I agree. Religion itself is not a threat. It can be a very good thing in most instances. Seems to me the problem is governments and institutions which manipulate the religious to achieve political goals. Many people blame religion on wars for example, however when you look at things closely more often than not there are political decisions which led to the conflict and religious folk are simply "recruited" to bear the blood.

Good points but not in the near future I am afraid. And is this not what we have always done to ourselves whether or not it is achieved through religious or secular dogma. This seems to be the will of the mighty and powerful and they are adapt at pulled the rug out from under the rest of humanity itself … repeatedly. The Vatican is nothing more than a corrupt government, one of many we have to deal with including (especially) our own. The people although far from innocent, are always made to suffer from this tyranny. The secularists need to rework their governments (somehow) … and the religious folk should oppose the RCC at every crossing to take their religion back into the heart and minds of the true believers. But instead we sit here and play these word games and pretend we are accomplishing something, go figure. This should not be a battle between atheists and theists … but it is always made out to be so and by design. We keep butting heads … and the elites just keep running the show with impunity and a complete disregard for their (or other) people … who are too deceptively engrossed to actually try to change something for the better.

 

I understand your point and it's well taken.

I said Hitchen's was wrong because of the use of the words "totalitarian" and "destroys".

The Divine Law is the Ten Commandments. Almighty God gave them to us for our own good. I would argue the Divine Laws are not totalitarian, but rather authoritative, and yes, they do forbid (not destroy) certain freedoms.....such as believing in false gods, committing adultery, killing, lying, coveting our neighbor's goods, etc.

We have never ever had unlimited individual freedom. We aren't free to do anything we want. We have limits as to what actions we can do. That's what our laws are for. All just laws limit our individual freedom for our own good and for the good of greater society. 

Believing in the One true Holy God does not destroy individual liberty and it really can't be compared with State totalitarianism such as was exercised by Stalin and his Politburo in the Soviet Union.

 

 

BT,

Well if indeed Hitchen's stated that "such people are empowered to do and say anything in the name of God, without the need to justify anything to anyone, even themselves" ....then he is wrong, just plain wrong.

Goodness, gracious! Catholics, priest or laity, CAN'T DO OR SAY ANYTHING in the name of Almighty God. 

The Church's God-given power is strictly limited to when the pope or the bishops define or teach only matters of faith and morals and only when that defining or teaching is done ex cathedra.

What Hitchen's didn't know is what Infallibility means.

The Catholic Church... "the pillar and ground of truth" 1Tim. 3:15 ....is infallibly preserved from liability to error in her definitions of dogmatic teachings with regard to faith and morals. St.John 14: 16-17. 

Infallibility keeps the Chair of Peter true to her course.

Infallibility means NOT that the Pope or bishops is inspired or that he/they are immune from sin.

It means that he/they are Divinely guided and protected from contradicting, from denying and from changing the revelations of Christ.

Infallibility means NOT that the Pope receives new revelations; it means that the Pope holds inviolate the truths revealed.

Infallibility means NOT that the Pope invents new doctrines or that he cannot err in matters economic, political, scientific or historical; it means that the Pope cannot admit doctrinal changes in religion.

Infallibility means NOT that the Pope is given the power to dictate to States, to dispose rulers, etc.: it means that the Pope's infallible power lies exclusively within the sphere of Faith and morals. 

Well, your conclusion is based on Hitchen's error.

However, au contraire...

Believing in Almighty God and in Christ's teachings given infallibly through the CC gives Catholics  knowledge they have the truth.

Here's how I understand it.

Pilate's attitude that truth may not be known is the attitude of many minds today. What is truth, he asked. And truth was standing in front of him. The answer comes directly from Almighty God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ.

He said, "I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life." St.John 14:6.

But if God is Truth, it is of utmost concern to know if God here and now bespeaks "the way and the truth and the life" and to seek and acquire a knowledge of truth to our utmost capacity.

Truth, being absolute it is reasonable that no finite mind can hold possession of it whole and entire. Yet, to believe that God has set up on earth an infallible authority to guard and defend truth is the sum and substance of ethical and moral satisfaction.

For unless there be an infallible authority to interpret and determine matters of faith and morals, no better reliance for organized religion exists than one man's opinion against any and all others, nothing better than an accidental, uncertain appeal of the thing itself, a fickle plausible, something which is here today and gone tomorrow. In this, there is no intellectual foundation for judgment, no contrast between the Absolute and relative, no difference in quality between the First Cause and contingent causes, no certainty that this is right and that is wrong.

There is nothing which is dependable and reliable nothing to which man can hold to safely when contradiction assails him and the dark clouds of doubt hang heavy over him.

How different all this is for Catholics. We are not left in any such difficulty. We believe that the infallibility of the Chruch is as true and certain as is the dawn after the night, as spring after winter.

...............

I would point out the dilemna that anyone faces who denies the infallibility of the CC as the living word of Christ and denies the infallibility of the Bible.

The Bible does not interpret itself and that truth does not mean this today and that tomorrow..for he is not a Socialist who holds that nothing is eternal but change. People who decide for themself what the Bible means is placing himself in the anomalous position of setting up his own fallible authority as to the meaning of God's Word, which destroys the possibility of understanding its infallible content.

If any man's mind can accomodate itself to such an evident contradiction of the infallibility of the Bible, his judgment can hardly be taken as sound. Yet, this is precisely the position of most Protestants. It is by private interpretation of the Bible that one leader with his group sets up a contrary doctrine and thus tears down and destroys what another built which claimed to be the truth.

No such dilemna faces the Catholic. We believe in the infallibility of the Bible becasue he believes in the living voice resident within the Church which is endowed with the prerogative of infalibility when interpretating God's infallible Word.

 

Guess we can stop wondering where all the confusion is coming from. What a shame we atheists are so hardheaded and in denial huh, hehehe.

You have been repeatedly told that an atheist does not believe in god because it is improvable and is not based on anything else. Lula ... Ever hear of an x-ray or a gamma ray ... both quit massless my dear and very real. Try turning on a flashlight and see how much material you can fetch, hahaha. You NEED to stay away from the sciences … they will not help you. If you are trying to be helpfull here, you might try listening to us as opposed to telling us how we are supposed to be, act and what we must believe, just a thought.

Free thinkers are everyone's worst nightmares silly ... especially if your organization is bigoted and hypocritical in nature and there can be no better example than the RCC.

As hypocritical as it can be because you have not proven your case at all.

That is an abomination in my book … humm … it must be in one of my books hahaha. Infallibility and humanity in any regards do not belong in the same sentence.

The actual problem here ... you pretend to speak for your god ... a no no in any book but your own. This is how the natives conducted their mysticism too.

Amazing how you take things completely out of context ... is there any wonder why we do not believe theists who cannot seem to stay focused on a simple conversation. How about just being honest and try using your own words.

Lula, you make all these religious statements as if there is some weight behind them. The reason there is no meeting of the minds is because you do not want it so. You guys just keep skipping the part that belongs up front in any theological discussion … Is Jesus God. I for one am not willing to give you guys more time for this … this would be pointless. You converse as if this is a given fact and it is not. Until you can prove the existence of god … all your arguments are mute because you and everything in your life is dependent on this one starting point … and you still cannot prove his existence … all you can do is talk about it … big difference.

 

 

 

That's a lot of statements to address Lulu but I'll respond to "tolerance".  I trust no movement or group that proclaims open-mindedness and fairness and sees itself as tolerant--but only if it's detractors are forcibly silenced or censored.

When skeptics demand that Christians be silent and dismissed, it lowers their credibility.  What you believe in and stand for should always be your most compelling argument--not what you're "against".

I grew up during the Cold War and some of my friends lived in the Soviet Union at that time.  They would be appalled at some of the hostility to discussion here because they know first hand what sort of society you have when real discussion is stifled.

Ironically, many skeptics see stifling conversation as their duty.

Following the chain of reason of atheists presentations en masse (as a collective group--in its totality) can provide a pretty interesting hypothetical picture.  It's hypothetical because it's not a single unified concept with any aethist group--just the sum of the parts I have seen and heard from many.

