1. Comment #81186 by koldito on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 am

Given the circumstances, we should expect the Catholic Church to revoke his sainthood any time soon, right? Or at least acknowledge that liars can also become saints.

Other Comments by koldito

2. Comment #81190 by BicycleRepairMan on October 24, 2007 at 11:26 am

Holy Shit

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

3. Comment #81197 by Nails on October 24, 2007 at 11:46 am

The Catholic Anti-Defamation League?

Papal infallibility?

And people really beleive in this nonsence?

You only have to read Christopher Hitchen's account of his testimony as 'devil's advocate' in the mother teressa affair to realise that they only believe what they want to beleive.

Deluded indeed.

Other Comments by Nails

4. Comment #81203 by jimbob on October 24, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Oops, there goes #9 again!

Other Comments by jimbob

5. Comment #81207 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 12:11 pm

"We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility".

Oh, how lovely.

"We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."

With your brain shut off, and/or with your mouth shut, apparently.

Other Comments by Diacanu

6. Comment #81228 by Ducklike on October 24, 2007 at 1:05 pm

More proof that the concept of "sensationalism as a cash cow" is not lost on the Vatican. Who cares about his legitimacy if the crowd still buys the T-shirts. See similar Story. Besides, what's one more crazy saint added to the ever-growing list? It isn't like they were expected to be respectable in the first place; just famous. (Infamous?)

Other Comments by Ducklike

7. Comment #81231 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm

koldito,

Catholic Sainthood cannot ever be revoked. Because as Pietro Siffi rightly pointed out, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.

So that would be admiting papal fallibility, they are better off supressing such evidence.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

8. Comment #81276 by ryanbooker on October 24, 2007 at 2:22 pm

'Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.'

We'd like to remind you that popes are infallible, because a previous pope said so.

Other Comments by ryanbooker

9. Comment #81298 by stereoroid on October 24, 2007 at 2:49 pm

I kept hearing about this Padre Pio when I was growing up, thanks to my Catholic mother. No explanation of who he was of what he did, just that he was nearly a saint. Is that it?

As for "Catholic Sainthood cannot ever be revoked"... what happened to St. Christopher? De-canonized in 1969, not that it stops millions of drivers having stick-on St. Christophers in their car: he was called the patron saint of travel, after all.

Other Comments by stereoroid

10. Comment #81306 by Corylus on October 24, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I flatter myself that I am a fair-minded type so before commenting I took a minute to look up the various uses of carbolic acid (I figured there was a slight possibility that the Padre was merely using it to shift those stubborn kitchen stains that other cleaners can't reach).

Basically:-

1) Can be used as an anti-septic, but not often as on contact with the skin causes severe irritation (redness, burns etc). Tricky stuff too see too because it is colourless.

2) If injected into the heart can cause instantaneous death.

3) Used in research for DNA purification

4) Used in surgery for ingrown toenails.

Well, 2, 3, and 4 seem unlikely (especially more than once).

So looks like #1 seems to be our boy.

I admit my source was only wikipedia so if anyone else wants to posit an alternative explanation for the padre's pharmacy* visit then I am all ears.

Until then well... Liar, liar pants on fire.

*Wasted opportunity too, there are lots of other wonderful things that you might want to purchase from a pharmacy in secret. For example,

1) Athletes foot powder (I have some of this in my bathroom - apparently good for dhobi itch too - whatever that is ;-)
2) Preparation H
3) Lavender bath balls (why choose to smell like your ancient aunt??)
3) Those magical nasal inhalers than clear the nostrils of stubborn snot.

The list is endless.

Other Comments by Corylus

11. Comment #81312 by neander on October 24, 2007 at 3:12 pm

The Catholic Anti-Defamation League

Guaranteed proof that the religious will go to any lengths to block free speech and remove our civil rights. You can bet that they will be trying to sue Sergio Luzzatto!

Other Comments by neander

12. Comment #81329 by BaronOchs on October 24, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Various things are believed about Padre Pio, including that he could be in two places at once, fly (yes) distances of several hundred miles and back in one night, and that he appeared as a giant figure in the sky to WWII bomber pilots.

When Pope Paul VI upheld the church's ban on contraception pio wrote him this letter which is a grotesque masterpiece of cocksucking sycophancy:

http://www.ewtn.com/padrepio/priest/pope.htm

Interestingly he is supposed to have had the stigmata since 1918, a year before he bought the acid, although he revealed this only to his confessor!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

13. Comment #81351 by kaiserkriss on October 24, 2007 at 4:02 pm

In the name of god, nut cases like PP (seems appropriate doesnt it) can justify ANYTHING their warped little minds can make up including faking a stigmata to impress his fellow cell mates. When all you are doing all day is "praying" , idle hands and minds can come up with the weirdest ideas.

Just look at the picture with this article, the guy looks as though he just escaped from a mental asylum.

I vaguely remember hearing about this whack job as a child from devout catholics, who as the Baron suggested above, thought this delusional idiot could be in 2 places at the same time. He probably just had a "doppelgaenger" just like most of us. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

14. Comment #81438 by Crazymalc on October 24, 2007 at 6:01 pm

This sort of claim is easy to dismiss.

One Pharmacist saying that he gave him some acid is hardly a convincing agrument that he faked his stigmata.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

15. Comment #81484 by Michael P. on October 24, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Sister Katherine Something-or-Other was the most noxious, vile wretch of a woman that I ever had inflicted on me as a "teacher." She was of the breed that thought one's posture a sign of good character and "godliness" - I'm not kidding, folks. It was probably when I was in fourth grade that I had to listen to a lecture on his blessedness Padre Pio, who should be known by his birth name, Francesco Forgione. He was held up as a shining example of how we, as good Catholics, should conduct our lives.

I've no idea if Sis is still with us, but if she is, I would SO LOVE to shove this in her face. Perhaps I should look her up, for old time's sake...

Other Comments by Michael P.

16. Comment #81596 by Philip1978 on October 25, 2007 at 12:22 am

Corylus
I think I have figured it out, he used the nasal snot clearer and then promtly sneezed into his hands, "Bugger!" he said in Italian, "how can I wash this stuff off?"

Whilst absent-mindedly pontificating about his snot covered hands, he reaches over and as bad luck would have it, grabs the acid thinking it is soap. Whilst pouring it over his hands some accidentally drops on to both his feet, "I will clear that up in a minute, first this devilish snot must be smote from mine hands!"

The snot soon disappears quickly, dissolving in the acid, "Crickey!" he said again in Italian, "This stuff is great, praise be to God, he must think I am special to bless me with such great soap!"

A few moments later, holes start appearing on his hands and feet, lo and behold he realises now that God loves him even more! :)


This sort of stuff really confuses me, why, when God inflicts pain upon his believers do they suddenly leap up and praise him even more for giving them this special injury? "Oh joy, it wasnt enough that God did it to Jesus by letting the naughty humans shove nails through him, wow, joy of joys the bastard has done it to me too! Yiiiiiippppiiiiiiieeeee!!"


Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

17. Comment #81834 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 25, 2007 at 8:58 am

"We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.

"We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."

