That’s interesting.  Although I have been happy with him as pope, I have never felt the connection to Pope Benedict that I felt to Pope John Paul II.  It’s good to hear a different perspective.

Are we talking about the same pope here? I thought this was the pope that helped orchestrate the pedophile sex abuse coverup. This is logical? To some I suppose. Isn’t this the pope that was caught in financial crimes? More logic?

I think most atheists would like to see the Catholic Church treated like the mafia and raided. The pope should have a jury of his peers decide if he should do jail time.

My big question is how close the authorities are to busting him for his crimes. Mahoney wisely stepped down when the papers the church was holding on the pedophile scandal in the US were released. Is the pope doing the same?

Atheists pope indeed.

Interesting!  Having reverted back to the faith from a wilderness of atheism/agnosticism/Eastern mysticism/Buddhism/what-have-you, I find that I can “connect” with Pope Benedict XVI’s writings so very well, too!  I love him dearly for that, and for his utter clarity when speaking on complex topics, and his radiant humility. It is also obvious to me that his explanations and responses (in those wonderful interviews with German journalist Peter Seewald - himself a convert from atheism sometime during the many years of working with the Pope) that he has thought deeply - and prayerfully - about all these things.  He explains things in a way I can fully grasp, and he shines a gentle light upon the truth.  Like Catholic Connection’s Teresa Tomeo, I could be dubbed a Pope Benedict “groupie”. I really felt crushed and broken-hearted when the news of his resignation finally hit me as being true, and not just some bad joke put out on an early Monday morning.

You thought wrong.

Interesting!  Having reverted back to the faith from a wilderness of atheism/agnosticism/Eastern mysticism/Buddhism/what-have-you, I find that I can “connect” with Pope Benedict XVI’s writings so very well, too!  I love him dearly for that, and for his utter clarity when speaking on complex topics, and his radiant humility. It is also obvious to me that his explanations and responses (in those wonderful interviews with German journalist Peter Seewald - himself a convert from atheism sometime during the many years of working with the Pope) that he has thought deeply - and prayerfully - about all these things.  He explains things in a way I can fully grasp, and he shines a gentle light upon the truth.  Like Catholic Connection’s Teresa Tomeo, I could be dubbed a Pope Benedict “groupie”. I really felt crushed and broken-hearted when the news of his resignation finally hit me as being true, and not just some bad joke put out on an early Monday morning.
.
(this may be duplicated when finally posted - original submission was flagged as “potential spam”?!)

Mark Moore. I have seen too much hate toward the Catholic Church and specially toward this pope. He has been falsely acussed of everything. Certanly, some members of the CC should be in jail but that do not make every catholic or the pope guilty. This hate makes me belive that B16 and the CC must be doing something well.

Jennifer- Your insights are a true blessing.  The perspectives that come from you are from such a different angle outside the regular faith, evangelical, bible “text book” ways of looking at God and faith.  True, faith and reason are two sides of the same coin. I pray that more people will open their minds to see and hear truth.

Mark he covered up nothing. It was he in fact Pope B who stated we must clean this “filth” from the church.
I can provide numerous examples to refute your claims but really it is not incumbent on me to prove you wrong ; rather, it is your responsibility to source your accusations. Not from a he said she said but actual proof and source quotes that the your accusations have substance.

Thank you

Both JPII and B16 were intellectual giants whom I learned to love like dear family members.  They illustrate how different God’s unique creations are, even while having our root systems in the same source.
.
@Mark, what I tell my kids is:  If we tried to build a prison for every person who has committed a sexual sin against another, it would be the most vast structure on Earth.  How ironic when common men clamor to gather a lynch mob for a man who has lived chastity so faithfully.  It reminds me of the time when Jesus confronted those who were itching to stone the woman caught in the very act of sin.  Go ahead a throw stones buddy.  Nobody’s buying.

Thanks, Jennifer. I’ve passed this post on to someone who may benefit from your perspective.  To other commenters - PLEASE don’t feed the trolls.  Pray for them and ignore the trolls’ posts in the comboxes.  Real dialogue is great (and reads nothing like a troll).  I wonder how much of the resources of the Register is wasted on these pointless exchanges with trolls.

Mark:

your frustration and anger is worth a notice. But the deep Humility and the exemplary Leadership trait that the Pope has manifested by his resignation, and his constant search for truth, and his inspiration for the Church and the Society are beyond words. He never covered up anything. He called sin as sin, and manifested deep sympathy and love for the victim. His prophetic role was very evident. No wonder, the atheists’ in Germany have begun to collectively show their deep appreciation for his exemplary leadership and the unprecedented step that he took which is a model for all the world leaders.

Be at peace, Christ the Supreme Pastor of Church continues to renew and make ever anew, and gives the task to the Church to bear witness to TRUTH, LOVE and GOODNESS. You are most welcome, Church has only LOVE and no other opposites.

As an atheist, I never felt any closeness to any pope.  Perhaps the title of this blog should have been “This Atheists’ Pope” re: your conversion.

I always enjoy reading the best evidence for a non believer to become a believer.  Thanks for putting that here.  Unfortunately, it still relies on faith and hope, something that just doesn’t translate well to convince me of any god.

I agree with Jennifer, I preferred Benedict XVI to John Paul II.

While John Paul II was a much bigger personality, I connected far better with Benedict XVI. I connected through his writing.

Benedict writes beautifully about the basics of Christianity. The very essence of what God is about. God is love. God is truth. Therefore, there can be no conflict between love and truth. Both love and truth are of God. Both love and truth can lead us to God.

But the one message of Benedict XVI that stands out is that that following Jesus is a gain to the believer.

Are there sacrifices? Absolutely. Is there suffering? It cannot be avoided. But much of what we are called to give up is what we do not want and what we want to cling to is that which does not truly satisfy. Or, as Benedict XVI put it, “We are so full of ourselves that we do not have room for God.”

I’m a bit stunned that anyone could think Benedict was good at understanding & speaking to atheists; I & every atheist I know would be more apt to say he doesn’t have a clue how we think or what can convince us to share his faith. I won’t attempt to guess why he appealed to you & your non-believer friends, but I can’t think of anything he’s said in the past that I’ve found remotely compelling.

There’s no way that Pope would get this atheist to convert.
.
The Pope resigned because the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State was about to issue a warrant for his arrest:
.
http://itccs.org/
.
An excerpt:
.
The ITCCS Central Office in Brussels is compelled by Pope Benedict’s sudden abdication to disclose the following details:
.
1. On Friday, February 1, 2013, on the basis of evidence supplied by our affiliated Common Law Court of Justice (itccs.org), our Office concluded an agreement with representatives of a European nation and its courts to secure an arrest warrant against Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, for crimes against humanity and ordering a criminal conspiracy.
.
2. This arrest warrant was to be delivered to the office of the “Holy See” in Rome on Friday, February 15, 2013. It allowed the nation in question to detain Ratzinger as a suspect in a crime if he entered its sovereign territory.
.
3. A diplomatic note was issued by the said nation’s government to the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, on Monday, February 4, 2013, informing Bertone of the impending arrest warrant and inviting his office to comply. No reply to this note was received from Cardinal Bertone or his office; but six days later, Pope Benedict resigned.
.
There is a lot more to read on the site, but the point is that the Rat is finally getting what he has coming to him.

As an evangelical -> Anglican -> Catholic convert, Ratzinger was a relief after the appeal-to-emotions and inch-deep-mile-wide theology in evangelicalism, and the hollow tradition—form without substance—in Anglicanisim.  His book on Basic Christianity was more advanced than anything I had ever seen.  His comparison of the Trinity to the wave-particle aspect of physics, in terms of interrelation and distinction, was interesting.

I think that a lot of atheists, as an observer of GK Chesterton’s victory in his debate with Clarence Darrow said, seem to be debating their fundamentalist aunt regardless of the actual arguments presented.

Regarding the trolls pulling out the cut-and-pastes on the sex abuse cases, I came into the Church after all that broke.  But being a student of history it did not concern me that much given that before the Catholic Church came along the sexual abuse of children, especially boys, was commonplace in the ancient world.  They were the one’s who stopped it.  Shame on any priests who did not live up to their office, but now with two kids in Catholic school and having gone through the protection for minors training, I don’t think there is a safer place for kids these days.

Bl JP II suffered to the end, shortly after the close of a hedonistic and materialistic century that valued pleasure.  Now in this post modern age Benedict XVI freely gives up what is, in some sense, the most secure and powerful position on Earth.  Unless one believes in the Holy Spirit stuff, the guy is in office for life, owns his own country, can make the history books record what he does, and strongly influences a billion people.  Isn’t it all supposed to be about power?  What accounts for a person giving that up to retire to a monastery?  How absolutely anti-post modern.

Sandy - I checked into the ITCCS and they seem very adept at self-promotion and little else. They have no international authority and their “diplomatic notice” to the Vatican and Pope Benedict is a canard. Clearly issued to garner them what they want - attention.

When asked to name the two greatest people to have lived during my lifetime, I would unhesitatingly say Blessed John Paul II and Blessed Mother Theresa.  But Pope Benedict XVI is a very, very close third. He is undoubtedly the most brilliant intellectual mind in the West, and was exactly what the Church needed during his Papacy - a Shepherd who could make the intellectual & philosophical case for God’s Church based in faith and reason in the fact of a tsunami of secularism.  One more great Pope, and those who want to remake the Church in the image of the modern secular culture will be finally, completely, defeated and discredited.  And the foundation for that victory will have been laid down by the Great Pope Benedict XVI.

Kris, Sandy is a troll, as you will soon find out.  She has been stalking Jennifer’s articles on and off for a year now.  Most recently, on the contraception thread, she pretended to be an expert on Church teaching about NFP.  She claimed that NFP equates contraception, and made ignorant statements such as “the Vatican has decreed that all sexuality that can’t possibly result in a pregnancy is sinful” or something to that effect.  She also asserted that infertility is grounds for an annulment.  Clearly she is not someone to be taken seriously.

Claire - thank you for your comment. I know who and what she is; I read this site every day but rarely comment.  Just got curious about that ITCCS and thought I’d take a look at how big of a joke it was.  Yup - pretty silly stuff. Sometimes it is fun to poke the bear. But rest assured, I never engage with trolls beyond an initial poking; serves no purpose. And yes, I will pray for forgiveness tonite for that level of snark. God…is familiar with that prayer from me. :-)

Hi Kris:  I didn’t mean to criticize you for engaging with her.  I myself am guilty of engaging with her way more than I should (it usually starts out that I don’t realize it’s her, and then once I do I keep responding way longer than I should).  I just wanted to make sure you knew who she was, to save you from the mistake of taking her seriously in case you weren’t aware of her history. 

By the way, totally off topic, but I see that you’re in New England.  I hope you didn’t get hit too hard by the storm.  We got off much easier than expected in my area, which was good because last week and this week I’ve had a lot on my plate and didn’t have time to be snowed in!

I was devistated when my first Pope (i converted in 1976) Died so suddenly.  I NEVER had a connection with JPll.  He just never made sense to me.
Instead from the very first moment I understood everything Pope Benedict said.  And as I read more and more of his writings I fell deeper and deeper into the clear insights and stretching heart, clearing mind and growing faith offered all of us by Pope Benedict. 
He spoke to my mind and soothed my heart.    May we all embrass our new pope and find our hearts rining with joy and our minds filled.

Benedict XVI was the quiet intellectual that too many didn’t respect as the successor of Saint Peter, and more recently, of John Paul II just because he was less “cut-out” for a more dictatorial mindset against a rather grounded and stubborn Curia.

That being said, I would like to remind some of the commentators that:
I. Alleged financial crimes committed by the Holy See have not ever been proven true and it is a LOGICAL and unjust thing to say otherwise.
II. The scandal of the “pedophilia” cover-up is blown far out of proportion. YES, the Catholic Church acts politically at times, and this is because it is a HUMAN following of CHRIST on EARTH.

Whether you point at Paolo Gabriele, who was forgiven by Ratzinger a few months after trying to bring to the light old Vatican documents so as to bring forth a scandal and call it “illogical” or even when a crisis born in a sexual revolution that, believe it or not, finds its place in all Christian and lay peoples and communities (that is, pedophilia; which I will add is an unfortunate reality and a perversion nonetheless), you cannot be so callous as to at least not empathise with the motions of the Magisterium.

Already it is known that pedophilia and financial expertise is all part of humanity; the Church’s attempt at trying to curb that reputation of an institution that does have a root in the philosophy and life of Christ is extremely logical. Statistics show that these problems occur more in other churches and religious communities, but negative press will target the Catholics.

Why? Perhaps we should act as the apostles and consider it “pure joy” to be persecuted.

Solidarity from Rome; another convert to Catholicism.

Peace be with you all.

I must say I’m a little stunned by this post. Benedict “a wise guide who can act as a translator to unite the sacred and the secular” Really? “It’s hard to imagine that there is another man in the world who could have been a better shepherd for these times.”

You must be referring to someone else, right? Or have I slipped into some alternate dimension in which God’s Doberman has been tranformed into a uniter? This is the pope who wants a “smaller, purer Church,” and in the developed world, at least, that’s just what he’s getting. How exactly have “these times” gotten better? When you say that “just when moral relativism and godlessness began to grip the world with new vigor, God sent us someone perfectly suited to combat those very issues,” you seem to imply that he won the battle, or at least made progress. Can you think of any examples?

Benedict was selected in the first place because he was already old, and nobody figured him to be in the job very long. As it happens, he wasn’t. I don’t think he’ll be long-remembered.

HEY ALL YOU ATHEISTS OUT THERE-  Watch Jennifer articulate her conversion from Atheist to Catholic.  Go to:  www.renewalministries.net Click on TV Shows, Click on :  The Choices We Face click on: View Archives, Go to Jan 15, 2012 and watch an amazing testimony.  Jennifer Articulates her way of reading and researching her way to the Catholic Church.  She is one smart lady. 

Marty from: “Hail Mary” land

The comments of some of the unconverted atheists, who are unmoved by the Pope’s writings, seem to me to misconstrue Jennifer’s point. She did not imply that his writings were exceptionally persuasive and thus likely to win over new converts, merely that his style of writing was one that a person like herself, with a strong scientific background, could relate to more easily than other theologians.  Pope Benedict writes with an extremely erudite and intellectual style, analyzing faith and scripture in a rigorous manner. As such, his writing does have an appeal to anyone who is accustomed to, and comfortable with, that style, which is so common in academic writing.  Jennifer made it clear that she was already ripe for conversion, but was searching for a good theological (or intellectually comfortable) fit, and Benedict provided that.  I’m not sure why anyone, atheist or otherwise, would feel a need to refute that.

Thank you Giasue for your comments on the pedophilia scandal in the Church, but there is a misconception here that needs to be defined.  By characterizing this strictly as pedophilia, it absolves the issue of homosexuality which is an issue the whole world is dealing with today.  Pedophilia is defined in the medical journals as an unnatural sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. Victims are as likely to be female as male and the pedophile is more likely to be heterosexual. If you view the statistics on the 2004 report put out by the American Bishops you will see that upwards of 80% of the victims were male and a significant percentage of that were past puberty.  By definition this becomes pederasty which is the attraction of homosexual or bisexual men for young boys.

The priestly scandal in the US (and most likely internationally) is a problem of homosexual priests. It is certainly not the typical homosexual but they are homosexuals nonetheless.  It is a problem which has festered for scores of in the dark places in the Church by men who have a very disordered sexuality and sought refuge in the Church. Many of those men themselves rose to positions of leadership so the problem had enablers as well.

I apologize for this digression but whenever I see this characterized as pedophilia I feel compelled to respond.

The problem of homosexual priests I think goes much deeper than we suspect and any Pope confronted with this has on their hands a problem that will take many years to sort out and correct, especially considering the forces of liberalization in the Catholic Church celebrate homosexuality.

Hey, Marty, I just watched that video. I recommend others watch it too. It really clarified for me what a fraud she is when she portrays herself as someone who “reasoned” her way into faith. In the video she says spent her whole life as an atheist becuase she saw no evidence of God, and every conversation she had with a believer about it seemed to boil down to their personal, subjective, emotion-based experience. Not evidence. So what converted her? She says she was “done with atheism” when her son was born. “I just looked into his eyes,” she says, “and I knew that love was something that existed in the universe.” Wow.  It’s Science! Ah yes. Gotta love the intellectual rigor. If the birth of a child is her idea of sme kind of empirical evidence that Christ is Lord, then it’s no wonder she she has such a high opinion of Benedict. She’s gone from having a mind of her own to being a garden-variety Kool Aid drinker.

Kris:
“Sandy - I checked into the ITCCS and they seem very adept at self-promotion and little else.”
.
Do you know what site you are commenting on?
.
================
Claire is the troll-filter/exposer for this site and posted a very obscene comment on Jennifer’s last blog as an ad hominem attack. Don’t blame the messenger—I posted direct quotes from Catholic publications. Claire just can’t stand to be wrong.
========
The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State is a powerful legal entity that represents the civil/human rights organizations internationally. It’s “diplomatic warning” to the Vatican is obviously enough to get the Rat to jump ship “for the good of the Church,” shocking all Catholics.
.
It was a good defensive move—the warrant is only enforceable if he visits Belgium. It would not look good for a reigning Pope to ignore such a summons, but an ex-Pope can hide in what I am sure will be a luxurious home financed by the Knights of Columbus.
.
I also expect the press in the U.S. will downplay the whole thing because the press is still to chicken to offend religion with facts.
.
Jon—I hope Benedict is long remembered as the big Rat who jumped ship because secular law was after him.

The only obscene comments on the previous thread was posted by one of our two resident trolls.  (Kris knows that, as do all of Jennifer’s regular followers.)  I’m surprised it took her that long.  Usually the vulgarities come out on day one, but this time I think it took her about 5 days.  It must have been quite the exercise in restraint.

Wow!  The Internet is so wonderful!  When I was a girl, you had to wear a white robe and hood to be this anti-Catholic.  Now you can all come out in public.

Jon - “I don’t think he’ll be long-remembered.”

I think he’ll be canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church, someday.

I also felt a bigger connection to Benedict XVI than to John Paul II, not so much because he spoke to my mind, but because he spoke to my heart. His quote about how happiness has a name and a face, it’s Jesus of Nazareth hidden in the Eucharist, made me “fall in love” with him. Pope Benedict was a true spiritual guide for me; he always helped me with his writings and homilies. God bless him.

Benedict XVI intellectual Christian’s writings fall along the same lines as Blessed John Henry Newman. Many in the future will come to see how he was able to grasp and communicate faith and reason in a new and revealing way.  Unfortunately, it will take the future to reveal what so few have already acknowledged… an intelligenceal giant of a man clothed in a deeply Christian, holy and gently exterior sat in the Chair of Peter.  When the world looks back at this pope, it will conclude that it was his writings that watered the seeds planted by Blessed John Paul II and sprung forth the New Evangelization.

Claire/troll filter-exposer, I was only relaying something that can be easily looked up on Jennifer’s last blog. If it’s vulgar, you wrote it.
.
Pope Benedict did a lot of things while he was still Ratzinger. He’ll be accountable for what he did for the Church. That includes his part in the cover-up of the scandal that Kris thinks is an overblown joke.

Wow!  The Internet is so wonderful!  When I was a girl, you had to wear a white robe and hood to be this anti-Catholic.  Now you can all come out in public.

(from abovel) Hilarious! exactly!

Jennifer’s now got me wanting to read the Pope’s writings. Haven’t done this so far. The sad, sad thing about most atheists is that their atheism is more of a gut feeling or fear of the unknown than anything else. And their apprehension of the world is limited.

Victoria—Did you watch The Thorn Birds?
.
I suppose you’ll testify about one of the “miracles” that Benny had to bring about because “he spoke to your heart.” I think when the “S*** hits the fan” the Church will want to bury him like Pope Benedict IX.
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm
.
Troll-filter—why don’t you tell everyone here about your Catholic suffering raising your “hard-to-place” son without insurance?

Captain America:
“The sad, sad thing about most atheists is that their atheism is more of a gut feeling or fear of the unknown than anything else. And their apprehension of the world is limited.”
,
Do you know what site you’re commenting on?

Sure, if anyone here was stupid enough to believe the lies of a troll, they could check the last thread and see that every single vulgar comment was posted by poor blacklisted Sandy.  And funny, it’s news to me that I don’t have health insurance.  Especially since I work for an insurance company.

Jen wrote about her childhood : “... and then have animated discussions about the mysteries of the universe over long dinners. There was a distinct culture of wonder, a kind of wonder rooted in the firm foundation of reason. On the rare occasions that the topic of religion came up, it was only to note that it was a shame that people let superstition hold them back from the fearless pursuit of truth. They were missing out on so much wonder, we thought.”
How funny, because as a cradle Catholic I too would gaze up at the night sky and talk with my parents about the mysteries of the universe and our world in wonder and amazement at it all, the fantastic intricacy of it all, knowing at its source was God as creator and orchestrator. Science, to me, was the pursuit of discovering God’s design, like taking apart a machine to see how it works.  When via the astronauts we saw the Earth for the first time from space, the big, blue marble that is our home, my heart soared at the miracle of science and engineering that made the photo possible; man’s unraveling God’s mysteries and coming to knowledge.  And I used to find it sad, when I thought of atheists, that they lived a sort of cold, limited life, thinking truth consisted only of measurements and predictability.  It’s nice to know that atheists can marvel at the wonders of nature and the universe, and that their data sets don’t stop them from gasping in awe at the world around us.  But it’s also sad to know atheists think people who believe in God don’t fearlessly pursue the truth, that they think religious people are not rational thinkers, but are fearful superstitious types.  I think many of my professors in college worked out of that prejudicial stereotype.

So, you could have had your son admitted as an inpatient, so his condition could be monitored and the trauma of emergency care might be avoided? You just wanted to feel better about your skills as an OB/GYN nurse to treat him and bypass charges? I did wonder why an OB/GYN nurse didn’t have the insurance to cover a dependent’s inpatient stay, but I guessed you thought that inpatient care wasn’t as dramatic as nursing him yourself as a Catholic self-sacrifice trope.
.
Troll-filter, you know everything, but no one can be like you. Most people like to figure things out for themselves and not have some one like you as an authority on what they should believe. You labeled me a troll and expect everything I post to be deceptive. What makes you the “troll-filter?” Is it a new title you invented for the comments on this site? Is everyone to take your opinion as gospel truth?
.
How do you know if anyone really likes you?

Rover Serton wrote:  “As an atheist, I never felt any closeness to any pope.”
Then what inspired you to read this article on an explicitly Catholic website? Do you just troll for articles containing the word atheist, and skip straight to the neckbearded comments?

Jason wrote:  “I can’t think of anything he’s said in the past that I’ve found remotely compelling.”
Are you aware of anything he’s said in the past? I’d be very curious to know if you have ever read or listened to a single word of his.

SCS wrote:  “The comments of some of the unconverted atheists, who are unmoved by the Pope’s writings, seem to me to misconstrue Jennifer’s point.”
I highly doubt any of them actually read the article.  Anytime the word “atheist” appears in a title, several dozen of them jump right in with their two cents regardless of what the article is actually about.

Do atheists ever consider the possibility that they could succeed in their crusade to destroy the Church, but God could still exist? Didn’t Jesus express concern that there might not be any believers left when He returned?

Hey Jon- sorry you didn’t get the message from the video.  As Jen observed her yet to be husband and his believing friends, she couldn’t understand how “smart” people could believe in fairy tales.  But, she knew they were intelligent so she thought they must be looking at things in a different way.  And, had the humility to search more deeply.  How she puts it, from an atheists’ point of view, love is just chemical reactions.  There has to be more behind it than just chemicals.  And, she notes that arguing with an atheist can only go so far before they hit a dead end.  Her best line is when she makes a point is that you have to look at things with ” intellectual honesty”.  Jon if you really want to know truth, you have to have the humility to search for it.  Only by the grace of God and asking Him will your eyes be opened.  I will pray for you. But it’s up to you if you really want to try.  Come on, you’re reading the NCR!  You know you’re curious.  Read the book, “The Case for Christ” she mentioned.  Open your eyes Jon, you will start to see things you never saw before. I promise.

I am surprised that any atheists still exist after the holy charisma of B16.

I am also surprised at the anger, pettiness, and sarcasm directed at those who share views that aren’t exactly the party line. Doesn’t seem like a good way to win souls. “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.” (1Pt3:15-17) What would Ben do?

PEACE!

Sandy:  get your facts straight.  He had emergency care.  He went to the ER.  And there was plenty of drama.  Drama that I wouldn’t wish on any child or any mother, nor would I joke about it, manipulate it or enjoy it when it happened to even my worst enemy.  And even if I were immature enough and cruel enough to enjoy the pain that caused an adult enemy, I can’t imagine I would extend that to the manipulation of a situation of any innocent child.  But thank you so much for your concern about my innocent little boy.  You are clearly someone who loves children and cares deeply about them, and has their best interest at heart and knows what is best for them.  So your opinion in this matter, as well as in matters of Church doctrine, carries a lot of weight.

