Atheism cannot be blamed for the suffering of humanity, not believing in god doesn't make you someone who doesn't have a sense of morality. If you don't believe in a god then it gives you the chance to create your own morals and formulate your own personal opinions. These can be influenced by society, so are likely to be morals that society will find acceptable, and will share (eg rape being wrong. Also, progress through science is not illusory. Science has led to creation of new positive technologies in the past. It can bring negative effects but can't almost everything in this world bring negativity? Its people’s morals that affect the consequences of science, eg whether they use it for good or evil.

Lee, Knox RMPS Haddington,

i agree with johnjo from haddington, valid and very good point....yes indeed! Cake Day! :D

Gar , Haddington,

My view is that one person's beliefs should not be put aside and formed into a religion because our different beliefs help shape our world and create diverse cultures. The religion of Buddhism, for example, believes in the laws of kamma where you decide your own actions while thinking of the intention and consquences but still make morally good acts, therefore atheism can be accepted to make good decisions based on your own beliefs. I think that you can be morally autonomous on making decisions, you just have to take into account "situational ethics".

Claire, Knox RMPS,

I don’t think atheism can be blamed for suffering. Faith does not make a person good, only hopefully help them reach good morality. These decisions will still have to be independent, surlery decisions based on appropiateness, concequences and intention are the best decision a person can make. Science may not hold the anwers to stop future suffering, but just because you don’t believe in good doesn’t mean your morals are wrong and you should be condemned. A world has to create it’s own justice or how can we know what is good? God may be divine but we have to live in the world around us, illusion or not, only with self-belief and reason can good decions be made.

Hannah G , RMPS knox,

"Atheism has led to some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” known to mankind, the Pope said yesterday"

How can the Pope say that when one of the older popes (Alexander II) themselves ordered lots of European Christians to take back the holy land, prompting the start of the crusades, killing many people doing so? The Reconquista is another Christian war that probably wouldn't have happened if people had been atheist from the beggining. You see what I mean, or has this sort of statement already been made?

Duncan, Haddington, Scotland

Jennifer S., Northampton, MA

You wrote:

"I am not Catholic, but I can tell the Pope is very insightful and his comments strike very timely and true for this most lost of lost generatiions."

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I concur.

Stephen F., , Colwyn Bay, North Wales, UK

I think that the Pope makes a valid point as God should be, and is, included when making decisions. Fair enough, scientific progress may help with diseases in human progress but there is no formula to make a moral decision. Even atheists indirectly make moral decisions with God as they base their 'autonomous' decisions following the laws of thier country which in most cases, especially in Britain, are based around religious beliefs- The Ten Comandments. Therefore Atheists should take God into consideration aswell as their own opinions and question both to come out with what should be the best result for them and the people this decision affects.

JohnJo, Haddington,

Kevin - London : Why are beliefs based on one's own internal system of values superior to a set of imposed beliefs that are underpinned by fear of eternal punishment by the arbitrary and insane rules of ridiculous superstitions ?
Are you serious when you ask that ?
Do you seriously expect a reply ?

Dave, Cardiff,

ukhc,

So in what way is your morality, which is apparently groundless, superior to a belief in God, which you claim is also groundless?

Also, does your respect for human beings mean that you oppose abortion and euthanatic homicide? If not, how do you allow for these exceptions to the immorality of murder? In other words, what stock can one put in your claim to respect other human beings?

Kevin, London,

Kevin: "Why isn't the "default position" that murder is amoral?"

John, you need to look into the concept of 'moral sense', the partial truth of utilitarianism in recognising what we all know: that increasing pleasure and reducing pain is a Good Thing, the concept of social constructs (including human rights and equality) and how they influence people, and the notion that self-awareness and empathy lead rational and emotional people to particular behaviour. This is why atheists are often good, kind, and altruistic people despite not holding any theist views or following the notion of an absolute morality with a contrived external axiom.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Needless to say: when the Church was in a stronger position, its elite usually attempted to maintain and expand its power and the power of its organization.

In so doing, they were responsible for killing millions.
We won't even discuss its contribution to sectarian narrowness, its destruction of cultures (ethnocide) and its sexism.

Alas, even institutions dedicated to "spreading the word" can also spread torture, death and destruction.

Frank, Plant City,

Kevin,

I have respect for other human beings. I don't need a mythology to induce that sense of respect. Do you?

ukhc, Glasgow,

ie: "There are growing numbers of mathematicians and scientists who are considering, even believing that the chances of life occurring are so remote, ie negligible (like the existence of God?) that there must be a 'higher' form."

A growing number could be 1 to 2. What percentage of these people are considering this? Just a ballpark figure will do.

You're suggesting some sort of link using 'negligible' here, I think. We know for certain that life started so, however remote, something happened. We don't know that a 'higher form' exists. That's not a sound argument to say we 'must' infer the existence of the other if the chances are not mathematicaly zero. It's weasel words.

Also, take care not to equivocate between everyday, dispositional 'belief' and religious belief, they are different things.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

ukhc,

You have answered neither of my questions. You presumably want our moral, legal and political systems to be constructed on the "default" (i.e. your) position of atheism, and yet you provide nothing to validate it as a credible worldview.

Why aren't you agnostic about murder? Why isn't the "default position" that murder is amoral? (That is in fact the position with regard to abortion and euthanatic homicide in this country.)

Kevin, London,

Ah the anthropic principle raises its head - the ultimate circular argument that sucks apparently intelligent people in.

Lets see - someone wins the lottery - the odds against this are so fantastic that the whole lottery system must have been engineered right from the start to enable that individual to win on that day - Surely even children can see the fallacy here ?

Dave, Cardiff,

IE - apologies: having misread your post, I attributed to you an argument you didn't go as far as to make; the point however stands.

John- You appear to be confused as to the significance of mathematical axioms to the debate. Such an axiom is merely a definition, certainly not an 'unproved' concept. It does not claim to be an absolute yet unverifiable truth analogous to the untestable claims of religion. It is a starting point in a logical construction, that is all. I have a feeling where your argument is going on this - it will undoubtedly involve some loosely-defined logic and half-baked metaphysical parallels with the apparently arbitrary axiomatic foundations of mathematics, and ultimately science. Am I right?

So what are you trying to illustrate via Godel's incompleteness theorem? You've alluded to it, but made no direct use of it so far. Will you then dredge up the inevitable philosophical word-play vagaries of the ontological 'proof' of God's existence?

ukhc, Glasgow,

ukhc,

IE isn't talking about causality dilema...he's talking about the anthropological principle.

And apparent cross cultural contradictions do nothing to negate the real truth, unless you believe that everything is subjective.

