NoGodBlog.com

I wonder what this will mean for the abortion issue then. If the only real reason the christians want people to not have abortions is so that they can be baptized and "given god's grace" so they can go to heaven, now they have no reason to be against abortion. Except of course so that they can grow up and fight their wars.

I saw this on the news and hoped you would post a thread about it.

So do catholics now think that all of those unbaptised babies floating around in limbo have been relocated into heaven? or do they think that this infallible doctrine of limbo was in fact wrong all along and the German Shepherd Ratzinger has corrected it? Those kooky katholics!

Dave "I mean, really. How can people look at this and actually believe it to be true?"

Well these are the same people who think a cracker and grape juice turns into the literal flesh and blood of a dead jew. Then they eat and drink it.

Alex

"So do catholics now think that all of those unbaptised babies floating around in limbo have been relocated into heaven?"

I heard you can fit ten million fairies on the tip of a needle so there has got to be plenty of room for floating baby souls in heaven - doesn't there?

The thing that I appreciate about Catholics is that mnay of them just go through the motions. It's somewhat similar to the situation with jews. Many jews are atheists just a many Catholics are as well. Instead of answering the belief question when asked they effectively take the fifth by stating that they are a catholic.

Now evangelicals? A whole nutter story. Inbred Phreeks, the lot.

What:

The thing that I appreciate about Catholics is that many of them just go through the motions. It's somewhat similar to the situation with jews. Many jews are atheists just a many Catholics are as well. Instead of answering the belief question when asked they effectively take the fifth by stating that they are a catholic.

I totally agree. I'd also add that there's a sort of fatalism to Catholics who go through the motions so as not to upset the apple cart. They wither under the stern looks of condemnation from dear old Grandma who says her rosary every day and goes to church everyday since losing her husband to cancer thirty years ago. And of course there's the subtle control of the neighborhood priest who has baptized three generations of their family who have all lived in the same triple-decker at one point or another. It's mostly guilt and social/family pressures that keep so many Catholics from abandoning the trappings of their religion, when in fact they don't really believe in it anymore.

However, it also seems like a large number of out 'n' proud atheists are former Catholics (like myself). Or at least a larger number than you'd expect as a proportion of the religious population as a whole. Does anyone else see this sort of thing too, or am I just seeing things through the glasses of a former Catholic? There also seem to be a lot of Jewish atheists as well, but I think Jews become atheists as a result of an open an liberal attitude toward religion in mainstream Judaism, whereas Catholics become atheists as a reaction against a rather strict and old-fashioned (and non-sensical) dogma.

But then how to explain the growth of evangelical fervor? Sigh... I don't know.

Title of this posting is incorrect. Limbo was never an infallible teaching of the Catholic church...it was more of a tradition. This is why the teaching has been clarified. It should be noted that not all Catholic teachings are considered infallable by the church. only the few designated as such. Call me an "out n proud" Catholic...there many more of us than you think and given our current secular culture, our numbers are growing.

And all this time I thought that only Methodists and Southern Baptists could go to Heaven. I know one ultraconservative atheist who still goes and carries his family to the Episcopalian church and he is terrified that some day a homosexual priest will counsel his sons (both teenagers).As for unbaptised children being in limbo, how silly. Now that there's no limbo, are they in Heaven or Hell?

The teaching on limbo was never infallible to begin with. To call it 'Catholic teaching for centuries', or something makes it sound more authoritative than it actually has been. There has never been an official teaching of the Church on it, but theologians have speculated about its existence as a seemingly necessary place to exist which wasn't exactly heaven, but was still said to be a pretty cool place to be on the 'fringes' of heaven, where unbaptized babies apparently went because, they had not been baptized yet. [Contrary to the citation of Father Richard McBrien, who is essentially a dissenter within the Church who has refined the art of double-speak; the Church actually teaches that Baptism both takes away original sin and initiates one into the Church.] As the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Baptism takes away original sin, all personal sins, and all punishment due to sin. It makes one a participant in the divine life of the Trinity through sanctifying grace, the grace of justification, and incorporates one into Christ and into his Church" (263).

Such past speculation specifically about limbo, however, would not warrant the charism of infallibility.

The pope just saying something in any circumstance - including this one - doesn't make it infallible. From what I understand, a committee of the Vatican, at the pope's behest, would be releasing the document on limbo (which hasn't been released yet, though anticipated for about a year). For a teaching to be infallible, certain conditions are necessary: the pope has to be addressing all the faithful, it has to be a real theological quetion he is addressing at the time, he has expressly state the use of the chrism of infallibility, and the question he is addressing has to fall into the realm of having to do with faith or morals. The present to-do about limbo wouldn't take on this status of infallibility, either.

"But then how to explain the growth of evangelical fervor?"

Belief is shrinking world wide. There is a lot of reason to be optimistic about the immediated future.

"Call me an "out n proud" Catholic...there many more of us than you think and given our current secular culture, our numbers are growing."