I do have a problem celebrating someone who was the head of an organization that abused children.. I was born catholic. I was never an atheist. I don’t know how an atheist might feel. I do know how badly I feel that I once belonged to a church that could molest children. I could handle other ” sins” we all make mistakes but remember this was an on going thing from the 60’s , documented and probably before. Why did it take this long and maybe longer to get the church healthy. Shame on the pope and anyone who stands behind someone who abuses the innocents.

@ Rose 07:52 - Then you must have a problem with most organizations from the Church to the Boy Scouts and most especially the public schools.  Do some research.  The public schools are a cesspool of shuttling abusers around.

Rover Serton - thanks for your post.  A suggestion. Please take the time to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.  Mr Lewis was an atheist mainly due to his experiences fighting during WW I. Over a number of years, especially the time he spent with JRR Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings fame), he came to understand the existence of God through a reasonable and thoughtful analysis of nature and history.  This book is a culmination of his search for objective truth and is compiled from his radio shows in the late 1930’s.  He makes some very reasonable, rational arguments for the existence of God.
May the Lord Be With You in your search for truth.
Eric

There are a number of comments on this thread relating to statements issued by the so-called ITCCS, having to do with an apparent cover-up of genocide of Native American schoolchildren in Canada. According to the authors of these comments, this implicates the Pope personally and is behind his decision to abdicate rather than old-age.

If the last few years has taught us anything, it is not to be afraid of the truth but to uncover it.  As a practicing Catholic, based in France, I was not previously aware of such events occuring in Canada so I felt compelled to research further.

Firstly, it does appear that something truly terrible did happen from the late 1800’s the perhaps the middle of last century.  An offical Truth and Reconciliation process was set up with official apologies and financial settlements issued on behalf of the government and church.  Here is a useful link I found (with a link at the end of the thread to the reports):

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=691963&highlight=kevin+annett

Here is the report: http://www.attendancemarketing.com/~attmk/TRC_jd/ResSchoolHistory_2012_02_24_Webposting.pdf

In short, there was abuse at all levels and the report makes for painful reading.

Now, back to the ITCCS itself.. Rather than a “powerful legal entity that represents the civil/human rights organizations internationally”, it appears to be one of many personal vehicles of a de-frocked vicar of the United Church of Canada, Kevin Annett, who is virulantly Anti-Catholic and was removed from his post for mental instability. 

In short, in case anyone was concerned about the ITCCS and its ‘statement’, don’t be.  There is, however, a real story behind this which the ITCCS/ Kevin Annett et al seems to want to exploit and use to kick the Church with.  As the preface to the T&RC; books puts it:

“This book tells a painful story.
For over a century, generations of Aboriginal children
were separated from their parents and raised in overcrowded,
underfunded, and often unhealthy residential
schools across Canada. They were commonly denied the
right to speak their language and told their cultural beliefs
were sinful. Some students did not see their parents for
years. Others—the victims of scandalously high death
rates—never made it back home. Even by the standards
of the day, discipline often was excessive. Lack of supervision
left students prey to sexual predators. To put it simply:
the needs of tens of thousands of Aboriginal children
were neglected routinely. Far too many children were
abused far too often.
But this story is about more than neglect and abuse.
Those painful stories rightfully have captured national
headlines. They are central to the story this book tells. But
there is more to tell.”

There are a number of comments on this thread relating to statements issued by the so-called ITCCS, having to do with an apparent cover-up of genocide of Native American schoolchildren in Canada. According to the authors of these comments, this implicates the Pope personally and is behind his decision to abdicate rather than old-age.

If the last few years has taught us anything, it is not to be afraid of the truth but to uncover it.  As a practicing Catholic, based in France, I was not previously aware of such events occuring in Canada so I felt compelled to research further.

Firstly, it does appear that something truly terrible did happen from the late 1800’s the perhaps the middle of last century.  An offical Truth and Reconciliation process was set up with official apologies and financial settlements issued on behalf of the government and church.  Here is a useful link I found (with a link at the end of the thread to the reports):

[unable to post links as would flag this comment as spam, sorry]

In short, there was abuse at all levels and the report makes for painful reading.

Now, back to the ITCCS itself.. Rather than a “powerful legal entity that represents the civil/human rights organizations internationally”, it appears to be one of many personal vehicles of a de-frocked vicar of the United Church of Canada, Kevin Annett, who is virulantly Anti-Catholic and was removed from his post for mental instability. 

In short, in case anyone was concerned about the ITCCS and its ‘statement’, don’t be.  There is, however, a real story behind this which the ITCCS/ Kevin Annett et al seems to want to exploit and use to kick the Church with.  As the preface to the T&RC; books puts it:

“This book tells a painful story.
For over a century, generations of Aboriginal children
were separated from their parents and raised in overcrowded,
underfunded, and often unhealthy residential
schools across Canada. They were commonly denied the
right to speak their language and told their cultural beliefs
were sinful. Some students did not see their parents for
years. Others—the victims of scandalously high death
rates—never made it back home. Even by the standards
of the day, discipline often was excessive. Lack of supervision
left students prey to sexual predators. To put it simply:
the needs of tens of thousands of Aboriginal children
were neglected routinely. Far too many children were
abused far too often.
But this story is about more than neglect and abuse.
Those painful stories rightfully have captured national
headlines. They are central to the story this book tells. But
there is more to tell.”

Happy Valentine’s Day everyone!  I have really enjoyed reading the perspectives (first Jennifer’s, and then some of the commenters’) of people who have had a stronger connection to Pope Benedict than to Pope John Paul II.  That is the opposite of my experience (although I do like Pope Benedict a lot), so it’s been interesting to hear a different view.  Valentine’s Day seems like a good time to make my exit, so I’m going to unsubscribe now, and hopefully see most of you on a future thread.

Jennifer
It is hard for me to concieve that a person raised in a scientific, atheist home would one day decide to accept a belief in hell, saints that could fly, virgin births, Mary giving birth but still a virgin, and birth control as a sin. The most famous atheist C.S. Lewis had religious training as a youth, so he never was a atheist but just a young man who suspended his belief for awhile. I think you may not have been pushed into religion but was allowed to explore the faith as a youth. You may have married a catholic. You may have friends that you admired their peace in life, but you have not suspended your logical rational mind, if you were raised like that. I don’t think there is anything wrong with accepting the faith. However, to misrepesent yourself is probably a sin. To continue in this is maybe a mortal sin.

John Smith ,
Having religious training as a child doesn’t prevent one from becoming an atheist.The reverse is true, too.

Claire - thank you for asking. We got clobbered by the storm with 3 feet of snow in 24 hours. We are very lucky that we never lost power and were cleared out 2 days later. I have a friend whose roof collapsed due to the weight of the snow and others who were still digging out on Monday & Tuesday this week.  We New Englanders are hearty souls when it comes to wintertime but this storm tested even our ability to be graceful under pressure.  Glad to hear that you and yours were spared.
...
And Claire - stop poking the bear. ;-) Happy Lent!

Happy Valentine’s Day everyone!
—Claire (9:37 AM)</blockquote>

It’s Saint Valentine, dear.

Hey, Marty. I’m actually not an atheist. I believe in God. But I also hate frauds.
And the person who tells you that faith is sort of beside the point, that you can just “reason” your way into belief because, really, belief in the Christian God is the only “rational” world view—the person who tells you this is the most dangerous kind of fraud.
And that is what Jennifer is telling you.
Look, faith in God is not irrational. But the existence of God IS unprovable, and anyone who tells you different is lying or delusional. God is one possible explanation for certain things about the universe that we don’t understand, and it’s the one I subscribe to personally. But it’s not the only explanation, and it’s hardly the only rational explanation.
That’s why, as a Christian, I find Jennifer’s video not merely unsatisfying, but actually a little infuriating. It’s precisely because she’s not being intellectually honest. On the contrary, she’s embracing EXACTLY the same arguments for the existence of God that she had rejected during her atheist days, only she’s trying to palm them off as some kind of intellectualism. It’s nonsense.
She’s saying, “The reason I was an atheist is because no one could make a persuasive INTELLECTUAL case for the existence of God. Lots of people tried, but it was always just them relaying their personal, subjective, emotional experience. Not evidence.”
And what was the evidence she needed? The birth of her child. Which is obviously nothing more or less than a personal, subjective emotion-based experience containing not one morsel of empirical evidence for the existence of anything supernatural at all. Yet she portrays that as some kind of intellectual basis for her belief in God.

It is hard for me to conceive that a person raised in a scientific, atheist home would one day decide to accept a belief in hell, saints that could fly, virgin births, Mary giving birth but still a virgin, and birth control as a sin.

—John Smith(9:49 AM)

Quantum mechanics, relativity theory, and Catholic Christianity are all where science leads, John Smith.  If any one of them are hard you to “conceive”, they all must be.

What’s strange to me to try imagining how someone supposedly intelligent and well-informed about physics can imagine believing in, say, the Copenhagen interpretation and<> the conservation of mass-energy.  Or that the universe’s origin is totally random yet behaves in ways describable with mathematical rigor, see “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” by Eugene Wigner in <i>Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I (February 1960).

Science was invented by Catholics. Atheists are like hobos who imagine that they built and direct the train they’re stealing a ride on.

Jennifer, i can see a lot in common in our paths towards Christ. I was not raised religious, though i should say not anti- religious either. My turning towards the Christianity started on an intellectual level and took quite a few years until i experienced more personal relation with Christ and felt more at home amid Chrisitian community (sadly never experienced this while i was at home in my Church, though i dearly love my Church. Luckily , the Catholic church now helps me feel at home worldwide). I can’t say, like you, that Pope Benedict was the one who opened this door for me, nevertheless I consider him my Pope, more than any Pope before him. Like you though i think he was God’s grace for the Church and for the world in this particular time. I was fortune to live in Rome when he was elected Pope, and was one of those who prayed Cardinal Ratzinger to be the new Pope. May God blesses us with a holy and worthy new Pope!

Jon posted on Thursday, Feb 14, 2013 12:24 PM (EST):
“And what was the evidence she needed? The birth of her child. Which is obviously nothing more or less than a personal, subjective emotion-based experience containing not one morsel of empirical evidence for the existence of anything supernatural at all.”

Jon, you make a good point. I gave birth to two children, and it’s chemistry all the way. The part that puzzles me is the position that human experience “can’t just be chemicals.” Why can’t it? One might not like the idea, but that doesn’t influence whether it might or might not be true. And I feel deep love for my grown children. Why does it matter if this is because of a combination of hormones, stored memories and a normally functioning brain rather than some impossible-to-demonstrate-the-existence-of spiritual component? It’s been pretty conclusively demonstrated that deeply depressed people don’t have normal emotions, but that “chemicals” or electroshock therapy can help them get back to more normal feelings. Our emotions seem to me to be pretty clearly the products of our physical selves.

Hey Claire, I know you’re unsubscribed, but just in case you look at the comments I wanted to tell you that I, like you, have been guilty of trying to enlighten “Sandy-Angela-Stella’s” soul. I’m also guilty of “poking the bear” because I found it a little amusing.  You have never done this, and have always been completely polite, serious and stuck to the facts.  Thank you.  That last attack on your motherhood was so disgusting, my husband would say : “It doesn’t have a name” (Spanish is full of useful sayings).  The good thing is that you have been extremely diligent in refuting garbage on these threads when nobody else did—that a lot of good people will read—when the half-cocked, nut-job-trolls are vomiting their half-truths, at best (the most dangerous kind) and blasphemy of God (at worst).  So I don’t want you to stop doing the good that you do, I would just recommend that you not talk to “her” personally, as this is what she craves most.  Mea Culpa on that front too.  Even she could figure out that you weren’t troll-filter (lol) but it’s easier to “get your goat” than mine!  She can spit bile and spin her head around all she wants, it’s just a zombie comedy for me.  Anyhoo, that’s the last two cents of verbiage I’ll spend on that problem, I still pray for her, and those like her.  You’ve been a rock and I commend you for it. Peace, and Happy Valentines! (:D)
p.s.  Remember what I said about having teenagers?  It takes a lot to phase me.

@Micha E.  I certainly am sorry to distract from great comments like yours.
Thank you.

Claire—I’m sure you’ll be stopping by from time to time.
.
I didn’t say you considered you son’s emergency a joke—I’m saying you’re using the drama as an argument that you’re a Catholic. The drama is impressive and somehow you present it as a “test of faith.”
.
True, I don’t know the details, but as a nurse, you should know emergency room care can be a lot more aggressive than inpatient care. During an inpatient stay, he would have been monitored and early symptoms treated before they progressed to an emergency. Also—how would you feel if he died in your care?
.

Thank you but I don’t need a troll filter. I can handle that myself. God has blessed me (and most everyone) with a discerning mind. I can figure out the BS from the BS (Belief System). I enjoy reading different perspectives. That is what discussion is all about.

Sometimes I am inspired to look things up because of what I read. By doing this, one learns to sort the wheat from the chaff-a valuable skill. If there is a comment or commentor that I don’t like, I skip over it. Simple.

So troll filter/s go mind your own business. You don’t need to worry about protecting the Truth. Truth/God will win. Rest easy. Peace!

Rose McKay, the Church is not an organization that abuses children. Catholic priests who abused children are less than 1% of the entire clergy. It is not an on going thing. Most cases of child abuse occurs within the family. I would know about that, since I work in an institution that helps children in vulnerable situations, which includes sexual abuse. In all these years, we’ve never had some case of a child abused by a priest. Almost all of the sexual predators have been the fathers, stepfathers and brothers. You should have a bigger problem with families than you have with the Church.
And blaming Pope Benedict for those abuses, as if he were personally responsible for them, is completely absurd, considering that most of them happened in the ‘60, when Joseph Ratzinger was still a priest. He was named Cardinal in 1977, but only in 1981 he was appointed as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Posted by Claire on Monday, Feb 11, 2013 7:07 PM (EST):
Popping back in here on a break from work.  Looks like I picked a great time to check. I am still unsubscribed from comments.  Sandy/Gloria:  how dare you, a self-proclaimed baby killer, twist my words and say that I risked my son’s life? My son is my life.  I am an RN.  I did not sign him out AMA.  When the doctors and I were on the fence about admitting him, since I am an RN and live close to the hospital, we decided to bring him home.  Yes, finances played into it.  The only reason I told you about that situation and the circumstances about his adoption was because at the time I did not realize that you were Gloria, and you asked me questions about what good I had done in the world and if I knew what it was like to have trouble affording healthcare for my child.  You are a sick, evil person who clearly can’t comprehend the complexities of Catholic teaching on NFP.  I am not “troll exposer” or “troll filter”. I suspect that Annalisa is, and is giving you a taste of your own medicine by posting under multiple names. The last comment I posted was on Saturday night.  Annalisa made an excellent analogy about fasting vs eating and purging.  Tami on 2/7 also explained the whole thing, using reliable sources (namely papal documents).  You aren’t fooling anyone here into thinking that you know what you’re talking about.  But dragging an innocent baby into the situation is an all-time low, even for you.  I pray to God that you never become a mother, because I wouldn’t wish any innocent child to be the victim of your warped, sick mind.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/those-catholic-women-who-use-contraception#ixzz2Ku81uPKS

Victoria,
Where I live, the mom’s live-in boyfriend’s the most likely suspect to harm children.Or older men targeting young girls,especially if there’s no adult male presence in the home.The same story repeats over & over again in the local news.

See-downplaying the sexual abuse scandal. Ethically and legally, the director of an organization is responsible for the actions of its agents/employees.
.
For a organization that demands an oath of celibacy among its clergy, 1% is plenty. Also, you’re ignoring the rest of the world. It’s not just sex abuse—the Church has been involved with child-selling, the Magdalene Laundries, organized crime, the spread of HIV and other STDs, and intimidation.
.
There’s always an excuse or someone else to blame. The Rat is leaving his office just like any politician leaves office when a scandal catches up with him.

Poking the bear:

Compare the Catholic sex abuse scandal - a black mark for which the Catholic Church will need to atone for years to come - to sex abuse by educators:

===9.6% of students will endure sexual abuse at the hands of their teacher;
===Only 62% of reported cases result in the de-licensing of the teacher;
===Between 1%-5% of teachers (U.S.) sexually abuse their students.

Priests aren’t the only people in a position of authority to abuse that position and target the most vulnerable among us. This doesn’t gloss over what priests have done but rather illustrates that this is a problem that goes far beyond the priesthood.

Bear poking finished.

Same here. I never wanted to become a Catholic. I knew I felt drawn to the clarity of Catholic theology, but I chose to be a Protestant, because of ‘that pope’.

I remember how the Pope visited Germany, I think it was in 2006, and was interviewed by German TV, so naturally he spoke German. My native language is German. So when I heard him talk about Jesus and saw how meek and sweet he was, I started to turn towards the Catholic Church.

I think I can say that without this pope, I probably still would be an anti-Catholic Protestant on this day. I will surely miss him a lot. He is ‘my’ Pope as well.

Kris, in New England ,
The bottom line is that kids are easy targets for sexual predators everywhere.And this includes girls as young as 11 being involved with older males.
Our (public) school district hired a fulltime teacher for pregnant middleschool girls 11-15 years old.

OK, everybody—what do you consider the acceptable allowance for sexual abuse in the Catholic clergy? Why are you so upset about contraception in Africa, yet have no problem with child abuse by the Catholic system in other countries?
.
Why should a monther of a nine-year-old daughter raped by her Catholic step-father be excommunicated for consenting to aborting twin embryos before they grew big enough to kill the girl be excommunicated while the rapist step-father can still take Holy Communion?
.
ITCCS is an international tribunal investigating international crimes and they have a warrant for Benedict’s arrest. The Pope is jumping ship and leaving it to the next Pope to deal with cleaning up the mess he is leaving behind.

For someone who claims to be a former atheist, Fulweiler certainly demonstrates a poor understanding of the rest of us who don’t believe in any god.  Why would we care what any Pope or other religious leader has to say? What convinces an atheist is evidence, which is notably absent from both this article and her blog.

@Kris:  Does pointing out other examples of sexual abuse make it okay that the Catholic Church does it?  If not, why bring it up?

@Victoria:  What’s your source for the claim that it mostly happened during the 60’s?

@Micha Elyi:  Please provide one example of science that has led to Catholic Christianity.

@Eric Pisk:  Name one such rational argument for the existence of God.  I’m willing to bet I can spot a logical fallacy in it.

@Mike:  God could absolutely exist, whether there’s a Church or not; there’s just no evidence that he does.

DVD—you are really in for a circus. Look over past blogs, and you will be amazed!
.
I really wouldn’t care what they believe, except that they are abuseing and killing people because of what they believe. Suffering is a virture to them and they are obliged by their faith to convert everyone who isn’t suffering enough into Catholics.

DVD Bach wrote:  “Why would we care what any Pope or other religious leader has to say?

Then what inspired you to read this article on an explicitly Catholic website? Do you just troll for articles containing the word atheist, and skip straight to the neckbearded comments?

@Steve:
Not going to answer the question, then?  I do keep an eye out for articles on atheism at religious websites, so that I can challenge the disinformation they spread about it.

DVD—I’m guessing you’re new here. “Why do you visit a conservative Catholic website if you hate Catholics?” is just the start of the hostilities. Soon they will get downright and unabashedly insulting.
.
While they use statistics to downplay the sexual abuse in the Church, they will dismiss government statistics that show contraception reduces abortion rates, that condoms are effective in reducing the spread of HIV and STDs, and especially any evidence that the Pope is a criminal dictator. Lying for the Church is another virtue.
.
They will not yield to reason, so I hope you’re just here to make them uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance. Deep down, they know what hypocrites (and worse) they are, and their terrified of being found out.
.
If you think alcohol and drug addicts are in denial, the Catholics here will make them seem mentally sound. I can’t pity them, however, as they are deliberately denying reality and demanding the secular population allow them to not only tolerate, but to promote their warped morality.
.
My advice is to tell them facts (with references), ask them to defend themselves, and sit back while the reveal their illogical replies. They will use every logical fallacy, especially ad hominen.
.
These people fear change and fear that they have wasted their lives with false beliefs. Expect hatred.

DVD Bach - by answering your question, do you mean your call for evidence? Since you have already announced, most unscientifically, what result you will reach before having even seen the argument (“Name one such rational argument for the existence of God.  I’m willing to bet I can spot a logical fallacy in it”), I’m not sure there is much of a point. I also suspect that you have a very specific definition of “evidence” in mind that probably excludes philosophy as well as anything that points to the supernatural.
But nonethess the following is a good start (please note you will need to cut and paste the links):

http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_God?#Unit_D:_Is_there_Evidence_of_God_from_Science.3F

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm

Blacklistedsandy wrote: “These people fear change and fear that they have wasted their lives with false beliefs. Expect hatred.”
I spent 30 years as an agnostic and had no religious upbringing, so this really doesn’t describe me. One of the biggest factors that has led me to theism recently is the online conduct of atheists. There is an increasing level of desperation that is reflected in the conduct of you, DVD Bach and others by coming onto to explicitly Christian websites and trying to evangelize.  It is one thing to put your view out there as a philosophical perspective, but if reason and progress is truly on your side, what need is there to go on the offensive?  Why troll the writings of particular authors or websites that no one is forcing you to read? Won’t the “truth” lead people to your side eventually, if what you believe is true? The real reason, I suspect, for this militancy is that atheism is, when carried to its logical conclusion, incoherent:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/nov/19/atheism-why-it-logically-incoherent

http://www.catholicthinker.net/the-incoherence-of-atheism/

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/4-arguments-transcendence.htm

“One of the biggest factors that has led me to theism recently is the online conduct of atheists.
So you said, I don’t like how atheists act, therefore God exists?  Suuuure you were agnostic…

“but if reason and progress is truly on your side, what need is there to go on the offensive?”
To counter the pervasive disinformation about atheism propegated by religious websites.  The websites you’ve cited are great examples of exactly that.

Steve—your reply is close to reasonable, except I expect the purpose is to get rid of me by suggesting my being here is futile by my own principles.
.
I could say I’m being offensive because a cornered rat is dangerous. It will use any weapon and lash out at anybody or anything that get’s near—even its own kind. Sometimes it is a mercy to kill it quickly rather than watch it suffer an extended, inevitable death.
.
The case of Savita Halappanavar-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savita_Halappanavar
.
...can be used as an analogy. It probably would have been better to induce the the abortion of an non-viable child to save the life of the mother.
.
It might be admirable that you were agnostic before you were Catholic, just as Jennifer takes pride in being an ex-atheist. What I don’t understand is why you think converting to Catholicism or any other religion is based on rational thought. It is purely a “gut” decision—an emotional experience overwhelming reasonable thinking. Any drug does that. I’m sure it was a relief when you “decided” to believe in a religion. B.F. Skinner used the same reward/punishment methods.
.
Well, its late, and I’m tired or I wouldn’t be going on and on. I guess I posted enough for now.

@Steve:  Yes, I have already concluded that I can spot a logical fallacy in any argument you present.  You can prove me wrong by presenting an argument free of logical fallacies, and I will happily concede that you have done so.

I do not exclude philosophy as evidence, just as long as the philosophical claims are verifiable in the real world.

It’s easy to spot logical fallacies on both of the websites you’ve provided.  The first is internally contradictory; for example, the author states that is no “before” the Big Bang, but then turns right round in the next sentence and makes claims about what “before” the Big Bang would have been like.  The second website sets up the false dichotomy that biological systems were either designed or happened “by chance.”

Got anything else?

As a lover of Christ and everything He stood for and everything He died for, and I’m a catholic as well. I was born this way. A catholic! I have never regretted being a catholic. I have never not believed in Christ, his beauty and His wisdom sinks beneath me like a stone. My love for Him is agape. As for the Pope and the holy mess the church has gotten into because they had the money to get away with murder. I say F them! Christ says F them as well. Anyone who covers up child abuse WILL be taken down. It’s not my choice as Christ in my heart and soul, as in your heart knows. The truth always comes forward. I will pray for the pope. I will pray he SEE s the error in his ways. So sorry he will have to go to jail and a lien will have to be put on the money of the Catholic Church. We all mistake. We all sin. We all admit our faults.

—“One of the biggest factors that has led me to theism recently is the online conduct of atheists.  So you said, I don’t like how atheists act, therefore God exists?  Suuuure you were agnostic…”—

I said one of the biggest factors, not THE factor. It was the factor that prompted me to question atheism in the first place.  Also, your suggestion that I’m lying about my agnosticism is little more than an ad hominem attack.  Your criticism is also circular: I concluded that God exists, so my reasoning must be flawed.

—“but if reason and progress is truly on your side, what need is there to go on the offensive?” To counter the pervasive disinformation about atheism propegated by religious websites.  The websites you’ve cited are great examples of exactly that.—

As I explained, there should be no need for your guerilla tactics if your position is so reasonable.  I also find it pretty hard to believe that you read everything on those three websites so quickly.  Again, they couldn’t be reasonable because they say God exists, isn’t that your reasoning?

You’re philosophy is meaningless but your actions are so meaningfull. Try Christ , and not the club you want to belong to. Try walking the road with just Him. You don’t need a gang when you have Him!

“@Steve:  Yes, I have already concluded that I can spot a logical fallacy in any argument you present…..”

Let me guess, there is a logical fallacy in any pro-theistic argument because it points towards the existence of God? Isn’t that the type of circular reasoning you freethinkers are supposed to be morally opposed to?It is so painfully obvious that your are not interested in seriously engaging these issues, that I simply cannot justify continuing.  There is a ton of information on both of those websites and you couldn’t have possibly formed such a sophomoric and conclusory opinion so quickly.  The bottom line is you skimmed the first page of each, found some superficial grievance, and came back here.

—“The first is internally contradictory; for example, the author states that is no ‘before’ the Big Bang, but then turns right round in the next sentence and makes claims about what “before” the Big Bang would have been like.”—

He is talking about a theoretical pre-Big Bang period because he is addressing the arguments of some physicists who have suggested same.  This is what truly “rational” and “freethiking” people do - seriously engage opposing viewpoints.  There is no internal inconsistency here.  That would have been obvious if you really reading it instead of looking for the first thing you thought you could attack.

“second website sets up the false dichotomy that biological systems were either designed or happened ‘by chance.’”

How is that a false dichotomy? What middle ground do you see, smart guy? Are you buying into Dawkins’ position that natural selection is something other than chance? Something like “the Force” perhaps? I’ve heard Dawkins’ explanation of how natural selection supposedly isn’t random. It sounds an awful lot like a transcendent, intelligent, creative force to me. That is a B.S. soundbite that many internet atheists buy into without question becomes it comes from Dawkins.  Also, you are only addressing the first (argument from design) of the seven arguments for God’s existence that are offered on that website.

@Steve:
No, they existence of a logical fallacy in theistic arguments can be demonstrated; it has nothing to do with what I want.

If you believe there are any more compelling arguments on the websites you provided, cite it.

Your claim about the author addressing the claims of physicists regarding a theoretical “prior to the Big Bang” is a strawman, since the author made no such claim.

You answered your own question about a third alternative, and it isn’t an idea that Dawkins originated; it’s a fact that natural selection is a non-random process.  Show me one expert in biology who disagrees.

For refutations of the other arguments presented on your websites, I’d recommend the Rational Wiki website; it covers them all.  If there are any that you’d like to discuss specifically, state your case.

DVD Bach: You have jumped into a blog that I’m guessing from your first comment on this article that you’ve never been on before. You, and others like you, come here for sport & fun, telling us that because there is no proof of God (in your world anyway) that we are idiots for believing. You don’t know the background to this blog or the hate spewed by other atheists and non-believers. For me, you can believe (or not) whatever you want; we each have choices to make in our lives and far be it for me to judge or question the choices of others. As to your question about me citing abuse stats for teachers, if you read my ENTIRE comment you will note that I indicated that the Catholic Church has MUCH to atone for in the sex abuse scandals. I never excused it nor offered any kind of absolution for it. I offered the stats on teachers as a way to illustrate that it isn’t the Catholic Church alone who preys on the vulnerable.
...
And this is how it always goes on this blog when Ms. Fulwiler mentions her conversion. Atheists trot out the same old tropes and canards regardless of the actual topic at hand; diversionary tactics seem to be embedded in the atheist mindset - a personal revelation about feelings about the Pope turns into a diatribe about contraception and the sex abuse scandal. Don’t you ever get bored with listening to yourselves? Don’t you have any thing new to talk about?
...
Or better yet - don’t you have anything better to do than come on an explicitly CATHOLIC blog to spew your judgment and hate? Seriously - get a life people.

I never claimed most of things you’re defending yourself from in your response.  You didn’t answer my question about why you’re bringing up other institutions if not to excuse the Catholic Church.  Dodging the topic at hand by changing the subject to other organizations is the “tu quoque” logical fallacy, which is exactly the sort of diversionary tactic you’re acccusing me of.

General comment re: creationist websites.  The reason I’m not giving them more attention is that I’ve heard all of the arguments that all of them make.  No matter how many times they’ve been refuted, creationists keep trotting them out.  If you specific specific arguments you’d like me to address, let me know; I’m happy to point out why they don’t work.

DVD Bach wrote: —”@Steve: No, they existence of a logical fallacy in theistic arguments can be demonstrated; it has nothing to do with what I want.”—
My previous comment accused you of circular reasoning.  You will announce a “fallacy” with any argument that suggests God’s existence, because it suggests God’s existence.  You have said nothing to rebut my accusation.

DVD Bach wrote:—“If you believe there are any more compelling arguments on the websites you provided, cite it.”—
The citations have already been provided.  Your refusal to consider the arguments in any detail has already been established.  Its pretty obvious you still have looked past the first page or two.

DVD Bach wrote:—“Your claim about the author addressing the claims of physicists regarding a theoretical “prior to the Big Bang” is a strawman, since the author made no such claim.”—
This comment only reaffirms the superficiality of any reading you may have conducted.  It also seriously calls into question whether you know what a “strawman” argument is.  Any argument you disagree with isn’t a “strawman.”  What the author actually says about a potential Big Bang era is: 
“...some physicists believe that the big bang was not the beginning of our universe which opens the possibility for a pre-big-bang period of indefinite length (perhaps avoiding a beginning and all of its implications for a creation). This hypothetical pre-big-bang period is made possible through quantum cosmology (which allows the universe to operate in a space-time smaller than the minimums required by general relativity). Currently, string theory is one hypothetical candidate for quantum cosmology in which some physicists (including Stephen Hawking) have placed considerable hope….”
If you wanted to get really deep - in other words, if you wanted to read the whole article or, heaven forbit, Fr. Spitzer’s book, you would see that the existence or non-existence of a pre-Big Bang era isn’t even critical to his analysis; postulating the existence of gravity prior to the Big Bang, for example, only pushes back the question of where gravity came from.

DVD Bach wrote:—“You answered your own question about a third alternative, and it isn’t an idea that Dawkins originated; it’s a fact that natural selection is a non-random process….”—
On a purely materialistic world view, in order for nature to “select” a trait, the trait has to arise in the first instance by RANDOM mutation. And the “selection” of what random mutations are helpful for survival depends largely upon what conditions RANDOMLY happpen to prevail in a particular time and place.  If the Earth hadn’t cooled significantly about 65 million years ago, nature would still select giant lizards over small mamals. Again, its impossible to describe natural selection as something other than random, without describing it as some type of transcendent, intelligent, creative force.

DVD Bach wrote:—“For refutations of the other arguments presented on your websites, I’d recommend the Rational Wiki website; it covers them all.”—

Wow, I’ve never heard of rational wiki before! You mean to tell me that theres a website written by atheists, for atheists, designed to reaffirm atheistic beliefs? I assure you, I’ve given far more attention to “rational wiki” than you have given to any argument for the existence of God.  Also, the fact that you even need a “rational” wiki, when atheists already dominate Wikipedia, reveals that you are on the fringe of a fringe.

Now that the flaws in your thought processes have been exposed, lets talk about you. I know ad hominem attacks are not argument, but they can shed insight into one would advance such specious arguments.  A simple Google search of “DVD Bach” reveals that you have made a passtime out of pushing your way into theistic websites, always under the pretext of “clarifying misconceptions about atheists.” But the clarification never comes, only the neckbearded trolling.  You are “The Problem of Internet Atheists.” http://sententias.org/2012/11/01/the-problem-of-internet-atheists/ (an article which you also speciously commented on without offering any meaningful insight into anything)
You are the stereotype.

Posted by DVD Bach on Friday, Feb 15, 2013 8:22 AM (EST): “General comment re: creationist websites.”
Who cited to a creationist website in this thread? Or are all pro-theistic websites “creationist” to you? This comment seems to support Steve’s assertion that you just are not reading anything contrary to your views.

“Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos”
Hilariously incoherent nonsense.
“his constant search for truth”
There is no such thing as “religious truth”.
“Watch Jennifer articulate her conversion from Atheist to Catholic.”
Hilarious.
“their atheism is more of a gut feeling or fear of the unknown”
Hilarious.
“Didn’t Jesus express concern that there might not be any believers left when He returned?”
But he was going to return while some of you are still alive.  He’s now 2000 years or so late.
“There has to be more behind it than just chemicals.”
What makes you think so?  Wishful thinking?
“read Mere Christianity”
Hilarious.
“faith in God is not irrational.”
Of course it is.
“Science was invented by Catholics.”
Hilarious.
“you have a very specific definition of “evidence” in mind that probably excludes philosophy as well as anything that points to the supernatural.”
Of course.  Why should there be any other definition of “evidence”?
“that natural selection is something other than chance?”
Natural selection includes “selection”.  That is not “chance”.
“that we are idiots for believing”
No.  It’s a nice social club with many nice members.  But why do you think you have the right to impose your morality upon others?

“If you specific specific arguments you’d like me to address, let me know; I’m happy to point out why they don’t work.”
Is that how the scientific method is supposed to work? You don’t know what the data is yet, but you already know it won’t work? I wasn’t so sure about the “atheism is incoherent” post that Steve put up a day or so ago, but you are making a strong case for him.

Mike,
Anyone of faith is a “creationist” to some degree. We just differ on the process & length of time the Creator took to accomplish it all.

ITCCS is an international tribunal investigating international crimes and they have a warrant for Benedict’s arrest.
.
The ITCCS is a kangaroo court led by a mentally unstable anti-Catholic. It has no civil or international authority, just delusions of grandeur. They’re also attempting to arrest Queen Elizabeth, I believe - look how well that has worked for them.
.
For more info, see here: http://www.renegadecatholic.com/blog/2011/06/victims-laughingstocks/

DVD -you really are obtuse.  From my comment:
...

As to your question about me citing abuse stats for teachers, if you read my ENTIRE comment you will note that I indicated that the Catholic Church has MUCH to atone for in the sex abuse scandals. I never excused it nor offered any kind of absolution for it. I offered the stats on teachers as a way to illustrate that it isn’t the Catholic Church alone who preys on the vulnerable.
...
Just because this doesn’t fit in with your view of the Catholic Church doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  And changing subjects…it is to laugh.  I answered your question. And in fact my original comment was in response to yet another atheist who constantly changes the subject on this blog.
...
Now - answer mine.
...
And to my earlier comment about not engaging with trolls - I will stop poking the bear.

@Anne:  You don’t seem to have read my post very carefully.  I *have* seen the data, because I am familiar with all of the creationist arguments.

@Kris:  I saw your answer.  My point is that those other organizations are irrelevant to the topic.  What exactly was the question you wanted me to answer?  The only things in your post that end with question marks are ad hominem attacks.

Kathleen - DVD Bach is implying young earth creationism/literal interpretation of genesis.  To borrow his own phrase, he is trying to set up a “false dichotomy” between science and belief by painting all believers with the same broad brush as fundamentalists who say the Earth is 6000 years old, because that is who he wants to argue with. He’s attacking a position that no one advanced here.

Posted by DVD Bach on Friday, Feb 15, 2013 9:44 AM (EST):@Anne:  You don’t seem to have read my post very carefully.  I *have* seen the data, because I am familiar with all of the creationist arguments.

Except the part when you said, “send my any site (which necessarily includes sites you haven’t seen yet) and I will tell you why its wrong.” That is the exact point where you abandoned any semblence of analytical thought and revealed the irrationality and superficiality of your world view. You have announced repeatedly here that you don’t care what the argument is, you already know you will reject it by announcing a “fallacy.”

@Kathleen:  I believe that if you seek out and review young earth creationist resources, you’ll see that they are making the exact arguments that the cited websites are.  I am suggesting no dichotomy; science is perfectly capable of testing the claims of religion. 

@Anne:  I’m not making up logical fallacies; they have objective definitions.  If you don’t believe my claim that I can spot a logical fallacy in any creationist argument, then I repeat my challenge to prove me wrong:  Show me one free of logical fallacies, and I will happily concede that it is.

to the “other” Kathleen:
Thanks.I hear you, I just think we’re all creationists if we believe God created the world.I hate to see a perfectly good word disrespected.
As Catholics, we have room to believe in a certain amount of literalness in the Old Testament.
I have Catholic friends who are quite literal in their interpretation, others not so much.
I personally don’t really care how God did it, obviously whatever He did worked & I’m glad we’re all here.

DVD Bach - what abou the websites cited by Steve above, which he was able to prove you didn’t even read (and which you later acknowledged later on, when you labeled them “creationists” not worthy of your time)? You’ll never “concede” that a pro-theistic argument is free from logical fallacies because you refuse to consider them.

@Anne:  Prove it.  Find a pro-theistic argument that is free of logical fallacies.  Let me know when you have one.

—Posted by DVD Bach on Friday, Feb 15, 2013 10:05 AM (EST):@Anne:  Prove it.  Find a pro-theistic argument that is free of logical fallacies.  Let me know when you have one—

That has already been proven to be a waste of time, given the volume of information offered to you above that you have admittedly refused to read. You’re here to play games, not to engage in any kind of dialogue.  You are a neck-bearded troll.

Ad hominem.  Let me know when you’re willing to take a position and support it.

It is so amusing to me that atheists will come onto a Christian website, or more specifically, a Catholic website - and make demands of the Christians on the site to prove what the atheist doesn’t believe in.

An ad hominem attack is only irrational when its not relevant.
Let me know when you’re willing to read the support already provided.

@Anne: You’ve provided no support to read.  I challenge you one more time to pick any of the arguments on those websites that you’d like to discuss.  Continuing to make unsupported assertions is dishonest.

@Kris:  No, what I demand is that Christian websites stop spreading disinformation about atheism.  You’re welcome to ignore that demand, but when you do, you can count on people like me to show up and call the websites out on their dishonesty.

Posted by DVD Bach on Friday, Feb 15, 2013 10:05 AM (EST):@Anne:  Prove it.  Find a pro-theistic argument that is free of logical fallacies.  Let me know when you have one.
.
What was that about your demands?

Posted by DVD Bach:
“I challenge you one more time…”
Or else what, you’ll refuse to believe on God? You’ll leave the site? What exactly are the consequences of your ultimatim.

“pick any of the arguments on those websites that you’d like to discuss.  Continuing to make unsupported assertions is dishonest.”
You have already been pointed to many arguments on those websites and others and we have already established that you read them only partially and superficially. That is dishonest. It is also dishonest to pretent that you are here for rational dialogue when you have done nothing but troll. 
Keep in mind the following men have written BOOKS about these topics.  There is a level of understanding you cannot get through links, believe it or not. But for starters:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm (this one should really get to you in particular)
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=God_is_Uncreated

Again, the main page to all of these links were already provided to you by Steve.  You admittedly refused to read beyong the main page.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-atheists-pope#ixzz2KyvkxeVI

What a bunch of nonsense! “Faith and Reason are 2 sides of the same coin.”  This has to be one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever heard.  Let me see how does this work?  I have faith that there is an invisible being in the sky that knows my every thought, controls every aspect of the universe, is omnipotent and omniscient. I have faith that the way this being chose to reveal himself to mankind was to have an innocent man tortured and brutally murdered in the streets of Jerusalem.  And, of course it “reasonable” to believe this.

Roderick, first of all no one said God is “in the sky.” Until you are interested in discussing the actual position you don’t agree with, you are wasting everyone’s time here.  If you want to make up your own God just to tear it down (that’s what a strawman argument really is, DVD Bach), take your act back to Reddit or infidels.org where you can preach to the choir.

Good article, Jennifer.  I’m glad you’re feeling better.  Those trolls sure follow you.  If they hate the Catholic Church so much why do they go to this website?  I hate liberalism and won’t go to any of their websites. I admire you for not engaging with them and ignoring their hostility but maybe you should stick Mark Shea on them (just kidding.)

ITCCS = kangaroo court run by an embittered anti-Catholic. The article you posted (authored by Kevin Annett, no less) only reinforces that fact.

Yes it is reasonable to believe that a catholic married couple with 5 children, in good standing with the church, good loving people, decided to go out for dinner on Valentines’s day.  They are still very much in love, the children are at home tucked away for the night with Grandma.  They have a couple glasses of wine and when they get home they both feel that loving attraction to the other like it felt when they first met.  But wait, it is her fertile time and she is troubled at the possibility of getting pregnant at this time.  Well, in order to ease her mind the gentleman takes some preacautions to prevent a pregnancy. God forbid, later that evening a natural catastrophe destroys the house and the entire family.  All 5 baptized children are welcomed through the gates of heaven.  But mom and dad are doomed to an eternity of misery, torture and gnashing of teeth for this grave moral transgression.  Yes the “faith” tell me this is so and of course it is “reasonable” to believe this.

@Roderick:  I love that they were only willing to challenge you on the “in the sky” part!  I think you’ll find that none of these people have the balls to take a position and defend it.

Roderick, what part of your hypothetical undermines the existence of God as opposed to a particular church teaching that may or may not represent man’s imperfect ability to ascertain God’s message.
And what does your criticism have to do with the article you presumably came here to read?

Hi Jon- you’re a Christian?  Then why the harsh words re: The Pope and Jennifer.  You say God cannot be proven to exist? Sounds like a doubting Thomas to me.  Do you believe Jesus existed?  Many people saw him work miracles and many saw him after his resurrection.  During his Baptism the sky opened up and God words were heard.  During the transformation God also spoke.  Witnesses reported this.  Or were they delusional?  Moses also spoke to God. Jennifer talked about the love of her child.  I’ve seen miracles, two of which were the births of my children.  God is Love.  “If I speak in human tongues but, do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing symbol.”.  1 Cor 13 Listen Jon, just listen.  If you hear His words harden not your heart.  Me, I am not qualified to debate and am not a theologian.  From where Jennifer came from, to where she is today, is a miracle and a transformation.  If she was a fraud do you think the NCR would give her this forum to write?  Jon, I will continue to pray for you.  Have a great weekend friend, it’s a journey.

Maybe folks commenting might reference the Catechism before posing hypotheticals on Church teaching? It would make for less drama but reflect things more accurately.

—Posted by DVD Bach on Friday, Feb 15, 2013 11:36 AM (EST):@Roderick:  I love that they were only willing to challenge you on the “in the sky” part!  I think you’ll find that none of these people have the balls to take a position and defend it.—

The “sky part” was the only coherent criticism I could discern from Roderick’s post.  And do you think it takes “balls” to do what you do? Does trolling from your parent’s basement embody your vision of courage? Or manhood?

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Feb 15, 2013 11:38 AM (EST):Maybe folks commenting might reference the Catechism before posing hypotheticals on Church teaching? It would make for less drama but reflect things more accurately.

But then they couldn’t attack the “Bronze Age sky gods” of their own construct.

Jimmy,
That’s fair enough if one wants to discredit one’s own construct, but in attempting to discredit a particular faith tradition’s teachings it’s wise to at least have a basic understanding.
I think it helps everyone’s understanding when those issues are aired in conversations online.Things get sorted out & we can all learn a bit more about our Faith.

My point is that the atheist commentators here have no in that conversation.

@Anne:  Really?  You missed the whole part of omniscience, omnipotence and human sacrifice?

On a train ride in Europe several years ago, The Pope’s butler, Paolo Gabriele, was discussing Cardinal Ratzinger’s fascination with the writings of Thomas Jefferson.  He was particularly amused by this quote from Jefferson. “The priests of the different religious sects…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.”  He indicated that he knew Ratzinger was an atheist.  His intellect and reason had led him to atheism.  Ratzinger might be the Atheists’ pope in that he is an atheist as well.

Just because someone hates Catholics isn’t “proof” they are lying.
.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february122013/pope-problems-ka.php
.
The Secretary of State and the real power behind the papacy is Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, an old insider who also engineered the sacking of Gotti Tedeschi, head of the Vatican Bank, last May.
.
Tedeschi had taken seriously the call of the European Parliament for “greater transparency” by the Vatican Bank /IOR, and was about to disclose to Brussels how his bosses had been laundering money for the mob for decades. The last Pope who had tried such a disclosure, John Paul 1, died from poisoning in September, 1978 after less than a month in office.

For those bringing up the sex abuse scandal, I would like to point out that the author speaks of knowing Pope Benedict XVI through his writings, you are speaking of knowing him through the media’s interpretation of one decision he made many years ago.  If you have never done anything you regret or should regret (he who has committed no sins) then you may cast stones. Otherwise, you should examine yourself deeper, because I know no one who can truly say they have never made a choice they regret.

Roderick-  Which takes more faith?
The universe and world was designed and created by a supreme intelligent being?  Or,
Everything came from nothing?
Question posed by:  G.K. Chesterton.  You need to read him.

Marty,
I think it would additionally be hard to believe in intangible things like love, honor, loyalty, courage, etc if all is biologically driven & hardwired through evolution/survival of the species.
Most folk struggle with faith. I can understand that.But if you go full atheist mode, then it would be also logical to understand relationships from an evolutionary, biological viewpoint alone.We are just chemically driven beings.

@Marty:
False dichotomy; assumes those are the only two options.

The faith teaches us that God created the world and everything was perfect. Then one day a talking snake tempted the woman and now we are all born in sin and must suffer. Of course it is “reasonable” to believe this.  Faith and Reason are 2 sides of the same coin as Good and Evil are 2 sides of the same coin.

JJ replied to my message that the public schools and the Boy Scouts were also a “cesspool” for child rape. I’m aware that an organization has the potential to hurt and rape child. The big difference between the Catholic Church and public schools is that the perpetrator is usually caught and sent to jail.. They lose their right to teach children, which is the correct thing. They also have to carry the label of sex offender for life. IF the Catholic Church would have handled it like the public schools, I would never be blaming the church. There is bound to be a bad apple in every bunch. They need to be found out, prosecuted, and label sex offender. It give us as parents and grandparents a running chance to keep our children away from men who rape kids. BTW, this is not a gay thing. This is a rape thing.

Rose,
Penn State didn’t handle things very well, either. It’s an institutional problem.Folks protect their peers & cover up for them.

Marty,
I tried to respond to your post but the spam filter glitch-thing snagged it. Hopefully it will show up later.

I have no respect for the man or his church.

Isn’t this the same Pope who was head of the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’ (formerly called the Inquisition), the organization which received reports from all over the world about priests violating children and never REPORTED ANYONE to the civil authorities? And never investigated or punished anyone the 30,000 cases of abuse of women in the Magdalene laundries of Ireland? 

Isn’t this the same Pope who granted diplomatic asylum to Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston to escape being called before a grand jury for cover-ups?

Isn’t this the same Pope who apologized, yes, but never implemented ANY procedures to prevent abuse in the future?

Isn’t this the same Pope who refused to meet with victims of the Legionnaires of Christ in Mexico and never had a bad word to say about Mariel Marcial its founder? 

This “shepherd” did not look out for his sheep. By his actions in protecting the church from scandal and ignoring the victims, we know him.

“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

I know I’m supposed to find your conversion story inspiring, Jennifer.  But it’s posts like this that make me certain that between cradle Catholics and converted Catholics lies an enormous chasm.  *This* is the pope that you find most inspiring?  I can’t imagine a less engaging or approachable pontiff—and at a time when the Church needs a friendly face far more than a theologian.  When progressives shout about the Church losing its way, they’re called heretics.  But when Benedict, et al change the Church to be more conservative, they’re revered.  Creepy.  EWTN, Catholic Answers, NCR—these sources all seem to be dominated by converts, and no cradle Catholics I know feel any kinship with the perspectives shared via these sources.  (Que the “you’re not really Catholic” responses.  Yawn.)

Kathleen, so because penn state didnt handle the situation with the child molestation crime, are you saying its okay for the church not to handle it well?
Penn state does not profess to a a belief in God. The church is held to a higher standard, as it should be because as parishioners we believe that the priests are appointed by God.
Priests are the people who tell us what is right and what is wrong. A football coach does not do that, they talk about what is right and wrong in football. Priests teach morality. I’m not saying Penn state was right. Yes, they did a cover, we now know. There is no comparison between a coach and a priest. What if a,coach wanted to serve mass every Sunday ...would you let him?
Don’t make excuses for the church! Like I was always taught in catholic school, repent. Admit you have a problem and ask for forgiveness. Have you seen the pages and pages of priests that have been accused, and or arrested and convicted . It makes me sick, and if it does not make you sick, then your already sick.

Who are you going to fight for? A billion dollar company or a child. Hey I know which Jesus would pick. So do you. Do the right thing

To Marty:

You said “The universe and world was designed and created by a supreme intelligent being?  Or, everything came from nothing?” Sorry that is a false choice.

It is the Christian viewpoint that God designed and created the world from nothing.

The scientific viewpoint is that the world has always existed.  Science does not say that the world was created from nothing.  Science also does not say that the world war created by random chance.

And it seems to me that your creator did do such a good job of designing. I’m not sure what good it was to design snakes to tempt man, or viruses, or disease, or mentally defective children.  But of course, I don’t know God´s way as many Christians claim to do. But here are some of his design defects.

After he created it was supposed to be “good”. But he made a mistake designing Adam and Eve (and the talking snake that used to walk with feet) as he had to boot them out of paradise. Then he had to kill almost everyone including innocent children by drowning them which is a horrible way to die (did he drown the fish?). Then his covenant with the Jews didn’t work out so well as he had to send his son to save the world and start another new religion. That didn´t go so well as soon there were splits between east and west. So he designed another religion with Muhammad. Meanwhile the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants had a bunch of wars over interpreting the same bible (the laws of science are the same for everyone and no one gets killed).  Meanwhile, he left all of Asia and the new world alone without any chance of salvation until the missionaries arrived to destroy their pagan gods.

