… or are rumors of his death greatly exaggerated? An American visitor to Europe has written an intriguing editorial on the state of religion in Europe:
"’Common wisdom has it that alcoholics outnumber practicing Christians and that more Czechs believe in UFOs than believe in God — and common wisdom may be correct,’ wrote Nate and Leah Seppanen Anderson in a Prague Post commentary; he’s a freelance writer, and she’s a political science professor at Wheaton College in Illinois and a specialist in Czech politics and society. Surveys show a sharp decline in church attendance and religious practice in most European countries. A series of Eurobarometer surveys since 1970 in five key countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy) shows that regular church attendance fell from about 40% of the population to about half that figure. Declines were sharpest in predominantly Catholic nations.
"Even so, how do we account for the extraordinary outpouring of grief at Pope John Paul II’s death in April and the enthusiasm that his successor seems to evoke? Are these mere public spectacles, signifying nothing about Europe’s drift from its religious roots, or are they signs of yearning for something more than peace, prosperity and la dolce vita?"
It’s interesting how this dovetails with a book I just read by Jimmy Carter (it was a gift).
In it he basically argues that it is okay for Christians to participate in politics, as long as they are not organized.
He sees “fundamentalism” in America as THE PROBLEM, and would likely lump faithful Catholics into that group. In fact, he admits that he is influenced by the likes of Hans Kung and other libs.
I am from Czech republic, studying law at university in Prague.
The problem why the Czechs people are so godless is more difficult.
The churches (and other religion communities) were persecuted more than in other communistic countries until velvet revolution in 1989. Several generations (for 40 years) were taught in school that Roman Catholic Church is ower-hungry and greedy club usually organising a witch-hunt.
So the no-confidence to Catholic Church is deep-roted and many people are anti-clericals, although they have no experience with the church. This is the reason for empty churches. It’s pity because we have lot of them and they belong to the most beautiful churches of world.
Altough we live in democratic society for 16 years, old stereotypical thinking (mostly in older generations) remains.
But today I know lot of czechs who belive that something above us is, but this faith is very personal without membership in any religion organisation.
Marketa-
You wrote:
“Several generations (for 40 years) were taught in school that Roman Catholic Church is ower-hungry and greedy club usually organising a witch-hunt.”
This is also true in the U.S.!
I remember many of the history books that were used in my high school and college courses portrayed the Catholic Church in exactly the same way.
I hope to visit Prague some day.
God bless you!
Well, the previously predominantly Catholic countries are also those which embraced socialism with enthusiasm.
I’ve always considered the Church’s social teachings border-line Socialist and they gave the opportunity to the Left to happily tip the balance, with the help of the Church in almost all cases.
Perhaps after learning this the Church was quick to put down Liberation “Theology” in Latin America, perhaps not. Of course, JPII’s experience with the Left under Nazi then Soviet rule might have inoculated him against such follies.
Unfortunately, American Liberal Catholics are not unlike those in Catholic Europe 50 years ago. Almost without exception, they regard the Church’s social teachings as its reason of being, while everything else is nothing but irrelevant, from devotions to sacraments.
Those banning Christianism from history in the EU parliament were raised by liberal Catholics. Those who made abortion available were raised by liberal Catholics. They were probably praised by priests and bishops in a perhaps sometimes misguided approach, but I suspect often in a sincere treason of the Church.
I believe that the outpour in Rome was by the remaining 20% or so Europeans who still cling to the vehicle of Grace that the Church is. Fewer, but perhaps more deeply faithful.
God, why do you forsake
us?
Possibly, because at this time, the cure may be worse than the disease…. 🙁
He sees “fundamentalism” in America as THE PROBLEM,…
So, apparently, does Karl Keating, author of Catholicism and Fundamentalism.
Tim J.,
Your snide remarks about Jimmy Carter, an evangelical Christian, are offensive.
the truth: Your snide remarks about Karl Keating, a practicing, believing Catholic, are offensive.
thetruth-
Jimmy Carter (who singles out fundamentalists, by name, as the main cause of the current divisions in American society) uses the word in a far different sense than does Karl Keating.
Karl Keating (if I recall correctly) uses it in a straightforward sense to indicate adherence to a specific set of beliefs.
Carter uses it in a much broader sense to define what he sees as a certain religious mindset, and unflinchingly lumps American fudamentalism in with Islamo-fascism, even though American fundamentalists are not (last time I checked) driving truck-bombs into those they disagree with.
Have you read Carter’s book? If I can stomach it, you can.
I know and respect a number of Evangelical Protestants and they do not talk like Jimmy Carter does in his book.
“Carter uses it in a much broader sense to define what he sees as a certain religious mindset, and unflinchingly lumps American fudamentalism in with Islamo-fascism, even though American fundamentalists are not (last time I checked) driving truck-bombs into those they disagree with.”
So what? Not all Muslims are violent. Some, such as al-Quaeda, are. Not all Christians are violent, though some Christian groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, are.
I’m a Protestant. I would consider myself evangelical, like Carter and others. I haven’t yet read Carter’s book.
But maybe his point is that people such as Pat Robertson have become too powerful as spokesman for Christians, and their political ties are too strong, and they have become corrupt.
I lived in Prague for a number of years (1992-1997), where I worked for the Czech Academy of Sciences. Certainly, Marketa’s comments ring true, but I’d add another thing. Marketa, could you correct me if I’m wrong? It seemed to me that after the revolution in 1989, the Church was eager to get back to life as normal, that is, to have its property reconstituted and to continue on in the modes of the more western churches. It seemed to me that given the 40 years of Communism, this was the wrong approach. What the church needed to be was more of a missionary church, forming those who knew very little about the faith.
Still, there are a number of very bright spots, I would say. It seems to me that Czech Catholics and Protestants (Czech Brethren) still maintain a good relationship. There is a Christian (largely Catholic) grass-roots radio station, Radio Proglas that according to my in-laws is terrific. The Church of the Holy Savior, at least when I was there, was a very vibrant student community. Also, Czech television has a regular short program called “Holy Word” (Svatecni Slovo) that at times is extremely good. (The one on Sunday 13. 11. talked about the relationship between the Czech nation, and the saints, particularly Anezka. According to a medieval tradition, it was said that the fate of the Czech nation would be improved once Anezka was declared a saint. At the mass celebrating her sainthood, Cardinal Tomasek said at this moment in history the Catholic Church stood side-by-side with the Czech nation. The next day, Prague was filled with demonstrators. One week later, the Czechs were free. When my wife and I watched this we had goosebumps. )
— John
PS. Radio Proglas’ website is http://www.proglas.cz/ .
PPS. Ahoj Marketo!
Jsem rad ze jsi tady komentovala! My vsichni srdecne te zdravime a vitame!
“He sees ‘fundamentalism’ in America as THE PROBLEM…So, apparently, does Karl Keating author of Catholicism and Fundamentalism.” A totally gratuitious slap at someone who is not mentioned in or part of this discussion is incredibly rude. You should scroll down the left hand column of this page to “DA RULZ”. Take a good look at Number 1.
BTW, you also ought to read “Catholicism And Fundamentalism: The attack on ‘Romanism’ By ‘Bible Christians’.” Then you’d know that Karl’s book is a defense of the Church from false attacks by anti-Catholic bigots.
America was founded by Puritans escaping Anglican rule in England. In other words, they were religious zealots running from religious zealots.
Hence the schizophrenic American attitude toward religion. We revere those who cling devoutly to their beliefs but at the same time we suspect and despise them.
The source relativism in Christian theology can be traced to none other than the inherently relativistic teachings of Luther who answered the question of “what is true?” with: You Decide!
Then came the revised histories which make no mention of the Church’s role in the development of our scientific, economic, and governmental achievements.
Because the non-Biblical theory of Sola Scriptura is relativistic, it can only spread a general sort of cynicism and confusion throughout society as the generations progress. Fast Forward a few centuries and you can see these ideas so permanently imbedded in the writings of Karl Marx, that no one even bothers to question their validity.
The result? Both Catholic and Protestant countries in Europe are infected by the same sort of anti-clerical pessimism and anti-church sentiment.
In America, only Fundamentalist Evangelicals and practicing Catholics seem to be immune while in Europe, it seems to be practicing Catholics and Muslims of all stripe.
Meanwhile the culture of death seems to be, well, dying.
I wonder whether what Marketa said applies to former East Germany as well. I hear about Germany’s declining participation in the Mass and it leads me to wonder whether the new national figures are reflecting the reunion between East and West more than they reflect an alarming rate of decline.
One parish here (not ours) swaps Mass turns with another parish, having villagers bus back and forth between Churches. I don’t know whether this is because there are fewer parishioners, or fewer priests, or both.
Our parish has three weekend Masses, one of which is in Polish. As far as I’ve seen, the Masses are always packed. I expected to see fewer attending on Holy Days but I was wrong–they were packed on Holy Days as well.
The fact that I see more grey hair than any other color does say something. BUT I think we’re getting more younger parishioners (reverts) than we had several months ago; there seems to be a steady but slow incline.
I can’t put my finger on why I see this incline but Benedict might have something to do with it. He’s gifted with communicating on an adult level and in a comforting, fatherly way. And maybe John Paul’s death awakened people to the fact that they were missing something that they didn’t realize they were missing. Something else is causing Benedict to get more visitors to his papal audience than John Paul did. This isn’t to compare one’s popularity with the other, but rather, this surprising revelation shows that something is at work, and that Benedict is more popular than a lot of the media have thus far been willing to acknowledge. I’ve been in three of these audiences and seen their smiles and excitement, and the people do seem to love him and what he represents.
I’ve found people listen intently and smile when we talk about seeing, and shaking hands with, Benedict XVI. I’d kind of be on guard because we didn’t want to bore anybody with vacation stories, and these days, there’s no telling what kind of reaction you will get when you talk about The Pope. But it always went over well–even with Lutherans we’d talk to.
We handed some blessed (by Benedict) medals to about a dozen people so far. Well, one day we were coming out of church and there was one of these ladies who’d gotten one of our medals, and she told us she’s going back to Mass now. I’m not saying the medal did it, or that we did it. Just that something recently released a whole new blast of Holy Spirit in the people who are willing to listen–and it appears to be spreading. Perhaps it’s directly, or perhaps it’s working in an instrumental way between people, I don’t know. Something is definitely telling people who will listen, to “Come home.”
What’s more, a Lutheran friend of ours visited Poland and brought us back a gift–a glass block with the image of John Paul II. It was a touching gesture–and believe me, he’s about as conservative as it gets and he wouldn’t do this out of the fuzzy liberal idea of “tolerance”. We really appreciated it. He’s into ecumenism and we’re having some friendly Q and A’s. They’re actually a pleasure. You couldn’t hope for a more respectful and pleasant person as an introduction to this kind of dialogue.
As to fundamentalists, I just started Keating’s book mentioned above, and it’s incredible, the things that they blindly believe the Catholic Church to do and believe. If that were the Catholic Church, it would be false and I’d hate it too. But it’s a shame that so few try to verify what they hear, or do a little digging on their own. Perhaps they read only other anti-Catholic pieces of literature, which pretty much plagiarize one another. The ideas either have no ultimate source, or when they have a source, it’s either a plagiarized quote from another mistaken anti-Catholic book or the quote is taken way out of context. Or the “source” is an ex-Catholic who didn’t have Church teaching correct in the first place. Or it’s just plain historically inaccurate. What’s even more frustrating is the fact that Jack Chick is so absurd, that even though he’s shunned by most fundamentalists, people see that absurd end of the spectrum and conclude that the rest of the anti-Catholic movement must actually be reasonable.
There’s nothing wrong with two well-equipped sets of people searching for Truth, (it takes a good grounding in the understanding of your faith first) but there is such extreme dishonesty in the real anti-Catholic crowd, ranging from prejudice and not thinking to question anything, to outright unwillingness to verify anything.
See, I fell into this briefly with a book intended to debunk Islam, only to find out that it, too, was full of bunk. At least I see that it is, after doing some verification and digging. Meaningful dialogue with a Muslim based on what I’d read in this book was impossible, because it too was full of prejudice and inaccuracies, and I do not recommend the book to anyone. You can debate Islam, but not from most of the points given in this book, or you’ll just end up looking like a fool, from what I found out. But the book does seem believable if it is all you read. It’s much of the same thing happening, but with Koran verses isolated and out of context in order to show some “contradictions”, and one ex-Muslim author who must not have known Islam very well. Yet many people read this book. We need better books. This one only set me back.
The state of religion can seem like a mess, overwhelming and frustrating. In a sense, it is indeed overwhelming, because you really can’t do this kind of dialogue on your own, without plenty of help from the Holy Spirit and a determination to proceed in honesty, not dishonest prejudice and intellectual laziness. I find Karl’s book difficult to read–through no fault of Karl’s–but because it can break your heart–dare I say, for the sake of Christ, even.
I must frequently take a break to remind myself of the good things I do see happening, and of the assurance that the Church WILL last. Perhaps there is more good happening than we realize, as I only gave a couple of examples of it which stick out from recent memory.
Yikes, I’m sorry I couldn’t make my last comment shorter. 🙁
John, you are a bit wrong in our thoughts about Church approach after revolution in Czech Republic. This view is usually presented by media to the czech society. The Church wants to be only independent on the state and government and so needs property for its existence. Many churches are in very bad conditions and church has no money on reconstructions, priests are paid from state budget so the majority of non-members are allergy on any mention of money related with church. In fact there is no political will on side of government and parliament to solve the problem. The only property which returned back to the church were monasteries. All remaining property stolen by communistic regime is still in hands of state. The missionary church is good idea and so called pre-evangelization (return back confidence to society) is also “national program” of Czech bishop conference. But you can’t do it without any monetary instruments.
You are true that ecumenical relations are better than in any other country – caused by persecution all Christians for almost half of century. Radio Proglas is great deal, without any commercials and paid by believers.
I am also member of Academic Parish by of the Most Holy Salvator (newly founded in November 2004 by Church of Most Holy Salvator, which you mentioned). Cardinal Vlk has called this church as the most visited in our country (not by tourists 🙂 and student community here is light place in dark almost godless Prague. Maybe its because very intelligent preacher and good person professor Tomas Halik, too. The story about canonization of St. Agnes of Bohemia and velvet revolution is very impressive. I believe that it is true.
P. S. John, it seems you understand Czech very well, if you are watching on Czech TV. 🙂 If you will have any other questions, send me email.
P.S.S. Ahoj Johne! Dekuji za srdecne prijeti. Mluvis vyborne cesky.
Bill912,
A totally gratuitious slap at someone who is not mentioned in or part of this discussion is incredibly rude.
My intent was to defend Jimmy Carter by comparing him to someone whom I assumed Tim J. and others on this blog would respect. It was not to malign Karl Keating; that would be a misreading on your part.
BTW, you also ought to read “Catholicism And Fundamentalism: The attack on ‘Romanism’ By ‘Bible Christians’.” Then you’d know that Karl’s book is a defense of the Church from false attacks by anti-Catholic bigots.
My point is still valid.
thetruth-
“So what? Not all Muslims are violent. Some, such as al-Quaeda, are. Not all Christians are violent, though some Christian groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, are.”
So are you, like Carter and other libs, equating fundamentalist Christianity with fundamentalist Islam?
Should we all be very afraid of the Promise Keepers, or Concerned Women for America?
In his book, ironically titled “Our Endangered Values”, Carter defines fundamentalism broadly;
He says they are mostly led by “authoritarian males,” who consider themselves superior to others, subjugate women and dominate fellow believers.”
Fundamentalists see themselves as true believers and being “right”. They tend to demagogue emotional issues (like abortion and homosexuality) and view negotiation and other efforts to resolve differences as sign of weakness.
“To summarize, there are three words that characterize this brand of fundamentalism,” Carter says: “rigidity, domination and exclusion.”
Sounds like a Catholic dissenter! Indeed, Richard Land of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has been quoted as saying he shared more in common with Pope John Paul II than he does with Carter.
If you believe in Papal infallibility,
-that marriage can occur only between one man and one woman,
-in the male priesthood,
-that Roe v. Wade should be overturned,
-or that the Holy Scriptures are innerrant & infallible…
Then you are a “fundamentalist” (according to Carter) and therefore dangerous. He speaks for MANY on the left who believe the same nonsense.
Carter says that it is the fundamentalists who have polarized the country over abortion and homosexuality.
I’m dangerous…that gives me a powerful urge to cackle. My religion will uber-pwn yours!!
“Should we all be very afraid of the Promise Keepers, or Concerned Women for America?”
Are these groups Carter mentions? I mentioned the KKK, and that’s the only group I mentioned. I did mention Pat Robertson as having gained too much power as a spokesman for Christians.
As I recall, Jimmy Carter has changed his position on abortion, and yes, I do believe it is possible to change one’s mind about an important issue.
I’m sure that Carter also opposes same-sex marriage.
Which leaves the question: where DO you disagree? You seem to be reading things into his writing that aren’t there, such as an anti-Catholic bias.
I assume that your primary disagreement with Carter is regarding tax policy. Are you a Rush Limbaugh listener?
In Muslim controlled countries, abortion and same sex unions are not tolerated. These things are accepted in America. Who do you think is right?
This Muslim = Bad argument is ridiculous.
thetruth-
“This Muslim = Bad argument is ridiculous.”
NOW who is reading things into statements that are not there?
I never said Muslims were bad.
I do think that we have FAR more to fear from al-Quaeda than from the KKK, though. The KKK is a fossil from a bygone era. Al-Quaeda and similar groups are very much an active force in the Arab world.
I am not a Rush Limbaugh listener (I have little time to listen to anyone) and I don’t see where taxes come into it.
What power does Pat Robertson HAVE, exactly, besides the power to put his foot into his mouth once in a while? I think you give him far more power than he actually has.
Jimmy Carter has not changed his position on abortion, that I know of. He remains in the “personally opposed, but…” camp.
He has, though, recently chastised his own party for running off pro-lifers. This seems more a statement of political strategy than moral conviction, however.
Jimmy Carter’s position on gay marriage seems to be; “Divorce is bad, too!”.
And on that, we agree.
It was on this blog, as well as on Mark Shea’s blog, that it was announced that Jimmy Carter has changed his position on abortion. He is now opposed.
>>He has, though, recently chastised his own party for running off pro-lifers. This seems more a statement of political strategy than moral conviction, however.<< Political strategy in what way? To please who? It sounds sincere to me. Is your argument that pro-lifers should never be in the Democratic Party?
I read the post you referenced, and I still think that President Carter would be in the “personally opposed, but… category”.
He has made no statement on the law surrounding abortion, only on his personal opposition to it.
His statements do sound as if they come from his own moral convictions, however, so I withdraw my statement that it was merely a political position.
The question itself “Is God Dead?” really should read “Do people of the world still actively follow thier faith?” The fact that many people in this world may not do so is by no means any indication that God is dead. It just means that their faith may be dead. Just because some folks may denounce certain things in this world, does not mean that those things don’t exist. Faith may not be a predominant part of their life.
Another thing that I often wonder about is why many of us give so much credibility to the statements made by people in the spotlight. Just because they are in the spotlight only means that their own statements are heard by more people faster. Does it mean they speak the truth? Do they even know the truth.
I will say that in my world, right down the street from my house is a church filled with about 15,000 bible believing, God fearing people each saturday and sunday. Does this prove that God is alive? No, it only proves that God is alive to them. So this begs the question, Does it matter what we believe? Because weather we believe it or not does not make it true or untrue. That’s why they call it faith
Let me ease your fears… God IS alive!! Amen and have a great day 🙂
God is not dead nor can god die; as god has never existed. God is an invention, or hope, of the primitive mind to explain unknown that could not be otherwise undersood. As we primitives become more knowledgable, the concept of god has become less necessary. Mark Twain sums it up nicely, “If there were no god we would invent one.” Asked late in his life if god existed or was invented, he responded, “invented.”
I’d love to see your evidence, Steve.
Steve,
I prefer G.K. Chesterton:
“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” – Where All Roads Lead, 1922
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
“God is dead!” –Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead!” –God
“…God is an invention, or hope…”
Well, we’ll see, won’t we, Steve?
I think materialism is an invention… a rather desperate hope that our choices have no meaning, for if our choices are meaningless, we can pretty well do what we like (which is the subconscious goal).
If our actions have meaning (beyond the immediate consequences), that makes every moral choice important, and I think that is just too much responsibilty for the comfort of some people.
So, they embrace meaninglessness, and along with it existential despair… for every worldview has it’s cost.
Amen, Tim. Atheism also requires the belief that the universe formed due to Random Chance, which is the most irrational belief I’ve ever heard of.
Dear Bill 912, Trick question, you ask. If a thing does not exist, there is no evidence of its nonexistance. Evidence can only be collected for things that exist. There is no such evidence about god. God is a myth perpetuated by faulty teaching and blind faith; however this is not proof. A good parallel is the tooth fairy. When we are young we believe the fairy exists and we can collect evidence of its exixtance. Later when we learn its a scam perpetuated by adults, and discard this belief. The existance of god is also a scam, perpetuated by ignorance, fear, and hope. More is to be gained by abandonning this faulty belief than embrassing it.
I apologize in advance for repeating a prior comment, but Steve needs to hear it.
To Be An Atheist, one MUST believe:
1)That, billions of years ago, there ‘just happened’ to exist these abstract “somethings”
2)Which ‘just happened’ to be atoms
3)Which ‘just happened’ to get together
4)In ways which ‘just happened’ to look like natural laws
5)That some of these configurations of atoms ‘just happened’ to develop into stars
6)That, around atleast one of these stars, there ‘just happened’to develop planets
7)That one of these planets ‘just happened’ to be exactly the right distance from this star that Hydrogen Monoxide(water) could exist in a liquid state
8)That this particular planet ‘just happened’ to have certain exact concentrations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen
9)That some of these molecules of carbon, hydrogen, exygen and nitrogen ‘just happened’ to get together to form amino acids
10)That some of these amino acids ‘just happened’ to develop the ability to reproduce themselves
11)That some of these organisms ‘just happened’ to develop the ability to evolve into more complex organisms
12)That some of these organisms ‘just happened’ to develop self-awareness
13)And that one ‘just happens’ to be you
If you can believe all those ‘just happeneds’, out of an infinite number of possibilities for each ‘just happened’, great is thy Faith! You believe in a far greater miracle than we do.
I await your refutation.
Steve,
We all seem to have taken Paschal’s wager.
As Catholics we have placed our bet that not only does God exist He has revealed Himself in creation. If we are right we will (with God’s grace) receive infinite gain. If we are wrong we lose nothing and our family, friends and the world has had the benefit of us living moral lives.
You are betting that God does not exist and therefore there is no morality. If you are right you and everyone can live their lives without morals, not exactly a benefit for your family, friends or the world. If you are wrong you lose everything for eternity.
You may not believe in God, but I promise you He believes in you and loves you infinitely. He will respect your free will and decision to reject Him.
Below is a link to the online Catholic Encyclopedia entry for St. Thomas five proofs for the existence of God, if you are interested.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
“The existance of god is also a scam, perpetuated by ignorance, fear, and hope. More is to be gained by abandonning this faulty belief than embrassing it.”
Steve-
Doesn’t it seem suspicious to you that your materialistic myth allows you to do whatever you want, without real consequences?
Isn’t that a little too convenient?
Sounds like what Freud would have called wish-fulfillment.
Albert Einstein believed in God. But, what did he know? It’s not like he was some great scientist or something.
Oh, wait…
To all my faithful correspondents, apologies that I have not the time to address the many good issues each of you raise. Just want to make two points. 1) Morality is culturally defined and can and does exist independent of god. In fact I would venture that many (if not most) of the moral atrocities through the ages were committed in the name of a deity. Do I really need to cite examples? 2) The universe is apparently 50,000,000,000 (50 billion) years old and the sun and earth have existed about 1/10 tenth of that time (5 billion years). Recognizable human kind has existed maybe 1/50,000th of that time (one million years). The known visible universe if something like 30,000,000,000 light years across. Multiply that by 6,000,000,000,000 miles (approx distance light travels in one year) and you get a universe about 180,000.000,000,000,000,000,000 miles across (apologies if my numbers are off a nit). There are actually billions of known galaxies, each with billions of stars, and most of the stars that we are able to research do have planets. Logic dictates that a proportion of these planets have the environmental conditions to support life, and a proportion of these have developed “intelligent life.” The point is, kiddies, there is a whole lot of life out there—some as intelligent as us and most likely many more intelligent as us. As Molder would say, we are not alone, and as I would say, we as not special as we believe. All this amazing growth has occurred according to physical laws, not requiring an invisible hand, or an intelligent (unintelligent?) design. I question intelligent design because something like 98% of the life on earth is now extinct. If design were intelligent, why didn’t all life survive? So what existed before the big bang? Theories abound, some say reality is a pulsating event and has occurred an infinite amount of times (close to Hindu belief—I believe). Others have proposed other theories, and the religious say it was caused by an entity. However, attributing reality to an entity just begs the question, from what sprang the entity, since nothing would have existed before it caused the big bang. Who knows or even cares. What is really important is what is gained from believing the testable theory versus the primitive myth and faith. I believe there is more to be gained by taking responsibility for our actions and doing what we believe is right, rather than following the many and conflicting rules of god that each culture has manufactured and remanufactured. If I may quote from Mark Twain again, “God made man in his own image, and ever since then man has returned the compliment”. Yes, if you believe in god, it is a deity made in your image and others most likely will disagree with your reality and will unfortunately die to prevent you from holding your belief. Likewise you may kill defending your belief. How fucking ludicrous. Bye for now, I go to watch a beautiful sunset and rejoice in being alive.
Steve, I asked you to refute my points about what an atheist MUST believe. Is your declination to do so a tacit admission on your part that you can’t. And, if you do care to respond, please knock off the adolescent vulgarities. A man with the ability to think lowers himself by using them.
“Most of the stars we are able to research do have planets.” It has been determined that a few of the billions of stars in our galaxy PROBABLY have planets. The discrepencies in the motions of these stars COULD concievably be caused by something else. (But, since planets COULD be the cause, and we know that planets exist, it is logical to attribute the cause to the known, rather than the unknown.)
“Logic dictates that a proportion of these planets have the environmental conditions to support life.” Logic dictates nothing of the kind. Man does not have enough knowledge to support such a statement. That is an assumption, not logic.
“A proportion of these have developed intelligent life.” Another assumption. You don’t have the evidence to make that case.
Logic breaks down when debating the existence of God. It is a metaphysical question that cannot be proved (or disproved) empirically, though many brave philosophers have tried.
What it boils down to is faith. You either believe or you don’t.
Those of us who believe have found great strength in our convictions. Those who don’t, who bristle cynically at the mention of God, will never understand what they are missing.
Steve,
One of the rules of posting on this blog is:
“Rudeness towards others on the blog is also out of bounds.”
Fine if you disagree with us, but offensive language serves no purpose.
Again I prefer G.K. Chesterton:
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is MORE thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.”
May I ask if you read St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs?
I only ask because you repeat what you have read or been told about how old the universe is, how many galaxies there are, that life must exist on other planets but what evidence do you have for the age of the universe, amount of galaxies or life on other planets?
All these things are possible but really what evidence has personally convinced you? Because some “scientist” wrote it in a book? You accept these “facts” on faith and scoff at us?
If morality exist independent of God (who you believe does not exist) why be good? Why would anyone want to be good or make sacrifices?
Bill912 is right, you have more faith than us if you believe that the sunset you enjoyed didn’t have a Creator.
You risk infinite loss and we risk nothing and just might recieve infinite gain.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Good morning Steve,
As a Catholic who in his conversion repented for his atheism, I must say that your argument is the typically atheist arguments which work in your own mind but you don’t want to hear it.
Also, Communists (atheists), Nazi’s, (anti Christians), and more Communists, have had much more brutal inquisition’s than any could or would imagine in the “evil” era of Christendom. Actually, Christendom was appalled that you all could be so blind.
It is thanks to you all that America is making Hitler look like a choirboy, murdering roughly twice as many unborn children than he killed in his concentration camps in the worship of the Satanic and atheistic God of “tolerance,” “justice,” and “virtue,” etc. By the way, Hitler was pro-choice. What about Margaret Sanger and her genocidal fantasies about African Americans? She is your secularist friends big shero and all.
Your whole thing, “You might kill in the name of God” shows you are actually paranoid Christian’s are all secretly evil desiring to kill those who do not believe in God. Your ignorance on this question is refusing to admit the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that makes it clear that people are to be free from coercion.
Baptists – another large group of Evangelicals, start their faith from a notion of separation of Church and state as a primary principle.
In the end, when Christ comes in judgment, you and I are going to be asked, “How much have you loved?” Oh that’s right, there is no Jesus Christ to return in your world so if you wanted too, you could murder kill and rape without any consequences – other than maybe death. Big deal.
And claiming that an ethics independent of God can exist, I would like to find one more life affirming than Roman Catholicism’s ethics, which condemns all attacks upon human life, abortion, genocide, contraception, divorce, homosexual perversion, and every other thing that destroys man.
Every single one of those has been tolerated by your secularist buddies.
Quit your claims about a majority of atrocities being made in the Name of God and deal with the greatest one’s: abortion, genocide, and Communist slave labor camps done in the names of your great virtues.
By the way, what is so beautiful about the sunset? All’s it is gasses reflecting off other gasses and is just an ordinary product of nature. Not everyone thinks the sunset is beautiful, so don’t force your aesthetic claims on me.
God bless,
Peter
Steve, I asked you to refute my points about what an atheist MUST believe. Is your declination to do so a tacit admission on your part that you can’t. And, if you do care to respond, please knock off the adolescent vulgarities. A man with the ability to think lowers himself by using them.- bill912
Bill912, you are correct about the profanity
Steve, in other words stop saing f*** and other forms of profanity and you will not lower yourself in other’s eyes to the point that all they see is an adolescent boy trying to make himself appear older by using profanity.