I'm guessing there's typically some sort of personal moral justification involved in the process of killing for a cause, yes. Yes he's making 2 contradictory points.
no it's not...if you consider something possible, it doesn't mean you're fooling yourself..as to reincarnation I have experienced things that sparked my curiousity but choice and interest is a personal thing. You seem to need to question the puzzle that I find interesting....I question immaculate conception and eternal damnation so I know what that's like but I firmly believe you decide what to put your faith behind and when something demonstrable changes that perspective, I'll adapt. I have no dogma when it comes to how I view our lives resolve. I think my take on life is as genuine as the argument against it and it IS a choice
I haven't looked at it like that before. I can totally understand how you could think that the choice of an agnostic not to place faith in one side (atheism) or the other (theism) is an avoidance of the 'question'. I ask that you try to look at it in a different way. If humanity had to take a test and was asked "Is there a god/s" in a sense - Theism would be Yes, Atheism would be no, and Agnostic would be Other (Please explain). It's not that we are avoiding the question, we are in fact answering the question with the answer being that not enough evidence is given for us to commit to the yes, or the no. I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't mean an agnostic walks through life with their eyes shut. I am constantly weighing 'evidence' for the existence of a god. I'm honestly just not sure its possible for us to gain that knowledge in this existence. Science has made amazing advancements in the way we understand how things work and why they are here, but deep down my gut tells me that you could spend billions of years trying to disprove a god with science to no avail.
I agree with what I bolded. We just look at the rest differently, and that's fine. I do not claim to know that there is no god, and if I was presented compelling evidence for a god, I would then believe in god. But just like you don't think science will disprove a god, I don't think a god will ever be proven. I consider myself an atheist because, in my opinion, not believing in a god is the logical default position.
He didn't condemn their religion or moral grounds or anything else along those lines. I don't see the contradiction. You seem to be making it out to be Christianity/Catholicism moral justification vs. Islam moral justification. If he condemned North Korea for human rights violations, it would be him denouncing North Korea - in the same manner he denounced ISIS. As for moral justification, it seems to be about justice for the terrorists more than it is about religion. The religious aspect is to put a bur under the West's saddle, so to speak. Another metaphor. Or it is a capitulation among the masses to the few who are strong enough to put up a resistance.
You assume it's not actual so that it props up your stance on the subject..in essence you may be fooling yourself by not exploring the possibiltiy...sort of like being taught the world is flat until someone says..hey...maybe it's not but nobody has circumnavigated the globe to prove it. In the case of reincarnation there are thousands of cases you can study that prop up the possiblity but you can choose to not show interest and write them off as foolish pursuits.
I didn't say that, and all the specifics you are referencing are irrelevant. I'm just making the point that you are effectively stating that your beliefs about reality are based in nothing but wishful thinking. The fact that something is more interesting to you is not evidence that it is true.
I could give you some evidence that supports it but I really have no interest in debating the relevance...thinking...positive thinking...it's not Santa Claus expectations..you need to put my views in a different perspective. I' ll leave you to your own, whatever those are. If you think a black hole of existance is the end all of this chapter of your life...what makes that more relevant than my interest is how you've chosen to justify it. Whatever gives you joy...it's your experience. My curiousities about the possibilities of life after death are no more far fetched than yours. You just choose to believe yours and call mine foolish. That's fine, but arrogant
I'm pretty sure it cuts across the population, regardless of religion. The pope is supposed to be a moral authority. Granted, morality is beyond religion. I'm not seeing this hypocrisy you suggest. His statements about ISIS agree with church dogma and secular belief.
It's just a logical contradiction between statements, not hypocrisy. The contradiction is his implications that atheists can get into heaven if they are following their conscience, but only if their behavior conforms to a moral standard that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with conscience. The roll of conscience can't be simultaneously important and irrelevant.
Lots of heavy discussion here. Really, it comes to this: the pope hopes the supreme being has a sense of humor.
