I want to specifically recognize that many atheists have worked well with the Church in the past, including visionary, author and human rights activist (and scientist!!) Carl Sagan.

It's a lot less absurd than it sounds to people who have read their history.

OK - I honestly don't have a problem with Catholics working with any organization that wants to do good work - and frankly, who but God Himself is able to judge the heart of man. Who but God Himself even knows if the Pope is born again. So yes, if I were to go do community service with my local church, I might be standing beside athiests...and they may see the good works of a church and second think their athiests.

I do believe a chrch should carefully examine their affiliations, to ensure that they are not advocating the beliefs of athiests or whatnot...

As for my questioning above...I do it to cause people to think, to see if people can support their ideas with religious principle, with Biblical understanding, or if it's all just "worldly" humanistic feel-good arguments that have nothing to do with God...because the purpose of the church *ultimately* is to advance God, which it does *by* serving the community. The purpose of the church is not to serve the community...it serves the community to serve God -- this is a *huge* distinction...

"The Church does a lot more than missionary work. " Of course it does....and all of it's works are done for a single purpose: To serve and promote God. Just as a Church would not voluntarily partake in an activity that tears down or belittles God...

....meaning that there is a danger in affiliations with ungodly organizations, in that outsiders may look at the cooperation and not see God...but see man...and think that God is unnecessary, because man is sufficient in and of himself....because the atheists you work along side sure as hell (pun...isn't a pun...but a reality...) won't give any credit to God...

As someone who was raised Catholic and now considers himself humanist, I think it's a wise thing for the new pope to say. What people fail to realize is that the Church's body of teaching extends far beyond apologetics and traditional morality. The great Catholic thinkers have written extensively on social justice, the environment, economics, law, spirituality, and the human condition in general, all of which are accessible topics to an atheist.

Given that, there is much that an atheistic body of wisdom could have in common with a Catholic one, so the two groups have potential to work together quite well, as long as the Catholic identity is not called into question (this is of particular importance to modern, more evangelical Catholics).

There is much that the US military and the German army in World World II had in common. They both wanted to exert political control over populations. They both wanted a stable government. They both wanted to control necessary resources....damn, they really should have worked together because they had so many common objectives....except that one wanted to exterminate the jews, for example, and the other wanted to save the Jews.

You know, kind of like the ultimate objective of most active athiests seem to be the elimination of God, and the purpose of the church is to glorify God...

That two organization may have some commonality does not mean they have an ultimately common purpose.

The church working in close conjunction with an athiest organization validates that organization and gives it the church's blessing, does it not? So the church should be blessing the absence of God?

I'm not saying that, for example, two organizations - the chrch and group x - can not combine efforts to (for example) feed hungry people. That is a good and noble thing, to feed the pooor and hungry...but a church should be clear in doing so that it is not "lifting up" that other organization. If a church helps to give press and popularity to an athiest organization - and therefore causes more people to be drawn to that athiest organzation (instead of the church) - is that not completely against the *ultimate* purpose of the church?

I know there is this insistence that the church has other purposes than evangelism, etc. But seriously...without God, there is no church - can we agree on that? And therefore, ultimately, the #1 priority of the church is God...and therefore anything that detracts from God is against the church...for if people stop believing in God, there is no church, right? Am I missing something? (And I ask this question quite seriously)

M. Krellin,

You are a very dear lad but I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you have a bit to learn about public policy.

Athiests do not want to help the poor or solve world hunger or end aids or stop global warming or save puppies.

Athiests are not an organised group with shared values. They just dont, as individuals, believe in god. Some people who want to do all those things don't believe in god, but they're unrelated.

Some athiests hate religion and think its the cause of all the worlds problems. Others think its a great thing and wish they could be a part of it, but they just can't, because they don't believe in the most basic premise of it. Some athiests are liberal, others are conservative. You just can't group them together.

I bet I can group them together. They are humam beings, not dogs or cats or cows.

Ok fair enough, but you could also group them with cats and dogs, being all mammals, not insects.

I could also group them with crocodiles and alligators as being creatures with legs or with gorillas as other great apes for obvious reasons.

But the real point is that most of humanity would like to end world suffering: hunger, disease, homelessness, and poverty.

So the pope should say that Hindus are friends of the church. Or construction workers. Or under water welders. They at least all have something in common with each other apart from a lack of faith.

Seeing as you are missing the entire point of the pope's statement, I'm just going to assume you are rither trolling or an idiot and consider this conversation over.

