Atheist Blogger Turns Catholic

[Book O'Dead]

Just shows to go how weak militant atheism really is, especially among the well-informed ignorant:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/prominent-atheist-blogger-converts-to-catholicism/?iref=allsearch

[Revolution starts with U]

Hipsters will be hipsters.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Didn't read anything about militant atheism in there but damn... does CNN really have no more interesting stories than to track what happens in bloggers lives? :bored:

[Vorchev]

The Catholic shock is melodramatic. Her name is Libresco, so she's probably Italian or Hispanic.

[Book O'Dead]

Didn't read anything about militant atheism in there but damn... does CNN really have no more interesting stories than to track what happens in bloggers lives? :bored:

By 'militant atheist' I'm referring to people who, like this woman in the article, make (or made, in her case) a big deal over the small matter of whether God exists or not. They believe that if they manage to persuade enough people to disbelieve in God things will somehow improve for humanity.

Another problem with people like the woman in the article is that after they renounce their former beliefs they usually become bigots in behalf of their new credo. It's like the old Stalinists who renounced 'communism' only to become Cold-war spokesmen for capitalist reaction.

[MuscularTophFan]

How could someone go from believing in no sky fairies or pixies go and join one of the most mainstream and largest religion on the planet(Catholicism)? Why not join the ancient greek religion? Why not become a Satanist? Why join the most popular religion on the planet at the moment?

Also the blogger is bisexual. Does she not realize the Catholic church is homophobic and the bible clearly condemns homosexuals should be put to death according to Leviticus?

[MuscularTophFan]

does CNN really have no more interesting stories than to track what happens in bloggers lives? :bored:
It's CNN. What do you expect? Actual journalism?

[Homo Songun]

It's like the old Stalinists who renounced 'communism' only to become Cold-war spokesmen for capitalist reaction. This happened more often with Trotskyists than Stalinists. Demoralized Stalinists tend to become social-democrats.

[eyeheartlenin]

"Libresco" is an Italian word that, I just discovered via the web, means "bookish." The word does not exist in Spanish, as far as I can determine. So Ms. Libresco has Italian ancestors, it would appear.

* * *

Roman Catholicism, a totally top-down religion, run by its predominantly celibate male clergy, with strict rules and really hair-raising teachings about what happens (eternally) to the Catholic who, to take a random example, fails to make a good confession, or engages in homosexual acts, or has an abortion, or does any of a great number of other things that are outside the limits set for the rank and file Catholic faithful, is an interesting choice for an atheist, so I hope Ms. Libresco will eventually share her impressions of the Church.

It appears that Ms. Libresco is acting in good faith, out of her convictions about the nature of morality, and I wish her well. It may be that this is only the beginning of her exploration of religion.

[wsg1991]

Demoralized Stalinists tend to become social-democrats.

Tunisian PCOT ( workers communist party ) as an example

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By 'militant atheist' I'm referring to people who, like this woman in the article, make (or made, in her case) a big deal over the small matter of whether God exists or not. They believe that if they manage to persuade enough people to disbelieve in God things will somehow improve for humanity.

As if lacking education or critical thinking skills wasn't a material condition.


Another problem with people like the woman in the article is that after they renounce their former beliefs they usually become bigots in behalf of their new credo. It's like the old Stalinists who renounced 'communism' only to become Cold-war spokesmen for capitalist reaction.

It's almost as if religious belief provides a near-perfect justification for bigotry, don't it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

“I had one thing that I was most certain of, which is that morality is something we have a duty to,” Libresco told CNN in an interview this week, a small cross dangling from her neck. “And it is external from us. And when push came to shove, that is the belief I wouldn’t let go of. And that is something I can’t prove.”

Morality is external, therefore Catholicism? How the fuck does that follow?


According to a Patheos post she wrote on Monday, entitled “This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,” she began to see parts of Christianity and Catholicism that fit her moral system. Though she now identifies as a Catholic, Libresco questions certain aspects of Catholicism, including the church’s positions on homosexuality, contraception and some aspects of religious liberty.