ICHY, That's some delusion you are sporting there.

Oh and lest I forget.

"and given our current secular culture, our numbers are growing."

Putting aside the bad grammar (Dis is da komentz secshun of'a blogg) that phrase just makes no sense. What is ICHY trying to say and why can't ICHY say it?

"there are many more of us than you think and given our current secular culture, our numbers are growing" Was this the part where I or anyone else was expected to care?

Pope Benedickhead also had this to say,

"In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was "only a theological hypothesis" and "never a defined truth of faith.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc;_ylt=AlLccxhxyuMk3fPi8sW3p0ms0NUE

So, what in hell is a "theological hypothesis" and how does one become a "defined truth of faith"?

It sounds like they are just making it up as they go along.

"It sounds like they are just making it up as they go along."

Isn't that what religion has always been?

Is it just me, or does the pope look like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?

I mean, really. How can people look at this and actually believe it to be true?

They don't. Look at it, that is. I could fully quote Apple_Christmas on this, most catholics just go through the motion. And that's coming from an ex catholic, an apologetic one at that. Even then, I was pissed at other catholics for not really caring about their religion to learn anything.

Actually, in many ways, catholicism has fully replaced the old greco-roman politheistic religion. Majority of catholics would acknowledge God and the saint, do some traditional ritual, and then proceed as usual, like nothing ever happened. Shallow as hell.

OK, look at this picture of the pope, compare his eyes and the Ayatollah ‘s. Does anyone see a similarity? IMHO, they appear to be full of hate and something else, evil perhaps? Anyone else see that.

Also, on day one of the VA slaughter, I was disgusted at how much the media was enthralled with this story. Yesterday, on Fox, there was another killing in Houston and the newsman said “ this is a NICE, uh terrible cap to this weak in news”. I rewound my TIVO several times to ensure I got it right, yep. I agree the stories need to be covered, but this is excessive. Priming the pump for a copycat. Does anyone see it the same way?

DD-
One- Yes, his eyes do look like he is evil. Honestly, he looks like a deranged killer in a bad horror flick.
Two- Another yes. I'm getting really sick of hearing all the news lackeys say proudly, 'this is the worst single massacre in US history'.
Translated, 'hey all you wackos out there, beat that!'.

90% of the media is a joke anyway. The great big monster of racism and bigotry probably wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the media feeding it all the time.

I hate how death is only tragic if it's not in a war. Worst massacre? What about the civil war? That was a pretty bad one.

Why are the Catholics in the upper political circles(Pope, Cardinals)even having this conversation. The Pope is Pope because of his direct line to gawd. If that was true wouldn't he just call gawd and ask for the whole story. Why didn't gawd tell the Popes of old that Galileo was right. It would save a bunch of embarrassment.

I hear fundys say they talk to gawd every day. Funny he doesn't tell them the truth about the age of the earth/universe. It is odd that he does not tell them all about how evolution is true and that gravity is real. It seems that there would be some kind of evidence that gawd was right about something. How could you possibly talk to the most important being(according to myth)and not find a shred of truth? If such a being were real and the "creator" he should know the facts, odd that he don't. Funny too.
I am still waiting for some religion to give us the math that would bring together gravity and the quantum world. If the New Testament were true(or meaningful) the math should be there. Instead it is about guilt, fear and violence. Not much truth there(and very little math). I read it.

I'm sorry, but this pope gives me the creepy creeps like nothing else!!!!

Looks like a cross between Uncle Fester and something.

Boise Jim
Another yes. I'm getting really sick of hearing all the news lackeys say proudly, 'this is the worst single massacre in US history'.
Translated, 'hey all you wackos out there, beat that!'.

I'm in Colorado. The newcasters out here say "worst since Columbine" in a manner that seem to indicate they want us to get the "title" back from VA. sicko's

Yeah, the pope looks pretty bad. I have seen healthier looking meth addicts.

As a rational skeptic, I think the news coverage has been entertaining. It shows how silly the human condition really is. It is like watching people watch a fire and see people jumping. They can't take their eyes off of it. The fact that these kind of events are rare never hits them. They will run around making campus rules and stressing about what they believe is a widespread problem.
Those of the secular world will be blamed again and again.

quote: How can people look at this and actually believe it to be true?

That has been my thought for many years, so much so that I NEVER, ever read the rants of popes or cardinals or any of the religious fools.
It is a total and complete waste of my time (unless I am looking for incredulous laughter.) NOTHING any "non-believer" could EVER say would make them give up their power or their money or the fairy tales that they supposedly subscribe to. They are evil.
Kindness or any generous impulse has nothing to do with them. They want more births to increase donors and for no other reason. Why else would they be so against birth control that the babies must be born only to starve to death by age 4. It makes no sense and it does make me sad that there is so much selfishness in organized religion.
The non-religious people that I know are the ones donating time and money to help others/animals/Earth.
I like to think we actually put out money where our mouth is because this is the only chance we get.
Peace

I beg to disagree with some of you.

