Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Pope calling Agnostics "aggressive and dogmatic"... Is there a greater laugh?!?

gorski

gorski

customised free radical
Recently, the ex-Chief Inquisitor and Apologist of the Dogma has had the cheek of a rhino-industrial-strength-kinda-hind, and a staggeringly embarrassing "inspiration", to call Agnostics "aggressive", peddling their "dogma" and "attacking" - well, Him...:facepalm: How dare they, when He is so cuddly and... well... infallible...:rolleyes:

I say, if He ever had any credence as an "intellectual" or even a "philosopher" within the clergy, He certainly showed He had no idea of the ABC of those issues!!! Possibly a lot more is a sheer mystery to Him, even though "He can't be wrong on any issues"...

Obviously, having declared His cards so blatantly, He is only an influence(if not power)-grabbing maniac, wanting to be as influential as possible, since his days of "importance" are seemingly closing to an end... Just ask the Poles or Croats nowadays, how "important" is He in their lives...

Unless someone promptly invents the need to fight yet another Holy War against Muslims and other "infidels"... And really - fairly soon... Ooohhh, please, Mr President, what's the use of all of those weapons of mass destruction if we are not to make yet another large distraction... from the real issues...

I mean, Soviet Union gone - what's His purpose any more?!?

Atheists are obviously no longer an enemy worth fighting, since their substratum has been removed from right under their feet and now, so weakened... weeeelll... they are to be rightly treated as fellows in arms, "understanding his way of thinking", defending the impossible to prove, while actually aiming at other things, much closer to Earth... Bring in the real infidels, those who dare point at it - the dangerous Agnostics....:facepalm::rolleyes::D

This reminds me of recent episodes in Serbo-Croat war, where "Chetniks" and "Ustashi" are sitting together in a pub, drinking, eating and plotting a "good exchange of heavy fire, later this evening..." (to keep the tension), then "See you later for a right and proper drink at the usual inn... And now, having finished a nice meal - back to business as usual..."

Coincidentia oppositorum indeed...:rolleyes::facepalm:

What say you?!?
 
Yeah, papal infallibility doesn't apply to every word that falls from his lips. Its specifically related to matters of doctrine, and he has to say its being used too. It isn't called into play very often at all.

Still bullshit like, but get it right...
 
Agnosticism is actually a more sophisticated position than I'd realized... iirc being an agnostic means that you believe that such a thing as a 'god' would be beyond the comprehension of us mere humans, so there's no point worrying about it. Or something like that. I'd be an agnostic myself if I didn't feel that the concept of 'god' is itself quite meaningless outside the ken of our alpha-male/female-orientated social existance.
 
killer b said:
Nah. The magic chair is metaphorical
Click to expand...


thats a shame, I always thought the throne of st peter was an actual massive chair, on a dias kept in a special chamber at the heart of the Vatican, accessed only by putting the papal ring in a special slot to unlock the door.
 
camouflage said:
Agnosticism is actually a more sophisticated position than I'd realized... iirc being an agnostic means that you believe that such a thing as a 'god' would be beyond the comprehension of us mere humans, so there's no point worrying about it. Or something like that. I'd be an agnostic myself if I didn't feel that the concept of 'god' is itself quite meaningless outside the ken of our alpha-male/female-orientated social existance.
Click to expand...


Personlly I'm agnostic for the traditional reason, as I understand it. TO deny the existence of any god, you have to recognise what is meant by god and give it's belief structure some validation. The atheists' position is only defined in opposition to that something else. Where as an agnostic, where I see no compounding evidence to believe in a daety, more importantly the existence or otherwise of a god, is immaterial in the day to tday. God is only of interest in so far as it's a banner flown by a group. What materially motivates that group, how do they leverage power, have they got guns. These are more pertinant questions.
 
xenon said:
Personlly I'm agnostic for the traditional reason, as I understand it. TO deny the existence of any god, you have to recognise what is meant by god and give it's belief structure some validation. The atheists' position is only defined in opposition to that something else. Where as an agnostic, where I see no compounding evidence to believe in a daety, more importantly the existence or otherwise of a god, is immaterial in the day to tday. God is only of interest in so far as it's a banner flown by a group. What materially motivates that group, how do they leverage power, have they got guns. These are more pertinant questions.
Click to expand...
That's more or less TH Huxley's original agnostic position - summed up, in his words, as 'don't believe anything without good reason to believe it'. But tbh, many people who call themselves atheist are atheist for the same reason.
 
xenon said:
Personlly I'm agnostic for the traditional reason, as I understand it. TO deny the existence of any god, you have to recognise what is meant by god and give it's belief structure some validation. The atheists' position is only defined in opposition to that something else. Where as an agnostic, where I see no compounding evidence to believe in a daety, more importantly the existence or otherwise of a god, is immaterial in the day to tday. God is only of interest in so far as it's a banner flown by a group. What materially motivates that group, how do they leverage power, have they got guns. These are more pertinant questions.
Click to expand...

Mumbles something about tea-cups orbiting Neptune, asserts lack of belief in alleged tea-cups not really being a definition of own world-view etcetera.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That's more or less TH Huxley's original agnostic position - summed up, in his words, as 'don't believe anything without good reason to believe it'. But tbh, many people who call themselves atheist are atheist for the same reason.
Click to expand...

I used to think I was an athiest, until I saw how obsessed with religion many of them seem to be.


camouflage said:
Mumbles something about tea-cups orbiting Neptune, asserts lack of belief in alleged tea-cups not really being a definition of own world-view etcetera.
Click to expand...

There are definitley mugs, mugs for tea. My entire world view would collapse with out them...
 
An important and somewhat famous theologian, Giambattista Vico, already states that as Humans we're not really interested in anything other than what is actually going on - on this, our Earth, what we are (not) doing etc. etc. - paving the way, btw, for Philosophy of History etc. I.e. taking responsibility for our own (non) actions, is the real task at hand, for all Humanity and every single one of us, individually...

Essentially, Agnosticism proclaims disinterestedness in theology and such questions, as we can't definitively prove or disprove any of it, hence all that is more or less meaningless, at least on the level of doctrine, leaving these questions to an individual's private/intimate sphere etc.

Butch, he is speaking as "The Pope", ex-chief inquisitor and dogmatic - not as a private person, hence the difference is close to idiotic... The point, however, you have missed, as almost always, trying to play the dominance game ("look at me, me..."). Go away!

Killer B may have clarified it for/instead of you a wee bit but it is quite clear, knowing you, that this is what you had in mind. Still, missed it by a mile...

Agnosticism is seriously straight-forward and consistent - nothing vague about it. Every agnostic, though, may not be...

Thanx, Fruity, we'll see how it works out... ;) :)
 
gorski said:
Essentially, Agnosticism proclaims disinterestedness in theology and such questions, as we can't definitively prove or disprove any of it, hence all that is more or less meaningless, at least on the level of doctrine, leaving these questions to an individual's private/intimate sphere etc.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Whose agnosticism are you speaking for here?
 
gorski said:
Butch, he is speaking as "The Pope", ex-chief inquisitor and dogmatic - not as a private person, hence the difference is close to idiotic... The point, however, you have missed, as almost always, trying to play the dominance game ("look at me, me..."). Go away!

Killer B may have clarified it for/instead of you a wee bit but it is quite clear, knowing you, that this is what you had in mind. Still, missed it by a mile...
Click to expand...

Er, no, he clarified it for you. Stop behaving in such a papal manner.
 
Butch, that's a wee bit rich, as there is no greater Pope than you and we shall have no other (Stalinist or otherwise :D ) Pope but you...:rolleyes::D I hereby renounce all my intentions of the kind and shift them wholeheartedly to you, as the rightful heir to the "throne"... (that's in the loo... :D:p:D )
 
articul8 said:
Nobody denies the Pope can be wrong. He is just infallible on matters of church dogma
Click to expand...
I know, that was my point ffs.

And gorski did in fact twice do what you suggested that no one does. He elevated the bog-standard epiphany message into a pronouncement of dogma - and as such was 'infallible' and "He can't be wrong on any issues". Do actually read the opening post.
 
What, Butch, you are deaf and silly, too? Oh, wait, I knew all that. Throw in obstinate, as well.... :D

Look, how about you and me state something like that and then compare ourselves with the Pope... Get it?

Like Hell you do... You actually do not care about anything but "Mememememeeeeee!!!!!!!!!! On top! Me win! Always!!!" Yayks...:facepalm:

You're missing the wood for the trees because of it, as per usual, prancing about like a little boy, all self-important...
 
Redsquirty, you're not indigenous to this part of the galaxy either but you are still here, so WTF? :D
 
Agnostics aggressive? We no doubt go round shouting 'I DON'T KNOW' at him. I'm surprised he didn't call us unethical, too, though.

How the Vatican built a secret property empire using Mussolini's millions
Click to expand...
Papacy used offshore tax havens to create £500m international portfolio, featuring real estate in UK, France and Switzerland

Behind a disguised offshore company structure, the church's international portfolio has been built up over the years, using cash originally handed over by Mussolini in return for papal recognition of the Italian fascist regime in 1929.

Since then the international value of Mussolini's nest-egg has mounted until it now exceeds £500m. In 2006, at the height of the recent property bubble, the Vatican spent £15m of those funds to buy 30 St James's Square. Other UK properties are at 168 New Bond Street and in the city of Coventry. It also owns blocks of flats in Paris and Switzerland.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/21/vatican-secret-property-empire-mussolini
 
Finally someone whose brain is fully operational and his testosterone isn't allowed to mess with the healthy upper brain functioning... :D

But he did call us "unethical", in a manner of speaking, by calling us other names, like "intolerant"...:facepalm:

The ex-chief inquisitor...:eek::hmm: What a laugh!!!:D
 
gorski said:
Finally someone whose brain is fully operational and his testosterone isn't allowed to mess with the healthy upper brain functioning... :D

But he did call us "unethical", in a manner of speaking, by calling us other names, like "intolerant"...:facepalm:

The ex-chief inquisitor...:eek::hmm: What a laugh!!!:D
Click to expand...
He was right though wasn't he? Whereas you, were wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Protag
'Conservatism' is neoliberalism with spikes
2 3
Replies
79
Views
3K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
frogwoman
What are the international implications if Israel gets kicked out of the UN?
2
Replies
35
Views
872
tim
tim
ska invita
Is a head of state necessary?
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Cloo
Is the Left Wing more truthful than the Right Wing, and if so, why?
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
471
Views
16K
Yugoslav
Yugoslav
hitmouse
Alfredo Bonanno's tension is over
Replies
23
Views
1K
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
Back
Top Bottom