f13.net

Needless to say he's old. He has Parkinson's. He's had the flu recently and everyone in the church seems to be planning on his death soon.

Pope's condition stablizes (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/02/pope.health/index.html)

I, for one, thought this recent hospital visit was it, but he's pulled through again. The man has got staying power, but how long will it last? Basically this thread is two-fold. One, what are your feelings on the current Pope, and how long do you think he has left? Two, what are your feelings on who should replace him.

Granted, I'm not Catholic so my viewpoint here isn't as connected to his well-being, but I've generally been in favor of the way this Pope has had his tenure with a few exceptions. Note, I don't mean for this to be political, I mean religious connotations, IE - I don't give two damns about his views on wars, diplomacy, or Iraq. I'm focused more on his job as the religious leader of a people.

"Authorites say the phony Pope can be recognized by his high-top sneakers and incredibly foul mouth"

I'm not Catholic (I'm a little too secular for my own good, but just to mention, my faith is Orthodox), but I think the Pope is "cool". He's a former actor, has a well rounded view of culture and art (as far as "popes" go), and is a lot more open-minded than a lot of people think (I mean, what other Pope writes about how much he liked "Dark City"?).

As pertaining to faith, I only know a few things about how he leads his own people, but where I give him credit is that he's made more effort in communicating to the rest of the world (other Christians and non-Christians) than any other pope before him. Whether that be Castro, the Orthodox Patriarch, Jewish rabbis, the Dalai Lama, or Billy Graham.

It'll be sad to him go. He struck a good balance between ecumenism and zeal, something most of his potential successors do not have.

I'm not worried.  His replacement seems like a good guy.

(http://www.taps-forums.com//files/fedex_pope.jpg)

Odd, but our Priest is currently visiting the Vatican.  

The Pope has had over 25 years in that position and it seems from the pictures that his health continues to decline.  I think at this point, he has already outlived the expectations.

As for who replaces him, I hope (although know the odds are extreemly remote) the next Pope will be much more liberal on the issues of birth control, abortion, divorce, and the ordination of women.

Like I said, "struck a good balance between ecumenism and zeal". It's a great thing to loosen some restrictions and work with others, but to throw one's faith completely away in the process is futile.

I think the new Pope should play an undead priest in WoW, so that he can effectively reach out to the Horde.

This might also help underpopulation issues, because, you know, who wouldn't want to have the Pope as their healer.

The current Pope has created a ton of new cardinalships and filled those positions with people in the traditionalist wing of the Church, so I would expect the next Pope to have similar views.  Their views on abortion will probably never change.  As radical as I can see them getting is saying that it is OK for married people to use birth control, but even that would be a pretty big step. Women's ordination will probably happen someday, as the Church is losing its ability to recruit enough priests in the first world, but that day is long, long away.  On economic issues, they will continue to bitch about poor people getting screwed (the Church is well left-of-center economically even by European standards, to say nothing of American standards) and the alienating nature of consumer society, and will continue to be roundly ignored.  

This Pope will be remembered for being an essential component in the collapse of the Soviet empire, for strangling the pro-communist liberation theology movement in Latin America, and for setting the tone that Vatican II was the exception, not the rule, primarily by reinforcing the Church's traditional views on biological matters.

If a reuinifcation with the Orthodox churches ever happens, he will be remembered as the initial driving force behind that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

He's lived 5 years longer than I ever expected him to, so a hearty "Good on ya!" to the man.

I'm not Catholic, and I sure don't respect much about organized religion. However, I have to say that I really respect this man. And the thing that made me respect him was his continued insistence on tolerance of other cultures, religions and peoples. In a time when certain parts of the world seem intent on killing all the other parts of the world solely based on their on religion-based intolerance, I think that was a positive message, especially coming from the pontiff of one of the world's historically intolerant religious organizations.

And paedophile priests!  Tolereant, tolerant, tolerant.

Of course, I'm a disaffected ex-Catholic, so meh.

I wouldn't say he was exactly tolerant of that, considering the amount of things that went on once the whole scandal came out. Let's face it, pedophiliac priests have been a long-standing tradition amongst the Church, as well as adjudicating all trangressions by members of the clergy internally. Expecting them NOT to cover that up is a bit much.

When the scandal is well and truly out there and there's nothing more to cover up I expect to see some action taken, like kicking Cardinal Law to the curb post haste.  Never happened.

Then I've seen how my sister was treated when she divorced her cheating first husband.  She's practically persona non grata with them.  Fuck the Catholic church.  If you're a Christian you're better off with the real Christians in one of the Protestant denominations, because really Catholicism even post-Vatican II is just a crypto-Christian cult.  And sorry, but I've got to lay most of this shit at the feet of the Pope, because the buck stops with him.