According to some God was again unhappy with the men he designed so he started a new restored religion with the Mormons. Is the latest “religion of God” New Age or Scientology?

It’s impossible to tell which religion is true as they all ask you to have blind faith in their holy books, martyrs, saints, revelations, miracles, rabbis, priests, imams, pastors, and gurus. Religions claim to have absolute unchanging answers to almost all questions.

It’s easy to tell if scientists are telling the truth as they point to evidence. Science has only tentative answers to some questions and admit that they might be wrong.

May I strongly recommend you don’t waste time on atheists?

The new atheism is the most ignorant and irrational of all of the new age religions, and is so fundamentally Fideistic as to protect its believers from all reasoned argument.

Good article - after all, Jesus came for the lost sheep; if the pope or any Catholic isn’t trying to act as a bridge to the church and the Body of Christ to lost souls they aren’t doing their job. I appreciate the low-key, intellectual and Christ-centered approach of Benedict XVI. He also was able to see that the church needed to become more aggressive in evangelizing, and that it isn’t simply sufficient for Catholics to be insular. The old way of simply relying on large Catholic families to repopulate the church ain’t gonna cut it anymore, and wasn’t ever really successful in bringing in converts.

@meme1961: That would be great advice for Jennifer Fulweiler.

Well, I can tell you one thing. If the “atheists” posting on this site are an indication of what the crowd is like, I think I’ll head to another party. Sheesh. Talk about nastiness. I thought reasoned, enlightened “humanism”...you know, “freedom” of speech and religion for all type of stuff is supposed to be what you “stand” for. Just for those who follow your “creed” I suppose? Charity and kindness in conversation aren’t written in the rules? You aren’t convincing me to join that is for sure.

Right, because anyone who dares stand up to false statements made about atheists online is automatically mean and nasty.  How dare they defend their belief against those righteous Christians who by definition can never do anything wrong!  It’s not like anyone in a leadership position in the Catholic Church has ever raped a child or anything!

I believe the article was about Jennifer Fulwiler’s “personal” opinion about Pope Benedict…not you, or “atheists” in general. I don’t think she said one mean and nasty thing. So what are you defending “yourself” against? Did you actually read the article? She is entitled to her “personal” opinion on a matter, is she not?

“I’d come to believe in God on an intellectual level…”

That’s kind of an oxymoron.  Belief in gods is an emotional thing, not intellectual.

The funny thing about that quote from Ratzinger is if you substitute in Islam/Muslim, most every Muslim would enthusiastically quote it and exclaim how apt it is.  More to the point, just because you say your mysticism is based on reason or rationality, doesn’t mean it really is.

“that faith and reason are two sides of the same coin”  And what coin would that be?  Faith is belief without reason.  Reason and evidence is how we arrive at truth.

“Now that I’ve come to know many other atheist-to-Catholic converts…”  It seems clear from your story that you were never an atheist, in the sense that you had some superstitious/mystical belief, but you just needed to choose which religion/denomination to attach it to.

Fellow faithful Catholics. Let’s take a lesson from these “passionate” atheists who so vigorously hunt down anyone who dares leave their camp. We should also put this much energy into “hunting” down our fallen away brethren..minus the hatred of course ;) and offer up our lenten sacrifices for their return. If only we were all so willing to spend such energy in the chase. Have a Blessed Lent!

Anon2 I never left Jesus, and He has never left me. I did leave the church because I can’t belong to a church that would protect child abusers. Remember the money that you give each week/ day goes to protect some priest who has abused children or raped young girls. It’s disgusting. Just think how you would feel if someone you loved was raped and the perpetrator had legal funds because I helped the cause. It’s easy to have forgiveness if you aren’t the victim .
Yours in Christ

@DVD Bach That’s not a false dichotomy or assumption.  I, or rather Chesterton just asked a question which kind of boils it down.

@Rose, I am heartbroken by your post. I can’t imagine being a victim or having a child being victim of child abuse.  You say “it’s easy to have forgiveness if you aren’t a victim.”. Take a look at the crucifix.  The ultimate victim, who pours out his forgiveness to all.  Of course, certain individuals were perpetrators and, certain ones covered up. The whole Church is not guilty.  We- all Catholics, are the Church.  The body of Christ.  I know I probably can’t console but, you will be in my prayers.

There may very well be a “God,” however, there is absolutely no evidence for it.

“I checked into the ITCCS and they seem very adept at self-promotion and little else”

Ultimately people need something to believe in, so for some it may be the ITCCS.

“I never left Jesus…It’s easy to have forgiveness if you aren’t the victim.”

Jesus calls us to forgive (7 x 70, right?).  And as Christians we know he loves us,including those who so horribly and criminally failed the church.

Catholics who downplay the Church sex scandal by comparing it with examples like Penn State completely miss the point. Is the incidence of these appalling crimes similar in other religious and secular institutions? Yes, it seems like it is. Maybe even more so. The main difference is that at Penn State, for example, the abuser will spend the rest of his sorry life in jail. Joe Paterno was fired. The top school officials have been fired and/or indicted.
-
When Ratzinger was was head of the CDF, he was put in charge if of investigating child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of 2001, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, declared Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church’s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated “in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.” Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children.
-
Not only did Ratzinger assist the repulsive Cardinal Law in escaping justice by appointing him to a new post in Rome, this vile human being will be taking part in electing the next Pope.  This is the church that warns us against moral relativism. Whether God is real or not, is it really that difficult for the diminishing number of Catholics who remain loyal to this sort of corrupt hierarchy to understand why people leave or refuse to be part of it? Cheers.

Rose, I personally know 2 priests who abused children. I can differentiate between them and the Church. I know so many more faithful priests. I also know 2 fathers who abused their daughters. I don’t think that “fatherhood” is the culprit.I know many good fathers. I also was taught by two teachers who were charged with rape of minors…I don’t implicate ALL teachers in that or the school system who paid their wages. Most of my teachers were great and protectors of children. I think most people have been touched by some horror or sadness in some way or another. You would be hard pressed to find any church organisation or group religious or secular untouched by sin.

Micha Elyi
Science was invented by Catholics!!!  You really don’t know much about science and history do you. Did you learn this concept in catholic school???
Maybe you are talking about Galileo who was a catholic, but was charged with religious heresy because he said the earth circled the sun. What did you do google the internet for physic terms and theories to make yourself seem imformed. Theories are just theories. Some can be proved, some can’t. Some can be disproved and discarded. No science minded person accepts all science theories. You missed my point. Let science be science and let faith be faith, they are two seperate things.

Kathleen believes there is an acceptable amount of child abuse allowable in the Catholic Church, supporting the soon-to-be-ex-Pope’s cover-up.
Anon2 seems to go for the “no real Catholic” fallacy about clergy who abuse/abused children.
Tami’s premise is that since the Pope wrote/preached “inspiring” literature, he should be excused from any criminal accusations.
Matthew gets killed at the end of DA.
ALL the Catholics are “defending their faith” by ad hominen attacks and attempts at ridicule rather than rational responses to valid statements by the “enemies of the Church.”
.
We’ll have to wait till March/Easter before we know it ITCCS has any legal power against the Catholic Church to arrest any of their clergy and seize assets. The Italian government, the Vatican, and the Italian mafia are all connected and the last time there was a shake up, John Paul I was murdered. With all the other international human rights groups gathering together, news about the Catholic Church in the coming years will be interesting to watch.

@John Smith: Agreed!  Let’s keep religious nonsense out of science classrooms.

@Marty: Please support your assertion that those are the only two possibilities.

@Anon2:  Yes, it is her opinion that this pope has anything to do with atheists that I’m expressing my opinion about (as well as Fulweiler’s misunderstanding of atheists in general).

It is deeply sad that Catholics have taken it upon themselves to criticize Pope Benedict XVI because they did not like his personality or were still hung up on Blessed John Paul II.  I expect these things from the secular world; they do not understand.  I know that JPII who was a wonderful Pope would be deeply upset by the vitriol and in fighting that has erupted within the Church.  You forget that Blessed JPII had Cardinal Ratzinger as his right hand man and loved him.  Pope Benedict XVI is a holy and brilliant man.  I have no doubt that like his predecessor he will be canonized and declared a doctor of the Church.  Perhaps you critics should spend some time in his writings instead of hoping for the progressive Pope who will never be elected and pray for your conversion to the actual Catholic Church.  This is a time for prayer and reflection not nastiness.  Thanks for the post, Jen.  It is a wonderful story.

I suspect that whenever Jennifer Fulwiler needs an uptick in her blog hits, she finds a way to insert the word “Atheist” in the title, and the feeding frenzy begins.  The level of atheist discourse sure has declined since the days of Mark Twain or HL Mencken or George Bernard Shaw if the stuff on here is a representative sample.

For reasons known only to itself, The National Catholic Register encourages self-evident trolls to overrun some of these blogs.  It doesn’t help NCR’s cause except to the extent that it shows how tortured and desperately unhappy evangelical atheists are.  If that is the point, fine, you have succeeded admirably, but you will simply turn away your natural audience.  It makes no sense to give them a platform, and for that I blame NCR in general and Fulwiler in particular for repeatedly rattling their cages.

Well said….speedy45rpm

Anon2 you know two priests that abused children. What was your response to them ? You knew two fathers that abused their children, do you still go on play dates and hang out with these people?  It’s not that abuse does not exist . The problem is that it does exist. We, the believers in Christ have to make it so its no longer a problem. Everyone here in this blog wants to point out how sexual abuse abuse of children is pervasive. Not just in the church but else where as well. I agree. But what are you doing on a personal level if you belong to an orginazation that seems to have more than their fair share of this problem ?
Don’t you want to do something to make it so it is not so much of a problem? Hiding a problem does not make it a solution.
What are you personally going to do different so that children in this country are not harmed in any way. We say we don’t understand social problems, but we all know they begin with the abuse of our children. You should spend more time helping children, then defending your ” club” . It’s not a popularity contest down here. Christ is the one who said that we must be like children to enter the kingdom. Why do you think He said this. Most of you sound liKe a bunch of brainwashed jones town believers that are unable to think for yourself . If you really believe in Christ, then you really need to invest your time with humanity. The beginning of all is our children.
Accept the church handled it wrong. Let it go on for to long. Did not have proper steps in order to minimize child sexual abuse. If a parent abuses a child, we report them immediately to child protective services. I do I’m a mandated reporter.
We are all mandated by Christ to report abuse. The church did not do the right thing. I saw a youtube where the arch bishop in Ireland came right out and said, what the church did was wrong. Why do you feel the need to defend something that is wrong? Are you afraid of your own church? Don’t you feel you have voice enough to just come out and say. It was wrong, and I’m going to be the one to make sure it’s corrected. You’re being blind to the light if you don’t.

The point of engaging a troll is not to convince the troll he’s wrong.  He’s a troll, and the odds of dealing with his *actual* issues, rather than the ones he may raise, are almost nil.  The point of engaging the troll is to convince everyone *else* that he’s wrong.  Thus, into battle I gaily go.

@Mark Moore:  uh, no. The pederasty scandal broke in 2002, while Blessed John Paul II was still pope.  Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was probably the first man at the Vatican who said, “We are not properly handling pederasty among the clergy,” rightly calling it “filth,” and asked for the authority to clean it up (his position was to mark the work of theologians as having or lacking fidelity to the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, not to judge the behavior of priests).  The evidence strongly suggests that the coverup was handled and orchestrated by individual bishops, largely acting individually, on the advice of psychological professionals, who told those bishops, “With the right therapy, these men can be rehabilitated!”

Nor is he responsible for the Vatican Bank scandals.  Papa Ben’s primary concern has always been pastoral, not financial, and not just for the billion-plus professed Catholics, but for everyone.  Management of the Vatican Bank is nowhere on his list of priorities, and never has been.  Heck, the media chatter when he took up the pontificate was that he was going to reform the Curia.  Not hardly.  He’s been a pastor and preacher first and foremost since he entered the Room of Tears.

The ITCCS is clearly a private organization; were they an arm of the European Union, their site would have an .eu domain.  But no.  Their website is .org, and a DuckDuckGo search reveals that their central email address is at gmail.com.  As yet, they don’t even appear to have a wikipedia page.  This is not the web presence of a powerful legal entity.  Any lawyer can label himself an international human rights organization.

@Jon, Benedict XVI *is* the pope of Christian unity.  The ways in which he has reached out to Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox are nothing short of historic and unprecedented.  He has had such impact on the Church in his writing in the last 50 or more years, that we will not be able to measure for centuries.  I’ll allow the possibility that he’ll be declared a Doctor of the Church, but I don’t expect it in my lifetime.

@Rose McKay:  The pederasty and cover-up in the Church *are* shameful.  And while J J is right that others are far worse and get away with far more (school districts cannot be sued, and rarely does one state teacher’s union try to learn from others if a teacher has disciplinary actions in his or her history), that does not excuse us.  Pray for the grace to be merciful and forgiving, as our Father in Heaven, and our Savior Christ, are merciful and forgiving.

@Roderick:  That Jefferson quote, about priests dreading the advance of science, demonstrates his woeful ignorance of Catholicism. I read it and laughted, because there is no truth which contradicts the Catholic faith. Here’s a short list of priest-scientists from the top of my head:  Copernicus.  Georges LeMaitre.  Gregor Mendel (tho he may have fudged his data to make his Punnet squares neater).  Then I looked for a list of Roman Catholic cleric-scientists.  Even if you filter out only those born no more than 15 years before Galileo (1550) to slightly after Jefferson (say, 1750) it’s a fairly substantial list.  Anyone who thinks that merely conversing on this Jeffersonian quote marks one as an atheist has some significant problems with basic reasoning.

@John Smith:  The scientific method was developed by Catholic monks and friars who figured that because the world as we know it was created by God, and because God is rational, that his creation would be rational and follow rules, or even laws.  They developed the scientific method so that they could examine the mind of God through better understanding of his creation.  Look up the history of the scientific method, and see if you can pin down where and when it was developed.  Oddly enough, it wasn’t in some pagan, Bhuddist, Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, Taoist, Zoroastrian, or atheist society (all of which came up with some pretty neat observations and/or bits of engineering, by the way—but neither engineering nor observation are the scientific method).  It was developed in Christendom—in the lands where the Catholic Church held sway, and provided men with their worldview and intellectual framework.

John Smith—these people will always miss your point because they have the attention span of a cucumber. You’re not the first to try to explain scientific method to them and they will continue to deny that it is the antithesis of their religion.
.
Don’t focus on the small stuff—it only relieves them from brooding about the real corruption that is inherent in the Catholic Church and how to justify their faith in an evil cult.

Looks like the Rat will have to stay in the Vatican for the rest of his life. It will be a cushy house arrest, but if he travels anywhere abroad he will be vulnerable to arrest.
.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-pope-resignation-immunity-idUSBRE91E0ZI20130215
.

I agree with the title of this post. I started Benedict’s pope term as a daily mass, frequent confession Catholic and I finished it as an atheist. I consider his resignation a sign of how screwed are things in the Vatican. The Pope just was tired of the sick Vatican power struggles and so he chose to abandon the ship. As for Jennifer Fulwiler’s conversion story, I find it very conventional, I used to be an Opus Dei member and they know how to present a cool conversion from furious atheist to daily mass attender story as good as Fulwiler’s.

When even the Pope abandons the job you know there is something very wrong with the organization called the Catholic Church. I still cannot see how an honest intellectual coming from an explicit non-believing education can start believing in devils, exorcisms, virgin births, flying houses (Loreto’s virgin case), etc, etc. In my case I was raised Catholic and had to learn to questions these things.

Not to mention another long list of things like the sexual predators cover-up (spanning many decades, countries and cultures), paranoid ideas like Obama’s alleged religious persecution and the Vatileaks scandal.

Peter, it sounds like your atheism is almost entirely an emotional reaction rather than the result of any sort of rational reflection. Disillusionment with the Church does not logically lead to a rejection of God’s existence. Until you are ready to confront the psychological basis of your atheism it isn’t helpful to anyone for you to come in here and evangelize for it.

I googled ITCCS, and got slim pickins. No wikipi article or nuthin’!

It would appear that ITCCS is one of those letterhead organizations, like “Catholics for a Free Choice”. Exists on paper, maybe rents office space between a downtown telemarketing call center and a laundromat, but its presence and its reach is not much to speak of.

They may even have several dudes in black hoodies with walkie-talkies (who work as bar bouncers at night), who may actually think they will go in and subject the Holy Father to “arrest”.

Folks, also don’t be surprised if some Neo-Nazi / KKK types try to set up for themselves an “International Tribunal Against Papists” and lay hands on the next Holy Father. All of these attempts would be called “abduction.”

It never was going to be very dangerous for Benny. He’s got “protection,” unlike John Paul I, who was murdered.
.
The really important issue is will the new Pope change things? The current demands of the Church are not practical in the 21st Century.

“In other news, the International Tribunal to Put the Smack-down on Creepy Anti-Catholic Bigots (ITPSDCACB) has announced plans to arrest Professor P.Z. Myers as soon as he sets foot within any territory in which that organization has any legal jurisdication (i.e., the 150 square feet of my mother’s basement. And her garage. And my next-door neighbor’s patio.)

P.Z. better watch himself. The Ninjas from ITPSCDCACB are on him.

The release of the film Mea Maxima Culpa on HBO Feb 4 th , 2013, which documents the involvement of Cardinal Ratzinger, ( Pope Benedict)—who is accused of coverups, and failure to remove sex abuser Father Murphy of the Milwaukee School for the Deaf. Fr. Murphy molested and raped 200 pupils over a 24 year period.
.
The release of 12,000 internal file documents from the Los Angeles Diocese sex abuse scandal on January 31, 2013.
.
In January 2013, the Italian treasury froze privileges for the Vatican to use Italian banking services because of the breach of money laundering regulations.
.
A lawsuit filed against the Pope filed in the International Criminal Court in the Hague on September 12, 2011 for “Crimes against humanity, and a longstanding and pervasive system of sexual violence”.
.
The withdrawal of the Vaticans Ambassador to Ireland in July 2011, after Irish Prime Minister Enda Kennedy attacked the Vatican for systematic widespread corruption and sex abuse coverups for the last 16 years.
.
The widespread Catholic sex abuse scandals still rocking the USA, Europe, and Australia.

@Dave, I wasn’t proselytizing for atheism. For starters, I just self-identified myself as atheist to make a cheap joke. I am mostly agnostic and if I would believe in a god, it wouldn’t be inside an organized religion. A de-conversion process is long and meditated, so I find your observation of being an emotional reaction unfounded. As human we have emotional and rational sides that sometimes are at odds with each other, but sometimes they work together well. In my case, I guess my de-conversion was an emotional as well as an intellectual process that took many years. So you are not dealing here with your stereotyptical Dawkins-like atheist. I know they look childish in their way or arguing, but I am not one of them. But I have read Dawkins and I have to say that he makes some good points as well as Hitchens, they are just too emotional (oh irony) to convey their message better. We are emotional and rational and we need to admit this: so being emotional is not a wrong thing to include in your search for truth.

I am not afraid of the possibility of being wrong, but I don’t think I will be coming back to the Catholic flock ever. It’s just not in my spiritual-emotional-rational DNA to think like a Catholic and/or defend Catholicism any longer. I used to be a well trained apologist and so I know that in short debates you just throw red herrings as questioning your opponent’s real motives. I know all the tricks in the apologetics bag so I am immune to them.

Anyway I sign off as unfortunately the Internet is very limited as a forum of ideas. As I said above the path outside the church is long when you had been a full practicing Catholic and anyway I am not too eager to be an agnosticism (or atheism) apologist now. But as you can see with this post I am not closed to read Catholic blogs from time to time. I understand Catholicism enough to realize how grave is the situation of the Church if the Pope himself resigns in a really awkward way.

@Dave:  Unless you can provide evidence for God’s existence, then anyone’s atheism is a perfectly rational conclusion, regardless of whether or not it also includes an emotional reaction.

@dave I wrote an answer to you that was flagged as potential spam. I hope it pass the censors :)

To all the atheists who posted in response to Jennifer Fulwiler’s article:

First of all, I’m hard-pressed to believe any of you are atheists. One cannot prove a negative. Therefore, it follows NO “burden of proof” attaches to negative statements. Atheists believe “There is no God.” So, why the rant? Can there be any effort more SELF-DEFEATING than evangelizing believers? Why even spend precious lifetime reading web sites such as CNR? Why do any work at all when it serves no purpose? Wouldn’t lifetime spent with your beloved be better spent?

Secondly, language is a human invention. The TRUTH is NOT. Therefore, REASON is merely a CHOICE of words and there can only BE evidence (but NO PROOF); regardless of whether you are a person of science or a person of FAITH.

Finally, TRUTH does not exist outside of GOD.  When one loves the TRUTH, one cannot (will not) escape GOD.  Such was Ms. Fulwiler’s experience as it was mine (and YES, I also chose to abandon my atheism and practice CATHOLICISM.)  And take it from a former atheist, atheism IS far easier.

So instead of ranting away at people such as Ms. Fulwiler and myself, I suggest you take an anger-management course. Take one for the sake of those who love you and go in PEACE like honest-to-goodness atheists of good will (who just cannot believe that LOVE begins with GOD.)

@MdeCastro:
1) The support for your claim that we’re not atheists makes no sense.  If you’d actually read the comments before posting one of your own, you’d see that I’ve already addressed your comments.
2) Not sure what your point of this second bit was.
3) You still haven’t given any evidence that your god exists.  Lacking this evidence, it’s hard to imagine that you used to be an atheist.

Folks-

The atheists are “winning” this battle no matter how logical and smug and arrogant you are to them. They are here to see if you are really Christian; and all their doubts are being reinforced by your elitist and condescending attitude.

I don’t think this is quite what Jesus had in mind when he said, “You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world…Your light must shine before others, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.” [Mt 5:13-16] “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” [Mt28:19-20] “...You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” [Acts 1:8]

Remember that even the disciples had their doubts and needed divine intervention before they had faith. All abandoned Jesus in the Garden, except (sort of), Peter. Only John was at the cross. Mary Magdalen came to the tomb to annoint the dead body of Jesus and did not expect to encounter the Risen One. When the disciples first saw Jesus after the resurrection, they thought he was a ghost because they were not thinking of the resurrection; Thomas wanted to touch the crucified body before he would believe in the resurrection. Several disciples didn’t recognize Jesus on the road to Emmaus because they were not anticipating a resurrected Jesus. At the end of the Gospel according to Matthew [28:17] there was still doubt in the Eleven. And even moments before the Accension, the disciples were still rather clueless and wondered when Jesus was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Paul had to get knocked to the ground by the Light of the World before he changed his mind, did a 180, and became a believer.

Friends, be kind to the skeptics who visit this site. Love them. Show them the Peace of the World. Perhaps you can be a light to a future convert.

DVD Douchebach - you’ve already been proven to be a neck-bearded troll who remains willfully ignorant of the evidence.

Peter Binger - if you have doubts about whether your response will be filtered, it most likely reinforces my point that your are motivated primarily by hatred.

DVD Bach wrote—@Dave:  Unless you can provide evidence for God’s existence, then anyone’s atheism is a perfectly rational conclusion, regardless of whether or not it also includes an emotional reaction.”—

Unless you can provide evidence for your atheism, then anyone’s faith is a perfectly rational conclusion, regardless of whether or not it also includes an emotional reaction.  You see now how soundbite philosophies can be turned around on you? If we are going to credit emotion-based conversions to atheism (which belies your mantra of being the position of pure reason), then you have to count the millions if not billions of emotion-based conversions to Chritianity. And by that math, you lose.

Uno Who wrote:—”...these people will always miss your point because they have the attention span of a cucumber. You’re not the first to try to explain scientific method to them and they will continue to deny that it is the antithesis of their religion.”—

Not really, neckbeard boy.  If you’re enough of a “freethinker” to look at any of the following, and you might want to re-think your worldview.

http://www.godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_God?#Unit_D:_Is_there_Evidence_of_God_from_Science.3F
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

@Uno Who:  And after you look at the websites Walter has linked to, check out this one, on which all of those websites are refuted:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

@Walter:  You’re mistaking atheism for a claim; it’s not.  It’s a conclusion based on the inability of religious people to provide a shred of evidence for the existence of any god.  The burden of proof isn’t on me, since I’m not claiming anything.  Decent try, though.  Next time, see if you can come up with something better than “I know you are, but what am I?”

@Dave:  You pray to your god with that mouth?

DVD Bach - you confuse your ability to type some kind of response with a reasoned rebuttal. Perhaps after you have considered my comment for more than 30 seconds, you’ll begin to see the light. Your last response is prima facie evidence that you have given my post no real thought. The fact remains that your comment to which I was responding would have laughed right off the screen in the atheist ‘big leagues’ of Reddit or Infidels.org

This article is a sad comment on modern theology.

How many theologians are familiar with modern science?  Most run from it. 
Most theology departments have abandoned the struggle for Easy Street. The all seem to have “feminists”, “post modernists”, minutia-ists.  But they have nobody able to take on modern scientism, so they embrace it out of ignorance.  This at a time in history when so much of it, string theory, abiogenisis, cognitive biologogy, and Freudeanism are headed for collapse.

@Walter:  I don’t need to consider your comment for more than 30 seconds, because it doesn’t even take that long to spot the “shifting the burden of proof” fallacy.
Let me see if I can show you why you’re wrong here…
Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns?  Where’s your evidence that they don’t exist?

All of us were once living below our mother’s heart.  Her entire body surrounded us, and yet we did not begin to understand what it is to be enfolded by a mother, or the universe of her body we lived in.  We could not understand the muffled language we could hear our mother speaking…  Later in life, birds singing, wind whistling, and waves unfurling, comforted us.  We couldn’t quite understand why, but somehow,in our deepest memories we remembered the beating, the exhaling, the melody of songlike intonation.  We could not see her face,the curve of a smile, the connection of a gaze.  Nor could we look at our own body and understand what it means to “be”.  The shadows of what we saw was just a flickering like shadows thrown upon the wall of a cave.  We didn’t understand that we were part of a family.  We couldn’t understand how intimately we were connected to another.

Walter, —can you prove you are not a homosexual? I choose to believe you are a homosexual, because you cannot prove your are not.

Itsme, prove to me you exist, and are not a figment of my imagination.

Walter—you responded—that’s evidence that you think I exist-not absolute proof, but supportive evidence. I still believe you are a homosexual You can’t prove you are not.

DVD Bach
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. The abusive responses to you will just get worse. Just be glad they don’t know where you live.
.

@DVDBach
1) Please read the statement again. I made no claim that you’re NOT an atheist—- merely that I AM hard-pressed to believe it.  BUT that is only because I think very well of atheists. We all begin as atheists.

2) Humans discern the TRUTH and manifest it through language. BUT language is a human invention. Do YOU see the problem here?

3) Proof cannot exist in a material and ephemeral universe—- NOT in a court of law and NOT in a laboratory. The study of Science can no more prove its assertions than the study of Theology.

The language of Science and Theology makes the FALSE assumption that all objective reality is non-singular. This false assumption of the language is BUILT-IN.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we call it a “duck”. But is this particular “duck” SAFE TO EAT?

In mathematics (which is the language of science) a singular matrix of equations has NO solution. A scientific experiment can be designed ONLY if we assume the event is REPRODUCEABLE in a given point in time and a given point in space.

Catholic Theology sidesteps this false assumption of non-singularity built into human language by predicating action on belief (ie, “living the word”). Thus the commandment, LOVE GOD FIRST and know HIM by loving all HE loves for GOD is LOVE. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

In short—- whether in language or in action, there can only BE evidence and evidence is NOT proof. Therefore, a proof of a singular eternal spirit in a material and ephemeral universe cannot be addressed by Science AT ALL and can only be addressed by Catholic Theology by living a life of FAITH.

@DVDBach
1) Please read the statement again. I made no claim that you’re NOT an atheist—- merely that I AM hard-pressed to believe it.  BUT that is only because I think very well of atheists. We all begin as atheists.

2) Humans discern the TRUTH and manifest it through language. BUT language is a human invention. Do YOU see the problem here?

3) Proof cannot exist in a material and ephemeral universe—- NOT in a court of law and NOT in a laboratory. The study of Science can no more prove its assertions than the study of Theology.

The language of Science and Theology makes the FALSE assumption that all objective reality is non-singular. This false assumption of the language is BUILT-IN.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we call it a “duck”. But is this particular “duck” SAFE TO EAT?

In mathematics (which is the language of science) a singular matrix of equations has NO solution. A scientific experiment can be designed ONLY if we assume the event is REPRODUCEABLE in a given point in time and a given point in space.

Catholic Theology sidesteps this false assumption of non-singularity built into human language by predicating action on belief (ie, “living the word”). Thus the commandment, LOVE GOD FIRST and know HIM by loving all HE loves for GOD is LOVE. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

In short—- whether in language or in action, there can only BE evidence and evidence is NOT proof. Therefore, a proof of a singular eternal spirit in a material and ephemeral universe cannot be addressed by Science AT ALL and can only be addressed by Catholic Theology by living a life of FAITH.

Isme, Descartes realy struggled with the problem of other minds. He saw only 1 solution, which you reject. Since you are probably not smarter than Descartes, and have not found another solution to the problem of other minds, we remain free to deny each other’s existence. Also, I thought Catholics were supposed to be homophobes? Since your hatred is not motivated by religion, what is your excuse? Isn’t using using homosexual as a derogatory term the very type of abuse you criticize above?

DVD Bach - I don’t type with my mouth, nor do I pray with my keyboard. I thought you atheists were all smart? Maybe you should step away from the keyboard for a while and re-read The God Delusion, if the pages of your copy are not stuck together. Also, DVD Bach, how is the job search going? The timing of your posts confirms that you have been on this site 24 hours a day for the last 3 1/2 days. Not moving out of the parents basement any time soon?

@Dave: So your god has no problem with your levelling personal insults at others, nor with the fact that your powers of observation lead you to inaccurate conclusions about their employment status.  You’d think an all-powerful god wouldn’t allow his followers to embarrass themselves the way you do.

@MdeCastro:
1) And yet you’re willing to provide no support that for belief.
2) No, I’m afraid I don’t.
3) Or, to put it another way, you can provide no evidence for the existence of your god; if you could, such doublespeak would not be necessary.

Dave, fRed and Walter are paranoid Catholics—deep down they really have doubts and doubt creates an atmosphere of distrust, being accusatory in nature and de facto alleging either foolishness or deceit on the part of another. That’s why they are hostile and insulting to DVD Bach (currently) and any other atheist who visits this site asking why they prefer faith over knowledge. Such a stance has been fostered in Western European society since the Enlightenment, in opposition to tradition and authority.
.
Walter is also a homosexual—which conflicts with his faith. That’s why he is extremely hostile.
.
Kathleen, Claire-trollfilter, ana lisa, and their ilk are passive-aggressive Catholics—they honestly don’t realize how arrogant and insulting they are because they think people who question their faith don’t “know” anything about religion or how to think for themselves.
.
MdeCastro is an agnostic theist—An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.
.
I’m a strong atheist/antitheist. Along with Hitchens, I see that religion poisons everything. This site is evidence of that.

DVD Bach, when you lived in your mother’s womb, did you understand why you were there, or that there was such a thing as a mother?  Did you question the gift, freely given, which was the beating of your heart?
On the day you opened your eyes, perceiving that there was such thing as light, did you understand why there was light, or why, up until then, there had only been darkness?  Was your inability to make sense of it all, proof that there was nothing to be made sense of?
.
“Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it even dawned on the minds of man what God has prepared…”

obstinacyIh8pope - do you think if you keep repeating that I am homosexual, that substitutes for reasoned argument? And do you think that by announcing your hatred in your screen name, that advances the position of atheism that is supposed to be based on reasion and enlightenment?  The conduct of the atheists on this threat has revealed the true nature of the New Atheism:  a superficial, foundationless, dead-end philosophy driven by hate.

@Angela Sandy, I think you need to love with all of your heart, and know that you are loved in this way.  I hope that you can experience the kind of love that would allow you to lay down your life for another.  This is the language of God.
.
The antithesis of love—hate, divorce, abuse, use, abortion…. would make you recoil in pain and sadness for others who suffer such foretastes of hell on earth. You would not tolerate these things as morally neutral any more than you would tolerate death camps or AIDS as simply facts of life. Religious affiliation does not protect anybody from the pain of hell on this earth, but LOVE gives us the strength to endure.
.
Resist the beast.

If they didn’t keep blacklisting me, I wouldn’t have to change names.
.
Walter—I’m using the same “reasoning” that you are using to atheists—that we have to “prove there is no god.” You have prove that you are not a homosexual, with a reasoned argument. Otherwise, why shouldn’t I believe you’re a homosexual if I want to?
.
God’s womb—you need to adjust your medication.

Peter Bingen wrote: —“I used to be a well trained apologist and so I know that in short debates you just throw red herrings as questioning your opponent’s real motives. I know all the tricks in the apologetics bag so I am immune to them.”—

Sounds like you are no longer agnostic; you’ve found your God, and it is your own intellect. Forgive me if I don’t bow down.

obstinacyIh8pope - I take it from your comment that you’re the figment of my imagination previously known as itsme.  Its unfortunate that my subconscious keeps throwing you out from time to time.  Fortunately you don’t exist do I don’t have to worry about it. At least until you solve the problem of other minds as called for above.

Angela, all of the atheists here argue like their intelligence is the end-all, be-all—to explain Truth—As if that tiny spark of intelligence that is gifted to them could even be comparable to the massive sun.  What delusions of grandeur! :D They breathe and think,  look at trees blowing in the wind outside, and the sky above but refuse to believe that there is a source for all of this.  How irrational. How closed minded.
.
BTW, I’ve never taken medication, not even after my (ouch)nine pound babies! :)High on gratitude…

Wow, Earl Thompson is here now.  Is there a basement dweller left in the multiverse who hasn’t yet dragged himself out of the primordial soup and logged onto this thread in order to announce that we’re all atheistic to Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without faries (a brilliant retort to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot of questions about the Gardener), and that we’re just afraid of the dark?

Posted by Steve on Friday, Feb 15, 2013 9:02 AM (EST):

DVD Bach, whether you realize it or nor, this post by Steve destroyed any credibility you could ever claim to have, both on rational and personal grounds.  The fact that you have just kept frantically posting, without even taking a pause to consider his points, is a sad testiment to what poses as philosophy on today’s internet.

Well, Walter—You keep responding to me, so you must believe my comments are real, even if you want to believe I’m not. I still believe you’re homosexual. In fact, I have complete faith that you are homosexual.
.
God’s womb—you also have to prove to me that you do not take medication. Your comments suggest to me you do, and you’re obviously not using your intelligence in your posts.

@DVDBach
1) So YOU reject the evidence of MY own witness in support for MY own beliefs? Who set YOU up as the sole arbiter of the TRUTH?

2) Of course, you cannot discern the TRUTH from invention. This does not surprise.

3) There is plenty of evidence for GOD—- all of creation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These you freely dismiss, of course.  It also is possible to KNOW the TRUTH (ie GOD) as EVIDENT in a life of FAITH.  And the evidence would be unassailable if you gather it yourself.  BUT this answer, of course, is also NOT acceptable to YOU.

But the real question for me is: Is it possible to hold an honest discussion with someone who cannot discern the TRUTH from invention? Who clearly has no love for the TRUTH?

The answer has to be “No.” So, this is my last response.

Go in PEACE. I hope you find what you are looking for.

DVD Bach
You’ve just had your fist exit sermon from a defeated opponent. “You are a liar, depraved, ignorant and wrong,” but he wishes you well as a Catholic must love his enemies.
.
Notice how he projected himself onto you?

@obstinacyIh8pope

By your definition of an “agnostic theist”, I’m sorry but I do NOT qualify.

As a Catholic, I believe God loves us and while all of creation is evidence of God’s LOVE for us—- creation can NOT “prove” that GOD “exists” anymore than a painting by Picasso can “prove” Picasso “exists”. In the real world, there can only BE evidence. BUT it is possible to KNOW the TRUTH (ie GOD) as EVIDENT in a life of FAITH.

A life of FAITH is not unlike living a life in the pursuit of science, when one gathers evidence by the scientific method. The mere act of gathering evidence may NOT prove that our knowledge of material phenomenon is certain. BUT it strengthens our resolve in the design of the NEXT experiment.

When one lives a life of FAITH, it strengthens our resolve to be WITH GOD when at last we meet HIM face to face.

In science—- as in ALL human knowledge, one will approach (but can NEVER arrive at) certainty. In FAITH, one’s knowledge of GOD becomes certain in life everlasting (as evidenced in the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I guess one might say; I come to FAITH by way of revelation.)

If one wishes to know the TRUTH, one must love GOD FIRST.

It is only when one truly loves GOD FIRST can one put one’s love for anything else in its proper place — whether it is the love for science or religion (paganism), the love for one’s neighbor or the poor (humanism), or the love for one’s children or one’s self (narcissism).

In Matthew 22:37-38 Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.”

LOVE GOD FIRST.

1) No, asking me to simply take your word for it is not evidence.
2) I’m looking back on your statement, and I see nothing in it that supports the idea that I can’t discern truth from invention.  In fact, I agree with what you said.  How is it a problem?
3) So you’re saying that the Bible is evidence for God.  When so many of the Bible’s factual claims are false, why should we believe that the ones about Jesus are true?
Since that was your last response, I don’t expect you to respond to this comment, since that would make you dishonest.  I think we can all agree that your claims remain unsupported.

@Dave:  Which points are you referring to?  Kindly make one, and I’m happy to address it.

@God’s Womb:  If you’re trying to draw a parallel between my mother and God, it’s a false analogy.  I have empirical evidence that my mother exists.

Ok, so I’ve just found Steve’s post from Feb 15th.  Sorry for not responding; with all the traffic, it’s hard to keep the threads straight.

So essentially, Steve is linking out to websites to make his point, then dressing me down for linking out to a website to refute them.  That’s called being a dick.  Have to balls to pick an argument and defend it.

Since you did do that with two points, I’ll respond to them here:

re: Big Bang.  The website I was responding to based its entire argument for the existence of God on the idea that the universe had a beginning.  Since the Big Bang model allows for the possibility that the universe was eternal (that is, time began with the Big Bang), that argument has two problems:
1) Since there is debate among proponents of the Big Bang about whether it marks a beginning of the universe, that idea has not been definitively established.
2) Even if there were a beginning of the universe, no support has been provided for the idea that this means that any god exists; it’s simply a bald assertion.

Re: Evolution.  Yes, mutations are random.  However, whether or not those mutations survive into successive generations is not random at all.  Therefore, it is inaccurate to call natural selection a random process.

So I’ve just posted a response to Steve’s post of Feb 15 (my apologies for not seeing it earlier), but I’ve been blocked as potential spam.  So there’s now a chance that my comments are not getting through.  Between that and generally chaotic nature of the threads, I’ve decided not to continue the conversations here any further.  I invite anyone who wishes to continue to conversation to email me at dvd.bach@yahoo.com or visit my blog at http://dvdbach.blogspot.com/

Despite my invitation, I predict that at least one Catholic here will declare victory over me.  Be thankful that there’s not good, since he’d be able to tell that you’re lying.

@DVD, There is so much that you can’t understand.  In future generations they will laugh at this generation’s paltry knowledge of science.  Just because you don’t understand it, does not mean that it is not so.
.
When you came out into your life outside the womb of your mother, you were able to gradually understand that you have a mother.  This was not immediate, even as you experienced her care.  Even while you were enfolded in her arms and at her breast.
.
To believe that everything came from nothing is irrational.
.
God is a patient parent.  He waits for us to grow.

“Secondly, language is a human invention. The TRUTH is NOT. Therefore, REASON is merely a CHOICE of words and there can only BE evidence (but NO PROOF); regardless of whether you are a person of science or a person of FAITH.”
.
MdeCastro -I took the above quote to mean you believed though you can’t prove it either way. My mistake—you’re a total schmuck after all.
.
Still your “reasoning” is logic enough to support my beliefs that Walter is a homosexual and womb is on medication.

Angela, funny the first time.  The second time—eh, a little stale.  You can do better. :)

...And my last comment here too, dear troll pet.
.
This is what I tell my over half-dozen kids when they are fighting like little barbarians (Thank you teachings of the Catholic church that gave me courage to say ‘yes’ so many times to love—even if they torture me a little!)
.
... “It’s not about having the last word, it’s about being graceful…”

Womb—are you Claire/trollfilter or analisa?
.
I agree, trying to get Walter to prove he’s not a homosexual is a stale argument, but you all use that “logic” against me.
.
Any yes, you are loosing the argument gracefully by leaving.

DVD Bach - my invitation to read and consider the aforementioned sources also remains open. In light of your established modus operandi I can almost guarantee that whatever response you have currently held up by spam filters does not give any serious consideration to anything said here.

DVD Bach, that goes for the half dozen or so links that I provided as well, which you speciously rejected as ‘creationist’ and not worthy of your precious time.

Those links are Anne’s and Steve’s PERSONAL GIFTS to you, DVD Bach. You should be grateful that they have condescended to give them to you for your “enlightenment.”

@obstinacyIh8pope

Thank you. I prefer to be called a “total schmuck” than an “agnostic atheist”.

I guess this means our discussion is at an end.

Go in PEACE. I hope you find what you are looking for.

@obstinacyIh8pope

RE: @Walter and @womb

Since YOU brought the subject to my attention in your last response to me, what is your evidence that supports your statement that “Walter is a homosexual and womb is on medication”?

A ‘burden of proof’ attaches to positive statements such as these and the burden is yours.

In the absence of evidence, an objective reader can only consider these statements as false and libelous attacks on the innocent. No amount of “reasoning” (not even mine) can substitute for evidence. If you made these statements on US territory, “truth” is considered a defense for libel. This is not true, however, in other countries. So, you may want to check your local laws.

Regardless, I believe YOU owe “Walter” and “womb” an apology for these unfounded and vicious “ad hominem” attacks. A failure to apologize can only mean you prefer to be thought of as one who does not hesitate to lie.

And one cannot have an honest discussion with a person who does not hesitate to lie.

Feel free to use “schmuck”. The word is meaningless and cannot point to any supporting evidence in the real world.  It’s a very good word to use when one is merely angry and inarticulate. Of course, only use it on those who are beyond arms’ reach of YOU. Some people may take offense and results may be fatal if they are bigger than you are.

I copied Walter and Womb to this post for your convenience. I hope it helps.

copy: @Walter and @womb

MdeCastro -
.
You obviously read my posts, or you wouldn’t presume to tell me what I should do. So you are just acting like the A**hole you are.
.
It’s up to Walter to prove he’s not a homosexual, and it’s up to womb to prove she’s not on medication.

Rose McKay ,
You have a good point in that we hold the Church to a higher standard, but I’m just saying the same principal/problem of peers protecting each other in an institution applies to Penn State, the Boy Scouts, or a diocese.It’s a part of our fallen nature.But yes, I would certainly hold clergy to a higher standard.

MdeCastro - my last post is being check for spam but, in general, you might want to look up a word in the dictionary before you declare it’s meaningless.
.
You don’t “hesitate to lie” about your beliefs. I’ve been told that I must prove there is no God.
.
I thought you ended our discussion anyway.

Well, it looks like MdeCastro, God’s womb, Anne, Walter, Dave, Steve and fRed have defended their faith by leaving.
.
Wanna bet that they will be spewing the same thing on other blogs as if the email exchange between them and DVD Bach and me didn’t happen?

I am quite confortable going on with life as if “the email exchange between [me] and DVD Bach and [you] didn’t happen,” because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Me either. If these trolls cannot coherently discuss what is in my posts, why would I want them to have my e-mail address?

I, too, am thankfully unaware of any e-mail exchange between myself, Imblacklistedsandy, and DVD Bach.  This last comment should raise serious concerns about the mental health of Imblacklistedsandy.

Posted by DVD Bach on Monday, Feb 18, 2013 6:01 PM (EST):

—“re: Big Bang.  The website I was responding to based its entire argument for the existence of God on the idea that the universe had a beginning….”—

Except no serious cosmologist disputes that now.  See Dr. William Lane Craig’s Kalaam Cosmological Argument, although I highly doubt you will given your modus operandi here.  Moreover, Hawkins tried desparately in a recent book to establish how the universe could have sponteneously arisen IF ONE ASSUMES THE PRECONDITION OF GRAVITY.  No explanation is ever offerd for why gravity would exist prior to the existence of matter.  Hawkins explanation, the only coherent one attempted in the last 50 years, simply pushes back the question.

—“2) Even if there were a beginning of the universe, no support has been provided for the idea that this means that any god exists; it’s simply a bald assertion.”—

Assuming a Beginner from the fact that there is a beginning is only unreasonable if you deny causality and the law of sufficient reason. You also have to deny Aristotle’s unmoved mover as elaborated on by Aquinas.

—“Re: Evolution.  Yes, mutations are random.  However, whether or not those mutations survive into successive generations is not random at all.  Therefore, it is inaccurate to call natural selection a random process.”

On a purely materialistic world view, in order for nature to “select” a trait, the trait has to arise in the first instance by RANDOM mutation. If a fish never has the gift of randomly mutated fins that allow it to crawl out of the pond, nature cannot “select” that trait and eventually give rise to amphibians. If the fish is randomly given, say, a penis when it really needs leg-like fins, no advantage, no evolution.

This is apart from the fact that an overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, many of those that are not harmful are neutral, and many of those that are helpful just don’t pass along to the next generation because of recessive genes, or because the amphibi-fish might have simply starved to death upon crawling out of the ooze, before having a chance to mate. In short, the odds of ANY beneficial mutations occurring AND being passed down is astronimically small. So your position that this was the sole mechanism for turning amino acids into Hawkins is a tough one defend.

Also the “selection” of what random mutations are helpful for survival depends largely upon what conditions RANDOMLY happpen to prevail in a particular time and place. If the Earth hadn’t cooled significantly about 65 million years ago, nature would still select giant lizards over small mamals. While you seem to think the “environment” is something like the Force in Star Wars, intelligently picking and chosing what survives for the purpose of creating more complicated forms, this ignores the randomness of near earth collisions, fluctuations in solar output, ocean currents, etc.  Let’s say I’m the first of Darwin’s mutated fish that you have on your bumper. I finally hit the random mutation lottery and sprout feet, but I happen to sprout them at a time when the pond is full of water, rather than receeding. The feet only make me swim slower, and I am eaten. There is no reason to expect that this one in ten million occurrence will EVER happen at a time when it actually helps.

Also, while the actions of predators/competitors could be characterized as some type of non-random process, the facts remains that these predators and competitors are also the result of random mutations, with randomly arising traits selected only by environmental factors that happen to be prevailing at the exact place and time the mutation happens.

For these reasons, its impossible to describe natural selection as something other than random, without describing it as some type of transcendent, intelligent, creative force.

Sandy-
I am not here to defend anything. My last comment was all I needed/wanted to say. My purpose is to encourage a civil dialogue. I happen to think you raise many interesting points.

This accident has been cleared and traffic is moving once again. Onward and Upward (to infinity and beyond!).

Peace!

“For these reasons, its impossible to describe natural selection as something other than random, without describing it as some type of transcendent, intelligent, creative force.”
Hilariously stupid.

@Imblacklistedsandy

To whom are you addressing your comments and what is your evidence to support the following statement:

“Well, it looks like MdeCastro, God’s womb, Anne, Walter, Dave, Steve and fRed have defended their faith by leaving.”

I believe Dave, Anne, Walter, Steve, fRed as well as myself have checked-in.  And I’m sure God’s womb is reading this.  I would’ve checked in earlier, but I don’t live in the US and I went to bed after my last post.

BUT what really doesn’t make sense is what YOU are doing here IN this CATHOLIC blog.

Atheists believe in NOTHING. One cannot predicate action on a belief in NOTHING. There is NOTHING for atheists to prove or to defend. Merely casting aspersions on people is a lot of work for NOTHING and puts you in some risk of committing libel, which is still a criminal offense in many countries (including the US).

So, what are YOU doing in this CATHOLIC blog? What do you HOPE to achieve?

Unless, of course, YOU are looking for GOD.  Then you, DVDBach, Earl Thompson, and other atheists are very welcome. And IF, by some perversity of nature, this blog gives you a good laugh, you are also very welcome to a good laugh. But putting the “good laugh” in a comment is NOT necessary or rational.  I would save myself the time and trouble.

So, go in PEACE. I hope you find what you are looking for.

@Steve

THANK YOU.

Thank you for taking the time to put into words why these scientific hypotheses are suspect and speculative. I have undergraduate degrees in engineering and a graduate degree in mathematics, so I appreciate very much your use of mathematical concepts in your exposition—- which is surprising in its clarity considering the limitations imposed by the medium of “blogging”.

Most science readers do not realize that a literal reading of science fails for the SAME reason a literal reading of the BIBLE fails.

Language is a human invention. The TRUTH is NOT.

Again, thank you very much.

mdecastro
.
You’re writing a lot of things without evidence, I don’t see why I should give you evidence for anything I say.
.
I’m beginning to think that you, like Walter, are a closeted homosexual with a deep emotional conflict between your natural sexual desires and the demands of your Catholic faith. Can you give me evidence that this is not true?
.
It would explain the hostility you have to my comments.

Steve-do you really believe the “croco-duck” idiocy?

I love it how I never meet these “atheist to catholic” converts who are always so widely purported in shameless dreck articles like this one. Who does the writer think she’s fooling? No atheist founded on truth, logic, and reason, would EVER forsake those very essential components of intelligence and sanity to adopt a life of bronze-age silliness based on utterly ridiculous texts. Please. This whole angle of “atheist to convert” has been played and milked to the point of ridiculousness. And the fact that this article even remotely reveres a lowlife of a person who single-handedly has DESTROYED tons of lives by allowing them to be continually raped and molested by clergy the world over, and then plays the role of the hapless victim, unable to buck the machine is beyond shameful. You are no less an aider and abetter yourself, but supporting such an evil organization.

Shame.

When I first read Claire’s post (time stamped “Feb 13, 2013 3:34 PM (EST)”) that someone “has been stalking Jennifer’s articles on and off for a year now”, I dismissed it.

Now I find Claire’s post entirely believable.

Claire wrote that the stalker posts under “multiple names”. I experienced the same and the following is a sampling:
“1mblack$andy”
“Imblacklistedsandy”
“obstinacyIh8pope”
“Daysandyvalentine”
“Annonymoussandy”
“listedasBlackSandy”
“Sandy”
“Angela”
“Stella”
“Gloria”
“Tony”

Of course, names of posters who just simply like to make vicious and libelous “ad hominem” attacks in the same style of this stalker may have been included in this list. If so, these are unavoidable and I offer NO apologies.

These vicious and libelous “ad hominem” attacks are actually doing a service in ensuring Jennifer gets published again by increasing the number of comments her articles draw. Negative comments get counted the same as the positive (ie, FOR Jennifer)in this blog site. And, if I were in Jennifer’s shoes, I would ignore ALL comments—- the GOOD and the bad—- just to maintain my good cheer and PEACE of mind.

Actually, the Catholic Church has a long tradition of maintaining SILENCE in the face of verbal abuse (beginning with Jesus Christ). The practice should not reflect badly on Jennifer (at least NOT among her Catholic readers).

So, I suggest to the other readers of Jennifer’s articles (especially the uninitiated) to be aware that Jennifer is being stalked and to feel free NOT to respond to any of these vicious and libelous “ad hominem” attacks with the misguided intention of coming to Jennifer’s defense (like I did). You may draw unwelcome fire.

Of course, to those readers who ENJOY engaging with ‘trolls’ for some harmless fun, rest assured in the knowledge that the exchange of diatribes can only HELP Jennifer’s numbers.

Rejoice in God’s LOVE always and go in PEACE.

Just a note that atheists have the lowest retention rate of any faith or belief system(or lack of belief system.)

Shame on you, Tony, for disgracing your Gods of reason of and logic by coming onto an explicitly Christian website and wasting everyone’s time with such a specious comment. Its really quite an irrational decision, when you think about it, to come onto the National CATHOLIC Register, click on an article that discusses the author’s personal feelings about the Pope, announce your disbelief.  It would seem like someone so “enlightened” would have better things to do.

On Monday, Feb 18, 2013 2:39 PM (EST) Mike wrote:

“Is there a basement dweller left in the multiverse who hasn’t yet dragged himself out of the primordial soup and logged onto this thread in order to announce that we’re all atheistic to Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without faries (a brilliant retort to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot of questions about the Gardener), and that we’re just afraid of the dark?”

I guess there was one still lurking in the form of Tony.

—Posted by 1mb1ack$andy on Thursday, Feb 21, 2013 2:47 PM (EST):Steve-do you really believe the “croco-duck” idiocy?—
Do you really believe that some sort of e-mail Clash of the Titans actually occurred with you and DVD Bach on one side vs. MdeCastro, God’s womb, Anne, Walter, Dave, myself and fRed? Or do you concede now that that particular comment was a figment of your imagination?

—Posted by Earl Thompson on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 8:47 PM (EST):“For these reasons, its impossible to describe natural selection as something other than random, without describing it as some type of transcendent, intelligent, creative force.”  Hilariously stupid.—

Pathetically irrelevant. 

You’ve got a lot of courage even posting here, after your entire world view was destroyed on this thread:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/4-tips-for-placing-yourself-in-the-presence-of-god/
There, you were exposed as a solipsistic nihilist who could not identify any coherent grounds for truth even existing under an atheistic world view.

“Thank you for taking the time to put into words why these scientific hypotheses are suspect and speculative. I have undergraduate degrees in engineering and a graduate degree in mathematics, so I appreciate very much your use of mathematical concepts in your exposition—- which is surprising in its clarity considering the limitations imposed by the medium of “blogging”.”

Um… there’s a huge difference between “hypotheses” and “theories”. I suggest you learn the difference? It’s exactly this kind of drivel that comes from believers that works AGAINST your arguments. You know, when you have no idea what you’re talking about?

“Most science readers do not realize that a literal reading of science fails for the SAME reason a literal reading of the BIBLE fails.”

ANY kind of reading of the bible fails. The book is one big schlock of a mess. It’s far beyond historically inaccurate, most of the stuff you guys base your belief system’s history on from that book is pure, unadulterated bs, and bad mythology. Science, on the other hand continues to correct itself and learn from its mistakes. That’s why there is a mountain of trashed theories in the wake of science. To any scientist, the best way to get famous and earn respect is by proving other scientists wrong. You seem to paint with a broad brush when it comes to science and scientists. Again, you obviously, don’t get it.

“Language is a human invention. The TRUTH is NOT.
Again, thank you very much.”

Correct, and the TRUTH, regardless of language, immediately and embarrassingly debunks any and all claims made by your religion. What part of that don’t you get?

“I love it how I never meet these ‘atheist to catholic’ converts…”
Perhaps you never meet them because every time you enter a room, you sream at the top of your lungs about how stupid people must be to believe in God, then proceed to rail against prehistoric sky-men.  I wouldn’t want to meet you, either.

1mb1ack$andy wrote:
“I’m beginning to think that you, like Walter, are a closeted homosexual with a deep emotional conflict between your natural sexual desires and the demands of your Catholic faith. Can you give me evidence that this is not true?”

Some notes:

1.  1mb1ack$andy makes the statement; then demands that I prove the NEGATIVE of his/her statement. This demand is unintelligible, of course. How does one prove a negative?

2.  The position of the Roman Catholic Church is that “There are NO homosexuals.  There are only homosexual acts.” As a practicing Catholic, I agree.  But this begs the question: Is the word “homosexual” a noun or an adjective? As an aside: What constitutes admissible evidence for nouns anyway? What constitutes admissible evidence for adjectives? (NOT that I think 1mb1ack$andy’s post deserves the courtesy of a reply.) But this exchange provoked me into thinking about the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage. Shouldn’t the EXISTENCE of homosexuals be established first, before they are allowed to MARRY? Otherwise, exactly how does a victimless, sexual activity between consenting adults merit the legal protections of marriage under the Law (and the sacramental blessing of the Church) if the activity itself cannot possibly impact innocent third parties (such as CHILDREN)?

I realize I’m on a tangent here.  So, these questions are purely rhetorical and are offered here merely as food for thought.

No response is required or expected.

And to the readers of this comment (except for 1mb1ack$andy and his/her other multiple personalities, of course), thank you for your time.

From WEIT:
“Father Gabriele Amorth, the founder and head of the International Association of Exorcists, said the German pontiff had “done many things for exorcists” during his eight-year papacy, which will come to an end on Feb 28.”
Insane.

It is much more rational (statistically far beyond a reasonable doubt)to posit the existence of an immanent Creator God than to posit that the world and man came about by mere chance. Propaganda forms the unthinking mass-atheism.

Tony wrote:
“Um… there’s a huge difference between “hypotheses” and “theories”.”

To my readers who are not schooled in the design of experiments, there IS a “HUGE difference between ‘hypotheses’ and ‘theories’.”

A ‘hypothesis’ is a technical term used to refer to an actionable statement that defines the objective of an experiment, the results of which may provide evidence in support of a theory. Theories are NOT actionable statements. Einstein’s thought experiments in his exposition on his theory of relativity are NOT POSSIBLE to enact. The experiments conducted in the Hadron Collider (which was built at the cost of $4.75 billion) are what are doable and practical. These Hadron Collider experiments are designed around hypotheses drawn from theories like Einstein’s.  BUT the Hadron experiments can NOT prove any theory is true. Actually, it is NOT possible to prove a theory or a ‘hypothesis’ true OR false.

In an experiment, the hypothesis is always stated in the positive and is always ASSUMED to be ‘true’ because one cannot prove a negative.  New information is gained ONLY when the hypothesis fails. The failure of a hypothesis only means the theory must be revisited and revised.

PROOF does NOT exist in the real world.  There can only BE evidence in an ephemeral and material universe composed of singularities.

What does ‘ephemeral’ mean? Evidence is a function of TIME.

What does ‘material’ mean? Evidence is subject to DECAY.

What do ‘singularities’ mean? Evidence is ‘ONE-OF-A-KIND’ because it occurs in a non-repeatable point in time and in a non-reproducible point in space.

There are NO two snowflakes that are alike; NO two ducks that are alike; NO two human beings that are alike (even identical twins who share the exact same DNA are each separate and unique individuals.)

The TRUTH is we live in a world of miracles and a matrix of equations that fails the ‘test for singularity’ can have NO solution. So scientists and anyone who works in the sciences have to make assumptions that are both necessary and practical BUT essentially FALSE.  The biggest assumption of which is the assumption of ‘non-singularity’—- which is an unfounded belief in ‘reproduceable results’.

Language—- including mathematics—- is a human invention.  The TRUTH is NOT.

Therefore, theories—- and anything generated by human REASON—- are merely a ‘choice of words’, subject to human error and manipulation.  And a literal reading of science fails for the SAME reason a literal reading of the Bible fails.

However, it does not follow that all the work in Science or in the Bible “is a LIE”. But that should be the subject for another post and another day.

“who could not identify any coherent grounds for truth even existing under an atheistic world view.”
It is not my fault if your reading comprehension is a failure.  I repeat - there is no such thing as “religious truth”.  Materialism properly describes reality in the absence of any contrary evidence.  It is your choice to deny reality.

“The TRUTH is we live in a world of miracles”
Define “truth”.  Define “miracle”.
“scientists ... have to make assumptions that are both necessary and practical BUT essentially FALSE.”
Explain “practical but essentially false”.  It works, but it’s not “true”?  Hilarious.

In reflection on Pope Benedict’s tenure he reminds me of Thomas Aquinas.  Soaring intellect, deep humility.

mdecastro - I wrote this to Walter above.
.
Walter—I’m using the same “reasoning” that you are using to atheists—that we have to “prove there is no god.” You have prove that you are not a homosexual, with a reasoned argument. Otherwise, why shouldn’t I believe you’re a homosexual if I want to?
.
The burden of proof is on you.

So you honestly think that “random mutation” means that suddenly fish appeared on earth with unnecessary legs? Do you wonder how evolution can be a fact because monkeys, chimpanzees, and great apes are not yet extinct?
.
Don’t try to use science to “prove” that a Biblical god is real. It never works and exposes your ignorance and stupidity.

mdecastro - when are you going to start using a dictionary instead of making up definitions for yourself?
.
Hypothesis:
.
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven’t tried that could be different.
.
Theory
.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.
.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
.
Law
.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain ‘why’.
.
Example: Consider Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn’t explain why it happened.
.
As you can see, there is no ‘proof’ or absolute ‘truth’ in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is ‘proof’ in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you’re asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don’t all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

mdecastro - Please look up definitions before you decide what words should mean.
.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Hypothesis:- A tentative explanation for an observation that can be tested by further investigation.
/
Theory:- A statement or principle devised to explain a group of facts especially one that has been repeatedly tested.
/
Law:- A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: eg- the law of gravity.
/
Theorem:- (In this sense) A mathematical proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.
/
The National Catholic Register does not want you to learn anything as it keeps spamming me when I post valid information.

Lynda—
Where did you learn statistics—the Discovery Institute?
.
You are not just wrong; you are recursively wrong. The wrongness of every possible iteration of any of your arguments is self-similar with the wrongness of your entire worldview.
.

I love listening to “Benedictus: Reflections of Pope Benedict XVI” (by Saint Luke Productions) and I hope this will continue to be broadcast beyond the 28th. My mind sees a genius in this man and my heart sees a saint. I’m here to throw my support behind the faith-and-reason combo; the two are actually an unbeatable mix. Here’s my personal hunch about atheism: it cloaks itself in intellectualism to hide its true emotional basis. That is, it can’t (or won’t) see an answer to the question: if there’s a God, why do bad things happen to good people? And, since science can not and will not ever irrefutably prove or disprove God’s exist, we’re all faced, at the end of the day (or at the end of life) with the same big unknown and must choose between two assumptions: either that there is a transcendent creator, or that the entire material universe is just one big unconscious accident (with a bunch of little accidents called you and me). I think the latter is the more dangerous of the two assumptions. I have always intuited this and, therefore, have never disbelieved in God and have only been able to understand atheism in purely emotional terms. Any crises of faith that I’ve had were not about God’s existence but about what I perceived as His disposition toward me. Anyway, thanks for a great article.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes.
.
This is the doctrine of willful ignorance.  It causes such an unbalance of reality in the lives of religious believers that they’ve largely become a parody unto themselves.  Willful ignorance not only sustains superstitious beliefs, but it is also responsible for why believers are so fiercely protective of their gods. The most detrimental result of willful ignorance, though, is that it causes most believers to resist that spark of skepticism that results in the journey down the path of enlightenment and remains one of the most injurious obstacles to the growth and evolution of our societies.
.
Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

@Mark, it is interesting that you prowl this website to pedal your hatred of the Pope and the church. It is easier to make seriously unfounded accusations than it is to support them. Most people who cannot argue a point intelligently and objectively resort to name calling and insults. I think you would do us all a favor to come back when you can present a coherent argument. You are in my prayers

Tony ended his/her post with:
“... the TRUTH, regardless of language, immediately and embarrassingly debunks any and all claims made by your religion.”

Ummm.

Language is a human invention.  The TRUTH is NOT. Therefore, TRUTH is not a language—- regardless of language.

BUT is the user’s ‘choice of words’ a ‘LIE’?

One can write books in the defense of Science or the Bible.  BUT books don’t belong in a ‘blog’.

SO I will address only the question of WHEN a ‘choice of words’ passes for a ‘lie’.

I define a ‘lie’ as an EVENT where the user of a language—- “regardless of language”—- deliberately misleads his audience with his/her ‘choice of words’.

One should have evidence that shows there is an INTENT to mislead on the part of the user before declaring his/her ‘choice of words’ a ‘lie’.

Evidence of ‘intent’ answers the following questions:
1) Is there prior knowledge that is withheld deliberately (like ‘unspoken assumptions’)?
2) Is there knowledge that is distorted for gain (like ‘advertisements’)?
3) What is the evidence offered in support of the argument (like ‘a witness’)?
4) But most important of all, how committed is the user to ACT on his/her own ‘choice of words’?

Note the following:
1)  Human error alone can NOT make a ‘choice of words’ a ‘lie’.  One must find evidence of ‘intent’ and the ‘burden of proof’ is on the consumer.
2)  To declare a ‘choice of words’ a ‘lie’ is a PERSONAL judgment on the part of the consumer and personal judgments—- like any OTHER ‘choice of words’—- is separate from the TRUTH.
3)  ACTIONS—- not words—- are what matter in an ephemeral and material universe.
4) No one is a liar. BUT people lie and some with a high degree of frequency.

Therefore, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide for himself/herself what the ‘lies’ of Science and Religion are.  Your book just might sell.

And if you do catch someone in a LIE (like the bloggers here who post vicious and libelous “ad hominem” attacks), try to keep in mind the following:
TIME marches on.
People CAN change (This is especially helpful when one catches one’s SELF in a ‘lie’.)
ACTIONS—- not words—- are what matter in an ephemeral and material universe.
Rejoice in God’s LOVE always and go in PEACE.

Tony—“Our” religion is the only source of truth because it comes from God.  Science comes from people.  It is therefore imperfect and flawed because people are imperfect and flawed.  They are subject to error sometimes great error. The Bible is not a History book, it is not a Science book it is a book about God’s revealed truth regarding faith and morals.  It is a roadmap for how we achieve Eternal Life with God which is what we were created for.  It may surprise you that we were not created for Science.

“Language is a human invention.  The TRUTH is NOT. Therefore, TRUTH is not a language—- regardless of language.”
.
So your “TRUTH” is just really a “gut feeling?” If it can’t be transferred between humans via language, what good is it?
.
Most humans don’t have the gut feeling your religion is the truth any more than they have the feeling any other idea is truth with out evidence. For all we know, you can be on some drug and/or have a mental condition that makes you have delusions you believe to be “the truth.”
.
True, maybe I have my delusions, but I’m open to the idea that they can be wrong, if you give evidence. You refuse to look at any evidence that you might be wrong. Worse, you insist that you are absolutely right and everyone else is wrong. You believe you don’t have to learn anything because you already “know the TRUTH.” Diarrhea of the mouth; constipation of the ideas.

So the TRUTH is really only a gut feeling? If it can’t be transferred between people by human language, what is the point of proselytizing and evangelizing?
.
It doesn’t surprise me—religion has been anti-science throughout history. It is also anti-intellectual, against free speech (“blasphemy”) and against reason.
.
It’s really sad that you don’t like living in this lifetime and you consider it a trial for “the next world.”

Rose—you are dangerously misinformed.  The Catholic Church has been a major supporter of science throughout history.  The Dominicans and Franciscans were amoung the leading scientists of the middle ages.  The Catholic Church has established and supported Universities since the beginning of Universities.  The Big Bang Theory of the beginning of the universe was formulated by a Belgian Monk.  Have you ever read anything by Thomas Aquinas or Augustine?  There’s no one in a rational frame of mind that would classify them as anti-intellectual.  And please spare us the “what about Galileo”.

The Dominicans are also responsible for Malleus Maleficarum, which was the witchhunters’ “bible” for centuries.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienciareal/cienciareal12.htm

That’s was Catholic “science.” I’ve read Aquinas and Augustine-and the origin of their “wisdom” were Greek atheists. They worked hard to reconcile reality with their religion because it would die as every other religion was dying in their time. The genocide of all non-believers was a big help to Catholicism as well.

At best, science was allowed until it’s reasoning contradicted the Church’s official doctrines.

Georges Lemaître, the “monk” who proposed the ideal of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, practiced science in spite of being Catholic:

In 1951, when Pope Pius XII tried to use his theory as a justification for Creationism, Lemaitre resented. In fact, he convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.

No one denies that there are scientists who practice a religion, but they do not mix religion and science.

Earl Thompson writes:
“Define “truth”.  Define “miracle”.
“scientists ... have to make assumptions that are both necessary and practical BUT essentially FALSE.”
Explain “practical but essentially false”.  It works, but it’s not “true”?  Hilarious.”

1. ‘truth’.
Language was invented by HUMANKIND to capture the TRUTH.  BUT the TRUTH is larger than the vessel of language and most certainly won’t FIT in your head or mine.

2. “miracle”.
The Roman Catholic Church defines a ‘miracle’ as a singular event that can only BE attributed to divine intervention. Mathematics CANNOT explain singularities or ‘singular events’.

But the TRUTH is ALL evidence (including empirical evidence) “occurs in a non-repeatable point in time and in a non-reproducible point in space”. Feel free to look for evidence of “non-singularity”. Take your time. Take a lifetime.

If the universe can be composed ONLY of “singularities”; then it follows, we live in a world of miracles.

3. “Explain “practical but essentially false”.  It works, but it’s not “true”? 

We can choose to believe in the Roman Catholic Church teaching that miracles can only BE attributed to divine intervention. Or we can stop at the mathematical statement that the ‘matrix of equations fails the test for singularity’ and, therefore, has NO solution and walk-away from the problem.

But what if we don’t want to STOP?

An assumption of NON-SINGULARITY will allow the equations to ‘work’ out mathematically on paper.  Scientists are also allowed to manipulate empirical data WITHIN the bounds of their assumptions. Therefore, these assumptions of NON-SINGULARITY are “both practical and necessary”.  And all that is required is human imagination.

But the TRUTH is ALL evidence (including empirical evidence) “occurs in a non-repeatable point in time and in a non-reproducible point in space”.  So, these assumptions of “non-singularity” (while both practical and necessary) ARE also essentially FALSE.

A “literal reading of Science” fails because when one reads ‘literally’ the author’s assumptions are NOT taken into account.  Reading Science is NOT the same as reading Science fiction.  Reading Science is a discipline like reading the Bible is a discipline. There is a learning curve.  When reading Science or the Bible, one must take into account the author’s or authors’ assumptions. Then (and only then) will one see—- as through a lens obscured by aberrations—- a glimmer of the TRUTH.

In KJV 1Corinthians Chapter13:12, St. Paul writes “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

Rejoice in God’s LOVE always and go in PEACE.

@Earl Thompson—- From this point forward, I will be ignoring your posts. I do not believe it is possible to have a discussion with someone who has trouble separating the TRUTH from invention and whose “sense of fun” is to laugh at other people’s beliefs. Please feel equally free to ignore my posts and go in PEACE.

Why don’t you tell the whole story.  The Malleus while probably written by a Dominican Heinrich Kramer was widely discredited by the Church and of all institutions the Inquisition. His Bishop in Germany dismissed him as a senile old man. Aquinas believed Aristotle to be a Dietist but his along with Agustines “wisdom” came primarily from the Scriptures and an immersion into Theology.

The Church has always felt faith and science were different disciplines with faith being the primary and that all other disciplines if not guided by faith to be flawed.  The Church teaches very clearly Scripture is not History or Science and relying on Scripture for these ends is not legitimate.

It’s the nature of the Church to deny responsibility for the action of its agents/followers. The Church originally advocated torture “only” for heretics, and left it to individual clergy to decide who was a heretic. Later it encouraged the Inquisition, witch trials (both men and women were burned alive) and a long, bloody history.
.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/R-Reformation_Rome_crusade_slaughter
.
This gendercide/genocide was done in the name of the Catholic Church, even if the Pope/Church “claims” it rejected the premise.
.
I expect you to use the “no true Catholic” fallacy—that the Church officials who instigated the serial/mass murders of thousands of millions of people were acting contrary to the Church.

Rose,
The last witch killings in America were not carried out by the Catholic Church. Nor were the last witch killings in Europe. For those one would have to use the “no true Calvinist” or “no true Puritan” fallacy.

Kathleen—it’s interesting how you specified the “last witch killings in Europe.” What about the first 300 years? And it was not only witches—Jews, Muslims and other “heretics” were tortured into “confessing” and burned alive, hanged, or imprisoned in horrible conditions where they died.

I know Calvinists and other Protestants were involved in witch killings (they usually hanged witches instead of burning them), but Christianity started with the Catholic Church, and Protestant thoughts are simply variations on the same theme.

Kathleen, you seem to rely on statistics to point out that the Catholic Church was “not so bad” compared to other abusive groups. Why do you downgrade the evil of the acts themselves? One abortion is a crime, but the torture and murder of the living is less serious?

Kathleen—I’ve been looking at Catholic sites that have their own explanation of the Inquisition:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5236

This blog seems to suggest that the Inquisition was a product of its time, and that the Church simply excommunicated heretics and turned them over to “secular authorities” who did the actual killing. In other words “secular” people not under the jurisdiction of the Church were responsible for the holocaust of heretics—the Church only wanted to “correct” them.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed

This blogger poses that the Inquisition is a “Catholic urban myth” used for anti-Catholic rhetoric. (Like me?)

I guess you “statistics” defense is just a part of your devotion to the Church. Lucky for the Vatican PR department, no photographs exist from back then. There are no “Rodney King” videos to play and replay. But the murderous history of the Inquisition(s) was recorded by none other than the Catholic Church itself, and to deny or downplay its wide spread terror is absurd.

Fortunately, witnesses did just that. Here are a few medieval woodcuts of what agents of the Vatican did to Protestants during the catholic “golden age” (when it was the only official church allowed). These were originally published in General Martyrology by Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). The title heading: “Tortures used to extract confessions from heretics.”

http://monsterwax.tripod.com/inquisition.html

Rose,
I think you’ll find torture,maimings, & execution were common & in former times considered as just & not unusual forms of punishment.They were meted out by virtually all societies from ancient times forward.These were more often sentences given out by civil courts.
The reason most of these forms of punishment have died out is that society has changed.Many Europeans consider the United States backwards & primitive because we still allow capital punishment.Some Islamic societies still maim criminals.Things change for the better, slowly.
If one has personal gripes with the Church of Scotland, the Muslims, Catholics, whatever, issues of justice/punishment from centuries ago can always be brought into the discussion but I think you’ll find the civil courts of bygone days were the actual day to day generators of the majority of torture, maimings, & executions.Courts are a product of the social mores of their time.Thankfully times have changed.In most places anyway.

Rose,
I tried to respond, but the spam catcher was working overtime.Maybe my comment will appear later.
The short of it is that centuries ago, all courts both clerical & civil meted out punishments that were considered normal for their times but barbaric in our’s.Civil courts judged many, many more cases than religious ones did.Generally if folks had a choice, they asked to be tried by a religious court because they were often less harsh.
When folks have issues with any ethnic or sectarian group, they can always bring these sort of things up, but judgements handed down in former days simply reflected where the society as a whole was.Harsh punishment was found everywhere & practised in civil courts more often.

