Atheism

I totally agree with Search. But I think he forgets one powerful argument in his description of the councils: time and history.

Lets take two examples:
- Purgatory was unknown until some "enlightened" Italian clerics came up with their new found toy. First of all one may wonder why it took God and her church 11 centuries to find out that there was something between hell and heaven. Secondly, one may remark how timely this discovery was as the Italian church was depending increasingly on the merchant class of the Italian towns and less on the strong arm of the military elite. Rich and traders were not allowed in the house of God until someone found a good way to mitigate traditional theology and modern needs: a sinner by trade who has been a good man otherwise (understand gave a lot to the church, see the bronze doors of the Amalfia church) may have only some time to wait in purgatory before getting into heaven.
Now the point I'm making is not to make fun about anybody's belief but to remark that these "mere mortals" supposedly inspired by the holly spirit also had a surprisingly down-to-earth agenda.

-How many voices does God have? Lets admit that some "mere men" once inspired by the holly spirit come up with some stuff She didn't think fit to reveal earlier (say the fact that the pope is always right or the fact that God is on our side). The problem arises when people just as human but pretending to be just as inspired come up with a rival claim. How can I know who is right and who isn't? Me, personally who doesn't have my front head transformed into a frying pan every once in a while (sorry for the sarcasm but sincerely there are things anybody in its right mind can't believe in). Who am I to decide whether Saint Peter had a successor or not or whether Mary was a virgin or not. If decision so important as these are left to me mere mortal, may as well not believe in anything.

No don't get me wrong. I have a large amount of love for the Catholic church and I admire many aspect of the Jewish religion. I also feel sometimes somewhat jealous towards my friends whose faith seem to please so much. But if you ask me if I can believe deep down in any religion I'd say no.

The other problem is geography. Lets just consider the Americas in 1800. All was not that simple but basically on the North of the Rio Grande they believe that the pope was a dangerous maniac and on the South they believe that he was representing God on Earth (and lets say for the sake of the argument that half of the population was on the North side and half on the South side of the river).
This is very odd. The fact that people disagree is purely normal, the fact that they are divided by a river is strange and seem to indicate that one doesn't make up his mind according to his heart but that religion is a largely inheritable trait. If there was a real "market" for religion people on top and below the Rio Grande would have been just as likely to become protestant as they were to become catholic.
As it was not the case one can assume that the choice one's have when it comes to religion is less than perfect. Of course, an American is more likely now to become a buddist or muslim if her parents were christian than he was two centuries ago. On of the effect of globalisation is to make the market for religion more perfect (you even have mormons from the Cook Islands to Botswana) but, how do you want me to believe that the spread of word of God has more to do with the Internet, low cost airlines and modern management than with theology?

If you put that hairy old saying the other way around it would come out as "In the heart of God there is no fool". But that is illogical, if God is perfect then there can be no fools around, and even in the deepest recesses of his alleged heart, but this earth is littered with them. What's worse he is supposed love all these damn idiots, now days but not then. To talk about now days what did God ever do or say about the religious fool stuffing up the environment to make an extra buck?

This simplistic piece of jargon about God creating a super race and rest being mentally defective came from a time from a time of sleazy empire building. Those of the Middle East were trying to write wise sounding books to justify ghastly wars of slavery and profit that led to whole areas becoming a desert. 

Akolouthos, I wasn't aware of mouthing platitudes! However I did however bring up serious questions that never get answered on any forum because all the "experts" run scared. Perhaps by your silence you are indicating there are no usual set answers to fall back on perfected over the centuries. I for one get fed up with hearing about the ravings of psychopathic spin doctors that wrote ancient texts about God making the world and all in it to serve man. They would never get away with that mind control stuff now days, even the UN would condemn their message if written in present times. There's the plain facts, so shoot me I'm just being the messenger.

Constantine;

What you arent grasping is that you dont need religion to go to war. You can do it as an Atheist too. Humans have been warring for thousands of years and Islam came 1400 years ago. So is religion responsible for all the thousand previous years? Or is it an inherent human characteristic?

elenos wrote: Thankyou for your answer Akolouthos I admire your eloquent style and you are an inspiration to us all in your replies, keep up the good work. Mea culpa, I was trying to be provocative to elicit an answer and I'm sorry I still am. I first wrote early in the morning over my toast and coffee, so perhaps my logic was not up to the pre-set standards that have been polished by the holy believers over thousands of years. I apologize for my thoughts not being as well organized as those trained the in the arcane art of kicking an opponent in the guts while uttering blessings.

Edited by Akolouthos - 09-Dec-2007 at 00:36

Sorry Akolouthos. I didn't mean you kicking anyone, If you took it that way I unreservedly apologize I was speaking in general of the ancient tendency to promulgate an untenable set of beliefs. I would agree the better place to kick the disbelievers (of your own beliefs) may be in the rear, but not all will offer to bend over once knowing the end results. To achieve the more of desired effects you have to catch them by surprise. I should be the one to apologize for not being as clear as I should be.

You are self taught? Congratulations on being such a fine representative of the set of beliefs that I'm unfortunately disputing. If I say "you" I mean that as a challenge to all our readers some whom understand the point I'm making. Semantically to use "you" in the accusative tone is only said in a general sense.

Don't forget we are talking about semantics, namely; "The fool says in his heart there is no God." (notice I did show respect by using a capitol letter for God) In modern medical terms nobody ever did speak through their heart. The heart is the major organ for pumping blood and for a long time has been proven as nothing to do with pumping our emotions. The whole terminology for this modern world has changed.

These are simply the facts of the modern age and all those who say different are living in denial of the circumstances providing the standard of living they currently enjoy. Sorry that you don't find anything serious in talking about real time facts. Put downs of those that may speak the truth is not nice. May God bless you (or should I say the forces that you believe make life).

Edited by elenos - 09-Dec-2007 at 01:51

The upsetting of individual moral sensibilities is indeed the question. One hopes they don’t override too many for fear of upset of those who are being overridden. However this doesn’t seem to be a two way street. To be quite candid I blame the historical selfishness of religions for the current environmental crisis, it could have been avoided. One must reserve the right to question motives or the ones in charge of religions will become dictatorial and use any trick of word or wit to negate responsibility to this world with unproven promises of another.

People go along with the many forms of religion when they may not have to do with being genuine. Some very dubious organizations claim the moral high ground by pretending to be the arbitrator of public decency. Am I being a Richard Dawkins? I hope not for he is setting up his own virulent form of contempt for others. IMHO to have a church of science would be entirely unbecoming.

Thick skin? How can one care for the real world with a hide like a rhinoceros? I do care and my life is filled with troubles and concerns. Is not caring for others and evasion of real issues called bliss? Perhaps I should learn some of this.