Does Pope Francis have a fantasy-prone personality disorder?

[abaris]

it is clear that Islam has been a violent religion since its very earliest days, from its initial crusades after the death of Mohamed until being checked at the Battle of Tours, and after that, the continued and attempted conquest of the West until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

That's simplistic to the extreme. And begs for some history lessons. Such as looking at which rulers were the most tolerant towards other religions all through thre Middle Ages and even the days of the Ottoman empire. Hint, it weren't the christians. Apart from Frederick II, who was hated by his peers and the holy see for his efforts.

[Jehanne]

I am not interested in derailing this thread, but yes, American history is replete with examples of falsehoods, especially, from the lips of politicians, both past and present.  Fortunately, scholars of American history, both here and abroad, know better.  You can visit learner.org to learn more.

To say that atheism stands for "nothing" is certainly not a view shared by atheists.  Listen to Sean Carroll sometime, especially, his debates (US Intelligence Squared) and other presentations on death, and the fact that there is no afterlife.  Carroll admits that he would like there to be an afterlife, but as he says (paraphrase), "naturalism tells us the way things are and not the way we want things to be..."  If I wanted comfort and fantasy, I would be religious, perhaps a southern Baptist with its "once saved, always saved" theological novelty, which descended out of John Calvin's ideas of double presentation.  In addition, I would find a church which values traditional, modest clothing for women, which I (as a male; don't let screen names fool you) find to be attractive.

But, I value truth more than mental comforts and sexual lusts; hence, I am an atheist.

(bold mine)

I'm sorry, but it is a view I share. I lack a belief in god(s), and I resent the idea that, because I share that one trait with others, I "stand for" something.

You stand for what's real, as opposed to that which is not.

[abaris]

You stand for what's real, as opposed to that which is not.

No, for most of us it simply stands for the absence of belief. Which isn't, since I can only speak for myself, what makes me as a person and an individual. It's the least important thing in my life. It's not, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we're all the same, to losely paraphrase Monty Python.

[vorlon13]

Realistically, the pope is advocating Muslim apostasy, and he should realize since he is doing that, he might as well tell the Muslims they need to completely break with their false religion and sign on with his religion*.


*which we all know is false too, but he ain't gonna fess up to that

[Jehanne]

it is clear that Islam has been a violent religion since its very earliest days, from its initial crusades after the death of Mohamed until being checked at the Battle of Tours, and after that, the continued and attempted conquest of the West until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

That's simplistic to the extreme. And begs for some history lessons. Such as looking at which rulers were the most tolerant towards other religions all through thre Middle Ages and even the days of the Ottoman empire. Hint, it weren't the christians. Apart from Frederick II, who was hated by his peers and the holy see for his efforts.

Medieval Christendom was very violent; you'll get no argument from me over that.  In fact, the whole World, at least until recent times, has been a very violent place.  Some 2% of the American population perished in the Civil War due to violence.  Out of 300 million US residents today, less than 0.05% perish in any violent act.

[Edwardo Piet]

He's neither completely right nor wrong. A proper reading of the Qur'an suggests that Islam promotes violence (but so does the Bible) but not to the extent promoted by terrorist groups like ISIS.

No a proper reading promotes it even more. It says to put all nonbelievers in Islam to death. That's not just atheists but anyone who is non-muslim.

Of course there are contradictory passages to that too. But it's still in there.

[Jehanne]

You stand for what's real, as opposed to that which is not.

No, for most of us it simply stands for the absence of belief. Which isn't, since I can only speak for myself, what makes me as a person and an individual. It's the least important thing in my life. It's not, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we're all the same, to losely paraphrase Monty Python.

I am in your camp, too!  (See above.)  But, I am sure that you stand for rational and open inquiry (a lot of religions don't), free-thought, a free press, the scientific method, etc.  These beliefs are the bedrock of atheism, at least for me they are.

[abaris]

No a proper reading promotes it even more. It says to put all nonbelievers in Islam to death. That's not just atheists but anyone who is non-muslim.

No, it's not. That's factually wrong, since christians and jews aren't non believers for muslims. People of the book. So, dead wrong.

[Jehanne]

No a proper reading promotes it even more. It says to put all nonbelievers in Islam to death. That's not just atheists but anyone who is non-muslim.

No, it's not. That's factually wrong, since christians and jews aren't non believers for muslims. People of the book. So, dead wrong.

You're absolutely correct, HOWEVER, that came after Muslim rule.  Tell me this, "What was the Battle of Tours, where was it fought and why was it fought?"

[abaris]

You're absolutely correct, HOWEVER, that came after Muslim rule.  Tell me this, "What was the Battle of Tours, where was it fought and why was it fought?"

Why don't you read up on the battle of Tours yourself? It was a simple raid, aimed to loot the region. I'm well aware of who fought it and what the reasons were. I'm also well aware why the Moors lost. Because the Franks made for their camp and the moorish troops fearing for the booty, left the battlefield. There was no expansionist strategy behind it and certainly no religious motif.