New pope

[Bozo_Law]

Quite a momentous even...

[Freerthanu]

1. What "atrocities" does Western Religion as a whole commit today?

- The new pope, "Francis," cooperated with the bloody Argentine military dictatorship from 1975-1983. He is a fascist, human rights abuser and enabler. He is also a homophobe, against same-sex marriage, against abortion, as well as being on the wrong side of history regarding many critical issues. A relic of a time well past.
- Denial of condom use in africa, contributing to the spread of AIDs.
- The large scale matter of child rape, which was actively and knowingly covered up by the former pope. It was one of the largest obstruction of justice cases in the history of the world - and no one was arrested or prosecuted.
- Continued denial of atrocities that are meet only with silence by the Catholic Church. Their sins absolved, and in some cases - people are given asylum.

Does the Catholic Church represent all churches? You mistakenly generalize Christianity as whole by painting us all as "Catholic". I am Protestant, and furthermore Non- Denominational as a whole and reject the idea of being labeled by Catholicism or any other Denomination. It is an unfair and dishonest label.   

2. Many of our most beloved scientists were Christian. Ever hear of Sir Isaac Newton?

Just because a scientist believes in god is not evidence for its existence. It makes no claims that it is an even worthy idea. People can be scientists and have other faulty ideas. Sir Isaac Newton is not the Übermensch.

According to this argument then, none us have any intellectual legs to stand on. If this can be said of Newton, then it could be said of Darwin, or any other scientist. You stated correctly when you said " the goal posts can be changed". Nothing then is to be trusted.

3. Has the secular government ever tried to "suppress" anything or any "scientific advances"?

To this, I'll half heartily agree. The Catholic Church has been particularly good at adopting new medicine and condoning its use (with the exception of the condom thinf). They don't offer that you "pray" as an alternative for cancer treatment. That being said - the church's official stance is that evolution isn't real, the earth is only 5,000 years old and Jesus was a real person.

As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god

.The thing is secular governments are awful, terrible things that have to go. Every government has to go. That is a seperate argument. The thing is that a "secular" government includes religious people - which is why stem cell research was stifled. Also, a "secular" government (which does not exist) does things because that's what the people want, not because they're "secular".

My point was in this question to point out the fact that simply that evil deeds have been committed not only in the name of "God" and religion, but in the name of science and government as well. Hitler used the the idea of "Eugenics" and "Evolution" to justify the idea of the "Aryan Race" and the "Final Solution". In fact people in the US were sterilized and in some cases straight up "put down" because of either illness' or handicaps in the early twentieth century.

4. Have you ever tried and listened to a modern day Christian Scientist? Try Dr. Ken Haam.

What realm of science does Christian Science occupy? Sounds not like science to me...

Why not explore realms of ideas and arguments outside the scope of your belief and bias? You can only grow from further study, I humbly suggest that maybe we can say that "Science" is your religion?

Its very easy for non- christians to knock religion, but I doubt most of them have ever tried to look at both sides of the issue and research Creationism or Intelligent Design, which there are thousands of scientists who believe in them.

Thousands of people supported slavery, genocide, imperialism and worse. We cannot form a proper basis of opinion of anything based on what the popular opinion is. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science.

I think there is a fundamental problem with respect for evidence. If we have to form a basis for belief, we can say what you would about science - you can move the goal posts so that you can say "what is proof?" - you can say "I believe it and no one can say I'm wrong" - but at the end of the day: what couldn't you do that with? If you exhibit a lack of respect for evidence in the face of god, I can just change the name and do it myself.

The simple fact that you can prove something without evidence, allows me to disprove it without evidence. And visa versa. So without a respect for evidence, we wouldn't have anything but "gut" instincts, which are not quantifiable.

I realize that in the grand scope of ideas and debate that neither one of us will convince the other of anything at all, most people's minds are already made up and all of us are riddled with bias and we all have a proverbial "axe to grind ". All of that being said, these responses were made in friendly tones and I enjoy this conversation greatly.

[Keyeto]

Now let me see if I have this straight. Hell is being separated from God. This is undesirable, as the presence of God is a wonderful thing. To those who believe in God, this would be torment, as they have to live without the most beautiful thing possible; God's love and presence. This would mean to non-believers that Hell is nothing. They live without God everyday, so being without God is no punishment at all. Is this correct?

I believe so, yes.

Well alright then, I believe that answers all of my questions. I thank you all for your great points, and varied points of view; I believe I have a better understanding of Christianity and the beliefs of those who follow it. And once again, it's great that this didnt get out of hand. It makes me proud to be part of this community.

[Freerthanu]

Dudecore: I responded to each one of your comments, but it seem's like I did something wrong and it did not post my rebuttals. I really need to learn how to use this app.

[Freerthanu]

Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?

[Keyeto]

Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?

