Pope warns of "atheist extremism" on visit to Britain

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

 

A cult of personality is not the same as a religion. And when individuals are specifically killed due to their religious belief. Well, you can do the math.

Yes, but that isn't an atheist state, that's a state where the populace worships the cult of personality.
Show me a worshipless state, then you'll see an atheist state.

reply to post by hippomchippo


Why? He didn't say anything about them needing to change their views or embrace Catholicism. Just beware of Aggressive Atheism. Which is a bit of a no brainer you ask me. Any form of aggressive ideology is a problem in my humble opinion.

And then the Buddhist will come from the skies in a gunship and begin to lobotomize the pope alive while they systematically rape his bodyguards.

pftt.

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

 

Why? He didn't say anything about them needing to change their views or embrace Catholicism. Just beware of Aggressive Atheism. Which is a bit of a no brainer you ask me. Any form of aggressive ideology is a problem in my humble opinion.

This coming instantly after the british populace voted 80% against giving him tax money?
Yeah, I'm sure he's just giving us an open warning
He's seeing that the times are changing and is trying to keep us stuck in the past.

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.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows




Hello


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by hippomchippo

And that shows just how much you are breathing into things.
Do you know when the visit was scheduled?
Do you even know the full extent of the speech?

If your going to pretend to like rationality and logic at least try to exercise them.

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.

And I'm saying they were worshipping stalin and lenin as a God.
Show me a state where there was no worshipping of this type, IE no false deities or deities.
Sheesh.

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

 

And that shows just how much you are breathing into things.
Do you know when the visit was scheduled?
Do you even know the full extent of the speech?

If your going to pretend to like rationality and logic at least try to exercise them.

Ad homs? Nice.
Why is it you think the pope can seemingly do no harm or have no agenda?
I'm not even saying it's an overly bad agenda, it's a smart one, to try to curb the rise in atheism in britain by portraying it like this.

reply to post by hippomchippo


Actually Lenin and Stalin was a form of hero worship. No Russian prayed to Lenin and Stalin.

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

 

Actually Lenin and Stalin was a form of hero worship. No Russian prayed to Lenin and Stalin.

Ugh, it's still not an atheist state for christ sakes, any form of worship to a person or idol or statue is pretty much as anti-atheist as possible.
Whatever, enjoy your little party here where you get to believe whatever you want.

reply to post by hippomchippo


And this is where you breath things into my statements.

Why is it you think the pope can seemingly do no harm or have no agenda?

When did I say that? Quotes if you would please. I will be happy to clear up what I meant if I typed it wrong.

I'm not even saying it's an overly bad agenda, it's a smart one, to try to curb the rise in atheism in britain by portraying it like this.

He said all atheists are aggressive atheists?

reply to post by hippomchippo


Could it be you hold that stance because you are an atheist? Rather like how Christians say no Christian would perpetrate the Inquistion?

Originally posted by EnactedEgoTrip
If someone requires transport with bullet proof glass, what does that say about how his time on this planet has been spent?

I'm trying to find the humor here, as there is no possible way that you are being serious.

So, because the world we live in has amongst it's populace people that are insane and want to kill others, it is the fault of those that need protection?

Just following your logic here, JFK lived a horrific life that deserved death as evidenced by the fact that he was protected by the secret service?

John Paul II was deserving of the assassination attempt by an insane Turk as evidenced by the fact that he had security?


Eric

reply to post by hippomchippo


For clarity, when and what did we vote on because I can't recall voting on anything?

Originally posted by blupblup

I don't see these protests as an attack on religion per se.... mainly an attack on the Pope himself.
He allows millions to die of aids around the world and allows babies to be born into poverty and disease because of his views and instructions on contraception.

His attitude towards homosexuality and towards women in the church.

While I don't agree, I can understand your contraception argument. Unfortunately it leaves a lot out of the equation (such as food/wealth distribution, the willingness of people to accept the dictates about contraception while ignoring the dictates regarding extra-marital sex, etc.) but I can see the logic.

Can you explain your problem with the Church's and Pope's teaching on homosexuality and women?

Eric

Originally posted by EnactedEgoTrip

There are many in dire poverty, many who die of hunger, or disease, yet this disgusting man is the head of one of many organisations on this planet that hoarde the resources so a few can live lavishly. So tell me, exactly how is keeping people who have no regard for the lives of anyone other than themselves alive for the benefit of humanity?

Just for the sake of clarity, what great resources are the Catholic Church hoarding?

It would help if you could list the expenditures of the Church (such as hospices, hospitals, charities, utilities, etc.) vs. it's income.

A few sources to back that information up would also help.

Thanks,

Eric

reply to post by EricD




Well if they're willing to not use contraception because the Pope says so... my guess is that if he says they must use it, they may well do so.



Unless I am mistaken, women are not permitted to preside over Mass, Nor can they administer over most of the sacraments, which are reserved for priests and bishops.


The homosexuality one ought to be obvious.

"although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder"

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by blupblup
I also find it very lame that he's attacking Atheists, It's actually pathetic.

He was obviously looking for a way to draw attention away from his paedophilia ridden group.... and thought "how about I attack intelligent, peace loving people instead."
Can't attack Muslims that's politically incorrect and I may be harmed.... so I'll attack Atheists.

Really? That's what you're coming up with?

Do you have a reason then for why the sex scandal was one of the topics he spoke about most volubly as he arrived? Not much of a strategy for someone who wants to 'draw attention away from his paedophilia ridden group'.

If you seriously think that atheism and it's rise is not a concern for someone that considers themselves to be the successor to Peter, I think that you may want to reconsider your arguments.

Whether you believe that it is warranted or not, I think it's clear that the Pope is not using the occasion to discuss atheism as a means to dissemble. From his point of view, the rise of atheism is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

If you try to cloak everything regarding the Pope in a nefarious shroud any points that you have that are actually salient and reasonable have less of an impact.

Eric

Originally posted by EricD
Really? That's what you're coming up with?

No, what I'm coming up with is above your post.... you know, the conversation we were just having?

Do you have a reason then for why the sex scandal was one of the topics he spoke about most volubly as he arrived? Not much of a strategy for someone who wants to 'draw attention away from his paedophilia ridden group'.

No it wasn't, he spoke about it on the plane over and has barely mentioned it since?

It would be impossible for him to go anywhere and think he can avoid answering any questions on the scandal.
He has been pretty tight-lipped to be honest.... kinda how he was when he was protecting Paedophiles.

If you seriously think that atheism and it's rise is not a concern for someone that considers themselves to be the successor to Peter, I think that you may want to reconsider your arguments.

Where did I say that?

Have you read through the thread and read my posts?

I said that his religion was on Its last legs and this visit was one of desperation.... reaching out to a once Christian nation.

I don't see how you could reply to me and get into a conversation if you haven't even read the thread or my posts?

If you try to cloak everything regarding the Pope in a nefarious shroud any points that you have that are actually salient and reasonable have less of an impact.
Eric

I actually said he spoke up for migrants and refugees.... and that was nice.
I don't care if people noticed or not.

This thread is about his attack on Atheism and has also included discussion of how he protected Paedophiles.