Perhaps you could now answer the questions I put to you earlier.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

IE from Norwich - you should indeed realise that the 'solution' of a creator-god is not an answer; indeed it poses the same question as it attempts to answer, that being 'if something exists, by whom was it created?' Why does your 'first-cause' itself not require a cause? It 'exists', doesn't it? (or does it? ;-))

You are trying to use the Cosmological argument at one iteration to 'prove' the existence of a creator-god, but then withdrawing the same argument at the next iteration- very convenient!

Furthermore the philosophical argument pertaining to the existence of a superhuman creator doesn't address the issue of cultural-dependence of choice of (often mutually-contradictory) doctrine.

John- What is it you want me to address? You seem more concerned with quasi-scientific philosophical postulations rather than mathematics per se. You are referring to Godel's illustration of the ontological argument I presume?

ukhc, Glasgow,

David,

Your assertion that Godel is irrelevant here is unfounded, unsupported, and ignores completely the reasoning that I gave in my earlier posts. Godel is brilliant and incontrivertable in describing the limitations of scientific method within the superset of rational thought. This is something very relevant in a philosophical discussion such as this...although I can understand that such ideas are hard to digest.

ukhc,

I find the profundity of Jesus' message infinitely more satisfying than that surrounding the Greek gods. I don't think many people, if any, believe vice versa. Such ideas can and do cross borders. You still haven't answered my questions on the mathematics you use. Your posts are unusual for a mathematician to be making. They appear more like a regurgitation of the prepackaged arguments that comprise Dawkin's 'The God Delusion'.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John - setting the irrelevant references to Godel aside what you seem to be saying is that give a naturalistic explanation or a supernatural explanation for something you would choose the supernatural one.
How odd that this choice coincides with a belief in a mythical creator.
I repeat the question I posed earlier - has anything ever been explained to the satisfaction of rational, unbiased observers using a supernatural explanation?
Naturalistic explanations do not require the spontaneous creation of highly complex and infinitely powerful beings.

Dave, Cardiff,

There are growing numbers of mathematicians and scientists who are considering, even believing that the chances of life occurring are so remote, ie negligible (like the existence of God?) that there must be a 'higher' form. Bear in mind that these are people who are totally objective in their outlook. If you have any concept of the magnitude of the odds then you would realise the reasoning for this.

i.e., Norwich, England

John-

Have you read the Bhagavad-Gita? The Koran? Why single out Christianity as your chosen 'faith'? You've implicitly rejected those other faiths- may I ask why? Could it be that there is more than a slight correlation between your chosen religion and your parent culture's geographical location?

You really need to understand what faith is: the adoption of a culturally appropriate belief-system simply on grounds of the *desire* to believe it. It's fundamentally the inability to separate two quite distinct concepts: the desire to believe, and belief itself.
Numerous attempts have been made to dress up some of the fundamental principles of religion as pseudo-science (as you have eloquently shown), but this is its essence.

So one quick question: why not the Greek Gods John? Are you atheistic with regard to them? Why? Why the culturally convenient Christianity?

ukhc, Glasgow,

What a load of old cobblers the Pope comes out with from time to time. Religion has and continues to bring us the most hideous of barbarism. We need less religion in public life, not more!

Anna Langley, Cambridge, UK

Some rather nasty things are being said about the Pope and our great Catholic Church. There are problems and warts which exist in every society and organisation . Often they're concealed. No hope in God always means hope in self and others. That's to chose the finite instead of the Infinite One. That's to be morally crippled. We need the inspiration of God to help and give strength. The Pope's saying some vitally important things. We should not be put off listening by those throwing mud in constantly reminding us of well known unpleasant things to the exclusion of the good. What's wrong with them being so negative? I know. They lack hope. Yes, we all need more and we're not enough. We need God.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The irony is that Christianity has a similarly mistaken view of human nature as Marxism. But where Marxism is optimistic after its class revolution, Christianity is pessimistic without its god hypothesis. Of course, like Marxism, it's doomed to failure because of this ultimate flaw.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

To save contributers time going over old ground, a lot of this stuff about atheistic 'belief' and atheistic morality has been done already with John McD on the Times comments area:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/specials/article2717386.ece

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Nicola Perrozzi,

In terms of the rational atheist I'm not sure the words 'good' and 'evil' mean anything. With his intellect man clearly has the ability to overcome atavistic evolutionary behaviour, so without any external axiom the only rational way for people to behave is according to the dreaded Game Theory and its associated selfishness, fear and paranoia.

As a Christian, this vision of a world without God seems pretty hellish to me. I'm constantly told by atheists that they can provide sound and satisfactory moral frameworks, but I've yet to hear how.
Without an external axiom, there is no reason for anyone, for example, to sacrifice themself for the benefit of another.
Even without believing in God, you should see the need for an external axiom to provide a moral framework that can maximise progress and cooperation..however you will have no rational basis for assuming what that axiom could possibly be.

This is the trap that atheism leads us into.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

AG,

Indeed 'science' is not interchangeable with 'rational thought' nor 'understanding'.

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge using observation and experimentation. Science is a subset of 'rational thought'. Rational thought incorporates principles and criteria of valid inference and logical demonstration. Rational thought spawned the branch of scientific method.

Understanding within human consciousness is increasingly believed to be founded on principles of non-computability (non-algorithmic). This is not proven, however it has been well argued by John Searle and Roger Penrose, amongst others.
If the mechanisms of human consciousness and understanding are ever to be explained (and they may never be), then they will first require the discovery of as yet unknown fields of physics. Until the discussion of human consciousness remains philosophical and largely if not entirely outside of scientific investigation.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David Johnson,

Just to clarify...I wasn't intending to suggest that all atheists are unenlightened with regards to rational thought and scientific method, merely that most of them are (certainly most posting on these forums).

Also I didn't mean to suggest that religious beliefs should not be questioned. They should, but they should be questioned intelligently. This would seem to be precluded by the presumption that the chance of God is zero or negligible.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

ukhc,

You are confusing unbelief with disbelief. Atheism is the belief that the chance of God existing is zero or negligible.

Perhaps you can answer my questions on your mathematical belief.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David Johnson,

It relates because it A) shows that the perspective of the many unenlightened atheists is profoundly stunted and based in over-estimation of scientific potential.

Secondly I believe that the concept of God as love and faith as hope is an idealistic one based on non-factual experience and hence has inherent significance.

It is facile to juxtapose such a concept with the ridiculous (e.g. the flying spaghetti monster) in an effort to ridicule the former, but that is a crude and meaningless exercise.

Once the non-negligible possibility of God is accepted, the idle ridiculing of any particular esoteric religious belief seems to lose its power and appears simply lazy.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David Johnson,

Did I misread your post or are you suggesting that the Incompleteness theorems are speculative?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Skyler Bierley,

Northern Ireland was a sectarian/tribal dispute, not an ecumenical breakdown. Muslim/Jewish animosity in the West Bank is down to water and territory disputes, not religious nit-picking.

Clearly all people are capable of good and evil whatever label is put on them. Many who claim to be Christian do not behave as such. Likewise I would suggest that many who claim to be atheist do not behave as such.

Marx wasn't such a bad guy, the problem arose with his atheistic political doctrine that failed to account for the fact that man is not a machine that can be set free purely materially. Freedom entails the freedom of thought and action, and as such includes freedom to do evil as well as good. Marx thought that material equality was everything.

Try reading the encyclical that the article refers to.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Many, many people believe firmly that God speaks directly to them - the Pope, Bin Laden, Ian Paisley, Tony Blair.. to name but a few.
It is self-evident that at least some of these people are deluded.

That being so, it seems to me obvious that a supreme deity would have the sense to choose a less risky channel than the human mind.

Rosemary Roberts, Germany,

"Marx had great ideas: his error was foregetting God, says Pope." No, Marx's error was not forgetting that god, but the "god" every human being has somewhere within himself, his private heart and soul, that bright and dark place as the case may be. In the case of Communism, people were not prepared to sacrifice liberty and freedom to another god called The Communist Party. There is one virtue one would expect from someone like the Pope, which is to give people the choice to have their own opinion regarding the possible existence and nature of a supernatural power, but, sadly, Benedict's arguments are free of any self doubt. That is not the way to contribute anything to further peace and tolerance in this world.

Rene, Lausanne, Switzerland

Dave -

"Who made God?"

The same causality dilema will exist for the curious atheist: "who created the big bang/singluarity?"

Part of the problem is the natural human inclination to think in terms of the flow of time and causality. Numerous theories have been proposed to tackle this, e.g. Julian Barbour argues in "the End of Time" that there is no flow of time whatsoever but an infinite number of universe states one of which you exist in.
Hawking similarly argues that time began with the big bang, before which no causality could exist.
More interestingly Paul Davies suggests (Cosmic Jackpot) that we could exist in a (quantum) observer-dependent universe in which the laws are right for us to exist because we are here to observe them.

So what's your point? How do you explain creation?

It's nice to hear that your 4 year old is keeping you challenged, however.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Kevin,

It has nothing to do with axioms. 'Atheism', if you want to put a name to it, is the default position: it is the *lack* of a belief-system. It is not a belief-system in itself, and it is intellectual laziness to suggest otherwise.

If you make a conjecture, it is up to you to prove that conjecture.
Your conjecture is that a specific belief-system exists and is absolute truth. The burden of proof is on you, otherwise the default position remains.

Observable reality? Well you should know that that in particular is the one problem with mythological belief-systems: they are neither observable, not is there any evidence to support their claims.

Regarding matters of personal morality: are you suggesting that a sense of morality cannot exist without being defined by a mythology? Moreover, do you need that mythology before possessing a sense of said morality? Do you need a mythology to tell you not to commit murder? If your answer is 'no', then you have illustrated my point precisely

ukhc, Glasgow,

John:

Talk of an ideational "Platonic" realm, or references to the dictates of (speculative) science that our systems are of necessity incomplete, hardly amounts to support for the fairy tales of organized religion -- which is surely what is at issue here.

David Johnson, South Deerfield, USA/MA

I would just like to point out that the Pope is very mistaken. Throughout history Christianity has committed many more acts against humanity than atheists.
When Christian settlers came to America they persecuted the Native Americans because they did not believe in the Christian God.
The KKK is a Christian based group.
The nation of Ireland has a civil war going on due to the hatred of Christians and Catholics.
More than 90% of inmates are Christian, less than 2% are atheist.
Marx was an atheist yes...but he did not do what he did because he was an atheist. He did it becasue of his own personal thoughts.

Skyler Bierley, Carlisle, United States/PA

Hitler wasn't Christian.
He initially paid lip service to the Church, as he did to many other
organisations/people/nations. However he made his real feelings clear
through his actions (e.g. sending Catholics to the death camps) and his
later statements, including this from a recorded private conversation he had
with Borhman: ""The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming
of Christianity ... The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was
introduced into the world by Christianity.

I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they
would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye
upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting
dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head
whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be
stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

ukhc,

Is the mathematics you use a complete and consistent formal system, or as Godel showed, is it based on some external axiom/axioms? If it's the latter, then on what rational basis are you believing in these unproved concepts?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

There is not the smallest evidences that atheism systematically push people to commit evil things.
Some atheists may do evil things but not in the name of atheism. Why would anyone do evil for the sake of an absence of belief? On the contrary religion committed lots of crimes through history in the name of a holy book.
Stalin and Hitler did what they did in the name of dogmatic Marxism and insane unscientific theory.

Truth in matters of religion is simply the opinion that has survived - Oscar Wilde

Nicola Perrozzi, London,

Dear John McD from san francisco,

Could you please explain further what you mean by "confuse scientific method for rational thought and understanding."

or provide some links, I am curious about this argument.

Thanks,

AG, Toronto, Ontario

this is true, its just that i feel religion has (and will continue to be for very many) a way to codify this. ive always suspected karma of a simillar sleight-of-hand: it may have very much to do with spiritual energy/purity (am not 100% on it sorry to say), but it may also be as simple as: people are good to people who treat them well, and people who misuse and abuse others usually get whats coming to them because others make sure of that.

i have to say i like religion and am myself mildly religious, but i dont by any means think its essential for absoloutely everybody. however, i think that people generally need to have a shared code of morality/ethics/behavious, and that religion can provide that in a very positive way - however, granted that it doesnt always work...much the same as any social enterprise. anyway, sorry im being self indulgent now...

Michael Walsh, Manchester,

Richard Bayley-

Perhaps you can point to a place on a map where your mind is. Or where the platonic realm lies.

Perhaps you don't believe in either, and are at odds with theoretical physicists, cosmologists, and the majority of people the world over who choose not to reject the truths they are born knowing intuitively. Perhaps you are one of those people for who confuse scientific method for rational thought and understanding.

It seems that very few posts on here have anything to offer other than abject cynicism.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

The fundamental difference between Marx and honourable Pope is the basis of their beliefs. While presenting a critique of Capitalism Marx had the belief that redemption from suffering lies in the hands of the oppressed. Theistic philosophy, on the other hand, is highly speculative. It presents certain set of beliefs where human remains merely an actor and not an active agent of for personal and social redemption. History tells us that it is belief in rethinking and change which has worked better for humans. Why cant we continue to question the basic premises of our civilisational foundations, even the universal beilef that God is the redeemer?

Yogesh Snehi, Amritsar, India

Dave-

Kurt Godel proved with his Incompleteness theorems that none of our formal systems can be both complete and correct. The logic that set theory and mathematics etc is based on relies on external axioms.

Secondly, almost all mathematicians and theoretical physicists believe strongly in the platonic realm (seek reference in popular science books such as "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies, or Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose, "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking...etc).

