vatican cunts
•
14 Jun 2007, 02:56
•
Journals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6750887.stm
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
fuckers
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
fuckers
How much fucking torture is religion going to put on the world. :-\
For me donating to charity isn't an obligation, and as long as they continue giving to a Christian charity it can be justified. Would you support a charity that supported something you morally fealt strongly against, say helping hide paedophiles, or sending luxuries to violent criminals in jail?
Can't even make proper senses anymore, nn :)
A good man will do good things, a bad man bad things, but to get a good man to do bad things it takes religion.
Why do you think even the toughest men pray in life and death situations? Because it has been brainwashed into people from the very start of their/our lives. There would be no such nonsense going on, if they wouldnt "get them when they are still young". Babys are born atheists with no idea of a transcendental being whatsoever and then get flooded with all this superstitious nonsense, ofc it will show in extreme situations.
Why do you think even the toughest men pray in life and death situations? Because it has been brainwashed into people from the very start of their/our lives."
Practice, shows thats just not the case. You really overlook the good religion (some religions) has done for the world, which is a shame.
"An idea higher than human live is the most dangerous thing in this world, see also crusades, inquisition or the political religions communism and national socialism."
That really disappointed me. But I will leave you with some quotes.
And to quote yourself, "A good man will do good things, a bad man bad things, but to get a good man to do bad things it takes religion."
But spirituality, placebo whatever.
All these things come down to the natural premises of men, our natural curiosity and ability to realise cause and effect of things. Our altruism and empathy for others is deeply rooted in our nature as well, you dont need religion for any of those things.
A chimpanzee doesnt need religion to try rescue another chimpanzee from drowning either, despite not being able to swim i might add.
All major improvements in technology and ethics have come to us by science and natural human altruism, AGAInst everything the religions tried to impose on us.
What good can be sourced to / is rooted in religion?
What is meant by apathy of human beings, since despite alot of selfish acts, empathy is still deeply rooted in humanity and in animals as well for that matter?
evan 2007
"Isnt goodness incompatible with the theory of the "selfish gene"? No. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory- a distressing misunderstanding. - Richard Dawkins
Edit: Also there is no "will to evolve" in nature. Nothing wants to evolve, there is no direction for evolution, the theory doesnt even express that things evolve to the better. Evolution just happens.
What is goodness ? It's a point of view and very ambiguous when your talking like this. At the end of the day, you can sum 90% of what we have said under "theory" so it doesn't really matter =)
Ambition to evolve?
The only things that can have a will to do things are
conscious beings, "nature" itself doesnt have direction nor will.
You are suggesting that f.e. a butterfly is changing his genes to be able to perform mimicry by sheer willpower and/or ambition.
And yet again you fail to argument in a proper way, since "I disagree with you" is not really very convincing.
So let me sum up what you have shown so far:
An absolute failure in the way of proper, logical argumentation.
A total lack of understanding of evolution and biology.
A huge gap in knowledge of human , scientific and religious history.
I could prolly find more, by looking through it again.
"And yet again you fail to argument in a proper way, since "I disagree with you" is not really very convincing."
And yet I say why straight after ? Are you blatantly trying to be ignorant ? I've said nothing about evolution and nor dispute it. There is a lot of what you have said which doesn't have scientific basis so instead of me just saying bullshit, I say theory. Maybe you should go read up some Chomsky and "language instinct" to see what I'm getting at.
"Ambition to evolve?
The only things that can have a will to do things are
conscious beings, "nature" itself doesn't have direction nor will."
As I said, on some level I think things which aren't on the top of the food chain do have some "desire" to evolve or better themselves. Possibly explain why some things at the top of the food chain have never evolved (although you could counter with, they have never had to. But that's not always the case.). Obviously it's harder to prove with animals, but for humans I think its plausible.
You take things very literally and see to be getting quite angry for some reason. Listen to some music, and we can continue if you want.
Also you still dont explain how this "will to evolve" is supposed to look like. I think you are rather refering to the simple will to survive.
Also i would dispute that things at the top of the food chain dont evolve, especially since evolution happens on the gene level (if going by dawkins definition) and doesnt work by group selection.
To go back to the more important point however, i AGAIn want to raise the question as to what good religion could possibly have done for us or does for us today?
PS: And yes i do take many things literally, since thats the only way to lead a logical argumentation. If you dont define what you mean by saying certain things and dont evaluate your point instead of just saying "I dont think so" or "I dont agree", then there is no argument to be had.
"You cant use a word like evolve and say " dont take it literally" without defining what you really mean when you say evolve."
No I don't mean the will to survive, although that is the end ambition or the driving factor. I did say it's a hard concept to apply to nature but for humans it's possible. You can look at the holocaust as a possible example of humans "wanting" to evolve with the Aryan race.
"To go back to the more important point however, i AGAIn want to raise the question as to what good religion could possibly have done for us or does for us today?"
It teaches/enforces morales and at least tries to prevent "sins". But of course you will say that that ability/ambition is already there and we will continue in circles.
As also expressed in the manifest of evolutionary humanism, ethics without a god are a decision for humanity.
Ethics regulate the behaviour of humans between each other and to other life forms of this planet. You cant behave unethical against yourself. However according to the church, you can be immoral without hurting anyone else. (masturbation comes to mind) Religious moralising of natural human behaviour has led to many a suffering in history and even leads to suffering today as the policy of "abstinence instead of contraception" policy is still running wild.
Furthermore the only reason for their moral highground religions can claim is, that their morals derive from god, which is pretty obviously untrue.
(For that see explanations by Sokrates, Nietzsche, Sam Harris, Dawkins, Feuerbach and others)
"Ethics regulate the behaviour of humans between each other and to other life forms of this planet."
All rather trivial to be honest as with most philosophy, just trying to explain correlations in the choices we make, with no real foundation.
The real foundation as i said and you chose to ignore is our human nature. None other than us can create rules and ethics for our behaviour. What other foundation could there be? God? Scripture? THeologians? The pope?
/ignore
You may be able to philosophy to explain 99% of what people will do, but there will always be a small minority who act according to there own desires and ambitions which go against our "typical" human rules and nature. I just didn't like the fact that you so easily disregarded what good religion has done. Although I think you get caught up in Christianity too much, not every religion is as "bad" :P
If you feel like writing some more, you could give me your opinion on traditional media (written press) and also how the internet excels/fails in comparison. Also your opinion about e-journalism in gaming :P
Also if you ignore us being the foundation of our own ethics you just slip into postmodern, relativism and into a nihilistic world view that Nietzsche already said we would experience and that we would have to overcome.
I only "get caught up" in christianity so much, because im more knowledgeable in christianity than in other religions, but i would argue that Islam f.e. isnt exactly better and people have been oppressed by Buddhist monchs and hinduistic majorities as well.
Journalism and e-journalism isnt exactly my field of expertise, so there is really no use to wrtie about that.
As I said, on some level I think things which aren't on the top of the food chain do have some "desire" to evolve or better themselves. Possibly explain why some things at the top of the food chain have never evolved (although you could counter with, they have never had to. But that's not always the case.). Obviously it's harder to prove with animals, but for humans I think its plausible.
But in this context that's not the religion we're talking about, it's the profiteering & controling religion I (and seemingly coffin) have a problem with.
Control? We've fundamental Christians in our Government trying to oppress people, and we're near secular. A more recent example, the Pope bullying politicians during his visit to South America.
Love that sequence in Kingdom Of Heaven. The Pope is merely taking advantage of "weak" men in order to put "The Church" in a stronger position. Can't see anything wrong with that.
Ouch, that made me wince, with you and coffin arguing so long and to say something as stupid as that.
Look into the relationship between Politics and Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity in the United States.
"If you gave Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox."
Look at what a disgrace 'Reverend' Ted Haggard is now. These cunts are only in it for the money.
The Bible clearly states that men are not the ones to justify ourselves. That's Jesus's job. And we are not supposed to judge each other either. Now well, the Pope is to be considered Gods man on earth, but i have a hard time believing that when he starts to work AGAINST organisations like Amnesty. However, i still believe in God, but i also acknowledge that this planet is full of retards that tend to use him as a bad excuse to do stupid things.
I'm not a very big fan of abortion, but that doesn't mean i can't let anybody else do it. That decision i'll leave to God.
When you talk about "the problem of religion", it doesn't make any sense. Religion, in my case being protestantism, is something i believe to be perfectly true and just as natural as anything else. It's a bit like talking about the "problem" of oxygen(yes, overused comparation :P). However, as i said earlier there are some individuals that try to twist and turn religion to suit their needs, and even worse use it to justify horrbile actions. :/