Military Chaplains for Atheists?

Atheists are pushing for the military to have chaplains for atheists in the military. Uhm, we already have them. They're called chaplains. An atheist has as much right to go see a chaplain as anyone else.

If an atheist wants an atheist to talk to, they're called psychologists or counselors.

The NY Times reports:
In the military, there are more than 3,000 chaplains who minister to the spiritual and emotional needs of active duty troops, regardless of their faiths. The vast majority are Christians, a few are Jews or Muslims, one is a Buddhist. A Hindu, possibly even a Wiccan may join their ranks soon.

But an atheist?

Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military.

Joining the chaplain corps is part of a broader campaign by atheists to win official acceptance in the military. Such recognition would make it easier for them to raise money and meet on military bases. It would help ensure that chaplains, religious or atheist, would distribute their literature, advertise their events and advocate for them with commanders.

But winning the appointment of an atheist chaplain will require support from senior chaplains, a tall order. Many chaplains are skeptical: Do atheists belong to a “faith group,” a requirement for a chaplain candidate? Can they provide support to religious troops of all faiths, a fundamental responsibility for chaplains?
As to the question of whether atheism is a "faith group" I would say that it takes a great amount of faith to be an atheist. Believing that the entire universe and every human being who ever lived was just a random act of crazy chance takes an enormous amount of faith. But it doesn't deserve a chaplaincy. This kind of foolish chase after some sort of elusive equality only seeks to make all things unintelligible. Words mean things. Chaplains are clergy. To expand the definition to atheism thins out the meaning of the word to non-existence.

Secularists are doing it with marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. But some don't want to get married to the opposite sex so they want to expand the term and the institution into meaninglessness.

If the military accedes to this atheist chaplaincy request, it wouldn't be expanding the use of chaplains, it would make it the entire institution meaningless. But isn't that what atheists are all about -meaninglessness?

Comments

  1. your first words are so true- and this is a criticism against chaplains- they don't try to convert people- my Byzantine Catholic priest (with bi-ritual faculties for this archdiocese)husband- a board-certified hospital chaplain at a Catholic hospital can minister to all religions (in a social worker-counselor-spiritual father kid of way). of course, he is available to help people become Catholic if they desire it- but that isn't the point of chaplaincy

    ReplyDelete
  2. They want what they have in the Netherlands: "humanist" chaplains. Harvard has one, why not the military? http://www.harvardhumanist.org/

    Once they're in the military, they can get into schools, hospitals, government offices, etc., and then, with the help of our communist..er, I mean, "community organizing" president (if he's re-elected) we can chuck God right out of the country and become that grand "utopia".

    ReplyDelete
  3. When your country has a military of all faith groups - that country also has the responsibility to respect the religious views of everyone, even if they are a minority. While you all may have a religious view of "X," I may have a religious preference of "Y." And if the "Y" group has a significant amount of followers (an upwards of 23% by some estimates), it only makes sense that the military provide accommodation to all those who have a preference for "Y." The military fights for our constitution, and also something within called the first amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At least atheists are finally admitting to being a religion, even tacitly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is far less tragic than having homos among the troops, but is very amusing nevertheless.

    I was always of the opinion, though, that those with a faith have, at least as a starting point, better **instruments** to be good soldiers.

    If you think that when you die everything is gone, you'll never going to see the ones you love again, & Co. this is not a grand encouragement for good soldiery, much less heroism.

    On the other hand, faith in an otherworldly glory after death in battle has always been an important motivating factors for many armies; the crusaders, the Arabs sweeping Northern Africa in the VII century, the Wehrmacht soldiers with "Gott mit Uns" written on their belts, are all examples.

    Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, says the motto.

    Methinks, it works much better if one believes in another world after this.

    Mundabor

    ReplyDelete
  6. "faith in an otherworldly glory after death in battle has always been an important motivating factors for many armies"

    You forgot suicide bombers and the people who perpetrated 9/11. Believing in the next world more than this world is what always gets us into trouble, especially since there's no evidence for any "next world."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't fully understand what an atheist chaplain would do.
    I mean, for a soldier to go to a priest or minister or rabbi, isn't it usual about the state of their soul?
    And atheists don't believe in souls.
    So, what would an atheist soldier say to an atheist chaplain?
    "Sir, can you confirm my belief in nothing again, as I feel my faith is wavering?"
    Since we have atheists on the board already, maybe you can help me out here. What would an atheist soldier say to and atheist chaplain and vice versa?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous said...

