# Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope



## BradK (12 April 2010)

Well well well, 

This arrogant missing link is now proposing to arrest the Pope. Good on him. 

[Q]RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.[Q]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

Brad


----------



## Tink (12 April 2010)

Isnt Dawkins getting enough attention??


----------



## Solly (12 April 2010)

Read Richard Dawkin's response here;

"Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent." 

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5415,Richard-Dawkins-I-will-arrest-Pope-Benedict-XVI,Marc-Horne----TimesOnline,page4


----------



## Tink (12 April 2010)

Solly said:


> Read Richard Dawkin's response here;
> 
> "Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent."
> 
> http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5415,Richard-Dawkins-I-will-arrest-Pope-Benedict-XVI,Marc-Horne----TimesOnline,page4




Oh. so he just wanted his name in the paper

Religion starts wars does it??

Looks like the other way around to me


----------



## Matty (12 April 2010)

I'm with you Tink, getting sick of this rude pig showing up everywhere and being worshiped LIKE a God by his followers.


----------



## Tink (12 April 2010)

Matty said:


> I'm with you Tink, getting sick of this rude pig showing up everywhere and being worshiped LIKE a God by his followers.




Yep, his hatred will sink him.


----------



## Solly (12 April 2010)

For those interested this is the original article in The Washington Post that appears to be the catalyst for the further actions and interest.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html


----------



## Boognish (12 April 2010)

Remember kids, if you can't play the ball, play the man.


----------



## Ruby (12 April 2010)

I think it is about time the arrogant catholic church was made to be more accountable for sweeping decades of child abuse within its ranks under the mat.

Good for Richard Dawkins for making a stand against these atrocities


----------



## Fishbulb (12 April 2010)

Yeah

I don't like Dawkins at all, and I wouldn't care who brought the catholic church to justice over this, the bleedin' obvious. How does keeping kiddie ****ers in employment after they're found out get justified by this organisation? Beats me.

It is about time this area is finally and properly legally addressed in the RC church.


----------



## Ruby (12 April 2010)

Well I'm in full support of Richard Dawkins.   He is a very erudite thinker and writer, and he can back up all of his claims.  He is entitled to his opinion about religion.  This does not make him a "rude pig" as Matty calls him, and I have never heard him express hatred verbally or read it in his writings.   Where do you get that idea Tink?   I think I detect a bit of hatred and bigotry elsewhere!!

The pope is no-one special and he needs to be as accountable as any other human being for his actions


----------



## Calliope (12 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Well I'm in full support of Richard Dawkins.   He is a very erudite thinker and writer, and he can back up all of his claims.  He is entitled to his opinion about religion.  This does not make him a "rude pig" as Matty calls him, and I have never heard him express hatred verbally or read it in his writings.   Where do you get that idea Tink?   I think I detect a bit of hatred and bigotry elsewhere!!
> 
> The pope is no-one special and he needs to be as accountable as any other human being for his actions




I don't think we can depend on God to bring him to account. If God was fair dinkum he would hand out the same treatment to the Vatican gang as he did to Sodom and Gomorrah.


----------



## Ruby (12 April 2010)

Spot on Calliope!


----------



## explod (12 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Spot on Calliope!




Yep, second and third that.  In fact to pacify some of my inner hate towards the catholic system of what I went through as a youth would love to be on the arresting team.


----------



## Solly (12 April 2010)

"In 1985, in his then capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict signed a letter arguing that the good of the universal church should be considered before the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys."

From,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/12/2869790.htm

If the above is accurate I find it incredible that an argument of that nature could ever be entertained. I believe that the correct immediate response would be mandatory defrocking, incarceration and victim support.


----------



## Ruby (12 April 2010)

But that has always been the case, hasn't it.   The "good of the church" has always come before the good of the people the church is supposed to succour.   Never mind that people's lives are ruined, that they commit suicide........ that sacrifice is OK as long as the good name of the church is protected.   The hypocrisy beggars belief

I am trying to imagine the pope being arrested in London......... how exquisite!


----------



## Calliope (12 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> I am trying to imagine the pope being arrested in London......... how exquisite!




Yes, exquisite

The pope claims to be "God's Vicar on Earth". It's amazing that God has put up with this nonsense for centuries. Perhaps He has been waiting for someone like Richard Dawkins to use as his instrument to settle the score.


----------



## Ruby (12 April 2010)

God does act in strange ways!


----------



## Ruby (12 April 2010)

........... or is it "God moves in mysterious ways"?


----------



## explod (12 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes, exquisite
> 
> The pope claims to be "God's Vicar on Earth". It's amazing that God has put up with this nonsense for centuries. Perhaps He has been waiting for someone like Richard Dawkins to use as his instrument to settle the score.




That is a good point.  I have read Dawkins work and he is a man committed to ethics and proper standards to live by.   The infrastructure of religion should not be wasted, we just need to rewrite the entire constitution to meet todays needs.

As a child witnessed countless priests spitting from the pulpit the great line in retrospect:-    "suffer the little children and bring them unto me"  Another great one is if a man should bring down another in morals,  the line, "tie a millstone around his neck and throw him into the depths of the sea."

Maybe what goes round will come around.


----------



## bellenuit (12 April 2010)

Although I am an admirer of Dawkins and Hitchens, I think getting involved in this action is a big mistake.

It adds credence to the Catholic Church's claim that the recent outcry against the church is at the behest of atheists, when that is not the case. Being Irish by birth, I read the Irish newspapers that have online editions and there is a huge amount of anger by the predominantly roman catholic population against the local bishops and cardinals who have all been complicit in these cover-ups. There are daily demands for resignations. In the US too, it is the Catholics in the population that are at the forefront in criticism of the Vatican and the hierarchy. The Church will use this proposed action to their advantage by claiming it is an atheist conspiracy to damage the Church.

I am not saying the Vatican should be left off the hook. But It would have been better if Dawkins and Hitchens let others who are not seen as having an atheist agenda run with this issue.


----------



## So_Cynical (12 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I am not saying the Vatican should be left off the hook. But It would have been better if Dawkins and Hitchens let others who are not seen as having an atheist agenda run with this issue.




Why/how do atheists have an agenda?...why this crazy Christian backlash?


----------



## Julia (12 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Why/how do atheists have an agenda?...why this crazy Christian backlash?



Atheists have been more than usually vocal recently.
The Christians are unused to this.
They don't like it.
So they pronounce atheism as being 'just another religion'.
They actually have a point, in that if you categorically do not believe in something which you cannot prove, it has to be categorised as a form of faith.

Had the atheists instead chosen 'agnosticism', the Christians would have found it difficult to accuse them of anything at all.


----------



## Tink (12 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Why/how do atheists have an agenda?.




There's the agenda..



> 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.
> 
> Richard Dawkins


----------



## bellenuit (12 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Why/how do atheists have an agenda?...why this crazy Christian backlash?




By definition an atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity - full stop. There is no agenda. 

But that doesn't mean that non-atheists don't attribute an agenda to atheists, no matter how irrational that is to those who understand what atheism is. Didn't Cardinal Pell make just such remarks last week.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others are popularised as being the "spokespersons" for atheists, whereas in reality they are not promoting atheism or speaking on behalf of atheists, but promoting rational thinking and a scientific method for understanding our universe, which leads many to come to an atheistic or agnostic conclusion.

Many of their detractors however, rather than argue against them on a scientific or rational level, prefer to attack them on a personal level, by saying they are working to an agenda which is to destroy all religions. Because Dawkins et al. are seen as spokespersons for atheism, they call this an atheist agenda and then make references to the terrible deeds of Stalin and Pol Pot who they also say had an atheist agenda. They are creating straw men to attack.

The point I was trying to make is that by leading this attack on the Pope, "renowned atheists" Dawkins and Hitchens are playing right into the hands of the Vatican and vindicating their claims that the attacks are an "atheist agenda". This damages their cause IMO and apart from helping the Vatican, it will also deter many believers from examining what they have to say.


----------



## bellenuit (12 April 2010)

Probably my last post could be said more succinctly as...

Although atheism doesn't have an agenda, atheists can and do have agendas and the agendas of individual atheists can be quite different and even opposing. However, those who wish to attack atheism will claim the agendas of atheists, particularly those who have done terrible deeds, are in fact part of the agenda of atheism. Because of who he is, Dawkins actions will be promoted by the Vatican as part of the agenda of atheism, instead of the agenda of one particular atheist (and in fact probably the agenda of many catholics as well, going by the support he received).


----------



## Solly (13 April 2010)

An interesting Editorial from The Stanford Daily.

"In abuse scandal, Vatican is not excused from criticism"

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/04/08/editorial-in-abuse-scandal-vatican-is-not-excused-from-criticism/


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2010)

I'm wondering why Dawkins has particularly chosen a religious leader for this.

Crimes against humanity? Why not Tony bLIAR, Dubya, or even Robert Mugabe when he visited London?

Methinks the good professor does indeed have an agenda... of course he does (not withstanding that the RC church should be called to account IMO).


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Probably my last post could be said more succinctly as...
> 
> Although atheism doesn't have an agenda, atheists can and do have agendas and the agendas of individual atheists can be quite different and even opposing. However, those who wish to attack atheism will claim the agendas of atheists, particularly those who have done terrible deeds, are in fact part of the agenda of atheism. Because of who he is, Dawkins actions will be promoted by the Vatican as part of the agenda of atheism, instead of the agenda of one particular atheist (and in fact probably the agenda of many catholics as well, going by the support he received).




I would like to point out that individual atheists can be proselytes. I have had many attempts to "convert" me to atheism, it happens frequently.

I don't proselytize at all... can't, I don't have a religion, just a set of personal beliefs. If it ever comes up in conversation (rare) there will always be one rabid atheist who will go on the attack. WTF?

I recognize that there are also the proselytising bible bashers, but these significantly fewer in number.

As Julia remarked, the only truly scientific position is agnosticism.


----------



## Ozymandias (13 April 2010)

Julia said:


> They actually have a point, in that if you categorically do not believe in something which you cannot prove, it has to be categorised as a form of faith.
> 
> Had the atheists instead chosen 'agnosticism', the Christians would have found it difficult to accuse them of anything at all.




This is a great old chestnut, but is easily addressed. Why is the burden of proof on the disbeliever? If I were to claim something extraordinary, such as there being a china teapot in orbit around Saturn, people would demand evidence to support this. But for some reason, when one claims there is an all powerful entity controlling every aspect of the universe, its up to the skeptics to prove its not true. 

I don't believe in Gods for the same reason that I don't believe in a teapot orbiting Saturn - there is no credible evidence to support either, so the only rational conclusion is that they don't exist. No faith required there.

Note - the above argument has been around way longer than I have...


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Arrested, for the crime of disagreeing with Dawkins. Watch this man's rants on youtube if you are sufficiently bored, you'll see a genuine fanatic at work.

Ask Dawkins the following:

Has the "primordal soup" been recreated in the lab? Yes or no.

Answer: no (if he's honest, a 50/50 proposition.)

Therefore atheism is also an act of faith. Peaceful mind-your-own-business atheism is fine. This ludicrous fascisistic "militant" atheism is serving a specific purpose its believers don't foresee. (The term is "useful idiots".)

Do note he spends more time criticizing the religion resposible (with Judeoism) for creating civilization in which freedom & prosperity is possible. Atheist societies are not exaimed, and there are many on record: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Oh no wait - these places aren't atheist, they worship the state, the dear leader, the Man of Steel, the Fuhrer. That's what happens when you take out respectable religion - the state and a dictator replaces it. Happy accident? Now why do you suppose there is such a sustained attack on Christianity, then, if to remove it leads to a small elite grabbing total power? Coincidence, it must be.

Also, I have not heard much about this fascist speaking about a certain religion which advises its followers to strap bombs to themselves, and to their own children, to kill unbelievers. In PC land, it is not permissible to criticize _that_ religion.

By attacking Christianity, this useful idiot is helping weaken a bastion of resistance to the religion which will, once it dominates, gladly cut the head off of atheists as well as any other opponent.

All "militant atheists" are doing similarly stupid and (in the long run) self destructive things. Guess they want their daughters in Bhurkas one day? They're going the right way about it.


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

> All "militant atheists" are doing similarly stupid and (in the long run) self destructive things. Guess they want their daughters in Bhurkas one day? They're going the right way about it.




We would like our daughters to be able to make up their own minds and not be indoctrinated by religious dogma.

Dawkins methodically sifts the evidence of the great writers of the past for actual evidence of a God and so far it cannot be found.   Our kind of athiest is not blindly saying there is no God, we just want to see some evidence that is not composed of so called miracles and fairy tales.

The world should be focused on a free education to Graduate level for everyone.  Not all will be suitable or want to and unlike religeon would not be forced to.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Then I suggest more tolerance of the religions which stand between you, and the ones which will take away your freedom to choose.

NOT all religions are the same. PC thinking has you feeling that they are.

Ned Flanders is not going to kill you for not sharing his beliefs. At worst he is annoying. Other religions will. Ned Flanders is one of the people standing between the crocodile and YOU.

And your answer is to kill Ned Flanders. Agree with him or not, it isn't very smart.


----------



## Tink (13 April 2010)

Thats exactly right Wayne

Dont get me wrong, I am not condoning what the RC church has done but if he is so adamant - why isnt he chasing Dubya or the other 'crimes against humanity'? 

Trying to ban people coming into the country because HE doesnt want them there?

Interesting precent


----------



## Solly (13 April 2010)

"We Can't Let the Pope Decide Who's a Criminal
Bringing priestly offenders and the church's enablers to justice."

For those interested that is an article by Christopher Hitchens and comment about the current reports.

http://www.slate.com/id/2250557/


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Then I suggest more tolerance of the religions which stand between you, and the ones which will take away your freedom to choose.
> 
> NOT all religions are the same. PC thinking has you feeling that they are.
> 
> ...




Yes all religions seem to get down to that.  No fairy tales at all in my view (*no religion but a concerted effort by everyone to eradicate all of it and begin a renewal of ethics, truth and equality.*


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Eradicate all of it...?

Okay, starting where, and how?

And why do you feel "ethics and truth" are the domain of atheists and never of religion? I have provided examples of atheist states, you haven't responded.


----------



## Ruby (13 April 2010)

I am not sure what your point is Atlas79, or if indeed you *have *one!  It is rather a long stretch from being an athiest to wanting your daughters to wear burkas!

Why are you getting so upset?   Do you think it is acceptable for catholic priests to sexually abuse children?   Do you think it is OK for those actions to be condoned by the higher authorities in the church?   It is because the pope refused to take action against a paedophile priest that Richard Dawkins wants him arrested.

And just to correct you on another few points in your post:-

Religion is *not *responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today.  It has nothing to do with it.   If anything, throughout history, religion has sought to keep those freedoms from us

Hitler was a christian

Atheism is not fascism and to suggest Richard Dawkins is a fascist another of your long stretches

Atheism is simply non-belief in a deity.  That is it.   It is *not *militant.  It is *not *a belief system.   There may be militant atheist (although I have never met one), just as there are militant christians, jews, muslims, emnvironmentalists and union members

Please get your facts straight before you go on the attack


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Dont get me wrong, I am not condoning what the RC church has done




Yeah? On the issue of turning a blind eye to child sex abuse you are either pro-Pope or pro-Dawkins.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yeah? On the issue of turning a blind eye to child sex abuse you are either pro-Pope or pro-Dawkins.




On the contrary.

Read the Mitroken archives for a third view on pedophiles in the church as subversive planted agents.

That is a straw man at any rate. You argue about the doctrine & philosophy of a religion then shift it to this issue when there's no fuel or legitimacy for the other conversation.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> I am not sure what your point is Atlas79, or if indeed you *have *one!  It is rather a long stretch from being an athiest to wanting your daughters to wear burkas!
> 
> Why are you getting so upset?   Do you think it is acceptable for catholic priests to sexually abuse children?   Do you think it is OK for those actions to be condoned by the higher authorities in the church?   It is because the pope refused to take action against a paedophile priest that Richard Dawkins wants him arrested.
> 
> ...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLxfZwofNE

Watch. Then we'll talk.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Hitler denounced any religious faith at an early age. Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf. Not much Christianity in it.

