Er...better late than never? What is a few centuries,give or take, in the face of eternity?(snicker)

OHHH. Credibility You say? Sigh, with an eyeroll too, c'mon, the main man, the head honcho the pope is infallible. The church says so.

(snorting coffee on monitor)

Careful...we here at Advice Goddess Central have just learned an important lesson: coffee and Apple wireless keyboards do not mix.

Hey, once that statue has stood in the Vatican for a couple of centuries, they'll be able to claim that Galileo was a staunch believer who was hounded by infidels. You saw it here first.

Small steps, Sparks. Small steps.

Small steps?

I respectfully submit that it is more like one itty bitty neuron firing in the middle of a decision tree about TAKING a step.

hahahaha. You are funny. Eh, so is the church. Maybe they should audition for a writing slot on late night tv.

Scientists and Science Sympathizers (guilty) should be careful what we wish for. When fundamentalists of any and all stripes get a clue, they'll stop fighting truth and logic and start whoring it to their purposes. Right now Scientific Knowledge is fairly virginal. What if twisted versions of cutting-edge knowledge were injected into the Bible and Koran to enhance their credibility?

"In the beginning, there was Dark Matter. And the branes did collide, begetting the Boltzmann Brain. And the Brain said "Let there be Supersymmetry" and Light did fall upon the void. And vacuum energy became nonzero."

All right, then, stop with the funny business and just give me back my broom! o_O

I remember that Pope John Paul II was sorry about Galileo in the 80s. A quick Google:

http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p111/lectures/grehab.htm

Of course, even the 1980s were a bit, uhm, late for the acknowledgement of a fact that was discussed in the 1620s, no?

Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Read some more about the Galileo incident -- (other than those "objective sources" (ahem) -- that is, the historical context, chronology, persons actually involved... and maybe even read about other Catholic and their contribution to science for a different, more insightful perspective. You'll feel foolish about your remarks afterwards.

Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Oh, please. Yes, let's all feel sorry for the poor, persecuted majority.

I'm sure I felt especially sorry for all the Catholic children who were forced to chase me around the neighborhood when I was growing up, call me "dirty Jew," and tell me I killed Jesus...just to name a few fun events.

Believe, without evidence, in god is silly and primitive.

The Church is not exactly a wing of the National Academy of Sciences, and I love that you must apparently drink the Kool-Aid as you take communion.

Talk to me about how the priests tell people in Africa that condoms spread AIDs, and tell me about the Church's great contribution to science.

Talk to me about all the court cases where nutters try to mandate teaching in science class that god created the world in seven days.

In short: Your proctologist called. They still haven't found your head, and they aren't hopeful, either.

Amy, you're reply actually illustrates my point.

Further, I can see that arguing anything cogently isn't going to do any good. You obviously have no intention of letting the suggestions offered get in the way of a good rant. You're everywhere but on point. Silly you!

Intellectual honesty isn't your strong suit, but hurling insults is. Proctologist... haha. Good one!

I suggest you read & reflect more: examine your philosophical presuppositions. See you in Church after you do.

My reply does absolutely nothing for your point.

Examples of how wonderful The Church has been for the advancement of science? We're all waiting. (But, not hopefully.)

Furthermore, do you applaud The Church's lies about condoms that are surely responsible for the deaths of many, many gullible people in Africa and Central America?

Yes, it does.

You blame an entire group for childhood emotional scares, think religious persons lurk around the corner to brainwash, scapegoat faith-based institutions for social ills... Make a similar charge against another group and you'll find yourself silenced for being, ah, prejudiced - and maybe charged w/ a hate-crime! It's ain't P.C. to criticize lefties but de rigeur for Catholics.

Thus, I maintain that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Though I'm hardly a worthy spokesperson, I'd says that we both want the end of the AIDS scourage, but how to accomplish this is the question. My Church speaks of abstinence, the dignity and the sacramental nature of marriage and of the conjugal act,... It ennobles human nature, while relativists degrade it to mere animal status.

If your truly interested in the question of science and persons of faith, perhaps I could provoke you to read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods.

How 'bout a lil' G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy or even Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis thrown in?!

Perhaps none of these gentlemen will persuade you, but maybe they will give you... pause the next time you feel like being saucy.

Will continue to read your blog all the same.

You blame an entire group for childhood emotional scares

No, I don't. It was an example of how nasty religion, and that religion, in particular is.

Jews telling themselves they're "the chosen people," makes me hurl, too.

All of this is based in belief, sans evidence, in wildly silly and contradictory stuff in a book about oceans being parted and a guy who hears voices ("god"?) telling him to kill his child, and he about does it, and religion says, "Yeah, baby! That was good!"

What a pile of steaming horseshit.

Anybody who stands back and looks at religion objectively would say so. Any god-believing religion.

Anti-Catholicism the last acceptable prejudice? Please. Stand in line behind the fat!so? ladies, the epileptics, the Native Americans, blah blah blah.

Where you go wrong is in thinking it's prejudicial to criticize religion. Walter Benn Michaels explains why prejudice is different from disagreement:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/07/theres_nobody_u.html

To paraphrase Michaels, is it also the last acceptable prejudice when a Democrat thinks a Republican is kind of a nitwit for his beliefs, or vice versa?

Your church is one of the biggest big businesses in the world, not that I'm against business, just against those that get tax deductions and try to legislate policy based on their primitive beliefs that there's a big man in the sky moving all of us around like chess pieces.

Of course, per Daniel Dennett's comment to me at a dinner, "People don't believe in god, they believe in the belief in god."

I mean, you don't really believe there's a big man in the sky who gives a shit about you? And if so, based on what evidence? Do you, as Sam Harris asked, also believe frozen yogurt can fly? Because there's as much evidence for that as there is for god.

You have yet to address the AIDS atrocity your beloved church has perpetuated in Africa and Central America. And you talk about "moral relativism." If that isn't moral relativism, preaching about the sanctity of life, then keeping the church in business by passing out false information to people in an veritable AIDS incubator. And then how about all the child molestation they covered up -- sending all those priests around to just molest again. Evil shit.

You're so angry, and bitter, and loathsome.

You're vitriol is beyond contempt. You obviously have no concept of the Judeo-Christian God, aside from the hyper-polemical, shallow and most uninformed sources. I can't take your rhetoric (rants) seriously.

You probably sit around drinking lattes at Starbuck's with only like-minded individuals and congratulate each other on how smart and insightful you all are.

You're pretty good with coming up with a litany of woes, but don't seem to care if they're credible. That's it. You don't care. You've got your agenda; you're mind's made up, and that's that. For an educated woman, you really sound stupid.

I don't believe in 'that' kind of God either. No Christian does. You create a strawman, er, straw-God and then knock him down. That's really intellectually dishonest - and I'm sure you pride yourself on being logical.

No. You're just a hate-filled person. It has consumed you, Gollum-girl.

'Advice Goddess' isn't an appropriate name for your blog as you dispense no advice and you since you believe in no God or Goddess, you are consequently a 'nothing' too -- vacuous, empty-headed blackhole of nothingness.

You need an exorcism.

On the contrary, I have a fine concept of "the Judeo-Christian God," and I've given a lot of thought to why people believe in god, despite the fact that they've been told god exists, but have no evidence for this.

Astrology, likewise, is ridiculous and silly to believe in, but astrologers don't hide and move around child molesters or lie to gullible people in Africa and Central America about condoms, putting them at greater risk for AIDS.

If you don't have vitriol in you because of this, what are you?

In the words of Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when?"

You have yet to respond to my contentions about the real ills of the church.

As for the god you believe in, you see any evidence for him or are you just yet another person who closes his or her eyes and sucks down what they're told by The Church?

Obviously, you're attacking me (rather baselessly, I might add -- not a shred of substance in what you're saying...imagining how I sit around at Starbucks, etc.

Actually, I sat around in Mantua with Christopher Hitchens who gave me an earful about the evils of religion, and he's even more informed on the subject than I am.

He wrote a book about it, in fact, with the word "poision" describing your primitive beliefs.

And they are primitive, and unfounded, and that's why you can only come back with what a meany I am.

Come on, tell me about the exact ways The Church has been fantastic for science, and justify the priest/molesters who were allowed to continue their evil in different locations, and the promotion of AIDS by The Church in South America, just to name a few.

Yes, address the issues of the evil organization you belong to, and tell me where's the evidence for believing in god...don't try to distract me with this bullshit because you have no answers or justifications for The Church or your beliefs.

Again, you have yet to address the SUBSTANCE of my remarks, and you just can't, can you?

Is the bible fit for worship?

http://www.evilbible.com/is_bible_fit_for_worship.htm

Let me know when you'd like me to stop producing evidence to go up against your contentions that I hang out at Starbucks with people who think like I do.

Wooooo! Ya got me!

One of my favorites of your non-responses:

Though I'm hardly a worthy spokesperson, I'd says that we both want the end of the AIDS scourage, but how to accomplish this is the question.

Check this out.

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/01/archibishop-of-mozam.html

Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio, the head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique, has been spreading fatal lies about condoms and anti-virals: he claims that condoms and life-saving drugs have been infected with HIV in order to kill Africans.

"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose," he alleged, refusing to name the countries. "They want to finish with the African people. This is the programme. They want to colonise until up to now. If we are not careful we will finish in one century's time.

See, I have the evidence that the church is, yet again, self-servingly evil, and again, you can only accuse me of hanging out at Starbucks.

And again, if you don't read the above and fill with vitriol for The Church, what kind of person are you?

Did I hear something?

Naw, it was nothing, absolutely nothing.

If I must answer for, or bear responsibility for the ills or the nonsense of my Church and any of its members, then you ought to hold yourself accountable for those you share your self-serving atheistic belief system like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao... and countless more relativists, hedonists, marxists and multi-culturalists of our day.

I can't name-drop atheists celebs like Chris Hitchens, but Dinesh D'Souza demolished your guys arguments. See his own website.

Rebuttals to him, Dawkins, Harris are out there. Perhaps you might want to tack them on to the already lengthy reading list given a few entries ago.

Your tactics remain the same: spew hate, make fantastic leaps in logic indicting an entire group for social ills -- and then when someone comes along and calls you on it, you launch into the same old tired screed.

I hold a mirror up to you and you obviously don't like what you see. "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most self-righteous of them all?" You are your own worst enemy.

I'm only responding in kind. If you don't like it, well...

If you think that you simply disagree and are not prejudice towards people of faith, then you're a two-fisted Kool-Aid guzzling nut.

Look, I understand there's no reason for your beliefs, but you trot out the most tired "I know you are but what am I?" thing with Stalin, etc.

First of all, Hitler was a Christian.

Second, atheism is not a religion with a certain set of values and rules for living, it's merely asking for evidence before believing in something, so to say there's an "atheist belief system" is wrong and ridiculous.

To say atheism is "self-serving" is another bit of nonsense. What, exactly do you mean by that? Do you think it's wrong to be for yourself? See Hillel quote above.

I'm not asking for rebuttals to Hitchens and Dawkins. Furthermore, I understand you're not able to reason well, but D'Sousa did not demolish anybody's arguments but his own - he's utterly marginalized now as a thinker.

