He should know
> it also enables people to barricade themselves behind sources of information which only confirm their own wishes and ideas
and no religion would want that, would it?
Pope Francis has shared his thoughts about the Internet, declaring it a wonderful thing but also expressing worries that it impair human relationships and inflict a kind of commercial violence on users. Francis' thoughts are published here under the title “"Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter" - …
"The Internet gives people access to information and education - religions do not want that - they want to have control and be the source of information"
That makes religions no different than any other human organization. You could say the same thing about governments, corporations, the MPAA, the RIAA, etc.
"That makes religions no different than any other human organization. You could say the same thing about governments, corporations, the MPAA, the RIAA, etc."
Given that the levels of education in most Western countries at least, where the influence of religion has been reduced, have increased dramatically in the last 200 years, then I'd say you are provably wrong in your assertion that "any other human organisation" wants control and information. I'd also have to be fair and say that a lot of the impetus for universal education, at least in Britain, came from non-conformist religions. So, that's two strikes against your comment.
Really, the accurate statement would be "That makes some religions no different than some other human organisations, like some governments and corporations, and the MPAA and RIAA."
Religions are the prototypical and quintessential corporations: they are both pyramidal organizations that have a person in charge at the top who didn't earn the spot, who abuses the power of the position, and who screws the hell out of the people at the bottom of the pyramid who do the real work.
Religions and corporations also perpetuate the worst atrocities against humanity, and both seem to think they are above the rule of law. They are both designed to take as much money from people as they can, while delivering a substandard and/or dangerous product. They also corrupt governments in order to perpetuate their crimes, as well as their stranglehold upon the collective throats of the people.
So you can continue to kiss the collective assessment of the Poop and corporate CEOs; but all you'll get from it is a foul taste in your mouth and an empty wallet. And you're a fool if you believe otherwise.
"'The Internet gives people access to information and education - religions do not want that - they want to have control and be the source of information'
That makes religions no different than any other human organization. You could say the same thing about governments, corporations, the MPAA, the RIAA, etc."
It's about time someone else made that connection...
Revealed at last: on the seventh day of creation, the Lord cast a social network around the earth, so that His creatures might spread the Gospel. And He saw it was a good thing, ere the Master of Daemons came and subverted it, so that it might bring forth consumption and manipulation of mortal (wo)men.
He must be referring to the church itself, after all it is an expert organisation at convincing people that its mythology is true -- in the fact of facts and lack of evidence.
The violent agression is what they threaten will happen to you in a supposed after life if you don't do what they say.
It'd be kind of difficult to name anything given that the church is under 2000 years old. Indeed the very term "church" is Christian in origin.
What else have anti-religious types distorted to grind their particular axe when the simple plain facts show the arguments to be what they are?
Sure, the Catholic church has it's fair share of blood on its hands, but if you want to call a spade a spade I suggest starting a little closer to home.
> What else has the church been giving God undue credit for
Not always directly from a church but whenever a hard working team of rescuers risks their lives to save someone from, e.g. an earthquake fuelled collapsed building, there's always some tadger eager to redirect the credit and gratitude to some "God," completely ignoring the fact that, if their absurdly ridiculous claims were true, said "God" would also have been responsible for causing the damage in the first place.
"Hallelujah! Praise the Lord for killing little Jimmy's entire family and all his neighbours but not little Jimmy himself."
I think he's referring to the motivation they had. The Internet as we know it today was not invented for the money. It's foundation was invented to provide communications even during war, most of its services were invented in universities to promote the sharing of information and knowledge.
The Internet, unlike other networks, was made in a spirit of openness and sharing. In Roman Catholics this is called the "holy spirit". They consider the feeling you get when you write some software and you suddenly realize that it's used around the world by thousands or millions of people a religious experience.
The fundamental question why people act that way is because god set it up so they would be like that, at least according to Catholics.
This post has been deleted by its author
"So it wasn't a gift from all those hard-working, hard-thinking science-and-engineering types afterall?"
