All Comments (25)

Several days ago I was watching CNN and the commentator noted that prior to becoming Pope, Benedict was the person responsible for ensuring discipline in the Catholic church. As such, he reviewed all of the allegations of child sexual abuse in the American church. He was, therefore, aware of the large number of priests abusing children, was aware of the bishops who were moving these priests to other locales where they could continue to abuse children, and, therefore, actively participated in the abuse of children. If he has been a "civilian" and had done the same type of thing with respect to people standing on street corners and selling drugs, he would be charged with aiding and abeting a crime and would have, if caught, been charged, probably convicted, and likely serving time in a state prison. By the same reasoning, by the standards of American law, he is nothing but a criminal who conspired to help others sexually abuse children. Is this really the kind of person, irrespective of office, who should represent the Catholic church, or any church, in interfaith dialog. Perhaps he should have kept his Hitler Youth uniform.

Am glad you have joined in with an international community of faith Eboo. There was such a movement in the late 1700s (I think) in the New England states forming Unitarian churches with the Truth as the basis for inter-demoninational faith and worship.

Most religions try to sell there ideals and yet spirituality transcends human designs to me. In fact, that spirituality and communion with the Creator are inate qualities afforded to us all.

In that regard, spirituality itself cannot be bought or sold, it's not open to capitalism, socialism or Wallstreet for that matter. I liken it to paying the water bill or paying for water "rent". Muncipalities do not sell water by the gallon, they charge for the delivery of the water since they really don't own the water in the first place.

It's been refreshing to see, at the end of the day, the Pope's admonitions regarding the need to concern ourselves about real human dilemmas in a way that recognizes a universal human value.

What seems to be his most promising and most universally applauded points are, I think, his moments of supporting efforts of humanism.

Respect, dignity, divestment of unilateral and socially-unjust powers, recognitions of human failings--as a secular humanist, I fully support these efforts and applaud this man who captures such a huge audience.

Compare his talks with this, a list of a few of the tenets of secular humanism:

"Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children."

Thanks Pope Benedict for suggesting these things to your flock, and for recognizing that the more "interfaith" dialogue there is, the less need for dogma there may be.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Hmmm, predetermination, free will?

As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian,
From his book, Church: The Human Story of God,

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And if God does not know the future, Mohammed, Jesus and Isaiah surely did not.

In two short paragraphs of profound common sense, Schillibeeckx has reduced the OT, NT and koran to good but wishful thinking of many ancient scribes.
This falls correctly in line with two of God's/Mother Nature''s greatest interdependent gifts, i.e. Free Will and Future.

But can we predict the future based on reasoning and rational thinking??

e.g. the Catholic Church is wallowing in the muck of sinful priests but Islam shares an equal wallowing in their own muck. Will said muck and the flaws and errors in all the major religions be the cause of their disappearance?? As a reminder, the flaws/muck of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Male Islamics to include imams and clerics having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

And some added flaws in Catholicism:

1. The lack of talent in the priesthood.

2. The lack of Vatican response to the historic Jesus movement.

3. The Church's continuing cling to original sin and the resulting subsets of crazy ideas like limbo.

4. The denial of priesthood to women.

5. The restriction of priesthood to single men (unless you are former Episcopalian priests),

6. And the continued chain of Vatican "leadership" by old European white men.

coupled with:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

"Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted." -- Pope Benedict to American Bishops 4/17/08

As long as Muslims and Catholics are a not majority of Americans, their views can remain the private province of the believers. Although I wish some of them didn't believe the things they do, it's not high on my list of priorities to change them.

But both faiths are also universal prosletyzers that believe everyone should ultimately become one of them, and that any society should ultimately adopt the tenets of their faiths as secular laws.

As long as American Muslims and Catholics subsume their beliefs within our nation's context of freedom of conscience and separation of church and state, then improve relations is just more people doing the same. But don't try to create enclaves of faith-law.

"Raising cosmic questions about origin and destiny, meaning and possibility, is part of what religious communities do."

And that's just one of the many ways the religious waste their time. Ever hear of the term ill-posed question? They are questions for which no meaningful answer can exist. That is what your "cosmic questions" are.

How did he do that anyway ???

Still holding my posts ???

Your heinous the blog owner

Considering all the jack ass posts on this sight already, keep HOLDING MY POSTS and you can get A LOT OF OTHER POSTS to hold also.

Anonymizer anyone ???

Meg : "It now seems clear to me that “free will” is an illusion and that everything, including everything I am and do, is deterministic - the inexorable result of cumulative antecedent genetics, experience, and possibly influences which, albeit not consciously perceived, have helped to shape my subconscious from which all my decisions actually emanate."

Careful there Meg. You do incidentally sound a bit like mainstream Muslim belief and thinking on "free will" and "pre-determination". Except that for Muslims, God gave man "free will", but all his actions and choices is "pre-determined" by what he knows, his temperament,his experiences and what he wants and needs for himself and others. But, it is not something to get twisted about. It is just coincidence.:)

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Yoyo,

Long time no see.

You : ".. the environment will become less conducive to religious belief which will then die a natural death; from old age you might say, and irrelevance."

I am not too sure about that. In secular or atheistic China, where the government actively does not encourage religions, there are some 300 million who do identify themselves as adhering to a faith in spite of that.

It may be religion is on the wane in the west, but for the rest of the world, it seem to be less so for any given political, economic, and social reasons. Many Christian evangelicals groups and the Catholic Church believe Christianity will do very well if the Chinese government is less restrictive of their missionary activities there.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Agnostic,

There is no mosque or syngagogue or Hindu or Buddhist temple in the Vatican. Not much space there, unless, say, the Sistine Chapel is used as a mosque on Friday, a synagogue on Saturday, and a church on Sunday. The painting up in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel can be covered for Muslims when they pray on Fridays. Too blasphemous for Muslims to see an image of man made in the image of God, or God making man in Its image.

There is no church in Mecca or Medina, or in Saudi Arabia at all for that matter. But in Jeddah, I've come across houses and buildings used as prayer halls by Christian workers, especially the Filipinos.

Al Muslim countries have churches, but the number of their congregations and upkeep of the churches is dependent on the adherents. Muslim states don't fund the buildings of churches though they do for mosques.

The building of new churches in some conflict torn and religious strifed Muslim states have become contentious and politicised. Just as the building of new mosques in some areas in the west are. Depends on the toleration and accomodation of the state or community, and zoning laws of course.

Cheers
"J"

End of Age,

The end for bible thumping has passed. What you have copied and pasted is all a fictionalized account of Jesus' last days. All you can really say is that he lived, he was crucified and was buried. And still is today!!!

Oh no !!!

It didn't work -- my comment is being ++++ held ++++ for the approval of the blog owner.

Eboo I Liked this piece very much. Very positive. This is the essence of Interfaith dialog.

But some of us may raise doubt abouts the very need of GOD in answering this question.

One has to have respect for them also.

When one is utterly sure of one's own religion then it becomes difficult to respect other's religion and particularily non-believer.

Non-believers need respect. Apostates too need respect.

Once I heard you talking about Dalai Lama telling you how one earlier Dalai Lama helped encourage make a mosque in Lhasa Tibet.

I am not sure if there is a mosque in Vatican but I am sure there is any church in Saudi arabia. For that matter I am not sure out of all the members of OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries)
how may allow even repair of Churches and construction of new churches.

Botom line is even though you got the very essence respecting others religios faith, you have very steep hill ahead of you to convince believers your own relious.

You claim to somehow get same message from your own religious tradition.

Best of luck

Apparently Shellie and I are the only ones to add a positive comment here. Thank you, Shellie.

It seems that ALL the blogs dealing with the Pope's visit have been virulently infected with idiots spewing their brain-damaged garbage. No discussion, no intelligence, just copy-and-paste the usual nonsensical post. A lot of ignorance, a lot of hatred. No wonder America is in the gutter.

3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away [1] and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Without doubt, the Catholic Church is wallowing in the muck of sinful priests but Islam shares an equal wallowing in their own muck. As a reminder, the flaws/muck of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Male Islamics to include imams and clerics having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Eboo, you said,

"The challenge is that we offer those different answers respectfully, all of us in awe of the infinite and ineffable mystery of God."

And you just hit the nail on the head. This is the path to peace. Let those who have ears listen.

Peace, Brother -
Arminius

Ave Maria Purisima! What a bunch of long winded commenters! Ironically, as interesting as what they have to say is, I don't see how they are in response to the article at all. So, I will just follow in their footsteps and say I found this blog looking for the NPR discussion after hearing you on the radio today, out here in Utah. I was thrilled to hear what you had to say, and I plan to get your book. What a breath of fresh air to hear other people who want to address the issue of religion sensibly. You made my day!! Thank you, thank you thank you!

Meg.

Of course, a Muslim is a Muslim because it could not be otherwise, given the environment a Muslim is born into and raised in. Ditto the rest of us whether religious or atheist. We are the result of the environment that produced us, for better or for worse.
But fortunately, as cultures become more enlightened and less superstitious, the environment will become less conducive to religious belief which will then die a natural death; from old age you might say, and irrelevance.

The ubiquity and intransigence of belief in religious dogma is hardly a mystery.
Parents unwittingly practice the “big lie” on gullible and credulous young, thereby programming their read-only memories (brain-washing them) with belief systems with which they, themselves, were earlier brain-washed. In this obvious way, children grow up with the unshakable conviction that faith is the one area of humanity exempt from critical inquiry.

Thus, the beliefs of the parents are instilled in their progeny even unto the seventieth generation.

Catholic parents beget Catholics, Protestant parents beget Protestants. Jewish parents beget Jews. Mormon Parents beget Mormons. Muslim parents beget Muslims. Wiccan parents beget Wiccans. And genetic inheritance has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s not a matter of nature but of quasi-natural nurture.

Occasionally evangelism or delusional epiphany ostensibly convert an individual from one belief system to another, but in virtually every case, the core cultural imperatives associated with their “cradle faith” will remain largely intact. That is why, for example, many fallen away Christians continue, as if by knee-jerk reflex, to behave impulsively in supposedly “Christian” ways.

It all began with a comprehension of death which egotistical humans deplore and do not share with other animals. By providing the “sure and certain hope” of life after death, manipulators in all ages and places have invoked a “soul wrenching” tool to bend others to their temporal will. Never mind that a thoughtful person might find such promised eternal life to be quite tedious.

I consider myself a Born-Again Heathen. Like everyone else, I was born a Heathen without any sort of faith. By the chance of the draw, my parents were Christians and instilled their religious beliefs and related cultural value system in me - their faith by precept and their value system by their behavioral example. Monkey see, monkey do.

Eventually, I came to see my instilled faith as nonsense and was ultimately able to reconcile myself with the reality of my mortality - that when life is over, it’s all over. At that point, I realized I had become a Born-Again Heathen, returned to my original, natural, faithless state. Nevertheless, I continue to practice “turn the other cheek” as a part of my cultural legacy. This is perversely nonsensical because I know how that imperative was imprinted and fully understand intellectually that it is now known to be contraindicated. So much for free will.

It now seems clear to me that “free will” is an illusion and that everything, including everything I am and do, is deterministic - the inexorable result of cumulative antecedent genetics, experience, and possibly influences which, albeit not consciously perceived, have helped to shape my subconscious from which all my decisions actually emanate.

Think about Leprechauns

Many believers will say, "It is impossible for you to prove that Jesus does not exist. There is no way to prove that something does not exist." This is a silly argument for the following reason.

Imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in the gerflagenflopple. You cannot prove that the gerflagenflopple does not exist, therefore it exists." You can see that this is ridiculous. Just because I have invented something out of thin air does not mean that its non-existence is suddenly unprovable. There has to be some evidence that the gerflagenflopple exists in order to assert its existence. Since there is not, it is quite easy to say that the gerflagenflopple is imaginary.

Now let's imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in Leprechauns. You cannot prove that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they exist." You actually have heard of Leprechauns. There are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist. There is no physical evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. Not a single bit. Therefore, it is obvious to any normal person that Leprechauns are imaginary.

If you think about it, you will realize that there is no difference between God and Leprechauns. Lots of people talk about God as though he exists, but there is no actual evidence for God's existence. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

All historical gods were imaginary and we know it. (see this page)

None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)

God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)

The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)

When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)

Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.

And so on…
There is absolutely no evidence indicating that God exists. There is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that God does not exist. Therefore we can conclusively say that God is imaginary. That is the only thing that a rational person can say.
Another angle

Here is a second way to look at the same question.

With every other object and phenomenon in our experience, we use the scientific method to determine whether it exists or not. For example, X rays are invisible, but we know that they exist. We can devise scientific experiments to prove that they exist. Then, once proven to exist, X-rays can be used predictably in all sorts of beneficial ways.

If you would like to hypothesize that God exists, then you should say to yourself, "Let's devise a repeatable scientific experiment to provide evidence that God exists." Every experiment we devise demonstrates, yet again, that God is imaginary.

Isn't it odd that God, unlike everything else in our universe, has been put into a special category? When we talk about God, we are supposed to do so "philosophically." Why? Why not treat God just like all other objects and devise experiments to detect his presence or absence?

The classic religious response is, "God must remain hidden. If he proved his existence, that would take away faith." This is clever -- here we have an object named God that proves its existence by completely hiding its existence. Of course, in the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.

Even more interesting, this object called God, which is supposedly hiding its existence completely, is in the meantime supposedly writing books, answering prayers and incarnating itself. How can that be? This obvious contradiction shows how imaginary God is. When we look at prayer scientifically, we find that "answered prayers" are actually nothing but coincidences. When we look at the Bible scientifically, ethically or rationally, we find that the Bible is wrong. When we look at all of Jesus' miracles scientifically, we find that none of them left behind any scientific or historical evidence. Nor, for that matter, did Jesus, nor did Jesus' resurrection. Strangely, not a single historical source independent of the Bible ever mentions the resurrection.

The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary.

When we look at these Bible passages, there is a question that comes to mind -- why did Jesus stop making these appearances? Why isn't Jesus appearing today?

It really is odd. Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. Because of the personal visit, Paul could see for himself the truth of the resurrection, and he could ask Jesus questions.

So... Why doesn't Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected, just like he appeared to Paul? There is nothing to stop Jesus from materializing in your kitchen tonight to have a personal chat with you. And if you think about it, Jesus really does need to appear to each of us. If Paul needed a personal visit from Jesus to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why wouldn't you?

It is an important question for the following reasons:

We are told by the Bible that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people.

We therefore know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people -- it does not take away their free will, for example.

We know that it would be easy for Jesus to appear to everyone all through history, since Jesus is all-powerful and timeless.

We know that, if Jesus did reappear to everyone, it would be incredibly helpful. We could all know, personally, that Jesus is resurrected and that Jesus is God. If Paul (and all the other people in the Bible) needed a personal visit to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why not you and me?

Yet, we all know that Jesus has not appeared to anyone in 2,000 years.
In other words, there is nothing stopping Jesus from appearing to you, and several good reasons for him to appear.
Praying to Jesus

What if we pray to Jesus like this: "Dear Jesus, please appear to us, as you did to Paul and the 500 brethren, so that we can see the evidence of your resurrection. In your name we pray, amen." Here is what Jesus has promised us in the Bible:

Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
In John chapter 14:14:
Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
In Matthew 18:19:
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Jesus is actually in our midst. So he is right here already, supposedly. Yet when we pray to him to physically materialize, nothing ever happens.
Isn't it odd that Nothing happens, given the fact that Jesus promises us that something will happen? Isn't it odd that nothing happens when, supposedly, Jesus is right here with us already, and materialization would be trivial for him?

We have created an unambiguous situation where coincidence cannot "answer" the prayer. The only way for this prayer to be answered is for Jesus to actually, unambiguously, materialize.

As you think about this, you will realize that Paul's story in the Bible must be false. Simply look at Paul's story like any judge in a courtroom would. What Paul's story in 1 Cor 15 is suggesting is entirely unprecedented - a man dead three days with mortal wounds came back to life. Yet:

There is absolutely no evidence that the story is true,

There are many alternative explanations for what Paul is saying. Paul could be fabricating the story, Paul could have hallucinated or dreamed the meeting, Paul could have seen an imposter, etc.

In addition, no one is seeing Jesus today, even though it would be trivial and obvious for Jesus to appear to people today just like he did with Paul.
Given this evidence, rational people would automatically conclude that Paul's story in the Bible is untrue. There is zero evidence to support Paul's story, zero reason to believe it, a motive to lie and plenty of alternative explanations. There is also the fact that much of the rest of the Bible contains provably false stories. Plus the fact that it would be trivial for Jesus to provide the evidence that Paul needs to confirm his story by reappearing on earth. Add to that the fact that Jesus has promised to answer our prayers but refuses to materialize when we pray to him. The only thing to do is to reject Paul's story. Every bit of evidence points to the fact that the resurrection story is a myth, nothing more.

Given that the resurrection story is clearly a myth, it means that Jesus (if he existed at all) was a normal human being, not God. The resurrection clearly did not happen.

And with that, we can see that God himself is imaginary. If God actually did exist and was playing any role whatsoever on this planet, there is no way that he would allow an imposter like Jesus.

If someone were to come to you today and say, "I am God!", what would you do? Yes, you would immediately ask for proof. Of course you would. And you would not want goofy proof.You would want real, solid, tangible proof.

No normal person, and I mean no one, would accept anything less than rock solid proof from a person who claims to be God.

Why should it be any different with Jesus? Jesus was a man who claims to be God. If he is God, then he ought to be able to prove it in a real, inimitable way. If he cannot prove it then, quite clearly, he is not God.

A Christian would say, "But Jesus HAS proven it! Just look at all of the miracles he did in the Bible! He healed the sick! He changed water into wine! That PROVES that Jesus is the Lord!" Does that make sense to you? Imagine that someone, today, were to come up to you and say, "I am God, and I will prove that I am God by healing the sick and turning water into wine!" What would you say? Be honest. You would not believe this person because:

Everyone has seen all sorts of "faith healers" who can "heal" the sick. And we all know that this sort of "healing" is quackery. If it were true, then we would not need doctors, hospitals or prescription medicines.

Turning water into wine... Doesn't that sound like something that a B-grade David-Copperfield-wannabe magician would do in a nightclub act? There are a dozen ways that you could stage things to make it look like water is turning into wine. There is no reason why a normal person would accept a magic trick as proof that someone is God.

Neither of these miracles can be scientifically tested today. Not one of Jesus' miracles left any tangible evidence for scientists to study.
It is as simple as that. If someone claimed to be God today, you would never believe it if the evidence consisted of faith healing and magic tricks. Never. Yet billions of people claim that Jesus' faith healing and magic tricks prove that he is God.
Let's imagine that Jesus truly is God. What might he have done to prove it? He could have started by taking one of his most famous quotes from the Bible and acting on it. In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says quite clearly:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
To prove that he is God, Jesus would have moved a mountain. Especially since it is so easy. And Jesus would have written something down to explain himself. Here's what the first page of Jesus' book might have looked like:
My name is Jesus, and I am God. I know there are a lot of people out there who will doubt that I am God, so let me start off by proving it to you. Take a look at Mount Sinai. Everyone knows that, until today, Mount Sinai stood near here. It is the mountain where God, my father, gave Moses the Ten Commandments.
Mount Sinai vanished this morning, and what was left in its place was a perfectly smooth, polished stone base measuring four miles square. Hundreds of years from now, people will find that Mount Sinai landed near a place that will be called Newark, New Jersey. When scientists dig into the mountain, they will find that the bottom of the mountain is also completely smooth and polished, and that the bottom of the mountain in New Jersey perfectly matches the polished plain nearby. Scientists will be able to align the mountain and the plain, looking at it rock crystal by rock crystal at a microscopic level. I have said many times that, if you have faith, you can move mountains. I moved Mount Sinai to show how easy it is, and to prove that I am God.

I know that that may not be enough, so let me offer a second proof. If you draw a circle, you know that there is distance across the circle. Let us call it the diameter of the circle. There is also a distance around the outside of the circle. Let us call it the circumference. If you divide the circumference by the diameter, you get another number. Let us call it Pi, and its first 6 digits are 3.14159. Pi is an irrational number. It is a number that is made up of an infinite number of non-repeating digits.

There will come a day when machines called computers will calculate billions of digits of Pi. If you calculate Pi out to the millionth trillionth digit, here is what you will find:

9823456451237823492278583495083498745....

Now, having proven that I am God to any rational being, through my documentable movement of a mountain and through my foreknowledge of Pi at the millionth trillionth position, here is what I want to say to the human race as your creator, and as the creator of the universe...

Wouldn't that be awesome and amazing? If we had such a book, and if Mount Sinai had actually moved, then there would be no questions about Jesus. We would all believe that he is God. How could we not? Imagine what such a book would say on the following pages. A book like that, I am sure, would leave all of us in awe.
Why would Jesus not do that? God, supposedly, has already written a book called the Bible. And God, supposedly, has already done all sorts of things according to that book. God, supposedly, parted the Red Sea, carved the Ten Commandments into stone, went to the trouble to incarnate himself, etc. So why not have Jesus write a book, and leave behind real, tangible evidence for all of us to see?

For any normal, rational person, the reason is obvious -- God is imaginary. We would not believe that anyone today is God without concrete proof. Jesus doesn't get a pass because he lived 2,000 years ago. Jesus, if he existed at all, was a human being just like you and me. All of the stories in the Bible are just that -- stories.

Have you ever thought about the offering plate in church? If Jesus is real, why do they have to pass it? If you read these verses in the Bible, you can see that God claims to be extremely powerful and willing to answer any prayer:

Matthew 7:7
Matthew 17:20
Matthew 21:21
Mark 11:24
John 14:12-14
Matthew 18:19
Mark 9:23
Luke 1:37
Now consider this: Why don't the ministers and deacons of the church gather together every Sunday morning and pray to Jesus for the money they need? Why doesn't Jesus answer their prayers? Why do churches have to beg for money from mere mortals when there is an immortal, all-powerful God who should provide anything they ask for? Here is what "God" is saying:
Pray to me for anything and I will hear and answer your prayers. I say it in dozens of places in the Bible, but I like the way I say it in Mark 11:24 the best: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." Anything you need -- money, love, happiness, you name it -- I am here to provide it for you.
Now, there is just one thing I need in return. I need your money. I need lots of your money. The Bible specifies that you tithe ten percent of your income to me, but think of that as a starting point. Feel free to give more!

Because even though I created the universe and everything in it, and even though I will give you everything you ask for in prayer, I can't give a cent to any church, ever. When they pass the offering plate at church, be sure to give generously!

This, of course, is ridiculous.
The reason why they pass the offering plate at church is because God is imaginary.

Did the Pope call for inclusion of unbelievers in interfaith dialogue? My guess would be no.

Since when do religions have religious freedom as a value? The Catholic Church didn't even accept the concept of religious freedom until 1957 or thereabouts. It still inteferes in the civil affairs of many countries including the U.S. and tries to impose its views on everyone in those countries. That said, I don't see large groups of Catholic dominionists out there (although this Pope does talk like one on occasion.

I do see millions of Protestant dominionists who are a clear and present danger to religious freedom. These guys, Christian Reconstructionists, for example, certainly do not believe in religious freedom.

If we had religious freedom in this country, we would not have religious crap on our money (done in the 1950s), we would not have religious crap in our Pledge such that almost 20% of the population cannot say it (also done in the 1950s) and we would not have special tax exemptions for churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. that force secular Americans to subsidize religion.

I doubt that even 50% of Americans believe in actual religious freedom. Religions, almost by definition, are the arch-enemies of religious freedom.