The Rev Surrenders

Since Summer 2011 a young black guy has interjected his "thoughts" - or lack of - to me on Twitter regarding God and religion.

Here is how it would go:

One Atheist would engage me, then another and then he would show up commenting on something he had no idea about since the discussion was not with him.

What is interesting is that this guy when questioned begins to retweet every response.  He does this so others can jump in to rescue him.

Within 20 seconds I have 10 Atheists engaging me, some joining the conversation civilly and others spewing vulgarities or comments projecting their apparent inner fascination with child molestation by mentioning the scandals of some priests.

I came to the conclusion that this guy named Xavier has no intellectual confidence and just trolls throughout Twitter looking to bait believers.

When he is confronted about his tweets, he gets upset and begins to use vulgarity to express himself.   By doing this he shows he has a poor vocabulary and cannot logically coherently express his ideas in a educated and civil manner.  In a sense, he starts out a college student and ends up a stereotypical ghetto thug within seconds.

Recently he invited me to comment on his blog but failed to give me the link.  He then begins to questions why I "avoid" his blog.  I had to contact another female Atheist he was involved with romantically just to get his blog link.

If that is not funny enough, when I do comment on his blog regarding Atheism as a Religion, he does not post it.  He then sends me a message attacking the post and making threats of blocking me on Twitter.  This guy is either bipolar or extremely silly.


Here are some of his silly tweets:

To my requests for him to answer my question "Can you prove there is no God" he continues on ranting attempting to claim that I am ignoring an answer he never gave.  

Here I invite him to post his answer to my blog post http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/11/atheists-please-prove-there-is-no-god.html  but he dilly dallies and begins to show his lack of intellectual confidence and cowardice.  

Here he turns ghetto and begins using language that is not appropriate for an educated person.  

Here he becomes jealous of my academic success and sends an ad hominem remark.  

Now is this a rational person?  How can anyone take a so-called Atheist like this seriously?  He fails to provide reasons for his beliefs. Fails to have proper comportment during a debate.  Lacks the maturity needed to debate a serious topic.  

His only answer is vulgarity and silly remarks that attempt to mask his lack of intellectual confidence and pusillanimity.

On his blog, he recently wrote a post attacking me and other Twitter people.  His paranoia is hilarious and sad at the same time.  He reminds me of a funny YouTube video with a reporter who starts out giving the news with a professional journalist inflection until a fly enters his mouth and he begins to talk like a ghetto person spewing profanity.    

With so many intelligent Black people around like Maya Angelou, Barrack Obama, Oprah as role models.  I don't understand why this guy feeds and perpetuates the image of the stereotypical ignorant and vulgar black man.   He gives ammunition for those who believe minorities are intellectually inferior to whites. I pray and hope he will come around after he matures.     

Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011

On December 15, 2011 the world lost a great writer and intellectual.  He was very articulate, and very polemical.  His name was Christopher Hitchens.

A self professed Atheist, Hitchens wrote on God, religion, politics and other issues.  He criticized Bill Clinton and Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta on numerous occasions.   Hitchens described Mother Teresa as a "Fanatic, fundamentalist and fraud."

He was a great debater, but had some embarrassing debates with Cardinal George Pell and Theologian Dr. William L. Craig.  In the later debate, Hitchens stumbles, at one point starts messing around with his equipment out of nervousness and in an attempt to stall for time.  The audience even laughs at his response.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uvKH5qisgg&feature=player_embedded#!)

While he was a great writer and intellectual, his approach was a bit harsh.  There are ways one can present one's ideas without being offensive or angry.  Atheism often increases egoism in an exaggerated manner.  Atheists walk about believing that they or science have some knowledge that religious people do not.  They "know" God does not exists, they "know" the universe just happened to appear out of nowhere etc etc.  This is of course wishful thinking.  It perpetuates their intellectual dishonesty and embarrasses rationalism.  

Hitchens criticized Mother Teresa but never once lifted a finger to help the poorest of the poor, as she called them.  He was all about "humanism" but never helped any human like Mother Teresa did.

