Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

Options
1…5791011

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


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

    No he isn't.


  • Options
    #183
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Sheeps wrote: »
    nothing, but it does have a relevance to the thread since Dawkins is instigating these proceedings
    No he isn't, read the thread, he is helping, wasn't his idea

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #184
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    No he isn't, read the thread, he is helping, wasn't his idea




    YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • Options
    #185
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    Dude, you sound like the preacher from Deadwood, that is worrying.

    Irrespective of what I sound like. There is a key truth in the post. That is discrediting the RCC, the Pope and anyone else doesn't stop people believing in God, and in Jesus.

    The question of whether or not God exists, isn't in correlation to how much dissent there is against the RCC for a number of reasons, leaving aside that many Christians worship in other churches, but that God and Jesus are actually distinct from human leadership of churches to begin with.

    As such any such argument or complaint against the RCC, doesn't cut it really in promoting atheism. Indeed, people even of Christian beliefs can assert annoyance at what has happened in the RCC.

    All the better a reason why Dawkins and others shouldn't ram their atheism into the middle of it.
    Sheeps wrote: »
    yeha the popes actions and human actions dont discredit the gospel, the gospel discredits the gospel.

    I invite you to explain how.


  • Options
    #186
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    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.

    Attachment not found.

    ive seen multiple cases where hes offered explanations for things that hes simply not qualified to give explanations for and he states it as absolute fact

    obviously you can come to conclusions via the scientific process of investigation and reasoning, however when you jump to conclusions skipping the whole investigation process like dawkins often does they are very often the wrong conclusions


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Irrespective of what I sound like. There is a key truth in the post. That is discrediting the RCC, the Pope and anyone else doesn't stop people believing in God, and in Jesus.
    I made that point myself, this is about a criminal, not attacking faith. Some people seem to be reading the OP and jumping to the post button.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #188
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Sheeps wrote: »
    ive seen multiple cases where hes offered explanations for things that hes simply not qualified to give explanations for and he states it as absolute fact

    obviously you can come to conclusions via the scientific process of investigation and reasoning, however when you jump to conclusions skipping the whole investigation process like dawkins often does they are very often the wrong conclusions

    Specific examples would be nice.


  • Options
    #189
    Agonist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,329 ✭✭✭Agonist


    This thread was very depressing until Min showed up. The only people who have a problem with the pope facing arrest should be those who see him as God's representative on earth, who respect him and what he stands for, who condone enabling child abuse and similar reasons. So Min's view makes loads of sense, because his views are as outrageous as the pope's behaviour.

    It's only a few weeks since there were posts here on AH about the best way to go about making a citizen's arrest of Sean Brady. Suddenly the fact that Dawkins, who has been very publicly against what the pope stands for, is approving of this action, has made people reconsider the severity of the pope's crimes. That makes no sense.


  • Options
    #190
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I invite you to explain how.

    Oh god nooo!


  • Options
    #191
    seanybiker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,898 ✭✭✭✭seanybiker


    That dawkins chap is some numpty. Hate seeing his quotes all over here and people hanging on his every word.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    seanybiker wrote: »
    That dawkins chap is some numpty. Hate seeing his quotes all over here and people hanging on his every word.

    How many times have you seen his quotes "all over here"? Which threads? What specifically has he said that makes him "a numpty"? Specifically.


  • Options
    #193
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    seanybiker wrote: »
    That dawkins chap is some numpty. Hate seeing his quotes all over here and people hanging on his every word.
    *sigh* This is exactly what people opposing this want, people focusing on Dawkins

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #194
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    *sigh* This is exactly what people opposing this want, people focusing on Dawkins

    It's a good strategy too, people love a good Dawkins bashing.


  • Options
    #195
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Specific examples would be nice.

    like basically any time he tries to offer a biological or social explanation as to why religion exists. you can find an example of him jumping to conclusions in just about any of his interviews.
    Jakkass wrote:
    I invite you to explain how.
    because the gospel is written by man and is full of shit


  • Options
    #196
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,381 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Isn't the Pope a head of state, thus immune from this kind of thing?
    Sheeps wrote: »
    nothing, but it does have a relevance to the thread since Dawkins is instigating these proceedings
    Sheeps wrote: »
    when you jump to conclusions skipping the whole investigation process like dawkins often does they are very often the wrong conclusions
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #197
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    What? He should place himself somewhere in the middle between crazy theists and his previously strongly held opinions? He should avoid "conclusions"?
    also, thats not how the scientific process works. you dont place yourself in any position to investigate something, you investigate first and conclude after

    also, yes I didn't read the thread but it doesnt change that dawkins is a jerk


  • Options
    #198
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,771 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Sheeps wrote: »
    like basically any time he tries to offer a biological or social explanation as to why religion exists. you can find an example of him jumping to conclusions in just about any of his interviews.

    so you don't have any actual examples then?


  • Options
    #199
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Sheeps wrote: »
    also, yes I didn't read the thread but it doesnt change that dawkins is a jerk
    And the fact that's not relevant to the point doesn't make you feel the slightest bit silly?

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #200
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sheeps wrote: »
    because the gospel is written by man and is full of shit

    Fair enough, so no proper reason then?


  • Options
    #201
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    And the fact that's not relevant to the point doesn't make you feel the slightest bit silly?

    what point? this is a thread and there are multiple points. it's applicable so long as it has some relation to the topic at hand, which it does.

    dont take my dislike of dawkins to heart, i know you dawkins fanboys get pretty upset about these things
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Fair enough, so no proper reason then?

    how is bible being full of shjit not a proper reason? its made up.

    what ever youre in to i suppose


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Xluna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,329 ✭✭✭Xluna


    If Dawkins pulled it off he'd replace "Big Jack" as Irelands most loved Englishman.


  • Options
    #203
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's about assessing someone fairly. I'd disagree with Dawkins in numerous respects, and I found his God Delusion quite dull. I think he can be a bit over the top when discussing about belief in particular. However, he is a brilliant biologist, and he's very committed to science, that's praiseworthy.


  • Options
    #204
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,771 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Sheeps wrote: »
    what point? this is a thread and there are multiple points. it's applicable so long as it has some relation to the topic at hand, which it does.

    dont take my dislike of dawkins to heart, i know you dawkins fanboys get pretty upset about these things

    lol your posts are bad :D


  • Options
    #205
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Sheeps wrote: »
    what point? this is a thread and there are multiple points. it's applicable so long as it has some relation to the topic at hand, which it does.

    dont take my dislike of dawkins to heart, i know you dawkins fanboys get pretty upset about these things
    The point is Dawkins isn't as involved in this as people like to think and so criticism of him is rather pointless

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #206
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    The point is Dawkins isn't as involved in this as people like to think and so criticism of him is rather pointless

    i dont care, i dont need him to be involved that much to criticism him. im criticizing him on his personality and lack of objectivity which, regardless of whether hes involved a little or a lot is still applicable to the general direction of the thread


  • Options
    #207
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    keane2097 wrote: »
    lol your posts are bad :D

    look at dis scrub


  • Options
    #208
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sheeps wrote: »
    how is bible being full of shjit not a proper reason? its made up.

    what ever youre in to i suppose

    No, it isn't as it depends on what you define as ****. Claiming it is made up, is just a claim, it doesn't make your view any more or less valid than those who would hold that the Bible is divinely inspired such as myself :)

    Going back on topic. This is a fairly major mistake in editing on the part of the Times isn't it? They seem to have totally twisted the story into something it was never intended to be in the first place from Dawkins' end.


  • Options
    #209
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Sheeps wrote: »
    i dont care, i dont need him to be involved that much to criticism him. im criticizing him on his personality and lack of objectivity which, regardless of whether hes involved a little or a lot is still applicable to the general direction of the thread
    So you admit you're just using this as a chance to have a pop at him and your opinion on the actual topic is essentially worthless.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #210
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, it isn't as it depends on what you define as ****. Claiming it is made up, is just a claim, it doesn't make your view any more or less valid than those who would hold that the Bible is divinely inspired such as myself :)
    look zombies arent real people cant come back from the dead its just science fiction


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Xluna wrote: »
    If Dawkins pulled it off he'd replace "Big Jack" as Irelands most loved Englishman.

    Not if the above posts are anything to go by. Fortunately though they don't represent normal people. :D


Advertisement