I don't think that people really get to choose their beliefs. Colbert happens to be one of the people who does believe in a God. That doesn't make him stupid, unless we're trying to dismiss literally 85% of the world right off the bat?
I'm an Atheist, he isn't. So what? His religion and his politics do not mix with his job. To me, the way he goes after religious entities and conventions just speaks to his professionalism as a comedian.
I don't understand this confusion or anger over somebody else being a Theist. As long as they're not pushing their religion on me, I give a net negative sh_ts about their faith. There are enough douchebags in the world without arbitrarily limiting yourself down to only 15% of the world.

I don't find the two facts hard to reconcile at all. Colbert won't let the ridiculous side of religion ruin what he sees as the good in it, because he realizes that they are two different things. The faith itself inspires many people to be selfless, hard working, and humble, and there are very many Catholics who follow those teachings well; we just don't hear about them in the news. And because that good side of the Church isn't as well known as the dark, scandalous, hypocritical side, it can be hard for many non-Catholics to realize that it's the more common side. But I think that Colbert, having grown up in the religion, does see the good from the inside and gets inspiration from it, especially from (many of) the saints. Some ex-Catholics have responded to the evil in the Church by walking away from it, but maybe Colbert is among those who have chosen to respond to it by staying in the Church and standing up for the good in it. That's probably why he teaches Sunday school.
In that sense, Colbert is similar to Plato and Rousseau. Plato criticized poetry not because he hated it but because he loved it. He was worried that it was being corrupted and therefore hated the corrupt side of it, but that doesn't mean he hated poetry in itself. In fact, he criticized the bad side of it precisely because he loved the good side, and he didn't want the good to give way to the bad. It was the same with Rousseau and the theatre, and I think it's the same with Colbert and Catholicism.

In fact Colbert has defended the doctrines of Christianity in few occasions on his show when his guests have challenged them, you can read more here:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/6-times-stephen-colbert-got-serious-about-faith
Especially in Philip Zimbardo's case he got out of character and defended the Christian teaching. Zimbardo just repled to Colbert "people learn all kind of stuff at Sunday School" (or something like that) and Colbert replied "I teach at Sunday school, mo******cker!"
I think Colbert has a clear line, he jokes about his religion but never lowers himself to the level of Bill Maher who does outright, childish, blasphemy only in order to insult people of faith a2000nd please his atheist fans. I think its completely possible to joke about own beliefs and still hold them true and important. Also, if Colbert were secretly an agnostic, there would not be any point in talking publicly about his faith. He could keep his agnostic beliefs personal and let her mom have the impression he has faith in their private talks. Now he is doing a good PR for Christianity by being an example of a smart Christian who also has a sense of humour.
The reason why he has people like Harris and Dawkins on his show is that he knows his audience is overwhelimgly liberal and that audience likes those authors. Besides, you dont have to agree with your guests. In fact Jon Stewart suggested to Richard Dawkins that he believes "there is something in between" the claims "God created world 6000 years ago" and "everything is pure chance, universe and all". Contrary to the common belief, I think Stewart is not an agnostic but Jewish by faith. If im not mistaken, he mentioned on Letterman that he is teaches that stuff to her daugher.
It's rather stupid to assume that there can not be intelligent Christians or other people of faith. It tells a lot about the person who assumes that.

This message has been deleted.

Catholic teachings are not about literal interpretations (that's Protestants and Muslims), it's almost always symbolic.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit?

Nigel Tufnel

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

This message has been deleted.

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

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).

?????????? He's a Catholic??? That was one of the most shocking things I've heard in a long time. How can such a clear-minded person be religious?

This thread is the delusion

America and a lot of European countries have had a lot of bad political history as well.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit?

Nigel Tufnel

This message has been deleted.

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.

The Atheist doesn't claim to know. That's where your argument here is flawed.

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 !