Dawkins calls for pope's arrest

sparkfire

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Atheism is a lack of belief. How can someone be indoctrinated into a lack of belief. Is it even possible?
If it is possible then every single child all over the world is being indoctrinated into thousands of non beliefs. I read my kid a bedside story with a dragon in it last night and just incase he was scared I told him dragons dont exist. Have I indoctrinated him in a-dragon-ism?

Of course you have not indoctrinated your child into a-dragon-ism becase you told him that it was not true and was just a story.

Correct me if im wrong here but agnosticism is the absence of belief while atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Hence i dont see the difference between religious indoctrination and atheist indoctrination. One side says there is a God while the other side says that God does not exist.

youcrazyjesus!

Choosing not to teach your child to believe in Jesus and the belief system of the RCC can never be described as "indoctrination". You're simply not filling them with what you know to be absolute rubbish. You choose not to teach them to believe in one set of religious beliefs in the same way you choose not to teach them about nonconservativism or the works of Dan Brown. By choosing not to indoctrinate them in the RCC you are choosing not to indoctrinate them full stop, you are not indoctrinating them into a belief in no God. Why can't any of you understand this?

The Mad Hatter

sparkfire wrote: »

What's the difference between religious 'indoctrination' and atheist 'indoctrination'?

Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion, and I agree with him, that children "should not be taught what to think, but how to think." That includes atheism - kids shouldn't be taught that there is no such thing as gods; rather how to look for them if there is.

Ghost Buster

sparkfire wrote: »

Of course you have not indoctrinated your child into a-dragon-ism becase you told him that it was not true and was just a story.

Correct me if im wrong here but agnosticism is the absence of belief while atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Hence i dont see the difference between religious indoctrination and atheist indoctrination. One side says there is a God while the other side says that God does not exist.

Are you purposely missing the point?
Actually after reading your post again have you actually seen my point?
If, after telling my kid that fictional beings like dragons dont exist I am not guilty of indoctrinating him into a dragon denying cult, which you just stated then by leaving him to make up his own mind about Odin, Jesus, FSM , Thor etc etc I am certainly not indoctrinating him into anything.
You are wrong:
Agnostic = A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known about Gods existance.
Atheist = Belief that God does not exist.
I dont get how by ill defining these words you can still claim that you dont see the difference between religious and atheist indoctrination.
I dont believe in a great many fantastical things. Why does the iron age god get special disbelief status?
The only indoctrination i am guilty off is Santa Clause and Easter Bunny indoctrination!

Min

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

(Just posted this in the After Hours thread. I strongly suggest you don't click that link if you haven't already been drawn in.)

Richard Dawkins has written a very good article for the Guardian today, making a defence of his position.

This analogy I'm quite fond of - and if anyone can dispute it, I'd very much like to see it:

The good of the universal church......the priest in question in that case was defrocked, Cardinal Ratzinger had said the case needed further investigation and it led to defrocking..
There was obviously more investigation as the priest was removed from the church.
It is not in the interest of the universal church to just dismiss priests without a proper investigation.
Would a teacher lose their job without a proper investigation?
Dawkins took one case and applied it to all cases incorrectly.

drkpower

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Choosing not to teach your child to believe in Jesus and the belief system of the RCC can never be described as "indoctrination". You're simply not filling them with what you know to be absolute rubbish. You choose not to teach them to believe in one set of religious beliefs in the same way you choose not to teach them about nonconservativism or the works of Dan Brown. By choosing not to indoctrinate them in the RCC you are choosing not to indoctrinate them full stop, you are not indoctrinating them into a belief in no God. Why can't any of you understand this?

There is a subtle but important difference between telling kids, in response to questions about God, either 1. or 2.

1. There is no God. Alll religons are wrong. Theists are delusional.
and
2. Many people think there is a God. Noone has ever proved that there is one. Ive read a lot about it and I am pretty sure there isnt one. You need to figure out for yourself whether there is one.

No. 1 is close to a kind of atheistic indoctrination. While I may be convinced that there is no God and that religons are wrong, if we want and expect reasonable Christian parents to leave questions of God open to their children to discover, we cannot close the door on that discovery ourselves.

