Colbert's religion
-
nikkiten1979 — 11 years ago(December 19, 2014 07:38 AM)
We know that there is no evidence for the supernatural because if there were then many scientific books would have to be rewritten and Nobel prized to be handed out.
People claiming to have supernatural abilities have been constantly tried in controlled experiments and they fail.
Of course we cannot know whether there is evidence for such things in the future, but we could say this about an infinite number of things. And forget about seeing, people have all sorts of mental problems and misconceptions that make them see and go through many kinds of things. People of all religions do this, but if their holy books are right then they cannot all be right, but they could easily all be wrong.
Talking about people with supernatural abilities I have actually witnessed it myself with my own eyes and have zero explanation for what I saw - I tend to be irrationally skeptical about these types of claims. Most claims are bogus, but some really are not. You can't always test a person like that - one needs to have all the conditions to line up for them. Controlled experiments are recipes for failure. I can play the piano really well at home, but put me in front of an audience and I will freeze - nothing will happen, it's as if I don't know what a piano is
I AM DEE BEE 10 years ! -
zerobeat — 15 years ago(May 23, 2010 01:45 PM)
ajones1113-2 writes:
"A person or belief system can only be said to be delusional when they refuse to integrate or reconcile fact into their worldview, hence, free-thinkers like Spong, Tutu, Tillich or even the Vatican (which does take into consideration modern scientific findings) can't seriously be considered delusional. "
I suppose it's all degrees of delusion. A small child may literally believe in Santa Claus because parents feed that [mostly harmless] "prank". As the child gets a little older it becomes obvious that it's all fantasy by virtue of just being exposed to logic and reality, and not necessarily because the parents have revealed it all to be fake (although that will hasten the reality check). A 12 year old who still literally believes in Santa Claus, even when all manner of reality and logic is made clear, would be considered as delusional. When that child becomes and adult and still believes these things, there might be no hope of living a rational life.
But somehow when the supernatural belief is based in religion, a different set of standards is applied.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ajones1113-2 writes:
"while religion can very often pave the way to violence and fundamentalism, there's no reason to condemn or ridicule somebb68ody simply because they have religious beliefs. "
Agreed, their actions should be the basis of judgement.
-
zerobeat — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 07:51 PM)
I'm guessing that a certain percentage of people I consider quite rational and sane (like Colbert), but who are also religious, are probably hedging their bets "just in case". Or they just live in a situation where it would be too awkward not behave religiously (say, peer pressure). They would likely relish the no1c84tion that religion might one day be irrefutably proved as false (even though the onus should be on religion to provide a scintilla of evidence that it's true, as opposed to playing the "faith" card).
-
SylvesterFox007 — 15 years ago(July 20, 2010 08:51 PM)
Just take a look for yourself:
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_09-23-2007/AStephen_Colbert
The games afoot. Follow your spirit and upon this charge cry God for Harry,England,and St. George -
Sawyer_Lost — 13 years ago(July 13, 2012 12:12 AM)
I haven't missed a single Colbert Report in 6+ years and I'm willing to bet anything that I have that Colbert is secretly an agnostic. Not only because he mocks (even moderate) religious beliefs the way he does, you can get also get a clear sense of it when you watch his interviews with scientists, or atheist authors like Dawkins or Sam Harris. I'm sure he knows that most things in the Bible are fictitious, he mocks scripture regularly. Still, he probably gets a kick out of scripture, too, he has an ardent love for fantasy (a big Lord of the Rings fan) so fantasy is what it is for him mostly - and he just picks out all the moral bits and teaches those at sunday school.
His mother is a devout, 91-year old catholic. I could imagine that he doesn't want to disappoint her as long as she's alive by renouncing his religion, but in the meantime he's doing his best mocking it.
Team Coco -
culwin — 13 years ago(September 07, 2012 11:45 AM)
A huge number - I would guess a majority - of American Catholics are "Catholic in Name Only". It's pretty clear cut what Catholics are supposed to do and believe (there's no room for "interpretation"), but none of the Catholics that I know, follow or believe in the Church's dogma or teachings 100%. Most of them only go to church a couple of times a year.
^Signature is below here
< I'm the first to ever use this icon -
neerood — 11 years ago(April 10, 2014 05:59 PM)
Indeed, I think you've nailed it.
And many self-professed devout Catholics don't defend or even recognize the main pillars of their religion if asked.
Show me a Catholic who thinks cannibalism is OK (eating Christ's "flesh", drinking "blood") or believes in daily liquid miracles (wine turning into blood, water turning into wine)
Few priests would even sign off on these, yet these are two of the most important and inflexible rules of Catholic belief. Then tack on other mandatory beliefs like virgin birth, reversal of death, and literal interpretation of a 6000 year old planet.
As for the religion becoming "modern" with recent PR friendly mild comments about gays sorry but as long as the Catholic church continues to have "infallible" regulations that any man is expressly superior to all women, they still have a long way to go. And Colbert seems to know that. -
pilarinhavana — 11 years ago(April 10, 2014 11:39 PM)
and literal interpretation of a 6000 year old planet.
That's not a Catholic teaching.
The Time Question
Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite agethat it has not existed from all eternitybut it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universes age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).
The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies whic5b4h have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).
It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the accounta chronological reading and a topical reading.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution -
neerood — 11 years ago(April 11, 2014 01:56 AM)
Umm, did you read the section you quoted?
Especially the part which reads "the church has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago."
So they are saying "the Catholic church still hasn't decided if the earth is 6000 years old".
Talk about damning with faint confidence. They are basically saying, it could be, or it couldn't be, there's no way to tell! They're saying "we're not saying the fossil records are fake, but yeah, they are probably fakes planted by Beelzebub."
Elsewhere on that page are humorous anecdotes like "It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 23) as a fiction."
Yep, all the people in the world came from two fully evolved characters Adam and Eve, whose children used incest to populate the earth. I'd say "nice story bro" except the Catholic church says treating it as a good learning story is "impermissible". Like really impermissible? Or just kind of lightly impermissible, like how child abuse isn't permissible, but it actually is, you just have to keep it quiet?
They also state "the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing". Ooooooookay. It's one thing to make a bold statement that defies known science. But then tacking on that ominous "infallibly determined" is just going a bit far don't you think? Is it the same way they infallibly determine which people need to have exorcisms, or which kings get to kill their inconvenient wives? -
pilarinhavana — 11 years ago(April 11, 2014 11:17 AM)
Even so the above is not a literal translation for a 6000 year old universe, i. e., Young Earth Creationism. I'm an atheist and don't subscribe to any religious teaching, however I don't like disinformation no matter what its purpose and the RC church is not a fundamentalist teaching body. It teaches authority to protect the faith was instilled in the church at Pentecost that has been handed down by apostolic tradition. That's why only Rome and Bishops hand out edicts rather than some random preacher flapping a Bible at a congregation telling parishioners what to believe.
-
neerood — 11 years ago(April 11, 2014 04:50 PM)
The Catholic church is saying "We still haven't decided if the earth is 6000 years old." Not being sure is essentially saying it's possible, which is just dumb and misinformational. Would you say "I'm still trying to decide if the earth is flat, jury is still out on that!" That's exactly what they are saying.
And I disagree with you that having only Rome and Bishops hand out edicts is good.
Who cares who sends the message encouraging Africans to circumvent anti-HIV education, or that women are a sub-species to men? A harmful edict is a harmful edict. Declaring it "infallible" just makes it more of a joke, and is only done to scare people who believe in a vengeful god that will punish anyone who doesn't believe the edicts. -
pilarinhavana — 11 years ago(April 11, 2014 06:13 PM)
And I disagree with you that having only Rome and Bishops hand out edicts is good.
Point out whe1354re I said it was "good."
The Church does not teach Young Earth Creationismfact. The priest in the pulpit cannot teach Church doctrine that is not in the catechismfact. That you don't like those facts isn't my problemfact.