I'm asking you 1. Why you believe in god, 2. Where's the evidence for god, 3. How you can not have vitriol for the Catholic Church vis a vis, for starters, their lying to native peoples about condoms and likely causing many deaths and their covering up child molestation and moving priests around, likely causing more children to be molested. Just for starters.

You can't answer, so you don't. So you lash out like a child and say "People have already rebutted Dawkins!"

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

I just responded very specifically to your bit about atheists.

ADMIT IT, ADMIT IT:

You believe in what you believe only because you're not a rigorous enough thinking (in the most basic way) to think rationally, and because you believe whatever you're told.

You lash out against me, and never answer my questions because you have no answers for them, and you know I'm right: The Church is an immoral...heh heh...self-serving, evil-promoting organization.

Dear epb,
I'd just like to make a couple of points here. I'm an Atheist, I believe in evolution but, and this might be the complicated part for you to understand, it's a belief that lots of people working together and checking each others facts are correct. I believe that if I had the desire I could choose to read the varied research into Evoluationary Theory and see how it all holds together.
Possibly even poke some holes in the theory, doing so would not ivalidate but would, if I present my experimently results correctly, help to strengthen it.
I believe that some of the ideas I hold to be true might be wrong, if I did not believe this I would not be true to myself and to the scientific principles as I understand them. But I might understand them wrong.

I also believe I should try my best to treat others as I would wish to be treated, this comes partly from my Catholic upbringing and partly from my own life experiences. By trying to treat others well, without being taken advantage of, you in a small way make the world a better place. I admit I got this idea from the Bible and the words of Jesus, but I'm not convinced he was the son of god or whether god exsits.

I figure if god can't handle me not wanting to worship him but living my life as best as I can. Well that's his problem. Well it would be if he existed.

As for religion, I think it's find for people to have a religion as long as they don't try to force it one other people. Please note, I really don't care if you believe the same as me, in fact if I were to try and make you do so I would be as bad as those people who do force their opinions and beliefs on others, I'm not very fond of them.

I don't hate them though, hate should be avoided, I pity them and wish they could see the damage they are doing to themselves and to the world.

On the subject of child indoctrination, well this is and area I do feel strongly over. A child instinctively believes what they are told by adults, this is a truly terrifiying power that should not be weilded lightly. Surely it is better, by your beliefs, for someone to come to your way of thinking through there own free will?

Please think about that.

I am rambling, I do hope you read this. Please have a wonderful life.

If you think Hitler was a Christian then you're Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Amy, you began the ad hominum attack... I used the method that you employed. Taste of your own bitter medicine?...

The same old tired screed, "Answer the question, answer the question!" And then vomiting blather. Why would I was to argue w/ someone who has absolutely no intention of listening?

Atheism is indeed a religion -- maybe, better said, an anti-religion. You can't verify any of your assertions vis-a-vis empirical science either, that is why the debate still goes on.

But as far as the debate of whether you're prejudice is not.

Simon Proctor, I did read it. Thank you, I will have a wonderful life. And I wish you just the same.

Who would you rather teach your kids? Amy, or the Sister Mary Guitar from your old parochial school?

Who would you rather take care of you in the hospital? Amy's friend Kevorkian, or Mother Teresa?

Who you you rather inspire you? John Paul II, or Karl Marx?

Here, bunny, Hitler's Christianity:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Atheism is not a religion, and I explained why above.

There are no atheist doctrines - like don't have sex before marriage, or do have sex before marriage, or tell people in Africa not to use condoms, or the thought that gay sex is sinful.

Atheism is merely this: Asking for evidence before believing in something.

Mother Theresa was in the pocket of dictators, rejoiced in others' suffering, and was evil in various ways.

http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.html

The problem is, you don't think. You just spout off without questioning anything, and then are so easy to knock down.

You have yet to answer for how you can belong to a church that stands behind all the stuff the church does.

Who inspires me? Albert Ellis, who founded cognitive behavioral therapy, use of reason to solve emotional problems.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a libertarian, and I am appalled by any sort of collectivist thinking, including your blind allegiance to the church.

Again, you haven't answered my questions:

I'm asking you 1. Why you believe in god, 2. Where's the evidence for god, 3. How you can not have vitriol for the Catholic Church vis a vis, for starters, their lying to native peoples about condoms and likely causing many deaths and their covering up child molestation and moving priests around, likely causing more children to be molested. Just for starters.

That's because: 1. You believe because you were told to believe, not because you have evidence for god. It's embarrassing for you to admit this, so you avoid the question like it's a staph infection. And you have no defense for the sick shit The Church stands for, so you likewise avoid that question like a staph infection.

Look, you're wasting my time. Take your nonthink and go find a website that promotes the idea that Mother Theresa was a great woman, and that pretends the Church didn't have an official policy of covering up sexual molestation of children. And don't kid yourself about why - it's all about the money, not the principle.

Here's a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.

He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'

Evil Church you belong to, huh? No denying that.

I'd like my children, when ad if there ever are any, to have access to a varied selection of tutors. To study the history and beliefs of the world and make their own minds up. If they chose to have a religion I'd respect that choice, as long as they respected my choice to not do so. I think of your options I'd prefer Amy as a teacher.

I'd definitely pick Dr Kevorkian as he is a fully trained Dr and would even respect my right to choose to die. Having watched my mother die slow of cancer I know I'd rather go painlessly once everything is in order. Mother Teresea, frankly, scared me. She treated her patients poorly and seemed to be coping with a crisis of faith by torturing people.

