New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[Ideologue]

Fred Clark's way cool.  His only fault is his pacifist fahdizism, which militates against not just air war, but all sorts of wars!  It's ridiculous.

[Tamas]

I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

A toilet smells of human needs and weaknesses, too, and I yet I still believe in toilets.  Though I suppose, what with you being from Eastern Europe, you might not believe in them, at least the indoor variety.

really, that low, man?

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

[Ed Anger]

Stop apologizing. 

[Razgovory]

I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

A toilet smells of human needs and weaknesses, too, and I yet I still believe in toilets.  Though I suppose, what with you being from Eastern Europe, you might not believe in them, at least the indoor variety.

The fact that Athiesm feeds Tamas need to feel superior to be others must be lost on him.

[CountDeMoney]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Tamas has been beeten from the thread.

[Valmy]

I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

It is not real (I mean not in the way rocks are real anyway).  I am not questioning why you are an Atheist, I am questioning why you are acting like an idiot when we all know you are not.

[merithyn]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Yeah... sounds it.

I'm pretty secure in my beliefs, but that doesn't mean that I won't be offended by having someone call me ignorant for having any beliefs outside of science.

[sbr]

I am an Atheist because I think religion just smells of human needs and weaknesses way too obviously to be real.

It is not real (I mean not in the way rocks are real anyway).  I am not questioning why you are an Atheist, I am questioning why you are acting like an idiot when we all know you are not.

Are we sure?

[grumbler]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

[Camerus]

I've read in a variety of sources (some sympathetic and some not)that the canonical texts were chosen on the basis of their being the first ones. Even the order of the gospels supports that view(with the possible exception of Matthew and Mark). It further seems unlikely the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical ones.

Site me on that one, will you? Because my research indicates otherwise. Especially since Matthew & Luke ( I think you mean Luke, not Mark) are believed to be written roughly the same time period as Mary & Peter.

No, I mean exactly what I said I did:  Matthew and Mark.  The order of the canonical gospels corresponds to the chronological order in which they were written (in the eyes of most scholars), with the exception of Matthew and Mark, with most scholars believing that Mark was actually written before Matthew (with a small minority believing otherwise). 

If you want me to "site" you on that one, just check out Wikipedia to know your beliefs are held by a very small minority of scholars:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Just some points from there:

    Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]

    Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]

    Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]

    John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

The gospel of Peter was likely written in the first half of the 2nd century.[

[for Thomas] a few scholars argue that its first edition was written c. 50–60, but that the surviving edition was written in the first half of the 2nd century.[81] This would mean that its first edition was contemporary with the earliest letters of Paul the Apostle. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that the original may date from c. 150.[82] It may represent a tradition independent from the canonical gospels, but that developed over a long time and was influenced by Matthew and Luke.[82]

[Camerus]

Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

While coming up with a very specific date is likely impossible, approximate dating is not as difficult as you may be claiming.  There are a number of tools in the scholars' arsenal, including theological maturity of the text, influences from other sources and so on, that can be used in the process. That is why the canonical gospels are generally agreed to have been written before the gnostic ones.  The sole exception to this that most scholars agree upon is the existence of the so-called Q (German for "Quelle") which contained some sayings of Jesus that may have informed the writing of the synoptic gospels.

There can be no doubt that each of the canonical gospels was influenced to some degree by oral tradition, since even the earliest was written several decades after the death of Christ.  Nevertheless, at least as the synoptic gospels are concerned, they seem to bare enough core similarities and have been written earlier to have a greater claim toward being authentic than later texts influenced by other traditions.

[Tamas]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

Well the contempt thing was in Raz`s head. And I judged that argument as often used and thus well known. 

[CountDeMoney]

Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

[grumbler]

And I judged that argument as often used and thus well known.   

And I judged that there was a very good reason only a Marti would use the "The Hobbit is as historically accurate as The Bible" argument. 

[Tamas]

Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

I am NOT going into the confession booth with you, old man.