Atheists 'not fully human', says Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor

[plekhanov 10]

My choice, my metaphor. If you have difficulty grasping that people can believe in something they can't physically see, that's your problem.

Please can you take this to the God does NOT exist! (Part 2) thread. This thread is about the double standards in how the behaviour of atheists and theists is judged not the existence or otherwise of gods.

[[Matt] 10]

Just to point out i'm not offended at all my the cardinals comment simply because its just plainly incorrect.

[splodgeyAl 10]

Please can you take this to the God does NOT exist! (Part 2) thread. This thread is about the double standards in how the behaviour of atheists and theists is judged not the existence or otherwise of gods.

 

And IW's posts are demonstrating this nicely. I think the post should stay here

[saxon51 10]

Fancy a bloke of his stature accusing all newborn babies of not being fully human. The man's clearly too far up his own cassock.

[Smithster 10]

;5030795']Considering Buddhists qualify as atheists because they don't believe in a creator then doesn't that fact completely fly in the face of his claim that those who don't believe the way he does do not “search for transcendent meaning”???

 

Well quite. Perhaps the good cardinal would like to tell the Dalai Lama that he is 'not completely human'.

[plekhanov 10]

And IW's posts are demonstrating this nicely. I think the post should stay here

I'm not asking for any posts to be removed just for any further discussion provoked by her peculiar assertions about how people should just believe things regardless of evidence be pursued in a more appropriate thread.

[quisquose 10]

no, she accuses atheists of being incapable of believing in things they cannot see or touch and that they are like small children in comparison to herself, that she is some sort of superior being based on nothing more than her belief

 

I find that viewpoint just as offensive as being accused of not being human by a senior member of the clergy

 

I may disagree with people but I don't go around telling them I am better than they are

 

To be honest she can insult me as much as she likes. She can insult my arguments, my beliefs, my spelling, my appearance.

 

What I don't think she can do is justify somebody calling any group of people "sub-human". I never could, so it is interesting to see where on the ladder of morality she is willing to place herself.

 

I am willing to give her the benefit though, and imagine she has not really thought this through. Just as I am willing to give the Archbish the benefit, and think that he perhaps chose his words carelessly. Perhaps he will apologise at some point?

[[Matt] 10]

To be honest she can insult me as much as she likes. She can insult my arguments, my beliefs, my spelling, my appearance.

 

What I don't think she can do is justify somebody calling any group of people "sub-human". I never could, so it is interesting to see where on the ladder of morality she is willing to place herself.

 

I am willing to give her the benefit though, and imagine she has not really thought this through. Just as I am willing to give the Archbish the benefit, and think that he perhaps chose his words carelessly. Perhaps he will apologise at some point?

Agreed. But can you imagine the public outcry had he called Muslims or Jews subhuman?? What about people of a different skin colour to him??

[evildrneil 14]

Really what double standard is this?

 

Nothing Dawkins in the God Delusion comes close to denying the humanity of theists, he simply criticises their beliefs and the claims theists make for a privileged role in society on the strength of those beliefs in language you see every day in opinion pieces in newspapers.

 

The title in itself is pretty offensive - it more than implies that belief in god is delusions. Ergo all believers are insane. To claim it is a fluffy bit of social commentary rather than an all out attack on religion is I think rather disengenuous. As for a privileged role in society and the media - when was the last time there was a major, prime time T.V. show on the positive aspects of religion given the same amount of airtime and press as say "Root of all evil?" ?

 

What's more Dawkins has been widely excoriated in the national media and internet forums worldwide for daring to criticise religious ideologies in the way people habitually criticise secular ideologies such as anarchism and libertarianism without attracting anything like the vitriol Dawkins does.

 

He has? Where? Lets take a look at Sheffield Forum as a non specialist general forum based on geography. How many God doesn't exist / all religion is evil threads are there verses how many religion is good / athiests are evil? I think you will find that religion is excoriated a good deal more than Dawkins and his followers.

 

In contrast the head of a major religious organisation (not just 'a priest') can deny atheists' humanity on Radio 4 and there is zero reaction in the national media but I and a few others criticise him in thread on Sheffield forum.

 

Perhaps that's because other people understand the context of O'Connor's comments. For a Catholic a vital part of your humanity is your spirituality and your relationship with God. If you deny that then from the catholic point of view you deny a aprt of your humanity. As an athiest you may not believe this but as a Catholic he does and that is what he stated.

[plekhanov 10]

Another aspect of this double standard is the activities atheists and theists have to do before they are described as ‘extremists’.

 

Atheists are frequently called ‘extremists; simply for voicing their opinions and critiquing other people’s opinions, something ‘religious moderates’ do all the time. In fact atheist “extremists” tend to limit their speech to blogs, forums & more recently adverts. Religious moderates do all that + put leaflets through people’s doors, cold call people, stand around in town centres singing…

 

In fact ‘religious moderates’ frequently go beyond simply stating their opinions and frequently seek to restrict other peoples freedom of speech (by banning ‘blasphemous’ books, plays, films…), freedom of action (by criminalising ‘sins’ such as homosexuality, abortion, working on the Sabbath…), freedom of conscience (by hijacking the state to advance their faith and persecute alterative ideologies) and so on and so on.

 

Religious extremists crash airliners into sky scrapers and blow up mass transit systems in attempts to kill as many innocents as possible.

 

So it seems clear that ‘atheist extremists’ do far less to impose their beliefs on others than even religious moderates never mind religious extremists. Not only ‘atheist extremists’ not any where near as "Bad" as the extremely religious they aren’t even close do being as bad as moderate theists.

[evildrneil 14]

Another aspect of this double standard is the activities atheists and theists have to do before they are described as ‘extremists’.

 

Atheists are frequently called ‘extremists; simply for voicing their opinions and critiquing other people’s opinions, something ‘religious moderates’ do all the time. In fact atheist “extremists” tend to limit their speech to blogs, forums & more recently adverts. Religious moderates do all that + put leaflets through people’s doors, cold call people, stand around in town centres singing…

 

In fact ‘religious moderates’ frequently go beyond simply stating their opinions and frequently seek to restrict other peoples freedom of speech (by banning ‘blasphemous’ books, plays, films…), freedom of action (by criminalising ‘sins’ such as homosexuality, abortion, working on the Sabbath…), freedom of conscience (by hijacking the state to advance their faith and persecute alterative ideologies) and so on and so on.

 

Religious extremists crash airliners into sky scrapers and blow up mass transit systems in attempts to kill as many innocents as possible.

 

So it seems clear that ‘atheist extremists’ do far less to impose their beliefs on others than even religious moderates never mind religious extremists. Not only ‘atheist extremists’ not any where near as "Bad" as the extremely religious they aren’t even close do being as bad as moderate theists.

 

I think your concept of "religious moderate" is a bit screwy. I've never met a religious person wanting to do any of things you ascribe to religious moderates and all would I think ascribe those as extremist actions. Once again it appears you are being blinded by your zealotry...

[Pseudonym 10]

Maybe the average atheist isn't as sensitive to criticism as the average theist seems to be? Hence no public uproar over the cardinals avowed belief in the lacking in humanity of non-believers.

 

To me, as an atheist, to believe in an almighty, loving, caring god is delusional, so why should I be concerned about the opinions of those whom I see as being deluded, including the cardinal in question... All I ask is that they keep their delusions to themselves and don't impose them on me.

 

To each, their own...