Bishop's viewpoint on non believers

[StrawberryJam]

How many people agree with this Bishop about his ideas?

dw-world.de/dw/article/0,4173109,00.html

I find it amusing and wonder if he really takes himself seriously. Since he is a Bishop, I am sure many will think his viewpoint is totally accurate at least in his diocese.
How many here think his points are solid and his arguments put together well?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, without God we are indeed in hell on earth. Hell is the absence of God, correct?

Individual atheists may be very nice people (most are) but the fact is that when it comes down to it, their entire world view is based on. . .nothing. There is no absolute, there is nothing but the idea that a person can ‘do’ whatever he deems fit so long as whatever consensus/government says so. The fact that something can be, say, illegal one year and legal another is the determinant as to whether one not only could, but SHOULD, do it if the situation arises. It is very indifferentist and relative. . .and very unsatisfying.

No doubt people of ‘religion’ were guilty of crimes and sins just as people of ‘no religion’ were. However, the difference is that usually (and especially recently), the ‘religious’ people are going against their own beliefs in committing the sins. The ‘no religion’ people, OTOH, are following their ‘beliefs’ in committing the sins.

The religious person first has to either neutralize the religious teaching he flouts by reinterpreting it (sin of ‘inhospitality’) or justifying it ('people should shoplift if they’re poor). . .

The non-religious person simply acts based on whatever. If the government says abortion is legal, that’s all he needs. If he gets caught speeding, he’ll argue that he just got a bum deal because “everybody does it” or he’ll work not to become a better citizen by following the law, but to ‘change the law’ so it reflects what HE wants.

 

[06convert]

It seems like he is using poor word choice to make his point. Maybe he is just confused. Look at the way people use “health care” and “health insurance” interchangably when they mean 2 different things.

“Without God, everything is permitted.”

“Decades past have proven the inhumanity of atheism through the godless regimes of National Socialism and communism, with their penal camps, secret police and mass murder,”

Yes it’s true that atheists don’t believe in God. But that doesn’t automatically make them inhumane or mass murders. The only thing people need to be inhumane or mass murderers is a poorly formed conscience, or a perversion of their morals. This can happen to theists and atheists alike.

Now, when he compares the murdering of innocent Jews to the murdering of innocent babies. I can see the correlation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It seems like he is using poor word choice to make his point. Maybe he is just confused. Look at the way people use “health care” and “health insurance” interchangably when they mean 2 different things.

Yes it’s true that atheists don’t believe in God. But that doesn’t automatically make them inhumane or mass murders. The only thing people need to be inhumane or mass murderers is a poorly formed conscience, or a perversion of their morals. This can happen to theists and atheists alike.

Now, when he compares the murdering of innocent Jews to the murdering of innocent babies. I can see the correlation.

I believe the point is that for those in a position of power everything is permitted. For an average citizen, even being an atheist doesn’t protect him from the rigors of the law. Laws that are based on a moral sense. A moral sense which is above and outside ourselves. A shared conscience; viz: God. It doesn’t take much thought to see how the Nazi regime proved this point.

 

[grannymh]

How many people agree with this Bishop about his ideas?

dw-world.de/dw/article/0,4173109,00.html

I find it amusing and wonder if he really takes himself seriously. Since he is a Bishop, I am sure many will think his viewpoint is totally accurate at least in his diocese.
How many here think his points are solid and his arguments put together well?

To really understand the Bishop’s ideas, one would need to read the whole homily. However, going through the link line by line, one recognizes familiar statements.

The key thing which stood out for me was that the Bishop used the word atheism instead of atheist. To me, this indicates he is looking at the philosophical aspect and not at individuals who don’t believe in God.

It was obvious that Rudolf Ladwig could not dispute the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky nor the history of Hitler, Stalin and others. So he switched his comments to other areas.

To counter the Bishop, Schmidt-Salomon made this statement which actually has nothing to do with what the Bishop was warning people about. “Evidence shows that the majority of the Nazi elite considered themselves Christian.”

This topic will be an interesting one to develop. Personally, I often feel that non-theists as individuals can be maligned unfairly. On the other hand, discussion is needed about the effects of atheism because the effects can be disaster on a community or national scale and often in personal life.

Most important, atheism as a philosophical foundation is capable of hurting the individual. To quote another famous author. “No man is an island.”

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.