She's a crappy Catholic. But I suppose that will be forgiven as long as she gives money to that bunch of senile old child abusers.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

This is just a testament of the strenght of catholicism and the power of faith in general.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So a bisexual woman gives up atheism for a religion that's anti-woman and anti-LGBT? WTF?

[Vorchev]

Yea, her whole persona was an attention whoring act. She's just retreating to her old roots after her cries for attention paid off.

If she's "bisexual", it's probably just that she's sexually hesitant and finds affection easier with women.

[Offbeat]

By 'militant atheist' I'm referring to people who, like this woman in the article, make (or made, in her case) a big deal over the small matter of whether God exists or not.
The idea that there is such thing as "militant" atheism always makes me smile. Militant Islamists blow things up, militant Christians attack abortion centres or go on rampages like Breivik did, whereas "militant" atheists like Dawkins...write books and take part in debates.


They believe that if they manage to persuade enough people to disbelieve in God things will somehow improve for humanity.
Do you not think that religion is one of the greatest obstructions to the development of class consciousness and human progress in general?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea that there is such thing as "militant" atheism always makes me smile. Militant Islamists blow things up, militant Christians attack abortion centres or go on rampages like Breivik did, whereas "militant" atheists like Dawkins...write books and take part in debates.

You mean like this:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6820/christianmuslimatheistc.jpg

[ed miliband]

Hipsters will be hipsters.

what? she quite clearly isn't a hipster, and even if she was what would that have to do with anything?

[roy]

How could someone go from believing in no sky fairies or pixies go and join one of the most mainstream and largest religion on the planet(Catholicism)? Why not join the ancient greek religion? Why not become a Satanist? Why join the most popular religion on the planet at the moment?

huh?

[Vorchev]

You mean like this:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6820/christianmuslimatheistc.jpg

Just goes to show how atheists are the best at believing in and preaching over nothing. :D

[Book O'Dead]

The idea that there is such thing as "militant" atheism always makes me smile. Militant Islamists blow things up, militant Christians attack abortion centres or go on rampages like Breivik did, whereas "militant" atheists like Dawkins...write books and take part in debates.

Militancy is not confined to acts of terrorism, violence, etc.



Do you not think that religion is one of the greatest obstructions to the development of class consciousness and human progress in general?


Maybe an obstacle to working class consciousness in some cases, yes, but to human progress in general? I would have to say "no".

Otherwise we'll have to revise our own Marxian interpretation of history in which we find Christianity leading a social and political revolution throughout the Roman world.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yea, her whole persona was an attention whoring act. She's just retreating to her old roots after her cries for attention paid off.

While I may find her actions and intellectual positions untenable, I don't think her behaviour warrants calling her sexist terms like "whore".


If she's "bisexual", it's probably just that she's sexually hesitant and finds affection easier with women.

Do you often dismiss bisexuals by claiming without evidence to know their motivations? :rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

Without materialism, atheism is rendered obsolete.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Book O'Dead]

Without materialism, atheism is rendered obsolete.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Did you actually mean that with the discovery of historical materialism as a tool of analysis and reconstruction of the past, atheism and agnosticism became redundant?

If so, I agree and applaud.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Did you actually mean that with the discovery of historical materialism as a tool of analysis and reconstruction of the past, atheism and agnosticism became redundant?

If so, I agree and applaud.

Hardly, unless you'd care to argue that theism can be materially justified, in which case I'd like to see what evidence you have.

[Ocean Seal]

Hipsters will be hipsters.
Yep, this reminds me of the hipster barista meme.

[ed miliband]

despite her not being a hipster?

[Vorchev]

While I may find her actions and intellectual positions untenable, I don't think her behaviour warrants calling her sexist terms like "whore".

:confused:

Her attitude stinks. It's not just bad logic. It's she doesn't care.


Do you often dismiss bisexuals by claiming without evidence to know their motivations? :rolleyes:

I dismiss people who make claims just to be cool and politically correct.

If someone doesn't reveal motivations, that's enough motivation to be suspicious.

[hatzel]

So Vorchev you know this woman, then?

[Book O'Dead]

Hardly, unless you'd care to argue that theism can be materially justified, in which case I'd like to see what evidence you have.

