Anyway, BL, thanks for the discussion. Your points made me think about things. I'm taking a breather. Have a great week.

BL,

Throughout the ages, the numbers of religous institutions has ebbed and flowed. Sometimes it had to do with wars, guillotines, or intrigues.

Right now, traditional religious groups that stress a sacrificial life- such as Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, and Fr. Benedict Groeschel's Franciscan Friars of the Renewal have more vocations than they can deal with.

I know in Africa, religious groups do a major part of the AIDS care, especially for the dieing people.

These are not regional, isolated examples. It's worldwide.

I agree that there has been an ebb of institutions in the last 40 years. But don't count us out.

Maybe the atheists can take up the slack?

not much time this morning - but a couple of brief thoughts:

RELIGION is not divine - GOD is.

"If religion--whatever flavor--really were the product of supernatural, supramundane revelation it would NOT change except at the behest of its particular Deity. Its progression and change over time--because of human necessity--is the best evidence that it--like reason--is purely a construct of the human brain and in NO way divine."

I agree. Religion is man, with our limited knowledge and understanding of God, trying to ascribe to Him the honor and glory and worship and love He is worthy of. But we're human. Religion changes as we discover more about God and ourselves. Religion is not perfect, but an attempt by man to discover HOW to grow a relationship with our Creator. Religion changes (hopefully for the better). God does not.

Secondly, the statement by FThinker - "And don't forget that the God of the Bible invented evil. Thanks a lot. Glad I don't believe in that bunk."

was purely inflammatory and has been debated previously. In a nutshell, God created FREE WILL. Man can choose God's ways or to do whatever selfish, depraved thing he wants. When mankind intentionally moves AWAY from the standards that God has created (Love, Truth, Honor, Justice, Value for life, etc.) - we CALL IT EVIL. I guess, if you really stretch the logic, you could claim that He invented it - but that's a really slanted way to look at the truth...

MaryAnne,
Your point is well taken on my original emotional outburst--it was both uncalled for and not particularily original.

As far as the Christian Hospital and charity systems, true enough, but the number of these systems actually being operated by nuns and monks with next to no pay is declining preciptiously--as are all monastic endeavors--which again makes my point that religion rather than being supernatural is entirely human in nature. Monastic activity is on the decline because it no longer conforms to human needs as they manifest themselves at the present--other systems are evolving to take up these activites--for good or ill.

That's great, FT. They state on the website that they are a "new and very small group" in Austin. I really hope that they grow and that this catches on for other atheist groups.

Hello BorgLord,

I disagree about the arrogance and chauvinism.

NOW, if I had fallen for your complement about being charming and clever, THAT would have been arrogant of me. We're you trying to trap me? ;-}

Hey, I could say the same for you about the arrogance-

We have Raymond Smith, a Christian man giving his point of view, and your first comment to him totally lacked reason (the atheists' supposed stronghold), but was fully condescending and mocking.

It also left you open to historical evidence which proved otherwise.

You stated, "I am saddened that you have fallen into articulating a not so subtle arrogance--that only theists--actually only Christians--can truly be good and do charitable things for others."

Not so. I said I know that their are kind atheists out there. Also, I mentioned Gandhi in my list of saintly do-gooders- he's not Christian.

You point to Bill Gates. He's an agnostic from what I read. BUT- the point is he is an individual.

I can point to some billionaire (okay, millionaire) Christian individuals like the Domino's pizza man that give away much as well.

You say religion doesn't make a difference in people's lives. The evidence points otherwise.

Systems of institional selfless works such as one might see for the Methodist Health Care or Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne who run hospice centers are distinctly lacking in atheists circles.

I stand by my point: "I don't see atheists dedicating themselves to running hospitals, schools, orphanages, nursing homes, atheist centers (comparable to believers' churches or temples) all without receiving any pay or a pittance of pay.

It's the selflessness and love of neighbor because of love of God that the best can give."

This is not stated out of arrogance but out of observing factual, observable data.

You said, "The belief in God is as much an activity of the electrochemical activity of the brain as logic and reason are." So.... then where are the atheists systems of selfless works if they are both equal?

If I came across as arrogant, I apologize.

Thank you for your parting comment about reason. Tempered with faith, I believe reason is quite a noble quality.

Here is a link to a group out of Austin. www.atheistvolunteers.org

MaryAnne,
If you don't want to be complimented, that's OK. But I take issue with your characterization of non-religious, agnostic and atheists not being inspired to do good--or by extension not being--or able to be--good. I would refer you Bill Gates and the Gates foundation. Last I checked Bill was not a theist yet runs the second largest funder of charitable & research organizations dedicated to helping humanity IN THE WORLD. He doesn't do it to please God but to help his species. Think also about all those unnamed atheists and agnostics who pioneered the research that made so many of today's medical "miracles" possible.

However, Mary Anne, I am saddened that you have fallen into articulating a not so subtle arrogance--that only theists--actually only Christians--can truly be good and do charitable things for others. That is selling the many atheists and non-christians far short of the kind of persons they are in reality. And it betrays a chavinism common to much Christian discourse concerning atheists and non Christians as well.

As you & mytwocents said earlier, "I wish you no ill and hope you find what you are searching for"--or words to that effect. My parting comment to you is that I too bear you no ill will, but, I hope you actually start searching for something beyond your circumscribed view of the world and find the truth that will actually set you free--the life of reason.

BL, I disagree that I am charming or clever.

I do agree that we could roll out lists of good/bad Christians and atheists until Kingdom come.

As far as religion or God sanctifying (making them holy, selfless) people, I think the evidence for that is overwhelming that God does make them holy.

Sure there are some kind atheists out there.

But I don't see atheists dedicating themselves to running hospitals, schools, orphanages, nursing homes, atheist centers (comparable to believers' churches or temples) all without receiving any pay or a pittance of pay.

It's the selflessness and love of neighbor because of love of God that the best can give.

If I had no belief in the after life and a loving God, I'd have a difficult time too taking care of the elderly, the infirm, and educating kids almost gratis.

I know of Methodist healthcare centers, Lutheran, Catholic, and Shriners, & so forth. I'm sure there has to be some atheist group that gives of themselves- but I ain't seen them.

If being a believer doesn't make SOME holy- then why don't the nonbelievers have more systems of selfless institutions?

Seems like something inspires these people to give of themselves. I think it's God.

Sometimes I think the movers and shakers among the atheists are so busy combating believers about Christmas and keeping religion out of the public sphere that they don't have time to be the big do-gooders like Mother Teresa and Gandhi.

I hear you about the humanness of the Christian church. Christ is its head, but we the "church" are its body. We don't always listen to the head. (Does your body always listen to your head?)

Mytwocents said something that I think rings true- it comes down to experience. God has changed my life for the better, and it's awesome to continue to see how the universe makes sense, and is not random.

I don't wish you any ill will at all. But as MTC said, I hope you find all your answers.

MaryAnne,
You are quite a charming & clever debater, but you are missing the point--we can both roll out lists of folks who do adhere to religion, don't adhere to religion some are nice, some are evil and some are saints. But reality is that religion does not, nor can it do what it claims to do--make people into sanctified people--just like reason and science cannot eradicate superstition and create fully rational people completely engaged with reality. Neither can accomplish their assigned tasks because BOTH are constructs of the human mind. What makes religion dangerous is that it refuses to acknowledge its humanness. The belief in God is as much an activity of the electrochemical activity of the brain as logic and reason are. Religion itself was effected too. If you look at your Catholicism and compare it to Mediaeval Catholicism one is very different than the other--mainly in its rigor and all inclusiveness. Why is that? Because the humanness of it all. If religion--whatever flavor--really were the product of supernatural, supramundane revelation it would NOT change except at the behest of its particular Deity. Its progression and change over time--because of human necessity--is the best evidence that it--like reason--is purely a construct of the human brain and in NO way divine.

So then, FT, how can you blame someone for inventing something when you don't believe He exists?? ;-}

And don't forget that the God of the Bible invented evil. Thanks a lot. Glad I don't believe in that bunk.

That should be- faith without reason is just as bad as reason without faith.

BL,

I can also point to St. Francis who lived in the same era who went to the Moslems hoping to give his life as a sacrifice. Instead of killing him, the caliphate sent him back to Europe after being taken with Francis's wisdom.

We can point to endless Christians who have done evil. But they work AGAINST what Christianity essentially stands for.

Christians doing evil started with Judas, and to varying degrees, we still have the tares existing with the wheat today.

When you look at Lenin, Mao, Stalin, they killed millions, but they were doing what their philosophy called for.

I can say that Amalric acted against Christian principles when I look back on his actions.

He's a good exampe of faith without reason.

On the other hand, I don't know that too many Marists-Leninists see much wrong with sending dissenters to die in the labor camps of Siberia since they were "enemies of the state."

Also, I'd like to see repudiations of shooting people in the head for praying the rosary in public (amid many other atrocities against beleivers) in the Vladivostock region of Russia, but these religious people were also seen as enemies of the state. (Real dangerous, that rosary.)

Communist China today still suppresses religions, and the bishops in jail there are just the tip of problem.

This does not contradict their philosophy- it supports it.

Again, faith without reason just as bad without reason with out faith.

Either way you'll get tyranny.

Point well taken, Borgie. It saddens me to admit that there have been things done in the name of Christianity that are far, FAR away from the true will of God for man. Even Ghandi said that the thing that kept him from becoming a Christian was -

...Christians.

But here's the deal: When I was 14 years old, I understood who God was and what he had done for me. (I didn't understand everything - and I'm still learning everyday - but I knew enough). I surrendered my life to Him in an attempt to love Him back for all He had done. He changed me, made me brand new, and my life has never been the same.

Am I perfect? HA! not even close. Do I do and say stupid things? oh yeah. Are all my problems gone? Nope - I still live here on this messed up world. But I hope, that if someone looks at me closely, they'll see a glimpse of the Jesus that died for me.

Not perfect - forgiven. Don't pattern your life after mine, I'm still learning - look at the perfect example instead.

Its a new life. Its a daily relationship. Its like nothing I can describe - you have to experience it to understand.

You embrace science and logic - good - I agree with Maryann that religion and science are NOT mutually exclusive. You have an argument, I have an experience. For me, experience wins every time.

keep searching - the answer is out there.

Ah yes, "atheistic" utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is not unique to the "godless." Let's not forget Arnaud Amalric, papal legate and inquisitioner who in the service of the "Vicar of Christ" and "Servant of the Servants of the Lord," Innocent III, uttered these moderate and christ-like (and VERY utilitarian) words during the seige of Beziers in 1209 on how to tell the Cathari from the Catholics--so the "crusaders" could kill the the Cathari--"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.) Or as we moderns remember it: "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

Human beings act like the animals they are. Religion, atheism, utilitarianism or any other philosophy is just a cover or excuse to justify their unjustifiable and bestial actions.

So let's all get off the holy high horse and come to reality land--where the truth reigns--not ideology or religious fantasy.

Borglord,

When you have reason without tempering it with faith, we often get Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and all the other godless tyrants who were responsible for the millions of deaths. Their reason alone lead them to a utilitarianism that could not recognize the dignity and humanity of mankind.

Lenin stood around and did nothing in the 1920s while 300,000 of his near countrymen died of famine in Russia. He said he didn't want to help them, because if he did, then they would be satisfied with the status quo of the society and not fight for revolution.

That type of "reason" ain't too compassionate.

Human reason alone can only get us so far. That's 'cause we're "only" human.

I don't stand for faith alone either. When one has faith only, we often have religious fanaticism as we see in the Middle East today. It is not REASONABLE to blow yourself up, along with 50+ women and schoolchildren just because you're promised 10s of virgins in the afterlife.

Faith alone also did not serve Jim Jones's followers in Guyanna in the 1980s. Reason should have told them the guy was a nut.

I know that we as humans have reason... which I believe is a God-given trait.

We must use it. Ultimately, if we use it to find truth, I think it leads us to God. We might differ on that point.

But... I still see that those who use BOTH faith and reason have done the most for society.

About Galileo- he's good to remember. He didn't get into much trouble until he listened to some of his buddies and started telling the religiosos to change the wording of the Bible to match what he had found with his telescope.

Anyway, if you've ever said that you arise at sun up or that the "sun sets" you also have been as scientifically incorrect as Gallileo's opponents, as we know that the sun does not rise or set. It's a figure of speech which records things as we see them.

Using faith and reason, Galileo is a great guy. Using just faith alone or reason alone, he's an enemy to the other camp. His is an interesting story when it's fully known.

"You forget that many "scientists" throughout the centuries have been religious men and women. And I do mean religious, as in priests, deacons, etc"

Just because they were religious does not mean that science and reason are not superior to and exclusive of religion. Many of these early scientists were religious because of the cultural environment in which they were raised and so there really was no other option--be religious or be persecuted as a heretic.

This is a classic non sequitur argument--Newton, Mendel--fill in the blank--was a Christian or a theist scientist; therefore it is rational to believe in God and science and rationality are not superior to superstition, magic and religion. Let's get real--WHAT OTHER CHOICE DID MOST OF THEM HAVE?! Remember Galileo!

Borglord,

You forget that many "scientists" throughout the centuries have been religious men and women. And I do mean religious, as in priests, deacons, etc.

For example, the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic priest. So was Copernicus, who taught us much about the universe. There is a bevy of practicing Christian and Jewish scientists in the Western world.

Please don't be so quick to put faith and science/reason at odds. They are not.

"To those searching for the truth-not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search,examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be,must be built on facts,not fiction-faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." Thomas Edison

If all this ancient wisdom is so great, why do YOU use the technology and medicine that SCIENCE and REASON provide? Why don't YOU just chant and rub oil on folks and let it go at that. (See James 5)

What schizophrenia! You want us to behave one way based on science and then you try to foist another way on us based on religion! Whoa Dude!

Dear Bro

Amen,Thank you for taking the time to share these thoughts that have significant eternal value.

Gary White