The Pope is said to be the one and only direct line to God. He is the only living person in the Catholic universe to have this distinction.

In other words, what he says, goes.

The threat of limbo has been an indisputable part of Catholicism for centuries. It does not matter if it was "officially infallible" (although I do acknowledge that), what matters is that good catholics treated like it was so. Like fish on Fridays. This marks a clear change, due solely to market need.

We are watching religion evolve.

Another major change is that the catholics now are leaving it up for interpretation whether people are born as sinners. It's even thought that children, or even adults may now be able to enter heaven without having been "saved". So... what's the need to be Catholic in the first place?

"Is it just me, or does the pope look like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?"

I thought I was the only one who thought that!

I'm not familiar with Emperor Ovaltine.
The Pope just always looks to me like an old guy coming off a four-day drunk.
They can put him in a white dress with angel wings and a halo, but his eyes still say, "Stay the hell away from me if you know what's good for you!"

Take a look at any photo of him. BRRRRR!

Emperor Palpatime? Yes but only AFTER he went to the dark side. Hey guys and gals, look at the bright side. If that is the best they can do, this has got to be turning some cathoholics off.

Karen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine

Since we are on the topic of Ratzinger being a look alike for Emperor Palpatine has anyone else noticed how "Rev" Fred Phelps of godhatesfags.com fame is a look alike of the crazy preacher ghost from the Poltergeist movies?

alex
Thanks for the link.
OK, I remember him; just didn't know his name. Yes, I see the resemblance.

As for Rev. Phelps, I dunno about the crazy preacher ghost character either. You must have a porn0graphic, er, uh, -photographic-memory, or you spend a lot of time watching this stuff! ;)

BBC did a documentary about the Phelps clan and they made the comparison between Fred Phelps and Rev Henry Kane from Poltergeist II. It's uncanny.

Karen "Emperor Ovaltine"

I always called him Emperor Palpatation but I like Ovaltine better. You are one funny lady.

So do we have any unlapsed catholics in here who can explain what you believe about unbaptised babies? have they always been in heaven or did the German Shepherd's signature on this new doctrine magically relocate them all from limbo to heaven? (isn't phreedm a catholic???)

I'd say Emperor PapalTime is a better nick.

Emporer Pulp-a-t@@n. He IS Catholic, after all.

I would just love to know what their "serious" grounds are. Like Sam Harris said in "Letter to a Christian Nation" about the notion of limbo, is there any chance anyone provided evidence as to what happens to infants who die without being baptized? This whole thing is laughable.

The Catholic Church never ceases to amaze me.

Hmm. That image was edited. However deranged the Pope may be, he at least takes the trouble not to LOOK that bad.

The pope is selling dope.

OK we'll talk about the picture. You'd think the richest entity in the universe would spring for some make-up and a good photographer to make their leader look good.

Come on Vatican. He really does look villainous.

Comment from: bernarda

So, what in hell is a "theological hypothesis"

Evolution...


What exactly does "hell" mean to an atheist anyway...?

Comment from: Boise Jim

One- Yes, his eyes do look like he is evil.

Slip of the tounge?

I thought evil was a religious idea...atheism teaches that there is not such thing as "evil"...

As I've stated over and over again...there is no such thing as "pure atheism"...

Comment from: David Silverman

I beg to disagree with some of you.

The Pope is said to be the one and only direct line to God. He is the only living person in the Catholic universe to have this distinction.

In other words, what he says, goes.

It is better to keep one's mouth closed and let the world think you a fool then to open it and prove it...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

It's even thought that children, or even adults may now be able to enter heaven without having been "saved".

By who...? How about enlightening us with some proof of this statement...?

By who...? How about enlightening us with some proof of this statement...?

Parents who are mourning the death of their child are no longer going to be burdened with the added guilt of not having gotten their child baptized," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

He said the document also had implications for non-Christians, since it could be seen as suggesting that non-baptized adults could go to heaven if they led a good life.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/catholic-church-reverses-teaching-on/20070420203609990001?cid=2359

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Indeed, I think the graying of the "my way or Hell" line is a very good thing. I'm just amazed at how many people can say "oh, okay, we'll just do it that way now, because it is the REAL truth"

I'm and athiest as well as a recovered Catholic. The church "invented" purgatory so why not limbo? It's all in the ageless game of control of the masses.

Evil is a valid concept for an atheist to consider, even when not observing the worst that theism has to offer.

Setting aside religious and wartime propaganda about the 'others', we still have use for the strongest of moral judgements implied by the term 'evil'.

Child abusers are evil, whether it be mental, physical or sexual abuse. Many would include rapists and murderers as well.

Frauds like Sylvia Browne who rip off the elderly and vulnerable also qualify, IMO. Pat Robertson and his ilk meet the requirement too.

There is good and bad in people, and atheists are no different than anyone else. We need to be the best we can and help others to do the same.

Original sin is silly. Somebody invented it to win a theological argument way back when.
----
Do any of the religious have an opinion as to just when a soul gets attached to a body? Conception? Implantation? When the heart starts? Neural activity?
Birth?

You don't suppose there are little half souls attached to each ovum and spermatozoon? This could explain why master..tion is a sin. Millions of lost half-souls, every time.

Come to think of it, the numbers don't change much when a half-soul does meet a half-soul coming through the fallopian tube.

Do they think it happens automatically, like maybe a cloud of them covers the earth and the quickest one gets a life?

Maybe angels do it. In that case, it seems like the soul angels have been getting a lot more work over time. Things were pretty quiet back in Eve's day but now we are at 4.3 per second. To think that the pope wants more, more, more.

You don't suppose there is a finite supply of souls and sooner or later they will run out? Also how big is a soul and do they grow with the person?

Maybe if he doesn't have too much to do, il papa could work this out and let us know. Enquiring minds and all that.

The Pope is....
SCHIZOPHRENIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment from: David Silverman

We are watching religion evolve.

Another major change is that the catholics now are leaving it up for interpretation whether people are born as sinners. It's even thought that children, or even adults may now be able to enter heaven without having been "saved". So... what's the need to be Catholic in the first place?

Now this is exactly how lies become the truth for some...

Dave, you write as if this is an accepted theology within the catholic church...but what's the source for your general misleading statement...?

One "left wing" priest, who's got an axe to grind with the Pope...

There is no such doctrinal shift as you're suggesting...

Unfortunately, many of the troops believe Dave is "infallable"...and will run with this untruth...

When I joined this group I hoped for dialogue...did not expect to find such hatred. Thanks for affirming my faith, and faith in faith filled people.

ICHY

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lard split ya.

Bones: Cross between Uncle Fester and It?

ICHTHUS proclaimed:

When I joined this group I hoped for dialogue...did not expect to find such hatred. Thanks for affirming my faith, and faith in faith filled people.

Oh yes, you obviously prefer the people that kill each other in the name of fantasy, you like the, go forth and kill without fear for you will be saved.

This whole sudden switch just makes the faith a little more fuzzy-wuzzy now, doesn't it? I can see the 'logic' in some: "Well, gee, before they changed all this I was worried my babies would just sit around... but now that they can join me in heaven... Saddle up the pew and dust off my psalms book, baby!"

What will they decide to unilaterally change next? Let's hope it's something so trivial as where babies go and not something as where Women or minorities CAN'T.

Since you all appear to hate God and any of us who believe in Him, why do you pay any attention? Perhaps you have doubts.

Consider this.

Option 1: You are correct. When you and I die, we end up in the same place. I have put my trust in a silly Catholic Christian belief system during my life, yet we wind up in the same place. No heaven, no hell, we just discontinue all bodily functions and get cold.

Option 2: I am correct. Heaven and Hell are real places, we have a soul and our purpose for existence is to know love and serve God in this life and spend eternity with Him in the next. Seams to me we are not on equal ground in the end. On the off chance that I am correct perhaps you should educate yourself as to what it is that you hate so much. This way, just in case I’m right you can argue intelligently about the subject with God himself, perhaps straighten Him out a bit.

Suggestion.

Learn the Christian faith, not what the media says about it but the actual faith. Read the Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Armed with this knowledge you will be in a better position to attack what you don’t believe in to begin with! Your arguments against the faith will be stronger and you will further your cause with greater gusto.

Good Luck.

You should take over the world in no time, don’t let the Catholic faith, the oldest living institution (2,000 years and counting) be a deterrent!!!!! I’m sure it’s just a silly quirk of fate this longevity in the face of obvious human ineptitude on so many occasions.

Anne Marie

We don't hate god. You can't hate something you don't believe even exists. What we 'hate' is the insinuation of Christianity into the lives of those who are not Christian.

Go ahead and believe what you wish. Just do it on your own time, on your own dime, and privately.

Religion is like underwear. We know you probably have some; we just don't want to see it.

Generally one does not attack something unless one hates it, or feels threatened by it. If God does not exit where’s the threat? Again, why pay attention at all? I’m monitoring this blog to learn what exactly it is that ya’ll believe. So far all I’ve learned is what you can’t stand, and generally that appears to be your take on Catholic Christianity, not the actual faith. I have learned nothing about not what you affirm independent of you self definition of your disbelief in God. Are you for something at all? It seams to me you are simply against something, that being God. You seem to go at it with a bit of gusto, real passion, really stand opposed to Him, but what are you for?

Anne Marie
I'm FOR a lot of things.
To name a few;
Equal rights
Equal pay
Gay Marriage
Gun control
Death penalty
Fair and Humane treatment of animals
Saving the environment
Impeaching Bush and trying him for war crimes
Getting the hell out of Iraq
Living peacefully with others
Separation of Church and State
Chocolate for breakfast
Raising the minimum wage
The rights of a woman to decide what to do with her own body
Legalization of marijuana
Stem cell research
Aid to the Sudan
Birth control
Freedom FROM religion

How's that for starters?
Now that's just me, mind you. I don't speak for everyone. There are many here who will disagree with me on some issues, especially the death penalty and gun control.

Underwear and religion are of course both optional, but no one hates underwear, or gets passionate about it, stands either in favor or opposed to it in the public square. If one wished to discuss underwear in the public square one wouldn’t be given the time of day, it would be silly. Your losing me on the analogy, say what you mean.

In terms of insinuation of Christianity into the lives of those who are not Christian, ya’ll are watching what the Pope has to say. Even if you don’t quite understand it, no one is asking you to pay any attention to what he says. Seams to me by posting his comments or anything at all about Christianity you are standing opposed to it, you are seeking it out.

There are many, many things going on in our world that I have no knowledge of and don’t seek out, yet there they are in my life. Things like NASCAR and WWW (that wrestling thingy), they are there, I don’t go for them, I may even think they are a bit silly, but I don’t seek them out and comment upon them. No, ya’ll are seeking Christianity out and attacking it.

Anne Marie:

If God does not exist where’s the threat?

From the believers, believe you me.

I have learned nothing about not what you affirm independent of you self definition of your disbelief in God.

Stick around: many of us 'believe' many different things.

You seem to go at it with a bit of gusto, real passion, really stand opposed to Him, but what are you for?

Common mistake: we're not really a 'group', except that we all self-identify as atheists. Outside of that, most (not all) are left-leaning liberals.

Oops, WWF not WWW on the wrestling thingy.

Anyhow, thanks for the info on your personal opinion. Is there a unified body of Atheists beliefs? I am genuinely interested, I work with a couple of Atheists and I am trying to understand their point of view, so I’ve been trying to research the topic. Truly, I would like to know what Atheists stand for. Info on the “official” viewpoint would be appreciated. As a well educated Catholic I know full well that dissenting and/or divergent view points and opinions abound, but those are not the view points of the Church herself. Nevertheless, the official viewpoint is available to all to learn or research in the Catechism of the Catholic Church if one is so inclined.

Where I would like to find is the body of Atheist belief. Can anyone direct me to that so I may study it for myself?

What exactly is the threat from believers, “believe you me”?

Break it down to specifics. Seriously, I want to comprehend your viewpoint, and this comment leaves me a bit short on details.

Anne Marie

The analogy about underwear means, that like religion, it should be kept private, or shared only with those close enough to you to care about it.
And I beg to differ that no oe hates underwear or gets passionate about it, but that is a whole other thread.

You are focused on the thread about te Pope because that is the current one of note. If you have been watchig the site, as you say, you'd know that we do not turn our eyes only to the RC church. We remain aware of what is going on in the religious communities because for too long, we were silent and they ran rough-shod over our rights. The only way to protect ourselves against the threat of theocracy is to stay watchful of the movements to
project religion out of the private arena and into the public one.

If NASCAR and WWW was on your money or you had to pledge allegiance to them, or they had giant symbols on every corner in your town, or you couldn't go to a town meeting or a school function without hearing soome praise of them and were expected to articipate in that praise, you would start paying attention pretty fast, I guarantee it.

Gee, where to start?
There's an effort to turn the US into a theocracy. It's fairly clear that people are trying to jumpstart Armageddon.
A week doesn't go by, where some religious fanatic doesn't perform some atrocity.
There's an effort to force Creationism to be taught in the schools.
Coupled w/all that, atheists are the most distrusted minority in the US. Many states award custody of children to parents based partially (or fully) on belief system.
There's also red flags like the Federal Marriage Protection act: an effort to enforce heterosexuality on the populace. (Tell me that's not religiously based.)
I hope that's sufficient for now.
I'd leave Christianity be, but for the fact that they'd not leave me be.

karen:

Chocolate for breakfast

Why, you decadent little hedonist. ;)

Anne Marie
There is no real 'body" of Atheist beliefs.
An atheist is simply someone who has a lack of belief in supernatural deities.

That is the one commonality for all of us.
There are atheist groups, but there is no one overriding manual or checklist of "how to".

If you want to know more about American Atheists, go to the sidebar and click on the American Atheists link (under Atheist Activism)and when you get to the homepage, click on atheism. Or whatever you want to explore. But that link gives an overview of what some atheists adhere to.

But again, all atheists do not subscribe to that particular description.

Karen:

Thanks for the money and pledge analogy, gives me something to wrap around. However, it still makes me wonder. OK, so I think NASCAR and WWF are silly wastes of time, and man it is annoying that everyone else is crazy bout them, but I still don’t know that I would feel quite so threatened by them. I think they are silly, a bit moronic perhaps, not really jumping on the bandwagon, but hey we live in a society with many different viewpoints, many of which are silly. Doesn’t mean that I need to jump on the bandwagon of the silly, or stupid or moronic, but it doesn’t mean that I need to oppose them either. Silly, stupid and moronic generally flare out into nothing.