No no no , you misunderstand - those guys may have apparently thought it up but in reality it was God who gave them their insight.
Sadly the old man sitting on his cloud doesn't seem to be ready to give anyone the insight into a cure for all cancer , poverty or climate change to name a few. But I'm sure he'll get around to it when he's ready. I guess all the billions who've died in pain and suffering over the years still haven't quite met his misery quota. Or perhaps they were all just sinners. Isn't that right religious sheep?
“Whenever communication is primarily aimed at promoting consumption or manipulating others, we are dealing with a form of violent aggression like that suffered by the man in the parable, who was beaten by robbers and left abandoned on the road.”..... Pope Francis
Here be a serial offender and pretender to a right dodgy throne of thorns
? ...... Pinocchio
before or after god invented paedophile priests and methods to hide their activity from the flock? Was the internet needed before their introduction? god really is a tricky guy.. inventing all this technology that uses horrible sciency stuff that directly contradicts the bible. It's like he doesn't exist at all.
Well what do you know, next thing you know the church will be making Alan Turing a saint, hang on didn't they already kill him with homosexual discrmination? How does it feel, Mr Pope, to be praising something as a gift from god that relies on modern computers while at the same time knowing that the man who helped create modern computers was a sinful homosexual who assuredly went directly to hell after the twin sins of homsexuality and suicide. Hypocritical bastard, I hope this modern method of communication gets my message to him, mind you his no doubt heavily censored link to the world outside the vatican won't let him see ideas and opinions his minders don't want him to hear or see.
Er no, you seem to be under the impression that the British Government takes its orders from the Pope. It doesn't ("The Bishop of Rome shall have no jurisdiction in the realm of England"). And Francis has already said it isn't up to him to judge gay people.
What's more, if you would kindly keep up, he is doing his best to weaken the Vatican and is getting his information from outside it. His latest is to throw a spanner in the works of the canonisation of Pius VI by opening the Vatican's wartime archives - with the approval of well know Catholic sympathisers like the Jerusalem Post.
As I note above, I'm an agnostic. But all those Catholics won't suddenly become Pastafarians overnight, or even in a 50 year timescale, and this guy needs to be given credit for trying to turn the supertanker round, even if he has to disconnect the controls from the bridge and yank on the rudder himself.
"What's more, if you would kindly keep up, he is doing his best to weaken the Vatican and is getting his information from outside it."
When/if he ever gets around to endorsing contraception so that the incidence of unpleasant STDs and unwanted children drops in developing countries THEN I'll believe he's a force for change. In the meantime he's just rearranging the deckchairs on the SS BusinessAsUsual.
The reality is religion and god want to take credit for all the 'good' that happens but none of the blame for any of the 'bad'. Strange thing is most people seem to accept this or view it at a very personal level as in 'thank be to god I missed that flight (that crashed)' but clearly no thought (or blame on god) for the person who got their seat and was killed along with the rest - no that was just god being mysterious or not caring or ??
Mystery - there is no mystery - he / she / it is almost certainly not there but I can't prove that any more than you can prove he / she / it is - unless you are going to descend to 'but the [insert preferred religious test] says'.
If you do not see people dying in a place crash as subjectively bad - guess you will try and paint children dying in a tsunami or from childhood leukaemia as 'good' as surely it was just the will of god or perhaps punishment for homosexual activity?
Humans pull themselves out of universal utter shite a bit => It was God!! (this actually means, as member of God's Own Franchise, "pay me")
Living standards improve => This is bad. You must put scare quotes around "better off". Believe in solidarity and communitarian lifestyle instead!! Repent!!!
It's like having an economist professsor tell you that your lifestyle is rotten, too affluent and somehow undeserved (why are you putting tail fins on your car?) - definitely not socialistic enough - and that you better get on with the War On Poverty. Yeah John Kenneth Galbraith, I'm looking at you.
Define "living standards improve".
