Any Sign of White Smoke Yet?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

&

http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478

Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !

Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! 

Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! 

Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.

So 'more religious' immediately means 'less objective'? Is that what you're saying?

If a kid is raised a Catholic and chooses to become Atheist or Agnostic, it's because they must be becoming more objective in their thoughts and outlook? Is that what you're saying?

Is it possible for a kid brought up with little or no religion to become religious by being objective? Or is it a result of a narrowing of the mind in your (obviously superior) view?

Master, please look for a response in about four hours, after he figures out what you are trying to say, not the brightest bulb and all that!

A good man Stew, I see the god-squad are getting tetchy. Nice presumption that I have little else to do than trawl through GAAboard.com.

In regards to Mother Theresa, I long believed (as a Christian) her work in India was good and in the best interests of those who came under the authority of her organisation. This was the subjective interpretation of a Catholic who allowed personal bias based on the perception of the Roman Catholic Church as a positive organisation, alongside the belief in the existence of God, simply as that is what society had brainwashed me to take as fact, despite there not being or ever having been a grain of evidence. This view of Mother Theresa was the presumption of goodness, without any hard evidence to guide such thought.
As an Atheist, I take a more objective view on this woman. I see the mounting evidence of her megalomania, neglect and lack of basic standards of care. Her so called nursing staff ignore evidence based practice, instead choosing to follow outdated practices dangerous to the health and well-being of those in their care. They allow religious dogma and and narcissism to be their guiding model of care.

You talk about an atheist becoming religious v a religious becoming an atheist.

When an atheist becomes religious, they choose to ignore the fact that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of a deity. Their act of conversion is based solely on a lack of evidence and theirfore cannot be an act of rational thought. It is more a subjective though process, brought on by chemical reactions in the brain, stress, emotional distress etc.

When a religious becomes an atheist, they abandon subjective thought processes and becoming more questioning of preconcieved notions which are based on evidenceless ideas. By taking an objective viewpoint, they eventually come to a conclusion based on evidence. As there is no evidence of god/deity, there is no reasonable rationale to believe in one.

[The Iceman]

If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.

Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.

Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?

The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.

The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).

The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).

[NetNitrate]

&

http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478

Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !

Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! 

Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! 

Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.

So 'more religious' immediately means 'less objective'? Is that what you're saying?

If a kid is raised a Catholic and chooses to become Atheist or Agnostic, it's because they must be becoming more objective in their thoughts and outlook? Is that what you're saying?

Is it possible for a kid brought up with little or no religion to become religious by being objective? Or is it a result of a narrowing of the mind in your (obviously superior) view?

Master, please look for a response in about four hours, after he figures out what you are trying to say, not the brightest bulb and all that!

A good man Stew, I see the god-squad are getting tetchy. Nice presumption that I have little else to do than trawl through GAAboard.com.

In regards to Mother Theresa, I long believed (as a Christian) her work in India was good and in the best interests of those who came under the authority of her organisation. This was the subjective interpretation of a Catholic who allowed personal bias based on the perception of the Roman Catholic Church as a positive organisation, alongside the belief in the existence of God, simply as that is what society had brainwashed me to take as fact, despite there not being or ever having been a grain of evidence. This view of Mother Theresa was the presumption of goodness, without any hard evidence to guide such thought.
As an Atheist, I take a more objective view on this woman. I see the mounting evidence of her megalomania, neglect and lack of basic standards of care. Her so called nursing staff ignore evidence based practice, instead choosing to follow outdated practices dangerous to the health and well-being of those in their care. They allow religious dogma and and narcissism to be their guiding model of care.

You talk about an atheist becoming religious v a religious becoming an atheist.

When an atheist becomes religious, they choose to ignore the fact that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of a deity. Their act of conversion is based solely on a lack of evidence and theirfore cannot be an act of rational thought. It is more a subjective though process, brought on by chemical reactions in the brain, stress, emotional distress etc.

When a religious becomes an atheist, they abandon subjective thought processes and becoming more questioning of preconcieved notions which are based on evidenceless ideas. By taking an objective viewpoint, they eventually come to a conclusion based on evidence. As there is no evidence of god/deity, there is no reasonable rationale to believe in one.

The problem with using logic to prove the non existence of God is that logic itself  is a Western European creation and itself subject to question. For some situations we have to accept illogic to answer important questions, eg light. Add to that the fact that we can only see the world through the structure of the language given to us. According to Sapir-Whorf, people with radically different language structures see a different world, eg Hopi Indians. What is evidence then when we are all prisoners to the tyranny of language? We are mere mortals and we know nothing.

[Eamonnca1]

The problem with using logic to prove the non existence of God is that logic itself  is a Western European creation and itself subject to question. For some situations we have to accept illogic to answer important questions, eg light.

Say what?  Are you telling me you don't know what light is?  It's electromagnetic radiation within a certain frequency range emitted by the process of nuclear fusion in stars like our sun, a type of radiation that is detectable to us through the naturally evolved organ known as the eye.

Add to that the fact that we can only see the world through the structure of the language given to us. According to Sapir-Whorf, people with radically different language structures see a different world, eg Hopi Indians. What is evidence then when we are all prisoners to the tyranny of language?

"Fact"?  The Whorfian hypothesis is still a hypothesis.  Last time I checked, the field of linguistics had not yet reached a consensus on it, although it is a very attractive idea.

We are mere mortals and we know nothing.

"We"?

[The Iceman]

If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.

Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?

The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.

The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).

The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).

So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.

Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?

The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.

The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).

The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).

So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.

I don't remember using random, so I struck through it as it appeared you were suggesting I said random. I don't know if these reactions are random or not, I need further reading of the subject before I will argue one way or the other.
Psychosis is a natural state too, but I wouldn't be promoting the condition.

Talking about dogs, "I stopped believing in god when I realised its dog spelt backwards" (Sutherland, 2011) 

[The Iceman]

If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.

Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?

The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.

The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).

The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).

So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.

I don't remember using random, so I struck through it as it appeared you were suggesting I said random. I don't know if these reactions are random or not, I need further reading of the subject before I will argue one way or the other.
Psychosis is a natural state too, but I wouldn't be promoting the condition.

Talking about dogs, "I stopped believing in god when I realised its dog spelt backwards" (Sutherland, 2011) 

But you are arguing gone way or another. You stance on the matter has been pretty clear. Now you need to read up some more about it. And of course you will read both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. And that opinion will still be a natural chemical reaction in your brain..... So you have been vehemently fighting for something you don't really know about or understand or maybe believe in?
Oh yeah because you are a WUM.....

[stew]

Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.

They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.

Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?

The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.

The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).

The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).

So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.

I don't remember using random, so I struck through it as it appeared you were suggesting I said random. I don't know if these reactions are random or not, I need further reading of the subject before I will argue one way or the other.
Psychosis is a natural state too, but I wouldn't be promoting the condition.

Talking about dogs, "I stopped believing in god when I realised its dog spelt backwards" (Sutherland, 2011) 

But you are arguing gone way or another. You stance on the matter has been pretty clear. Now you need to read up some more about it. And of course you will read both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. And that opinion will still be a natural chemical reaction in your brain..... So you have been vehemently fighting for something you don't really know about or understand or maybe believe in?
Oh yeah because you are a WUM.....

I need to read more on the "random" element you mentioned. It is called allowing the evidence to dictate my argument. Unlike you, I am willing to let the evidence to guide me, not dogma.

Iceman, I am deadly serious, with a touch of a laugh on the side. It's like Nally's comment, I normally disagree with almost everything he says, but his observational humour above was spot on, a bula bus moment.

It's hard for me not to laugh at religion as subjectively I see it alongside Brothers Grimm, Dreamtime stories, Harry Potter or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. But my lack of belief in a deity is entirely objective. Religion does exist, deities do not.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.

They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?

If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.

[Declan]

Pope Francis wants to stay for the time being in a simple Vatican residence instead of moving into the spacious and regal papal apartments, the Vatican said today.


The former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina is still living in the Domus Santa Martha, a modern hotel-style residence inside the Vatican City where he stayed during the conclave that elected him on March 13.

Although the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace - which consist of more than a dozen rooms as well as quarters for staff and a terrace - are available, he shows no desire to move in any time soon, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said.

In the past few days Francis has moved out of a single room in the residence, which has some 130 rooms, into a suite so he could have more space to work and to receive people, Lombardi said.

Francis has set a more austere tone for the papacy than his predecessor Benedict XVI, who gained a reputation for sumptuous costumes. Lombardi says the new pope enjoys the residence's community atmosphere where he lives alongside other clergy.

The pope says Mass in its chapel every morning and invites Vatican workers and other guests to attend.

"I don't make long-term predictions, but for now it seems he is experimenting with this type of simple co-habitation," Lombardi said.

"It is still a period of getting used to things, of experimentation. Certainly in this phase he has expressed the desire to stay where he is," he said.

Lombardi said the pope will be using the offices in the Apostolic Palace and its grand, frescoed reception rooms to meet heads of state and delegations, and will continue to appear each Sunday to deliver a blessing from the window of the papal apartments overlooking St. Peter's Square.

[orangeman]

Pope Francis wants to stay for the time being in a simple Vatican residence instead of moving into the spacious and regal papal apartments, the Vatican said today.


The former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina is still living in the Domus Santa Martha, a modern hotel-style residence inside the Vatican City where he stayed during the conclave that elected him on March 13.

Although the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace - which consist of more than a dozen rooms as well as quarters for staff and a terrace - are available, he shows no desire to move in any time soon, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said.

In the past few days Francis has moved out of a single room in the residence, which has some 130 rooms, into a suite so he could have more space to work and to receive people, Lombardi said.

Francis has set a more austere tone for the papacy than his predecessor Benedict XVI, who gained a reputation for sumptuous costumes. Lombardi says the new pope enjoys the residence's community atmosphere where he lives alongside other clergy.

The pope says Mass in its chapel every morning and invites Vatican workers and other guests to attend.

"I don't make long-term predictions, but for now it seems he is experimenting with this type of simple co-habitation," Lombardi said.

"It is still a period of getting used to things, of experimentation. Certainly in this phase he has expressed the desire to stay where he is," he said.

Lombardi said the pope will be using the offices in the Apostolic Palace and its grand, frescoed reception rooms to meet heads of state and delegations, and will continue to appear each Sunday to deliver a blessing from the window of the papal apartments overlooking St. Peter's Square.

I'm liking this man more and more.

[Declan]

Another one for you orangeman 

Pope Francis, who is earning a growing reputation as a 'regular guy', surprised his newspaper vendor at home with a phonecall.

Kiosk owner Daniel del Regno said he got a call from the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires to say he would regrettably be cancelling his subscription.

The 36-year-old had been delivering the paper to the archbishop's office since 2005.

He said their relationship was not just commercial but personal since the archbishop baptized del Regno's son in June of last year on the church feast day, Corpus Christi.

[orangeman]

Thanks for that Declan - brilliant. Lovely story. Definitely a good guy and down to earth.

I wonder would be run for GAA president next time round ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21949118

Pope Francis shuns grand apartment for two rooms Pope Francis has opted for the simpler surroundings of the Domus Santa Marta hotel-style residence rather than the traditional palatial papal quarters


Pope Francis has decided to shun a grand papal apartment on the top floor of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace in favour of a modest two-room residence.

His spokesman said he was "trying out this type of simple living" in a communal building with other priests.

In doing so he has broken a tradition which is more than a century old.

The decision reinforces the newly-elected Pope's austere reputation. As archbishop of Buenos Aires he refused to move into the Bishop's Palace.


Since the reign of Pope Pius X at the beginning of the 20th Century every pope has occupied the palatial penthouse apartment with more than a dozen rooms, staff quarters, a terrace and extensive views over the city of Rome.

But since his election Pope Francis has been living in a simple two-room suite in the Domus Santa Marta - a hotel-style residence built by Pope John Paul II next to St Peter's Basilica.

And he intends to go on living there for the foreseeable future, according to the Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi.

"This morning he let his fellow cardinals know that he will keep living with them for a certain period of time," Mr Lombardi said.