Pope: Atheism to blame for "greatest forms of cruelty&q

[Rye]

Yeah, I laughed at this devout promoter of HIV, as well as the professional "coverer upper" of child sex abuse within the church when he accused the godless of causing suffering from his shrivelled, dying frame in a rotting temple of hypocrisy.

[loomer]

What's up with this shithead pope anyway? Did the last pope ever say anything like this about atheists?

If he did, John Paul the Second was generally just pretty progressive in a lot of regards. Well, for a pope, anyway. So it likely would have been rescinded later in his career.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Another way to look at it is that in the Soviet Union, the State was venerated practically to godhood any way. I mean, sure, it espoused atheism, but in any sort of real sense, the suppression of religion was because they represented competing interests.

One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
-- Albert Einstein

"A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible." - George Orwell

[CaptHawkeye]

Who says he didn't learn anything from the Nazi Youth?

[Flagg]

Wow, someone's projecting.

[B5B7]

Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God."

So the Pope quoted atheists (therefore has a pebble of truth in his sea of lies) and is incapable or unwilling to see the obvious logical conclusion from what he says "and therefore doesn't exist, or if does exist is an evil god."

[K. A. Pital]

History has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist, the Pope wrote.

That is not "Marxism", but common sense. The Pope proves himself a fucking idiot again. Of course it's the people's job to establish "justice" (whatever the Pope means by that), since God does not interact with the world in any meaningful fashion even if he exists

"It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," the Pope said. Such a concept was grounded in "intrinsic falsity."

Wow. The smell of hypocrisy must be filling the Altars as he speaks. The Church, an institution which for thousands of years perpetrated "the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" dares to speak out!

Marxism, the Pope wrote, had left behind "a trail of appalling destruction" because it failed to realize that man could not be "merely the product of economic conditions."

No, it failed because it's success rested upon predictions about economy which did not come to pass in the mid-XX century. And it's most common and widespread form, Stalinist bureaucracy, had many economic deficiencies which aren't in any way connected with the lack or presence of God-beliefs, as well as creating pseudo-religious personality cults. Those places, like Kerala, where communists ruled but not under the common stalinist type of state structure, were and remain successful.

If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world

Sure, Pope, but what the fuck does your sky pixie have to do with that? Absolutely nothing, pardon me.

Summary: Pope says, trust in god and do not try to improve anything, filthy peons. Of course, Heaven awaits you!

[[R_H]]

Summary: Pope says, trust in god and do not try to improve anything, filthy peons. Of course, Heaven awaits you! Laughing

Reading the shit he spouts reminds me of the Church during the Middle Ages...don't worry, your life is shit now but it will be paradise after you die.

Fucking child-molesting shitbags, can't the church just roleover and die? It's not like they haven't caused enough damage throughout history.

[Master of Ossus]

The Christian tradition is intrinsically hostile to debate. The whole faith itself is based upon appeals to authority, starting with God himself, moving down to his anointed prophets and priesthoods, and finally to the organizations they created. Shit flows down in this hierarchy, not up.

The whole point of having a Pope is to create an authority whose word is final, much like the Supreme Court for the legal system in the United States. So no, you can't debate him and he would not deign to answer questions. He speaks, you listen. That's how Catholicism works.

You can debate SCOTUS reasoning and even holdings, though. They're not likely to listen, but they do sometimes change their minds and overrule previous decisions. I thought that certain writings of the Pope were considered infallible.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Christian tradition is intrinsically hostile to debate. The whole faith itself is based upon appeals to authority, starting with God himself, moving down to his anointed prophets and priesthoods, and finally to the organizations they created. Shit flows down in this hierarchy, not up.

The whole point of having a Pope is to create an authority whose word is final, much like the Supreme Court for the legal system in the United States. So no, you can't debate him and he would not deign to answer questions. He speaks, you listen. That's how Catholicism works.

You can debate SCOTUS reasoning and even holdings, though. They're not likely to listen, but they do sometimes change their minds and overrule previous decisions. I thought that certain writings of the Pope were considered infallible.

Oh, you can debate most of what the Pope says, too. Unless he declares that he's speaking infallibly as the representative of God, at which point that is absolute. The only time any Pope has actually done this was over an obscure doctrinal point with the Virgin Mary in the 19th century. Basically in any debate with the Pope, should he decide that he doesn't want to concede but can't win through reason, he can just enter the godmode code (more or less literally) and end it immediately.

[Durandal]

The Christian tradition is intrinsically hostile to debate. The whole faith itself is based upon appeals to authority, starting with God himself, moving down to his anointed prophets and priesthoods, and finally to the organizations they created. Shit flows down in this hierarchy, not up.

The whole point of having a Pope is to create an authority whose word is final, much like the Supreme Court for the legal system in the United States. So no, you can't debate him and he would not deign to answer questions. He speaks, you listen. That's how Catholicism works.

You can debate SCOTUS reasoning and even holdings, though. They're not likely to listen, but they do sometimes change their minds and overrule previous decisions. I thought that certain writings of the Pope were considered infallible.

In order for the Pope to be infallible, he needs to speak "from his chair", the opinion he offers has to be agreed upon by the majority of Catholics and it has to be about "faith and morals". In other words, God can't be bothered to inspire all Catholics about something, just the majority of them.

[FSTargetDrone]

With respect to debating the Pope, remember, he is the head of an organization that absolutely refuses to even consider permitting women to join the priesthood. It won't even allow for some future change of opinion in this matter because of its core teachings.

A (female) Catholic writer says it this way:

We can expect that, as the question “Why can’t Catholic women be priests?” is further explored, the Church will provide richer testimony to the unchanging truth of a male-only priesthood. There will be no change in this teaching — rather, the more it is discussed and debated, the more its scriptural and theological basis will emerge. The male-only priesthood of Jesus Christ and the bridal nature of the Church are spiritual realities of which our two human sexes, male and female, are profound and deeply important images, made in the flesh. Ours is an incarnate faith, centered on the great fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Nothing has been left to chance.

If the current pope, just with his predecessors, won't even allow for the possibility of women joining the priesthood (people who actually want to become more involved in the Church), now or at any point in the future, do we honestly expect he will change his stance on something as radical as allowing that atheists can truly be good and moral people? The idea that Atheism is anything remotely positive is an anathema to the current head of the Church, and no doubt to the Church itself. It is a rejection of God, a terrible affront to Churchly sensibilities.

If the Pope or the Church starts to accept good and moral atheists as a reality, then what purpose does the Church serve? What does it even exist for? It's never going to budge on this issue because it's not in their interest to allow for atheism as a positive point of view.

[Temjin]

In order for the Pope to be infallible, he needs to speak "from his chair", the opinion he offers has to be agreed upon by the majority of Catholics and it has to be about "faith and morals". In other words, God can't be bothered to inspire all Catholics about something, just the majority of them.

Wait, wait, wait. Am I missing something? The only way the Pope can be considered infallible on an issue is if the majority of Catholics agree with him on the issue?

Again, am I missing something? Because I fail to see the point.

[Lusankya]

In order for the Pope to be infallible, he needs to speak "from his chair", the opinion he offers has to be agreed upon by the majority of Catholics and it has to be about "faith and morals". In other words, God can't be bothered to inspire all Catholics about something, just the majority of them.

Wait, wait, wait. Am I missing something? The only way the Pope can be considered infallible on an issue is if the majority of Catholics agree with him on the issue?

Again, am I missing something? Because I fail to see the point.

It's to get the rest of the Catholics in line, so they don't turn into filthy protestants.

[Zablorg]

I figure that if a religion was made right, it would actually stop a lot of bad things.l It would still be just as bad for lying to everyone, but as long as you can convince people that there is enough motivation to not piss off the magical invisible man, then everyone would be too scared to do anything remotely bad or controversial. Creating such a religion that does not involve the killing of others and is well enough made to sincerely not arouse any skepticism would actually take quite a lot of skill.

[Resinence]

I figure that if a religion was made right, it would actually stop a lot of bad things.l It would still be just as bad for lying to everyone, but as long as you can convince people that there is enough motivation to not piss off the magical invisible man, then everyone would be too scared to do anything remotely bad or controversial. Creating such a religion that does not involve the killing of others and is well enough made to sincerely not arouse any skepticism would actually take quite a lot of skill.

It's Impossible.

People will always find something that separates and makes them "better" than others. And people will always fight for what they believe. There is No Way to create a Harmless Religion. Sadly.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's Impossible.

People will always find something that separates and makes them "better" than others. And people will always fight for what they believe. There is No Way to create a Harmless Religion. Sadly.

That's arguable, since some religions are less harmful than others, and they do provide benefits along with the drawbacks.
Religion is a powerful unifying force, and while that obviously causes drawbacks for those outside of it (As do the tenants of the various religions and their effect on the culture and worldview of it's adherants), it does provide social cohesion, and can cause a useful & positive world view (Charity, an emphasis on hard work in this world, "do no harm", "Don't slaughter animals and boil them in their own parents milk", etc').

Just as an example, the roots based origin of Christianity arguably provided the basis for Democracy. Other religions could have done it, as could secularism, but other may have not. (ISlam for example, lacks the very concept of separation of church and state, there's no "Give unto Caesar THERE").

(Oh, and as a disclaimer, I'm not religious, and think that the world would be better without it, but it serves as a good opiate for the masses, and it's easier to say "sky-man tells you to love your fellow" than to teach a moral code in some ass-fuck hut in the middle of nowhere).

[Resinence]

That's arguable, since some religions are less harmful than others, and they do provide benefits along with the drawbacks.

I think this is the key of it, you could make a "perfect" religion, which doesn't discourage logical thought etc. But the only way to make sure there is no fighting over it is if Everyone subscribes to it.

[The Grim Squeaker]

That's arguable, since some religions are less harmful than others, and they do provide benefits along with the drawbacks.

I think this is the key of it, you could make a "perfect" religion, which doesn't discourage logical thought etc. But the only way to make sure there is no fighting over it is if Everyone subscribes to it.

Or to make it a minority religion. If a religion needs to "Watch it's toes" then it can't be aggressive, and will suffer from doctrinal "rewriting".
Just look at the whipping boys the Jews became, or the few surviving pagan religions in the ME. (Edomites took unto themselves the Jews religion and claim to be the original tribe, or some such, I forgot the explanation).

The problem is that anything involving thought and philosophy can and WILL be reinterpreted. There are countless examples of simple, clear rules being morphed into strange monstrosities of legalities and nitpicking, that completely ignore the ethical reasoning behind the basic rule itself. (Kosher rules for example - It's against boiling animals in their parents own milk, not making 3 categories and an industry out of it Fuckers!).

If you have a large amount of "Devotees" in anything, be it Engineering, science, language or philosophy then you will find diverging views, and those who eventually do nothing but study the underlying principles itself, and start postulating shit. (Richard Dawkin for example, could be called a Science/Atheism evangelist, just look at "Unweaving the Rainbow", or his views on "Aggressive" atheism). If you have that, you have extremism, fringe cults and a mess.

Of course, some Super AI might be able to find something so basic that everyone would agree with it, that still has many useful tenants and isn't open to corruption.
(A one commandment of "Waste Not" for example, if anyone here is a "Dark side of the Sun" fan ).

[K. A. Pital]

Invisible men have a problem of their prophets, and religious codes have a problem of being outdated. Humans relying solely on their own force and morals are so much superior to that, it's not even funny.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Invisible men have a problem of their prophets, and religious codes have a problem of being outdated. Humans relying solely on their own force and morals are so much superior to that, it's not even funny.

Humans relying on their own force and morals to push things ahead is what produces prophets, Evangelists and Martin Luther King, among other religious reforming loonies .

Of COURSE Religion is outdated, the problem is, that so is human nature, biology, most of society and easily 80+% of the worlds nations (And a higher percent of their population). Hence, Religion served as a substitute at early stages, providing the civilizational framework for things such as democracy.
Russian Orthodoxy is far more alien to a western democrat than Communism, one's focused on the material world, happiness, human rights, and the others, well, the term "Dictatorship culture" springs to mind.

[Molyneux]

Just as an example, the roots based origin of Christianity arguably provided the basis for Democracy. Other religions could have done it, as could secularism, but other may have not. (ISlam for example, lacks the very concept of separation of church and state, there's no "Give unto Caesar THERE").

*BRRRNT!*
I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of a question...or at least, must not be obviously inaccurate.

The Athenian democracy was established roughly around 500 B.C. - quite awhile before Christianity hit the scene.

[DavidEC]

Death, you say the "roots-based origin" (could you clarify the meaning of this?) of Christianity provided the basis for democracy. Why do democratic and representative systems begin to appear during and after the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment, rather than in the more firmly Christian eras of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance? E.g. the English Bill of Rights in 1689 the American Revolution's various documents, the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France, so on, so forth.

To the extent that religion did influence these and the systems they spawned, it was to hinder them rather than advance them, a two steps forward, one step back routine. For example, the 1689 Bill discriminates against non-Protestants, and the English parliamentary system was dogged by religious discrimination until at least 1829 and Catholic Emancipation.

These documents make references to religion largely for rhetorical flourish than for intellectual backup.

[K. A. Pital]

Humans relying on their own force and morals to push things ahead is what produces prophets

Really? Not the irrational belief in an invisible being? I mean, how is religion even remotely close to "relying on one's self" if it explicitly denies that man is alone, and his society is ultimately only the project of his own mind?

Of COURSE Religion is outdated, the problem is, that so is human nature

"Human nature" is not outdated. Humans are intellectual beings; the accumulated knowledge of humanity rises with each generation.

biology, most of society and easily 80+% of the worlds nations (And a higher percent of their population).

How could they be "outdated"? They're simply at an earlier social progress stage. Let them or help them progress beyond religion.

Hence, Religion served as a substitute at early stages, providing the civilizational framework for things such as democracy.

Religion served as a bullshit substitute for state structures from day one. Traditionalism and religious bullshit were not needed to establish authority from day one - it's only because the lack of human knowledge ALLOWED to use such means to establish religious power, religion ever came to be. You can have non-religious authority in society at any stage of social development. But you can ONLY have a religious authority where the lack of knowledge prevents this authority from fading, i.e. in a knowledge-lacking society. It's a bad society to be in, isn't it?

Russian Orthodoxy is far more alien to a western democrat than Communism

Russian Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism are all basically alien to the idea of any self-government or self-empowerment, since all power, social structure and the concept of FATE are given through a superpowerful being called "God". Therefore, of course they're more alien to any set of ideas which even theoretically profess democracy.

But I do not understand why you say that? You have demolished your own point - religion is unnecessary and needless, an atavism of a badly knowledgeable society.

[Tribun]

This garbage from the pope reminds me of this here:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/ ... tler.xhtml