Thirdly there is absolutely no way to explain your consciousness using standard scientific method. Godel and common sense dictate that our perspective is inherently limited, so there simply must be external 'supernatural' influences at work. That does not mean that such influences are irrational, merely that you have a hubristic and naive view of the place that science holds in the superset of rational thought.

Associating a ludicrous fact based idea (FSM) with an unprovable concept is puerile and false

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Its a bit late to try to excommumicate Hitler now. He was a Catholic, so was Mussolini and Franco. Also what about Rwanda? That is just within fairly recent times, without all that has happened in the past. All in all, not a good reference for the Catholic church, or for pointing the finger at others.

margie, victoria, australia

Kevin - London I think you are confused - give me one example of the solution to any known problem being verified as supernatural in origin.
To quote my 4 year old nephew recently - "Who made God?"

Simply put - anyone who says "God did it" is in fact saying "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it" - the statements are directly equivalent in verifiability.

Dave, Cardiff,

Over and over, truly ad nauseum, the religious try to pin the atheist label on Hitler. Let's take a few quotes from the man himself:

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

"... it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany."

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without
the practical existence of a religious belief."

If it looks like pig, smells like pig, squeals like pig and tastes like pig, it's most likely not a chicken.

I can understand the Jeebus Clappers not wanting Herr Hitler in their gang, but tough - you've got him. Repeatedly saying it's not true does not make it so ... just as repeatedly saying "there is a god" does not make it true.

MonoApe, London,

I am not Catholic, but I can tell the Pope is very insightful and his comments strike very timely and true for this most lost of lost generations. I appreciate his courage and faith, which all altruistic religions can benefit from.

Jennifer S., Northampton, MA

How revealing. They are getting very insecure. The poorly informed, mendacious and fantasists are out in force digging the hole even deeper.

Every utterance from their leaders seems to be another admission that their atrocious religion is on its way to join its predecessors. This one only lasted a few hundred years in Europe before starting to fall apart but, like with the body counts, modern weapons make a difference. Education is too widespread now for such stupidity to survive.

Aiken, Berlin,

I am pleased that the Pope is finally acknowledging the need to protect the planet. Given that overpopulation and the environmental degradration and habitat loss go hand in hand, I hereby call upon the Pope and the Catholic church to renounce their woefully outdated views on birth-control.

Elizabeth Elliott, Ottawa, Canada

ukhc,

As a mathematician you will know what an axiom is. What axiom do you suggest that is both compatible with observable reality and supports the proposition that atheism is true?

By the way, can I take it that you don't want to be the one "free-thinking, independent-minded" atheist who breaks the party line and actually agrees that chastity is a virtue? If not, it wouldn't surprise me coming from "The People of (THE) Reason" (the reason I have already mentioned).

Kevin, London,

It's obvious from the shallowness of the comments by self-proclaimed atheists here that very few have gone to the trouble of actually reading the encyclical. You want proof of the existence of God but your rejection of the possibility of God's existence is the equivalent of closing your eyes and saying you can't see.

One of the main points of the encyclical is that faith not only has the potential to transform behavior for the good, but also to provide hope. History is full of such conversion stories. On the other hand, when Hitler and Stalin abandoned their Christian faith (and they both did) their loss of faith didn't transform them into humanitarians, did it? The only thing scarier than a religious fanatic who is claiming to do God's will, is an anti-religious fanatic who is playing God.

JudithM, Brainerd, USA

It is pretty clear that most people who deny the obvious logical conclusion that atheism is false are motivated to do so because they are afraid that, with a revived Christian culture, the supply of fornication will be drastically reduced.

This Pope speaks well. Now he just needs to make the internal discipline of the Church match its doctrine. In particular, he should not wait for anti-Catholic clerics to retire - he should dismiss them immediately.

Kevin, London,

The Pope places the blame of history's greatest atrocities on atheists. Coming from the source, should anyone really be surprised?

In the Vatican, history is trivial, as is, science, reason and logic. We know that millions were slaughtered in the Crusades. Subsequent to the Crusades, multitudes were either burned at the stake, beheaded, tortured or simply executed in the name of Catholicism.

Native Americans were slaughtered (estimates range in the hundreds of thousands to millions) in the name of Catholicism during the Spanish Inquisition.

The lives of millions of non-Catholics and Catholics have been destroyed by the Catholic church's psychological and physical brutality and it's abuse of destructive dogma. Even today, it has only grudingly accepted responsibility (by being forced to...by secular courts) for modern-day atrocities, committed by clerical sexual predators, on children.

Elder George Carlin, Sandy, Utah, U.S.A

The Pope informs us of Hope, the least understood of virtues. Besides the the daunting task of leading the modern Church, Benedict still has the responsibility to contribute and yes bring understanding to the hearts of all. The mind and the heart work together to abide in infinite compassion. Human kind has undergoes spiritual evolution. The world Plato lived in was cruel beyond imagining. We can thank the Catholic Church for the humane values all the writers share. These humane values are too fragile to exist without Divinity. It is not lost on Benedict that they are only somewhat less fragile within the Church itself. It does not advance our collective progress to drudge up the sins of the past everytime the Pope speaks. For without the striving for and awareness of the overarching and immediate presence of Divine Life there simply is no Hope for us.

George, Warwick, NY

Bill Q - you can't be so selective in quoting scripture, I'm afraid.

You talk about feed the hungry - God is not Santa Claus. We are God's hands and feet on earth today, now. He has given us free will and we can decide whether we feed and clothe our brothers and sisters. Go back to Genesis if you will and see that God made us stewards over this world, He has enabled us - hey, Science has enabled us! - and if people starve today it is not through lack of supply in the world.

michael, harrogate, uk

The Pope places the blame of history's greatest atrocities on atheists. Coming from the source, should anyone really be surprised?

In the Vatican, history is trivial, as is, science, reason and logic. We know that millions were slaughtered in the Crusades. Subsequent to the Crusades, multitudes were either burned at the stake, beheaded, tortured or simply executed in the name of Catholicism.

Native Americans were slaughtered (estimates range in the hundreds of thousands to millions) in the name of Catholicism during the Spanish Inquisition.

The lives of millions of non-Catholics and Catholics have been destroyed by the Catholic church's psychological and physical brutality and it's abuse of destructive dogma. Even today, it has only grudingly accepted responsibility (by being forced to...by secular courts) for modern-day atrocities, committed by clerical sexual predators, on children.

Elder George Carlin, Sandy, Utah, U.S.A

And this from a pope in the grand tradition of Alexander VI!

Geoff, Oxford, UK

Well, I'm the God of Spelling and Coherent Thought and some of you would be spending eternity perusing red-hot iron dictionaries in Hell, were there such a place . . .

Geoff, Oxford, UK

So the man man that led the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition is preaching the ills of removing Catholicism from peoples lives? Its a bit rich don't you think? Maybe the reality is that given the obvious rape of most of the world by the church, coupled with the church's crimes such as ignoring the holocaust, sexual abuse of children and religious wars and persecution (amongst others) and the enlightenment of education of the masses have led people move away from the folklore of 2000 years ago and moved to interpreting the world for themselves.

Anton, Geelong, Australia

the pope is talking a good deal of sense- so much scientific advancement for its own sake does not appear to male human kind happier, rather the opposite, judging by the tone of some of several atheist-apologists in these columns. By the way, it is interesting to note that vitriolic anti-catholic sentiment continues to vent its spleen. Why not give the new testament a run out, guys?

michael, harrogate, uk

He's right you know. Christ would be spinning in his grave (if he had one) at the presumptuous behaviour of the Pharisees and Sadducees who now inhabit the Vatican.

He also said that Christianity itself had ignored Christ’s message that true Christian hope involves salvation for all, focusing instead on individual salvation. “We must do all we can to overcome suffering, but to banish it from the world is not in our power,” the Pope wrote. “Only God is able to do this.” - and herein lies the problem. If only God is able to do this, and of course God loves us "if you child asked you for bread, would you give them a stone" - "see the lilies of the field, they spin not, neither do they sew, yet Solomon in all his glory was not arraigned as one of these" - yet God CHOOSES NOT TO DO SO. What does this say for his love of humankind? In the USA and many juridstictions this is deemed to be a criminal offence described as 'Criminal Indifference' Is mankind more moral than God?

Bill Q, Derby,

What drivel.
Of course the pope would attack atheism;belief in God is his bread and butter. No God=no pope.
But it still doesn't mean that there is a God who exists outside of the pope's imagination. The reality is our ancestors,who didn't know the difference between the real world and the supernatural,made it up because it's the best they could do.
But we are wiser now,thanks to science,and we have to reject the god hypothesis as nonsense,and wishful thinking.

Colin Nicholas, Kelowna BC, Canada

In its own way, this is just as ridiculous as worrying about what name you give a teddy bear. Personally, if the church behaved a bit more like Christ and bit less like a sexually obsessed, misogynistic, hierachical insitution exercising as much temporal political power as it canI might be more inclinded to give its superstions a bit more credence.

anne, London, UK

With respect to his infallibleness, and as an atheist former Catholic, this is simply not true:

"A distinguishing mark of Christians is the fact that they have a future: they know that their life will not end in emptiness."

If it was true, what would be the point of faith. Indeed there would be none. Faith is believing in spite of not knowing.

Ian, Tokyo, Japan

QUOTE: Benedict added: “It is no accident that this idea [atheism] has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice: rather is is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope.”

This is preposterous. No force/event/trend/institution in human history is responsible for more suffering, war, murder, cruelty etc. than organized religion. I acknowledge that there are some good things in religious texts - hard to argue with the Golden Rule, and I actually try to live by that myself - but any "faith" that forces an exclusionary stance is flawed from the outset. As soon as you say "those who don't believe X are wrong/damned/criminals" or similar, you've created an inherently combative position.

As for justice... if you can only be counted on to do the right thing when you're being watched, or under threat of some punishment, what good are you?

Unwashed Heathen, Denver,

Well, Kevin of London, we now have a pretty good idea of what your problems are.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

all events mentioned by flavius have to be understood within the context of their time...life for most people is incredibly difficult and the concept of a god can be healthy, provide hope, give strength..religion has always been and will forever be, political. it is a centre of consolidated, hierarchecal power which impacts human life and routine on a thinking, behavorial level. christians have historically been a dominant force on the globe therefore there actions will always be under intense scrutiny...in any case, at the time these acts took place the worlds population was a tenth of what it is today...historical events...

jon, london,

“the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false”. Your quotes. And I presume His Holiness's words.

Wasn't God supposed to be omnipotent? Does the Christian Credo not begin with "credo in unum deum patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae"? The ability of the Christian God to do anything should not be in doubt, particularly by its representative on Earth, or should it?

Or am I missing something else which is intrinsically false?

David, Wallingford,

It seems strange that the Pope doesn't mention the evil done by that well known Catholic - Adolf Hitler. He believed he was doing God's work. As he wrote in Mein Kampf "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

But does that mean that Catholicism is evil - of course not. We'll leave that sort of flawed logic to the Benedict.

However this Pope seems very fond of attacking other religions or those of no religion rather than dealing with the problems in his own Church such as child abuse and the covering up of that abuse.

Paul Millington, Reading, UK

"He evidently has a limited, and self-serving view of recent history." - Dear Mr. Farrar: The Pope is not writing a "me" book. He is writing a doctrinal statement, providing reasons why materialist thought cannot go far without a moral underpinning and pointing out some obvious examples where materialist thought failed.

Though I am not a Catholic, I agree with his statements. Benedict takes the materialist point of view and carries them to their logical extremes. I will take them further:

Thoughts are not material. Cognitive scientists and philosophers such as Ryle note that the brain is not the thought. In the same way, morals are not material. A purely materialist point of the world, if it excludes morality, must also exclude thought to be consistent. Have you ever noticed that even the most strident atheist apologist doesn't deny thought exists?

Morals and thoughts have a reality as the directors of behavior. They are within Benedict's competency as a priest and thinker!

Gregory Baker, Odenton, Maryland, USA

Flavius iulianus,

More people died during the 20th century because of atheism than the previous 19 centuries combined.

The Crusades were to take back the Holy Land that the Muslims invaded. The Holy Land was Christian for 600 years before the Muslims came in and killed thousands of Christians, forcibly converted many others, enslaved children, and raped the women.

The Spanish Inquisition is a liberal fantasy. No more than a couple hundred people were killed--which is deplorable regardless of the number.

Another fallacy of yours is that pagans chose to convert, they were never forced.

And the holocaust was done by Nazi's that believed in Norse gods and arianism that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Just to name a few.

Tito Orgasz, Houston, TX, USA

Whilst the pope is probably right to say atheism has led to some of the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice known to mankind, religion has led to most of them.

Andi Ye, Otsu, Japan

. The word "encyclical" should read " encynical".

Iain L M Laurie, Elgin,

As a mathematician, I would be very interested to hear what 'logic' Kevin is using to come to the conclusion that 'atheism is false'.

Surely faith/mythology based belief-systems shy away from logic? Too much rigorous analysis and reason invariably results in their respective houses of cards collapsing.

ukhc, Glasgow,

I think regardless of any religion (Christiaity, Islam etc) and non-religion (atheism) there will be good and bad eggs. There have been a great many religious people to have committed acts of atrocity and many non-religios people too. Many of my atheist friends wouldn't regard Communism and Nazism as atheistic creeds' but would contend they are a different form of quasi-religious politics. As a Christian I think the Pope has a point, but that he has to define what he believes an atheist country is, before he can site if atheism has performed the above attrocities or not. Personally I that the majority of humanity (Christian, Muslim, Atheist etc) will oppress those they consider to be in the wrong. And anyone who thinks otherwise I would ask you to consider history and the state of the world today! Few indeed are those who truly adhere to freedom of speech! Peace

Jonathan, Preston, UK

It is no coincidence that fascism arose and first flourished in Catholic regions and nations: Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Bavaria, and Franco in Spain.

George, Lutz, FL USA

Both the German and Russian populations were conditioned to such "belief" by the Catholic Church and Russian Orthodox churches respectively throughout their histories. It is hardly surprising that despots find this conditioning useful as a method of control over their populations. All they need to do is project their great leaders as "living gods" (something happening now in North Korea). Stalin did not commit his crimes in the name of atheism and Hitler was a Catholic!

I think it's a bit rich for someone who promotes the view that use of condoms is evil in HIV stained Africa to start making statements about morality and ethics.

Christopher Mitchens, London, UK

Supernatural religious slavery has done more to destroy humankind and the wonder of the human mind than any other form of intellectual banality know to history.

As Robert Green Ingersoll, the Great Non-believer, so elequently stated at the end of 19th Century, "At long last, Reason, Observation and Experience--the Holy Trinity of Science--have taught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so."

As the world's societies split and fragment into mindless, fanatical camps of religious extremism, blind faith, supernatural infallibility and patently false doctrines, Ingersoll's common-sense writing offers the touchstone of self-created happiness derived from the human mind in harmony with Nature outside the inane conscripts of religion.

Popes, Archbishops and all of the other titular trappings of this Greatest Hoax of All are simply clinging to their mindless source of power and wealth: Believers in myths.

Ian Tarquin Hume, Inverness, Scotland

Religion: Most (if not all) Wars, witch hunts, the holocaust, crusades, extremists, terrorism, subjugation of women, bigotry, sectarianism, Spanish inquisition, spread of sexually transmitted disease (they condone the use of condoms), exponential increase in population leading to lack of space and food (they condone the use of contraceptions), they have forever been holding back science and medical advances.

The big religions are in charge of vast quantities of wealth yet none of them will sell their wealth to pay for the starving, poor or homeless. Until religions cure world hunger, poverty and homelessness (which they can do with all their money) none of them should be listened to. They are just money hungry businesses that have the ability to cure world hunger and poverty but choose not to. It is obviously more profitable to keep people poor hungry and coming to worship... I thought you were supposed to HELP your fellow man?

Graeme, Edinburgh,

Dear oh dear, the tired old comments about the inquisition, crusades etc. Yes, the church did, to some degree, back these ventures. But they are also intrinsically bound up with the socio-political forces in play at each respective point in history. Ultimately it was the various monarchs who determined whether to implement these policies because in each case it assisted them politically. Read some history!!

And as for Hitler being a Catholic; yes, he was baptised a Catholic as were most Austrians of the time, but he was of course no Catholic in practice. Rather a big difference don't you think.

And as for Aids, the Roman Catholic Church is just that, a Church. It is not in the business of dispensing pharmaceutical products. If you feel the need to provide contraception to the third world, why don't you complainers all get together and buy them some and stop whingeing about it. There's nothing stopping you!

A.Newman, London, UK

The Pope launched an attack on atheism today, saying that it had led to some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” known to mankind --- thats the opening sentence.

What a lot of rubbish.

Christianity has led to even worse violations and cruelty..

Get off your horse, pope, say and do something positive.

dan, cape town, south africa

You couldn't make it up. Has he never heard of the inquisition? Can he not see the harm religion is doing in the world today? How many atheists blow themselves up on tube trains?

He seems to be confusing atheism with the totalitarian communist system. And his argument against science is that it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. The wrong hands often being Christians, Muslims and Jews!

The only hope we have is to stop "believing" in things, and use our brains. Ask questions, consider the possibility that we might be wrong, look at the evidence - and use reason to work things out, instead of superstition, prejudice, ignorance and wishful thinking (i.e. religion).

Giordano Bennetti, Swindon,

Atheism is actually the *absence* of a dogmatic belief-system, so how can it be responsible for anything?

Sloppy thinking yet again from another religious leader, or should I say, 'Mythological-fantasy enthusiast'.

UKHC, Glasgow,

And the Cathollic faith is noe cruel? What about
eternal torture in Hell if you do not believe or has done wrong things whitout time to repent before dying? And gruesome torture in Purgatory for this and that?

Crucifying his own son - could this god not have invented something better for atonement? Not to mention that this God choose to create a world where animals are dependent on eating each other?

There is spirituallity and love to be found outside
the established religions and,of course, inside
as well. But it should be free of sadisme and cuelty and and horrible threaths.

LSH, Oslo, Norway

Typical reaction from the secular atheists.

The church makes no claim to a perfect history for all of its members. Please examine their doctrine: One of the most fundamnetal is original sin. Man, in his present state, is not as he should be. This includes those inside the church, as well as out.

That being said, there is no way one can equivocate what the official church did vs those outside the church. This includes Hitler, who was a Christian only as a technical matter.

John, Bufalo, New York

Almost without exception, every conquest and atrocity committed in British Imperial history was committed by Christians.

The annihalation of the indigenous peoples of America, Australia, South America and so on were all committed by Christians.

What is the man on about?

As for Hitler being an atheist, well maybe he was but the SS and Nazi apparatus was full of Catholics.

Mike Hall, Gosport, Hants

Many humanists and atheists are no better than any religious zealots.

Chris, UK,

Full text here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

Long live Pope Benedict!

David, Toledo, OH

Of all the things going on in the world today and he decides to pick on atheists. What did we ever do to you? Yet there is so much pain the catholic church is responsible for. So much for humility.

Perhaps he could comment on the cover up of abusive priests that happened at the very highest level. After all if that isn't a moral vacuum I am not sure what is.

For the record I reject faith because there is no evidence for it. Not a shred. And even if I did embrace god it wouldn't be through an obscenely wealthy church with the kind of bloody history that Catholicism has.

Anna Charlton, London,

A popular retort to atheists is that Hitler, Stalin, et.al. were not true Christians. That is not the problem. The problem is that they were able to get millions and millions of Germans, Poles, and Russians, who WERE christians, to follow them. THAT is the problem. Hilter did nothing to stamp out the catholic or lutheran religions (as institutions) and Stalin did not stamp out the Russian Orthodox church (although he and his successors tried). Where is christian courage to resist evil? THAT is the question. The answer is: a christian is only as courageous as his beliefs are verifiable. Since, en mass, christians doubt, there can be no courage. Hitler and communism were defeated by reason and the empirically verifiable superiority of the western european/american way of life, reflected in the superiority of our collective military might in the case of Hitler, and superiority of the free market in the case of communism.
.

jimmy the goose, Resistance, USA

by the way, el papa's comments on modern man not desiring eternal life are spot on. I can't imaging a punishment more horrific than spending eternity with the smug nitwits that populate christianity. So, let me get this right: my mom and dad got drunk in the 60's, had sex, and now I'm saddled with eternity? Hey, I get bored after a week's vacation. How am I supposed to deal with eternity of boredom? Please, 60 or 70 good years on this beautiful planet are sufficient.

jimmy the goose, Resistance, USA

Half-wit. Why is he right and why should we believe him? Going back to the dark ages is not progress.

Ben, York,

Is this man trying to be funny? It hasn t made me smile, but it has got me saying 'Youve got to be joking'

dhr, cardiff,

What are these moral problems associated with atheism? Why do those who believe in god think they have the monopoly on morality?

I would have thought the fact that the majority of atheists choose to lead a decent, law abiding life respecting others without the need of the promise of an afterlife if we do so makes us the moral superiors. I don't need threats of damnation or the promise of salvation. I just try to lead a decent life because it's the right thing to do.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

The message of Christ has obviously been overlooked. An tolerant inclusiveness replaced by intolerant divisiveness. All humanity, irrespective of religious conviction, bears some guilt. To isolate and criticise, can serve no useful purpose. It would be far more constructive to elevate comment to the usual hollow platitudes.

Stephen, Sydney, Australia

If the whole world prayed at the same time, could God stop global warming?

Angus, Montreal,

As a serving soldier, here's my message to the pope:

thanks for keeping me busy, without you I'd be out of a job.

Ta ta

K.C, Oxford, UK

Organised religion is under seige. They know the game is up. The different faiths have already ceased mutual hostilities. The wagons of faith are circled together in "inter-faith dialogue" as the cavalry of atheism and secularism rounds upon them.

The pope realises that he must extend the faith alliance to include other enemies of reason such as Marxists. Any ideological movement that wishes to exert control over the masses and suppress the individual may be tempted to make common cause with the church.

The enemies of reason will band together as their numbers and arguments dwindle.

Daivd Rochester, Liverpool, UK

I Don't try my best to cause death and suffering to all around me, either do other atheists.

People don't make decisions based on creed, they justify them in the most convenient terms.

The church didn't call for the annihilation of indigenous populations in south America during the Spanish colonisation, just as atheists do not kill people they don't like.

Religious types fear judgement from God, Atheists fear judgement in life, as there is no afterlife.

The Pope might have talked about Nihilism with much more success.

However I challenge anyone to list more atrocities committed in the name of an Atheist cause, than those committed for a religion. ( I really hope no one tries to say 'COMMUNISM!'. The correct term for most regimes would be state capitalism, and in any case death was bought about by very un-Marxist leaders.)

g, West Drayton, uk

Yes I see it all now, believing in things that aren't true makes us all better people, this is why I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster plus he or she has the added bonus that nobody has massacred or tortured anyone in his or her name.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg

Dave, Cardiff,

This kind of discourse will remain until either:

- Another religion unequivocally proves Christianity is wrong;
- Christianity unequivocally proves their God exists
- Science unequivocally proves no God exists

Everything else is hyperbole. Someone please come up with an answer soon, and help stop all the atrocities committed in the name of religion.

Darren Pinder, Cheltenham, United Kingdom

Of course, the power base of all religious movements relies on their followers buying into their particular brand of ancient pre-scientific mumbo jumbo. So it's not surprising that they will attack dissenters such as atheists. In some places 'crimes' like atheism, paganism, and apostasy still carry the death sentence! Maybe the pope should explain away the holocaust in the americas when the faithful got there, or of the cathars in france, or the mass murders (convert or die) of charlamagne.

Also, I recently saw a documentary about how nazi war criminals (the same crew who had systematically wiped out jews in europe) were smuggled out of europe in 1945-47 by the church. It was so that they could carry on the good fight against godless communism.

It's time to ditch religion and take responsibility for our own actions so that mankind can move into adulthood.

paul, sheffield, uk

Those pesky atheists! Always bringing up trifles like the Crusades, the Inquisition, Gallileo, and Jihad! They rely on reason instead of relying on belief as they should! And when they are decent law abiding citizens (which obviously is not often) then it can only be because they think it is the right thing to do, not because they are threatened with an eternity of torture if they fail to do so. These atheists are obviously responsible for all of the natural disasters which befall the earth - the actions of a Just God inflicting his righteous anger upon all and sundry. They must be stopped!

Gerard, London, UK

It is pretty clear that most people who deny the obvious logical conclusion that atheism is false are motivated to do so because they are afraid that, with a revived Christian culture, the supply of fornication will be drastically reduced.

This Pope speaks well. Now he just needs to make the internal discipline of the Church match its doctrine. In particular, he should not wait for anti-Catholic clerics to retire - he should dismiss them immediately.

Kevin, London,

“the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false”.

In other words, the Pope believes and states that a just world is impossible and unattainable, either with or without faith. Worse that than, he would have us all, believer or non-believer, stop even trying? Isn't that something that's urged by an altogether different person in the Book of Job?

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

The view that marxism sees "Man" (sic) as 'merely the product of economic conditions' " is a common misunderstanding of Marx. This is actually what is known as "economic determinism", and it is by no means synonymous with, nor restricted to, marxists. In fact, Marx emphasised the importance of all material factors, _including_ religion and other ideologies, in making humans what we are. If Benedict is criticising marxism-leninism as practised in Eastern Europe and East Asia, c.1930-c.1990, then that is a different matter.

Auf Hebung, Trier, Germany

Even as a staunch atheist, I actually find my self agreeing with the Pope. Certainly in this country we've torn down the authority and the sanctuary offered by the church, our schools, the police; the fact we've replaced this with nothing more substantial than extended opening hours at the pub has left us in a bit of a mess.

People have less and less concern for the real people around us - the fact that charitable donations have risen sharply over the past few years is not an indication that we are growing in our compassion; merely that we wish to distance ourselves from anything that might interfere with our day-to-day existence.

For all the wrongs done and the blood shed over religion, the Ten Commandments are really not bad rules to live by - in stamping God out in the name of Liberalism, we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater somewhat...

Peter, Hartlepool,

News Flash: Pope diagnosed with Alzhiemers

oscar, Wellington, New Zealand

The Christian hope is the hope of salvation and eternal life in union with God and immersed in God's infinite love. Christians believe we were created to know, love, and serve God and this gives us true happiness. The Pope's critique on atheism is that it is fundamentally flawed to deny our spiirituality and the supernatural. Without God whom are we are we accountable to? This belief can lead to the unspeakable crimes such as the millions who died under atheistic regimes in the former Soviet Union and Red China, especially in their intial establishjment. This is not to say that so called Christian countries have been perfect. We are all human and therefore are subject to sin and error. Therefore, we ask for God's forgiveness and mercy, but still hope in the resurrection and eternal life. Life is much more than the material.

