Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308697994' post='2257044']
You have to be aware of other factors which come into play when speaking of the poor in thrid world countries. Children are an investment, and poor families have plenty of them to guarentee their own financial and other supports in their old age. Also, mortality is quite high in some parts, which gives another reason to have plenty of children, since it's already suspected that some might die. This has nothing to do with christianity.[/quote]
Definitely nothing wrong with large families. But I'm not sure of your point - large families are not responsible for AIDS.


[quote]Huh? Could you explain that, please?[/quote]
Simple - if you dismiss atheism as a "non-thing" which can have no impact on the murderous actions of Communists, then you cannot credit atheism for better living condition, low crime rates, etc.
Either atheism can be a factor in human behavior or not - you can't play it both ways.

[quote]Out of curiousity...what do you think of evolutionary theory?[/quote]
Which one? I don't think Darwinism is adequate to explain everything in nature, much less human nature.


[quote]I'm humble...unlike you, I don't see myself as Right.[/quote]
Yep, keep bragging about your superior humility. . . .

If you don't think you're right, why bother arguing?
You may not see yourself as right, but you sure seem desperate to try to prove myself and other Catholics wrong. . . .



[quote]Let me guess...you're going to say that they murdered because they weren't Christians... [/quote]
They murdered because they hated Christians, among other things.

And, like the Communist and other bloody revolutions that would follow in their footsteps, the revolutionaries were completely unimpeded by any scruples of Christian moral considerations in their ruthless bloodshed towards godless revolutionary goals. Study up on the French Revolution and Reign of Terror - fascinating in its horrific way.


[quote]I'm not denying that they were atheists and if I myself highlighted those parts in the article KnightOfChrist added, then I'm certainly not denying that they wanted to rid the country of religion, though I disagree that they did it because they were atheists and much less with the rather naive idea that they did it for atheism.

I guess you're seeing it more as they were atheists and so sought to implement their atheism while I'm seeing it as they were trying to pull themselves out of the historicial context they were in (feudalism and class struggles, of which religion is a part) and so became atheists and tried to make the country become atheist as well.[/quote]
Marxist-Leninist Communism was an atheist ideology intrinsically opposed to religion. Atheism was a fundamental of the package.

De Nile is more than a river in Egypt.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308699278' post='2257060']
If it were a Catholic school interested in promoting Catholicism, I would've probably left It was a catholic group independent of the Pope and Vatican, the so called Marista brothers or something like that. Good school.

Also, if it were catholic teaching, then I would have to listen to ideas put forward by the current Pope such as atheists were responsible for the holocaust...those sorts of things would not contribute in anyway to my education.[/quote]
With all due respect, it's apparent you don't have a clue about the ideas of the current Pope (or any other Popes, for that matter).

Have you even read any of Pope Benedict's encyclicals, or those of his predecessors?

Benedict XVI is widely recognized as an extremely intelligent and intellectual man - even by those who are not Catholic.

While you might not agree with the ideas of the Popes, it would definitely contribute to your education to know and understand what they actually think, and thus be able to discuss and debate their ideas intelligently.



[quote]Well it certainly doesn't hand you the stone tablets on which some things are written, no. It gives a foundation (though not clear rigid system) for morality.

Things like empathy and altruism have evolutionary explanations.[/quote]
One can just as easily claim murder and cannibalism have evolutionary explanations.

Evolutionary theory can tell us nothing about why altruism is moral and murder immoral.


[quote]A bit of an unfair comparision, Africa is culturally different, not to mention I don't doubt the levels of education between your catholic friends and the average African is quite different.

Also, since the numbers HIV positive people in Africa are much higher, even if you were to take a person who slept around with the same number of different partners, the odds of the African getting infected are far greater.[/quote]
The concepts of of chastity and monogamy remain the same, and hardly require a PhD to understand.

And STDs are again on the rise in America, often in new, more resilient forms. While the risks might not be quite as deadly here, sexual promiscuity is never a healthy lifestyle.


[quote]I just don't see it as murder, or a few cells as a person.[/quote]
Murder is the killing of an innocent human being - which includes unborn children.

And at any point beyond a few weeks immediately after conception, the unborn child is much more than just a few cells. And besides, from an atheistic materialist perspective, aren't we all just bunches of cells?


A human being is alive, and steadily growing and developing from conception. It remains the same human being. The baby does not change species, nor is it some dead, non-living matter which magically comes to life at birth or some other point.

It seems you think it's alright to kill an unborn human being because it is in an early stage of development, but so is an unborn infant. (Peter Singer, one of the very few intellectually consistent atheist philosophers, argues for legalization of infanticide, on the [true] grounds that a newborn infant is not substantially different from an unborn fetus.)

Do you believe the human right to life is dependent on the level of physical or mental development, or other arbitrary features?

Edited June 22, 2011 by Socrates

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1308703730' post='2257095']
Definitely nothing wrong with large families. But I'm not sure of your point - large families are not responsible for AIDS.[/quote]

My point is that there are many more things into play than religious ideologies, but rigid ideologies sometimes don't respect differences when trying to achieve its moral goals. It's a wholly different thing to preach some ideas in a more developed, richer and more educated culture than in poorer ones.

[quote]Simple - if you dismiss atheism as a "non-thing" which can have no impact on the murderous actions of Communists, then you cannot credit atheism for better living condition, low crime rates, etc.
Either atheism can be a factor in human behavior or not - you can't play it both ways.[/quote]

Well...I never really did credit atheism for better things, that article showed that [i]secular [/i]societites have acheived higher cultures of life, and secular does not mean atheist. There are also people of different religions that are thrown in the mix.

Though it did also show that the least theistic ones were better, but I'm assuming that atheism has a higher correlation with causal factors such as higher education and such things than actually being the cause itself.


[quote]Which one? I don't think Darwinism is adequate to explain everything in nature, much less human nature.[/quote]

The ones that were developed and are still being developed years after Darwin died. "Darwinism" is outdated and incomplete.

Also, it's not just nature (DNA and biology) that explains human nature. You've left out the entire nurture aspect of it, which includes education, culture...and religion (all religions, so truth is irrelavent because they can't all be true, unless you subscribe to the view that they are all true in everything but the particulars that contradict eachother).

Where's god in there? Can you show what [i]isn't [/i]religious teachings and point him out?


[quote]Yep, keep bragging about your superior humility. . . .

If you don't think you're right, why bother arguing?
You may not see yourself as right, but you sure seem desperate to try to prove myself and other Catholics wrong. . . .[/quote]

I don't hold that only one view is Right one which happens to be mine...and even if I were to concede that everybody is equally 'humble', at least I'm certainly not Holier Than Thou.

[quote]They murdered because they hated Christians, among other things.[/quote]

[quote]And, like the Communist and other bloody revolutions that would follow in their footsteps, the revolutionaries were completely unimpeded by any scruples of Christian moral considerations in their ruthless bloodshed towards godless revolutionary goals. [/quote]

[quote]Marxist-Leninist Communism was an atheist ideology intrinsically opposed to religion. Atheism was a fundamental of the package.

De Nile is more than a river in Egypt.[/quote]

ugh...I'm going to stop here. You're already so convinced that atheists hate Christians and that it's all about persecuting Christians as if everything in the world revolved around Christians, as you've shown in your repeated distortions of what I've said a few pages back on the poor Africans "being violent" and I wanted to prove that the Church is "cruel and sadistic".

[quote] Study up on the French Revolution and Reign of Terror - fascinating in its horrific way.[/quote]

Yep. The French Revolution is particulary interesting.

I just thought I'd add this quote from Diderot:

[i]"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."[/i]

I'm wondering which part of it really jumps out at you...


I also found this quote from Voltaire, which I think is interesting:

[i]"Which is more dangerous: fanactism or atheism? Fanactism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanactism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanactism causes crimes to be commited." [/i]

Edited June 22, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1308705202' post='2257109']
With all due respect, it's apparent you don't have a clue about the ideas of the current Pope (or any other Popes, for that matter).

Have you even read any of Pope Benedict's encyclicals, or those of his predecessors?

Benedict XVI is widely recognized as an extremely intelligent and intellectual man - even by those who are not Catholic.

While you might not agree with the ideas of the Popes, it would definitely contribute to your education to know and understand what they actually think, and thus be able to discuss and debate their ideas intelligently.[/quote]

Cut me some slack, I'm new to this...but I'm more concerned with the Pope's attempt at distraction with this for now:

[url="http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=pope+blames+atheist+holocaust&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=951dc7972bfd90fb&biw=1024&bih=574"]Take your pick.[/url]


[quote]One can just as easily claim murder and cannibalism have evolutionary explanations.

Evolutionary theory can tell us nothing about why altruism is moral and murder immoral.[/quote]

Well asking 'why' requires cognition, science doesn't always deal with the why questions. We can infer based on facts, and there are facts supporting the appearance and evolution of altruism, particulary tied once again with kin and group/multilevel selection (if you remember what this thread was originally about).

[url="http://www.physorg.com/news186416144.html"]Here's[/url] a good article on an article sent to one of the top science journals Nature (though I couldn't access the original myself, I would have to pay quite a bit for it )

Another on [url="http://www.livescience.com/4515-selfless-chimps-shed-light-evolution-altruism.html"]altruistic chimps[/url].

And a more [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/"]comprehensive [/url] Stanford encyclopedia entry.

Morality also has a tribal basis, in which murdering the "other" was justified by our ancestors in order to secure the survival of their own tribe. Between "them" and "us", better "us". Wars for resources, for example. Trouble is, we no longer live in small tribes.

Even some more primitive and sectarian religions and cultures still have those tribal vestiges (thinking especially of Islam), especially in regards to treatment of the "other" (vague term to mean anybody not in their group which could range from unbelievers to some minority group).

As for cannibalism, it is a solution that some animals have found such as the Black Widow spider who eats the male after mating and a species of octupus who dies after giving birth so that her offspring can eat her, but it doesn't seem to be very common given the convience of having others of the same species within reach as is the case with social animals, that could be killed and eaten. One argument against this is that excessive cannibalism might actually cause the species to go exinct, or at least threaten it by lessening its numbers. The same argument against killing others of the same species excessively.

With people, other factors come into play, so it's difficult to say that the cannibalism of some native South American tribes for instance has evolutionary origins instead of cultural and spiritual explanations. If that were the case, one might think that cannibalism would have been more wide spread, even when human morality wasn't as refined as it is today.

[quote]The concepts of of chastity and monogamy remain the same, and hardly require a PhD to understand.

And STDs are again on the rise in America, often in new, more resilient forms. While the risks might not be quite as deadly here, sexual promiscuity is never a healthy lifestyle.[/quote]

beaver dam natural selection! It works!

Risks are not healthy, if you want to put it that way. Risks can be lowered or they can be removed. People should still have a choice and say in the matter.

[quote]Murder is the killing of an innocent human being - which includes unborn children.

And at any point beyond a few weeks immediately after conception, the unborn child is much more than just a few cells. And besides, from an atheistic materialist perspective, aren't we all just bunches of cells?

A human being is alive, and steadily growing and developing from conception. It remains the same human being. The baby does not change species, nor is it some dead, non-living matter which magically comes to life at birth or some other point. [/quote]

Just so you know, I'm pro choice for early abortion, and the early embryo hasn't even differentiated from a bunch of cells into tissues. There's even the possibility of it splitting into two (identical twins) or two merging into one (chimera)... what exactly is [u]a[/u] person is those cases?


[quote]It seems you think it's alright to kill an unborn human being because it is in an early stage of development, but so is an unborn infant. (Peter Singer, one of the very few intellectually consistent atheist philosophers, argues for legalization of infanticide, on the [true] grounds that a newborn infant is not substantially different from an unborn fetus.)

Do you believe the human right to life is dependent on the level of physical or mental development, or other arbitrary features?
[/quote]

I think that Peter Singer is a bit of an eccentric, and do not share his views. I certainly do not think that consistency is a strength in this case.

To answer your question, our form of life is dependent on organizational complexity. Our brains are the most complex biological things that we know of. A bunch of cells with human DNA is less complex than a protozoa, and the fact that it's human DNA doesn't make it complexly human.

I'm reluctant to say that it isn't human, but it isn't a person yet in the full sense IMO.

Edited June 22, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308725087' post='2257190']
My point is that there are many more things into play than religious ideologies, but rigid ideologies sometimes don't respect differences when trying to achieve its moral goals. It's a wholly different thing to preach some ideas in a more developed, richer and more educated culture than in poorer ones. [/quote]
The Church has been preaching the same morality for rich and poor, educated and uneducated alike for 2000 years.
I don't believe that different moral rules should be preached to rich people than to poor people.


[quote]Well...I never really did credit atheism for better things, that article showed that [i]secular [/i]societites have acheived higher cultures of life, and secular does not mean atheist. There are also people of different religions that are thrown in the mix.

Though it did also show that the least theistic ones were better, but I'm assuming that atheism has a higher correlation with causal factors such as higher education and such things than actually being the cause itself.[/quote]
What exactly do you mean by "higher cultures of life"? Christian civilization has produced the world's greatest culture. The world's greatest art, architecture, literature, music, etc. was produced by Christian believers, and much of it was specifically religious in orientation. By contrast, most modern atheist-secularist culture is notably uninspired and uninspiring. Show me an atheist Bach, Dante, Michelangelo, or Shakespeare, or the atheist equivalent of the great Gothic cathedrals.



[quote]The ones that were developed and are still being developed years after Darwin died. "Darwinism" is outdated and incomplete.

Also, it's not just nature (DNA and biology) that explains human nature. You've left out the entire nurture aspect of it, which includes education, culture...and religion (all religions, so truth is irrelavent because they can't all be true, unless you subscribe to the view that they are all true in everything but the particulars that contradict eachother).

Where's god in there? Can you show what [i]isn't [/i]religious teachings and point him out?[/quote]
Not sure what you mean. God is the Creator and Source of all being, and utterly transcends creation. - He's not some material thing out there some place [i]in[/i] the physical universe.

Proofs for the existence of God have been discussed plenty elsewhere on these boards.

(And what's with the atheistic practice of refusing to capitalize the name of God? Is that supposed to prove something, or is it just a childish attempt to annoy Christians?
You don't believe in God - we get it. I don't believe in the actual existence of Zeus, Thor, or Iron Man, yet I still capitalize their names.)

[quote]I don't hold that only one view is Right one which happens to be mine...and even if I were to concede that everybody is equally 'humble', at least I'm certainly not Holier Than Thou.[/quote]
I am much impressed.






[quote]ugh...I'm going to stop here. [/quote]
Thank you.



[quote]Yep. The French Revolution is particulary interesting.

I just thought I'd add this quote from Diderot:

[i]"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."[/i]

I'm wondering which part of it really jumps out at you...[/quote]
Can't decide whether its the violent hatefulness of the quote, or its shear vulgar stupidity.

Or perhaps the irony of how godless revolutions always lead to tyranny far worse than that which they sought to overthrow. The French Revolution led to a bloody Reign of Terror, which killed even its own, the eventual tyranny of Napoleon Bonaparte, and the plunging of all Europe into war.


[quote]I also found this quote from Voltaire, which I think is interesting:

[i]"Which is more dangerous: fanactism or atheism? Fanactism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanactism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanactism causes crimes to be commited." [/i][/quote]
How about fanatical atheism? As violent atheist revolutions have proven, bloody fanaticism and atheism are not incompatible.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308729779' post='2257201']
Cut me some slack, I'm new to this...but I'm more concerned with the Pope's attempt at distraction with this for now:

[url="http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=pope+blames+atheist+holocaust&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=951dc7972bfd90fb&biw=1024&bih=574"]Take your pick.[/url][/quote]
[url="http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=38293"]This.[/url]

I'll cut you slack when you cut the [font="Arial"]cra[/font]p. The Pope wasn't attempting to distract from anything. That tripe doesn't even merit a response. The only attempt at distraction is in the various mindless foamings-at-the-mouth of the anti-Catholic bloggers.

Googling anti-Catholic sites hardly proves you more educated than the Pope, and having nothing to learn from him. Read some of the Pope's encyclicals or books if you want to be educated on his thought.

[quote]Well asking 'why' requires cognition, science doesn't always deal with the why questions. We can infer based on facts, and there are facts supporting the appearance and evolution of altruism, particulary tied once again with kin and group/multilevel selection (if you remember what this thread was originally about).

[url="http://www.physorg.com/news186416144.html"]Here's[/url] a good article on an article sent to one of the top science journals Nature (though I couldn't access the original myself, I would have to pay quite a bit for it )

Another on [url="http://www.livescience.com/4515-selfless-chimps-shed-light-evolution-altruism.html"]altruistic chimps[/url].

And a more [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/"]comprehensive [/url] Stanford encyclopedia entry.

Morality also has a tribal basis, in which murdering the "other" was justified by our ancestors in order to secure the survival of their own tribe. Between "them" and "us", better "us". Wars for resources, for example. Trouble is, we no longer live in small tribes.

Even some more primitive and sectarian religions and cultures still have those tribal vestiges (thinking especially of Islam), especially in regards to treatment of the "other" (vague term to mean anybody not in their group which could range from unbelievers to some minority group).

As for cannibalism, it is a solution that some animals have found such as the Black Widow spider who eats the male after mating and a species of octupus who dies after giving birth so that her offspring can eat her, but it doesn't seem to be very common given the convience of having others of the same species within reach as is the case with social animals, that could be killed and eaten. One argument against this is that excessive cannibalism might actually cause the species to go exinct, or at least threaten it by lessening its numbers. The same argument against killing others of the same species excessively.

With people, other factors come into play, so it's difficult to say that the cannibalism of some native South American tribes for instance has evolutionary origins instead of cultural and spiritual explanations. If that were the case, one might think that cannibalism would have been more wide spread, even when human morality wasn't as refined as it is today. [/quote]
Hey, the spiders do it, and the octopi do it, so we should allow mariticide and matricide with cannibalism. At least in moderation - excess would be bad for the survival of the species. After all, it's nature, man!


[quote]beaver dam natural selection! It works!

Risks are not healthy, if you want to put it that way. Risks can be lowered or they can be removed. People should still have a choice and say in the matter. [/quote]
And the virtue of chastity is a good choice to make.


[quote]Just so you know, I'm pro choice for early abortion, and the early embryo hasn't even differentiated from a bunch of cells into tissues. There's even the possibility of it splitting into two (identical twins) or two merging into one (chimera)... what exactly is [u]a[/u] person is those cases?[/quote]
Exactly how early is early? That's a subjective term. A baby has a beating heart a mere 21 days after conception. An unborn human being is constantly growing and developing - it's a steady organic process. There's no single objective "magic moment" where a developing human is suddenly a person when it was not a second before.

And the ability of an embryo in the early stages of development to split into another person does not negate its humanity. At that point, a second human being is created.



[quote]I think that Peter Singer is a bit of an eccentric, and do not share his views. I certainly do not think that consistency is a strength in this case.[/quote]
Eccentric or no, perhaps you can explain what part of Singer's thought you disagree with. Singer says being alive and human does not give a being a right to life, and he correctly acknowledges that an unborn embryo/fetus is both alive and human. He says that cognition is what gives one a right to life, and thus says human beings may be killed that have not reached a certain degree of cognition.

[quote]To answer your question, our form of life is dependent on organizational complexity. Our brains are the most complex biological things that we know of. A bunch of cells with human DNA is less complex than a protozoa, and the fact that it's human DNA doesn't make it complexly human.[/quote]
A multi-celled human embryo is more complex than a single-celled protozoa. But even as a single cell, the embryo's DNA contains all the genetic information necessary for growing into a completely unique adult human being - and that's certainly nothing to sneeze at.
But what are you even trying to argue here? That the right to life comes from physical complexity?


[quote]I'm reluctant to say that it isn't human, but it isn't a person yet in the full sense IMO.[/quote]
If it's a human being, it's a person. Its absurd to try to argue (as Singer does) that some human beings are not persons.

And how can something not be a "person in the full sense"? Either it's a person, or it's not a person. It's a human being, or not a human being. Is an unborn human partially a person and partially something else? Is it half a person? Three-quarters a person?

How exactly do you determine whether one is "person yet in the full sense" anyway? Is there some objective measure, or is it all about personal opinion?

If you're trying to argue that a human being in early stages of development is "not a person in the full sense," then what about young infants? Are they a "person in the full sense"? After all, a newborn still has a lot of development to do, and can't do much more than eat, poo, and cry.

I'll try to boil it down for you: Are unborn embryos/fetuses human beings? Do all human beings have a right to life? Are all human beings persons?
If no to any of the above, explain.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Socrates

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308699448' post='2257063']
You don't think I'm making progress?
[/quote]There are people here that some Catholics may call "[i]radtrads[/i]". These are effectively Catholic fundamentalists, fanatics, and dogmatists. There is NO negotiation with these people. A Catholic Priest, in fact a "traditional" Catholic Priest, in regard to these individuals shared the following joke. [i]Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a radtrad? You can negotiate with terrorists.[/i]

KnightofChrist, Socrates, and some of these other people that consistently refuse open discussion... in favor of whatever they do... fall into this group. You CANNOT change their position or have them even consider an alternate position. Not possible. I've tried before in the past... others have tried before in the past. These were "[i]Catholics[/i]" trying too. These are the kind of people that will NEVER change... ever!



Ever!!!



What are you NOT understanding?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1308766036' post='2257312']
The Church has been preaching the same morality for rich and poor, educated and uneducated alike for 2000 years.
I don't believe that different moral rules should be preached to rich people than to poor people.[/quote]

In theory it's one thing, but different peoples see things different ways, and have different motivations for doing things. That's why it fails. Sometimes you can't keep preaching a solution without solving the root of the problem.


[quote]What exactly do you mean by "higher cultures of life"? Christian civilization has produced the world's greatest culture. The world's greatest art, architecture, literature, music, etc. was produced by Christian believers, and much of it was specifically religious in orientation. By contrast, most modern atheist-secularist culture is notably uninspired and uninspiring. Show me an atheist Bach, Dante, Michelangelo, or Shakespeare, or the atheist equivalent of the great Gothic cathedrals.[/quote]

I was referencing [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=112777&st=380&p=2252669&#entry2252669"]this[/url] post. Higher cultures of life (the words he used) means less death occurring whether by murder, juvenile mortality and even abortion.

As a side note, those men were men of their times. Atheism is a rising phenomena now because people are being exposed to new alternatives and views and is no longer being as suppressed by society. Religious leaders have less control over what information people can access and so have less control over people.

As for these days, I'm sure you can find [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists"]plenty [/url]of great atheistic people.


[quote]Not sure what you mean. God is the Creator and Source of all being, and utterly transcends creation. - He's not some material thing out there some place [i]in[/i] the physical universe.

Proofs for the existence of God have been discussed plenty elsewhere on these boards.[/quote]

Yes, that's what the religious say. But all I hear is religious teaching, and not god in the picture (especially some version of god).

[quote](And what's with the atheistic practice of refusing to capitalize the name of God? Is that supposed to prove something, or is it just a childish attempt to annoy Christians?
You don't believe in God - we get it. I don't believe in the actual existence of Zeus, Thor, or Iron Man, yet I still capitalize their names.)[/quote]

You capitalise their names but do you call them the God Zeus or the God Thor? If you do, then I would find that a bit odd too.

When I mention Yahweh or Jesus, I always capitalise their names, because they're names but see no reason to capitalise a concept.

[quote]
Can't decide whether its the violent hatefulness of the quote, or its shear vulgar stupidity.[/quote]

I would say it's a bit strong, but not stupid given that pre Revolution France was also stuck in a feudal structure. I also find the fact that he said 'priest' instead of 'Christian' telling.

[quote]Or perhaps the irony of how godless revolutions always lead to tyranny far worse than that which they sought to overthrow. The French Revolution led to a bloody Reign of Terror, which killed even its own, the eventual tyranny of Napoleon Bonaparte, and the plunging of all Europe into war.[/quote]

Deist would be godless?

[quote~]How about fanatical atheism? As violent atheist revolutions have proven, bloody fanaticism and atheism are not incompatible.[/quote]

Of course not. The only thing that's incompatible with atheism is theism, deism and any other belief that a god exists. But I'm not going to concede that atheism leads to fanatical bloody wars or tyranny.

Fanatical communist atheists are one thing, but it's meaningless to me.

[quote]I'll cut you slack when you cut the croutons. The Pope wasn't attempting to distract from anything. That tripe doesn't even merit a response. The only attempt at distraction is in the various mindless foamings-at-the-mouth of the anti-Catholic bloggers.

Googling anti-Catholic sites hardly proves you more educated than the Pope, and having nothing to learn from him. Read some of the Pope's encyclicals or books if you want to be educated on his thought.[/quote]

All I can say is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law"]Godwin's law.[/url] If you've never heard of it, I suggest you read up on it...you're right, such tripe does not merit further discussion or even respect.

I'm talking about the inane comparision between the rise of nazism and secularism and the rise of atheists he made there, not his other thoughts.

Edited June 22, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308773998' post='2257349']
There are people here that some Catholics may call "[i]radtrads[/i]". These are effectively Catholic fundamentalists, fanatics, and dogmatists. There is NO negotiation with these people. A Catholic Priest, in fact a "traditional" Catholic Priest, in regard to these individuals shared the following joke. [i]Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a radtrad? You can negotiate with terrorists.[/i]

KnightofChrist, Socrates, and some of these other people that consistently refuse open discussion... in favor of whatever they do... fall into this group. You CANNOT change their position or have them even consider an alternate position. Not possible. I've tried before in the past... others have tried before in the past. These were "[i]Catholics[/i]" trying too. These are the kind of people that will NEVER change... ever!



Ever!!!



What are you NOT understanding?
[/quote]

Thing is I see what you mean. The constant falling back onto arguments I already think I've resolved such as evolution/human nature and communism constantly show that this is going nowhere. But now I feel locked in discussion and obligated to keep answering the same thing lest I look like a troll or something of that sort.

No wonder some like rigid systems so much...

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308774962' post='2257371']
In theory it's one thing, but different peoples see things different ways, and have different motivations for doing things. That's why it fails. Sometimes you can't keep preaching a solution without solving the root of the problem.[/quote]
There are definitely different ways of preaching things to different audiences (and I think every experienced Catholic preacher is well aware of that fact). However, what is moral and immoral does not change with differences in location or socio-economic status. While I know you disagree, I believe that lack of chastity and sexual morality is very much at the root of the problem of AIDS and other STD epidemics.

Dumping massive amounts of condoms into Africa has certainly not fixed the problem at its root. But I'm afraid this has become another dead horse.




[quote]I was referencing [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=112777&st=380&p=2252669&#entry2252669"]this[/url] post. Higher cultures of life (the words he used) means less death occurring whether by murder, juvenile mortality and even abortion.[/quote]
While less people dying is certainly good, I wouldn't regard it as the only measure of a culture. And unfortunately, much of modern America has become very un-Christian in practice, if not in name. Blaming Christian Faith for murders and abortions is just absurd.

Ironically, modern atheists typically promote abortion as a perfectly legitimate moral choice. I suppose it is heartening to at least see them acknowledging abortion here (if only implicitly) as human death.

[quote]As a side note, those men were men of their times. Atheism is a rising phenomena now because people are being exposed to new alternatives and views and is no longer being as suppressed by society. Religious leaders have less control over what information people can access and so have less control over people. [/quote]
I think the culture as a whole has become rather degraded and banal since the rise of secularism.




[quote]Yes, that's what the religious say. But all I hear is religious teaching, and not god in the picture (especially some version of god).[/quote]
Yes, that's what the atheistic say. I think the very existence of a functioning, intelligible universe in which intelligent life such as human beings can exist speaks to the existence of a Creator, and did not cause itself, nor come about through random chance.


[quote]You capitalise their names but do you call them the God Zeus or the God Thor? If you do, then I would find that a bit odd too.

When I mention Yahweh or Jesus, I always capitalise their names, because they're names but see no reason to capitalise a concept.[/quote]
Capitalizing "God: when speaking of Him as a Person has always been standard practice in the English language, and the only people who don't follow that rule are those pushing a particular ideology.
I still find it a silly and childish practice.


[quote]I would say it's a bit strong, but not stupid given that pre Revolution France was also stuck in a feudal structure. I also find the fact that he said 'priest' instead of 'Christian' telling.[/quote]
The French Revolution was anti-Christian to its core. And priests were the Christian leaders in Catholic France.

I can guarantee that if someone said, "Men will never be free until the last liberal is strangled with the entrails of the last atheist," you would not find the statement so benign and sympathetic.


[quote]Deist would be godless?[/quote]
The Revolutionaries certainly rejected the Judaeo-Christian God. The deity of their deism was rather vague and impersonal.


[quote]Of course not. The only thing that's incompatible with atheism is theism, deism and any other belief that a god exists. But I'm not going to concede that atheism leads to fanatical bloody wars or tyranny.

Fanatical communist atheists are one thing, but it's meaningless to me.[/quote]
Meaningless to you perhaps, yet historical reality.


[quote]All I can say is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law"]Godwin's law.[/url] If you've never heard of it, I suggest you read up on it...you're right, such tripe does not merit further discussion or even respect.[/quote]
And I suppose that explains why present-day pop atheists are so obsessed with accusing the Popes and the Church of being aligned with Nazism and responsible for the Holocaust, despite all the evidence being to the contrary. (Pope Pius XII saved more Jews than anyone else in WWII for crying out loud!)

You yourself brought up such accusations on this thread.

[quote]I'm talking about the inane comparision between the rise of nazism and secularism and the rise of atheists he made there, not his other thoughts. [/quote]
Militant secularism and the suppression of traditional religion and morality from the public is indeed similar to what was done by the Nazis, as well as their rivals the Communists. Both these murderous ideologies rejected the moral restraints of Christianity, and came to power during a period of religious decline.

“National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.” ~ Martin Bormann, Nazi official and secretary to Adolph Hitler, 1941

The Pope's statements were not inane, but quite sapient. Benedict XVI personally witnessed Nazi oppression first hand growing up in WWII Germany, and his predecessor and close friend John Paul II, witnessed first hand both the Nazi and Communist oppression in Poland. I'm sure he is immensely more knowledgeable on the topic than you, or any of the yammering anti-Catholic bloggers.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308775283' post='2257378']
Thing is I see what you mean. The constant falling back onto arguments I already think I've resolved such as evolution/human nature and communism constantly show that this is going nowhere. But now I feel locked in discussion and obligated to keep answering the same thing lest I look like a troll or something of that sort.

No wonder some like rigid systems so much...
[/quote]
No one's forcing you to continue posting in this thread, but you yourself are constantly rehashing the same stuff over and over again, even though it remains as un-compelling to me as when first stated. I agree this discussion has probably run its course. Time to shake the proverbial dust from my sandals and move on.

God bless.

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1308850088' post='2257731']
Capitalizing "God: when speaking of Him as a Person has always been standard practice in the English language, and the only people who don't follow that rule are those pushing a particular ideology.
I still find it a silly and childish practice.
[/quote]
I disagree with this, English grammar dictates that names, acronyms and the first letter of sentences are capitalised. The term god is not a name, neither is he or him. I feel Christians capitalise either because their scripture does and so they do or because they feel capitalising makes the word more important. As a non Christian I do not follow scripture as my grammar authority and I do not find the term god or he, him as special when talking about gods or a particular god. I simply follow English grammar as best as I know.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308856323' post='2257764']
I disagree with this, English grammar dictates that names, acronyms and the first letter of sentences are capitalised. The term god is not a name, neither is he or him. I feel Christians capitalise either because their scripture does and so they do or because they feel capitalising makes the word more important. As a non Christian I do not follow scripture as my grammar authority and I do not find the term god or he, him as special when talking about gods or a particular god. I simply follow English grammar as best as I know.
[/quote]

God is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CapitalizingGod

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308856323' post='2257764']
I disagree with this, English grammar dictates that names, acronyms and the first letter of sentences are capitalised. The term god is not a name, neither is he or him. I feel Christians capitalise either because their scripture does and so they do or because they feel capitalising makes the word more important. As a non Christian I do not follow scripture as my grammar authority and I do not find the term god or he, him as special when talking about gods or a particular god. I simply follow English grammar as best as I know.
[/quote]

Me too.

Actually I feel more inclined to write it as [b]"[/b]god[b]"[/b], because not only do I think it's a concept but one without any proper meaning. I think that the religious might feel I'm necessarily speaking about their god in particular when I write the word normally, which also leads to a few misunderstandings. I've heard quite few times: but you must believe in god if you're always talking about him!

Capitalising it means that you give it a meaning beyond a vague word and as an atheist, I see no reason to.

Would you guys say the God Thor? Or the god Thor? Just out of curiousity...

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308861031' post='2257785']Me too.

Actually I feel more inclined to write it as [b]"[/b]god[b]"[/b], because not only do I think it's a concept but one without any proper meaning. I think that the religious might feel I'm necessarily speaking about their god in particular when I write the word normally, which also leads to a few misunderstandings. I've heard quite few times: but you must believe in god if you're always talking about him!

Capitalising it means that you give it a meaning beyond a vague word and as an atheist, I see no reason to.

Would you guys say the God Thor? Or the god Thor? Just out of curiousity...[/quote]It's an old rule. Clearly English changes.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308863313' post='2257797']
It's an old rule. Clearly English changes.
[/quote]

lol The worst thing is that it does, but so does the meaning of the "god" word in particular.

Maybe an ancient Greek would find it childish that most modern day people don't capitalise the "god" before Zeus?Who's to say that if there is a god or gods, that people in the future will look at the descriptions of god today and think of them just as we think (most of us at least - apparently there are still true believers around) of the ancient Greek gods?

Edited June 23, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308866984' post='2257822']
lol The worst thing is that it does, but so does the meaning of the "god" word in particular.

Maybe an ancient Greek would find it childish that most modern day people don't capitalise the "god" before Zeus?
[/quote]
Did they even have capital letters versus lowercase at that point of development in the Greek language?
I'm not sure if I'm getting Greek confused with a different language, but in the language I'm thinking about lower-case letters didn't develop until significantly later.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308867061' post='2257825']
Did they even have capital letters versus lowercase at that point of development in the Greek language?
I'm not sure if I'm getting Greek confused with a different language, but in the language I'm thinking about lower-case letters didn't develop until significantly later.
[/quote]

Good point, a quick search shows that the minuscule or lower case letters first appeared sometime after 800 AD and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308867767' post='2257831']
Good point, a quick search shows that the minuscule or lower case letters first appeared sometime after 800 AD and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing...
[/quote]
Case is a pretty relative thing language to language. Obviously writing systems like hangul, kanji, hiragana, katakana, probably written Chinese although I don't know much about that, and I'm sure lots of others don't even have case.
Then in languages like German, every noun is capitalized. I can't imagine having to write like that.

Anyway, case is relative, so I think that the capitalization (or not) of God is going to be more a function of language and common use than on any hard rules. To me, it's most proper to capitalize God in English when referring to the Christian conception of God. I think so for two specific reasons. First is that it is used as a placeholder for a proper name (i.e. it's a title, but mostly used as a name). Second, and to me more importantly, I think it implies reverence, and to me for sure when I'm writing it causes me to be more careful about using God's name because of the respect I have for it. I would not capitalize god when referring to polytheistic gods, since in that case it's no longer being used in place of a name, and second because I don't respect those gods because, like you, I consider those ones to be false.

Conclusion: since I'm a Catholic I will always capitalize God when referring to my God, but not when referring to false gods. I think it would be more grammatically correct to capitalize God when using it as a name (whether or not you believe in the concept).

Anyway, I'm sort of just rambling because I'm bored. Not honestly interested in getting into a debate on it. You will, of course, continue to do what you like with regards to case.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308867767' post='2257831']Good point, a quick search shows that the minuscule or lower case letters first appeared sometime after 800 AD and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing...[/quote]As a rule of grammar, I suspect the reason is because the "[i]christian god[/i]" doesn't have a name and was frequently contrasted against polytheistic religions. But considering atheists are addressing the concept of "god" as a whole, within this context, it seems acceptable and understandable to me. To me it seems like an archaic rule.