May I ask did anyone watched the Lincoln film if you liked it or not?

There are theories that MLK plagiarized his 'I Have A Dream' speech because he supposedly 'cheated' a ton in college. I'm probably wrong, but you never know.

My mother loved it and I think I've spoken enough in this thread about how into that subject she is. I'm 50 miles from a theatre so I'll give you a heads up when I get the DVD.

Saints don't generally become saints by making claims, but by living a life marked by Christian behavior, which includes humility. I'm not a Catholic, but of the Catholics I've talked with on this topic, not one of them considers saints to be intermediaries between God and humans. That would actually be to go against what the Bible teaches.

It's fine to study religions that you find to be fascinating, but you should only believe a religion that you think is true, which aren't necessary the same things.

Actually, yes. Quite a number of utilitarian humanists like to imagine we're asymptotically approaching the Ultimate Good. I don't think so. As humanity progresses, it will inevitably create many more issues to be stupid and wrong about. So there *is* progress, but it is not capped.

Actually people easily pray specialized saints (including mary) to intercede for them, rather than bothering the big chief directly. Also, saints being all perfect, they're also humble (okay, one could argue that the all perfect god is slightly lacking in that department, but that's another debate), but that's not really the point : saints are generally not contemporary to their users (even if their construction and officialisation may sometimes be). So, they don't have to build up themselves their own cult to themselves. But they are sanctified and idealised by others, who define them as exemplary, holy, and worship-worthy. There again, it varies a lot with different trends of christianism, and in the space between the official word versus actual popular practices. But yeah, saints (more than angels) often serve as communication channel between the earthly world and heavens. Plus, of course, the fringe cases of synchretisms, where saints become the new clothes of old, christianized, entities.

You shouldn't worry about that, narrow-mindedness is independant from these beliefs. Atheists would argue that atheism makes people more open-minded, as it frees them from some Infaillible Word of God, and allows them to rethink and renegociate any moral problem, in accordance with the evolution of society, knowledge, technology, etc. In practice, some believers go "God says so, therefor this is moral, whgo am I to question this", but many rather go "this is not fair, therefore God could not have meant this", and then argue theologically like an atheist would. And likewise, atheists can also construct secular dogmas, and follow them to the letter, refusing to question any sort of belief and to risk discarding any moral position in which they've already invested too much of themselves. It's two different forms of narrow-mindedness or open-mindedness, two different flavors, but all in all, the consequences are equivalent in the religious or secular versions.

There are other, more serious reasons to fear of becoming an atheist. Death becomes unbearable (in practice, I think no atheist manages to fully cope with this form of absolute separation), injustice is never compensated after death (which puts an immense strain of responsability on moral decisions, and make the unfair even more impossibly tragic), there is no way to negociate with sheer luck and randomness (again, other forms of superstition may help there), and as everything is to be constructed, no guideline and no course of action is definitely legitimised by some over-human spirit : we're all merely tinkering with our lives, planet and perception. But there again, many atheists find refuge in other forms of (secular) moral authorities - politics, etc.

Simply said : atheism is bleak, despaired, and extremely brutal on the mind. As an atheists, I consider gods as fictions, but I think that everybody seeks refuge to analogous fictions, more or less formalised, more or less endorsed. Religions offer a ready-made, collectively supported narrative. We atheists have to find other ways to not directly face what would swallow and shatter our minds. But there's an emptiness at the corner of our eyes that is always ready to leap at us and engulf us. I think this is the thing you should worry about. The rest (empathy, open-mindedness, curiosity, etc) is completely independant, and you'll find the same amount of sectarian fundamentalists on both sides...

Being an atheist is a bitch, but I try to find comfort in the fact that my children will carry my genes into the future. Living forever sounds like hell. It won't provide selfworth or purpose. Death is the sweet release from the constant self-inquiry of ones existance.

I'm an anthiest and while you make an interesting (and beautifully written) point, I'm afraid it may be a tad sweeping. If anything I carry around a sense of festidious pride knowing that I am capable of running my own life and not dependant on theology to do it for me. Where you see emptiness I see vastness. There are no limits to what my mind can concieve or look to because I've never had any limits forced on me through convention or religeos dogma. Granted, the idea of death being final does freak me out from time to time, but I just remind myself it is another reason to live the life I have instead of waiting around preparing to live one that I'm not going to get. When this doesn't work to calm me down I simply remind myself that ultimatly I just don't care. :)

SIDE NOTE: Could GOG look into getting a spell check installed into the forum!? The spelling in MY post makes me look like an idiot savant!

people are never as good as they are portrayed that is just the fact of life.
Its unfortunate, but thats just the way it is - nobodys perfect - especially when it comes to politics!

Well yes, but if you genuinely want to believe in something, it'll probably be much easier to get into something you find fascinating than ... Well ... Not.

Sorry, I somehow skipped a few words. I meant to say, "It's fine to study religions that you find to be fascinating, but you should only believe a religion that you think is true, which aren't necessary the same things." It just sounds odd to me to use studying things you find fascinating as a means to be able to believe something that you wanted to believe rather than using your fascination of a topic as motivation to discover which things about it are true or false.

I still think you're misinterpreting me, some people feel the urge to believe in something, to be a part of something larger. If this kind of person finds some religion fascinating, likes it, or ... just use whatever term you'd like, said person most probably likes the idea of what the religion stands for (or even believes in it already in his own way.) The bad thing is that there's a high probability that he/she has never even heard of the said religion / set of beliefs, so a bit of study into them can help.

I'll stick with Jesus Christ thank you very much

I think it is just for some people easy to communicate with god, through a saint. Just because god is unimaginable big. Although this connection to god through a saint does not prevent a direct communication to god.
If asking a saint to intercede for them, helps them praying I think it is a good thing.

From my side I pray to god father/son/spirit and ask the saints to intercede for me.

me too :D

//OFFTOPIC: A really nice and calm conversation about religion. Is it Gog's AntiDRM policy that grants us peace? XD

Your instincts are right. Lincoln certainly was no saint. MLK Jr. certainly wasn't either. He was a blatant plaguerist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._authorship_issues

The people who move civilization are not politicians. They are the scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Our standard of living depends on them.

I love to show a letter John Locke once wrote to the Irish parliament telling them to allow child labor. Why would the inventor of the Rights of Man do that? He was traveling and saw that Irish children were starving unless they be allowed to work (the child labor laws were killing these kids).

The point is that the politicians can do things that are already done. As for Lincoln, the American Civil War is best described as the Industrial North Versus the Feudalistic South. It is the North's industry that made that happen. It is also that industrialization that freed slaves. The North certainly loved to profit from South's slavery when shipping cotton out on maritime trade. But when was the last time you saw a celebration or an inquiring into the Industrial Revolution?

I'm beginning to think that knowledge should be divided by political knowledge to determine 'smart'. The more political knowledge one knows, the stupider one actually is. Imagine if Spielberg made a movie highlighting an engineer or inventor or something? Did the world really need another movie about Lincoln?