Pope warns of "atheist extremism" on visit to Britain

reply to post by bogomil





Exactly.... there is no reasoning with such a person.
They don't let something like the truth or facts get in the way of a good argument.

Re: Blup

Being somewhat of a R.A.Wilson type, I wouldn't know about 'truth' etc (I prefer relative realities or approximate truth), but at least we can compare various methodologies for finding 'truth', where the outcome can be used for evaluating the method used.

A while ago we had a thread of this kind, where we ended up with a toasters=humans situation.

A toaster can't fly.
A human can't fly

Ergo: A toaster = A human.

Terrible, terrible semantics. But I guess they don't teach general semantics in sunday school.

Originally posted by OurManInGlasgow

Originally posted by blupblup
Also to say that communism or social engineering are Atheistic in nature is not really truthful.
You may as well say that tall people bomb countries more than short people or blame people with pierced ears or something.

edit on 16/9/10 by blupblup because: Clarity

I have to disagree...the sense of spirituality/religion is a guiding force to the way that peoples choose to live their lives...If someone says to me that God, (or spirituality, or some 'higher power'), doesn't exist then to me they are basically saying that morality doesn't exist and are probably making an excuse for themselves for some sort of wrong they are planning to commit against me.

Social engineering is an offshoot of communism...again, I really resent being told by athiests such as them as to what the 'moral' way to live my life should be...

Religion isn't a prerequisite for morality...morality is derived from society and NOT religion.

reply to post by bogomil




Fair enough and you're right about truth.

And yes.... I like the toasters=Human point

On ethics:

I've found, that 'utilitarian morality' is really quite good and simple enough to use for all who want.

And it has certainly proved its worth as a non-theist model.

It's really sad to see theism and similar ideologies trying to make themselves indispensable, justifying their existence as the ultimate defense against imaginary evils of their own invention.

In a kind of fascinated horror, I almost admire the PR behind 'selling' a fabulated evil and the snake-oil remedy for it. Paulus must have had some really sharp mentors to cook this up.

The popes from then on have mostly been catastrophes, but maybe the puppeteers don't need christianity anymore. CIA or whatever can take over now in the new brave world.

Originally posted by bogomil
I may be wrong about this, but I have the feeling, that the Glasgow guy relates to 'positivist materialism' as a box of homogenous movements, ideologies etc; thus ending up with conclusions similar to 'all redhaired are witches'.

It seems to be a popular part of 'christian' logic to think this way. And unfortunately it's impossible to break through such habits, as most threads with 'christian' themes show.

These people have their very own epistemology, where communication only is possible inside the bubble. Nothing from the outside goes in, before it has been seriously filtered.

Could the person who gave this post a star please come back and explain to us (in plain English) what this person was actually saying? :-O

Originally posted by bogomil
It's really sad to see theism and similar ideologies trying to make themselves indispensable, justifying their existence as the ultimate defense against imaginary evils of their own invention.

It really does blow my mind to know that in this day and age... people still can't see that.
The whole belief system is set out in such a way that the religious person needs no real answer to anything ever, other than God.... or because God wills it or because God gave us free will.... or a multitude of other excuses.... needs never to think about life and It's meaning because It's already written down for them and answered.

And as you say, to be the protection against the imagined evils that they conjured up.

How is any of this still relevant?

Why do people not see through it.... what an invention.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

You do remember the meaning of the term Atheism right?

athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

@Merriam Webster

I see nothing about worship here. You can worship minus a god which is what the term atheism pertains to.

Gimmie a break will ya please!


Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic ā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


www.merriam-webster.com...

Until a few years ago I only considered 'christianity' as a mild irritant (where I live, severe cases of religionisity are treated like any other mental illness). But then Bush made a shady deal with his cronies here, effectively toppling our constitution, and I got urinated off (as the saying has it).

So I've spent a considerable amount of time to find out what 'christianity' really is about, and my observations are beyond expectations. The lie is so elaborately made, that it takes a stubborn and grumpy old man like me to work through it. It's full circle, like Ouroboros biting it's own tail. And when you've gone all the way round, you've forgotten, where you started.

And with such a brilliant work of disinformation produced, and with the services of the Jesuit order at hand*, it's surprising, that the papacy has been filled with one botcher (and sometimes butcher) after another. You really would expect the popes to seek qualified help, when things are getting too much for them to handle. For a pope NOW to talk about 'extremism' is an ideological suicide equalent to a politician using an 'N' word.

I think, there's a growing desperation in the 'christian' ranks. Just as 'fnords' are used in RAWilson's wonderful trilogy, the word 'satanism' is now used for denouncing almost anything non-christian (though they still have missed 'satanic' bananas, which in my opinion could give lewd ideas to persons with insecure sexuality).

It's something of a wonder to me, where all this is supposed to lead, seen from a 'christian' perspective.

* The jesuits practically owned and ran half of South america for a while, have impressive academic qualities and access to knowledge denied most people. Really competent types.

reply to post by KIZZZY


Yes and what exactly does that have to do with that particular conversation and whether or not a state that engages in hero worship is an atheist state?

reply to post by TarzanBeta

The third, being the militant atheist, has the anarchist sign on his shirt. Being the ultimate hypocrite, because he is for anarchy and yet is the only one sitting down drinking coffee -- probably talking about how the muslims and christians need to chill out and stop killing people because it's wrong. Wait a minute... that's not anarchy! That's someone saying that someone else should do something the way they perceive to be right! That's totally democracy, dude.

That is not an anarchist symbol, it is an atheist one. They do look a bit similar..

www.religioustolerance.org...

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by KIZZZY

 

Yes and what exactly does that have to do with that particular conversation and whether or not a state that engages in hero worship is an atheist state?

You are the person who supplied us with the definition of Atheism including the word "wickedness".

An Atheist is simply a person who does not believe in a "deity".

Being an Atheist does not make a person "wicked". Simple as that!

But, then, for decades now, Christians in Britain have been made to feel their faith is not just unfashionable, but shaming and ignorant.

We have been bullied into silence so that the Liberal elite who really rule Britain can impose their atheist, politically-correct values upon us.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by OurManInGlasgow


This was the same Liberal elite who have made it far easier for faith schools to be set up in our communities actively encouraged by both Blair and now the new administration both part of the neo Liberal elite.

reply to post by OurManInGlasgow




Wow more quotes from the Daily Mail.... classy.

And exactly..plenty of faith schools have flourished under "Liberal" leadership.


I actually think faith schools are fantastic schools... they are run much better than state schools and the level and quality of education is often/usually far higher. (In my experience anyway)

Originally posted by blupblup

It really does blow my mind to know that in this day and age... people still can't see that.
The whole belief system is set out in such a way that the religious person needs no real answer to anything ever, other than God.... or because God wills it or because God gave us free will.... or a multitude of other excuses.... needs never to think about life and It's meaning because It's already written down for them and answered.

But isn't that the essence of what religion is all about - a means whereby people don't have to think or worry about things? Because whatever happens is the gods' will and thus will be. No responsibility.

Atheists have to take responsibility for their own actions because they have only themselves.

Originally posted by OurManInGlasgow

We have been bullied into silence so that the Liberal elite who really rule Britain can impose their atheist, politically-correct values upon us.

Yet oddly (in my personal experience) it is those of us who are atheists who are generally most opposed to 'political correctness' and are outraged by attempts to ban Christmas or School Nativity Plays, for example.

reply to post by Essan




It is, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, It really is.
It's not just giving yourself to god and being a good person, It's about absolving yourself of any responsibility regarding anything.

It's just a cop-out.


And yes Atheists take responsibility for their actions and are happy to discuss anything and involve themselves in humanitarian issues and so on.
I never get the religious persons claims about religion and morality, if anything I would think religion would have an adverse effect on ones moral standing.


I'm a Humanist because as it says on the tin...

Humanism is the view that we can make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values and that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs

Which is, in my opinion, the meaning of life.

You seldom see the potential saviours (religious or political) complaining, when liberal society shelters them or even give them some protection against competitors on the Übermensch-market.

But try to explain to them, that they are NOT in a position of having special priviliges; THEN liberalism is satanic, and there's no end to the whining.

I find this maybe more pathetic and repulsive than anything else, biting the hand that feeds you, because you're not allowed to be the sandbox bully.

Hi,

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I am struggling to consider extremist athiesm actions....run into some coffee shop, scream about nothing much, then get a latte and debate?

It's a puzzle why so many people spell 'atheist' wrongly.

You even repeatedly say "a athiest".
When it should be "an atheist".

The word is right there in the title, and you used the word 'theist' correcty.

But we see 'athiest' endlessly on this site.
Odd.


G