sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
particularly solid and has never been so.
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org