Atheists often claim that "Two working hands accomplishes much more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer" yet there is no Atheist out there doing as Mother Teresa did.  There are no charitable Atheist organisations on Earth! Yet they are "for Humanity."

To support Atheism, Hitchens used the same circular arguments Atheists have used for centuries.  "Religion is evil and it starts wars, "it is hypocritical,"  "it is superstitious," bla bla bla.  All this is said with a certain confidence but lacks evidence.  Hitchens' apologia for Atheism can be summed up in two words: Ad Hominem.  

As with many Atheists that I have encountered both when I was one and now, they only offer anger, insults, and contrarian responses to support their "reason."  Atheism is just an opium created to appease the contrarian.

I pray for Christopher Hitchens.  He was just a lost soul attempting to seek answers regarding God by using his harsh Atheism as a mask for that hunger.  Now I am sure he believes in God.  It must have been an awkward moment meeting the person you denied for so long.  He went from "God is not great" to "Wow God is great."  :)

No one should make rash judgements on whether he ended up in hell or not.  God is extremely merciful and we don't know what happened at those last seconds of life on Earth.  Jesus forgave the thief on the Cross, He will surely forgive an Atheist.

May Christopher Hitchens rest in peace.  Despite his religious bigotry, we can all admire his intellect and positive contribution to humanity.

Genus Corvus just Crows...

Since Summer 2011 this young man @atheistcrow has engaged me on Twitter.  I have offered to entertain his inquiries on Facebook using the Discussions app which was discontinued on Oct 31st.    He did not want to follow through.

Recently for the last 2 weeks or so I have invited him here and all he does is dilly dally.  He claims I am a liar, and a fraud with no basis whatsoever.  

He is supposedly a man of reason, yet insists on using Twitter to discuss a heavy topic such as God knowing that Twitter puts users in "Jail" after a certain amount of tweets as this parody Twitter accounts shows Twitter Jail.

I can logically conclude that this kid is either a troll looking for attention, or does not have the intellectual confidence to discuss with me his issues with God and religion on a forum that is permanent and visible to all.


                                                                                                                 Scared....   

There is no "timeline" here that erases old tweets, nor any blocking features.  What you post stays.  Perhaps that is the reason why he is timorous?

Burden Of Proof

If you have ever talked about God to an Atheist, you probably heard the saying, "Burden Of Proof."

These words are often thrown at theists in an attempt to force them to prove that God does exist.  Atheists say, "You claim God exists, so the 'Burden of Proof' rests on the one making the claim - so show me the proof."  The intention of this is not to ingest knowledge and truth regarding God's existence.  It is an attempt to trap a theist by setting up a "debunking" session of any evidence provided in regards to God's existence.
Of

In other words, atheists do this in order to step outside of the debate and become a sort of outsider questioning the theist.  By doing this, the atheist does not have any obligation to defend atheism and prove God does not exist.  It is a safety mechanism used by them to protect them from trying to do the impossible: disprove the existence of God.

So Who has the Burden of Proof?   

Well this depends on the situation.  But first let me give you a bit of history as to why atheists use this sophistry during discussions/debates regarding God's existence.

In the mid-twentieth century, Anthony Flew, a prominent philosopher who was an atheist and later a theist presented the idea of atheism being the 'default' position.  This is also labeled the, "Presumption of Atheism."  What this means is that we all should be atheists until evidence for God is presented.

Despite being fallacious, many atheists adopt this trend of thought.  There is no evidence that atheism is the 'default' position.  On the contrary, with the discovery of the VMAT2 gene, Flew's argument goes out the window.  If atheism is the 'default' position or we must 'presume atheism,' then why do we all have a gene that predisposes us to belief in God and the supernatural?  Moreover, if atheism is the 'default' position, then how did belief develop from a default non-belief mental state?  In order to disbelieve something, one must first be aware of that something.  The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on.

In reality, atheists use this fallacious argument to stall during a debate.  By stating that atheism is the 'default' position, atheists are attempting to force believers to go on the defensive.

For example, if 99% of the people in a town are democrats and the one person who makes up the 1% is republican, then it is obvious that the 'default' position is the democratic one.  This puts the republican on the defensive because he/she is outnumbered.  Similarly, if atheists claim that atheism is the 'default' position by nature, then believers must defend why they are adopting a radical one.  This is a set up for the shifting of burden.  

Now back to the burden of proof:  

The Burden of Proof falls on either party depending on the situation.  Here is a scenario:

If an Atheist approaches a Theist saying that he/she lost faith or cannot believe in God because of whatever reason, then the Atheist puts the Theist on the defensive.  The Theist then can either ignore the Atheist or respond by attempting to restore this Faith in God or answering whatever reason for the loss of belief.

However, if the Atheist approaches a Theist claiming, "there is no God, God is a myth, a superstition,"  then the Atheist is making a claim and the Theist has the right to request proof of this claim.  The Atheist must then provide evidence for this confident claim that there is no God.  

The Burden of Proof always rests with the Prosecution who needs to support the case with evidence.
The Atheist site (http://www.positiveatheism.org/) seems to push for Atheists to take the former position in order to engage a Theist in a debate.

More examples:

Let's say there are two individuals, a believer (B) and a non-believer (NB).

• If B wants to convince NB that God exists, then the burden rests on B.
• If NB wants to convince B that God does NOT exists, then the burden rests on NB.
• If both B and NB are trying to convince each other, then the burden rests on both.
• If both B and NB are just discussing God and have no intention to convince either that his/her position is wrong, then neither have the burden.

So in reality, in a serious dialog the Burden of Proof rests on both.  The Atheist and Theist should be able to provide evidence for his/her claim.  This makes the discussion more fruitful.  By having one side provide proof as the other listens, then this is not a debate but an interview.  Atheists can say all they want that their position is not a claim; this is intellectually dishonest.  The presumption that there is No God, God is a myth or superstition IS a claim.  It has to be backed up with proof.

Even the atheism section of about.com has this to say:

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.

 Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support."

So there you have it.  Any claim that someone may 'consider rational... must provide some support.'  Atheists are not exempt from this.  

Atheists who play this shift the Burden of Proof game only make themselves look intellectually weak. They attempt to distort logic in order to mask their lack of intellectual confidence.

Evil Bible

On Twitter and outside in the real world, I have been messaged and confronted by many people.  Some say good things, some ask questions, and some are angry and confrontational.  I will focus on the latter.

Those who are confrontational (mostly Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, Pro Abortion/Choice, Homosexuals, Muslims, Agnostics, and random inquirers) message me regarding the Bible.  They question how it can be God's Word if it is full of "evil and hate."  They cite passages claiming they advocate slavery, infanticide, murder, rape, incest, misogyny, hate, and in a word: evil.


I can relate to their concerns too because as an Atheist at first, I did find the Bible a bit too racy and crazy to be the "Word" of a All knowing, All Good, All Present Supreme Being.  However, I did not knock the Book down, so to speak.  I gave it a chance and let it speak to my rational mind before it spoke to my heart and soul.

To claim that the Bible is Evil is an unfair, biased and uneducated opinion.  This is a conclusion based on poor interpretation of particular texts.  When one reads the Bible in light of the time, language, culture, mind frame of the people, and circumstance in which a particular verse was written, it will be more understandable.  One must not fall into Presentism when interpreting the Bible or any other text that is old.

The Bible is not a "Book" per se.  It is a collection of Books.  The word "Bible" means "books."  It is a collection of 73 books: 46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament.  Each book was written at different times.  Some chapters within books were also written at different periods.  This is important to know if we are to understand the Bible instead of judging it as hate speech and what not.

We cannot be quick to label people of the past because of how they lived, thought or acted.  Let us take Slavery for example.  In America and other nations, Africans and Indigenous people were used as Slaves.  This was seen as normal.  These people were not people, they were just "livestock."  Even the laws defined them as such.

Take this letter by Trott, S published in 1842 in the Cincinnati Post where Trott is claiming that Slavery is God's will and ending it will harm society and the Slaves themselves.  (http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-reform/resources/pro-slavery-letter-s-trott)  More info can be found here: http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/613

One can find many articles, books, and writings of people both well known and common who supported Slavery. Many were outspoken against those who wanted the Slaves free, or the Abolitionists.