I'm not sure I understand your question. So let me expand on what I said previously, maybe I wasn't very clear myself:

As far as I understand historical materialism, it entirely dispenses with any assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence, intervention or non-intervention of the supernatural in human affairs.

Historical materialism is not a natural science. In fact, historical materialism arises precisely at a time when the natural sciences were still embroiled in the debate about the origins of the species and the age of the known universe. On one side were the evolutionists, atheists and agnostics, on the other were the creationists.

Historical materialism leaps over that debate by assuming that Darwin is correct in his discoveries of natural selection and takes over as a tool of historical analysis at the point in which humanity organizes into more complex social structures.

Historical materialism overthrows atheism by becoming the philosophical barrier that protects science from the ideological assaults of superstition, myth and creationism.

Once you get a religious person to concede the fundamental premises of historical materialism, that is, that humanity, in order to ensure its survival must eat, have shelter and clothing and work at obtaining this, and in the process of production their consciousness is transformed with every new stage of development, in short, once you get them to concede that social evolution is fact, you don't need them to renounce their God.

God's existence becomes a moot point.

Do you recall a passage in one of Engel's books in which he relates an encounter between Napoleon Bonaparte and a famous astronomer? Napoleon praised the astronomer for a book he had recently published but reproached him for not having once mentioned God. The astronomer was said to have replied: "I did not factor that hypothesis in my calculations." Or something like that.

[Vorchev]

So Vorchev you know this woman, then?

Why do you care? What difference would it make?

[Book O'Dead]

Why do you care? What difference would it make?

It would help to give substance to your, ahem, liberal assertions.

[Vorchev]

It would help to give substance to your, ahem, liberal assertions.

It would help to give substance to what liberal assertions you believe I've made......

[Book O'Dead]

It would help to give substance to what liberal assertions you believe I've made......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

[piet11111]

Hardly, unless you'd care to argue that theism can be materially justified, in which case I'd like to see what evidence you have.

Jebus appeared on his toast i bet :laugh:

[Tim Finnegan]

Judging from the article, what this amounts to is a realisation that, like most Westerners, her world view was essentially Christian to start with, and preferred to retreat into Christianity proper rather than taking that sort of crisis to its logical conclusion. If anything, I give her points for at least acknowledging and addressing the contradiction, rather than wallowing blindly in the post-Christian no man's land like most folk end up doing.

[Rafiq]

Did you actually mean that with the discovery of historical materialism as a tool of analysis and reconstruction of the past, atheism and agnosticism became redundant?

If so, I agree and applaud.

Well... Not necessarily.

What I mean to say is that Idealism cannot sustain Atheism. Idealists hold that consciousness precedes matter and it's movement, (contrary to materialists who hold the opposite as valid) and if one would adhere to such, they'd have to adhere to it consistently and hold that a concsicence being preceded the material world, i.e. Some sort of god had to "create" the material world, rather than the material world preceding consciousness.

[Black_Rose]

[quote]Do you recall a passage in one of Engel's books in which he relates an encounter between Napoleon Bonaparte and a famous astronomer? Napoleon praised the astronomer for a book he had recently published but reproached him for not having once mentioned God. The astronomer was said to have replied: "I did not factor that hypothesis in my calculations." Or something like that. [/quote ]

I don't recall the passage in Engels' book, but I do know the scientist was Laplace.

I suppose it is suppose to illustrate that scientists (or naturalists in general) do not need to invoke supernatural forces or entities to explain historical or present natural phenomenon.

[Book O'Dead]

Well... Not necessarily.

What I mean to say is that Idealism cannot sustain Atheism. Idealists hold that consciousness precedes matter and it's movement, (contrary to materialists who hold the opposite as valid) and if one would adhere to such, they'd have to adhere to it consistently and hold that a concsicence being preceded the material world, i.e. Some sort of god had to "create" the material world, rather than the material world preceding consciousness.

I read too much into what you said and not enough of what you said. Now I understand Noxios' question. Thank you.

You make a very good point and I think I remember that as being part of Marx's argument in his polemic against Feuerbach, if I'm not mistaken.

