoning your wife, to stealing to murder could be considered a heresy at that time.

it was not just based on faith. Due to the Roman Law of proofs the church never executed heretics. Just handed them over to the state. I am not arguing this was right.

Watch the BBC documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMkjvCKTK3Q&feature=youtube

“Only when the Crusaders sacked a Christian city. The Church never cared one or another about what they did to Muslims.”

This is untrue. Look up St. Francis of Assisi who prayed in a mosque.

“but still inspired by a single bible verse”

No. You need to read the Gibbons source I gave you.

“The fact that human life has improved since people began questioning the need for religion gives me hope. “

I would disagree, but then again it depends on your view of religion. No atheist nation has been a paradise. It’s easy for atheist to rally against Christians in majority Christian nations. Try that in Muslim ones and they won’t turn the other cheek, even atheist China won’t be so nice.

“Atheists can be moral, but have trouble defining what moral is, since it’s relative to what each person wants, what’s popular or what is the cultural norm etc”
This is true, of course.  What you’ve somehow failed to see is that it’s entirely true of religious people as well.  No scripture is a straightforward list of what is right and wrong.  They are vague and don’t just allow but require interpretation.  Look at the Sunni/Shi’a debate.  Look at the dozens of versions of Christianity.  If the Bible was a useful guide to morality, Catholics and Hasidic Jews would behave the same.  But Christians abandoned countless behavioral restrictions in the Old Testament - not because the NT includes any sort of list of rules that no longer apply, but because some of the things Jesus said allowed Paul to argue that newly converted Gentiles could safely ignore them.  Exactly what could be ignored was worked out as a matter of consensus over the centuries.  The bible is so vague that Christians can’t even agree on something as basic as what the Ten Commandments are.  Every religion and subreligion and splinter group and schism represents a group consensus about what’s right and wrong.  What you eventually come to realize is that people can naturally come to the same type of consensus without pretending it’s been handed down from on high.

Recognizing this type of thing doesn’t require a lot of work.  It’s not dumb, and it’s the exact opposite of fundamentalist.

geack,

Catholicism does not regard scripture as the ONLY authority. It’s an authority, but not the ONLY one. The church determined the canon of scripture and is responsible for it’s interpretation and not each individual.

Placing private revelation against the correct interpretation of scripture and tradition has resulted in thousands of churches ALL invoking God for their conflicting doctrines.

Even I can claim God talks to me and start my own church.

This is sadly the relativism of our age.

Logically, I would look for consistency, because if God is constantly contradicting God, with endless logical fallacies there is something wrong.

I am not saying that I am right, but that I look for consistency.

“No atheist nation has been a paradise. It’s easy for atheist to rally against Christians in majority Christian nations. Try that in Muslim ones and they won’t turn the other cheek, even atheist China won’t be so nice.

I didn’t say paradise, I said “better”. Paradise is a meaningless abstraction.  Assuming you’re of European descent, 350 years ago you and I would likely have been illiterate peasants subject to the whims of an illiterate aristocracy reinforced by a religion that taught us that God wanted it that way.  We’d have feared death from minor infections, never traveled more than 50 miles from home, and thanked God if we somehow lived to 50.  Today we’re having a fairly sophisticated philosophical discussion on a machine that allows instant communication anywhere in the world, in a year in which we’ll vote for our representatives in government, and we can reasonably hope to be playing tennis at 75. Name ONE part of that improvement that was brought about by religion.  You keep harping on “atheist nations” and your fake ideas about what atheists believe, but you can’t deny that we really only began to change our lot in life when we began to seek wisdom outside the covers of the old magic books.

“What you eventually come to realize is that people can naturally come to the same type of consensus without pretending it’s been handed down from on high.”

Yes, but what happens when they don’t.  A civilization that cannot find common ground once relativism erodes them does not survive, like ancient Greece or Rome.

“You keep harping on “atheist nations” and your fake ideas about what atheists believe, but you can’t deny that we really only began to change our lot in life when we began to seek wisdom outside the covers of the old magic books.”

You keep harping on about magic books based on your fake ideas about what Christians believe. I do not think the Bible is a big black magic book that has solutions to every problem.

Dismissing your ancestors as illiterate peasants is snobbery not worth it’s wait in praxis.

Savvy,

That’s exactly what I’m saying - the Catholic church (like every other religion and philosophy) is a group of people who have accepted a consensus about what is right and wrong. The whole concept of a “correct” interpretation illustrates that these are decisions made by people.  What you learn, as you look at human history, is that people are capable of forming this type of consensus no matter what basis they start from (scriptures, legends, logic, whatever.)  Your prior argument that atheists must somehow have a more difficult time of this than religious people is nonsense.  You can seek consistency all you want, but the simple fact is that if there is a god, that god hasn’t given you any clear instructions to use.  It’s all just people trying to figure stuff out.

“This is untrue. Look up St. Francis of Assisi who prayed in a mosque.”

I highly doubt one saint represents the entire church.

“No.”

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live…

“All the Christian atrocities you bring up still killed lesser people than communism and state atheism did.”

You obviously know nothing. Populations were not even half as high in the Middle Ages as they are now. Had these various holy wars and witch-hunts happened in the last one or two centuries, your cult would have killed twice as many people as Communism. For example, at least 20% of Germany’s population was wiped out by the Thirty Years’ War—roughly four million people. Imagine how many it would be with the same percentage but today’s population. Also, there is no such thing as “state atheism”. You need to stop talking out of your ass.

“20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State”

The Nazis were Christians, retard. In fact, most of them were Catholics to boot and had the support of Rome.

“10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime”

Since that is obviously NOT an official party name, what period, country, etc.?

“1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico”

Mexico is ferociously Catholic, idiot. Virtually everyone, including drug cartels, pray to saints and take communion. They even had a show on TLC ( I think) showing altars made by cartel members.

“1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia 1”

“Feudal” Russia? As in, under the Czars? Who derived their authority from the Orthodox Church and used “divine right” as justification for their excesses? If you’re that stupid, then there’s no point in even talking to you.

Duelist,

“I highly doubt one saint represents the entire church.”

the Council of Vienne in 1312, the church issued this bull of abolishment against the excesses and the order that carried it out.

“In view of the suspicion, infamy, loud insinuations and other things which have been brought against the order and also the secret and clandestine reception of the brothers of this order; in view moreover of the serious scandal which has arisen from these things, which it did not seem could be stopped while the order remained in being, and the danger to faith and souls, and the many horrible things which have been done by very many of the brothers of this order, who have lapsed into sin of wicked apostasy, the crime of detestable idolatry and the execrable outrage of the sodomites, it is not without bitterness and sadness of heart that we abolish the aforesaid Order of the Temple . . . (Vox in Excelso)

The entire church is also the mystical body of Christ, not just confined to people who live at a particular time.

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”

Nice try, but this proves nothing other than you read the Bible in a way that most Christians do not. Thanks for also not reading the document I linked too.

“Had these various holy wars and witch-hunts happened in the last one or two centuries, your cult would have killed twice as many people as Communism.”

This is an excuse, that does not square up with the charge atheists make that progress and technology has made people free of old magic books and therefore better.

“The Nazis were Christians, retard. In fact, most of them were Catholics to boot and had the support of Rome.”

This has been debunked. Nazis were anti-Christian and anti-catholic.  Look up Pave the Way Foundation for historical documents.

http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/PR KRAISTALL_SAVING.pdf

The Nazi who wrote:

“The heaviest blow to humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jews.”

or Rosenberg’s Myth of the 20th Century that trashes Christianity and the Catholic church.

Mexico was in the 1920s when a very anti-religious government launched an attempt to wipe out religion.

“As in, under the Czars?”

History fail again. The Czar’s did not derive their authority from the church. Kings are not permitted to appoint themselves God. They did this in opposition to the church.

You come across as a fundamentalist atheist, who is ignorant of both history and the religion.

