Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

youcrazyjesus!

Min wrote: »

Who asks for Richard Dawkins to come over to Ireland to preach about atheism and how we theists are all terrible and support God knows what and we are all stupid?

Largely, that's pretty much true. Presuming you support the Church on a variety of issues you are support discrimination against women, homophobic prejudice, the spread of AIDS in the name of some ideas plucked out of the air on sexuality, the denial of scientific evidence on a wide range of issues, denial of womens rights, all in the name of some theology which was been tacked on bit by bit to the original Gospels, a theology that makes it up as it goes along. Presuming you think the Pope has no case to answer, in which case you support his actions, the facilitation of child abuse. I'm not being funny. These are the facts.

It is usually when he has a book out about how we are all deluded....is that not ramming atheism down people's throats?

Have you read any of his books? Do you know what's in them? They cover a wide range of subjects.

axer

My name is URL wrote: »

It's fast becoming one

How? Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is not a belief in itself.

The Mad Hatter

Dawkins' own comment on the matter: "I did NOT (his emphasis) say 'I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI'."

More importantly: "I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain."

So it's not his idea, nor is it his announcement, nor is it a publicity stunt. It's some journalistic digging and an attention-grabbing headline which doesn't reflect the facts.

From here.

wes

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Resolutely opposing religious claptrap or illegal practices under the cover of a collar and cloak and refusing to yield does not make you a fundamentalist.

Hitchens supportted the illegal war of aggression that is the Iraq war, and even after being show to be completely wrong about the war, and WMDs etc, the guy still supports it. I have no issues with Dawkins, but Hitchens imho will drag him down in this.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

There is no such thing as state atheism. Atheism has no structure. The absence of a religious state does not make it an atheist state. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity. They are not two sides of the same coin.

A lot of what you say above is correct, except the state Atheism part. China's government is officially Atheists, and the same was a true for many other Communists regimes.

Here is some info form Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Modern_history

I know Wikipedia is not the best source, but I have read the same thing in several other places about Comminists regimes.

So, state Atheism is a very real thing.

My name is URL

bleg wrote: »

No it's not. People are becoming more educated and abandoning their backward belief systems.

When people explicitly target other religions and people's beliefs, I don't see that as Atheism.. I see it as anti-theism

youcrazyjesus!

A lot of what you say above is correct, except the state Atheism part. China's government is officially Atheists, and the same was a true for many other Communists regimes.

Here is some info form Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Modern_history

I know Wikipedia is not the best source, but I have read the same thing in several other places about Comminists regimes.

So, state Atheism is a very real thing.

You can't go to the Sunday Atheist service at the local Atheist Church. You don't worship nothing. Atheist is the absence of something, not the existence of something. Atheism in Communist countries exists only as standard element of a political ideology and for control purposes. It's important to note it doesn't exist outside extremely authoritarian Stalinist regimes.

Min

Dave! wrote: »

No it's holding an opinion and sharing it with others

Shoving things down throats would be the purview of religious types



Why would he? Atheism is not a creed, it doesn't have a book that advocates killing, etc.

Stalinism, however, does.




For Dawkins it is a creed...

Darwin's book on evolution is the bible for Dawkins, (though he is stupid to see it as a reason for atheism).
Dawkins, Hitchens and others are the preachers.
The congregation are those who support them.
Not much different to a religion for some of them.

State atheism = rulers who believe in no afterlife, no need to account for what they do in this life so lets say you are Mao or Stalin, the Khmer rouge, all attacked religious people, all killed millions of people but according to Dawkins we can't blame atheism.

Dawkins can preach all he wants but he doesn't have the answers, he avoids what he doesn't like and he said it all when he said theology shouldn't be studied....clearly he didn't study it.

Darwin did approve of eugenics, I have not seen Dawkins denounce the man he has a mancrush on.

bleg

My name is URL wrote: »

When people explicitly target other religions and people's beliefs, I don't see that as Atheism.. I see it as anti-theism

That's not a religion.

wes

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You can't go to the Sunday Atheist service at the local Atheist Church. You don't worship nothing. Atheist is the absence of something, not the existence of something.

Yeah, you right about the above. Never disagree with this portion of what you said at all. Never said Atheism was a Religion.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Atheism in Communist countries exists only as standard element of a political ideology and for control purposes. It's important to note it doesn't exist outside extremely authoritarian Stalinist regimes.

Yes, a lot of what you say is right. Still State Atheism exists, and that was all I was saying. Which goes to show, that pretty much anything can be used for the purpose of controlling a populace.

youcrazyjesus!

As I expected, it was a journalist generating the story, not Dawkins. Presumably everyone will stop whinging about him now, in relation to the attempt to bring a case against Ratzinger.

bleg

Love how this thread has been side tracked away from the Pope covering up child rape and onto how atheism is a religion. Confused...

Min

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Largely, that's pretty much true. Presuming you support the Church on a variety of issues you are support discrimination against women, homophobic prejudice, the spread of AIDS in the name of some ideas plucked out of the air on sexuality, the denial of scientific evidence on a wide range of issues, denial of womens rights, all in the name of some theology which was been tacked on bit by bit to the original Gospels, a theology that makes it up as it goes along. Presuming you think the Pope has no case to answer, in which case you support his actions, the facilitation of child abuse. I'm not being funny. These are the facts.



Have you read any of his books? Do you know what's in them? They cover a wide range of subjects.

Ask all the women who go to church why they go if they are discriminated against?
They say homosexuals should be respected but so what if they do not approve of homosexual sex/relationships?
The church actually preaches what is the most successful means to stop or slow the spread of AIDS, research shows being faithful to one partner is number 1, abstinence is number 2 and condoms are only third when it comes to what is the most effective in the ABC approach.
Denial of what science?
Womens rights as in murdering the unborn? or so what if the church is anti-contraception..
I am not the judge of the Pope but some of the stuff said is ridiculous.

My name is URL

bleg wrote: »

That's not a religion.

But a lot of people religiously subscribe to it. They use anything they can to bring into question the beliefs of others.. it's why there's a thread stickied in A&A about the church abuse scandal.

I consider myself to be an Atheist, but I wish those that just want to attack religion and believers would make the distinction between the two, instead of dragging the meaning of Atheism into the realms of Anti-theism, which I don't subscribe to

Dave!

Min wrote: »

For Dawkins it is a creed...

Darwin's book on evolution is the bible for Dawkins, (though he is stupid to see it as a reason for atheism).
Dawkins, Hitchens and others are the preachers.
The congregation are those who support them.
Not much different to a religion for some of them.

State atheism = rulers who believe in no afterlife, no need to account for what they do in this life so lets say you are Mao or Stalin, the Khmer rouge, all attacked religious people, all killed millions of people but according to Dawkins we can't blame atheism.

Dawkins can preach all he wants but he doesn't have the answers, he avoids what he doesn't like and he said it all when he said theology shouldn't be studied....clearly he didn't study it.

Darwin did approve of eugenics, I have not seen Dawkins denounce the man he has a mancrush on.

Wow, just a terrible terrible post

Not worth engaging with to be honest

Flamed Diving

Min wrote: »

Does Hitchens speak out against state atheism?

I don't know. I have seen him heavily criticise North Korea, but that country is the most theocratic nation that has ever existed (as he puts it).

Min

bleg wrote: »

Love how this thread has been side tracked away from the Pope covering up child rape and onto how atheism is a religion. Confused...

The problem is the people who are accused of wanting him arrested have previous form and one would question their sincerity when it came to child abuse within the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic I can say we don't need Atheists preaching to us, the same people who excuse the communists who had state atheism and killed tens upon tens of millions of people.
You can't blame atheism they say.....communists are just pushy atheists with too much power.
If they accepted atheism led to millions dying then we might get somewhere but these people are in denial to the crimes of their own......

Flamed Diving

Dave! wrote: »

Wow, just a terrible terrible post

Not worth engaging with to be honest

Where would you begin? Only so many hours in the day...

Min

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I don't know. I have seen him heavily criticise North Korea, but that country is the most theocratic nation that has ever existed (as he puts it).

So they revere the leader but he doesn't say anything about anyone found to be practising a religion ends up in a concentration camp?

Min

Dave! wrote: »

Wow, just a terrible terrible post

Not worth engaging with to be honest

You can't argue against it you mean.

