Pope Francis Describes Internet as "A Gift From God"

[Thaluikhain]

Actually Pope Francis recently came out and officialy proclaimed that Christian church should accept homosexuals as any other "children of god" and should stop this nonesensical war. in fact he was throw away from his birthcountry for supporting gay rights while the local president didnt.

Er...he did?

The only thing I can find about that is when he claimed that gay marriage was an attack by Satan on god's children while he was in Argentina.

Admittedly, he did say that the church shouldn't focus on being homophobic and attacking women's rights to abortion as much as they have been, which makes him a great guy, or something.

Oh, goddamnit...said much better before I could hit the post button:

I agree. Thanks to the internet, it's incredibly easy to find all the things Pope Francis has done both before and after becoming the Pope that were anti-gay (such as attributing gay marriage to Satan) despite his rep as the "cool Pope."

hmm i heard complete opposite. interesting.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/popes-inclusive-remarks-on-homosexuality-surprise-many/article5541767.ece

The Pope who has steadily conquered hearts and minds across the world declared last July: ?If someone who is gay and is sincerely seeking God who am I to judge??

In 2013, the magazine The Advocate that defends gay rights, had declared Pope Francis its Man of the Year for everything he?s done for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-sexual) community.

i think even escapist had a news article about it when it happened but i CBA to find it now.

Lets just my my views on him is: hes not some sort of messiah or something, but compared to the way christian religion dealth with issues before, id take Francis every day. Christianity is not easily changed and he is already taking steps so big there are plenty of christian communities getting angry at him being too liberal. If he does o though and implement his ideas for the whole faith then we may just have less reason to hate christianity after all. and thats a good thing.

Sure, if he goes go through and make the Church better. Currently, he has not, he's just wearing a less evil looking hat than his predecessor. People are too eager for him to be a less evil Pope, they've jumped the gun, which seems to be the point.

 

[Strazdas]

Sure, if he goes go through and make the Church better. Currently, he has not, he's just wearing a less evil looking hat than his predecessor. People are too eager for him to be a less evil Pope, they've jumped the gun, which seems to be the point.

to be honest i think he already made the church better. Of course there is a long way between what he saids church should do and what the churches actually start doing, but at least hes trying. and thats better than before already. Its not like it takes much to be the "less evil" pope anyway. Sure a lot o people jumped the gun, but a leader of billions of people saying its ok to be gay whereas the previuos leader called them satans warriors counts for something right?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Sure, if he goes go through and make the Church better. Currently, he has not, he's just wearing a less evil looking hat than his predecessor. People are too eager for him to be a less evil Pope, they've jumped the gun, which seems to be the point.

to be honest i think he already made the church better. Of course there is a long way between what he saids church should do and what the churches actually start doing, but at least hes trying. and thats better than before already. Its not like it takes much to be the "less evil" pope anyway. Sure a lot o people jumped the gun, but a leader of billions of people saying its ok to be gay whereas the previuos leader called them satans warriors counts for something right?

Gay people are ok...if they don't want to get married, or have gay sex, or otherwise be actively gay. That's an empty gesture there, accepting them only if they act straight, not as gay people.

On a related note:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/pope-francis-excommunicates-priest-greg-reynolds_n_3983059.html

Now, maybe it could be argued that he is going out of his way to make things worse less than his predecessor, which I guess is an improvement.

 

[Strazdas]

Gay people are ok...if they don't want to get married, or have gay sex, or otherwise be actively gay. That's an empty gesture there, accepting them only if they act straight, not as gay people.

On a related note:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/pope-francis-excommunicates-priest-greg-reynolds_n_3983059.html

Now, maybe it could be argued that he is going out of his way to make things worse less than his predecessor, which I guess is an improvement.

Well, you do have a point. Though small steps are important in organization this size. Still the excommunication seems to be showing otherwise, so ill have to agree with you.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I'm starting to get impressed.

The Internet came from DARPA, but he shares a good point (that's been said before, don't forget) - that the Internet brings about unprecedented unity and division. Social interaction has become international and extremely accelerated, but that's probably it.

 

[FalloutJack]

First aliens, now the internet. Strange life we lead in this era of time. Still, it would be nice if several loads of the internet's patrons weren't absolute dicks, companies with dollar signs for eyes weren't running it into the ground, and we didn't have Things Which Should Never Ever Be Seen on it...but that's just my idle fantasy and wishful thinking. Still, go Pope!

