http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/30/the-bones-of-the-saints-cannot-withstand-it Comments On: The Bones of the Saints Cannot Withstand It by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:45:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
And yeah, I'm with you on original sin, at least the way most of us have been taught about it as kids. I believe we are all imperfect and have the capacity to sin, I just don't believe it's because Adam decided to have a snack one day and ate the wrong fruit.
Posted by Sheryl]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:03:31 -0700 The Stranger
By the way, the concept of original sin is why I'm not Catholic anymore. I think we're all born just fine, thanks.
Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:37:05 -0700 The Stranger
HOWEVER...it does also say that homosexuality is an "inherently disordered state," which is Catholic code words for sinfulness, which arises from humanity's free will. I'm remembering as I type this how absolutely crazy that drove me when I was taking a class on the new catechism. Basically, they are saying that people who are gay are probably born that way, but being oriented toward people of the same gender is inherently sinful. Therefore, people who are gay have to work twice as hard to stay pure and holy, and all that jazz.

That's at least part of the reason I'm not Catholic any more. My current denomination doesn't believe in any form of justification by works.
Posted by Sheryl]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:28:00 -0700 The Stranger
I would, however, argue that something like goblins would leave behind evidence - perhaps bones, fossils, or excrement. Unless, of course, they disintegrate upon death like vampires do.
Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:16:00 -0700 The Stranger
However I would say that in the absence of evidence the best stance is non-belief. It is not so much that I am an atheist because I have disproved god, more that no one has yet proved god. Its the same reason I don't believe in goblins or the Illuminati.

The argument that one can beleive in god simply because there is not disproof would not work when applied to almost any other belief people have.
Posted by giffy]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:08:07 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:03:34 -0700 The Stranger
Did Ol' Ben just unwittinly hand over the keys to the kingdom?
Posted by K]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:52:06 -0700 The Stranger
True "reality" would be agnosticism, technically. But you're atheist because that makes more sense to you personally, and I'm not because that makes more sense to me personally. So, we're both being a little illogical here.
Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:42:03 -0700 The Stranger How to Religiously Confuse the Shit out of your Children 101 or something).

I'm all for secularism, but I highly doubt we will ever see the complete dissolution of non-fact-based belief. While humans certainly possess plenty of logic, we've got other things that guide our decisions as well. It's not all cut-and-dry.

I would like to see the dissolution of archaic dogma and, by extension, organized religion in its current incarnation. That said, I don't think we'll see that for a long time (if ever) either. People really seem to need tradition as well.

No, if we want to fight a winning battle, we need to concentrate on the disparity between the particulars of religious morality and the reality of human morality. That's really more important than what people believe anyway, I think.
Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:32:39 -0700 The Stranger
However I would say what you describe is pretty much an abandonment of myth and superstition. I would put simply believing in a god on par with simply say being an optimist. Its more of a preference than something that really affects on decisions or life.

What I have a problem with is when reality is subjugated to some random guess on how old the world is, what is the best way to treat disease, ect. Having an abstract belief in some random god is not the same thing as insisting that you have revealed knowledge from that being(myth), that this being is fiddling with reality (magic) or that seeking this beings favor though ritual or prayer(superstition) will have an affect.

That being said, nearly 50% of the population in some European countries see no reason to invent a god to beleive in, and that number is increasing. I know personally I see no reason to do it. I like reality just fine.
Posted by giffy]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:25:25 -0700 The Stranger Posted by paulus]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:19:26 -0700 The Stranger
Never is a long time.
Posted by sepiolida]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:18:19 -0700 The Stranger
Which, you know, would be easier if there weren't atheists going around referring to all religion as "magic," "myth," and "superstition."
Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:15:24 -0700 The Stranger Posted by giffy]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:02:37 -0700 The Stranger Posted by giffy]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:01:50 -0700 The Stranger Posted by keshmeshi]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:56:24 -0700 The Stranger Posted by paulus]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:56:20 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:43:56 -0700 The Stranger
Until they do that though they are in no way enlightened.
Posted by giffy]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:35:24 -0700 The Stranger
14 - Again, they take issue with the morality, not the science. The Church, while certainly not yet to the point of being good, is a very different entity than it was in the 14th century. For one thing, they no longer rule the world. For another, they no longer carry out mass genocide (though I think telling Africa not to use condoms comes pretty close). They've apologized to Galileo, they accept and embrace the existence of evolution, and they're moving, albeit painfully slowly, towards becoming a just, enlightened institution. They are behind the times, for sure, but I think they can get there. They have, after all, improved already.
Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:25:13 -0700 The Stranger
No, the only respected theory in science (to my knowledge) that is refuted by the Church is the idea that people are born gay. That said, I could be wrong.
Posted by Jocelyn]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:20:43 -0700 The Stranger Posted by foolish-rain]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:14:47 -0700 The Stranger Posted by giffy]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:13:18 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Vince]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:07:04 -0700 The Stranger Posted by sepiolida]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:02:55 -0700 The Stranger