Mother Teresa Doubter/Doer

[revtj]

AOL is running a lead story (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/letters-reveal-mother-teresas-secret/20070824071209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)today about the letters of Mother Teresa in which she doubts her faith at times. It was a little annoying to see the headlines as if it somehow busted her for corruption or something.

http://www.peteatkin.com/teleg/di4.gif

I took the opinion poll that now comes with sandwich-styled stories that substitute for news. I was pleased to see that a large majority were not concerned that Mother Teresa doubted and admitted they also struggled with their faith.

I just wanted to send out a big "DUH" to go with the story. If we didn't wrestle with it then it would be called brainwashing, not faith.

What Mother Teresa did is what all of us could do in spite of her doubts: she worked on behalf of others. Not all of us are called to the trash-heaps of Calcutta, there is human suffering all around, just ask the Spirit where you are called and you will get an answer, of this I am sure! Doing what God asks of us (Loving God, & neighbor as self) is the most excellent remedy for doubt. It puts things in perspective.

I wonder, how do my Soulforce brethren deal with their doubts?

[u-dog]

I believe that Faith is a dynamic process not a static one. its not a commodity that you aquire and then have forever unchanged. If that is true then anything that pokes and prods at faith makes it stronger and MORE dynamic. doubt forces me to rethink and reconsider what I believe. It forces me to communicate with others. It pushes me to seek a deeper revelation of God's presence in my life. In other words... doubt is my friend and God's friend.

Frederick Buechner wrote in one of his books (Alphabet of Grace?) that Doubt is the "ants-in-the-pants" of Faith.

[BenL]

RevTJ,

I keep on wrestling with my faith daily. I doubt myself and my abilities all the time. I have only begun to see that my self-doubt is somehow related to my lack of faith in God's love for me. Now I have to watch that I don't turn this into another guilt trip. (I was brought up Catholic ... nuf said.) Being gay in the US of A can do a number on a person's self-esteem, so it shouldn't be a surprise if we doubt, should it? My prayer is like Simon Peter's: I believe. Lord, help my unbelief.

Who can fault Mother Teresa? In fact, hearing that she wrestled with her faith served to bump her up another notch in my esteem.

[kara speltz]

RevTJ,



Who can fault Mother Teresa? In fact, hearing that she wrestled with her faith served to bump her up another notch in my esteem.

My thinking exactly, Ben. My favorite Thomas Merton quote is, "my faith is a series of doubts that never became denials." It always seemed to me that if one of my favorite saints struggled with doubts, then it was ok for me to.

kara

[sailaway58]

My thinking exactly, Ben. My favorite Thomas Merton quote is, "my faith is a series of doubts that never became denials." It always seemed to me that if one of my favorite saints struggled with doubts, then it was ok for me to.

kara

I really like that. (above quote)
My kids never had their own faith until they doubted.
My middle son (that left today for Spain) came to me his freshman year of college and said,"I don't know that I really believe there is a God".
I told him that was understandable and a fair question but not to stop with the question. Don't just ask about it dig in and learn something.
He is now a person of faith and although it doesn't look like mine he owns it.

[Zerbie]

IMy middle son (that left today for Spain) came to me his freshman year of college and said,"I don't know that I really believe there is a God".
I told him that was understandable and a fair question but not to stop with the question. Don't just ask about it dig in and learn something.
He is now a person of faith and although it doesn't look like mine he owns it.

Awesome. :cool:

[wmanion]

Oh he or she that is without doubt...let ye be the one to cast the first stone.
I am sure we have all doubted at one time or another and at times we still do. I know I do. But it is in that doubt that I become stronger and diligent in seeking what is true.


Bill

[Pablo Rafael]

There was an segment on NPR (All Things Considered, I think) just in the last few days about mother Theresa.

I think one diservice that is done to Chistians is to tell them that if you really are a "good" Christian, you have no doubts, you are always 100% certain and you will never waver.

I am "certain" of the love of God. I am certain that because of Christ's life, death and resurrection that my sins are forgiven. But that is God's gift to me; it is not because I believe strongly enough or know everything.

God loves me despite doubts and the other problems I have. Looking in the Bible, God never reprimands people because they doubs or questions. Look at the story of Job. And what about Jeremiah; (my favorite OT figure) he told God that he would NOT proclaim God's message anymore. God didn't give up on him. Jeremiah had to work through his problems and come back to the work God gave him.

The fact that in the Bible God encourages and strengthens those who have doubts while repeatedly chastizing those who think they know everything should be a good lesson for us. Mother Theresa is also a good example. God doesn't call us to be perfect; he calls us to be faithful.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[revtj]

I think one diservice that is done to Chistians is to tell them that if you really are a "good" Christian, you have no doubts, you are always 100% certain and you will never waver.

I am "certain" of the love of God. I am certain that because of Christ's life, death and resurrection that my sins are forgiven. But that is God's gift to me; it is not because I believe strongly enough or know everything.

Yeah, I agree, a lot of christians are taught that if you only believe enough you can do all things. I see them in the hospital all the time, blaming their disease and lack of cure on their lack of faith. Makes me want to go b*tchslap the preacher who taught them such foolishness.

I too am certain of God's unconditional love and not too certain about much else. The living out of the questions (as Kara's Merton quote alludes to) seems to be what the life of faith is meant to be...

I wish all christians were being taught to be at home with their doubts, rather than feeling tortured by them. It's so sad to see how it demoralizes people.

[BrentRichards]

And the other kicker is, I don't think this was any kind of newsflash... Mother Theresa freely acknowledged her limitations, her doubts, her growth ... in short, her humanity --all while she was alive. Now the story breaks as if it were a scandal? Slow news day. Mother Theresa was a truly remarkable woman, all the more so for being thoroughly human!

If you haven't, you might see the 2003 film Mother Theresa with Olivia Hussey ... quite well done, I thought.

[Daniel]

Those who act like- or profess to have no doubts- are the ones that scare me.

I think doubt is essential. And looking back on my life, I can say that doubt, when used in the pursuit of truth, has served me well. I don't think people suffer from lack of faith, but rather, lack of curiosity.

[Gennee]

Everyone struggles with their faith from time to time. Is God listening, you may ask. With the struggle, there is also the opportunity for God to work in us for some greater purpose. Cas in point; I was laid off on Friday. I know God has some greater purpose in mind.

Mother Teresa shows that she is human, too.

Gennee

[u-dog]

Everyone struggles with their faith from time to time. Is God listening, you may ask. With the struggle, there is also the opportunity for God to work in us for some greater purpose. Cas in point; I was laid off on Friday. I know God has some greater purpose in mind.

Mother Teresa shows that she is human, too.

Gennee

:pray::pray::pray::pray: Praying that that greater purpose becomes clear ASAP !! :pray::pray::pray::pray:

[antiochian]

I'm a little late in joining this discussion, but in my minds doubts can do one of two things-- cause us to despair or cause us to keep searching. I'm the type who is easily discouraged and I've wallowed in the pit of despair much of my life. But I fight it, I keep seeking, keep reaching out, hoping (knowing) that the answer will come to me in time, even if it takes 10 years. I've never read all of the book of Job, but there's someone who doubted, yet came out of it stronger.

Even the saints doubted... As far as I'm concerned, we could use a lot more "doubting" Mother Teresas and a lot fewer "all sure of themselves" Joel Osteens, Dave Sumralls, insert name of any hypocritical teacher. One thing about Mother Teresa, she didn't run a multi-million dollar ministry, had no megachurch, had no worldly ambitions of power, let alone making India into a Christian nation by force and creating a theocracy (the Bible says His kingdom is not of this earth, no?). She didn't come on camera wearing expensive clothes, she didn't preach the prosperity gospel (which irks me to no end), but found her joy in being poor and being with the poor, as was/did Jesus as well.

Mother Teresa was a Catholic through and through, but accepted and loved all people, believing that there was truth in all faiths.

[BrentRichards]

As far as I'm concerned, we could use a lot more "doubting" Mother Teresas and a lot fewer "all sure of themselves" Joel Osteens, Dave Sumralls, insert name of any hypocritical teacher.

And the people of God said ...

AMEN!

[gman620]

We all have doubts and dark times in our souls and in our lives. Mother Teresa was human like everyone else, and I would not expect her to be perfect just like I know I'm not perfect, nor is anyone else except Jesus. The media enjoys tearing people down when they can. The slightest imperfection in someone can provide a feast for media vultures to feed on.

[Joe Brummer]

I grew up in a Catholic house. I went to Catholic schools for all 12 of my school years. I studied scripture under Catholic priests in school. As I got older I started doubting and questioning. I know I could not believe in god if I tried. The more doubting I did, the more questions I asked and the more science led me to be an atheist.

Now that I am where I am seeing what I am seeing in the world. The wars in the middle east of whose god is bigger and stronger. The conflicts in Ireland between protestant and Catholics. Bombings, wars, even the holocaust was attributed to religion. They killed off the religions they didn't like. There is a history longer than this thread of destruction in the name of, or defense of god. Like he isn't powerful enough to defend himself?

I wish and hope everyday that more people question not only faith, but the existence of god. Trust me, if your god is so powerful and mighty, his self esteem will survive you questioning him. I am sure he can take it.

I wish more people would read the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins or better yet watch this film (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330281245697942053&q=the+root+of+all+evil&total=443&start=0&num=30&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[Steven E. Webster]

The wars in the middle east of whose god is bigger and stronger.

Silly me, I thought the war in Iraq was about oil!

I suppose it is true that religion is used as a cover to conceal the real motives for such wars. But then if it wasn't religion used for such purposes, we'd blame Iraq for 9/11 or dream up "weopons of mass destruction." Come to think of it, we used those excuses too, didn't we?

Somehow I don't think if we simply abolished religion the perfection of humankind would be at hand.

I don't object to people being atheist. It can be a reasonable and honorable point of view. But I don't think broad-brushed attacks on all religion is any more becoming to atheists than is bigotry among the religious.

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

I don't object to people being atheist. It can be a reasonable and honorable point of view. But I don't think broad-brushed attacks on all religion is any more becoming to atheists than is bigotry among the religious.
I am feeling confused, Stephen, Tell me where I attack religion? I have a need to be as critical of religion as we are of any other science. Why should we walk on eggshells just because we are discussing god? Would you be willing to explain to me where I have attacked religion?

People with religious beliefs perceive any question of those beliefs as an attack. Everything I said was either known fact or my opinion said with respect. Where did I make an attack?

[Progo35]

What gaws me is how some secularists have leaped upon this so-called discovery with obvious, almost sick glee...as if this was the final "ah ha" against those who maintain adherence to an organized faith: as if this somehow "proves" that religious faith is not only false, but unhealthy. The Newsweek articles on the same subject were much worse. Both were written by self-described atheists who believe that any public disaply of religion is oppressive and should be pushed out of the public domain as much as possible. This obvious bias did not seem to bother the editors of Newsweek, who did not include any articles interpretting her letters in another way, namely, as expressions of normal human frailty that she never denied in the first place.

[Daniel]

As I got older I started doubting and questioning. I know I could not believe in god if I tried. The more doubting I did, the more questions I asked and the more science led me to be an atheist.

The older I get the more I question everything. And at this point in my life think about the whole idea of 'believing' anything.

This may be a result of the Buddhist thought I've been exposed to which isn't concerned with belief as such. They would consider that getting the cart before the horse- having the point of view that we fool ourselves into thinking of our thoughts as being concrete, as if they are objects. But are they? Contemplating this can take one into unfamiliar territory- a region which can feel quite uncomfortable, where the ground has dropped away beneath one. This- to me- is what doubt feels like.

One thing (oh... this word bring with it a nice paradox) has stayed with me however, since I was a child- though the thick and thin of doubt. And that is the experience of Numinosity and Presence. It comes- often- on the wings of music- in silence, stillness, my beloved's touch, the memory of a dear friend. It has no name, no creed and no dogma.

It's never occurred to me to call this God. To do so would be like putting a pin through a butterfly- tacking it down and killing it. Letting it be keeps it alive.

Makes me think that the Buddhists are on to something when they yak about Emptiness. But that's a whole other subject.

Sum total? I'm Ok having more questions than answers. And I respect science because it asks questions. My beef? Too often, matters of faith can veer towards easy answers and too few questions.

[Steven E. Webster]

I am feeling confused, Stephen, Tell me where I attack religion? I have a need to be as critical of religion as we are of any other science. Why should we walk on eggshells just because we are discussing god? Would you be willing to explain to me where I have attacked religion?

People with religious beliefs perceive any question of those beliefs as an attack. Everything I said was either known fact or my opinion said with respect. Where did I make an attack?

Sorry, I probably misunderstood what you wrote. It seemed you were suggesting that faith or belief is inherently a bad thing--the cause of all wars etc. etc. It seemed to me that people are quite capable of war and other bad things whether they are religious or not.

If your point was that it is good for people to maintain a healthy skepticism and be open to doubt, I can't argue with that. "Faith" with no doubt probably isn't really faith at all.

I don't know Dawkins work well, but had the impression that Dawkins is rather intolerant of religious faith--maybe I'm wrong about that too.

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

Sorry, I probably misunderstood what you wrote. It seemed you were suggesting that faith or belief is inherently a bad thing--the cause of all wars etc. etc. It seemed to me that people are quite capable of war and other bad things whether they are religious or not.

Well, you are correct, faith has been the cause of wars. That is part of the facts, not my beliefs. People are capable of such wars without faith I am sure that is true, but it isn't a fact. The first one is.

If your point was that it is good for people to maintain a healthy skepticism and be open to doubt, I can't argue with that. "Faith" with no doubt probably isn't really faith at all.
My point is that if people really weighed their faith against known facts, they would not have faith any longer. This is only my belief.

I don't know Dawkins work well, but had the impression that Dawkins is rather intolerant of religious faith--maybe I'm wrong about that too.
no, you are not wrong. Dawkins is very intolerant of faith. It is his belief that even moderate faith is blind and fosters a climate where extremism can exist. I haven't come to a decision one way or the other on this yet.

[u-dog]

Well, you are correct, faith has been the cause of wars. That is part of the facts, not my beliefs. People are capable of such wars without faith I am sure that is true, but it isn't a fact. The first one is.

Ok... I'm confused. How many examples of wars not primarily executed by people of faith for theological reasons, real or imagined, do we need to come up with to establish that its a fact? ummm... lets see. The napoleonic wars? the Mongol invasions? The Chinese Communist Revolution? The Korean War? the Vietnam war? The Second World War? Religion is almost always an EXCUSE for going to war -- at best. Wars are fought for national pride, desire for wealth, the lust for power, territorial expansion, the need for natural resources and out of fear. These are Things that human beings have in abundance whether or not they are people of faith.

My point is that if people really weighed their faith against known facts, they would not have faith any longer. This is only my belief.

thank you for acknowledging that it is a belief.

[Joe Brummer]

Religion is almost always an EXCUSE for going to war -- at best. Wars are fought for national pride, desire for wealth, the lust for power, territorial expansion, the need for natural resources and out of fear. These are Things that human beings have in abundance whether or not they are people of faith.


I find it almost impossible to deny that faith has been a large part of most of the atrocities we can think of....that doesn't say there are not other reasons but as you have said, religion is almost always the EXCUSE for going to war. For many of us, the excuse and reason are the same thing.

[Joe Brummer]

PS U-dog,

WW 2 was certainly about religion. Hitler claimed he was enacting the will of the creator while he murdered 6 million people based on their religion.

[Steven E. Webster]

PS U-dog,

WW 2 was certainly about religion. Hitler claimed he was enacting the will of the creator while he murdered 6 million people based on their religion.

I'm not convinced that Hitler was genuinely religious. It seems his use of religion was rather cynical. I suspect the same of Bush and Rove.

You seem to be coming close to making the assertion that if religion could be banned from the human mind, war would cease. I'm not sure you have such good evidence for that claim. How could one test this claim?

Does this claim about "religion" refer to any kind of spirtuality at all? Are Quakers as dangerous to human peace and well-being as are the Pre-millenial Dispensationalists? Is their any distinction at all between good spirituality and bad spirituality? or is all spirituality a manifestation of evil?

Steven Webster

[u-dog]

I find it almost impossible to deny that faith has been a large part of most of the atrocities we can think of....that doesn't say there are not other reasons but as you have said, religion is almost always the EXCUSE for going to war. For many of us, the excuse and reason are the same thing.


Joe, Atheism is a Faith. Atheists are people of faith. Its not a faith I understand particularly but it IS a faith. It is NOT -as it pretends to be - a scientific position about scientific facts. it is a RELIGIOUS position about RELIGIOUS issues. The VAST MAJORITY OF atheists, like yourself are fine and decent people that anyone would be glad to have living next door. Some atheists on the other hand ... like Josef Stalin Kim Jung Il General Tojo and Adolf Hitler, (Steven is right .. there is no meaningful way in which Adolf and his band of merry madmen were people of Christian or any other recognizable faith) were and are racist maniacs responsible for the grizzly deaths of millions !

The ability to make war, oppress the poor, slaughter the innocent, to rape to pillage to steal is A HUMAN POTENTIAL THAT EXISTS IN ALL OF US. To say the all the evils of the world come through Faith in God is not only OFFENSIVE AS HELL! but it is just plain IGNORANT OF THE FACTS

What do you mean that the excuse and the reason are the same thing? :eek: That is absurd! If I hit you over the head and take your wallet and claim that I am restributing the wealth from the rich to the poor. That is an excuse. My actions have NOTHING TO DO with the poor or the redistribution of wealth. My actions are motivated, caused, impelled by my greed and my lack of empathy, compassion or morals.

The "reason" for a thing helps me to understand its existance and its causes. An excuse is just the lubrication for my actions... something to make it slide better or to taste less nasty.

Tyrants, thieves, autocrats, conquerors, empirialists use religious language and ideas to make their mischief more pallatable to the masses who have to pay for it either in money or blood. It has little or nothing to do with why the wars and atrocities happen. The reason that they happen have to do with greed, lust for power, and fear.

[Joe Brummer]

That is a great question Stephen, I will try to answer it with what I have come to at this point in my life. I can't really speak for anyone but me, so here goes.

Yes, I do believe that all faith has some degree of danger. Faith, in and of itself, asks one to avoid question and reason and believe something void of evidence. (we can't explain it, so god must have done it) That can be harmless as with Quakers, or it can branch off and become the most evil you have ever heard as in the World Trade Center or the Crusades. Remember that all beliefs in any particular faith came from one place and branched off into denominations. Quakers who teach peace stem from the same faith as those who bomb abortion clinics. Not the same sect of people, but certainly if you have one, you will altimately have the other.

Sadly, at this point in my life, after examining the evidence I have looked at so far, I think that all faith has the potential to either become or foster a climate where extremism can arise. When you add fundementalism or literalism to the picture then you have nothing more than a mixture for bad things to happen in the name of whatever faith you choose. Fundementalism is just scary.

One thing I can tell you, that most atheists will tell you is that we are all atheists in one way or another. Most monothesit reject all the other gods for their god and claim that is the truth. Generally, the god they have chosen is the one that relates to their region and youth. If you are born into America you may be a Christian, if you were born into India you may be Hindu, if you were born on an Island on the Pacific you may waiting patiently for John Frum and the Cargo Gods.

I would like people to choose science. It is based in the facts and constantly questions. Most all scientists would abandon evolution if it were proved wrong because all scientist are looking for the truth. Faith is looking selfishly for oneself. Those who choose a faith do so for selfish reasons. That may be eternal life or salvation or whatever but I bet it is based in fear. I couldn't live my life that way nor do I reccomend it to anyone. Fear is what leads us to places of darkness. We have centuries of atrocity to show us what fear can do.

At heart, everyone is an atheist because they have rejected the truth of every other religion but theirs. Christian are athiests when it comes to Allah, Muslims are atheist when it comes to Ganish, etc.... I have just gone one god further than the monotheist.


You seem to be coming close to making the assertion that if religion could be banned from the human mind, war would cease. I'm not sure you have such good evidence for that claim. How could one test this claim?

I am not coming close at all, I am saying that religion banned would cease many wars. Let us use Ireland as the example. Catholic vs. Protestant killing each other at this point for reasons I doubt the next generation will ever fully understand, but will continue because they were told to. What would happen if you took the religion out of it.

Currently, they have sergregated schools systems. Loose it. Send the Catholic kids and the Protestant kids to the same schools and I bet in a generation or two the conflicts would begind to end.

I have to admit I stole this example from Dawkins, but it does make the point.

Now for my own examples, look at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. Look at the centuries of fighting and war over a place and a set of beliefs. Much could be solved if the beliefs could be challenged.

[Joe Brummer]

Joe, Atheism is a Faith. Atheists are people of faith. Its not a faith I understand particularly but it IS a faith. It is NOT -as it pretends to be - a scientific position about scientific facts.
Sorry u-dog, but atheism is not a faith. By its very definition it is a lack of faith and a reliance on facts. Faith is to take something void of evidence. An Atheist would never do that. So no, it is a huge red herring that atheism is a faith. I believe in science because it is based in facts. It is no faith to say the we are here through evolution anymore than it is to say Rhode Island is in New England. It isn't faith, it is fact and science.

People who are theistic believe in a god they cannot prove. People who are atheist do not believe in god. We don't have to have faith to prove anything to us. We don't have faith there is no god anymore than we have no faith there is no "big foot" there is no evidence of either. There is no evidence of god therefore we do not believe in one. It isn't based on faith, but on facts. We believe what we can prove. Faith requires you to accept as fact things you cannot prove.


it is a RELIGIOUS position about RELIGIOUS issues. The VAST MAJORITY OF atheists, like yourself are fine and decent people that anyone would be glad to have living next door. Some atheists on the other hand ... like Josef Stalin Kim Jung Il General Tojo and Adolf Hitler, (Steven is right .. there is no meaningful way in which Adolf and his band of merry madmen were people of Christian or any other recognizable faith)
Hitler was a catholic. All of the evidence supports that. To claim he was an atheist is to defy the evidence. He simply was not.

were and are racist maniacs responsible for the grizzly deaths of millions !

Their lack of faith had nothing to do with their actions. Especially when you consider people of faith are clearly responsible for the same number of deaths. The Crusades, Columbus, The Inquisition, etc...

The ability to make war, oppress the poor, slaughter the innocent, to rape to pillage to steal is A HUMAN POTENTIAL THAT EXISTS IN ALL OF US. To say the all the evils of the world come through Faith in God is not only OFFENSIVE AS HELL! but it is just plain IGNORANT OF THE FACTS

Actually, it is to see the facts as they are not as you want them to be. Faith in religion and gods, regardless which one and there are thousands has been a substantial cause of war, death, oppression, etc... It may be offensive but no more offensive than hearing that 50% of Americans believe the creation story. That is offensive!

I also see that you are using all caps, the web version of screaming. I feel dismissed and insulted when I am screamed at. I have a need for my beliefs about religion to be just as respected as yours. Would you be willing to not scream? I don't see how it is helpful to the conversation except to express you are angry. Anger is fine, it is what we do with it that counts.

What do you mean that the excuse and the reason are the same thing? :eek: That is absurd! If I hit you over the head and take your wallet and claim that I am restributing the wealth from the rich to the poor. That is an excuse. My actions have NOTHING TO DO with the poor or the redistribution of wealth. My actions are motivated, caused, impelled by my greed and my lack of empathy, compassion or morals.

Reason or excuse, we could debate this for centuries and get no place. Juries have to sit and ponder a mans fate trying to decide if he had a reason to kill or an excuse. It becomes subjective.

The "reason" for a thing helps me to understand its existance and its causes. An excuse is just the lubrication for my actions... something to make it slide better or to taste less nasty.
Again, I think this is subjective. If I hit you over the head and take your wallet and say I was trying to feed my family. That could be an excuse and a reason. Neither is acceptable and both are subjective.

Tyrants, thieves, autocrats, conquerors, empirialists use religious language and ideas to make their mischief more pallatable to the masses who have to pay for it either in money or blood. It has little or nothing to do with why the wars and atrocities happen. The reason that they happen have to do with greed, lust for power, and fear.

It has everything to do with religion. I think, or suspect you have closed your eyes to what you don't want to see. I feel sad about that. Did you take a few moments to watch the film I posted? This could help open your eyes.

[u-dog]

Joe,

As fun as it might be to disassemble and catalogue the numerous logical falicies that you have injected into the conversation already, I think that this is probably an inappropriate conversation to be having on this forum. This community is based on a fundamental respect for one anothers beliefs as we struggle to find non-violent ways to resist faith-based oppression of GLBT people. Since your belief is based solely on the attitude that my belief is a self-delusional pile of shit... there really isn't anyway to have this conversation that will be edifying to anyone.

Once you have said "I don't believe in God" there isn't much left to say that isn't offensive. Once you say that religious belief is ALWAYS and by definition violent... you've crossed the border into offensive speech.

So ... I'm disengaging. Good luck.

[Joe Brummer]

Agreed, I have no desire to sit here and ask you to think about your beliefs beacuse it is clear you are not willing to look at anyone who questions your beliefs, but I will point out that you will not do well engaging others who believe differently than you when you "dismisssed" their beliefs. The same people you hope to engage will push away with such an attitude.

Each of us hold our beliefs close to our hearts, including atheists. I am offended to no end when I hear someone say the Earth is only 10,000 years old. Such asserations are an attack on all the facts of science that we have massive amounts of evidence to back. Look at the Creationism Museum and you will know that offense I am talking about.

You have stated that once I have said "x" there isn't much to say. Sadly, this is the approach of the very people we hope to open to new beliefs and ideas would say. You say that once I say I don't believe there is nothing else to say. Our oppressors, once they hear we are happy to be gay, we are reprobate. They don't want to talk us further. Sadly, once you say:

Once you have said "I don't believe in God" there isn't much left to say that isn't offensive. Once you say that religious belief is ALWAYS and by definition violent... you've crossed the border into offensive speech.

Oh hell, once you say "I am a happy homo" there isn;t much left to say that isn't offensive.

I also have not said the things you claim I have, you heard what you wanted to hear not what I said. I did not say "all" anything since I do not believe those generalizations are good.

How are you different from those who say god condemns homosexuality? It is this my god is bigger than your god or my beliefs are better than your beliefs thinking that causes the very wars I have discussed. You have only proved the point with the statements you have made. I only hope that opens eyes to question. Lots of questions. We need all the questions we can get.

Cause once you have said "x" and I don't want further you have cut off the chance of making the change you wish to see in the world.

[u-dog]

I'm sure you're right, Joe, but as I say... I'm disengaging.

[Joe Brummer]

I'm sure you're right, Joe, but as I say... I'm disengaging.

I see that. I am sad and disappointed. I had the need for this not to be the same argument that I have with anti-gay Christians, but it is just from the other side.

We won't ever get far with the battle for gay rights when religion is the basis. The beliefs take up more space than the facts. Sadly.

[antonyh]

Once you have said "I don't believe in God" there isn't much left to say that isn't offensive. Once you say that religious belief is ALWAYS and by definition violent... you've crossed the border into offensive speech.

So ... I'm disengaging. Good luck.

I don't find Atheists offensive at all. I've actually read the recent books (Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris; End of Faith, Sam Harris; The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, etc). All these books are blistering critiques of religion and the horrible things that have been perpetuated on the human race by religion. And they are all hitting the NYT best seller lists. If you're gay you have experienced some of the horror first hand.

I think Christians should listen to Atheists and what they are saying about Christian belief. How can Christianity change so that it becomes salt and light in the world?

One of my favorite Episcopal priests used to tell us all the time, "Christians are capable of great good and of great evil". Atheists are calling foul and Christians need to listen and return to doing great good.

[u-dog]

Keep swingin' Joe! You're bound to hurt me eventually.:)

[Joe Brummer]

The object isn't about you. It is about everyone who reads this and that is far beyond you and me. I have to think about the masses, not you. Don't take this so personally, it isn't about you nor do I know you. This is about the further message this sends.

(it isn't that I don't care about you, I do, I just think if you are strong enough to engage in this conversation, you are strong enough to hear my side)

[Joe Brummer]

I don't find Atheists offensive at all. I've actually read the recent books (Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris; End of Faith, Sam Harris; The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, etc). All these books are blistering critiques of religion and the horrible things that have been perpetuated on the human race by religion. And they are all hitting the NYT best seller lists. If you're gay you have experienced some of the horror first hand.

I think Christians should listen to Atheists and what they are saying about Christian belief. How can Christianity change so that it becomes salt and light in the world?

One of my favorite Episcopal priests used to tell us all the time, "Christians are capable of great good and of great evil". Atheists are calling foul and Christians need to listen and return to doing great good.

I am sorry, I don't understand your point. Could I request you explain it further? I am intrigued but your thought but need more clarification on them.

[u-dog]

That is certainly true Joe, more than strong enough. More than smart enough ... but unlike you, I don't think that this conversation will benefit this community or any of those who are listening :)

[Joe Brummer]

That is certainly true Joe, more than strong enough. More than smart enough ... but unlike you, I don't think that this conversation will benefit this community or any of those who are listening :)

I do, I strongly believe in this conversation and the reason lie in Gandhi's message of creative and active nonviolence. We have to be talking. We have to be exchanging ideas even when it is hard. Even when the messages challenge the depths of our souls. We have to be exchanging ideas, beliefs and thoughts where everyone can read them, learn from them and move on with them. This is crucial for peace to ever come.

I will not back down, I will not disengage because nonviolence calls me to remain on my toes, and I am....

[Zerbie]

Gentlemen.

It grieves me to observe two men of such integrity, each full of passion for social justice, arguing in such a negative way. The conversation could proceed far more gently and respectfully than this.

[Joe Brummer]

Gentlemen.

It grieves me to observe two men of such integrity, each full of passion for social justice, arguing in such a negative way. The conversation could proceed far more gently and respectfully than this.

Sadly, Zerbie I don't know that is true. I have had conversations with many theists in my days of having my blog and my website and even posting here. Trust me, when you say you do not believe in god, the response is this. There is no way to address this that is nice or polite.

We somehow have given religion and faith a "go". It somehow gets more respect than it deserves except then it is the god we choose. If I were to give this sort of critique to another god, the response would be applauded, but when I am critical of the faith held by those in the room, I am not worth dialgue or discussion. Sadly, this is the type of thinking and lack of critical thinking skills that brought down the World Trade Center. We need, we must question faith and god. Period. I don't care who it offends, I care whose life it saves.

think about this:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg

[Progo35]

Joe:

I think that what U dog is responding to is your percieved attitude toward those who hold faith, which is probably why he went as far as to say that if you say, "I don't believe in God," there isn't much left to say that isn't offensive. Frankly, for someone who is upset by the idea of people having faith to try to discredit those who hold faith is offensive to those people, just as it is when religious people stereotype atheists. As i've said in respect to other issues on this forum, bias is bias and stereotyping is stereotyping. Stereotyping people of faith is not any better or more justified than stereotyping atheists. No one was attacking you at all before you wrote that we had accused you of attacking people's faith. No one said, "Joe stinks." We responded to the article, and to a woman who dedicated her entire life to the poor being attacked for something that is a feature of faith, not attacked by you, but attacked by many people over the last few weeks.

As to World War II, the first thing that I want to point out as a matter of clarification is that at least 11 million people died in the holocaust, not six million, which only tells us how many jewish people were killed. Let us not ignore the lgbt, disabled, gypsy, communist, religious, and otherwise political victims.

As to Hitler being Catholic, I don't know what research you're using to support that, but history indicates that Hiter appropriated Christian imagery to support his ideology: for instance, there are many Nazi paintings that use golden colors and messianic-like imagery to depict Hitler, the German people, etc. One painting in Art and Propoganda in the Twentieth Century shows what looks like a Nazi Madonna, with an Aryan baby sitting on a woman's lap with a beam of light shining on him. There was also another dramatization that used the story of Christ's birth to purport nazi propoganda by substituting Christ with the Zeitgeist, an inpersonal spirit that Hitler believed was being embodied and enabled by the German people through the Third Reich.

This appropriation, however, was just that: appropriation. It is is clear that the Nazis discouraged any belief in a personal God as subversive to the authority of the German state. Like Nietzsche, Hitler had a major contempt for Christ and Judeo-christian philosophy as something that encouraged tolerance towards those he considered less than human-the jews, lgbt people, the disabled, gypsies, etc. He had a great fondness for Nordic legend, which involved what he saw as "strong" gods who enacted their will and went to Vahalla after bravely fighting off their opponents. This kind of violent totalitarianism is what he wanted the German people to promote. Churches who refused to adopt Hitler's modifications to their preaching, worship, etc, were punished via economic sanctions and derision. One person of faith that Hitler had particular contempt for was Bishop Galen, who spoke out against the involuntary euthanasia of disabled persons. He said that he would "deal with him after the war." Germany was a largely Christian nation before the Nazis came to power. So, Hitler could not have arrrested most Christian leaders without major uprisings. Sadly, one of the reason who targeted the jews and others were because they were minorities: thus, easier to 'round up.'

Catholic people, jehovah's witnesses, evangelical Christians and anyone else who refused to salute Hitler were sent to concentration camps. So, I think that it is safe to say that while Hitler appropriated Christian symbols for his own purposes, he was NOT a christian.

Finally, there are letters to others near the end of WWII where Hitler expresses an longing for death. He describes it as nothingness, a blank "peace" that one could compare to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. In fact, it is also clear that Hitler got the concept of Aryanism from Indian art: gods being depicted as white, darker people being in the lower casts, etc. The swastika symbol is extremely ancient and was used in India thousands of years before Hitler. As with Christ's birth, Hitler appropriated this symbol to signify what spirit of the people, or "Zeitgeist."


For as concerned as some secularists claim to be about human rights, most newspapers and media outlets have ignored the secular element in the disability community that has repeatedly and loudly protested the dehydration and starvation of cognitively disabled persons and the legalization of euthanasia. It is always depicted as religious, conservative people vs. open minded, "compassionate" progressive people. You can imagine how many secular people in the disability community feel to be ignored by the media, as if they do not exist. While I have no idea where you stand on such issues, I am using them to demonstrate that for people so concerned with civil rights, the "progressive" people in the NY times, MSNBC, etc, don't seem too concerned about the disabled community. In fact, with the glaring exception of futile care laws, which exist in our country's most conservative states, secularists have been at the forefront of arguing for the dehumanization of disabled persons. Peter Singer is one example. He says that since the Judeo Christian ethic has been superseded by science, it is irrational to assign value to a human life because it is human and that parents should therefore be allowed to have disabled children euthanized, even if the disability is relatively minor, such a a learning disorder, down syndrome, hemophelia, etc.

This tells me that the secular world is just as messed up as any faction of the religious world. For all of the attestations that secularists are more tolerant, loving, or nonviolent than religious people, many facts contradict this statement.

The truth is is that there are bad people in every group. Selfishness, anxiety, insecurity, and violence is part of the human condition, not part of the religious or non religious condition. Any intolerance is bad, and so, I don't think that we should assign any more justification to the bias of Hawkins than to that of James Dobson.

You say that you want people to look at evidence. Well, many of us have and we have decided to believe in God. That does not mean that we did not look at evidence. I believe in God because I sense his presence. I feel connection to Him all the time and based on my reason, I feel that that connection is based on a reality. Mathematically, I believe that the odds of everything in nature working the way it does by chance is harder to accept than the odds that it was designed that way. As to how old the earth is, I, along with many Christians and religious people, don't care. I've never had a problem believing that God created the world in six days and that the world billions of years old. As U-Dog and Stephen have pointed out, there is a difference between faith and fact. Do some religious people feel that they have to reconcile these things for various reasons? Sure. But someone saying that the world is ten thousand years old and that we should give scientific consideration to that view is not an affront directed against you personally, or even evolution. Looking at them side by side is a balanced academic exercise. When you assert that anyone who wants to consider this possibility is deluded to the extent of being dangerous, you then evidence a desire to stunt that inquiry, just as some creationists wanted to stunt the exploration of evolutionism in the Scopes trial. Saying that religious faith is inherently dangerous and that you cannot rely on evidence and have faith at the same time implies that religious people lack the capacity to understand reality and is therefore insulting to such people.

It is good to discuss these differences of opinion. That is healthy. But if you think that you are going to "open our eyes" to the "fact" that God does not exist, I agree with UDog that you are making this attempt in the wrong place. I'm willing to guess that the people here aren't any warmer to having atheism prostyltized to them as their potential salvation than they are to fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.

-Meghan

[Zerbie]

Sadly, Zerbie I don't know that is true.

This isn't just any blog. This is Soulforce. We (usually) acheive great things here, such as respectfully and kindly disagreeing with one another, and remaining loving friends even when in disagreement about deeply held personal convictions.

I have had conversations with many theists in my days of having my blog and my website and even posting here. Trust me, when you say you do not believe in god, the response is this. There is no way to address this that is nice or polite.

Let's make a way.

We somehow have given religion and faith a "go". It somehow gets more respect than it deserves except then it is the god we choose. If I were to give this sort of critique to another god, the response would be applauded,

Do you truly perceive all the regulars here as being that simplistic in their thinking? If so, you need to spend more time reading the things they have to say on a regular basis on a wide variety of topics.

but when I am critical of the faith held by those in the room, I am not worth dialgue or discussion. Sadly, this is the type of thinking and lack of critical thinking skills that brought down the World Trade Center.

Whoa. Too harsh, and completely off-base to describe any of the regulars here in this way. Can you see that assertions like this are why you have been perceived as "offensive?" If I were U-dog, I would be beyond insulted at that remark.

We need, we must question faith and god. Period. I don't care who it offends, I care whose life it saves.

think about this:

Two things about the paragraph above: the quote, that would be true if it had only said "that takes ABUSE OF religion." Real religion leads to the very opposite of the catastrophes you describe. Unfortunately, real religion is quite rare in this world. Most of us are on a path somewhere towards it, and some abuse it to evil ends.

My perception of this conversation thus far is that you are not giving the others here a fair chance. You ask them to examine and question their faith, but I would ask you to examine and question your assertions, which, and I could be mistaking you so far, seem to be painting anyone who believes in God at all with a very broad brush. That any religion at all ignores science and fact. These claims, if indeed they are your claims, are overly broad and inaccurate. The problem often seems to be religion, but it is not so - the problem is abuse of religion.

So many people who work in social justice, for the environment, feeding the poor and the sick, etc., do so because of their religious convictions. It is inaccurate to see only the catastrophic results of the systematic abuse of religion while ignoring the positives that come from it. For those of us who are typically unaware of the positive force of religion, and I speak for myself here, it can very therapeutic to observe the great good that can also come of it.

All a very long way of saying I read you as being closed off to the people here who believe in God, and the fact that you don't care if you offend U-dog reads loud and clear.

I would prefer it if you did care about how your words make others feel. Non-violence applies to our speech, too, Joe, probably even more than to anything else.

[Daniel]

We are, whether we like it or not, all connected to one another. We breath the same air, have the same desire for happiness and the avoidance of pain and suffering. We all desire to see the end of suffering of gay persons at the hand of Christian Fundamentalists.

Isn't that why we are here?

Before we see an end to the suffering or our brothers and sisters, we are going to have to learn how to tolerate- yea- even have compassion for one another. We are going to have to learn how to stop hurting others as we have been hurt.

Forgive my hubris, but I think this can only start when we question ourselves, deeply and profoundly. We can't ask others to do what we ourselves will not do.

Honesty and self-awareness comes with a price.

[antonyh]

I am sorry, I don't understand your point. Could I request you explain it further? I am intrigued but your thought but need more clarification on them.

I am simply saying that Atheists don't view Christianity through the spectacles of faith...they see some things about religion very clearly. I believe Christians should welcome these perspectives and ask the difficult questions about their religion and the brutal effect it often has. I'm not suggesting Christians abandon their beliefs but simply that they take critiques of Atheists seriously.

[Joe Brummer]

My perception of this conversation thus far is that you are not giving the others here a fair chance. You ask them to examine and question their faith, but I would ask you to examine and question your assertions, which, and I could be mistaking you so far, seem to be painting anyone who believes in God at all with a very broad brush. That any religion at all ignores science and fact. These claims, if indeed they are your claims, are overly broad and inaccurate. The problem often seems to be religion, but it is not so - the problem is abuse of religion.

Zerbie,
You seem to be under the impression that I have singled out the members of Soulforce and their faith and I have not. More people in my life and the world around me are believers of one sort or another. Believe me I give all of them a fair chance.

Religion, does ignore science. That isn't overly broad in anyway. It is a fact of life.

In order for their to be abuse of religion, there has to be religion.

I have taught nonviolence for years now. One thing that I have learned is that to make change through nonviolence, it is active. You need to rock the boat. I have called no ones names, I have said nothing about anyone personally. I have attacked very broadly religion. Not Christians, not Muslims, not any one faith. Not even the Cargo Faiths waiting for John Frum. I would think to to be violent of me if I were attacking those things, I am not.

[Joe Brummer]

I am simply saying that Atheists don't view Christianity through the spectacles of faith...they see some things about religion very clearly. I believe Christians should welcome these perspectives and ask the difficult questions about their religion and the brutal effect it often has. I'm not suggesting Christians abandon their beliefs but simply that they take critiques of Atheists seriously.

Thank you for clarifying that. I agree with you.

[Zerbie]

Zerbie,
You seem to be under the impression that I have singled out the members of Soulforce and their faith and I have not. More people in my life and the world around me are believers of one sort or another. Believe me I give all of them a fair chance.


.

No I am not. Quite the opposite. I find you painting members here with a broad brush of over-generalization and lumping many of them in with company they do not keep. A few posts above you diectly stated they have a "lack of critical thinking skills." Then you said you don't care that you are being offensive. How is that "a fair chance?" A fair chance to abandon their own convictions in favor of yours? Because that is how it seems to come across.

Your words here have been harsh and inaccurate. Nonviolence includes our speech.

[kara speltz]

Forgive my hubris, but I think this can only start when we question ourselves, deeply and profoundly. We can't ask others to do what we ourselves will not do.

Honesty and self-awareness comes with a price.

Amen, Daniel. It is that understanding that has made all the difference in my comprehension of nonviolence. Gandhi said it so succinctly - "we must become the change we seek."

[Daniel]

We won't ever get far with the battle for gay rights when religion is the basis. The beliefs take up more space than the facts. Sadly.

Now this is a provocative statement! :D

As I read through this thread, it occurs to me that the thought above is a matter worth addressing, though it's not the purpose of this thread, properly speaking. Perhaps a new one is in order?

Of course, the thought above would seem to draw the ground that Soulforce walks on into question, would it not? That is to say, a large part of Soulforce's efforts seem to be centered around making the world a better place for gay Christians (of course I know the purpose of the organization is not only that). The statement above would seem to imply that this effort won't be effective, right? Or am I reading too much into it?

And what is one to make of the fact that nonviolence itself is a product of religiously minded men? How does that factor in?

Heck! If an organization cannot question itself and grow- what use is it?

~

Oh dear....I fear I just threw a hand grenade into the room!

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I see Soulforce as engaged in seeking to make distinctions between good religion and bad religion, between nonviolent religion capable of doing good and spirtual violence that does harm. I believe we are self-critical in the sense that we attempt to continually examine ourselves--"am I being non-violent?" "do I need to adjust my beliefs/actions/policies as a result of a given dialogue?" etc. etc.

Joe seems to me to be challenging the whole idea of good and bad in religion. Religion is just categorically bad. No point in applying our critical reason to making fine distinctions about it. We should abandon the project of attempting to reform religion--we need to join together to abolish religion. (My apologies if I misunderstand your position, Joe.)

I'm sorry, I think the fine distinctions matter. Why can't we reject the simple-minded theism of a Pat Robertson and still appreciate the "panentheism" of Episcopal Bishop Jack Spong? Why can't we reject "religion" and still appreciate "spirituality?" (Joe, is it religion or spirituality that is the problem, or is it only theism, you object to? There are non-theistic religions, too.)

Are we, for example, to declare mainline, liberal Protestants our adversaries no matter how strongly they embrace the goal of LGBT equality and world peace? I had an extremly positive experience as an openly gay man earning a masters degree in Religious Studies from a progressive, Roman Catholic college--were my professors, in fact, bad, nasty, evil, crazy, irrational people all along? You won't convince me of that.

I wonder about those LGBT people who have experienced rejection both from their faith community on the one hand for their sexual identity, and from an anti-religion gay community that rejects their spiritual identity. That's a painful place to be--I know, I've been there. I believe things have been improving for those folks in recent years. The LGBT community has made alot of accepting spaces for all forms of spirituality. Even the Human Rights Campaign Fund provides an on-line bible study service for LGBT Christians. Soulforce has been part of that good work, in my opinion.

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

Friends,

I see Soulforce as engaged in seeking to make distinctions between good religion and bad religion, between nonviolent religion capable of doing good and spirtual violence that does harm. I believe we are self-critical in the sense that we attempt to continually examine ourselves--"am I being non-violent?" "do I need to adjust my beliefs/actions/policies as a result of a given dialogue?" etc. etc.
This is an interesting idea. I have spent the last few years of my life asking myself "Am I being nonviolent?" For a short time, I kept a diary of violence much life Gandhi asked of his grandson. It was an eye opening experience.

At some point, I also want to explore the ideas of protective force. I needed to do that for the sake of balance. It has stopped me from asking the question as much as I use to.

Joe seems to me to be challenging the whole idea of good and bad in religion. Religion is just categorically bad. No point in applying our critical reason to making fine distinctions about it. We should abandon the project of attempting to reform religion--we need to join together to abolish religion. (My apologies if I misunderstand your position, Joe.)

I must say I appreciate your recap. The tactic remind me of NVC from Marshall Rosenberg.

Faith is the process of believing in something without evidence. Each of us believes "our faith" is superior to other faiths. That piece of the issue alone scares me. Once we have believed that any set of beliefs is superior to others, we leave ourselves open for inequality, preferred treatment and eventually oppression. But part of the point of faith is that yours is above the next. If it wasn't so, then you would switch the superior faith right?


I'm sorry, I think the fine distinctions matter. Why can't we reject the simple-minded theism of a Pat Robertson and still appreciate the "panentheism" of Episcopal Bishop Jack Spong? Why can't we reject "religion" and still appreciate "spirituality?" (Joe, is it religion or spirituality that is the problem, or is it only theism, you object to? There are non-theistic religions, too.)

I absolutely think we can hold spirituality but reject the idea of god. I am very much a follower of Buddhist teachings, but won't go as far as to call myself a Buddhist.

The issue goes far beyond Christianity or Islam or any particular faith. This issue is far more complex than that. First we must recognize that in order for us to choose the "good" religion over the "bad" religions we must realize that such labels of good and bad also leave way for right and wrong religion and exactly which of us gets to decide such a subjective thing? It would be better to keep this in simple terms of just "god" not any one faith.

Are we, for example, to declare mainline, liberal Protestants our adversaries no matter how strongly they embrace the goal of LGBT equality and world peace?

Again, It is better to look at the whole picture not just any one faith or denomination or we go back to "good" vs. "bad" and then who gets to decide whose god is good and whose is bad? It is those sort of conflicts of ideas that have led me to my current beliefs.

I had an extremly positive experience as an openly gay man earning a masters degree in Religious Studies from a progressive, Roman Catholic college--were my professors, in fact, bad, nasty, evil, crazy, irrational people all along? You won't convince me of that.

Steven, no where have I ever said that anyone is bad, evil, or nasty. I don't believe people are capable of "being" any of those things. I do believe people are capable of "doing" those things and more often than not it is either in defense of or the promotion of their faith. Irrational, I am beginning to think faith is irrational. So is love, but that isn't always a bad thing either. Irrational can lead to amazing things. It can also lead to very bad things.

I wonder about those LGBT people who have experienced rejection both from their faith community on the one hand for their sexual identity, and from an anti-religion gay community that rejects their spiritual identity. That's a painful place to be--I know, I've been there. I believe things have been improving for those folks in recent years. The LGBT community has made alot of accepting spaces for all forms of spirituality. Even the Human Rights Campaign Fund provides an on-line bible study service for LGBT Christians. Soulforce has been part of that good work, in my opinion.

These are all valid points I cannot dispute nor would I. I would offer but empathy for anyone I see in pain, but lets not loose sight of the fact the basis of the pain is not sexuality, but the superiority of whose faith does or doesn't accept GLBT folks. This still goes back to my thoughts that faith is, at its core, going to cause friction unless everyone believes as you do. When you add to that a cozy warm afterlife, I am more than afraid of where this will continue to lead us.

We must first ask the question of our faith. Is there a god? I believe, knowing that the universe is 173 billion light years wide, with billions and billions of galaxies that "god" would need to be conscious of all of those things and all of creation and me winning the powerball I am praying to win while still looking over a starving children is Africa. Such a being is very improbable. After we have address the idea that there even is a god, them maybe we could decide which religion or faith can describe him. Is it Islam? Christianity? Hinduism? John Frum? (which I urge you to take a look at)

I am not here to insult or offend, but make you take a cold, hard look. If faith is strong, then my challenge shouldn't be that big of a deal, should it?

[Joe Brummer]

As an afterthought I have had after writing the above post. Steven asks if I thought his college professors were irrational. Steven, your professor maybe not, but do note that 50%, read that again, 50% of the American public believe the earth is less than 10,00 years old.

50% of ther American public believes the bible scriptures over all of the known science in the world. YES! That is irrational.

[Progo35]

Hmm...I'm taking a cold, hard look....yes...hmmmmm...

Nope, still there!

[Joe Brummer]

Hmm...I'm taking a cold, hard look....yes...hmmmmm...

Nope, still there!

I am frustrated as I read your reply. I have a need for this subject to be taken seriously as I can see those replying are deeply connected to the subject. I am included in that statement as I take this very seriously. Thousands of people die daily in the world based on faith. I think and believe that makes this a but more serious than I find your reply. Would you be willing to add something to this? or Elaborate on your response?

[Steven E. Webster]

I am not here to insult or offend, but make you take a cold, hard look. If faith is strong, then my challenge shouldn't be that big of a deal, should it?

Well, we could ignore you, but that wouldn't be polite. Seriously, your focus seems to be entirely on "theism." And although you don't really define how you use the term, the "theism" that you attack seems to me kind of a "straw man." I'm not sure I do believe in the god you say we should doubt.

Your assertion that my belief in God means that I must devalue Buddhist belief is not a correct assumption. My God doesn't need to be better than yours, nor does theism need to be better than atheism. You, however, seem to be insisting on the superiority of atheism.

I see lots of exploration of ideas in these forums. It may be that atheists have been underrepresented. I've not noticed much in the way of discomfort expressed about the participation of pagans and Budhhists (and I think we have a Hindu among us somewhere). I've not noticed any attempts to win converts, except from the occasional Fundamentalist visitor who seems to think we're all damned anyway.

So, I've not seen your critique of "panentheism" or say, Process Theology. These forms of theism are not the strawmen that you've picked on so far.

I believe we can and should promote the idea of "secular humanism." It is, indeed, a shame that Fundamentalists have made those words such a word of disparagement. I believe we can have a society where public policy is decided on the basis of "facts" that persons of all faiths, and no faith can agree upon. I believe that we can have school curricula that don't teach religious doctrine disguised as science (I'm thinking of the pseudo-science of "Intelligent Design").

I believe we can have a society where we don't play the game of "my faith" or "my non-faith" is better than yours. Sadly, Fundamentalists have made their superiority one of their "articles of faith," despite the fact that Christ taught humility. It does make them hard to live with. Their hostility to a secular society is a major problem in our society and political system right now. I don't see all religious faith posing the same problem, however.

And now that I take a look at this phrase one more time:
I am not here to insult or offend, but make you take a cold, hard look. If faith is strong, then my challenge shouldn't be that big of a deal, should it?
I think I need to say that this is a very insulting and offensive approach. It smacks of a superior attitude. You're just here to enlighten the unenlightened. We should be grateful! Frankly, I'm not all that insulted by this--I'm kind of amused.

I wouldn't want to "make" you do or believe anything. I'd just like us to coexist with our beliefs in a spirit of nonviolence.

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

Steven,
While I agree the world you are painting a picture for is lovely, we have been trying to have that world for thousands of years. It has not happen nor do I believe it will happen in my lifetime.

Joe

[Progo35]

Moreover, Joe, I would like to point out that my first post in response to you contained a thoughtful account of several issues, to which you chose not to respond. If you wish for elaboration on my derisive comment, please look at that post and respond to it. I hereby challenge you to do so and thereby demonstrate the sincerity of your own desire for inquiry.

[Joe Brummer]

Moreover, Joe, I would like to point out that my first post in response to you contained a thoughtful account of several issues, to which you chose not to respond. If you wish for elaboration on my derisive comment, please look at that post and respond to it.

Your earlier post asked no questions. You stated what you believe about the newsweek articles. I did not read those article so I have no place commenting on them. I also don't know the atheists you are talking about so I can't comment on them.

Sorry, But I am not going to comment on posts that don't ask for my response. Is there a question you would like me to address? I am confused by your posts. I am not sure what response you were looking for?

[antonyh]

I've been wondering if religion is really the issue with the problems of the human race. Religions are products of the human mind as are the interpretation of religions. Maybe the problem is in the human mind and it's attachment to ideology and the inability to simply live in the present moment.

[Steven E. Webster]

Steven,
While I agree the world you are painting a picture for is lovely, we have been trying to have that world for thousands of years. It has not happen nor do I believe it will happen in my lifetime.

Joe

There's that word "belief" again. So, what's your point? Would going on a crusade to stamp out faith bring improvement to the world? Would such a crusade have anymore success than my vision of a secular society.

Frankly, my vision is not so impossible--it seems to be embodied in the Constitution of the United States, in which there is no mention of "God" and it is forbidden to apply "religious tests" to office holders. Too bad we don't follow it too well. I do think you have a genuine grievance when all of our Presidential candidates have to convince the public that they have a "proper" belief in God. An atheist should be able to run for President, and it shouldn't matter to anyone.

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

Joe:
You are referring to my first post on the Newsweek articles, on page one. The post I am referring to is displayed clearly on page 3. Any questions I might be asking are implicit in its content. The post reads:

Joe:

I think that what U dog is responding to is your percieved attitude toward those who hold faith, which is probably why he went as far as to say that if you say, "I don't believe in God," there isn't much left to say that isn't offensive. Frankly, for someone who is upset by the idea of people having faith to try to discredit those who hold faith is offensive to those people, just as it is when religious people stereotype atheists. As i've said in respect to other issues on this forum, bias is bias and stereotyping is stereotyping. Stereotyping people of faith is not any better or more justified than stereotyping atheists. No one was attacking you at all before you wrote that we had accused you of attacking people's faith. No one said, "Joe stinks." We responded to the article, and to a woman who dedicated her entire life to the poor being attacked for something that is a feature of faith, not attacked by you, but attacked by many people over the last few weeks.

As to World War II, the first thing that I want to point out as a matter of clarification is that at least 11 million people died in the holocaust, not six million, which only tells us how many jewish people were killed. Let us not ignore the lgbt, disabled, gypsy, communist, religious, and otherwise political victims.

As to Hitler being Catholic, I don't know what research you're using to support that, but history indicates that Hiter appropriated Christian imagery to support his ideology: for instance, there are many Nazi paintings that use golden colors and messianic-like imagery to depict Hitler, the German people, etc. One painting in Art and Propoganda in the Twentieth Century shows what looks like a Nazi Madonna, with an Aryan baby sitting on a woman's lap with a beam of light shining on him. There was also another dramatization that used the story of Christ's birth to purport nazi propoganda by substituting Christ with the Zeitgeist, an inpersonal spirit that Hitler believed was being embodied and enabled by the German people through the Third Reich.

This appropriation, however, was just that: appropriation. It is is clear that the Nazis discouraged any belief in a personal God as subversive to the authority of the German state. Like Nietzsche, Hitler had a major contempt for Christ and Judeo-christian philosophy as something that encouraged tolerance towards those he considered less than human-the jews, lgbt people, the disabled, gypsies, etc. He had a great fondness for Nordic legend, which involved what he saw as "strong" gods who enacted their will and went to Vahalla after bravely fighting off their opponents. This kind of violent totalitarianism is what he wanted the German people to promote. Churches who refused to adopt Hitler's modifications to their preaching, worship, etc, were punished via economic sanctions and derision. One person of faith that Hitler had particular contempt for was Bishop Galen, who spoke out against the involuntary euthanasia of disabled persons. He said that he would "deal with him after the war." Germany was a largely Christian nation before the Nazis came to power. So, Hitler could not have arrrested most Christian leaders without major uprisings. Sadly, one of the reason who targeted the jews and others were because they were minorities: thus, easier to 'round up.'

Catholic people, jehovah's witnesses, evangelical Christians and anyone else who refused to salute Hitler were sent to concentration camps. So, I think that it is safe to say that while Hitler appropriated Christian symbols for his own purposes, he was NOT a christian.

Finally, there are letters to others near the end of WWII where Hitler expresses an longing for death. He describes it as nothingness, a blank "peace" that one could compare to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. In fact, it is also clear that Hitler got the concept of Aryanism from Indian art: gods being depicted as white, darker people being in the lower casts, etc. The swastika symbol is extremely ancient and was used in India thousands of years before Hitler. As with Christ's birth, Hitler appropriated this symbol to signify what spirit of the people, or "Zeitgeist."


For as concerned as some secularists claim to be about human rights, most newspapers and media outlets have ignored the secular element in the disability community that has repeatedly and loudly protested the dehydration and starvation of cognitively disabled persons and the legalization of euthanasia. It is always depicted as religious, conservative people vs. open minded, "compassionate" progressive people. You can imagine how many secular people in the disability community feel to be ignored by the media, as if they do not exist. While I have no idea where you stand on such issues, I am using them to demonstrate that for people so concerned with civil rights, the "progressive" people in the NY times, MSNBC, etc, don't seem too concerned about the disabled community. In fact, with the glaring exception of futile care laws, which exist in our country's most conservative states, secularists have been at the forefront of arguing for the dehumanization of disabled persons. Peter Singer is one example. He says that since the Judeo Christian ethic has been superseded by science, it is irrational to assign value to a human life because it is human and that parents should therefore be allowed to have disabled children euthanized, even if the disability is relatively minor, such a a learning disorder, down syndrome, hemophelia, etc.

This tells me that the secular world is just as messed up as any faction of the religious world. For all of the attestations that secularists are more tolerant, loving, or nonviolent than religious people, many facts contradict this statement.

The truth is is that there are bad people in every group. Selfishness, anxiety, insecurity, and violence is part of the human condition, not part of the religious or non religious condition. Any intolerance is bad, and so, I don't think that we should assign any more justification to the bias of Hawkins than to that of James Dobson.

You say that you want people to look at evidence. Well, many of us have and we have decided to believe in God. That does not mean that we did not look at evidence. I believe in God because I sense his presence. I feel connection to Him all the time and based on my reason, I feel that that connection is based on a reality. Mathematically, I believe that the odds of everything in nature working the way it does by chance is harder to accept than the odds that it was designed that way. As to how old the earth is, I, along with many Christians and religious people, don't care. I've never had a problem believing that God created the world in six days and that the world billions of years old. As U-Dog and Stephen have pointed out, there is a difference between faith and fact. Do some religious people feel that they have to reconcile these things for various reasons? Sure. But someone saying that the world is ten thousand years old and that we should give scientific consideration to that view is not an affront directed against you personally, or even evolution. Looking at them side by side is a balanced academic exercise. When you assert that anyone who wants to consider this possibility is deluded to the extent of being dangerous, you then evidence a desire to stunt that inquiry, just as some creationists wanted to stunt the exploration of evolutionism in the Scopes trial. Saying that religious faith is inherently dangerous and that you cannot rely on evidence and have faith at the same time implies that religious people lack the capacity to understand reality and is therefore insulting to such people.

It is good to discuss these differences of opinion. That is healthy. But if you think that you are going to "open our eyes" to the "fact" that God does not exist, I agree with UDog that you are making this attempt in the wrong place. I'm willing to guess that the people here aren't any warmer to having atheism prostyltized to them as their potential salvation than they are to fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.

-Meghan

My challenge still stands.

1. Where did you get your info on Hitler?
2. Why did you only include the six million jews and not the other 5 million victims? Those people, of course, are part of reality.
3. You say that evil comes through religion, yet you did not comment on Peter Singer, who says that it is okay to devalue disabled people because there is no God and judeo-Christian philosophy is irrelevant. If you are truly concerned about debate regarding the impact of religion, and you feel that that impact is negative, why have you not comment on evil that is at least partially motivated by a rejection of religion/atheism?
4. If athiests are so caring, why did the secular media ignore the secular disability groups that have protested the treatment of disabled persons in the last ten years? Why did they stereotype the issue as being a fight between progressive secularists and close minded religious people?

These are only a few of the implicit questions in the post I have pasted above.

[Joe Brummer]

There's that word "belief" again. So, what's your point? Would going on a crusade to stamp out faith bring improvement to the world? Would such a crusade have anymore success than my vision of a secular society.

This is a great question. I don't think we should stamp out faith, I think we should promote science. I very much think we should not teach children one religion or one faith about god. I think we should let them get old enough to ask those questions and find their own answers. I will also hope those replies come from science not religion.

I didn't reply to the panetheism comments because they still lie in a belief in god. Just a different version of it. As I said, I am not going to get into the label game of what is good and what is bad religion. It is much too subjective.

Frankly, my vision is not so impossible--it seems to be embodied in the Constitution of the United States, in which there is no mention of "God" and it is forbidden to apply "religious tests" to office holders. Too bad we don't follow it too well.

Well, here is where we will again disagree and my reason falls to nonviolence. Your vision asks fundamentalist Christians to back down from the theocracy they are working for. This will be see as an attack in their eyes. I can see it know "The war on Christians" oh wait, they have already done that.

What ever we do to work towards your vision, which I would love to see, must be seen as "justice" for those who would prevent it, rather than an attack on them. I am not sure this could happen.

I do think you have a genuine grievance when all of our Presidential candidates have to convince the public that they have a "proper" belief in God. An atheist should be able to run for President, and it shouldn't matter to anyone.

Statistics about atheists put us lower than used car salesmen and door to door vacuume cleaner salesman. I wonder if the country wouldn't elect a female, black lesbian Muslim before an atheist.

[Progo35]

Joe:

I see that you have not answered any of my questions. The fact that you will not do so compromises my image of you as an intellectual colleague. If you are not willing to answer tough questions, then your opinions are regarded with less credibility, at least by me. It is my experience that anyone who can't or is not willing to defend his position has flaws in his argument that he doesn't want exposed.

[Joe Brummer]

Joe:
You are referring to my first post on the Newsweek articles, on page one. The post I am referring to is displayed clearly on page 3. Any questions I might be asking are implicit in its content.

Right, and for whatever reason I didn't see this one. I am happy to reply.

The post reads:

Joe:

I think that what U dog is responding to is your percieved attitude toward those who hold faith, which is probably why he went as far as to say that if you say, "I don't believe in God," there isn't much left to say that isn't offensive. Frankly, for someone who is upset by the idea of people having faith to try to discredit those who hold faith is offensive to those people, just as it is when religious people stereotype atheists. As i've said in respect to other issues on this forum, bias is bias and stereotyping is stereotyping. Stereotyping people of faith is not any better or more justified than stereotyping atheists.


On some of this I might agree, some not so. I think U-god's response had the same ere of attitude you claim I have. Regardless of such evaluations or diagnosis of each other as more or less with a chip on our shoulder, I will agree that bias is bias, but it has been my experience that when it comes to god and religion we give out a free pass I don't agree we should give.

We cannot prove the existence of god, yet I watch the assault on science and the thousands of lives lost each day at the hands of religious extremist. I watch people kicked from their homes, oppressed by society. I see women in full Burkas treated like property hiding the beauty of their bodies. I see more harm than I could ever see good coming from faith. I think the chip on my shoulder is well warranted as I beg those of faith to examine their faith much more closely against known science and facts.

No one was attacking you at all before you wrote that we had accused you of attacking people's faith. No one said, "Joe stinks." We responded to the article, and to a woman who dedicated her entire life to the poor being attacked for something that is a feature of faith, not attacked by you, but attacked by many people over the last few weeks.

I am aware that is the topic. The questioning of faith. That is how this post has evolved. I stated I would like people to question their faith. Many agreed with me, others immediate went for the debate on my statements about being an atheist.

As to World War II, the first thing that I want to point out as a matter of clarification is that at least 11 million people died in the holocaust, not six million, which only tells us how many jewish people were killed. Let us not ignore the lgbt, disabled, gypsy, communist, religious, and otherwise political victims.
Thank you for the clarification, but I was referring to the Jews because we were discussing religion. I am not discounting the death of others, but I was referring to the 6 million killed for no other reason than they are of the Jewish Faith.

As to Hitler being Catholic, I don't know what research you're using to support that, but history indicates that Hiter appropriated Christian imagery to support his ideology: for instance, there are many Nazi paintings that use golden colors and messianic-like imagery to depict Hitler, the German people, etc. One painting in Art and Propoganda in the Twentieth Century shows what looks like a Nazi Madonna, with an Aryan baby sitting on a woman's lap with a beam of light shining on him. There was also another dramatization that used the story of Christ's birth to purport nazi propoganda by substituting Christ with the Zeitgeist, an inpersonal spirit that Hitler believed was being embodied and enabled by the German people through the Third Reich.

History shows Hitler was a Catholic. This is widely known. The main point was that he was not an atheist as earlier claimed.

This appropriation, however, was just that: appropriation. It is is clear that the Nazis discouraged any belief in a personal God as subversive to the authority of the German state. Like Nietzsche, Hitler had a major contempt for Christ and Judeo-christian philosophy as something that encouraged tolerance towards those he considered less than human-the jews, lgbt people, the disabled, gypsies, etc. He had a great fondness for Nordic legend, which involved what he saw as "strong" gods who enacted their will and went to Vahalla after bravely fighting off their opponents. This kind of violent totalitarianism is what he wanted the German people to promote. Churches who refused to adopt Hitler's modifications to their preaching, worship, etc, were punished via economic sanctions and derision. One person of faith that Hitler had particular contempt for was Bishop Galen, who spoke out against the involuntary euthanasia of disabled persons. He said that he would "deal with him after the war." Germany was a largely Christian nation before the Nazis came to power. So, Hitler could not have arrrested most Christian leaders without major uprisings. Sadly, one of the reason who targeted the jews and others were because they were minorities: thus, easier to 'round up.'

Catholic people, jehovah's witnesses, evangelical Christians and anyone else who refused to salute Hitler were sent to concentration camps. So, I think that it is safe to say that while Hitler appropriated Christian symbols for his own purposes, he was NOT a christian.
He was also not an atheist as earlier claimed. He did claim to be a Christian. We he truly believe when he closed his eyes to sleep at night is unknown to all of us.

Finally, there are letters to others near the end of WWII where Hitler expresses an longing for death. He describes it as nothingness, a blank "peace" that one could compare to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. In fact, it is also clear that Hitler got the concept of Aryanism from Indian art: gods being depicted as white, darker people being in the lower casts, etc. The swastika symbol is extremely ancient and was used in India thousands of years before Hitler. As with Christ's birth, Hitler appropriated this symbol to signify what spirit of the people, or "Zeitgeist."

Same reply. ALl of this history blurs the points made and while I find it interesting, isn't . Hitler did claim to be a Christian, not an atheist.

For as concerned as some secularists claim to be about human rights, most newspapers and media outlets have ignored the secular element in the disability community that has repeatedly and loudly protested the dehydration and starvation of cognitively disabled persons and the legalization of euthanasia. It is always depicted as religious, conservative people vs. open minded, "compassionate" progressive people. You can imagine how many secular people in the disability community feel to be ignored by the media, as if they do not exist. While I have no idea where you stand on such issues, I am using them to demonstrate that for people so concerned with civil rights, the "progressive" people in the NY times, MSNBC, etc, don't seem too concerned about the disabled community. In fact, with the glaring exception of futile care laws, which exist in our country's most conservative states, secularists have been at the forefront of arguing for the dehumanization of disabled persons. Peter Singer is one example. He says that since the Judeo Christian ethic has been superseded by science, it is irrational to assign value to a human life because it is human and that parents should therefore be allowed to have disabled children euthanized, even if the disability is relatively minor, such a a learning disorder, down syndrome, hemophelia, etc.

This is a completely different thread about secular humanism and the sanctity of life. Briefly, I work as an advocate for the disabled. I am in favor of assisted suicide and euthanasia when it is appropriate. I think it is cruel to keep people alive suffering just for the sake of keeping them alive. This isn't on target with our current discussion, so I won't go on.

This tells me that the secular world is just as messed up as any faction of the religious world. For all of the attestations that secularists are more tolerant, loving, or nonviolent than religious people, many facts contradict this statement.

I have not said atheist are more tolerant, loving or nonviolent than religion people. I have no idea if they are or not. I again simply ask people to closely examine their faith against the known facts. That was my original statement and I hold to it.

The truth is is that there are bad people in every group. Selfishness, anxiety, insecurity, and violence is part of the human condition, not part of the religious or non religious condition. Any intolerance is bad, and so, I don't think that we should assign any more justification to the bias of Hawkins than to that of James Dobson.

Faith fuels people selfishness, anxiety and violence. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

You say that you want people to look at evidence. Well, many of us have and we have decided to believe in God. That does not mean that we did not look at evidence.
I am sad you went here, but you did so I will answer with honesty. The only way one could look at the evidence and still remain a believer is to deny the science or cherry pick the scripture for what is real and what is metaphor. How does one decide what to cherry pick and what to believe?
Do you believe the creation story? If not, then how do you know you can believe any of the other stories? How do you choose which stories to believe and which not to believe?

I believe in God because I sense his presence. I feel connection to Him all the time and based on my reason, I feel that that connection is based on a reality. Mathematically, I believe that the odds of everything in nature working the way it does by chance is harder to accept than the odds that it was designed that way.
A fair belief system. I don't agree with you one bit, but these are your beliefs.

As to how old the earth is, I, along with many Christians and religious people, don't care. I've never had a problem believing that God created the world in six days and that the world billions of years old.
You cannot believe the world was created in 6 days and believe in evolution. It is impossible. To make this statement you would need to back it up. The creation story directly opposed evolution. You cannot but into both because the contradict each other.

As U-Dog and Stephen have pointed out, there is a difference between faith and fact. Do some religious people feel that they have to reconcile these things for various reasons? Sure. But someone saying that the world is ten thousand years old and that we should give scientific consideration to that view is not an affront directed against you personally, or even evolution. [/quote]
Sorry, are you trying to convince me that anyone claiming the earth is 10,000 years old is not making an attack on evolution and fact? That would be a very irrational statement.

Looking at them side by side is a balanced academic exercise. When you assert that anyone who wants to consider this possibility is deluded to the extent of being dangerous, you then evidence a desire to stunt that inquiry, just as some creationists wanted to stunt the exploration of evolutionism in the Scopes trial. Saying that religious faith is inherently dangerous and that you cannot rely on evidence and have faith at the same time implies that religious people lack the capacity to understand reality and is therefore insulting to such people.
This seems to be heading toward ID vs. Evolution. That isn't really on topic. Faith and evolution are opposed on every level, I am not sure there is a way around that. Please read up on Kurt Wise, famous biologist who abandon science for creationism.

It is good to discuss these differences of opinion. That is healthy. But if you think that you are going to "open our eyes" to the "fact" that God does not exist, I agree with UDog that you are making this attempt in the wrong place. I'm willing to guess that the people here aren't any warmer to having atheism prostyltized to them as their potential salvation than they are to fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.

I don't have the ability to make anyone believe anything. I am asking they question everything and believe things based on known facts, not blind faith.

-Meghan

My challenge still stands.

1. Where did you get your info on Hitler? Just about any history book!
2. Why did you only include the six million jews and not the other 5 million victims? Those people, of course, are part of reality. already explained above.
3. You say that evil comes through religion, yet you did not comment on Peter Singer, who says that it is okay to devalue disabled people because there is no God and judeo-Christian philosophy is irrelevant. If you are truly concerned about debate regarding the impact of religion, and you feel that that impact is negative, why have you not commented on evil that is at least partially motivated by a rejection of religion? There is evil on both sides. Neither would exist if you take away the root.
4. If athiests are so caring, why did the secular media ignore the secular disability groups that have protested the treatment of disabled persons in the last ten years? Why did they stereotype the issue as being a fight between progressive secularists and close minded religious people? You asked these question above and I answered them

[andrewlittle]

(unabashedly compiled from several scientific websites)

Science is a human endeavor.
Scientists are all human, with the typical faults and foibles that non-scientists have. Sociology, politics, psychology, economics and similar aspects of human nature all have a profound influence on how science is conducted. There are innumerable instances of humans with frailties affecting the outcomes of experiments by allowing ego, profit and prestige to color the results. This does not warrant dismissing “science” off-hand, but does warrant a healthy skepticism when new scientific “facts” emerge.
Is this not also true of religious belief?

Science has rules and guidelines.
Put more correctly, different branches of science have their generally accepted rules and guidelines. The scientific method, in which hypotheses are formulated from observations and theories proceed from these hypotheses, is sometimes cited as the one and only way that science should be conducted. It is not the required paradigm of scientific experimentation, but is most often considered the best objective procedure. Science is not rigid and mechanical, so it defies simplistic regulation, just like other human endeavors.

Facts versus opinions.
"Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality but, since it is still amenable to further inquiry, it is not considered an absolute truth. Actually, an absolute truth is unscientific. Hypotheses and theories are usually based on objective deductions. Opinions, on the other hand, are generally based on subjective influences. For example, "Religion is the root of all evil" is an opinion, as is “GLBT cannot be religious.” "If I punch this wall, my hand will hurt” is a hypothesis, even though it may be a relatively accurate prediction, because the experimenter has not yet completed the experiment. "The Earth orbits the Sun," or "evolution occurs over time," or "gravity exists" are all today considered to be both facts and theories (and could possibly turn out to be wrong, however remote that prospect may be – remember, science once said the earth was flat).

Consider this from the following link, which discusses the problems of looking at science from a historical perspective, and scientist’s penchant for overlooking historical mistakes.
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/hist-not.htm
I was challenged to teach about the Copernican Revolution. But how can one convey the magnitude of this reconceptualization to 20th-century students so fully indoctrinated into thinking (knowing?) that the Earth travels around the Sun? It is hard for them to imagine otherwise--which was exactly the core of the lesson. My strategy--designed to revive a sense of the historical controversy--was literally to upend history. I offered evidence, much of it presented in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, that the Earth did not move, as the students insisted. For example, a ball dropped from a high tower falls straight down; the Earth does not move away underneath it as it falls. The sun clearly rises in the morning and sets in the evening, moving across the sky during the day. Should not a good scientist rely on observational evidence? The students were adept at describing the current interpretation as an alternative, but they had trouble justifying it. Their frustration and annoyance that someone would question "common sense" knowledge, I could point out, paralleled feelings about Copernicus' views in the 1600s. The lesson was about process of science, not history itself. The method thus aimed to appreciate the history, not to repeat it.

Opinions are neither fact nor theory; they are not officially the domain of science, but let’s not go thinking that scientists don't have opinions — they are only human, and opinions often help to institute research. Thus, science cannot directly address such issues as whether God exists or whether people are good or bad.

Another example from the above link.
The lessons from exploring error can sometimes be unexpected. Consider, for example, the case of nineteenth-century craniology (Fee 1979). Several anthropologists "knew" that women were intellectually subordinate, but as scientists they felt the need for evidence. And so they began measuring skulls. This was not pseudoscience or a shadow of science. It was science par excellence--what Elizabeth Fee has called 'a Baconian orgy of quantification'. When their measure of cranial volume as a standard began to suggest that elephants were more intelligent than humans, however, craniologists retreated to measuring brain-size-to-body-weight ratio. When that, in turn, gave birds, anteaters and bear-rats the intellectual advantage, they finessed the problem yet again, developing various other measures of facial angles and cranial indicies. Not until two women entered the field did the study of sex differences abate. Alice Lee and Marie Lewenz published data for individuals, showing that many women had cranial capacities larger than some anthropologists in the field. They applied statistics more rigorously, showing that mean differences were well within sampling error. Their science was "good" science, but why had it escaped men working on the same problem for several decades? Fee suggests that the errors were exposed or realized only when women, for whom the conclusions mattered most, became part of the scientific community. The philosophical lesson appears to be that reliable scientific conclusions depend in part on who participates in the science (Longino 1990; Harding 1992). That would be a hard lesson to learn without a striking historical example, such as this, where gender-biased error was exposed and corrected by a complementary gender-biased critique.

Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism.
Hypotheses that can never be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with understanding the nature of the subject being the objective (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences, where proof would require travelling back in time.

Acceptance of scientific ideas is based on a process of publication and peer review.
To become a legitimate theory (but still not established fact), a hypothesis must be subjected to peer review and published in an accredited scientific journal. Most significantly, this helps to maintain science as a process rather than an accumulation of facts ever creeping forward towards "all-knowingness". Theories tend to persist until a better theory is proposed and gains broad acceptance, rather than new theories being proposed for every tiny fact that is deduced.

Replication is also vital to good science
For the scientific community to accept a finding, other investigators must be able to duplicate the original investigator's findings. You cannot just fabricate your data; other scientists must be able to use the same methods (whether experimentation, mathematical calculations, formulating major concepts, measuring data, or whatever) and come up with the same results. Even then, this does not lead to absolute truths – just verifiable “facts” of reality, that may be subject to change with the next scientific discovery.

Joe, what I have heard are opinions - even the "facts" have been highly subjective. Where is the evidence you would have us theists listen to? Where do secular countries and regimes come into play - you know the nice guys like Stalin, Lenin and on and on ...? What religious beliefs prompted them to commit attrocities.

I would offer an OPINION - for what it's worth, it's one shared by a very notable non-theist - economic advantage makes the world go round, and makes even good people do bad things - never mind the truly megalomaniacal - and religion is just one of the things people of questionable morals use to control and manipulate other people into doing some really ugly things. Secular ideologies of all kinds have also been used to the same end. It's about power and profit - and the tools that are available to get the masses to do your dirty work.

To point to religion and theism as the source of evil and wars is offensive as a gross over-generalization - just as offensive as assuming democracy is the only right form of government for all populations, or heterosexuality is the only right form of marriage.

Gross is gross.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

A simple google search reveals that a number of atheists take some glee in pointing out that Hitler had a Roman Catholic background.

In fairness, this may have been a reaction to claims by some Christians who wanted to smear all atheists by claiming that Hitler was an atheist.

Unfortunately for both sides the "facts" are probably more complicated than that--facts always are. I suspect Hitler was probably more concerned about promoting his own power than he was about religious piety. Anyway, here's a couple of Wikipedia articles that point out some of the complexity of this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion

Frankly, I suspect that Hitler simply used religion just as cynically as Karl Rove and George Bush use religion for political gain. Of course, the fact that religion can be used as a tool that way is no great recommendation for religion either. We really would do better as a nation of independent thinkers not ready to follow the leader like sheep.

But I don't believe that being religious precludes being an independent, critical thinker. Where I go to church being an independent, critical thinker is a requirement.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

I would offer an OPINION - for what it's worth, it's one shared by a very notable non-theist - economic advantage makes the world go round, and makes even good people do bad things - never mind the truly megalomaniacal - and religion is just one of the things people of questionable morals use to control and manipulate other people into doing some really ugly things. Secular ideologies of all kinds have also been used to the same end. It's about power and profit - and the tools that are available to get the masses to do your dirty work.


Undoubtedly this is true, but the statement seems to imply a level of self-knowledge on the part of the person 'manipulating'. This strikes me as an assumption ie- bad people know they are being bad- and are being bad on purpose. Is this true? Perhaps in some cases. But in many other cases, those who do dastardly things actually believe that God is on their side. The aren't play acting for the masses. They believe the stuff coming out of their mouths. In that sense, it is a great evil. Does this tar all religion? That's a fair question to ask.

With this in mind, I believe ethical considerations are more important than the existence of God, though it isn't lost on me that ethical systems can be formed from a religious basis. However, social research has shown that it isn't necessary to believe in God to be good, honest and fairminded. This points out how we relate to 'authority', does it not? Specifically, where and how value is placed, and what results from said placement.

(A side point, but this reminds me of something I heard Gloria Steinem say a number of years ago: "People always vote for their fathers." Which begs the question: is Hillary man enough? :lol:)

[Joe Brummer]

Take a moment (or 45 minutes or so) to review this film from the BBC. It is very eye opening.

joe


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316

[Steven E. Webster]

Undoubtedly this is true, but the statement seems to imply a level of self-knowledge on the part of the person 'manipulating'. This strikes me as an assumption ie- bad people know they are being bad- and are being bad on purpose. Is this true? Perhaps in some cases. But in many other cases, those who do dastardly things actually believe that God is on their side. The aren't play acting for the masses. They believe the stuff coming out of their mouths. In that sense, it is a great evil. Does this tar all religion? That's a fair question to ask.


You have a good point, Daniel. Soulforce principles would have us assume that our adversary is not "evil," but is operating out of some kind of ignorance. Yet, looking at our own President and Vice President, it is hard not to conclude that they regularly practice deception in order to manipulate public opinion. Perhaps the latest example is the public repetition of the claim "We do not torture" and the simultaneous "secret" programs to do torture.

One of the progressive scholars of the neo-conservative movement suggests that the leading philosopher behind that movement, Leo Strauss, was actually not a religious believer, but insisted that religion was necessary to manipulate the public. It makes one wonder how real the piety of the Bush administration is. Bush himself, though claiming to be a United Methodist, has frequently refused to meet with United Methodist Bishops because they have challenged the Iraq war from the beginning.

I definitely believe that good ethics is independent of religious belief. In other words, murder (or torture) is wrong no matter what religion may or may not say about it. Atheists can be just as ethical (or unethical) as anyone else. In a secular society--which is what our constitution supposedly guarantees, we need to base our ethics in secular reason.

I believe spirituality is important. My own spirituality is grounded in a particular religious tradition (Methodist), but I don't believe that any particular tradition is necessarily superior to another. Nor, I suppose, is religion necessary to spirituality. By the same line of reasoning, I doubt that atheism can claim to be superior. (Of course, anyone may claim anything, but that doesn't make it so.)

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

Undoubtedly this is true, but the statement seems to imply a level of self-knowledge on the part of the person 'manipulating'. This strikes me as an assumption ie- bad people know they are being bad- and are being bad on purpose. Is this true? Perhaps in some cases. But in many other cases, those who do dastardly things actually believe that God is on their side. The aren't play acting for the masses. They believe the stuff coming out of their mouths. In that sense, it is a great evil. Does this tar all religion? That's a fair question to ask.

That's true that it shows an assumption - very valid point, Daniel. It also shows carelessness on my part when I used "morals" instead of ethics - the distinction may be small, but significant. Thanks for the correction, Daniel.

Your rebuttal, which I agree with BTW, is not limited to the religious, though. Once something is elevated to an social ideology - the belief that many/all should believe or act as I do - rather than a personal belief that governs how I should behave in the world. There have been a plethora of ideologies that have ended up being used to "do evil", or to oppress others who do not believe "as I believe".

Isn't believing that God is on your side - or the "larger good" is on your side - or the proletariet (sp?) is on your side - implying a sense of self-knowledge?

With this in mind, I believe ethical considerations are more important than the existence of God, though it isn't lost on me that ethical systems can be formed from a religious basis. However, social research has shown that it isn't necessary to believe in God to be good, honest and fairminded. This points out how we relate to 'authority', does it not? Specifically, where and how value is placed, and what results from said placement.

So very true, and to claim otherwise would be to make my faith a universal ideology. Would it not also be true that to claim that all theists are deluded would be to do the same thing? Whether God, science, the rational mind, or the approval of the majority be used as the authority - it is still looking to an authority to elevate my thought to an ideology.


(A side point, but this reminds me of something I heard Gloria Steinem say a number of years ago: "People always vote for their fathers." Which begs the question: is Hillary man enough? :lol:)

Not universally true - however insightful. I hated my father for decades - he was one of those atheists who believed in using every little bit of power over those who were less powerful than he. He was also mentally ill and an alcoholic, which was the source of his abuse, not faith or its absence.

[andrewlittle]

One piece of writing by Marx, an often quoted non-theist, that is often used to show his attitude about religion is "religion is the opium of the people." It however is a quote taken out of context.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real hap-piness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condi-tion which needs illusions. - Karl Marx, On Religion

Karl Marx has long been considered an absolute critic of religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Parts of the above quote are often used by Christians and non-Christians alike to fully express Marx’s attitude, but rarely are these snippets used within the full context of this excerpt. While this passage is, indeed, criticism it does not represent the scathing and total rejection of the value of religion that many people would have us believe. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature” does not convey the full meaning of the sentence within which it is contained, and it is rarely connected in context with the remainder, “the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.” Marx’s stance is, I believe, more correctly interpreted as a critique of society that has become heartless and spiritless – one in which, however ineffective it may be, religion attempted to be society’s missing heart and provide some hope for those in need.

In continuing with his most common quote on religion, Marx likened it to opium for the masses. What is opium if not an analgesic? Whether used medicinally or illegitimately, this drug has been used to try to alleviate physical or emotional pain; opium has been used in an attempt to escape the symptoms of that from which individuals ailed. As with most palliatives, only the symptoms of the ills were treated – the underlying causes of the sickness or injury remained. Marx’s real criticism of religion comes in the understanding of his attitude that religion had developed in a way that provided humanity with an escape from the realities of this world by offering a better future in the next life. The conditions of this life – poverty, oppression and alienation – could then be simply accepted and tolerated. In this way, Marx viewed contemporary religion as maintaining the status quo by stripping individuals of the initiative to change their circumstances. He saw that the harsh conditions within which people lived during the early to mid-nineteenth century, if not radically changed, required some source of illusion that provided hope. Religion filled this function. Marx’s argument was that, in order to remove the conditions of op-pression that made this illusion necessary, the source of the comforting illusion, or painkiller, had to be first removed. Marx considered the abolition of religion necessary in order that people find real happiness.

In this understanding of Marx’s views on religion, is it reasonable to assume that he be-lieved religion to be causal in the conditions of alienation, poverty and oppression? If a cursory look at the volume of his writings dedicated to discussion of religion is taken into account, however, it hardly seems likely that it ranks as much more than symptomatic of an errant society. Further, does Marx’s discussion of religion, especially Christianity, extant during his lifetime necessarily prove descriptive of religion in the world today? In order to address either of these questions, an examination of Marx’s economic views in general has to be undertaken, since he saw all events in history as the result of economic circumstances and trends. In reality, all of Marx’s criticism of religion was based on economics, but not all of his ideas on economics, and therefore society, were viewed through the lens of religion.

[Daniel]

Once something is elevated to an social ideology - the belief that many/all should believe or act as I do - rather than a personal belief that governs how I should behave in the world. There have been a plethora of ideologies that have ended up being used to "do evil", or to oppress others who do not believe "as I believe".

Isn't believing that God is on your side - or the "larger good" is on your side - or the proletariet (sp?) is on your side - implying a sense of self-knowledge?

Self-knowledge? I'm not sure about that. The discussion might have to include what is meant by this. It does make me think of gnosis, which, frankly, is considered suspect by those on either side of the fence.

What might be profitable (ha!) to consider is that self-interest is involved. Of course, this self-interest could be divided into a dualistic framework, that being a postive or destructive force such as the choice between compassion or greed.

However, social research has shown that it isn't necessary to believe in God to be good, honest and fairminded.

So very true, and to claim otherwise would be to make my faith a universal ideology. Would it not also be true that to claim that all theists are deluded would be to do the same thing? Whether God, science, the rational mind, or the approval of the majority be used as the authority - it is still looking to an authority to elevate my thought to an ideology. .

Are atheists looking for authority as much as theists? Doesn't the question pre-suppose that the physical and the non-physical are of equal value or weight? With this in mind, I guess the answer would depend on what one values. Perhaps this is where the cruz of the matter lies.

The beef that many atheists have with those who believe in God is that, from their perspective, the numbers simply don't add up. Theists can assert all kinds of things without the benefit of a bottom line. They can say whatever they want to without impunity. Their appeal is to the non-physical.

(Mr. Bush invades Iraq without the benefit of actual data because he believes in an implicit threat. Belief trumps reality. He also believes that history will reward him for his actions. Is it fair to say that he is deluded? Based on the evidence- yes!)

Case in point: fundies assert that gay people are intrinsically bad (God told them so), yet when asked to prove this point they aren't able to come up with objective data. Data which is readily available to anyone who is interested in the subject. Yes- they use moral assertions, but this has little to do with ethics and objective reality.

What is morality but the tradition of a community?

It was moral for the Aztecs to kill young people in order to appease their god as much as it was moral for slave owners to have slaves as much as it was moral for Egyptians to bury their royal dead with the 'help'. None of these things is considered moral today. And it's rather ironic that, while fundies are intent on denying the force of evolution, the evolution of moral thought has taken place right under their noses.

While some consider these changes to be God inspired, others look on these changes as the overthrowing of superstition.

And as for objective reality. Is it Everything? I don't know. What I do know is that- experientially speaking, spirituality - often in the guise of art and music as well as other pursuits- plays a significant part in our lives. But it would be a mistake, to my way of thinking, to confuse this with the data of a deity.

[carolb]

I heard John Stewart say something like "Well no wonder Mother Teresa had doubts - if she didn't want doubts, she shouldn't have started working in Calcutta." Now, of course, John Stewart is a comedian (as well as commentator on EVERYTHING) but it's hard to look around and see suffering constantly, with not much improvement as time goes by. I had the privilege of going to Calcutta more than once, and it makes you wonder where God is...

Mother Teresa had sayings that said she helped one person at a time, and through that she saw the face of Jesus. Maybe not FELT God, but come on, unless you are really rare, we don't feel him/her. I have tried to remember that - we can only love one at a time. Although I realize that I can change minds about how the Church should be (accepting of all people) but I can try to love, one person at a time, and see Jesus.

[u-dog]

IMother Teresa had sayings that said she helped one person at a time, and through that she saw the face of Jesus. Maybe not FELT God, but come on, unless you are really rare, we don't feel him/her. I have tried to remember that - we can only love one at a time. Although I realize that I can change minds about how the Church should be (accepting of all people) but I can try to love, one person at a time, and see Jesus.

Amen! Preach it sister!

[Progo35]

Quote: Progo-

Some people, such as Peter Singer, say that it is okay to devalue disabled people because there is no God and judeo-Christian philosophy is irrelevant. If you are truly concerned about debate regarding the impact of religion, and you feel that that impact is negative, why have you not commented on evil that is at least partially motivated by a rejection of religion?


Quote: Joe Brunner-There is evil on both sides. Neither would exist if you take away the root.

Progo's Response to Joe:
So, what you are saying is that if we just let people like Peter Singer have their way and got rid of religion, this would prevent bad things based on a lack of religion. That is not logical because it is a circular argument. Moreover, you did not explore how a lack of religious belief may contribute to this kind of thinking, even though you supposedly want us to rearrange our perspectives on religion causing bad things. Please respond to this.

As the wikipedia article indicates, your assertions about Hilter are not in "any history book." Obviously, Hitler's ideology was focused on making the Reich supreme and subverting any kind of spirituality for that purpose.


Progo's Reply/Reflections in Respect to Whether Hitler used Religion like Bush:
Although, Steven and Daniel, I don't think that it is fair or accurate to compare Bush to Hilter. I think that Hitler did use religious imagery/concepts to push his agenda, and he intentionally murdered people. I definitely DON'T think that Bush has intended to murder anyone. Moreover, I don't think that his appeal to faith is helpful in manipulating the general society. And, I do think that people are selectively choosing what Bush has done to make him look as bad as possible. I personally think that he's done some good things since being president: like giving more money to education for minority, low income and special needs students, devising new programs to help the homebound, and agreeing to support stem cell research from a supply of private donors, which is a reasonable compromise between parties involved. I wouldn't get all of my information about Bush from Media Matters, The New York Times, or MSNBC: they all hate Bush. Not that I think that you should get all your info from Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, or other conservative sources. Personally, I'd be most inclined to listen to the people who have been there. Now, obviously, there are serious problems associated with his leadership as well: Guatanamo, Katrina, Futile Care Law (which was an attempt to help vulnerable patients who were being given NO notice before being denied care but obviously backfired, and, in my opinion, he should have seen it coming...

But, no president is going to have a perfect record, especially after the travesty of 9/11.
Moreover, if we're naming names in placing blame for 9-11, Clinton was in office for 8 years prior to the attack, and there were obviously major holes in his presidency as well. If not, there would have been better intelligence in place when Bush started his presidency.

So, I actually think that it's kind of rude to compare Bush to Hitler because that minimizes the atrocities that Hitler committed and ignores/dehumanizes those who have actually been helped by some of Bush's policies.

[Joe Brummer]

Progo,
I have to ask. Did you rush your responses?

Joe

[Progo35]

Joe:

I have to ask: Do you always assume that someone rushed or did something else discrediting before answering when you don't want to answer their questions directly?

[Joe Brummer]

Joe:

I have to ask: Do you always assume that someone rushed or did something else discrediting before answering when you don't want to answer their questions directly?

NO, I sincerely wanted to know if you rushed. I have already proved I am willing to answer you questions and concerns. I took great time in doing so and would again.

You reply seems to be jumpy. It is hard for follow. I couldn't have picked it apart or I could ask if it was a rush job that lacked a few things you wanted to add but didn't have time.

Would you prefer I jump to conclusions?

[Joe Brummer]

Friends,

A simple google search reveals that a number of atheists take some glee in pointing out that Hitler had a Roman Catholic background.

In fairness, this may have been a reaction to claims by some Christians who wanted to smear all atheists by claiming that Hitler was an atheist.

Unfortunately for both sides the "facts" are probably more complicated than that--facts always are. I suspect Hitler was probably more concerned about promoting his own power than he was about religious piety. Anyway, here's a couple of Wikipedia articles that point out some of the complexity of this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion

Frankly, I suspect that Hitler simply used religion just as cynically as Karl Rove and George Bush use religion for political gain. Of course, the fact that religion can be used as a tool that way is no great recommendation for religion either. We really would do better as a nation of independent thinkers not ready to follow the leader like sheep.

But I don't believe that being religious precludes being an independent, critical thinker. Where I go to church being an independent, critical thinker is a requirement.

Steven Webster


Hitler was raised a Catholic. Simple and plain. What he believed in his heart is unknown to us. He was not an atheist as earlier claimed. This is also not on topic with the thread.

[Progo35]

It's perfectly on topic with the thread. You, Joe, allege that Hitler was Catholic. Steven posts an article questioning that. You now say that Hitler was raised Catholic, which, of course, is quite different from him being Catholic in adulthood. Many athiests were raised in Christian homes. But when they became athiests, they obviously stopped being Christians. Thus, it is not consistent to argue that Hitler's ideology had a basis in Catholicism because of what his parents taught him. Yes, we know that his parents were religious. So where Jeffry Dahmer's parents. Are you going to argue that Jeffry Dahmer's Christian upbringing was the motivation for his murder and consumption of human beings in adulthod? That he had sex with corpses because he thought that Jesus told him to? I think not.

I clarified my response to make it easier to follow. It wasn't rushed but it does seem a bit difficult to follow without re-reading it a few times.

[Steven E. Webster]

Although, Steven and Daniel, I don't think that it is fair or accurate to compare Bush to Hilter.

In fairness, I don't think it is fair or accurate to say that I compared Bush to Hitler. Both men probably put on their pants the same way, one leg at a time--but that doesn't mean that I'm saying they are exactly the same. What I am saying is that Bush and his neoconservative team make a cynical use of religion to manipulate people for political purposes. I've also mentioned other presidential candidates and wonder if they, too, are misusing religion. I'm not comparing any of them to Hitler--but Hitler was a politician, and he used religion for his political ends.

Religion is NOT a requirement for office in this country--that's in the Constitution. Shows of piety tell me nothing about a candidate's actual values or real qualifications. I would be impressed with a "compassionate conservative"--but, in my opinion, Bush used that phrase cause it played well in focus groups, not because the phrase had any real meaning in terms of his policies. Compassion seems to be distinctly lacking in his performance as President.

Personally, I think Bush IS a real embarassment for Christians. The man must have skipped Sunday School the day they talked about "Blessed are the peacemakers." That's why alot of United Methodists like myself are organizing to stop his Presidential Library from being located on the campus of Southern Methodist University.

When you think about it, Christians would be alot better off if politicians would keep their faith private--the ones who make a big show of their religion so often bring embarassment to the faith.

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

Moreover, I would like to add that if Hitler were an atheist, it wouldn't mean anything about athiests in general, anymore than the crusaders being Christians means anything about Christians in general or the 9/11 hijackers mean anything about Muslims.

From what I can tell, Hitler had a slightly pantheistic ideas about reality, insofar as he believed in an impersonal force, called the Geist, that had chosen him to exert its will as Germany's superman leader. This is documented well in Hitler's accounts of his assassination attempt and in his discussions of Nordic legend.

[Daniel]

Progo's Reply/Reflections in Respect to Whether Hitler used Religion like Bush:
Although, Steven and Daniel, I don't think that it is fair or accurate to compare Bush to Hilter.

I never mentioned Hitler in any of my posts. I did, however, reference the current occupant of the White House in regard to how belief can be misused.

[Progo35]

Steve-

Okay, I can see that. Thanks for clarifying the issue.

Daniel: Sorry, it was just that I/we were talking about Hitler and I thought that your comments about faith and Bush were related to that. So, excuse me.

[Joe Brummer]

It's perfectly on topic with the thread. You, Joe, allege that Hitler was Catholic. Steven posts an article questioning that. You now say that Hitler was raised Catholic, which, of course, is quite different from him being Catholic in adulthood.
Hitler was raised a catholic, while he disagreed publically with the church, he never denounced the church. There is no eividence to such he was of another demoniation. THis is also not to imply he was a good Catholic, but he never deounnced the church either.


Many athiests were raised in Christian homes. But when they became athiests, they obviously stopped being Christians. Thus, it is not consistent to argue that Hitler's ideology had a basis in Catholicism because of what his parents taught him.
Hitler held a connection with the Catholic church well into his adult life and his life in power. Please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
Hitler also tried to incorporate the Churches into his new regime. On March 23, 1933 he had called them "most important factors" for the maintenance of German well-being. In regard to the Roman Catholic Church, he proposed a Reichskonkordat between Germany and the Holy See, that was signed in July. In regard to the Protestant Church, he used church elections to push the Nazi-inspired "German Christians" to power. This, however, provoked the internal opposition of the "Confessing Church".




Yes, we know that his parents were religious. So where Jeffry Dahmer's parents. Are you going to argue that Jeffry Dahmer's Christian upbringing was the motivation for his murder and consumption of human beings in adulthod? That he had sex with corpses because he thought that Jesus told him to? I think not.
We don't know his parents were religious, or at least I haven't seen that. I am not dignifying the dahmer comments with a response as they are pretty insulting.


I clarified my response to make it easier to follow. It wasn't rushed but it does seem a bit difficult to follow without re-reading it a few times.

Thank you for doing that.

[keltic63]

This is also not on topic with the thread.

This thread went off-topic long ago. Now I'm going to monitor it. It seems that many of the participants have long ago left the topic of the original post and seem to have some need to prove that they are "right." Unfortunately, given the discussion, it seems that no one can really "win" this argument. Continue your discussion, but if things remain as contentious as they appear to be now, I will lock this thread.

keltic,
your loving moderator

[Joe Brummer]

This thread went off-topic long ago. Now I'm going to monitor it. It seems that many of the participants have long ago left the topic of the original post and seem to have some need to prove that they are "right." Unfortunately, given the discussion, it seems that no one can really "win" this argument. Continue your discussion, but if things remain as contentious as they appear to be now, I will lock this thread.

keltic,
your loving moderator

I cannot speak for others, but my intention has never been to win an argument, but have my argument understood and respected. I would hope that is also the case with others in this thread.