PDA

View Full Version : Man in funny hat living in a gold palace denounces "wealth"


Two's in
13th Sep 2008, 16:53
And the winner of the 2008 Irony Awards goes to an elderly Austrian man for this entry...

"Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge, diverted man from his true destiny?"

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Pope celebrates huge Paris Mass (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7613644.stm)

It hurts inside to see him struggling to get by on only the offerings of poor people everywhere and his miserly Wehrmacht pension. He must wonder where his next gold icon is coming from.

Davaar
13th Sep 2008, 18:56
How exciting! Yet another anti-Christian, or at least anti-Roman Catholic thought, deemed by its author so profound as to deserve its very own thread. I should think so, too. Insight just as penetrating as in its predecessors

viktor inox
13th Sep 2008, 19:43
Two's in:

Please explain where the "Austrian" connection comes from?

I am not Catholic, but feel that your ill-researched irony is misplaced, particularly the part about the alleged Wehrmacht pension. As all boys his age, he was drafted and deployed as an auxiliary anti-aircraft gunner towards the end of the war.:ugh:

Two's in
13th Sep 2008, 19:47
Catholic priests and boys is an entirely different thread, and generally not suitable for a family pubilcation such as this.

Davaar, it's actually anti-hypocrisy rather than the others, no harm in casting the first stone though.

charliegolf
13th Sep 2008, 19:56
Is the Vatican made of gold? Is the wealth his? Religion aside, the Pope is a head of state, and as such is doing better (if you follow the Gordo thread) having not flogged off the family gold. Yes i know it was raped and pillaged, or otherwise guilt tripped, but so was the Victorians' wealth.

Let he who is without sin.....

CG

viktor inox
13th Sep 2008, 19:58
Two's in:

Still waiting for an explanation of what is supposed to be "Austrian" about the Pope.

Davaar
13th Sep 2008, 21:25
Davaar, it's actually anti-hypocrisy rather than the others

Here too I can but agree. This goldarn' hypocrisy is such a rare but mortal, insidious, really, sin that we must leap to expose it, strangle it at birth, whenever it rears its ugly head. Probably many of us would are so lackadaisical we would not even notice it. Good thing we have alert non-hypocrites on guard.

BlooMoo
13th Sep 2008, 21:46
Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power...
Without this, how could any religion ever have evolved?


...and even for knowledge
Now why exactly would a thirst for knowledge be a problem for religion?

diverted man from his true destiny?"
What the f*ck, pardon my french, gives the pope or any other politician or even any human the brainpower to even estimate let alone pretend he knows the slightest idea about the concept or the 'destiny' of the human species?

vee-tail-1
13th Sep 2008, 22:45
Nicolas Sarkosy and Herr Ratzinger... what mischief are they cooking up? The French principle of laicite (to keep religion out of education and affairs of state) is under attack. Catholicism and Islam, they never stop trying to undermine all the hard won benefits of enlightenment. It is time to stop giving religion respect, and denounce it for the mind rotting child abuse it really is. :\

BlooMoo
13th Sep 2008, 22:52
It is time to stop giving religion respect, and denounce it for the mind rotting child abuse it really is.

vee-tail-1 - Amen!!!

El Grifo
13th Sep 2008, 23:37
It is time to stop giving religion respect, and denounce it for the mind rotting child abuse it really is.

hallefcukinlujah !!!!

Fancy runnin for president vee-tail :ok:

Miserlou
13th Sep 2008, 23:37
Darned hotel I stayed at last night didn't have BBC so I was stuck with CNBC this morning.
Caught some tele-evangelist preaching to some stadium full no-wits.

So, Vee-tail, don't exclude the christians!

El Grifo
13th Sep 2008, 23:39
The "nutters of god" someone once said :}

Funny really.

As kids, we are pumped full of Santa Claus, Baby Jesus and Fairies at the bottom of the garden.

As we grow, most of us "put aside childish things"

Sadly, not all of us develop at the same rate.