His faith was statist socialism. He spoke of making a pagan "god of war" the official religion, but never got around to it. So he played the Reich's messiah himself.

That happens, when you eradicate the idea of a higher-than-man god.

I have heard Dawkins puke up that lie too, when squirming away from being confronted with the fact that ALL the statist mass murdering dictators of the last century were atheist leftists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, on and on, ALL of them.

They kill of religion so that there can be no higher law than their own. If people took "Thou shalt not kill" too seriously, it would not be much use to Kim Jong Il. No?


----------



## Tink (13 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yeah? On the issue of turning a blind eye to child sex abuse you are either pro-Pope or pro-Dawkins.




I dont agree with the child abuse, but I dont agree with throwing out the baby with bathwater

Calliope, governments have hidden child abuse for years and they werent religious.

What is Dawkins doing about them?


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Tink said:


> I dont agree with the child abuse, but I dont agree with throwing out the baby with bathwater
> 
> Calliope, governments have hidden child abuse for years and they werent religious.
> 
> What is Dawkins doing about them?




Gorgeous debating style. Oppose Dwarkins, you are pro molestation. Overplay your hand much? And Ruby, you claim atheism is not militant? Atheists in this thread have openly proposed eradicating "all of [religion]." Starting, it seems, with the peaceful ones it is safe to criticize, since they believe life is sacred and won't issue fatwahs. (I would love, LOVE to see Dawkins tackle certain other religions head on, publicly. Danish cartoonists anyone?)

Treating absuive individuals as a natural part of the church is pure propoganda.

Socialists do the same thing when they try to claim a CEO who behaves criminally is a natural part of capitalism. They use it to denounce the whole system.

No comments from these Dwarkinites, ever, about female genital mutilation or stoning women to death or hanging homosexuals in the streets of Iran. Nor of a desire to take over the world  by actual violent conquest. Not a peep. (Or better yet they say elmininating Christianity, an opponent to all this, is the solution...?)


As for the molestation nonsense:

Mean Men

The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

Article here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096?f...week/TopNews+(UPDATED+-+Newsweek+Top+Stories)


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Calliope, governments have hidden child abuse for years and they werent religious.
> 
> What is Dawkins doing about them?




Governments are elected by the people. Who elected the Pope to be "God's vicar on earth?" The Vatican empire is like the Mafia and the Pope is the Godfather. To bring it down you have to go for the top man. If Dawkins can play a small part in bringing the reign of Popery to its end then more power to him.



> The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.




Maybe. The point is; *Does the Pope condone their behaviour?*


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Governments are elected by the people. Who elected the Pope to be "God's vicar on earth?" The Vatican empire is like the Mafia and the Pope is the Godfather. To bring it down you have to go for the top man. If Dawkins can play a small part in bringing the reign of Popery to its end then more power to him.




Unlike a government, you are never held at gunpoint by the pope under any circumstances. He doesn't take your money, have the power to deprive you of liberty (legally), etc etc etc.

You have the free choice to ignore the pope and everything he says, and every guideline he advises for a good life. (I often do.) You may even benefit from a Christian driving by you one night when you have a flat tire, despite ignoring the pope.

You DO get to vote for the pope or not. You can vote to have him as an influence in your life, or not. If you don't credit the idea of there being a god, fine and dandy. Ignore the JW's who go doorknocking and you'll be otherwise fine.

You get 2 flavours of government, lots or heaps, and no escape from that choice. Your comparison is ridiculous.


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> You have the free choice to ignore the pope and everything he says




Yes, and bury your head in the sand as you do. Dawkins has chosen to attack the evil culture of child sex abuse in the priesthood at its source.


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Unlike a government, you are never held at gunpoint by the pope under any circumstances. *He doesn't take your money*, have the power to deprive you of liberty (legally), etc etc etc.




I don't know about that. The catholic church are given tax free status to conduct business in Australia and they do it far beyond simple charity work. 

They hand down opinions about business "ethics" like judgements from god, while they freely take from countries without paying what every business does. Then expect to be above criticism.


----------



## Fishbulb (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Hitler denounced any religious faith at an early age. Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf. Not much Christianity in it.
> 
> His faith was statist socialism. He spoke of making a pagan "god of war" the official religion, but never got around to it. So he played the Reich's messiah himself.
> 
> ...




Good post 

Quoted for truth


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> We are to conclude then that Dawkins and his followers approve of forced female circumcision, calls for violent holy war, hanging gays in the streets, machette massacres in African villages, etc.




That's a ridiculous conclusion. Completely nonsensical. Must you fight all fights to have a say in one fight?


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> That's a ridiculous conclusion. Completely nonsensical. Must you fight all fights to have a say in one fight?




When strategic interests align with a specific goal in mind, the question is worth asking. Who benefits from attacks on Christianity? 

_Everyone_ with totalitarian ambitions. Including a religion which boasts of them openly. (See video.)

Do note I'm not saying this as a Christian but as someone who enjoys the fruits of a society founded on Judeo-Christian values (what's left of them after the long, sustained, deliberate campaign to subvert those values, of which Dawkins is just another flung spear.)

You don't need for there to be a god or a devil for there to be hell on earth. Countries that deviate too far from those values become hells on earth. I have given examples. There is a reason they killed the jews and it was not what they claimed, "racial purity" (the Nazis never exterminated blacks when they were in Africa.) It was because those people and their values represented a perceived threat to godless totalitarian rule, where one man's law must be considered divine, in order to let things like the holocaust occur. (Called "the great socialist conflagration" by Marx - it was not Hitler's original idea.)

And I notice all Dawkinists, like the prophet himself, tiptoeing around those examples. "Hitler was a Christian" is the only response they ever have, and it's a lie.


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> I would like to point out that individual atheists can be proselytes. I have had many attempts to "convert" me to atheism, it happens frequently.




I sympathise with you. I have been round the traps for a long time and I have never been accosted by a proselytising atheist.

It must be a KIwi thing.


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> You don't need for there to be a god or a devil for there to be hell on earth.



I'm sure the poor soles that had to endure institutional sanction molestation will agree. That's why it should be brought to justice when it happens.

Whoever it is that sanctioned it by looking the other way or hiding it to protect their silly billion dollar institution of grown men dressing in gold & silk dresses while preaching humbleness and morals to the poor bastards they rob & fail.

Down with them and their pagan institution.


----------



## Timmy (13 April 2010)

Atlas, your points sound like the justifications given to allow continued child f*cking by some priests - the good of the church outweighs the hurt, terror and humilation suffered by the victims of the perverts.


----------



## Timmy (13 April 2010)

I don't get it.

If the CEO of Coles knew some of his managers f*cked children and then he systemically sheltered these criminals and allowed them continued access to children in his stores, wouldn't he be held responsible?

If the head of the Labour Party (or any other political party) knew some of his elected colleagues f*cked children and he systematically sheltered the child-f*cking criminals and allowed them access to children to at various events, wouldn't he be held responsible?

If the head of the Jewish faith knew some of his Rabbis f*cked children and then he systemically sheltered these criminals and allowed them continued access to children in his synagogues, wouldn't he be held responsible?

If the head of the Australian Federal Police knew some of his officers f*cked children and then he systemically sheltered these criminals and allowed them continued access to children in his duties, wouldn't the head of the AFP be held responsible?

Seems pretty straightforward, charge the criminals, charge those responsible for sheltering them and allowing them continued access to children to f*ck.  The law is one of those:


Atlas79 said:


> the fruits of a society founded on Judeo-Christian values



, lets enforce it.



No conspiracy theory excuses hold water.


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> When strategic interests align with a specific goal in mind, the question is worth asking. Who benefits from attacks on Christianity?
> 
> _Everyone_ with totalitarian ambitions. Including a religion which boasts of them openly. (See video.)
> 
> ...




*What's all this nonsense got to do with the Pope going easy on the crime of child sexual abuse in the priesthood?* While people like you bury your heads in the sand, Dawkins is trying to do something about it.

Of course his efforts are doomed to failure, but at least he is keeping the issue alive, and bringing people like you out of the woodwork, and exposure of weird arguments to the light of day.


----------



## Fishbulb (13 April 2010)

I want these child molesters brought to justice really bad. And - if the pope had ANYTHING to do with the cover up of any of it within the church, then his **** should be grass like anyone elses.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

For atheists who supposedly base beliefs on evidence, you guys don't read sources very objectively. No one here is defending child molestation. No one. Yet your repeated tactic is just to act as though any opposition is doing just that.

Earlier I linked to an article showing that the clergy don't abuse children at a higher rate than the general population. Which would hardly translate to "systematic". You have your atheist religious faith blinders on and missed it.


----------



## Timmy (13 April 2010)

Oh dear ... carry on.


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 April 2010)

Timmy said:


> Oh dear ... carry on.




I love the internet. :bloated::cuckoo::horse:


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Holy crap, just realized I could've been off making money during this time. Adios.


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Do note he spends more time criticizing the religion resposible (with Judeoism) for creating civilization in which freedom & prosperity is possible. Atheist societies are not exaimed, and there are many on record: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Oh no wait - these places aren't atheist, they worship the state, the dear leader, the Man of Steel, the Fuhrer. That's what happens when you take out respectable religion - the state and a dictator replaces it. Happy accident? Now why do you suppose there is such a sustained attack on Christianity, then, if to remove it leads to a small elite grabbing total power? Coincidence, it must be.
> 
> Also, I have not heard much about this fascist speaking about a certain religion which advises its followers to strap bombs to themselves, and to their own children, to kill unbelievers. In PC land, it is not permissible to criticize _that_ religion.
> 
> ...




Atlas, you are falling in to the trap that I mentioned in my last post of assigning the agenda of individual atheists to atheism itself. You are also crediting Judea-Christendom solely with creating civilisation in which freedom & prosperity is possible. I'm sure the Greeks would have something to say about that. And interestingly you would be seen as a "sort of atheist" (in their eyes) when it came to belief in their gods.



> Now why do you suppose there is such a sustained attack on Christianity, then, if to remove it leads to a small elite grabbing total power?




That is a valid point and is certainly the motivation of many of the crack pot dictators you mentioned, at least some of whom happened to be atheists. They attacked the respective religious institutions in their domains because they saw them as an alternative power base in society and could prove an obstacle to the dictators efforts to obtain absolute control. But that was a political agenda, not a religious agenda or agenda of atheism (which as discussed before has none). There have been many other dictators who had a religious persuasions of some sort who have also done exactly the same. Because Stalin and Hitler were both atheists (though there is doubt about the latter) is as irrelevant to the argument as the fact that they both had moustaches. Many good people who opposed these dictators were also atheists (and had moustaches). The fact that politicians use or abuse religion is nothing new.



> Also, I have not heard much about this fascist speaking about a certain religion which advises its followers to strap bombs to themselves, and to their own children, to kill unbelievers. In PC land, it is not permissible to criticize _that_ religion.




I can only conclude from that remark you have very little exposure to Dawkins writings or lectures. Dawkins (Hitchens and Harris too) have constantly condemned the teachings of Islam and regard Christianity as not in the same league when it comes to the evil inherent in some religions.


----------



## overhang (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> For atheists who supposedly base beliefs on evidence, you guys don't read sources very objectively. No one here is defending child molestation. No one. Yet your repeated tactic is just to act as though any opposition is doing just that.
> 
> Earlier I linked to an article showing that the clergy don't abuse children at a higher rate than the general population. Which would hardly translate to "systematic". You have your atheist religious faith blinders on and missed it.



You have completely missed the point, it wouldn't matter if only 1 priest had sexually abused a child its that the priest represents the church and the church proceeded to cover this up.  As Timmy summed up, any other organization would be held accountable and the RCC is no exception to this.


----------



## SmellyTerror (13 April 2010)

> Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf. Not much Christianity in it.
> ...
> ALL the statist mass murdering dictators of the last century were atheist leftists.




Hitler was a leftist? Well bugger me.

I think you'll find that murdering dictators are against anything that represents a competing power base, and hence organised religion is an obvious target. Hence also unions, other political parties, popular policial figures (even allies), war heros, large minorities, journalists, etc. All of these are common targets of murderous dictators. 

But don't let me challenge your shallow world view. That crazy leftist atheist Hitler, leftistly introducing facism and atheistically praising god.

You've got Mein Kampf? Goodo. Have a little flick to page 562 (depending on edition): "_The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”_

Or hell, page 214: _"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”_

...or page 436: _"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”_

Bloody *atheist*. Turned me into a NEWT, he did.

Now you can argue that Hitler wasn't actually _Christian_, but he sure as hell showed no sign of being an athiest.


----------



## Fishbulb (13 April 2010)

These forums are full of people who know much more about everything than everyone else does.

Apparantly, even history books can lie. 

Let's just stick to the facts. Fact is, the pope needs to be brought to justice if he was involved in the cover up of any child molesting activities. 

Fact is, the offending "priests" should be de-frocked and face charges.


----------



## Tink (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Hitler denounced any religious faith at an early age. Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf. Not much Christianity in it.
> 
> His faith was statist socialism. He spoke of making a pagan "god of war" the official religion, but never got around to it. So he played the Reich's messiah himself.
> 
> ...





Good post Atlas

Ban all religious leaders out of your country and see what happens


----------



## SmellyTerror (13 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Good post Atlas
> 
> Ban all religious leaders out of your country and see what happens




You read my post that ripped his post up, right?

Hitler didn't ban religious leaders. He actively courted the Catholic Church because they weren't a threat to his power base.

History. It's totally right there in books and stuff.


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Eradicate all of it...?
> 
> Okay, starting where, and how?
> 
> And why do you feel "ethics and truth" are the domain of atheists and never of religion? I have provided examples of atheist states, you haven't responded.




The atheists states you mention were extreme on dogma and of controlling the people as is religion.   

*It is all about control *and a great book, the lifetime work of an historian/philosopher by the name of Frazer of Oxford scholarship, wrote the "Golden Bough" which put together the basics of ritual and religion back into antiquity makes clear the purpose of religion.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

overhang said:


> You have completely missed the point, it wouldn't matter if only 1 priest had sexually abused a child its that the priest represents the church and the church proceeded to cover this up.  As Timmy summed up, any other organization would be held accountable and the RCC is no exception to this.




I am telling you it is a SOCIETAL problem, not something systemic to the catholic church, and the way SOCIETY handled it was how the church handled it. It was a hidden phenomenon until recent times. It was something little understood, little talked about.

I agree that coverups of individual criminal acts is a very wrong thing to do.

I disagree with individual criminal acts being used politically, ideologically, to deliberately smear religion in general, or the religious philosophy which in no way pardons such acts.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 April 2010)

explod said:


> The atheists states you mention were extreme on dogma and of controlling the people as is religion.
> 
> *It is all about control *and a great book, the lifetime work of an historian/philosopher by the name of Frazer of Oxford scholarship, wrote the "Golden Bough" which put together the basics of ritual and religion back into antiquity makes clear the purpose of religion.




I think explod has made a good point here. Control and power are maintained either via extreme dogma and/or religion. And many have experienced much suffering under usually either or sometimes both. 

As a primary school kid, I was frequently bashed black and blue and terrorized by a mass-observing Catholic Man. But I've never held that against the Catholic Church or the Pope. Some people are just assholes that's life.


----------



## Tink (13 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> You read my post that ripped his post up, right?
> 
> Hitler didn't ban religious leaders. He actively courted the Catholic Church because they weren't a threat to his power base.
> 
> History. It's totally right there in books and stuff.




Isnt that what Dawkins is trying to do - make the Pope cancel his trip or he wants to arrest him in Britain????

same saga


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Atlas, you are falling in to the trap that I mentioned in my last post of assigning the agenda of individual atheists to atheism itself. You are also crediting Judea-Christendom solely with creating civilisation in which freedom & prosperity is possible. I'm sure the Greeks would have something to say about that. And interestingly you would be seen as a "sort of atheist" (in their eyes) when it came to belief in their gods.




That's precisely what atheists are doing to the church and religion in general. I am trying to point out how wrong that is to do by doing the same thing to atheists.

