Pope compares secularism to Nazism - Page 15

On September 19 2010 16:51 Shatter wrote:
A religious leader says that the world would be better if people followed his religion and that mankind would be less without it. I would kind of expect him to believe this...I don't really see what is wrong with it.

He is arguing that without God and belief and whatever, it can lead to, in extreme cases, things such as the Nazi movement. I guess I just don't see what the problem is. He thinks that a world without Christianity would be a bad world, which isn't surprising considering he is the Pope.

Do I agree with him? No but I'm not outraged or anything.

On September 20 2010 02:53 Steamboatlol wrote:
Anyone ever read the story of the tower of bable? That shit's fucked up. If that's in your text book where you derive your moral code from, I want no part in that philosophy (truth about god being imaginary aside).

On September 19 2010 18:00 Matoo- wrote:

You're saying killing every black person in Detroit wouldn't fit the definition of ethnic cleansing?

On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:
i'm just curious how many people actually read the entire speech?

also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.

op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve. that we attain our full potentials as human beings. maybe to some of you that means the same thing, but there's a small difference.

that being said, I agree that our pope (catholic here btw.) is a little kooky. bring back john paul II imo.

edit:

lol wtf. have you actually read the story?

On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.

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.



The transcript of the next video is on its youtube page:

On September 20 2010 03:20 krndandaman wrote:


I think he means those who actively try to disprove religion, especially infront of religious people. There are those who just don't believe in God and that's that. I guess that wouldn't be 'extreme' atheism..

On September 20 2010 03:08 Polis wrote:


What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?

op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.

On September 20 2010 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
the rejection of the notion that God exists would be Weak Atheism which is essentially a form of Agnosticism

On September 20 2010 03:42 krndandaman wrote:

I really doubt anyone here believes God will save them from inevitable death. Where the hell did you come up with this one?

On September 20 2010 03:35 L wrote:

Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.

You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.

The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.

I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.

Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.

You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.

The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.

I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.

Same with the universe. Is there really an end to the length of our universe? Who knows?

On September 20 2010 03:35 L wrote:
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.

On September 20 2010 03:35 L wrote:I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.

On September 19 2010 15:40 matjlav wrote:

The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.