Ah, for the old days when he could have been put under house arrest for a few decades, or taken to the Campo de Fiori to be barbequed, with his tongue in a gag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_de%27_Fiori

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

18. Comment #82179 by Arcturus on October 25, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Forgione? How ironic that he changed his name :))

Other Comments by Arcturus

19. Comment #83329 by brother john on October 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Jim Gallagher was a free lance journalist and author who wrote for both religious and secular press in Britain and abroad. He was based in London. I don't know if he is still alive. He was visiting lecturer to the Robert Schuman Institute of Journalism/European Media Studies, specializing in postgraduate training of journalists all over Europe. He also worked in video production and has had films translated into French a, Russian and Polish. He had a particular interest in the development of twentieth-century spiritualities, which is why he took on the biography of PP.

Sergio Luzzato's book is the sort of oddball book that appears now and main purpose is to make money and cheap notoriety for the author.

Jim Gallagher is a different kettle of fish. If any of you want to read a detailed biographically sound account of this unusual man, Jim Gallagher is your man. I've had my copy for yonks.

baronOchs. Well done for your dating. Right it was 1918. (Gallagher's book p 83 and on). As for the letter: I can see why you call it what you do. Pretty pewky to our ears – even mine but - if you knew the culture of Italy and Italian Catholicism at the time(and PP's character) you would understand that PP was not cocksucking. He was no sycophant – which you'll see if you read a decent biography of the gent.

Kaiserkriss: no "whack job", no" nutter" no "warped little mind". A sometimes stern man when he had to be man. Very caring. A man for people. The project closest to his heart was a great hospital. He did not want it to be a hospital with clinical corridors and the dingy rooms he had experienced during his military service, but a home-from-home, bright, airy for sick people.

No one was to be turned away. It would be free for those who could not afford to pay. The finest doctors were to be employed , paid a just wage. And he got it built. I haven't read about it recently. I hope it still has the kindly caring spirit he wanted for it and that it had at its inception.

Corylus – at least you did some research. But acid would not do the job. Apart from anything PP was subjected to frequent medical examination. The Vatican gave him a really hard time. It was full of hard-nosed ecclesiastical bureaucrats. They would have been glad to get shot of this troublesome priest.

Michael p. You're quite right about noxious old nuns. There were quite a few. Fortunately most of them have died out by now. And gone to their Maker. What a roasting they will have got for treating children the way Sis treated you. (I use the word "roasting"metaphorically.)
I'm a man with a sense of justice. Which is why I find the idea of God's judgement rationally soberingly satisfying. No one will get away with anything!
I've just watched the sickening Channel 4 programme on corruption in Africa. Does it satisfy you to think that the bloodsuckers like those portrayed in that documentary - especially the rich ones - will most likely get away with it on Planet Earth? It doesn't satisfy me.

I'm putting together an Atheist Creed. I may even call it the Atheist's Twenty Nine Articles. I'm not making the Articles up. I put into words the beliefs that clearly underlie comments made in the quiet, balanced, rational corridors of these forums. Just found another article of that creed in reactions here to PP. (It was a breath of fresh air to read Crazymalc's sane quietly rational comment.)

Article 5"Where believers are concerned, the flimsiest tawdriest piece of evidence can be used to pour scorn on them. Where they are concerned the good atheist will not even bother to check out the evidence. He /she will consider this beneath him/her. This will both save energy and time and increase the Good Atheist's well-earned feeling of euphoria at A-Good-Hatchet-Job-Done-for-the-Cause."

Ah. Your brother John


PS. This may interest some of you. A bit of ammunition for you against priests who are no priests at all. Who are the antithesis of what they should be, with no real respect for either God or people. Charlatans.

Many years ago, when still a student, I read a selection of Padre Pio's letters. He used a phrase for these kinds of priests which I have never forgotten.

To understand why he uses this particular imagery, you need to remember the Catholic belief about the Host and the Wine in Mass. It becomes the very presence of Christ. So – they handle Christ as it were.

"These butchers" he called them. "These butchers" - men who mangle Christians and Christianity by their life-styles.

Do you recognise your scorn for such "mummery" in his angry phrase? "Mummery" is too kind a word for what such empty men, such charlatans, indulge in.
They tarnish, and debase to almost meaningless mumbojumbo, what should be a religious re-enactment of the Last Supper, an event full of pathos and the deepest significance. A symbolic event that is meant to encapsulate all that Jesus Christ was and stood for.

kaiserkriss. Just look again, a little more closely, with a more open mind at the look of this guy in the picture that accompanies that unfortunate letter. Look at the eyes. Not a lunatic look. In the little wafer that he holds he "sees" a man crucified. His look is focused on that man - and on the love that man showed for all he came into contact with and were not up their own *rses or indifferent to the aches and sufferings and fears and hopes of others. To me those eyes seem to have a gentle light in them.Am I wrong?

Other Comments by brother john

20. Comment #83333 by brother john on October 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

leeobee,
What do you mean? Sorry, I don't get exactly what you're saying.
Spell it out for a simple man.

bro john

Other Comments by brother john

21. Comment #83368 by Goldy on October 29, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Letter in the Independent

Fathering a fraud

Sir: So Padre Pio, who became a cult figure through displays of stigmata, was thought by two popes to be a fraud (report, 25 October) . The question is not so much how Pio tricked the masses (as it were), but how he managed to keep his face straight. Two blokes, both of whom claimed to be God's representatives and have infallibility granted them by the Holy Spirit, accusing a priest of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes? I haven't laughed so much since the last Father Ted episode.

Sean Cordell

Sheffield

Bro J, try some of the religious sites for rationality too ;-) Then come back and see how we compare...

Other Comments by Goldy

22. Comment #83422 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 2:17 am

Goldy
I've read Sean Cordell's letter. Understandable reaction from him – but not knowledge based.
"Bro J, try some of the religious sites for rationality too ;-) Then come back and see how we compare..."
Goldy. I'm quite ready to admit that you may find religious sites that don't come up to my or your standards of rationality.
I'd love to have the time to carry out such comparisons. But I haven't.
My simple appeal to you good atheists is that you don't rush to accept any old rubbish to denigrate a provenly good person. (Luzzato's book is money- making trash.) If a believer behaves irrationally, it doesn't make it OK for an atheist to do so.
===
You DO make a great show of being superior to believers in all sorts of ways. This is a general drift of the vast majority of the posts and quoted articles/speeches/lectures I've read.
I'm simply saying to you – and your co-nonreligionists: how about moderation, care on facts and less obvious delight in smearing other humans?
You expect others to be bound by evidence and integrity. How about showing some yourselves? (A general question. Not directed at you personally.)
====
Never mind about papal infallibility. What about atheist impeccability?
You DO give the impression that you are the sinless ones. That's the impression you give me – a man who takes great care not to slur others. But who will hit them hard once he is certain that he has understood the situation accurately and fairly.
Are there no psychotics among atheists? Are there no child abusers, no wife beaters, no slanderers, no lazy sods, no libellers, no greedy money-grabbers, no exploiters of employees, no unprincipled politicians, policemen or women etc among you atheists? Of course there are.
You may even have your percentage share of serial killers.
===
Goldy.You are a part of humanity and you have your share of its failings, weaknesses and evil. Let's have less of the implied holier than thou of much atheist talk on the forums. There are 3 kinds of shit:
1) the natural sort – good necessary though usually smelly stuff, that aids growth of plant life (and hence animal life)put in the right places.
2) The religious sort: holy shit
3) Atheist shit.

1) Is OK 2) and 3) are NOT OK.
I produce my fair share of number one. You hopefully do too. I sincerely hope that both of us produce as little as we can of two and three.
That's a thought. Two honest people (ie those who can see their own failings as well as those of others)people ought to carry out two audits. A good atheist ought to carry out AN ATHEIST SHIT AUDITand a good Christian ought to carry out A CHRISTIAN SHIT AUDIT.
Then – for fairness – they should change roles. Theatheist doing the Xn one and the Xn doing the atheist one. Compare the results. There shoud be substantial similarity.

Any takers?
Your god go with you. (Yes. I know who used to say that. We used to watch him before he went to see his Maker - who, please note, in solid Xn theology, gave him his sense of humour - and therefore must have a sense of humour himself - and equally must and does enjoy a good joke- tho not many preachers seem to reflect on this.).
Want proof? Well, if He didn't have a sense of humour, He'd have gone mad a long long time ago. That's a joke - not theology- which - I know, Richard does not believe in - peace to the good man.)


Other Comments by brother john

23. Comment #83430 by Goldy on October 30, 2007 at 2:47 am

Bro J, I think you're sticking labels where they are not applicable. Religionists and non religionist, athiests and theists, they are all people. Some are shits, some are the delights that make life worth living. Whatever a theist can bring up, an athiest will match. Why? Because they are all people. Whether or not they believe in a god is immaterial, it does not impinge on their character and is not part of what they are. A shit is a shit, a mate is a mate. T'will ever be thus.
Don't waste time trying to fit people into a label, wasting breath and words on seeing a "tribe" as shitty because they don't believe in a god. You will get uppity athiests just as you get uppity theists. As it is, the uppity theists appear to have some advantage in their belief of a concept I can't see as possible.
You may know by now of George Bush Snr's views of athiests (not even worthy of the citizenship they possess) and the views of theists of athiests in the media editorials. We are smug and arrogant? How so? Especially when told because we don't believe in a supernatural thing? For this we are arrogant?
You can see our point (well, mine at least...I have been called arrogant and deluded and damned and immoral - all points I reject because the accuser needed a..a...what can I call it? A non-existant security blanket? A belief in a good god that kills and maims, that throws a petulant temper at its creation and destroys it all, even the innocent and does this with our thanks? How stupid!).
So, less judging athiest for their views and more judging the individual for their own unique views. I am an athiest - I am not a shit. I am an athiest - I judge the person I see on an individual basis, not by their deluded beliefs. They can believe what they like, call it a maker of god or spiritual advisor - if they are nice, I'll like them, if they are shits, they'll get the short thrift from me.
And yes, I do enough shtting. I tiled that room myself and I enjoy sitting there, away from wife and daughter, surveing my creation and thinking where I could improve. I do try and move before the legs go dead, mind ;-)
Man makes himself, he is a product of his genes. God isn't there - he didn't make anything. If he did, millions of others are wrong. Who's to say that for certainty? No gods, ergo ALL believers are wrong :-) Much fairer than just some being worng, eh?

Other Comments by Goldy

24. Comment #83431 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 2:59 am

Where believers are concerned, the flimsiest tawdriest piece of evidence can be used to pour scorn on them. Where they are concerned the good atheist will not even bother to check out the evidence. He /she will consider this beneath him/her. This will both save energy and time and increase the Good Atheist's well-earned feeling of euphoria at A-Good-Hatchet-Job-Done-for-the-Cause.

I really would not advise doing that. I think when it comes to evidence, the appropriate phrase to describe believers is 'people in glass houses should not throw stones'.

I don't want to sound too harsh, as you come across as a decent fellow, but it looks like you are picking the wrong fights.

Other Comments by steve99

25. Comment #83440 by irate_atheist on October 30, 2007 at 3:40 am

20. Comment #83329 by brother john -

Not a lunatic look. In the little wafer that he holds he "sees" a man crucified.

Now, luckily you and I are sound enough of mind to know that he does not 'see' this in reality. Are you suggesting, however, that he sincerely believes that he does? Just a question - neither of us can, of course, know the answer to it. If we knew he did sincerely believe it, would you reconsider your 'Not a lunatic look' assertion?

P.S - I didn't feel myself that he looked like a lunatic. After all - what does a lunatic look like?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

26. Comment #83466 by BaronOchs on October 30, 2007 at 5:14 am

"baronOchs . . .if you knew the culture of Italy and Italian Catholicism at the time(and PP's character) you would understand that PP was not cocksucking. He was no sycophant – which you'll see if you read a decent biography of the gent."

Actually brotherjohn I see your point there.

Regarding Cordell's letter [post 23] I thick this conceals an important point. The church is standardly suspicious when an individual or a series of apparitions gains great popular support because these can gather their own momentum and become alternative centers of gravity to the church hierarchy.

As a case in point I was searching some time back for some good critical analysis of the events at Medjugorje, I didn't find that much actually (anyone got a good lead here), but I did find a fair amount of material from ultra-conservative catholics attacking the apparitions. Taking the line if they were genuine they would have stopped as soon as the local bishop condemned them. And on a relevant point the church will verify even pretty much any apparition if the things said are orthodox, but throw out seemingly more convincing cases because they are not!

And as for Medjugorje I can't help wonder why she doesn't think of anything more interesting to say, instead of the same pious mush everyday for 25 years.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

27. Comment #83589 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 1:48 pm

BaronOchs.
You don't know what a breath of sensible fresh air you are! Great to meet someone who can see two sides of a coin!
On Medjugorje. First about the same old pious mush of the Mother of Jesus. Can I give you my experience and feelings. 1) You are right. She does hit the same old topics: prayer, closeness to God, repentance (change of life), the importance of Scripture to mention some.
2) I have listened to/ read many of them. They are spot on. I presume you are not a believer, so that is not your reaction. For a Xn believer who means business in his/her faith, they are a real encouragement to walk the tough road. No " Christianity on the cheap"(Bonhoeffer) here.
(Excuse that short defence from one who loves this wonderful woman. Good women are quite something: Maya Angelou puts it brilliantly in one of her poems.)
3) Her main point is her desire as a mother i to point us, sorry! I'll rephrase that...point those of us who believe as she does, to the way to peace.
As for critical analysis, I can't really help. I have got up in the attic (I think), two or three books which though not classifiable as "critical analysis" may be helpful. I'll see if I can dig them out and send you the references – tho whether they are still in print... I remember one section deals with the gruelling number of psychological tests that the then young people were put through , and came through, as perfectly normal.
Good luck.
Let me know if you find something

Other Comments by brother john

28. Comment #83600 by BaronOchs on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm

brother john I'm glad you don't get your christianity on the cheap!

As for Medjugorje the fact is I have been presented with rosaries that are turning to gold and claims of spinning suns etc. Has anyone ever tried to verify scientifically that at least one of these rosaries are actually turning to gold?

Anyhow allow me to adopt a christian perspective here to ask you a few questions. You suggest what I attacked as repetetiveness and banality is in fact underlining the simple yet demanding nature of christian life.

I suppose I can see the point but in that case what of "the ten secrets"? Christians are supposed to believe (correct me if wrong) everything of necessity to their salvation was revealed in first century galilee and recorded in the gospels. And that this revelation was remarkable for its simplicity and openness. In which case isn't it somewhat low to think 2000 years hence the mother of the saviour is sharing arcane and macabre secrets with a select circle of bosnians.

Surely it is a distraction and the spirit of we've got a big secret and you don't know it is antithetical to the gospel.

(Answers from a non-christian perspective of course could be suggested at this point!)

