Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

Flamed Diving

ScienceNerd wrote: »

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.

I'm sticking this on my fridge.

bigeasyeah

So anyone see the match?

Min

Dave! wrote: »

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

If I am not one then what am I?

I feel you are implying what you say I am not and I could question if you have any interest in the truth if it doesn't suit your opinion.

Flamed Diving

Min wrote: »

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.

Because atheism was not the motivating factor. You know why? Because there are not atheist doctrinal teachings, and anyone who thinks there is needs to get their head checked.

By contrast, what motivates religious attacks? Is there, perhaps, any text they could refer to?

Why does this require explanation?

Min

rubadub wrote: »

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.

If he goes knowing he will be arrested, it shows the Pope has courage and is not afraid.
The point is the British government will not want him arrested, it would just be suicide for their country.

Min

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because atheism was not the motivating factor. You know why? Because there are not atheist doctrinal teachings, and anyone who thinks there is needs to get their head checked.

By contrast, what motivates religious attacks? Is there, perhaps, any text they could refer to?

Why does this require explanation?

So atheists attacking religious people can be ignored as atheists are not strong willed enough to be fundamentalists?

Why in China do religions have to be registered with the government and why are the people who follow Falun Gong arrested?
Why is the head of the Catholic church in China the Chinese government and why is their the underground Catholic church who are loyal to Rome.

Why do Atheists want to control religion in China?

The Mad Hatter

ejmaztec wrote: »

Atheist fundamentalists of course.

Ok, leaving aside the oxymoron that is that term, let me rephrase the question:

How?

youcrazyjesus!

Min wrote: »

Ask all the women who go to church why they go if they are discriminated against?

Because they've been indoctrinated to believe in the claptrap drilled into them from the time they're 2.

They say homosexuals should be respected but so what if they do not approve of homosexual sex/relationships?

It says homosexuals are sinners. It doesn't equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual ones. Therefore they discriminate.

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.

They also teach that condoms are ineffective. You get sinister developments like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm

You also get the Pope claiming that condoms make the AIDS crisis worse. This is sinister and evil.

Denial of what science?

Condoms/AIDS.

Womens rights as in murdering the unborn? or so what if the church is anti-contraception..

If it doesn't have a brain, it isn't human. The Church isn't just anti-contraception, it's anti-human on a number of counts.

youcrazyjesus!

Why do Atheists want to control religion in China?

Atheists don't want to control religion in China because they're atheists. The Chinese government wants to control all aspects of people's lives and they tolerate no other power structure in the country other than the Communist Party. To bring the People's Republic of China into this debate on atheism is absolutely ridiculous and profoundly idiotic.

Flamed Diving

Min wrote: »

So atheists attacking religious people can be ignored as atheists are not strong willed enough to be fundamentalists?

Why in China do religions have to be registered with the government and why are the people who follow Falun Gong arrested?
Why is the head of the Catholic church in China the Chinese government and why is their the underground Catholic church who are loyal to Rome.

Why do Atheists want to control religion in China?

Only you will ever know how you constructed that post, based on my response. Only you. It's beautiful, in a way.

Anyway, I'm out.

vodafoneproblem

So Ditchkins are using people's misery to push their own agenda? Nice.

"Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal
...

The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it. "

Sounds like he wants to challenge the Vatican itself as well as the Pope.

I think this sums them up nicely.

Min

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Atheists don't want to control religion in China because they're atheists. The Chinese government wants to control all aspects of people's lives and they tolerate no other power structure in the country other than the Communist Party. To bring the People's Republic of China into this debate on atheism is absolutely ridiculous and profoundly idiotic.

The communist party implemented state atheism though, it is the official position of their country.
They want to control religion because it is not compatible with atheism.

bleg

Min wrote: »

The communist party implemented state atheism though, it is the official position of their country.
They want to control religion because it is not compatible with atheism.

No. They want to control religion because it's not compatible with communism.

Min

bleg wrote: »

No. They want to control religion because it's not compatible with communism.

Someone needs to edit Wikipedia it seems....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State atheism has been defined by David Kowalewski as the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice

philologos

Irrespective of what people feel about the Pope, or the RCC. The question of God and the question of who Jesus was and why He came is still independent of this.

This argument, or this line of reasoning doesn't really end those questions.

Besides, I thought A&A was the forum for atheism and agnosticism

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

Irrespective of what people feel about the Pope, or the RCC. The question of God and the question of who Jesus was and why He came is still independent of this.

This argument, or this line of reasoning doesn't really end those questions.

Besides, I thought A&A was the forum for atheism and agnosticism

Nice plug there Jakkass, cheers

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

Besides, I thought A&A was the forum for atheism and agnosticism

Its spreading...:pac:

youcrazyjesus!

Jakkass wrote: »

Irrespective of what people feel about the Pope, or the RCC. The question of God and the question of who Jesus was and why He came is still independent of this.

This argument, or this line of reasoning doesn't really end those questions.

Those questions don't arise for those of us who don't believe in Bronze Age children's stories.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

Nice plug there Jakkass, cheers

Not so much a plug, but rather just a note, that although one can criticise human authorities, and human leadership and so on. It doesn't actually discredit the Gospel, or what Christians in the end believe. If every human being ever to have attempted to live their lives according the Gospel were discredited, it still wouldn't discredit God, or the life of Jesus.

A reasonable point I would have thought.

If atheists can have their plug in any thread in AH during any day of the week putting forward their point of view, I can have my plug in AH

bleg

Yes and the reason they practice state atheism is to block any viewpoints that contradict their doctrine i.e. communism. Hence they ban other political parties and religions.

They're using religion (or lack there of) to further their own agenda. Their persecute against freedom of religion are not down to any inherent need of atheists to suppress other religions, rather, they are borne out of a need to control the lives of their citizens by censoring other political parties, religions and half the ****ing internet.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

Irrespective of what people feel about the Pope, or the RCC. The question of God and the question of who Jesus was and why He came is still independent of this.

This argument, or this line of reasoning doesn't really end those questions.

Besides, I thought A&A was the forum for atheism and agnosticism

Independent and hence perhaps entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the Pope is guilty of anything? :P

Its also entirely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence that Dawkins has anything to do with this, a point most people here seem to miss.

youcrazyjesus!

Min wrote: »

The communist party implemented state atheism though, it is the official position of their country.
They want to control religion because it is not compatible with atheism.

As I've stated, that's the last reason on earth they want to control religion. They want to control everything. It has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. And you're making the mistake of equating atheism with religion. It is not the same thing.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

Not so much a plug, but rather just a note, that although one can criticise human authorities, and human leadership and so on. It doesn't actually discredit the Gospel, or what Christians in the end believe. If every human being ever to have attempted to live their lives according the Gospel were discredited, it still wouldn't discredit God, or the life of Jesus.

A reasonable point I would have thought.

If atheists can have their plug in any thread in AH during any day of the week putting forward their point of view, I can have my plug in AH

Of course not, there's plenty of reasons to see the Bible as just a bunch of stories and God as a man-made invention, but the CC sex abuse scandal is not one of them, correct

Prof.Badass

Min wrote: »

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......

Min wrote: »

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.

The awful things that have happened in communist countries were a result of people abusing the power of the state.

The current child abuse scandal is a result of people abusing the power of religion.

Sometimes you get situations that are some sort of ****ed up mix of the two (such as in some muslim countries).

However, it would be hard to get a situation where the power of atheism is being abused, as atheism in itself does not wield any power.

The power of both the state and religion need to be kept to a minimum. However, there is one crucial difference between the two: a state is needed, religion is not.

youcrazyjesus!

Jakkass wrote: »

Not so much a plug, but rather just a note, that although one can criticise human authorities, and human leadership and so on. It doesn't actually discredit the Gospel, or what Christians in the end believe. If every human being ever to have attempted to live their lives according the Gospel were discredited, it still wouldn't discredit God, or the life of Jesus.

Dude, you sound like the preacher from Deadwood, that is worrying.

Sheeps

Dawkins is a jackass and always jumps to conclusions when he argues his agenda with theists. He's not objective at all in his approach.

Sheeps

Jakkass wrote: »

Not so much a plug, but rather just a note, that although one can criticise human authorities, and human leadership and so on. It doesn't actually discredit the Gospel, or what Christians in the end believe. If every human being ever to have attempted to live their lives according the Gospel were discredited, it still wouldn't discredit God, or the life of Jesus.

yeha the popes actions and human actions dont discredit the gospel, the gospel discredits the gospel.

iUseVi

Sheeps wrote: »

Dawkins is a jackass and always jumps to conclusions when he argues his agenda with theists. He's not objective at all in his approach.

He does sometimes get the wrong end of the stick but what does this have to do with the Pope's guilt or innocence? :mad:

youcrazyjesus!

Sheeps wrote: »

Dawkins is a jackass and always jumps to conclusions when he argues his agenda with theists. He's not objective at all in his approach.

What? He should place himself somewhere in the middle between crazy theists and his previously strongly held opinions? He should avoid "conclusions"?

Dear God. If you exist, please save me from this.

Double-facepalm.jpg

Sheeps

iUseVi wrote: »

He does sometimes get the wrong end of the stick but what does this have to do with the Pope's guilt or innocence? :mad:

nothing, but it does have a relevance to the thread since Dawkins is instigating these proceedings