As stupid as it is do post in such a thread, it's too funny not to.

Basic wrong asumptions about scientific thinkers and religious thinkers:

Science has no view whatsoever on religion other than that it is a private matter that seeks not to explain logical relations but to give comfort in those questions that are purely philosophical - e.g. Why are we here, what are we to do, where are we going, has it all a meaning.

Religions are there to explain to people the MEANING of things, not the procedures how they happen.

Science: HOW?

Religion: WHY?

Then there are those peope like lula who have a profound misunderstanding of other people. Atheists are just humans, and insecure humans tend to believe because they want someone to give them a path. Most people lack the inner strength (that for example the real Jesus, the man, not god-child had) and need therefore a leader of some sorts. Spiritual peopletend to gather around a religious/spiritual leader, militant people tend to gather 'round a military leader and so on.

Atheism on the other hand describes the pure non believing in a deity as per the term. It does not mean that we cannot believe some things might come about, just that we don't believe in a deity, a being, that brings things about. Everybody makes assumptions (i.e. believes), just some are more based on experience and facts, some more based on their inner anxieties and wishes.

Science is a means to describe the processes of how things work, and explaining those using verifyable quantitative experiments and measurements. If Science one day found out that there where a god who set all in motion and it would be verifyable and the measurement/experiment reproducible they would accept it.

What you on the other hand do not accept is ratio. You are a catholic, which means you need to believe in the following things:

• ALL other people in the world (except die hard catholics) are wrong. Tha means almost all of the population on the globe.
• Maria was a virgin when getting impregnated by the holy ghost
• Josef never did mind to bother to fuck his wife in all the years of their marriage
• Josef had no problem when all of a sudden without his doing his wife got pregnant
• Life for men began with just adam, then eve
• After being thrown out of paradise, they wandered around till they found other tribes (where did they suddenly come from)
• All men are descandends from 2 people
• Neanderthals could never have lived
• Dinosaurs are just an imagination (could not have lived, 6000 years??)
• The earth is a dish
• The universe is centered around the earth
• Morality is the sole domain of one person in the world (the pope)
• Everything the pope says is the utter truth, sa he is infaillable (even though he is man and therefore with sin)

and so many more I could write all year... 'cmon, you really think we, in the 21 century, should believe that?

Fair answer Tobi (coulda' done without the F-bomb *cough*).

If I were not a person of faith I would have only two objections to atheism--which actually are the only two I really have towards it now.

The first is that, you must not consider accepting the actuality of any sort of "deity" (and this meant in the broadest possible sense).  My opinion is that, a man is a fool to refuse to consider something--and with an open mind.  I know the atheist will say, "Oh we will consider..." but I don't count "consider" only attempting to reject or disprove something as genuine "considering".

The second objection I have is the definition and stricture of how "considering" must be done.  Limited to scientific proofs and procedural methods, dismissive of personal observation and even collective accounts, etc.  We don't understand things well enough (even though we think we do) to absolutely decide how things we don't understand "must" be examined--there is room for experimentation.

These are generalizations and their specific applications vary from group to speaker, etc., but to me they constitute the two primary dogma that take atheism from the realm of pure rationalism and into the realm of the religious (in an irreligious way).

If some evidence existed to really disprove the possibility of a Creator of any kind then I'd accept the first dogma and if it could be determined that "looking at something this way or that always yields a provably wrong result" then I'd accept the second--but neither of these conditions exist.

Any religion has one identifying characteristic--without without a deity--it dictates a "you must" condition based on pre-supposition.  I really don't like being told what to do and I sure don't need to get my self-identity from a group of people trying to do it.

Just my two pence.

FYI--I have always admired Michael J. Straczynski's willingness to portray all sorts of faith in a positive light even though he personally sees little or no value in it.

There are two kinds of faith...Divine Faith and human faith. Big difference.  Divine Faith is a supernatural virtue, the other two are hope and charity. The object of Divine Faith is Almighty God.

Atheism is without Divine Faith, but there is plenty of human faith going for them. Faith is the belief in a truth on the word of an other, although that truth may not be fully understood.

Divine Faith is the virtue by which we firmly believe all the truths GOd has revealed, on the word of God revealing them.  ALmighty God's revealed truths (The deposit of Faith) are both Sacred Scripture (written)  and Sacred Tradition (unwritten).

Human faith is accepting truths on the authority of other men although they may not be fully understood as well. 

For example, we believe by human faith that South America exists although we may never have been there and that Caesar and Napoleon lived although they died many years ago. 

Although human faith may sometime be false, because men can deceive and be deceived, still no one ought reasonably to reject the principle of human evidence. The person who boasts of accepting nothing unless he can personally prove it, is giving himself the lie to his pet peeve. 

Most of our knowledge depends not on personal investigation but on the authority of others. No progress would be possible in any science or art unless we start of the data of our predecessors. by that I mean historians aren't able to read all the original documents and scientists can't test every experiment of his forbears, geographers can't visit every country and doctors can't test every drug before he accepts anything as true.

Life is too short and facts too many. And yet, men illogically reject the idea of authority in religion.