To John from 2/15:  A man named Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago.  He said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”.  Either you believe he lived or you don’t.  Either you believe what he said or you don’t.  We Christians don’t understand everything about our faith.  God’s thoughts are far above our thoughts.  However, the prophets foretold that a messiah was coming.  I have to agree that the bible and the story of Jesus is way out there.  You can’t make this stuff up.  Or if it was made up, it would have been dismissed centuries ago.  But, there is something there.  Faith, it is told, is a gift from God.  But, you have to be open to it.  Otherwise, you will not see.  To some seeing is believing.  To those with faith, believing makes one see.  Like the song- Amazing Grace.  I just said a prayer for you.  I invite you to say one for yourself.  Ask Jesus to send you a sign and to open your mind to discover who He is…  Peace to you brother.

Rose,
We could compare engravings of Catholics drawn & quartered by Protestants vs Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, but that would just prove the point you’ve already mentioned, that those sort of punishments were a product of their times.And propaganda flourished on all sides.
Poaching was a capital offense then, too.Political prisoners were sold as slave labor to the colonies if they were lucky.Different times.Thankfully.

Very good Kathleen.  The history of the Catholic Church in the middle ages had many sad episodes (see Joan of Arc).  But for some reason (maybe Divine guidance) the Catholic Church was able to survive them.  The more recent history of the Catholic Church is filled with many uplifting initiatives , Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII, Vatican II of John XXIII, the Ordinariate of Benedict, John Paul II’s outreach to the world.  In Africa Catholic Missionaries (and Protestant) have suffered greatly to bring the faith and a better standard of living to many people.  You could go on and on.

Unfotunately a number of people who enter this blog are motivated only by hate and ignorance. Not sure why they hate the Catholic Church but they must have their reasons.  They believe they are intellectually superior because they reject God.  But as the sponsor of this blog Ms. Fulwiler has shown, the embrace of athiesm is true ignorance.

Kathleen and Tom O’Tool: are you moral relativists? It was OK for the Church to torture and burn heretics because that was the ethics of the time? Now things are getting better, so it’s OK? Was the Nazi Holocaust, the mass killings in Rawanda, and other mass genocides morally ethical for their time/situation?

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0919.htm

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/11/catholics-spanish-inquisition-was-myth.html

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Rose,
You are comparing mob violence/tribal reprisals & Nazi eugenics with former modes of justice meted out by courts.There could be a connection there someplace, but my guess is the dots only connect if one first has a preconceived outcome.
I think it’s better to see the authentic picture, which is that we’re all fallen human beings,Catholics, Protestants, Jews, believers & unbelievers alike. We all have some history of treating each other badly, & a lack of charity can be demonstrated in these comment boxes daily.
God bless.

Rose quoted Friedrich Nietzsche:
“‘A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.’”

Language is a human invention.  The TRUTH is NOT. Therefore, TRUTH is NOT language.

TRUTH cannot prove itself. OR using my initial “choice of words”, PROOF does NOT exist in the real world. There can only BE evidence in an ephemeral and material universe composed of singularities.
What does ‘ephemeral’ mean? Evidence is a function of TIME.
What does ‘material’ mean? Evidence is subject to DECAY.
What do ‘singularities’ mean? Evidence is ‘ONE-OF-A-KIND’ because it occurs in a non-repeatable point in time and in a non-reproducible point in space.

AND “evidence” (like language) is NOT TRUTH.

Why? Because “evidence” is extracted from the TRUTH.

Humans CHOOSE what constitutes and what is admissible as “evidence”.  The VERY act of gathering evidence (whether in a court of law or in a laboratory or in a ‘life of FAITH’) requires HUMAN intervention—- and therefore, is subject to HUMAN error and manipulation.

One cannot escape human intervention in the discernment of TRUTH from invention.

BUT one can impose a discipline that puts some distance between one’s ‘choice of words’ and one’s own flawed observations and human reasoning by LIVING a ‘life of FAITH’.

This ‘distance’ CANNOT be achieved by living a ‘life of SCIENCE’ simply BECAUSE scientists must make ‘practical and necessary’ assumptions in order to make equations work mathematically on paper (one of which is “an unfounded belief in ‘non-singularity’”).

Nietzsche suffered a mental collapse. Regardless of whether Nietzsche suffered from “CADASIL”, or “frontotemporal dementia”, or “the slow growth of a right-sided retro-orbital meningioma” or syphilis (re: WikipediA), it is EVIDENT that Friedrich Nietzsche—- like the denizens of the lunatic asylums he visited—- had trouble discerning TRUTH from invention.

We all begin as atheists.  Some of us out grow it.

BUT if we rejoice in God’s LOVE always, we should do just fine (even if we find ourselves in a lunatic asylum.)

Now go in PEACE.

It’s never ok and the Church has reiterated this time after time.  Kathleen is right, we are flawed individuals who are responsible for the flaws in our institutions.  However we strive to improve which is the history of the Catholic Church and the essence of our individual faith journeys.  Also our moral guidepost is Jesus (and we often fall short) not Neitzsche.

You have your way. I have my way.  As for the right way, the correct way and the only way, it does not exist.
Fredrick Neitzsche

Talk about moral relativism, that’s just completely devoid of morals.  And that’s your moral guidepost?

“They believe they are intellectually superior because they reject God.  But as the sponsor of this blog Ms. Fulwiler has shown, the embrace of athiesm is true ignorance.

The laws of nature can never ever any time and anywhere be violated. Ressurection of the dead violates the laws of nature.

14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.

I would say that Christianity, not atheism, is true ignorance.

Just what Claire needs. Another troll.

Tom,
You know, just reading comment boxes here & on other news sites, you see a kind of microcosm of our fallen world.The folks who bring their bigotries, conspiracy theories,sectarianism, etc only demonstrate that we all have had some part in the mistreatment of others through human history.
Comments boxes here tend to draw the anti-papists,hardcore secularists, etc. I see those also on the BBC in addition to anti-semitic folk,anti-immigrant,anti-Muslim, etc.They all air greviances against their scapegoat of choice but it really just reinforces the fact that we each can carry preconceptions, cultural prejudices, & a distorted view of our world.
I believe in unchanging truth & not in moral relativism, but I think, too, we each have to take care & remember we can have our own cultural blind spots.

Posted by MdeCastro on Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013 1:02 AM (EST):

Rose quoted Friedrich Nietzsche:
“‘A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.’”
***************************************************************
That reminded me of a former pastor’s experience.We used to live near a large state-run mental hospital.Our parish priest would visit patients there.He shared that during the times he carried the Blessed Sacrament,hidden from site, some inmates would begin acting out, tearing off their clothing,screaming, etc. When he paid a visit not carrying the Blessed Sacrament the patients did not exhibit that behaviour.
So, maybe a stroll through an asylum does bring some things to light.Who knows.

Tom and Kathleen—Your replies indicate that you are moral relativists, especially about your faith. When people do heinous crimes in the name of the Church, because they were supported and demanded by the Church with a Papal Bull, it is because “Catholics are only human.”

What you are saying in the concrete in that any act, no matter what it is—stealing, adultery, fornication, murder, terrorism—can be just and good depending on the intention of the perpetrator and the circumstances of the act.

MdeCastro has joined in, and s/he also says the truth is no objective. I though the one attractive value of the Catholic Church is that its truth never changes and it is an objective standard for human behavior. I guess I was wrong.

surely the Creator of all can modify His natural laws to His own purposes. the inability of some to understand this in no way makes it less true.

even most atheists acknowledge that the universe has a beginning.  what the atheists cannot explain nor comprehend is being without limits.  i have never encountered an atheist who has reconciled infinite being with their atheism.

Thank you for your article, Jennifer. Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger also influenced me very much in my return to the Catholic Church. I was raised as a Catholic, but fell away in my teen years. After about thirty years as an agnostic, and with some prodding from a friend, I began to reconsider the Church, and eventually came upon some of the writings of the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Perhaps the book that put me on track was G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, but Cardinal Ratzinger’s/Benedict XVI’s writings forced me to recognize the truth. I agree with you wholeheartedly that he has been a Pope very well suited for the times; obviously that is true for me personally. I am very grateful that we have had him as Pope, and, although sad to see him retire, I trust that our next Pope will also be a humble servant of Christ.

Posted by eddie too on Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013 2:17 PM (EST):
“surely the Creator of all can modify His natural laws to His own purposes. the inability of some to understand this in no way makes it less true.”

How come not one story of a Creator of all modifying His natural laws to His own purposes can be verified through scientific inquiry?  What are the chances of every suspension of a natural law coming from an obscure source? Wouldn’t at least some be verifiable?  There is not a one. If there were it would be one of the biggest news stories of all time.

Posted by eddie too on Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013 2:21 PM (EST):
“even most atheists acknowledge that the universe has a beginning.  what the atheists cannot explain nor comprehend is being without limits.  i have never encountered an atheist who has reconciled infinite being with their atheism.”

What does that prove?  Do you really think they had a better explanation thousands of years ago?  Jesus predicted that the stars will fall from the sky. Could it be that he had no idea of just how big a star is?

infinite being is God.

Is this infinite being accurately described in the Bible?  Should it be personified and given human male characteristics. Did people know him better thousands of years ago than we do now?

Kathleen: you keep citing statistics comparing the Church to other institutions with the point that the other institutions are as bad or worse in the corruption of its representatives. Is that not morally relative?

Tom O’Tool—you support Kathleen in when genocide is committed by ministers, bishops, clergy, etc., it’s because their humans with flaws, not acting for and because of Church decree. If that’s so, what is the point of being Catholic, except for the certainty that all you sins will be forgiven because you believe? That’s not a really stable “moral guidepost.”

I’m guessing that I commit murder or not for the same reasons you do—that you don’t want to (at least it’s a guess). I am not threatened or rewarded for my moral principles. Does God’s “carrot and stick” approach dictate your moral judgement?

“Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man—living in the sky—who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ‘til the end of time! ..But He loves you.”
George Carlin

there is much this infinite being has revealed about Himself to man.  much of this divine revelation IS in the Bible.  it is not within the dimensions of this blog to bring you up to speed on all that almighty God has revealed to mankind.  for example, the Divine Nature is to be Three Persons.  this has been revealed to mankind. many books have been written about this mystery.  it is impossible in a blog comment to supply all of the information in these many books.  also, these books contain the intellectual aspects of divine revelation.  there are also experiential and historical aspect to divine revelation.  no human grows closer to God without personal effort and desire.  it is easy for some to dismiss six thousand years of acccumulated information God has provided about Himself to mankind.  it is not wise to dismiss this information.

“it is easy for some to dismiss six thousand years of acccumulated information God has provided about Himself to mankind.  it is not wise to dismiss this information.”

There is nothing special about ancient manuscripts that try to explain our existence in fables and folklore. To look at those primitive manuscripts as divine revelation when all they are is a bunch of stories. God would not reveal himself in this manner. Scientists have been studying things like the Big Bang, evolution, quantum theory, etc. This is a lot better way to answer the questions that the writers of the Bible were taking a blind stab at. Nobody inspired them to write what they wrote. They just wrote stories to inspire people, which they seem to have done a little too well.

Thank you for posting.  As a cradle Catholic I used to find exactly the same correspondence in Cardinal Ratzinger’s writing. You have great insight into his legacy for our age!

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
H. L. Mencken

Rose quoted H.L.Mencken:
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”

Rose, your MOTIVE for engaging the readers of an explicitly Catholic blog site has NOTHING to do with “RESPECT”.

The readers of this blog site did NOT seek you out in YOUR own home to challenge YOUR religion.

You do not hesitate to lie and while the other bloggers may continue to be polite, I will no longer entertain your comments. Please feel equally free to ignore MY comments and go in PEACE.

Bill S wrote:
“The laws of nature can never ever any time and anywhere be violated. Ressurection of the dead violates the laws of nature.”

There are NO “laws of nature”—- just theories and hypotheses.

Language is a human invention.  The TRUTH is NOT.  Therefore, theories—- and anything generated by human REASON—- are merely a ‘choice of words’, subject to human error and manipulation.

PROOF does NOT exist in the real world. There can only BE evidence in an ephemeral and material universe composed of singularities.

What does ‘ephemeral’ mean? Evidence is a function of TIME.

What does ‘material’ mean? Evidence is subject to DECAY.

What do ‘singularities’ mean? Evidence is ‘ONE-OF-A-KIND’ because it occurs in a non-repeatable point in time and in a non-reproducible point in space.

BUT the collection and admissibility of evidence is also subject to human error and manipulation.

So while the evidence of the resurrected Christ may be in dispute; the evidence of lives lived in FAITH bear witness to the TRUTH.

If you are really interested in knowing the TRUTH (as YOU claim you are), LOVE GOD FIRST.

St. Thomas Aquinas said “Love follows knowledge.”

BUT I disagree.

I say, “We cannot hope to KNOW what we do not LOVE first.” Knowledge follows LOVE.

Collect the evidence yourself—- and the evidence becomes indisputable.

LOVE GOD FIRST.

Rose—It’s obvious your deep hatred of Religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular puts you in an insular place.  Many bad things have been perpetrated by people in the name of not only the Catholic Church but all religions (as those of us responding have acknowledged).  In the case of Christianity, if you examine the teachings of Jesus you will find that Christians overwhelmingly do not follow them.  Yet you continue to denigrate Christianity without any reference to Jesus teachings.  I can’t speak about non-Christian religions, I simply don’t know enough about them.  But my God is Jesus and his Father.  Your god is Science or so it seems from your postings.  Well, good luck with that.  At this point it seems pointless to go on with these exchanges.  It just provides you with a forum for your vitriol.  But I thank you for the dialog,it has been informative.

Kathleen—your considered, intelligent postings were also most informative.  I have learned much from them.  Thank you.

Rose,
Thank you for the H.L.Mencken quote.He was one of our funniest skeptics, but I think he often wrote from unhappiness & his life wasn’t as cynical as he led on in his prose.He poked fun at love, marriage and the South, but married a Southern woman whose later death broke his heart.His early writings contain anti-semitic & racist comments typical of that era,but he later spoke out against racist acts committed in his own state of Maryland & against our govt’s refusal to admit Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis.
I think folk like Mencken, Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce & the like were brilliant at showing man’s foibles & hypocrisies through their writings & we’re better for it.But they were less good at showing sincerity,love, & things eternal, though Mark Twain did try.

“In every unbeliever’s heart there is an uneasy feeling that, after all, he may awake after death and find himself immortal. This is his punishment for his unbelief. This is the agnostic’s Hell.”
H.L. (Henry Lewis) Mencken

Rose,
Thank you for your comments & quotes.
I’ve responded, but it was marked as spam,I think because I copied & pasted a quote, too.Hopefully it will appear later.
God bless.

Tom,
Thank you for the kind words.
God bless you.

Posted by MdeCastro on Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013 11:45 PM (EST):

“There are NO “laws of nature”—- just theories and hypotheses.”

That is an erroneous statement. All medicine and technology rely on the unfailing predictability obtained from knowing these laws. They are not all theoretical. Some are proven and unalterable.

” theories—- and anything generated by human REASON—- are merely a ‘choice of words’, subject to human error and manipulation.”

Not so. Hypotheses are that. Don’t be fooled by the word. Theories are completely reliable and repeatable.

“PROOF does NOT exist in the real world. There can only BE evidence in an ephemeral and material universe composed of singularities.”

Nonsense. Many things can be and are proven.

“BUT the collection and admissibility of evidence is also subject to human error and manipulation.”

Better to have evidence and test it than hearsay and believe it.

“So while the evidence of the resurrected Christ may be in dispute; the evidence of lives lived in FAITH bear witness to the TRUTH.”

No. They give witness to the power of belief. Even if that belief is wrong.

“If you are really interested in knowing the TRUTH (as YOU claim you are), LOVE GOD FIRST.”

That is a way to feel good. It has nothing to do with real truth.

“I say, “We cannot hope to KNOW what we do not LOVE first.” Knowledge follows LOVE.”

Warm and fuzzy feelings we get from love have nothing to do with the real truth.

“Collect the evidence yourself—- and the evidence becomes indisputable.”

If that is what you have really done (somehow I doubt it), good luck to you.

dismissing six thousand years of divine revelation with a mere wave of the hand is to deliberately embrace ignorance.  believeing that truth is only contained in science is a result of ignorance.  refusing to explore all of the information available is a willful desire to remain ignorant.  to reject what one does not know or understand is foolish.

Eddie too. First of all, it is not 6,000 years of revelation. The Tora was supposedly “found” by Hezekiah in the 8th century BCE.  So even if we say 3,000 years, what makes you think that old information is better than new information is learning the secrets of the universe. Would you use a geography book from the 19th century or a new one?  Trust me. There is nothing in the Bible that is more informative than Google and Wikipedia.

“to reject what one does not know or understand is foolish.”

I do know what I am rejecting. To live your life by it is foolish.

MdeCastro, Tom O’Tool, and Kathleen—You’ve made me sorry I posted Menken’s quote—it gave you a pivot to leave my suggestion that you are moral relativists.

MdeCastro and Tom expressed hostility, while Kathleen expressed pity. I must have struck a nerve.

Still, you morals are relative to the Church and not to objective virtues. You will excuse the Church as “only human” when it’s convenient and condemn secular organizations (e.g. Penn State)for the same crimes. Don’t tell me that’s a respectable “moral guide.”

to paraphrase the late, great bishop fulton j. sheen, “no one rejects the Church, they reject what they think is the Church”.  the words “to know her is to love her” have never been applied more correctly than when they are applied to “Holy Mother the Church”. those who reduce their understanding of Jesus to THEIR understanding of what is in the bible are missing essential elements of the Truth.  their lives are lives of despair.  there future is filled with hopelessness.  without faith, hope is unattainable.

“those who reduce their understanding of
Jesus to THEIR understanding of what is in the bible are missing essential
elements of the Truth. their lives are lives of despair. there future is
filled with hopelessness. without faith, hope is unattainable.”

Yes. Especially since there are so many other historical references.

Luther chose to rely on the Bible and not be controlled by the incredibly corrupt Catholic Church. Many Christians still rely on it to learn about Jesus. I tend to disbelieve both the Bible and the Catholic Church and rely on my own reason and logic and what I can learn from the most qualified source in any particular subject.

a person who refuses to believe there is knowledge their limited intellect is incapable of obtaining on its own has little to offer others.  knowing that the death of our physical bodies is but a transition from corruptibility to incorruptibility has a profound effect on a person’s understanding of reality.  it is true that this knowledge is only obtainable by faith.  why a person would choose to believe that life is empty and meaningless is, for the faithful, an unanswerable question.  the answer may vary from unbeliever to unbeliever.  for some, it may be related to pride.  for others, it may be related to past negative experiences.  what the believer does know is that when faced with what reason clearly identifies as the better option, it is foolish to choose the lesser option. the choice that faces all who hear the Gospel of Christ is between believing in a loving Creator who longs to give them eternal life; and believing in a world that has no absolute meaning and offers only eternal death.  the atheists choose the lesser option.  all of the arguments the atheists make does not change the fact that they choose to believe in eternal death rather than to believe in eternal life.  that is why those who desire to share in eternal life implore their Creator to move the hearts of the atheists to believe and accept the perfect reality He has created for them.

Rose,
I really did enjoy the quote from Mencken.Please don’t be sorry you shared it.He was brilliant.
Brilliant, but kind of sad in the end.
He had a great line about Puritans, too.
Have a good rest of the day.

Well, Kathleen—it was my bad. I should not have posted a distraction, and you used it to avoid discussion your questionable morality.

Our conversation has ended with my conclusion that you are a moral relativist in favor of the Catholic Church. Ironically, the Church condemns moral relativism, but it never did practice what it preached.

Tom O’Tool—If Christians don’t follow the teachings of Jesus, why call them Christians?

MdeCastro—this is not your home. This is a public website that usually, but not always fuels debate. You’re just offended by my conclusion that you are a moral relativist. Your anger does not change it.

“knowing that the death of our physical bodies is but a transition from corruptibility to incorruptibility has a profound effect on a person’s understanding of reality”

Change “knowing” to “thinking” and your sentence makes more sense.

” it is true that this knowledge is only obtainable by faith.”

Of course. How convenient.

“why a person would choose to believe that life is empty and meaningless is, for the faithful, an unanswerable question.”

Life is empty and meaningless?  Why? Just because this is the only life we have?

“what the believer does know is that when faced with what reason clearly identifies as the better option, it is foolish to choose the lesser option.”

What makes you think that you get to choose?  You think eternal life come to those who believe in eternal life and only death comes to those who don’t believe. If I believe I can fly, does that give me the ability to fly?

” the choice that faces all who hear the Gospel of Christ is between believing in a loving Creator who longs to give them eternal life; and believing in a world that has no absolute meaning and offers only eternal death.”

So you get eternal life just by believing? Sounds like an enticement from someone who wants you to believe but can’t really give you eternal life. All that seems to be important is that you believe. You are going to die just like I am. You just won’t know it because you will be dead.

“the atheists choose the lesser option. all of the arguments the atheists make does not change the fact that they choose to believe in eternal death rather than to believe in eternal life.”

Again. It is not a matter of choosing anything. It’s a fact of life that this life ends at death and you are being duped into thinking that you can choose to live forever. You can’t.

” that is why those who desire to share in eternal life implore their Creator to move the hearts of the atheists to believe and
accept the perfect reality He has created for them.”

Sorry. You’re dreaming. When you die, that’s it. You can’t face that so you believe thinking that by believing in eternal life you will receive it. That’s just silly.

“One cannot predicate action on a belief in NOTHING.”
What a stupid thing to say!
““Our” religion is the only source of truth because it comes from God.”
And every other religions proclaims the same thing.  Death to heretics!
“The Roman Catholic Church defines a ‘miracle’ as a singular event that can only BE attributed to divine intervention.”
And you have no evidence that any such thing has ever occurred.

“A man named Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago.”
How do you know that?  What if it is not true?
“Not sure why they hate the Catholic Church”
Every religion wishes to impose its morality upon others.
“We all begin as atheists.”
But most are properly indoctrinated into their parents’ faith when they are too young to think for themselves.
“the death of our physical bodies is but a transition from corruptibility to incorruptibility”
Hilarious wishful thinking.

Jennifer, Thank you for sharing your perspective! A dear friend of mine has wandered from the Catholic Church, citing an inability to bring all the pieces together (proof through reason) as his reason. I want to see if I can share, per what you are telling us, with him on HIS way of having to have Christ’s truth “proven” to him. Pope Benedict (emeritus) is a man of deep faith, profound theological insights, and unshakeable integrity. I love him; I did not expect that when he was elevated to the Chair of Peter. I was looking for ‘God’s Rottweiler’. How wrong I was! How humble he is, and how much I have to learn! On to read more of his writings… ;-)  Thanks!

Kathleen quoted H.L.Mencken:
“In every unbeliever’s heart there is an uneasy feeling that, after all, he may awake after death and find himself immortal. This is his punishment for his unbelief. This is the agnostic’s Hell.”

And in every Catholic believer’s heart there is an uneasy feeling that, after all, he may awake after death and find himself immortal and SEPARATE for all eternity from the one and only Person who loved him first, loved him always and will love him for all eternity. This is his punishment for not loving God when there was opportunity to LOVE GOD in life.  This is the Catholic believer’s hell.

God suffers us to reject His perfect LOVE. Hell is merely the final courtesy that a loving GOD extends to all He loves.  If we do not want HIS company, He will not insist. There is a place we can go—- away from Him, away from LOVE. WE call it ‘hell’. And the only thing we KNOW about hell is that God is NOT in hell.

Rejoice in God’s LOVE always and go in PEACE.

@Bill S

It is clear from your last post; you’ve NEVER done the math.  Otherwise, you would understand what is meant by subjecting a matrix of equations to the ‘test for singularity’.

It is also clear you do not understand what YOU mean when YOU state “Theories are completely reliable and repeatable.” Theories are NOT actionable statements.  Therefore, their ‘reliability’ and ‘repeatability’ cannot be put to the test.

Einstein’s thought experiments in his exposition on his theory of relativity are NOT POSSIBLE to enact. The experiments conducted in the Hadron Collider (which was built at the cost of $4.75 billion) are what are doable and practical. These Hadron Collider experiments are designed around hypotheses DRAWN from theories like Einstein’s.

There IS a HUGE difference between ‘hypotheses’ and ‘theories’.  Hypotheses are actionable statements. ‘Theories’ are NOT.  Hypotheses are always ASSUMED to be true. BUT when a ‘hypotheses’ FAILS (‘failing’, BTW, does not prove the hypotheses ‘false’—- just NOT workable)—- ‘theories’ may be revisited and revised (or another ‘hypotheses’ drawn and another experiment designed and executed.)

And exactly WHAT do YOU mean by “repeatability” when evidence (including empirical evidence) occurs in a non-repeatable point in time and in a non-reproducible point in space?  This is why in the design of experiments, mathematicians qualify the ‘repeatability’ of an experiment ‘as within an ‘acceptable’ margin of ERROR, because the ‘necessary and practical’ ASSUMPTION of ‘non-singularity’ is essentially FALSE.

Feel free to look for evidence of ‘non-singularity’. Take your time. Take a lifetime.

For myself, I’d rather have the ‘warm fuzzy’ that comes with rejoicing in GOD’s LOVE always. It’s evidence at hand and not something I still have to grope around for in the bush.

