Take a good hard look into the life of new pope. To give an overview he thinks that:

Homosexuality is still a sin. He tells people to respect homosexuals, but whent the Argintinian government is going to make sam-sex marriage legal he says, "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

During his early life he gave up all his fancy posetions (personal cook, facy place to live, chauffeured limo) and made a pledge of poverty. This sounds awefully noble right? Wrong, look at why he had those things to start out with (because he was a cardinal). Think about what the Bible verson of Jesus would have done. He probably wouldn't have even considered giving those things out to preachers of his word anyway. So denying riches should be something that cardinals and popes HAVE to do an shouldn't be praised for. By the way, the pledge of poverty meant that he just had to live like everyone else in the community (what a saint -- sarcasm)

Lastly, there was a criminal complaint filed against him by a human rights lawyer for the abduction of two Jesuit priests. However, there was no evidence to prove that he had anything to do with it. :)

Please leave your thoughts and comments on the new pope

Tags: argentina, atheism, catholic, christian, church, corruption, francis, pope, power, religion, More…the, zealots

Views: 3150

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Only a few believed he was the son of god when he was alive and the Jews admit he existed and even islamic muslims claimed he existed but they never agreed he was the son of god.

As opposed to what, non-islamic muslims? There you go again with the inane wordplay.

Of course muslims believe it, "Jesus" is a prophet in their religion.

A jew could well admit he existed but that doesn't actually matter, as they'd disagree that he was the messiah.

Also I should amplify a bit on what Archae said.

the Gospels make it clear that Yeshua (possibly you call him by his Greek name, Jesus) believed the Old Testament stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and Moses, but there is SO much proof now that those were made-up bullshit stories,

It's more specifically true that whoever wrote Matthew (it almost certainly wasn't the apostle Matthew; and the text itself doesn't even make that claim) clearly believed the Septuagint translation into Greek from the Hebrew, rather than the original Hebrew, or he wouldn't have tried to hijack Isaiah 7:14 into somehow being a prophecy of a virgin birth when the original hebrew word meant "young woman" and (if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context) it's clear that Isaiah was prophesying that he himself would knock up a particular chick he knew.  I guess it's mildly impressive that he knew she wouldn't say no, or perhaps he didn't care if she did or didn't.

So they couldn't even get their bullshit right.

@Thomas Pickett - who wrote that, and who are they that anyone should listen to them?

Whew, thought for a minute there that we'd lost you to the Dark Side, Anakin --

@KrisFeenstra: "People are ... bashed to the point of hospitalization or even death. People are harassed and condemned to the point of depression and even suicide. People have had their ability to form a family with the person they loved challenged time and time again. People have been cast as pedophiles and perverts. People have been disowned by their families and cast out from their homes, even as children."

That sounds like what happens to a lot of Christians in atheist and former atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, etc. 

Sometimes it's worth spending as much time examining our own arguments and biases as those of others.  Whenever we choose to stereotype another group, or blame the whole group for the errors of the few, don't we do exactly what you complain about here?  "Perpetuate the problem?" 

That sounds like what happens to a lot of Christians

So that makes it ok? Do you support school-shooters too because they were bullied?

@Professor Robert

There is no 'etc' there.  North Korea is not Atheist - in fact it is a theocracy ruled by their god.  As far as communist countries - please name the Atheist doctrine that proclaimed that Christians were an abomination deserving death?  Oh wait, Atheism has no doctrines and does not define 'abominations'.

Perhaps you should examine your own lies/arguments.

Labels are not that useful, especially the "atheist" label is about as useful as a cock-flavored lollipop. Since it only means "a lack of belief in god(s)" it does not have any positive statement of belief/dogma. If being an atheist is somehow a philosophical (or even religious) ideology, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Instead of investigating further, people tend to be satisfied when they can put a label on a person, classify them and move on with their everyday life.

I find it kinda odd that you label these regimes as"atheist"as this only shows what they are not, in that sense a lot of countries could be considered "atheist" (if you were to think of secular countries as "atheist states"). Then again, I could just as well make a group for "non-Zoltarians" and it would be an equally valid classification, wouldn't it? 

This is the main problem when discussing matters of religion with a lot of theists, to "us" atheists the label "atheist" doesn't mean as much as it seems to mean to the theists themselves. This kind of baggage in terminology is endlessly enforced (on both sides) which seriously hampers a fruitful discussion. 

That being said, I find it despicable that people (regardless of their faith) tend not to examine their arguments and biases. In the end, the reason why people are opposed to homosexuality (for instance) is because they find it "icky", not because some supposed deity said so, but when push comes to shove, that is where theists hide when they are forced to argue. 

The problem being perpetuated is that people do not think for themselves, do not question their motivations and label others easily while thinking that the label holds some kind of meaning. 

That sounds like what happens to a lot of Christians in atheist and former atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, etc.

None of those are "atheist" regimes, professor. They might have leaders that hold no faith, but that does not make the regime atheist. No one has ever killed anyone in the name of their lack of belief in gods. Plenty have, and still do kill in the name of their gods and religion.

Stalin was atheist, but was very good friends with the Orthodox church, since he is like a saint to them now. China persecuted imperialists, and christians are caught up in the mix. North Korea is not atheist at all. Their leaders are their gods. Or are you going to give us the old tripe about how atheists worship themselves.

Your particular group has persecuted others for the past 2000 years, and still does. Your church might not outright demand burnings at the stake anymore, but people still die because of their laws. Women and children are being killed for witchcraft, gays are being bullied to death, or outright killed, abortion doctors are being killed, and AIDS keeps on killing because your religious leaders threaten people with hell if they use condoms.

I was apparently too opaque in my discussion.  I was really responding to this statement of @KrisFeenstra's:

"Many modern Christians who view homosexuality as a sin will talk about how the above things are not true Christianity or state how these things are obviously wrong, yet they cannot see that they are perpetuating the problem themselves by perpetuating this sin myth.They cannot see that in many cultures, it is the supposed followers of Christ kicking up the biggest fuss in opposition."

Now, when I offered the alternate case of the violent repression of religious adherents by nominally atheist regimes, what happened?

Well, many modern atheists started talking about how the above regimes were not true atheists, or state how these things (systematic persecution of Christians) are obviously wrong, yet they cannot see that they are perpetuating the problem themselves, by bashing all Christians for the failings of a few.  They cannot see that in many cultures it is the supposed followers of secularism kicking up the biggest fuss.

Does that make what I said clearer? 

I think I as a theist have to accept when you say that the religious repression that has occurred and still occurs in many cultures is not the atheism that you espouse, and that you would join me in condemning it.  Similarly, I think it's rational and fair for you to accord the same courtesy in reverse, and accept that those of us who know the tenets of our faith can say when someone is not truly following the faith or speaking on our behalf, and join you in condemning their actions.

Does that make what I said clearer?

Not at all.

In what country did any leader kill people in the name of his lack of belief? In what country did the leader's non-belief in god drive him to genocide?

You are missing the point, professor. Yes, some of the regimes you mentioned have/had atheist leaders. But their lack of belief in god had nothing to do with how they governed. None of those leaders claimed their lack of belief as permission to murder, or as a seal of approval for their deeds.

There are two types of dictator, professor. One that has the church on his side, and one that abolishes it. There are good reasons for each.

If you ally with the church, you have all the clout of the spiritual leaders of billions on your side, and can use that doctrine to accomplish all kinds of atrocities (ex. Hitler). You become second to only god, and your authority becomes next to divine.

Now, if you abolish religion, you are removing that "supreme" leadership from the lives of your subjects and replacing it with yourself (ex. North Korea), thus not actually removing religion, just substituting god with yourself. You become god (North Korea).

So, once again, unless you are claiming that tired old cliche about how atheists worship themselves as gods, you cannot possibly say that the dictatorships you named were atheist regimes.

Dictators want to be the main influence and power in their country. What better way to accomplish that than to remove all other sources of influence? Atheism has nothing to do with that. It's just common sense.

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

My Purity Ring

Posted by Michelle Varni on July 5, 2015 at 7:18pm 5 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service