As the the John Paul or Marx. Tough choice, I don't really see the difference. Both treated people as things to be molded into shape. I suppose Marx didn't cover up a large number of cases of pedophilia and lie to a close friend of mine about it. On the other had Marx did have some really wacky ideas and spawned some truly terrible states from them.... I think that one's a no score draw I'm afraid. (Sorry English soccer term there).

Hope that helped.

Great point on John Paul and Karl Marx. Both treat(ed) people as means to an end rather than as individuals. Evidence of that is above, in the article about the coverups mandated by the church of all the priests' child molestation.

How very exciting to see Amy all hot and bothered! I am curious about the religious being's authenticity though. How do you go from "will continue to read your blog all the same" to "...empty-headed blackhole of nothingness"???

The nothingness seems to be spilling over from epb's side. What are you left with when belief/faith are removed?

Re "Atheism is a religion." This comes up all the time. Religions are like football teams; most people are supporters of one team or another. But some people are not supporters of any team.

Calling atheism a religion is like saying these people are football supporters - presumably of the "Non-existent Team." It just doesn't make sense.

Non-supporters may be interested in football as a social phenomenon. They may know when the fixtures are so they can avoid the crowds. Maybe they go along to pick pockets. But what they have in common is that they don't give a fig which team wins whatever trophy it is that they are competing for.

Brilliantly put Norman. I'll have to remember that one. And the best bit is, I don't support a footbal team either!

Exactly, Norman.

And an example: I support choice in abortion. You want one, go have one.

Moxie, who is also an atheist, believes abortion is wrong.

Other atheists may believe what I do, or what Mox does, or may believe something entirely different. There's no atheist mandate about how abortion or anything else should be dealt with. Again, being an atheist is being a person who requires evidence before believing in something. Period.

Yeah, kbling, you're right. I noticed about that too. I thought that things would end amicably, or at least in a draw with this feisty exchange, thus my apparent liking the saucy (yet shallow) Advice Goddess then heaping scorn, i.e., contradiction from one post to the next.

I just couldn't resist goading on Amy. Mission accomplished. The devil made me do it!

Atheism is a pseudo-religion in that it has its own dogmas -- that is, certain faith-claims to which science merely asserts, like evolution, darwinism, that Amy is rational... As a consequence atheists make a metaphysical claim that there really is no Truth, no meaning, no right or wrong... What an ugly world!

[And, if you think Catholics hold to some fundamentalist creationist interpretation of scripture then, once again, you a sadly misinformed].

I suppose now I'll have to continue checking out this blog as long as the comments continue, even though I realized a few posts ago that I'm only shadowboxing, as there's nothing there but bias, bigotry and blather.

I'm off to annoy a few Religion of Blown To Piece-ers.

(Uh-oh, I did it again! What will Amy do now -- defend them? Or, make some kind of moronic moral equivalency charge? Can't wait!)

The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow but much more in Manhattan. -- G.K. Chesterton.

Truth is what we make of it. I would not say there is no right or wrong. I dislike being categorised as having a pseudo religion.

My moral code is personal and has been reached after a number of years of thought. It includes a number of ideas from many major religions. But it is based on the core idea that this is it. We have one chance at life at then we are gone.

The only impact you will ever make on the universe is in the mind of others so strive to make it as wonderful as possible.

Civilisation is the pinnacle of mans striving to live with man and try and survive in a universe that owes him no favours. Work to make the world a better place and you will live in a better world.

Don't worry about what other people do when the curtains are drawn as long as it the noise doesn't keep you awake at night. If it does ask them to keep it down, politely.

Let children love to learn, don't make them obey. Always challenge the dogma of "We have always done it this way."

Just a few thoughts.

Amy certainly gave epb all he needs to figure out the differences and if Norman's explanation didn't sink-in, then I say we bury this post with epb in it!

epb clearly isn't in the habit of thinking and probably, after years of religious indoctrination, is ill-equipped, emotionally and practically, to start.

@epb:

I just couldn't resist goading on Amy. Mission accomplished. The devil made me do it!

Oh my dog, what a truly original excuse for being such a happy troll.

I'm off

That's great news!

to annoy

Of course. It's all you do. Clearly you're either incapable or unwilling to comprehend Amy's
answers. (My money is on "unwilling".)

With my liberal arts education, (two masters - don't mean to boast, just give you a lil' back info. on me), my teachers were Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Pascal, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis... just to name a few.

Well-balanced fellows don't ya think, Amy? [Can't wait to see how you dismiss them out of hand when the best thinkers have had to contend most of their lives studying them, the intellectual giant that you are!]

The more I live, the more I learn, the more I learn the more I realize the less I know. I will continue to read from my list. I know that I'm a lightweight; do you, Amy? "Unwilling" is right, especially when I myself have looked into the well of despair & meaningless that Satre & Camus describe... I shudder!

I don't need to hold myself accountable for other's shortcoming, the same way you don't have to answer for atrocities done by others who think like you.

These scholars can answer your questions for me, 'though I suspect you don't want to hear their answers but simply continue with your list of grievances.

You claim to have read Aristotle, yet seem incapable of reasoning. Perhaps you should have skipped college and used the money to buy yourself a garage.

We're not discussing Aristotle, or any of the rest. I'm a fan of Enlightenment values and reason, which is why you've lost this little debate.

In fact, you're apparently utterly incapable of answering my questions:

I'm asking you 1. Why you believe in god, 2. Where's the evidence for god, 3. How you can not have vitriol for the Catholic Church vis a vis, for starters, their lying to native peoples about condoms and likely causing many deaths and their covering up child molestation and moving priests around, likely causing more children to be molested. Just for starters.

