Atheist Sees Image of Big Bang in Piece of Toast

[mungo]

Tacitus:
"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. "

I think most of us agree that it's quite possible that the man actually existed.

If Jesus died at about 30AD, that means Tacitus was born only 20 years after that.

Let's say Tacitus was at least ten years old by the time he wrote this. That would be at least thirty years after the fact. Imagine someone in the late '70s going around performing those "miracles" and then today, 2009, we have the first person to actually mention him in writing.

 

[Edders]

I'm sorry Edders, but you should therefore concede. The Church oppresses people in a lot of different places in a lot of different ways. We can talk about sexual abuse of boys, but I think we all know about that already. That is the ultimate form of oppression, and was done with the knowledge of many people within the Church. You can try to deny it, but it would be futile. Regardless, there are lots of other examples.

What do you consider "nowadays"? Does the 1940s & 1950s count as "nowadays"? In my grandparents' (and even my parents') generation, in Italy, a woman could not take communion after giving birth, until her child was baptized. In some places, she couldn't even enter the church. She was an unclean sinner. During that time, in Italy, a woman couldn't take communion after having sex with her husband, until she went to confession first and told the priest about it, in whatever detail he deemed necessary.

At the same time, during those days, a boy and girl could not be alone together, even in a public place like a restaurant, under threat of having their membership in the church revoked, with all that went with it - school, clubs, and social programs.

I don't know what you call oppression, but that fits the definition for me.

--- D

Regarding the sexual abuse, it is as common than in other institutions than the Catholic church, roughly speaking. Prevalence of pedophilia among priests is slightly lower than in the general male population, while the prevalence of hebephilia is slightly higher. So the problems of society are reflected in the Catholic church. They are a part of our community, so it would make sense, no? Besides, a child is MUCH more likely to be abused by a family member anyway. Shouldn't someone who is concerned for a child's welfare concentrate first on the this?

Well, you talk about your grandparents and parents generation as if it is still like this. It is not; like I said, there is no social stigma for leaving the church now. Even so, the application of a social stigma does not mean that you are "oppressed". For example, it seems like on GTAM, I'm being stigmatized for being a Catholic, and having different views. Does that mean I'm being oppressed by all you mean atheists? Hardly.

And if you truly believe in the Catholic church back in those days, you follow the rules, just like in any club or organization. Not being welcome in an organization for not following their rules is hardly oppression. I would actually argue that the right to exclude anyone from a society is a right of that society.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

And if you truly believe in the Catholic church back in those days, you follow the rules, just like in any club or organization. Not being welcome in an organization for not following their rules is hardly oppression. I would actually argue that the right to exclude anyone from a society is a right of that society.

And just what do you think would have happened to a member of the community that said f this, "I am out of this church?"... Shunned by all family and friends... yeah, it was easy to say f it

 

[jimyed]

Regarding the sexual abuse, it is as common than in other institutions than the Catholic church, roughly speaking. Prevalence of pedophilia among priests is slightly lower than in the general male population, while the prevalence of hebephilia is slightly higher. So the problems of society are reflected in the Catholic church. They are a part of our community, so it would make sense, no? Besides, a child is MUCH more likely to be abused by a family member anyway. Shouldn't someone who is concerned for a child's welfare concentrate first on the this?

.

It's not the Preist abuses that upset me the most. It does happen in society and is certainly a problem that should be addressed.

My issue is and always will be the churches attempts to cover up abuse rather than stop it and prevent further instances.

How can an organization that claims to be a Moral authority possibly taken seriously when it covers up for and defends pedophiles?

And I might add any attempt to claim that abuse by priests happens statistically less than it happens in the general society is rediculous, constant cover ups and out right lies mean that there is no way to know how many priest might be abusing people.

 

[Duster929]

Regarding the sexual abuse, it is as common than in other institutions than the Catholic church, roughly speaking. Prevalence of pedophilia among priests is slightly lower than in the general male population, while the prevalence of hebephilia is slightly higher. So the problems of society are reflected in the Catholic church. They are a part of our community, so it would make sense, no? Besides, a child is MUCH more likely to be abused by a family member anyway. Shouldn't someone who is concerned for a child's welfare concentrate first on the this?

My problem with the institution is not so much the abuse. That concerns the acts of particular individuals. My problem is the covering up, as has already been mentioned. Please don't attempt to deny that the church has covered up sexual abuse, has moved known offenders to different parishes, and has, by their silence and refusal to take action, been complicit with the crimes.

Yes, it happens outside the church. And the people that commit it are reported and prosecuted. The church has not acted in support of victims, they have acted in support of perpetrators. Up until the issue became too big to hide any more. That's oppression.

Well, you talk about your grandparents and parents generation as if it is still like this. It is not; like I said, there is no social stigma for leaving the church now.

My grandparents only died a few years ago. I'm not talking about ancient history or the way the Church used to be a thousand years ago. I'm talking about the 20th century.

Even so, the application of a social stigma does not mean that you are "oppressed". For example, it seems like on GTAM, I'm being stigmatized for being a Catholic, and having different views. Does that mean I'm being oppressed by all you mean atheists? Hardly.

I'm not an atheist. And I'm not mean. But I don't like oppression, and I'm not afraid to say so.

And if you truly believe in the Catholic church back in those days, you follow the rules, just like in any club or organization. Not being welcome in an organization for not following their rules is hardly oppression. I would actually argue that the right to exclude anyone from a society is a right of that society.

I think you need to re-read the definition of oppression. Coercing someone to behave in a certain way under threat of exclusion from "society" is definitely oppression. In North America there's no stigma associated with leaving the Church. (Unless you happen to be from a Catholic family, of course.) Not so in many other parts of the world. The parts of the world where the Church is growing its power base.

--- D

 

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Before the old thread was moved into trash talk... probably because Edders broke the rules, by-passed the word filters, and called all the atheists ******** using $$ instead of ss... before that, Twowheelchic posted a silly video supposedly showing Einstein as a theist standing up to an atheist teacher.

Many times I have seen theists claim that Einstein belongs with them in a seemingly childish attitude that implies 'if the world's most recognized genius believed in god, then it must be true!' - like arguing by consensus ever proves anything.

Anyway... just in case any of you theists around here happen to think like that, here is a letter which outlines what Einstein thought in regards to religion and god. I am not pointing this out in order to argue like the theists do by drawing Einstein into our 'camp', but rather I thought what he had to say was worded very well and worth sharing.

This was a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind after reading his book, 'Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt': http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

The passage I enjoyed:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.

 

[Edders]

And just what do you think would have happened to a member of the community that said f this, "I am out of this church?"... Shunned by all family and friends... yeah, it was easy to say f it

I didn't say it was easy, but if people feel like they are being oppressed, and they will not remove themselves from the situation because of outside influences, that's their problem. A person's character flaw should not be blamed on the church.

And I might add any attempt to claim that abuse by priests happens statistically less than it happens in the general society is rediculous, constant cover ups and out right lies mean that there is no way to know how many priest might be abusing people.

Why is it ridiculous? I'm sure there are other sexual cover-ups out there that have nothing to do with the church, and also have gone unreported. Also, there are a lot of instances when false accusations were flung around, too. So really all we can do is work with the data we have. The data states what I have posted earlier. Unless you have faith, without scientific evidence, that the church covers up more than other institutions?

Yes, it happens outside the church. And the people that commit it are reported and prosecuted. The church has not acted in support of victims, they have acted in support of perpetrators. Up until the issue became too big to hide any more. That's oppression.

You are right, certain people within the church have acted shamefully, criminally even. They did not follow the teachings of Jesus, and the Catholic church. But we cannot therefore say that the church as a whole is a bad idea. Enron had its top CEOs cook the books, leaving their employees without the means to retire. Do we blame Ken Lay, or Enron as a company? Also, we do not characterize the employees, the rank-and-file, as cheats; they are victims. Truth be told, I feel like a victim too, because these unscrupulous people sullied the faith that I hold very dear.

Before the old thread was moved into trash talk... probably because Edders broke the rules, by-passed the word filters, and called all the atheists ******** using $$ instead of ss...

I cannot remember the exact words I used, but I do believe I was not calling ALL atheists the A-word; I count among my best friends and close family members people who do not believe as I do. It is when I got insulted and talked down to, just because my opinion didn’t fit someone else’s, that I said that word to. You did notice me getting attacked for no reason, didn’t you (unless having a different opinion is cause for attack)?

I am very careful not to initiate any fights on the board (the Catholic in me), but truth be told, I like fighting in all of its forms, so of course if their game, I’m game! I guess that makes me an a-hole too, I’ll be that. But I won’t cry and ignore people if they get the upper hand on me!

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

A person's character flaw should not be blamed on the church.

Where do you think the pressure comes from?

Do you honestly think the church would tell the community to embrace the outcast??

 

[Edders]

Where do you think the pressure comes from?

Do you honestly think the church would tell the community to embrace the outcast??

I never said that. Adults have to deal with pressure, sometimes an unfair amount, as I'm sure everyone here knows.

The church has its own rules, and if you don't like it you can leave. But the church itself is too big to be dwelling on "who left this week?" every Sunday service. No one from the church is telling your family to pressure you to stay in the church.

If the church is a big part of your community, well then yes, you may be considered the outcast by people. Let's say your family all are firefighters, and you decide to be a ballet dancer, you'd also be an outcast. That's just the way it is in social circles. The church certainly didn't start social pressures, and also it never claimed to have answers for family and peer pressure. It really is up to the individual to have the internal strength to do what he/she thinks is right, a trait that is espoused in Catholic teachings, by the way.

We shouldn't expect the church to be announcing bulletins telling its parishioners to welcome the people who turn their back on the church! Especially because people who want to leave may be uncomfortable doing so. It's not the job of the church to comfort non-members; that rule applies to every institution with its own members.

 

[Duster929]

Edders, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You may consider yourself a Catholic because you go to Church every Sunday, but I think you are seriously missing the point of what Catholicism, Christianity, and the "Jesus message" is actually about.

But the church itself is too big to be dwelling on "who left this week?" every Sunday service.

They should be. Have you ever read the story about the lost sheep, and the Good Shepherd? It's a central parable in the teachings of the Church.

No one from the church is telling your family to pressure you to stay in the church.

You can't be serious. Of course they are. Regularly, and consistently. Please, tell me you're not serious.

Let's say your family all are firefighters, and you decide to be a ballet dancer, you'd also be an outcast. That's just the way it is in social circles.

You're right. And in a community of firefighters who socially pressure people not to become dancers, I would say that the people who want to be dancers are being oppressed. I think they call such a community "Oshawa". Oppression isn't right even if "that's just the way it is". This is in part what the Christian faith is supposed to represent. Fighting the wrongs of the world "just the way it is".

The church certainly didn't start social pressures, and also it never claimed to have answers for family and peer pressure.

No, it didn't. But it's supposed to be the antidote to oppression and injustice. And yes, it does claim to have answers for family and peer pressure.

It really is up to the individual to have the internal strength to do what he/she thinks is right, a trait that is espoused in Catholic teachings, by the way.

We shouldn't expect the church to be announcing bulletins telling its parishioners to welcome the people who turn their back on the church! Especially because people who want to leave may be uncomfortable doing so. It's not the job of the church to comfort non-members; that rule applies to every institution with its own members.

This is one of the most un-Catholic things I've ever read. Have you seriously studied your own catechism? Catholicism does not espouse "people should have the internal strength to do what he/she thinks is right". Catholicism espouses having mercy for the weak, forgiving the sinner. Blessed are the meek. The poor in spirit. For theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Central to Catholicism is the tenet that each of us is imperfect and prone to failure. That no person should judge another, and one should go out of their way to help those that don't have "internal strength".

If you're going to put any faith in the story of your own Jesus, you should remember that he spent his short life fighting against an oppressive hierarchy that imposed rules on people and ostracized those who didn't comply. Jesus spent his time with tax collectors, people of ill-repute, those who were considered cursed with illness. He openly fought with "the establishment". Stories of the Prodigal Son, Throwing the First Stone, The Lost Sheep, and many others, are directly counter to your viewpoint here.

Even your own St. Peter in whose words you place so much faith, didn't have the internal strength to do what he thought was right, and denied that he even knew Jesus. Was he cast from the Church? No, he's credited with founding the Church, and became its first saint.

I think before posting much more you should review some of your own Church's teachings and figure out what this going-to-church thing is supposed to be all about. I really don't think it's what you think it is.

--- D

 

[oomis]

Snap. I believe that edders just got out-jeebused.

 

[Duster929]

Snap. I believe that edders just got out-jeebused.

I certainly know my Catholic catechism. I just wish more people in "The Church" did too.

--- D

 

[ToSlow]

Christ did not come for the believers he came for the non believers.

 

[ZX600]

That piece of toast must really be interesting, this thread keeps showing up

 

[Edders]

Well, it looks like I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't!

So, Duster929, You say that the church should be the answer to oppression. Fine. But then you are implying that the church is being oppressive by pressuring their flock to be Catholics! You know, in a way you might be right, because I guess whoever gets lost and finds their way back would have a strengthened sense of their belief, being tested and all.

I'm just one man trying to call it like I see it. I try to be good, and I try to follow what the church teaches me. I never claimed to have all the answers. People say stuff (a lot of which can also be nitpicked, much like you’re doing to me), and I say stuff back. I'm just debating with everyone (literally; EVERYONE's against me, even fellow Catholics!)

And that thing about St Peter, it was said that when the Romans were about to arrest him, he first fled Rome. But then he had a chat with Jesus, and decided to face the music; he even told'em to crucify him upside down! I think that's a pretty good reference to what I said when I put that the church teaches people to have the internal strength to do what he/she thinks is right.

And besides, you are taking a lot of my quotes out of context. For example, when I said "But the church itself is too big to be dwelling on "who left this week?" every Sunday service.", I was explaining why I think the church cannot be focusing on each individual who wants to leave, and why they cannot make that departure as painless as possible.

When I said "No one from the church is telling your family to pressure you to stay in the church"? Someone first commented that the church preaches this to its flock. I may have misunderstood, but I thought he meant that they literally tell their flock this (like how I once heard this at a Protestant mass I was at). I’ve never heard a sermon where a priest said this. Although, they do tell you to baptize your kids, so I guess in a way that is oppression, of babies anyway

I know a lot about the teachings of Jesus, maybe not as much as you, but I get the jist of it. In my personal life, I try to follow it everyday. But in the real world, things ain't so simple. you put "Central to Catholicism is the tenet that each of us is imperfect and prone to failure. That no person should judge another, and one should go out of their way to help those that don't have "internal strength"." But what if the way to help them is disputed? The church thinks that by trying to follow what they say, they're helping you. But if that person takes that as "oppression", well, where does that leave us? Read my first line of this post.

And since you know everything about Catholicism, why aren't you trying to answer some of this thread's questions, instead of nitpicking my answers? It's only me out here, brother!

And don’t be annoyed with me because I’m not the “perfect” Catholic. You’re right, I’m not. I don’t go every Sunday, I sometimes treat people like $hit, I swear like a sailor, and I am hotheaded sometimes. But you did say this is the religion to forgive the sinners, no? And all joking aside, I do try very hard to be a good person. I guess I’m not good enough for you, but then again I don’t pray to Duster929

 

[Edders]

Christ did not come for the believers he came for the non believers.

touche!

 

[knowledge]

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Douglas Adams

You can never explain the unknown by the unknowable. It doesn't take a genius to realize the simple and undeniable logic behind that statement.

Hey...I'm not even trying to defend it, and I already said that there's lots of points to pick at.

Many times I have seen theists claim that Einstein belongs with them in a seemingly childish attitude that implies 'if the world's most recognized genius believed in god, then it must be true!' - like arguing by consensus ever proves anything.

Anyway... just in case any of you theists around here happen to think like that, here is a letter which outlines what Einstein thought in regards to religion and god. I am not pointing this out in order to argue like the theists do by drawing Einstein into our 'camp', but rather I thought what he had to say was worded very well and worth sharing.

This was a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind after reading his book, 'Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt': http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

The passage I enjoyed:

Einstein's views on God are still heavily debatable. There's no doubt that he didn't agree with Religion. With all the work he did on physics/metaphysics, he WAS humbled by the vastness & intelligence of the Universe. He didn't believe in the traditional God, but it seems that there is something out there

"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos"
- Einstein

Do you honestly think the church would tell the community to embrace the outcast??

They do when they said to embrace the tax collectors. They do when they say to give & embrace to the poor. It depends which era you're citing. In modern times, they church isn't the central form of government anymore...so their hold on believers is a lot more limited. They don't say "shun your family members who have lost faith". The shunning is more from the family who can't understand why someone would lose faith in "the truth".

 

[revrandy]

There is a part of me that says I should probably be commenting on this thread then I go nah... not like I am being paid to pontificate here

 

[knowledge]

There is a part of me that says I should probably be commenting on this thread then I go nah... not like I am being paid to pontificate here

Do it for the love of God, reverend.
You're definitely not a traditional reverend...at all!

 

[Worldtraveller]

Hey Edders, here's another fine example of a Catholic priest and the church's moral 'values'.