Here is an ad warning Citizens of the Abolitionists.  

Here is another inviting people to a meeting to stop the "evil and fanaticism" called Abolitionism. 

As you can see, the movement to free Slaves was seen as dangerous, fanatical and evil.  Many warnings were published.  

If that is not bad enough, here is an ad requesting that a runaway Slave described as "Negro Boy Joel" be found for a reward of 5 Dollars:

Now one who has never heard of this past and is reading it for the first time might say, "what the heck is this??? These people are evil, ignorant, hateful, and racist."  

Others might say, "They published an ad to find a Slave teen boy for a reward of 5 bucks???!??"  

After this culture shock they can take one of two positions:

• This nation is evil, ridiculous, hateful, primitive and must be destroyed.

OR

• This is the past. This is how people saw each other and things.  We cannot judge them for their ignorance at the time or how they interpreted life.

An educated rational person who does research in History will take the latter position.  Yes this was the past.  This was how people saw each other and things in life.  We must interpret their ads, writings and behavior in light of their time, their culture, and circumstance.  

Now, the same must be done with the Bible.  When one reads it in context, then it will not be the "Evil Bible," but the Bible that is the Word of God in the language and experience of Man.  

Atheism Dilemma II

In my previous post I wrote that,


"If Atheism cannot provide reason not to believe based on empirical evidence, then we must dismiss this ideology as merely fallacious rhetoric created to appease those who have anger towards God and/or organized religion."   


How true are these words.  Those who call themselves atheists pride themselves in being rational, yet offer no verifiable reason in which to not believe in God.  We have to accept their negation on "faith" not evidence.  The quest for reason goes on...


I have just finished attempting to instill scientific reason to some atheists in regards to God.   As always, they adamantly deny anything, even science itself.  This is when they lose credibility.  One in particular accuses me of arguing from ignorance.   Another sends me a link "debunking the Laws of Information."  


Now this is funny because I merely stated the laws of information which are used in physics and thermodynamics.  These laws basically state that matter cannot produce information.  That is to say that no matter in this universe can develop data or code on its own.  It needs a sender or mover.  


For example, you buy a DVD and it is blank.  You leave it in a room that is locked for 10 or more years.  After that time period you return and take the DVD and put it in a computer.  Will that DVD have data on it?  The answer is no.  The DVD needs an intelligent sentient sender to "burn" the data on it.  The same with matter in this universe.  Matter did not develop or "burn" the data within itself.  It had an external sender that instilled it within.  That sender of course has to be sentient and intelligent rationally speaking.  How else can it be aware of the matter and know how to put information into it and what information to put?


I pointed this out to this gentleman, and he denied it.  I even gave citations to texts that he can go purchase or rent, and he still rejects it.  What now?  Well the logical conclusion is that this individual is in denial.     Citing laws of Physics or any discipline is not arguing from ignorance.  Arguing from ignorance is when one claims that something is true because it has not been disproved.   


All I merely stated was that matter cannot produce information without a sender.  This is a law.  Now, this law is often used to prove the existence of a Logos.   The point I was trying to make was that since matter cannot produce information without a sender and a sender has to be sentient and intelligent, then there is evidence for a Logos.    


Logic is often thrown around by atheists erroneously.  This individual obviously does not have a full grasp of fallacies.  We cannot throw charges of fallacies around at everything said.  If we do, then basic facts such as the 4 seasons are "arguments of ignorance."  Science says we have 4 seasons and this is true because it cannot be disproved, so is this an argument of ignorance?  No way.  This is an observable fact that cannot be disproved unless the Earth changes and some how ends up with 2 or even 10 seasons which is highly unlikely.  


Atheism needs to learn what logic is before they attempt to discredit any theistic arguments.   If not, then what is next?  Will a citation in a thesis be called "appeal to authority?"  It is silly.   If using the Laws of Information as evidence of a Logos is Arguing from Ignorance than so is stating Evolution or Abiogenesis is the cause of life on earth and not God.   


Atheism cannot have its cake and eat it too.  It must be fair, rational and realistic.  It must not request proof of God and then deny everything presented by misapplying fallacies to them.  It must not request proof of God in the sense of summoning some sort of genie to appear before them.  Atheism must realize that the evidence of God is there and it must build on that evidence; they must go on to the next step.  If God is a personal being, one cannot test a person in a lab per se.  One must interact with that person.  Now here lies the problem.  Atheists will not interact with this person called God.  


As an atheist I took that step.  I actually prayed and asked God to show proof.  


A movie comes to mind when thinking of this.  That movie is the "Matrix."  Neo played by Keanu Reeves is a computer hacker who is aware of the "Matrix code."  He wants to know of it and instead finds a group of people dressed in black claiming to know about this "Matrix."  The leader, "Morpheus" tries to explain that the world Neo was living in was a simulation in a computer system.  Neo of course denies it because his senses tell him otherwise.  Now it isn't until Neo sees the bending of the laws of Physics that he begins to see that maybe Morpheus is telling the truth.    Morpheus then tells Neo "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."   The scenario is similar of the one who is trying to show the atheist proof of God.  At some point, the atheist has to 'free his mind' and 'walk through the door."  


This is what the scientific method is all about.  We propose a hypothesis, research it, test it, analyze the results and then make a conclusion.  Atheists get stuck at the hypothesis part.  They just ask questions or take guesses based on assumptions that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.    They must move on from the hypothesis stage to the research step and then to the testing one.  


Just like Morpheus could not tangibly show Neo that the Matrix is a simulation unless Neo freed his mind and walked through the door, so too the atheist cannot process the evidence of God and God unless he/she frees his mind and takes the next steps.

Let us take Santa Claus for example.  In America, this Elf supposedly comes on Christmas eve in a sleigh with reindeer.  He comes down a chimney and delivers presents for people.  Now that is a nice story.  It is fun to hear and adds to the child's Christmas experience.  Now how can we prove this is real or not?  Easy.  We ask the question:

• Is Santa Claus real?

• Then we do the research: Origin: "St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra was caricatured into Santa Claus"

After that research we begin to test what we know so far.  

• Santa Clause is a caricature of a Bishop named St. Nicholas
• Santa Clause comes on Christmas Eve in a sleigh and down chimneys. 

1. One test we can do is on Christmas eve go outside and survey the skies for any sleighs. 
2.  Another test is one inspired by my nephew which entails actually waiting at the fireplace for Santa Claus.

Now after these tests, we analyze what we know and found from testing and come to the conclusion that...(whatever that conclusion is)

Atheism does not do this with God.  It is intellectually dishonest.  Theists all over report miracles, many are documented by science as having no explanation and which defy all known laws of physics.  Many have personal experiences.  We cannot discount this.  


Even the Catholic Church uses science to verify supposed miracles before canonizing a Saint.  The Church does not go by word of mouth.  

For centuries many have written about God showing evidence, but atheists ignore this or cowardly label them as "God of gaps."

An atheist who truly wishes to seek truth regarding God must go to the next step and test these.  

If not, then 

"...we must dismiss Atheism as merely fallacious rhetoric created to appease those who have anger towards God and/or organized religion."

Atheism Dilemma

 SININE

If you follow my blog you have seen my attempt to get reason out of the so-called rational atheists.  Unfortunately any attempt has produced futility.  Atheism does not have a logical reason to support its disbelief in God.  A theist ironically is supposed to accept on faith the position of Atheism.  "There is No God, God is a myth" is nothing more than a statement of belief not reason with supporting evidence.

Atheism therefore has a dilemma.  How can it claim to be rational if it offers no reason for its position on God?  Why even bother to make extravagant claims such as "there is no God"  "God is a myth" when you cannot back it up with empirical evidence or logical reason?

It makes Atheism look foolish and as ignorant as it claims Theism is.  In reality, Atheism and Theism are different sides of the same coin.  One side believes in God and the other denies that God exists.