    "At least atheists are finally admitting to being a religion, even tacitly."

    That is so very true!

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are no atheists in foxholes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A Chaplin acts as more than a religious authority/provider in today's military. They are one of the few people you can see in a truly confidential manner (e.g. what you tell them can't end up in your medical records, as what you tell a psychiatrist can) and few people, if anyone, will raise an eyebrow at a troup asking to see a Chaplin.
    A troup can talk to the Chaplin about concerns they have without making it a matter of official record or hurting morale (e.g. "Hey, my commander said/did X, is that a problem").

    I'm not saying that I think we need atheist or humanist Chaplins. I don't know. But I know that I have greatly appreciated being able to turn to the Chaplin, regardless of his faith. Chalplins of a variety of faiths have always done their best to provide appropriate ministry to me as a Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Faith is a gift from God, the same Creator who endowed our unalienable civil rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, so eloquently inscribed in The Declaration of Independence, the document upon which is based our Constitution and the First Amendment to be free to exercise our free will to worship, to speak, to write, and to peaceably assemble and to petition government if there is some abrogation of our freedom to exercise our free will as free men. Government gives us a birth certificate. God gives us existence.
    Religion is man’s unalienable civil right to respond to the gift of faith from God in love, acknowledgment and service to man through our Creator, God.
    Atheism automatically denies all persons the unalienable civil right to acknowledge our Creator and to serve almighty God in our bodies and in our souls and in our government. The imposition of atheism among people denies man’s unalienable civil rights endowed by our Creator, man’s sovereign personhood through which a person constitutes our sovereign nation, man’s conscience to choose and free will to consent through which civilization comes into being for the common good by the consent of the governed.
    Science so often used to prove that there is no need for God, does not and cannot explain existence. Science can only observe and document existence, that which is created. The Supreme Sovereign Being, the uncreated source of all being is WHO is. The atheist will demand co-existence but will not concede that co-existence is predicated on existence, existence the atheist refuses to acknowledge, for himself and for his neighbors.
    If the atheist refuses to acknowledge my existence, my taxes may not be used to fund his uncharitable, unpatriotic and contumacious ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mary, your premise fails to address the right of each military individual the free exercise of religion (or lack thereof) within the military. If you reference the most recent demographics of the military (http://www.militaryatheists.org/resources/MAAF%20DoD%20Demo%202010.pdf), you will see that 27.7% of the military identifies itself as nontheist to include atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics, humanists, etc. What you will not see however, is ANY representation of this percentage within the military chaplain corps itself. As such, this significant minority does deserve recognition and support. You will even find that the Jewish segment of the military is even smaller than that of nontheists - yet the military still has Jewish Rabbis serving. The humanist chaplaincy is seeking to provide ultimate support for this minority to INCLUDE atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc, etc.

    Please try to use rational thought supported with evidence to prove your points, not personal religious beliefs of convictions. You can also reference the first amendment if you get lost along the way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As I lay me down to sleep the thought occured to me: If the atheist wants to sign on to the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf (sp)let him. After Madalyn Murray O'Hair ruined our society she traveled to the USSR where she thought she would be welcomed with open arms and a hero's parade, but USSR refused to let the atheist in, made her wait two weeks outside befopre she quit and returned to the United States, the only country who would let her wreck such havoc on our culture as to deny the Person of God civil rights in the public domain. When One Person is denied civil rights ALL persons are denied civil rights, starting with the atheist, who having denied everybody's civil right to speak to God in public, as though the state owned the public school teachers, body and soul, may have repudiated his own civil right to speaking to anybody whose civil rights he denies, who includes everybody. Now. I lay me down to sleep.... that is to say, the atheist has no legal standing in a court of law in America. NOW..

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Mouse

    I've never served, but I suppose if I did, I'd like an atheist chaplain, perhaps to help me make sense of conflicting emotions, help me get a grasp on reality. I think we could all use a go-to person that understands our worldview.

    @Joan

    Repeating something doesn't make it true.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @thornman: The First Amendment to our Constitution is based on the founding Principles in our Declaration of Independence that clearly identifies our Creator as the endower of any and all rights. Those who repudiate our unalienable civil rights repudiate their own unalienable civil rights in our FAIR land.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "At least atheists are finally admitting to being a religion, even tacitly."

    I don't understand this need to label atheism a religion. Is there also a religion that corresponds to non-belief in fairies, of which most of you are active members? I suppose you are all also members of the religion that disbelieves in Goblins & Trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Mary

    "After Madalyn Murray O'Hair ruined our society"
    &
    "the atheist has no legal standing in a court of law in America."

    Ummmmm what? Are you alluding to some dire future or something? This country was founded on secular principals, which is what atheists like the FFRF are trying to maintain. Secular means no particular group is special - all people are equal. Isn't that something we should all support?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @mouse a go to person is a WHO not a "that". The correlative pronoun "that" is not acceptable to address another person. Respect the dignity of the human being as opposed to the furniture upon which you may be sitting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. TastyPaper: If all people are equal, a self-evident truth, WE all hold, Why cannot the people pray in public? In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court said or rather told the atheist, Madaly Murray O'Hair she could "go her own way" The newspapers bannered PRAYER BAN. Last I read this is called mob mentality and rule by anarchy. So, all that patronizing talk by secular humanists is not worth a damned because when push comes to shove they take what they want. All civil rights are held in trust for all citizens by Almighty God, by their parents and by the State. The state is last, in that order.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mary, as the first amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." While the Declaration of Independence does mention a creator, it does not refer to a christian god any more than it does allah, shiva, buddha, or the ancient jupiter for that matter.

    Your argumentum ad antiquitatem about all atheists being communists is an obvious fallacy. Again, I encourage you to use critical thinking in formulating your arguments. You are inferring that Lance Armstrong, Carl Sagan, Seth MacFarlane, Winston Churchill, and Stephen Hawking are all communists who hate America strictly because they do not personally believe in your god.

    Those in the military swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the declaration of independence. Please get your facts straight.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Last I checked, when a person enters a courtroom he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, on his honor. Repudiating everyone's civil rights to speak to God, and to assemble peaceable to acknowedge God is not very honorable. Everything else is perjury in a court of law. Pornagraphy, the lie about human virginity is a lie abour human sexuality, and does not qualify as free speech. Only truth has freedom to speak. Denying the existence of God to Persons adjudicating the perfect Justice of God, (man is not capable of perfect Justice) rings hollow. The TRUTH will set you free.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "If all people are equal, a self-evident truth, WE all hold, Why cannot the people pray in public?"

    You can. I can't see your profile, so maybe you don't live in the United States, but if you do, you can pray anywhere you want to. What you can't do is mandate prayer from a government platform, such as broadcasting a prayer at a public school. However, every individual student is free to say their own prayers to the deity of their choosing.

    "So, all that patronizing talk by secular humanists is not worth a damned because when push comes to shove they take what they want."

    Non-sequitor. Do you know what a secular humanist is?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Why cannot the people pray in the public domain that is held in joint and common tenancy by each and every citizen? Is this the USSR or the gulag or communist (here insert your own place). The Declaration of Independence capitalizes the word "Creator" and so should you. Oh Yes, and please do explain your existence to me without the Supreme Sovereign Being, the unmoved Mover, the First Principle, Whose Name is "I AM WHO I AM"

    ReplyDelete
  24. A secular humanist is a human being who cannot bring himself to thank God for himself, for his time in this world and for the people around him.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tastypaper, the government claims all platforms as it own. Government in and of itself cannot own anything as all is held in joint and common tenancy by each and every citizen. You own it all and I own it all. So, why can't football players pray before a game? Is it because government owns the field? the next sentence is censored.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Albert Einstein believed in God, Michael Farraday, Nicola Tesla, Gregor Mendel, that French scientist who developed a cure for rabies prayed the rosary daily, Madame Curie and all those miners who came out alive after being trapped in the mine in Chile for a month, and that Jewish lady who discovered nuclear fision, Lisa Mitner.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mary, you fail to address any of my points or present any cohesive argument on your behalf as to why atheist/humanist chaplains should not represent 27.7% of our current military members. I feel sorry that you are blinded by your own faith so much that it prevents your from displaying any sort of tolerance towards others. It's disconcerting that you are so militant in your views that you are unwilling to accept differing views and opinions, and this is precisely what our founding fathers intended to guard against in the government domain. As I stress, an argument requires evidence and NOT your own opinion to support a valid conclusion. Please educate yourself Mary - I don't have any more time to waste doing so...

    ReplyDelete
  28. "You forgot suicide bombers and the people who perpetrated 9/11".

    On the contrary, I think they prove my point. I never said that the motivation given by faith must perforce be good, as my example of the Wehrmacht soldiers shows.

    Mundabor

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Tastypaper,
    Thanks for the response. I guess I was just a little confused. I mean, all the religions who do have chaplains are already organized religions with religious figures they can "plug-in" to the chaplaincy. And, from what I can tell, even if your denomination or even faith, isn't represented, you can go to whoever is there. How would you determine what makes a person a candidate for an atheist chaplaincy, since you don't already have an organized heirarchy?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Saying atheism is a faith group is like saying bald is a hair color.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Mouse,
    See the thing is, atheism isn't a faith, and a Christian or even non-denominational religious person would not be able to help someone who is a materialist. Maybe trying to find specificity is the problem, a secular counselor rather than a chaplain, could benefit all, rather than most.

    In regards to choosing an atheist chaplain, I would say that anyone who claims to be atheist would fit the bill, we wouldn't need a hierarchy because each of us is seeking truth in the same way, rather than receiving truth handed down from a higher source.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ TastyPaper, I get that you need someone to talk to, especially in such a high-stress assignment as a combat zone. But, if you aren't specifically going to talk to someone about belief, a couselor, as you say sounds like someone who would fit the bill. But I was under the impression that the military already had counselors and psychiatrists available. Wouldn't one of them suit your purposes, if we were to make sure one of the existing ones were atheists? Given the prevalence those who are, so to speak, like you in that respect in those fields, that seems the most reasonable option, doesn't it?
    I was under the impression that a chaplain's job was to fill in the blanks that a counselor could not. If this is the case, don't you already basically have someone filling the job an atheist chaplain would fill? Why would there be a need for redundancy in this area?

    I'm not baiting you, by the way. I enjoy civil discourse with those whose belief systems I don't share. I think mutual understanding is the basis for a harmonious society.

    ReplyDelete
  33. “I thank God for you” is shortened to: “Thank you”. Our nation is not founded on religious principles, rather, our nation is founded on the FAITH given to us by God, a Faith embraced by some and rejected by others. The atheist has no legal standing to reject the Faith of our Fathers in a court of law.
    Jesus Christ said: “He who hates his brother is a murderer.” Not allowing another person the unalienable rights endowed by OUR CREATOR is “hate speech”. Not allowing the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity is “hate speech”. Not allowing the protection of "Divine Providence" to bring peace to our nation is "hate speech" and fomenting war, as in treason.
    @thornman: What part of "WE" hold these truths to be self-evident, I repeat: What part of "WE" are you not?

    ReplyDelete
  34. fyi- minimum qualifications to be a board certified chaplain at a hospital (of course military might be different- A master's degree, an internship at a CPE teaching hospital and a full-time residency at a CPE teaching hospital (up to a year) and also endorsement by one's faith group- once again- a Catholic or Protestant or Jewish chaplain (these are the only groups that have established certification processes)is trained to minister to all faith groups, so an atheist would be cared for (in a psychological/social worker/confidential helper kind of way) and would not be pressured to convert. This is why some hard-core religious people don't like chaplains!

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Mouse
    I don't feel baited, I'm enjoying this discussion as well

    I would ask whether the already present counselors/psychiatrists are present in the field as a chaplain would be. I guess what I'm saying is, I need an atheist chaplain in foxholes to help the atheists in foxholes.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @TastyPaper,
    But if the atheists are already in the foxholes, why do you need another atheist in the foxholes? How many atheists can even fit in a foxhole? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thornman: You have called our Declaration of Independence "antiquated", although the War of Revolution was fought for the Declaration of Independence and men died, you dismiss their sacrifice, you have urged me to become educated (ad Hominem) and you talk about tolerance? Please explain your existence. Steven Hawkings says the law of gravity brought him into existence, this might account for his personal magnetism, but it does not explain where the law of gravity originated. If you cannot explain your existence you ought to be truthful enough to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mary, Stephen Hawking also says "Science makes God unnecessary."

