Lula, how does God teach you or anyone else anything … I wish He would just stop by and say hi? God came first in your scheme of things and seemingly was known to many before the Bible was a concept … how did your God communicate with those illiterates without the benefit of your compilation of wisdom? Who is next in the line of succession below God the lord, Jesus the king and then who … how does this Godly knowledge filter down to the peons? A few lines should suffice Lula…

Ah, once again, using the Inquisition to try to slam the CC and Catholicism. The over 450 year old historic Inquisition is a favorite stick with which anti-Catholics engage in Catholic bashing. The Inquisition complex is a mental obstacle second only to even an appreciation that A) Jesus Christ is the predicted Messias and of the fact that He and His Catholic Church are the fullfillment of all that is great and glorious in Old Testament principles and predictions.

It would be well for you to realize the historic fact well known to students of religious history, that inquisitions, though not so specifically designated, were common in Jewry during the pre-Christian centuries, when the Jewish  ecclesiastics and priest were the authoritative teachers, protectors, definers, and judges of God proclaimed principles and practices as are Catholic ecclesiasticals and priests today.

The most famous inquisition in history, is the one that was conducted by the Sanhedrin under the headship of the high priest Caiphas before which Jesus was tried, convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messias, and turned over to Pilate the civil authority, who ordered the Romans soldiers to crucify Him. IF Jesus had been a Messianic pretender, As He was charged with being, the action of the Inquisition would have been justifiable. This is said becasue Jesus, being a Jew, was subject to the Mosaic Law, which declared, "He that blasemeth the name of the LOrd, dying let him die: ...." Lev. 24:16. 

Furthermore, Jesus condoned the death penalty handed down by Pilate.

All of the files and archives of the Medieval Inquisition have been opened. BBC produced a documentary called, The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, and for those who really want to know discover that the notion that the Inquisition as some blood thirsty, all encompassing horrible monster could not be further from the truth.   

The short answer is Christ never condemned the Inquistion which btw, is the forerunner of our modern day court and penal system.

Christopher Hitchens - The Catholic Church.

This statement can't even be replied to.   Once again I am astounded.

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

Basic wrong asumptions about scientific thinkers and religious thinkers:

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

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

Science: HOW?

Religion: WHY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my two pence.

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

How do you know how you would feel if you were not a person of faith?

I could use the without having the "experience" claim you tried to make earlier however I know it has no merit going in either direction so that would simply be taunting you. What makes you think atheism is exclusive of faith? It isn't. People have faith in many things and many faith based religions are atheistic so you are heading in the wrong direction to start with. The difference between you and what you "perceive" as atheists is who and what entities and institutions they have faith in and the degree of faith (trust) they have in those entities. So please define exactly what you mean by faith and what or who it is you that you have faith in that directly leads you to believe in your God?

If you do have faith in the existence your "God" what is that faith based on and how were such truths revealed to you?

Since when is that required to simply not believe in god? In the broadest sense of the term it is simply an absence of the belief of deities. There is nothing built into the term that prohibits consideration of anything.

Dismissive of others people "claimed observations" is more like it. Beware of false Prophets is the way I like to paint that one. I am dismissive of the observations that are claimed by people who I have little or no no faith in. I had plenty of faith in the pastor who preached at my church as a kid and plenty of faith in others who I personally know and talk to about religion. However not enough to believe that certain things are "The word of God". etc, etc. etc. and ultimately have come to believe that god is merely a word constructed by men to convey an ideal.

As far as collective accounts...should somebody look at all the religions and believe in line with the one that has the largest flock? Christianity doesn't come close to accounting for all 7 billion plus individuals on the earth. Not to mention you seem to believe that there are genuine and non genuine Christians. What account do you have of talking to your God that you are willing to account for.? Do tell. Or do you have so little faith in your so-called faith that you find it hard or impossible to explain?

Maybe you should actually do some research on atheistic religions before you make claims that have absolutely no basis. Or are you the one who refuses to consider actualities and not what you perceive to be "The Atheist". Personally I believe some religions use God to make people think they are submitting to God instead of knowing that they are actually submitting to "rules" made by men. But hey that's just my observation so please feel free to dismiss such a non collective observation. After all I don't want you to think my atheistic ways are trying to tell you what to do any more than I want you to think your "God" does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good point. No one should reject the principle of human evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the spirit!  Join the fray!

I just knew that they conspired against the American people by keeping this nifty free energy stuff from us hehehe.

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