huh?

n.b. -- agnostic atheist in the house here

The nationalities of Popes and influence of the Papacy aren't lies, especially when presented in a context that shows the political (not religious) rationales for the decisions.

I mean, I'm not Catholic (or even Christian), but I see the importance and intrigue that surrounds the office.

I'm fairly certain that those two claims are irreconcilable. To simultaneously believe that the truth of something is unknowable and claim that you know that that thing is false seems rather schizoid to me.

I should have said schizophrenic. I apologize for the unintended malapropism. I was not accusing you of being antisocial.

Schizoid and antisocial are not the same disorder, although antisocial individuals can can manifest schizoid tendencies.

Atheism (and theism) are statements of belief. Agnosticism is a statement of fact. Not schizophrenic.

Atheism -- belief that there is no such thing as a God/the supernatural
Theism -- belief that there is such thing as a God/the supernatural
Agnosticism -- statement that the individual has no clue whether or not there is such thing as a God/the supernatural

Nor is it irreconcilable to be agnostic and atheist/theist. Simply claiming one doesn't know the answer to the theist/atheist question is insufficient; agnosticism is choosing not to choose a side, which works as a pure statement of belief but doesn't work when one has a choice between atheist or theist action. (For a broad example, say one is commanded to go to church once a week as part of one's faith. You cannot abstain from that decision, because "going to church" and "not going to church" constitute all the actions one can take on that day of the week. One cannot neither go to church nor not go to church, if that makes sense; you have to choose between going or not going, whereas an 'agnostic' would, on virtue of not deciding between the two sides of the question, not decide whether or not to go.)

As the band Rush puts it in their song "Freewill": "If you choose not to decide / You still have made a choice." You can't choose not to decide when you have to act on something.

So in terms of pure, isolated statements of belief, I am an agnostic; I am willing to acknowledge I don't ultimately know. But for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist.

And furthermore I'm not too concerned about the agnostic label, even. I'm as agnostic about a God as I am about fairies. Sure, they might be there, invisible, not emitting a heat signature, granting those little wishes I absentmindedly find myself thinking and surprised to see come true; but I sure as hell don't believe there are fairies there. Replace fairies with God and the statement holds, at least for me.

Oh, and:

"The nationalities of Popes and influence of the Papacy aren't lies, especially when presented in a context that shows the political (not religious) rationales for the decisions."

I know. I'm just stirring up trouble. ;)

Most people would describe schizoid persons as being antisocial. Antisocial Personality Disorder is something fairly distinct and not what an average person in everyday discussions would mean by antisocial. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not what most people mean when they call someone narcissistic.

I still stick to my contention that Agnosticism is as in conflict with Atheism as with Christianity.....presuming that one does not take an extreme position on what "knowing" signifies.

What exactly is an "extreme' position on what knowing signifies?

This article on About.com puts the issue pretty succinctly in layman's terms. (Advise you skip down to the last paragraph under the "Prejudice" heading; the parts before that aren't necessary and some of them might be a turnoff appearing to play the oppression/persecution/whatever card when it's not necessary.) Agnosticism is entirely a statement of knowledge, whereas atheism *and* theism are statements of belief. The difference between the two is very significant.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

One could contend that nothing is "knowable" in a rationalist sense.

The other is not something I am going to debate with you. The definition I use for Agnosticism is an assertion of unknowability, which I consider in conflict with either Atheism or Theism. One can certainly be a "hopeful Agnostic" but that would preclude genuine and sincere Christianity. I should think that "pessimistic Agnosticism" would similarly pose problems for achieving genuine Atheism.

I think this was less of a lie and more of a statement of ignorance (like all you Christians claiming Jesus was son of god)

Who are "all you Christians"? And what does any of that have to do with the Nationality of Popes?

Your definition of agnosticism is fine, but I have to say that defining theism (or atheism) in such a way that requires one to *know* the supernatural exists (or does not exist) to be theistic (or atheistic) is flawed. Because otherwise, on merit of the rationalist's "knowing" definition (that is, essentially, we know what we can logically deduce about existence), theism or atheism doesn't exist yet. No one has produced a logical proof for the existence of the supernatural and it is inherently impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

Hence, theism and atheism must be statements of belief. (a note: Merriam-Webster defines theism as "belief in the existence of a god or gods" and atheism as "a disbelief in the existence of a deity" -- both are statements of belief) So it is not contradictory to say that I don't know if a God exists or not and I don't believe in one's existence.

(@fasces: see above, stirring pot for funsies)

And yes, this has nothing to do with the pope's nationality, I'm just yanking chains here. ;) As for the original topic, um... cool story, bro, I guess. lol. Grandma probably forgot about Adrian VI... why, I wouldn't know. He started the Counter-Reformation, so it's not like he's obscure.

He also broke up the Medici reign.

Generally, my grandmother knew everything. She knew FDR, Albert Einstein, Lou Gehrig, Earl Long and HL Hunt personally.

Might have just been a slip of the mind, then. He's a pretty important guy in Roman Catholic Church history.

"Who are "all you Christians"? And what does any of that have to do with the Nationality of Popes?"
I am saying is who cares about the nationality of the popes, the God they claim to represent is a lie, so why does it matter?

He still lasted less than 2 years, and the Counter Reformation claim is tenuous. I'd consider the founding of the Jesuits as being more significant than saying Luther should be put on trial.

@fasces, you don't seem to have answered either question put to you. To whom specifically were you comments addressed, and what was their significance to the discussion at hand beyond testifying to your personal bigotries?

@gopher: All he managed to do before he died regarding Lutheranism was call for Luther to be put on trial, sure, but I would argue that set the train in motion for the Council of Trent some 20+ years later.
@fasces: The point really didn't have anything to do with religion at all -- if you look, the topic was about gopher's grandma mistakenly saying John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in 500 years. The main idea, of course, being what grandma mistakenly said and not the content of what she said. I just stirred the shit a bit because I was bored. :P (And I'm assuming you're doing the same, lol.)

John Paul was the first non-Italian in roughly 500 years. This is a fact that was often stated during his pontificate. Adrian VI and Alexander VI are just a few decades apart. And perhaps her point was correct and Adrian was such a disaster on the heals of Alexander's disaster that they went all Italian. But a desire to avoid Spanish domination after two basically Spanish Popes and fear of French demands in response may have led them to keep the Papacy in Italy and even shifted it clearly away from Medicis as well.

asdfasdfasdf I keep mixing everything up
but yes, they went all Italian for a number of reasons... some of them political (Spain and France? dominating my Catholicism? more likely than you think... and people didn't like that much considering how powerful they were; meanwhile Italy was for the longest time a fragmented chessboard for all the big boys to play around in), some practical (communication is good, and having cardinals who were already close to Rome -> more able to communicate and work with the papacy -> more likely to get chosen).

About the discussion on knowledge a few posts before, how's this for an interesting twist: Most people tend to think of proof and knowledge on a basis of evidence, rather like a court of justice in one's head. That kind of started with the renaissance philosophers (and the Greeks before them and who knows who they got that idea from before them) claiming that reason is the main justifying factor in decision making. Most people in "educated circles" (I hate that term but that's another discussion) would at least say that they accept this to some extent.

The interesting thing is that Christians seem to accept this as well. One would think that if you believe that there is an overall governing force behind the world, that you would not assume the supremacy of human reason. I would think you'd expect some things to be completely beyond the scope of simple observation and logic. This seems natural if said things were created by an intellect more advanced than one's own. That's why I find the whole debate between Christians and atheists (is that supposed to be capitalized?) to be so ludicrous. One side of the argument finds itself to be self-sufficient while the other really should be acknowledging that many of the debate topics are simply not within the scope of logic and reason.

That brings me to another point. Atheists of the classical sense (@President Eden and most agnostics this doesn't really mean you) tend to turn a blind eye to areas where human reason simply will not serve (such as the origin of the universe. We have no capacity to understand this) because it messes with their worldview.

Any thoughts on all that?

I guess too few people have read Pascal.

I haven't read Pascal, but what's the main point from that that you want to highlight?

I hope it's not Pascal's Wager, which is utter nonsense.

Pascal's Wager is a good argument but it's far too simplistic. It makes the assumption that people will accept God based on reason solely and, since Pascal was a Christian, he should have believed that simply believing in God out of an impersonal idea is not sufficient. Also, the wager assumes that there is a clear choice between God and not God whereas in reality, there are a whole bunch of religions, most of which believe that they are the only right religion.

+1 Stukus

Pascal was a pseudo-Jansenist (the same intellectual tradition that produced Thomas Merton and coined the word technology) and wrote a great deal about the limits of Reason and his relationship to Christianity. I was not referencing Pascal's Wager. Shame on you, if you call him simplistic. He is one of the two cardinal intellectual figures of French letters. Allan Bloom used to make a semi-joke that the diametric opposition of Pascal and Descartes was the reason the French were so messed up, since they had two intellectual traditions that could never be reconciled.

No one called Pascal simplistic. It was, however, said that his Wager concept was simplistic.

Pascal was not at all simplistic. In fact, he was quite a good thinker but his wager is not the strongest argument as it does not cover all possible aspects of the idea. If you were not referring to Pascal's wager, please tell us what you were referring to by Pascal.

Ya, I'm still confused as to what you meant by "I guess to few people have read Pascal." Reason might have limits, but it's probably not a good idea to toss it away and soldier on irrationally.

Graeme had made a comment on the oddness of certain aspects of the Atheist/Theist debate. Pascal wrote extensively on the subject.

I don't think your last comment is terribly related to anything that I have posted. You seem to be responding to assertions which have at no point even been implied.