EPTThank Ra for the internet i say
Pope compares secularism to Nazism - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
Thank Ra for the internet i say | ||
|
DizzyDrone
Netherlands629 Posts
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html This shows the results of a 1998 research under members of the NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 7% said they believe in God, 72.2% said they did not. The remaining 20.8% were agnostics. Although Meta's statement that 93% of scientists is atheist isn't proven, it's pretty clear that the majority of scientists does not believe in God. @Blitzkreiger: Could you please stop making ridiculous claims, when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about? | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4447 Posts
| ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On September 19 2010 19:44 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The pope would know about nazism , being a member of the hitler youth during the 40s and all. Let's not stoop down to their level and go there. Why not talk about how when ratzinger was incharge of the church sex abuse scandals prior to being the pontiff claimed that what was most at stake was the reputation of the church rather than the victims of sexual abuse and rape. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
If I were Catholic, I would be ashamed of my religion today. | ||
|
cucumber
United States116 Posts
But i was raised Catholic. And then I learned the differences between the Septuagint, the King James, the NRSV, and the various texts of the New Testament. And then I learned that we have a crapload of gospels, only some of which are "canonical". And then I learned that Paul only wrote a fraction of the "canonical" letters attributed to him. And then I came the the personal opinion that Paul was an attention seeking jackass with issues. And then I learned that every single copy of the NT texts we have has been, by monks, (copied + altered)*X. And then (actually earlier, I'm losing the timeline), I saw all the internal contradictions in the canonical gospels. For easy instance, the Markan community thought the world was going to end Right Now! The Lukan community was largely Greek and had different rules about the Jewish heritage from the Matthew community. etc, i could go on. I know some extremely bright Christians but none of them require the literal truth of any of this, because they know that is silly and impossible and small-minded and ignorant. They (and they are from different traditions, don't know each other, and are mostly professors in ancient history stuff) just have their beliefs. They don't force them on me and I respect them & theirs. There doesn't have to be a war here. ( I mean maybe except against the American Evangelicals who are "biblical literalists" who may be so irredeemably dumb they should be .. spanked or something. I won't get banned by saying what I really think about them.) | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan He really valued the Japanese history & their pride. OnTopic: The pope - as a German - should know better .... Words cannot describe this idiocy. | ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP. If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote. On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come. edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general? wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%. | ||
|
cucumber
United States116 Posts
The Pope may not be a world leader, but there are much better ways to criticize him than saying he did some bad stuff in 1940. I mean, he's telling Mexicans not to use condoms and get poorer while his Vatican City hoards a flillion dollars worth of wealth he could, but won't, use to help the poor. Were the Vatican to use its wealth the help the poor, they'd obviously need a plan beforehand to make sure it gets used optimally .... but you're not going to see them disassemble their wealth to do Christ's teaching. "that would be absurd!" they'll say as they eat their steak dinners and sleep on feather beds with good wine as the people who trust them don't use condoms, have more kids, and live in squalor. Hard to forgive. I am not a Catholic any more because while I think Jesus (what we historically know of him) was pretty cool, the bureaucracies and structures &c. that have built up around him are corrupt and BS. The leading one being the Vatican but, in my backyard, American Evangelism being dumber and more immediately malignant. Were Jesus to look at Christianity as perpetuated in his name today, he would have a shit fit. | ||
|
WilbertK
Netherlands210 Posts
On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote: Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote: The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God. Just because I'm not convinced you know what atheism is: Most of the people who identify as atheists today, will say they do so because they haven't seen any evidence for a god or gods, or the evidence shown wasn't sufficient to make them believe. That's all. Religion is selling some story as truth. Atheist aren't selling some other story. They're just not buying yours. I know that in some dictionaries atheism is defined as conclusively believing gods don't exist, but that's not how most atheists would define it. And before anyone plays the 'you're describing agnosticism' card: agnosticism is a position on whether we can ultimately know for sure whether a god or gods exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the answer to that question itself. So you could be an agnostic theist (I believe god exists), a gnostic theist (I know god exists), an agnostic atheist (I don't believe god exists), and a gnostic atheist (I know god doesn't exist). I realize there's more to it, and I'm cutting some corners, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think this suffices. So atheism doesn't strip anything from anything. It doesn't conclusively reject anything, and it doesn't posit anything. Now a lot of atheists have a lot of things in common. Some things atheists have in common are a direct result of them being atheist (low church attendance), and some have in many cases lead to them being atheists (a reverence for the scientific method). If a lot of atheist have a higher than average appreciation for science, that doesn't mean that science is a part of what constitutes atheism. 'Well, nice story bro, but why did you bother to write this all down?' you ask... Well, I'm bothered by the notion that without religion life wouldn't have meaning or purpose. I can lie in the grass for hours on end and just appreciate the beauty of nature. I don't think a story for which there is no evidence adds to that beauty. It doesn't add meaning, and it doesn't add purpose. And yes, I've read the bible (and most of the Qur'an), I've been to church, and I've been to christian summer camps. I'm amazed at how the phenomena such as 'beauty', 'meaning' and 'purpose' work. You just experience them, without having a good reason. For some things you could give an explanation, but if you keep asking 'why?' on and on, you'll end up with an explanation that doesn't intuitively make sense. And still we can all appreciate beauty, and meaning, and purpose. I think it's great that it's not our task to effect someone else's purpose, but that we can define our true selves by finding our own purpose in life. Now religion tries to answer the perpetual 'why?' question with the 'god' answer. If something has meaning to us, it's because it's god's will. But I'm not going to stop asking 'why?' there. Why is it god's will? Why is this god's purpose? If you cannot answer those questions, you haven't added to the understanding of our purpose (or beauty, or meaning). Not because you couldn't answer the 'final' question, but because the question remains basically the same. You haven't reduced the problem to something simpler, with less assumptions. You have therefore not explained anything. This is where my appreciation for science comes in, and how I get back to the first line of you I quoted. While atheism doesn't strip anything off of anything, it doesn't add anything useful either. But although we don't need anything to add to the beauty and purpose of the world around us, there is so much that we can add to it. Even though the world is beautiful by itself, the way it works is (to some) even more wonderful than the way it looks. That's where science comes in. Science can explain why we experience the purpose we feel, and in some cases why we experience some things as beautiful. And if you have an appreciation for such explanations, then that means that for you science adds to the beauty of life. Science can only add to this beauty. It never detracts. The transcript of the next video is on its youtube page: | ||
|
potatomash3r
Australia417 Posts
On September 19 2010 20:32 7mk wrote: wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%. Eh...1/20 = 0.05 = 5% | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
0.05 != 0.05% | ||
|
Sumsi
Germany593 Posts
On September 19 2010 20:21 Jibba wrote: Reminds me of a documentary I've seen years ago where a lot of contemporary witnesses of the nazi time have been interviewed.I'm an atheist but I tend to see the world with a lot of pluralism. This comment angers me in a way that no other religious comment ever has. If I were Catholic, I would be ashamed of my religion today. One of them was a catholic priest who said basically the same thing as the pope today. The assumed fact that the nazi-regime was something like a godless movement that stands against everything christianity stands for is perhaps more common sense among Catholics than you would think. | ||
|
Cantankerous
114 Posts
On September 19 2010 20:39 WilbertK wrote: Just because I'm not convinced you know what atheism is: Most of the people who identify as atheists today, will say they do so because they haven't seen any evidence for a god or gods, or the evidence shown wasn't sufficient to make them believe. That's all. Religion is selling some story as truth. Atheist aren't selling some other story. They're just not buying yours. I know that in some dictionaries atheism is defined as conclusively believing gods don't exist, but that's not how most atheists would define it. And before anyone plays the 'you're describing agnosticism' card: agnosticism is a position on whether we can ultimately know for sure whether a god or gods exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the answer to that question itself. So you could be an agnostic theist (I believe god exists), a gnostic theist (I know god exists), an agnostic atheist (I don't believe god exists), and a gnostic atheist (I know god doesn't exist). I realize there's more to it, and I'm cutting some corners, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think this suffices. So atheism doesn't strip anything from anything. It doesn't conclusively reject anything, and it doesn't posit anything. Now a lot of atheists have a lot of things in common. Some things atheists have in common are a direct result of them being atheist (low church attendance), and some have in many cases lead to them being atheists (a reverence for the scientific method). If a lot of atheist have a higher than average appreciation for science, that doesn't mean that science is a part of what constitutes atheism. 'Well, nice story bro, but why did you bother to write this all down?' you ask... Well, I'm bothered by the notion that without religion life wouldn't have meaning or purpose. I can lie in the grass for hours on end and just appreciate the beauty of nature. I don't think a story for which there is no evidence adds to that beauty. It doesn't add meaning, and it doesn't add purpose. And yes, I've read the bible (and most of the Qur'an), I've been to church, and I've been to christian summer camps. I'm amazed at how the phenomena such as 'beauty', 'meaning' and 'purpose' work. You just experience them, without having a good reason. For some things you could give an explanation, but if you keep asking 'why?' on and on, you'll end up with an explanation that doesn't intuitively make sense. And still we can all appreciate beauty, and meaning, and purpose. I think it's great that it's not our task to effect someone else's purpose, but that we can define our true selves by finding our own purpose in life. Now religion tries to answer the perpetual 'why?' question with the 'god' answer. If something has meaning to us, it's because it's god's will. But I'm not going to stop asking 'why?' there. Why is it god's will? Why is this god's purpose? If you cannot answer those questions, you haven't added to the understanding of our purpose (or beauty, or meaning). Not because you couldn't answer the 'final' question, but because the question remains basically the same. You haven't reduced the problem to something simpler, with less assumptions. You have therefore not explained anything. This is where my appreciation for science comes in, and how I get back to the first line of you I quoted. While atheism doesn't strip anything off of anything, it doesn't add anything useful either. But although we don't need anything to add to the beauty and purpose of the world around us, there is so much that we can add to it. Even though the world is beautiful by itself, the way it works is (to some) even more wonderful than the way it looks. That's where science comes in. Science can explain why we experience the purpose we feel, and in some cases why we experience some things as beautiful. And if you have an appreciation for such explanations, then that means that for you science adds to the beauty of life. Science can only add to this beauty. It never detracts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28 The transcript of the next video is on its youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk This is a great post. It summarizes my view of the world. The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask. And it wouldn't hurt to keep in mind that however intelligent a person is his conclusions are only as true as the information it is based on. Someone that has spent 15 years in a private theological education will not have been presented with the same information you were, and his opinions will differ from yours - in his mind rightly so. Try to point out common ground and proceed from there. Point out errors in logic, but doing so in a hostile way guarantees your point will not get across. Also, be careful about making bold factual claims to knock down an opponent - while the information may be objectively true if it comes from what your opponent believes is a biased or untrustworthy source he will dismiss it completely. I do understand the urge to correct someone that is completely misrepresenting reality but think about what you're looking to gain from the conversation, and channel that urge into actually trying to convince your opponent rather than knocking him down. | ||
|
Blix
Netherlands873 Posts
 | ||
|
potatomash3r
Australia417 Posts
Fuuuuu reading comprehension fail from me. | ||
|
Evil_Monkey_
Denmark296 Posts
On September 19 2010 20:32 7mk wrote: Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP. If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote. wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%. It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic. On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask. For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way. | ||
|
Zionner
Scotland112 Posts
| ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
We already knew this. | ||
| ||