It's all there, it's just within the quotes. If you want to make it stand out more, try using a different color for your rebuttals. Quote me to see how.

That statement looks kinda awkward now, but it was intended for your original post.

[Piotr]

Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?

You can try to look up a post with quotes properly done, and quote it without posting to see how they did it.

[Freerthanu]

Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?

It's all there, it's just within the quotes. If you want to make it stand out more, try using a different color for your rebuttals. Quote me to see how.

That statement looks kinda awkward now, but it was intended for your original post.

[Freerthanu]

Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?

It's all there, it's just within the quotes. If you want to make it stand out more, try using a different color for your rebuttals. Quote me to see how.

That statement looks kinda awkward now, but it was intended for your original post.

Crap I suck at this. Sorry I am such a newb.

[Dudecore]

1. What "atrocities" does Western Religion as a whole commit today?

- The new pope, "Francis," cooperated with the bloody Argentine military dictatorship from 1975-1983. He is a fascist, human rights abuser and enabler. He is also a homophobe, against same-sex marriage, against abortion, as well as being on the wrong side of history regarding many critical issues. A relic of a time well past.
- Denial of condom use in africa, contributing to the spread of AIDs.
- The large scale matter of child rape, which was actively and knowingly covered up by the former pope. It was one of the largest obstruction of justice cases in the history of the world - and no one was arrested or prosecuted.
- Continued denial of atrocities that are meet only with silence by the Catholic Church. Their sins absolved, and in some cases - people are given asylum.

Does the Catholic Church represent all churches? You mistakenly generalize Christianity as whole by painting us all as "Catholic". I am Protestant, and furthermore Non- Denominational as a whole and reject the idea of being labeled by Catholicism or any other Denomination. It is an unfair and dishonest label.

These are all things committed in the faith and service of god written about in the bible. The bible condones slavery, genocide, and other similarly abysmal behavior - you cannot simply wash your hands of it. If it is to be considered the written will and testament of god and Jesus Christ, then it must be taken as written. This whole thing has gone on too long and hasn't progressed beyond mere "preference" for the facts.

2. Many of our most beloved scientists were Christian. Ever hear of Sir Isaac Newton?

Just because a scientist believes in god is not evidence for its existence. It makes no claims that it is an even worthy idea. People can be scientists and have other faulty ideas. Sir Isaac Newton is not the Übermensch.

According to this argument then, none us have any intellectual legs to stand on. If this can be said of Newton, then it could be said of Darwin, or any other scientist. You stated correctly when you said " the goal posts can be changed". Nothing then is to be trusted.

i am not quite sure what you mean by this statement, so I will elaborate on mine. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, slavery is wrong. This does not mean what he said about liberty was incorrect. Sir Isaac Newton believed in god, does not mean there is a god. Sir Isaac Newton did not prove, nor did he have evidence to gods supposed existence. Intellectually, I am still counteracting gravity by standing.

3. Has the secular government ever tried to "suppress" anything or any "scientific advances"?

To this, I'll half heartily agree. The Catholic Church has been particularly good at adopting new medicine and condoning its use (with the exception of the condom thinf). They don't offer that you "pray" as an alternative for cancer treatment. That being said - the church's official stance is that evolution isn't real, the earth is only 5,000 years old and Jesus was a real person.

As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god

.The thing is secular governments are awful, terrible things that have to go. Every government has to go. That is a seperate argument. The thing is that a "secular" government includes religious people - which is why stem cell research was stifled. Also, a "secular" government (which does not exist) does things because that's what the people want, not because they're "secular".[/color]

My point was in this question to point out the fact that simply that evil deeds have been committed not only in the name of "God" and religion, but in the name of science and government as well. Hitler used the the idea of "Eugenics" and "Evolution" to justify the idea of the "Aryan Race" and the "Final Solution". In fact people in the US were sterilized and in some cases straight up "put down" because of either illness' or handicaps in the early twentieth century.

Hitler didn't do those things because god didnt exist, he didn't do it because he was well-informed or had "too much" respect for evidence. He did them because he was a dogmatic dictator. The government is also misinformed - this isn't a debate about how people treat each other - this is a debate about religion. Two wrongs have never made a right, and in this situation it holds the same truth. Bad science exists, of course, but it is evolving along with our understanding of the natural world. Religion seems to be grounded in 2,000 year old superstition that has stunted believers in the same dogmatic ideals that skeptics are so against.

One would figure a book authored by the omniscient creator of the universe would have something to say about algebra, science or moral ethics that we would still be using today.

4. Have you ever tried and listened to a modern day Christian Scientist? Try Dr. Ken Haam.

What realm of science does Christian Science occupy? Sounds not like science to me...

Why not explore realms of ideas and arguments outside the scope of your belief and bias? You can only grow from further study, I humbly suggest that maybe we can say that "Science" is your religion?

It was a rhetorical question. I am fully aware of what Christian Science is. Science is not my religion, I don't need a religion nor something I follow without evidence. I'm perfectly fine reading books, challenging myself daily and appreciating life for all of its complexity.

Its very easy for non- christians to knock religion, but I doubt most of them have ever tried to look at both sides of the issue and research Creationism or Intelligent Design, which there are thousands of scientists who believe in them.

Thousands of people supported slavery, genocide, imperialism and worse. We cannot form a proper basis of opinion of anything based on what the popular opinion is. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science.

I think there is a fundamental problem with respect for evidence. If we have to form a basis for belief, we can say what you would about science - you can move the goal posts so that you can say "what is proof?" - you can say "I believe it and no one can say I'm wrong" - but at the end of the day: what couldn't you do that with? If you exhibit a lack of respect for evidence in the face of god, I can just change the name and do it myself.

The simple fact that you can prove something without evidence, allows me to disprove it without evidence. And visa versa. So without a respect for evidence, we wouldn't have anything but "gut" instincts, which are not quantifiable.
[/quote]

I realize that in the grand scope of ideas and debate that neither one of us will convince the other of anything at all, most people's minds are already made up and all of us are riddled with bias and we all have a proverbial "axe to grind ". All of that being said, these responses were made in friendly tones and I enjoy this conversation greatly.
[/quote]

As I you. I have been doing this awhile, and do intent this to be my last post on the subject that has worn me out. I think more importantly then everything is the role of education in modern society. I believe it is important that everyone have an education and value things like the scientific method and skeptical inquiry. Religion to me is out dated - a relic of years past. It was a terror from a bygone era where most could not read, you'd have little prospects of living outside of 30 and life was too big when you didn't understand the littlest things.

I understand why people believe in it now, but doing so involves a fair bit of compartmentalized thought. The bible is a subject of debate I have the most problems rationalizing - how could it be the true word of god and then not adhered to 100%? The laws of Deuteronomy must hold as true today as when they were written by the omnipotent, omniscient being that wrote it.

If they are not adhered to, then they must not be written by him. If you select which parts are - you're not obeying his commandments. It is a logical mine field of problems that I'm not willing to negotiate - as none of them constitutes evidence.

In conclusion, I'd rather suffer the consequences of a life in pursuit of cognitive liberty, then a life under torment based on the ancient scribblings of a tribal, ritualistic, male dominated imperialist.

[Birdbrain]

Now let me see if I have this straight. Hell is being separated from God. This is undesirable, as the presence of God is a wonderful thing. To those who believe in God, this would be torment, as they have to live without the most beautiful thing possible; God's love and presence. This would mean to non-believers that Hell is nothing. They live without God everyday, so being without God is no punishment at all. Is this correct?

I believe so, yes.

Well alright then, I believe that answers all of my questions. I thank you all for your great points, and varied points of view; I believe I have a better understanding of Christianity and the beliefs of those who follow it. And once again, it's great that this didnt get out of hand. It makes me proud to be part of this community.

unless we don't know what total separation from God is like

[Double-O-Scotch]

I don't get why either side can't move on. Creation AND evolution. After all, the Christians are infamous for inducting outside beliefs into the fold. Half the saints used to be pagan deities. Then the church waltzed in and said, " what you believe isn't wrong, " ( we all know how defensive people get when you question their beliefs ) "...it's just kind of flawed..." And then they tell them everything they believe is right, they just got the names wrong. Congrats, you're all Christian now.

So why not incorporate modern science into the fold? Science says the universe is billions of years old, ok, the bible got the number wrong. Easy fix. Should have carried the one.

Science believed that a cosmic explosion of utterly "god-like" proportions created the universe that we all know and love. Sounds like a pretty epic event that we could credit God with. After all, if god is truly omnipotent, why create earth and stop there? Creating a planet? We have a good idea how that happens with stellar formation. Now creating a universe? Not a friggin clue. we know it happened, just not how... Now that is an accomplishment worthy of the name God.

It's the tradition that messes the whole thing up. Stagnation. If you entrench yourself in the past, the whole world will pass you by. I used to be a quality engineer, and the first thing they teach you is "just because that's the way it's always been done, isn't a very good reason to continue doing so. Like the human condition, one must evolve to survive. Learn from your mistakes. Ask the questions nobody asks. Integrate what you've done into what you're doing and move forward.

The church is afraid to move forward because they risk losing everything they've gained. If they suddenly said" ok, we got the age of earth wrong. The bibles wrong. Sorry, can we all move on?" There would be an uproar. People would question their faith. The solidarity of their religion would deteriorate to an unrecoverable point. So instead, status quo. Solidarity. The church has no other choice. Essentially, tread water, or drown.

I am not saying there is no God. I'm saying that you, as an individual, don't need other people to tell you what to believe in.

"To thyself, the answer is inward"