You know how closet gays overuse the word fag so no one thinks they're one? I'm beginning to think you might be a closet idiot because you overuse that word so much. Are you afraid that you're dumb draug? Your way too quick to call people idiots when you can't get your point across or when they simply won't play your rules in a conversation. I'm going to go to your replies and search for idiot. Any bets on how many hits I get?

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 8388608 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 4918674 bytes)

Damn, you've replied so much you've broken apache

As a Christian, I admire the faith of Atheists. To say with certainty 'there is no God' indicates that they have proof that not a single atom in the universe contains God. If they don't not have the required scientific proof to back up their position then they are as much people of faith as those who subscribe to the concept of God.

@5C: you start of saying you admire their faith, then speak about proof. This seems contradictory, even in your deliberately absurd example. There is no proof for or against god. Faith is belief in absense of proof. Athiests simply don't believe in the absense of proof. To say they don't believe because they have proof, even in your mocking fashion, is to misunderstand their position.

I think faith is a powerful thing. To still believe in God and miracles and magic and stuff in this day and age is no mean feat (as there is so much scientific evidence around to refute God building the universe for example)
It helps me realize how important it is to be a believer, to believe in something, to have faith in something.
Without faith, without hope, where are we?
Whether you take your faith from religion or anything else how important is it that we believe in something?
Having faith in a deity is no bad thing as they are omnipotent.
If all the people of faith stopped believing would the world descend into anarchy, it's an interesting thought.
Some have described religion as the opium of the people, the non-believers have replaced this today with temazepam et al, maybe it's the people who believe in nothing that are the people with the biggest problems.

@Krellin,
I guess the most important distinction I'd make here is the difference between Atheist organizations and secular organizations of which some Atheists are members. Do I think the Church and the Freedom From Religion Foundation could work together? Probably not, because the FFRF's primary goal is the removal of religion from state-funded discourse. But could they work with secular human service organizations? Absolutely. Because along with glorifying God, the church's function is to be Christ's ambassador on Earth, to represent and emulate Him before man. And Christ was very explicit that the best way to emulate him was to serve.

@Philcore,
I was about to call you an ass-hat for saying that Atheists do not wish to help the poor. Then I realized all you meant was that it's unfair to say that all Atheists wish to do so, which is a fair point. But some do. And among those certain Atheists, there are probably a few who would be surprised to learn that Christ came deliberately as a servant. The more the Church models Christ's humility and service, the more it will have a chance to reach people with its message that Christ emphasized humility, service *and* righteousness, not judgmental legalism.

@Nigee,
Never confuse atheism with nihilism. They can co-exist, but most people who don't believe in God have great faith in something. I, for one, have tremendous faith in the good will, intelligence, and cooperation of my fellow man. I believe humanity can and will one day work together to make life better for all of us, and solve the problems of war, hunger, and disease. I describe this as a faith, because it takes deliberate will to believe this in the face of what sometimes looks like overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So never doubt that atheists can understand faith. It's just that my faith isn't in a god; it's in you.

@hecks - I would suggest that the people who want a faith or need a faith in something find something to believe in, that doesn't have to be religion. I also know a number of people with no faith, who seem to have lost faith in themselves and the world around them, they don't even have blind faith.
They take the drugs to fill the gap, dull the thinking, ease the anxiety, unhappiness, misery that they feel in their lives.
Even though I'm not religious I have blind faith because the alternative is too hopeless to manage on a day to day basis.
The strange paradox I find with many religious people which I don't normally see in atheists is their attitude to war and killing, I'm always amazed how God-fearing people can justify killing or murder or war, as long as it's 'just' of course.
That never ceases to amaze me and I still don't think I fully understand their logic.
If Jesus were alive today what would his take be on the plight of the Palestinians for example, would he 'do an Obama' and tell the Jewish people what a great job they're doing ...... I wonder.

@Phil. An atheist states an absolute 'there is no God'. Of anyone stating an absolute, proof is required. Of course, proving a negative is almost impossible. To water down their position in any wAy reduces their atheist status to that of agnostic.

I have never understood the assumption that finding proof of God would make someone turn instantly into an active church going Christian. My relationship with God is akin to my relationship with the Yeti. I am not completely sure that they do not exist, but believe the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of them not existing. If someone were to show me proof that they do exist I would change my mind instantly, but I see no reason this would change my actual behavoir one iota, and I certainly wouldn't start worshiping at the alter of the big, hairy foot.