What’s the threat?

KA

Why, you decadent little hedonist. ;)

Thanks for the "little"! (All that chocolate, ya know!

Gotta go buy a tree, Happy Earth Day!
Be back later.

Oh, yea, chocolate for breakfast, I’m with you on that one!!

Krystalline Apostate:

Jump start Armageddon? If you believe in Armageddon, you believe in God. The two concepts are conjoined. Do you not believe in God, or do you just hate Him? Your name Krystalline Apostate suggests your apostasy from some sort of belief, presumably Christian. Did you leave because you studied it and found it wanting or for some other reason. If for some other reason what might that be? If you have studied Christianity found it wanting, how so?

Anne Marie,
Atheism is a statement of fact; there is no god or gods. Atheism is not a collection of rules that no one actually lives by as is the case with christianity.

There are other organizations of people that don't believe in, supernatural things such as your god idea. Some of those organization have more structured beliefs (perhaps you would like to join one of them as you become more aware that your god idea actually does not exist or if you are looking for more structured rules to live by type of thing, they may be of help to you. If you need help finding them, I would be glad to offer some suggestions).

I haven't met many atheists but, those that I have met are more ethical than most of the christians I have meet.

If you have indeed followed christianity you should know that there is an effort to force everyone to participate in its rituals. To give one example, the current war in Iraq was started for religious reasons (among others).

Personally I don't hate any god (obviously nothing there to hate), I also don't hate christians. However I do hate the actions of christians that intrude on my life. If you want your religion to be respected then, get your religion out of the public schools, off the public money and, out of the public government.

Underwear and religion are of course both optional, but no one hates underwear, or gets passionate about it, stands either in favor or opposed to it in the public square. If one wished to discuss underwear in the public square one wouldn’t be given the time of day, it would be silly. Your losing me on the analogy, say hat you mean.

Actually, I do know a few people who hate underwear, and other who would never be without it. However, I don't think the pro-undies movement is going to try and force others to wear their undies.

No one is forced to wear underwear or say the pledge of allegiance. But no one insists that I have god in my underwear, either.

rna2dna

Atheism is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of your opinion. Facts are quantifiable, Atheism is not. No empirical data exists to support your claim of factuality, therefore it is not a statement of fact.

I’m looking here for facts and empirical data, but I am finding only unsupported opinion.

Anne Marie,
"You should take over the world in no time, don’t let the Catholic faith, the oldest living institution (2,000 years and counting) be a deterrent!!!!!"

I hate to break it to you, but there are far older institutions. Christianity is one of the youngest. Hinduism has existed far longer, as has Judaism, Buddhism, and many others. All of those are around today. And, Hinduism is actually considered to be the world's oldest extant religion. It's also the third largest religion in the world.

Atheism is not a statement of fact.

I’m looking here for facts and empirical data, but I am finding only unsupported opinion.

So far you have been somewhat reasonable if a bit naive.

I do not have an opinion as to my atheism; it is a fact. I am really hoping that you misunderstood rna2dna and that you are not resorting to the kind of imbecilic logic of the resident theist.

You will descover that many here are very well versed in the issues you bring.

Sure would like to see the "facts" that tell you that god exists. As one moron said long ago, "I'm all ears!"

Anne Marie,
What exactly are you looking for facts and empirical data on?

Anne Marie,

You claimed that atheists hate "God" but, there is no "God" to hate. You present your god idea as a fact. Obviously, you have applied a lower bar to yourself than you have applied to me.

If you lower the bar to nothing then of course you are surrounded by large pink aliens.

I will try to bring the same respect to you that you bring to me.

evilatheistconquerer says:

"I hate to break it to you, but there are far older institutions. Christianity is one of the youngest. Hinduism has existed far longer, as has Judaism, Buddhism, and many others. All of those are around today. And, Hinduism is actually considered to be the world's oldest extant religion. It's also the third largest religion in the world."

I say:

A religion and an institution are not the same thing.

I am looking for emperical data to support the Atheist positon.

I'm not here to convince you of my position, I know you don't hold to my position. I'm here to have you convince me of yours by some data that can be reproduced and tested.

All of which ultimatly ties back to:

Consider this.

Option 1: You are correct. When you and I die, we end up in the same place. I have put my trust in a silly Catholic Christian belief system during my life, yet we wind up in the same place. No heaven, no hell, we just discontinue all bodily functions and get cold.

Option 2: I am correct. Heaven and Hell are real places, we have a soul and our purpose for existence is to know love and serve God in this life and spend eternity with Him in the next. Seams to me we are not on equal ground in the end. On the off chance that I am correct perhaps you should educate yourself as to what it is that you hate so much. This way, just in case I’m right you can argue intelligently about the subject with God himself, perhaps straighten Him out a bit. On the off and unlikley chance that He does exits of course.

If a position can't be proven one way or the other, a supposition I don't subcribe to incidentially, why accept accept that position?

Basicly I want to learn why you believe what you believe so I can give it reasonable consideration. Simply because you say so does not work for me.

Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Pascal's Wager
Whether you know it or not, you're invoking an old rhetorical device. On the flip side of this is the Atheist's wager:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

I am christian, but I think arguments such as the one you're making is full of holes.

Anne Marie

The two options that you give above are only two. There are limitless such assertions that one could make none of which can be "disproved". Will you believe them all. And just in case you say yes out of spite then I should point out that each assertion can have an accompanying mutually exclusive assertio. Therefore you can not "believe" all such assertions without tossing logic itself out the window.

You ask for evidence of the harm done by religion. I find this to be an intentionally naive question. Of course you have you read a newpaper in the last five years (let alone all preceeding years). The invasion of Iraq could not and would not have happened without the support of the evangelical xian who traded untold suffering of Iraqis for the chance to get a couple of anti-choice Supremes on the bench.

Why must we be "for" something? Being against the destructive nature of religion is a noble enough cause. As somebody said recently on this blog "If there were no theists there would be no atheists".

Holes or not, I still would like to know what exactly it is that Atheists believe in. Is the position exclusivly defined by what it does not believe in, something that does not exist? Is it a whole world view an attack of the Christian world view, becuase that is not a lack of belief, you don't attack something you don't believe in. What woudl be the point? What do Atheists believe. Someone please work with me here.

Karen gave me her beliefs, which I appreciate. It's something to consider. Nevertheless, no foundation other than opinion is proffered for these beleifs.

What are the beliefs and the basis of the beliefs of Atheisim??????????????

What:

I don't recall asking for evidence of harm done by religion. I belive you may be putting words on my fingers.

Still, a rejection of God because people act like jack asses seams a bit over the top. Why not simply reject the jack ass? Better yet, why not simply reject the jack asses behavior?

Seams like a big leap. I don't like your behavior, you believe in God, ergo there is not God.

I know a couple of Atheists. Frankly they are both among the most intelligent people I know. I'm just having a lot of trouble following the logic for the Atheist position.

But believe it or not I really want to understand ya'll.

Anne Marie,
"A religion and an institution are not the same thing."

The difference being? An institution tries to take all of your money? Please explain what you see as the difference between these. Is it that catholics have an old guy in a funny hat? Buddhists have the Dalai Lama. Isn't that enough to make them an institution?

If you want to learn about why we believe what we believe, there's a handy little thread called "Stories- Tell us Yours!" where a lot of people on this blog talked about how they became atheists. Though, there is no set standard for atheist beliefs. There is only the one belief among us in common: that there is no god. Otherwise, we all believe different things.

Anne Marie,

Christianity brings a lot of baggage with it that doesn't need to be there. The net result of the extra baggage is simply a place for people to have emotional disagreements which eventually and ,usually inevitably, lead to some kind of violence.

As an example, we can all believe that rape is wrong if we don't hold to a magic book that might suggest otherwise.

I am an atheist because I know there is no god or gods, I have tested the god idea to my satisfaction and am sure the god idea is false.

As an example, there is no way a god idea is going to help someone sell their house but then allow a plane to slide off a runway and kill an eight year old boy. There is no way a god idea is going to cure a minor desease of one person but, allow another to suffer unbearably. There is no way that all the different god ideas can be true (and there are many different god ideas even within each different sect). There is no evidence that supports the creation of the universe but, there is plenty of evidence that the universe functions every time and at all times according to natural laws, that is, there is no magic and nothing that can't be understood if all the facts are known.

I believe you may have a motivation that you are not revealing. Look back at the comments you already have the answer you say you are looking for.

AM "What are the beliefs and the basis of the beliefs of Atheisim??????????????"

Atheism by it's very definition is not a belief but rather a simple lack of a god belief. Therefore your question is unanswerable.

"What do Atheists believe."

As I have said. Most atheists do not "believe in" anything in the sense that you believe.

"I don't recall asking for evidence of harm done by religion. I belive you may be putting words on my fingers."

Well it appears your fingers have Alzheimers Dementia. Quoted from one Anne Marie:

"What exactly is the threat from believers"?

"Still, a rejection of God because people act like jack asses seams a bit over the top."

So killing 100s of thousands of Iraqis and displacing 3,000,000 of them from their homes is just people "acting like jackasses" is it? You have a really screwed up sense of proportion.

"But believe it or not I really want to understand ya'll."

Here I will write it again because you apparently cherry pick your intelligence just like your fearless leader.

The two options that you give above are only two. There are limitless such assertions that one could make -- none of which can be "disproved". Will you believe them all? And just in case you say yes out of spite then I should point out that each assertion can have an accompanying mutually exclusive assertion. Therefore you can not "believe" all such assertions without tossing logic itself out the window.

Oh and lest I forget. You are not fooling anybody ... Phreedum.

What,
You are forgetting Aryan Nations and the KKK. Those are just ones in recent times.