Granted I know little of the Catholicism doctrines that exist now, but you should know that randomly picking Protestant denominations does you no good either. I would take the Catholics over the Southern Baptists all day. Catholics have some structure, history, and frankly at least an idea of what they believe with some reasoning. Not always the case, but generally. Southern Baptists, I swear to you, seem to make stuff up as they go along. That, and they have probably the most ridiculous views on drinking and gambling that I've ever heard of in my life. Two pursuits of mine that I happen to enjoy in moderation.

Southern Baptist = Well-Mannered Hypocrisy

But then again, I feel that way about most religions, not just the one I mostly grew up with.

But this is derailing. We were talking about the Catholic Pope's failing health, and his potential legacy. Gulp brings up a good point about the Pope's lack of action on people like Cardinal Law, and I think the scandal may well be a significant part of the Pope's legacy, at least to Americans.

The biggest part of the Pope's legacy?  Mary with her "Co-Redeemer" status.

  Gulp is correct in his evaluation of Catholicism as a Pseudo-Christian cult.  It's begun to evolve more into a cult of Mary vs the cult of Jesus after it started out as a worship of the teachings of the Son of God.

Really tho. JP2 will always be the guy I think of when I hear "The Pope".  That's probably the case for many of you as well since you're calling him, "The Pope" rather than JP2.

When I was five, my Southern Baptist father insisted that my mother take me to his type of church.  Nevermind that he insisted on sleeping late, and never attended once.  So my mother and I went a few times, until one Sunday the pastor explained that nearly everyone was going to hell, including the children.  I was confused by exactly what I had done to deserve eternal damnation, and my mother decided we would be Methodists instead.

But then I went to Catholic school in the 1980s, because it was affordable compared to other schools, and because naturally my father's child was too good for school with the commoner masses.  Besides, Southern Baptist schools are renowned for their suckage.  I learned that Catholics have some pretty complex rituals compared to Protestants, and they drink real wine.  Pope JP was quite the anti-communist hero.  I remember the Marvel comic (or was it DC?) celebrating the Pope's life.  The Catholic school girls were strangely hot in their matching dresses, but I think the Church itself left a bad taste in my mouth.  One of the monks punished me for liking the song "Rock of Ages" by Def Leppard, which he claimed was anti-Christian.  Looking back on it, I guess it was cool that the school made no real effort to proselytize among the non-Catholic students.  Baptists would have had me memorizing Bible verses every night.

Back in 1991 when I was working in Europe for summer, I accidentally ran into the Pope in Kracow Poland, his home town.  I say "accidentally" because I was just bumming around Eastern Europe in youth hostels, and I just happen upon what might have been his first post-Communist visit to the place where he started as a priest.  I stood on a street corner and got close-up shots of the Popemobile.  You had to see the crowds to believe it.  Poles greeted the man like a rock star, and I ran into lots of Russians and others who travelled huge distances to see him.  

I still live in the South, but I can proudly say that I belong to no denomination, although I do have a healthy respect for the better aspects of most religions.  I'm also no big fan of private schooling.  The point of this autobiographical digression?  I dunno, just felt like writing it, and I think the current Pope qualifies as a "great man" for more reasons than simply his office.  He worked very hard on behalf of the world's poor and disenfranchised, and his efforts were pivotal in the democratic revolution in Eastern Europe.  I do not agree with him on all his political positions, but I think he deserves respect.

As for Southern Baptists: Remember, for every Fred Phelps, there's always a Martin Luther King Jr. across the street.

And they shot him. Unfortunately nobody has the stones for taking out Falwell. They only kill the ones we love.

Why kill Falwell? He talks long enough and anyone with one-eight of a functioning brain can see how full of shit he is.

They only kill the dangerous ones.

I call him Karol.  Great guy.  Reformed thespian.

I remember reading that the Catholic church has no way of removing the Pope if he becomes incapacitated.  He can step down, he can be replaced if he dies, but I'm not sure what ends up happening if he slips into a coma.  Obviously though, they would never pull the plug.

The last story I read about the Pope (it was over the weekend) was about a dove that had been released at the end of one of his speaches.  The weather in Rome was colder than usual and the dove decided that it was not going to go outside, and flew back into the Pope's apartment.  The Pope shooed it out, and it flew back in again.  According to the article he was getting a good laugh out of it.

If he ends up dieing, I can think of worse things to be remembered by.

Actually Catholics are against euthanasia, but artificial prolonging of life when there is no hope doesn't fall into that.

Anyway, I'm currently converting to Catholicism.  I have learned a few things in passing about him in the course of that, and I really think he's an amazing guy.  I want to learn more about his history just on what I have learned so far.  To come out of Nazi occupation as a young man and be non-insane is an acheivement in and of itself, and just the fact that you group of heathens don't entirely dismiss him, even if you do the Church, is another one.

I don't know how someone manages to bring in the respect for life and respect for the downtrodden of liberalism, while retaining the foundations of tradition even when world at large basically pooh-poohs those ideas, but he pulls it off.  Amazing individual.

I went to Italy in 1998 and was in one of his audiences - that man is immortal if he's not dead in 2 years time.

While I may not agree with everything the pope says he is clearly a good man who has tried to do alot of good over his long career.  I am not a very religeous person but I can respect a man who truly believes in something without turning into a froathing loony.

After he passes do not expect much from the next pope. There is a pretty set pattern that after a very popular long lived pope they usually select the next pope from one of the really elderly clergy who is not expected to last to long. This way it helps highlight the popular popes career and gives some breathing room for the  real sucessor to not walk so closely in the shadows of such a popular figure.


kaid

At the moment it seems that Kardinal Ratzinger has the best chances for succeding the current pope, unfortunately he is extremley rigth wing and has a very reactonary stance on topics like birth control, abortion, same-sex marriages and so on.

Jeff

1 - I don't have anything against the Pope personally....but I do think pretty much every form of Western organized religion is a crock. I don't give JP much time....3 years tops?

2 - I don't really Care who replaces him, but I have an idea of who will.....Within the church, there has been a lot of talk of the next Pope being from Africa. It hasn't happened for hundreds of years, and that is where the church is doing a lot of work nowadays.

It's funny, but I think the exact same thing about the other hemisphere.

I thought he was already animatronic, you know, like Bush and Cheney. Robot Pope!

And here I am, the Eastern Orthodox guy, wondering how Christianity could ever be concieved as "Western" in the first place :)

I do seem to recall something about Nazareth, Galilee, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Egypt in connection with Christianity....

I respect Buddhists out of the whole bunch of Eastern religions because they respect other cultures equally. They also seem to understand the tenets of a peaceful inner spirit, which is a good start. I think many facets of Buddhist thought and true Christianity fit nicely.

Hindus on the other hand are too inconsistant to really count as a world faith in my book. It's like considering Roman Mythology a viable present day religion. Plus, it changes depending on what part of India you happen to be in. So yeah, polytheism, no thanks. Shintoists just make me laugh because its so contrived and new. Kinda like Mormons or or Scientologists.

Those would be the "East". The Middle Eastern mindset has far more in common with Asians than they do Europeans and Americans.

I didn't think you were allowed to shop around. I thought there was just one true God and a lot of midguided unfotunates.
But I like how you seem to have this top 10 of superstition. It's ok if your religion is really old, but not to old. And believing in several Gods is somewhat more silly than believing in one creator?

The pope? He seems honest, sincere and nice enough, but overall I think his church is guilty og more evil than good.

Much like the average person.

Hinduism isn't really intended to be a world faith, there's no conversion or other people or attempts at prothelyzation.  It's really just a collection of old polythiestic religions which are all unified in a sort of meta-religion.  And you could comfortably fit Christianity or Islam inside that meta-religion without really conflicting with the theology of either side, which has actually been done at times in India.  But the whole thing is much, much more robust than any western mythology, getting into things like the nature of gods, morality, the nature of souls, the roles of human beings in the world, etc.   That kind of thing just wasn't present in European religions before christianity, being relegated mostly to the realm of philosophy.

Shinto is a couple thousand years old. It's older than Buddhism and Christianity.

Within the discipline of History, that all falls into "Western Civilization" (or the Near East if you're trying to be real specific). And Jayce, when I say "western organized religions are a crock", I don't mean that some, or even a lot, of the events in the history of said religion didn't happen; I just find most of the believers to be obscnely hypocritical, history as it relates to these religions to be destructive and negative on the whole, and the whole idea behind any of them to be stupid, pointless, and a farce.

If you wanna believe in Christianity (Catholicism, lol), Judaism, or Islam, be my guest. I just personally have no use for them.

PS: No religion is inherently better than any other....It's all simply a matter of opinion. Personally, out of all of the western religions throughout history, I find Greek mythology to be the most interesting; it's a faith that functioned on a much more personal level for the practioners.

PSx2: I just personally find eastern faiths, esp. Buddahism (sp?), Shinto, Taoism, and Confucism to be more agreeable than western ones....and plus, these faiths have not been a direct cause for the death of millions upon millions of people, unlike in the west, where people are still persecuted to this day basically because of a simple difference of opinion. I just think they've done more harm than good throughout history.

Whenever someone says something like that, I feel obligated to point out how many charities and other beneficial nonprofit organizations there are out there that are operated by "Western religion."  

I'm not sure I'd want to speak for every sect of Christianity (those Protestant televangelist leeches are on their own), but for every bad thing we Catholics have done, I bet I can name three good things.  ;)

Oh, I'm well aware of the charity the church has, and I wouldn't take that away from them....

But just take a look at Medieval history; I think it speaks for itself.

Yes, the monastics, the Knights Templar, and Thomas Aquinas were ruthless.

No one expected the Spanish Inquisition.

