Religion

safeinOhio

(37,771 posts)

45. Atheism takes no position on economics, but she

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 10:08 PM

Jun 2015

justifies and bases her objectivism on her anti-theism. To her there were only 2 ideas that she thought were a threat to her political philosophy, socialism and religion, especially the RCC. You may want to read Anne Heller to learn more about the subject. I like to point this out, not because I'm against Atheism, but because I against the philosophy that has taken over the right wing, Objectivism. The more we tie her to their economics, the worst they look and the more they have to back track. The 2 articles I have just posted shows their fear of Libertarianism's evil marriage to the religious right. If we kick one leg out, the whole stool falls apart.

I catch hell here because I'm a non theist and not an anti-theist. That is pretty much the standard for Humanism and Ethical Culture.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pope Francis wants to roll back progress. Is the world ready? [View all] cbayer Jun 2015 OP

No, he doesn't ann--- Jun 2015 #1

In some ways he does and I agree with him. cbayer Jun 2015 #2

Sorry, not getting the ann--- Jun 2015 #7

I think we are talking past each other. cbayer Jun 2015 #9

Yes ann--- Jun 2015 #12

Again, I think I am not being clear. cbayer Jun 2015 #15

Then, why ann--- Jun 2015 #21

I didn't write that. It's the title of the article. cbayer Jun 2015 #25

So what tech would you like to "rollback"? How would you do that? Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #27

Blah blah blah AlbertCat Jun 2015 #28

Blah blah blah cbayer Jun 2015 #30

I'm with you, it reads like a typically delusional hit piece n/t tech3149 Jun 2015 #3

A typically delusion hit piece on whom? cbayer Jun 2015 #5

on the pope of course tech3149 Jun 2015 #10

Well, it's not. It's is an entirely supportive piece on the pope and his stand on climate change. cbayer Jun 2015 #13

If that is the case ann--- Jun 2015 #22

It's been pointed out below that I may have misread the intent of this author. cbayer Jun 2015 #24

On environmentalists, and on the Pope for siding with them muriel_volestrangler Jun 2015 #16

Right-wing source? D'oh! n/t trotsky Jun 2015 #18

While the site and some of it's authors may have a conservative bent, this author cbayer Jun 2015 #19

There's no 'may' about it; First Things is primarily known as right wing muriel_volestrangler Jun 2015 #20

While that wasn't my take on it, I believe you. cbayer Jun 2015 #23

In other words, you're caught red-handed and utterly wrong skepticscott Jun 2015 #35

Here is what the encyclical itself says about climate change Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2015 #31

It's a shame he did all that as a setup for an anti-abortion attack Lordquinton Jun 2015 #41

I don't think Mr. Armstrong read it in it's entirety. cleanhippie Jun 2015 #48

First, if you think that the encyclical was about abortion Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2015 #51

Anti-abortion talk is hate speech Lordquinton Jun 2015 #57

I notice that you did not actually respond to what I wrote -- and boast of not reading it Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2015 #62

This is so hilarious Lordquinton Jun 2015 #64

He sure does. trotsky Jun 2015 #4

On the contrary, the Pope is right on the money. Nitram Jun 2015 #6

That really is the point of the article. cbayer Jun 2015 #8

I'm afraid the author wasn't very clear about that. Nitram Jun 2015 #11

He was very clear about it, but not until one reads past the first few paragraphs. cbayer Jun 2015 #14

Of course he wants to roll back progress, he and his Church are active opponents of progress Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #17

�People no longer seem to believe in a happy future,� AlbertCat Jun 2015 #26

What do you understand about the catholic's view on end times? cbayer Jun 2015 #29

Do you think it predicts a happy future or not? AlbertCat Jun 2015 #32

You apparently care. cbayer Jun 2015 #33

You misunderstood. cleanhippie Jun 2015 #49

If you feel you can clarify it for him, please feel free. cbayer Jun 2015 #52

Lost in translation? Possibly. Reading with an agenda can often lead to that. Lordquinton Jun 2015 #59

Why the hell do you care? You've always told us that you're an atheist. mr blur Jun 2015 #38

Pope wants you to give up using your cars, and having your abortions. Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #34

�valuing one�s own body in its femininity or masculinity.� trotsky Jun 2015 #36

Concern for the protection of nature Lordquinton Jun 2015 #37

Retrace our steps aka-chmeee Jun 2015 #39

I don't understand your response, but I'm pretty sure that is not what he was suggesting. cbayer Jun 2015 #40

The Pope is no saint, yet. safeinOhio Jun 2015 #42

This Pope has really safeinOhio Jun 2015 #43

While Rand was indeed an atheist her ideology that guides neolibs is Objectivism, not atheism. Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #44

Atheism takes no position on economics, but she safeinOhio Jun 2015 #45

I note that you have changed the argument. Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #46

Atheism can and does disagree with the god part safeinOhio Jun 2015 #47

I'm with you. cbayer Jun 2015 #54

I never thought my opinion of the papacy could sink lower Yorktown Jun 2015 #50

Do you believe that scientific and technological progress can be equated with the progress of cbayer Jun 2015 #53

Spot on. okasha Jun 2015 #55

Exactly. Equating them makes no sense. cbayer Jun 2015 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author Lordquinton Jun 2015 #58

You are making the exact same error than the Pope Yorktown Jun 2015 #60

I don't understand the meaning of "progress" here, our problems are mostly caused by our short- Humanist_Activist Jun 2015 #61

I don't think it's an all or none proposition. cbayer Jun 2015 #63