Old article



This reared its head again yesterday as a signed petition was delivered to the PM to ask that he does not pay for this visit with tax-payer money. Seems pretty fair that if the Catholic church wants to promote its religion, they should do it our of their own pockets.

I don't really think it's right that we should pay for the visit of a man who hides behind his religion in order to speak out against science, equal rights for gay people and women, who wages a deliberate misinformation plan about the effectiveness of condoms in fighting Aids with the result that millions die of the disease each year, who opposes the right of a women to have control over her reproductive system, who opposes the potentially life-saving research of embryonic stem cells, and who has deliberately shielded paedophiles from prosecution and attempted to silence their victims. Just my two cents.

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 5 2010, 2:23 PM

I thought this was going to be some captain hook style Mullah.

I can't agree any more with that.

How dare the Catholic church expect to use our tax money to fund the Pope's visit and have him attack our legislation.

There is nothing bad in the world but religion. The obsession and moral authoritarianism/absolutism of evangelical atheism continues. He disagrees with your politics. Time to get on your high horse and claim the moral high ground.

Lots of things cost us money that we see unneccessary.
The Royal Family for one.

I don't care enough to make a thread about it though, live and let live is my new philosophy (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif)
Life is to short to spend moaning.

Lots of things cost us money that we see unneccessary.
The Royal Family for one.

I don't care enough to make a thread about it though, live and let live is my new philosophy (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif)
Life is to short to spend moaning.

Unlike the Catholic church, the Royal family are not morally prohibiting to society. You don't see the Queen or members of the family attacking the use of contraception in AIDs-ridden countries that account for millions of deaths and opposing advancements in modern medicine that can, in turn, save millions of lives. I've never been one to argue the side of the Royal family but in terms of them actively going out and promoting charities and good causes is unparalleled when compared to the reprehensible acts of deliberate destruction of modern society that the Catholic church decrees.

I'd have thought the Catholic church would have a wealth of money, anyway. It's not exactly a poor organisation.

It's not exactly moaning. It's more outrage that it is going to cost us so much to allow a head of religion who could have prevented but is instead responsible for millions of deaths.

But I agree, life is too short to spend moaning. But when it involves people dying, I am not prepared to bite my tongue.

This post has been edited by ATouchOfDutch: Mar 5 2010, 5:08 PM

I don't really care, I dont agree with lots that the church and numerous religions beleive. But I don't get worked up about it, it's not gonna affect me in any way. I am tolerant of other people's beleifs no matter how much I may disagree with them.

We wont pay any more taxes than we usually do.
So really its not having any affect on you.

If you don't care, then don't reply to an issue you are apathetic towards.

And no, we won't be paying any more taxes than we normally do. But that's not the point. That £20 million could instead be spent on something more worthwhile, like education or science.

Well I'm sure the original poster posted it to everyone to see what people views were, I'm entitled to give mines. Wether i'm apathetic to it or not.

Hmm, way to miss the point. You do yourself a disservice with your lazy straw-manning (you've done it before).

Everything I commented on in the OP has to do with the political actions of the Catholic church, nothing to do with atheism or religion. I'd be opposed to the use of tax money if this was a secular organisation doing as much damage. And I'll happily claim the moral high-ground, because the Catholic church appears more concerned with the spread of its ideology and the consolidation of its power than it does the alleviation of human suffering. There is a metric fuck-ton of evidence to support this.

It's abhorrent and something that the religious and non-religious alike should oppose. And we sure as anything shouldn't be forced to pay for his expenses. �20m is a lot of money that could be invested elsewhere instead of in a trip that is at best worthless, at worst damaging (because he is so outspoken against equality laws and similarly progressive legislative changes in the British system). People bitch about refugees who have fled a war-torn region and are provided a council house and benefits, this is orders of magnitude more expensive.

I mean, let me know which one of the Pope's policies you endorse. Is it teaching that condoms are a greater evil than Aids? Opposing the treatment of women and homosexuals with the dignity of equality? The silencing of victims of child molesters and a deliberate conspiracy to shelter the offenders from criminal justice? His anti-secular, anti-scientific stance? His belief that women should have no control over their reproductive system? Just wondering which of these messages you'd be happy to have your country's public spending go towards promoting?

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 5 2010, 6:14 PM

It isn't a strawman when you look at your thread history. I question your moral outrage myself and think you are more concerned with spreading your ideology than ending human suffering. Since the common denominator of your threads is usually religion and not human suffering. Human suffering is usually only relevant to you when you can use religon as a scapegoat for it. Then it hits the radar. Then we get threads like this. Your initial post in this thread is formed like a statement from an interest group at a press conference. You are constantly pushing atheist interests. In other words, evangelizing.

You are an authoritarian who is absolutely right, just, and good on everything.(like the Pope) And you know I'm not the only forum member to express this. Here you are laying down the moral law on things like embryonic stem cell research and women's "reproductive rights". Like the Pope. Then demonizing the people on the other side of the issue. As you always do. Again, like the Pope. You are the resident preacher around here. You aren't trying to save the world, you are trying to control it. Pope again.

There's a ton fuck of evidence of religious people doing good. There is a ton fuck of evidence of black people doing bad. What do we make of that? We select what we want and run with it.

It isn't about religoin or atheism. It is about strident moral busybodies with tunnel vision who won't stop preaching. If 2/3's of a guy's threads were demonizing atheists and preaching religion I would have a problem with him too.

^^^ I do agree with this.

Much the same as the orange order marches costing the tazpayers money.

They have a right to object - at their own expense only though.

Wow, ok where to start? I've never said "There is nothing bad in the world but religion". I'm certainly open to criticism for proselytising (I'm happy to label myself an evangelical atheist, I believe it's morally justifiable to be so), but if you're going to do so there's a knack to it that involves not being deceitful about how you phrase what I've said. When you're going to be aggressive and attack someone you owe them the due diligence at least of not mirepresenting someone.

I'm certainly supportive of opposing the agenda of certain religion institutions, not just because they cannot justify their supernatural beliefs rationally (they can't) but because people suffer because of them, and the fact that it offers a placebo effect to some people does not mean it hasn't retarded human progress throughout history to this day. I may have ideology but I believe it's based on reason. I've asked you on at least three occasions to list in detail exactly what it is that organised religion offers the world that justifies the death and suffering of so many people each year through negligence, bigotry and ignorance that can be directly linked to religious motivation and the actions of religious organisations (how can any organisation justify tricking people into catching Aids?). You're yet to attempt this. You tell me I'm wrong but you pussy out of demonstrating any kind of rationale behind your assertion, again and again. You neither put up nor shut up, but merely give the impression that you hold your opinion dogmatically, rather than hold a position that is in any way falsifiable. You accuse me of tunnel-vision, yet hypocritically back down from offers of open discussion.


Re: abortion, stem cell research - you clearly consider these issues worthy of greater deliberation. I agree. They're worthy of reasoned debate. The Pope as a figurehead doesn't agree. He muddies the water by invoking supernatural justifications for his stances, which retards the argument and stunts the discussion.

As for "control", anyone who takes the time to study my posts would see that I'm vehemently opposed to any form of control that cannot be linked to the freedom of the individual and their protection. The pope is advocating control and the moral absolutism and authoritarianism you describe. I'm advocating the right of the individual to choose for themselves. They are completely different.

That's a total non-argument. There's a difference between doing a good or bad thing, and doing a good or bad thing because of religious motivations. The fact that you would show so little understanding of such a well-known polemic makes me wonder whether you've actually paid the close attention to certain evangelical atheists (one in particular, we both know who) you imply you have.

Way to threadshit. Thanks for the personal attack. I'll add it to my tally. Again I'll point out that it's rich for a person who backs down from open discourse to accuse me of tunnel-vision.

Now, addressing the point of your post that wasn't peronsal, and more relevant to the thread (if there was any):

If catholicism did lots and lots of great stuff around the world that could not be performed equally as efficiently by a secular organisation, it would not change the fact that they are up to a lot of stuff that an empathic human being (Roman Catholics included) can reasonably consider unacceptable and seek to pressurise the Pope into addressing.

Even if they did not do a lot of stuff that could be considered dodgy, it is still unreasonable to ask the British taxpayer to front the bill for his visit when every single other organisation has to pay for police protection etc. out of its own pocket. It is an embarassing waste of money at a time like this, particularly for a visit that is all to do with pushing a political agenda that is based on irrationality and superstition, something British politics has been doing its best to eliminate from its system.

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 5 2010, 9:53 PM

A link is not a cause.

First, religion brings happiness and meaning to the lives of probably billions of people. Most of them model citizens who aren't hurting anyone. That is all the justification it needs. I don't care if you find it rational. I don't find it rational either. But humans aren't rational beings. I am sure you act irrational all the time. As do I. I am not obsessed with destroying and mocking other people's beliefs. I dont care if my whole neighborhood turns scientologist or muslim. I really don't. People are people and I don't expect much out of them regardless if they are religious or not. I am a very hands-off type of person and you really have to do something bad for me to crusade against you. And most religious people just don't cross that threshold for me. Not even close. I also don't care about alternate histories and storytelling about why people act the way they do or what the world or history would be like without religion. I try not to go beyond the facts and let my own intuitions and hopes fill in the blanks. I don't find it rational.

I dont see any elasticity to your beliefs either. I recall something about the stem cell thread where you basically barged in and said anyone who is against it is an idiot and should be held in contempt. Which is similar to what I have seen in this thread.

I don't put up or shut up because I don't have firm belief either way. It just seems that I am anti-atheist because that is where all the dogma on this particular forum is coming from.

The religious are a diverse bunch. Take Catholics for example, you got everyone from Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy to Rick Santorium. Who is a typical Catholic? Obama and Bush are both Christians. They are kind of different.. Jane Goodall sees purpose in the life she studies. Richard Dawkins sees no purpose to the life he studies. Neither is correct or a scientific.

I admit my attack was personal. But that is where my problem is. Your point is legit and overall I agree with. it As far as taxpayer funding of it for sure. I disagree with your presentation. I am annoyed that atheists like you have made me start defending religion. I honestly had zero interest in anything to do with religion and wouldnt have given a thread like this a second look a few years ago. Religion was a total non-factor in my life and I didnt even know this debate was raging. And really, most people couldnt give a fuck about this whole religion/atheist thing. But I was sucked in by people like you and Dawkins. I swear that if the bible or religion said abortion was good that all you so called secular humanists would be be pro-life. What is your morality based on? How do you justify it?

Yes, religion has caused suffering and continues to do so. Have the US and the UK caused any suffering? Have you voted Tory or Labour or Democrat/Republican in the past few years? How responsible are you for suffering in the world? I'm sure I could link you to some atrocities with a few degrees of separation real quick, as you could do the same to me. And as you do to the religious. Government is the biggest killer in human history. You should be an anarchist and worry about atheism later.

No, but a cause is a cause. I'm well aware that correlation does not equal causality, but causality does. It's much more complicated than "person/people did bad stuff. Person/people is/are x". The rebuttal to "religion has caused people to do terrible things" by countless people has been "oh yeah, what about Stalin?" Well Stalin did bad stuff. Stalin had a beard. Are beards evil? But when a belief leads them to do something it is unreasonable to expect someone without that belief to do, like blow themselves up, or execute an apostate, or use two thousand years of bible-inspired western anti-semitism to convince his country that the Jews are to blame for everything, then it is a cause. Or when a religious organisation acts in direct and traceable manner, such as the Catholic church's spreading of misinformation about condom effectiveness in Africa and its refusal to endorse contraception even in marriage (something it cannot even justify scripturally).

"Religion brings happiness and meaning to the lives of probably billions of people"? Does it? Does it make their lives happier? Are religious countries happier than non-religious ones? Can you say that with any degree of certainty that their lives are better, more fulfilling etc. as religious people? I pose to you that these people would be just as happy without religion, and that being religion just makes their lives different, not happier. Meanwhile you say that's all the justification it needs, but then below you tell me:

You seem to think that I should worry about the suffering that goes abroad, the exploitation and the crimes that my government, which brings me happiness in safety, stability, wealth and comforts, commits as fallout of its existence and interests. If that's the case, why can't the same be said for religious organisation and religious belief? You appear to be applying double standards. I don't know, I have time for both. In fact I've hardly touched on religion for several months; the discussion in this forum has been almost exclusively political, and indeed this thread was political. And I'm the zealot? I didn't make this a religious discussion mate, it was you.

The thing is, you can have religion, where people are happy and has hideous fallout, or you can have non-belief, where people are just as happy and has zero fallout. The incredibly sad thing, when I hear that the Catholic church has deceived millions into catching Aids, or American evangelicals and Anglicans have promoted capital punishment for gay people in Uganda, is it's so bloody unnecessary. All of it, the countless deaths, the scientific impediments, persecution and oppression and guilt and shame, none of it is necessary for people to be happy, and for lives to have meaning.

and

Firstly, as we both know it says nothing about abortion. In fact, I'd say the bible does lean towards pro-life. There's apassage in the Old Testament that talks about the punishment towards a person who causes the death of an unborn baby. It is, iirc, a financial one and very different to the taking of a human life. The pro-abortion movement in the States, I seem to recall in a documentary I saw last year (sorry, I can't source this) mentioned that the Baptist Conference in the States came out in support of a woman's right to an abortion back in the 70s. It became a "spiritual" issue about the same time religious leaders realised the political power behind it. I maintain that, in the States, it has never been anything but a way for people to get power and gain influence.

You attack my beliefs for being inelastic, but I've repeatedly set out the ways in which they can be falsified. Is it my fault that others have not met them? Your views I find far more alarming and inelastic. It makes people happy and that's enough for you? Something makes some people happy and to hell with all the other people who suffer as a consequence? There is nothing reasonable about your extremely weak, simplistic justification and it should be offensive to everyone who's ever suffered as a consequence of religious belief. I pose to you that it is your views, not mine, that are dogmatic and unthinking.

As for stem cells, you may or may not be misrepresenting me. If I snapped at anyone, I'm confident it would have been because someone was demanding an imposition on other people without good and robust reason. The Catholic church does this. "Sorry, I demand your freedom to pursue this potentially life-saving area of scientific research be eradicated, not because I have a good reason, but because the invisible sky god you don't believe in told me to". How is that anything but fucked up? Superstition and appeals to unprovable authority have absolutely no justified place in moral legislation for people of all beliefs. You know this.

Oh come on. Morality has never, ever been based on religion. If a person told me the reason he does not kill everyone he dislikes is because god told him he shouldn't, I would back the fuck away from him fast. It's that kind of mentality that creates religiously motivated criminals and murderers, because all you need convince them of is a different interpretation of god's commands.
Morality is based 1. on the rules of mutual self-interest that are necessary for it to function (e.g. the 'golden rule') 2. on the consciences that we as a species have developed from the less sociopathic humans being the ones most likely to breed and 3, and most importantly in my opinion, that no one has an automatic right to force someone to do something without their consent.


Well, as a libertarian I'm fairly close to being an anarchist, but government for the protection of the rights and liberty of its citizens can be morally justified. If you can show me a bigger list than this regarding the wars that Western Governments are waging today, I might be inclined to change the target of who I believe should be the target of the most pressure to behave responsibly. Or if you could convince me that the regimes of countless theocratic dictators, who opress women and murder dissidents without trial, would not be weakened by removing the appeal to authority they use to justify their actions, I might be weakened in my convictions.

p.s. if your entire neighbourhood converted to scientology you should be worried.

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 6 2010, 1:24 PM

Oh Benedict! what will you think of next?

To be fair the government and media are guilty of worse. How much racism can be accounted for by the media? (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif) It does appear at times that you're more focused on blaming religion for every bad in people rather than many of the other factors (promoted by many athiests) which bring out as much hatred.

Everyting (religion, media, government, preaching) is subjective. If someone takes "an eye for an eye" literally then they're a fool, just like someone believing a BNP booklet saying black people are breeding us out are.

People are fools.