For a lot of people in sub-Saharan Africa living standards have gone backwards since the 1950s. The downside of our improved living standards in the West is that some of the improvement has come off the backs of poor people in the Southern Hemisphere.
And; "living standards improve". Some things are vastly better; modern medicine has better outcomes than it did in, say, the 1970s. Roads are safer. Life expectancy is a bit longer. The smoking ban has been wonderful for asthma sufferers. But...
Houses and gardens are smaller and more expensive. Traffic is heavier. Social stratification is more rigid and inequality is a lot more visible. I know I'm an old fart, but my grandchildren live in a society which has in some ways regressed relative to the 60s, when I grew up. Sure, they go to State schools, but they go to highly desirable State schools in an area where the house price premium is probably around half a million pounds. The parents are going to be expected to fund their degrees, instead of a grateful State paying me to go to university and relying on me to pay more tax later on. Meanwhile, that housing bubble means that my taxes are going to the Duke of Westminster et al in housing benefit, and the people priced out of the market are blamed for this as if house price hyperinflation was something they caused.
Economics professors have tried to value intangibles, and it isn't easy. But simple minded capitalist progressivism isn't, in my view over a 50 year timescale, an adequate philosophy.
"Economics professors have tried to value intangibles, and it isn't easy. But simple minded capitalist progressivism isn't, in my view over a 50 year timescale, an adequate philosophy."
Economics is like "political science": both utterly worthless fields based upon questionable "science", using illogical and broken "math" to prove spurious "theories" that just dupe the ignorant into thinking they know what they're talking about, enabling them to separate the rubes from their money.
... and people still fall for it. Yes I'd have a lot of faith in religious book written by a sci-fi writer - right. It would probably make a decent read if people treated it as sci-fi and not religion.
Maybe Jedi really should be a religion on that basis and George Lucas could pay no tax on his huge wealth??
Maybe Vodafone should rebrand as Godafone - call itself a religion and pay no tax - oh they don't pay much anyway ;-)
This post has been deleted by its author
I defy anybody with a functioning brain to read the Book of Mormon without the feeling that their brain is dissolving into grey goo and seeping out of their ears. If anybody wonders how the sacred writings of the Jews retained credibility for so long, read the Book of Mormon, reflect that there are Mormons, including apparently highly intelligent ones like Mitt Romney, and note that parts of the Bible really are very well written.
No, we do have Bible 2.0, but it's in the form of psychology, economics and sociology textbooks. In a hundred years or so when the dust has cleared on research in these rather young subjects, perhaps there will be a canon.
Though, given the way that the Adam Smith Institute doesn't ever seem to have read the works of the said Adam Smith, just as most Christians seem to have missed out most of the New Testament in their reading, perhaps we shouldn't hope for too much.
"No, we do have Bible 2.0, but it's in the form of psychology, economics and sociology textbooks. In a hundred years or so when the dust has cleared on research in these rather young subjects, perhaps there will be a canon."
Science has no "canon": it's all theory that is open to disproof and change. Only religions and corporations have canon and do GM 's and will execute you for questioning them.
we are dealing with a form of violent aggression
And once a week the local vicar stands in his shoes for the sermon, with the purpose of what exactly? Obviously not manipulating others, since that would be a form of violent aggression.
Ah yes, I remember. We're speaking of religion here. Think as I tell you to or I will kill you. Suffer in life that you may have paradise after your death. Accept as sensible that half the human race is inferior by definition, and that the other half also have to do as they're told, on pain of eternal damnation.
Crawl back under the stone age rock you came from, Religion.
This post has been deleted by its author
A clergyman agnostic to god - sounds a bit of a hypocrite - I mean I'd prefer that to a delusional person who cherry picks or mis-represents passages from the bible (perhaps they should read some of the stuff about slavery, genocide / killing in the name of god etc.) for their congregation but people certainly do not need to be religious to do good things.