Even more sadly, some do not develop at all.

Dangerous!

brickhistory
14th Sep 2008, 00:01
Even more sadly, some do not devolop at all.

Dangerous!

So, I'm to understand that anyone, of any faith, believing in something more than the present, is a lesser developed being than you?

I'm not going down the historical "this religion did this," or "oh, yeah, well what about the 12th century pillage of xyz?" rabbit hole.

Your premise is that faith of any kind makes for stymied personal growth?

I would concede that religions can, have been, and will, get mis-used by men as man if inherently weak and subverts any human institution to his own failings. At times. Religions have also done much for the world; as much good as evil, in my opinion. That includes Christianity, Islam, Judeaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc, etc.

Belief in something larger than me or the present, I'm a supporter of as man isn't involved directly.

Guess that fits your notion then...

El Grifo
14th Sep 2008, 00:06
Hi Brick, how's tricks ?


Let's just introduce the word "crutch" :ok:

Some folks need one, some don't.


Problem arises when the crutch transmogrifies into an AK-47 or a 767.

brickhistory
14th Sep 2008, 00:12
'crutch'
Some folks need one, some don't.

Perhaps.

I came to my conclusion after some years of trying to get my head around the questions of my existence, the universe, time, and why things have developed as they have both here on earth and, undoubtedly, on other planets.

My conclusion was to a Creator of some sort. The Charlton Heston parting of the Red Sea with a beard description fits as well as any for me, but it could be a blob of protoplasm or just some arrangement of energy that I can't understand.

I'm glad for you that you came to a different conclusion.

Pisser for the one of us that's wrong...

BlooMoo
14th Sep 2008, 00:15
As kids, we are pumped full of Santa Claus, Baby Jesus and Fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Very true - BUT - the people doing the pumping (the parents) know they will come clean with their kids on the nature of reality round about age 8-12ish - in fact the Santa/Tooth Fairy myths have support as such BECAUSE the preachers (parents remember) know that the myth is a fairy-tale and promote it as a crutch to naive youngsters but its ok because the parents know its crap and they can control the 'enlightenment' of their kids to their schedule.

Unfortunately, baby jesus, mohammed, whatever..., seems to be immune to this kind of rational treatment.

Now think about it. Why exactly is that? I'm not asking the question of the very many people who already understand my point, but to the very many naive and delusional people who think that to simply beg the question is somehow an insult to their existence and supposed intelligence.

As we grow, most of us "put aside childish things"

Most, but not all unfortunately.

El Grifo
14th Sep 2008, 00:22
See Brick we are so far apart that we almost join at the other side of the circle.

I do not dress it up with mumbo jumbo, I simply refer to it as "The Great Mystery"

Because that is exactly what it is.


BlooMoo, preachin tae the covertit in ma case laddie. Keep bashin away tho' :ok:

Fit like onywey?

BlooMoo
14th Sep 2008, 00:41
but it could be a blob of protoplasm or just some arrangement of energy that I can't understand.

That is the contemporary cop-out. What you're trying to say is...

...all that stuff in the bible? yeah well I agree it's all crap, I mean who, with even half a brain could take that stuff at face value, bloke that listens to your thoughts 24/7 (and is multilingual as far as this planet goes). Heaven (wherever the f*ck that is) if your good (although definition of good seems to be pretty grey - just like heaven in fact) or hell if you're bad (equally vague in terms of bad or in fact where and what the f*ck anyone is really talking about in terms of reality).

I could go on and on...

What you mean is that all that bible bullsh!t you now 'indirectly' accept as just that (although you probably won't just be straight and say it) - i.e. it's complete BS. However, you then regress back to 7-year-old kind of stuff by thinking that normal people will buy the 'oh, when I meant I believed in god what I meant was god as a metaphor for some kind of energy kind of thing that we don't really have a theory for yet.

And just once more :
'blob of protoplasm or just some arrangement of energy that I can't understand'
I'm trying to keep a straight face here but it's a struggle.

asiaseen
14th Sep 2008, 02:35
I regard organised religions as commercial enterprises -big business- and, as they have no tangible product on offer, classify them as service industries.

brickhistory
14th Sep 2008, 13:55
Do I think the Bible is the written word of God?

No, as it was written by men, has been translated by men into numerous languages through time, then it undoubtedly has been altered from its first draft which was also written by men.

That men chose what books of the Bible to include or exclude means that men put their judgement into play and therefore it is fallible.

I think the Bible is more history (ish) combined with some attempts at imparting reasonable guidelines for behavior.

Do I think it's a pretty good guide for how to get along with one's fellow man? Yes, I do.

You presume much and that presumption is not granted or acknowledged by me in putting your incredibly dark and pessimistic thoughts to my intentions. I believe in God. Do I know the form of him? I'm not presumptive enough to know.

Do I really care about your over the top reaction, no, I don't. I'm not seeking to convert you to my belief. And I truly don't care about your lack thereof or differing opinion.


Using the initials of your pprune name, BM, is truly a fitting description.

Al Fakhem
14th Sep 2008, 14:53
Quote
And the winner of the 2008 Irony Awards goes to an elderly Austrian man for this entry...
Unquote

Given the first poster's origin, we should probably be grateful he hasn't accused the Pope of being Australian:ugh: but I would distrust any aviator without a basic sense of geography.

El Grifo
14th Sep 2008, 14:53
Brick

For a guy who says he does not care, you are doing a shedload of caring there buddy :ok:


I am sure that within yourself you figured out long ago how to conduct your life.

I am pretty sure you did not need a handbook.

brickhistory
14th Sep 2008, 15:16
el, that ....poster felt free to insult me. Not discuss or disagree with any form of civility or manners.

I simply responded.

"An eye for an eye," if you will.

Um... lifting...
14th Sep 2008, 15:29
Funny... but atheism requires some level of faith. Wrap your head around that one... if you can. Agnosticism, on the other hand...

Binoculars
14th Sep 2008, 16:00
OK, I'll bite. How does atheism demand some level of faith and agnosticism doesn't?

cockney steve
14th Sep 2008, 16:07
I regard organised religions as commercial enterprises -big business- and, as they have no tangible product on offer, classify them as service industries.

Unfortunately, It's not that simple. IMO, Organised religions are cynically flogging "hope" to those of lower intellect or higher vulnerability.

One only has to look at the mass of systematic child -abuse allegations emanating from Eire and Channel Isles.

Ironic ,given the "suffer little children" phrase.

If these god-bothering pervert scum REALLY believed the manipulative, threatening blackmail they peddle, the barstewards would have killed themselves, rather than risk their "eternal life" by carrying out their mortal sins. :mad: :mad:

I am open-minded enough to accept there are "things" we don't understand. even the Clairvoyants and Spiritual types who have demonstrated,incontrovertibly, don't understand exactly "what" their strange powers derive from....but it certainly isn't from God.

"a" "god" -maybe....but not the mythical stuff hawked by the religion industry.

This Rat singer (what an apt name :D ) has landed the top job...if I was him, I wouldn't spoil the dream for the masses either...A lot of jobs and families make a good living from their hope-factory...long as they all sing from the same hymn-book,the gravy-train keeps rolling.
NOT a service-industry, more a worldwide scam which makes the 419-ers look like a bunch of beginners. (well, I suppose they are, in relative terms.


AHH...I feel better for that, Perhaps I shouldn't hold back so much and be a bit more forthright on any future "god-bothering " posts. :E

El Grifo
14th Sep 2008, 17:15
Thanks Um.
That opens the door for me to tell my only joke :eek:

Did you hear about the insomniac who was both agnostic and dyslexic.
He used to lie awake all night wondering if there really was a dog !!



Now there's a beauty !!!!