Rule by intelligent reason...those most intelligent will make the rules for those less intelligent...and will decide who qualifies as "most" intelligent.

Removal of perceived non-rational authority in society...church will be in your home and kept private--under penalty of law.

Free speech will not be available to religious sectors of society but will be legislated.

Protection of Children...parents indoctrinating their children in religious philosophies invite possible state action regarding their parental rights.

Education of Children...children will be taught that religions are superstitions or mere philosophies governed by nothing more than human nature.  They'll be taught that their lives are merely the result of random chance and are destined to end in oblivion and that their life--in and of itself--is not important in the big scheme of things and it's irrelevant what direction they choose to take in it other than as regards their own satisfaction.  Love  will be described as a chemical process with no more meaning than an individual chooses to give it.

Those who are strictly rational and intelligent deserve respect and those most endowed in these areas deserve more.  The strong rule.  Those not able to keep pace or adapt are "weak" and a burden to society as a whole.

These are all variation or results of things I have heard atheists propose over my lifetime--just assembled together.  So, as an atheist, you might not go this way but there are others who will.

So yeah--those of us "outside the club" are concerned by the rhetoric directed our way because we see a collective group of people who value their freedom more than they value ours.

 

 

If you are a Hindu nationalist then clearly Gandhi was evil, considering they were the ones who killed them. The British likewise saw him as some kind of charlatan, using his "religious" influence to mislead the Indian people into his political movement.

Now to my personal morals, well of course, Hitler is the ultimate evil; intolerant, dogmatic, and the best and most horrifying warning sign we have to the dangers of nationalism. I'm just not arrogant enough to say that my view is the best and that everyone needs to have it.

It is to some people. I do not blame people for wanting to think we have some higher purpose, a higher existence that maybe available to us. It is only when they use this belief to support things that negatively affect the one life that I have a problem with it.

If it helps you understand my point of view any, just think about how big the universe is. Of how many atoms and chemicals there really are out there. Yet an almost infinitely small percentage of those chemicals get to be apart of something called life. And an even small set of that gets to be apart of intelligent life like us. Stars, planets, rocks, as magnificent as they are, cannot feel, cannot understand. They will last millions or billions of years, but never even know it. We are lucky enough to be apart of the small set of matter which is self aware. Given how big the universe is it is probably inevitable that life would form. We should be thrilled that we have a chance to enjoy it while it lasts.

 

Is this what is being taught in schools today? If not ... when are these policies going to take affect?

Actually, lesser versions of all these things have already happened. 

There could have been a much better dialogue and understanding between us here earlier too if this hadn't started out as a debate which became a rant and then turned from insult to trolling.

Sometimes you don't know if a person wants to talk or argue online.  I think you actually wanted to talk for awhile there.

 

No, Divine Law is not whatever any particular religion, believer or religious leader deems it to be.

To say so is relativism speak. 

There is but One Holy God and one set of His Divine Laws which He revealed.

The Ten Commandments are an expression of the natural law which God has written in every man's heart, and which every man can know if he listens to the voice of reason and conscience. That's why the Ten Commandments given to Moses apply to all men and for all times. God wrote them on stone to signify that they are as durable as stone and are to last for all ages. Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.

 

God gave the Divine Law to us for our temporal welfare that peace and order might reign among men.  We see how the world is faring for those who cast His Divine laws aside or deem them to mean what they reveal them to be. Nobody is sure of either life or property. There is an end to order and obedience to lawful authority in the family and civil spheres. Evil and lawlessness reign. 

 

 

Actually, that does help, quite a bit, to understand your view, thanks!

 

Now my question is this, If you see how finite and exceedingly special Life is, why do you reject the possibility that Life is a Design, not an accident?  I've done years of study on life, evolution, natural selection and origins - but I always come back to simple math... The odds are simply too great for this to be an accident.  Life is too complex for it to have just happened.  Humans have too great of a capacity to reason for it to simply be chemistry.

 

And I understand not liking others pushing their views on people.... I don't like too.  That is why I simply ask questions, not write walls of text and proofs.  It isn't up to me to convince anyone, I'm just looking for further clarification on how people think.  Its fascinating.