The leading protector of the worlds largest Paedophile ring is about to visit my shores, which the vast majority of people dont want, at least not without an appology for all of the crimes agains humanity (mostly children, and aids ridden overpopulated 3rd world coutries).
I for one find it discraceful that my country has allowed a "State Visit" for a religious cult, that brings harm to wherever it goes, whilst I pay for the enormous bill.
I also found this wonderful article pointing out that currently over half of the (polled) population of Britain is not even religious, and only 1 in 12 people even claims to be a Catholic (but as you will see most dont even pray to the deaf guy in the sky very often).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11297461
I decided not to do a "poll" asking people if they think that the tax payers of my bankrupt country should be paying for this twat to make a visit, as the outcome would be worthless due to many people voting one way or the other who dont live in this country.
Here is another funny snippet from some moron who is only "celebate" with adults and helps murder millions every year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441
And what is even worse is that the UK government has stopped anyone being able to arrest the Pope during his visit.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295022
Andy
The Pope's visit to an unreligious country
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
~El~Jefe~
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 2887
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: New York City zzzz
- Contact:
lemming UK post...
anti religious, anti america (it's only ally), anti 1.2 billion people who are "beneath his sense of intellectual superiority"
yay. gota love computer forum posts from English boys.
too bad Bush is not the president, that would make a 4th subject to talk nonsense about. You got 2 outa 4 on that post, impressive.
Save the whales, Kill Christians!
anti religious, anti america (it's only ally), anti 1.2 billion people who are "beneath his sense of intellectual superiority"
yay. gota love computer forum posts from English boys.
too bad Bush is not the president, that would make a 4th subject to talk nonsense about. You got 2 outa 4 on that post, impressive.
Save the whales, Kill Christians!
Here in the USA, the Catholic church funds something like a quarter of the hospitals. A lot of hospitals in the US, especially in my home state of Arizona, run a slim profit or actually loose money, even at the crazy prices that healthcare has reached. It's partly because hospitals do not turn people away, and there's a lot of people, again, especially here in the border states near Mexico, where people come in and can't pay.
Catholic hospitals (like all US hospitals) never turn anyone away who can't pay, even if they're not even in the country legally. I may not be Catholic, but I look at a LOT of the programs here in my state, nationally, and globally where food, clothing, healthcare, and many other things that the government won't pay for, the Catholic charities are providing.
There's been some pretty famous atheists too - Hitler, Mao, Stalin - all resulting in the deaths of millions to tens of millions. It's not like "religion" as you call it is the only place you can find people that have made mistakes. It seems to me that there's been as many or more atheists who aren't doing their part to give to charity and are instead contributing to the ills of society. It's laughable for you to point to the Catholic church as a societal ill.
Catholic hospitals (like all US hospitals) never turn anyone away who can't pay, even if they're not even in the country legally. I may not be Catholic, but I look at a LOT of the programs here in my state, nationally, and globally where food, clothing, healthcare, and many other things that the government won't pay for, the Catholic charities are providing.
There's been some pretty famous atheists too - Hitler, Mao, Stalin - all resulting in the deaths of millions to tens of millions. It's not like "religion" as you call it is the only place you can find people that have made mistakes. It seems to me that there's been as many or more atheists who aren't doing their part to give to charity and are instead contributing to the ills of society. It's laughable for you to point to the Catholic church as a societal ill.
-
faugusztin
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:47 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovak Republic
You say UK is unrelgious ? And what is Anglicanism ? And for unreligious, it's interesting that the major definition point between irish people and english people in North Ireland is the religion.
It's not going to visit you, so if it bothers you then just don't go to the places he visits at those days.
It's not going to visit you, so if it bothers you then just don't go to the places he visits at those days.
Wow, a total retard seems to have broken into El Jefe's SPCR account, and is posting bullshit. Someone best e-mail him a new password, and block the old IP address.lemming UK post...
anti religious, anti america (it's only ally), anti 1.2 billion people who are "beneath his sense of intellectual superiority"
yay. gota love computer forum posts from English boys.
too bad Bush is not the president, that would make a 4th subject to talk nonsense about. You got 2 outa 4 on that post, impressive.
Save the whales, Kill Christians!
That sounds quite impressive, although that is very different from Europe, where most countries have a national health system, and the Catholic Church does squat, apart from taking peoples money and giving it out to poorer people, but we all do that anyway.Here in the USA, the Catholic church funds something like a quarter of the hospitals. A lot of hospitals in the US, especially in my home state of Arizona, run a slim profit or actually loose money, even at the crazy prices that healthcare has reached. It's partly because hospitals do not turn people away, and there's a lot of people, again, especially here in the border states near Mexico, where people come in and can't pay.
Catholic hospitals (like all US hospitals) never turn anyone away who can't pay, even if they're not even in the country legally. I may not be Catholic, but I look at a LOT of the programs here in my state, nationally, and globally where food, clothing, healthcare, and many other things that the government won't pay for, the Catholic charities are providing.
Hitler was a Catholic, Mao was an Athiest, Stalin was somewhere between a king and a living God, not much more to say there.There's been some pretty famous atheists too - Hitler, Mao, Stalin - all resulting in the deaths of millions to tens of millions. It's not like "religion" as you call it is the only place you can find people that have made mistakes. It seems to me that there's been as many or more atheists who aren't doing their part to give to charity and are instead contributing to the ills of society. It's laughable for you to point to the Catholic church as a societal ill.
How many million of people in Africa are suffering and dying right now because the Catholic Church says things like "Aids is BAD, but Condoms are WORSE", that alone kills millions every year, due to mass overpopulation which is un-sustainable, so enormous number dies of starvation and disease, then add to that the amount of people who die slowly and painfully of aids - the Catholic church might help out where you live, but not where I live and not in Africa.
Why get uptight over anything.?why get uptight over the pope.
Try and re-post that, but next time make it make sense.english stuff has the craziest supremacy leaps ever...so secretive.
It does hurt, some people an awful lot.I lost religion too, maybe it just goes deeper. Not gonna complain about a groups peace, if it does not hurt.
Yes, have another look at the 4th Graph, the top line is the interesting one, it says "no religion" and tops the 50% mark, therefore the majority of people polled are NOT RELIGIOUS, could it be any clearer.You say UK is unrelgious ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnglicanismAnd what is Anglicanism ?
Yes, it is very sad, that people dont talk to their neighbours, and the children arent allowed to play with the kids in the next road, all because they believe in a different Sky Faerie, and have been fighting on and off for hundereds of years over such a small and pathetic little point.And for unreligious, it's interesting that the major definition point between irish people and english people in North Ireland is the religion.
Religion is Divisive, and perpetuated by hate mongering Priests, Vicars, Imams etc.
Calling the Pope "It" made me laugh, I was more concerned with the £12m costs that I and the other tax payers are having to cough up, would we be paying that amount of money for the "Dalai Lama" to turn up for 4-days, of course not. It is in the interests of the Catholic Church to make this visit, not ours, therefore they should pay, and not us.It's not going to visit you, so if it bothers you then just don't go to the places he visits at those days.
Andy
Last edited by andyb on Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think anyone would disagree that some atheists, including the examples you've cited, can be Very Bad People Indeed. It's a bit of a straw man argument though - this particular Pope is a proven child-abuse facilitator, and his teachings and proclamations are contributing directly to the spread of a deadly disease with no known cure. Those two facts alone make him unwelcome here as far as I'm concerned, and I certainly resent his visit being funded by the taxpayer at a time when we're all being asked to tighten our belts. It's not as though the Vatican is exactly short of cash, they can well afford to fund their own propaganda machine.AZBrandon wrote: There's been some pretty famous atheists too - Hitler, Mao, Stalin - all resulting in the deaths of millions to tens of millions. It's not like "religion" as you call it is the only place you can find people that have made mistakes. It seems to me that there's been as many or more atheists who aren't doing their part to give to charity and are instead contributing to the ills of society. It's laughable for you to point to the Catholic church as a societal ill.
Yes, I'd say it's unreligious. At least, organised religion and its trappings appear to play very little part in most peoples' lives here.faugusztin wrote:You say UK is unrelgious ?
wut?colm wrote:why get uptight over the pope.
english stuff has the craziest supremacy leaps ever...so secretive.
Rolling Eyes
I lost religion too, maybe it just goes deeper. Not gonna complain about a groups peace, if it does not hurt.
It's even more ridiculous than that. They believe in the same Sky Fairy! They just disagree about which self-appointed Dispenser Of The Truth has the direct line to the Sky Fairy, and which version of the book Chronicles Of The Sky Fairy has the better ending.andyb wrote:Yes, it is very sad, that people dont talk to their neighbours, and the children arent allowed to play with the kids in the next road, all because they believe in a different Sky Faerie, and have been fighting on and off for hundereds of years over such a small and pathetic little point.
I found this video on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFf8vJ_LtAY
If you are going to spend 15-minutes watching anything today, watch this.
Likewise, if you want to watch an enjoyable and educational 50-minute video debate of a Politician and a Archbishop defending the Catholic Church against Stephen Fry, and Christopher Hitchens then you will see 50-minutes vanish in seconds.
The motion is: The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.
This is an Inteligence Squared debate in the centre of london last year, to a packed audience, who are also the voters of the debate.
I wont tell you the outcome, and I ask anyone else who has seen this not to spoil the surprise as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G8 ... playnext=1
And again, one that is less provocative, and not specifically about any one Religion, and errs more towards the Science and Philosophy that I believe is a much stronger voice for Athiesm and Secularism than simply pointing out the many wrongs that religion brings to the table. Well worth watching (another Inteligence Squared debate, skip the first 1:20).
Andy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFf8vJ_LtAY
If you are going to spend 15-minutes watching anything today, watch this.
Likewise, if you want to watch an enjoyable and educational 50-minute video debate of a Politician and a Archbishop defending the Catholic Church against Stephen Fry, and Christopher Hitchens then you will see 50-minutes vanish in seconds.
The motion is: The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.
This is an Inteligence Squared debate in the centre of london last year, to a packed audience, who are also the voters of the debate.
I wont tell you the outcome, and I ask anyone else who has seen this not to spoil the surprise as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G8 ... playnext=1
And again, one that is less provocative, and not specifically about any one Religion, and errs more towards the Science and Philosophy that I believe is a much stronger voice for Athiesm and Secularism than simply pointing out the many wrongs that religion brings to the table. Well worth watching (another Inteligence Squared debate, skip the first 1:20).
Andy
Read these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty
A couple of snippets.
From the first link.
"The Lateran Treaty in 1929, which brought the city-state into existence, spoke of it as a new creation (Preamble and Article III), not as a vestige of the much larger Papal States (756-1870) that had previously encompassed much of central Italy. Most of this territory was absorbed into the Kingdom of Italy in 1860, and the final portion, namely the city of Rome with Lazio, ten years later, in 1870.
Vatican City is an ecclesiastical[5] or sacerdotal-monarchical[6] state, ruled by the bishop of Rome—the Pope. The highest state functionaries are all Catholic clergymen of various national origins. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See (Sancta Sedes) and the location of the Pope's residence, referred to as the Apostolic Palace."
The "State" has existed since 1929, as a result of the enormous power the Church has (had) over its surrounding area (italy), largely thanks to the politics of the time and region.
"Almost all of Vatican City's 826 (2009 est.)[39] citizens either live inside the Vatican's walls or serve in the Holy See's diplomatic service in embassies (called "nunciatures"; a papal ambassador is a "nuncio") around the world. The Vatican citizenry consists almost entirely of two groups: clergy, most of whom work in the service of the Holy See, and a very few as officials of the state; and the Swiss Guard. Most of the 3,000 lay workers who comprise the majority of the Vatican workforce reside outside the Vatican and are citizens of Italy, while a few are citizens of other nations. As a result, all of the City's actual citizens are Catholic as are all the places of worship."
So this "State" has a practice of religious discrimination, no Catholics are allowed to live there, what a nice place - and you have to ask, how is this different from many of the evil religious dictatorships across the globe.?
"The politics of Vatican City takes place in an absolute elective monarchy, in which the head of the Roman Catholic Church takes power. The Pope exercises principal legislative, executive, and judicial power over the State of Vatican City (an entity distinct from the Holy See), which is a rare case of a non-hereditary monarchy.[26]
Vatican City is currently the only widely recognised independent state that has not become a member of the United Nations. The Holy See, which is distinct from Vatican City State, has permanent observer status with all the rights of a full member except for a vote in the UN General Assembly."
Why does this "State" get the privilege of interfering with the UN to such a degree, when it is not even a full member, and add to that the fact that this is not so much a "State" (as in a country) but a "State" as in a religion, with only one purpose - to push that religion.
I dont recognise it as a "State" in its own right, I choose to recognise it as a "State" only so that it can protect paedophiles from the law, to interfere with other countries and organisations such as the UN, and to push its religion whilst having all of the protection that comes from being classified a "State".
Other than those damning points I would not choose to call it a "State" any more than I would call "Fred Phelps" little enclave of America a "State", even though every house in their small portion of the world are all part of the same sect (like the Vatican state), apart from the amount of followers what is the difference.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Feel free to explain what this mean in a little more detail as well.
Andy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty
A couple of snippets.
From the first link.
"The Lateran Treaty in 1929, which brought the city-state into existence, spoke of it as a new creation (Preamble and Article III), not as a vestige of the much larger Papal States (756-1870) that had previously encompassed much of central Italy. Most of this territory was absorbed into the Kingdom of Italy in 1860, and the final portion, namely the city of Rome with Lazio, ten years later, in 1870.
Vatican City is an ecclesiastical[5] or sacerdotal-monarchical[6] state, ruled by the bishop of Rome—the Pope. The highest state functionaries are all Catholic clergymen of various national origins. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See (Sancta Sedes) and the location of the Pope's residence, referred to as the Apostolic Palace."
The "State" has existed since 1929, as a result of the enormous power the Church has (had) over its surrounding area (italy), largely thanks to the politics of the time and region.
"Almost all of Vatican City's 826 (2009 est.)[39] citizens either live inside the Vatican's walls or serve in the Holy See's diplomatic service in embassies (called "nunciatures"; a papal ambassador is a "nuncio") around the world. The Vatican citizenry consists almost entirely of two groups: clergy, most of whom work in the service of the Holy See, and a very few as officials of the state; and the Swiss Guard. Most of the 3,000 lay workers who comprise the majority of the Vatican workforce reside outside the Vatican and are citizens of Italy, while a few are citizens of other nations. As a result, all of the City's actual citizens are Catholic as are all the places of worship."
So this "State" has a practice of religious discrimination, no Catholics are allowed to live there, what a nice place - and you have to ask, how is this different from many of the evil religious dictatorships across the globe.?
"The politics of Vatican City takes place in an absolute elective monarchy, in which the head of the Roman Catholic Church takes power. The Pope exercises principal legislative, executive, and judicial power over the State of Vatican City (an entity distinct from the Holy See), which is a rare case of a non-hereditary monarchy.[26]
Vatican City is currently the only widely recognised independent state that has not become a member of the United Nations. The Holy See, which is distinct from Vatican City State, has permanent observer status with all the rights of a full member except for a vote in the UN General Assembly."
Why does this "State" get the privilege of interfering with the UN to such a degree, when it is not even a full member, and add to that the fact that this is not so much a "State" (as in a country) but a "State" as in a religion, with only one purpose - to push that religion.
I dont recognise it as a "State" in its own right, I choose to recognise it as a "State" only so that it can protect paedophiles from the law, to interfere with other countries and organisations such as the UN, and to push its religion whilst having all of the protection that comes from being classified a "State".
Other than those damning points I would not choose to call it a "State" any more than I would call "Fred Phelps" little enclave of America a "State", even though every house in their small portion of the world are all part of the same sect (like the Vatican state), apart from the amount of followers what is the difference.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Feel free to explain what this mean in a little more detail as well.
atheism, is a position on a claim. nothing more.
Andy
I think your understanding of Hitler's religious views is mistaken:andyb wrote:Hitler was a Catholic, Mao was an Athiest, Stalin was somewhere between a king and a living God, not much more to say there.
From Wikipedia:
"According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was somewhat religiously sceptical, while his mother was a practicing Catholic. According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Catholic Church, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never again attended a Catholic Mass or received the Church's Sacraments."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... ious_views
Regarding Stalin, if he considered himself to be "somewhere between a king and a living God" then I don't think one can call that Christian or part of any other major organized religion (unless you consider Marxism and dialectal materialism to be a religious belief).
I'm an Atheist myself - though I don't like the word, Atheos meaning "without God", which sounds like I'm lacking something.
But I don't get the fuss. I'm pretty sure the UK has welcomed far worse rulers than the Pope in the past. Also, if you one points out the violent history of the Catholic Church, one has to also point out the violent history of the British Empire. And every over country for that matter.
Also, if I understand it correctly, the Northern Ireland conflict is actually less about religion and more your standard fight of an occupied territory against the occupation. Religion, as usual, was only brought in to harden the views and soften the thinking.
Yes, the Church is perpetuating antiquated, anti-modern, anti-progressive world views, but it's not like they are doing it on purpose. The Pope believes that sh*t. He's been brainwashed too. Unless you believe once one enters the inner ranks of the Vatican they are being led into a dark chamber where it is revealed that everything is a hoax.
Atheists aren't better people, Atheists do and have done horrible things too.
But Atheism isn't a cult (yet). There are no believes, practices, rituals involved in it (yet). There is no methodic bias against anything based on the teachings of a loser who claims to either be a Deity himself or that a Deity revealed itself to him in his shed one night. Atheists can't claim a superior power for a superior truth and they don't believe they are the Chosen.
If an Atheist wants to hate gays he has to hate them of his own volition, he can't hide behind interpretations of an old book.
But I don't get the fuss. I'm pretty sure the UK has welcomed far worse rulers than the Pope in the past. Also, if you one points out the violent history of the Catholic Church, one has to also point out the violent history of the British Empire. And every over country for that matter.
Also, if I understand it correctly, the Northern Ireland conflict is actually less about religion and more your standard fight of an occupied territory against the occupation. Religion, as usual, was only brought in to harden the views and soften the thinking.
Yes, the Church is perpetuating antiquated, anti-modern, anti-progressive world views, but it's not like they are doing it on purpose. The Pope believes that sh*t. He's been brainwashed too. Unless you believe once one enters the inner ranks of the Vatican they are being led into a dark chamber where it is revealed that everything is a hoax.
Atheists aren't better people, Atheists do and have done horrible things too.
But Atheism isn't a cult (yet). There are no believes, practices, rituals involved in it (yet). There is no methodic bias against anything based on the teachings of a loser who claims to either be a Deity himself or that a Deity revealed itself to him in his shed one night. Atheists can't claim a superior power for a superior truth and they don't believe they are the Chosen.
If an Atheist wants to hate gays he has to hate them of his own volition, he can't hide behind interpretations of an old book.
Yes and no. The occupation, if you want to refer to it as such, has been going on for about 800 years. It pre-dates there being such a thing as the United Kingdom, and is the responsibility of at least two of the countries that make up said UK (a detail which will doubtless be forgotten when Mel Gibson makes the movie). The religion thing has been part of it since at least the 16th century.tim851 wrote:Also, if I understand it correctly, the Northern Ireland conflict is actually less about religion and more your standard fight of an occupied territory against the occupation. Religion, as usual, was only brought in to harden the views and soften the thinking.
Don't get mad, did you know that Vatican flights are considered Italian flights (aka WE use our taxes to pay them), that they run a lot of private schools and DON'T pay any taxes (wth, why should I pay 6k Eur a year for a Catholic private school, if they don't pay any taxes?), that Police must protect the Pope everywhere in the country, that they have a huge weight on political and ethical debates such as stem cells or abort?andyb wrote: Calling the Pope "It" made me laugh, I was more concerned with the £12m costs that I and the other tax payers are having to cough up, would we be paying that amount of money for the "Dalai Lama" to turn up for 4-days, of course not. It is in the interests of the Catholic Church to make this visit, not ours, therefore they should pay, and not us.
Andy
Don't get mad, there's somebody whom the Vatican actually costs more than those 12m £.
Just a sidenote: In this moment, TV is saying that he has been warmly welcomed in every UK city and there weren't any protests.
-
NeilBlanchard
- Moderator
- Posts: 7681
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
- Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
- Contact:
The breaking news related to the Pope's visit to Great Britain:
5 men arrested by anti terrorism police
5 men arrested by anti terrorism police
Ditto.I think your understanding of Hitler's religious views is mistaken:
From Wikipedia:
"According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was somewhat religiously sceptical, while his mother was a practicing Catholic. According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Catholic Church, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never again attended a Catholic Mass or received the Church's Sacraments."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... ious_views
I have read from other sources that show that at least if he was NOT a Catholic, he certainly acted like he was one much of the time, and I am sure he did so because he would have got less support if he did not, therefore it was a means to an end. In a similar way, many of the founding fathers of the USA were either Athiest, Agnostic, or Diestic, but they had to look like they were some form of Christian to fit in and be accepted by the masses. Again Obama has done something similar, I have it on good merit that he seems non-religious in his book released before he became President, and then suddenly afterwards and in his next book, a change of tune simply because he would have all sorts of religious nutcases pointing out that he is a Communist, Nazi, Athiest scumbag.
Either way it is totally irrelevant to any subect matter surrounding that evil bastard, and I have no interest in discussing it.
He did not, but the people of Russia did, and centuries of treatment of this only leads to the kind of behavour that you saw from him and his cohort. What would you do if you were in his shoes with millions of people treating you like a Living God, you would probably end up being corrupted by power and greed and doing evil things because those millions of devoted worshipers gave you that power (sound like religion to you.?)Regarding Stalin, if he considered himself to be "somewhere between a king and a living God" then I don't think one can call that Christian or part of any other major organized religion (unless you consider Marxism and dialectal materialism to be a religious belief).
Possibly, but not in recent years. As a general rule of thumb, we live in a time where many countries people have more freedom than ever before, along with being fairer and more just. The moral Zeitgeist moves on, and it is only natural that it is being lead by non-religious people.But I don't get the fuss. I'm pretty sure the UK has welcomed far worse rulers than the Pope in the past.
No you dont, you may as well start pointing out every bad thing every single human being has ever done, and also it is simply changing the subject. Remember that in a secular society, anyone can belong to any faith they want, religions cross borders, regions, and continents.Also, if you one points out the violent history of the Catholic Church, one has to also point out the violent history of the British Empire. And every over country for that matter.
To some degree I will agree with you, the "occupied teritory" is very often a street, the religious nutjobs who live there simply wont even sell their house when they move on to someone of the "other" religion. There is only one thing that both sides ever agree on, and that is staying seperate, they live seperate lives not to dissimilar from Apartheid, but without any form of government control, they do it themselves, pushed on by their respective religious leaders.Also, if I understand it correctly, the Northern Ireland conflict is actually less about religion and more your standard fight of an occupied territory against the occupation.
Whether that "was" tru or not, it is NOW religion that is the force behind the seperation.Religion, as usual, was only brought in to harden the views and soften the thinking.
Of course they are doing it on purpose, their livelihoods depend on it.Yes, the Church is perpetuating antiquated, anti-modern, anti-progressive world views, but it's not like they are doing it on purpose.
I am quite sure their weak minds have taken the full force of the brainwashing, and although I would love to believe that they are all actually non-believers, I dont.The Pope believes that sh*t. He's been brainwashed too. Unless you believe once one enters the inner ranks of the Vatican they are being led into a dark chamber where it is revealed that everything is a hoax.
Speak for yourself.Atheists aren't better people
Of course, they are Human, however it is rare for an Athiest to something evil because of their belief of no-god, after all, where is the motivation to do harm to another group of people, there is no scripture telling you that it is your right as an Athiest to persecute the Jews, Christians or Muslims, unlike their scriptures that does not just say go ahead, but "you must" it is your duty.Atheists do and have done horrible things too.
Read this, there is a very very very long way to go,But Atheism isn't a cult (yet). There are no believes, practices, rituals involved in it (yet). There is no methodic bias against anything based on the teachings of a loser who claims to either be a Deity himself or that a Deity revealed itself to him in his shed one night. Atheists can't claim a superior power for a superior truth and they don't believe they are the Chosen.
I am not saying it cant possibly happen, but if it does, it essentially becomes a religion, and therefore is not then athiesm, thus Athiesm simply cant exist in "Cult" form regardless of what Bible Bashers say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Well said. Anyone who is non-religious can believe whatever they want, they can be racist, sexist or homophobic, but unlike many religions they have the choice, many religions such as Catholicism simply say that you must be.
Having read the next sentence, I find it difficult not to.
Hopefully a time will come when the Italian people lose their religion, and all of those rules and costs that you incur get banished into history, by simply passing a bill through Parliment.
I feel sorry for you.
Probably not televised, there have been protests, and I saw a wonderful interview on the BBC yesterday with Professor AC Grayling (an Athiest, Secularist, Humanist Professor of Philosophy) who briefly have some excelent reasons why the Pope should not be here at our expense.
Well that was pleasing to read, they have been arrested in a Planned Raid, none of them are British, and in all likelihood none of them will be Athiests, probably Muslim (99% of the population is Sunni-Muslim the "State" religion) at which point this was almost certainly religiously motivated thus proving my point that religions are not very nice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11346001
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ag.html
Andy
-
judge56988
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: England
-
judge56988
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: England
~El~Jefe~ wrote:lemming UK post...
anti religious, anti america (it's only ally), anti 1.2 billion people who are "beneath his sense of intellectual superiority"
yay. gota love computer forum posts from English boys.
too bad Bush is not the president, that would make a 4th subject to talk nonsense about. You got 2 outa 4 on that post, impressive.
Save the whales, Kill Christians!
Nicely constructed argument as usual from the New Yorker. Yeah!
That is not a rule of thumb.andyb wrote:As a general rule of thumb, we live in a time where many countries people have more freedom than ever before, along with being fairer and more just.
Citizens of the UK complain about the Pope's visit because of the bad things the Catholic Church is responsible for, but when pointing out that the UK isn't exactly a pacifist, humanist utopia, that's changing the subject? Interesting.No you dont, you may as well start pointing out every bad thing every single human being has ever done, and also it is simply changing the subject.
Since the various Christian cults co-exist peacefully everywhere else in the world, I find it overly naive to believe they are the reason in NI.Whether that "was" tru or not, it is NOW religion that is the force behind the seperation.
Essentially it's groupism, identifying yourself with a peer group and exclude others. They use religion for this. That doesn't make it the reason for it. When football hooligans of rival clubs attack each other, neither football nor the clubs are the reason for that.
What I meant with "on purpose" was that I don't think the Pope and his minions are atheist entrepreneurs, that uphold a scheme for pure money-making purposes.Of course they are doing it on purpose, their livelihoods depend on it.
The Pope is a part - and in the end a victim - of the same cult that teaches not to use condoms in Africa. He is the one on the top teaching it, because he's believing it. As are the ones who don't use the condom.
And yet the majority of them doesn't.there is no scripture telling you that it is your right as an Athiest to persecute the Jews, Christians or Muslims, unlike their scriptures that does not just say go ahead, but "you must" it is your duty.
So how are they inferior to you, oh mighty Atheist?
Well, you are already considering yourself superior - first steps taken.I am not saying it cant possibly happen, but if it does, it essentially becomes a religion, and therefore is not then athiesm, thus Athiesm simply cant exist in "Cult" form
I will take your word for it, and hope that you can give a better example of what it is to say that society in first world western countries have more freedom, are fairer and more just than in decades gone by. Although I did note that you dont disagree with that point.That is not a rule of thumb.
Defenders of Religion also point out all of the good things that Catholic people do, would you like me to compile a list of all of the good things that the UK has done, or would you like to drop this silly argument.?Citizens of the UK complain about the Pope's visit because of the bad things the Catholic Church is responsible for, but when pointing out that the UK isn't exactly a pacifist, humanist utopia, that's changing the subject? Interesting.
Explain why different types of Muslim blow up each others Mosques (not NI), or why there was such a lot of violence between religious groups in the early 90's (not NI, but Yugoslavia), and tell me if this is groupism or not.? Then explain how gropism cant include groups of people from different religions.? I am sure that we are both right, and it is one of the reasons why religion is bad, it seperates people by their religion.Since the various Christian cults co-exist peacefully everywhere else in the world, I find it overly naive to believe they are the reason in NI.
Essentially it's groupism, identifying yourself with a peer group and exclude others. They use religion for this. That doesn't make it the reason for it. When football hooligans of rival clubs attack each other, neither football nor the clubs are the reason for that.
I dont disagree with that.What I meant with "on purpose" was that I don't think the Pope and his minions are atheist entrepreneurs, that uphold a scheme for pure money-making purposes.
The Pope is a part - and in the end a victim - of the same cult that teaches not to use condoms in Africa. He is the one on the top teaching it, because he's believing it. As are the ones who don't use the condom.
Which is a good thing.And yet the majority of them doesn't.
I dont need a book, scripture or someone who believes they speak on behalf of a "Supernatural Entity" to be able to do the right thing.So how are they inferior to you, oh mighty Atheist?
I have no imaginary friends.
In stressful times I dont delude myself by praying to a Leprechaun or other "Supernatural Entity".
I dont have, and I dont need "an Invisible means of support".
They are just a few reasons why I am better off as an Athiest than as a religious person, or as you put it, why religious people are inferior to me.
And if other Athiests started worshipping me.? Then I would be a cult leader, and Cults are religious in nature and my followers would then not be Athiest.Well, you are already considering yourself superior - first steps taken.
Again, there simply cannot be an Athiest Cult.
Someone once said that getting a large group of Athiest together all to say the same thing at the same time, was like herding cats. Athiests generally do what they want, when the want to. If you tried doing that with religious people it would be a doddle.
Andy
Last edited by andyb on Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
faugusztin
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:47 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovak Republic
One thing about the "unreligious country". Yes, over 45% are atheists. But there is still 9% of Roman Catholics in UK, and don't tell me their taxes don't cover the expenses you complain about.
The pope doesn't visit you, the atheist, but them, the 9% roman catholics. So have a drink and do something else.
The pope doesn't visit you, the atheist, but them, the 9% roman catholics. So have a drink and do something else.
It is over 50% of the population by the way.One thing about the "unreligious country". Yes, over 45% are atheists. But there is still 9% of Roman Catholics in UK, and don't tell me their taxes don't cover the expenses you complain about.
Also, what are you on.? Are you actually suggesting that each religions leaders are allowed to turn up in my country, and the expenses that we pay are as a proportion of the amount off followers of said religion.?
Or are you suggesting that simply because the followers of that religion pay their taxes (like everyone else) that it makes it OK that the non-Catholic population (91%) pays for someone that they don't care about, for a religion the don't follow.?
Andy
-
faugusztin
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:47 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovak Republic
You are suggesting a visit of pope uses 100% of UK taxes ? You don't mind when police must work because of drunk people, because of hooligans... But one visit of pope blow your fuses...andyb wrote:Or are you suggesting that simply because the followers of that religion pay their taxes (like everyone else) that it makes it OK that the non-Catholic population (91%) pays for someone that they don't care about, for a religion the don't follow.?
No my friend I did not say that, that would be ridiculous, please re-read what I said.You are suggesting a visit of pope uses 100% of UK taxes ?
I didnt say that I liked it. If we lived in a world where no crimes were ever commited we would not be having this discussion at all, as we would not need police, but we dont.You don't mind when police must work because of drunk people, because of hooligans...
If an individual went out, got drunk, and caused a fight, then the police turned up, the only person to blame is the individual.
If 80,000 people turn up at a rock concert, the vast majority of all of the costs encurred will be paid for by the concert organizers, via the concert-goers ticket costs.
However the Pope has turned up, and has drawn crowds of 80,000 people, no money has been given towards the costs unlike the concert-goers, this leaves an enormous un-paid bill, therefore the entire country's population has to pay for it.
Why should they.? I have not heard a single good and valid reason yet.
Reasons already ruled out include your reason, it makes 9% of the population happy. This is simply not good enough, when 100% of the population has to pay for it.
Why cant the Catholic Church pay for it.? They are after all promoting themselves, they are no different in this respect from a trade union, the Womens Institute or the Scout Movement.
They are not doing this for the benefit of the people they are doing it for their own benefit.
We dont pay enormous sums for any of the above to promote themselves in our country, they do that themselves, with their own money. They have bags full of the stuff, they are very far from poor, and they dont even pay taxes.
It is a total disgrace that we have paid for the worlds largest paedophile ring to promote themselves at out cost. As I have already said, I have no problem with him and his chums coming here to promote themselves, but they should pay for it themselves like everyone else does.
Andy
Last edited by andyb on Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Only about 20,000 people today in London, a great deal of them Catholic.Just a sidenote: In this moment, TV is saying that he has been warmly welcomed in every UK city and there weren't any protests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11355258
Here is Richard Dawkins really taking the piss out of the Pope and the Catholic Church, its hilariously funny, this was recorded earlier today during the protest in London.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM
Andy
England is a godless country that rejected the Revivals which made America into the greatest nation on earth. That's why it (England) has long gone down the tubes as a nation. And now it needs its old master Papa Rome to bail it out of bankrupcy and destitution.
BBC is just another lame publicly funded mouthpiece for anti-Christian, anti-US, anti-Israel views.
BBC is just another lame publicly funded mouthpiece for anti-Christian, anti-US, anti-Israel views.
-
judge56988
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: England