Pope attacks atheism

[Absinthe]

All of your thoughts are valid. But last I checked, I can counter your arguments toward Christians slaughtering people in just the same matter. Most all religious conflict has money driving them.

No, you can't. You are treating religion and atheism as comparable, but they are not. Religion more often than not gives explicit moral directives. The Bible certainly makes many. It's ludicrous to think that men like Stalin were the products of atheism, because there's nothing there that could make that link. The same cannot be said for religious faith and its holy texts.

Even in conflicts where religion is not the central issue, it often still plays a large role in shaping peoples' mentalities. While there were doubtlessly financial aims during the Crusades, it was nonetheless heavily characterized by Christian reasoning, Christian law, and a Christian perspective. There's also the question of - if the ulterior motive was just money - how successful they would have been without such religious fervor and support.

Your analysis seems to me really superficial. And interfaith dialogue doesn't seem to be much of a solution for violent fanaticism.

 

[jverne]

All of your thoughts are valid. But last I checked, I can counter your arguments toward Christians slaughtering people in just the same matter. Most all religious conflict has money driving them.

Crusades - Italian trade.
Inquisition - Making one religion the only one so that everyone thinks the same way and everyone happily does as the king says, and in doing so, happily conquer lands for economic growth.

Goes on and on. Name a religious conflict, I can probably find money gaining as the means for which is driving it.

Faith is all too often used as a money gaining means for the upper authority. Just so as with Communism. No religion = no new ideas, which = happily doing what your told.

I'm for multiple religions working in conjuncture with each other to inspire new ideas for the progress of man kind.

Capitalistic region FTW.

god damn it you're such an neanderthal.

people don't become atheist and then say..."hmm, i must kill people"

everybody has an agenda, it's just that you cannot use atheism as an excuse.


atheism is not believing in god...what part don't you ****ing understand dumdum?

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

god damn it you're such an neanderthal.

people don't become atheist and then say..."hmm, i must kill people"

everybody has an agenda, it's just that you cannot use atheism as an excuse.


atheism is not believing in god...what part don't you ****ing understand dumdum?

No. I am not saying that. Atheists are a necessary part of the capitalistic Religious society to work in conjuncture of religious organizations to inspire change and progress for humanity. Sometimes though, both atheists and Religious people can be controlled by their respected leaders and used as a tool to do their biding. Pope used religion as an excuse to invade the middle east. In actuality, he wanted expanded Italian trade. Just so, atheism can be used to inspire the removal of religion, then itself taken over by corruption and used to control society. Both must exist to prevent the other party from falling under control.

 

[Ravioli]

I dont see how raiding and looting could be considered "trade". If he wanted to traid with them, he would have been peaceful and traded. I dont know where you are getting this from, in what history book did you read that the crusades were caused by trade problems?

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

Trade with the silk road, not the Muslims. That age old problem is what lead to the discovery of America. The Europeans didn't like the Islamic high Prices alone, they hated the Italians jacking up the price even more. Obviously, owning the end of the Silk road would bring much wealth to any who owned it.

 

[Avoidist]

I saw that photo from the first article linked and realized I had to do this. Sorry if it offends anyone or if it has been done to death, but the compulsion was too great.

 

[99.vikram]

Damn, I was late!

 

[Kyorisu]

Athiesm says that there's no guy up in the sky watchin our back and helpin us out and that we should focus on the here and now instead of getting caught up in 2000 year old myths.

Wait what? Way to get it tottally wrong there. Aethism DOES NOT say there is no god. Aethism is when you don't believe in God. There could still very well be one but due to the lack of evidence myself and many other choose not to believe in one. How can people get this wrong every single time a religious debate fires up?

Christianity says that there is hope and justice in this world and that those who do good will be rewarded and those who do evil will be punished. it provides a sense of right and wrong in a hectic and scary world.

Oh please. I'm sick and tired of the "Oh but we have morals" bullshit. It is just that bullshit. Religious moral code is based on some magic guy kicking your arse or forgiving you. My moral code is based on how I want to be treated by others. If I do the right thing by societies rules society will do right by me. Very simple. So religious people are rewarded why? How does your pitiful 80+/- year existance deserve anything of the sort? Eternal damnation or salvation from being on Earth for that long doesn't seem fair, and hey in the old day people didn't live nearly as long. Frantic and scary world huh? Do you live in Iran by anychance? Third world nation? No? Then quit your bitching.

 

[99.vikram]

Wait what? Way to get it tottally wrong there. Aethism DOES NOT say there is no god. Aethism is when you don't believe in God. There could still very well be one but due to the lack of evidence myself and many other choose not to believe in one. How can people get this wrong every single time a religious debate fires up?

Agnosticism is saying that there might be a god, but I can't be arsed to form my own opinion.

Atheism is saying that based on the evidence we have, there is no god.

 

[Kyorisu]

I may not have been clear there but I'm still correct. There could still be a god but due to a lack of evidence I believe there isn't one.

Atheism is saying that based on the evidence we have, there is no god.

But there could always be evidence which suggests otherwise. We just havn't found it yet.

 

[Saruke]

Wait what? Way to get it tottally wrong there. Aethism DOES NOT say there is no god. Aethism is when you don't believe in God. There could still very well be one but due to the lack of evidence myself and many other choose not to believe in one.

To clarify Agnostic is not there is no god or there might be a god it is specifically not making up your mind about god. Agnostic=not having a opnion, nothing else.

Kyorisu I felt deeply saddened when I read your post. All I was trying to do was bring this thread back down to a level headed discuission. I was not trying to advocate either atheism or religion I wanted to show the positive sides of both and I don't appreciate it when you twist my words to your own hateful ends.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

Atheism is a necessary part to society because any monopoly is an automatic |censored| for a capitalistic society. If no atheists, then at least one other religion. I simply hate monopoly.

 

[Pesmerga]

Monopoly hates you!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hello, and welcome to the news at ten. Today's top story: there is no Pope of Atheism.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

Um. Yea, I guess. Well, I gave a very long show of how monopoly of any belief could lead to destructions of freedoms. soo, yea.

Hello, and welcome to the news at ten. Today's top story: there is no Pope of Atheism.

I'd think that guy who I forget the name of who wrote a bunch of stuff... a screw it, when I find hi sname I'll get back to you.

UPDATE
Richard Dawkins!!! That's his damn name.

 

[Avoidist]

Quite frankly I would prefer a leader of Atheism that wasn't so militant and bias. Mind you, given the reason for this thread in the first place fighting fire with fire does sound a bit more reasonable.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

A leader not being militant and Bias? Where in the world could such a leader be? I highly doubt the existence of such a man and or woman.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Richard Dawkins!!! That's his damn name.

I'll be able to take that seriously when an entire religion with full formal structures coheres around his figure and all of his successors.

 

[Raziaar]

There was a pope called Innocent. Not kidding.

Quite a few of them actually. Thirteen to be precise.

 

[Sulkdodds]

An' one called Urban, yo.

EDIT: Thinking about it, we actually do need a black pope.

 

[Pesmerga]

"Use condoms mah niggas. Sheeeit."

 

[Raziaar]

Oh god, some of these pope names are Hilarious.

One popes was called Hilarius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

 

[Pesmerga]

From "Hilary", of course.

 

[Raziaar]

From "Hilary", of course.

Oh you... applying logic and reason to everything. Let me enjoy the hilarity of his name.

 

[Sulkdodds]

From "Hilary", of course.

Nobody asked you, Boniface!

Also: Pope Conon? Lando?!?

 

[Raziaar]

EDIT: Thinking about it, we actually do need a black pope.

Pope John X The Malcom X of popes.

 

[Absinthe]

Quite frankly I would prefer a leader of Atheism that wasn't so militant and bias. Mind you, given the reason for this thread in the first place fighting fire with fire does sound a bit more reasonable.

Oh... This is really sad. A man who advocates reason and a critical viewing of religious fantasies is apparently too militant. :|

 

[Jintor]

Oh... This is really sad. A man who advocates reason and a critical viewing of religious fantasies is apparently too militant. :|

CRITICAL THINKING? CHALLENGING RELIGION? WHY DO YOU TARGET US SO YOU MILITANT BASTARD?

s:

 

[Avoidist]

Oh... This is really sad. A man who advocates reason and a critical viewing of religious fantasies is apparently too militant. :|

I don't mind that. He just clearly has an agenda. I know it's a bit much to ask for a leader to be accepting of other cultures rather than blasting at the fallacies and ridiculing beliefs, thats generally why they are accepted as leaders in the first place. A pacifist is more to my liking. Take Pope John Paul II, a man in such a powerful position willing to accept evolution. Sure, I don't know much about his history and what he advocated, but at least he was willing to concede some ground and had an open mind. That's the kind of leader Atheism should have if it were to have one, one of rationality and sense rather than a preacher.

That said, I have seen some of his works and agree with just about everything he says, particularly some of his more uplifting messages. I'm sure he's a perfectly great guy as well. It's just some of what I have seen is picking at holes because they are there. Great for promoting Atheism by "converting" those who can't see the flaws and an eye-opener for some, but it doesn't do much for his image.

Ok so I may be talking out of my ass, but you get the idea of what I'm trying to say.

 

[Jintor]

Christianity is powerful in many countries. enough to just sit there and go "Ok, I can afford to be managimous". Atheism in quite a lot more countries is still the demon-half-child of Satan, if I can mix metaphors a bit.

 

[Absinthe]

I don't mind that. He just clearly has an agenda. I know it's a bit much to ask for a leader to be accepting of other cultures rather than blasting at the fallacies and ridiculing beliefs, thats generally why they are accepted as leaders in the first place. A pacifist is more to my liking. Take Pope John Paul II, a man in such a powerful position willing to accept evolution. Sure, I don't know much about his history and what he advocated, but at least he was willing to concede some ground and had an open mind. That's the kind of leader Atheism should have if it were to have one, one of rationality and sense rather than a preacher.

Atheism does not have a leader because it is not an organization. While Dawkins is very outspoken, he does not hold any kind of leadership position, and many other atheists hold disagreements with him. And just because he has a sharp tongue does not mean he's militant. His only agenda is promoting reason and, on a very specific level, an understanding of science (he spends a lot of time discussion the theory of evolution in the face of ID for instance).

It's a real shame that the term "militant atheist" is in such common usage these days. It's a red herring that describes a group of people that for all practical purposes don't exist. There is no militant atheist movement. There no secret stockpiles of heathen weapons, plots to overthrow and stamp out religion, or epidemics where the godless are persecuting theists because of their lack of belief. The kind of fervor on display with most atheists can't compare to what one would consider a militant Christian or Muslim.

It's a label slapped on to people who are seen as too critical of faith (too mean in other words).

 

[Jintor]

And, of course, what's wrong with being critical of faith? Except that faith is faith, and protected by a memeic thoughtshield.

 

[Avoidist]

As my father said this very night: "Watch what you say, some might take offense, and then you will get yourself killed". Admittedly this was concerning the idea of Zombie Jesus and Christian worship surrounding the resurrection, but you get the idea. Being critical of faith is fine, but people will tend to fight back. Tensions build, and the old rivalries emerge yet again. Rather than trying to criticize everyone, why not negotiate, and argue for ideals and rights without bringing down those of others? Well, the answer is bloody obvious, you said it yourself: "[faith is] protected by a memeic thoughtshield". I guess I am just a bit too idealistic here, but criticizing and hacking away at religion won't solve the problem. Then again, what will?

 

[<RJMC>]

Oh god, some of these pope names are Hilarious.

One popes was called Hilarius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Conon

lol sounds like colon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_III

"I am da urban pope yo! preaching on da streets yo!
if yall dont pray, whit ma glock I wll shoot ya in da ass!"
*girls in bikini whit nuns clothing start to dance*

 

[Godron]

As my father said this very night: "Watch what you say, some might take offense, and then you will get yourself killed". Admittedly this was concerning the idea of Zombie Jesus and Christian worship surrounding the resurrection, but you get the idea. Being critical of faith is fine, but people will tend to fight back. Tensions build, and the old rivalries emerge yet again. Rather than trying to criticize everyone, why not negotiate, and argue for ideals and rights without bringing down those of others? Well, the answer is bloody obvious, you said it yourself: "[faith is] protected by a memeic thoughtshield". I guess I am just a bit too idealistic here, but criticizing and hacking away at religion won't solve the problem. Then again, what will?

So you're saying he should be more subtle? Like, if he wasn't so agressive and just tried to be a bit more nice then people might listen to him more instead of calling him a millitant atheist. I suppose it's all about wording, really. You can make your points outspokenly and agressively, which although being honest and brave can make you look like an arse to most people who disagree with you. Which is understandable, seeing as it takes guts to critically accept a point which is blatantly attacking something you've identifyed yourself with for years. Or, you could word your arguments so that they're less agressive and make atheism look more like a nicer alternative to religion, instead of a horrible attacking thing.

 

[Avoidist]

So you're saying he should be more subtle? Like, if he wasn't so agressive and just tried to be a bit more nice then people might listen to him more instead of calling him a millitant atheist. I suppose it's all about wording, really. You can make your points outspokenly and agressively, which although being honest and brave can make you look like an arse to most people who disagree with you. Which is understandable, seeing as it takes guts to critically accept a point which is blatantly attacking something you've identifyed yourself with for years. Or, you could word your arguments so that they're less agressive and make atheism look more like a nicer alternative to religion, instead of a horrible attacking thing.

Yes. Although when I hear that, I feel I may have definitely used the wrong word when I said militant. What I have seen of most atheists including Dawkins tends to be good natured, I was simply stating that if the idea were to have a "leader" (which it probably shouldn't), it should be someone who wasn't overly aggressive towards religion (atleast without being seriously provoked) even if they do dislike it.

In that frame of mind, Dawkins isn't really be all that bad for such a hypothetical role, although he does tend to be a bit more forward than many other atheists I know. But that's why he tends to be so well known, so it's to be expected.

 

[nurizeko]

Wow, your all just too angry to listen to reason.
I feel sorry for you.

Religiously inclined devotee frames others as angry and unreasonable and plays the pity card, original.


On another note, no more sorry then I feel for your illogical life choice devotion to a cultural meme.

You might call him God.

Indeed, most atheists do not even think about their status as atheists, until confronted by religion itself.

Bingo, I fail to see how accepting logical and reasoned truth of existence counts as a Theism.


I thought religion requires one to believe in some divine entity, a diety of some sort, so why do religiously minded adherents seem to approach the "problem" of atheism like they would Islam or any other group of religious devotee's they hate because their bible/clergy tell them to?.



The great thing personally I think about atheism, aside from you know, accepting reality, is that I get to decide entirely for myself who I hate and what criteria I judge them by.

Crusades - Italian trade.

You'll find that the crusades began because the emperor of the Byzantine Empire approached the pope of the time asking for assistance as a"fellow Christians" against the encroaching Turks, and the Pope was impressed because he fancied a reunification of both east and western churches so he commanded the faithful to march to the holy land so on so on so on.

Slapping Italian and Trade on an argument doesnt make it valid. Also, please go back in time and interview the crusaders and give me evidence they marched to a holy war for "Italian Trade".

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

You'll find that the crusades began because the emperor of the Byzantine Empire approached the pope of the time asking for assistance as a"fellow Christians" against the encroaching Turks, and the Pope was impressed because he fancied a reunification of both east and western churches so he commanded the faithful to march to the holy land so on so on so on.

Slapping Italian and Trade on an argument doesnt make it valid. Also, please go back in time and interview the crusaders and give me evidence they marched to a holy war for "Italian Trade".

Well, that amongst other things. If the church was one again, it would also be easier to control people (give Pope more power) and also Byzantium was centered square flat in the silk road's end. Obviously, the Pope saw the economic value, not to mention selling indulgencing to all those rich Eastern cities. Much as 9/11 was capitalized on to invade oil-rich nations, the Pope used religion as a tool and the Muslim's blocking of pilgrims as a cause to invade the middle East for money. Alas, they failed, and 2 or so centuries later, the Italians simply made deals with the Muslims and ended up profiting anyway. Kind of how we will be in Iraq probably.

 

[Pesmerga]

I don't ever remember a time in my life when I believed in God.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

I was like that. not anymore.