    ReplyDelete
  39. I can explain my existence:

    The DNA that formed in the organic soup of the primordial world evolved through natural processes to conjure beings who joined together to give birth to a pattern that capitulates the organic structure that constitutes what I refer to as me, and a host of trillions of micro organisms, and will sustain in a similar fashion until the DNA breaks down, given that the right building materials and fuel is persistently supplied.

    ReplyDelete
  40. TastyPaper, since you're here and we can cordially discuss stuff, I've got a question for you.
    I've never heard a atheist or scientist able to explain to me, in a way that I understood and that didn't seem rather silly, how non-life became life. It's never been accomplished in a lab or observed that non-life can become life. How does that work?
    Can you give me that explanation?
    It's one of things that ties me to religion. Scientifically, I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Mouse
    First you have to establish that there's a difference, since what constitutes life is non-living molecules of chemicals. The base chemicals that constitute DNA are found elsewhere in the universe as well as in space. So when these chemical molecules build to a certain point that they are able to reproduce themselves, we call this life (also in this hazy line debate are viruses which could be viewed as both living and not.) So, in that way, life could be said to be chemical constructs that perpetuate themselves, and sometimes adapt in order to do so. I'm not sure how the question relates to theology though. Maybe you can explain that one.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well, why can't they make those chemicals in a lab? Why has no one ever seen them and documented them in their most basic form?

    Theology comes in here: Absent any scientific, provable, replicatable movement from a non-organic material to an organic, self-replicating material, the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that someone had to create that extraordinary leap from dead (non-living) to living. Why do my cells replicate? Why does my heart beat? Why does my blood live and replicate in my veins?
    How did the soggy mass of matter in my head learn to generate electrical impulses?

    Without a prime mover, none of this makes sense to me and I can't see what moved the matter on this little rock in this big universe to suddenly become separate itself from the non-moving to move of it's own volition.

    And Catholics don't take the Bible literally, so scientific explanations for things like dinosaurs are allowable and encouraged.

    I like my reality grounded in a science that is understandable and provable, but it fails me on this question.

    Sorry for the digression. I didn't know how else to state the answer to your quesion.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Mouse
    I admire your striving to base your view of reality on science, but you have to realize that sometimes the answer is "I don't know" and that that's far more honest than making up an answer and claiming that to be truth. Religion offers made up answers, science looks for answers from the evidence. Any answer I give you to this question is honest conjecture on my part, as research is being done into this question, and I admit that there may never be a concrete answer.

    But saying "God did it" doesn't answer any questions, because no one has offered the "how" portion of that "explanation." Define a God, and then explain how he created the universe. The bible attempts this, supposedly we humans are made from formed dirt (males) and rib bone (females.)

    I think you are assuming that because we can't replicate a process in a laboratory, that somehow it is special or has some sort of special quality. Evolution has had billions of years to shape the life we see today, mankind as a species has only existed for 150,000 years. We can study the processes of life, and come to understand how it evolved, but replicating it is illusive.

    Scientists at MIT have already created a better leaf in the lab. And yes, we can construct all new DNA chains. We are slowly figuring things out, but because we don't know everything, this does not give anyone license to assume their story is correct.

    If a scientist created a self-replicating molecule in the lab, what would you say?

    ReplyDelete
  44. @TastyPaper,
    That's probably the difference between you and me, as well as between any rational atheist I've ever spoken to and me.
    For you, the answer "I don't know; I may never know" is enough to satisfy your doubts.
    For me, I can believe that an almighty intelligence designed the elements, set the planets revolving around the sun, set the first spark of electricity moving and formed man, the only rational animal, apart from the others animals. The Bible, which, again, we don't take literally, may have specified dirt and rib bone. But it also states that man is created in God's image, giving him dignity and purpose.
    When I see the wonder around me (and, though I don't always understand them), I marvel at how much we are able to discover about the world around us. But there's still those little nagging doubts about where it all came from; how it all started. Science and math can't give me that; Catholicism can.
    And you may say those stories are made up, but they are the basis for my reverence for all human life, the fact that I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
    The amazing complexity around me is frustrating when I don't have answers. But if I believe a great intelligence designed it for us, poor mortals that we are, it gives me joy.
    Also, my faith gives me something no reason ever can. I recently lost a child. My faith says I will see her again someday. Your reason would have me believe that my loss is final.
    So, I'm sorry that I just can't accept "I don't know" and that the explanations that I get from my faith supply the gaps that reason can't fill.
    I can't reason my way to hope, or sacrificial love, or joy. I need faith for that.

