--- Vivek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear mario: > I dont think there were any absurdities in my post. > What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as > Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities > committed on native population during the > inquisition is very hard to find. > Mario responds: > Vivek, The absurdities I referred to in your post involved your demand for evidence for things like sati, untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in 9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate the problems with providing evidence. However, I think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential logic that many of the claims on the issue of destruction of Hindu temples in order to build Churches are not what everyone thinks. > Vivek writes: > > Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his > bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are > welcome to read them and decide for urself. > Mario responds: > Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need to respond to his comments directly. > Vivek writes: > > I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my > opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to > be of upright moral nature. > Mario responds: > A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by church officials over the years, or wholesale concoctions by church officials, and are not part of the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion. > For example, I support the use of condoms as a means of birth control, the Church officially opposes this. I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive them but execute the worst ones if I could. The current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in letters to the Vatican. Things like that. > You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright moral character without being religious. We all know that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while violating every Christian precept ever written. On the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels, with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are atheists. > I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty, where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others." > I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists, for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated their own people and menaced their neighbors, and Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their own people totalling some 50 million lives, which would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to paint as a Christian because of some of his self-serving comments, but who violated every single tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem like a Boy Scout leader. > My only point has been that when one signs on as a member of a group that has certain published standards, developed over millenia of experience, carrying consequences within the group that go beyond the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks and balances and public and private pressure on that member to conform to the moral rules of that group. > Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian. > On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed on to any moral code, so what moral standard could anyone hold them to, other than local and international law? > An individual non-religious person may have excellent moral standards, but who knows what those are, and there is less pressure and no consequences other than the law on exceptions that they may take when their backs are to the wall, or even when convenience dictates. > Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency, but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency. > Vivek writes: > > I will let you have he last word on this one > Mario says: > Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well. I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and nuanced comments, which some have erroneously interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If not, we will simply have to agree to disagree. >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