Boobz asked what parts of the Bible I personally cherry pick to make the mythology I believe in...his question highlights the silliness of "believing the Bible", but conveniently believing only the parts that you like...my answer is that I believe the Bible is a book made by man, not God, and as such there is no hypocrisy in agreeing with only parts of it...

The example I posited in response to stevendedalus (that there is no difference between me cherry-picking or you cherry-picking or a council of men centuries ago cherry-picking) is independent of my previous claim anyway...one statement argues that cherry-picking isn't hypocritical if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, while the other statement argues the Bible is inherently cherry-picked, so further cherry-picking doesn't really change things...

As far as I know, Islam claims to worship the same God, but argues that Judaism and Christianity were "corrupted" by man (or something to that effect)...of course, a Christian wouldn't see it that way but I'm trying to compare the, shall we say, the cohesiveness and plausibility of each religion...

Christianity in general posits Jesus as the Son of God, while Islam merely posits Muhammad as another human prophet (granted, he is elevated more than the others)...Christianity depends on a book with various forms, translations, and authors...furthermore, Jesus himself did not create or write the Bible, men did, and men decided what exactly to include in it...Islam has a book with one version, one single author, and the convenient caveat that an angel told Muhammad what to belief...additionally, Islam has no need for a specific church, only a religious "community"...

With those considerations, the basic premises surrounding Islam seem much simpler and more plausible than Christianity...

The real problem here is not that a religious group "did some bad things"...governments, corporations, the girl scouts: they're all prone to the same corruption that religion is...just because some religions have done a lot of bad doesn't mean all religion is inherently bad...the real problem I have with the Catholic Church is that supposes it is representing God's will on earth, which seems to imply that it is infallible...

That's the spirit!  Join the fray!

@Smoothseas--do you think one is born "a person of faith"?  I started out just like you.  I have had the experience.  In fact, I've had both of them which is my point...I am qualified to compare.

Sorry, been on the L&K forums too much lately, the tone is more rude there.

See, that is the basic problem. We will always consider a being to exist which is more advanced/developed than we are. We just would never give it the authority over ourself and dispose of our own responsibility for our actions.

We also do not try to live egoistically just for the sake of having a better afterlive/next life (considering rebirth religions), just try to make the best out of the life we have.

If you would travel back in time with our current technology and wisdom to the age of the roman occupation of judea you would be take for a deity yourself yet you would be wise not to consider yourself one.

Than you have faith but are no religious person. There is a subtle yet distinctive difference here. Real Atheists never tell you what you should do, they tell you what they think is valid for them. I don't want to enforce my world views onto anybody, but my personal experience tells me that faith and believe are private matters and will never have universal meaning. Hey, even the color red, while simple and straight forward looks slightly different to everyone. Because WE are different. Why should any of your ideas of a god have any relevance for me?

I too have had my spiritual experiences and they changed me for good or for worse, yet I do not believe in a deity because of it. I do believe more in myself and mankind as a whole. In the world we see, we touch, we hear. In everything around us. I don't need more than that. I'm satisfied with the playground we have. If I want to live another life with more meaning and deeper understanding then I go on and do something in THIS world that does the trick for ME.

I think his take on religion was to show that, by accounting all religions, neither takes prevalence and each has a right to exist. He always portrayed them as philosophical spiritual guidance, which is the same way I understand the use of religions.

Thanks.

As for your point that the bible is a distorted account of gods workings - the bible is a book. Written by men. As the only witness for the divine guidance that was given for the content of this book is that same book itself there is not much of a witness at all. So all you have is a book written by men. Corrected and distorted all over and over by other men. Where the new Testament was written hundreds of years after the death of its main character.
The real treasures of the bible are:

for the old testament that it is a very distorted historic record of the jewish people that spans an incredible amount of time.

for the new testament that it has many a wise teaching of how people should behave and be gentle and loving to each other.

Dear lulapilgrim. You never answer questions. You just postulate your own believe (well, not even your own, you just repeat others believes) as facts. Your ears are deaf to hear, your eyes are blind to see, your tongue twisted. You will never want to understand a word we tell your because your entire life seems to be based solely on your religious believes. You seem to not rest in yourself, therefore you appear vulnerable. Will you always hide yourself behind others doctrines and rules? I pity you and with that I do not mean to belittle you. I mean it in earnest. You would do well to really read the new testament and try for once to understand what a man jesus was and what he tried to teach the people around him.

He was a men of great tolerance, not without his faults (he seems to have been very uncontrolled, aggressive, impulsive and unnerved from time to time) but a man to admire.

You seem to be none of that. And thats the main problem. So I will stop to try to argue with you because arguments need open ears and an open mind, both of which you seem to lack. I do think the ongoing discussion would be enriched by your absence. Sorry for the harsh words.

I give it recognition also BT. Not as the "word of god" but as a story that has its purposes. It's simply another book that I have read and mostly sits on the bookshelf collecting dust. I did do Bible Study as a kid but only for a short period of time. Too many questions answered unanswered by "you simply have to have faith". Didn't sound like answers to me so I asked for science kits and dinosaur models for Christmas.

