Well there's your problem. You didn't type in "youths riot".

All this does is make the people at ZOO look like what they are: shallow self-absorbed children.

I have zero time for the idiots who "run" the Church, but by all accounts, this woman sacrificed a pleasant, normal life to care for others and got little thanks for it in her lifetime.

The boys at ZOO wouldn't last 30 minutes in a modern cancer ward or soup kitchen, let alone in the more primitive conditions she was dealing with. Frankly, neither would I, but I don't feel obliged to mock those I know are morally superior to me, as a way to make up for my own inadequacy.

What pathetic boys. I feel sorry for them.

I got 5,460,000 'responses'.

Beagle, try doing the search in News instead of the Web.

beagle said 'I got 5,460,000 'responses'.'

If you look at those responses, they all have the Prefix 'anti' in front of them as in anti-christian riots by 'students' or 'youths' or 'worshippers'. Probably in a proselytizing state of mind.

Slander an innocent deceased Christian Saint- good.

Slander a sheep shagging pedophile prophet and his violent band of miscreants- bad.

Pathetically juvenile and disgusting. Those same cowardly "journalists" wouldn't have the b*lls to mock anything Islamic, only those religions they know won't put them on a to-be-killed list.

Dave in Pa

[.......Pathetically juvenile and disgusting. Those same cowardly "journalists" wouldn't have the b*lls to mock anything Islamic, only those religions they know won't put them on a to-be-killed list.....]

Yeah funny (queer not haha) that.........

On and on it goes, Cristians, fair game, season year round, by the self loathers in the insane-stream media, muzzies, never in season. Kind of like the pathetic headlines and dopey "pundits" over at Borque and National Screwsloose-watch, we hate Harper and conservatives all the time. Their headlines are so funny to just browse, never read the drivel but my daily laugh at morons starts with those headlines, urgent crisis destruction spiralling downward mess scandal ridden, you get the picture. The further we get from the truth, the harder it will be to return, or maybe never, political correctness is the most serious cancer for our societys long term survival.

But, but, but,
Chris Alexander CPC, asks Michael Coren, as he calls him a hypocrite:"..how many atrocities have been committed in the name of the Bible?"

This guy is steeped in revisionist history as he mentions to the great relationship that Europe has with the Muslim culture.

http://www.youtube.com/user/sdamatt2#p/u/2/K0tRSO6Ha_A

So it's equivocal, right?

Thanks Matt in Mississauga for the Coren links on youtube.

If Chris Alexander is a sample of up and coming CPC we are doomed. Smarmy doesn't quite cover it.

I will toss in my two cents worth whilst I drink coffee and wake up.

In the present state we are in nowadays. I suggest the following:

When you help others, they will always remember you the next time they need help. And ... You may be mocked for wasting your life in such a pointless pursuit anyway. Help your own family if they need it and let others do the same.

Don't waste you money on charities, they are businesses filled with leftist do-gooders who don't want a real job. They enjoy lording over those who are even more helpless and stupid than they are. A lot of the money our governments steal from us goes to those bogus politically warped charities anyway.

Don't bother being a member of a religion either ... they are nothing but decaying corpses that have already done their best and worst work *(Although, I don't think Islam has ever done any good, nor yet done it's worst. That is why I bought a bigger wide-screen TV ... Their worst will be televised.)

Perhaps the Catholic church could stage a comeback by changing the celibacy rules. People who swear off sex with a member of the opposite sex in their own age group, are not respected, they are thought to have mental and emotional issues.

The Christian church brought much of it on themselves and that is why it's easy to mock a Christian nun and get away with it.

Did I mention ban anything Islam from north America?

Science has explained away the various deities that once controlled the elements .... you know ... gods of the thunder, lightening, rain, crops, the oceans ... what have you ... the only god left is the the god of death ... you know ... the one who is portrayed dying on a cross ... because we cannot explain what happens when we die, that mystery remains.

My guess is that when you die, things go back to the way they were before you were born ... for you. In other words, you simply cease to exist.

I know that's scary, but it is the most reasonable explanation ... anything else suggests that we are immortal beings. I for one, do not wish to spend eternity is the company of much of what we have on this earth today.

If I were to be sentenced to prison, I would insist on solitary confinement to be away from the rest of the scum .... same thing in the afterlife eh?

The above was posted for entertainment and provocation purposes only ....

Abe, you're making to much sense! Good read.

Abe:

It's humbling to be in the presence of such a perfect human being such as yourself.

Saint Mary is a very, very close relative of mine so this is a double insult to me.

I see no reason to be upset over this. Humility is kind of a "thing" for saints.

Brilliant, Kate. Simply brilliant.

Religion is religion...every one of them has good and bad...everyone of them is a primitive way of looking at the world. They're all outdated, they are inconsistent with the world we live in, the technology we have, the abilities to observe our surroundings that we've created. That people in such developed and advanced societies such as is the case in North America still believe the ridiculous supernatural stories made up from interpretations of a book is completely irrational.

Set you free,

And I do it all for free.

However, I do have a bad knee, so the perfection comment is not accurate.

Ah, yes. BTJ trots out the "everything is equal" canard. What do they call that again? Moral relativism? Idiocy is more accurate.

You know, BTJ, the point of Kate's juxtaposition is to show that, no, not everything is equal. The point was so blatantly obvious within the context provided that I would have figured even youth like you could see it for what it was.

Apparently the education system isn't what it used to be either.

I strongly disagree with you, BDJ. I'm an atheist but I think that religion - a proper religion and not a political agenda masquerading as a religion - is vital. Why?

First - what is a 'proper religion'. To me, it is a belief system that acknowledges that man is 'not the measure of all things' but is a part of the complex adaptive system (CAS) that is our universe. As such, it acknowledges that there is both order and chance in this CAS; and that there is no a priori deterministic goal of some desired end point.

Political systems that focus on power and hide under a cover of religion are anti-human. That is why I reject Islamism, socialism, communism, fascism as religions, for they all posit an end point of universality to their ideology, which is deemed to be supreme, and also, an end point of infinite purity - a violation of Godel's basic principle.

Religions discuss the metaphysical; that zone of ordering which is not immediately accessible to the observer but is present upon analysis. I, frankly, can see the metaphoric justification of the Christian Trinity in the physical and biological realms - for all reality is morphologically organized within triadic relations.

Religions also, above all, discuss societal mores, the morality of 'how to behave with each other'. Most certainly, one does not need religion to come up with morality; you can come to these same conclusions using reason. After all, religions are 'man-made'!

Even though I am not a member of any religion, I happen to admire the Christian religion, for it was the first belief system that rejected tribalism and the confinement of 'the good' to one's kin group and opened up positive interactions with other peoples, with its basic dictum of 'Love They Neighbour'.

A key benefit of religion is its insistence that man is not The Power but merely an actor, and has the choice of being a good or evil actor. That is, religion warns against the 'hubris' of power.

Even though, as an atheist, I reject deterministic agency and causality, I certainly support these axioms of religion.

And .... you have been perfectly provoked... how so?

I wonder.

Maybe I am just nitpicking, but this analogy does not really hold.

It assumes that St. Mary is to Christianity what the prophet is to Islam.

I've never seen muslims riot against whacky depictions of Khomeini, Khameini or any other muslim saint (don't know of any either). Technically, they should be offended by images of Christ, because he would qualify (I think) as at least a saint in Islam. Their big issue is with depictions of god and of the prophet.

Makes this a sort of pointless thread - and Zoo gets free publicity.

"Slander an innocent deceased Christian Saint- good."

In fairness to the slanderers, the Catholic Church's cannonizations are hardly seen as accurate indicators of innocence.

St. Thomas More is my favorite saint. He only burned six people at the stake for not believing him.

Some might call him a murderer. The Church calls him a Saint.

What I find odd is that groups, progressives and the educated class, who are most likely to mock Catholicism/Christianity also claim to be uber-cultured and sophisticated.

Western culture and science are closely linked with Catholicism (art and architecture) and Protestantism (technology and industry). The relationship may have been a rocky and volatile but it produced what we are today. It is not difficult to not be religious and still appreciate how religion played an essential role in the development of our civilization.

I agree with KS, it's adolescent immaturity and the need to be proactive that motivates their "humor". Some of the religious jokes are still really funny but most lost their ability to amuse/shock about a decade ago - get some new material.

ET:

That is a truly beautiful post on the value of a "proper" religion from an atheist's point of view. In some inchoate way, I had come to this view over the decades, summarizing it so: 'I am not a believer but I believe in the value of belief". I especially appreciate your observation that morality can be reached through rational, non-religious means. One of my little peeves with Glenn Beck (whom I greatly admire) is the apparent suggestion that we "need to get back to Church" to recover our civilization.

Brava!

One would think that Australians would be happy to have so wonderful a woman as their first saint.
I guess not.
If anyone wants me, I'll be busy NOT throwing Molotov cocktails and screaming "Death to America" or whatever it is people are angry at these days.

Me No Dhimmi,

I agree with everything you said ... And ET always covers a topic so well.

I too am Atheist, but I am a Catholic Atheist, so I do understand the purpose of the ten commandments. They are simply a logical guide to live in a civil society. They work for me. We need more justice though.

The government's coveting of other people's goods has to stop.

The false gods of socialism must stop.

Glenn Beck loses credibility when he gets too deep into the religion thing. He starts to come across like Dionne Warwick and her mystical friends.

Say what you like about the Aussies, they have some things right.

"Ah, yes. BTJ trots out the "everything is equal" canard."

Please, quote me. Where did I state that 'all religions are equal'? I said they all have this in common: there is good and bad, and they are primitive.

"I'm an atheist but I think that religion - a proper religion and not a political agenda masquerading as a religion - is vital. Why?"

So a religion is 'vital' yet you're an atheist, not even an agnostic, but an atheist. If it's so vital, why do you completely reject the underlying concept?

Your definition of a proper religion, unfortunately, has never been realized.

"To me, it is a belief system that acknowledges that man is 'not the measure of all things' but is a part of the complex adaptive system (CAS) that is our universe."

What do you mean by 'the measure of all things'?

"That is why I reject Islamism, socialism, communism, fascism as religions, for they all posit an end point of universality to their ideology, which is deemed to be supreme, and also, an end point of infinite purity - a violation of Godel's basic principle."

What the hell are you talking about? Do you really think there's that big a difference between Christianity, Islam, Judaism in the context of the belief system (not in the context of present day followers).

"Religions discuss the metaphysical; that zone of ordering which is not immediately accessible to the observer but is present upon analysis."

It's outdated and misinterpreted, there are better ways of studying metaphysics than from a series of loose translations from a several thousand year old book.

"Religions also, above all, discuss societal mores, the morality of 'how to behave with each other'."

Again, it's the year 2010, I would hope that we have evolved socially enough to be able to have these discussions without using a 2000+ year old book.

"Makes this a sort of pointless thread - and Zoo gets free publicity. "

You hit the nail on the head.

"St. Thomas More is my favorite saint. He only burned six people at the stake for not believing him. "

The oh so loving Christian church at it's finest.

"Western culture and science are closely linked with Catholicism (art and architecture) and Protestantism (technology and industry)"

Only because it was intricately enmeshed with ALL culture at the time, you couldn't get away from it! Christianity was NOT responsible for what we have today, it was the loosening of the influence that Christianity held over people that is responsible for what we have. Do you forget that at one time you'd be killed for any idea that conflicted with the church?

"I too am Atheist, but I am a Catholic Atheist"

Good lord, a sign that religion is outdated...when the term 'Catholic Atheist' is seriously used to label oneself.

lance @12:38 - "...I would have figured even youth like you...."

Why do we assume BTJ is young? He could be senile.

rodin @12:56 - probably there was a time when one could mock the Ayatollah without being threatened, but if you've noticed Islam is getting, um, increasingly excitable. (I mean, there are actually Islamic depictions of Mohammed, mostly mediaeval I think, so it's not like these are hard and fast rules anyway.)

Theo Van Gogh didn't depict Mo inSubmission, as far as I'm aware. He just "insulted Islam".

BTJ

That is called humor.

But I Agree, religion is outdated. It's only remaining value is to allay fears in small children, that grampy, grammy and fluffy the cat didn't really die, they went to heaven to wait for the rest of us.

Oh, and I guess it is still used for explosive political purposes ...

Abe:
I'm not sure I'd like being your neighbour.
And glad to know you'll never be one of my kid's coaches, etc cause I sure don't want them learning any of the crap you just spewed.
Perchance Abe, have you thought of the fact that some people come from highly dysfunctional families and need the help of others (i'm one of those) or that refugees may not have any family left? Because of happenstance you live in a country where you can have most anything you want you are somehow above those who don't?
Who cares what others think about my volunteerism? It's not done for the viewing or entertainment of others.
I have spent many years looking for a charity that spends less than 5% on admin. with a nonreligious angle - even though the vast majority are religious. We teach a 'man' to fish. And 'handout' only in times of extreme trouble - like war or weather.
You're a real downer dude. Maybe you should finish your coffee first before posting!

As another atheist in general agreement with some of the above (I consider Christians to be further evolved than and much preferable to certain others), I think there is little fun nor challenge in ridiculing Christians collectively. Many Muslims however, are a pathetic, humorless and backward lot completely lacking introspection. The challenge of their domestication is significant if at all possible.

I think Glenn Beck is onto something and that is a necessity of a moral code as a basis for a successful society.

Thanks abe for showing where you're coming from as a Catholic skeptic.

Ever since the Church of Rome decided to go its own way from the rest of Christianity (what we know today as the Orthodox Church). it has left a trail of consequences from its lack of humility.

Does the Church of Rome speak for all Christianity? Certainly not, it just speaks from its geographical location, that is from Rome.

There are several theological turning points that foretold its eventual position. I have my understanding of them and I'll let it go at that.

Among them was the Protestant movement, which was a fragmentation from the practises of the Church of Rome. That included celibacy and the Church of Rome remains the only apostolic church that demands celibacy from its clergy.

No equivalent separation such at Protestantism has sprung from the other bodies of the original Church which had jurisdiction in the rest of the known world, the original body from which Rome separated itself.

There is no question there are many wonderful and exceptional people in the Church of Rome, even worthy of sainthood.

But Rome does not speak for my tradition and we consider the Pope the Bishop of one city, that is the Pope is the Bishop of just Rome.

I can sense how frustrating it must be for you, but there are other options open for any human being's search for the ultimate truth.

If one door of truth shuts, another will open. Willful ignorance does not quality as a legitimate stance.

The gift of truth will always be there, despite the failings of human beings that blind us in our search for inner peace.

Have you found inner peace with your rejection of the Church of Rome? Sure doesn't sound like it.

BTJ - you have a narrow definition of religion. Here is a standard definition from the dictionary:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

As an atheist, I do not believe in a deterministic agent (god) - which is what you seem to narrowly understand as 'religion'. But I do believe in 'superhuman' power, in the sense of a 'broader and deeper power than human agency'. This power is Nature, the underlying rational order and adaptive strengths of a Complex Adaptive System.

Purpose? The only purpose of this CAS is to prevent the dissipation of energy.
Moral code? Most certainly.
Rituals? I consider them stabilizing, contributing to a sense of community and focus.

To state that a 'proper religion has never been realized' reveals you as a utopian, and thus, someone aligned with the 'false religions' of Islamism, socialism..etc..which are all about an eventual purity and utopian state. A genuine religion acknowledges the fallibility of man, as finite beings (again, Godel's law) and thus, unable to ever be perfect (infinite).

There is a great difference between Christianity, Judaism and Islamism. I suggest you read the basic texts, and also, analyze when and thus why, they emerged.

Gosh - you reject the wisdom of the ancients? I am a fan of Aristotle - and I really find his thousand year old texts a font of wisdom...about everything from metaphysics (read his Physics and Metaphysics) to politics (read that section).

Look - we humans have been around for about 100,000 years and there's nothing wrong with exploring the basics of morality. Read Plato, read Aristotle, read Homer, read Cicero. They are basic.

Don't make the error of merging the church, which moved into a political realm, with the religion of Christianity. They actually are two different entities. The church, being a political agent in the period from about 4th through 15th c, was focused on power. The religion is not.

And remember, that Christianity, as a religion, focused on the individual not the tribe. That is what made it a part of 'growth economies'; it rejected tribalism, it rejected authoritarian rule and focused on the individual choosing the religion.

That is a powerful and vital grounding to the development of the Western ideology of freedom and growth. So, your suggestion that western scientific growth developed only as a rejection of Christianity is quite incorrect. Again, I suggest an exploration of some of the old scholars - and you can include the scholastics, including Duns Scotus vs Aquinas. Fascinating stuff and interestingly, a background for modern physics.

BTJ: "... everyone (sic) of them [religions] is a primitive way of looking at the world..."

Actually, it's the having no religion that usually turns out barbarians.

As ET so eloquently points out, religion instills in most of its believers care and concern for not only themselves but others, and Christianity, in particular, has been at the service of humankind since Jesus walked the earth: "Love your neighbour as yourself; do good to and pray for those who hate you."

Although I very much appreciate ET's and MND's admiration for Christianity and whole-heartedly agree that one neither has to be a Christian nor a practitioner of any religion to live a moral life and reach out to others, I would like to point out that there really is no comparison between the power of one morally and ethically upright atheist to the power of an organized church/community of Christians! Just look at who the first responders always are, offering significant relief, wherever there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world.

If, BTJ, you want to see what an advanced primitive society would look like, try if you can to imagine an inner city without the Christian churches' outreach: soup kitchens, clothing depots, in from the cold/heat programs, counselling programs, etc., etc. That barren, violent, dystopian landscape would be the primitive state of things you're actually talking about. You just don't know it, because you have all of your facts wrong and, sadly, no imagination.

MND: Your "I am not a believer but I believe in the value of belief" -- bless you! -- reminds me of something Winston Churchill said when someone referred to him as a pillar of the Church: "No, no, not a pillar of the Church, but a flying buttress, supporting it from the outside."!!

Forgot to add, Mary McKillop represents a human being who rose to sainthood DESPITE the flaws of the Church of Rome.

To my way of thinking, she is a worthy representative and example of Christian extremism ie somebody who has followed the tenets of Christianity rather than its human constructs, on which much of the rebellion is based.

On the "I Wish I Lived In Seward Neighborhood" thread BTJ is making claims today that environmentalism can't be compared to communist totalitarianism because environmentalism has not "killed millions" of people.
BTJ has no grasp of history or reality or the ultimate goal of environmentalism.
BTJ's religion is the worship of Gaia but can't even recognize that he is himself a supplicant.

It isn't any wonder that BTJ doesn't see the value of a religion that puts people above the worship of Gaia.

Only because it was intricately enmeshed with ALL culture at the time, you couldn't get away from it! Christianity was NOT responsible for what we have today, it was the loosening of the influence that Christianity held over people that is responsible for what we have. Do you forget that at one time you'd be killed for any idea that conflicted with the church?

I doubt that anyone could honestly and objectively read historical accounts of western development and make that claim. By comparison with every other culture, western culture is the most advanced and successful. Christianity helped create the conditions - peace, stability, education, communication, funding and inspiration that allowed for some of the greatest works of literature, art, architecture, music, political structure and scientific development.

You are damning it for not being perfect while turning a blind eye to its success. The Christian religion did make some horrible decisions but it evolved, kicking a screaming perhaps, to become one of the most humane religions in history. By direct comparison, few other religions/cultures come close to matching it.

I don't get the refusal to objectively asses both the positive and negative influence of Christianity.

LC Bennett: "I don't get the refusal to objectively assess both the positive and negative influence of Christianity."

I don't get it either, LC Bennett, but the negative influence of Christianity has been the leftard meme for years and our kids are being brainwashed with this view in our schools. Christian culture: BAD. All other cultures: GOOD.

That's what "multiculturalism" is really all about. Trudeau and co. knew they couldn't outright condemn Christianity and get away with it and so devised a plausible beard behind which to hide: official multiculturalism which relentlessly shoved Christianity to the sidelines and then to the basement, thus allowing them to usher in their godless, leftist agenda. The liberal mainline churches, unfortunately, helped them to advance their agenda, as did acquiescent, badly catechized Christians who didn't have a clue what was happening.

At this point I can perhaps claim to have seen more pain and hardship than most here.
This is not a virtue...just experience.
My opinion, is that Christianity, much like democracy, is not perfect but certainly is much better than the alternatives.

BJT----if you believe everybody is equal....fine, but I would advise against getting in the ring with Mike Tyson......

I think we can put this to rest if we can name an artist/writer/musician/philosopher/scientist/leader/philanthropist from Christendom as opposed to one from Islam.
It is easy to attack Christianity and Christians, calling the entire belief backward, ect, but it is quite another to defend it.

The liberal mainline churches, unfortunately, helped them to advance their agenda, as did acquiescent, badly catechized Christians who didn't have a clue what was happening.
~batb

I blame materialism.
Not even the love of money is the root of all evil anymore.
People don't worship money or they wouldn't be in such debt.

What they love is the material stuff they can get on credit.
People measure their own self worth and the worth of others by the "stuff" that they've accumulated.
A contemporary saying goes, "Whoever dies with the most toys wins."

According to the Bible, that was the original sin...covetousness, wanting that which you cannot have.
Now you can get everything you ever wanted on credit.

When the big debt crash comes, people are going to be stripped of their material self worth and the shrieking will be heard all the way to heaven.

Some people are going to go crazy when they lose all their stuff because they worship it and their idea of who they are is dependent on it.

"BTJ - you have a narrow definition of religion. Here is a standard definition from the dictionary:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.""

Nope, that's about how I define it...and supports my point. There are much more reliable and rational methods for exploring the 'cause and nature' of the universe than loose translations of thousand year old books.

"But I do believe in 'superhuman' power, in the sense of a 'broader and deeper power than human agency'. This power is Nature, the underlying rational order and adaptive strengths of a Complex Adaptive System."

You make a mistake that seems to be a common theme in today's society. Assuming that human and nature are two separate entities. We ARE nature, nature is US. We have the ability to shape nature as we see fit because we are, on this planet, the product of the cumulative adaptations of this its CAS.

"Rituals? I consider them stabilizing, contributing to a sense of community and focus."

Really? I see them as taking focus away from reality. For instance, Easter. Historically 'Easter' celebrations (the celebration of Spring, of new life) have been focused on reality. Long ago humans lived to survive, the end of winter and coming of spring was a 'god-send' in that it meant the end of winter fasting. Today we don't have to 'survive the winter', waiting for the return of life and food. Today we go skiing and have a beer and a choice of just about any type of food you'd want at the chalet in the middle of winter. Yet we still celebrate Easter, but since we don't have that same feeling of savior from overcoming winter, we've turned it into chocolate eggs and bunny rabbits, hallmark gift cards, and a tale of someone rising from the dead.

"To state that a 'proper religion has never been realized' reveals you as a utopian"

What?! My statement was in response to you, I'm not claiming there is any such thing as a 'proper religion', I'm saying that your definition of a 'proper religion' IS utopian...it doesn't exist.

"There is a great difference between Christianity, Judaism and Islamism. I suggest you read the basic texts, and also, analyze when and thus why, they emerged"

They are more alike than not, they stem from the same basic belief system, they have the same ultimate origin.

"Gosh - you reject the wisdom of the ancients?"

No, there's a difference between 'rejection' and 'progression'...I argue that we move forward, that doesn't imply that we reject the past.

"Look - we humans have been around for about 100,000 years and there's nothing wrong with exploring the basics of morality. Read Plato, read Aristotle, read Homer, read Cicero. They are basic"

Can't help but delve into the strawmen arguments. We are talking about RELIGION. Not historical philosophers.

"And remember, that Christianity, as a religion, focused on the individual not the tribe"

I would clarify this statement. JESUS focuses on the individual, Christianity as a whole, not so much. Jesus is also HIGHLY misrepresented by Christianity as some sort of superhuman/god like figure.

"So, your suggestion that western scientific growth developed only as a rejection of Christianity is quite incorrect. "

That was NOT my argument, please, reread my post. I said that it was the loosening of Christianity from society that allowed for scientific growth. It was the fact that one no longer faced death for revealing discoveries that contradicted the Church.

"Actually, it's the having no religion that usually turns out barbarians."

Another misunderstanding...I didn't say that religion turns out barbarians did I? I said it's a primitive way of observing one's surroundings.

"As ET so eloquently points out, religion instills in most of its believers care and concern for not only themselves but others"

I never said any differently. But you don't need religion to believe such things.

"I would like to point out that there really is no comparison between the power of one morally and ethically upright atheist to the power of an organized church/community of Christians!"

Ah, so you're a collective over the individual type eh? I would agree, the collective definitely has more power than the individual...though this is not something to be celebrated.

"If, BTJ, you want to see what an advanced primitive society would look like"

Oxymoron much? Today's society is as close to 'advanced primitive' as I hope you could get. We have technology that couldn't be dreamed up half a century ago, yet socially we cling to century and millennium old ideals.

"try if you can to imagine an inner city without the Christian churches' outreach: soup kitchens, clothing depots, in from the cold/heat programs, counselling programs,"

An overused and cheap argument...the classic 'imagine if there were no religion based charities'. A ridiculous thought experiment.

BTJ- no, I vehemently disagree with your comment:

" Assuming that human and nature are two separate entities. We ARE nature, nature is US. We have the ability to shape nature as we see fit because we are, on this planet, the product of the cumulative adaptations of this its CAS."

Your statement above is an example of 'hubris', of arrogance. We humans are NOT identical with Nature; we are a part of the CAS that is Nature. We cannot shape Nature 'as we see fit', and we are not the product of a linear adaptation of Nature. That is why I call you 'utopian' and why you, ideologically, fit in with the utopian ideologies of socialism, communism etc. They all say exactly the same as you do - that Man is the 'measure of all things'; that Man is the Controller..and so on. I disagree with both the hubris and the utopianism.

No, reading the ancient philosophers of metaphysics is not a strawman argument, for their discussions are about what religion discusses: the metaphysical forces, the relation of man to these forces, the relations of man to others. I am guessing that you've never read them and therefore, have no idea of their content. Did you know that the works of Plato and Aristotle form a key component of the ideology of the Christian religion? Ever read the scholastics?

No, read the Christian texts; it is a religion that focuses on the individual. You have to make the choice between good and evil, yourself; you have to reach out to others, yourself. I am beginning to wonder if you've even read the Christian texts...and the analyses of them by various Christian scholars. Remember, the Christian bible is not the 'word of god' but is an interpretation and as such, the teachings are analyzed by religious scholars.

Could you explain why, if you accept the dictionary definition of religion, why you consider it 'primitive'?

And again, you are making a serious error in confusing Christianity with the medieval church. The individuals who rejected the corrupt political power that the church had become, did not reject Christianity! Instead, their agenda was to remove that political corruption and restore the beliefs of Christianity.

Could you explain how we socially cling to millenium old ideals? We moved out of tribalism, out of theocracy, out of divine kingship and into democracy. We focus on equality of individuals, on a constitution and the rule of law, on an elected government..and so on. Could you explain your comment?

Blah, blah, blah. Must every neutral reference to Christianity bring out the bored navel-gazers to let us know that they've got it all figured out and that the Church is archaic? Focus people! Nobody is getting killed; end of story. Nice work Kate,as usual, and welcome back.

I don't know if any of y'all has noticed, but BJT uniformly disagrees with anything posted on SDA, by anyone, every time.

Still not addressing the main point BJ: profound lack of anything resembling rioting after mortal insult delivered to Australian Catholics, ZOO magazine has -not- had any bombs go off on their front step, zero death threats delivered to the authors, film of crickets chirping at eleven.

If you want to disagree perhaps you should consider disagreeing with the topic at hand, eh?

"We humans are NOT identical with Nature"

Really? I wouldn't say we are 'identical' with nature, but nature is apart of us and we are apart of nature. We are inseparable.

"we are a part of the CAS that is Nature"

That is what I said.

"We cannot shape Nature 'as we see fit'"

No? So far I've seen us create new elements, turn black goop into a means of transportation, create new organs from a single cell, and the list goes on and on and on and on.

"we are not the product of a linear adaptation of Nature"

Where do you see me use the word 'linear'? We are not the product of adaptations?

"that Man is the 'measure of all things'; that Man is the Controller"

Huh? no they don't! Capitalism says that man is the controller, that man creates from nature. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged...go read it.

"No, reading the ancient philosophers of metaphysics is not a strawman argument, for their discussions are about what religion discusses"

Great, WE are discussing religion. Not historical philosophers.

"I am guessing that you've never read them and therefore, have no idea of their content."

Read them and discussed them, we're talking about religion though.

"Did you know that the works of Plato and Aristotle form a key component of the ideology of the Christian religion? "

That's great, why not just read Plato and Aristotle then?

"No, read the Christian texts"

I've read and been read, and been taught enough of the Christian texts thank you very much. I grew up highly influenced by Christianity (several Reverends in my family). It is JESUS that focuses on the individual.

"Could you explain why, if you accept the dictionary definition of religion, why you consider it 'primitive'?"

Because it IS primitive by definition. Before people had science, had microscopes, had electron microscopes, had computers, to discover the world around them they had religion. Religion explained the unknown.

"Could you explain how we socially cling to millenium old ideals?"

"We moved out of tribalism, out of theocracy, out of divine kingship and into democracy."

Yet we still have tribalism (interest groups), millions still rely on theocracy to tell them how to live (what the pope says still runs peoples lives, but now by choice), in our 'democracy' we get a say in who rules, but after that we pretty much have no say. We still relate to each other in primitive ways (just read any thread on this site), we still not only hold marriage as some sort of divine procession but we argue about who can and cannot be involved.

It is cool to see Mary MaKkillop become a saint. The first Australian saint. I've only been to Australia a couple of times and I do have two 1st cousins (one English, one Irish) who emigrated there.

They don't care about mags trying to make a buck - they wish them luck (rhymes).

What is interesting though is that the timing of this sainthood is lined up with (and similar to the strategic promotion of Newman in England ) the roll out of the Anglo-Catholic Ordinariate. The sainthoods and the promotions were worthy but I think the timing was strategic. A lot of parishes are about to switch to Catholicism from Anglicanism in Australia and England. They probably can't take the church property with them but who cares - you can always say Mass in a garage or barn until you can save up to build something that lasts for a while.

Yes, BTJ, we get it- you like pressing buttons.
Now- if you have the stones- say what you are saying now to a Muslim. To his face. After all, all religions are the same, that being being primitive and silly. You've gotten debates here. Do you think you'll get reason from him?

"Now- if you have the stones- say what you are saying now to a Muslim. To his face. After all, all religions are the same, that being being primitive and silly."

Well, I don't judge individuals based on collective identities so I can't say how any one Muslim would react. Since many Muslims live in primitive societies, relative to North America, I would assume that they would likely have a primitive reaction. However, I have a Muslim friend who has lived in North America most his life and has no problem discussing such topics.

You're a real downer dude. Maybe you should finish your coffee first before posting!

Posted by: andy at October 23, 2010 1:47 PM

Well, Andy, I guess you are just special.

Well, I suppose Catholic conservatives could also respond -- in the name of "free expression" -- with a perverted mocking depiction of one of the idols claimed by Left progressives. For example, a depiction of Black protestant minister Martin Luther King performing fallatio on a white stallion, or something along that line.

But Catholics would never do that because they respect Martin Luther King for the same reason they respect nuns such as Mother Theresa. And if King were alive today there is no doubt that he would disassociate himself completely from the sex-obsessed progressive Left who attack Catholics and who pretend to represent what King stood for.

Hey wait, I've got a better idea! How about a picture of Roman Polanski drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old Catholic girl?

No, scratch that. Too close to reality.

ricardo, good point. King would RUN away from the disgusting hustlers that the NAACP have become.

On a brighter note, the older I get the more evidence I see that being a member of the "sex-obsessed progressive Left" is its own best punishment. These people are uniformly bitter, miserable creatures who live only for their hate.

Sucks to be you, Lefties.

Half of this thread reads like debates in Philosophy 1000. You know, before you get your first paper back and get taken down a few notches.

Beagle, try doing the search in News instead of the Web.
Posted by: Brian Mallard at October 23, 2010 9:53 AM "

ah, ok. so when I google news 'muslims riot' how many responses?

one.

big f'ing deal

MLK was a registered Republican.

Judge not a man by the colour of his skin but by the content of his character is, I submit, one of the central tenets of Christianity.

What Sharpton, Jessee Jackson and Rev. Wright preach is something entirely different.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/lord-liar-lunatic.html

1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our [1] joy may be complete. I John.

Always good to get ET's prospective!

i think BTJ mixesup creating nature with tech-manipulation of elements&processes.

I was going to respond to you, BTJ -- you know? to something totally asinine that you said-- but I thought better of it.

Pi** off.

I think BTJ is a windy, incoherent troll who should be ignored as much as possible.

(BTW one reason brats like the guys at ZOO can't cast lewd aspersions on important Muslim women is because there, um, aren't any. I mean, there's Mo's wife no.1, the sugar-momma, and then another of his wives, the little girl, but otherwise...)

"i think BTJ mixesup creating nature with tech-manipulation of elements&processes."

Go back and re-read. I never said anything about 'creating' nature, I said we 'shape nature as we see fit'.

'shape' as in 'manipulate'.

"I was going to respond to you"

Good, sounds like it wasn't worth saying.

Thank you, ET, for your defense of reality and sanity.

Is Atheism Just an Emotional Crutch?

"The first response to the view that belief in God is mere wishful thinking, then, is to point out that it is just as easy to argue that atheism is just an emotional crutch as it is to argue that belief in God is an emotional crutch.

Belief in God has consequences; if one believes in God, then one must make a decision either to follow him or to oppose him. Anyone who believes that Christianity is true must either commit themselves to living out their faith, or set themselves in opposition to God. This choice can be hard to face, but by denying Christianity one can avoid having to face it. Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God.

Some think that this view of atheism is correct, that atheists really are consciously aware of the existence of God but choose to rebel against him by professing unbelief. This is not my view. My point here is just that if Christianity can be rejected as irrational simply because some people find it comforting, then the same must be true of atheism. And if atheism cannot be dismissed in this way, as the atheist will surely hold, then neither can Christianity."

Same link as earlier post.

Is digging through garbage to find "missed" recyclable's an emotional crutch?

You showed up the MSM for the hypocrites-cowards-liars they are. Well done Kate

"Belief in God has consequences; if one believes in God, then one must make a decision either to follow him or to oppose him."

Huh? Does God talk to you? How do you know if you are following him or opposing him?

"Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God."

Assuming atheists are 'unable to deal with the reality of life with God'...whatever that's supposed to mean, rather than simply finding no rational reason to believe that God exists and that one can 'follow' him/her.

"My point here is just that if Christianity can be rejected as irrational simply because some people find it comforting"

It's rejected as irrational because, by definition, it is irrational..that is, it relies on faith, rather than reason/rationalizing.

@ SYF

Rome does not speak for my tradition and we consider the Pope the Bishop of one city, that is the Pope is the Bishop of just Rome
We meaning who?
I can sense how frustrating it must be for you, but there are other options open for any human being's search for the ultimate truth
Like what? an Islam, perhaps?
..........
Have you found inner peace with your rejection of the Church of Rome? Sure doesn't sound like it.
Syf, but the one who found perfect inner peace on earth can only be a saint,do you claim to be such a one?
****
I wonder, Syf, did you learn to write such a drivel on your own or somebody taught you to do so.

ah, ok. so when I google news 'muslims riot' how many responses?
one.
beagle
Your google must have been on strike.
"Muslim riots":
Results 1 - 17 of about 1,793,000

Atta boy Lance, whomever you be, stick to your guns!

Digging through garbage to find "missed' recyclable's is primitive - reminds me of apes picking nits off each other.

You weren't there BTJ you did not meet Jesus in the flesh; however, others were and wrote extensively about their experiences - their eyewitness accounts, and I'm not talking about just the disciples - historians alive at the time observations closely match those of the disciples. Even Pontus Pilate knew Jesus Christ was the real deal.

BTW - BTJ - you exercise "faith" every single day - I assume you leave your home - it's possible you could be hit by a bus or car whatever, if you drive you could easily be seriously injured or die in a car accident or even kill someone else. Someone could attack you or you could have a bad fall while riding your bike to reduce your carbon footprint - all these possibilities are based on reason - they happen everyday, yet you exercise "faith" that neither of these will happen to you and get in your car or walk/bike to your destination. Statistics tell us that accidents in the home are even more likely, so it's not safe to stay there either, yet I assume you get out of bed each morning believing the day will end without incident.

Christianity is built on reason and faith.

Phantom and rzr have stated what I think, is the nub of this posting by Kate. Think what you will about the Catholic Church; there were no deaths as the direct result of this cowardly attack on the memory of a beautiful soul; Saint Mary. This lovely lady did not hurt anyone, she helped many. Why would she be attacked? As Abe Foreman said above 'when you help someone they remember you the next time they need help' - pretty standard in the ME! ME! generation. With this thought and the hypocrisy of 'charities' (including church charities) firmly in mind; the selfless dedication of a beautiful soul is fodder for ridicule, people wonder how anyone could be so blind and stupid.

Like you Abe, I hate seeing kind, decent people used by rappistic fools. I wonder why they put up with it - are they morons? You see the decent Mom and Dad getting taken to the cleaners again and again by their ungrateful offspring, we see churches abrogating their moral responsibility to the words and rules of God; yet good , decent people still go to church and give the same irresponsible church money to peddle their pablum version of God's word.

The header, gracing this website, days it all in a nutshell ' Pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends'. Conservative Canadians are notorious for taking their friends for granted after asking for, and getting help from their supporters (Kate's support for Premier Wall comes to mind, as does Lyin' Brian). When they run into trouble they go back to the well (as said by Abe Foreman); sometimes the well has run dry. The enemy wins by default, not on merit.

Christianity is the same as Freedom and Independence and has the same needy egoists stomping around; trumping the good. I love God and Jesus Christ, I don't love the church reps here on earth just because they claim to 'speak the word of God'; those reps must earn respect just like any other man/woman. Sister Mary did earn my respect and I will consider those vile souls who have chosen to mock her in the same category as I place people who defend the hateful practices of mohameid. There is a Hell.

Good discussion here. Thanks for posting this interesting jux, Kate.

larben, c'mon! Lance is Kate's husband. I'm not kidding.

I don't think we're 100% sure on that one, batb. They'll explain everything when we're old enough.

To no-one:

Catholicism is based on faith and reason. It's generally the Protestants who aren't in it for the REASON parts. Anglicanism got rid of the "reason" component when the Tudors were still around.

'Tis true, Black Mamba. It was 'announced' here about a year ago.

Thanks No-one, ET and Jema54. Great points.

Slightly related, I've noticed several places on the net that Christianity is being held responsible for the suicides of homosexual teens, in the 'It Gets Better' campaign.
How do the lefties ignore the fact that homosexual are hung or beheaded by Muslims?
A juxtaposition of sorts, eh?

Black Mamba, you may be right.

But did you notice in the shot with Kate and her beautiful schnauzer champion awhile back, that Kate had a wedding band on? I do think she's married and if not to Lance, then to whom?

BTJ - you didn't say that we are a part of nature; you said

"We ARE nature, nature is US." That's a pretty clear equivalence of the two.

You then said: We have the ability to shape nature as we se"e fit because we are, on this planet, the product of the cumulative adaptations of this its CAS."

I disagree; we cannot shape nature; your example of processing oil is trivial. We cannot, for example, reshape the basic physical, chemical and biological principles and constants. We can transform natural materials into another material but we cannot move out of the basic principles of chemical and biological composition.

I doubt very much that you have read Aristotle and Plato; you give no indication of any knowledge of their work. They talked about religion, by the way, i.e., the relation of the physical with the metaphysical and societal relations of men and morality - that's 'religion'.
So, you obviously don't know their work...and how it influenced, for example, great Christian scholars like Duns Scotus and Aquinas.

No, religion is not just about faith; it rests on both faith and reason. You cannot, if you are an adult, and a human being, have the one without the other. Faith without reason is the mark of the slave. You must reason about the choices you make, the moral stances you take, the relations you have.

No, religion is not a precursor to science. I strongly reject your view on this. Science, like religion, rests on both reason AND faith. Bet you didn't know that! But a scientist must have faith both in the validity of the knowledge base developed by the 'community of scholars' (hey, you say you know Aristotle, so you ought to know what he means by this!)..and he must use his reason to analyze further implications of this knowledge.

Religion focuses on the metaphysical and morality. Science focuses on the physical and the ethical. Both are really necessary in our human world.

My definition of a 'proper religion' was, as I'm sure you know, one that had not been politicized (as has Islam).

No, tribalism is not about interest groups; tribalism is a political mode of governance with two hereditary classes. Theocracy is a political mode of governance - and not akin to the Pope. You have a tendency to try to divert an argument to trivia as a tactic to avoid the basic discussion.

No, religion is not 'primitive by definition'. That's a tautology. Explain what is primitive about religion. Your suggestion that it's a precursor to science is, of course, incorrect.

Of course we argue about marriage, because marriage is a societal and economic relation - and therefore, it must be debated and the community must come to a decision on what is acceptable, socially and economically, for that type of relation.

ella - Kate is using google news. There are 0 results for "christians riot" in google news, and there is one result for "muslims riot" in google news -- that result being a blog post.

If you google.com for "christians riot" there are 7,000 results to 76,200 results for "muslims riot."

ET said: "You have a tendency to try to divert an argument to trivia as a tactic to avoid the basic discussion."

That's because BJT's an unlettered high schooler, in mind if not in fact. He actually said "Cost is artificial" to me on another thread.

Thou casteth thy pearls before swine, ma'am.

As a Christian, I wish to warn all Australian infidels that they may regret these diabolical actions. Or they may not. I don't really know. I don't really care.

Jama54

Many people are against the charities, among them church charities. Many people say, like you do, that "decent people still go to church and give the same irresponsible church money to peddle their pablum version of God's word. " but it is also these "irresponsible church" which helped many people during communist era in Europe. The same catholic priests and the same church you say is irresponsible. Without church there would be no Solidarity in Poland and there would still be a communist countries in eastern Europe.
You people think only of churches here, of what MSM tells you church is doing. And do not look further then that.
True, there are some bad apples in the church but so people can say about Canadian military or Tea Party in USA.
It seems that majority of people here do not believe MSM when it writes that Tea Party is racist or that Canadian Military is criminal, why then do you believe that Church charities are irresponsible or that majority of priests are hypocrites.
In one case - Tea party,military - MSM is certainly wrong, in another - catholic church, charities, the priests - it is surely right.
Why?

Scipio

I was using words without quotations marks.
My bad. :-(

batb is correct.

ella - I certainly did not mean ALL churches or ALL priests or all preachers. I realized that I did generalize when I reread my comment. I know many, many, good priests, churches and preachers; the bad often trump the good. Churches and Church reps are supposed to administer good works; when they do not, their bad is ten times as bad as those of regular people because the churches and church reps ask us to trust them because they speak the word of God. If the trust is broken, so are we.

"Again, it's the year 2010, I would hope that we have evolved socially enough to be able to have these discussions without using a 2000+ year old book." bjt

Son that book is the history of us evolving socially over the last 4000 years.

Like it or not it is the Christian philosophy that has evolved to a point where you can have silly debates and not be imprisoned or worse.

Since you obviously are a heathen, please share your great unifying philosophy so we can be truly amazed.

Kate is married?

Okay that's it ... I'm outta here. :0)

"You weren't there BTJ you did not meet Jesus in the flesh; however"

No, but Jesus' OWN words are in the bible and are some of the most misinterpreted parts of the book. When he talks of himself most people assume that he is some sort of superhuman, superior to any other man, not to be equaled, ever. In reality he talks of himself as a human being, as every man, and his words are meant to show others the path to his level of being.

"historians alive at the time observations closely match those of the disciples. Even Pontus Pilate knew Jesus Christ was the real deal."

So what are you saying? Jesus really did walk on water? He really was some supernatural phenomenon?

"you exercise "faith" every single day - I assume you leave your home - it's possible you could be hit by a bus or car whatever, if you drive you could easily be seriously injured or die in a car accident or even kill someone else."

For one, I never said I didn't exercise faith, or that it was wrong/inferior to do so. Secondly, how does the possibility of death mean that I practice faith? I walk around, drive, etc while rationalizing and reasoning...as in I look both ways, drive to the best of my ability, etc...that's how I deal with the possibilities of harm, that and I don't really think about it, why should I?

"yet you exercise "faith" that neither of these will happen to you and get in your car or walk/bike to your destination."

No I don't, I don't go out thinking 'I have faith that nothing will happen to me'...sh1t happens, if it does, it does...all I can do is be aware of my surroundings and use my rationalizing human brain to limit the possibility of harm.

"There is a Hell."

Hell is here on earth, hell is a mind set.

""We ARE nature, nature is US." That's a pretty clear equivalence of the two."

What I meant is we are inextricably one with nature, not that we are equals. Would you like to continue arguing about what my thoughts are?

"we cannot shape nature; your example of processing oil is trivial."

We can't shape nature? What do you call mining materials, processing them, and turning them into a myriad of different substances and shapes. What do you call in-vitro fertilization, cloning, creating blood vessels from single cells, creating computers from silicon, metals, and plastic?

Why is processing oil 'trivial'? EXTREMELY weak rebuttal.

"We cannot, for example, reshape the basic physical, chemical and biological principles and constants."

That would be completely changing nature, that would be creating our own form of nature. I never said we could alter the entire structure of the universe. I said we could 'shape nature (implying working within the bounds of nature to manipulate it) as we see fit'

"I doubt very much that you have read Aristotle and Plato"

Are you calling me a liar? I've taken philosophy 101...read through a number of works including Aristotle and Plato, had group discussions, wrote essay's, etc, etc.

"the relation of the physical with the metaphysical and societal relations of men and morality - that's 'religion'."

Ah, I see what you're trying to do...you're trying to equate organized religion with your definition of 'religion', which encompasses the whole subject of metaphysics. Nice try.

"No, religion is not just about faith; it rests on both faith and reason"

Right, because believing that a man who lived 2000 years ago died and rose from the grave, walked on water, and turned water into wine. That a man split the red sea, that a man loaded two of each animal onto a boat and rode out a world wide flood is using 'reason'.

"You cannot, if you are an adult, and a human being, have the one without the other. "

Well, if you're a human you MUST have the ability to reason...that's what sets humans apart from animals. You can have reason without 'faith'. I don't have to have faith in gravity, I don't have to have faith in the basic principles of physics...they ARE, I reason within those principles. An engineer doesn't need faith to build a bridge, he needs to reason within the bounds of physics.

"Faith without reason is the mark of the slave. You must reason about the choices you make, the moral stances you take, the relations you have."

Sure, I agree with your first statement. But you haven't explained how reason relies on faith.

"Science, like religion, rests on both reason AND faith."

Yes, but it relies MUCH more on reason. Religion does not rely on reason whatsoever. Please, give me an example of reasoning that is inherent in organized religion (not your definition of religion which seems to refer to any consideration of metaphysics).

"But a scientist must have faith both in the validity of the knowledge base developed by the 'community of scholars'"

Must he? Is that not veering away from the point of science? Is science not meant to produce a method for rationalizing? It is very structured in it's approach, relies on a universal language (math/statistics), and keeps a record which can be traced and reasoned. One can explore the knowledge base using his/her rational mind and come to his/her own conclusions, regardless of 'faith'. It is the downfall of science when faith begins to enter the equation.

"No, tribalism is not about interest groups; tribalism is a political mode of governance with two hereditary classes."

From the dictionary:
Tribalism = A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.

Interest Group = A group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause

"Theocracy is a political mode of governance - and not akin to the Pope. "

What is the ultimate form of governance? Would it not be governing how one should live their everyday life? What path one should take when making everyday decisions? The pope and Catholic Church guide people's everyday decisions/lives..the only difference is the lack of physical force.

"it must be debated and the community must come to a decision on what is acceptable, socially and economically, for that type of relation."

Ahhh, good old group think, collectivism, the majority rule. Are you an advocate of collectivism? I know you are, you remind me so much of Ellsworth Tooey.

"Son that book is the history of us evolving socially over the last 4000 years."

Well, that would explain the snail like pace we've been moving socially.

"Like it or not it is the Christian philosophy that has evolved to a point where you can have silly debates and not be imprisoned or worse."

Really? But the Christian faith used to imprison people or worse for starting a debate..and they weren't silly debates either!

My philosophy? Well that's quite the question. I'll start with this...everything in the universe is inextricably one..we are made up of atoms and subatomic particles that are identical to those across the universe. In this way there is no life and death, everything is infinite. Heaven and Hell are in the human being...hell is the state of entrapment within one's own mind, heaven is the state of just being.

BTJ needs to be charged for that bandwidth.

'Not a considerate guest here.

btj- with regard to your equivalence of nature and man, I can only go by what you write - and that's what you wrote. I'm not privy to your unwritten thoughts and 'what you meant'.

Equally, your statement that "we have the ability to shape nature as we see fit' is not indicative of any awareness of constraints, has no hint of 'implication of boundaries'.

You have a habit of, when criticized, answering that 'you meant to say it'..and the fault lies in the reader not 'understanding' the unwritten statements. Heh. That's a basic Obama slithering tactic.

Furthermore - a first year course in 'the key people of philosophy' and reading through 'a number of works' is hardly a knowledge of Aristotle or Plato and it is the height of arrogance to claim such. Your comments show that you haven't read or analyzed either of them with any thoroughness.

Your examples of 'faith' (walking on water etc) are ridiculous; they are not examples of faith but of the imagination. Faith means an awareness of continuity, it rests on a rejection of randomness. it enables the strength of a current action based on an anticipation of a continuity of one's surroundings, of a continuity of the behaviour of the envt, and so on.

Of course religion is about the metaphysical! What do you think it explores??? It's about the metaphysical, which seeks answers to the experience of life, and about morality, which outlines the societal relations of man.

I've no idea what you mean by 'organized religion' since your comments about religion define it only as a primitive and irrational mindset. Obviously, I can't give an example of 'reasoning' within your [incorrect] definition since you've already removed reason from it.

I've suggested that you check out the analysis of such scholars as Aristotle and in particular his Metaphysics, for examples of the use of reason in analyzing both the metaphysical and morality. You might try also Duns Scotus, a Christian scholastic, for the same issues: reason and morality. And there's my favourite, Charles Peirce.

No, science relies on faith in the knowledge base (that's from Aristotle, whose works that you declare that you know)..because, "all learning is by means of premisses which are (either all of some of them) known before" (Bk I, Ch 9,30). And you work from within them, using the null hypothesis.

Yes, of course you have to have faith in the nature of gravity and other principles and in the continuity of life. That's called the ability to anticipate.
I don't think that you have defined FAITH and I suspect it must be rather similar to your unique and invalid definition of religion as a 'primitive mindset'.

There is no way that a single individual scientist can replicate and therefore prove the work of others, either before or in current work. Instead, the scientist must have faith in the rationale of the hypothesis of these other researchers and the validity and reliability of their data base.

You are ignoring the hypothesis; statistics only refer to examples of the hypothesis - and if that hypothesis is invalid, then, many times, the statistics will not show this.

I stand by my definition of tribalism; your simple dictionary definition is a circular definition (doesn't define 'tribe'). I doubt that you are aware of the different modes of political organization. Tribalism is a particular political mode based on two classes, both hereditary by kin filiation.

I've no idea what you mean by the 'ultimate form of governance'. I, myself, consider that the individual, as an adult, governs himself by the use of reason and morality. The Pope does not govern individual decisions; these are the choice of the individual.

Our species functions both as an individual and within a collective. You don't seem to understand this dyad. We operate within a collective because our knowledge base is not genetic but is learned; we learn it from the collective. That is why humans have language. Furthermore, our species, to deal with this 'problem' of a lack of innate knowledge, must nurture the young for a long period of time. This means that our species lives together, within a collective. That means that we must develop and use common rules of interaction, morality, economy etc. That includes marriage. I'm surprised that your 'extensive' reading of Aristotle and Plato didn't lead you to some understanding of the relation between the individual and the collective.

There is 'no life and death'? Heh, and so you can walk on water and raise the dead! What imaginary world do you live in? Our universe, from the nanosecond of the Big Bang, moved from the infinite into the finite. All material units are finite. And slithering into a reductionism of 'we are nothing but atoms' ignores the nature of morphological reality. Ever heard about the Forms? Oh, I forgot - of course you have; you know Aristotle and Plato well.

And statements like 'heaven is the state of just being' is meaningless New Age vapidity.

"we are made up of atoms and subatomic particles that are identical to those across the universe."

Fair enough. But until we can answer where those little buggers came from then both sides of the question are just guessing.

As for everything being infinite well even the big boom theory works against that. But other then those two points not a bad Philosophy.

Well then congrats, Lance and Kate! :-)

I can sense male hearts shattering all over the righty blogosphere.

But what makes this story different is that Kathleen Folden, bless her heart, entered the gallery, broke into the artwork with a crowbar and ripped it to pieces. She didn't really destroy the art, since it was one of several prints, but she did express a rebuttal of sorts to the constant artistic besmirching of Jesus.

Perhaps another explanation of why the Archdiocese of Sydney [George Pell] finds the Saint Boobs portrayal "disgusting" --

// It was also an annus horribilis for Sydney’s Archbishop George Pell. First, ambushed by 60 Minutes over allegations that he attempted to bribe a victim of clerical sexual abuse to keep quiet; then the subject of a complaint of a sexual advance at an altar boy camp forty years ago. //

Anyway, there's sacrilege & there's sacrilege -- Cardinal Pell and Sister Anne Derwin
with Mary MacKillop gold and silver coins.

""we have the ability to shape nature as we see fit' is not indicative of any awareness of constraints, has no hint of 'implication of boundaries'."

I'm sorry, I assumed I was conversing with a rational person. Shape = manipulate...if I had said he have the ability to CREATE nature, or TRANSCEND nature, or MAKE OUR OWN RULES OVER NATURE then sure.

"You have a habit of, when criticized, answering that 'you meant to say it"

I might say that you have a habit of construing your own interpretation of my words in order to fit your own argument.

"a first year course in 'the key people of philosophy' and reading through 'a number of works' is hardly a knowledge of Aristotle or Plato and it is the height of arrogance to claim such."

Oh, my bad...I didn't know that by 'have you read Plato and Aristotle' you meant 'are you expertly versed in their works, having spent an inordinate amount of time studying them'. You should be more clear next time...or maybe I should just be "privy to your unwritten thoughts and 'what you meant'".

"Your examples of 'faith' (walking on water etc) are ridiculous; they are not examples of faith but of the imagination."

Huh? But it says so right in the bible! People take this as the truth...is that not faith?!

"Faith means an awareness of continuity, it rests on a rejection of randomness."

No, that's reason. Reason rests on the knowledge of the continuity of such things as physics.

From the dictionary:

Faith = belief that is not based on proof; Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

Reason = An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence; The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence; To determine or conclude by logical thinking

"it enables the strength of a current action based on an anticipation of a continuity of one's surroundings, of a continuity of the behaviour of the envt, and so on."

No, it is REASONING that enables strength in continuity. If I'm building a bridge, and make a current action based on my REASONING of the laws of physics, thats all I need. I don't need to have faith that the world won't suddenly turn on it's head fundamentally changing the laws of physics...I reason that such a case is infinitely improbable, if I even consider such nonsense at all. Even if it were to happen, I have no control over it so there is no point in considering.

"Of course religion is about the metaphysical!"

I didn't say otherwise, again, you twist my words. I said that your definition of religion seems to equate it entirely with metaphysics...as in they are one and the same. Organized religion is far from a simple thought experiment into the metaphysical.

"I've no idea what you mean by 'organized religion'"

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism etc, etc.

"No, science relies on faith in the knowledge base"

No, it doesn't. Any good researcher doesn't just rely on faith in his predecessors, he uses his own reasoning to confirm that prior knowledge can be reasoned. He may find that some prior knowledge does not fit his reasoning, and may go on to attempt to reason an alternative conclusion.

You don't just blindly accept science, you develop a knowledge of it with reason, and expand upon that reasoning.

"Yes, of course you have to have faith in the nature of gravity and other principles and in the continuity of life."

No, you don't. I can reason that gravity exists and isn't going anywhere. I can reason that if gravity does go somewhere, there is nothing I can do about it. Reasoning defines the laws of physics, reasoning concludes that they are continuous since there is no evidence to the contrary.

"There is no way that a single individual scientist can replicate and therefore prove the work of others "

WHAT?! Is part of the scientific method not that an experiment must be REPLICABLE? You are SERIOUSLY straying from the rules of science.

"I stand by my definition of tribalism; your simple dictionary definition is a circular definition"

Of course, head straight for the 'simple dictionary' argument. You could argue against any one by saying that any relevant term cannot be defined by anyone but yourself.

Tribe = A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.;A group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit

How is your very narrow definition of tribalism any more valid? How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that tribalism means a mode of governance with two hereditary classes? Sounds more like a Monarchy. I've never heard of your definition of tribalism...pretty easy to be right when you decide what the meaning of words are isn't it?

"I've no idea what you mean by the 'ultimate form of governance'. I, myself, consider that the individual, as an adult, governs himself by the use of reason and morality."

Exactly, it is a form of governance when faith in the Pope's words replaces the use of reason by the individual.

"The Pope does not govern individual decisions; these are the choice of the individual."

Which is why I said it was by choice, people place the Pope as their ultimate governance (replacing their own reasoning) by choice.

"We operate within a collective because our knowledge base is not genetic but is learned; we learn it from the collective."

Yes, it is learned by the individual, from the works of other individuals. There is no collective brain...only a collection of the products of individual brains.

"This means that our species lives together, within a collective."

I don't deny this, what I deem as wrong is the power of the collective majority to rule the individual.

"I'm surprised that your 'extensive' reading of Aristotle and Plato"

I'm sorry, I think you've misquoted me...where did I use the word 'extensive'?

"There is 'no life and death'? Heh, and so you can walk on water and raise the dead! "

I didn't say that physical bodies do not die, I said, much like energy, life is neither created, nor destroyed. The universe is infinite and it's potential for life is equally so.

"moved from the infinite into the finite"

??? I beg to disagree.

"And statements like 'heaven is the state of just being' is meaningless New Age vapidity."

Heaven is the state of NOT being in hell, it is the state of release from the entrapment of one's mind. It is simply being, without being ruled by the constant stream of thought that the ever so powerful human mind produces.

Are your thoughts you? Or are you the being who perceives your thoughts?

Could we stop feeding this troll? Seriously. Its getting out of hand.

I know, I've been feeding it too, but now I'm stopping. Pinkie swear I'll never feed it again.

Indeed, Phantom.
Maybe BTJ doesn't realise how lucky he is to live in a country where his deliberately inflammatory statements would not merit a stoning.

BTJ is the new 'new'...scroll over works.

How did batb know this thing, when the rest of us were sure Kate was available for the right man? Guess she found the right man.

Try googling "catholics riot." There are quite a number of examples of Roman Catholics rioting and being violent in their protests.