Min

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Where would you begin? Only so many hours in the day...

By using your brain to come up with a counter argument.

Flamed Diving

Min wrote: »

So they revere the leader but he doesn't say anything about anyone found to be practising a religion ends up in a concentration camp?

Missing the point a bit. Go read up on the subject. I will consider reply to your posts, at that point.


Until then, my boy.

Flamed Diving

Min wrote: »

By using your brain to come up with a counter argument.

It wouldn't be an argument, it would be a lecture. That's why I couldn't (and Dave) be bothered. I have been on this forum for years, and I have run into loads of your type. When I do, I always think of the saying:

'A blind man will not thank you for a looking glass'

I suggest you educate yourself.

The Mad Hatter

Min wrote: »

So they revere the leader but he doesn't say anything about anyone found to be practising a religion ends up in a concentration camp?

Drop in the word "supernatural" before "leader," and the word "different" before "religion" and you'll see what we're on about.

rubadub

Min wrote: »

He would have the British government telling him not to come as it would be really damaging for Britain but I say he would go and face any of the consequences, Britain would be in trouble with a lot of nations that have a high percentage of Catholics, the US would react negatively towards Britain.

Let the British arrest the Pope, it will not be the Pope who will be in trouble with other nations.

I think the pope will be seen in a bad/worse light no matter what happens. If they revoke his invite it looks just as bad, if not even worse than him cancelling. Rather than being "ill advised" to let the plan be known publicly I think it is very clever. If it was secret they could have discreetly cancelled.

Dave!

Min wrote: »

You can't argue against it you mean.

Not quite, I've argued against it countless times in other forums, I just try to avoid getting into discussions with mental deficients (not that you are one) as I know they haven't any interest in truth or honest, so it's just not worth the hastle

You won't see me posting in the creationism thread in the Christianity forum, for example

Herbal Deity

Min wrote: »

You can't argue against it you mean.

Lol. Your post makes it quite clear that you think if someone doesn't believe in God they are bad people devoid of morals.

Is it not obvious why someone would not be bothered arguing against you?

Min

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Missing the point a bit. Go read up on the subject. I will consider reply to your posts, at that point.


Until then, my boy.

I know all about North Korea, every house has to have a picture of their revered leader, they are inspected to see they have the picture up, they thank the leader for all that is good in their lives.
It is a cult of sorts.

However I have also listened to reports of how if one member of family is discovered to be practising some religion they and their entended family are taking away and put into concentration camps and some never appear again....

North Korea is a fascinating nation given how it operates...oh yeah another fact, N Koreans are 1 foot shorter than S Koreans.....

So don't make me out to be ignorant please, it is judging one without knowing one.

GLaDOS

This thread makes me facepalm so much...

They're helping a trial against a person who knowingly covered up child abuse. Grown men molesting children. It's not an attack on belief. People can go on believing if they want, this won't stop them in the slightest. But just because they're the "voice of god" or whatever, shouldn't make them immune from legality.

People are saying "Ah but shure they won't get actually arrested, just pushing an agenda lulz"

Of course they're pushing an agenda, an agenda against child abuse and the people responsible. I personally think it's unlikely anything will actually happen, but increasing the pressure against this organisations disgusting leadership is only a good thing.

The same thing happened with the bus advertisements. It wasn't Dawkins' idea at all, he just supported it. Naturally gutter journalists picked that up and said it was all his doing, because he's easy to hate, and we see it again here, people ignoring the point of it all, purely because of the people involved.

ejmaztec

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Who's ramming atheism down anyone's throat?

Atheist fundamentalists of course.

Min

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Lol. Your post makes it quite clear that you think if someone doesn't believe in God they are bad people devoid of morals.

Is it not obvious why someone would not be bothered arguing against you?

Where did I say that?

I am talking about State atheism, why did the Khmer rouge attacks Buddhists and Christians in Cambodia and kill over 2 million of them?

Why should religion be seen as evil and atheism all rosy and fluffy when it isn't the case?
When humans are involved does it matter if someone has religion or is an atheist when it comes to wrong doing given we have have a personal choice to make.

I am saying if one wants to blame religion then why should atheism be excused when it comes to state religion or state atheism.