Ha, take that Ratzinger!

The Quadratic Equation · 07-11-2011 02:12AM

Plautus wrote: »

I do not, and did not, need to 'get' anything. In between reading wikipedia, where have you studied History in an academic context?

Your argumentation is appalling, no-mark Godwin's Law schtick. There are several Christian historians I can think of who would cringe for you.

Do you believe to judge Hitler actions as Theist/Christian is a manipulation of the typology ? Yes or No ?

Plautus · 07-11-2011 02:18AM

You blundered into this thread with a ****ty snipe about Eamon Glimore accomplishing what Hitler couldn't, and now we've got you to admit that Hitler was anti-clerical, but not an atheist.

The natural corollary of that is some kind of religious belief, be it in magic, deism, polytheism or indeed theism where his version of Jesus was heavily informed by centuries of dogma surrounding the Jewish deicide. His personal credo is a real hotch-potch and it isn't much more reducible beyond that.

My advice to you is to leave the Nazis well alone if your recourse is to wikipedia every time we have to get into the detail of the period.

The Quadratic Equation · 07-11-2011 02:31AM

Plautus wrote: »

You blundered into this thread with a ****ty snipe about Eamon Glimore accomplishing what Hitler couldn't, and now we've got you to admit that Hitler was anti-clerical, but not an atheist.

The natural corollary of that is some kind of religious belief, be it in magic, deism, polytheism or indeed theism where his version of Jesus was heavily informed by centuries of dogma surrounding the Jewish deicide. His personal credo is a real hotch-potch and it isn't much more reducible beyond that.

My advice to you is to leave the Nazis well alone if your recourse is to wikipedia every time we have to get into the detail of the period.

Do you believe to judge Hitler actions as Theist/Christian is a manipulation of the typology ? Yes or No ?

Plautus · 07-11-2011 02:37AM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Do you believe to judge Hitler actions as Theist/Christian is a manipulation of the typology ? Yes or No ?

Ugh ... False dichotomy. His actions and beliefs incorporate traditional Christian (and some anti-semitic) elements almost as much as they include horoscopes, Norse Mythology, the magical power of blood, Buddhist augury, numerology etc.

The point? It's very hard to call someone who carries all of this along in his fevered imagination an atheist. And in practice his public policy toward Churches was markedly not atheistic. And you can judge him non-Christian accordingly if you wish. I'm only interested in debunking the allegation of atheism.

And once more, with feeling, please for the love of the muse Clio stop blathering on about the Nazis. Apart from cheapening the discussion, I'm not entirely clear that you have any authority with which to speak about them convincingly.

B_Fanatic · 07-11-2011 03:02AM

Plautus wrote: »

Ugh ... False dichotomy. His actions and beliefs incorporate traditional Christian (and some anti-semitic) elements almost as much as they include horoscopes, Norse Mythology, the magical power of blood, Buddhist augury, numerology etc.

The point? It's very hard to call someone who carries all of this along in his fevered imagination an atheist. And in practice his public policy toward Churches was markedly not atheistic. And you can judge him non-Christian accordingly if you wish. I'm only interested in debunking the allegation of atheism.

And once more, with feeling, please for the love of the muse Clio stop blathering on about the Nazis. Apart from cheapening the discussion, I'm not entirely clear that you have any authority with which to speak about them convincingly.

Wait, if you want him to stop talking about Nazis why are you retorting to his arguments referring them? Isn't TQE allowed to make a counterstatements or do you only win arguments if you bully the opposition into submission? I'm by no means advocating TQE's stance, but still, it seems a little childish asking someone to drop a point after about 5 pages of arguing it.

Plautus · 07-11-2011 03:09AM

B_Fanatic wrote: »

Wait, if you want him to stop talking about Nazis why are you retorting to his arguments referring them? Isn't TQE allowed to make a counterstatements or do you only win arguments if you bully the opposition into submission? I'm by no means advocating TQE's stance, but still, it seems a little childish asking someone to drop a point after about 5 pages of arguing it.

Of necessity, one engages bad arguments to show that they're bad. How this is inconsistent with asking someone to cease the fruitless exercise of speaking about that which they have no demonstrable expertise in I do not know. We're into distinctly tedious, well-worn Godwin territory. And the point of contention: that Hitler was not an atheist, has been conceded. It's over.

'Bullying' if you please! The Nazis are utterly ephemeral to the question of Ireland's embassy to the Holy See and I would have rather not seen them introduced: but Quadratic did so. And of all my capabilities, I know that forcing Christians to heel is not one of them. One can only make requests that they stop making a dog's dinner of history.

sensibleken · 07-11-2011 09:45AM

On the whole athiests are living dead thing. We prefer the term undead or as gaelge 'Neamh-Mairbh'. Now you christians have oppressed and murdered us undead for centuries and never once has someone been killed in ireland in the name of undeadness, maybe because we were hungry but thats ok right?

Besides, we were once on the same side, christians and the undead, we hated and fought the philistines too remember? shower of arc of the covenant stealing bastards the lot of them! Sure even your Jesus lad was one of us!

"First they came for the zombies, and i said nothing because i was not a zombie.
Then they came for the braaaaaaiiiiinssssssss"

B_Fanatic · 07-11-2011 08:20PM

Plautus wrote: »

Of necessity, one engages bad arguments to show that they're bad. How this is inconsistent with asking someone to cease the fruitless exercise of speaking about that which they have no demonstrable expertise in I do not know. We're into distinctly tedious, well-worn Godwin territory. And the point of contention: that Hitler was not an atheist, has been conceded. It's over.

'Bullying' if you please! The Nazis are utterly ephemeral to the question of Ireland's embassy to the Holy See and I would have rather not seen them introduced: but Quadratic did so. And of all my capabilities, I know that forcing Christians to heel is not one of them. One can only make requests that they stop making a dog's dinner of history.

I'll admit, I didn't actually read the last ten pages... But I suppose you were probably able to guess that.

mewso · 07-11-2011 11:30PM

Lads I don't understand why people even get into the argument as to whether Herr Hitler was an Atheist or not. Who cares. The idea that his belief or lack of belief in a god or gods influenced his desire to control and cleanse his country is laughable and the whole suggestion is an internet meme or whatever you call it for a very good reason. He probably didn't believe in Leprechauns either but I don't think it had a bearing on his lunacy.

If TQE wants to lord it over us with Adolf being an Atheist let him fire away. When he can show me the Atheist point by point plan for building ovens then I might start to doubt.

On the contrary, though, if I want to see how a country might be run by a dictator with a literal interpretation of the word of god then a quick look through the bible and it's easy to see we'd probably have something like Hitler and Stalin combined but I wouldn't blame Christianity in that case either just a lack of sanity.

Galvasean · 08-11-2011 12:08AM

mewso wrote: »

If TQE wants to lord it over us with Adolf being an Atheist let him fire away. When he can show me the Atheist point by point plan for building ovens then I might start to doubt.

This is where you opinion on the matter differs from mine. Personally I feel obliged to call people out on such nonsense when I see it being spread out in public. Not that I think I have a hope in changing TQE's opinion on the matter, but rather so that passing by fence sitters (who would be less clued in on such matters than yourself) don't see such opinions going unchallenged and conclude that there mus be something to them. By publicly countering nonsense we diminish the chances of more people being taken in by it.

mewso · 08-11-2011 01:25AM

Galvasean wrote: »

This is where you opinion on the matter differs from mine. Personally I feel obliged to call people out on such nonsense when I see it being spread out in public. Not that I think I have a hope in changing TQE's opinion on the matter, but rather so that passing by fence sitters (who would be less clued in on such matters than yourself) don't see such opinions going unchallenged and conclude that there mus be something to them. By publicly countering nonsense we diminish the chances of more people being taken in by it.

I'd prefer if passing by fence sitters were made aware of how Atheism is not a political outlook nor is it an indication of how a person will behave in power. I take the point though.

Plautus · 08-11-2011 01:38AM

We know that Atheism is not a political outlook, but my interest is in the historical record first and the faulty rhetorical strategy second.

The Quadratic Equation · 08-11-2011 07:54PM

Plautus wrote: »

And the point of contention: that Hitler was not an atheist, has been conceded. It's over.

This is rubbish, I said his actions were not typically atheist or theist or Christian, you can wriggle all you want, it is as plain as day you're not honest enough to agree.

Plautus · 08-11-2011 10:08PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

This is rubbish, I said his actions were not typically atheist or theist or Christian, you can wriggle all you want, it is as plain as day you're not honest enough to agree.

And you're evidently not knowledgeable enough to know that his thinking was religious or mystical; but not essentially, i.e. only in part, Christian, and definitely not atheist

The opposite of atheism isn't theism per se: there's beliefs like deism, pantheism, magic ... I've explained this before. Further, anti-clericalism on its own isn't a satisfactory test for atheism. Very religious types can also be viciously anti-clerical. I can think of Jean Calvin, off the top of my head.

Looking forward immensely to whatever you choose to quote from wikipedia next as a substitute for historical study.

But wait, wait, we're getting sidetracked here. Eamon Gilmore's actions are not comparable to those of Hitler alright? I mean only a dullard would make a comparison like tha-... oh.

Galvasean · 09-11-2011 01:42PM

I for one am glad World War 2 is long over
On an entirely unrelated note I am also pleased that Ireland's embassy in the Vatican is to close.

Nodin · 09-11-2011 04:48PM

In somewhat related news....no 'Pope of Rome' to visit us next year, apparently.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/papal-visit-to-ireland-unlikely-after-gilmore-statement/

Those hoping for some 'Turn up and have sins forgiven' bank holiday weekend special will presumably have to travel abroad for the next one.

Doctor DooM · 09-11-2011 06:39PM

“If the Pope now came in the full knowledge that the government did not want to invite him, then he would be forced to come as a private citizen,” he noted.

...and?

Plautus · 09-11-2011 07:15PM

He doesn't want to suffer the terrible indignity of being snubbed, basically. Can you imagine, no aides-de-camp or politicians to greet him on the tarmac at Dublin Airport! :eek:

Feckit - RTE might not even break off their mid-morning repeat of Dallas to cut to his arrival.

Nodin · 09-11-2011 07:34PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

“If the Pope now came in the full knowledge that the government did not want to invite him, then he would be forced to come as a private citizen,” he noted.

...and?

No parade. Whats the point of being the pope if you don't get a parade?

sensibleken · 09-11-2011 07:40PM

Nodin wrote: »

No parade. Whats the point of being the pope if you don't get a parade?

you get a special chair with a hole for your balls and another magic seat where you can never be wrong if you sit on it.

Mistress 69 · 10-11-2011 12:09PM

An interesting piece

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1110/1224307310295.html

ShooterSF · 10-11-2011 01:57PM

Mistress 69 wrote: »

An interesting piece

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1110/1224307310295.html

Couldn't get passed this sentence I'm afraid.

It is ironic that, soon after Russia’s long-term special resident envoy to the Holy See was raised to full ambassador, soon after Britain upgraded its newly established mission to the Holy See, and almost immediately following Australia’s decision to open a resident mission, Ireland should close its Embassy.

Plautus · 10-11-2011 05:07PM

Twomey's a major crank. He 'gathers' that the Irish missionaries are responsible for giving a lot of contractors a foot in the door of the African market.

Well that's good to know but as his great Satan, the very anti-Catholic Chinese, are getting the bulk of infrastructure tenders in both North and Sub-Saharan African countries maybe his point is a little eh, forced.

Genghiz Cohen · 10-11-2011 05:15PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

“If the Pope now came in the full knowledge that the government did not want to invite him, then he would be forced to come as a private citizen,” he noted.

...and?

No diplomatic immunity?

Galvasean · 10-11-2011 05:18PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

No diplomatic immunity?

So Hammer CAN sue?

Genghiz Cohen · 10-11-2011 06:16PM

Galvasean wrote: »

So Hammer CAN sue?

The correct response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY

The Quadratic Equation · 10-11-2011 08:20PM

Plautus wrote: »

Twomey's a major crank.

Twomey's far from it, and he's nobodys fool, least of all yours. Though I can understand why you would be keen to try and smear him.

smokingman · 10-11-2011 10:59PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Twomey's far from it, and he's nobodys fool, least of all yours. Though I can understand why you would be keen to try and smear him.

No need for anyone here to smear him; he does it to himself with the contents of what he comes out with...

.....by that I mean.....

....he smears himself....

....with his own shyte......

.....with da poopoo.....

....DA POOPOO!!

fitz0 · 10-11-2011 11:41PM

Where do all these declarations of the Vatican as a "major player" in the world of statesmanship have their basis?

From what I can gather, the Vatican has nothing more at its disposal than a rapidly declining network of agents scattered throughout the world and a very high horse to sit on. Since losing its place as overseer to Catholic Europe and the gradual loosening of its hold upon those nations and loss of any military force, what does it have? It's not a major economic player, not a major military player, not a major moral player (the aforementioned network includes far too many kiddie fiddlers for that). With the multi cultural nature of modern Europe where the Catholic population is decreasing, it logically should mean that the Vatican's influence decreases with it.

All I can see the Vatican as is a puffed up, patriarchal, slightly senile dinosaur that seems to still think it has a say in what the world does. The world has moved on, and the sooner everyone stops enabling the Vatican to claim to be a major player the better.

Sarky · 10-11-2011 11:44PM

smokingman wrote: »

No need for anyone here to smear him; he does it to himself with the contents of what he comes out with...

.....by that I mean.....

....he smears himself....

....with his own shyte......

.....with da poopoo.....

....DA POOPOO!!

Goodness me, you're not suggesting Mr. Twomey... eats da poopoo?

Ha, take that Ratzinger!

Comments