Bragging that you've read Aristotle (so did I, and without being assigned his work by some instructor) is no substitution for answers.

You can't give a reason for believing in god, because 1. There's no evidence god exists, and 2. You apparently just believe what you're told to believe.

Personally, I would have no part of an organization that does just the things I've listed above -- allowing and hiding child molestation, and lying to people who are living in an AIDS incubator that condoms CAUSE AIDS.

Since these and other such immoralities haven't caused you to leave the church, one is led to conclude that you think child molestation is okay, and condone lying to people about condoms and likely causing their death.

What other reason could you have for remaining in an organization with such atrocities so recently on its resume...not to mention all the other atrocities it's been responsible for recently and throughout its tenure.

P.S. Look up how the church kissed Hitler's ass.

P.P.S. It figures you'd brag about your education. It's actually what somebody has learned, not the fact that they've paid for college that counts. In fact, one of the most well-read guys I know is a 70-year-old woodcarver. He thinks, too, which is why he thinks The Church is just another big business, and a corrupt one, to boot.

As a consequence atheists make a metaphysical claim that there really is no Truth, no meaning, no right or wrong... What an ugly world!

Atheists make no such claim, nor are we an organized group with singular beliefs.

I've explained this several times.

Poor, panic-stricken woman, unable to defend her beliefs, but apparently too humiliated to admit it.

You have yet to answer my questions.

I address these silly points you make, on the other hand. Why? Because I can. Because I have an ability to reason which I use, which is why I neither believe in god nor like the church.

Child molestation and those who condone it -- always a dealbreaker for me.

Again, apparently, that sort of thing is hunky dory for you, or you'd surely have left the church and have stopped trying to defend it here (albeit without the slightest bit of substance, and mainly by ignoring the points I've brought up and attempting to attack me for visiting Starbucks, and the like.)

I looked you up. Poor dear, you're a priest or about to become one. And working a bit in Africa, too, where you perhaps are among those preaching lies about condoms. If so, let me use a word I don't use often and tell you you're evil.

Furthermore, a wise thinker named Krishnamurti talks in Freedom From The Known about having the honesty to step back from the path you've chosen and admit it's the wrong one.

You don't engage with the questions I pose above because you can't. Because they rightly call into question who you are and what you've done with your life, which is join a corrupt organization, which has fostered some true evil in recent years -- the two examples I gave above -- and much more, too. And to consider in the slightest my questions means that you'd be left with a lot of work behind you and a lot of questions ahead of you. I can understand why you'd rather recede into nonthink and blind defense of the Church. It's the careerist's choice.

Again, if you're responsible for promoting lies about condoms causing AIDS to Africans, you are one sick fuck, and evil, too.

And P.S. As somebody mentioned about, you ask who would somebody rather have taking care of them in the hospital "Amy's friend Kevorkian" or Mother Theresa?

Kevorkian is a great man, who suffered a great deal in order to end suffering of others in great pain. Mother Theresa caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering. In fact, she fetishized it.

Because my brain is not on a short leash to The Church, I'm able to process that each person's life is their own, and if a person wishes to end their life, that's their choice, and nobody else's.

Damnit, I cut out for one day and miss all the fun

Because I believe in love. Because I believe that there is such thing as objective truth and we can know it. Because I believe in miracles. Because I believe in Justice. Because I believe in the dignity of people like Edith Stein, an atheist Jew who became a Catholic and a nun...

Can you as an atheist, who purports to only believe in that which can be empirically verifiable show me love, truth, justice, hope -- that is, without going into a tirade condescending remarks & personal threats?

If you can't, can it be said that you too live by faith?

All this started off w/ me pointing out that there were other facts and consideration that you ought look at in regards to Galileo that a wholesale condemnation of the Catholic Church regarding his fellow isn't warranted. But now I see that it really did not have anything to do with Galileo or science or a search for understanding, but just another opportunity you to vent -- which you do very well by the way. Silly me.

Huh?... Curious how things digress.

Sorry, lujlp, no more entries from me. I will try to read Amy's reply, if it truly is a reply.

Shalom.

You want a response you can understand?

In the bible Jesus refers to god several times as his father, and once tells a crowd of people he is not god. After his baptisim the holy spirt decended down to him.

The bible(if you belive in it) makes very clear that god, jesus and the 'holy spirt' are three seperate entites. Therefore the catholic position of god, jesus, and the holy spirit being one being is false.

In the bible jesus also demenstrates the proper way to pray, he never once mentions praying to statues of saints or of his mother, therefore the catholic tradidion of praying to the 'mother mary' or to the various saint is a violation of gods commandments and once again the catholic church is proven false.

In the bible god only commands adam and eve, and then noah and his children to be fruitful and multiply - no where is it comanded that everybody have as many kids as possible. Therefore the catholic ban on birth control has no 'devine' athority. Neither does the bible forbid divorce - so why does catholocism?

The bible does mebtion the destrucion of a couple of cities whos citizens practiced pedophillia along whith other 'sexual sins' but the church protects pedophille priest, so once more they are ignoring the laws of a god they claim to worship.

And do you want to no what the best argument against god is? miricles, according to the bible men could split seas, walk across rivers, cause walls to cruble to the sounds of trumpets, cause plauges, mas healings, raise the dead, heal the sick/blind/deaf/dumb/parapalegics, cause water to gush out of solid rock, pillars of fire

Why is it you never see any of this anywhere?

Because I believe in love.

Love, huh? Loving isn't just a feeling, it's something you do. For example, it's loving children enough to bring pedophile priests up on charges and kick them out of the church instead of moving them to the next parish to molest again.

Like so many people in the clutches of The Church, you can't think your way out of a paper bag. You make all these floppy, baseless statements, all as easy to shoot down as I did above.

I understand why you can't let a critical thought pass through your head -- you'd have to question who you've let yourself become, and the corrupt organization you've pledged your allegiance to.

Can I show you love? Sure. It's care in action. For example, my boyfriend was in a rush to get to the airport the other day, but he made three stops to bring me medicine, Cantor's chicken soup, and dinner.

Justice is bringing pedophile priests to court to pay for what they've done.

Truth is admitting that there are pedophile priests in The Church instead of hiding them for The Church'$ benefit.

Hope is what fuels me to write and speak about how stupid it is to believe, without evidence, in god, and the evils of religion. People write and tell me that I've persuaded them to give up their porridge-think in exchange for using their brains to reason.

Perhaps there's hope for you. Probably not, though, as you seem wedded to never actually considering what I've asked you here and holding it up against the life you're living, the irrationality you live by, and The Church you've committed your life to.

Oh, and you also write: "it really did not have anything to do with Galileo or science or a search for understanding, but just another opportunity you to vent "

Not surprisingly, the irrational man is filled with assumptions. It had everything to do with preferring science and rationality to the lies The Church has perpetuated for centuries, and all the persecution, too, of non-Christians, in order to keep its coffers full. Don't you get it, you poor dim boy? The Church is just Enron with funny outfits.

Incidentally, when you were in Africa, did you lie to people and tell them that condoms cause AIDS at the behest of The Church?

You never answer any questions - you just pose them because you don't have adequate answers for the questions I've posed again and again above:

I'm asking you 1. Why you believe in god, 2. Where's the evidence for god, 3. How you can not have vitriol for the Catholic Church vis a vis, for starters, their lying to native peoples about condoms and likely causing many deaths and their covering up child molestation and moving priests around, likely causing more children to be molested? Just for starters.

Too bad you didn't like my answers. I can see though, that they once again went right over your head.

Also, drawing from your responses it is nice to see that you are not a relativist; therefore, not a true atheist, or else you couldn't be so indignant -- & rightly so, I might add -- towards the moral failings of particular individuals in the Church because if you were, you'd have to admit that there is no objective right and wrong extrinsic to the acting moral agent in which to condemn him other than the law that you might deem either correct or coercive, as it might philosophically contradict the principle to which the atheist/relativist believes that truth is whatever you make of it. In other words, you violated, or refuted your own philosophical presupposition by taking a stand!

Are things right or wrong, good or bad because (a.) they objectively are, or (b.) merely because the law says so, or (c.) because it happens to coincidentally agree w/ your personal/subjective truth? It seems to me that you answered (a.), which means that you & I are finally in agreement.
Responding (b.) or (c.) would make one either a juvenile or a monster!

I have repeatedly answered 3.

Since I have in fact answered your questions 1.2. although you didn't understand them nor like the way you wanted me to answer by alluding to faith, the reasonable of faith, how everyone to some degree lives according to metaphysical principles like justice, by poking fun at you being unable to provide incontrovertible empirical proof for your own beliefs for which you demand of me, by showing how you demonstrated the unreasonableness of relativism, can you answer me if you bothered to read any of the authors previously suggested? Can I hold you to the same standard, or expectation?

Might I add Peter Kreeft's "Refutation of Moral Relativism?

There I go again -- responding!, when I intended to drop this already too long of an exchange!

I'll give you the last word, Amy. Bye now.

not a relativist; therefore, not a true atheist

Again, atheism is simply requiring evidence before believing in something.

Your answers went "right over my head"? Right. This from a man who has to brag about his education because his inability to think is so prominent in the incoherence that he tries to pass off as responses.

If you had something of substance to say, you could state it clearly, as I do. Regarding the ridiculous sophistry above, let's get back to the point -- the point which you have yet to address: Is there a question in your mind that pedophilia is wrong, and an organization that protects pedophiles to keep money flowing into its coffers is evil?

I've answered your silly challenges above, as to whether I have proof of love, and all manner of other irrelevant bullshit you're throwing around in hopes of hiding the fact that you can't answer my questions -- probably due to your whorish devotion to a business that depends upon nonthink, and because answering them means admitting that you have committed to an organization that has been behind great evil, recently and in the past.

Did you lie to Africans and tell them that condoms will cause AIDS? Yes or no. It's real simple.

Have you, like so many priests, molested young boys and been protected by The Church?

You don't get to assign me books. I read plenty, and not the words of other fearful men who cling to their irrational belief in god. And now, let's take a look at a few touching words from the barbarian book you use on the job. For example, this crap:

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

More Rape and Baby Killing

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Hmm, doesn't say what happens to pedophile priests. What's the answer for that? Move them to a new parish and give 'em a raise?

Again: HOW DO YOU DEVOTE YOUR LIFE TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT RESPONDED TO CHILD MOLESTATION WITH COVERUPS AND THE MEANS FOR THE MOLESTERS TO MOLEST AGAIN? ALL IN THE NAME OF GOOD P.R. AND MORE MONEY IN ITS COFFERS?

That is the definition of evil.

P.S. "God" goes in for sex trafficking, too. But, not just that, selling one's own daughter as a sex slave!

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

If you believe the Bible is the word of god, what kind of god is this that you believe in?

Drat! Another question you're going to have to avoid answering, huh?

What's next, asking me if I've seen the secret messages in The Chronicles Of Narnia?

Thank you, Amy, for showing your readers your glaring ignorance regarding the subject matter, in this case, the Catholic understanding of Scripture, theology, tradition, hermeneutics & even 'Catechism 101', and you're utter unwillingness to do anything about it.

Yes, that is yet another question that I've just answered which you seem unable to admit or realize or deny because it doesn't fit your preconceived conclusions (you know, the "Mine and only mine are correct mind-set", and it is above reproach; beyond criticism!). Let me spell in out for you: you're quotations ala accusations is meaningless because the very premise of your question is flawed!

But it is I who now looks the Fool for trying to reason with 'a scratched LP' that sings the same refrain over and over and over again!

I've pleaded patiently, proddingly and provocatively to excite you enough to do a little extra reading/research in the hopes that you might have a basic understanding of that what you despise, and to dig deeper into the (erroneous) presuppositions & sources for, and the social implications of, the atheistic philosophically that you espouse and selectively apply, alas, to no avail.

On the upside to all this, Amy, is you and I have provided your readers with a fun 'dueling match' to tune-in to!

Okay, okay.... when I said that the last post was my last post I meant that this one would be my last farewell post!

Again, you come back with a limp attack on me, and fail to answer the questions.

The "premise of (my) question" is flawed? What bullshit. What premise was flawed, and how? You're just sliming your way out of the questions, yet again. In all the words printed here by you you have yet to address the questions I've posed about why you believe in god, where you see evidence for god, and how you can be a part of an organization that has promoted child molestation for financial and PR reasons, among many other evils.

Answering works like this:

1. I believe in god because...
2. I see evidence for god in...
3. I think child molestation is no big deal...(one has to assume something along these lines is your answer since you are still in The Church).

This isn't simply "a fun dueling match." There are people whose lives are affected by The Church's evil self-interest, and you support and are a part of The Church.

If I heard that any group plotted to cover up child molestation so they would have a better public image and more money, I would be speaking out against them. And I am. Where's your vitriol for The Church? You have none. Is this because you don't have a problem with child molestation, or because you are too much of a coward to stand up for children in the face of your careerism?

And that's just one example. The Church gave Hitler a pass, and even gave him endorsements. Mother Theresa, the evil little witch, was in the lap of dictators and evil rulers and fetishized suffering when she could have alleviated it. Much of what you think is noble and good can be easily shown to be just the opposite.

Where's your vitriol for the church?

And if you have none, what are you?

Well, its not really a deuling match.

Its more like you got knocked of with one punch, and Amy has been kicking the shit out of your unconscious body.

It has been fun though - although I am disapointed you didnt try to argue against my points.

Lujlp is correct.

And one more thing. About this crap from you:

I've pleaded patiently, proddingly and provocatively to excite you enough to do a little extra reading/research in the hopes that you might have a basic understanding of that what you despise, and to dig deeper into the (erroneous) presuppositions & sources for, and the social implications of, the atheistic philosophically that you espouse and selectively apply, alas, to no avail.

Note the obfuscating language. Many words, combining to say really nothing in particular. If I'm wrong about something give me a specific example. Were those quotes from the Bible somehow incorrect? Was the bit about showing no compassion and slaying children and dashing babies' (heads, apparently) before their parents' eyes a misquote?

If not, how do you get behind such barbarianism? I know, another question you can't answer. Here, I'll help you with your reply: "Surely, on the premise that the object of atheism becomes philosophically relative..." I'm sure you'll respond with yet another non-answer just like that, rather than explore how you can work for an organization whose bible for living is filled with such primitive evil.

Again, there's no "atheist philosophy" -- what I think you meant to write. There's only this: Until I see evidence there's a god, I will not believe in god. The same applies to believing that my table can levitate or that frozen yogurt can fly, etc.

Yes, it's that simple. It doesn't require a whole book of contradictory bullshit, or belonging to a church, or feeding into that organization's coffer.

All that's required is rationality.

I've explained that time and time again.

You keep returning to problems with atheism because you'll do anything to avoid the questions:

1. Why you believe in god.
2. Where's the evidence for god
3. How you can cheerfully join and foster the interests of an organization that has been behind some real evil, including protecting child molesters in the name of public relations and clinging greedily to its billions collected from people it's misled into living in fear that they'll burn in a place there's no evidence exists?

Answer the questions.

Hi Amy! Hi lujlp!

It's incomprehensible to me why your still listing the same old same old when I keep telling you in so many words, "Stop arguing and trying to pick a fight and shame me, for you're more interested in that than honest discussion." I'm being forthright. I've answered honestly, and yet you're unwilling to hear anything I've said other than dismiss it out of hand as not good enough. And, I've laid some pretty serious charges towards you too, such as, challenging your own intellectual integrity, your mastery of the subjects, your willingness to entertain any of my answers or rebuttals as a necessary step before addressing any particulars. Nothing is going to satisfy you until I reply as you want me to, in the way you stipulate, eh?
+++

Seriously, I'm trying to tell you both, unsuccessfully, over and over again, that you are so entirely, sadly misinformed and superficial in your understanding on Catholic theology, etc., etc... that I can't even begin to offer a rebuttal or a defense because I can't get over the ad hominums, and other numerous philosophical errors of judgments of summary condemnations.
+++

Repeat: An honest intellectual will know the argument of his opponent but you have manifestly shown that you have no command of the subject matter but try to trick me into thinking you know something more by citing crimes and news clippings as justification for your atheism and hatred for all things Catholic.

+++

Why, if you're so thoroughly invested in the pursuit of disproving God, are you not slightly curious to see if what I'm saying about the relationship between faith & reason is true or worth investigating? Seems like you're the one who is being dogmatic!
+++

See, I've challenged you to prove your own assertions correct! Incidentally, quoting particular verses in scripture is meaningless and does nothing to counter or undermine my point that you're understanding of Catholicism is deeply flawed (too and including your understanding of what atheism is. Atheism is indeed a philosophical system, and for you to insist otherwise is embarrassing -- for you!)
+++

Now it's only fair that you try to work with me. So, I turn the table on you... You have provided me with no evidence that there is no God (I AM -- that is, Being) so you'll have to prove that 'we are not' -- nor have you convinced me that you have any rudimentary understanding of that which you hate is false, and that which you yourself believe is true. Show me! How 'bout Ms. Atheist, you stop posturing & show me by, ah, say, besting or refuting my Catholic sources first - Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, Schall... I put them all out there for you to knock down. Where did I misinterpret them? Further, what do I need to read up on in order to grasp better Catholic theology?

I'm asking you! Show me, 'cause that's your thing, and I will concede that your Kung-Fu is better. Do that and all the other questions will also be answered in your favor. Reasonable offer, no? Wow! What a proposition! Tempted?...

Oops! Parlay, Counter, Thrust, and "whack!"

That goes double - no, triple!!!, for you, lujlp.

Good night.

First you never answered my questions

Such as why catholics teach god and jesus are one when jesus said they werent - cause right there you are saying god is wrong, and if what god teaches us is wrong then how can it be right?

Second why do cathloic pray to dead people, ie saints, the mother mary; in direct opposition to the way jesus commanded his followers to pray?

Thrid - when was the last time a pope raised someone from the dead, called down a plague or a mass healing, preformed any type of miricle?

Forth, how can we prove god doesnt exist? Its like trying to say 'prove the grass is green.

Let me make this simple for you - what proof do you have that any type of god exists, and could you take some pictures of it?

I can't even begin to offer a rebuttal or a defense because I can't get over the ad hominums, and other numerous philosophical errors of judgments of summary condemnations.

You know, it's no surprise you are always vague -- it allows you to write and write while saying nothing.

The questions were real simple, dude:

1. Why you believe in god.
2. Where's the evidence for god
3. How you can cheerfully join and foster the interests of an organization that has been behind some real evil, including protecting child molesters in the name of public relations and clinging greedily to its billions collected from people it's misled into living in fear that they'll burn in a place there's no evidence exists?

As for our errors in Catholic theology, oh please.

Did I misquote the bible? If so, where?

You keep making this about me. I don't argue right, I don't understand Catholic theology, blah blah blah.

I gave you three very simple questions, which you clearly can't answer, because you'd have to say:

1. I believe in god because I don't reason, I just suck down whatever I am told.
2. There is no evidence of god
3. And how you can join an organization that, among numerous evils, enabled molesters to keep molesting in the name of public relations and financial greed.

YOU WRITE: "refuting my Catholic sources first - Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, Schall"

Refuting a list of names? Please.

This is not about atheism, which I've explained is simply not believing in unproven crap.

You tried to make it about atheism because you are so terrified of being asked to think because it might tempt you to admit that you have signed on with a corrupt organization that is responsible for murdering countless people throughout history, that gave Hitler a thumbs up, that condones and even promoted child molestation in the name of keeping its coffers full and its PR good, and is responsible for who knows how many deaths in the developing world with its self-serving lies about condoms causing AIDS.

There's no parlay, thrust, or anything.

Besides, doesn't that screwed up organization you're closing your eyes to child molestation for prohibit you from doing any thrusting?

And now why do you think that is? Hmmm, maybe...maybe...because the greedy, greedy fellows running the organization don't want priests to have heirs...lest the priests be forced to support those heirs and not leave every last dime to the church.

Regarding proving god doesn't exist, that's not how it works. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," Carl Sagan said. It's not up to me to prove the non-existence of god (are you really that big a moron, or did you just memorize that in your "how to attempt to debate atheists while never actually engaging in rational thought" class), but for you to prove there's reason for you to believe in god (ie, prove god's existence).

Once again, you have failed to answer my questions.

Including, did you lie to people in Africa and tell them condoms cause AIDS?

Answer the question, don't duck it like a scumbag.

Your extensive liberal arts education seems to have ingrained upon you that writing is meant to self-gratify rather than inform others...

I am actually interested to your responses to the questions Amy continues to pose.

Let me assure you I have read in detail every single one of your responses and have read nothing that answers any of her questions. Since you are so impressed by your own academic credentials, let me add that I have a master's an a PhD in history. Your responses read like one of my student's attempts to bullshit their way through a passing grade on an essay exam...which is to say you have no response.

Now, since I have not indicated the details of my belief system to you, you have no reason to further skirt the questions and maintain a defense. I do not require a lecture on atheism, nor do I require conversion, since I have indicated no opinion, positive, negative, or neutral, regarding Catholicism or Christianity in general.

Accept this lesson in writing to inform: write like you are writing a newspaper article. Avoid adverbs, adjectives, and metaphors. Illustrate your concepts with concise and clear verb useage.

Organize your answers to the questions so that your audience may be clear on which statements apply to which questions. Number them. It helps your audience visually.

Now, please, I do want to read your answers. Follow the advice of someone with a similar liberal arts education.

Actually, let me recap and allow you to take it one question at a time to avoid distraction.

First: have you lied to people and said that condoms cause AIDS?

Jessica, you rock.

First: have you lied to people and said that condoms cause AIDS?

Wow. Four days without a troll answer from epb. Cool.

Maybe he can't resist the temptation to "prove" he's right after all by enrolling us in his superficial theology class all over again; in this case, I'll bet he won't answer Jessica's very simple question to anybody's satisfaction. (Except his own, of course.)