Songs That Should Have Been Number 1
Music7 mins ago
Are atheists a threat?
37 Answers
Cardinal Kasper pulled out of the Pope's visit to the UK saying that there is an atmosphere of ''aggressive atheism'' in Britain and Christians are at a disadvantage, and the Pope has in his speech this afternoon associated atheism with Nazism, which to me sounds like a desperate attempt to disparage the non-believer. Are these men really that worried that atheists, no longer afraid to speak up, will succeed in exposing religion for the lie it is?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We've all heard over the past couple of days that atheism is coming to the fore around these here parts. Now apparently atheism is being linked to Naziism. In fairness, it seems obvious that the more atheists there are, the less religious people there are, hence less money flowing into their(Vatican) coffers. These guys are just doing what any other gangster would do, protecting their own interests. The worrying thing is that their gang is bigger and, I would go out on a limb and say, more extreme than the atheist's gang. Should a fight break out, I wouldn't give atheists a hope in heck of winning what would most likely be a bloodbath(look at the history). Is this a declaration or war on atheists?
What has always amused me, if that indeed is the right word, is the fact that atheists in general, and particularly those who post on this site, generally come across as far more self-opinionated, self-righteous, holier than thou, and dogmatic, than any believer in any faith I have come across in 60 years.
Mike11111 – You may well think so. I'm sure that when the Renaissance was getting under way in Italy back in the 14th Century, many religious people expressed the same opinion.
But as history can testify, the Renaissance (ie. that period from the 14th to the 17th Century, when huge numbers of people threw off the shackles of religious dogma and started thinking for themselves) was one of the most enterprising and scientifically inventive periods of history that have ever existed. To list the achievements of mankind during this period would take many, many pages and it all happened because people started to think for themselves.
But as history can testify, the Renaissance (ie. that period from the 14th to the 17th Century, when huge numbers of people threw off the shackles of religious dogma and started thinking for themselves) was one of the most enterprising and scientifically inventive periods of history that have ever existed. To list the achievements of mankind during this period would take many, many pages and it all happened because people started to think for themselves.
With the greatest of respect I beg to disagree with your previous post. I think you might be confusing the Renaissance with the Reformation (slightly different things). Some of the most influential and innovative people of the Renaissance period held deeply strong religious convictions, both Protestant and Catholic (Da Vinci, Galileo, Newton), to name but three).
It's tomorrow already...
It's interesting that you chose Galileo as one of your examples of Christians who helped to develop science. Are you aware that Galileo was imprisoned on the orders of the Catholic Church for daring to teach the Copernican theory that the earth is not the centre of the universe?
But that's by the by as they say.
My point is that many of these people who advanced science during the Renaissance where Catholic in name only. They defied Catholic teachings left, right and centre. Take your example of Leonardo DaVinci. This is a man who secretly defied the Church by conducting and documenting human dissections – a practise not allowed at that time. His drawings helped to further the understanding of human anatomy. His contribution to science in this field should not be underestimated. If you ever have to undergo surgery, you should tip a wink to old Leo.
It's very easy to find examples of individuals who were religious in public, but in practice (and often in secret) carried out scientific experiments and reached conclusions that clashed with religious dogma. But this would become a very, very long post if I were to list these people and their contribution to science. Suffice to say that when people start to think for themselves rather than through the filter of religion, remarkable things can and do happen.
It's interesting that you chose Galileo as one of your examples of Christians who helped to develop science. Are you aware that Galileo was imprisoned on the orders of the Catholic Church for daring to teach the Copernican theory that the earth is not the centre of the universe?
But that's by the by as they say.
My point is that many of these people who advanced science during the Renaissance where Catholic in name only. They defied Catholic teachings left, right and centre. Take your example of Leonardo DaVinci. This is a man who secretly defied the Church by conducting and documenting human dissections – a practise not allowed at that time. His drawings helped to further the understanding of human anatomy. His contribution to science in this field should not be underestimated. If you ever have to undergo surgery, you should tip a wink to old Leo.
It's very easy to find examples of individuals who were religious in public, but in practice (and often in secret) carried out scientific experiments and reached conclusions that clashed with religious dogma. But this would become a very, very long post if I were to list these people and their contribution to science. Suffice to say that when people start to think for themselves rather than through the filter of religion, remarkable things can and do happen.
Mike, responding to statements that have no basis in reality with answers that are demonstrably correct is not self-opinionated. It's no different to giving an accurate answer to any other question on AB, so perhaps you were right to question your use of the word 'amused'.
Ummmm, if I encouraged you to join in, I'm very pleased indeed. The more the merrier. I'd really like to see far more people come and talk about this. By the way, I don't mean to be scary you know - I'm just passionate about my subject. ;o)
Ummmm, if I encouraged you to join in, I'm very pleased indeed. The more the merrier. I'd really like to see far more people come and talk about this. By the way, I don't mean to be scary you know - I'm just passionate about my subject. ;o)
When you hear Ratzinger blather on, along with his circle of advisors, of "aggressive atheism", you can conclude several things.
1. That they still pine for those wonderful days where religion, and those high offices of religion, were afforded automatic,unthinking respect and deference.
2. That Ratzinger mistakes assertiveness with aggression, (as do many of a religious persuasion) and finds atheists damnably cheeky.
How dare they refute, how dare they argue, how dare they point the finger at an organisation which has systematically dragged its feet and attempted to cover up the involvement of priests in child abuse, who. by declaring use of the condom heretical have condemned millions to lives of squalor, hunger, illness and death - who refuse equal rights to women, and who still think that actions arising from faith should have a higher value than secular law.
Any attempt by the believers and their representatives to reinstate some of that unthinking, automatic deference to their faith should be vigorously challenged and rejected.
1. That they still pine for those wonderful days where religion, and those high offices of religion, were afforded automatic,unthinking respect and deference.
2. That Ratzinger mistakes assertiveness with aggression, (as do many of a religious persuasion) and finds atheists damnably cheeky.
How dare they refute, how dare they argue, how dare they point the finger at an organisation which has systematically dragged its feet and attempted to cover up the involvement of priests in child abuse, who. by declaring use of the condom heretical have condemned millions to lives of squalor, hunger, illness and death - who refuse equal rights to women, and who still think that actions arising from faith should have a higher value than secular law.
Any attempt by the believers and their representatives to reinstate some of that unthinking, automatic deference to their faith should be vigorously challenged and rejected.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
What Do You Think Of The King's...
News62 mins ago
Animals & Nature146 mins ago
Film, Media & TV150 mins ago