The Pope does not like atheists

cavedave

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3016839520071130

Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope

Does this sound like a neoconservative to anyone? We need to believe in God not because he actually exists but because it is a useful lie to tell ourselves.

Rev Hellfire

Ohh Noz !

That's a bit of a shocker alright; head of church believes that church is right that hope and salvation is found in god.

I'm not sure how you could construe that 'The pope does not like atheists' from the article you linked. It’s interesting the way he doesn't define atheism as a religious framework but rather a moralism one though.

MoominPapa

Yeah but does he sh*t in the woods?

cavedave

'm not sure how you could construe that 'The pope does not like atheists' from the article you linked

It might be a bit of a stretch alright. "Pope rejects nihilism of atheist mindset" did not seem as funny though.

PDN

cavedave wrote: »

Does this sound like a neoconservative to anyone? We need to believe in God not because he actually exists but because it is a useful lie to tell ourselves.

Of course that isn't what he is saying. The Pope's statement, "man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope" makes perfect sense in the Christian context that, since salvation is only to be found in Christ, then man without God remains without hope.

Dades

Does this sound like a neoconservative to anyone? We need to believe in God not because he actually exists but because it is a useful lie to tell ourselves.

PDN wrote: »

Of course that isn't what he is saying. The Pope's statement, "man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope" makes perfect sense in the Christian context that, since salvation is only to be found in Christ, then man without God remains without hope.

You're missing the point. Regardless of whether or not anybody thinks you need God - if you don't believe he exists you don't really have much choice do you? Unless the choice is as cavedave suggests is that you lie to yourself.

Sounds like Il Papa is coming from that corner that thinks atheists choose not believe in god because of reasons other than the conclusion of an objective thought process.

And obviously the Pope hasn't been logging into Boards.ie; otherwise he would have seen the other thread which touched on the whole "atheists do bad things" notion, which saw this interesting post by Scofflaw The First. (Of course the idea could also be known as the "People In Glasshouses" theory. )

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Sounds like Il Papa is coming from that corner that thinks atheists choose not believe in god because of reasons other than the conclusion of an objective thought process.

So maybe old Benny has been logging onto boards.ie?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So maybe old Benny has been logging onto boards.ie?

Right, where's that salt?

pH

Pope attacks 'cruel and unjust' atheism in his message of hope

The Pope launched an attack on atheism today, saying that it had led to some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” known to mankind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2977564.ece

He mustn't read A&A on boards.ie ... or is did he just roll that out cos someone mentioned the Inquisition and the Crusades to him?

karen3212

It's a pity really that the Pope doesn't really understand the true meaning of atheism, like mine. I hope one day he can share in the strength and love of the way and the light, he he he he.

pH

karen3212 wrote: »

It's a pity really that the Pope doesn't really understand the true meaning of atheism, like mine. I hope one day he can share in the strength and love of the way and the light, he he he he.

And I bet he wouldn't say this stuff about Muslims! How come he gets away with saying this about atheists?

** BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ATHEISM **

karen3212

“the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false”.

So am I right in thinking that he said God is not all powerful in that sentence.

Does he really think people should wait for God to bring justice to the world? Does anyone have any idea what his IQ is. He clearly cut muslims out, as he said the only hope was Christianity.

PDN

karen3212 wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that he said God is not all powerful in that sentence.

From the snippets in the links we have been given he appears to be saying God's omnipotence does not extend to simultaneously giving men free will and also forcing them to always choose the right actions and so avoid any injustice in the world.

Does he really think people should wait for God to bring justice to the world?

No, he thinks that Christians should actively work to be God's agents for bringing justice.

Does anyone have any idea what his IQ is?

While I disagree with the Pope on many things, I am in awe of his intelligence. The guy is a serious intellectual heavyweight.

He clearly cut muslims out, as he said the only hope was Christianity.

He certainly did. However, I don't think that it requires a low IQ to perceive Islam as being unlikely to provide much positive hope for the world any time soon.

2Scoops

Patsy McGarry, The Irish Times wrote:

Pope says materialism and science are not the answer

Man cannot be redeemed simply by creating a favourable economic environment, Pope Benedict declares in a major new encyclical published yesterday. Patsy McGarry , Religious Affairs Correspondent, reports.

Man cannot be redeemed by science, by materialism or by atheism, he says.

Karl Marx "forgot that man always remains man . . . he forgot man's freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil," Pope Benedict has written in his second encyclical Spe Salvi (In Hope we are Saved).