Other Comments by BaronOchs

29. Comment #83619 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Goldy May I answer inbetween your sentences?

It's going to be a long one!! But it is important ins't it to try to understand one another?

25. Comment #83430 by Goldy on October 30, 2007 at 2:47 am

Bro J, I think you're sticking labels where they are not applicable.
[Labels are useful, surely? They show where we come from. Rough signposts to the world view, possible assumptions etc.]

Religionists and non religionist, athiests and theists, they are all people.
[Absolutely agree.]
Some are shits, some are the delights that make life worth living. [Ditto] Whatever a theist can bring up, an athiest will match. [Probably ditto]
Why? Because they are all people. Whether or not they believe in a god is immaterial,....

[Here B I G disagreement! Living the teaching of Christ genuinely, not playing at it, is character changing. The biggest change is in the change to loving as Christ loved – See my blog www.theheartofgod.co.uk the chapter on transformation. I quote the example of a big bruiser, whose name escapes me just now. That says what I mean about God being a changer. I Hasten to add: it's nothing to do with saying, I'm better than you are – that's the opposite of Christ's teaching. He like you, tho with differences, says "Remember You are all people" Not his actual words, but the sentiment is part of his whole approach.]

it does not impinge on their character and is not part of what they are. [[as previous.]

[Can I tell you one of the central points of what the carpenter from Nazareth brought to the attention of those who find him totally persuasive? A few lines from the section in John's Gospel, the section which gives what Jesus said at what's called the Last Supper, a couple of hours before he was arrested.. I think i prefer to let you look it up for yourself. If you want to follow this up you'll find one somehow. John chapter 17 verses 18 -23. The Last Supper conversation starts at chapter 13.

I certainly recommend you read it if you want to get to the heart of Christianity or – better – to see what is at its heart. If it seems like gobbledegook, drop it. It's not for you. If it strikes chords though, read on. ]

A shit is a shit, a mate is a mate. T'will ever be thus.[Agree and disagree]
Don't waste time trying to fit people into a label,[I don't. Do I give that impression? If so: sorry. I once read that there are as many variants on Christianity as there are Christians. We all have our own "take" on it, tho, if we are genuine followers of the teaching of Jesus, the central areas will be largely the same.The one similarity there will be is total allegiance to the Messiah]

wasting breath and words on seeing a "tribe" as shitty because they don't believe in a god.[I have never done that and never will do it. I've re-read my post. Where on earth did you get this horrible stupid judgmentalism]

You will get uppity athiests just as you get uppity theists. As it is, the uppity theists appear to have some advantage in their belief of a concept I can't see as possible. [It is not a concept, Goldy. Christianity is totally about persons]

You may know by now of George Bush Snr's views of athiests (not even worthy of the citizenship they possess) and the views of theists of athiests in the media editorials.[Unfortunately I do. I have a friend down south (of England) who has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury to suggest that it is high time we stopped demonizing atheists and started supporting them in their fight for equal acceptance in society. It is scandalous the attitude of people who are supposed to be Christians especially in America!
He has had no reply yet. Surprise surprise. The letter probably didn't even get to him, but got stuck on some secretaries desk. He can't read everything. He's a decent man but...
Richard is right, it seems to me, in what he says about the US in TGD.. In fact maybe I ought to print that letter on my blog some time. Not right now because I don't want to interrupt the flow of points.]

We are smug and arrogant? How so? [Goldy. So many posts seem to carry a superior tone...but I said it all in my post. The chief way that this superiority comes across is in the accusation that we are not rational, that we have no evidence, that we are suffering from indoctrination at an early age. The straight answer to that – is that it is a rubbish generalisation. There! Straight speaking! It is arrogant and stupid for anyone who does not know me to tell me that i am this that or the other – when all my life I have fougtht to keep my independence of thought..under God.

Under God, yes.It's the most rational and logical thing under the sun to be dependent on God once you have come to believe his existence. Cripes! The Creator of this universe that we are privileged in our day to see far more clearly. What a stupendous more-than-miracle it is. It is a miracle times infinity of a miracle!

What an idiot a man would be who believed in the Creator and at the same time believed that he knew some things better than God! Worse than an ant telling Einstein he's got a few things wrong!]]

]Especially when told because we don't believe in a supernatural thing]? [No. Not from me! You have every right to believe as you do. We MUST, ALL of us, follow what our conscience tells us. Anything else spells disaster for the health of our personality.l]

For this we are arrogant? [I repeat, the arrogance of many posters is in their attitude to us, in what they imply about us. Not because of what you believe. Have I made myself clear? I would never want to offend you because of the nature of your belief. I uphold your right to follow your belief – as long as – it is a THOUGHT OUT, reasoned position based on your experience, reading discussion etc

[ I believe yours is just such a position. Your sincerity comes out in what you write, in the feeling that comes from it for me. In my post I was trying to say:" Give those of us who are sincere in our faith the same acknowledgement that I give you. Say, "I don't believe as you do, but I admit you are sincere and have what you think are valid reasons for your faith. I canrespect that." Many of your co-nonbelievers do not seem to say that. That's the problem. That's the arrogance and intolerance and smugness.]

You can see our point (well, mine at least...I have been called arrogant and deluded and damned and immoral - all points I reject [and you were right to reject them – and I reject them for you and with you]

because the accuser needed a..a...what can I call it? A non-existant security blanket? A belief in a good god that kills and maims, that throws a petulant temper at its creation and destroys it all, even the innocent and does this with our thanks? How stupid!).

[You may be right in seeing here the need for some security blanket. I tend to believe that you are dealing with what I call "the hardness of so many peoples' hearts" NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING to do with God who is the opposite. He has a place in his heart for EVERYONE. NO FAVOURITES WITH GOD – THAT IS IN THE Bible, in the book of Malachi. A text too many Christians take no note of obviously.]

So, less judging athiest for their views and more judging the individual for their own unique views.
[Dear friend: that is EXACTLY my viewpoint. If I have given the wrong impression, then forgive my words that did not express my meaning clearly.]

I am an athiest - I am not a shit.[Absolutely!] I am an athiest - I judge the person I see on an individual basis, not by their deluded beliefs. [Don't you mean "by what I consider to be...their deluded beliefs". You see; you are saying that my beliefs ARE deluded. You are claiming to know the truth. I don't talk about "YOUR deluded belief" do I? That is an example of arrogance on your part – the ONLY example. And I suspect that your apparent arrogance is NOT intentional, but an accident of the words you used.]

they can believe what they like, call it a maker of god or spiritual advisor - if they are nice, I'll like them, if they are shits, they'll get the short thrift from me.[You and I are one in spirit. We have he same approach to life and people. Perhaps there is a difference, I will sometimes be patient with the shits in case they are victims of their upbringing etc. To hope and pray that they may change. But they do need to be opposed on some occasions with firmness.I always think: What would I be if I had been born in their family and had the experiences of life that they have had?]

And yes, I do enough shtting. I tiled that room myself and I enjoy sitting there, away from wife and daughter, surveing my creation and thinking where I could improve. I do try and move before the legs go dead, mind ;-

[I too have found that the toilet is a place where my own spirit can come up to consciousness. Other people – even the ones we love, do get in the way of this. This is a revelation of the importance of the freedom of the self to be itself, think its own thoughts, contemplate its own focal points. This inner eye is the road to wisdom. You and I obviously seek the same thing from life, tho yours is in an atheist context and mine in a theist context. I am not sure that "theism" is the right word.

Bishop John Robinson, who wrote Honest to God believes than ""panENtheism" is more accurate – not "pantheism" – all things ARE God – but "panentheism" – God is IN everything, everything in God.I must check what he says. I am reading his book: Exploration into God. He is a thinking Christian man. I love his mind and spirit.]

Man makes himself, he is a product of his genes. God isn't there - he didn't make anything. If he did, millions of others are wrong. Who's to say that for certainty? No gods, ergo ALL believers are wrong :-) Much fairer than just some being worng, eh?

My version of your last paragraph: your words are in capitals.

MAN MAKES HIMSELF.....A human being, as they mature, shape her/his personality by their choices
HE IS A PRODUCT OF HIS GENES................genes are crucial determinants in the physical realm of ones being, perhaps even in the psychological and spiritual traits.

GOD ISN'T THERE......................God is here: "in God we live and move and have our being". By our choices, by our life style, we determine whether we want also to be shaped by his influence. God relates to each individual in a completely individual way so that in his love for them and understanding of their circumstances and personality a persona need not come to a belief in God during their time on earth. But in the "face"-to-"face" meeting with God at death each person makes a choice whether to accept the God they now see as He is and his offer of eternal loving companionship with Him and the companionship of all those who have chosen to stay with Him.

Those whose lives have been intentionally and stubbornly evil, and with full inner knowledge of what they were doing definitively rejecting their ability to change, will experience two things.

1) Their own inner being moving away with the most radical revulsion from a Being whose whole nature(Love for all) is the opposite of theirs (hatred of others)

and 2)the irrevocable command coming to them from God to go away from Him to a dimension of existence where their kind of evil is "at home", where they will not have to put up with the God whose being and sight they cannot and will not tolerate.

(All I have said in this section, Goldy, is just your comment about how you treat shits and the short shrift you give them transposed onto a cosmic plane. Your reaction is very simple analogy to the reaction of God to evil people who refuse to change even after they have seen exactly how He is in himself.

Or put it the other way: what the shits in your life feel about you as they meet you is a simple analogy of what evil people will feel about God on meeting Him. Water and oil cannot mix.....Where do I get all this? From lifelong prayerfilled reflection.)

HE DIDN'T MAKE ANYTHING.........all things were made by God for us as the universe within which we "make ourselves" as you might say.


I don't quite understand what you say in the sentence beginning,IF HE DID THEN MILLIONS OF OTHERS ARE WRONG.........All I can say is this. What counts with God is not whether we were right or wrong but whether we lived following the light we found within ourselves. Call it "conscience" call it "inner light" call it "moral sense" - call it what you like. Call it "our moral compass".

your brother, john

Other Comments by brother john

30. Comment #83633 by brother john on October 30, 2007 at 6:12 pm

30. Comment #83600 by BaronOchs on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thanks for reply.

"As for Medjugorje the fact is I have been presented with rosaries that are turning to gold and claims of spinning suns etc. Has anyone ever tried to verify scientifically that at least one of these rosaries are actually turning to gold?"
I know of the spinning sun and "MIR" ( in the sky, but never heard of rosaries turning into gold. Contact with M has been minimal in recent years. But – if there are gold turning rosaries, then they will have been – or will be – scientifically investigated. The ecclesiastical authorities are hard-nosed bods often quite sceptical.
===
"Anyhow allow me to adopt a christian perspective here to ask you a few questions. You suggest what I attacked as repetetiveness and banality is in fact underlining the simple yet demanding nature of christian life."

" suppose I can see the point but in that case what of "the ten secrets"? "
Caught again. Sorry either I don't know what the 10 secrets are/were or I've forgotten!

"Christians are supposed to believe (correct me if wrong) everything of necessity to their salvation was revealed in first century galilee and recorded in the gospels."[ Right! But add the letters as well – as very important for they were written by the men specially chosen and tutored by Christ. His chosen witnesses for they lived with him.]

" And that this revelation was remarkable for its simplicity and openness." [Right. It's the intellectuals who get into trouble.]

" In which case isn't it somewhat low to think 2000 years hence the mother of the saviour is sharing arcane and macabre secrets with a select circle of Bosnians"
[I see your angle. Valid from your perspective. But "arcane and "macabre" don't do th messages justice. There's (understandably) a very critical spin to those two adjectives. 1) Secrets are a problem. The revelations at Fatima had the same problems. There were 3 things that the visionaries had to keep hidden for some time.
It does cause problems. I'v e just bought a little book on Fatima and haven't quite seen the point of the secrets. They are to do with a terrible punishment if believers(not non-believers) don't pull their socks up (Our Lady does not use that rather trivial phrase) and pray and pray hard for peace. There was also the theme that Russia, if not converted (and only prayer would convert her) would spread her errors throughout the world.

I don't get too hot under the collar about this, because it is difficult to make full sense of what is being said. And as you so rightly say – It's all in the Gospels! We shouldn't need (us Xns) extra input from whoever.

But – and here is the very personal bit of the Roman Catholic tradition – Mary, like the good, the very best mother that she is to us, IS concerned and wants to urge us to PRAYER. I put that word in capitals because it is absolutely CRUCIAL
Prayer is totally of the essence of our following of Christ. Groups of Christians should be 2 things 1) They should be faith-filled praying communities 2) They should be active in showing care for those around them, of whatever belief or non-belief, of whatever colour or social group – in particular the poor and the outcast, the despised, the abused.

And it is prayer that Our beloved and lovely Mother of Jesus always bangs on about. Precisely because it is so fundamental. Because prayer is no more than our daily, loving companionship and dependence and love and worship and trust etc of God

"Surely it is a distraction and the spirit of we've got a big secret and you don't know it is antithetical to the gospel."

[Dead right. Will have to make you an honorary theologian. Mind you – that might upset you. It will certainly upset Richard D who believes Theology is not a science. Confession. It was only yesterday that I began to wonder if he had not got a point in objecting to the word "science". I have always said that it is – though obviously not in the identical sense that biology is a science. It is more of an art – but that may not mean much to you. I've got some thinking and praying to do on that subject....
To get back to your points. Revelations can be a distraction. Religious humans are great at going for the sensational and missing the hard serious kernels. Those who have gone the distance always warn against hankering after signs and wonders. Not a healthy hanker, that!

And they are problematic. There has been a lot of accumulated experience in the Church over the inherent problems of visions. That's why visonaries get such a hard time.
Are they genuine? Are they self-produced. Are they the result of our own thoughts? Creativity?..And over the centuries criteria have been developed. Primarily: how do they square with the teaching of our Saviour and the understandings of that teaching that have gained acceptance within the body of believers.

So, I've said a lot about their being problems and problematic. But, for balance I must add, the genuine ones can be helpful to many sincere people. They can illuminate or illustrate the Gospel from different angles with different personalities and circumstances involved. It has been my own personal experience that the ones I have followed with interest have been often quite helpful in increasing my commitment to Christ and to people (ALL people, not just Xn believers).

And I'm going to put the next bit in caps because of how crucial I feel it is. THE PEACE OF OUR WORLD IS IN JEOPARDY, isn't it? HOW MUCH VIOLENCE. Darfur, Northern Ireland as was. Burma. Israel and the surrounding nations. Iraq. Afghanistan. Iran. America' attitude. The ever active threat of Islamism. The harm done by Christian fundamentalism, North Korea. China- especially re Tibet. The heavy hand of capitalism which is a monster that grinds the poor and the weak into every greater poverty or slavery when it is divorced from morality, from just wages and fair living conditions, when God Mammon rules the shit strewn roost.
The problem of migration or immigration. Huge poverty and inequalities. (Did you see the Channel 4 documentary last night on corruption in Africa.?) The enormous threat of Global Warming. The growing violence of our young people. How uncared for they are. (Yes, there is good all around. It doesn't hit the headlines. There are good groups of people in the Christian Churches, God is not dead yet – nor will He ever be.)

The what seems to me deepening materialistic emptiness of the West, spreading eastwards. For me as a believer, the worst weakness, the most dangerous one, is the weakness of the Church – especially what I call the Big Two – RC and Anglican. The barrenness of so much so-called Christian faith – much of it like salt that has lost its taste. "What is it good for?" asked Jesus – and he had a pretty trenchant, frightening answer! The Gospel is life-affirming, liberating,rebuilding of shattered lives and extinguished hope, generous spirited – and demanding of self-sacrifice.

If you want a good read, find a copy of "Run Baby Run", by Nicky Cruz. There's a life-textbook on what Christ can do and is doing in our day. More profitable, riveting, than books on Medjugorje - though I would be the last one to do down my dear Mother and what she does in her own way for world peace.

No gain without pain – especially not in the area of the Gospel of the man on whom the religious authorities of his day took out the equivalent of a contract.

Have I missed anything BaronOchs? sure I have.

We are going to have to learn – all of us – a new way of living that will allow our Planet to continue living and thriving - or go under. And personally, BaronOchs, I believe we can only do it with the help of the One whose name is not flavour of the month in Richard's website. Tho in truth its not HIS non-belief that is the big problem. It's the non-belief in practice of large swathes of the Christian Church, beginning at the top people, - the ones called to be shepherds of the flock after the image of Jesus Christ, who literally laid down his life for his sheep, as opposed to living off them and feeding them pap or half cooked food.
Someone said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has not been tried." Not for a long long time I think it was G K Chesterton.
People in opposition always focus on papal infallibility to criticise. Just as important, in fact more important, is the "sense of faith" generated in the faithful body of believers by God's Holy Spirit. He guides the whole Church (not just the hierarchy or the pope) to see what is in and involved inn all the things Christ said and did and his apostles passed on under his tutorship. "The Spirit will lead you into all truth," said Jesus. And that was not just for his day. It is a process that will go on as long as evolution keeps ticking away.
Any one who has the "we've got a big secret and you don't know it" spirit certainly doesn't know Christ very well as you suggest.

your brother, john

Other Comments by brother john

31. Comment #83639 by Goldy on October 30, 2007 at 6:46 pm

[Here B I G disagreement! Living the teaching of Christ genuinely, not playing at it, is character changing

So is living the teaching of Buddha, Mohammed, Zeus. So is realising that YOU are in charge of your actions, that what YOU do decides how others see you, decides, in a way, your status in society, not God or gods. Having children is character changing, as is having a heart scare, realisisng how big you've gotten with all that good living (errr, I might be talking from experience in those last points - all are being addressed!). People are people - they are what they are. Some have the strength to change, some don't. Your big bruiser maybe had a rough time of it and lashed out - what changed him was solace, not God or Christ. Mohammed would probably have done the same. So, probably, would psychiatry.
OK, skipping a bit - was late when I wrote before and maybe I missed a few of your earlier points.

What an idiot a man would be who believed in the Creator and at the same time believed that he knew some things better than God! Worse than an ant telling Einstein he's got a few things wrong!]]

But if the ant had something to contribute, who is to say, so arrogantly, that it is not worthy of attention?

That is an example of arrogance on your part – the ONLY example. And I suspect that your apparent arrogance is NOT intentional, but an accident of the words you used

I apologise - it was late. You are right - who am I to judge delusion and reality? I am sorry.

Your reaction is very simple analogy to the reaction of God to evil people who refuse to change even after they have seen exactly how He is in himself.

Difference between me and God is that i don't know they are shits until I meet them. God has always known. He knows everything to be, everything that is and everything that ever was. He knew they would not change before even their existance.

I don't quite understand what you say in the sentence beginning,IF HE DID THEN MILLIONS OF OTHERS ARE WRONG.........

Count the number of creation stories that are and were. Are they wrong? Do the believers of these myths follow false stories, false ideas, because they earnestly do not believe in God? Remember that wee ant...
I'm sorry if my reply had the tone that you were saying something you were not. However, though some of the posters here do have a high and mighty tone, it is also dependent on how we read their posts. Maybe the tone is us - maybe we just put emotion into the reading that was not there initially. Maybe, maybe...lots of things - we don't know and yet we judge by words on a screen. You are very theistic and I hear a slight hint of moralisation in your posts. I, again, apologise if that is not there when you write.

A human being, as they mature, shape her/his personality by their choices

And don't underestimate the power of genes - in many cases we are what we are because we are made that way. We have choices, but in many cases these are made for us. Ask any homosexual when he or she decided to be gay. You'll find the choice was made before they even knew waht sexuality was. I'll try and find the relevant research if you like. Who knows, the reason you see God in everything and I don't might just lie in our respective genes. It is not God but simple DNA....
A jumping, muddled reply, I know. Getitng ready to go and pick up wife and daughter so I can take them to the dentist. Just a quick skim - but I'm sure you'll be able to read it OK.
As to your last post - is world peace really in jeopardy? Didn't I read somewhere that even Africa has less wars now? Maybe the quiet before the storm - who knows...

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #83648 by Diacanu on October 30, 2007 at 7:27 pm

(Sings)
Mama mia, Padre Pio, sister ate my diahrrea!!

Oh no!! Not that!

Yes that!!
Not that!!
Yes that!!
Not that!!
Yes that!!

....ahem, okay, that's out of my system now, I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Other Comments by Diacanu

33. Comment #83719 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 3:33 am

Goldy,
apol on "deluded" gratefully accepted.
2.I agree with all the examples you give of character changing events. But I still maintain that the Davey event (big bruiser) is in a different category.I don't think you read it. Do if you want to see what I was thinking of when I said "character changing" ( http:/www.theheartofgod.co.uk/?m=200707 ) It is the chapter, letter, entitled "Gangster Face to Face with God" dated July 16th.

3. Re the ant. I agree. Sorry. Thanks for the useful point. I will try to remember ot to make that mistake again.

4. You are right too about "the tone" of posts. Sometimes it is how we read them. I noticed that in myself especially when I first came on the website.
5. Moralising tone? you may well be right. Morality, right action, actinaccording to principle is so much a part of my thinking (not always consistent with it myself like any other human being), it is so much a part of normal living (isn't it? for a principled person?) that it is simply part of my life, part of how I am. So it is bound to appear. Is that wrong? I think it is normal. But not pontificatinga at others, telling them how they should behave, what they should do. One can advise if one thinks that will be helpful or beneficial. We all do that when we think it is important for the other person.

After all, the underlying message of the vast majority of atheist posters on this site is the well intentioned advice:"I hope you will one day see the emptiness of your theism.It will be the best thing you have ever done. Discover the freedom of thinking for yourself with no god or gods hanging round your mind."

just as the subtext of Christian posters is:"I hope you will one day see th emptiness of your atheism. It will be the best thing you have ever done. Discover the freedom of thinking for yourself having got rid of the fear that God cramps your style."

6. Do I imply that all the other creation stories and religions are wrong? No. They are part of THE SEARCH. The most important thing is that we SEARCH for the truth. It is being on the right road. A determined, sincere search in solidarity with all other struggling human beings human beings and with our Planet IS being on the right road?

Does the last para sound "moralistic". I hope not. It's simply what I believe.

I'll have to say Cheerio with this post.

Thank you for our conversations. Useful. We NEED to expose ourselves to the other side, both for the insights they give us and for the way it forces us to examine our own way of thinking and speaking. Don't you agree?
If believers only speak with believers, they will not move on. They will reinforce both their good points and their bad ones.

And exactly the same applies to the atheist.

We must not live in mental ghettos. Agreed? I suspect you do.
Kind wishes,
Your brother in the human race, john.

Other Comments by brother john

34. Comment #83725 by BaronOchs on October 31, 2007 at 4:07 am

brother john it was the secrets in particular not the messages in general I reffered to as arcane and macabre. In any case lets forget about Medjugorje since you raise more interesting matters in your post.

i.e.

The what seems to me deepening materialistic emptiness of the West, spreading eastwards.

My personal view: I'd say a closeness and a connection to the natural world that once existed has been lost as modern life has advanced. I'm being neutral here since that closeness was all too often part of a life of great hardship and suffering.

However now we have cocooned ourselves away to the extent even the seasons can seem a triviality, and we have so much unnecessary artificial lighting the night sky has become half orange.

True also that we have done so much damage to the natural world in the past century. I suggest however the residual desire to maintain the beliefs of the past intact is also an obstacle we have to overcome. It has been shown to be a dead end.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

35. Comment #83726 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 4:08 am

Goldy,
forgot one point to finish 6. If we are searching, I said, I see us as being on the one right road: whether atheist, buddhist, hindu, rastafarian, Christian,agnostic - whatever.
We respect the other's right to their view, their belief.

What I want to add is this.
If the occasion arises - and if we agree, then we can share our different viewpoints, share what we consider are our strong points, share too our questions, reservations, disagreements or ignorance of the other's viewpoint.

Throwing accusations or charges of being wrong at the other is not very productive!
There may of course be times in our sharing of views when we have to admit openly that we consider x or y in the other's belief to be harmful, wrong, unbased or whatever. Being open and honest (and fair to the other person) may demand this.

A real discussion on important matters where views differ are bound to be sometimes uncomfortable for one or both parties. That's life. But even these uncomfortable explosions can be springboards for progress in one's thinking, I have found.

Other Comments by brother john

36. Comment #83776 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 8:17 am

brother john it was the secrets in particular not the messages in general I reffered to as arcane and macabre. In any case lets forget about Medjugorje since you raise more interesting matters in your post.

i.e.
The what seems to me deepening materialistic emptiness of the West, spreading eastwards.
BaronOchs.
OK. Let's leave Medjugorje.
I agree that the "closeness and connection with the natural world has been lost by very many – the majority? But there is also a growing awareness of the dangers i that loss, don't you think?
I understand what you say about the "hardship and suffering attached " to a world in which that closeness was a felt thing. Of course our generation has its own kinds of hardships and sufferings: some small, some very heavy, not to say tragic.
Some time last week I had a sudden perception of a rush in many people to fill their lives with the latest gadgets or commodities – all those things on sale in "the High Street" –all because they have nothing more satisfying to the deep inner self to feed its hunger.

This rush to buy, changing and throwing away each time for the latest version– creates an enormous drain on the Planet's resources, which has brought it to its kneesl And behind the scenes the multinationals and other industries goading this mad acquisitiveness on – because it makes mega bucks – for the fat cats and the shareholders – not for the often very poorly paid workers, if not slavery paid workers on the production line.

This applies even to food....The unnecessarily large huge portions of food, the plunder of the seas to feed our ravenous maws. How tragically thoughtless. Lemmings running towards the precipice edge as fast as they can – with their mobile phones glued to their ears!

It was a sobering vision, to say the least.
You finish with, " I suggest however the residual desire to maintain the beliefs of the past intact is also an obstacle we have to overcome. It has been shown to be a dead end."
I presume with this you are saying: bring in atheism. Do. What does it offer?
My dear friend, follow your path. To its end. When we have both finished our journey of life,the very minute after the second of us has dropped dead by what ever means or in whatever circumstance. Probably that will be you. I think I'm a fair bit older so, by the law of averages I should go first - let's meet up and exchange experiences on what our journey brought us. Only then (let's presume there is at least a day or two of continued existence for us to have our audit together)t hen, and then only will we be able to judge the relative merits of our life views.
Whether you are right – or me.
Or whether we are both wrong.
Or both partly right, partly wrong.
In the meantime, even though we do not know one another except through a few cyberspace conversations – I suggest that we care about each other's welfare and hope the best for each other.* Agreed?

It is not a matter of wanting "to maintain the beliefs of the past" Atheism goes back as far as religious belief. So if you suggest we abandon belief in a God BECAUSE you think IT'S OF THE PAST – be a consistent rational logical atheist and abandon atheism too – for that is every bit as much OF THE PAST.
Your belief and mine are of the PRESENT. The question is which of us is right? Because, in fact, inspite of what I said above, we CANNOT both be wrong.
Am I right in saying that only evidence and experience (and the evidence and experience of others ) can answer which of us is right?
I hope the intelligence, the rationality, the sanity of taking the life experience of others into account is self-evident to you as it is to me. Otherwise we are only left with saying "Only I know the truth..Only I can assess evidence correctly. The whole of reality is as I alone see it."...I don't ascribe to that sad sick egomania. I presume you don't either.
Perhap you would prefer to substitute the "I" with "my group"? OK – if that is your preference. It may not be. Whatever. Then instead of solipsist mania, we have group mania. "My group alone knows the truth. Only our group can assess the evidence correctly. The whole of reality is only as we see it."
"It" has been shown to be a dead end. Sorry. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, but I'm not sure what "it" is. If it is the "residual desire to etc" again I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. I will simply assume that your two sentences:
" I suggest however the residual desire to maintain the beliefs of the past intact is also an obstacle we have to overcome. It has been shown to be a dead end."
are a brief summary of the atheist agenda as portrayed, for example, by Richard D.

If I am wrong, please forgive me.
May I make an observation. That as atheism has continued to exist since the appearance of this weird creature homo allegedly sapiens to the present day, so has religious belief. Each, if you and I are anything to go by, as strong and vigorous as ever.
So the question pops up: What is it, or what combination of factors is it, that explains this power of endurance to the satisfaction of two reasonably intelligent, rational, evidence and experienced based individuals like you and me?
My suggestion is that we both keep this question inside us and mull over it till enlightenment comes.
Finally, will you allow me, as a follower of the Man from Nazareth, to say one more thing. (I know you can't stop me. It's just a roundabout way of saying I want to say this.)
Do you know the difference between Richard Dawkins and God? It's fairly simple.There is a place in God's heart for Richard. There is no place for God in Richard's heart.
A sincere blessing (humanist of course) on your life's journey.
Your brother, John

Other Comments by brother john

37. Comment #83777 by brother john on October 31, 2007 at 8:20 am

Goldy.
Second addition. Missed your last para because I rote so late.
Agree too with your advice not to leave genes aside. Absolutely agree on the homosexual example.

Adieu!

Other Comments by brother john

38. Comment #83790 by irate_atheist on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 am

38. Comment #83776 by brother john -

If I, an interested observer, may interject from the sidelines.

So the question pops up: What is it, or what combination of factors is it, that explains this power of endurance to the satisfaction of two reasonably intelligent, rational, evidence and experienced based individuals like you and me?

To paraphrase Shakespeare, 'that is the question'.

We, or at least I, simply can't understand it. I guess I would need to be inside someone else's head to do that.

To wit, I was brought up, in many respects, to be religious - attending Sunday school and all that - but I quite clearly don't believe it. In many respects having to spend some time as a child doing this may well fuel my ire. All those lost days, weeks and months in total! But I digress.

Possibly in the way that some individuals are more linguistically inclined and others more mathematically able etc, perhaps some are more religiously inclined and vice versa. Mayhap, we will never know.

I suspect in my case it's a tendency towards the skeptical rationalist end of the spectrum.

You may ask what would it require for me to believe in a god or gods. If I were honest, I would say 'a lobotomy'. For I would have to lose so much knowledge to do so. Perhaps that marks me down as a dogmatist. Well, if so, so be it. But an interesting question for me to ask is, what would it require for you not to believe? Perhaps it's an impossible question to answer.

May I just add that it's a pleasure to have you here. I, and hopefully you, have noticed that your posts on various topics are being treated with at least some degree of respect.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

39. Comment #83809 by BaronOchs on October 31, 2007 at 11:04 am

brother john! another interesting post, well allow me to attempt an inadequate and provisional layout of how I view these questions.

So Homo Sapiens emerged off the Savannahs however many millenia ago, their mental capacities expanded to an unprecedented level. Unlike any predecessor indeed we can describe them as active creators of ideas. Ideas were/are of essentially two uses to the species:

1. Providing a technical understanding of the world that enables them to control their environment to their advantage. This has reached a very sure footing in modern science and technology with all its good and bad consequences.

2. Understanding, directing and ordering our immediate experience: i.e. finding ways to comprehend love, joy, happiness, despair, boredom and so forth. Or more generally enabling us at least to tackle the questions: Is life of worth, or what in life is of real worth, or what makes for a genuinely worthy life?

Certain ideas gain a remarkable strength and profusion and among these is certainly the idea of God. How to express this idea? Perhaps as the idea of events and phenomena in the world we occupy being supervenient to a power or powers external to it. In high monotheism this takes the form that there is one single absolute and necessary being upon which the existence and nature of all else is derivative. In christianity this is taken even further, not only is all that true but you can somehow relate to this being on an entirely personal level. Let me claim right away that no one fully beliefs or appreciates the claims to gods absoluteness and fully beliefs in gods personalness. Let me also say Christians who claim a personal relationship with god no doubt have various powerful and transformative experiences associated with their faith but they all know themselves at a subliminal level the claim of personal relationship is figurative not literal.

But anyhow I suppose the god idea was seen as relevant to both 1 and 2 although it is now largely exiled from 1 and as for two . .well that is what we are discussing!

My understanding of your position is that we enter this world with the path to full and everlasting life ready and waiting, we have merely to submit to God's plan and live by his commands.

This is exactly what I don't believe for reasons I won't attempt to layout here. I will recall what Christopher Hitchens says though, that our religions all too obviously bear the marks of human creations, not divine ones.

But pause and think at this, if homo sapiens created religion in its entirety then on the one hand humans can't blame anything else for the malign aspects of religion, but on the other we can accept whatever potency and value we found there is only the product of sytems of our own making! Everything we might have lost with the decline of religion can be reclaimed. It won't be any easier the second time that the first, and this time we can't pull the wool over our eyes with regard to facts about the world, and we shouldn't wish to either.

As a final note the idea of some afterlife meeting to "compare notes" as it were is attractive. Being honest however I have to say, I can only faintly recall many thoughts and experiences of even less than a year ago that may have seemed of great significance at the time. hence the problematic nature of the idea, having arrived in the afterlife I would probably be unable to say much that interestingly reflected the journey that led there! Would a better response be to regard the constant fading of energies and memories and the unceasing changes we pass through in life as being equivalent to a gradual and unfrightening death. So we die as we live so to speak. I'd say this works to an extent, of course you may well point out it isn't really consolation for the abrupt and too often sad and painful nature of real physical death.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

40. Comment #83857 by Goldy on October 31, 2007 at 1:41 pm

:-)
So long, Brother John. May you continue to find peace in life.
Mike

Other Comments by Goldy

41. Comment #84235 by brother john on November 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Dear BaronOchs.
I'm afraid I am going to have to quite posting here – with much regret. There is one thing I must do before I leave – to thank you (THANK YOU) for cdiscussing with me. It has proved very useful.
It is SO necessary to expose ourselves to others – especially those who are diametrically opposed to us. The only way
-"we" can get to know "them"
- the only way that "we" can refine, hone, correct our own thinking with the experience of life" they" have.

I hope you will believe that you (whoever you are, whatever you look like etc)are in my heart – and will be till I drop dead and we meet again – for we will here – or there.
Bye for now.

And dear Irate atheist.
Thank you too. What would it take for me not to believe.
It's as real a question as asking me, What would it take for me to stop believing that my wife is real. I have met her. She is here. I live with her daily. I love her. I will, I hope, prove that I will lay down my life for her.
Go in peace dear friend led by all that is good and true and honest and caring in you.

Your brother, both of you, John (and anyone else with whom I have had the privilege to dialogue).

Other Comments by brother john

42. Comment #84236 by brother john on November 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Dear BaronOchs.
I'm afraid I am going to have to quite posting here – with much regret. There is one thing I must do before I leave – to thank you (THANK YOU) for cdiscussing with me. It has proved very useful.
It is SO necessary to expose ourselves to others – especially those who are diametrically opposed to us. The only way
-"we" can get to know "them"
- the only way that "we" can refine, hone, correct our own thinking with the experience of life" they" have.

I hope you will believe that you (whoever you are, whatever you look like etc)are in my heart – and will be till I drop dead and we meet again – for we will here – or there.
Bye for now.

And dear Irate atheist.
Thank you too. What would it take for me not to believe.
It's as real a question as asking me, What would it take for me to stop believing that my wife is real. I have met her. She is here. I live with her daily. I love her. I will, I hope, prove that I will lay down my life for her.
Go in peace dear friend led by all that is good and true and honest and caring in you.

Your brother, both of you, John (and anyone else with whom I have had the privilege to dialogue).

Other Comments by brother john

43. Comment #85758 by black wolf on November 7, 2007 at 2:47 am

I've just had a little conversation with a Christian about sainthood and infallibility. He informed me that the infallibility involved in the process, as mentioned by Siffi in the article above (the original quote is on the CADL website) is not to be confused with the infallibility of divine truth, as in ex cathedra declarations. Apparently Catholicism accepts a few variations of infallibility.
Concerning truth, knowledge and trust, he had this to offer:
"The Christian belief in the non-visible effects change in the visible. The "evidence" comes from the personal reality check. This requires the personal devotion to Christ. Who does not want to devote himself is blind to these facts. Therefore faith = confidence and knowledge are not opposites. Without trust, there is no knowledge."

Other Comments by black wolf

44. Comment #85760 by Russell Blackford on November 7, 2007 at 3:00 am

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read the, er, wisdom from Pietro Siffi. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford