 |
|
|
|
|
December 2nd, 2013
11:29 AM ET
Rush Limbaugh: Pope is preaching 'pure Marxism'By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter ... the people's pontiff ... Marxist? That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope's latest document "pure Marxism." Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism. Limbaugh's segment, now online and entitled "It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists)," takes direct aim at the pope's economic views, calling them "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong." The Vatican issued the English translation of "Evangelii," which is known officially as an apostolic exhortation and unofficially as a pep talk to the worlds 1.5 billion Catholics. Francis - the first pope ever to hail from Latin America, where he worked on behalf of the poor in his native Argentina - warned in "Evangelii" that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny." The Pope also blasted "trickle-down economics," saying the theory "expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power." READ MORE: Pope Francis: No more business as usual The Pope's critique of capitalism thrilled many liberal Catholics, who have long called on church leaders to spend more time and energy on protecting the poor from economic inequalities. But Limbaugh, whose program is estimated to reach 15 million listeners, called the Pope's comments "sad" and "unbelievable." "It's sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth." In fact, Argentina was a battlefield between leftist socialists and right-wing security forces during much of Francis' early career in the country, where he was a Jesuit priest and later archbishop of Buenos Aires. Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, said he admires the faith "profoundly." He admired Pope Francis as well, "up until this," Limbaugh said. The talk show host also said that he has made numerous visits to the Vatican, which he said "wouldn't exist without tons of money." "But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him," Limbaugh added. "This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope." Limbaugh took particular issue with the Pope's criticism of the "culture of prosperity," which the pontiff called a "mere spectacle" for the many people who can't afford to participate. "This is almost a statement about who should control financial markets," Limbaugh said. "He says that the global economy needs government control." "I'm not Catholic, but I know enough to know that this would have been unthinkable for a pope to believe or say just a few years ago," Limbaugh continued. In fact, Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, now pope emeritus, could be just as strong a critic of capitalism. In 2009, Benedict, in an official church document called an encyclical, said there was an urgent need for "a political, juridical and economic order" that would "manage the global economy." As Limbaugh notes, Benedict's predecessor, the late Pope John Paul II, was a noted foe of communism, after living under its oppressions in his native Poland. But even John Paul thought that unregulated capitalism could have negative consequences. In "Evangelii," Francis called for more of a spiritual and ethical revolution than a regulatory one. "I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: `Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs,'" said Francis, quoting the fifth-century St. John Chrysostom. Liberal Catholics defended Pope Francis on Monday, calling on Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks. "To call the Holy Father a proponent 'pure Marxism' is both mean-spirited and naive," said Christopher Hale of the Washington-based Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. "Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching." Limbaugh is not the only conservative commentator to take issue with the Pope's views on capitalism. READ MORE: Sarah Palin 'taken aback' by Pope Francis's 'liberal' statements “I go to church to save my soul," said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. "It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.” It doesn't sound like the criticism is slowing Francis down, however. He's started sending a Vatican contingent, including the Papal Swiss Guards, into Rome to deliver food and charity. soundoff (6,695 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
If the Pope is God's representative on Earth, Rush Limbaugh appears to be Satan's.
so, what's new?
fatso is so dumb he never read either the bible nor marx's work!!!!!
Q: What were Whitney Houston's last 2 hits?
A: The crack pipe and the floor.
Q: What does Whitney Houston have in common with a daddy-long-legs spider?
A: Neither of them can get out of a bath tub.
Q: What does Whitney Houston have in common with Sarah Palin?
A: They're both brain dead.
I was looking for a sign that the Pope was the real deal. Rush Limbaugh disagreeing with him is enough proof for me that the Pope is just what the Church needs!
@Joey : Abortion should be kept legal because that is the only way other people's rights are not affected.
What about the rights of the child?
A blastocyst is not a child.
@Doc Vestibule : A blastocyst is not a child
How do you propose to prove this?
The biological definition of a child is someone between birth and puberty.
Is an acorn an oak tree?
Lie4Him
I would bet you were conceived in a petri dish were then cryogenically frozen for a period of time and finally immaculately implanted into a womb. At what point in the process did you become a child obtain, your mythical soul?
Since you are asserting, against common medical knowledge, that a blastocyst is equivalent to a juvenile human (child), the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion. BTW, Wikipedia provides an excellent definition of a blastocyst, and a well-developed (near full term), viable fetus does not fall within its purview.
@Doc Vestibule : The biological definition of a child is someone between birth and puberty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child?s=t
4. a human fetus.
Not according to the dictionary, which lists both your definition and my definition. But, instead of arguing about semantics, lets change the term to offspring. What about the rights of the offspring?
L4H will ignore that, as she does every bit of evidence that doesn't support her very specific view.
Live4Him – you are in a burning building. At one end of the room is a terrified three year-old girl. At the other end is a draw of a dozen viable human embryos (awaiting hosts). You can only save the girl or the drawer. Which do you choose and why? Now, please be honest and do not change the facts.
@nornoel : Since you are asserting, against common medical knowledge, that a blastocyst is equivalent to a juvenile human (child), the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion.
I'm asserting a definition found in the dictionary. So, the burden of proof is on you to justify why that definition is not valid.
fetus: 1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
So even the definition of fetus makes it clear there is a time frame involved. So L4H should be okay with abortions before 8 weeks if this is an issue of semantics. If of course he believes that a newly fertilized egg somehow magically becomes a new human deserving of human rights then he needs to prove it. Please provide any evidence that any of us have a soul let alone a newly fertilized egg. Otherwise why don't we just deabte the time frame of abortion which right now is at viability which has been considered 22-24 weeks. The new republican bill is trying to move that to 20 weeks but at least they are no longer pushing the personhood amendments like they were since they know they will lose.
So you would let me choose what life a child of yours would have?
Why would I let you choose what life a child of mine would have?
@111Dave111 : So you would let me choose what life a child of yours would have? Why would I let you choose what life a child of mine would have?
Why do you think that you can deny the right to life to your child?
Um....what makes you think you have the right to force anyone to give birth?
It's not Biblically supported. You aren't raising the child. You have no say. Period.
So you would let me choose what life a child of yours would have?
I take it you think Onan got what was coming to him (pun intended).
@111Dave111 : So you would let me choose what life a child of yours would have
This issue isn't 'what life', but does it HAVE a life. And if you can arbitrarily deny that child their right to life, who’s to say that someone couldn't deny you YOUR right to life?
Too idealistic. Not practical.
Sad thing is, you know it and yet you continue to argue it.
Because children aren't being aborted?
Forced births are not your right.
Ah, yes. The red herring of abortion.
How about, if you're against it, don't get one?
@Junie : How about, if you're against it, don't get one?
Then, would you support someone 'aborting' your life today? After all, you're not doing it so what's the big deal? Just because it is done against you doesn't give you any voice in the situation.
Sound silly, doesn't it. But that's your basic argument.
Live4Him,
That is a ridiculous comparison. Killing a fully formed self sufficient human (be they child or adult) is not the same thing as ending a pregnancy by preventing a fetus from fully developing. A person is a person, an embryo/blastocyst/zygote/fetus is just a potential human, it does not have the same rights or considerations becauuse it's continued growth can have direct negative impact on a person's life and because there is no 100% guarantee that it will actually be born as a healthy functional human. Religions can get uppety about abortion when their respective gods stop allowing huge percentages of fertilized eggs to end in natural miscarriages and worse yet still births.
What about the rights of the child? According to republicans, the rights of the child are limited to just being alive. Don't pretend like you give a rip about that child once it is breathing. Republicans vote time and again to take food out of that child's mouth, and could care less about properly educating that child. Republicans want to keep the wages of that child's parents at or below poverty level. Your souls won't be saved because you prevented a woman from aborting a child, your god knows how you turned your back on that child, time after time, once that child was alive.
The pope is a pastor first and foremost. On the heels of firing a member of the church for spending millions on his personal residence, he sees things we don't in the church and he is trying to redirect his followers to help the poor. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment that the more one person on this planet has, the more people there are with nothing. That is economics. We have become a self-absorbed world with "selfie" being the new word of the year! More, bigger, better. It's time to spend less time "selfing" and more time self-reflecting.
@Just the Facts Ma'am... : More often used is Radiometric dating which involves the use of isotope series ... all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.
How do you calibrate / validate the results?
You ask a question that would take at least a year of schooling to completely understand. There are many scientists and geologists who have done the study and do understand how to calibrate those dating methods and I trust their overwhelmingly consistent results even though I have only a surface knowledge about how radiometric dating functions. Do you go to 99 different doctors to find the one that agrees with your preconceived belief about what illness you may have? Or do you trust your Doctor enough to at least value his/her opinion? I might go get a second opinion if my Doctor was not a specialist in the diagnosed illness, but I certainly wouldn't discount him just because he told me something I didn't want to hear.
@Just the Facts Ma'am... : You ask a question that would take at least a year of schooling to completely understand.
Then don't you think you ought to get that schooling before trying to argue this point?
@Just the Facts Ma'am... : There are many scientists and geologists who have done the study and do understand how to calibrate those dating methods
And many of them have spoken AGAINST the methods.
@Just the Facts Ma'am... : I trust their overwhelmingly consistent results even though I have only a surface knowledge about how radiometric dating functions.
So, you blindly trust their "overwhelmingly consistent results"? Ever hear of the KBS Tuff and Skull 1470? This example shows how flawed the methodology actually is. It's first dated to 230 million years ago, then revised to 2.9 MYA, then to 2.6 MYA, and then 1.9 MYA. And only the first two used a single sample / single isotope. The other results were multiple sample and isotope methodologies.
All I see is a play of words and no logic.. your drivel is a plain waste of time even for your cause.
"[KBS] shows how flawed the methodology actually is."
The KBS Tuff shows how difficult some areas/strata can be to date, not that the method is flawed.
With proper materials and methodology, the discrepancies were resolved.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v283/n5745/abs/283368a0.html
http://books.google.com/books/about/Bones_of_Contention.html?id=hoBZmtfO-0AC
"And many of them have spoken AGAINST the methods." Please provide a single accredited scientist who refutes rediometric dating as completely unreliable. Just one. You claim there are "many" and yet all I see through a google search are Christian apologist scientists complaining about the inaccuracy of carbon dating but never talking about radiometric dating. Weird huh?
"Ever hear of the KBS Tuff and Skull 1470?" lol. You are really reaching on this if this is your great example. You question their accuracy because they kept revising their estimate and yet no where do you show how the debate between 2 million years and 1 million year old estimates gets you down to 10,000 year old estimates. That is like claiming water isn't wet because the Atacama Desert exists...
What a reasonable man.. you choose to trust and believe fairies and magic sky daddies with whom you think you have a direct communication channel, along with 6 billion others on this puny rock.. yet you doubt scientific methods/evidence/proofs..
what a tool you are!!
And L4H has seen this too.
Uranium–lead (U–Pb) dating
Lie4Him on a previous page had to correct me and state that carbon dating was only accurate to 50,000 years, this from a moron that thinks the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The hypocrisy.
Like playing twister with L4H – but the knee never to-uched the mat.
@L4H
http://www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys178/pdf/chap3_1_2.pdf
So this pill-popping draft dodger thinks he can pass judgment on anyone? I'm a life-long conservative, and this clown is sure as heck not one of us.
Rush is an entertainer.
Agreed, from a fellow conservative of the traditional bent.
Rush Limbo has no clue how learned this Pope is! As a doctor of theology, trained by the Jesuits, from what I have been observing, this Pope knows more about poverty, marxism, and the social mortage on private property and land ownership, than what you can even dream to infer from the tidbits of his pronouncements that the public, Rush included, is given!
BRAVO......
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.
Very well said!!
I've had more thought provoking conversations with a wall than I have ever had with L4H, and that's a fact. At least when I asked the wall if it knew the age of the earth it had the sense to stay quiet since it didn't know the answer.
I experience that occasionally with my daughter. In fact, I've held conversations with a wall in her presence to illustrate that point.
If you don't believe in Skippy the invisible pink flying unicorn, then your existence is meaningless and you have no beliefs.
Woe betide those who reject (INSERT HOLY BOOK) as the inerrant word of (INSERT DEITY) for they shall never know the joys of (INSERT POSTHUMOUS REWARD).
HEY...the article isn't about atheists, hindus, muslims, budists or really about any specific faith so much as its about Rush calling the Pope a Marxist...like its a slur. There are plenty of socialists around the world that see the lifting up of the poor as a social responsibility of the more fortunate...public education, social security, medicare etc are essentials in American society. Rush on the other hand feels no responsibility to the poor, the uneducated, the hungry, the aged, the infirmed. In his perfect world, the rich get richer and the poor are just another resource to be exploited...the more poor, the more to exploit. Rush, FOXnews and Sarah Palin can be the voice of those without a social conscience and the Pope can be the voice for those of us that think that uplifting the poor can actually benefit all of society. so be it. The Pope has marxist leanings and Rush has Scroogist leanings...Tomato...Tomato
well said.
“Are you good without God? Millions are.” So read a recent billboard message paid for by an atheist group. They evidently feel that they have no need for God.
On the other hand, many who claim to believe in God make decisions as though he did not exist. Salvatore Fisichella, a Catholic archbishop, said of members of his own church: “Looking at us probably no one would recognise we are Christians today because our style of life is the same as non-believers.”
I think the same can be true of many Christians today.
I also passed a billboard every day that says "Got Jesus?" Free speech is a beautiful thing.
In my opinion a billboard like "got Jesus?" Would have no effect on anyone... People that post those billboards before doing so, should put themselves in the shoes of a non believer and try to think what a non believer thinks in order to post something with meaning.
Why not? Is it only atheist groups you have a problem with?
I see no problem with either. It reaches the audience it's intended for, and everyone else is free to ignore them.
Akira- I'm not critisizing , all of them can post what ever, but I just said my opinion.
Ah, okay. Free speech is a fabulous thing, isn't it?
My problem with the "Got Jesus" billboard is that if I don't know about Him or know why I should want Him, then it doesn't really offer me anything.
Akira- of course it is, having free will is Gods gift, that if used properly it could bring joy and happiness.
Topher- that's what I was saying as well... But I guess it's up to them.
I would agree with you, Topher, if the billboard appeared in a part of the world that had never heard of Jesus.
It's a rip off if the "Got Milk?" campaign, anyhow.
... even if it were here in Illinois. MOST people have no idea what the Gospel is or what the Bible says. Most Christians are of the cultural variety and just don't have a clue why they NEED Him.
In the United States, even in Illinois, people know how they could access Jesus.
Please.
A sign in the US is unlikely to illicit the response "Jesus who?", as it would in a location where nobody had ever heard of Jesus.
I know you understand my point, Topher.
Akira
"In the United States, even in Illinois, people know how they could access Jesus."
True. But without knowing why they should, they likely won't. "Got Jesus?" doesn't cut it in my opinion.
"A sign in the US is unlikely to illicit the response "Jesus who?", as it would in a location where nobody had ever heard of Jesus."
Very true. But if an unbeliever is driving along and sees this billboard, the more likely response is, "Why would I want Him? My life is great as is." And that person does not understand that we all are heading for Hell and deservedly so. And that without Him, that's where we're going. So there is a NEED there that's unrecognized.
Yes, Topher, that is how the story goes.
Atheists on here have no beliefs. Ok fine. I'm just wondering why they frequent a belief blog. Still haven't figured that one out.
No... "atheist" only describes how you answer one particluar question. Other than that answer, there is no consitency to beliefs of atheists. Much like christians, buddhists, muslims, etc. People are people eh?
@Go: There's no consistency to their beliefs because they have no beliefs to be consistent in the first place. And there is consistency to my religious faith. It hasn't change and the routine never changes. Bad people who claim they're faithful are the ones that make certain faiths appear to be inconsistent.
Your proof that atheists have no beliefs?
You have internally consistent beliefs, perhaps. However, is your belief the exact same as every other person who wears the same label you do? Probably not.
And, the name is Belief Blog. That doesn't mean "Only those that believe in X" can post here. It means that posts here will have something to do with belief. Articles (and individual posters) come from and are about multiple different beliefs. Though we seem to be back into the All Pope All the Time channel.
Might surprise you that there are more than just Christians and Atheists who post here.
Just because atheists do not believe in a deity does not mean they have no beliefs at all. Some don't, that's true, but you're generalizing a bit too much.
Check the dictionary, that's why I said atheists ON HERE.I'm not generalizing at all, I was quite specific. They don't believe in anything. So why come to a belief blog?
Red
You check the dictionary. Atheists do not believe in god. That does not mean they do not have beliefs.
For instance, I believe you are a troll just trying to get a rise out of people.
And you believed wrong. I don't even know what a troll is and don't care. And who would I be trying to get a rise out of anyway? It's a belief blog. Why would I try to get a rise out of believers? I'm a believer... And I've asked many times on here what atheism's beliefs are and I've gotten the same answer: They don't have any. They said it. Don't blame me.
I believe you are a tool. See, I believe in stuff...
Red
If you really want to know, why take shots? Why not simply ask an atheist what they DO believe. You would be surprised at the various answers you will get. HUGE difference between most atheists and believers is that the athesits will most often say they could be wrong, while most believers will tell you they ARE right.
It is entertaining to try to get people to think about it from different perspectives. And it is HIGHLY entertaining to see the amazingly flawed logic that leads to their "conclusions"...often flat out lies.
The same reason Christians post on articles about evolution.
Ok. But what's the reason? That was my original question. Do they need attention or something? I know I wouldn't go on an evolution blog. What for? It's not what I believe in.
Well the reason a Christian would post on an article about evolution is usually to debate whether it is true or not.
What does the dictionary say about the members of this forum? I wasn't aware they updated the dictionary that frequently, nor that they were spying on me. I'm scared!
I have no belief in any god. That doesn't mean I have nothing I believe in. It only says there is one subset of things (gods) that I do not have any belief in. I could still believe in bigfoot, ufos, the big bang, being kind to people, the general decency of the human race, that the earth is flat – I could believe in most anything, and fit that label.
And this is a blog discussing religious beliefs – those who believe that religious beliefs are myths should have a place here to discuss, as well as people who believe that their religous belief, at the least, is truth.
Is your belief so fragile that it must be protected from any challenge, from anyone who doesn't believe?
First of all Ms. Susan, I was speaking to the person who's handle is CHECK THE DICTIONARY. You went off on a totally different tangent on that one. Second of all, nothing about me is or ever will be fragile. I'm telling you how it is on this blog. I've asked what atheism is and I get the same response. You say atheism is something else. That's fine too. But when you start criticizing people's faith in The Maker, there will be a response to that. I never said you have no place on this blog. I don't care what you do, you can go to any blog you want. But when the "myth" and "delusional" insults start coming, the gloves come off. Eye for an eye.
The word "myth" is not an insult. It is defined as "a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events".
It defines what is accepted as "Truth" without needing to necessarily be "true". It tells us stories about what a set of people believe and why. There is nothing insulting about it.
Using the word delusional though, yes, I do find that one insulting.
A belief that you don't believe in is a myth. It's not an insult – it's accurate. To you, Zeus, Shiva, and a great many other gods are myths. To me, I add one to your total.
But you sure do sound defensive. You ask why we are on a belief blog, I answer you – you seem to very much dislike the answer, and look for a fight. My beliefs – I don't feel defensive – the truth is the truth, if people don't believe as I do, then that is not a problem.
A belief that you don't believe in is a myth. It's not an insult – it's accurate. To you, Zeus, Shiva, and a great many other gods are myths. To me, I add one to your total.
But you sure do sound defensive. You ask why we are on a belief blog, I answer you – you seem to very much dislike the answer, and look for a fight. My beliefs – I don't feel defensive – the truth is the truth, if people don't believe as I do, then that is not a problem. I'll answer what I believe in, but someone who disagrees – it's up to them what they believe. Should I be upset when people decide tehy don't believe in gravity, math? Facts don't require defensiveness.
@Ms. Susan: Defensive? Me? LOL. I'm wayyyy too loose of a person to be defensive. Aggressive when my faith is insulted? Absolutely.
What dictionary are you using, because no reputable source would say that atheists have not beliefs. Atheist simple either have no beliefs regarding gods, or disbelieve in gods. They may believe in matter, scientific laws, karma, qi or magic crystals for all you know.
OED on atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That's the Oxford definition. Please list your source.
I was talking to the person who's handle is Check the Dictionary. Calm down Ms. Sara, everything's fine.
Yeah, that's a problem when people use weird handles like that. I usually preface those with @ to clarify.
So the description of believing in nothing you say comes from atheists? I have never heard an atheist say that except perhaps an extreme skeptic, who generally at least functionally believes in things like gravity and the continuation of time on an off and on basis enough to eat, walk and speak. Atheists I know believe all kinds of things. Some are materialists, others idealists or neutral monists. Some believe in string theory or Bohmian mechanics. Some are Buddhists, believe in Karma or the Tao. Others are panpsychics or believe in qi or the power of love. If an atheist ever actually did say to you that he or she believed in nothing they almost certainly were refering only to gods.
But everything you just listed that atheists believe in is a higher power than us. Isn't that their God then?
Matter isn't a higher power, and neither is consciousness, which is all panpsychism is. Crystals, to those who believe in them are just tools. Karma isn't a "god" in any language I've ever heard of. Gods are generally seen as beings with thoughts and ideas. You can't just call matter or thought or crystals or enery "god". That's like a matterialist saying "By god then you just mean matter, so why not say matter instead of god". You can't conveniently erase conflicting beliefs by renaming them.
"A' = lack of.
"Theism" = belief in gods.
"A" + "Theism" = lack of belief in gods.
Thats it, thats all.
Atheism is a negative statement that says only what someone doesn't believe.
It is akin to calling a band's singer an "ainstrumentalist" – the term is technically correct, but it doesn't describe what they actually do.
@Doc: Ok. But how does what you just stated give an atheist a leg to stand on as far as calling someone delusional? Since when is atheism THAT convincing? It's not. Which is my point. I ask questions if I don't know about something, not insult it.
That is more a statement on the individual Atheist and not one on Atheism in general.
It is also a statement of belief. The believe that anyone who believes in a god must be delusional.
Out of curiosity, if someone told you that they believed in god and spoke to him daily, you would find that normal, yes?
What if they said that he spoke back?
What if they said he told them things that disagree with what you believe?
What if they said he told them to cut off the left foot of every non-believer?
Where is the line between belief and delusion?
Building one's worldview and lifestyle around supernatural propositions can be termed delusional.
Personally, I don't begrudge anyone gentle delusions. The man widely considered to be Canada's greatest Prime Minister routinely conferred with the spirit of his dead dog.
I fascinated with mythology and probably spend too much time studying the innumerable beliefs and religions dreamed up over the millenia.
The greatest difficulty with religion is that it invariably is predicated on faith.
Once a proposition has been accepted on faith, said proposition is no longer amenable to examination by reason and any attempt to do so by a non-believer is often met with hostility. Hence the ridiculous concepts of "heresy" and "blasphemy" for which countless people have lost their lives (I'm not trying to single out Christianity here, mind you – though it cannot be denied that there is a long history of such).
Some believers attempt to prove religion, an ultimately unprovable hypothesis by its very belief-based nature. This gets funny, because "facts" become tools that must be selectively presented. This is a rigourous process of double-think, where some things are ignored or made smaller while others are made huge and important. The common thread, however, is the inability to reconcile some things with others: reality with aggrandizement, hope with reality, anecdote with fact, ideas with proof. Everything is fair game, even if some of it is basically assumed and other stuff is questioned so rhetorically as to lose all meaning.
These are the people who will leave behind them warped school systems and thwarted arts and science funding, and have no idea how much they are hurting the world around them, in the name of a God they have such a huge need for that they are willing to prove their belief to themselves just to be sure. But they shouldn't need to have beliefs proven; belief is subjective to begin with. If you believe it, you believe it. End of story.
The world doesn't work how we want it to work. The world is. We can only describe it, and chronicle its workings. God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe.
You can't tell if someone is delusional until you have talked with them. The diagnosis requires that one refuse to give up a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary, and without talking to someone about their very specific beliefs and exposure to evidence there's no way to judge that. However, one can make that assessment after holding an extended conversation in which you watch a person maneuver in order to avoid facing contrary evidence.
The thing about delusions, however, is that the subject will almost never recognize the disorder (or condition if you prefer, as religious delusions are not rightfully a disorder). This isn't like anxiety or depression where a person will say "Oh yeah, I've got that". By definition people with delusions can't see it, and it is only the rare case where a true break to reality will take place.
@myweight: Of course I would think that person is delusional. I'm a monotheist and I believe this is a test and I must earn the right to see my Maker and speak to him. There's no more prophets or warnings coming our way. So outside of the very few men who received direct inspiration from God through revelation, anyone else who says they spoke to God needs help.
Since nobody has a device capable of intercepting and decoding divine, psychic messages – what are the criteria to determine whether someone is a prophet?
@Doc: The criteria is receiving revelations that CLEARLY cannot be written by a human (an illiterate human at that in the case of Prophet Muhammad) and then acting on that revelation without being a hypocrite and leading people the right way and simply warn the rest. Prophets had two purposes on Earth: Give glad tidings to the faithful and warn the unfaithful. No more, no less.
Because sometimes the article is combined with another article. Sometimes, it is a post on our news feed from a friend on facebook. And then sometimes it is stumbled upon and read out of shear curiosity. Do you as a Christian read non-Christian articles? Well, alrighty then.
Well I'm not Christian first of all. Secondly, I read a lot of things, mainly sports related, but I'm not gonna comment on it if I have no direct affiliation with the subject. Definitely won't insult it. Alrighty then.
So you've got no opinions about the Nazis, KKK, or a political party of which you are not a member?
Nope. Sure don't. If I did, it'd be at the dinner table, not a blog. I reply to two things on this blog: The article itself, and some (not most) insults.
I think what Red is saying here is that he wants to see a belief blog where everyone agrees with the premise of an invisible man in the sky so they can debate what color shoes he wears instead of debating whether he is there at all. They have that, it's called Christianmingle.com.
To believe, or not to believe, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to fluffer
The Priests and Pastors of outrageous Religion,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of accusations,
And by opposing end them: to fry, to leap
No more; and by a leap, to say the end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Unnatural flocks
That Flesh is err to? 'Tis a consummation
a consummation of heII....
It's not even a god blog, but a belief Blog. He would also be excluding nontheistic Buddhists from debating with theistic Buddhists. Very odd.
“ 'I go to church to save my soul,' said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. 'It’s got nothing to do with my vote.' " I wonder if Mr. Varney would be so outraged if the Pope was talking about the evils of pure communism or how government seizure of corporations is wrong. Something tells me that wouldn't be as much of a problem for him. Just another example of the many, many people who call themselves Christians but reject the teachings of Christ.
@ME II : Evolution is not the "atheist worldview", it is science and well substantiated by the evidence.
You don't even know what science is, do you? It is a methodology meant to eliminate human biases. However, it doesn't eliminate all biases, because at the end of the day a conclusion is subjective. Lets take gravity for example. Everyone placing a 10 pound weight on an accurate scale will get the same result – its 10 pounds. However, what CAUSES gravity is no longer objective, but is subjective.
Likewise, evolution is a subjective worldview. This is why there are differing viewpoints on the subject. And while it is 'well substantiated by the evidence', it is likewise well falsified by the evidence. For example, soft tissue can only survive for 10,000/100,000 years (depending upon conditions). Yet, when dino soft tissue was discovered, did evolutionists agree that it falsified evolution? NO! Rather they started with the basic assumption that evolution is true (i.e. a religion) and then sought to explain why this tissue has survived for 65 million years. This is NOT the scientific approach – but subjective biases influencing the conclusions.
Lie4Him
How many times are you going to bring up that crap about the soft tissue...every time you do you show you do not comprehend science, or English for that matter.
Tell me, which weighs more... a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?
The answer is the feathers weigh more...not so cut and dry....can you tell me why that is?
His answer to your questions is: A Pound of God weighs more than anything and you can't prove otherwise, neener neener, boo boo, i'm a christian rubber and you're glue, whatever you research I'll refute without doing any research myself...
Lie4Him
Quit lying about scientific findings, you have to know by now that the scientists all agree that the find was 68 million years old or so. Yah, we know you do not accept carbon dating, another lie you have to cling to.
@Charm Quark : you have to know by now that the scientists all agree that the find was 68 million years old or so.
Only the scientist that YOU accept agree to this date. Not all scientists do.
@Charm Quark : Yah, we know you do not accept carbon dating, another lie you have to cling to.
Carbon dating is only valid for a max of about 50,000 years and thus should not be used to date dino fossils (if they are really millions of years old).
And they don't use carbon dating for old bones etc. There are other techniques.
I'll bet you use GPS and consider it accurate – it uses the same basic science as radiometric dating which you try to discredit and dismiss. Funny how you only reject the science that disproves your myth.
@In Santa we trust : [GPS] uses the same basic science as radiometric dating which you try to discredit and dismiss
GPS uses radio waves sent out by a satellite, while radiometric dating uses the decay ratio of radioactive elements to estimate time. Not even CLOSE to the same 'science' (actually engineering, but...).
Lie4Him
You are right carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years in a world you claim is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Your stupidity is astounding.
Yes, Carbon dating is only good for 50 – 70,000 years, that is why it's not the only dating method used. More often used is Radiometric dating which involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Small differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give accurate dates for rocks of any age.
"Only the scientist that YOU accept agree to this date. Not all scientists do."
Just admit that when 99 out of 100 scientists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it isn't really the 1 dissenter that you then believe, it's that you have a pre-concieved idea of how old the universe is based on an ancient scroll and have decided to believe the scroll over any and all contrary evidence, so even if 100% of scientists agreed on the age of the earth, if it was different than your belief you would claim they are all wrong. Right now it seems like you are clinging to the 1 as some sort of hope that science will back you up on your pre-concieved premise but that is just sad when you look at the evidence we have already.
Live4Him, as far as GPS and radiometric dating go, do you understand how an atomic clock works?
@Joey
Oh I don't know.... could they work by, maybe... say... the power of SATAN!?!?!
L4H and I had a lengthy discussion about various dating methods, with a special focus on Ice Cores.
We reached an impasse early on when L4H would not acknowledge that the antarctic seasons provide easily interpretable ice/snow strata that can be read as accurately as tree rings for detemining age.
When we got onto the topic of radiometric decay rates, I seem to recall that L4H would not admit that said decay rates are constant and predictable.
L4H also will not agree that the speed of light is constant.
The basis of the arguments, at least as I understood it, is that it is impossible to know because we haven't observed radioactive isotopes for billions of years and therefore cannot say anything reliable about decay rates. Also, we cannot assert that light has a constant speed becuase we've never travelled outside the solar system to be able to directly observe how it works. We can't rely on layers of snow to determine age becuase we weren't there watching the snow fall through the seasons for hundreds of thousands of years.
... and yet some data related to 10,000 year old DNA can NOT be questioned?
Yu may want to read up on the dino soft tissue again because, needless to say, you are wrong.
There was a short article about it in the newest edition of The Economist magazine that I just read over the weekend. The longer survival of the soft tissue in certain cases appears to have to do with Iron molecules and free radicals.
@Joey : The longer survival of the soft tissue in certain cases appears to have to do with Iron molecules and free radicals.
So it is argued. But you've just proven my point. They started with the premise that the 68 million years is valid and moved forward from there. That is unscientific. True science starts from the current foundation (i.e. soft tissue max life : 100,000 years) and then moves forward. They either try to falsify this posit or they fail to falsify it. But, they jumped past it and ASSUMED it was false before trying to explain how the dino soft tissue survived. Again, very unscientific.
Unfortunately for you it appears they are falsifying the idea that soft tissue can't last for over 100,000 years.
http://phys.org/news3506.html
Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years.
"They started with the premise that the 68 million years is valid and moved forward from there."
Do you actually think the paleontologists just pulled a random number out of their ass and said "Yeah, this looks 68 million years oldish, write that down Larry!" They do actual research and run hundreds of tests on surounding materials to come up with rough dates and continue their research to refine that data. Only religion starts with a preconcieved notion for how old everything is and then works backward from there trying to fit the science into their dates and believing the data is flawed until it matches their already held spiritual belief, which of course is based on nothing but their "gut" feelings about the veracity of an ancient scroll.
@Live4Him,
I don't think any definitive limit on soft tissue longevity in fossils has been determined yet.
"All of these factors combine to make collagen a durable protein likely to persist for long periods of time. Its presence has been identified in fossils as old as 80 Ma (Asara et al. 2007a,2007b; Schweitzer et al. 2007, 2009, and references therein)."
(http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pX_l24sDARwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA273&dq=soft+tissue+in+fossils&ots=W4y0bztQsk&sig=xgWClhmsUA_P7ko9qijqOQqMlCE#v=onepage&q&f=false ;pg 274)
Your soft tissue argument doesn't hold water btw and by misrepresenting the study that was done you are lying to people to make it seem like your premise of a young earth could be possible in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Dishonesty doesn't suit you L4H, and is in direct contradiction to your supposed righteousness.
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
"What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz2mRNYE4RS
So her work has proven that what we thought we knew about fossilization is not complete, not that finding soft tissue proves in any way that the earth is much younger.
Also check out this info on a religious site that dates back at least 11,000 years making your premise of a 10,000 year ols dino bone seem very silly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
@Just the Facts Ma'am... : So her work has proven that what we thought we knew about fossilization is not complete
You don't even understand how science works. To prove that allegation, she would need to prove beyond doubt that the dino in question died 68 million years ago. Instead, this posit was ASSUMED and then they claimed that their understanding was not complete.
I guess there is no reasoning with a complete moron who refuses to accept the vast amounts of evidence that proves you wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if you started trying to convince people the world is flat as well...
Lie4Him, How can the cause of gravity be subjective? There is a mountain of evidence for evolution and none for creationism. You post the same stuff reguarly and it is debunked regularly. Even if any of what you say were true – it is still not evidence for your creation myth. You have no evidence for your creation myth and feel that trying to pick holes in established science makes the case for your myth. It doesn't.
@In Santa we trust : How can the cause of gravity be subjective?
However, what CAUSES gravity is no longer objective, but is subjective.
Intelligent falling?
L4H look it up the word – it might help the, but I doubt it.
In your face, selfie! 'Science' also tops for 2013
Tuesday Dec 03, 2013 | Leanne Italie for The
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/22a88f7c2481d6d4acece4de806e2ba8/in-your-face-selfie-science-also-tops-for-2013
@Live4Him,
“Everyone placing a 10 pound weight on an accurate scale will get the same result – its 10 pounds. However, what CAUSES gravity is no longer objective, but is subjective.”
Incorrect, weight is subject to gravity. 10 pounds at sea-level is not 10 pounds at higher alti.tudes.
How exactly is what causes gravity subjective? Do you mean that there are differing opinions?
“Likewise, evolution is a subjective worldview. This is why there are differing viewpoints on the subject”
Differing opinions does not necessarily mean that something is “subjective”. Subjective generally means that it is not conducive to objective measure, e.g. personal preferences. There can be differing opinions on objective matters when the evidence is not sufficient to conclude one way or the other. Such is not the case with evolution, which has overwhelming evidence to support it.
As for the soft tissue debate, as I’ve said before, you misunderstand the data, which is primarily talking about DNA, not soft tissue, and is often dealing with specific situations, not all situations. The potential longevity of all soft tissue is not a settled matter in science.
p.s. if you were talking about a 10 pound mass, then you would be correct.
You live 4 a book, written 1600 years ago, by authors you cannot name, in a language you cannot speak, and translated by more people you cannot name.
Of course the Pope is preaching Marxism. History has shown no better means to enlist the uneducated masses to your cause then to promise them someone else money.
Interesting idea.
Seems to me that the Pope & Rush Limbaugh seek "to enlist the uneducated masses to their cause."
Who cares what Limbaugh has to say. I want to hear more about those surprisingly badass Bible birds.
Limbaugh is totally wrong. Limbaugh says the pope doesn't know capitalism, but Limbaugh knows even less about Catholicism.
The pope sees his mission as returning catholics back to original principals articulated by Christ and promulgated in the traditions and teachings of the church. He's calling on us catholics to live our faith more demonstrably though good works, charity, volunteering, teaching, caring for others. This isn't Marxism, it's Christianity.
In the gospel accounts, Christ doesn't chastise the rich simply for their wealth. He chastises them for their selfishness. When they are generous, as when Zacchaeus gave back four-fold what he had unethically taken, Christ accepts them as brothers.
Likewise, the pope is not chastising capitalism, but he's warning us about its excesses. Ideally, capitalism works effectively to spread wealth, goods, and services thought out the economy. But when it is unmoored from morality it inspires selfishness, greed, gluttony, and self-indulgence.
Christianity is one of the cures for this problem because it calls on us to consider the moral implications of our actions. Christian morality is largely defined by whether we are living by Christ's example to ease suffering and care for the marginalized.
Even Limbaugh hero, Edmund Burke, understood the connection between capitalism and morality when he said, "What is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness…”
Limbaugh should rethink his hasty judgements on the pope.
Patrick, well said. We can only hope that all people of faith are moved by your summation.