Anne Marie,
from my understanding, atheists do not have a core set of beliefs, no Apostle's Creed, if you will. The one thing that ties all atheists together is that they do not believe god exists. Now, there are varying degrees and some here would be agnostic, which means that they do not definatively say there is no god, but until you can produce tangible evidence, they'll say that there is probably no god. There is no one common belief in anything and certainly no system in place, like there is in Christianity. As the one saying there is a god, it is incumbant on christians to provide proof (actually, I don't try to convince people there is a god). Once cannot prove a negative (there is no god), only a positive (there is a god).

You will find that the majority of atheists do not attack a christian worldview, but perhaps question it. Your assumption in your (and Pacal's) wager is that believing in god has no cost, only benefit. You go on to say that there is no evidence that religion does harm. It can be argued, quite effectively, that religion has done a great deal of harm over the ages and there is a significant cost to believing in god. From inquisitions, holy wars, suppression of women's rights, suppresion of scientific discovery and the list goes on and on, we can understand that religion certainly has its downside.

From reading some of your posts, however, I get the sense that you make a distinction between organized religion and personal belief. I think that's a good distinction to make. It can be hard to pull them apart at times and I work towards having a personal belief that I can not and should not impose on any other person. I look towards the nurturant side of belief and toss out the paternalistic and judgemental side of it.

If you really want to get a better understanding of atheism, but you want to approach it from a christian point of view, you might want to read Bishop John Spong's "Jesus for the non religious". I just got done going through christian belief and atheism and it offers some interesting insights. Be warned, though, it is not a book on how to convince atheists to become christians. You might also consider picking up Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", "The lost gospel of Judas Iscariot" and anything by Elaine Pagels.

evilatheistconquerer,

And what is the name of the freaking christian jehad that is running around these days? They are scary idiots supported by the master of all christians, the little shrub.

EvilA

No I was not forgetting the rest of the almost endless list. Bringing up the present evil done by the mindless followers avoids the "that was then, this is now" mindless argument of apologists like "Anne Marie".

rna,
I thought that one was obvious. I was citing the less obvious, the ones people tend to pretend aren't there out of embarrassment.

What,
But the KKK and Aryan Nations still exist today. Unfortunately, the KKK apparently still has a large base here in Alabama. :(
Again, if anyone wants to donate to the "Get Evilatheistconquerer the Fuck Out of Alabama Fund," I will be more than happy to take all of your money.

"And what is the name of the freaking christian jehad that is running around these days?"

If it has anything to do with the Texas Shrub then it should properly be termed a Xian Yeeeehad.

"But the KKK and Aryan Nations still exist today."

True but I think most people think of them as a thing of the past that will always have some harbingers.

Ah, I found it; the shrubs secret christian army is called "blackwater".

I thought that stuff was intended for the septic tank.

"Hi, I'm blackwater"

"Good, you shouldn't mind being flush then."

Anne Marie
The following is cut and pasted from the American Atheist page I referred you to earlier. it appears from your subsequent comments that you did not go to look at it.

ATHEISM

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

While this goes beyond the basic lack of belief in gods, there is nothing in it that I take issue with.

As for what we base our (dis)belief on, for me it is the lack of evidence for the supernatural, or gods. It has been pointed out to you that the negative cannot be proven. Thus we look for proof of the positive, but find none.
Do you believe in Horus? If not, why not? Do you have empirical evidence?

What inventingly wrote:

Xian Yeeeehad

Very good!

rna2dna

"Hi, I'm blackwater"

Actually, a more likely introduction would be a high whistling sound, then a thud as a bullet hits you in the head. :(

karen,

I don't take issue with any thing there either except the male slant to the text.

What kind of happy tree did you buy?

Karen:

Thank you. You are right I didn't go check out your reference. I'm cleaning my basement today, and well I've just been jumping on to see what I would get between trips to the down under of my home.

Thanks again for your posts and the info. I hope your new tree grows well. I'll quit bugging you guys now.

See ya.

rna2dna

Actually, my friend bought 4 trees; she needed my minivan to haul 'em in. We got 2 Bradford Pear, 1 pear Fruit Tree, and 1 Japanese Magnolia (?) I think that's what the last one was. And a couple of bushes and some pansies. Her 2 yr. old looked like he was in the middle of the rain forest in the middle seat with all the foliage draping over him.

She's using them to decorate her middle school prom (Theme: A Walk in the Garden), the next weekend she's gonna plant everything in her yard.
We bought a bunch of stuff last weekend too. You shoulda seen us trying to inventively cram it all into her litttle sedan!

Karen

I call myself an atheist but I do not "believe". Period. Belief is simply not neccessary. Now I know that you and others do not use the word "belief" in the same sense as the xians but I, for one, would simply like to see nonbelievers stop using the word in response to the believers "what do you believe" questions. A simple "I do not believe" would emphasize the distinction between beleiveres and nonbelievers more clearly.

What do you think?