Sam Vimes

sparkfire wrote: »

Correct me if im wrong here but agnosticism is the absence of belief while atheism is the belief that God does not exist

Consider yourself corrected. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief. An agnostic says we either do not or cannot know if a god exists.

The A in Atheist means lack. An atheist lacks belief. And a lack of belief is not a type of belief any more than bald is a hair colour.

Having said that, some people (not the majority on this forum) do profess to believe there is no god and they also call themselves atheists. I call myself an agnostic atheist in that I lack belief in god but I do not categorically state anything about any beings/energies/forces that may or may not exist outside our universe because no human being is in a position to make a statement about such a thing with any level of confidence.

youcrazyjesus!

drkpower wrote: »

There is a subtle but important difference between telling kids, in response to questions about God, either 1. or 2.

1. There is no God. Alll religons are wrong. Theists are delusional.
and
2. Many people think there is a God. Noone has ever proved that there is one. Ive read a lot about it and I am pretty sure there isnt one. You need to figure out for yourself whether there is one.

No. 1 is close to a kind of atheistic indoctrination. While I may be convinced that there is no God and that religons are wrong, if we want and expect reasonable Christian parents to leave questions of God open to their children to discover, we cannot close the door on that discovery ourselves.

Choosing not to lie to your child is not indoctrination. Pointing your child in the direction of agnosticism is a satisfactory way to deal with the problem but while doing so I'd still make sure they understood traditional religions are basically cults and are based on absolutely nothing. You can be agnostic without having to consider the merits of organised religion. I think that's a fair way to deal with a child without frightening him or her or indoctrinating them to hold one narrow position with no wiggle room. Doing that stops them thinking for themselves and would defeat the purpose of protecting them from tradition religious beliefs. I would teach a child to question everything in life and come to their own conclusions on anything important in life.

Zillah

sparkfire wrote: »

Correct me if im wrong here but agnosticism is the absence of belief while atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

Oh dear, you've done it now.

Min

People can see through Dawkins.

Abuse victims are there to be used against the Pope just like AIDS victims in Africa even though the evidence backs up the Pope.....

Min

Atheism is a fixed position just like believing in God is, Agnosticism is not taking any side as they believe there is nothing to say there is or isn't a God.

youcrazyjesus!

Min wrote: »

People can see through Dawkins.

Abuse victims are there to be used against the Pope just like AIDS victims in Africa even though the evidence backs up the Pope.....

It's possible to prove that isn't true.

MikeC101

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Consider yourself corrected. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief. An agnostic says we either do not or cannot know if a god exists.

The A in Atheist means lack. An atheist lacks belief. And a lack of belief is not a type of belief any more than bald is a hair colour.

Having said that, some people (not the majority on this forum) do profess to believe there is no god and they also call themselves atheists. I call myself an agnostic atheist in that I lack belief in god but I do not categorically state anything about any beings/energies/forces that may or may not exist outside our universe because no human being is in a position to make a statement about such a thing with any level of confidence.

Min wrote: »

Atheism is a fixed position just like believing in God is, Agnosticism is not taking any side as they believe there is nothing to say there is or isn't a God.

As per Sam Vimes post - it would appear that the majority of people who consider themselves as atheists don't fit your definition.

The Mad Hatter

Min wrote: »

The good of the universal church......the priest in question in that case was defrocked, Cardinal Ratzinger had said the case needed further investigation and it led to defrocking..
There was obviously more investigation as the priest was removed from the church.
It is not in the interest of the universal church to just dismiss priests without a proper investigation.
Would a teacher lose their job without a proper investigation?
Dawkins took one case and applied it to all cases incorrectly.

So you're saying it's ok because he lost his job eight years after he was reported for tying up and raping several boys?

You are very much missing the point here. It doesn't matter that he was defrocked (though the phrase "too little, too late" applies). He should have been reported to the police.

Dades

Min wrote: »

Atheism is a fixed position just like believing in God is, Agnosticism is not taking any side as they believe there is nothing to say there is or isn't a God.

Thanks for dropping by the Atheism & Agnosticism forum to let us all know what you think we believe.

Dr. Loon

On topic, it was Christopher Hitchen's idea, and Dawkins, is of course going along with it. I heard Hitchens say in an interview that one of the lawyers they've hired is Catholic, or at least religious so that removes the atheists vs catholics thing really.

If all this whole thing does is make people aware that the Church should be treated like any other institution in terms of the law, then I'd be happy. Why shouldn't the pope be arrested is the question. If society says we don't arrest the pope, then is society going to say it's okay to cover up the rape of children if you're the pope?

kieran26

the pope most likely travels under a diplomatic passport and has imunity so kinda pointless trying toarrest him! and also the pope isn't the law if priests were breaking the law its not up to the church to excommunicate or de-frock them the police must get involved! if someone was shot on a football pitch by an opposing player the referee wouldn't by law be able to pass judgement on said player,t'would be the police

The Mad Hatter

kieran26 wrote: »

the pope most likely travels under a diplomatic passport and has imunity so kinda pointless trying toarrest him!

The UN doesn't recognise the Vatican as a state, so diplomatic immunity is in question. The campaign for the arrest challenges his immunity.

and also the pope isn't the law if priests were breaking the law its not up to the church to excommunicate or de-frock them the police must get involved! if someone was shot on a football pitch by an opposing player the referee wouldn't by law be able to pass judgement on said player,t'would be the police

Yes, but if the player was shot in secret, and the referee instructed all those involved to hush it up for the good of the game, then he is culpable.

Seriously, all this has been discussed already.

Dr. Loon

I really can't believe there are people trying to defend the pope's actions. It's very straightforward.

ISAW

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The UN doesn't recognise the Vatican as a state, so diplomatic immunity is in question. The campaign for the arrest challenges his immunity.
...

Seriously, all this has been discussed already.

Sorry I didnt read the discussion but you are WRONG about immunity/recognition etc. and the official term isnt Vatican but "Holy See"

The Holy See has been an observer state since 6 April 1964, and gained all the rights of full membership except voting on 1 July 2004

resolution A/58/L.64, entitled “Participation of the
Holy See in the work of the United Nations”.

You will find it on http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r58.htm

under A/RES/58/314 in the bottom left column of page two of the document

I am just trying to point out a FACT I'm not interested in debating the thread issue here.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Sorry I didnt read the discussion but you are WRONG

Seriously mate, this practice of informing people in caps and occasionally bold that they're WRONG in so many posts really isn't conducive to discussion, it just gets people's backs up whether they are wrong or not. If I say something that's wrong and someone explains why as you have done and provides evidence as you have just done I will happily accept the correction but if they preface the correction by informing me that I'm WRONG, I immediately have a "yeah well fcuk you" attitude before I read anything they have to say

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

The Holy See has been an observer state since 6 April 1964, and gained all the rights of full membership except voting on 1 July 2004

I'm no expert on the UN's legal systems, but while you're correct to point out that the Holy See -- which is different from the Vatican, btw -- upgraded its observer status some years ago, I don't believe that, technically, it qualifies as a State, per se (if it did, then it would be entitled to full voting rights).

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I immediately have a "yeah well fcuk you" attitude

Sam -- calm down, please.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Sam -- calm down, please

I'm totally calm, he didn't say it to me :pac:

I'm just letting him know that he's making people less likely to listen to what he's saying whether he's right or wrong by getting their backs up

The Mad Hatter

ISAW wrote: »

I am just trying to point out a FACT I'm not interested in debating the thread issue here.

Er, I was talking to kieran26.

In any case, I went too far on the Vatican, you're right, but I'm pretty sure there's still enough of a question mark over it to make it worth making the case.

Zillah

kieran26 wrote: »

if someone was shot on a football pitch by an opposing player the referee wouldn't by law be able to pass judgement on said player,t'would be the police

To think, that even now there are people with no concept of the wanton deception and cover up that the Catholic Church leadership has brazenly engaged in. Ratzinger, as a senior Vatican Cardinal, released a memo warning that any priest who did not help cover up the abuse would be excommunicated.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Ratzinger, as a senior Vatican Cardinal, released a memo warning that any priest who did not help cover up the abuse would be excommunicated.

Which memo is this?

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

Which memo is this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/the-pope-visit?commentpage=2

I think the BBC also did a piece on it.

mikhail

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The UN doesn't recognise the Vatican as a state, so diplomatic immunity is in question. The campaign for the arrest challenges his immunity.

I can't help but think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY

MrPudding

Interesting article form the barrister in question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/02/pope-legal-immunity-international-law

MrP