Sinperium posts:

It's true Christ never condemned the Inquisition. We know from the Bible itself that the Inquistion was based on the Mosaic Inquistiion. Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 spells it out.

[2] When there shall be found among you ... man or woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, and transgress his covenant, [3] So as to go and serve strange gods, and adore them, the sun and the moon. and all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded: [4] And this is told thee, and hearing it thou hast inquired diligently, and found it to be true, and that the abomination is committed in Israel: [5] Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned.

The text says the Israelites were to "inquire diligently" whether the thing was true. A public legal proceeding...a trial...was called for. The diligent inquiry was therefore a legal inquiry--an inquisition. It's purpose was to protect the accused of practicing a false religion, (heresy in the days of the Medieval Inquistion) to make sure he really had committed the crime in question.

we know from reading the next few passages, that legal safeguards were built into the process...

[6] By the mouth of two or three witnesses he that is to dieshall he die; a person shall not be put to death when only one beareth witness against him. [7] .... [8] If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment .....and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary: arise, and go up to the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose. [9] And thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge, that shall be at that time: and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall shew thee the truth of the judgment. [10] And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee,

In verses  8-10, we see what authority God was pleased to give to the Jewish Church guides of the Old Testament, in deciding, without appeal, all controversies relating to the law; promising that they should not err therein; and surely He has not done less for the Divinely established Catholic Church guides of the New Testament.

The Medieval Inquisition was estabished to meet a very real need. The CC had the obligation to preserve Christ's  teachings free from corruption. When individuals took it upon themselves to commit heresy and propagate that error and destroy the Faith of others, the CC had to undertake defense of her children and prevent the adulteration of CHrist's doctrines, and she did.

We must also understand the times in which the Medieval Inquisition was established. Society then is totally different from conditions prevailing today. The propagation of heresy was an offense also against the civil welfare. The Church decided the trial while the punishment was left to the State. Same thing as what happened with the Sanhedrin and Pilate at Jesus' trial. It was a mixed tribunal with ecclesiastical officials dealing with religious matters, and civil officials dealling with crimes against the State. 

So, as constituted, this is why I said that Christ would have condoned the Inquisition.

OK, that said, were there times in the Medieval Inquisition that some in positions of authority abused their Inquisitional power? Yes, Guilty as charged. It is these abuses of power by the officials themselves that would not meet with Divine approval. That such abuses occurred I do not deny..I condemn them as heartily as you do.

OK, that said, the fact remains that there sinful conduct was not in accordance with their Catholic faith (religion), not the Church they unworthily represented.

So, yes there were/are some wicked people  in Christ's Church and Christ predicted there would be bad fish in the Net. These men were bad, in spite of the teachings of the CC, not because of them. We cannot argue from bad fish in the Net to the rottenness of the Net. Christ promised His Church would never go wrong, not individual members, whether they be the Pope, bishops to individual lay members, like me.

Ya, the Books that make up the canon of the Bible were 'cherry-picked' by the Holy Ghost who guided the Churchmen at her Councils.

The Canon (73 Books) recognized by the CC was first specified at the Council of Laodicea in 367 and was definitely adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397 after being sent to the Pope for confirmation. Then the 16th century Martin Luther dubbed certain Books as "apocrypha" and threw 7 Old Testament Books out because they contradicted his new invented doctrines.

A great religious stir had developed and the Council of Trent 1546 deemed it expedient to declare, ex cathedra, that is by the infallible authority of the Church that the list of Books adopted at the Council of Carthage is the authoritative, the finally determined, collection of sacred writings composed under Divine inspiration.

 How did they know which books? Christ had promised to send the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Christ keeps His promises. In Acts 15 we learn that St.Peter had the same guidance of the Holy Spirit in making infallible decisions at the Council of Jerusalem thereby establishing Sacred Tradition.

Lol--don't make me smack you.

When I win it's skill...when you win it's cheating.  What's so complicated about that?

Now bow to my skill mortal.

There is nothing unfair about dismissing the experience of millions collectively because each individual set of life experiences for any individual is as unique as the next. Whether one believes or not is about their own experiences, not the experiences of millions they do not know and never will.

What does Christ teach when He changed Simon name to Peter (meaning rock in Greek) and told him that He (Christ) would build His Church on this rock?

What does Christ teach in St.John 6:51-52? "I am the living Bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the wrold."

What does Christ teach when He changed the bread and wine into His body and blood and told His Church to do this in remembrance of Him?

If Christ was just a mere Man, then what does St.Luke 1:35 mean? When the ANgel Gabriel appraoched the BLessed Virgin Mary and said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,  and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, And therefore also, the HOLY which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"?

If Christ is just a mere Man what does St.John 10:30  mean when Christ says that "I and the Father are one"?

I think it was Tennyson who said that Jesus' personality is His greatest miracle. Try making up a character who says things that men will die for, not just in His day, or today, but hundreds of years from now.

Credit for this

I think this sums the thread up: