Why doesn’t the Catholic Church like protection? Because if Catholics stop having kids then the church will lose members.

Whereas if your faith is just something you do on a Sunday, it’s a lot easier to stop.

This is perhaps why (if you believe the Gospels) Jesus spent so much time emphasizing that you couldn’t be a Christian if you didn’t give up everything else and follow him.

I do believe in the existance of a God, but I really woudln’t ever interpret the Bible literally. It was written a long time ago, and humans make mistakes and things come up and get lost through the ages. Looking for a reply!

the rightful place of science is as the very useful tool for understanding the world that it is. The problem is that the Bush administration “politicized” science, ignoring any that conflicted with their prior views. For instance, their support of creationism taught in science class, their dismissal of global warming and several reports about that, and their disdain of “elitist intellectuals” and education in general.

My interest in U.S. affairs comes mostly from reading Planet Atheism and some news sites. Because of the former, I read new posts from more than 100 blogs, mostly American, almost every day; it’s inevitable that I came to feel “a part” of it.

Also, I’ve long noticed that whatever happens in the U.S. — especially, but not only, related to what the administration is — affects life in Portugal in general, in terms of economy and optimism, more than whatever happens in Portugal itself. It’s strange, but it’s true.

Finally, there’s another reason: there’s a lot of bigotry, prejudice and persecution against atheists in the U.S., and one shouldn’t care about bigotry only when it’s against oneself. This poem reminds us of that. For the same reason, if I had lived as an adult during the 50s and 60s, I’d have cared about racial segregation and oppression in the U.S., even though I’m caucasian and no such thing was happening in Portugal at the same time.

What do you think the rightful place of science is? Also, just out of curiosity, why so much interest from a non-citizen?

“I doubt the average ‘atheist’ is less inclined to give to charity than the average comfort-dwelling, hypocritically self-righteous, fattened American ‘Christian’.”
Again, this should play out in a simple sampling of the volunteer opportunities and non-profit organizations around me. That, statistical analysis would be scientific and, so far as I can see, science says you appear to be incorrect. That said, stats can and do lie, just like anything else religion and science included.

Religion is a terrible malady and it has always been in the way of meaningful progress.
You should know that statements containing “always” are nearly-always false. This one is no different. Your statement simply doesn’t hold water and only speaks of a crude, potentially non-existent examination of the facts before an oppinion was formed.

I don’t mean the above in an ugly or attacking way. I wish I knew of a kinder way to point out the above to you but I do not. I would not have said anything if I did not feel that it could benefit everyone to examine the foundations of their opinions more carefully.

How can this be the will of a loving God? Who said it was, remember sin? I would say it was within the will of man. But, I’m not his spokesperson so who knows.

YES!

It was religiously-defiant [<<sin] scientists and selfishly [<<sin] competitive entrepreneurs that gave us good hospitals and good medicine.

Children usually grow up in a supporting environment – like a family household – and this is where they learn moral decency: obedience, compromise, fellowship… etc.

I doubt the average ‘atheist’ is less inclined to give to charity than the average comfort-dwelling, hypocritically self-righteous, fattened American ‘Christian’.

Religion is a terrible malady and it has always been in the way of meaningful progress. How can this be the will of a loving God?

“But religion is inspired, delivered, and absorbed by psychotics, making God a ‘real’ infectious illness threatening entire societies. It’s amazing that such a stupendous destruction of human potential has existed ‘righteously’ for so long.”

Yes, we are all well aware of the atrocities in religious history. That said, I can’t help but think of all the other things this infectious illness has caused. Things like hospitals (there are no secular ones in my city), food pantries, emergency aid organizations, the end of legal slavery in many countries, homeless shelters, etc, etc, etc..

IMHO, the starving child in your inserted picture is the result of sin. Not his/hers but societies. Americans alone spend enough on valentine’s day to feed the starving but, we are too greedy to do so. As Bono says, we have the resources (they were given to us) but we are too greedy to us them for anything but our own hungers.

Now, of the people trying to take care of that starving child, how many do you think are motivated by God? How many by Quarks and bosons?

Similar to naive ‘love’ (sacred, righteous and ‘final’).

But religion is inspired, delivered, and absorbed by psychotics, making God a ‘real’ infectious illness threatening entire societies. It’s amazing that such a stupendous destruction of human potential has existed ‘righteously’ for so long.

People like Bishop Spong may be nudging things in the right direction.

But I still don’t know what I would want to see. Don’t have many good examples to work with. Atheism does not concentrate power and it can not deliver social change. Otherwise, if there are any good people out there, I’m sure it humbles them to know that God is taking care of everyone (insert gruesome child starvation death image here …

(As an elitist, Hitler was humanity’s best friend.

In other words, god is nothing more than a made-up father-figure for the emotionally immature who can’t face an uncaring, indifferent world.

Book-selling Bishop Spong. BS BS?

Clinging babies want a stronger grasp.

Only the innocent don’t expect others to sign extended social contracts.

If I was rich and powerful, I’d want everyone to be religious. High up: That’s where God is.

As does ‘zealous’, ‘inflammatory’, and ‘pretentious’.

Humanism?

Shallow ego-entertainment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism)

Two cents

Either way, I know this is not the proper place to do so and I will try not to distract from your intent.

Two quick thoughts, it may be benificial to think in terms of motive or intention behind many of these “issues”. Why did Cain offer vegetables and what was the significant difference in how he did so in comparison to Able (it was not the animal/veg difference that mattered).

It is always inappropriate to take statements out of context. well, unless one is trying to make a statement of “fact” without regard for the truth – such as is done in political elections.

No, it is not to say that we make or create a being based on our belief. Assuming both actually seek to follow God as they say (I am not sure Phelps is not well aware of his deviation from God’s will – in fact I think Jesus would tell us phelp’s father is the exact opposite of who he says it is) Spong and Phelps have the same God (and I hope He saves us from both) but have drastically different understandings of Him.

So, no, they are not both right. In fact, I would propose neither is right – I dounbt any of us are. It is probably more accurate to talk in terms of degrees of correct understanding.

As to the made up God, everyone you know is, in some sense, made up. You may think you understand/know another person but you would be mistaken. The same is true of God. Try as we might our individual understandings of Him are always going to be askew, even if that is only because we all have slightly different definitions for words.

This does not mean that, say, there’s one God for Bishop Spong and another for Fred Phelps. Now, I don’t believe there’s a god at all, but what I know is that it’s impossible for both to be right, since their ideas of “God” completely contradict each other. And the idea that it is our belief that “creates” and “shapes” God (which many liberal theists seem to believe in) only happens in fantasy and science fiction. We can’t “create” the creator of the universe, since, even if we had the power to create a being just with our belief, it wouldn’t have had created us.

As for the issues you have with the old testament God, well, let’s get specific and we can probably work through a few of them.

Here’s some. And some more. And you can try most of the other sections on that site. Or even this list of examples confirming the Dawkins quote I mentioned in my post.

I hope your reply won’t be that, since God supposedly created us, we’re his property and he can do whatever he wants to us…

Is the OT reliable? In what way? If you ask about the literal concept of creation my answer would be “I truly don’t care” worrying about whether or not that is exactly how it happened misses the whole point of the book in the first place. Does it provide a sound basis for beginning to understand God (I don’t think anyone can truly understand Him)? Yes, I would say so. Is there anyone who understands it perfectly? I can’t imagine there is a human that does.

As for how to read the Bible if it is not to be read literally – well, there are a huge number of ways things can be read. Literally, figuratively, mythically, etc.. It is fair to say that each of those reading styles can and should be employeed in understanding the library that has come to be known as the Bible. And no, this is not “made up on the spot” these understandings of scripture have been around for a couple of thousand years now.

Yes, Aethiests is a terrible misspelling of atheist – got a newborn that won’t let me sleep so my brain is not as alert as usual. Thanks for pointing it out.

BTW, “aethiests” is a really bad misspelling.

Abortions, legal or illegal, should not be paid for with the money of people who disagree with it.

That may or may not be my view, it is my guess as to what they are saying.

- Chances are pretty good that I am not the most intelligent person to think on these topics.
- Chances are many intelligent people were involved in the final statement of faith/interpretation and it would be stupid of me to disregard their thoughts.

I am NOT saying that I have a policy of blanket acceptance of understandings – that would be far from true. What I am saying is that when I don’t understand something or think of it differently I am not fast to completely disregard the “traditional” understanding.

To do so is to elevate myself to a place of intelligence greater than that of collective humanity – the height of ignorance.

Bishop Spong, many “just believe it” Christians, and many “just don’t believe it” aethiests are all guilty of the same laziness that comes from discomfort with ambiguity. With any thought that existence may be capable of holding paradox – that things may be more complex than our puny couple of pounds of brain can handle.

As to the made up God, everyone you know is, in some sense, made up. You may think you understand/know another person but you would be mistaken. The same is true of God. Try as we might our individual understandings of Him are always going to be askew, even if that is only because we all have slightly different definitions for words.

As for the issues you have with the old testament God, well, let’s get specific and we can probably work through a few of them.

I think it happens all the time. People seem to take personal offense at everything. I’ve found it true regarding vegetarianism. All a vegetarian or vegan has to do is merely exist, and that sets some people off.

And another important, but often overlooked point is the age of the person involved. I think it’s quite common for people to become atheists (not to mention vegetarians) during their college or university years. At that age, you’ve been taught critical thinking, but yet you’re young enough to know that you still have a lot to learn, so you’re open to new ideas.

I was posting to a feminist board, and knowing that it’s pretty common for feminists to be vegetarians, I simply asked how many of the women on the board happened to be vegetarians. I got such vitriol for simply asking a question. I didn’t even say anything about it being wrong or immoral to eat animals. I simply asked who was vegetarian. And the most vitriol came from the older women, the ones in their 50’s and 60’s, and I think it’s because as we age, we tend to think we become wiser and more knowledgeable. We feel that we have a lot to offer the younger generations. We don’t want to admit that we have been doing something immoral for 5 or 6 decades. Also, people want to feel that they are good people deep down.

And I think the age thing comes into play with atheism. If someone is 40, 50, or even older, they don’t want to face the idea that they have been stupid enough to be duped for all that time. People not only think they are good deep down, but they think they are smart. Too smart to be conned. I think younger people are more likely to reject the beliefs they were taught as children, because they don’t have years and years of reinforcement.

my 2 cents