Binoculars
14th Sep 2008, 17:32
El Grifo, if you're only going to have one joke in your arsenal, you would be well advised to make it something from the last ten years. Don't give up your day job!

El Grifo
14th Sep 2008, 17:46
Too kind Binos.

Truth of the matter is that it has been lurking in my dusty cranium for more than 2 decades. :(

Still, the old ones are the good ones Senora Grifa keeps telling me :ok:

B Fraser
14th Sep 2008, 18:14
I'll recycle an old joke of mine as it is rather apt,

If religion was a budget airline, Hell would be re-branded Heaven South.

Um... lifting...
14th Sep 2008, 18:17
OK, I'll bite. How does atheism demand some level of faith and agnosticism doesn't?

An atheist has to believe that they're right, don't they?
Of course, this doesn't apply to all forms of atheism, just the vast majority of them. Even an 'assertion' is a statement of belief, which is how the ancient philosophers hedged their bets. Just as many atheists defy theists to demonstrate the existence of a deity, the converse is equally difficult to prove.
Agnosticism, in its simplest form, is the admission that one doesn't know what to believe. I think most of us can put a high degree of certainty upon that.
I can't prove there is, and I can't prove there isn't, and neither can you. Then again, I don't wrestle with that conundrum on a daily basis and don't allow it to concern me much.
I'm sure there are more classically educated philosophers and secular humanists and whatever else on here than I. Argue away, I have no intention to rebut. Belief, whatever it is, is a personal matter, which is why I always find it interesting that the oh-so-progressive folk leap all over other people's beliefs and attempt to squash them dead.

I find it equally interesting that those on this thread who appear to be in the "atheist" corner (for lack of a more convenient term) are in general the same bunch who are for Obama over on the American Pres. Election thread. If voting for Obama isn't a leap of faith, I don't know what is. Anyway, that would be a digression into politics... which along with religion Mother always told us never to discuss.

ChristiaanJ
14th Sep 2008, 18:52
OK, I'll bite. How does atheism demand some level of faith and agnosticism doesn't?Simple, I would have thought.

An atheist believes there is no god. So he's making exactly the same mistake as the person who believes there is a god: he "believes", rather than using his brain....

An agnostic 1) acknowledges being a simple living being on a small planet, capable of only limited knowledge of the universe, 2) affirms never to have been able to observe anything supernatural (that might be named 'god') in the world (s)he lives in, and 3) thinks it's possible to establish moral and ethical standards at a human level, without witch doctors, pederastic priests, popes and others of that ilk.

It's called humanism.

Sadly, it seems to be going out of fashion.

CJ

pottwiddler
14th Sep 2008, 19:15
Wow!
Personally I "believe" that some people read too much into religion and the Holy Bible or the Qu'ran for that matter. Religion has given us the basic laws of life, from the ten commandments to the teachings of Jesus. Even now the Parables, still relate to modern life. Yes there is some latitude in their translation but the message is simple "Love thy neighbour", "treat others as you would want other to treat you" and life should go sweet.

And to answer the people who say that religion has caused more wars is not true: The belligerents were people thinking that they are acting in the name of God but not acting in the way God thinks.
http://static.pprune.org/images/icons/mpangel.gif

Bern Oulli
14th Sep 2008, 19:23
You, of course, would know what god thinks?

con-pilot
14th Sep 2008, 19:31
If the excuse of religion was not available to those who have gone to war and still do to this day, they would have invented something else to 'justify' their cause/s.

After all, most all wars are about power and control. Those people have something I want, they won't give it to me, so I'll take it in the name of God or Alla or whatever.

Remember, in World War II German soldiers had "God is with Us" on their belt buckles. Obviously not the same God of the Jewish people.

Miserlou
14th Sep 2008, 19:41
"Religion has given us the basic laws of life,"

I disagree. If you strip all religion and culture away from a human and ask him to write the rules for a successful society, I am sure you will find every one writes the same basic core laws. They all come up with not killing people, not stealing, helping those who cannot help themselves, monogamy etc.
My wife often performs this exercise with the children in her class whose parents are of various faiths.

The conclusion is that you don't need religion to be a good person.

It is most disturbing when religion tells people to disregard any theory than their own. Bending the truth to fit the faith as Ajahn Brahmavamso puts it. When asked how one should react if some one throws a Buddhist text down the toilet he has a simple response. "Call a plumber!"

BlooMoo
15th Sep 2008, 00:20
Do I think the Bible is the written word of God?
No, as it was written by men, has been translated by men into numerous languages through time, then it undoubtedly has been altered from its first draft which was also written by men.
OK - its not an auto, its just a biography then?

That men chose what books of the Bible to include or exclude means that men put their judgement into play and therefore it is fallible.
OK - it's a theory, yes?

I think the Bible is more history (ish) combined with some attempts at imparting reasonable guidelines for behavior.
OK - it's at best a theory, but based, in your opinion, on questionable data (hence your'ish' yes?), this can be by today's standards (given the antiquity of the authors) classed as VERY TENTATIVE THEORY no?- also it has some 'reasonable guidelines' (subject to alteration as you accept). So, even including the very tentative theory part, A religious bible is/has become merely a polemic against those that think differently in terms of at least behaviour, based on the subjective and selective opinions of individuals predominately from before the Dark Ages?

Do I think it's a pretty good guide for how to get along with one's fellow man? Yes, I do.
Which bits do you think are 'pretty good' and which bits less so? If the choice is so diverse and the ability to choose so wide then at what point does the polemic become just a list of options that have no direct relationship with the theory?

You said earlier it's been 'altered from it's 1st draft' and so you accept The Bible is therefore 'fallible' because of this. It interests me that you use the term 'fallible' rather than flawed. I guess 'fallible' gives you the wiggle room to cite '***THE BIBLE***' when some contemporary event can be argued as congruent to the subjective opinions of our Dark Age cousins and 'man is fallible' when not, no?


You presume much and that presumption is not granted or acknowledged by me in putting your incredibly dark and pessimistic thoughts to my intentions.
Anchoring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring)
Appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

I believe in God.
No you don't. You don't BELIEVE in the bible (see above). On the basis of your own statements above, you at best assign a positive probability to something (a blob of, err, something) that is objectively utterly meaningless in terms of explaining even in simplistic terms our existence - in your words :

blob of protoplasm or just some arrangement of energy that I can't understand

Quite. If your best guestimate for god is something like that then you're clutching at straws.

Do I know the form of him? I'm not presumptive enough to know.
You presume that a 'him' exists in the 1st place - yet you're not presumptive. I'd have thought that you would be aware of the fundamental significance of 'tentative' assumptions in terms of the 'big picture'.

Do I really care about your over the top reaction, no, I don't. I'm not seeking to convert you to my belief. And I truly don't care about your lack thereof or differing opinion.
Ostrich Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect)
Appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

The point of my post to you was to lampoon the nonsense of an individual stating 'I believe in god' but then attempting to qualify it with

My conclusion was to a Creator of some sort. The Charlton Heston parting of the Red Sea with a beard description fits as well as any for me, but it could be a blob of protoplasm or just some arrangement of energy that I can't understand.
That to me is simply the standard Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy) and I suspect in your case and that of many others the whole defence of religion/god comes down to a strong element of Post-purchase rationalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization).

I think it may be worth a paper to systematically proscribe how every currently accepted cognitative bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) is used and exploited by every single religion. I could probably follow it up with a paper that does the same with myself;)

Using the initials of your pprune name, BM, is truly a fitting description.
You need to develop thicker skin my friend. There is a subtle difference between ridicule and insult. I ridiculed your rhetoric (in my view very justifiably but you will nevertheless disagree) but, *you choose* to actually insult me.

BlooMoo
15th Sep 2008, 21:16
Religion says sorry again... (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g5PQ3Ew_8N4rgQ5BbKMi9WzqUQTQ)