Agnostics the Pope welcomes you.

Turtwig

in the growing world of agnosticism: people to whom the gift of faith has not been given, but who are nevertheless on the lookout for truth, searching for God. Such people do not simply assert: “There is no God”. They suffer from his absence and yet are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness. They are “pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace”. They ask questions of both sides. They take away from militant atheists the false certainty by which these claim to know that there is no God and they invite them to leave polemics aside and to become seekers who do not give up hope in the existence of truth and in the possibility and necessity of living by it. But they also challenge the followers of religions not to consider God as their own property, as if he belonged to them, in such a way that they feel vindicated in using force against others. These people are seeking the truth, they are seeking the true God, whose image is frequently concealed in the religions because of the ways in which they are often practised. Their inability to find God is partly the responsibility of believers with a limited or even falsified image of God. So all their struggling and questioning is in part an appeal to believers to purify their faith, so that God, the true God, becomes accessible. Therefore I have consciously invited delegates of this third group to our meeting in Assisi, which does not simply bring together representatives of religious institutions. Rather it is a case of being together on a journey towards truth, a case of taking a decisive stand for human dignity and a case of common engagement for peace against every form of destructive force.

Source.

So, um who's gonna go?
(sufferer)

amacachi

I dunno. *shrug*


(I assume that's want I'm meant to say, wouldn't want to be one of those militants!)

Peregrinus

I've seen a few names - the Bulgarian/French psychoanalist, theorist and feminist Julia Kristeva, the Italian philosopher Remo Bodei, the Mexican philosopher Guillermo Hurtado and the Austrian left-wing economist Walter Baier. There may be others attending. And there may of course be still others, who were invited but didn't accept.

MagicMarker

Will they have cookies?

Peregrinus

Certainly not! Nothing but the finest food and wine, consumed in leisurely 4-hour lunches. This is Italy, remember.

seamus

Pope in "talking out his arse" shocker.

Of course he incorrectly interprets "Agnostics" as being people "searching for God". It would more correct to say that they're God-skeptics. Which of course includes practically all atheists.

irishh_bob

im probabley an agnostic as im really not sure what lies on the other side , that said im certainly not looking for god as potrayed in the bible etc , he - she - it doesnt appeal to me at all

Lucy8080

there's more to this than meets the eye. im impressed by the joe soap on this one.

" do not give up hope in the existence of truth and the possibility and necessity of living by it."

"challenge the followers of religion not to consider god as their own property ,as if
he belonged to them..."

" reponsibility of believers with a limited/falsified image of god..."

he is obviously including catholicism within these views.

sounds like hes up for a debate on what is actually meant by the "god" or truth .

i see athiestic opinions that are just as dogmatic as any religious one

the irony of it.

science says there a quantum viewpoint on life.

religion v athiesm tends to break down thus

religion ...im newtonian and newtonians understand quantum truth follow our newtonian understanding of it or burn

atheism...there is no quantum truth as you descibe it....so you have no truth.

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

science says there a quantum viewpoint on life.

religion v athiesm tends to break down thus

religion ...im newtonian and newtonians understand quantum truth follow our newtonian understanding of it or burn

atheism...there is no quantum truth ...its newtonian all the way.

wha

Lucy8080

i edited the last line...bit of a sloppy metaphor.

Sarky

I have no idea what quantum truth is. Any physics postgrads here?

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

I have no idea what quantum truth is. Any physics postgrads here?

yes

i refer you to my above post

bluewolf wrote: »

wha

Galvasean

TL;DR?

Head of Cult shouts, "Join us!!!!!!"

MagicMarker

Sarky wrote: »

I have no idea what quantum truth is. Any physics postgrads here?

It's just a little truth, because you can't handle the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Fo real.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

I have no idea what quantum truth is. Any physics postgrads here?

I think it's something peculiar to religion. Recall Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that the position delta times the momentum delta must be less than half the (reduced) Planck constant. This applies to religious ideas.

As you get to know more about the position that some religious believer holds upon some topic, the less and less you can know about how fast, and in which direction, they're going to change it. And the more you know about direction and speed with which the goalposts are being moved, the less you'll know about their current instantaneous position on the same topic.

Different classes of religious believers may have different values of the constant -- creationists, for example, have a value of two short planks.

Lucy8080

lol. i am your leader. 50% off membership fees for today only.

ok. ill have another go.

religions have this absolute identity called god which they say is absolute and has an absolute view of life and understanding of how it should be lived. fair enough. they believe god is an indisputable truth. but cant prove it.


athiesm says there is no absolute identity.it doesnt exist. so the writings of religion should be dismissed as nothing more than entertaining literature. dangerous literature from a historical p.o.v. fair point. but they do believe that truth is indisputable. they keep looking for it.

if truth/identity are absolute/indisputable....containing the relative...but not subject or enslaved to it...that understanding must come from an understanding of what identity is. and how it would view and treat itself.

the only way anything pops up in our experience is through awareness/consciousness.

ill call it identitys viewpoint.

it happens effortlessly...is always present...if not ...then neither is anything else .

when it becomes "my" viewpoint ...the relative "me identity" would be possessor of awareness...thats a secondary identity. its language and belief based. and everything is filtered through the lens of this subtle trick of consciousness.

books like the bible could be read from a p.o.v. of identity( absolute) saying what it will rid its own consciousness of ( the relative misidentity and what arises from it).

the relative self ...reads books like that and dismisses them as nonsense ...or ...believes...whilst totally missing what its being told.

the absence of the self as we understand it. because its taken to be real...that self is subject to its own judgements regarding reality.

in its religious forms...the results have been all the religious wars of history.

the secular version hasnt coped any better.


awareness is identity. it doesnt need a possessor. if there is one

religions give it the title god.

the father ...identity

its virgin eyes....awareness

its son.....the lifeforce u feel

its spirit....the understanding that its only seeing itself everywhere and acting accordingly.

it doesnt fight with itself or beat itself up.

might have the craic with itself though. gotta have a larf.

no need to follow or lead anyone. who would it lead. who would it follow?

I would love a cup of tea, thank you.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

athiesm says there is no absolute identity.

I think you'll find that atheism claims that there's no deity.

BTW, Lucy, you wouldn't have spent some time today in the sky with diamonds?

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

I would love a cup of tea, thank you.

Ahh time for some glurge then.
#
When things in your life seem, almost too much to handle,When 24 Hours in a day is not enough,Remember the mayonnaise jar and 2 cups of tea.
A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him.When the class began, without a word,he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jarand proceeded to fill it with golf balls.
He then asked the students, if the jar was full.
They agreed that it was.
The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and pouredthem into the jar. He shook the jar lightly.The pebbles rolled into the open Areas between the golf balls.
He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.
The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar.Of course, the sand filled up everything else.He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous 'yes.'
The professor then produced two cups of tea from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.
'Now,' said the professor, as the laughter subsided,'I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life.The golf balls are the important things - family, children, health, Friends, and Favorite passions – Things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, Your life would still be full.The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, house, and car.The sand is everything else --The small stuff.
'If you put the sand into the jar first,' He continued,'there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls.The same goes for life.
If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff,You will never have room for the things that are really important to you.
So...
Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness.Play With your children.Make time to get medical checkups.Take your partner out to dinner. Visit your parents.
There will always be time to clean the house and mow the lawns.
'Take care of the golf balls first -- The things that really matter.Set your priorities. The rest is just sand.'
One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the tea represented.
The professor smiled...... 'I'm glad you asked'.
It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem,there's always room for a couple of cups of tea with a friend.'

Lucy8080

thats where atheism has common ground with the absolute.

which is all im meaning by identity. identity is.

it has no god. religions will tell you the absolute identity is single and has no deitys it subjects itself too. just like an atheist.

god is a lot like an athiest...he doesnt belive in a god...but he goes one step further...he doesnt believe in atheism either.

that would be too religious for its liking.religions can be dangerous you know.

Delirium

Lucy8080

sometimes pope dawkins of the athiest church has points worthy of acknowledgement..

sometimes pope benedict does ..as in the o.p.

but if you offend a religiously held point of view...

the result is usually defence or dismissive mockery or outright attack.

its always a sign of religious dogma.

MagicMarker

I don't know about you.

But I'm hungry.

I think I'll have a snickers.

Maybe even a double decker....

Hmmm, I think I'll have both.

But first, I'm going to scratch my balls.

Mistress 69

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't know about you.

But I'm hungry.

I think I'll have a snickers.

Maybe even a double decker....

Hmmm, I think I'll have both.

But first, I'm going to scratch my balls.

Well Magic I assume you have finished Scratching your m&m's, but before you spoil your appetite with a paltry little snickers consider the following: Friday, as we were told in school was a day of abstinence for religous reasons, and all we were allowed was fish.. That was always a good deal for me.... I'm hungry too.... Monkfish on a lobster bisque surrounded by mussels and clams or maybe lobster thermidor.... accompanied by a nice chablis...yep always a great start to the weekend !:pac:

recedite

Sounds like El Papa is organising himself a day out. Every other day he has to listen to slimy little sycophantic aides, but for one glorious day he gets some real discussion.

He came very close to Godwinning himself there; managed to harp on about "state sponsored atheism" and "concentration camps", without actually mentioning the H word. Clever guy.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

managed to harp on about "state sponsored atheism" and "concentration camps", without actually mentioning the H word. Clever guy.

I'd have said that he'd godwinned himself with the following intemperate nonsense:

Papa Ratzi wrote:

[...] the denial of God has led to much cruelty and to a degree of violence that knows no bounds, which only becomes possible when man no longer recognizes any criterion or any judge above himself, now having only himself to take as a criterion. The horrors of the concentration camps reveal with utter clarity the consequences of God’s absence.

What's embarrassing about this rubbish is that it's the same kind of silly, low-level argumentation that the least intellectually able religious use. You'd have thought that the leader of the world's largest religious movement would be able to use something more convincing, or more based upon historical reality, but it appears he can't.

Which is an interesting thought in itself: namely, that in terms of basic intellectual ability, the current pope is easily outclassed by every A+A regular.

Congrats, folks!

Galvasean

Out of curiosity has El Papa ever made a statement in relation to the motivations behind the Crusades?

Sarky

It was all a ruse to distract people from the war with the Assassins over Pieces of Eden. Dur.

recedite

no idea what you are trying to say....... But 'apples' are not mentioned in Genesis
[you are probably thinking of 'the song of Solomon' where the apple represents Oral sex]

Lucy8080

atheism still has a claim though robin.as you pointed out.

and it defends it at its own expense.

athiests are outraged at freedom of speech on another thread here. but wont admit it.

so they hide behind the notion they are trying to protect gay people. as if gay people couldnt wipe the floor with fundie arguments.

lotta back slapping here too...you guys must know something.

the old claim.

without any proof. but plenty of support.

MrStuffins

Lucy8080 wrote: »

sometimes pope dawkins of the athiest church

Now, as much as your words might have been formed in such a way as to show people you have an intelligent point of view................ you just showed right here you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Pope Dawkins :rolleyes:

Lucy8080

or maybe i made a play on words. and you want to make something more of it to get a thanks from your peers.

you may as well criticise poetic license.

if you knew what you were talkin about ...you may have not gone for the cheap shot.

you used the same license to sign off your post.

pope lucy.

( im not really a pope , dont fret).

Standman

ohh so it was just some benign word play? Fair enough so.

MrStuffins

Lucy8080 wrote: »

or maybe i made a play on words. and you want to make something more of it to get a thanks from your peers.

you may as well criticise poetic license.

if you knew what you were talkin about ...you may have not gone for the cheap shot.

you used the same license to sign off your post.

pope lucy.

I know what i'm talking about.

it's not a cheap shot at all. What YOU posted could have been construed as a cheap shot, but it came across as a silly comment.

This isn't AH, nobody looks for thanks here.

If it WAS word play, you need to practice.

Lucy8080

whats the issue here?

MrStuffins

Lucy8080 wrote: »

whats the issue here?

Your ridiculous use of the term "Pope Dawkins". Your ridiculous use of the term "Atheist Church".

I have no idea why you felt it appropriate to compare one particular author who has been outspoken of his atheist beliefs to a man who claims to be a direct link to the almighty creator and one who is actually a head of state.

They're both very lazy arguments. Arguments which, when used, tell A LOT about the person using them.

That's my issue.

MrStuffins

Lucy8080 wrote: »

you want to make something more of it to get a thanks from your peers.

Also, on re-reading this...... you have just attributed a motivation to me, someone who you have never encountered before and have no prior knowledge of, just because I disagreed with you.

Pretty silly! If your points stand up, they stand up! Speculating on what MIGHT be my motives for them do you no favours.

Lucy8080

would it make a difference either way standman?

why?

Lucy8080

if you have no idea why.....should you suspend judgement?

or carry on and make a claim (laziness). despite your absence of an idea on why i said what i said.

is this religon i see before me. the inquisition condemning without reason...but signing off lazyness on the execution warrant to justify an attack.

im allowed to be religious here..because i have not denied myself that option.

if atheists start playing the same game...i hope they admit it.

im off to bed.

you guys are so serious about yourselves.

MrStuffins

Lucy8080 wrote: »

if atheists start playing the same game...i hope they admit it.

Good for you.

strobe

Lucy8080 wrote: »

if you have no idea why.....should you suspend judgement?

or carry on and make a claim (laziness). despite your absence of an idea on why i said what i said.

is this religon i see before me. the inquisition condemning without reason...but signing off lazyness on the execution warrant to justify an attack.

im allowed to be religious here..because i have not denied myself that option.

if atheists start playing the same game...i hope they admit it.

im off to bed.

you guys are so serious about yourselves.

Dead One writes far better haikus. You have talent Lucifer... no doubt. But you disrespect the form. Thus you are undone... Pineapple.

















(Now you know how I feel.)

MagicMarker

MrStuffins wrote: »

Now, as much as your words might have been formed in such a way as to show people you have an intelligent point of view................

I was thinking the opposite actually.

Galvasean

Lucy8080 wrote: »

you guys are so serious about yourselves.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

Calll me stooopid but I've never got that pot and kettle thingy.:o:confused:

Delirium

Malty_T wrote: »

Calll me stooopid but I've never got that pot and kettle thingy.:o:confused:

AFAIK, it basically means you criticise someone for doing something while you are guilty of doing the same thing.

MagicMarker

Yeah, just imagine a Catholic calling a Muslim an idiot for believing what he does.

strobe

koth wrote: »

AFAIK, it basically means you criticise someone for doing something while you are guilty of doing the same thing.

I think his confusion lies more in the area of the colour. Are kettles or pots commonly black? None I have seen. I have pondered this, and come to the conclusion that it has something to do with burnt kettles and pots (or pots and kettles that have built up a lot of carbon residue through burning). Like there is a pot sitting there criticising the kettle who has been burnt black, but all the while the pot its self has also been burnt black.

Personally I think the pot is short sighted not in the fact that she is pointing out a flaw in the kettle that she also holds herself. But more so in that she is not trying to ally herself with the kettle to fight their common enemy and the source of the burning, the human who allows them to sit on the heat without adequate water/liquid.

The Mad Hatter

strobe wrote: »

I think his confusion lies more in the area of the colour. Are kettles or pots commonly black? None I have seen. I have pondered this, and come to the conclusion that it has something to do with burnt kettles and pots (or pots and kettles that have built up a lot of carbon residue through burning). Like there is a pot sitting there criticising the kettle who has been burnt black, but all the while the pot its self has also been burnt black.

They were both black back in the days when they were both made of cast iron and cooked over an open fire.

Galvasean

Wow, some of us are showing our age now

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I've seen a few names - the Bulgarian/French psychoanalist, theorist and feminist Julia Kristeva, the Italian philosopher Remo Bodei, the Mexican philosopher Guillermo Hurtado and the Austrian left-wing economist Walter Baier. There may be others attending. And there may of course be still others, who were invited but didn't accept.

Plus, A C Grayling was invited and initially accepted, but later changed his mind and withdrew.

eire4

Typical Papal arrogance saying Agnostics are people searching for God. Maybe some are. But I am certainly not. That kind of arrogance has always been one of the most annoying aspects or organized religions for me.