It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
N.B. Adolf Hitler is left off this list because it is widely acknowledged that, while he abhorred organized religion, there is much evidence that he engaged in “nazi mysticism” or occultism."
from the site i posted enjoy Anon
And a lot worse besides. However, it doesn't mean his motivation for doing so was a result of his atheism. More like anti-theism born out of reading Lenin coupled with paranoia about the potential for organised religion to mobilise political opposition.
He also did his best to wipe out political rivals and erase dissent in order to take absolute political control. But no one would say that was evidence of Stalin being apolitical. Hard to think of more inappropriate way of describing him.
Stalin killed people because he was mental.
No one has ever been killed in the name of atheism because athesim by its very definition has no cause. It is a vacuum.
Attributing things as 'done in the cause of atheism' shows how little grasp you have of the subject.
The inquistion was done primarily to enrich Rome but as a by product to enslave the populace into believing through fear. Nonetheless it was done in the name of religion.
9/11 and 7/7 were done in the name of religion.
Whilst the paedo priest stuff is not done in the name of religion it seems strange that in this sector of society it does seem more prevelant per head. How many priests are there in the average town? Half a dozen? Ten? Its a really tiny percentage but the amount of paedos seems rather disproportionate. Is that because its seen as a profession with good access to children, power and trust to give the opportunity and most importantly the fact that you are unlikely to end up going to jail as the Vatican will square it away with an out of court settlement?
I dont recall anyone ever being brought to trial and using the name of atheism as a defence because there are no leaders, no doctrine, no churches - you cant level any blame at a void.
:))
nsfw
I think a lot of the anger comes from how their staff bugger small children and the fact that they've systematically covered it up. There's a lot more, but isn't just this one matter enough to make you angry with your church? Doesn't it make you question whether it's a good thing to have a bunch of child abusers pretending to know the mind of god and directing the lives of millions of credulous people.
Did you know the new Pope has only got one lung?
Should give you a rough idea of what we're dealing with.
Okay, only very slightly lesser evil. If same-sex marriage is a work of the devil, then he needs to demonstrate: 1)that the Devil exist and 2)that he is responsible for it.
If he doesn't, then ... [*petting the white cat on my lap while calling for number 4*]
It took them how long to say that Galileo was not wrong? And how long about Darwin?
Oh, so that explains your previous support for the terrorist faction the IRA and their actions, @Data_Thief.
Maybe the best choice would have been the worst. But the Church is on borrowed time I think, at least in the Western world.
First of all, the Church has never been a real enemy of science. It has made many mistakes over the years, but it has always been a supporter of science. The Church helped establish the university system, and many prominent philosophers and scientists have been Catholics, and even priests. Copernicus was a priest, Gregor Mendel was a monk, and Georges LeMaitre (Who developed the big bang theory) was a priest. The Church never opposed evolution, in addition to all of this.
Now, many people have already mentioned Galileo, and he will likely be mentioned many times again. But the Galileo affair was far more complex than it is remembered today. First of all, Galileo's theory was not actually strictly correct. Most importantly, he believed that the sun was the center of the universe, which is obviously false. There was another perfectly legitimate argument against his theory, namely that if the Earth revolved around the sun, other stars in the night sky would show parallax. This objection was perfectly valid, and Galileo had no answer for it. Despite his theory not being proven, Galileo claimed that it was, and also claimed the authority to interpret Scripture (he was a Catholic too) based on it. This was what truly irritated the Vatican. On a side note, Galileo was initially close to Pope Urban VIII, but had eventually lost his favor due to his sometimes unfriendly personality. Galileo was ultimately sentenced to house arrest (he lived in a mansion), and continued to receive the Sacraments. The Catholic Church actually changed its stance on Galileo in the 1700's, before the question of parallax had been answered. Everybody remembers John Paul II's apology in 1992, but that was far after the fact.
There can be really no defense made for the pedophile scandal, as it was a crime against God, man, and decency. Everyone in all corners of the globe acknowledges it. Only a few clarifications can be made. First, the majority of the incidences themselves were decades ago, and reports now are nearly non-existent. Second of all, both Benedict XVI and Francis have been noted for their strong desire to make things different in terms of reporting and punishing those convicted. While the crimes of the past were great, the Church has made great strides (as has the rest of the world) in changing how things like this are dealt with.
Francis himself is a very humble man. When he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he sold the official residence and went to live in an apartment, cooked his meals, and rode the bus to work like any other worker. Many of his writings are about economic injustice and the way the everyone should treat the poor and order their lives. And despite his oppositon to homosexual behavior, he went to personally work at AIDS hospices, where he helped to clean and feed dying victims, regardless of how they got the disease. If that is not on some level impressive, I don't know what is.
The last point is the idea that believing in God makes someone stupid. I can understand why someone wouldn't believe in God, and obviously why then he'd consider that the correct stance. But to claim that you are verifiably, undoubtedly more intelligent than Elizabeth Anscombe, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, Kurt Godel, Immanuel Kant, Antoine Lavoisier, Max Planck, and all the scientists mentioned at the start is simply mind-boggling. Perhaps we could all at least acknowledge that it's possible to hold different views, even radically so, without being idiots?
Guys, it's IFM.
Maybe some, but that's certainly the exception and not the rule.
Oh, I've done that too, DD. He has no more implacable opponent on MI6 than I, I can assure you of that. IRA espousing idiot! :-L
I hope the new Pope does great work in the future.
I don't pretend to be smarter than Aquinas, however his argument for God is poor, no matter how intelligent he was. And Pascal may have been a brilliant mathematician, his wager is by far one of the dumbest argument for worship ever conceived. It's not that belief in God is stupid, it is just that it utterly lacks evidence. To believe that Jesus was god and appointed a Representative on Earth and threw this representative tells you he cares with who you have consensual sex with is, well, that is getting pretty ridiculous. I ask one thing, one simple thing for believers and especially for Catholic priests: prove your beliefs are true. Until then, don't bother preaching.
Regarding Galileo, he was wrong on a number of things, yet he was closer to truth than the Church at the time, and they shut him up not based on evidence, but on their own narrow perception of life. Yes, the Catholic Church was not as hostile to Darwin's theory of evolution as other Christian denominations, it still only officially recognized it as valid... when? In 1996? And before let's say the Church's position given to the believers was ambiguous at best. Even the retired Pope Benedict XVI seemed at some point to support Intelligent Design. Even if the Church still supports evolutions, it is utterly irresposible, and shows that the temptation of ignorance is still very strong. And I am talking about the many Catholic believers, in the UK, the US and elsewhere who are STILL Creationists. Can't they get their info right from their God?
I care about religion. A priest says he gets his info from God. I don't think there is a God. There's a problem here, if he wants to tell me how to lead my life!
:P
Exactly, @myworldisenough. It is called "name-calling" and is a childish, mean spirited thing that can become a downward spiral. As so aptly demonstrated by some posters.