Which part?  Catholic monasteries preserving classical texts that would otherwise be completely lost to the ages, like the culture and history of those ancient Greeks whom you seem to like?  ;)  Or the Pope backing Charlemagne, who in turn leveraged his power to promote literacy and turned Europe from a bunch of squabbling warlords into a civilization?

Oh, you meant maybe the Spanish Inquisition, which was started by the secular governments of France and Spain as a means of ferreting out Muslim spies who had been conducting a jihad against Spain for the past 700 years, and was eventually ended only because of its condemnation by the Pope?  Okay, I suppose it might be fair to lay some of the blame for that one at the feet of the Church, but even so, there were what, four thousand deaths as a result of the Inquisition?  How many lives have Catholic charities saved since then?

I don't want to come off as an apologist or a spin doctor here, but I'm just saying... it's easy to write Catholicism off by saying "OMG TEY R TEH EBIL INQUISITORS" and ignoring everything else.  Take any group that's been around for more than a century and they've probably been involved in some tragic fuckup at some point in time.  As historical tragedies go, the Inquisition wasn't even that big - the Spanish Influenza killed about five thousand times as many people as the Spanish Inquisition did.

Doing a cost benefit analysis of a single religion is inherently hard.
How do you weigh stuff.
How long should those in charge feel guilty for past sins?
Medieval stuff? The crusades? Do we blame The Children's Crusade on singular zealots or the entire church and the enviroment it created, that made this happen.
How many jews would have lived if the Vatican had spoken up?
Do we blame the church for peadophiles? Priests in Rwanda?
How do you weigh charity work in the Third World against the world of hurt the insistende on not letting people use contraception?
Etc.
But right now government funded non-religious "charity"-work by far outweighs what any  church (or all churches put together) do, so I'm sure we'd get by without.

I still stand by my opinion: bad>good.

No, we blame pedophiles for pedophiles.



Not "letting". Don't give me that. People can do what they want. If someone wants to use contraception (and this applies to other restrictions people want to whine about, like abortion and birth control) then they should consider that maybe the Catholic religion isn't for them. It's pretty simple.

Besides, "lack of contraception" is hardly the cause for why the third world is a such a mess. Lol, do you really believe that?



Even if that's true: So what. Charity work is charity work. Even the smallest amount is good. You can't measure someone's goodness by the size of the checks they're giving. You measure it by the fact that they're even willing to write the check.

I was referring more to the modern Shintoists post-Imperial Japan. The ideas shifted greatly during the WWII period. Granted the ideas of Shinto are rooted in ancient Japanse oral tradition, but it didn't even have a name until Buddhism came to light in Japan around 600 AD. The main writings don't occur until further after that. Basically, before 1868 when the Emporer made Shrine Shinto the state religion and ordered the removal of Buddhist statues and themes, Shintoism and Buddhism were essentially the same.

I find some of the precepts of eastern religions frankly baffling... especially the near-universal belief in the inherent goodness of humanity.  You can't even claim being bad is cultural thing, as children are willful and disobedient well before they have had time to absorb language, much less culture.  The idea that all people are inherently kind and generous is generally, in english, called niavete.

Taoism and Confucism are less religions than sets of morals, the vast majority of practitioners practice both, and often Buddhism as well.  The tenets of both suggest you should be a moral person, and just go with the flow.  Their ideas of morality are basically identical to Christianity.

The Buddhist 'Nirvana' is a personally unappealing concept...  Buddhism seems to be largely a focus on death, a search for nihilism.  All suffering is due to a (inherently wrong, in Buddhism) desire to... not suffer.  Being a member of a slave caste is okay, being treated as like crap is okay... it's not really suffering unless you have a desire for something better than being a slave, and treated like crap.  Once you've managed to convince yourself to have no desires, you will no longer suffer, and have achieved enlightenment, whereupon your death you achieve the great reward of... nothingness.  The Taoist 'go with the flow' thing fits in very... naturally.  

Buddhism is the ultimate slacker religion, on a spiritual level.  Aside from that, they also teach the same kinds of behavior/morals that Christianity does.  Don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, or use drugs; do treat people like you wish to be treated.  Most existing religions do... the religions that were big on sacrificing humans and whatnot have all mostly died out, imagine that.

I am a Christian, tho I have made some effort to read up on what other religious groups believe, to see their 'truth'...  And I've found everything else to be lacking in comparison to a relationship with God.  I'll be the first to admit that people have done bad things in the name of Christianity... the crusades, etc.  However, it is a religion practiced by humans, and while Christians strive to be like Christ, who is perfect, we are all imperfect.  Even, to bring this back close to on topic, the Pope.  He's a great guy, I'm sure.  Not infallible.

Alkiera

WTG.  Take a thread about a good man, and turn it into a pissing contest to see who can bring up more OLD SHIT that the Catholic church did.

