Pope warns of "atheist extremism" on visit to Britain

Originally posted by Maslo
Atheist extremism? Something like this?

The interesting thing about that image is that all three are hypocrites.

The first, being the militant muslim, is willing to blow himself up to kill other people.

Now, it could be just me, but if your life doesn't matter enough to stay alive and further Allah's agenda on earth, and those lives who you are taking are affecting negatively the earth, then how much stock in earth does Allah really - in which case, what is the point in blowing people up if earth is not important - but the spiritual world is? Does that even make sense?

The second, being the militant christian, of course, christians shouldn't be killing people who are killing people... that is stupid.

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.

And I was pleased to see that it was an atheist cartoonist who messed up with that "Red A". Would have been a better statement with a black shirt.

Except for its gross generalization... because I myself am more the coffee-sippin' laid back kind of guy - whereas the atheists I know personally love guns.

Go...figure.

reply to post by Jerry_Teps



Jerry, how would you define 'Christian'?

second line.

Originally posted by OurManInGlasgow
Actually, the militant athiests I had in mind were more along the lines of people like Nazi eugenicists, Soviet (and indeed Western) psychiatrists. Only when you deny Man's spiritual nature and treat the person before you as nothing but a lump of meat without soul or spirit does it then become 'acceptable' and 'reasonable' to commit such atrocities as they do.

Again.... I really don't think the point got through the first two times... so here ya go.

Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

Some things to ponder.


Is Atheism a belief?

No.

Is "bald" a hair color?

Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby?

If you no longer believe in Santa Claus, do you call yourself an "Anti-Santa-Clausian?"

Is there some doctrine you follow pursuant with your non-belief in the existence of the tooth fairy?

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).













Definition of Atheism :

www.freethoughtpedia.com...


Who are Atheists?

www.freethoughtpedia.com...

The pople tells millions of Africans not to use condoms...in a country that suffers from AIDS like no other. Why not hand them a gun and tell them to shoot themselves, the end result would be the same. By saying something like that, he's a mass murderer imo...and should be punished as such.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The pople tells millions of Africans not to use condoms...in a country that suffers from AIDS like no other. Why not hand them a gun and tell them to shoot themselves, the end result would be the same. By saying something like that, he's a mass murderer imo...and should be punished as such.

I said exactly the same here
www.abovetopsecret.com...


It's not only that he tells them not to use them, he also says that condoms could make the problem worse.
The guy is is an ass.

He has a lot of blood on his hands.

Originally posted by blupblup

Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

First of all I don't think you have got the point I was making.

Secondly, athiesm is an ideology...it is principle, philosophy or belief system that people (namely, athiests) believe in. So that in that sense you could say it is the same as Christianity, etc.

Finally can I ask you to stop saying that people don't kill, fight or die for athiesm, as it is simply and completely wrong. For example, the Khmer Rouge dictatorship which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, which sought sought to establish a classless, atheistic society moving forward "in great leaping bounds" towards an avowed goal of pure communism:

The Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured and eventually executed anyone suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed "enemies":

* Professionals and intellectuals—in practice this included almost everyone with an education, or even people wearing glasses (which, according to the regime, meant that they were literate).

* Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Thai and other minorities in Eastern Highland, Cambodian Christians (most of whom were Catholic, and the Catholic Church in general), Muslims and the Buddhist monks.

en.wikipedia.org...

And yes, the Khmer Rouge were social engineers.

reply to post by blupblup


blup, this is much more my sort of thing.....
www.blingcheese.com...

Originally posted by OurManInGlasgow
First of all I don't think you have got the point I was making.

Secondly, athiesm is an ideology...it is principle, philosophy or belief system that people (namely, athiests) believe in. So that in that sense you could say it is just the same as Christianity, etc.

No it's not.... what is so difficult to grasp?
I have presented more than enough info on this.... you have your own views and that's fine... but your views and the truth, are two very different things.

You may believe Atheism is a philosophy or that Its similar in structure to a religion... but It's not.

The quote I gave you is right on the money and if you bothered to look into it and read objectively (impossible I'm sure) about the matter... you would find out just how wrong you are.

Finally can I ask you to stop saying that people don't kill, fight or die for athiesm, as it is simply and completely wrong. For example, the Khmer Rouge dictatorship which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, which sought sought to establish a classless, atheistic society moving forward "in great leaping bounds" towards an avowed goal of pure communism:

You can ask for me to do so... but when you're trying to spread lies about Atheism being responsible for atrocities, it makes me feel the need to correct you.
People do Not kill or die in the name of Atheism.... it's simply not true.


The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection of Darwin's theory. Pol Pot tried to erase individuality as he thought that differences create conflicts. With his artificial equality, abolishing private possessions and so erasing natural selection from society he was doomed by Evolution to fail, like all other communists. Pol Pot targeted not just different religions as differences, but education, science and medicine too. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist

reply to post by Freeborn




Fair enough man.... point is nobody knows.... not the Theists, not the Atheists.... and not you fence-sitters


But yeah man.... I feel pretty much the same... I don't claim to know for a fact that God does not exist, I just choose not believe that he does... I've seen no evidence, have seen nothing in my life to convince me that there is an all seeing, all knowing being that created everything.

I guess I could be an Agnostic although the true definition of Atheism is almost the same anyway.
It just means one without God or Godless.

Atheism", from the Greek: * atheismos : noun, from
* a- : lacking, without, or not having something; akin to the English suffix "-less"
* theos : a god, deity, mighty magic entity
* -ismos : a state, quality, or condition; an "-ism"

Therefore, "atheism" is "the state, quality, or condition of being without a god or deity". "Atheos" would literally mean "godless", and "atheismos" ("atheism") would literally mean "godlessness".

Notice that the prefix "a-" does not mean "not" or "against". It's a common mistake to think so. That would require the use of the Greek prefix "anti-", such as in the term antikhristos ("antichrist").

Now, let's change that suffix. "Atheist", from the Greek:

* atheistês : noun, from atheismos +
* -istês : one who supports, subscribes to, or performs something

An "atheist", then, would be "a person who supports or subscribes to a godless state, quality, or condition". This does not necessarily mean that atheists positively believe that there is no god. It simply means that they advocate a lifestyle that is devoid of one. They live their lives as if there were no god. Atheism can be further broken down into the following sub-categories:

reply to post by blupblup


Agnostics simply don't know and think it is a waste of time and why get so wound up in something that can not be proven either way, at least not until we die.

I must say that I do know some intelligent Atheists who are as equally passionate, vocal and at times aggressive in their beliefs as some Theists that I have known.

Theists are adamant in their belief that they believe in the one true God, which ever faith / denomination they belon to.
Atheists can be equally black and white in their assertion that there is no God whatsoever, end of.
They both can be passionate to the, dare I say it, extreme, in the defence and even advancement of their particular viewpoint and belief.

It has been very interesting reading all these papal related threads without getting too involved in them.
Some of the opinions expressed, misconceptions, downright lies and hypocrisy has been truly enlightening.
Maybe when Ratzinger goes home I'll share my thoughts in a rare thread of my own....I'm sure it'll ruffle a few feathers on all sides!

Good to see you around mate, not seen you posting much recently.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Agnostics simply don't know and think it is a waste of time and why get so wound up in something that can not
be proven either way, at least not until we die.

Nobody knows... I think if everyone could just agree on that, then it would be a start.


I have friends from different religious persuasions and backgrounds and we NEVER argue seriously about this stuff... It's the internet ya know... does funny things to people.

Atheists can be equally black and white in their assertion that there is no God whatsoever, end of.
They both can be passionate to the, dare I say it, extreme, in the defence and even advancement of their particular viewpoint and belief.

Oh for sure and on a forum such as ATS, it makes it much easier to have these conversations than it would in real life... people (sometimes) address each others points and have a decent, civil and rational conversation... and sometimes people start calling the Pope a kiddie fiddler and a Nazi.... which is just ridiculous.
And other say that Atheists and Atheism is responsible for atrocities and deaths, which is equally as ridiculous.

The bull**** from all sides makes me laugh man... and also worries me.

Maybe when Ratzinger goes home I'll share my thoughts in a rare thread of my own....I'm sure it'll ruffle a few feathers on all sides!

I look forward to it mate

Good to see you around mate, not seen you posting much recently.

Good to see you around too dude.
Not too much to post on my friend.... Hmmmmm

Originally posted by blupblup

Pol Pot tried to erase individuality as he thought that differences create conflicts. With his artificial equality, abolishing private possessions and so erasing natural selection from society he was doomed by Evolution to fail, like all other communists. Pol Pot targeted not just different religions as differences, but education, science and medicine too. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist

If you have got your opinion then that's fair enough...but the fact that you're now accusing me of spreading "lies" quite frankly reflects badly on you.

Well that was a remarkable attempt to rewrite history: it's the first time I have heard of the Khmer Rouge being portrayed as Theravada Buddhist extremists rather than the athiest Communist social engineers that they have gone down in history as being...did they kill themselves then when they killed Buddhists?

They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese.

Here are some more "true" lies on these organised athiests for anyone who is interested:

The Khmer Rouge leadership boasted over the state-controlled radio that only one or two million people were needed to build the new agrarian communist utopia. As for the others, as their proverb put it, "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss."

Hundreds of thousands...were taken out in shackles to dig their own mass graves. Then the Khmer Rouge soldiers beat them to death with iron bars and hoes or buried them alive. A Khmer Rouge extermination prison directive ordered, "Bullets are not to be wasted." These mass graves are often referred to as The Killing Fields.

The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group....Some were put in the S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were summarily executed. Confessions forced at S-21 were extracted from prisoners through such methods as raising prisoners by their arms tied behind and dislocating shoulders, removing toenails with pliers, suffocating a prisoner repeatedly, and skinning a person while alive

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by OurManInGlasgow




The point is some were Buddhists.... and some were probably Atheists.
To blame Atheists or Atheism for this or any other Atrocity... is...well.... ignorant and misinformed.


But that's fine, you carry on blaming Atheists.

Why are you likening Communism to Atheism?

You realise one is a sociopolitical movement or a theory or system of social organization and one is a non-belief in a deity or one who lives without considering God right?

You do know the two have nothing in common?

Oh no, that's right.... you have no clue... :shk:


Blame tall people or fat people... or red-haired people while you're at it.






I quite liked this too

Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to hold communist or socialist economic views while being a theist and it isn't at all uncommon to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism — a combination often found among Objectivists and Libertarians, for example. Their existence alone demonstrates, without question, that atheism and communism are not the same thing. But while the original myth has been refuted, it is interesting to look and see if perhaps the Christians who made it have gotten things backwards. Perhaps it is Christianity which is inherently communistic? After all, there is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for capitalism. On the contrary, quite a bit of what Jesus said directly supports many of the emotional foundations of socialism and even communism. He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Just because many Communist dictators of the 20th century were Atheists, doesn't mean Communism is related to Atheism.

The same way that just because Most Terrorists are Religious... doesn't mean that Religion is somehow only for terrorists.

Originally posted by blupblup

Nobody knows... I think if everyone could just agree on that, then it would be a start.

Amen to that brother!

Not too much to post on my friend.... Hmmmmm

Yeah...certainly on the domestic front and everything else has been much a muchness recently.

Perhaps we should 'conspire' to change all that!

Enough, I've derailed your thread more than I intended...I'll let those who know what they are talking about continue.

reply to post by Freeborn



Amen indeed


Yeah, domestic issues are almost at a standstill and even when they're not... most British threads don't get much attention anyway.... while "Obama is a reptilian" and " I like guns" threads get all the attention.... It's pretty sad really.


Maybe we should try and sort it out a bit.... shoot me a U2U dude and we'll see what we can do

Peace brother, Hallelujah

we should declare war on the Vatican.

seriously.

Bomb the # outta that place.

after we loot it and give the treasure back to the third world.

our man in glesgae , including religion in any politcal aspect is crazy , religion is used as a tool by politicians and dictators to manipulate the populace ,

check the previous posts about hitler using christianity and Judaism to control the populace and their thoughts.

I agree that communism cannot be linked to atheism in the khmer rouge case !

Just out of curiosity , did Hitler or any of the popes actually directly kill anyone in cold blood ?
Im sure the pope has never killed anyone , but did Hitler ever murder anyone directly , or did he just tell other people to? like Manson .

reply to post by sapien82


There is no written order anywhere with Hitler's signature on ordering or authorising The Holocaust, he didn't have to and we know that ultimately he was responsible.

He certainly didn't physically kill anyone during WWII and he was a despatch rider during WWI so it is unlkely he killed anyone then.

There were rumours that Hitler was directly involved in the death of his niece, Geli Raubal, which is officially recognised as suicide.
en.wikipedia.org...

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.