"No offense...."

In my opinion, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor is not fully a superstitious , increasingly irrelevant 77 year old male virgin and a shitfaced cunt, but.. oh wait, yes he is.

eight year olds, dude.

That's fine, I feel the same way about him. I wish you pussies would stop crying about tolerance and realise we don't want to be tolerated by these niggers; we want them gone from our lives and our world.

As an atheist, I can understand his argument. (Not necessarily agree with it, but understand) Take out the concept of HIS god being the one to believe in and what it seems he is saying is that to hold only an appreciation of the literal and finite, provable/observable mechanisms in the world around us, is to abandon an appreciation for that which can not be observed. For example, the appreciation of experience itself - experience being something that can not be completely accounted for. He places a high value on that which can not be proven, and apparently associates the appreciation of that which can not be proven or observed as a significant part of the human experience. For example, the idea of creativity and imagination are other aspects of unobservable (potentially) phenomenon that well all place a lot of value in.

The discussion of this idea has nothing to do with god and can sometimes be misused as an excuse for belief in a god... but the argument that there is something intrinsically valuable in things that can not be observed or proven, is an interesting idea.

Personally, I always come back to the ideas only being valuable in so far as how they affect your perceptions and behavior. There's nothing intrinsically valuable at all, and, fundamentally, none of it matters. Especially since we all engage in appreciation of the unprovable so extremely often, there's really no genuine argument that anyone does otherwise. For example, we all like to theorize and imagine possibilities of how the universe began...

Anyway, I'm rambling. Yes, there can be value in believing in something that you can't prove. There is value in the idea of "transcendance" - I mean, we get things like transhumanism out of it. Arguing about whether or not it is part of the human experience is utterly moot. And arguing that atheists lack in these types of experiences is also moot, imo.

Waitaminnit. Who says that atheists don't pursue the "transcendant"? If he means the pursuit of beauty and meaning, then he's wrong: as an atheist, I do indeed pursue truth, beauty and meaning. It's just that I don't call truth, beauty and meaning "God". Neither does O'Connor's silly Bible - note how this sly, dishonest old man tries to sneak in the "God is beauty" redefinition canard.

>> ^gorillaman:
That's fine, I feel the same way about him. I wish you pussies would stop crying about tolerance and realise we don't want to be tolerated by these niggers; we want them gone from our lives and our world.


Social movements gain share in the marketplace of ideas by offering more intelligent solutions than those advanced by other social movements. Supernaturalists lost credibility when one of them assassinated Dr. Tiller. Rationalists lose credibility in the marketplace of ideas when one of them calls for assassination or genocide.

>> ^chilaxe:
Social movements gain share in the marketplace of ideas by offering more intelligent solutions than those advanced by other social movements. Supernaturalists lost credibility when one of them assassinated Dr. Tiller. Rationalists lose credibility in the marketplace of ideas when one of them calls for assassination or genocide.


Actually, he never said anything about killing them. Just that he wants them gone from his life and world. And so do I.