The problem is time, effort and benefit is wasted with the addition of proselytising. Then in places like in Africa when they may provide help for aids victims while at same time telling them that condoms are a 'plot' and actually give you aids or make you sterile or similar. Secular organisations also provide this help and genuine advice but without the bible bashing.
I'm at best an agnostic, but it gets me that Francis seems to have a better handle on the pros and cons of the Internet than any politician I've ever listened to. He has a nuanced view, and his remarks about the way it has been taken over by commercial interests are to the point. He is no Luddite. He isn't perfect, some of his views are pretty out of date, but with what, getting on for a billion Catholics in the world, whatever you think of organised religion it's better to have someone at the top that has a clue about the modern world than someone who doesn't.
“This is something truly good, a gift from God.”
Sums up so much religious thinking doesn't it? If it's good it must be a gift from God. That being the case mankind might as well stop trying to innovate because the good stuff obviously just happens becasue God wants it to.
Bad stuff? Well if you can't blame the devil most of it is down to the free will of man isn't it? How come good stuff never seems to be explained by the free will of man, only the bad stuff?
@Pontifex - 3.5 million followers
@RichardDawkins - 0.8 million followers
And your point is what, exactly?
I took the trouble to look up the Vatican's YouTube channel. Yes, it only has 80,000 subscribers. No, most of the videos do not have comments disabled. Read from that what you will but please don't cherry-pick data to fit your opinions.
Those figures ain't "cherry-picked".
I think you are missing the point.
The comment I was replying to pointed out that "Comments always disabled" on the Vatican YouTube channel while on a randomly selected anti-religious channel "Comments always welcome", the implication being that the former wants to discourage discussion (and, by extension, so do all religions) while the latter encourages it. The "cherry-picking" is that the "fact" that this conclusion is based on is rubbish.
Regarding the numbers of followers on Twitter or YouTube, both are equally meaningless with regards importance. Otherwise, charlieissocoollike should be considered a far greater authority than both the Vatican and DarkMatter2525.
"Pope Francis has shared his thoughts about the Internet, declaring it a wonderful thing but also expressing worries that it impair human relationships and inflict a kind of commercial violence on users."
Impair relationships like oppression of gays? Inflicting commercial violence on users as the church was famed for and is pretty wealthy.
"The variety of opinions being aired can be seen as helpful, but it also enables people to barricade themselves behind sources of information which only confirm their own wishes and ideas, or political and economic interests"
Such as there is a god, you are nothing but a servant or you will suffer eternal damnation, you must believe and everyone else is wrong?
“Whenever communication is primarily aimed at promoting consumption or manipulating others, we are dealing with a form of violent aggression like that suffered by the man in the parable, who was beaten by robbers and left abandoned on the road.”
So beware of manipulation because it is the devil trying to take you from god. Do as we say and we will save your souls. Honest :D
He seems a genuinely good guy, sincere and intent on dragging the church into the 21st century, and has in a short while done a lot of good things, from kicking out hundreds of pedophile priests and fighting corruption in the Vatican to furthering the cause of women in the church. He's worlds better than any of the recent popes, and that includes the arch-conservative and bafflingly popular John Paul II.
If he keeps this up I may have to stop disliking the catholic church.
"...the arch-conservative [Nazi] and bafflingly popular John Paul II."
Let's get it right, shall we?
I won't change my mind about them until they dissolve and liquidate the entire "religion", as well as declare the "bible" as just a bunch of Jewish fairy tales.
... I feel I've been sensing a rising tide of evil on the internet in the past year. Increasing volumes of virus/trojan-loaded email, Cryptolocker, malicious redirects, fake 'download' buttons (ads), video-ads with sound (what right do they think they have!), email addresses which should only be known to banks now receiving spam/trojans.... Sure this has been bubbling around for many years, but I somehow think a threshold has been crossed.
Even "legit" online advertising (via Google ads, or on Facebook) seems to be getting increasingly murky - to the point where I'm considering removing Google ads from my website (the income has steadily fallen, and I don't wish to be associated with the bad stuff).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022