That's what it is, OLD SHIT.  Those of you who are Europeans (especially Germans), do you get pissed when people lump all Germans into the category of "former Nazi?"

It's the same thing and until you fuckwits can realize that, shut the fuck up about people's faiths.  It's a deeply personal choice and really not your place to scrutinize, or come off as "I'm an atheist/agnostic/diest and therefore better than you, you silly organized religious person."

And for the record, I was raised Catholic, but was never confirmed, so I'm essentially not really anything.  I have my belief system, which is largely founded in Catholicism, but at the same time, is not.

Fuck all of you who think you're so much better than anyone else based on their religion.

Die in a soul fire.

I'm just curious. . when you write this wandering diatribe about religions you don't practice, are we expected to take it as authoritative?  By which I mean, is it all prefaced with an invisible 'in my opinion' or do you believe that you are knowledgeable enough about the practices and philosophies of Eastern religion that you are providing a useful and definitive summary?

Horse shit.

Break up government funds into two groups:  domestic (social welfare) and foreign.

The vast majority of foreign directed funds are either little more than bribes to third world regimes,  or are so mismanaged/corrupted as to be   entirely useless (Oil for Food Program, various World Trade Center funds, etc).

Domestically,  these countries are democracies.  Social welfare programs fall into the category of:

  A. A sop to keep the underclasses from rising and overthrowing the rich/influential

  B. Thinly veiled bribes to political constituencies in appreciation for their support (hello Unions!)

And again,  government social policies are managed inefficiently.  Compare performance between US publicly funded schools and private Catholic ones.

Effective charity or socially beneficial giving,  if by definition you eliminated self-interested giving, is almost universally the province of right-wing religious groups or left-wing environmentalist/social justice groups.

Buddhism isn't about being lazy and being complacent in your suffering.  You completely missed the point.

It's about understanding the difference between desires that matter and those that are ultimately materialist masturbation.  It's about recognizing that, when you feed some desires, they're never really sated... they only grow and grow, and make you miserable in the process.  Like heroin,  you need more and more until you're completely destroyed.  Buddhists just happen to believe that "reality" is a form of heroin, and that thinking outside of the material and concentrating on the inner self is the true path to happiness.

I'm not a Buddhist, except maybe in a highly westernized, suburban, white boy, completely without ritual sort of way.  I do have respect for their beliefs, though.  Were I to decide that I really need an organized religion one day, I'd probably go for this.

I leave the assesment of whether or not Karel Woytila is/was a good man to historians of future generations. I have my own opinion on the matter.



This happens so often that most of us do not really care any longer. However national socialism and all that came with it has become part of our cultural identity just as everything the catholic church has done/been in the last two thousand years became part of its cultural identity. So in order to fully understand what catholicism is you have to take all these good and bad things into account. Without catholicism there would have been no protestantism, the prime reason for Luther, Calvin and Hugenot to split with the Catholic church has been that they felt the need for reformation because the old system had been morally corrupt.

You cannot talk about catholicism without taking into account its history just like talking about islam, judaism or buddhism doesn't make much sense if you don't know their respective historical backgrounds so naturally these things will come up in such a thread.

You are also missing the point because this has largely been a discussion about religion and not about faith. It is absolutely possible to be faithful without resorting to some kind of religious organization. These Organisations are just made up of people who happen to interpret their faith in a certain common way and which have also developed some common practices and traditions.

Wether somebody is a catholic, protestant or orthodox doesn't matter because they all believe in Jesus and that he died to save us from our sins. They share the same faith but differ in how they pratice said beliefs. Religion != Faith and we are discussing the former not the latter.



You do realize that swearing is considered sinful behaviour by the faith you are trying to defend, do you?

It's startling that you get so agitated over this as to resort to cussing. Nobody has said anything snobbish about peoples' faiths. When somebody says that he cannot get into the buddhist' mindset he isn't talking down on that faith and we were largely discussing religious organisations anyway.

These kinds of topics will creep into a thread about the pope whether you like it or not but quite frankly your reaction to this thread is a bit over the top especially since nearly everybody posting in this thread has adopted one of the Faiths and/or is a member of one the religious communities discussed.

Jeff

Your knowledge of the Catholic faith is severely lacking, sir, on many counts.  As is your understanding of the culture of this forum if you're expecting to get positive results by chastising people for using the dreaded "f-word".

Or, as my philosophy teacher used to say, "stfu n00b."

Why does he even go to a hospital?  He should either heal himself, or come to terms with the fact that god wants him back,

...

Coming from Utah and attending a Catholic university I was always amused that they would let any swears stay in the movies they showed  (including fuck) except "god damn" or "damn" which was bleeped out of everything.


/this pointless anecdote brought to you by the Number 3 and the letter L.

I just wanted to respond to this with a perspective from someone who has considered all the amazing "coincidences" in our universe and still doesn't believe in a god.

Take two 20-sided dice.  I know you have them, don't worry no girls are looking.  Now, roll both of them.  Chances are that you're not going to get both of them to come up 1.  But the chance does exist, right?  So roll the dice again. And again. And again and again and again until both dice come up 1.

And there you have it, in a nutshell.  Reality is so vast, that the chances of intelligent, self-sustaining life forming might not actually be so astronomical.  But outside of that, we're talking about universes.  Here's where it gets a bit fuzzy.

Who says we're the only universe?  I mean, clearly if you believe in god, you believe that something is just plain beyond our perception.  Is it necessarily a creator? An intelligent, omnipotent being?  What if our universe fits so perfectly because we just happen to be that roll of the dice?  It's sort of like saying that penguins don't exist because you've never seen one.  The truth is, we don't know and probably never will.  So all we have, after all the analysis of great minds over millenia, is our own gut feelings.

My gut feeling says that there's nothing out there watching over me.  Any feeling I've had to the contrary seemed less significant than the feeling you get when walking out of a dark room and you've managed to convince yourself that there's some sort of horrible monster RIGHT BEHIND YOU.  Of course, a lot of people want there to be a creator, a defined purpose.  That's their choice.  Personally, I enjoy the freedom that comes with knowing that I define my world and my life.

Again, I just wanted to respond to that.  I think it was the "you very much have to" that made me feel obligated to put in my rebuttal.

This is all assuming I even believe in chance, right?

Why did you have to steal my post? Damn you Llava, damn you to hell.


And yeah, it was the "very much have to" thing that got me too.

If you do not believe in chance you cannot possibly believe that the world was created by random chance. In other, equally shocking news, the belief that God created the world leads to disbelief that the world was created by random chance.

In other words, this argument is completely irrelevant.

This is part of the argument known as The Antropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) which is popular but controversial in scientific circles.  It is, paradoxically, what philosophy of religion folks would call a teleological argument, yet it is frequently used to avoid invoking the existance of a God.

Bruce

Well, I don't want to spoil all the fun. Knock yourselves out.

But seriously though, if athiests devoted as much effort into trying to prove chance as they do in trying disprove God as being the cause of the universe, then we'd be getting somewhere.

I'm not trying to disprove God, because I frankly don't care what you believe. I'm just saying that you can't stand there saying that your beliefs are the reason my beliefs are wrong. My issue was with saying that God MUST exist, which is clearly a biased assertion and thus not one that can be put forth as fact.

EDIT: To be clear, the belief that chance does not exist naturally means that you cannot believe that the world came about by chance. As such, the argument is essentially that your belief negates the belief in the world as a random chance. And as I've said, you can't simply say that a belief has no merits based soley on the fact that you have other beliefs.

Take it easy. It was all in jest. The reason I did so is because that's exactly what Llava did. Llava starts off with a premise (chance) that can't be proven any more than God can.



Np with me here. Take that up with Jeff Kelly.

Well, I was explaining why I said what I said when I... man I hate how these things get complicated all the time. ;)

WTF?

Take those two dice, roll them many thousands of times, count each value as it comes up.  You will find that the more you roll them the more a regular predictable pattern exists.  This has been done so many millions of times now and is so involved in the worlds manufacturing process that to deny it exists is simply covering your eyes, pluggin gyour ears and going nanananananana.

This has been known for several hundreds of years and has been proven a dozen different ways.

Hell, the chance that you might not get a normal distribution of events is even taken into account and predictable.

Of course, you're free to think that the reason the dice come up 1 & 1 every so often is simply gods will,  It is interesting in that case though to note that gods will could be so predictable.  Not to mention easy to associate to everything all over the universe from the smallest particles to the most massive of astronomical phenomina.

I think what he meant was not that the concept of chance isn't valid, but that it can't be proven that the universe arose from chance any more than it can be proven that it arose for God.  Heck, even if God himself appeared before you, and said, "Yep, I did it." and did a bunch of impressive magic tricks, even if you believed him, that still wouldn't "prove" he created the universe.

However, there is some progress that can be made on this front.  If the Many-Worlds Interpretation can be proven to be actually correct (and there are obscure ways to test this), or if we can somehow discover the existance of alternate universes that form with completely different sets of physical laws and seemingly "random" values of constants that are different from our own, then the "chance" explanation certainly looks a lot more likely, and it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why a "God" would set up such a complicated arrangement of universes when it would seem just one would suffice.  Then again, philosophers have already had to endure that same type of question with regards to other scientific discoveries, so I doubt there would be any change in fundamental beliefs.

Bruce

Way to miss the point, guy.

I was speaking out against being convinced that your faith is the most right faith to the point that you're willing to call the others "evil" or "bad."  People who claim to believe in Christ are the worst offenders because of Christ's message of forgiveness, love, and (to some extent) tolerance.  I'm not even an "adult" member of the Catholic church, haven't been in years, etc.  To think that I'm defending Catholicism is the typical, knee-jerk response I was speaking against.  Belief in anything that spurs you to be a better person is good.  I could care less what it is you believe in, as long as those beliefs work towards the greater good.  Athiests, agnostics, religious folk, spiritual folk, etc. can all fit this description.

Clearly, you're too ignorant to address the points, which is why you needed to resort to calling me out on using the words "fuckwit" and "fuck."

To that extent, fuck off, you no talent assclown.

And of course, you're free to believe you live in a universe of uncaused effects (at least when it's convenient to).

You are jumping to conclusions.

I sincerely didn't want to chastisies him for useing the f-word. I was just pointing out the irony of the situation in what I thought to be a mildly humorous way but maybe one should't attempt to be humorous when discussing religion.  

Which catholic faith? The american variety or the italian, the polish way or the spanish or were you talking about the south american catholicism?

Even considering catholicism there are so many different varieties and different traditions that there is no definitive answer to such questions. In Africa catholicism is practiced differently than in Italy.

I can only refer to the things that I have been taught and swearing and using god's name in jest is considered to be sinning and you would have to confess those things.

And what is the catholic faith anyway I always thought that we were christians and that catholicism was just an implementation of the christian faith just like roman orthodoxy or protestantism is another way of celebreating that faith but maybe the words religion and faith have different meanings in the german language



This was uncalled for.

Jeff

OK this is what you get when you discuss highly controversial issues on an internet forum in a language you do not fully master.

English is not my native language so it may be that I have expressed my thougths arkwardly. All I wanted to say was that I believe that god exists nothing more, nothing less. It is a matter of faith after all.

Maybe it is my time to get the hell out of this thread since I cannot avoid to step on peoples' toes even if it is only unintentionally.

Jeff

On topic: I"m sorry to see the Pope in a state of failing health.  The guy seems to have a genuine passion for what he does and acts with what he believes are the best of intentions.  I must admit, he has lived about 5 years longer than I would have ever predicted.

For the rest: You can't have a rational and objective discussion about the existence of God because there is always a point where faith gets inserted.  You believe or you don't.  It's an individual decision based on a multitude of personal factors.

On a side note: I've never had an atheist bang on my door trying to convince me to believe what they do.  For that, they have my respect.

Yes I started this about the Pope. Not to prove the existence of God. If you don't believe in God at all you fall into such a small minority of the world population that frankly you might want really want to consider the possibilities that you are pretty out there. I have a hard enough time trying to reason with people about Jesus when they believe in an all powerful God to begin with.

If you don't even take that small step of faith to say there is something larger out there than random chance in your existence, you're a lost cause in any religious debate.

As far as the Pope goes, he's a great man, and probably the most popular Pope I'll see in my lifetime. I'll be sad when he goes because he is the "rock star" of the church right now, and he's done great things to further human development in his time here.

Well, it's not exactly banging on my door, but I can think of plenty of situations that I've been in or observed where someone has talked about faith, even in an offhand way, and out pops the atheist trying to spark a debate...As if the very mention of religion calls for a challenge.

I suppose it could be attributed to them living their lives being persecuted for so long, that they mistake taking an "active" role as being on the "defense".

Heck, take the Internet for example. Just Google "promote free thought" and you'll find plenty of examples for yourself.

Woah woah woah, I wasn't trying to disprove anything.

I just wanted to express the other side of things, to give Jeff Kelly a bit of perspective on how someone could look at all the coincidences of the universe and still be able to say "That doesn't prove that God exists."

I don't bring up my (lack of) faith to other people, but I find that people do ask every now and then and often the assumption on their part (assuming they do believe) is that I've been somehow short-sighted and didn't really consider just how impressively our universe works.  I often find that I have to explain that I am aware of the astronomical chances that the universe would end up exactly as it is, but that it had to end up SOMEHOW, etc etc, 20-sided dice, blah blah.

Jeff just said that, looking at the universe, you pretty much have to believe in God.  I just wanted to explain why you can look at that, take all the evidence into account, and still be unconvinced.

As I said at the end of my post- it really comes down to a personal hunch.  I don't think God exists, so I live my life accordingly.  But I also recognize that, no matter what argument a non-believer can come up with, it's all moot.  God, by definition, would be beyond logic, beyond metaphor, and so far beyond our comprehension that any discussion on our part is really just philosophical masturbation.  That's why the "could he make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?" argument is just plain stupid.  Just because you don't understand how God could do two different things without contradicting itself doesn't mean God couldn't do it.  It isn't bound by our rules.  It isn't bound by its own rules.

The most compelling argument you can make against a higher power is that it would be so far removed from our view of reality, so far outside our comprehension, that to worship and contemplate it are wastes of time.  But you can't disprove its existence, no matter what.  Not without becoming omniscient yourself.  Good luck on that one.

I'm sorry, but this is a really stupid statement.   There is a difference between belief and knowledge. I don't believe in any higher power, but have studied religions extensively (to the point of having an undergraduate degree) and have a large base of knowledge. If you only want to have "debates" with those who a) agree with you or b) can be converted, then I say YOU are the lost cause.  

Just because you think people are "out there" who don't believe in invisible men in the sky doesn't mean we aren't  quite capable of discussing the matter.


(Notice in the last paragraph above I gave about as much credence to your beliefs as you do to mine. Does that advance the discussion? No.)

You may want to look at a map of the world sometime.

If you would like to restate that to "If you don't believe in spirituality at all..." I might lend you some credence, but as it is you're talking out your ass.

Most of the world doesn't actually accept that there is one true God.  Not by population or even by land mass inhabited.

I've lived in a couple of those countries and you know what?  They are a lot more accepting of alternate points of view than that little sentence above shows.

According to the 1999 Enclyclopedia Brittanica Book of the Year, There were over 900 million "Non-Religious and Atheists" which includes everything from those indifferent about religion to people who are actively atheist.  Now, you could argue that a good portion of thos still believe in a God, but certainly not all 900 million.  And this was at a time when the total population was still under 6 billion, so it's probably close to a full billion now.  1996's The Universal Almanac figured there were about 805 million "Nonreligious" types and about 210 million "Atheist".  So you're probably talking anywhere from 3 - 10% of the total population not believing in a God, depending on how you actually define that.

Now consider this: the vast majority of the people in the world probably believe that it's easier to send a rocket into the Sun than to shoot it out of the the solar system.  That doesn't make it true.



This has nothing to do with whether or not there is "something larger" out there.  Rather, it's about the idea that you know what that "something larger" is, that it is personified it in human terms, that it should -- indeed must -- be worshipped and obeyed, and oh by the way, you've got the exclusive handbook on how to do just that.

But in any case, non-belief doesn't disqualify someone from religion debate any more than a non-Christian is disqualified from any Christian-specific debate.

Bruce

Without making this religious at all, I would make the broader point that at certain points in history, the vast majority of the population believed something that was totally false. It happens over and over again. The fact is, most people who comprise the vast majority of anything are not experts or even thoughtful - whether or not you agree or disagree with them is irrelevant to any debate.

The majority of Americans believe that the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Iraqi. I disagree with them - and I'm right. So the majority of a group of people can get basic facts wrong, to say nothing of positions that require analysis.
---

When you look at the moon low in the sky it looks bigger. At one point in history 99% of the people on earth probably thought the moon actually grew as it got closer to the horizon - and they seemingly even had evidence to support them. They were wrong. Just like they were wrong about the world being flat, the stars being holes in the fabric of the sky, the earth being the center of the universe, and etc ad nauseam.

"Most people don't agree with you, therefore you are screwy" is not a rational argument at all. The vast majority does not have a monopoly on the truth.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is considered sinful by most Judeo-Christian faiths, yes, since it's mentioned in one of the Ten Commandments.

However, CmdrSlack never once used God's name in his post.  The only word he used that could be considered "swearing" was "fuck".  If it is your understanding that Catholics believe that "fuck" is God's name, and that taking it in vain is sinful, then I stand by all previous statements.  Especially the stfu n00b part.   :roll:

And last I heard, "God" wasn't God's name.  I think it started with a J.  Or a Y, depending on who you ask.

J and Y represent the same consonant in Hebrew. As with W and V. Plus, in ancient Hebrew, there are no vowels, so no one really knows how to spell it or pronounce it, let alone take it in vain (Which was the very reason why it's lost to us. Post-Maccabean Rabbi's and Priests thought it best to keep the correct pronounciation hidden amongst themselves in order that people wouldn't even be tempted to use it in vain. But because of that secrecy, it is now lost to us).

Modern day constructions of the tetragrammaton (YHVH -- the name of God) are either pronounced as Yahveh (or Yahweh) and Jehovah (this one's especially not likely, as it bears no resemblance to anything else in Hebrew).

HEATHEN! I STRIKE THEE DOWN!

PS- Yeah, I was being a smartass.  I saw Pi too. And with that smug, know-it-all sentence I just wrote, I've just opened for myself a chance to use one of those smileys than turns me from an arrogant, obnoxious prick to a good chum who's just givng you a hard time! Behold:  :-D  Feel your anger melt away.

The derivation of Jehovah is interesting.  Ancient written Hebrew didn't include the vowels, so Yahweh was indeed written YHWH. Later scholars went in and filled in a lot of the vowels, mostly through annotationsin the margins.  Except the forbiden use of the tetragrammaton was still in place so instead of putting in the vowels for Yahweh, they put in the vowels for the word that was often substituted for it, 'adonay, which means Lord. Even later, when it was translated into greek, the translators mistakenly took the vowels from adonay and put them with the consonants of YHWH, which gave the Yahowah which later became Jehovah.