Duelist, Thanks for calling me nasty names, it show the type of people you and your ilk are.
So you are denying the existence of Museums of Atheism are you. This might change your mind since you seem to think your Atheist brethren were great people
www.lonelyplanet.com/lithuania/vilnius/sights/.../st-casimirs-church
www.moscow.info/orthodox-moscow/donskoy-monastery.aspx
www.presentpasts.info/article/view/pp.13/18

and have you heard of The League of Millitant Atheist, an orginisation set up by the Gonernment of the Ussr which was to destroy religious and in its place adopt Atheism at the states world view

I enclose an article about the persecution of Catholics in Lithuania by your fellow Atheist, ypu can deny it if you like
www.lituanus.org/1985/85_1_04.htm

I look forward to your reply

“the Council of Vienne in 1312, the church issued this bull of abolishment against the excesses and the order that carried it out.”

The Crusades began in 1095.

“Nice try, but this proves nothing other than you read the Bible in a way that most Christians do not.”

So even though the bible says to go out and kill “witches”, who don’t even exist to begin with, you still deny the obvious? How rich. And by the way, that document you linked had nothing to say except that the witch-hunts were exaggerated and did not kill as many people as some pagans and historians have come to believe due to sloppy research. Religion still had a hand in it, which only the brainwashed or dishonest deny. Also, as for “most Christians”, you are writing in the present tense—not in the same context as the period that these events transpired in, so your objection is meaningless.

“This is an excuse…”

Really? If the overall population is only half as high or less, then gee, I guess you can’t kill as many people as you can in the modern world where the population is roughly 7 billion strong and growing, now can you? Or does math function differently in Christian history revision?

“This has been debunked. Nazis were anti-Christian and anti-catholic.”

If you buy that, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. Your link does nothing more than establish that some Catholic clergy were helping Jews escape Germany. It says nothing of the Third Reich’s policies of disbanding atheist societies, banning books that promoted “primitive Darwinism” or mocked/criticized religion, and required potential S.S. recruits to be members of one church or another. It also says nothing of Hitler’s Christian sentiments; “

  “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

  -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

He also explicitly referenced Christianity in his Nuremberg speeches. And by the way, your link had no citations.

“The Nazi who wrote:

“The heaviest blow to humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jews.”

or Rosenberg’s Myth of the 20th Century that trashes Christianity and the Catholic church.”
So one individual represents the entire Reich? Really?

“Mexico was in the 1920s when a very anti-religious government launched an attempt to wipe out religion.”
Then Con should have been more specific. If that is indeed what he was referring to.

“The Czar’s did not derive their authority from the church. Kings are not permitted to appoint themselves God. They did this in opposition to the church.”
Divine right was opposed by the church? The same church that the Czars had their coronations in? How fascinating. [citation needed].
“You come across as a fundamentalist atheist, who is ignorant of both history and the religion.”

You come across as the typical Christian who knows nothing about history except what his brainwashes tell him to believe. But you seem much smarter than Con, and not quite so frothing at the mouth either. I will give you that much.

“So one individual represents the entire Reich? Really?”

So a nutcase quoting something makes it real?  There were also quotes from Hindu texts, and norse mythology so I am assuming it made them that too. Must be some really messed up Christians.

“Your link does nothing more than establish that some Catholic clergy were helping Jews escape Germany.”

Please prove this from the link.

You are also not up to the mark on the recent scholarship on these issues.

http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/PR-Yad Vashem.pdf

Divine right was opposed by the church? The same church that the Czars had their coronations in? How fascinating. [citation needed].

The divine right of kings argued that the King was not was not subservient to the Pope, the Church, or any court, either secular or ecclesiastical.  Czars turned against the church, the same as kings have as in Henry V111 who proclaimed himself the head of the church and beheaded everybody who refused to accept it.

“It says nothing of the Third Reich’s policies of disbanding atheist societies, banning books that promoted “primitive Darwinism” or mocked/criticized religion, and required potential S.S. recruits to be members of one church or another. It also says nothing of Hitler’s Christian sentiments; “”

The link is not on atheism. You claimed he was a Christian, I proved you wrong.

“The Crusades began in 1095”

I am not sure what this means, since they were self-defensive wars. You asked for condemnation of excesses, I gave them to you. Nor just condemnation, but suppression of an entire order.

“So even though the bible says to go out and kill “witches”, who don’t even exist to begin with, you still deny the obvious? How rich. And by the way, that document you linked had nothing to say except that the witch-hunts were exaggerated and did not kill as many people as some pagans and historians have come to believe due to sloppy research. Religion still had a hand in it, which only the brainwashed or dishonest deny”

The link does not quote this Bible verse.  Old Testament law, as such, is not binding on Christians. It never has been.

“Really? If the overall population is only half as high or less, then gee, I guess you can’t kill as many people as you can in the modern world where the population is roughly 7 billion strong and growing, now can you? Or does math function differently in Christian history revision?”

The issue is not math, it’s the idea that atheists claim that leaving religion behind makes people better.

“Your link does nothing more than establish that some Catholic clergy were helping Jews escape Germany.”

I am sorry I misread you on this one, but it does prove your statements wrong.

And by the way, divine right had nothing to do with “making themselves god”. Divine right was the belief that earthly authority came from God, so kings ruled by God’s mandate, and to rebel against them was to rebel against god himself. You need to do some reading.

“Duelist, Thanks for calling me nasty names, it show the type of people you and your ilk are.”
_

My “ilk”? Oh, you mean your intellectual superiors. Of course, that doesn’t really narrow it down, mind you.
_

“So you are denying the existence of Museums of Atheism are you.”
_
No, I’m asking you for evidence. Please learn to read.
_
“This might change your mind since you seem to think your Atheist brethren were great people”
_
Congratulations; you have just admitted to being dumb. Communism=/=atheism. While I don’t expect anyone ignorant enough to buy into the rhetoric of Dinesh D’Souza and Bryan Fisher to understand this, communism is a political/economic ideology that incorporates atheism as it’s stance on religion. Atheism is a disbelief in gods. That’s it. So to conflate the two, as Christians have been doing on this thread, is to admit that you have no sense of honesty or critical thinking. Now, on to your links. Neither provides any sources whatsoever. Neither provides a name for the author of the article. Neither link would be accepted as a source by a high school teacher, so you’ll have to do better than that.
_
As for the rest, they are not my brethren or my “fellow atheists”; they were communists, a group of people I view as dull and brutish and no better than religious fundamentalists themselves. The only thing I have in common with them is that I don’t believe in gods; that’s it. Your continued conflation of communism with atheism would have made great propaganda for this group, but my guess is that while reading about them, you never saw the irony of their propaganda and your claims on this thread, now did you?

“So a nutcase quoting something makes it real?”
_
What does this have to with anything?
_
“The divine right of kings argued that the King was not was not subservient to the Pope, the Church, or any court, either secular or ecclesiastical.  Czars turned against the church, the same as kings have as in Henry V111 who proclaimed himself the head of the church and beheaded everybody who refused to accept it.”
_
Which they all excused using god. Divine right; another lovely Christian invention of the Middle Ages. Sure, it was the rulers using it, not clergy, but con’s attempt to use Czarist Russia as an example of atheist crimes (which don’t exist since not a single dictator has ever killed people just because he was an atheist) is still stupid. What was his next example going to be? The Salem Witch Trials?
_
“The link is not on atheism. You claimed he was a Christian, I proved you wrong.”
_
Twisting my words into a straw-man to make it look like you’ve proved me wrong is not very original or impressive. You said, and I quote, “the Nazis were anti-Catholic and anti-Christian”, which is puerile B.S. The Reich recruited Christians, was made up mostly of Christians, with a few whacked out neo-pagans here and there, and that about sums it up. And no, I did not say Hitler was a Christian, I said he had Christian sentiments, which he plainly expressed time and time again. It’s hard to say what his genuine feelings were, since he started becoming increasingly deranged and incoherent towards the end. But it is a bit odd, don’t you think, for a rabidly anti-Christian party to base their entire platform on preserving German Christianity and traditional German virtues?
_
“I am not sure what this means, since they were self-defensive wars. You asked for condemnation of excesses, I gave them to you. Nor just condemnation, but suppression of an entire order.”
_
A condemnation—two centuries after the carnage began, since the Crusaders were murdering civilians in the first Crusade.http://abrahamicfamilyreunion.org/the-first-crusade-compiled-by-vanessa-brake/
_
“The link does not quote this Bible verse.”
_
So? The author was addressing the historical research surrounding the death rates of the witch-hunts, not the causes of the hunts. If anything, this link, though informative, was somewhat irrelevant to your argument because she is only taking about how many people were killed and when, not why.
_
“Old Testament law, as such, is not binding on Christians. It never has been.”
_
“I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”—Jesus, Matthew 5;18
_
“The issue is not math, it’s the idea that atheists claim that leaving religion behind makes people better.”
_
This claim is true, but it does not mean that leaving religion behind will make you perfect, or that religion is the only driving factor behind hatred and violence. People still act on bestial urges even if they don’t use religion to justify it. Arguing against a Utopian straw-man is not impressive either.

DuelistThe “Nazis were Christians, retard. In fact, most of them were Catholics to boot and had the support of Rome”
You are being funny of course, next you will tell me that Hitler went to Daily Mass
You are provide me with great amusement, will you now tell me that Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were Catholics, come on give us more laughs

www.lonelyplanet.com/lithuania/vilnius/sights/.../st-casimirs-church
www.moscow.info/orthodox-moscow/donskoy-monastery.aspx
www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/.../riding-the-godless-express….
Duelist Here are a few links about the Museums created by your Atheist buddies, and abot the Priests, they were murdered and the congregations were sent to the Gulags
You have nice heroes have you not?

“You are being funny of course, next you will tell me that Hitler went to Daily Mass”
_
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/Adolf_Hitler_Nazi_Germany_Christian_Nationalism_AntiSemitism.htm
_
How does it feel to be so retarded? I’m just a bit curious.
_
First link; it’s the same one, moron. No sources, no citations, not even a name given for the author.
_
Second link; the same one you posted last time, which also has no author or sources. I know Christians are generally too dumb to care about the evidence for their claims, but this is pretty pathetic. Find me an unbiased historical website by a credential historian who gives sources.
_
The third; this guy actually points out that the League of Militant Atheists was first and foremost a Communist movement, and not purely atheistic. Do you actually read these links, or do you just post them?
_
“Duelist Here are a few links about the Museums created by your Atheist buddies, and abot the Priests, they were murdered and the congregations were sent to the Gulag”
_
By conflating communism with atheism, you once again flaunt your intellectual stagnancy and laziness.
_
“You have nice heroes have you not?”
_
I already explained the difference between atheism and communism, as well as my feelings about communists, in my last reply. Perhaps if you weren’t too stupid to read them, you wouldn’t be exposing your retardation with such questions. But don’t mind me; you’re a prime example of what faith does to the brain.

Duelist,

1. Please give me a teaching from the Russian Orthodox church that supports the divine right of Kings as a doctrine.

2. You claimed Hitler was Christian and then when proven wrong, denied it with claiming he had Christian sympathies. This has been debunked. He also had eugenic sympathies and set tried to set up his own church where he was the Father, the Aryans were his children and the state was the Holy spirit. They tried to re-write the Apostles Creed. I know this because I have seen ww2 newspapers. The cross was replaced with the swastika. This is not called having Christian sympathies. This is anti-Christian. In fact the Japanese emperor taught he was the re-incarnation of his god.

3. The Christian casualties in the Crusades were not less than the Muslim ones. The fact that they attacked innocent civilians on one side is not true. This was a war. The condemnation came later, when the facts were documented in a age without the communications that we have today.

4. The bible verse you quote proves nothing. What law do you think Jesus was talking about? There were many different kinds of laws.

“Please give me a teaching from the Russian Orthodox church that supports the divine right of Kings as a doctrine.”
_
“Sure, it was the rulers using it, not clergy…” Did you not read my comment? When I said to Con that the Czars “derived” their authority from the O.C., I misspoke. They had the support of the Church, but their authority was divine right.
_
“You claimed Hitler was Christian and then when proven wrong, denied it with claiming he had Christian sympathies.”
_
It’s sad to see that all Christians turn into lying cretins in debate. “It says nothing of the Third Reich’s policies of disbanding atheist societies, banning books that promoted “primitive Darwinism” or mocked/criticized religion, and required potential S.S. recruits to be members of one church or another. It also says nothing of Hitler’s Christian sentiments…”
_
I never said he was a Christian, but thanks for lying and attempting to defame my character. It says a lot about your own.
_
“He also had eugenic sympathies and set tried to set up his own church where he was the Father, the Aryans were his children and the state was the Holy spirit.”
_
Since you didn’t bother to read my last comment, let me paste an excerpt for you; “It’s hard to say what his genuine feelings were, since he started becoming increasingly deranged and incoherent towards the end.” And for that bit about an Aryan church, [citation needed].
_
“I know this because I have seen ww2 newspapers. The cross was replaced with the swastika. This is not called having Christian sympathies. This is anti-Christian. In fact the Japanese emperor taught he was the re-incarnation of his god.”
_
[Citation needed].
_
“The Christian casualties in the Crusades were not less than the Muslim ones. The fact that they attacked innocent civilians on one side is not true.”
_
Straw-man.
_
“The bible verse you quote proves nothing. What law do you think Jesus was talking about? There were many different kinds of laws.”
_
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

And that stuff about the Emperor is pretty stupid. The Japanese taught that the emperor was a god, so i doubt they worshiped Hitler. Also, the Japanese have many gods, so if the emperor said Hitler was an incarnation of one god or another, it’s something called “propaganda”.

Duelist
Now you tell me that Atheism had no connection with Communism, but your fellow atheist Lenin says in his Essay on Religion that “Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism, so there is the connection between Atheism and Communism, but as I said before the Atheist Government of the Soviet Union murdered Catholics and fellow Christians because of their beliefs. So keep digging trying to denying the connection , so indeed you and youe Atheists buddies are well met. Have you any comment about The Museums of Atheism Comrade.

“Now you tell me that Atheism had no connection with Communism…”
_
No I didn’t, retard. It’s nice to see that Christians are still incapable of doing anything apart from lying through their teeth. I said communism incorporates atheism as it’s stance on religion, but atheism does not incorporate communism since most atheists are not communists. What part of that do you not understand?
_
but your fellow atheist Lenin says in his Essay on Religion that “Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism, so there is the connection between Atheism and Communism, but as I said before the Atheist Government of the Soviet Union murdered Catholics and fellow Christians because of their beliefs.”
_
Of course he said that, you dolt, because he was insuring that religion would never usurp the state. Old school communists see religion not only as a waste of time, but as a potential threat to the state since religion can unite people under a cause. And no, retard, they did not persecute Christians because of their beliefs, they did it because they didn’t want a second Revolution to be fomented by clergy. And it’s odd how you don’t mention the fact that they persecuted every other religious group just as much as they persecuted your own cult. Why is that? Can’t bring yourself to care about what happens to those hell-bound heathens?
_
“So keep digging trying to denying the connection , so indeed you and youe Atheists buddies are well met. Have you any comment about The Museums of Atheism Comrade.”
_
I already talked about my thoughts on communism, but of course you’re far too worthless and pathetic to read it for yourself, since trolls like you have nothing better to do with your wasted lives. Have you any comment about all those choir boys who’ve been raped by your holy church, papist? Or do you secretly approve of priests and bishops and probably the pope too getting it on with little kids? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Duelist,

You might want to take a look at these links. The Nazi state religion, mass arrests of priests and a war on churches.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=je40AAAAIBAJ&sjid=8LUDAAAAIBAJ&dq=catholic church and the nazis&pg=6755,2720691

http://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=K2MpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JMcEAAAAIBAJ&dq=pope pius and the jews&pg=5198,2445129

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=STEbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=okwEAAAAIBAJ&dq=catholic church and the nazis&pg=3263,3709702

“The Japanese taught that the emperor was a god, so i doubt they worshiped Hitler. Also, the Japanese have many gods, so if the emperor said Hitler was an incarnation of one god or another, it’s something called “propaganda”.”

So if Christians worship Jesus and Hitler calls himself God, it’s because Hitler had Christian sympathies, and hired Christians, but when this happens to someone else it’s propaganda? How biased you are.

This is the law Jesus was talking about, in the previous paragraph.

Matthew’s Gospel enlightens us to Jesus’ teaching concerning Old Testament law:

[A Pharisee lawyer] asked him a question, to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:34-40)

Duelist, Could you give me evidence that the Pope was involved with Child abuse. come on with the evidence, of course ther are evil people in the Catholic Churchas there are evil Atheists Mao and Stalin were Atheists were they not and they murder about 70,000,000 peoplem and if you want to talk abot cover up maybe you should read about the Katyn in 1940 when tha Atheist Stalin covered up the murder of 5,000 Polish soldiers and blamed it on the Nazis. But then you were the one who said the Catholic Church in Rome connived with the Nazis, Maybe you should read the Righteous By Martin Gilbert and that will shaw you how the catholic Church in Rome saved the lives of many Jews but that is a large book and it has not too many pictures and it would be too difficult for you to get true

First link; this is the Nazis tightening their grip on clergy and forcing dissenters to conform or face charges. They are not forcing them to worship Hitler as a god or pray to pagan deities.
_
Second link; see first link. Here, they are sending dissenters to concentration camps for not falling in with Nazi ideology. This does not constitute denouncing religion.
_
Third link; still no evidence that Hitler was throwing out Christianity and replacing it with a new religion centering around him. Of course he demanded the fanatical devotion of his followers, just like any other cultist, but the Nazi’s anti-Christian sentiments seem to be restricted to those who did not preach Nazi myths from the pulpit. Just as how the supposedly “atheist” regimes of Mao and Stalin killed and exiled atheists or Party Members that failed them in some way.
_
“So if Christians worship Jesus and Hitler calls himself God…”
_
Hitler never called himself God. Your third link even mentioned that. I’d suggest you read your own sources.
_
“...it’s because Hitler had Christian sympathies, and hired Christians, but when this happens to someone else it’s propaganda?”
_
The Japanese were nutty about gods back then. Their masters saw fit to tie religion, culture, and every facet of Japanese tradition in with nationalism and militarism. So if they said Hitler was a god, then this would justify Japan’s alliance with Germany in the minds of the masses. It doesn’t mean Hitler believed it. It doesn’t even mean that Japan’s leaders believed it. Get some perspective.
_
None of that refutes my point. Jesus explicitly says that not one jot or tittle of the Prophet’s law shall pass away until earth and heaven do as well. So until a meteorite the size of Texas reduces our planet to a graveyard, or we launch our nukes into WWIII, you are obligated to follow the Law to the letter, or risk missing the bus to heaven.

“Duelist, Could you give me evidence that the Pope was involved with Child abuse.”
_
I don’t know of any. And with the Vatican’s money, power and influence, if he did partake himself, we’d never know it. But it doesn’t change the Vatican’s cover-ups of child molestation. Maybe the Pope should get a new name; the Patron Saint of Pederasts. The Lord Protector of Chesters.
_
“...of course ther are evil people in the Catholic Churchas there are evil Atheists Mao and Stalin were Atheists were they not and they murder about 70,000,000 peoplem and if you want to talk abot cover up maybe you should read about the Katyn in 1940 when tha Atheist Stalin covered up the murder of 5,000 Polish soldiers and blamed it on the Nazis.”
_
Communism=/atheism. But keep denying it. If any undecided persons read this thread in the future, they’ll be enlightened as to the true nature of Christians; lie, lie, lie, deny, cover up, and then lie some more. Never mind the fact that not a single communist dictator killed in the name of atheism; nah, let’s just call ‘em atheists to slander modern day skeptics. Of course, you don’t see atheists trying to judge all Christians by the example of the Westboro Baptists or those witch-hunters in Africa, or Matthew Hopkins, but don’t expect Christians to return the courtesy. It’s just too taxing an effort for them.
_
“But then you were the one who said the Catholic Church in Rome connived with the Nazis…
_
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm
_
“Maybe you should read the Righteous By Martin Gilbert and that will shaw you how the catholic Church in Rome saved the lives of many Jews but that is a large book and it has not too many pictures and it would be too difficult for you to get true.”
_
Guess what? The Catholic clergy who saved Jews were only some of them. Many others supported Hitler, especially in Germany. Some clergy were also directly involved in helping Nazis flee Germany after the war. See Alois Hudal. And by the way; ,|,,(-_-),,|,