But it is the effect, not the intent, that matters. If Dawkins has the best of intentions in all the world (which he doesn't, in my view), the effect of what he does is to weaken one of the pillars of morality which keeps many hostile societal forces at bay. Business / government / religion. The three pillars. Remove any one, and you get tyranny. They balance the whole structure between them.




> That is a valid point and is certainly the motivation of many of the crack pot dictators you mentioned, at least some of whom happened to be atheists. They attacked the respective religious institutions in their domains because they saw them as an alternative power base in society and could prove an obstacle to the dictators efforts to obtain absolute control. But that was a political agenda, not a religious agenda or agenda of atheism (which as discussed before has none). There have been many other dictators who had a religious persuasions of some sort who have also done exactly the same. Because Stalin and Hitler were both atheists (though there is doubt about the latter) is as irrelevant to the argument as the fact that they both had moustaches. Many good people who opposed these dictators were also atheists (and had moustaches). The fact that politicians use or abuse religion is nothing new.





Again, intention matters not. Effect: remove religion. People still worship - the state and dear leader. It's what happens. It's not an accident. A moral society would not accept immoral leaders.

I am not talking about a matter as trivial as a mustache, as pretty as you may find the analogy it's not relevant. We are talking belief systems, aka thought systems. Take away the idea that there is a higher law than the political ruler, and his rule becomes divine. Kim Jong Il is portrayed as a god. It's not an accident. All the propoganda posters from all the eras look very similar. It is deliberate.


----------



## SmellyTerror (13 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Isnt that what Dawkins is trying to do - make the Pope cancel his trip or he wants to arrest him in Britain????
> 
> same saga




Me: Hitler courted the Catholic Church.

You: isn't that what Dawkins is trying to do?

Me: uh...... no. Not really.

"Courted" kinda means "sucked up to". As in "Hitler sucked up to the Catholic Church". For reference, trying to arrest someone is not sucking up to them.

Here, this might help: http://dictionary.reference.com/


----------



## Tink (13 April 2010)

Well we arent talking about Hitler, we are talking about the here and now.

Dawkins is trying to ban the Pope from Britain is he not??


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Hitler was a leftist? Well bugger me.
> 
> I think you'll find that murdering dictators are against anything that represents a competing power base, and hence organised religion is an obvious target. Hence also unions, other political parties, popular policial figures (even allies), war heros, large minorities, journalists, etc. All of these are common targets of murderous dictators.
> 
> But don't let me challenge your shallow world view. That crazy leftist atheist Hitler, leftistly introducing facism and atheistically praising god.




Yes, orangized religion is an obvious target, except when it can be used as a tool for the state, like the Russian orthodox church. All those types in your list are not just targets, they are targets if they cannot prove themselves useful tools. Dictators use religious language, imagery. They use journalists, unions, other political parties, popular figures. All of that.

You slip in the abuse - why? What's shallow about my views? I could call you historically ignorant to an embarrassing degree except I'm too nice. Hitler was indeed a lefty. Want a lecture on the political spectrum? I'd give it but it'd piss you and everyone else off. The only person to Hitler's left was Stalin (the only real difference, Hitler allowed some ownership of property as long as you did what he said.) The word "socialist" alone = lefty. Nazi = national *socialist* workers party.

He was also indeed an atheist. Very, very much so.




> You've got Mein Kampf? Goodo. Have a little flick to page 562 (depending on edition): "_The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”_
> 
> Or hell, page 214: _"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”_
> 
> ...




Here is what you don't understand - Hitler means a different thing by "God" than you or I do. For many politicians, "God" is a useful rhetorical device, nothing more. (Hence, no credible religious leaders to hold them to account for the term's use = they have free reign to USE people's religious impulses for their own goals.)

When Hitler talks about God's will, he means HIS OWN will. Which of course is divine. For in the state he created, HE is god. Is he not? What scriptures, what commandments, did he answer to but his own? The word on his lips was at best meaningless. You cannot equate it with what a Christian refers to. Dawkins does because he knows he is very weak on the political report cards of your average genocidal dictator and it's the best he can do. Must you accept everything he says in blind faith? That's what religious whackos do


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

People respond subconsciously to symbols, Hitler the swasticker, Religion the criciform.   They are signifiers and begin with a significant event.

Dawkins if you read him with an open and objective mind has a good message.  He is not down on all of the mechanisims of Christian values, he is down on the fairy tales as enumerated above in other posts.

His idea to have the Pope arrested is the creation of a significant event,   gee it has us talking and thinking at a great pace.   And only good will come from us thinking and looking outside the square; *for ourselves as individuals*


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I think explod has made a good point here. Control and power are maintained either via extreme dogma and/or religion. And many have experienced much suffering under usually either or sometimes both.
> 
> As a primary school kid, I was frequently bashed black and blue and terrorized by a mass-observing Catholic Man. But I've never held that against the Catholic Church or the Pope. Some people are just assholes that's life.





Yes - people will always worship, it is part of us (even atheists have faith in their dogma, it's all through this thread.) Which is why the established dogma & religion of Christianity (evolved from more bloody times, to something now stable and benign), is FAR preferable to what would emerge from the vacuum if you removed it. I can only point again to examples of when it was removed, and what resulted. Usually genocide and a dictator. I'd prefer to live next to Ned Flanders, even if he is a pain in the ****.


----------



## Solly (13 April 2010)

Sometimes you've just got to feel for an old warrior on the front line, where the tread really does meet the road.

http://twitter.com/FatherBob/status/12017180690


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

> Sometimes you've just got to feel for an old warrior on the front line, where the tread really does meet the road.




Absolutely, witnessed him baptising a Grandson a few years ago and regard him as one of lifes gentlemen.   And we need these backstops for major events in our lives and feel sure it could be made to work well without the need of the fairy tales and dogma.    

Old Parish Priest I used to serve the alter with as a boy was a very similar type, a very good man adn a real helper of the downtrodden without favour.

But the pomp and laws based on fairy tales and repetitative stories designed to indoctrinate need to go.   The *bible is a fairy tale.  We need to grow up.*


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Can you give an example or two, explod, of the kinds of laws you refer to which need to go so urgently?


----------



## SmellyTerror (13 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Well we arent talking about Hitler, we are talking about the here and now.
> 
> Dawkins is trying to ban the Pope from Britain is he not??




Actually, when I said "Hitler did these things" I was, in fact, talking about Hitler.

I will try to be less subtle in future.



Atlas79 said:


> The word "socialist" alone = lefty. Nazi = national *socialist* workers party.




Ha ha HAAAA!!! And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic!

And you call *me* historically ignorant. Golden. Just golden.



> Here is what you don't understand - Hitler means a different thing by "God" than you or I do. For many politicians, "God" is a useful rhetorical device, nothing more. When Hitler talks about God's will, he means HIS OWN will.




So when he said "I'm Catholic", he was in fact saying "I'm actually a crypto-atheist"? See, I can tar pretty much anyone that way. Stalin? He was Buddhist! Yeah, all that stuff about communism? What he REALLY meant by communism is Bhuddism. See? It all makes sense.

So when he said he was chosen by a higher power, what he meant was that he is a higher power to himself and chose himself to serve himself to carry out his own will on earth. 

Complicated bloke.

From The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939: 


> "My feeling *as a Christian *points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love *as a Christian* and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. *As a Christian *I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."



Oh that wacky Hitler, getting his words all mixed up! What he ACTUALLY meant was....

So you can call him an atheist because he did bad stuff. You can point to anyone who does bad stuff and say "he must have been an atheist because he did bad stuff". 

Then you can say that atheism is bad because it makes people do bad stuff. Look! All of those guys who did bad stuff were atheists.

Awesome circular argument.

There is not the slightest evidence that Hitler was an atheist. None. How this idiocy is repeated over and over is beyond me. How you can be so arrogant to say "Oh, I'VE got Mein Kampf on my bookshelf, and he's an atheist (and I'm terribly clever, don't you know)" when the book is chock full of god, is just staggering. However you want to argue that Hitler didn’t believe in god, Mein Kampf is the not the kind of evidence you use if you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Ultimately we will never know what he actually believed. But we can see, very clearly, that he made every effort to look Christian. So maybe we can speculate that he was secretly an atheist. But *those guys operating the ovens all thought they were working for a Christian*.

The wild-ass assertion that Hitler was an atheist and Nazi Germany an atheist society is just that: bald-faced invention.



> Must you accept everything he says in blind faith? That's what religious whackos do




I believe you were the one who went to Mein Kampf as a source...


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Can you give an example or two, explod, of the kinds of laws you refer to which need to go so urgently?




We need to go to basic ethics and each one needs to be qualified for a reason based on common sense and in line with current community standards.   We do not need to back them with threats of hell or fairy tales.  As far as writing a proper constitution I know of many masters of theology, and you do too, who are much better equipped than I to work out the fine print.


----------



## spooly74 (13 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Isnt that what Dawkins is trying to do - make the Pope cancel his trip or he wants to arrest him in Britain????
> 
> same saga




Is there a case for him to be arrested, Tink, regardless of who wants to do it?



> The facts are as clear as they are damning. From the documents, the priest fits exactly the model of arrested development I sketched out here. He seems to have been pressured by a bossy mother to become a priest, and was interested only in hanging out with children around the ages of 11 to 13 (the age of the boys he raped). He had no genuine impulse to ordination, but the church was so desperate for priests he was acceptable.
> 
> When confronted with the charges, *the priest pleaded no contest to tying up and raping two pre-teen boys in 1978 in the rectory of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Union City. There were, apparently, several more victims. There was no dispute as to his guilt. The priest, Stephen Kiesle, personally requested he be defrocked. His legacy is horrifying:.*
> 
> ...




Looks like the bishop was spot on.

opcorn:


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

explod said:


> We need to go to basic ethics and each one needs to be qualified for a reason based on common sense and in line with current community standards.   We do not need to back them with threats of hell or fairy tales.  As far as writing a proper constitution I know of many masters of theology, and you do too, who are much better equipped than I to work out the fine print.




Mate, you talked about laws that had to be changed because they were bible-influenced. Now you're being pretty vague when asked for specifics.


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Mate, you talked about laws that had to be changed because they were bible-influenced. Now you're being pretty vague when asked for specifics.




Nonsense, "Though shalt not kill"   or "Covet they neighours wife" need to be in, laws do not need to be changed but the premise of a God behind them do.    Man by nature tries to be good and with a proper education, freedom and the correct mentorship he will be.  Most religeon does that now but falls down because they hang onto dogma dreamt up in antiquity, it is no longer relevant.    In saying that I do not profess to know the answers, surely the clergy would be most willing to change towards relevance if the draconian leaderships bogged down in maintaining the antiquated would allow it.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Actually, when I said "Hitler did these things" I was, in fact, talking about Hitler.
> 
> I will try to be less subtle in future.
> 
> ...




Hillarious - so you will take the word of a genocidal dictator at face value?

You don't suppose he was, oh, maybe trying to fool people? Get legitimacy, get trust...?

You're talking about a man who marched millions of people to death in gas chambers. He told lots of those they were going to get hot showers. For, um, trust & legitmacy.

He wouldn't have the audacity to LIE, would he?

Sorry mate but if you want to throw stones at someone who has at least a rudimentary knowledge of a subject, when you don't, you're going to look silly.



> Oh that wacky Hitler, getting his words all mixed up! What he ACTUALLY meant was....
> 
> So you can call him an atheist because he did bad stuff. You can point to anyone who does bad stuff and say "he must have been an atheist because he did bad stuff".
> 
> ...





What he actually meant was to deceive anyone who might be listening. You are talking about one of history's most notorious liars.

Maybe you have another transcript of Honest Adolf's speeches which reads:

"I am a murderous dictator who in a few short years shall transform your country into a hell you will barely recognize. My henchmen will kick down your doors in the dead of night, will take your neighbours off to camps, will exterminate millions of people, start an enormous world war..." etc etc etc?

Or would he... um... say... pretend to be a nice guy who had your best interests at heart, keep all that stuff quiet, and tell you whatever you wanted to hear to keep you from acting to prevent him? Eg, say he is a moral Christian man?

My earlier post - I think you missed it. The part where it said dictators USE religious language, imagery, suggestion, even intonations in speech, for that very purpose.

And your idea? Discredit, do away with, genuine religions which would PREVENT them from getting away with it.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

explod said:


> Nonsense, "Though shalt not kill"   or "Covet they neighours wife" need to be in, laws do not need to be changed but the premise of a God behind them do.    Man by nature tries to be good and with a proper education, freedom and the correct mentorship he will be.  Most religeon does that now but falls down because they hang onto dogma dreamt up in antiquity, it is no longer relevant.    In saying that I do not profess to know the answers, surely the clergy would be most willing to change towards relevance if the draconian leaderships bogged down in maintaining the antiquated would allow it.




Okay so if the laws stayed the same but we added a bit that said, "by the way it's not cause god said so," you're cool with it?

If yes, the laws are the same though, so what's the diff? Why the urgency & upheaval?

I'd also suggest danger in calling for drastic change of details you're not familiar with, & letting "whoever" do the fine print. You know what they say, Devil's in the details


----------



## Solly (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Can you give an example or two, explod, of the kinds of laws you refer to which need to go so urgently?





This may be a good place to start the review.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236788/Code-of-Canon-Law-1983

Can anybody offer any suggestions ? !


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

I asked the guy hysterically shouting for change (in bolds) what changes specifically he meant.

His answer: "I dunno."


----------



## SmellyTerror (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Hillarious - so you will take the word of a genocidal dictator at face value?
> 
> You don't suppose he was, oh, maybe trying to fool people? Get legitimacy, get trust...?
> 
> ...




YOU used Mein Kampf as evidence that he was an atheist. YOU DID. Do you know who wrote Mein Kampf? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Rommel.

C'mon, show us your rudimentary knowledge of the subject. Name that author you treated as a reliable source on the religious beleifs of Hitler. I'm sure it's on wikipedia somewhere.

Sorry, but I've got to quote you again: 


> Hitler denounced any religious faith at an early age. Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf.




How in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does that match what you're saying now - or, indeed, REALITY? How is constantly praising the word of god "denouncing any religious faith"?




> What he actually meant was to deceive anyone who might be listening. You are talking about one of history's most notorious liars.
> 
> Maybe you have another transcript of Honest Adolf's speeches which reads:
> 
> ...




If everything a guy says is "I'm not an athiest", on what basis do you make the claim that he was? What is your evidence? He was bad so clearly he was lying about everything? I'll see if I can find a quote of Hitler saying the sky is blue so I can prove it isn't...

So you can conclude he was an atheist because he claimed not to be an athiest???

And you'd claim Stalin WAS an atheist (despite training as a Preist) because he *did *claim to be an atheist. You've got a long list of "atheists" - but didn't they generally claim to be atheists? Why are we taking the word of murderous dictators now? Weren't they all lying?

Fact is, most of the murderous dictators of history claimed to be religious because it helped solidify their power. Most of the murderous dictators in recent history claimed NOT to be religious because THAT helped them solidify their power. Whether or not they actually believed in god is pure speculation.

So you've got a list of recent ones who said they were atheists. The most blatant odd one out is Hitler, who repeatedly and clearly claimed to be religious, both in public and private. Yet he's the one most often brought up as an example of the evils of atheism.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "oh these guys said they were atheists, so they were, but this guy said he was religious, so he wasn't".


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

SmellyTerror, I have nothing to add.


----------



## SmellyTerror (13 April 2010)

_Only a scratch._


Just so we're clear, to sum up:

You: Hitler constantly denounced religion. He's an atheist. It's right there in Mein Kampf.

Me: Main Kampf praises god. Hitler praised god.

You: Oh, you're going to take a dictator's word for it, are you?

Me: Well didn't you just use a dictator's words to try to support your own position? (Even though you've got those words completely wrong).

You: ...I'm not listening.

Me: /engage smug mode


----------



## gooner (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Arrested, for the crime of disagreeing with Dawkins. Watch this man's rants on youtube if you are sufficiently bored, you'll see a genuine fanatic at work.
> 
> Ask Dawkins the following:
> 
> ...




Hitler was a catholic and tried to exterminate another religion - the jews, so not sure how you equate this with atheism.  As for the other states you mention, their ideology was Communism not atheism.  Atrociites by those countries were in the name of communism. Sure they repressed organised religion, as they oppressed independent trade unions and all dissent. Not because of atheism, but because of wanting total control. I am not aware of any murders done in the name of atheism.

