 |
|
The Pope reiterated a plea, made in many speeches since he was elected in 2005, for mankind to be “respected as the centre of creation” and not relegated by more short-term interests.
But the conservative German-born Pope’s public stand on issues such as abortion and embryonic stem-cell research lead critics to accuse him of holding antiquated views on science.
Why lend credence to an ideology which approaches reality as a myth – and myth as reality.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4570 access attempts in the last 7 days.
I see the FSM but where is that dead guy on the stick?
Really, who thought it was a good idea to make a past Hitler-youth a pope? Someone must have been a sharp cookie in the Vatican.
bla bla bla. Some old dude talking shit. Why is there even a pope and why does anyone bother to listen to him? He has no real authority. If that old bastard had it his way we would all be under his despotic rule. Those who fall for his trickery are holding back the progress of the human race.
Oh and BTW, there is no god.
In NYC at a Catholic church, a drunk stumbled in the front door, banging into the pews and finally went inside the confessional. A priest saw him and entered the other side. He slid back the window and said, “can I help you my son?” The drunk replied, “yeah, where is the toilet paper?”
#5#7JPV
You don’t like this planet? Then leave. Problem solved.
Last week I had an epiphany. I saw the Doctor about it. He used a little local, just cut away, and now I’m all better.
Morals have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science.
Religious leaders are less concerned about living today and more concerned about what happens after we die. The majority of religions today are simply “Ivory Towers” built to satisfy the blood sucking leeches running the show. Religious morals are for the perpetuation of the religion only.
Scientists are more concerned about what keeps us alive and continue to keep us alive in the years to come. Without scientific progress we would still be living in caves picking lice from one another. Instead, we have learned to use tools, how to fashion shelters and clothing, heal our wounds and injuries, and raise food in order to avoid famine. Most of all, science has allowed us to communicate what we know so that others might also benefit. Scientific morals are all about people.
Science doesn’t have infidels, heathens, or gentiles. It is there for today for everyone to share in.
#37:
“The majority of religions today are simply “Ivory Towers” built to satisfy the blood sucking leeches running the show. Religious morals are for the perpetuation of the religion only.”
Don’t forget the amassing of a whole lot of money. Religion is without a doubt one of the biggest money making opportunities in the world. I suspect that even the religious fanatics are really in it for the money.
Really now, atheistic ideologies have killed *way* more people than religion (e.g. Nazism, Communism (Stalin, Mao, Pot)).
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but the Pope speaks for a *lot* of people. Dissing them is not helpful.
As for the FSM, no big deal. Religion is a metaphor, a story. Nobody really knows, so maybe God really is made of noodles. I ask this, though: if there is no “higher power” then what is the point? If we’re just stardust, why care about anything?
“If we’re just stardust, why care about anything?”
Is that supposed to mean something?
The ‘why’ is simple. Because life doesn’t have to have any other meaning than the fact that living facilitates the experience of joy. If you don’t live, you don’t get to enjoy living. That, in and of itself, is sufficient point.
#30 – bobbo,
Actually, that contradicts the point I am making. When people with defective morals processing centers behave amorally, it is because they have a true and legitimate mental deficiency.
When the religious do things that are abhorrent, they are often people that have perfectly adequate morals processing centers. However, their morals have been twisted into something sick by religion that may make genocide look not only moral, but actually ordained by god.
We cannot do anything, as far as I know with current technology, to prevent sociopaths from being born nor to heal and grow their morals processing centers. However, given that there is no physical deficiency in the morals of the religious, we can attempt to wage a campaign of information and education that will teach people about the dysfunctionality of religion.
Atheists must come out of the closet and announce to people that atheism is worthy of respect and even may improve people’s morals. We must try to avoid going into another dark age.
Currently atheists are the least respected group in the United States.
We must work to change this so that people will see atheism as a real and valid choice, as a choice that is in fact the moral high ground. We must do these things if we are to improve society and help to reduce the strangle hold on apparent morality that religion currently holds. Only when people begin to see that religion actively causes bad morals, that religion is actively immoral, not even just amoral, only then can we begin to change the way society views this issue and reduce the horrific negative effects that religion is having on our society.
“Why lend credence to an ideology which approaches reality as a myth – and myth as reality.” Whomever wrote this comment both missed the point of the Pope’s words and is an ignorant fool. If it’s Dvorak, I’m done with his podcasts, and this site.
What bothers me about this story is that he seems to be falling into a common misconception: that religion is the only arbiter of morality. Some of the best people I have ever met have been atheists. None of them have been ignorant of right and wrong. None of them (well, hardly any) have been amoral selfish bastards. (Not any more than in the general — that is, church-going — population.)
Don’t you hate it when science gets in the way? it makes the pope gig that much more difficult.
#41, Scott,
Although I respect you to the highest order, you have earned it, I disagree.
Atheists must come out of the closet and announce to people that atheism is worthy of respect and even may improve people’s morals.
I feel no need or urgency to have to prove myself or beliefs to others. For the same reason I don’t justify my choice of chocolate candy, preferred music, or color of socks. The same reason “James Hill” and “iHotAirBuddy” need not explain their pink underwear.
Atheism isn’t worthy of respect. It is, is all. Respect me for what I accomplish, not what I am.
You are correct and I agree about religion. They, however, are not the standard to measure by. They are the deviants from normal.