Slashdot Mirror

Not only that, but the Russian Orthodox Church announced that Stalin was "the divinely anointed leader of our armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion" after he abolished the League of the Godless in 1942. He may have been an atheist, but he had the willing support of the Christian Church in Russia.

What was that saying about good men doing nothing again?

You can logically prove that a soul doesn't physically exist in this world. However, the soul just so happens to be spiritual and cannot be represented by matter alone, therefore that conclusion is left up to whether or not you believe God exists (which the Catholic church does).

So let me get this straight: the soul has no observable effect on the universe, yet it exists anyway? Could you clarify what leads you to believe this hypothesis? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you somehow.

Assume for a second that all life is sacred. Assume for a second that sex was never meant to just be a pleasureful act, and was meant to represent the love of God Himself by allowing us to spread that love another generation by "becoming one" in the act of sexual intercourse.

So what you're saying is, basically, "assume that I'm right"?

How about this: I don't accept your assumptions. I reject them, because they assume facts simply do not exist. You leave the quality "sacred" undefined; you'll have to give a definition if you want me to accept that life is sacred. The entity you term "God" is not in evidence, as there is exactly zero evidence for such a creature - and, lest I start sounding like a broken record, it is also undefined. The existence of meaning behind the existence of an action is not in evidence; you'll have to provide a plausible hypothesis for why such a thing would exist, which I think will be tricky given that there is no evidence for the existence of a God Who "meant" for sex to mean anything.

Basically, your argument boils down to "assuming I'm right, I'm right". Sorry, but for matters of public policy (which covers things like sexual education and the promotion of contraceptives and prophylactics) that just doesn't cut it.

As for the catholic church molestation issues, the Church itself says that if you have deep-rooted, perverted sexual tendencies, you should seek help with those before you become a priest. There are only a few bad eggs in a giant basket of them here, figuratively speaking. The underlying principles that molestation is a grave sexual offense and that it severely separates yourself from God are still true in the Church's eyes; if Pope Benedict XVI truly is covering up these instances without a good reason (which I'm not sure is possible to have), then maybe we just have a bad pope on our hands.

The evidence that Ratzinger did in fact cover up the instances of child molestation is effectively incontrovertible. The evidence that the Catholic Church has a history of covering these things up is also incontrovertible; just look at the recent furor in Ireland, or look at the history of a potential Australian saint (hint: she was temporarily excommunicated because she went public with the fact that a priest was abusing children).

Sorry, but it looks like the rot in the Catholic Church goes back centuries - and that's not even accounting for the hypocrisy inherent in preaching tithes but living in a gilded castle.

tl;dr, It's their beliefs, not yours. Respect them for that please and stop claiming they're so backwards that they don't allow any fun. The problem isn't the church, it's you. Just because a church that you don't agree with and that you are not a part of doesn't approve of things that you want to fulfill your own selfish sexual desires, logically speaking, does NOT mean, in any way, that the Church is backwards; agree to disagree!

No, that's not the way it works. When you are wrong on matters of fact, and your wrongness on matters of fact leads you to encourage bad public policy, you should be opposed. Your beliefs matter very much when they mean the people my children end up having sex with don't know wha

In the immor(t?)al words of Tim Minchin:

If you cover for another motherfucker who's a kiddy-fucker, fuck you you're no better than the motherfucking rapist.

And unfortunately, we have quite a bit of evidence that implies he knowingly did so.

Yes, he did. He wanted to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an Atheist society. Nitpicking about the cause when you're quite happy to ignore historical context for religious abuses of power suggests a double standard on your part.

Funny. Then why was Stalin declared "the divinely anointed leader of [Russia's] armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion" by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1942? You'd think that if his goal really was to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an atheistic society, he wouldn't have negotiated with the church like that.

Or maybe Stalin just wanted power and control, regardless of its source?

Let's be reasonable here. Firstly, the articles do deal with the basic axioms of argumentation, and, secondly, people who counter-argue criticism of blind faith with "Jesus gives me money if I lose teeth?" will likely have no use for better references anyway.

I wasn't countering a criticism of blind faith; I was countering a glib and shallow comparison. Furthermore, calling Christianity 'blind faith' is an assumption that places you within a circular argument. A cursory glance at the opening chapter of Luke (among other places) reveals that the writers of the Bible were very keen that people who have reasons to believe, evidence for their faith. The Old Testament is full of exhortations to remember what God has done. Faith is a response to the actions of God.

Also, in regard to "the difference between Santa Claus and religion is that the latter requires a much larger amount of personal work to sort it out than the former": Santa Claus may as well be a considerably more simplistic figure in comparison to [insert your favorite messiah's name here], but, nevertheless, people who believe in god's existence actually refer to the very same arguments that are used to defend Santa Claus' existence to little children.

That's an absurd claim. People don't point to historical events to prove Santa exists; they do point to the historical evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection to prove Jesus exists.

If you truly wish to understand my position on this subject, this [hastily googled] article seems to describe it pretty well: http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/12/popular-delusions-v.html

That article was appallingly unrepresentative of Christian views of God. It's one thing to read a claim about what someone believes and quite another to read/hear it first hand. If you want to argue against what Christians believe and their reasons for doing so, and this website truly represents your views, I suggest you look at what knowledgeable Christians have written on the subject, otherwise you are attacking a strawman. Get a systematic theology out of a library and read it. Take a look at Calvin's Institutes (free online) or some of the confessions of faith of major denominations. There are great sites that collect the work of scholars past and present such as monergism.com. You won't find any argument from divine hiddenness there, or any argument from desire. On the contrary, you'll find a lot about revelation, history and know-ability.

Dawkins may love the comparison between Santa and Jesus, but any examination of scholarly Christian work shows just how glib and irrelevant the comparison is.

Let's be reasonable here. Firstly, the articles do deal with the basic axioms of argumentation, and, secondly, people who counter-argue criticism of blind faith with "Jesus gives me money if I lose teeth?" will likely have no use for better references anyway.

Also, in regard to "the difference between Santa Claus and religion is that the latter requires a much larger amount of personal work to sort it out than the former": Santa Claus may as well be a considerably more simplistic figure in comparison to [insert your favorite messiah's name here], but, nevertheless, people who believe in god's existence actually refer to the very same arguments that are used to defend Santa Claus' existence to little children. I'm sorry I can't fully engage in this discussion from work. If you truly wish to understand my position on this subject, this [hastily googled] article seems to describe it pretty well:

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/12/popular-delusions-v.html

Our culture is a lifestyle of violence? The Department of Justice begs to differ. Crime is, as I said, declining steadily. Whoring? I assume you mean sexual prostitution. Provided those offering the service and those purchasing the service are consensual adults and their activities render no harm upon others, there is no problem. I agree that sex can be misused. For example, it is clearly immoral for a married man to use the services of a prostitute without the knowledge (and consent) of his wife, but because he is engaging in deception not because he is having sex. Drugs are immoral? Why? If a person chooses to use drugs, as long as they do so responsibly, there is no problem. As an aside, alcohol and nicotine are drugs, both of which may be abused with deleterious effects on the user and those around the user, and it is that harm caused which is immoral. When used properly—in moderation—they present no threat and the moral issue moot.

Now if all of this amounts to an empty lifestyle, that is entirely up to the individual. We live in a free country where each person may choose to lead a trite existence or one replete with accomplishment. I suppose we could ask ourselves: is it immoral to lead a meaningless existence? I expect it is not, but that is a discussion for another time.

Again, I would appreciate some concrete evidence or objective analysis. And I think there is a lot we could all learn about the nature of morality. You might come to the conclusion that I am a moral relativist (perhaps intended in a derogatory fashion). I assure you I am not. Just as science and mathematics present us with absolutes, morality provides a rigid framework that may be used to draw useful conclusions about proper behavior. Morality is easily modeled objectively, and it is logical how we do so, utilizing our sense of empathy and desire to maximize happiness. As such, we should evaluate human activities objectively and determine their quantifiable impacts when we go about identifying those actions as moral or immoral.