As far as the Pope working with atheists goes, I don't see how it's a surprsie. I think every Pope has done so to a greater of lesser extent (and I suspect that more than one Pope has been an atheist). For one with perfect faith it is obvious that atheists are part of God's plan and many, if not most, of them are good people. It is clear that they should be allies, surely? As obvious as it is that all attempts should be made to convince them of the Truth. (I use the captial Truth to differentiate God's Truth from actual truth)

"M. Krellin,

You are a very dear lad but I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you have a bit to learn about public policy. "

The Catholic Church is not a public institution - it is supposed to be the home of God on earth...you and I have a fundamentally different idea of what a church exists for.

Tell me: What is the primary purpose of a church? If you had to strip away every single aspect of the church but one thing, what would that one thing be? Feeding the poor? Building Hospitals? Worshipping God? what is the central focal point of a church?

Answer that and we'll see where you come from , Al.

Haven't read all the above posts, sorry. It's usually too damned depressing.
State my position. I think this Pope is the best Pope we've seen since John Paul II. Maybe even better.
I am not RC. I was baptised Protestant, though I tried to get that annulled at the age of 12, to little avail. Became a self-avowed atheist. Had all the arguments to back me up.
This was 50's / 60's. (Last century.)
90's: Became Muslim to marry Turkish woman. When she changed to a form of Buddhism I tried to follow her, but I just could not take their sh*t.
Now Taoist (which is an atheist with some kind of exemplary philosophy).

"(as there is so much scientific evidence around to refute God building the universe for example)" In fact, there is zero evidence to support that the universe was created by God. There *is* scientific evidence to support that since a point in time a bunch of stuff has happened. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence as to what happened before this moment in time. There is evidence to suggest that the universe "erupted" or "expanded" - choose your word - from a sub-atomic mass into the mass of the universe, which can not be contained in a sub-atomic space. Nobody has answered where the mass came from - was it created? Did it come from somewhere else? etc.


So no, there is absolutely *zero* evidence to disprove God.

"I guess the most important distinction I'd make here is the difference between Atheist organizations and secular organizations of which some Atheists are members."

The OP referred to "athiests", not "secular". I acknowledge the difference, which is why I have specifically referred to the idea that an organization that seeks to eliminate God joining forces with an organization who's primary purpose is to glory God in inherently problematic, no matter the purpose of their joining forces.

POLITICS: In the world of politics, if one party, say the Republican, suggest a perfect piece of legislation that will largely solve the nations problems, the chance of that legislation passing are nil, because the Democrats would have to go along with it, and the Democrat President would have to sign the bill in to law. This *cannot* happen, because in so doing, the Democrats realize that they will help the cause of the Republicans, who had the great idea, and thus harm their own standing.

We have seen this demonstrated over and over again, and a good many of you here also play such politics -- you can't imagine that Party X can do anything right, you can't imagine that News Network Y can ever report honestly. So in real life, you acknowledge that inherent problem of cooperating and coordinating with your avowed enemy -- and let's be honest, Atheism is *at war* with the Church, by definition -- but whereas you understand that politicians can't help each other because it might help the cause of the other, you think the Godly and the Ungoldy should...

This is not to say that political parties shouldn't cooperate - they should - but the reality one party alwasy gets the credit, and the other party is always harmed by the mouthpieces that report on such activities. So -- does the Catholic Church seek to harm itself when the headlines report "Atheists Feed the Poor, Catholic Church helps Atheists" -- does that not subjugate The Church, and therefore God, to the UnGodly, and suggest to the non-believer that the Church should be seeking to bring in to the flock that Atheism is just as good as God?

--

As for the purpose of the Church: Feeding the poor, all that crap, is fine and dandy and it is a function of church outreaach. But ask *any* born-again Christian that believes in salvation through Christ and eternal Heaven (which by definition includes the Catholic Church): Would you rather be filled with food for 80 years and then spend an eternity in Hell? Or would you rather be poor on earth, and spend an eternity in Heaven? The proper answer of a church is eternal life in Heaven, not full on earth. We'd *like* you to be full on earth and not suffer if possible, but if in order to do so, you deny a person the knowledge of Christ and salvation, you have in fact perverted the purpose of the church, and damned someone to eternal suffering. It is *NOT* about "public policy" - the Church *is*, without question, about eternal salvation, and everything else the church does reflects on that singular primary purpose. Christ's sermons, his teachings, everything he did was to bring people *to Him*, to knowledge of Him, to salvation. He didn't just feed people and then slink away quietly...it alwasy came with a message of Himself leading to believing in Him and salvation. So how to do stand with an atheist and give that message?

OK...off to a busy Saturday...done rambling on.