    And if they could create life in the lab, odds are, I would go away and think about it for a while, and then, come back and say "Well, I guess that's how he did it. Can you make that molecule a tree or a kitten or a baby?" When man can become all that God is said to be, then I'll believe your reason over my faith.

    Be well, TastyPaper.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Mouse

    "I marvel at how much we are able to discover about the world around us. But there's still those little nagging doubts about where it all came from; how it all started. Science and math can't give me that; Catholicism can."

    If you value reality at all, you should know that just because Catholicism says it has the answers, that doesn't mean it does.

    "For me, I can believe that an almighty intelligence designed the elements, set the planets revolving around the sun..."

    Okay, explain the nature of that intelligence and how it was created. What you're alluding to is an infinite regress, and God doesn't get a special pass out of that. If he is incredibly complex, he must have had a creator as well, and then that creator must have had a creator, and so on.

    Your argument from ignorance doesn't hold any water. Just because you can't understand how these things came to be, it doesn't mean that humans can't. And any theory we can come up with will be more plausible than saying an infinitely complex being we can't remotely understand did it.

    "Can you make that molecule a tree or a kitten or a baby?""

    Evolution has, and we've demonstrated how.

    "When man can become all that God is said to be, then I'll believe your reason over my faith."

    The key phrase here is 'that God is said to be' in which case I might ask, what if he's not? What if the one true God was worshiped 4000 years ago and no longer has any surviving worshipers? What makes you think that anyone can know anything about a God without evidence. To me, God is a fictional character in a book called the Bible. I've never seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @TastyPaper,
    I was going to sign off on this, but the tone of your last post seemed frustrated and you're started to betray the arrogant condescension that usually keeps me from these discussions.

    What I've seen from science isn't contradicted by Catholicism, nor is it mutally exclusive. In fact, Catholicism offers the best "mesh" with science of any religion I've seen because of it's flexibility in that area.

    I resent the dig at my perception of reality. I never insulted you or your beliefs.

    Micro-evolution has been demonstrated; macro-evolution has not. When it has, I'll re-evaluate my stance on it.

    Your concept of the "Russian Nesting Doll" God is ludicrous at best and only demonstates your ignorance of the aguments of a Prime Mover, which were posited long before the dawn of Christianity.

    And, if humans can understand all these things and I can't then explain them. All of creation, distilled rationally and reasonably.

    The truth is, you can't. No one, ultimately, can.

    We muddle along doing the best we can with the world around us.

    For you, you choose ignorance in the form of "I don't know."

    For me, I choose to examine the explanations of a particular belief system and say "that makes sense."

    Try to be less narrow-minded in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Abandon HOPE all you who enter here" above the gates of hell. Man and Mouse know that they are frail and faulty, mortal and imperfect. God is love, Perfect LOVE, infinite, and immortal. The atheist says that there is no God, no LOVE, no perfection, no immortality, sowing despair among the victims of war and pestilence and discouragment. An atheist chaplain is going to be like pouring gasoline on an arson fire eating out the hearts of our countrymen.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Mouse: I thoroughly enjoyed your exchange with TastyPaper. You posts have clarity(something I pray to God for every day, sometimes twice a day)and exhibit a true affection for your adversary. Let us thank God for you and TastyPaper.

    ReplyDelete
  49. TastyPaper said...
    Mary, Stephen Hawking also says "Science makes God unnecessary."
    God is a PERSON,God is three Persons in the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Mankind is made in the image of God, a sovereign person worthy of all endowed civil rights, respect and acknowledgment of human dignity. SCIENCE IS NOT A PERSON. I REPEAT: SCIENCE IS NOT A PERSON, and if science is the god of Stephen Hawkings what respect and acknowledgment ought to be accorded to him and what self-respect can he have for himself as a non-person, or only a person not made in the image of the Divine Person of the God of LOVE??

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment