• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you REALLY care about the next Pope?

How much do you care about who the next Pope is?

  • Total voters
    106
TurtleDude said:
really? that's a rather silly concept given that there are over a billion people who see the man as their spiritual leader
Click to expand...

If I was a humanitarian I might feel sorry for those people........................
 
Bonzai said:
If I was a humanitarian I might feel sorry for those people........................
Click to expand...

the church is like whiskey. when taken in small doses it warms the soul and makes one feel better. when one overdoes either, it rots the brain and makes one sound like a babbling fool
 
Bonzai said:
Yeah, but the "papacy" ? It's so 731 AD......................
Click to expand...

Good evening, Bonz.

Continuity is important to both the Church and the people. Everything they do has meaning, and it probably is a comfort to believers that things remain the same, especially now when the world is confusing in its constant change. I'm not Catholic, so I don't know for sure, but that's what I'm told by friends who are Catholic.
 
TurtleDude said:
the church is like whiskey. when taken in small doses it warms the soul and makes one feel better. when one overdoes either, it rots the brain and makes one sound like a babbling fool
Click to expand...

I think the activist religious movement of the last 40 years has succeeded in doing one thing------------Putting Christianity in the crosshairs...................
 
Bonzai said:
I think the activist religious movement of the last 40 years has succeeded in doing one thing------------Putting Christianity in the crosshairs...................
Click to expand...

I think people who want government to be the supreme authority over man hates competition
 
Perotista said:
I never been there and had no desire to go. But back in the late 50's and early 60's, I would have loved to see a game in Yankee Stadium. Mantle, Maris, Skowron, Berra, Ford, Terry, Kubek, Richardson, Lopez etc.
Click to expand...


Yankee Stadium is in the Bronx. Tough territory.:cool:
 
Jango said:
What era are you living in?
Click to expand...

I'm living in the here and now...which needs as many good leaders unafraid to stand up for what's right as will step forward.
 
Navy Pride said:
"Let he without sin cast the first stone"........I am but a sinner and far from perfect my left wing friend..........The only perfect person I ever heard of was our lord and savior Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

LOL....you certainly love to cast those stones though.
 
Navy Pride said:
To me a lot of Liberals beliefs are not in line with the Catholic Church..SSM and Abortion come to mind.
Click to expand...
And your views aren't in line with many of the Catholic church's teachings as well....Capital Punishment comes to mind. So what is your point? You want to condemn others for not accepting all of the church's teaching, but you want to be a cafeteria catholic yourself. THAT is called hypocrisy my friend.
 
nota bene said:
I'm living in the here and now...which needs as many good leaders unafraid to stand up for what's right as will step forward.
Click to expand...

What's "right" is subjective. Your "right" ≠ my "right." Sorry if this is news to you.
 
nota bene said:
I'm living in the here and now...which needs as many good leaders unafraid to stand up for what's right as will step forward.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church elected another idiot who is going to keep pushing Catholic hate. Good choice, morons.
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, at least we know where greater human understanding won't be coming from.:peace
Click to expand...

Accomodationists. Yes, we know. Stand up for reality or be buried under the inevitable flood of irrationality.
 
Cephus said:
There's no point in being tolerant of the intolerable.
Click to expand...

Ah, an admirable Freudian slip. Your subconscious mind understands that declaring more than a billion people 99.999999% of whom you had never met "intolerant" would be pretty idiotic. So...they are "intolerable", as in: a certain bigot cannot stand them.
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
Ah, an admirable Freudian slip. Your subconscious mind understands that declaring more than a billion people 99.999999% of whom you had never met "intolerant" would be pretty idiotic. So...they are "intolerable", as in: a certain bigot cannot stand them.
Click to expand...

There was a time when most people thought the earth was flat. They were all wrong. Stop playing the logical fallacy game. No matter how many people believe a thing, that thing is either true or not true based on evidence, the people are totally irrelevant.
 
The only true religion is paganism. When they elect a pagan pope I will go to church.
 
Cephus said:
There was a time when most people thought the earth was flat. They were all wrong. Stop playing the logical fallacy game. No matter how many people believe a thing, that thing is either true or not true based on evidence, the people are totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

What on earth (flat or otherwise) are you talking about? You claim that Catholics are intolerant, all of them. At least that's how it sounds. How do you know that?

In the days long gone, when I was a Catholic, I was not intolerant - and neither were most people around me; true, you cannot be a good Catholic and engage in homosexual sex - or have an abortion. But you don't have to be a Catholic.

Back then, as a Catholic, and now, as an atheist, I had never doubted that citizens of a free country have the right to be gay - or have abortions, in the first trimester.

There are intolerant people among Catholics, among Jews, among atheists - well, I am sorry for their shriveled little minds. But why project their individual failings on everyone else under the same "religion" label? Irrational collectivism at its worst.
 
Cyrylek said:
What on earth (flat or otherwise) are you talking about? You claim that Catholics are intolerant, all of them. At least that's how it sounds. How do you know that?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were intolerant, I said they were irrational. I said that the only thing that anyone ought to be tolerant of are things that are tolerable. I don't see anyone crying for us to tolerate pedophiles or serial killers. That's downright stupid. Religion, by it's very nature, is harmful to humanity. That doesn't mean every single person who practices religion is harmful, any more than every single person who looks at kiddy porn is actually directly harming children, but anyone who is not part of the solution, the end of religion, is part of the problem. As such, I have no responsibility to respect or admire anyone who chooses to fill their head with nonsensical junk.
 
Cephus said:
I didn't say they were intolerant, I said they were irrational.
Click to expand...

Or: "they" are a lot of different people in different states of mind. You are simplifying things to the point of absurdity.

Cephus said:
Religion, by it's very nature, is harmful to humanity.
Click to expand...

Sez who? People who promoted this point of view most vigorously - the likes of Marat and Lenin - were by far more harmful to humanity than any bloody inquisition.

I would agree that religion-based morality is deeply deficient. And religious belief certainly can lend itslef to a mass psychosis - but so can any "secular" cult. Look at the adoring, grieving faces of "ordinary Venezuelans" mourning a two-bit thug and cheap demagogue as if he were a messiah three times over. Is it "religion" or not "religion"? Who cares? It is the same psychological phenomenon. ( I don't even want to go into much scarier examples from the recent Russian or Chinese history)

Cephus said:
anyone who is not part of the solution, the end of religion, is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

The end of religion would not be any kind of "solution". It would be an end of the human mind. We are naturally religious. It is a result of our evolution as a species capable of rational thought in the environment where there's not enough valid information to make rational thought sufficient for survival. The personal journey from crude faith to religious sophistication and inevitable doubt, to calm and happy atheism cannot be forced. Every man has to do it on his own. There are no substitutes.

Enough with crusades and holy wars already - Christian, Muslim, or "atheistic".
 
Cephus said:
I didn't say they were intolerant, I said they were irrational. I said that the only thing that anyone ought to be tolerant of are things that are tolerable. I don't see anyone crying for us to tolerate pedophiles or serial killers. That's downright stupid. Religion, by it's very nature, is harmful to humanity. That doesn't mean every single person who practices religion is harmful, any more than every single person who looks at kiddy porn is actually directly harming children, but anyone who is not part of the solution, the end of religion, is part of the problem. As such, I have no responsibility to respect or admire anyone who chooses to fill their head with nonsensical junk.
Click to expand...

I have heard St. Thomas Aquinas called many things. Irrational isn't one of them.:roll:
 
Cyrylek said:
Or: "they" are a lot of different people in different states of mind. You are simplifying things to the point of absurdity.
Click to expand...

No, I'm really not. Do they believe in something for which they have no objective evidence? Is their belief wholly emotional, based on what they wish was true instead of what is actually true? Then they are irrational. It's not over-simplified, it's simply true.

Sez who? People who promoted this point of view most vigorously - the likes of Marat and Lenin - were by far more harmful to humanity than any bloody inquisition.
Click to expand...

I disagree. First off, Marat and Lenin and Mao and whoever else you want to pull out acted not from their atheism, but from their political fervor. You cannot find a single quote from any of those people who said that they are killing anyone because their atheism commands them to do so. It just can't be done. However, you can easily find quotes, not only from recent entries like Hitler, but throughout history of killers specifically crediting religion and their belief in a god with their heinous crimes. Further, religion was responsible for things like the Dark Ages, where human innovation and ingenuity virtually stopped for hundreds of years. Imagine where we would be today if it wasn't for religion putting the brakes on advancement!

I would agree that religion-based morality is deeply deficient. And religious belief certainly can lend itslef to a mass psychosis - but so can any "secular" cult. Look at the adoring, grieving faces of "ordinary Venezuelans" mourning a two-bit thug and cheap demagogue as if he were a messiah three times over. Is it "religion" or not "religion"? Who cares? It is the same psychological phenomenon. ( I don't even want to go into much scarier examples from the recent Russian or Chinese history)
Click to expand...

But as soon as you're using cult-like behavior, you're no longer being rational and irrationality is at the core of many of man's problems. When people feel the need to act entirely out of emotion and desire and not out of fact and truth, that's where problems come in. It's not only a problem of religion, but it certainly is a demonstrably problem of religion.

The end of religion would not be any kind of "solution". It would be an end of the human mind. We are naturally religious. It is a result of our evolution as a species capable of rational thought in the environment where there's not enough valid information to make rational thought sufficient for survival. The personal journey from crude faith to religious sophistication and inevitable doubt, to calm and happy atheism cannot be forced. Every man has to do it on his own. There are no substitutes.

Enough with crusades and holy wars already - Christian, Muslim, or "atheistic".
Click to expand...

Humanity, unlike all the other animals on the planet, has the ability to override their impulses and emotions and instincts and make decisions based on evidence. It's what separates us from lower species. Emotions and the like certainly have their place, but when people insist on running their lives by them and nothing else, how are they any better than a cow or a pig? What are they advancing for the human species that their dog couldn't do equally as well? People need to be pushed to improve themselves, to be responsible for themselves and to be accountable for what they actually do. While you're right that everyone has to make the decision to throw away irrational beliefs, just like every child eventually has to put away a childish belief in Santa Claus, it's something that has to be enshrined in our cultural identity. Just as we wouldn't accept a 35-year old that believed in Santa Claus, we shouldn't accept a 35-year old who believes in God. Both beliefs are stupid and just as an adult believing in Santa Claus is harmful to the individual, belief in a god is harmful as well, but even worse because our beliefs inform our actions and people who believe in imaginary friends in the sky tend to vote the way their religious leaders tell them to. They're gullible sheep and they shape the way society operates. If there was a massive Santa Claus cult that constantly voted for more presents for all on Christmas morning, even if it bankrupted the nation, that would be asinine. How is what the religious in this country do any better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom