Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

Wolfe Tone

billy the squid wrote: »

But he is not a CEO, he is a head of state which gives him immunity. and who do you have to thank for that, why filthy nazis like Benito Musolini for one.

Hey!

Sheeps

ScienceNerd wrote: »

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.

how is anyone elses opinion on this public spectacle any more worthy than mine? its not like any of your are making ground breaking new contributions to the body of scientific knowlege of our world. its an opinion about a news article, just like anything youve contributed to this thread

Mr Trade In

If Dawkins doesn't arrest the Pope the Hare Club for Men will.:p

ejmaztec

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

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

How?

These “fundamentalist atheists” seem to be in the news on a regular basis, plugging books, sometimes playing the victim, and involving themselves in publicity stunts. That’s “ramming it down throats” in my book. It smacks of a Max Clifford –like PR. job.

I don’t give a damn what people believe in, or don’t believe in, but I would get bored very quickly listening to their reasons for doing either.

At the end of the day, neither side can prove anything.

The Mad Hatter

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.

I dunno, they mightn't be conclusive, but his biological and social explanations of religion certainly can't be dismissed out of hand. They're also not his, necessarily, but, like with evolutionary biology, he's very good at explaining them.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

No, a mistake is an accidental error. If I may coin a term, I'd say this is Murdochian.

youcrazyjesus!

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

You're criticizing him in the same way I'd be criticizing the Pope if I said he wasn't objective when it came to discussing atheism.

Sheeps

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You're criticizing him in the same way I'd be criticizing the Pope if I said he wasn't objective when it came to discussing atheism.

Yes, but the pope believes in fairy tales, so you'd expect him to jump to conclusions, where as Dawkins generally sticks with reasonable arguments, and then occasionally goes off and jumps to some conclusion stating it as fact. There's that and the fact that he's a condescending jerk.

axer

ejmaztec wrote: »

At the end of the day, neither side can prove anything.

Atheism is not trying to prove anything - a lack of belief is nothing to prove.

Dave!

Invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, etc.

youcrazyjesus!

Sheeps wrote: »

Yes, but the pope believes in fairy tales, so you'd expect him to jump to conclusions, where as Dawkins generally sticks with reasonable arguments, and then occasionally goes off and jumps to some conclusion stating it as fact. There's that and the fact that he's a condescending jerk.

Coming to conclusions and jumping to conclusions is not the same thing. You've not cited one example.

ejmaztec

axer wrote: »

Atheism is not trying to prove anything - a lack of belief is nothing to prove.

If atheists had no wish to prove anything, why do we keep hearing about them, and why do they feel the need to publish their every thought?

The Mad Hatter

ejmaztec wrote: »

If atheists had no wish to prove anything, why do we keep hearing about them, and why do they feel the need to publish their every thought?

Well, the alarming level of control that the religious have over politics and education internationally is one thing that concerns a lot of atheists.

Besides, compare the number of books written by atheists on the subject of religion to the number of books written by the religious on the subject of religion. Are they all fundamentalists, or are you operating by a double-standard?

Sheeps

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Coming to conclusions and jumping to conclusions is not the same thing. You've not cited one example.

Yes that's the whole theme of my point. Richard Dawkins jumps to conclusions, the scientific process arrives at a conclusion. Thanks for picking up on that.

The Mad Hatter

Sheeps wrote: »

Yes that's the whole theme of my point. Richard Dawkins jumps to conclusions, the scientific process arrives at a conclusion. Thanks for picking up on that.

What?

Herbal Deity

ejmaztec wrote: »

If atheists had no wish to prove anything, why do we keep hearing about them, and why do they feel the need to publish their every thought?

Because religion has a huge amount of influence on social policies and laws.

Orizio

iUseVi wrote: »

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

You're not a normal person if you think this is one big publicity stunt and a complete waste of time?

iUseVi

Orizio wrote: »

Your not a normal person if you think this is one big publicity stunt and a complete waste of time?

*sigh* Normal was the wrong word.

I was referring to the people who took this as an opportunity to bash on Dawkins. Not that they need any excuse. But since it has now been revealed that the original idea was not his, it's a bit pointless.

robp

professore wrote: »

It always amazes me what the main religions can get away with. If this was a private company (I exclude banks from this - they can apparently also do what they like) where this kind of abuse went on then the CEO would be serving a long jail sentence. Why is the pope any different? He personally covered up for known paedophiles and is STILL doing it. Let's be clear - these people are raping children and the pope gives his blessing. How can anyone defend him ?

You don't need to be in a church cleric to get away with this. What about Gerry Adams? Its widely known he covered the crimes of his pedophile brother. Yet he has lost no face over it. No accountability whatsoever. Why do people have such short memories. People remember fault in others when it suits them, its a sad reality. Secondly covering up a crime for what ever reason is not the same as "giving his blessing" of the crime. Your blatantly misrepresenting facts.

coffee_cake

Good on them for trying it. Even if it doesn't get anywhere, it's important to remember crimes have been committed and covered up.

If he IS supposed to be a moral guide, then he should be the very first setting a good example and facing justice.

Galvasean

Xluna wrote: »

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

Wait, isn't Jakkass from Lucan?

youcrazyjesus!

robp wrote: »

You don't need to be in a church cleric to get away with this. What about Gerry Adams? Its widely known he covered the crimes of his pedophile brother. Yet he has lost no face over it. No accountability whatsoever. Why do people have such short memories. People remember fault in others when it suits them, its a sad reality. Secondly covering up a crime for what ever reason is not the same as "giving his blessing" of the crime. Your blatantly misrepresenting facts.

There have been about a million articles about the subject in newspapers. Asking questions of Adams, Suzanne Breen in the Tribune for example. Adams has something to fall back on though, at some point he did involve the authorities and encourage both parties to contact the authorities.

youcrazyjesus!

Sheeps wrote: »

Yes that's the whole theme of my point. Richard Dawkins jumps to conclusions, the scientific process arrives at a conclusion. Thanks for picking up on that.

Feel free to provide even one example.

Pittens

Feel free to provide even one example.

why isn't he attacking secularism for the pediophile scandals in Islington and jersey.

And why no investigion into Islamic Maddrassas by our brave scularists. Why are they not members of the EDL - the English Defence league? Where are the protests against Mosques.

And where were all the brave secularists when Pim FOrtuyn was killed.

All ****. The Catholic Church - a minority church in England is under attack precisely because it is easy to attack.

I dont believe in God. I believe in Gay rights. I dont believe in Established churches. If the English were really secularist and not just sectarian they would

1) attack the Established church in the UK
2) attack Islam.

Anything else is mere sectarianism.

Pittens

Well, the alarming level of control that the religious have over politics and education internationally is one thing that concerns a lot of atheists.

Most Catholic countries have to right to civil partnership, or marriage. No Hindu, Orthodox. Islamic or other country has. The anti-evolutionists in the US are protestant.

The question is what an English secularist is not attacking the supremicist anti-Catholic Church of England first rather than kicking the **** out of minorty religion.

The anwer is he is an English Nationalist, in fact most of the people supporting him would distance themselve from him were he to attack the religion of peace.

So I call these "radical" English secularists as anti-Papists, not real secularists. Same old same old.

They are the disciples of Cromwell, not Voltaire.

Dave!

Pittens wrote: »

why isn't he attacking secularism for the pediophile scandals in Islington and jersey.

Well 'secularism' isn't an organisation with a hierarchy that covered up sexual abuse, is it? So there's nobody to prosecute besides the perpetrators.

And secularism does not naturally lead to paedophilia, no more than Catholicism does (and nobody claims that it does) -- the issue is that the organisation (the Church) was wrong to cover up the abuse, and the question is whether they broke the law.

Pittens wrote: »

And why no investigion into Islamic Maddrassas by our brave scularists. Why are they not members of the EDL - the English Defence league? Where are the protests against Mosques.

Not done your research have you? The title for Christopher Hitchens' book God is Not Great is derived from the Islamic 'chant' Allahu Akbar (God is great). He spends a considerable amount of time in the book criticising Islam, as do most of the 'new athiest' types.

In Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil he travels to the middle east and criticises Islam pretty heavily.

Pittens wrote: »

And where were all the brave secularists when Pim FOrtuyn was killed.

Dunno, but they were certainly pretty vocal with their outrage about Theo Van Gogh's killing, and about Ayaan Hirsi Ali having to live in fear of death.

Pittens wrote: »

All ****. The Catholic Church - a minority church in England is under attack precisely because it is easy to attack.

So we've established that you're talking sh*t, and that Dawkins et al are quite vocal about other religions too, yeah?

The Catholic Church gets off pretty easy usually, since Dawkins certainly is more concerned politically about the fundamentalist Protestant Christians in the United States, the undermining of education, political influence, and so on. Catholicism rarely features tbh, it's only cos it's in the news at the moment.

Pittens wrote: »

I dont believe in God. I believe in Gay rights. I dont believe in Established churches. If the English were really secularist and not just sectarian they would

1) attack the Established church in the UK
2) attack Islam.

Anything else is mere sectarianism.

Great

Man in retrospect I shouldn't have bothered with that post

A Primal Nut

W

Min wrote: »

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.

When the Nigerian government sentences a woman who was raped to be punished, they are doing so because their book says so and this is what is required of their religion. When the Irish government sentences unmarried mothers to the magdalene laundries they are doing so because their book insists sex outside of marriage is evil. When the Israeli government insisit Israel is the land of the Jews, they are doing so because their book says so,. Therefore these acts can be blamed on the religions and the books which they are based, as any state based in one of these religions is supposed to follow these books, and hence you can blame these religions and the books these are based on.

Atheist governments have done awful things, but there is no atheist book which says: "Kill Christians," so therefore Atheism can't be blamed. In order to be a muslim you not only have to believe in Allah but everything else regarding how people should live their lives and be punished. The same goes for any other religions and hence these religions deserve blame for the actions of their believers. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in Theism and says nothing about how a person lives their lives.

Ickle Magoo

Pittens wrote: »

Most Catholic countries have to right to civil partnership, or marriage. No Hindu, Orthodox. Islamic or other country has. The anti-evolutionists in the US are protestant.

The question is what an English secularist is not attacking the supremicist anti-Catholic Church of England first rather than kicking the **** out of minorty religion.

The anwer is he is an English Nationalist, in fact most of the people supporting him would distance themselve from him were he to attack the religion of peace.

So I call these "radical" English secularists as anti-Papists, not real secularists. Same old same old.

They are the disciples of Cromwell, not Voltaire.

Nothing any other religion, secularist, theist or anything else does makes what the CC has done and the pope has sanctioned any less abhorrent - can you not get your head around that? The whole childish "but so-and-so done thaaat!" whine & accompanying desperate finger pointing to try to shift public glare whenever this topic is raised just sounds so awful, no wonder people are getting more and more angry if this is the typical response.

ejmaztec

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Well, the alarming level of control that the religious have over politics and education internationally is one thing that concerns a lot of atheists.

Atheists aren't alone in voicing their concerns over religious interference, but thankfully this interference is dwindling day by day, especially in Ireland. Only religious nuts want the opposite.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Besides, compare the number of books written by atheists on the subject of religion to the number of books written by the religious on the subject of religion. Are they all fundamentalists, or are you operating by a double-standard?

This has nothing to do with the context of the question that I asked Axer.

I don't do double standards, and didn't criticise anyone for writing more books than anyone else. All interested parties can write away, and bore the pants of anyone willing to part with their hard-earned cash.

tipperaryboy

Fair play to him for attempting it but i somehow doubt he will get away with it.