News Englands a third world country?

[Scouse]

Mao Zedung - raised as a Budhist but converted to communism - I'm seeing a pattern here

B'jeesus! Agreement between me and rynnor!

One of the problems these fuckers encountered is that religious belief in a non-existent sky-fairy hampers the social and educational objectives of communism. Hence the reasoning behind their actions.


I, personally, would argue that the desire to unite the planet in a classless reality-based community with aspirations of taking all humanity forward together is a "purer" objective than the desire to unite the planet in a heirarchical nonsense-based sexually-repressive paedo-inducing system with aspirations of holding humanity in the dark ages under "god's rule".

But the end result is that loads of people die....

 

[Krazeh]

Hmm, I think Tim Minchin sums it up nicely in his Pope Song.

Am pretty certain it's NSFW so probably one best to look at while at home.

 

[DaGaffer]

In Stalin's case, it was in the name of Communism - not atheism.

Atheism is intrinsic part of communism, or at least, the flavour he practiced. Just because atheism is only a part of their ideology doesn't alter the fact that it was used for the purposes of persecution.

The common denominator is all these people performed the actions called belief.

Partly, but there were other factors, which you've alluded to yourself; religions are political rivals.

Atheism, I'd argue, is the lack of belief (not the belief in nothing).

In the purest sense of the term yes, you're absolutely correct, and that's certainly how I'd regard my own atheism; but you must be able to see that its human nature to impose one's views on others. Even a lack of belief can become an ideological viewpoint.

Atheists, therefore, can't wind themselves up enough to commit mass slaughter/kiddy fiddling and then find themselves innocent of any crime 'cause they "believe" what they're doing is "right"

I think this is desperately naive. Think about how frustrated you get by certain people on these very boards. Their wilful insistence of believing in something patently absurd. Take that feeling and ally it to political power and the belief you have a right to do something about it. Of course atheists can be militant and of course there are people who'd be happy to stand behind a ban on religion as something that's as bad for you as smoking. Lack of belief doesn't necessarily take away the desire to interfere with other people's lives.

 

[megadave]

Hmm, I think Tim Minchin sums it up nicely in his Pope Song.

Am pretty certain it's NSFW so probably one best to look at while at home.

nsfw? just a bit

 

[Scouse]

I don't in particular disagree with anything you said Gaff old bean

The only thing I'd say is:

Even a lack of belief can become an ideological viewpoint.

Mmmm. Maybe true (struggling a bit with the wider ramifications of the concept). However, I'd say that the ideological viewpoint itself is harmless unless you believe that everyone else just HAS to feel the same way as you do and are willing to enforce that on others using violence. But it's not a likely scenario to be born out of atheism is it?

I mean, if "lack of belief" is your "ideology" then surely you'd have to violate your own ideology to be able to believe in it hard enough to kill a load of people off the back of it. It seems a bit of an oxymoron (yes, not quite the right word)...

In the case of Stalin he had to believe hard in Communism to do what he did. The fact that as part of his objectives he wanted a religion/nonsense-free atheist state is secondary to his want for a Communist state...


The pope is trying to brand atheism with the tar of extremism. Whilst it's a shrewd political move (how long before Turamber or Toht start calling us "atheist extremists" in their nonsensical arguments?) it's also total bullshit, IMHO

 

[rynnor]

In the case of Stalin he had to believe hard in Communism to do what he did. The fact that as part of his objectives he wanted a religion/nonsense-free atheist state is secondary to his want for a Communist state...


The pope is trying to brand atheism with the tar of extremism. Whilst it's a shrewd political move (how long before Turamber or Toht start calling us "atheist extremists" in their nonsensical arguments?) it's also total bullshit, IMHO

Indeed - he even pushed Hitler forward as an atheist extremist - in reality he was a lapsed catholic who had a soft spot for the catholic church which seemed to be reciprocated - he was never ex-communicated and the church helped fleeing nazi's escape to South America.

 

[Wij]

Hmm, I think Tim Minchin sums it up nicely in his Pope Song.

Am pretty certain it's NSFW so probably one best to look at while at home.

Ace

 

[throdgrain]

Hmm.

Agnostic = dont know or care

Atheist = beleives in not beleiving.

 

[Krazeh]

Hmm.

Agnostic = fencesitting (yet oddly only when it comes to God, are usually quite happy to dismiss other fairytales like unicorns or leprechauns)
Atheist = lack of belief in the existence of God

Fixed that for you.

 

[DaGaffer]

Mmmm. Maybe true (struggling a bit with the wider ramifications of the concept). However, I'd say that the ideological viewpoint itself is harmless unless you believe that everyone else just HAS to feel the same way as you do and are willing to enforce that on others using violence. But it's not a likely scenario to be born out of atheism is it?

Actually I think its entirely likely. Politics attracts the kind of people who just have to control other people's lives; "politicised atheism" is an idea who's time will inevitably come; it only takes an extension of the views an awful lot of us currently espouse (religion responsible for countless wars , catholic priests are all kiddie fiddlers, moslems blow people up because they're moslems etc.), to get political capital and it goes from people spouting on forums to become a movement; all religion is bad, QED, let's get rid of religion for good.

Maybe its just because I'm ultra-cynical, but I don't see atheism as a special case when it comes to intolerance, because people can twist any viewpoint, no matter how logically benign, for evil ends.

The pope is trying to brand atheism with the tar of extremism. Whilst it's a shrewd political move (how long before Turamber or Toht start calling us "atheist extremists" in their nonsensical arguments?) it's also total bullshit, IMHO

Politics 101 tbh. Atheism is ultimately more dangerous to the catholic church than all the jihadis in the world.

 

[nath]

Pope equates atheists with Nazis. All those who agree please ... on Twitpic

Amused me.

 

[Scouse]

Atheist = beleives in not beleiving.

Piss off throddy you troll. We've been through this a million times already

Maybe its just because I'm ultra-cynical, but I don't see atheism as a special case when it comes to intolerance, because people can twist any viewpoint, no matter how logically benign, for evil ends.

Well, they'd no longer be atheists, would they? They'd be lying hypocrites.

Politics 101 tbh. Atheism is ultimately more dangerous to the catholic church than all the jihadis in the world.

/nail /head...

 

[DaGaffer]

Well, they'd no longer be atheists, would they? They'd be lying hypocrites.

Not really. Being an atheist and banning religion (and persecuting the religious) aren't irreconcilable viewpoints. Reprehensible, certainly, but not believing in God doesn't automatically make you a nice person.

 

[Scouse]

Not really. Being an atheist and banning religion (and persecuting the religious) aren't irreconcilable viewpoints. Reprehensible, certainly, but not believing in God doesn't automatically make you a nice person.

We're at crossed purposes I think.

I'm not saying being an atheist prevents you from being a bad person. I'm saying that humans need to believe in something (big-ass belief) to be able to kill loads of people for that belief.

If your ideology is "don't believe in anything" then you'd have to violate your own ideology to kill people. Making you a hypocrite

I mean, if "lack of belief" is your "ideology" then surely you'd have to violate your own ideology to be able to believe in it hard enough to kill a load of people off the back of it. It seems a bit of an oxymoron (yes, not quite the right word)...

 

[Krazeh]

If your ideology is "don't believe in anything" then you'd have to violate your own ideology to kill people. Making you a hypocrite

But isn't that ideology going further than atheism does? Just because you're atheist and don't hold a belief in the existence of deities doesn't preclude you from holding a belief in other things, including the belief that everyone else should think as you do.

 

[Scouse]

But isn't that ideology going further than atheism does? Just because you're atheist and don't hold a belief in the existence of deities doesn't preclude you from holding a belief in other things, including the belief that everyone else should think as you do.

Sorreh! I should have been more exact in my language.

By "don't believe in anything" I mean "have a lack of belief in the existence of a god". Which is, after all, what atheism refers to.

But you do make a good point tho - it's the belief in other things that enables Stalin and Mao to kill indiscriminately. Not their lack of belief in a god.

Therefore it's not the "athiesm" that's bad...

Q.E.D. tbfh

 

[Turamber]

Lets not have another debate on religion

Can we all agree though that the pope and his mates are a set of *****?

This has already turned into a thread about the Pope, how could it not be about religion? And no, I'm no Catholic but I don't think they're all a bunch of asterisks. Some of them, the Pope included by all accounts, are men of great learning and strong morals. I can respect that even if I don't accept all of their beliefs or particularly like how wealthy their Church is, seems a bit odd for so called disciples of the carpenter's son...

 

[Krazeh]

Some of them, the Pope included by all accounts, are men of great learning and strong morals.

Where are these "strong" morals when it comes to dealing with the child abuse that seems to be endemic within the Catholic Church? Or trying to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa?

 

[rynnor]

the Pope included by all accounts, are men of great learning and strong morals.

A homophobic misogynist who has sheltered paedophiles and helped them escape justice not to mention a man who's ridiculous stance on safe sex is responsible for thousands of deaths - you have a strange sense of morality...

 

[Raven]

I don't think he is particularly intelligent and he has the morals of a snake. Causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people, not only through over population and therefore poverty but through HIV, by telling them not to practice safe sex.

A member of the Hitler youth who protects paedophiles but discriminates against homosexuals, a real nasty piece of work.

I think cnut is a bit of an understatement really.

 

[Scouse]

I was going to jump on this like everyone else has:

Some of them, the Pope included by all accounts, are men of great learning and strong morals.

But all I really want to say is this: Belief in action

 

[old.user4556]

This thread needs Toht.

 

[Krazeh]

This thread needs Toht.

Don't even joke about things like that!

 

[rynnor]

The Pope's baggage

Lol.

 

[Scouse]

Missed out 'spreading AIDS better than Wazz' tho

 

[Krazeh]

Found this on another forum and it seems quite relevant to the current discussion. Is an interesting watch even if it does almost seem as if the panel has been stacked in one side's favour (i'm sure that wasn't the case tho).

YouTube - Part 1/5 - The Intelligence Squared Debate Christopher Hitchens

 

[Wij]

Seen it. I watch anything Hitch is in

 

[Turamber]

Where are these "strong" morals when it comes to dealing with the child abuse that seems to be endemic within the Catholic Church? Or trying to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa?

By all accounts he is tryng to deal with child abuse problem. There are reports that he has shown absolute disgust at what he's heard some of the church's priests have been up to.

Would HIV/AIDS be the problem it is in Africa if people practiced the Christian standard of monogamy and no sex before marriage? I should stress I'm not a Catholic and I have no problem with condoms but I do think that a lot of the flack the Catholic Church gets is because people have a problem with authority.

 

[Turamber]

A homophobic misogynist who has sheltered paedophiles and helped them escape justice not to mention a man who's ridiculous stance on safe sex is responsible for thousands of deaths - you have a strange sense of morality...

Believing homosexuality is immoral doesn't make an individual homophobic anymore than believing capitalism is wrong makes somebody an anarchist. From what I've read he hasn't helped paedophiles escape justice, indeed it seems to be a problem he wishes to tackle.

You also can't divorce the Catholic Church's official position on condoms from their official position on sex only within marriage, something which would hugely cut down on HIV and AIDS.

 

[Turamber]

I don't think he is particularly intelligent and he has the morals of a snake. Causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people, not only through over population and therefore poverty but through HIV, by telling them not to practice safe sex.

A member of the Hitler youth who protects paedophiles but discriminates against homosexuals, a real nasty piece of work.

I think cnut is a bit of an understatement really.

How many professors would you consider to be not "particularly intelligent"? And how much do you know of the individual to say he has the morals of a snake? You seem to have something of a problem with the Church he is a member of, or perhaps its just authority itself you have a problem with.

I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that the Catholic Church thinks differently than you do.