The 78-page document on the theme of hope describes the failures of atheistic materialism to meet human need while highlighting how faith and hope do so.

Marx, he writes, "thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment."

Francis Bacon "and those who followed in the intellectual current of modernity that he inspired were wrong to believe that man would be redeemed through science. Such an expectation asks too much of science; this kind of hope is deceptive."

Science "can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it," he says. "If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he writes.

"Amid our growing knowledge of the structure of matter and in the light of ever more advanced inventions, we clearly see continuous progress towards an ever greater mastery of nature. Yet in the field of ethical awareness and moral decision-making, there is no similar possibility of accumulation for the simple reason that man's freedom is always new and he must always make his decisions anew," he says.

These decisions "can never simply be made for us in advance by others - if that were the case, we would no longer be free. Freedom presupposes that in fundamental decisions, every person and every generation is a new beginning." New generations may build on the moral treasury of the past "but they can also reject it, because it can never be self-evident in the same way as material inventions".

It was why the moral wellbeing of the world could "never be guaranteed simply through structures alone", he said. Man is not redeemed by science, "man is redeemed by love", he says.

Spe Salvi is available at www.vatican.va under Benedict XVI. Click on encyclicals.
© 2007 The Irish Times

Looks like pseudo-philosophical bullshit to me. These lazy allusions to 'hope' and 'redemption' mean what, exactly? Going to heaven? Oh, and it's atheistic-materialism now, not your common or garden type. And why the attack on science?

I'm actually annoyed by this. The new wave of uninformed diatribes against science, and 'aggressive secularism' elsewhere, encourage ignorance. It's all going to end in tears.

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

While I disagree with the Pope on many things, I am in awe of his intelligence. The guy is a serious intellectual heavyweight.

You obviously have different (lower?) standards than me on what constitutes intelligence.

Orion

""atheism was responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history.""

ORLY? Crusades, WWII, 9/11, Middle East, Northern Ireland ..... etc etc ad nauseum. Ok for some of those I listed religion was more an excuse than a reason but it still has responsibility for being used as an excuse.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It’s interesting the way he doesn't define atheism as a religious framework but rather a moralism one though.

Well it's not - it's quite the opposite

PDN wrote:

While I disagree with the Pope on many things, I am in awe of his intelligence. The guy is a serious intellectual heavyweight.

Seriously disturbing and dangerous intellectual. I actually felt ill when I heard Ratzinger called out on the balcony of St. Peter's. He is intelligent - and that's what makes him dangerous. So far he has told the other Christian faiths that they are not really Christian. He has denied them apostolic succession. He has offended Islam with his reading of a quote saying that the teaching of Islam contained "things only evil and inhuman". He opposes moral relativism because he says it's extremist (he should know!). Before becoming the pope he said that Buddists would become the main enemy of the Catholic church. He's more homophobic than his predecessor who was no angel himself. In fact the only religion/faith/moral practise/life choice that he has praised is Judaism - and imo that's a political decision based on his history rather than a personal belief.

Now he's after athieists. Anyone see a pattern here?

Orion

PDN wrote: »

He certainly did. However, I don't think that it requires a low IQ to perceive Islam as being unlikely to provide much positive hope for the world any time soon.

Interesting comment. You could say the same about most of the major world religions. In the last 100 years how many people have been killed as a result of Christian beliefs? And how many as a result of Islamic beliefs? The most powerful man in the world has absolutely no qualms about following his "mission from God" - which was a funny line when the Blues Brothers used it but ceased being funny when used by the man hovering over the most lethal arsenal in the world.

The vast majority of Muslims are perfectly peaceful. You cannot categorise an entire religious congregation because of the acts of a small minority. Yes, most Muslims are extremely religious but that does not make them a problem - it just makes them religious. Many atrocities have been carried out by religious fanatics over the years and across the world - and across all faiths.

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

Looks like pseudo-philosophical bullshit to me. These lazy allusions to 'hope' and 'redemption' mean what, exactly? Going to heaven? Oh, and it's atheistic-materialism now, not your common or garden type. And why the attack on science?

I'm actually annoyed by this. The new wave of uninformed diatribes against science, and 'aggressive secularism' elsewhere, encourage ignorance. It's all going to end in tears.

Science "can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it," he says. "If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he writes.

Sorry... what attack on science? Maybe, like yourself, I should be reading between the lines to find it.

It's hardly an 'uninformed diatribe' against science, is it. Why, the sentiment of his words could certainly be endorsed from a secular perspective.

P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always believed the correct saying was 'commoner gardener'. No?

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Science "can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it," he says. "If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he writes.

Sorry... what attack on science? Maybe, like yourself, I should be reading between the lines to find it.

It's hardly an 'uninformed diatribe' against science, is it. Why, the sentiment of his words could certainly be endorsed from a secular perspective.

So endorsed!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always believed the correct saying was 'commoner gardener'. No?

No - "common or garden" is right. As in so ordinary you would find it in a common or garden.

Macros42 wrote:

The vast majority of Muslims are perfectly peaceful. You cannot categorise an entire religious congregation because of the acts of a small minority.

It depends how devoted one is to the making of sweeping generalisations about other people's religions/non-religion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Science "can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it," he says. "If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he writes.

Sorry... what attack on science? Maybe, like yourself, I should be reading between the lines to find it.

It's hardly an 'uninformed diatribe' against science, is it. Why, the sentiment of his words could certainly be endorsed from a secular perspective.

Perhaps I'm reading too deeply into it, but why should science come up in this at all? The perceived attack, in my mind, is the implication that science is somehow an inferior alternative to faith, when it's not an alternative of any kind. And also that, unchecked, it will lead us to destruction - suggesting that science is an inherently dangerous thing. It is 'man's inhumanity to man' that is really the issue.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always believed the correct saying was 'commoner gardener'. No?

No. That doesn't even make sense. For example, think along the lines of the common, or 'garden', spider.

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote: »

Perhaps I'm reading too deeply into it, but why should science come up in this at all? The perceived attack, in my mind, is the implication that science is somehow an inferior alternative to faith, when it's not an alternative of any kind. And also that, unchecked, it will lead us to destruction - suggesting that science is an inherently dangerous thing. It is 'man's inhumanity to man' that is really the issue.

It's a position statement, surely, putting the Catholic Church as pro-science but not "blindly" so?

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a position statement, surely, putting the Catholic Church as pro-science but not "blindly" so?

I certainly see your point and it's a more progressive approach than others, but for some reason I'm after getting a hang-up over what I see as Pope B subtly associating science and atheism with the usual suspects of consumerism, materialism, 'lack of hope', amorality etc.

These throwaway buzzwords that have so many negative connotations; the simple fact that he has made a (spurious) link between them will influence people's opinions. I mean, seriously, why on Earth should science encourage materialism? It just doesn't make sense. People can extend things out to their "logical conclusion" (e.g. Wolfsbane and eugenics) but it just doesn't add up.

As you said yourself elsewhere, science is a simply a means of finding out things (paraphrasing). That information is put to immoral use is not the fault of science, but of immoral people. Having to preface your support of science with reservations lest it lead to dangerous things, unfairly suggests that science itself is somehow less than neutral.


EDIT: After closely reading the quotes attributed to Pope B (as opposed to the choice filler added by journalists) and think we disagree very little. We both acknowledge the need for a moral input in science. But again, he has made out that science is the thing we have to check up on, as opposed to the immoral people who would abuse it.

And there aren't any direct quotes reported that show him equating science with the rogues gallery of buzzwords mentioned above, so journalists are to blame for that - but the fact is, it's still being said, whether straight from the horse's mouth or neigh. [pun intended]

Victor McDade

Macros42 wrote: »

Now he's after athieists. Anyone see a pattern here?

yep, looks like he's trying to unify the belts and become the undisputed, undefeated.......

Rev Hellfire

Macros42 wrote: »

by Rev Hellfire wrote:

It’s interesting the way he doesn't define atheism as a religious framework but rather a moralism one though.

Well it's not - it's quite the opposite

Ohh my non-god surely you're not saying atheism is a religious framework.
Sweet Dawkins quickly retract it before the cries of 'atheism isn't a religion', 'atheism is a scientific position', etc begin

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

I mean, seriously, why on Earth should science encourage materialism? It just doesn't make sense.

Admittedly I've not read the encyclical, nor at 78 pages long will I, but I would assume that he is distinguishing between science and materialism. In my quick scan of the article you provided I couldn't see any intent to link science with materialism. However, I guess it could be argued that scientific advancement does encourage materialism. That doesn't appear to be his intention, though.

2Scoops wrote: »

As you said yourself elsewhere, science is a simply a means of finding out things (paraphrasing). That information is put to immoral use is not the fault of science, but of immoral people. Having to preface your support of science with reservations lest it lead to dangerous things, unfairly suggests that science itself is somehow less than neutral.

Again, I think you may be superimposing your own understanding of his words over his intended meaning. It seems as if he is simply saying: if mankind's ethical and moral progress doesn't keep pace with the rapid advancements in our scientific progress then we are in trouble.

2Scoops wrote: »

And there aren't any direct quotes reported that show him equating science with the rogues gallery of buzzwords mentioned above, so journalists are to blame for that - but the fact is, it's still being said, whether straight from the horse's mouth or neigh. [pun intended]

I don't believe that he is equating science with atheism at all. To do such a thing would, firstly, be of great insult to Christian scientists (read: Christians who are scientists) out there. Secondly, from the article you provided, such an intention would be at odds with his apparent acceptance of the scientific theory behind global warming. Christianity and science are not incompatible.

If this article came from Joe Soap then I think you wouldn't be raising such unfounded objections. To me it is clear that you have willed yourself into believing that the Pope to has said something more controversial than he actually has. The man is just talked common sense, really.

PDN

Macros42 wrote: »

Interesting comment. You could say the same about most of the major world religions. In the last 100 years how many people have been killed as a result of Christian beliefs? And how many as a result of Islamic beliefs?

Well, my comments were not in relation to people being killed per se, but since you ask I'm hard pressed to think of any people who have been killed in the last 100 years as a result of Christian beliefs (except for the thousands of Christians who were victims of murder because of their beliefs). I suppose the occasional scizo killing an abortionist might count, but I imagine they would work out as less than a hundred over the century?

The vast majority of Muslims are perfectly peaceful. You cannot categorise an entire religious congregation because of the acts of a small minority. Yes, most Muslims are extremely religious but that does not make them a problem - it just makes them religious. Many atrocities have been carried out by religious fanatics over the years and across the world - and across all faiths.

The subjugation of women and the denial of basic human rights to those of other faiths are widespread in the Muslim world. The governments of Islamic nations in the Middle East etc appear to have the support of many millions of ordinary Muslims. Indeed, where there is opposition to such governments those in opposition frequently advocate an even more repressive and intolerant policy specifically because of their religious beliefs.

Orion

PDN wrote: »

Well, my comments were not in relation to people being killed per se, but since you ask I'm hard pressed to think of any people who have been killed in the last 100 years as a result of Christian beliefs (except for the thousands of Christians who were victims of murder because of their beliefs). I suppose the occasional scizo killing an abortionist might count, but I imagine they would work out as less than a hundred over the century?

Really? At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law - WWII? The guy with the little moustache was a devout Christian and believed he was doing God's will in exterminating the Jews. (see I didn't mention his name? - Godwin is revoked )

The subjugation of women and the denial of basic human rights to those of other faiths are widespread in the Muslim world. The governments of Islamic nations in the Middle East etc appear to have the support of many millions of ordinary Muslims. Indeed, where there is opposition to such governments those in opposition frequently advocate an even more repressive and intolerant policy specifically because of their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Granted. I am not endorsing Sharia Law in the slightest but we were talking about world peace Many Sharia practices are abhorrent to me ofc. However without meaning to belittle this, Christian (and specifically Catholic) laws can be disgraceful too. Banning of condoms due to Catholic laws is greatly hurting the fight against AIDS especially on the African continent*. Irish Law, American Law and other countries are greatly influenced by Canon Law and quite often to the detriment of people's rights and health. (I repeat that this is not a defence of Sharia Law - it is a separate argument).



* Interestingly, I was just reading in today's times that 79% of Irish Catholics oppose church teaching prohibiting the use of condoms and 87% said that Catholic hospitals should be required to provide condoms as part of AIDS prevention.

Orion

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Ohh my non-god surely you're not saying atheism is a religious framework.
Sweet Dawkins quickly retract it before the cries of 'atheism isn't a religion', 'atheism is a scientific position', etc begin

Hell no! You said he didn't describe it as a religious framework and I agreed. I think. It's not. It's the opposite.

Did I get it in quick enough?

Fanny Cradock

Macros42 wrote: »

Really? At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law - WWII? The guy with the little moustache was a devout Christian and believed he was doing God's will in exterminating the Jews. (see I didn't mention his name? - Godwin is revoked )

Devout Christian! What? Where do you get your information from? Maybe you should do a little research in future and save us the bother of reading such s claims.

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I guess it could be argued that scientific advancement does encourage materialism.

I don't think that is a valid argument, which I guess is my problem.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, I think you may be superimposing your own understanding of his words over his intended meaning. It seems as if he is simply saying: if mankind's ethical and moral progress doesn't keep pace with the rapid advancements in our scientific progress then we are in trouble.

As I said above, I don't disagree with this! You should read my posts more closely, just like I should have read Pope B's quotes more closely. I simply object to the subtle implication that scientific progress is bad guy when it's really mankind's track record regarding moral and ethical progress.

Fanny Craddock wrote:

I don't believe that he is equating science with atheism at all. To do such a thing would, firstly, be of great insult to Christian scientists (read: Christians who are scientists) out there. Secondly, from the article you provided, such an intention would be at odds with his apparent acceptance of the scientific theory behind global warming. Christianity and science are not incompatible.

I never said he was equating science with atheism. Again, please re-read my original comments.

Fanny Craddock wrote:

If this article came from Joe Soap then I think you wouldn't be raising such unfounded objections. To me it is clear that you have willed yourself into believing that the Pope to has said something more controversial than he actually has. The man is just talked common sense, really.

That's true for the most part. I tend to pay extra attention to what people in a position of power and influence say compared with the average crank because people listen to them. I'm also guilty and reading too deeply into things at times because I'm concerned with the subtleties of language and how they can affect people.

PDN

Macros42 wrote: »

Really? At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law - WWII? The guy with the little moustache was a devout Christian and believed he was doing God's will in exterminating the Jews. (see I didn't mention his name? - Godwin is revoked )

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

Granted. I am not endorsing Sharia Law in the slightest but we were talking about world peace

No we weren't. We were talking about the Pope's comments on hope for the human race, and specifically that his belief that Christians represent such hope apparently excludes Islam as a the great hope for humanity.

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

I simply object to the subtle implication that scientific progress is bad guy when it's really mankind's track record regarding moral and ethical progress.

If you could point that part out to me it would be just swell! If you can't, then I can only assume that this is just a case of you interpreting something based on your personal dislike of the man and what he represents.

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm also guilty and reading too deeply into things at times because I'm concerned with the subtleties of language and how they can affect people.

Ah! A guardian against subtle implication. It's a shame though, that you are unable to link your misreading of the Popes message with your own admission that you are guilty of reading too deeply into things.

I know... seems that you are such a stalwart against the misuse of the subtleties of language, why not start off with the deliberately misleading thread title.

Huzza!

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you could point that part out to me it would be just swell! If you can't, then I can only assume that this is just a case of you interpreting something based on your personal dislike of the man and what he represents.

I've already explained my position in previous posts, which you obviously haven't bothered to read closely. I have no particular dislike of the Pope or what he represents, I simply object to his injudicious use of language. Perhaps, in your rush to label me with your preconceived notions of angry militant atheists and their opinions, you missed my point entirely.

I've admitted my initial error in incorrectly attributing comments to the Pope that were actually from journalists. I agree that his comments overtly appear to be pro-science. I also maintain that he (perhaps unknowingly) is being unfair when he says science "can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it" and that itb "opens up appalling possibilities for evil" because it suggests that, un-steered, it will destroy us i.e. that science is inherently dangerous, which I disagree with it.

And this whole issue was only a very minor part of my first post in this thread which was more concerned with his conflating of atheism, materialism and other modern nasties.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah! A guardian against subtle implication. It's a shame though, that you are unable to link your misreading of the Popes message with your own admission that you are guilty of reading too deeply into things.

Hmm, looks like you're too interested in trying to put the boot in than to actually engage in discussion and try to see my point. One last appeal: read my posts. Tbh, I have little further time for you if you cannot grant that small indulgence.

Fanny Cradock

I think I'll bow out of this discussion with you now 2scoops, lest you accuse me of not reading any more of your posts :eek: You are obviously content with seeing the spectre of an attack on science floating between the lines of his words. Sure why not PM the Pope and ask him what he meant - I think I saw PopeBenny around here somewhere.


It's a perfectly logical and reasonable to state that science has the posibility to cause great harm if there is not the moral framework to accompany it. Indeed, I'd argue that this kind of 'under the microscope' questioning is fundamental to science.

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think I'll bow out of this discussion with you now 2scoops, lest you accuse me of not reading any more of your posts :eek: You are obviously content with seeing the spectre of an attack on science floating between the lines of his words.

No arguments here.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a perfectly logical and reasonable to state that science has the posibility to cause great harm if there is not the moral framework to accompany it. Indeed, I'd argue that this kind of 'under the microscope' questioning is fundamental to science.

Again, something I completely agree with.

Splendour

Macros42 wrote: »

* Interestingly, I was just reading in today's times that 79% of Irish Catholics oppose church teaching prohibiting the use of condoms and 87% said that Catholic hospitals should be required to provide condoms as part of AIDS prevention.

One of the many things I disagreed with in the Catholic church was their prohibition on the use of condoms. Most Catholics use some form of contraception or another. I don't see how the above comment should be 'news' at all. If fact if anything at all, I personally am surprised at how low the figures are...

lostexpectation

what's materialism got to sdo with atheism? /broken record

nitrogen

He's up there with Bono on people I hate. His smug little creepy face makes me angry. One word: c-u-n-t.

Dades

He may have a smug creepy face, but let's not lower the tone here with the rest.

Schuhart

cavedave wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3016839520071130



Does this sound like a neoconservative to anyone? We need to believe in God not because he actually exists but because it is a useful lie to tell ourselves.

I've only actually read this thread now, and feel that the Pope is actually mining much the same vein as myself at present (just taking it from the news item).

I happened to be browsing a book by Daniel Dennett at lunchtime, but I didn't buy it as I happened across a sequence where he seemed to be saying 'its insulting to suggest that people would only be moral because of religion'. I might be misjudging the book from that quick browse, but I got that sense of annoyance again that we can sometimes dodge this issue.

I mean, what's insult got to do with it? If I'm engaging people in discussion about morality and its basis in a free environment, then I expect insult is something to be left at the door and the debate to be free to go wherever it needs. And if we come to the conclusion that religion is a necessary lie, what of it? Would we rather adopt a pose of hurt rather than engage, as best we can, with the consequences of what we believe?

estebancambias

So the leader of the Church is expected to like Atheists? I am sure he does not have a problem with Atheists but with their beliefs, after all you have been influenced by the Devil. That is why I do not understand when people say 'Surely God would not mind us thinking critically' Well no he would not but when your being misled by Satan, I would argue you are not thinking 'critically' at all. You have been led down the wrong path, but I hope the God I invision will not hold this against you.

condra

estebancambias wrote: »

That is why I do not understand when people say 'Surely God would not mind us thinking critically' Well no he would not but when your being misled by Satan, I would argue you are not thinking 'critically' at all.

LMAO. You really are deluded. Thanks for the giggle though.

Wacker

estebancambias wrote: »

after all you have been influenced by the Devil

I guess that explains why I carved a pentagram into mt forearm instead of buttering my toast this morning. It looks slick, but smarts like you wouldn't believe. And we're the experts on not believing.

Overheal

I have to agree with the Nazi-Pope on this one, while respecting the Pope's own religious beliefs. Like I was posting in another thread: God is a fairly fundamental concept to the unkown, if nothing else. The concept drives us with the comfort of knowing that some higher being has a grander plan for us to be revealed further on into the future. I can see why thats so alluring.

I don't see this as a rejection of atheism personally.

bill_ashmount

estebancambias wrote: »

I am sure he does not have a problem with Atheists but with their beliefs, after all you have been influenced by the Devil.

CerebralCortex

estebancambias wrote: »

So the leader of the Church is expected to like Atheists? I am sure he does not have a problem with Atheists but with their beliefs, after all you have been influenced by the Devil. That is why I do not understand when people say 'Surely God would not mind us thinking critically' Well no he would not but when your being misled by Satan, I would argue you are not thinking 'critically' at all. You have been led down the wrong path, but I hope the God I invision will not hold this against you.

This may sound stupid but it came to be when I read your post. If the devil/satan is so bad/evil why doesn't God in all his power kick his ass back to hell? Actually if he knew us mere mortals were being led down the wrong path why would he even care?

Beruthiel

estebancambias wrote: »

after all you have been influenced by the Devil.

Seriously, if you wish to stop sounding like a loon, you've got to stop making such outlandish statements.

estebancambias

You have not been directly infiltrated by the devil, but subliminally the devil has influenced you.

bill_ashmount

estebancambias wrote: »

You have not been directly infiltrated by the devil, but subliminally the devil has influenced you.

and again....:D

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

do you think timothy mcveigh was the devil?

estebancambias

No he was not the devil.