[Book O'Dead]

[quote]Do you recall a passage in one of Engel's books in which he relates an encounter between Napoleon Bonaparte and a famous astronomer? Napoleon praised the astronomer for a book he had recently published but reproached him for not having once mentioned God. The astronomer was said to have replied: "I did not factor that hypothesis in my calculations." Or something like that. [/quote ]

I don't recall the passage in Engels' book, but I do know the scientist was Laplace.

I suppose it is suppose to illustrate that scientists (or naturalists in general) do not need to invoke supernatural forces or entities to explain historical or present natural phenomenon.

It might have been in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. I don't have copy at hand and I am too lazy to go to MIA.

[Raúl Duke]

I always had a feeling that those who make a big show about their atheism on the internet would be more likely to jump back in the religion bandwagon than normal atheists who just go on with their lives...many seemed a bit kooky and willing to believe other half-baked ideas so no surprise if they'll jump back to the big kooky one.

Also, not sure why CNN thinks this is such news...it ain't the first time this happened. Anne Rice was some sort of atheist and than jumped back into the Catholic bandwagon big time and fierce, tarnishing her literary career in the process and alienating her son (or some relative) who is gay.

[Rafiq]

As if lacking education or critical thinking skills wasn't a material condition.

There's a lot of problems in this statement. For one, material conditions aren't simply matter, as this is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a spiritualist. The point of materialism is that Ideas (Atheism) cannot destroy religion which is heavily based, and is the embodiment of the interests of real material forces (I.e. Classes, specifically the ruling class), whilst Atheism is not the embodiment of the interests of any class, like most sciences. Marx said that the demand to abolish illusions must be equally stressed as a demnad to abolish a condition which requires illusions.

That is to say, we should, as Communists, target the root of religion, what necessitates religion, rather than religion itself, which, as a victory would be nothing more than an academic victory (Formal Victory).

Anyway, I actually think that this article points out an interesting development which no serious Marxist can avoid analyzing. It goes to show that while many claim to be Atheists, they are only formally atheists and that unconsciously, remnants of theism still exist untouched. So when you get into arguments with "smart" theists (I presume the linguistically gifted ones, i.e. Ontologists and Pressuposionalists, also cosmologic atheists, if you will) they exemplify this unconscious theism and the formal atheism crumbles to pieces. This is partially why Materialism is important for all Atheists, as it slowly does away with this unconscious theism. I mean, just look at the main reason as to why she converted: Moralism. With materialism, we would know how to deal with things like morals, their origins, and know that Moralism is inherently Bourgeois. Not her, though.

[Book O'Dead]

I always had a feeling that those who make a big show about their atheism on the internet would be more likely to jump back in the religion bandwagon than normal atheists who just go on with their lives...many seemed a bit kooky and willing to believe other half-baked ideas so no surprise if they'll jump back to the big kooky one.

Also, not sure why CNN thinks this is such news...it ain't the first time this happened. Anne Rice was some sort of atheist and than jumped back into the Catholic bandwagon big time and fierce, tarnishing her literary career in the process and alienating her son (or some relative) who is gay.

Everyone is entitled to a few momentary lapses of reason.

[Azraella]

and the bible clearly condemns homosexuals

The bible forbids pederasty, abuse and prostitution. I'm pretty sure ancient Jews and Christian Jews wouldn't have the same concept of homosexuality as we do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

:confused:

Her attitude stinks. It's not just bad logic. It's she doesn't care.

She made one final post on her blog, and this was reported on by a third party. Hardly "whoring" herself out for attention is she?


I dismiss people who make claims just to be cool and politically correct.

Being bisexual is "cool" and "politically correct"? Are you implying that she made a confession of her sexuality in bad faith? Do you have any evidence?


If someone doesn't reveal motivations, that's enough motivation to be suspicious.

It depends on context. Motivations may be irrelevant. Or she may not have felt comfortable revealing them.


I'm not sure I understand your question. So let me expand on what I said previously, maybe I wasn't very clear myself:

As far as I understand historical materialism, it entirely dispenses with any assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence, intervention or non-intervention of the supernatural in human affairs.

Historical materialism is not a natural science. In fact, historical materialism arises precisely at a time when the natural sciences were still embroiled in the debate about the origins of the species and the age of the known universe. On one side were the evolutionists, atheists and agnostics, on the other were the creationists.

The weight of evidence being on the side of Darwin and those who came afterwards.


Historical materialism leaps over that debate by assuming that Darwin is correct in his discoveries of natural selection and takes over as a tool of historical analysis at the point in which humanity organizes into more complex social structures.

Marx no more "leaps over" Darwin any more than Einstein "leaps over" Maxwell, whose equations are still as applicable as they were before Einstein. In both cases their subjects are concerned with different components of the same universe.


Historical materialism overthrows atheism by becoming the philosophical barrier that protects science from the ideological assaults of superstition, myth and creationism.

Historical materialism incorporates functionally atheist assumptions. God doesn't enter into materialist class analysis. And if you're prepared to assume God doesn't exist when analysing one part of the universe, why not elsewhere?


Once you get a religious person to concede the fundamental premises of historical materialism, that is, that humanity, in order to ensure its survival must eat, have shelter and clothing and work at obtaining this, and in the process of production their consciousness is transformed with every new stage of development, in short, once you get them to concede that social evolution is fact, you don't need them to renounce their God.

You don't think they're smart enough to notice the total disconnect between materialist class analysis and their sincerely held faith positions? They can't all be faking it!


God's existence becomes a moot point.

It isn't to the ones who have faith.


Do you recall a passage in one of Engel's books in which he relates an encounter between Napoleon Bonaparte and a famous astronomer? Napoleon praised the astronomer for a book he had recently published but reproached him for not having once mentioned God. The astronomer was said to have replied: "I did not factor that hypothesis in my calculations." Or something like that.

It was "[No, Sire,] I had no need of that hypothesis", I believe. I've heard it elsewhere. It's apocryphal; more likely LaPlace's opinion would have been similar to Newton's, who believed it was God who was responsible for ensuring that the dynamic instabilities his models predicted would never come to pass. Later on we took a closer look at Mercury's orbit and after that there was special and general relativity which explained that as well as predicting some other stuff which was empirically verified.

The trouble with such a "god of the gaps" is that as science discovers more about the universe it turns there are smaller and fewer gaps where a god of any kind might be hiding.


Judging from the article, what this amounts to is a realisation that, like most Westerners, her world view was essentially Christian to start with, and preferred to retreat into Christianity proper rather than taking that sort of crisis to its logical conclusion. If anything, I give her points for at least acknowledging and addressing the contradiction, rather than wallowing blindly in the post-Christian no man's land like most folk end up doing.

Call me a perfectionist, but I'd rather she had dumped the godshit. Oh well, there's always the possibility she'll change her mind again some time in the future. But that's idealism for you, I guess.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The bible forbids pederasty, abuse and prostitution. I'm pretty sure ancient Jews and Christian Jews wouldn't have the same concept of homosexuality as we do.

Rape, however, is rape. I hardly think paying fifty pieces of silver (to the father of course; what is she, damaged goods?!) and being made to marry the girl is an appropriate punishment for the rapist, do you?


There's a lot of problems in this statement. For one, material conditions aren't simply matter, as this is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a spiritualist. The point of materialism is that Ideas (Atheism) cannot destroy religion which is heavily based, and is the embodiment of the interests of real material forces (I.e. Classes, specifically the ruling class), whilst Atheism is not the embodiment of the interests of any class, like most sciences. Marx said that the demand to abolish illusions must be equally stressed as a demnad to abolish a condition which requires illusions.

What is this capital-A "Atheism" to which you refer?


That is to say, we should, as Communists, target the root of religion, what necessitates religion, rather than religion itself, which, as a victory would be nothing more than an academic victory (Formal Victory).

It's one goal among many, actually.


Anyway, I actually think that this article points out an interesting development which no serious Marxist can avoid analyzing. It goes to show that while many claim to be Atheists, they are only formally atheists and that unconsciously, remnants of theism still exist untouched. So when you get into arguments with "smart" theists (I presume the linguistically gifted ones, i.e. Ontologists and Pressuposionalists, also cosmologic atheists, if you will) they exemplify this unconscious theism and the formal atheism crumbles to pieces. This is partially why Materialism is important for all Atheists, as it slowly does away with this unconscious theism. I mean, just look at the main reason as to why she converted: Moralism. With materialism, we would know how to deal with things like morals, their origins, and know that Moralism is inherently Bourgeois. Not her, though.

