Admitting You're a Sinner

[Fake Messiah]

The theologians Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey ... Jonathan Sacks

Oh no! Religious people are against atheism! Equating it with suicide bombings, anti gay marches and so on. Where did I hear that before?! You really got us. They're also against themselves cuz some are Christians and one is a rabbi. I mean SteveII maybe you should first talk to Sacks why he thinks Jesus is bullshit before you quote him.

And when it comes to some legit scientists trying to merge science and religion it always fails. I mean just look at Steven Gould and his NOMA. calling for thoughtful dialogue between religion and science-not to unite them, but to encourage greater harmony and mutual understanding. He urged that we must realize his vision by structuring science and religion in a way that would allow their peaceful coexistence. He thus saw NOMA as “the potential harmony through difference of science and religion, both properly conceived and limited.”
But already word "properly" is the red flag here. Imagining "proper" science is easy - the vast majority of scientists are happy to pursue their calling as an entirely naturalistic enterprise. But what is "proper" religion? It was, to Gould, religion that does not overlap with science.
Which is impossible because religions worldwide often stray into scientific territory, sometimes with tragic results. How many have died, even in the last few decades, because an infection is regarded as simply spiritual malaise? Religion encompasses beliefs that help people make sense of personal reality, even when those beliefs overlap with science. By casting himself as the arbiter of "proper" religion, Gould simply redefined terms to satisfy his utopian vision.

Even Gould was aware of this because he later wrote: "Religion just can’t be equated with Genesis literalism, the miracle of the liquefying blood of Saint Januarius . . . or the Bible codes of kabbalah and modern media hype. If these colleagues wish to fight superstition, irrationalism, philistinism, ignorance, dogma, and a host of other insults to the human intellect (often politically converted into dangerous tools of murder and oppression as well), then God bless them—but don’t call this enemy 'religion.'"

Sometimes scientists want to make peace with science and religion not because there's any truth in religion but they get subjective because they want to acknowledge people that are close to them but are religions, like in many cases it's their parents. Like you can see with Gould he wanted to do something but it made no sense, because religion makes no sense even among religious people.

[SteveII]

...
In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 
...

Thanks for the clarification.

So, given that this is false premise, I guess I can dismiss the argument.

Hitch, maybe, but the other three have emphatically stated that not "All religion is harmful".  And Hitch won't be stating it again. 

So, then these people have not written extensively on the harm that religious people do to their children? Then I must have confused them with some other group. My mistake. 
I don't have any cartoons to post so...nice discussion.

[DLJ]

...
the harm that religious people do to their children?
...

That's not what you said.

You said "All religion is harmful and holds us back".

Spot the difference?

[Catholic_Lady]

Not on the issue of original sin.  Its fundamental, as they state in catechism, nothing of scripture can be made sense of..in their intepretation of it, without that literal and very specific insistence.  The central mystery of their faith depends on it.   Catholics -can- believe in a range of things..especially on peripheral issues..this isn't one of them.  It's central not only to their theology..but it;s the whole purpose of their rites..of mass - of recieving communion, hell, even the confessional is not necessarrily meant for ones current sins, but an expression of your openess to god and your relationship with the divine by being willing to divulge them honestly, in humility and a true spirit of repentence.  This is thought to effect the deeper issue of sin.  It's thought to help us bare the sin of adam, our real first parent, whose trangression we inherit as a mark upon our souls and whose sin was so great that it condemded all mankind in that very instant.

Now ofc our protestant friends are going to tell us that's wrong or unbiblical and double plus ungood..even catholics are..apparently, willing to object - but that -is- catholicism.  It's more rigid than some faiths.  A necessity of creating that unity, that ring of the church of christ they perceive themselves (and seek, I;m sure) to be.

And according to both the catechism and my RCC school,  both you and your school are not only wrong but also heretical.

Ahh the trials and tribulations of trying to institutionalize anything so sublime as religious experience.  (James' variety, of course).  Institutionalized religious experience isn't my cup of tea but I generally am not offended if other people honor their own tastes in tea.

---

Hm, didn't realize Maher had ever interviewed Father Foster.

Anyway, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to Khem about any of this. I know his AF persona well enough by now to know that he's not interested in what's actually true. He's going to keep accusing me of heresy for what I said about Original Sin, despite the fact that what I said is exactly what was taught to us in Catholic school. Moron.

I'd be interested in how you hold the seeming contradictions between the way various people who call themselves catholics understand your church's teachings.  Here you say it happens to have been the way you were taught it.  But of course it is a bit of an accident which school you may have attended, so then the question becomes why do you think the way you were taught it is the right one.  At that point the fact that it was the way you were taught it is no longer sufficient as an answer.

I think you know I don't ask in order to belittle your position.  Far from it.  It is more like wondering whether I can reasonably get my hopes up that there are more where you came from.  If you want to answer publicly, good for you.  If it doesn't feel safe to do so here and now I understand.

Oh and is there more you can tell me about this Father Foster?  I only know him from the Religulous movie.  Quite the character.

It seems what some people here fail to grasp (or perhaps they do understand and are being purposely obtuse, that would be my guess), is that it is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism to take either a literal or allegorical approach to Genesis and Original Sin. So long as you accept the underlying message.

The literal approach is that Adam and Eve lived in a paradise garden free of death and suffering, and committed the first sin by eating an apple after being tempted to do so by a snake. That sin left a biological mark that was genetically inherited by all people.

The generally accepted non literal approach, and what we were taught in school, is that at some point during human evolution, our brains became smart enough to fully understand morality, and the difference between right and wrong. Moral free will. Adam and Eve were very early humans - the first to experience this moral awakening, and with that, became responsible for the first sin (whatever it was). From there on out, we bred and made more human babies with the mental capacity and inevitable tendency to sin. It effects all of us.

Whether one takes the literal or non literal approach to Original Sin, the underlying belief about it is that as human beings, we have an inherent and inevitable tendency to sin. Every single one of us is guaranteed to do something wrong in our life if given the chance, starting with the very first humans. It is, itself, the nature of being human and having moral free will.

I believe it happened this way because I think there is sufficient evidence for evolution. We were taught evolution in science class, and I remember my textbook having illustrations of sapien bone structures at various stages of evolution. They started out as very apeish and became more and more human like. It's almost impossible to argue this, imho, and as far as I'm aware, most of us do accept evolution. If you go to a Catholic Forum, you will find that most people on there do take an allegorical approach to Genesis. I used to be quite active in one.

All I know about Father Foster is that he was one of the Vatican priests before retiring. I believe he had some sort of position there where he worked with Latin, though not sure exactly what he did. I just know him as one of the Church Latinists.

[Amarok]

In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 

Bullshit Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris never said all religion is harmful so your lying . And as for the notion science should replace religion . Again that's not a ideology . that's looking at a historical trend ans simply speeding it up. And there religion nothing can do that secularism can't . As for how atheists are depicted . Yeah well who cares how people are depicted?

---

Where does guilt come from?

Isn't it a basic fear of survival?

Nope guilt  likely evolved as a restraining mechanism. And a reminding mechanism . within a social species and were not even the only species who experience it  .

[Cyberman]

In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 

That's because you're confusing atheism with atheists. Beyond that very basic qualifying criterion - not being a theist - atheists are not much different from anyone else. Shocking, I know; but it's like tarring all vegetarians as militant animal rights activists based on a handful of the better-known ones.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems what some people here fail to grasp (or perhaps they do understand and are being purposely obtuse, that would be my guess), is that it is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism to take either a literal or allegorical approach to Genesis and Original Sin. So long as you accept the underlying message.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c1p7.htm

OMGeees..what we're seeing here is a catholic who rejects catholic doctrine "because evolution" - and I have to be honest...I didn't think that was actually a thing. That's another one of those areas that the catholic apparatus has essentially abandoned the field ...letting the rabble believe whatever they want..but, officially, demanding what the rabble do not believe.

The RCC is currently engaged in a process of upheaval, attempting to balance their faith against the practical reality of their continued existence; as the power of their demographics begins to effect change from the bottom in what has been..heretofore, a Top Down sort of organisation. For many clergy and educators...they know that their parishioners and students don't believe "The Approved Line", but objecting and insisting causes attendance loss.

Catholics aren't -quite- as scared that..if they don;t go to mass and get communion, they'll go to hell (for example)- so they can practically negotiate on their beliefs at a personal level in the face of authority. The church can't credibly threaten to withhold those services for non-coformity as it once could. OFC the church still insists that these rituals -are- necessary.

[RoadRunner79]

In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 

That's because you're confusing atheism with atheists. Beyond that very basic qualifying criterion - not being a theist - atheists are not much different from anyone else. Shocking, I know; but it's like tarring all vegetarians as militant animal rights activists based on a handful of the better-known ones.

Seemed to me, like he was speaking specifically about what is referred to as the new atheist movement.  I don't see the confusion that you speak of.

[SteveII]

In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 

That's because you're confusing atheism with atheists. Beyond that very basic qualifying criterion - not being a theist - atheists are not much different from anyone else. Shocking, I know; but it's like tarring all vegetarians as militant animal rights activists based on a handful of the better-known ones.

I was making no point whatsoever. I was describing the ideology called New Atheism. I don't think I was inaccurate in any way.

[Catholic_Lady]

Isn't new atheism just anti theism?