This is my LAST response to YOU.  There are other atheists I love and I would rather spend my lifetime with.  One is a 3-year old and the other is an 11-year old. YOU, on the other hand, are merely a disembodied voice on the internet, a mere invention. It is NOT possible to love you or KNOW you.  The same goes for me.

I hope you find what you are looking for. Now GO in peace.

“And in every Catholic believer’s heart there is an uneasy feeling that, after all, he may awake after death and find himself immortal and SEPARATE for all eternity from the one and only Person who loved him first, loved him always and will love him for all eternity. This is his punishment for not loving God when there was opportunity to LOVE GOD in life.  This is the Catholic believer’s hell.”

Tell me something. Is it true that all our consciousness and our whole perception of ourselves and the world around us reside in our brains. Is it also true that this all changes with changes in the brain?  Could we reach a point where our brains become so impaired that we no longer are aware of our surroundings and might not even know who we are?  Go one step further with death, where the brain stops working altogether. What do you suppose happens next?  Wrong. Nothing happens next. Face that and live your life as if it is the only one you,as a person, will ever have.

Bill S,
Good Morning!
I think our brain is simply the organ that processes consciousness, but our being, consciousness, spirit-whatever you wish to call it-exists beyond the processor.
There’s probably a computer-related analogy out there, but I’ll leave that to someone brighter.
Hope you’re having a good day, Mr Bill. How’s the weather up there?

“There’s probably a computer-related analogy out there, but I’ll leave that to someone brighter.”

The analogy would be “The Cloud” where the data that would normally be available only on your computer is stored so that even if your computer dies, your data can still be retrieved.

I don’t know. That’s asking a lot from a biological standpoint. Interesting thought though. I doubt that anyone would have thought it possible just a couple of decades ago. We had rain yesterday that washed away the snow from the blizzard that hit the northeast last week. .

Bill S,
There you go-that was a wonderful answer! Thank you.
Hope your weather continues on mild till Spring. We live in the Deep South & escape blizzards & such, but it’s been very soggy this winter.The crawfish love it, though.
God bless.

Kathleen,

I only offered that as a computer related analogy but that doesn’t mean that I think that is what happens with our brains. Are you not able to imagine and accept that your death will not be any different than that of your dog or cat. Would it change anything that you would have done with your life or plan to do?  I didn’t exist when I was just a gleam in my father’s eye. As soon as my brain stops working, that will be it for me. I plan to live the rest of my life accordingly.

why believe there is no meaning?  why believe there is no ultimate justice?  why believe love is only a temporary human construct, especially when we have evidence that love conquers all else?  why believe in eternal death?

Bill,
I didn’t assume your answer necessarily affirms your belief in an afterlife.I thought it was a great reply nontheless.
No,I do believe in a hereafter & it has changed how I live my life profoundly.As beautiful as this world is, it’s fleeting & we’re really just pilgrims here.There is so much more.

Rose—didn’t think I was being hostile, didn’t mean to be hostile, I apologize.

God Bless.

Posted by Tom O’Toole on Thursday, Feb 28, 2013 9:34 AM (EST):
“Rose—It’s obvious your deep hatred of Religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular puts you in an insular place.  Many bad things have been perpetrated by people in the name of not only the Catholic Church but all religions (as those of us responding have acknowledged).  In the case of Christianity, if you examine the teachings of Jesus you will find that Christians overwhelmingly do not follow them.  Yet you continue to denigrate Christianity without any reference to Jesus teachings.  I can’t speak about non-Christian religions, I simply don’t know enough about them.  But my God is Jesus and his Father.  Your god is Science or so it seems from your postings.  Well, good luck with that.  At this point it seems pointless to go on with these exchanges.  It just provides you with a forum for your vitriol.  But I thank you for the dialog,it has been informative.”
***********
Tom—if you don’t think that was hostile, I’m worried about what you do when you’re really angry!

I think Catholics have an uneasy feeling that they will doubt their faith on their deathbed, and realize there is nothing beyond this life.

Why else would they get so defensive when atheists ask questions?

“why believe there is no meaning?  why believe there is no ultimate justice?  why believe love is only a temporary human construct, especially when we have evidence that love conquers all else?  why believe in eternal death?”

You must get it out of your head that what you believe can in any way affect reality. You ask “why believe”. The answer is that I believe that which has the most probability of being true. I am reasonably certain about what I believe and disbelieve. To think that I run the risk of eternal damnation if I am wrong is to allow myself to be manipulated by someone who wants me to believe. Even if that someone is Jesus himself, I’m not giving in to a ruse

there is much more evidence to support the belief that human life continues after death in this world than to believe that human life ends with the death of the body.  i know of zero evidence that supports the belief that human life ends with the death of the body.

“i know of zero evidence that supports the belief that human life ends with the death of the body.”

For all intents and purposes, our bodies function in much the same way as other mammals. What happens to them, happens to us. That’s why they can do experiments on animals to determine how something will affect a human. All indication are that life indeed ends with the death of the body. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary. You must be really struggling with this. I’m sorry if this disturbs you but all it means is that we don’t experience anything, good or bad. It will be a disappointment to those who live good lives and a relief to those who don’t.

i doubt soldiers whose lives were saved when a comrade, motivated by his belief in Jesus’ teaching that greater love than this has no man than to lay down his life for another, threw himself on a grenade would agree that belief can in no way affect reality?

there is no evidence that supports the idea that human life ends with the death of the body.  science has not and probably can not prove that the spirit does not exist.  i know of no science that claims to prove that.  if someone can provide a citation where science has proven this negative belief, that there is no spirit, i would be happy to examine that citation.

Jen, YOU ROCK!  You are getting so much gruff for speaking with love and truth; I am sorry! However, you must be doing something right! God bless you! :)

on the other hand, the existence of christianity is in itself an indication that human life continues after the death of our corruptible bodies.  the accounts of the Resurrection of Christ and His multiple appearances to His followers after His Resurrection are also indications that human life continues after the death of the corruptible body.  the martyrdoms of Jesus’ apostles are addtional indications supporting the survival of human beings after their deaths in this world.  even the fact that there are other religious traditions, such as islam, hinduism and buddhism is an indication that human life survives the death of the corruptible body.  logic also provides and indication of the survival of human life after the death of the corruptible body.  on the opposite side of the belief in life after death we have only the idea that science has not proven the existence of the spirit.  to which we respond, it has not proven the non-existence of the spirit either.  i am not trying to prove my belief.  i am only explaining that my belief is more reasonable than any alternative.  hinging a belief on a negative, as do atheists, is not very persuasive to a person who recognizes all of the positives that exists to refute the negative.

Bill S wrote (and I am provoked to respond):
“Tell me something. Is it true that all our consciousness and our whole perception of ourselves and the world around us reside in our brains. Is it also true that this all changes with changes in the brain?  Could we reach a point where our brains become so impaired that we no longer are aware of our surroundings and might not even know who we are?  Go one step further with death, where the brain stops working altogether. What do you suppose happens next?  Wrong. Nothing happens next. Face that and live your life as if it is the only one you,as a person, will ever have.”

“Living our lives as if it is the only one we will ever have” is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So what is YOUR point?

The big difference with my belief in GOD and your belief in nothing is that I want to be WITH GOD. You want to be NOTHING.

So BE that way!

It’s easy enough. Don’t LOVE GOD.

Why should YOU? You don’t love your SELF enough to care to exist and you are well on your way to non-existence.

TRUTH does not exist outside of GOD and GOD is NOT in hell. So whatever TRUTH there is to YOU will disappear ... just as YOU wish.

“if someone can provide a citation where science has proven this negative belief, that there is no spirit, i would be happy to examine that citation.”

As you know, you can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who says that there is such a thing as spirits. All science can say is that there is no evidence that there is.

“i am not trying to prove my belief.”

You would if you could but you can’t.

“i am only explaining that my belief is more reasonable than any alternative.”

Actually, your belief is not more reasonable than atheism. Your belief is more attractive and that’s why so many choose to believe.

“hinging a belief on a negative, as do atheists, is not very persuasive to a person who recognizes all of the positives that exists to refute the negative.”

Much of the positives come from unsubstantiated stories such as the resurrection. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

“The big difference with my belief in GOD and your belief in nothing is that I want to be WITH GOD. You want to be NOTHING”

I know that I will be nothing when I die. You believe you will be with God.  You think that what becomes of us depends on what we believe. You believe in God so you will live forever. I don’t so I won’t.

I’m sorry but it doesn’t work that way. The truth is the truth regardless of what anyone believes.

Bill S wrote:
“I know that I will be nothing when I die. ... The truth is the truth regardless of what anyone believes.”

The TRUTH is the TRUTH—- regardless of anyone’s ‘choice of words’.

So you KNOW NOTHING.  And I place my FAITH in GOD.

Perhaps if you examine your use of words, you might catch the lies you tell yourself instead of coming to an explicitly CATHOLIC blog site just to spew your hatred and disbelief.

Luke 9:5
“And as for those who do not welcome you, when you leave that town, shake the dust from your feet in testimony against them.”

“I think our brain is simply the organ that processes consciousness, but our being, consciousness, spirit-whatever you wish to call it-exists beyond the processor.”
Hilarious typically wishful thinking.
“why believe love is only a temporary human construct”
Because that is a proper reflection of reality.
“especially when we have evidence that love conquers all else?”
You have “evidence”??? Why don’t you tell us about it?
“science has not and probably can not prove that the spirit does not exist.”
Science cannot “prove” that unicorns don’t exist.
“i am only explaining that my belief is more reasonable than any alternative.”
No, but you are a member of a great social club.
“You don’t love your SELF enough to care to exist”
What a stupid thing to say!
“TRUTH does not exist outside of GOD”
What a silly thing to say!

Posted by eddie too on Friday, Mar 1, 2013 1:31 PM (EST):
there is much more evidence to support the belief that human life continues after death in this world than to believe that human life ends with the death of the body.
********
What evidence?

Hmmm.

Earl Thompson.

At a loss for words again; who thinks spell-checking the word “hilarious” makes for an intelligent argument; who trolls an explicitly CATHOLIC blog site for want of a love-life in the REAL WORLD; who has NOTHING to add and when he leaves (for one day, he WILL leave us) hopes NOTHING will remain of him (i.e., of course, unless he believes in the ‘conservation of matter’. In which case, though not all of him will remain, enough of him will remain until that too decays with TIME).

It is EVIDENT that GOD’s LOVE must be very GREAT indeed to suffer a creature such as an EARL THOMPSON (granted there might be more than one) to reject HIS perfect LOVE.  BUT I guess there is hope Earl’s existence will come to an end. After all, Earl is working hard at that hypothesis.  And I wish him well and godspeed.

While it won’t surprise me if Earl does NOT find this funny, I really enjoyed writing this.  I hope my readers have fun with it too.

Rose asked eddie too:
“What evidence?”

Surely, you jest.

What EVIDENCE can be presented in a BLOG site that will be more than just “a choice of words”?

And what qualifies YOU to render judgment on the admissibility of EVIDENCE?

What I’ve read of your comments (when NOT vicious and libelous ‘ad hominem’ attacks) are barely intelligible.  What is your evidence that you can READ?

eddie too:

If I were you, I would not rise to the bait.

“And what qualifies YOU to render judgment on the admissibility of EVIDENCE?”
Reality.  If something is actually present in reality, then it will be easy to present evidence for it.  If something is not present in reality, then it will be impossible to present evidence for it.
But, of course, you live in a fantasy world where it is impossible to judge what is or is not part of reality.

“If something is actually present in reality, then it will be easy
to present evidence for it. If something is not present in reality, then it
will be impossible to present evidence for it.”

This comes down harder on the believer than on the unbeliever.

MdeCastro:
I asked the question to eddie too—it might be polite to let him answer it.
******
I am not the only authority on ” on the admissibility of EVIDENCE,” but neither are you or eddie too.  How are your comments more than “just a choice of words?”
****
Your self-contradicting replies indicate your moral relativism.

MdeCastro—you nuclear responses also indicate your doubt. I have yet to get a coherent answer from you. Bill S and I obviously frighten you with our comments—even whey they are not directed toward you.
******
I don’t particularly hate religion except when it inhibits free thought.

Earl Thompson wrote:
“‘And what qualifies YOU to render judgment on the admissibility of EVIDENCE?’
Reality.”

Bill S chimed in (and Rose has yet to prove that she can read.):
“This comes down harder on the believer than on the unbeliever.”

CORRECTION: ‘Reality’ cannot qualify. It would not know either of YOU from a duck.

The proper answer is to name the “authority” (if you have one.)

In science, gathering evidence is a skill on the part of a HUMAN BEING in which one is trained to apply the ‘scientific’ method with the use of image enhancing instruments on the subject under study. Long years of training and access to expensive scientific instruments coupled with an education on scientific theories and mathematics MAY qualify one (i.e., vest one with the “authority”) “to render judgment on the admissibility of EVIDENCE.” Loss of access to the “image enhancing instruments”, health problems, legal judgments of perjury, copyright violations, fraud, etc. can be reasons for disqualification.

In a court of law (with the possible exception of Sharia Law), gathering evidence MAY follow the ‘rules of evidence’, and the final arbiter is a judge who may be ELECTED or APPOINTED. The temporal powers of the STATE (police and military, prisons and taxes) are what vest judges with the authority “to render judgment on the admissibility of EVIDENCE.”

In matters of religion (whether Christian, Jew or Muslim), the authority is drawn from GOD.  The Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY religion that VETS all ‘claims’ of authority from GOD—- even claims of ‘infallibility’ on the part of the POPE.  And this is the reason why Pope Benedict XVI published his last books (Jesus of Nazareth) under his name, Joseph Ratzinger, to avoid having these books mistaken for “infallible statements”.

‘Demand for evidence’ in a blog site is UNINTELLIGIBLE. Demand published references if you wish. BUT the presentation of evidence in a BLOG SITE is limited by the medium.

BUT I am NOT so arrogant (or stupid) as to demand evidence of anyone in support of their beliefs (i.e. if they have one. Atheism is NOT a belief. It is a DISBELIEF in GOD and obtaining evidence to support it is NOT possible in a laboratory or in a court of Law BY DEFINITION.)

I don’t expect any of you (Earl, Bill and Rose) to understand this.  I do NOT BELIEVE any of you have sufficient EDUCATION OR the necessary LIFE EXPERIENCE OR even the WILL to understand any of the above.  And, of course, there is the immediate question of whether any of you can even READ beyond a ‘literal reading’ level.

FINAL NOTE: Negative statements carry NO ‘burden of proof.’ So NONE of you need fear that I will show up on your doorsteps one day to put any of the negative statements I make about you to a test.

I will no longer be posting in or reading this blog site. And while it’s been fun, I have to attend to the remodel of my house and the needs of the other atheists I love more.

“It is EVIDENT that GOD’s LOVE must be very GREAT indeed to suffer a creature such as an EARL THOMPSON (granted there might be more than one) to reject HIS perfect LOVE.”
What a stupid thing to think!  You cannot even conceive that the beliefs of your cult are nonsense.

Earl, I agree with you, but why do you have to say things like: “What a stupid thing to think!” and “You cannot even conceive that the beliefs of your cult are nonsense.”?

Religion poisons almost everything.
From WEIT today:
“Muslim anti-vaxers slow eradication of polio”
in Pakistan and other countries by death of police and health workers and destruction of health facilities.
“The truth is the truth regardless of what anyone believes.”
But religious beliefs are contrary to reality.
And they are not harmless.
And their wish to impose their morality upon others is not justified.

Islam has definitely screwed up some people’s heads. Otis much easier to show how useless it is. It’s a bit harder to make the same case against Christianity, but it is a case that must be made in order to liberate people’s minds. To convince someone that the guilt they feel about having abortion is all dependent on what you choose to believe is harder than convincing someone that suicide bombings do not get people into paradise with 70 virgins.

there are many things dependent on what a person chooses to believe.  some choose to believe that if science that is the organized examination of the physical world cannot during its procedures detect a spiritual world that the spiritual world does not exist.  all evidence to the contrary is irrelevant because they rely for their believes on procedures that are not designed to prove anything beyond the workings of the physical world.  the same people know that their belief that there is no spiritual aspect to reality is unprovable and based on that reject all evidence to the contrary.

the atheist believes in an unprovable negative and thinks such belief is reasonable.

eddie too,

Who came up with the whole idea of a spiritual world?  Primitive humans who thought that anything that they could not explain had a spiritual cause. One thing I know for sure is that there is no need to believe in anything without sufficient evidence. There is no penalty for not believing. That was just made up to force you to believe and you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

i am not sure why the atheists think their belief in an unprovable negative is reasonable.  this is especially puzzling in light of the existence of evidence that there is a spiritual side to reality.  it is kind of like the atheists are saying i prefer to believe in an unprovable negative thant to believe in a reality whose existence is supported by weak evidence.  no evidence versus weak evidence, the atheists are more persuaded by the no evidence argument.  like i said, very puzzling.

the atheists’ belief that there is no spiritual aspect of reality is held without the existence of any evidence to support that belief.

eddie too,

The only argument you are making is that atheist prefer to believe in a negative that can’t be proved over a positive for which there is weak evidence. First of all, there is not just weak evidence, there is no evidence. Atheists don’t believe in a negative. They don’t believe in something for which there is no evidence.

eddie too—I still need to know what you think is “evidence of a spiritual world.” It’s not obvious to atheists, so please show us your wisdom.

An atheist does not “believe in an unprovable negative.” We just don’t believe in an disproved “positive.” Show me the evidence.

My question to Rose was:
“‘And what qualifies YOU to render judgment on the admissibility of EVIDENCE?’

Earl Thompson wrote this stupid response to my question to Rose:
“Reality.  If something is actually present in reality, then it will be easy to present evidence for it.  If something is not present in reality, then it will be impossible to present evidence for it.”

Bill S agreed with Earl and wrote this unintelligible statement:
“This comes down harder on the believer than on the unbeliever.”

So, my questions to Earl are:

Do I have to care about your “feelings” or Bill S’s or Rose’s?

Are “feelings” something “actually present in reality”?

How easy will it be to present ‘evidence’ of something ‘actually present in reality’ in a BLOG site that limits all postings to TEXT?

Language is a HUMAN invention. The TRUTH is NOT.  To qualify to render judgment on the admissibility of EVIDENCE, one would think it necessary to at least be able to DISCERN the TRUTH from invention. SO, where does your “reality” fit in?

It is evident from your posts, NONE of YOU—- Earl, Bill or Rose—- can actually tell your “choice of words” from a “pack of lies”. Your arrogance alone blinds you to your own human error and your own manipulation of EVIDENCE.

It is no fun meeting you in an explicitly Catholic blog site. BUT it would be truly dangerous to encounter you in a laboratory or in a court of Law—- when life and death hangs in the balance. JUSTICE would be a crap shoot.

In John 18:38, Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

To my Atheist readers:

I don’t expect an uneducated atheist to understand the “admissibility of evidence” or what qualifies one to render judgment in a laboratory, or in a court of Law or even when one is acting merely on one’s FAITH in God.  While it does not take GREAT intelligence to believe in GOD, it takes NO intelligence whatsoever to DISBELIEVE because we ALL begin as atheists.

Nonetheless, I will continue to pray for all atheists (not just the newborn) that they may find the grace to READ past a ‘literal reading’ level—- which is a dangerous level to be at when language (including mathematics) is a HUMAN invention and the TRUTH is NOT.

To my Catholic readers:

I’ve done my good bit for the day and I will no longer be posting in or reading this blog site.

 
Catholics learn about GOD by doing—- through prayer, through the sacraments, through acts of mercy, etc. One can’t just TALK and READ about GOD—- especially with atheists who lack ‘critical thinking’ skills or enough life experience or even just the good will to make an HONEST effort at understanding.

I also believe it would be a MISUSE of NCRegister’s fileservers to turn this blog site into a “chat” room simply to indulge atheist vitriol for all things Catholic. So while it’s been “fun” examining exactly what it is I believe in as evident in my “choice of words”, I should attend to the remodel of my house and the needs of the other two atheists I love more.

Rejoice in God’s LOVE always and go in PEACE.

MdeCastro: I am NOT judging the “admissibility” of evidence. I want ANY EVIDENCE. So far there have only been unsupported statements.

Why do you get angry when I ask you for truth you claim I don’t know?

MdeCastro has left the building—a lot of vitriolic comments that told nothing but his intolerance of disbelief.

Great article Jennifer.
.
I come at this from the other side.  I’m a life-long Catholic with a strong faith but people who get to know me think I should be an atheist.  “You are an engineer and so logical and scientific, you must be an atheist”.  And I have always thought that view odd. 
.
The church and faith have always been a “journey to understand” for me.  I learned early on to question.  I have never held to blind faith and certainly not uninformed faith - this is true for everything in my life.
.
With 2000 years of debate and study, I have always felt the Catholic church is the perfect home for the questioning and scientific mind.  “Why is the church so insistent on its definition of marriage?”, “Why are contraceptives wrongs?”.  The answers to these questions are not arbitrary dogma.  They are debated, reasoned and document research based in logic and fact.  Research Catholic faith and you will quickly find that one of its greatest influences is Aristotle - logos.
.
I read Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings in the late 80s, and like you, I found his clear reasoning and writing to be written in my language, the language of logic and science.
.
My only addition to your article is that as Catholics we should never shrink from debate or reason.  The Catholic faith is truth, it is not a fairy tale.  It is the study of truth, God and His creations - nature and man.  We should never feel the need to concede science and reason to others.

From WEIT today:
“First Christopher Hitchens took her down, then we learned that her faith wasn’t as strong as we thought, and now a new study from the Université de Montréal is poised to completely destroy what shreds are left of Mother Teresa’s reputation.”

“I don’t expect an uneducated atheist to understand the “admissibility of evidence””
Hilarious from one who believes without evidence.

i too am signing off with this comment.  the atheists believe that the only meaning in reality is the meaning the individual gives to reality.  the consequences of this is for meaning to be limited by the finite mind of an individual and for meaining to have no absolute element.  the atheist belief is that only the material world exists and at death nothing remains of the individual.  contrast this with the belief of the christian beleiver who through faith knows that there is a Creator and that their Creator loves them more than anything else in His creation and that the Creator wants His creatures to spend eternity sharing His perfect being.  contrast these two beliefs. the atheists’ beliefs contains no hope. it sees human love as nothing more than a chemical reaction.  it is a gospel whose most likely consequences are despair and depression.  it leads no where and can inspire nothing.  on the other hand, the christian believes the opposite of the gospel of the atheists’ beleifs.  the christian beliefs provide hope.  the chrisitan sees human love as infinite and eternal, a sharing in the very life of the Creator of all things.  the christians’ beliefs lead to eternal life and inspires all who believe the same to seek to become better and to achieve more.  after contrasting these two beliefs, that of the atheist and that of the christian, every human being can choose between them.  to me the better choice is both simple and obvious.  accordingly, i recommend everyone who reads this to choose to believe in eternal life as proclaimed by the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

“on the other hand, the christian believes the opposite of the gospel of the atheists’ beleifs.  the christian beliefs provide hope.  the chrisitan sees human love as infinite and eternal, a sharing in the very life of the Creator of all things.  the christians’ beliefs lead to eternal life and inspires all who believe the same to seek to become better and to achieve more.”

eddie too. If you are still checking our posts, what you are implying is that you can influence reality by what you believe.  Atheist beliefs are more negative so we should choose Christian beliefs because they give us hope. But doesn’t it come down to what is actually true rather than what we believe?

“The answers to these questions are not arbitrary dogma.  They are debated, reasoned and document research based in logic and fact.”
Hilarious.  What “facts”?
“The Catholic faith is truth, it is not a fairy tale.”
How do you know that?  Why is it called “faith”?
“contrast this with the belief of the christian beleiver who through faith knows ...”
whatever he thinks he knows with unswerving confidence because of his proper indoctrination into the cult.
“it is a gospel whose most likely consequences are despair and depression.”
Hilarious.
“the christian beliefs provide hope.”
False hope?  You have no evidence.
“every human being can choose between them”
And on what basis should one choose?  Based on lack of evidence or belief without evidence?  Is “absence of evidence” really “evidence of absence”?  It would seem after all this time, you would have some evidence if there was any evidence to be had.
“to choose to believe in eternal life”
So comforting in this vale of tears.  Are atheists going to “hell”?  How do you know that?  What evidence do you have?

The good news is that Pope Francis promises to be a radical change from Pope Benedict. From a review of his book On Earth and Heaven:
.
He also recognises that the church must move with the times and be in constant transformation. “If, throughout history, the church has changed so much, I do not see why we should not adapt it to the culture of the [our] time,” he says.
.

I was blacklisted and reinstated by Simcha Fisher who doesn’t take any you know what from anyone. Any changes that Francis is amenable to are welcome by me. Personally, I hope he takes names and kicks butt.

Pope Francis has some promising credentials that suggest he might be more progressive than the conservatives of the past. It’s interesting how quickly Benedict is being brushed aside.
.
I’ve written before that the Church needs to change or it would continue to loose believers. If Francis moves the focus to helping the secular needs of people and lays off interfering in the bedroom and the doctor’s office, the power of the Church may actually do some good.
.
It surprises me, but I’m looking forward to some good moves.