I agree. But religion is used by the ruling classes as a weapon of class warfare, which also feeds into stuff like alternative so-called "medicine", dodgy new religious movements, and the popular acceptance of paranoid conspiracy theories like the New World Order and shit. All of this serves to create an environment which is hostile to the widespread practice, let alone alone acceptance, of a decent materialist philosophy. Which is why we should fight it and the influence of its institutions.

[cynicles]

I dismiss people who make claims just to be cool and politically correct.

If someone doesn't reveal motivations, that's enough motivation to be suspicious.
Cool? You clearly no nothing and should shut-up before you spill anymore ignorant bigotry about bisexual experience. What does "politically correct" have to do with sexuality exactly?


The bible forbids pederasty, abuse and prostitution. I'm pretty sure ancient Jews and Christian Jews wouldn't have the same concept of homosexuality as we do.
The bible forbids men engaging in sexual relations with other men. The condemnation of the action makes its irrelevant that they lacked a narrow dualist concept fo sexuality like we have today.

[Revolution starts with U]

what? she quite clearly isn't a hipster, and even if she was what would that have to do with anything?

By hipster I mean the type to jump on and off bandwagons when they're no longer cool. Not "hipster" as in skinny jeans and striped t shirts.

[Tim Finnegan]

So by "hipster" you meant something other than "hipster"?

[Book O'Dead]

By hipster I mean the type to jump on and off bandwagons when they're no longer cool. Not "hipster" as in skinny jeans and striped t shirts.

You mean like 18-19 year-old girls with tight jeans and striped t-shirts that accentuate their rosebud nipples. Tousled haired Japanese twinki-girls with dyed red and pink bangs in the middle of garish Tokyo, ipod-connected babes playing some fantasy anime role in their faintly bobbing heads?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why do you care? What difference would it make?
If you don't know her personally, how can you dismiss her sexual orientation?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Anne Rice was some sort of atheist and than jumped back into the Catholic bandwagon big time and fierce, tarnishing her literary career in the process and alienating her son (or some relative) who is gay.
And then she subsequently left the Church and organized Christianity, while remaining a religious follower of Christ.

[Book O'Dead]

And then she subsequently left the Church and organized Christianity, while remaining a religious follower of Christ.

And where did He lead her? To another juicy vampire novel.

Oooh-oooh, here's an idea for another thread:

Vamps Suck! A Socialist Approach To The Popular Cult of Vampirism.

[MuscularTophFan]

huh?
There are thousands of shitty religions humans have created over the centuries. She just happened to join the largest current religion earth which is Catholicism. What makes Catholicism so special? Just because a billion people all believe in a fairy tale doesn't make it true.

[roy]

i just find it confusing that you think it's strange she would convert to catholicism rather than ancient greek hokum or whatever. it would be way more strange if she suddenly declared her allegiance to zeus or thor or some other god/dess that almost no one worships anymore.

[MuscularTophFan]

I'm pretty sure ancient Jews and Christian Jews wouldn't have the same concept of homosexuality as we do.

Pretty sure the bible is crystal clear on homosexual acts. That's why when Emperor Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity he make homosexual acts and same sex marriage death penalty offenses.


If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

The due penalty for their "perversion" is death by stoning.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Hipsters will be hipsters. >catholicism
>hip

Second to Mormonism as an anti-cred, bro.

[MuscularTophFan]

i just find it confusing that you think it's strange she would convert to catholicism rather than ancient greek hokum or whatever. it would be way more strange if she suddenly declared her allegiance to zeus or thor or some other god/dess that almost no one worships anymore.
That's what I'm saying. She's only picking the religion that happens to be the most popular religion right now. Did she study the countless of other mad man religions that have been created over the centuries before her conversion? No she just picked the largest and most mainstream religion on earth in order to be edgy.

[roy]

i dont think she 'picked' catholicism. you dont become religious by simply by studying. if she were trying to be edgy i imagine she'd have picked neo-paganism or something, or maybe by being so completely un-edgy she's actually super-edgy. idk. maybe she's not even religious and she's just weird.

[o well this is ok I guess]

or maybe by being so completely un-edgy she's actually super-edgy Welp, that settles it, I'm converting.

[Revolution starts with U]

So by "hipster" you meant something other than "hipster"?

Ya, so, problem?


>catholicism
>hip

Second to Mormonism as an anti-cred, bro.

2nd biggest religion in the world, and biggest in the west. posers will be posers.

[Luís Henrique]

Hipsters will be hipsters.

Religious preachers will be religious preachers, regardless of what ultimate truth they decide to preach.

Luís Henrique

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why are we discussing this, so some atheist blogger turns christian.
Atheist turn christian everyday and vice versa, so what?

[Revolution starts with U]

Religious preachers will be religious preachers, regardless of what ultimate truth they decide to preach.

Luís Henrique

Well that WAS pretty much my point. :lol:

[hatzel]

Why are we discussing this

Because CNN.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why are we discussing this, so some atheist blogger turns christian.
Atheist turn christian everyday and vice versa, so what?

Why does something have to be a rare occurrence in order to be worth discussing?

[Ostrinski]

I really don't understand it when people feel the self-righteous desire to trot into a thread upon their high horse and, with all the presumed authority in the world, inquire on the thread's existence.

[Black_Rose]

Why are we discussing this, so some atheist blogger turns christian.
Atheist turn christian everyday and vice versa, so what?


What's the equilibrium of that reaction?

[Luís Henrique]

Why are we discussing this, so some atheist blogger turns christian.

Because we still have the idea that there is linear progress from the religious Middle Ages to the enlightened Atomic Era, so someone making the opposite movement strikes us as a wonder of nature.

Luís Henrique

[DasFapital]

jesse ventura will probably turn fundamentalist christian. just sayin.

[Red Rabbit]

I would find it hilarious if someone on Revleft made a new thread every time I changed my religion while I was growing up.

[Azraella]

Pretty sure the bible is crystal clear on homosexual acts. That's why when Emperor Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity he make homosexual acts and same sex marriage death penalty offenses.





The due penalty for their "perversion" is death by stoning.

What translation of the bible are you all using? Mine simply says "sexual immorality" which could only mean prohibitions on things that were features of pagan societies. It's simply not possible that ancient and Christian Jews meant the same thing as what the modern fundamentalist versions do. (In fact some translations are clearly not trying to be impartial)

[Book O'Dead]

What translation of the bible are you all using? Mine simply says "sexual immorality" which could only mean prohibitions on things that were features of pagan societies. It's simply not possible that ancient and Christian Jews meant the same thing as what the modern fundamentalist versions do. (In fact some translations are clearly not trying to be impartial)

That's what you think. The ancient Jews (of the Old Testament and antiquity) were only slightly more barbarous and sadistic than the present day Taliban.

All the fucking stonings and throat-cuttings you see nowaydays on video are nothing compared the level of violence, cruelty and murder that was a habitual feature of the ancient world. A woman could be killed by stoning for the slightest pretext. The New Testament story of Mary Magdalen is true because it must have occurred hundreds of thousands of times before coincidence brought Jesus to her near-stoning.

Shit, the Pharisees and the Romans colluded to kill Jesus and set him up on trumped up charges of blasphemy and raising his hand and his voice against Caesar. Their method of execution was even more sadistic, cruel and horrifying than even Mary Magdalene's close call with the quarry pit would have been.

[MarxSchmarx]

I can't say I blame her. I mean, if my blog was being ignored and I was trying to become established as a blogger, to get ratings and attention I wouldn't put it past me to pull a stunt like this.

Plus, I've always harbored an ambition to climb my way to the papacy and then declare myself a satanist.

[MuscularTophFan]

What translation of the bible are you all using? Mine simply says "sexual immorality" which could only mean prohibitions on things that were features of pagan societies. It's simply not possible that ancient and Christian Jews meant the same thing as what the modern fundamentalist versions do. (In fact some translations are clearly not trying to be impartial)
So why is it that till the late 18th and early 19th century homosexuality was officially the death penalty in Western Europe and North America? Are you saying all of those Christian countries have gotten it wrong all this time? Because no where in the bible does it support same sex relationships.