 

[Do4600]

The core implications of the phrase are up for interpretation, yours being more literal than I think was his intent. The Pope didn't mention a "divine force" or any "lowly masses". He's not saying that the internet is one of god's "miracles". What he's saying here is no different than a family thanking god for the food at their dinner table.

I find thanking god for food at the dinner table to be in the same category of offensive, either you or somebody you know spent all the effort required to acquire and prepare that food. I find it rather silly to supplicate yourself to a deity when you end up doing all of the work anyway.

I see the pope's statement as analogous to this offensive statement: "Jazz is a gift from white people" Any interpretation of both statements is offensive because they both incorrectly attribute the source of the subject.

 

[clippen05]

INB4 raging atheists have to call everyone who believes in god a moron... So quick to call out religions for not tolerating them yet so intolerant themselves...

 

[Grimh]

I like you Francis.
You can stay.

I also appreciate God taking time out to set up the servers and infrastructure to make the internet possible.
Must have been a summer job.

 

[furai47]

Technically untrue. Theism simply means belief in god, any god, and from what I cantell, at least among theological and philosophical circles, that isn't up for debate. Deism, meanwhile, is a belief in a specific type of god(Though it is true that any theistic belief is commonly assumed to be non-deistic unless otherwise specified.)

You have that backwards, my friend.

Vigor's definition is in fact the literal meaning. Greek and latin roots and all that. Atheism literally means without belief in god (distinct from, though required for, belief that there are no gods). The nuances of the meaning may not be popularly known or cared about, as you point out repeatedly, but it is not in fact some personal definition Vigor chose to adopt because it suited him personally.

I know what it means, the difference is that I know that definitions are not informed by the original latin roots. That root is useful for figuring out the origin of the word. Once you want to know what the word means in the present, you look at how people are using said word; and if you look inside a dictionary, you'll most likely see the two match. That means whoever wrote that definition did his/her job.

schnippen schnappen something about evolution

Evolution means different things in different contexts, sport. The very reason the word evolution (when used to describe the change in characteristics of a given population over a period of time, a very layman-ish definition if I ever saw one but I'll roll with it) is used in that fashion is because the vast majority of academia uses it that way; a majority of people too.
Take the Big Bang theory (not the insipid show). It wasn't always called that, but one person used the term to try and discredit it and then the term became popular in academia. These days, we use that second term much more often than the original one, so it made sense to adapt the definitions.

schnippen schnappen something about theory

Thank you for providing an excellent example of how the same word can mean different things in different contexts when used by different people very differently.

By this logic, all verbal communication is meaningless as anyone can use any word for any idea.

I'm well aware that languages "evolve". We wouldn't have the myriad of languages and dialects we have today if they didn't. However, that doesn't dismiss the fact that people misuse certain words. We may eventually adopt the new meanings, but those new meanings still stemmed from incorrect usages.

I'm of the mind that it is far better to teach people the true meanings of a word than to just let it turn into a clusterfuck of disjointed, unrelated definitions that further complicate our already limited vocabularies.

"Without a god, life is meaningless and anyone can do whatever they like." <- Do you mean like that?

People WILL misuse certain words and if the misuse of that word becomes popular enough, dictionaries WILL update their definitions to include that misused...use. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the new meanings stemmed from incorrect usages, what matters is how people use them. I'm not repeating this because I want it to be true, I'm repeating this because that's how the bloody system works; not just dictionaries, fields of science and even mathematics as well.

Take for example the phrase "begging the question". The phrase denotes a logical fallacy of assumed conclusions/circular reasoning; however because the phrase somehow began being used to as "this begs the question, (followed by a question)" this incorrect usage of the word can now be found listed in many dictionaries and in fact is how a large percentage of the population uses the phrase. It doesn't matter how big a hissy fit you (or I, because I hate people who use it that way with a Revengeance) throw, that is just how it is.

Now if you'll let me indulge for just a moment:
It is poetic that you'd rather teach people the truth according to some book and an ancient way of thinking than to look around you and to draw your conclusions from careful observation of facts.
Just like Hitch, I too love irony.

 

[Animyr]

Technically untrue. Theism simply means belief in god, any god, and from what I cantell, at least among theological and philosophical circles, that isn't up for debate. Deism, meanwhile, is a belief in a specific type of god(Though it is true that any theistic belief is commonly assumed to be non-deistic unless otherwise specified.)

You have that backwards, my friend.

No, I don't.

See? I can make assertions too.

But I'm actually pretty confident about this. A Theist is not also by necessity also deist, as you seem to be implying. The reverse is true. Though it is also true that the word theist has certain baggage on it that deism does not inherit.

It is true that a deist is a kind of theist who makes non-specific claims (no revealed truth, etc) and in that sense, a non-deistic theist (which are most theists) must make more specific claims that go beyond the basic deistic position that a god exists and nothing more. I think that might be what you are thinking of.

It is also true that the vast majority of theists these days believe in a certain kind of god, and hence the word theism (as with "religion" and "believer" and "faith" and "god") has understandably become associated with that specific kind of belief. And in our society, that association may be a practical one to make. But in the broad, most basic sense, theism merely means belief in any god. (Just as the world god technically refers to any god of any religious system, even if we commonly take it to mean the one god of Abrahamic monotheism).

Unless you can prove otherwise?

 

[Animyr]

schnippen schnappen something about evolution...Thank you for providing an excellent example of how the same word can mean different things in different contexts when used by different people very differently...Evolution means different things in different contexts, sport.

I said as much. Between that, the fact that you repeatedly misquoted me, and the derisive way in which you quoted my actual words, I'm starting to get the impression that you weren't paying much attention.

is used in that fashion is because the vast majority of academia uses it that way; a majority of people too.

There is actually a significant difference in the way academia and (much of) the common man uses it. Enough that constant corrections are necessary.

IT DOESN'T MATTER if the new meanings stemmed from incorrect usages,

Maybe I didn't make this clear, so I'll try again.

I don't care what it says in the dictionary. Your lectures on changing definitions are irrelevant to my point. The point is the clear communication of ideas. If you think the word I'm using means something other then what I mean, then I need to set you straight. Whether the word sticks with your definition and I get a new word, or goes back to mine is irrelevant to the topic. But if people who opposed me as, say, an evolutionary biologist, go back through my work when I used a word they knew under a different context and criticize me on the basis of the context they have, it behooves me to go back and clearly define what it was I meant, regardless if society will ever give me my words back.

And even so, the distinction between knowledge and belief is an important one that the popular definitions of the words "agnosticism" and "atheism" fail to appreciate. The easiest way to do rectify that, I think, is move the definition back. But regardless, it should be made clear. Make up new words, whatever it may be, so long as there is no misunderstanding.

This is ultimately what I think Vigor was trying to do, even if you think he presumed to much in doing so.

It is poetic that you'd rather teach people the truth according to some book and an ancient way of thinking than to look around you and to draw your conclusions from careful observation of facts.
Just like Hitch, I too love irony.

Stretch much?

 

[Xdeser2]

This just in; religious leader clams X/Y/Z is a gift from god. In other news, a study shows that religious leaders fear that religions are becoming obsolete.

It's been said better without the religious dogma.

Damn, you just cant please some people.

OT: Personally, I gotta say I'm not a religious person, but this Pope has turned out to be pretty cool. I'm glad he's at least acknowledging things that other Pontiffs have just outright ignored.

 

[Vigormortis]

schnippen schnappen something about evolution

Evolution means different things in different contexts, sport.

Well, thanks for starting out your response in a condescending tone. It's especially nice that you decided to use "sport", as if to imply I'm some naive child.

Classy.

The very reason the word evolution (when used to describe the change in characteristics of a given population over a period of time, a very layman-ish definition if I ever saw one but I'll roll with it) is used in that fashion is because the vast majority of academia uses it that way; a majority of people too.

And the condescension continues. Oh joy.

What really gets me here is that you're fucking lecturing me on the meaning of evolution when it was you that used the term first in your other post. The only reason I used it; in sarcasm quotes I might add; was because I was quoting your usage.

But please, continue to educate me on things I must clearly have no knowledge.

Take the Big Bang theory (not the insipid show). It wasn't always called that, but one person used the term to try and discredit it and then the term became popular in academia. These days, we use that second term much more often than the original one, so it made sense to adapt the definitions.

We use the term "big bang theory" because the concept of the big bang is a theory. It's been graduated from a hypothesis.

The attempts to discredit the concept came after it became known as a theory. Primarily because the colloquial definition of "theory" is "an unproven idea".

schnippen schnappen something about theory

Thank you for providing an excellent example of how the same word can mean different things in different contexts when used by different people very differently.

Sorry? Where exactly did I mention theory in my original post? I'm genuinely curious on this as I really can't see it.

Are my eyes bad or are you just making shit up and attempting to dispute my posts with strawman arguments and nonsense?

And I never said people don't use similar words for different meanings. I even made a point of saying that people often do so.

Not really sure how that validates your assertions and invalidates mine...

"Without a god, life is meaningless and anyone can do whatever they like." <- Do you mean like that?

Yet another strawman. Glorious.

But you know what? Sure. Just like that. The logic of your original post is just as nonsensical as that claim.

People WILL misuse certain words and if the misuse of that word becomes popular enough, dictionaries WILL update their definitions to include that misused...use. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the new meanings stemmed from incorrect usages, what matters is how people use them. I'm not repeating this because I want it to be true, I'm repeating this because that's how the bloody system works; not just dictionaries, fields of science and even mathematics as well.

Again, I never said this was not the case. Can you please stop putting words in my mouth? It's quite annoying.

Now if you'll let me indulge for just a moment:
It is poetic that you'd rather teach people the truth according to some book and an ancient way of thinking than to look around you and to draw your conclusions from careful observation of facts.
Just like Hitch, I too love irony.

End on a high note (horse), eh?

I'll allow your indulgence if you'll allow mine:
I find it ironic...or perhaps hypocritical...that you'll lambast me for my use and definition of words such as Agnostic while simultaneously claiming words "evolve" and change definitions.

I guess they only change when they suit your idea of what they mean.

 

[Vigormortis]

This is ultimately what I think Vigor was trying to do, even if you think he presumed to much in doing so.

It was, but apparently I either failed to communicate that clearly[footnote]Irony![/footnote] or he truly thinks words should be so fluid that meanings should be....well....meaningless.

Stretch much?

Seems to be the way to approach this topic...

:/

 

[Bazaalmon]

Snip

Snip

Wow, that sounds fantastic. You would never find a Catholic priest dipping into Islam's teachings during a mass. I feel the religions of the world have a lot to teach each other, but instead they shut themselves in and bury their heads in the sand. Just the fact that this group exists put a smile on my face.

Although I've never heard of Unitarians before, you guys seem to have your heads screwed on.
Two thumbs up to you my friend.

Apologies, the term for my particular subdivision of Unitarianism is Unitarian Universalist. While Unitarianism is considered a liberal religion, it still tends to revolve around christian teachings. Wikipedia has a much better explanation that I could come up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
I didn't mean to mix up the theologies, although there is some overlap.

 

[furai47]

For wall of text prevention I'll spoiler tag my responses. Open whichever is relevant.

Animyr

Spoiler

Unless you can prove otherwise?

Deism is defined in a couple of different dictionaries as such:

Spoiler

n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

(Theology) belief in the existence of God based solely on natural reason, without reference to revelation.

n.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejection of supernatural revelation.

the acknowledgment of the existence of a god upon the testimony of reason and of nature and its laws, and the rejection of the possibility of supernatural intervention in human affairs and of special revelation. ? deist, n. ? deistic, adj.

noun
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Theism is defined as such:

Spoiler

n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

n.
1. belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (disting. from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

1. a belief in the existence of God or gods.
2. a belief in one god as creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of special revelation. Cf. deism. ? theism, n.

n
1. (Theology) the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation. Compare deism
2. (Theology) the belief in the existence of a God or gods. Compare atheism

noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

We can also use the wikipedia article (take it with a grain of salt, as always):

Spoiler

Theism generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; personal and interacting with the universe through for example religious experience and the prayers of humans. It holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world. Not all theists subscribe to all the above propositions, but usually a fair number of them, c.f., family resemblance. Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simple and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Open Theism, by contrast, asserts that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. "Theism" is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or polytheism.

Deism holds that God is wholly transcendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it. In this view, God is not anthropomorphic, and does not literally answer prayers or cause miracles to occur. Common in Deism is a belief that God has no interest in humanity and may not even be aware of humanity. Pandeism and Panendeism, respectively, combine Deism with the Pantheistic or Panentheistic beliefs discussed below. Pandeism is proposed to explain as to Deism why God would create a universe and then abandon it, and as to Pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.

From those, I think we can draw that deism not only has a completely different "power structure" for lack of a better term, but also that theism has extra stuff on top of just creating the world and existing in the supernatural as is the case with deism.

I said as much. Between that, the fact that you repeatedly misquoted me, and the derisive way in which you quoted my actual words, I'm starting to get the impression that you weren't paying much attention.

First, you're right about misquoting you, when formatting I've mistakenly copy pasted Vigor's [quoteandsomeotherhtmlstuff] around your posts. My fault entirely.
Second, "schnippen schnappen something about x" is my version of saying "snip some words to identify what I'm responding to" and I'm quite fond of it, so that is not going anywhere.

Now, I'll go step by step, quoting the specific parts I have problems with from the previous and your current post as to avoid confusion and any possible offense taking place in the future.

Now you can say all you want that if enough people think evolution means that, then that's what it means, and thus it is no misunderstanding at all. But the fact remains that the scientific theory Darwin originally formulated refers to a certain idea, and "that it all came about by chance" is not that idea, and no popular vote or social consensus can change that.

There is actually a significant difference in the way academia and (much of) the common man uses it. Enough that constant corrections are necessary.

The reason the word "evolution" in science circles means change of characteristics over time in a given population is because almost everyone who uses it uses it to mean exactly that.
Similarly, the word "evolution" in popular circles means [same thing as above] is because [same thing as above] with some differences obviously. Context and level of education is key here.
That was what I was trying to get across. Popular votes can still change what the word is used to denote if in an unlikely event the boffins and the people come together and in an overwhelming majority decide that another word should be used because of X; or if recent discoveries required that change for whatever reason. Though to be honest, usually the word doesn't change, it's just the categorisation that does (see: photons and the early attempts to categorise them as matter which resulted in two Nobel prizes; one awarded to a guy who proved it's matter and the other one IIRC a year later to his son for proving exactly the opposite. Again IIRC).

In popular culture, it roughly means a guess. But in science, theory is an important term with a very specific meaning within the discipline, and it's not a guess.

This is an example of how in a different context used by different people, the same word has a vastly different meaning.

So even if the popular definition of the word theory became official, it still wouldn't change that scientists were talking about when they said "theory of evolution" or "theory of relativity"...

The reason it wouldn't change is because it's used differently. Usually it even comes with the prefix "scientific" to denote the specific use. And interestingly enough, the word is used to denote the scientific version so much these days that in dictionaries it's usually listed as the first definition. Not because the boffins' definition and use if the most correct one, but because it's the most commonly used one.

Now these are just side issues to what I originally objected to and I go about explaining myself further in my response to Vigormortis below.

Vigormortis

Spoiler

Well, thanks for starting out your response in a condescending tone. It's especially nice that you decided to use "sport", as if to imply I'm some naive child.

Classy.

And the condescension continues. Oh joy.

What really gets me here is that you're fucking lecturing me on the meaning of evolution when it was you that used the term first in your other post. The only reason I used it; in sarcasm quotes I might add; was because I was quoting your usage.

But please, continue to educate me on things I must clearly have no knowledge.

Sorry? Where exactly did I mention theory in my original post? I'm genuinely curious on this as I really can't see it.

Are my eyes bad or are you just making shit up and attempting to dispute my posts with strawman arguments and nonsense?

And I never said people don't use similar words for different meanings. I even made a point of saying that people often do so.

Not really sure how that validates your assertions and invalidates mine...

A mistake of copy pasting the quote tags to streamline the process of formatting, with the exception of the last quote in my previous post they were all meant for Animyr.

We use the term "big bang theory" because the concept of the big bang is a theory. It's been graduated from a hypothesis.

The attempts to discredit the concept came after it became known as a theory. Primarily because the colloquial definition of "theory" is "an unproven idea".

No, we use the term "Big Bang" because Hoyle used it once to take a bit of a jab at the proposed theory; through the propagation of this term, it became the default name. At no point was this an example of how people tried to discredit it as just a theory and how it all stemmed from the colloquial use of the word; rather, it was an example of how popular opinion and usage of a word or phrase can become the default one even when the previous one was more etymologically correct. Well I say etymologically correct, in this case it's more a case of less sensationalist and more scientific.

Which is what I was trying to get you to understand ever since you posted the text version of this image:

Spoiler

in this post:

I just wanted to point out that these things are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostic, despite what the general opinion is, does not mean "unsure of the existence of deities". Gnosticism has nothing to do with religion, inherently, but is rather a proclamation of knowledge.

Atheism is simply a lack of acceptance to theistic claims. It is not the opposite claim that gods do not exist.

There are effectively four kinds of people in the world, in regards to religious beliefs.

Agnostic Theist - Someone who believe there is a god or gods but claims no knowledge or proof of their existence.

Gnostic Theist - Someone who believe in a deity or deities and proclaims to know he/she/they exist.

Agnostic Atheist - Someone who is unsure if there are any deities, or someone who does not accept theistic claims, and claims no knowledge either way.

Gnostic Atheist - Someone who does believe deities exist and claims absolute knowledge of that claim.

Truth is, most people who call themselves agnostics are really Agnostic Atheists. Which is not a bad thing. Atheism isn't a dirty word. Religious indoctrination has turned it into one. Likewise, many religions followers are Agnostic Theists.

Anyway, I know this doesn't really address the points in your post, but I just wanted to clarify for everyone the misconceptions behind the terms.

Now pardon me, but my reading comprehension tells me that:
1)you think agnosticism does not mean a person is unsure of the existence of a god/gods; which it most certainly can and has done so for anywhere between 2500 and 3000 years now
2)you think atheism does not mean a person believes that a god/gods do not exist which again, it most certainly can
3)you think you can categorise upwards of 7 billion people into 4 neat boxes when it comes to religious beliefs
4)you think it's religious indoctrination that has turned atheism into a "bad word" and not tribalism, something universal to the human species (a minor complaint)

The etymological roots are not the end all be all of what the word means, especially when the word is being used differently in comparison to how it was in the past. Just look at random definitions of words and see how many of them either have modern usages listed as the first and most common ones or have those modern ones appended as alternatives. I'm willing to bet you'll find almost all of them do.

Yet another strawman. Glorious.

But you know what? Sure. Just like that. The logic of your original post is just as nonsensical as that claim.

That was not a strawman, it was a simple word switch to make you aware of just how close you are to saying the exact same shite some religious are when arguing morality. If I pursued the argument further and included the modified statement as a basis for my argument, THEN it would be a strawman.
You keep using that word etc.

Again, I never said this was not the case. Can you please stop putting words in my mouth? It's quite annoying.

I never claimed you said this was not the case. What I am doing is trying to make you understand that the image-macro-style-categorisation is a stupid way of doing things; especially when said macro does not accurately represent the modern use of the words that appear on it.
In the case that your post wasn't grounded in such an image macro, deriving what words mean in modern times from use in the past is still not particularly smart.

End on a high note (horse), eh?

I'm more into music than horses, so I'll take the note.

I find it ironic...or perhaps hypocritical...that you'll lambast me for my use and definition of words such as Agnostic while simultaneously claiming words "evolve" and change definitions.

I guess they only change when they suit your idea of what they mean.

I'm lambasting you for your inability to comprehend the fairly simple notion that the word Agnostic can mean something very similar to Atheist, so much so that the definitions are in some cases interchangeable. For crying out loud, it's been used that way even in ancient Greece where the roots of words you so desperately cling to originated. When today you ask a person if they're religious and they tell you they're agnostic, it might just be because they're using the word to mean "I don't believe in god"; and believe it or not, most any definition will support them on that.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Exactly as other folks here have mentioned: Of course you want to like this guy. He's almost casual, despite the significance of the position he has obtained within Catholicism.

That's why he was picked in the first place. With the rise of the internet, communication between like-minded groups has increased, and the barriers between conflicting groups have fallen. The Catholic Church is doing what it has always done in the face of adversary: adapt. Or, to be the snarky Atheist I am, I'll say it has "evolved," in order to survive.

Pope Francis has been talking a lot, but the message hasn't changed nor have any actions taken place. Gays are still going to hell, non-believers are still going to be punished, and AIDS in Africa still exists.

 

[freaper]

"In a world like this, media can help us to feel closer to one another," Pope Francis writes. "Good communication helps us to grow closer, to know one another better, and ultimately, to grow in unity. The walls which divide us can be broken down only if we are prepared to listen and learn from one another. We need to resolve our differences through forms of dialogue which help us grow in understanding and mutual respect ... The internet, in particular, offers immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity. This is something truly good, a gift from God."

You see? Religion is about the human aspect, screw the doctrine. This Pope's got it right.