Greg Nuno, Los Angeles, USA, CA

Oh please....has the pope ever heard of the Inquisition? The Crusades? Islamo-fascism? and on and on and on........

paul, NEW YORK ,

All Gods, from time immemorial, are the invention of people for the comfort of people and in an attempt to explain the seemingly inexplicable. Which of these invented Gods is the Pope referring to?

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

Thank you Pope Benedict. We need to tackle the real issue. Athiesm. Like the abortionists who pronmised legalized abortion would promise a safer world, atheists are saying the same exact thing about aborting religion, particularly Christianity. Such a false prophecy. Dawkins, go take a hike.

Danny, Dallas, TX

Marx had great ideas? Odd for the Pope to have missed Acts 4:32 from the Christian Bible, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."

Dave Scott, St Albans, UK

Delete 'Atheism' as the first word in the aricle and insert 'The Roman Catholoc Church' and then the Pope really makes sense

Trevor, Nanchang, China

Michael Walsh, friend. So there we have it. Be nice to the person next to you, then they are nice to the person next to them and so on, the domino effect will (eventually) heal the world. Nothing to do with religion, just letting love in.

nonplussed, London,

nonplussed: exactley. i think that unimaginative people so often have problems with religion because they do not see a connection between a sense of general indebtedness and responsibility to *something*, and this feeling finding an outlet in trying to simply be kind to others in this world wherever possible.

Michael Walsh, Manchester,

Perhaps the Pope will give clear and concise directions to these two 'real places' of heaven and hell so we can all confirm they do exist ,other than in his imagination.

Richard Bayley, Leeds, England

Yet more evidence that the RC church disavows Scripture and it's teachings - it is made clear there that salvation is not for all, but only for the elect. This being the case, they can only be making it up as they go along!

Luther Umsatz, Teddington,

Islamic loonies crash aircraft into buildings, behead reporters, bake Iraqi children in ovens and serve them to their parents and riot over cartoons and teddy bears - and the Pope is worried about atheists?

John W, Windsor, Canada

Michael Walsh, Manchester, of course faith helps, faith in each other. And respect to Misha Low. We are in this together, and it IS a short ride.

nonplussed, London,

I always think of the moral atheist in terms of Wile E Coyote, who has just run off the edge of a cliff without, yet, noticing the force of gravity. Without God, one can explain why other people should act morally, but not why I should.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

I think the reason he is not mentioning the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity is because this an encyclical is about ATHEISM, not Christianity! There has been a definite surge in the atheist movement in the last 20 years or so, one that has never been seen before. He is addressing this, and the dangers of atheism. The Church does not deny the Crusades or the Inquisition (I do encourage you to actually learn about these yourselves, instead of the taking the public school version of it. It's much different than you really think)

brad, chicago,

im fairly sure from the above that he made it clear that the church has not always been in the right. i certainally was quite aware of then whilst reading it, at any rate.

regardless of past misuses of religion, it is true to say that faith helps. i personally think that this is what it all comes down to. a shared moral code and a faith in & sense of gratitude towards something nebulously "larger than yourself "is a fine thing to instill into people & i see no problem with that.

people often forget when posting here (or anywhere else) that religion can be misused, but is not in itself a bad thing any more than a spade is intrinsically a bad thing because it can be used to clout somebody over the head with.

I find in my own experience that it is mostly people without imaginations who have problems with religions in general. it is a very peculiarly petty-minded thing to imagine that all religion is bad, controling, negative and so forth.

Michael Walsh, Manchester,

Well, he's the pope, he *would* say that wouldnt he! He's hardly going to big up the other team, is he.

Nick Chalk, Devon, UK

Hitlr was a Catholic?! Don't make me laugh. Hitler was a devout Social Darawinist. If you do even a little bit of research you will realise that the Nazis were very keen to form a new organised religion of Atheism focused on the near deification of hitler himself, with the SS serving as a king of Knights Templar Priests for the new world order.

As for the destruction of indigenous cultures, true, conversion to christianity would end old Pagan Worhip practices, but this is not always a bad thing. Unless of course we want to bring back the Aztec religion that slaughtered people by the hundreds so the rain would fall down.

And on the subject of the Medieval church, the Inquisitions were arms not only of the church but also Secular states as well, who used them to consolidate there own secular power. Those days are long gone. However, the moral problems that arise from Atheism are still very present.

Charles, Broad Run, Virginia, USA

Nice article, but do you have a link to a copy or PDF of the encyclical so we can read it ourselves?

Phil, Washington, DC

This Pope is obviously deaf and blind to the egregious history of the Catholic church as well as his own involvement with the Nazis in his youth. Talk about sinners casting stones....

Christina S., San Francisco, California

It's nice to see that the Pope doesn't have any better arguments against atheism than ordinary believers who contribute to messageboards and blogs. They all 'know' that god is looking after them and that they will ascend to heaven. The pope does what they do and makes baseless assertions that the things he believes in are real. Atheists must have got him worried with our questioning and probing and our silly insistence on proof for things we cannot see, feel or measure. I particularly laughed at his criticism of science.

Pope's of the past of course would have been able to take a more robust line with people they disagree with. Now he is forced to be more 'Christian' about it and merely enter a debate. As such he is no better than a politician or pressure group and as susceptible to making partial and flawed arguments.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

I'm glad the Pope is imploring people to respect and protect God's creatures and creation.

Brien Comerford, Glenview, Illinois, United States

Some whacko is sure to pop up and say "Hitler was an atheist"

Amazing how they distance themselves from any Christian caught "out" or committing atrocious behavior.

The Popes words this time, are full of subjects that will raise an outcry. He is regressing, and this is good for humanity...the RCC is losing ground finally and this is good for mankind.

owlafaye

owlafaye, Dayton, USA/WA.

Of course the Pope made no mention of the atrocities committed by the great Fascist leaders Franco, Mussolini and Hitler (all of whom were Catholic) nor did he mention his own service in the Hitler Youth during the Second World War.

He evidently has a limited, and self-serving view of recent history.

D. Edward Farrar, Washington, DC

I thought that the church exhorted followers to engage in the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the destruction of indigenous populations because of a non-belief in a particular religion, etc. And it goes on today. The church must answer for their opposition of contraception thereby promoting the aids epidemic, and the uncontrolled world population explosion.

Misha Low, Humanist.

Misha Low, North Vancouver, Canada

"[Atheism] had led to some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” known to mankind."

I guess I would believe that if someone could help me understand how the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the forced conversion of pagans, the annihilation of paganism and pagan culture, and the Holocaust (just to name a few) were carried out by atheists and not Christians.

Flavius Iulianus, Redmond, WA