[Rafiq]

It's one goal among many, actually.

Well, I suppose. There isn't anything wrong with academic victory, and I firmly agree religious psuedoscientists and the likes (i.e., when humans step into scientific territory and poison it with religious nonsense) must be crushed in the academic field. It must be recognized, though, that this will not be a blow to religion itself.



I agree. But religion is used by the ruling classes as a weapon of class warfare, which also feeds into stuff like alternative so-called "medicine", dodgy new religious movements, and the popular acceptance of paranoid conspiracy theories like the New World Order and shit. All of this serves to create an environment which is hostile to the widespread practice, let alone alone acceptance, of a decent materialist philosophy. Which is why we should fight it and the influence of its institutions.


We could fight it academically to keep a higher ground, intellectually, but when it comes to real, material action, debates and the likes will do no good in targeting religion itself.

[liberlict]

Yeah I was really starting to get on the LGBT bandwagon. Then I read this and my old school instincts kicked in. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26738805/daughter-of-lesbians-comes-out-against-gay-marriage/

Still I think any kind of quality parents no matter what kind of sexual habits they partake in are probably better than 30% of the "normal" parents out there. But does that mean we should just declare all dynamics the same? It seems taboo to suggest otherwise but I have a sense that most people feel this way anyway no matter how much the LGBT crowd try to lobby their rights . I really don't give a fuck but I doubt we'll ever get to a day when mainstream people think of homosexual / lesbian parents as normal.

[rylasasin]

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thread_Necromancy_3038.jpg

[liberlict]

Lol sorry.

[#FF0000]

kind of a strange opinion either way especially when the tide on that is shifting so much.

I'm also a little confused since you're not an idiot but that's such a blindingly stupid opinion.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah I was really starting to get on the LGBT bandwagon. Then I read this and my old school instincts kicked in. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26738805/daughter-of-lesbians-comes-out-against-gay-marriage/

Still I think any kind of quality parents no matter what kind of sexual habits they partake in are probably better than 30% of the "normal" parents out there. But does that mean we should just declare all dynamics the same? It seems taboo to suggest otherwise but I have a sense that most people feel this way anyway no matter how much the LGBT crowd try to lobby their rights . I really don't give a fuck but I doubt we'll ever get to a day when mainstream people think of homosexual / lesbian parents as normal.

A bit ridiculous. In urban areas the Netherlands is already mostly there. I'd even say it's quite taboo to suggest that in most urban social circles. Say what you say and people will stagger. If I look at myself, for example, my parents simply explained what gay people were casually and I was like 'okay'. The rest simply followed without needing any additional explanation. I never ever thought, or never had any intuition to think, no tendency once in my life, to associate gay people with worse parenting than straight people on account of their sexuality. And this was not 'learnt', it simply followed from my parents explaining what homosexuality is.

[mushroompizza]

I don't like the term Militant Atheist, because they aren't really "militant" they are just Anti-Theists but the Christian media views that as being just as bad as being a militant.

[Ro Laren]

I think it comes from their general militant douchebaggery rather than any comparison to actual militants...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I doubt we'll ever get to a day when mainstream people think of homosexual / lesbian parents as normal.
It's already happening. Just like same-sex marriage a decade ago had little support in the US, but now a slim majority supports it.

[Comrade Jacob]

Militant atheist turns into a catholic.
I would prefer the world to be moderate catholics than militant atheists.

[Lily Briscoe]

Militant atheist turns into a catholic.
I would prefer the world to be moderate catholics than militant atheists.
Typical revleft.

[Luís Henrique]

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6820/christianmuslimatheistc.jpg

I swear, I first read it as "empty head".

Reality isn't either as funny or precise as my imagination...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I don't like the term Militant Atheist, because they aren't really "militant" they are just Anti-Theists but the Christian media views that as being just as bad as being a militant.

What is wrong with being "militant"?

You Anglos and your misuse of words...

Luís Henrique