Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Shaker

Atheists are good if they do good, says Pope

Taking Catholicism forward by a century or two at least.
cyberman

Re: Atheists are good if they do good, says Pope

Hurrah!
Shaker

Needless to say, I'm not convinced that the Pope's idea of what constitutes goodness is going to align with the same idea amongst a great many atheists - he could well be saying merely 'Atheists are good if they do good according to my theistic/Christian conception of good.' Which I suspect is rather likely, in fact. Equal marriage, the use of contraception and the right to a physician-assisted suicide with dignity and without pain in a manner and at a time of your own choosing are all good - but not to him, so he won't say that they're good when atheists like me say they are.
northernstar

Yes, we're all good little atheists to be patted on the head! Go away, Francis!
cyberman

northernstar wrote:
Yes, we're all good little atheists to be patted on the head! Go away, Francis!


Fuck, there really is no pleasing some people!
northernstar

He's just paying lip service, I'll only take him seriously when he endorses birth control, abortion and same sex marriages.
cyberman

northernstar wrote:
He's just paying lip service, I'll only take him seriously when he endorses birth control, abortion and same sex marriages.


So you only "take seriously" people who agree with you on everything. Never mind. When you are older you will discover that the world doesn't work that way.
northernstar

I don't need to be patronised by the head of the Catholic church, thank you very much, it's about time he put his own house in order. That goes for other religions, too.
Shaker

northernstar wrote:
I don't need to be patronised by the head of the Catholic church, thank you very much, it's about time he put his own house in order. That goes for other religions, too.

No argument there!
cyberman

OK I get that you guys are not really bothered what the Pope thinks; that's to be expected. But why actually complain about it?

You complain (rightly) when aggressive theistic attitudes (such as in the USA and in some Muslim countries) seem to encourage attacks upon or unfair treatment of atheists. Then you also complain when one of the world's most prominent theists positively discourages such attitudes and invites a more cordial relationship.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
OK I get that you guys are not really bothered what the Pope thinks; that's to be expected. But why actually complain about it?

Because the Pope, like many another religious big cheese, doesn't always seem to confine his comments to members of his own club. That would be, at the very least, understandable. However, these types are very much in the habit of insinuating or even openly declaring that the things they dislike shouldn't exist for anyone, anywhere, ever.

It would rightly be seen as downright bizarre if some small club or local organisation decided that its rules were binding on non-members of that club or organisation: the only reason that this seems to be given a pass in the case of a religion is that we've had centuries and centuries of them foisting their beliefs on those who don't share them (whether they're believers of a different kind or not believers at all). That may be changing, but not fast enough for my liking.

Quote:
You complain (rightly) when aggressive theistic attitudes (such as in the USA and in some Muslim countries) seem to encourage attacks upon or unfair treatment of atheists. Then you also complain when one of the world's most prominent theists positively discourages such attitudes and invites a more cordial relationship.

That's right. If you think that that means they can't possibly win and can never do right for doing wrong, that's pretty largely correct as I see it.

It's also not even entirely clear if his reported comments are inviting a more cordial relationship. His comments have been touted as "atheists are good if they do good," but - as I pointed out earlier - good according to whom? If this abstract notion of 'good' is the Pope's own, then it's not a good that I recognise.
northernstar

True, maybe we should ignore what the Catholic Pope thinks, how about we twist it round  and say religious people are good if they do good, amounts to the same thing, doesn't it. Only, they need approval from their non existent god.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
OK I get that you guys are not really bothered what the Pope thinks; that's to be expected. But why actually complain about it?

Because the Pope, like many another religious big cheese, doesn't always seem to confine his comments to members of his own club. That would be, at the very least, understandable. However, these types are very much in the habit of insinuating or even openly declaring that the things they dislike shouldn't exist for anyone, anywhere, ever.

It would rightly be seen as downright bizarre if some small club or local organisation decided that its rules were binding on non-members of that club or organisation: the only reason that this seems to be given a pass in the case of a religion is that we've had centuries and centuries of them foisting their beliefs on those who don't share them (whether they're believers of a different kind or not believers at all). That may be changing, but not fast enough for my liking.

Quote:
You complain (rightly) when aggressive theistic attitudes (such as in the USA and in some Muslim countries) seem to encourage attacks upon or unfair treatment of atheists. Then you also complain when one of the world's most prominent theists positively discourages such attitudes and invites a more cordial relationship.

That's right. If you think that that means they can't possibly win and can never do right for doing wrong, that's pretty largely correct as I see it.

It's also not even entirely clear if his reported comments are inviting a more cordial relationship. His comments have been touted as "atheists are good if they do good," but - as I pointed out earlier - good according to whom? If this abstract notion of 'good' is the Pope's own, then it's not a good that I recognise.


And do you think that his comments might have any affect upon the way theists view and treat atheists?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
And do you think that his comments might have any affect upon the way theists view and treat atheists?

None whatsoever.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
And do you think that his comments might have any affect upon the way theists view and treat atheists?

None whatsoever.


Right oh. So you don't blame papal declaration for any behaviours which you dislike? For example, the Pope saying youshouldn't use condoms has had no effect upon health whatsoever.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
And do you think that his comments might have any affect upon the way theists view and treat atheists?

None whatsoever.


Right oh. So you don't blame papal declaration for any behaviours which you dislike? For example, the Pope saying youshouldn't use condoms has had no effect upon health whatsoever.

Presumably it's not this or that one-off Papal statement (such as in a speech) which Catholics are supposed to pay attention to but Church teaching?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
And do you think that his comments might have any affect upon the way theists view and treat atheists?

None whatsoever.


Right oh. So you don't blame papal declaration for any behaviours which you dislike? For example, the Pope saying youshouldn't use condoms has had no effect upon health whatsoever.

Presumably it's not this or that one-off Papal statement (such as in a speech) which Catholics are supposed to pay attention to but Church teaching?


Well both, to an extent. Do you think Papal pronouncements have any effect at all upon behaviours?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
And do you think that his comments might have any affect upon the way theists view and treat atheists?

None whatsoever.


Right oh. So you don't blame papal declaration for any behaviours which you dislike? For example, the Pope saying youshouldn't use condoms has had no effect upon health whatsoever.

Presumably it's not this or that one-off Papal statement (such as in a speech) which Catholics are supposed to pay attention to but Church teaching?


Well both, to an extent. Do you think Papal pronouncements have any effect at all upon behaviours?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Well both, to an extent. Do you think Papal pronouncements have any effect at all upon behaviours?

If at all, which needs to be demonstrated of course, only to a very limited extent.

I'm sure I'm right in saying that the Pope never speaks off the cuff - even in a speech, I don't believe it's ever improvised on the spot, and that whatever is said is carefully worked out and precisely worded beforehand, the same as with any other speech by a president or prime minister. He doesn't, as far as I'm aware, appear at press conferences taking questions from the floor, so it's unlikely in the extreme that we're ever going to see a "Pope makes gaffe shocker" headline at any point.

All the same, let's think the unthinkable and imagine a news story that breaks around the world in which Pope Francis says, in effect, "gays are good people too." Would that cause a significant sea-change in the mind of the average Catholic around the world away from the teaching that homosexuality is objectively disordered, gravely depraved, self-indulgent and an intrinsic moral evil which under no circumstances can be approved?

Or is it the teaching itself which would prevent the Pope from ever making such a statement?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Well both, to an extent. Do you think Papal pronouncements have any effect at all upon behaviours?

If at all, which needs to be demonstrated of course, only to a very limited extent.

I'm sure I'm right in saying that the Pope never speaks off the cuff - even in a speech, I don't believe it's ever improvised on the spot, and that whatever is said is carefully worked out and precisely worded beforehand, the same as with any other speech by a president or prime minister. He doesn't, as far as I'm aware, appear at press conferences taking questions from the floor, so it's unlikely in the extreme that we're ever going to see a "Pope makes gaffe shocker" headline at any point.

All the same, let's think the unthinkable and imagine a news story that breaks around the world in which Pope Francis says, in effect, "gays are good people too." Would that cause a significant sea-change in the mind of the average Catholic around the world away from the teaching that homosexuality is objectively disordered, gravely depraved, self-indulgent and an intrinsic moral evil which under no circumstances can be approved?

Or is it the teaching itself which would prevent the Pope from ever making such a statement?


Actually, to say "gays are good people too" is not at all controversial nor is it in conflict with church teaching.

I am surprised that you don't think that saying so would reduce homophobia one jot.

Did you ever express the view that a Pope ought to say that it is OK to use condoms?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Did you ever express the view that a Pope ought to say that it is OK to use condoms?

I thought he'd already said as much? Though admittedly, the issue seems lamentably unclear.

And, if I recall correctly, it has been hinted by that the use of condoms may be permissible in certain circumstances if the intention is to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, not if the intention is to prevent conception.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Did you ever express the view that a Pope ought to say that it is OK to use condoms?

I thought he'd already said as much? Though admittedly, the issue seems lamentably unclear.

And, if I recall correctly, it has been hinted by that the use of condoms may be permissible in certain circumstances if the intention is to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, not if the intention is to prevent conception.


But what difference would it make if the Pope said such a thing?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Actually, to say "gays are good people too" is not at all controversial nor is it in conflict with church teaching.

You don't see a conflict between saying that 'gays are good people too' when the Church's teaching is that the very thing which makes people gay people specifically is

Quote:
objectively disordered, gravely depraved, self-indulgent and an intrinsic moral evil which under no circumstances can be approved


? Because I can't quite summon up the level of doublethink needed to be able to hold 'gays are good people too' and 'gays are objectively disordered, gravely depraved, self-indulgent and subject to an intrinsic moral evil' in my head at the same time and not see them as in direct conflict.

Some people can and do, of course, believe six impossible things before breakfast.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Actually, to say "gays are good people too" is not at all controversial nor is it in conflict with church teaching.

You don't see a conflict between saying that 'gays are good people too' when the Church's teaching is that the very thing which makes people gay people specifically is

Quote:
objectively disordered, gravely depraved, self-indulgent and an intrinsic moral evil which under no circumstances can be approved


? Because I can't quite summon up the level of doublethink needed to be able to hold 'gays are good people too' and 'gays are objectively disordered, gravely depraved, self-indulgent and subject to an intrinsic moral evil' in my head at the same time and not see them as in direct conflict.

Some people can and do, of course, believe six impossible things before breakfast.


Your quote ("objectively dosordered, etc...") doesn't start at the beginning of a sentence, does it?

Why is that?

Does is say that gay people are objectively disordered?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Your quote ("objectively dosordered, etc...") doesn't start at the beginning of a sentence, does it?

Why is that?

Does is say that gay people are objectively disordered?

That is the opinion of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. Which, presumably, you already knew.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Your quote ("objectively dosordered, etc...") doesn't start at the beginning of a sentence, does it?

Why is that?

Does is say that gay people are objectively disordered?

That is the opinion of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. Which, presumably, you already knew.


Yes. Is it the opinion of the Catholic church on gay people? Why did your quote start mid-sentence?
genghiscant

Hold the front page. Apparently homosexuals & atheists won't be going to heaven after all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news...ion-for-nonbelievers-8635121.html
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
Hold the front page. Apparently homosexuals & atheists won't be going to heaven after all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news...ion-for-nonbelievers-8635121.html


I reckon Pope Francis can take Fr Thomas Wossname in a fight, though.

It has always been the case, as you know, that some Christians think that atheists will go to hell and some don't. Pope John Paul II said something about hell possibly being empty, for example. You usually find that the evangelical, fundamentalist wing of Christianity tend to believe that more people will be damned that we believe at the Catholic end of the spectrum, but those ideas do exist in the RC church too, sadly. Fr Thomas is free to believe it if he wishes, of course. It comes as a surprise to some, but as Catholics we are allowed to disagree with the Pope.
northernstar

Oh, dear, so I won't be ascending to heaven after all, then again, as it doesn't exist and neither does hell, nothing to fret about!
cyberman

northernstar wrote:
 it doesn't exist and neither does hell,


Passing off your guesses as facts again? A very bad habit some atheists have!
northernstar

Even you must admit it's absurd?
Powwow

northernstar,
Just you wait and see.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
northernstar,
Just you wait and see.

What a stunning riposte.

"Wait and see"?

"Wait and see" what?

Is that it? That's your considered defence of your alleged belief, is it?
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
northernstar wrote:
 it doesn't exist and neither does hell,


Passing off your guesses as facts again? A very bad habit some atheists have!


I have noticed you pursuing this particular line of argument both here and in t'other place....but surely this cuts both ways, and when Christians claim they know there is a God, that is just as bad a habit.

I mean it is just a guess isn't it, really?
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
cyberman wrote:
northernstar wrote:
 it doesn't exist and neither does hell,


Passing off your guesses as facts again? A very bad habit some atheists have!


I have noticed you pursuing this particular line of argument both here and in t'other place....but surely this cuts both ways, and when Christians claim they know there is a God, that is just as bad a habit.

I mean it is just a guess isn't it, really?


Yes it is just a guess. And the moment you see me pass off my guesses as facts, you let me know. But I am talking about what northernstar has done, not what I haven't done.
northernstar

pow wow wrote:
northernstar,
Just you wait and see.


When I'm dead, I won't see anything, impossible without eyes! Or a brain or a heart or anything that once kept me alive, dead is dead! There is nothing out there!  
SusanDoris

Radio 4 listeners and presenters are to me a source of hope that views such as the Pope's will be seen as quite out of touch with reality, but it will take such a long time.
Powwow

Oh get real Shaker. I know how you godless operate around here. lol Oh and I feel no need to defend my beliefs to the godless.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Oh get real Shaker. I know how you godless operate around here. lol Oh and I feel no need to defend my beliefs to the godless.


Is that just another way of saying you can't defend your belief?
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Oh get real Shaker. I know how you godless operate around here. lol Oh and I feel no need to defend my beliefs to the godless.


Is that just another way of saying you can't defend your belief?

Yep  
northernstar

pow wow wrote:
Oh get real Shaker. I know how you godless operate around here. lol Oh and I feel no need to defend my beliefs to the godless.


Good without god  
cyberman

SusanDoris wrote:
Radio 4 listeners and presenters are to me a source of hope that views such as the Pope's will be seen as quite out of touch with reality


What, views like "atheists are good people, too", do you mean?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
SusanDoris wrote:
Radio 4 listeners and presenters are to me a source of hope that views such as the Pope's will be seen as quite out of touch with reality


What, views like "atheists are good people, too", do you mean?

Impossible to say. He didn't specify what he meant by his use of the word 'good,' though as I've pointed out previously, it's probably easy enough to guess.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
SusanDoris wrote:
Radio 4 listeners and presenters are to me a source of hope that views such as the Pope's will be seen as quite out of touch with reality


What, views like "atheists are good people, too", do you mean?

Impossible to say. He didn't specify what he meant by his use of the word 'good,' though as I've pointed out previously, it's probably easy enough to guess.


So, Susan can't have meant his views about what the word "good" means because he didn't say. So susan must mean that she dislikes the view that whwther or not you are a theist has no bearing upon whether or not you are good. An odd thing for her to take exception to, but there it is.
SusanDoris

cyberman wrote:

So, Susan can't have meant his views about what the word "good" means because he didn't say. So susan must mean that she dislikes the view that whwther or not you are a theist has no bearing upon whether or not you are good. An odd thing for her to take exception to, but there it is.

I have listened to that several times and it sounds just as confusing the third time as the first, so I shall not try to untangle it.
cyberman

SusanDoris wrote:
cyberman wrote:

So, Susan can't have meant his views about what the word "good" means because he didn't say. So susan must mean that she dislikes the view that whwther or not you are a theist has no bearing upon whether or not you are good. An odd thing for her to take exception to, but there it is.

I have listened to that several times and it sounds just as confusing the third time as the first, so I shall not try to untangle it.


It is quite simple.

(1) The Pope has said that being good has nothing to do with whether you are an atheist or a theist.

(2) You do not like this view

(3) I am surprised that you do not like this view.
bnabernard

I wonder how the pope views 'very good'?

bernard (hug)
northernstar

Being Catholic?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum