Sigh. Pope Leo’s first sermon…

[CurlewKate]

“"A lack of faith is often tragically accompanied by the loss of meaning in life, the neglect of mercy, appalling violations of human dignity, the crisis of the family and so many other wounds that afflict our society,"

I don’t know why I expected anything different. Maybe because he likes Wordle?

It seems to me that the message is to spread the belief in Jesus to those people who either haven't got "The Good news" and whose lack of faith means they are more likely to inflict wounds on society.

If someone suggested to me that my lack of faith meant all those things he said but if I had faith, then I would be less likely to behave that way, I think that's the wrong approach to take to get someone to become religious.

George Micheal said it better, though.

You have got that wrong

You’ve got that wrong.

It would be interesting to have an organisation where people came together to celebrate their humanity, to try to do good in the world, to protect this planet without having any religious element.

This thread is about the Pope. Start your own thread, don’t derail this one.

Like Greenpeace?

“Greenpeace's core values include non-violence, personal responsibility, financial independence, promoting solutions, and having no permanent friends or foes. They also prioritize environmental justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion”

I think there are many organisations like that without a religious element. There is also the humanist society if you are looking for something a bit more organised. They also do weddings, funerals etc

But do they do nice songs and have that feeling of community...

A friendship group and a choir!

Someone brought up "sex abuse by priests" - that was where the "derailment" started.
But instead of calling that out some people were happy to go down that route to bash religion a bit more.

Who's in charge then?

Major figures of New Atheism include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, collectively referred to as the "Four Horsemen" of the movement.

That's from Google - is Google wrong?

They are prominent thinkers and speakers-among many others. Does not mean they are in charge.

So is there a consensus of opinion or does everyone just peddle their own theories?

I am totally with you OP, and am surprised how many people are defending this.

there is a difference between selling the benefits of religion, which is reasonable (could be something like ‘come to us for solace, guidance, community, inspiration etc’ and demonising the non religious as mass violators. I mean, please. The Catholic Church and religion generally has fuelled as extensive violations, abuse and death as anyone else. I’m sick of being told that because I don’t believe in God, I have no compassion or moral compass. It’s utterly entitled and self-delusion.

I’m also amazed how little outrage there is at the continuing, explicit exclusion of women from any hall of power, voting, or true leadership role in an organisation of such global influence. Why is that ok?

why is it so hard for us to battle even for the right to have women leading rape crisis centres for women……. But the Catholic Church lets only men vote for their next man leader, who will lead over a billion people, doing a job there is no reason an woman couldn’t do, and everybody bows down and thinks it is wonderful.

Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God. That’s it. No theories.

So no common uniting thread between all these people?

Despite Dawkins expounding his theories in a book?

A pretty random bunch then?

His points apply to those even with faith. Any faith. Humans are humans and you’ll find the best and the worst in every faith and non-faith.

There are no theories is atheism.

It's simply the absence of belief in a higher power.

Northern Ireland, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the current conflict in Gaza... to name a handful off the top of my head.

Yes, the uniting thread is an absence of belief in God.

I wasn't aware that atheism needed leaders.

Does it need a leader to say that they don't believe in something?

Atheism is absence of belief.
There are people who are prominent non believers and loudly proclaim that they don't believe in a God.

I don't believe in unicorns. Does that absence of belief need a leader?

I don't believe in God.

It's up to people who believe in God to prove their theory.

Not for people who don't believe in God to prove their theory that God doesn't exist.

The default view should be that there is no God.
People have a theory that God exists.
Prove it

How many people have written books on religious topics? Squillions. Doesn’t make them a leader, it makes them a commentator. I find Richard Dawkins to be an arrogant pain in the bum. So did Christopher Hitchens, as it turns out.

Atheism doesn’t have or need a leader. There is no line to toe.