Until Atheism can provide reason not to believe based on empirical evidence, then we must dismiss this ideology as merely fallacious rhetoric created to appease those who have anger towards God and/or organized religion.

Clowns with a Frown

Clowns are often used to entertain children or grown ups. They do silly things, say silly things and make us chuckle and laugh.  However, clowns are not limited to people dressed in funny costumes with red noses and make up.  Clowns are everywhere.  Atheism is not immune to this.

Atheists often cite bogus claims that the majority of scientists and inventors are atheist.  That is not true.  It is propaganda used to give the false idea that some how those who reject God are rational and progress scientifically and intellectually.  History shows that the majority of scientific minds were theists.  Modern science and the scientific method was developed by the Catholic Church.  

Yes we can find atheists in science today, but the claim that all or most scientists are atheists is erroneous.  In the book, "Science vs Religion - What Scientists Really Think"  nearly 2,000 scientists were approached and the conclusion was reached that not all were atheists.  A large portion were theists, the others were Apatheists who did not focus on religious tenets personally but try to bridge faith and science in order to better society.  A small minority were apprehensive and hostile towards religion.

Atheism has no exclusive claim over the sciences or intellectualism  Those that do claim this are the Clowns who Frown.  That is to say, they are the ones who go around spewing bigotry in the name of science and rationalism while at the same time entertaining us all with their nonsensical rants.

Here are some I can think of:


George Carlin

If you have not heard of this guy, he was a clown in real life, or a comedian.  He made a living telling crude hateful jokes at the expense of other people.  His only audience was the young rebellious crowd.  Though being Catholic and going to Catholic school, Carlin had deep hatred towards God and religion.

While watching his stand up on Youtube I didn't see humor in his act, but hurt.  He seems to mask some deep hurt by attacking God and religion.  I can only assume that perhaps because he had a rough childhood and attended the strict Catholic school system during the time of his youth, he grew up angry.  Priests, Sisters, Brothers and lay teachers were often heavy disciplinarians and it is understandable why a youth would grow up angry, especially towards God and religion.  He and his mother did not have a great relationship from what I've read. Carlin attended Cardinal Hayes high school for a while, a high school that is rumored to be a breeding ground for dissent from Catholicism.  I've heard complaints that teachers use sexual innuendos to teach subjects and also promote homosexuality and other progressive views.  Carlin is deceased now.  I hope he found God at death again and answers as to why his life was what it was when he finally saw God face to face as he saw the Sun from Earth.  


Penn Jillette 

This guy is another comedian and magician who also calls himself an atheist and uses sarcasm to present his anger towards God and religion.   Ironically he is a graduated of a Clown school.

He strictly believes there is no God.  Despite his strong words in defense of Atheism, Penn supposedly was thankful for a fan who gave him a Gideon Bible.






Bill Maher 

Another comedian who was raised Catholic and had a Jewish mother.  Supposedly his father stopped practicing due to the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and procreation.
Maher is often seen on TV bashing religion and making sarcastic remarks about God, prayer and other religious themes.  Just like with Carlin, I also see deep pain in this guy.
Most of his rants are comical and have no intellectual basis.  He pretends to sound intelligent by misrepresenting Christianity, Faith and God with his use of comedy.   He refers himself as an Apatheist, but his words are atheistic in nature.   Like a Clown with a Frown he goes about trying to be funny but spewing hate and anger instead.



Richard Dawkins

This one is probably the most infamous of all Atheists.  He is a trained Biologist and self proclaimed Humanist.    In 2006 he wrote "God delusion," a book that reads more like an outline of why he does not believe, rather than actually explaining or describing God as a delusion.

 Book reviewers have describe the book as using "sloppy logic," incoherent prose with some parts of it showing immaturity and mockery.

Dawkins is vocal about atheism, but not as powerful as Madalyn Murray O' Hair who was always in court trying to make God illegal in America.  His most aggressive attempt to get attention for the Atheism cause was when he attempted to get Pope Benedict XVI arrested for Crimes against Humanity when the Pope visited Britain.   This of course was a failure and backfired on him because there is no way to prosecute a Pope since the Pope answers to no one except God; nor is there evidence that the Catholic Church endorses crimes against humanity.



I applaud all these men for trying to look out for the well being of all humanity; however, their anger and hate is something that is troubling.  As a former Atheist and now Catholic, I know not everyone is going to believe or think as me, nevertheless, I expect rational people to speak their minds in a rational and respectful manner.

Once you spew hate either for Atheism or God, you lose credibility.

• How can a Christian 'love a neighbor as himself' when he or she shows hate?  

• How can an Atheist or Humanist be for humanity if he or she shows hate?   

It is time for these Clowns with a Frown to realize that we are all in this world together and must care for one another.  Our minds may not send the same signals in regards to God, but the Theist and Atheist heart beats the same beat of life.  Let's march on to that beat and build a world where we can co-exist in peace and harmony.

Let Theists and Atheists preach Tolerance, Peace and Justice.

10/15/2011 

Ravasi: "Atheists in Assisi? The Pope wanted them»

The President of the Pontifical Council for Culture takes stock of the "court of the gentiles," and explains the presence of non-religious at the interreligious meeting of October 27

ANDREA TORNIELLIROME

"The Pope wanted the Atheists in Assisi." Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, returning from Bucharest, where he received an honorary degree and has chaired a meeting of the "court of the gentiles", explains to reporters the programs and projects of his department. He also explains how the idea to invite some non-believers to Assisi for the interreligious prayer meeting for peace on the twenty-fifth anniversary of that led by John Paul II in 1986.

"It was an idea of ​​Benedict XVI's", says the cardinal of Milan, "and he himself presented it during a meeting with some cardinals in sight of the preparations for Assisi. " In doing so, explains Ravasi, "Ratzinger shows that he holds in great esteem an ancient teaching of Christian theology: man is made of natural and supernatural. The supernatural does not remove or destroy nature, but perfects it. It sets itself, that is, an additional element, but does not eliminate human nature. So the invitation of the Pope's attempt to reassert the importance of the relationship between faith and reason."

 The four atheists who participate in Assisi are the French philosopher and psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva (who will speak before Benedict XVI), the Italian thinker philosophy professor at UCLA in Los Angeles Bodei Remo, the British philosopher Anthony Grayling, which established the New College of Letters and Philosophy, London, and Mexico's Guillermo Hurtado, founder of the second period of the history and philosophy magazine Dianoia. The day before the meeting in Assisi, October 26, the four will participate in a panel discussion in the main hall of the Rectorate of Roma 3 University.

Mapping out an initial - positive - assessment of the "court of the gentiles," the initiative of dialogue with non-believers wanted by the Pontiff, Ravasi did not hide a limit and a problem to the encounter: "I realized - he says - that the problem is not atheistic world, that engages in high-level dialogue, and certainly does not consider religion as an element of underdevelopment, but rather indifference, dullness, lack of questioning, banality and sometimes vulgarity ... In short, we have to face a somewhat more difficult horizon, a sort of slime."

 In addition to presenting the upcoming events, such as the one scheduled in November in Florence (a dialogue between Moni Ovadia and Sergio Givone, and between Erri de Luca and Antonio Paolucci), Ravasi also responded to questions about possible future horizons of the "courtyard", speaking specifically about the Middle East. "It's a dream of mine", he explained, "to open a dialogue in the territory of the world which is by far the most difficult but also more creative, because there are religions that live their very nature of identity, but they are also growing secular forces in society. It would be nice to bring such a dialogue between believers and non believers to Israel, where the original court of the Gentiles existed.

Finally Ravasi and colleagues presented the new website of the court of the gentiles (www.cortiledeigentili.com) and even his landing on twitter, where the Cardinal (whose profile is @CardRavasi) sends out one biblical thought a day, as well as messages related to his presence at meetings and dialogues.

Finally Ravasi and colleagues presented the new website of the court of the gentiles (www.cortiledeigentili.com) and even his landing on twitter, where the Cardinal (whose profile is @CardRavasi) sends out one biblical thought a day, as well as messages related to his presence at meetings and dialogues.

Source:  http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/news/detail/articolo/9013/