Keyboard warrior atheists in AH

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

It's not semantics at all. Let's say Bill Gates let me stay at his house for a year, all expenses paid, and after the year he kicks me out with the same amount in my pockets as I had when I entered. Does that make me as wealthy as Bill Gates? Does that make me rich? At the end of the day I'm no better or worse off as an individual. Your logic is like looking at the owners of some English country estate and deciding they must be filthy rich... they mightn't have a pot to píss in but that makes no difference to you................

Is this the very same shíte the english royal family came out with when they had to start paying tax? Overnight the worlds richest woman was practicaly on skid row!
I'm sorry but owning countless billions in assets does by definition make you rich. To argue otherwise is just plain stupid.
The pope will not be thrown out of Bill Gates house and left to fend for himself, he's there till death, with his every whim being pampered. He's obscenely rich.

prinz wrote: »

You get three coins for each year of your papacy. That's your salary at the end of it.................

This has a bit of a smell of politicians expenses off it i reckon. And even if all he got was 3 coins, why bury them, why not give them to someone less fortunate, if such a person could be found i suppose!

prinz wrote: »

..and this just goes to show that you have no real interest in actually discussing anything, just revelling in your own C.T. world and regurgitating the same nonsense over and over.......and over...............

It's not a theory. It's a blatantly obvious fact, you just refuse to see it, or pretend you can't see. To be honest, i don't know which of those two positions is worse.
I'll ask you again, why does the vatican not sell off all those priceless works of art and put the money to good use? What possible common good comes from all this hoarding of treasure?

prinz

Cool Mo D wrote: »

If someone told you you would have complete personal control over a vast number of people and hundreds of billions of euro worth of property, while living in several ancient palaces full of priceless artworks, as well as being the absolute ruler of a small country with its own small army, if you are not rich, the word has become meaningless. Saying that the Pope is poor is so disingenuous I can't believe people are trying it.

The Pope doesn't exert personal control over the assets of the Church. The Pope doesn't decide single-handedly what gets sold for cash, what gets done with the parish field in Ballygobackwards, or any of that stuff. Apparently some people still can't grasp the difference between personal wealth and everything else. The Pope is a guardian like the President here. We don't refer to Mary McAleese as fabulously wealthy because she lives in the Áras and there's the national gallery with priceless artworks, and an army, etc.

I never said he was poor either. I said IMO a best-selling author, with TV shows and countless appearance fess every year is probably personally wealthier.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm sorry but owning countless billions in assets does by definition make you rich.

He doesn't own them any more than Sarkozy owns the Élysée Palace..

Einhard

Cool Mo D wrote: »

If someone told you you would have complete personal control over a vast number of people and hundreds of billions of euro worth of property, while living in several ancient palaces full of priceless artworks, as well as being the absolute ruler of a small country with its own small army, if you are not rich, the word has become meaningless.

THis is ridiculous. The pope does not have personal control over a vast number of people, or hundreds of billions of euro worth of property. That's just not the case. If Benny sought to sell St. Peters for his own provate benefit, he would not be able to do so!! It's very simple.

Saying that the Pope is poor is so disingenuous I can't believe people are trying it.

Nobody is saying he's poor. But he's not a man of significant, private, personal means. He's well looked after and cared for, but the private wealth that he controls is insignificant. And I'd note that the likes of Forbes and other rich lists tend to agree.

Spunge

It's not just on AH. It's extremely cool and hip to be an atheist these days.

sbsquarepants

Einhard wrote: »

orry spongebob, I'm completely with prinz on this one. The pope doesn;t have control or power over all the wealth that you claim for him, so how can that possibly be creditied to his personal account as you seek to do? If he wanted to in the morn, he couldn't for example, buy himself a private mansion in Bavaria, or charter a yacht. Even were he to buy himself a car, it wouldn't be his, but the chuches, and would go back to the Church on his death/abdication.

I'm not claiming the pope owns everything in the vatican. I'm saying he's rich. He has everything he wants for, he will never, ever have to do without anything, he has the best of food, clothes, health care, and so on and so forth. Let's face it, he's not going to be worried about getting new tyres for the pope mobile now is he:D That to me, is a rich man.

Einhard wrote: »

You claim that the pope is wealthy because he is the head of the world's wealthiest body. Well, Harvard is the second wealthiest private body in the world... nobody would claim that its president is therefore the second wealthiest man in the world. In Ireland, the provost of Trinity gets possibly the finest house in the most desireable location in Dublin, a car, and all expenses. Again, nobody would claim that, because of this, he is amongst Ireland's richest men. !

I'm claiming he's wealthy because he has all the trappings and benefits of wealth. I claim the same for anyone else who has similar trappings. It's like some wealthy sugar daddy putting his mistress up in a flash pad, with a flash car and all her expenses paid for the rest of her life, but it's still "his stuff"

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is a very lazy argument. The Vatican is a repository fof the world's art. It's for everyone, not just Catholics. It's an incredible artistic resource and treasure. Ask any art lover or art professional and they'd tell call you a madman for wanting to break it up, and see incredible art treasures disappear into private collections, or be broken up and sent around the world.

Also, the notion that selling all that art would greatly alleviate hunger in the world is laughable. The primary cause of starvation in Africa isn't lack of resources, but chronic maladministration of funds. Since the 60s trillions of dollars has been pumped into Africa through charity, and it has had very little effect. The billions that might be raised through selling Church artwork would see a similar fate. And the greatest artistic collection ever assembled would be lost to humanity. I'm no lover of the Church, but that's an incredible sucky deal!

Ok, donate it to the smithsonian or some such. The vatican are not providing a service by selflessly holding on to all this bothersome artwork!
They keep it cos it's worth money, what other "charity" hoards money this way? Last i noticed it said nothing in the 10 commandments about protecting and preserving art!

gbee

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Last i noticed it said nothing in the 10 commandments about protecting and preserving art!

I think that was the legendary 11th commandment on the chip that clumsy Moses broke off on his way back down the mountain.

Those stones weighed a ton ye know!

Ghost Buster

Spunge wrote: »

It's not just on AH. It's extremely cool and hip to be an atheist these days.

Mrs Doyle. is that you?
Atheism is more visable now and socially acceptable... thats all.. It can have a voice with out fear of being ostracised from society, read from the pulpit, burned even. Its the same as for homosexuality. Its suddenly out in the open and very very happy about it
BUT ITS NOTHING NEW
What is it with this obsession with the coolness or otherwise of atheists?
Perhaps its just a drive by lazy arguement from those unable to make a better one?
Is that the best you can do? I mean really?
Try engaging in debate instead and you can be cool as well! so.:o

Its posts like this that make it ok for anyone, atheists included, to question the intelligence of other posters

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ok, donate it to the smithsonian or some such. The vatican are not providing a service by selflessly holding on to all this bothersome artwork!!

Why do we have a National Gallery?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They keep it cos it's worth money, what other "charity" hoards money this way?!

"Hoarding money" could be said to be better than gambling it. You do realise that all the well known charities (and churches) in this country invest money in shares and the likes?

Einhard

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not claiming the pope owns everything in the vatican. I'm saying he's rich. He has everything he wants for, he will never, ever have to do without anything, he has the best of food, clothes, health care, and so on and so forth. Let's face it, he's not going to be worried about getting new tyres for the pope mobile now is he:D That to me, is a rich man.

Well I think we have different understandings of the word wealthy then. To me it denotes the resources that a person has personal authority over, to dispense with as he sees fit. This clearly doesn't apply to the pope.

He is certainly a well looked after individual, and the post comes with great perks . But Mary McAleese lives in one of the finest houses in the Republic, and incurs no personal expense for her lifestyle. Would you count her as rich? Or how about the president of Harvard or the provost of Trinity? Wealth is private. If the money one depends on for one's lifestyle is not one's own, then one can't be said to be wealthy.

I'm claiming he's wealthy because he has all the trappings and benefits of wealth. I claim the same for anyone else who has similar trappings. It's like some wealthy sugar daddy putting his mistress up in a flash pad, with a flash car and all her expenses paid for the rest of her life, but it's still "his stuff"

That's not the definition of wealthy though. It's benefitting from someone elses' largesse, but the beneficiaries could not be said to be personally wealthy. For example, until relatively recently, a wife had no legal claim to her husband's wealth. She may have lived a luxurious lifestyle, but she was dependent on him, and therefore not wealthy in her own right. As numerous high profile divorce cases in 18th and 19th century Britain woudl attest to.

Ok, donate it to the smithsonian or some such. The vatican are not providing a service by selflessly holding on to all this bothersome artwork!
They keep it cos it's worth money, what other "charity" hoards money this way? Last i noticed it said nothing in the 10 commandments about protecting and preserving art!

What benefit would donating it to the Smithsonian accrue? Also, AFAIK, the Church uses the proceeds from such activities to fund its operations across the world. Are they not entitled to do this? To fund their priests and parishes and charities in Africa and elsewhere through their own legitimate revenues? I understand that people are anti-Church, and it is understandable, but sometimes the positions emanating from such stances seem more vindictive than anything else.

sbsquarepants

We have a national gallery to display and protect artworks for the people of ireland. The director of the national gallery does not claim to be infallible, nor does he tell anyone how they should live, he doesn't make pronouncements that are morally binding on anyone, he doesn't interfere in the running of schools or hospitals, he doesn't actively cover up sex scandals involving his staff (not that i know of anyway). In short he just looks after artworks, that's what galleries are for!

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We have a national gallery to display and protect artworks for the people of ireland.

...and the Vatican keeps and protects an enormous amount of artwork and literature for the people of the world.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The director of the national gallery does not claim to be infallible..

Been dealt with already on this thread. The current pope has only spoken expressly on infallibility once AFAIK, and that was to remind people that he wasn't, in fact, infallible in all things.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

nor does he tell anyone how they should live..

We get told how to live day in, day out, by people. Celebrities, campaigners, ecowarriers, politicians, charity staff.... if you don't agree don't listen.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

he doesn't make pronouncements that are morally binding on anyone..

The only people who are morally bound to abide by his pronouncements are Catholics...and lo and behold, I haven't been visited by the Swiss Guard late at night for disagreeing with him on certain matters yet. Don't want to be bound.....don't be. Simples.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

he doesn't interfere in the running of schools or hospitals..

Yeah I remember that time the Pope came and said we weren't allowed to play tennis ball soccer in the middle yard of the school anymore. The bastard and his interfering.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

he doesn't actively cover up sex scandals involving his staff (not that i know of anyway)

Any link to the Director of the Vatican museums being involved in child sex scandals? Antonio Paolucci is the name, he is not even a member of the clergy by the way.

Yeah, yeah now we're getting to it. You've got an axe to grind, and it doesn't really matter how it's done or whether your argument of the day makes any real sense or not. I have respect for people with legitimate issues and I share many of them... on the other hand some others...not so much.

sbsquarepants

Einhard wrote: »

Well I think we have different understandings of the word wealthy then. To me it denotes the resources that a person has personal authority over, to dispense with as he sees fit. This clearly doesn't apply to the pope..

I think we're vearin into semantics here. To me wealthy means money not being an issue. The Pope may not have a bank account like Bill Gates does. But it is inconcievable that money could ever be problem for him. Any problem he has that can be fixed by spending money will be fixed, regardless of price, whether that's his 3 coin salary or 3 million will make absolutely no difference. That to me is a wealthy man.

Einhard wrote: »

He is certainly a well looked after individual, and the post comes with great perks . But Mary McAleese lives in one of the finest houses in the Republic, and incurs no personal expense for her lifestyle. Would you count her as rich? Or how about the president of Harvard or the provost of Trinity? Wealth is private. If the money one depends on for one's lifestyle is not one's own, then one can't be said to be wealthy...

Again, it's semantics, but yes i'd say all those peope are most probably quite wealthy. Maybe not in the riches beyond your wildest dreams sense of the word, but i'd bet they're all in the top 1% in the developed world. If that's not rich, then what is?

Einhard wrote: »

What benefit would donating it to the Smithsonian accrue? Also, AFAIK, the Church uses the proceeds from such activities to fund its operations across the world. Are they not entitled to do this? To fund their priests and parishes and charities in Africa and elsewhere through their own legitimate revenues? I understand that people are anti-Church, and it is understandable, but sometimes the positions emanating from such stances seem more vindictive than anything else.

Giving it all away would get nothing, selling it would raise a vast fortune. Some of these small groups working in africa and the likes could make great use of a few grand here and there, why not give it to them rather than leave it cluttering up the vatican? Even if it only does some good, surely that's better than none at all?

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Giving it all away would get nothing, selling it would raise a vast fortune. Some of these small groups working in africa and the likes could make great use of a few grand here and there, why not give it to them rather than leave it cluttering up the vatican? Even if it only does some good, surely that's better than none at all?

Aren't these the same groups that are 'interfering' in schools and hospitals, telling people how to live, sharing the Pope's moral pronouncements?

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

...and the Vatican keeps and protects an enormous amount of artwork and literature for the people of the world..

Why? Surely the work of god is more their remit?

prinz wrote: »

...We get told how to live day in, day out, by people. Celebrities, campaigners, ecowarriers, politicians, charity staff.... if you don't agree don't listen. ..

We don't get indoctrinated into the cult of paris hilton or lindsay lohan though. They also don't threaten us with hell if we don't live by their rules.

prinz wrote: »

...The only people who are morally bound to abide by his pronouncements are Catholics...and lo and behold, I haven't been visited by the Swiss Guard late at night for disagreeing with him on certain matters yet. Don't want to be bound.....don't be. Simples...

Not as simples for a lot of people, as you disengeniously make it out to be, especially the less well off and less educated people of the world. The fear of god is extremely real for a lot of people.

prinz wrote: »

...Yeah I remember that time the Pope came and said we weren't allowed to play tennis ball soccer in the middle yard of the school anymore. The bastard and his interfering....

The swine! Do you remember the things he said about contraception too? Or about abortion? About medical research? He's done much worse than ruin your game!

prinz wrote: »

...Any link to the Director of the Vatican museums being involved in child sex scandals? Antonio Paolucci is the name, he is not even a member of the clergy by the way.....

No, never heard of him in fact. A lot of his colleagues are well dodgy though, including his ultimate boss.

prinz wrote: »

...Yeah, yeah now we're getting to it. You've got an axe to grind, and it doesn't really matter how it's done or whether your argument of the day makes any real sense or not. I have respect for people with legitimate issues and I share many of them... on the other hand some others...not so much.

I make no bones about it, i don't like the church, i don't like religion as a concept, i've never hidden that fact. Of course i have an axe to grind, same as yourself, if we didn't we wouldn't have given the morning over to arguing about it!
However that doesn't mean what i've said isn't true. I'm an atheist and proud of it, but i'm a fairly honest one!
As for your respect, i don't really crave it to be honest!

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Aren't these the same groups that are 'interfering' in schools and hospitals, telling people how to live, sharing the Pope's moral pronouncements?

Some are, some aren't.
I suppose giving to the ones that aren't is stretching it too far!:D

cursai

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Great, another thread about atheists.

I give it ten minutes before some God loving Mod locks it.

Or a hardcore athiest!!!:)

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why? Surely the work of god is more their remit?..

...and?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We don't get indoctrinated into the cult of paris hilton or lindsay lohan though. They also don't threaten us with hell if we don't live by their rules...

I can't recall that happening to me. When was the last time you were threatened and forced into 'living by their rules'.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Not as simples for a lot of people, as you disengeniously make it out to be, especially the less well off and less educated people of the world. The fear of god is extremely real for a lot of people...

You're in a bad way so. I'd suggest a tin foil hat A.S.A.P.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The swine! Do you remember the things he said about contraception too? Or about abortion? About medical research? He's done much worse than ruin your game!...

Again, is there a point to any of this? Don't like it, don't listen.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No, never heard of him in fact. A lot of his colleagues are well dodgy though, including his ultimate boss...

Yeah I thought that might be the case alright.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I make no bones about it, i don't like the church, i don't like religion as a concept, i've never hidden that fact. Of course i have an axe to grind, same as yourself, if we didn't we wouldn't have given the morning over to arguing about it!...

The only axe I have to grind is against people spouting nonsense. Like I said already I have no issue with people having legitimate issues.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

However that doesn't mean what i've said isn't true. I'm an atheist and proud of it, but i'm a fairly honest one!!

All you've said is a whole lot of contradictory rubbish. On the one had you criticise religion, especially the RCC operating in the pooer and less educated parts of the world. ON the other hand you think these same peole should be given billions of euros to help that mission. Which is it?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As for your respect, i don't really crave it to be honest!

No fear there.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

...and? .

Good point, i wish i'd thought of that!

prinz wrote: »

...I can't recall that happening to me. When was the last time you were threatened and forced into 'living by their rules'..

Religion class in primary school. I opted out by the time i reached secondary and had developed the ability to think for myself.

prinz wrote: »

...You're in a bad way so. I'd suggest a tin foil hat A.S.A.P..

This is even more idiotic than most of the crap you post, and that's saying a lot.

prinz wrote: »

...Again, is there a point to any of this? Don't like it, don't listen..

Again, you're being disingenious, seem to be one of your more pronounced traits.

prinz wrote: »

...Yeah I thought that might be the case alright..

Why would you think i'd have heard of him? I'd wager the vast majority of people here haven't.

prinz wrote: »

...The only axe I have to grind is against people spouting nonsense. Like I said already I have no issue with people having legitimate issues. .

You have a problem with anything anti catholic church as far as i can see.
At least i'm honest about where i stand. But then as i've already said honesty and catholicism don't make easy bedfellows.

prinz wrote: »

...All you've said is a whole lot of contradictory rubbish. On the one had you criticise religion, especially the RCC operating in the pooer and less educated parts of the world. ON the other hand you think these same peole should be given billions of euros to help that mission. Which is it?.

I didn't criticise them "operating" in poor parts of the world, i criticised them indoctrinating un-eductated people who have no choice but to listen. I criticise them spouting on about charity and doing good, while sitting back and watching people starve and all the while hoarding an obscene amount of wealth "for the people of the world", as you put it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that one of your gods poor starving fúckers, would rather a bowl of rice or a nice juicy steak, than the cosy knowledge that the worlds greatest art collection is in safe hands, should he somehow get to rome and pay the entrance fee to see it.
No doubt you disagree!

prinz wrote: »

...No fear there.

Wouldn't want it any other way!

Ghost Buster

cursai wrote: »

Or a hardcore athiest!!!:)

Whats a hard core atheist. One who are really really really not convinced about the existance of gods?
Regular one are only not convinced about the existance of gods:D

Ps I think Prinze and Sponge Bob need new handbags.

sbsquarepants

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ps I think Prinze and Sponge Bob need new handbags.

:eek:

I think you're right, time to call it a day!
Next time, gadget, next time:D

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Good point, i wish i'd thought of that!!

It's difficult to rebutt a point that hasn't really been made. I was waiting for you to finish it.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Religion class in primary school. I opted out by the time i reached secondary and had developed the ability to think for myself.

So all that indoctrination and threats worked well I see.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This is even more idiotic than most of the crap you post, and that's saying a lot..

I'm not the one with the conspiracy hat one here.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Again, you're being disingenious, seem to be one of your more pronounced traits....

How is it disingenuous? You're a perfect example, you claim to have been indoctrinated and threatened and "opted out" not long after.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why would you think i'd have heard of him? I'd wager the vast majority of people here haven't...

Apparently you'd heard of him enough to claim he'd been involved in covering up child sexual abuse. I just that, you know, instead of rolling everything into one you could actually deal with individual people, or is that asking too much in C.T. land?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You have a problem with anything anti catholic church as far as i can see.
At least i'm honest about where i stand. But then as i've already said honesty and catholicism don't make easy bedfellows....

No I haven't. I'm happy to discuss real issues with people who actually have something worthwhile to say rather than childish soapboxing.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I didn't criticise them "operating" in poor parts of the world, i criticised them indoctrinating un-eductated people who have no choice but to listen. I criticise them spouting on about charity and doing good, while sitting back and watching people starve and all the while hoarding an obscene amount of wealth "for the people of the world", as you put it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that one of your gods poor starving fúckers, would rather a bowl of rice or a nice juicy steak, than the cosy knowledge that the worlds greatest art collection is in safe hands, should he somehow get to rome and pay the entrance fee to see it. No doubt you disagree!....

The world's single biggest charitable organisation. I see. When you know something about (a) the organisation of the RCC, and (b) the religion itself, come back and we can discuss the myriad of problems it has. There are some atheist posters who can manage at least the basics and I have no problem whatsoever discussing the pros and many cons of the RCC.

Mike 1972

the comparisons between the Pope with the Vatican artworks and the President with the National gallery miss out on one big point

The President doesnt have free reign to sell off the contents of the National gallery and do a runner with the proceeds because the constitution contains enough checks and balances (Oireachtas, Supreme Court, Cabinet, Council of state) to limit the extent of her powers.

The Vatican doesnt have a written constitution or separation of powers. Once the pope is appointed he is the supreme, infallible, dictator-for-life of the whole damn place. While he might (out of necessity) have delegated many of the powers relating to the day to day administration of the Vatican and its many institutions to various subordinates whatever powers he giveth he can take away. One only has to read up on the history of the set up to see the extent to which a Pope can abuse their position. The Borgias would be the most notorious example but there are plenty of others.

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The Vatican doesnt have a written constitution or separation of powers.

It does have a certain Holy Book however that governs it.

Once the pope is appointed he is the supreme, infallible, dictator-for-life of the whole damn place. While he might (out of necessity) have delegated many of the powers relating to the day to day administration of the Vatican and its many institutions to various subordinates whatever powers he giveth he can take away. One only has to read up on the history of the set up to see the extent to which a Pope can abuse their position. The Borgias would be the most notorious example but there are plenty of others.

The Borgias lived in the 16th Century. This is the 21st Century. Times have moved on and I highly doubt such blatant corruption would go unchecked.

In any case your dislike of Catholicism hasn't got much to do with the thread.

Logical Fallacy

Thanks to the all powerful Atheizmo i have seen the light.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It does have a certain Holy Book however that governs it.

Didnt seem to have much influence on (to pick just one example) Alexander VI.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In any case your dislike of Catholicism hasn't got much to do with the thread.

Are you studying for a PhD in the blindingly obvious

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Didnt seem to have much influence on (to pick just one example) Alexander VI.

One corrupt person out of a certain tiny quantity of corrupt people out of billions of Catholics alive and dead.

In groups that span the billions it's no surprise that there are bad eggs among them.

Mike 1972

So you agree it is possible for an evil bastard to assume control of the Vatican and carry on with little or no restraint and that there have been occasions when exactly that has happened.

Now we are getting somewhere

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So you agree it is possible for an evil bastard to assume control of the Vatican and carry on with little or no restraint and that there have been occasions when exactly that has happened.

Now we are getting somewhere

I'm not a Catholic. I do not agree with Papal infallibility.

Metallitroll

religon's just a deterrant int it; for those that can't follow a what should be a common moral code aka common sense. where the police can't always be and thoughts can't be monitored anyhow 'god' will eternally keep watch over the immoral plebians. i'm comfortable with that; besides i like graveyards n churches n shít.


- but used to think i was athiest to suit my image never went on about it; we just let the old devil music do the winding up