But I know of millions done in the name of religion.


----------



## Atlas79 (13 April 2010)

Sorry, your history is all messed up. If anyone else could be bothered correcting it be my guest, but the track record in this thread of people actually reading & paying an athiest's keen scientific eye to evidence presented, god forbid with an open mind, shows it's not worth my time.


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Sorry, your history is all messed up. If anyone else could be bothered correcting it be my guest, but the track record in this thread of people actually reading & paying an athiest's keen scientific eye to evidence presented, god forbid with an open mind, shows it's not worth my time.




You are right. You have nothing to add. And you have contributed nothing to the thread except red herrings. The thread is about Richard Dawkins and the Pope. One condones pederasty and one doesn't.


----------



## explod (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Okay so if the laws stayed the same but we added a bit that said, "by the way it's not cause god said so," you're cool with it?
> 
> If yes, the laws are the same though, so what's the diff? Why the urgency & upheaval?
> 
> I'd also suggest danger in calling for drastic change of details you're not familiar with, & letting "whoever" do the fine print. You know what they say, Devil's in the details




Overdramatisation, just dcrop the fairy tales would be a great start.  In other words stop telling children lies, the dogma is no better that Santa, the Easter Bunny or Fairy Tales.   Why not read stories about nature, real butterflies and ad in fanitum.


----------



## Ozymandias (13 April 2010)

Timmy said:


> If the CEO of Coles knew some of his managers f*cked children and then he systemically sheltered these criminals and allowed them continued access to children in his stores, wouldn't he be held responsible?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Timmy hit the original topic on the head pages ago, but the conversation goes on in various tangents. The point that the human rights lawyers are trying to make by mounting a case against the Pope is that while everyone has a right to practice whatever religion they choose, no one should have _any_ special treatment because of that belief, never mind immunity from prosecution.

I'm not going to act as judge and jury in the case of the Pope, but any reasonable person would agree that there is enough evidence available to prompt a criminal investigation into whether he covered up abuse. But none has been forthcoming, despite these abuses and the cover ups taking place in numerous different countries!

It doesn't matter what you believe, or what position you hold in any organisation, religious or otherwise, no one should have that kind of protection. In practice, in the western world, religious leaders are the only ones who do. It's not right.


----------



## gooner (13 April 2010)

I worked for a large Australian bank. Whilst I was there, I am aware of one person fired for showing their boxer shorts down the pub after work and one fired for having their team christmas lunch at a lap dancing joint.

But somehow, the Catholic Church thinks that a priest who rapes children should not be dismissed.

Seriously, read the above again and think about it.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Sorry, your history is all messed up. If anyone else could be bothered correcting it be my guest, but the track record in this thread of people actually reading & paying an athiest's keen scientific eye to evidence presented, god forbid with an open mind, shows it's not worth my time.




Atheism cant seriously be attacked....just the words "militant & atheist" used one after the other is laughable, we atheists have nothing to prove, and this rubbish about Atheism being a faith and or requiring faith is just nuts...its bizarre how believers feel so threatened by people who don't believe in gods etc.

I remember seeing a documentary a while ago on a Air France hijacking...the Muslim terrorists, hijackers decided that they needed to kill some passengers to make a point and chose the 3 atheists on board to be victims, these nuts felt more respect and compassion, and had more in common with other believers...the atheists they had nothing in common with.


----------



## Ruby (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLxfZwofNE
> 
> Watch. Then we'll talk.




Atlas, I've watched, so let's talk.

the video you referred me to is an islamic fundamentalist propaganda video.  I fail to see the connection between *that *and Richard Dawkins, the pope, a paedaphoile priest who was protected by the pope, and the contents of my post.  The sort of thing presented in that video is *exactly *what Richard Dawkins (as well as all other good people atheist or religious) abhors.  Can you explain please?

*So I will ask you again...do you condone the fact that the pope protected a paedophile priest?  If you don't then you have no argument with this thread.  If you do then say so.  You either approve of the vatican cover-up or you don't.*

Your arguments are circular and self-defeating, and you clearly know nothing of history!   I also doubt you have read any of Dawkins' books.

Hitler *was brought up a catholic and remained one all his life.*   His twisted version of christianity led him to believe he had a god given right to rid the world of jews.   He thought it was his christian duty!!!!!

Hitler was very definitely *NOT *a "lefty".  He was about as right wing as it is possible to be!  Do you know the difference between left and right wing?

You are getting religion confused with politics.   Totalitarian states are not always devoid of religious beliefs

For some reason which I fail to understand you have equated atheism with evil and christianity with all that is good.   You seem to have trouble accepting that there are fine and upstanding atheists as well as evil people who call themselves christians  

Just what is it you are objecting to?   You have yet to make a valid point


----------



## Ruby (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Oppose Dwarkins, you are pro molestation. Overplay your hand much? And Ruby, you claim atheism is not militant? Atheists in this thread have openly proposed eradicating "all of [religion]." Starting, it seems, with the peaceful ones it is safe to criticize, since they believe life is sacred and won't issue fatwahs. (I would love, LOVE to see Dawkins tackle certain other religions head on, publicly. Danish cartoonists anyone?)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Atlas, you don't know *who *on this thread is an athiest; and the most militant person on it has been *you*.   (I suppose I can safely assume you are *not *an atheist?)

As for female genital mutilation, etc, etc.... no of course it has not been mentioned because it has nothing to do with this thread.   

You really are most *dreadfully *confused.


----------



## Ruby (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Do note I'm not saying this as a Christian but as someone who enjoys the fruits of a society founded on Judeo-Christian values (what's left of them after the long, sustained, deliberate campaign to subvert those values, of which Dawkins is just another flung spear.)




Tell me Atlas, which particular Judeo-Christian values is Richard Dawkins trying to subvert?


----------



## Ruby (13 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Yes - people will always worship, it is part of us (even atheists have faith in their dogma, it's all through this thread.)




Atlas, you still don't understand.   Atheism is *not *a faith; there *is *no dogma.   And without the belief in a god, there is no vacuum either.

As you are clearly *not *an athiest, you are in no position to argue with this


----------



## Fishbulb (13 April 2010)

Of course atheism's faith based. Anything that you cannot prove or disprove is. It's the other side of the same coin.


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Of course atheism's faith based. Anything that you cannot prove or disprove is. It's the other side of the same coin.




Rubbish. Atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's merely a matter of choice, based on common sense.


----------



## weird (13 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Rubbish. Atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's merely a matter of choice, based on common sense.




Common sense isn’t that common, even with atheists.

If you put a group of atheists in a room, I am sure they would all agree to disagree with each other, not only that, but with certainty.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Of course atheism's faith based. Anything that you cannot prove or disprove is. It's the other side of the same coin.




LOL i don't need to not prove there's a god..its a given, its the natural state of being...gods were invented by humans to fill there needs.

Its not the other side of the same coin...there's no gods on an atheist coin, it's a non event...gods are as relevant as The tooth Fairy, Mickey mouse and king kong.



weird said:


> If you put a group of atheists in a room, I am sure they would all agree to disagree with each other, not only that, but with certainty.




That's true of any group of people...perhaps slightly more so with atheists because by nature they tend to be more likely to be individualist rather than need social acceptance and crowd support.


----------



## gav (13 April 2010)

So Cynical, you are blinded by your beliefs as much as the religious nutters you detest.


----------



## weird (13 April 2010)

Sad, but widespread in all areas of society,

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

"while experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rates of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations."

So others, not related to the Catholic Church are doing at least the same damage , in the same numbers or more, to kids, than the focused group.

Sick I know. Blame society, or blame something.

Btw, I am catholic, go to church regularly, if anyone tried to attend a regular mass or spend time with a priest, the whole thing is about love, respect, caring, and giving, and being part of a community. I guess some could take advantage of that.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 April 2010)

gav said:


> So Cynical, you are blinded by your beliefs as much as the religious nutters you detest.




beliefs, detest...please Gav i believe in very little and detest only the detestable.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 April 2010)

weird said:


> Sad, but widespread in all areas of society,
> "while experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rates of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations."
> 
> the whole thing is about love, respect, caring, and giving, and being part of a community. I guess some could take advantage of that.




Proven long ago the career paedophiles deliberately seek employment in areas where they can get easy access to children...Priests, The scouts, School teachers, youth counselling, sports coaching etc.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Proven long ago the career paedophiles deliberately seek employment in areas where they can get easy access to children...Priests, The scouts, School teachers, youth counselling, sports coaching etc.




Great post So Cynical. But I don't like your use of the word paedophile. As you would definitely agree there is no love involved in these crimes, so I think the Anti-PC term 'pederast' is a much better word to describe such persons. Anyhow, don't mean to be technical just wanted to point that out.


----------



## Solly (14 April 2010)

An article in The Guardian by Richard Dawkins.

"The pope should stand trial
Why is anyone surprised when Christopher Hitchens and I call for the prosecution of the pope? 
There is a clear case to answer"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins


----------



## gooner (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Do note I'm not saying this as a Christian but as someone who enjoys the fruits of a society founded on Judeo-Christian values (what's left of them after the long, sustained, deliberate campaign to subvert those values, of which Dawkins is just another flung spear.)




Fortunately  our society is based on humanist values and not Judeo-Christian values.   I say fortunately because otherwise we would have laws based on the following rules in the christian bible.

Death for adultery

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the *****, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

No pulling on private parts

 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." 

Death for homosexuality

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

Demonisation of women

'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 April 2010)

> Of course atheism's faith based. Anything that you cannot prove or disprove is. It's the other side of the same coin.




As the old saying goes: saying Atheism is a kind of faith is like saying baldness is a kind of hat.

Atheism means no belief in god. It does NOT mean an active belief that there is no god - not the same thing at all. Most atheists are happy to go to the second part as a provisional answer, but of course it can't be proven. Just as almost any statement of fact must carry with it an element of uncertainty. But when a wild-ass claim is made with no evidence to back it up, I think it's a fair answer to say "uh, I don't think so".

Are you happy to say "there's no such thing as Santa"? Sure. But can you PROVE it? No. A sufficiently magical Santa could remain hidden forever. So is it an act of faith to say "I don't believe in Santa"? Should we create a name for this new "religion"? Asantanists?

*Ya bloody militant Asantanists*, denying the existence of His Holy Redness. You're no more rational than we true believers! We're two sides of THE SAME COIN!

Repeat for every single magical, can't-be-proven claim that you don't believe. Jeez, you're going to be in a lot of religions. Afairyist, Amagicalunicornist, Aoptimusprimist, Ausefulpoliticianist. And all of those non-beliefs no more rational than the beliefs-in-impossible-crap themselves. Sides of coins.

Bull.

Put it another way: atheism means "no god" - if you don't presently believe in god, you're an atheist. Babies do not believe in god by virtue of being unable to have the idea explained to them. Are babies all religious? What about rocks? They're atheist by virtue of not having brains. They can't believe in god no matter how what combination of indoctrination, gullibility, wishful thinking and cultural tradition you bring to bear on them. 

But apparently rocks belong to a religion.

...we should probably start giving them tax breaks.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Of course atheism's faith based. Anything that you cannot prove or disprove is. It's the other side of the same coin.




Fishbulb, that is arrant nonsense.   Atheism is not a belief system - there is nothing to believe *in *for the atheist.  There is no dogma.   It is simply a lack of belief in something others choose to believe.

Do you believe there are goblins at the bottom of your garden?  No?  Green men on Mars?  No?  So is your non-belief in these things a "faith"?  Of course  not!!

If a group of people suddenly decide to believe in something new, and I choose not to take part, have I suddenly acquired a new "faith"?  Of course not.  The other people have.


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 April 2010)

See? I need to learn how to do shorter posts like that.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> As for the molestation nonsense:




Atlas, the molestation was not in question.   The culprit admitted his guilt




Atlas79 said:


> The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.




Oh fine! That makes it all right, does it?


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

Keep it up. Rational observers - of all faiths except, from the look of things, the faith of Atheism - will note the emotional carry on & ad homenims from these paragons of reason.


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Atheists are a peculiar lot. So eager to prove their faith as being unique and or superior, yet so unwilling to actually call it a faith. Which of course it is. 
They simply need to be honest about it.


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Atheists are a peculiar lot. So eager to prove their faith as being unique and or superior, yet so unwilling to actually call it a faith. Which of course it is.
> They simply need to be honest about it.





A lot of them seem to wear it as a badge of superiority. That's the service Dawkins provides, permission to feel superior, righteously so. If it was a case of, "believe what you want, just don't get in my face about it," I have no problem with it. But atheists in this very thread call for the wiping out of religion, the changing of religious based laws (then admit they have no details), & seem incapable of reading an alternate view without foaming at the mouth / wilfully distorting / ad-homenims.

_They_ are the ones declaring a holy war. What can you do? Religious crazies.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Keep it up. Rational observers - of all faiths except, from the look of things, the faith of Atheism - will note the emotional carry on & ad homenims from these paragons of reason.




Atlas!  You're back!  How wonderful!

What is you objection to atheism?  As an unbiased, fair-minded, rational human being, don't you believe that people may believe or disbelieve as they choose?   Or should that choice be granted only to those who see things your way?

This thread concerns the pope's complicity in a cover up of an admitted pedarest priest, and whether he should be held accountable.  It has nothing to do with personal religious beliefs.   Many people on this thread have condemmed the pope's actions, and among them we have a cross-section of religious adherents, agnostics and atheists.  Their personal beliefs are not at issue

You still have not answered the question I have asked you twice already (or the other questions you promised to answer once I had viewed the propaganda video you directed me to):-

Do you condone the pope's actions?

I challenge you to give a straightforward answer without your usual wild generalisations.


----------



## spooly74 (14 April 2010)

I find it hard to believe that a mod hasn't stepped in here to cull this off-topic nonsense


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Atheists are a peculiar lot. So eager to prove their faith as being unique and or superior, yet so unwilling to actually call it a faith. Which of course it is.
> They simply need to be honest about it.




Your experience is obviously different to mine.  I know plenty of atheists, but they never talk about it.   They don't really care.  It is not an issue.

Tell me, if you are so certain it is a "faith", what do they have faith in?


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> What is you objection to atheism?  As an unbiased, fair-minded, rational human being, don't you believe that people may believe or disbelieve as they choose?   Or should that choice be granted only to those who see things your way?




I don't object to atheism. I object to militant atheism.

As for not answering your questions, people aren't doing me the courtesy of answering my questions or my points, other than to deliberately distort them. So why should I bend over backwards and play nice for you guys?


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> I don't object to atheism. I object to militant atheism.
> 
> As for not answering your questions, people aren't doing me the courtesy of answering my questions or my points, other than to deliberately distort them. So why should I bend over backwards and play nice for you guys?




I have seen no evidence of militant atheism in this thread.   Please point it out to me

*You don't make any points or ask any questions!*  You just make wild statements for which you have no evidence, and which are completely off the topic.  Ask away...... and I will answer if I can!

Is the real reason you don't answer, because you can't?


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Your experience is obviously different to mine.  I know plenty of atheists, but they never talk about it.   They don't really care.  It is not an issue.
> 
> Tell me, if you are so certain it is a "faith", what do they have faith in?




It's simple - it takes as much faith to dismiss the notion of a god, as it does to accept it. 

Either way one is reacting to the same thing. 

99% of my friends are atheist. I personally have no problem with atheists, but I do find the mindset very peculiar and occasionally dishonest.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> It's simple - it takes as much faith to dismiss the notion of a god, as it does to accept it.
> 
> Either way one is reacting to the same thing.
> 
> 99% of my friends are atheist. I personally have no problem with atheists, but I do find the mindset very peculiar and occasionally dishonest.




Whatever you like!  It doesn't take faith to *not *believe in something, but if that is what you want to think it makes no difference to me


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> I don't object to atheism. I object to militant atheism.
> 
> As for not answering your questions, people aren't doing me the courtesy of answering my questions or my points, other than to deliberately distort them. So why should I bend over backwards and play nice for you guys?




I didn't think you would show you face again after Ruby so expertly demolished you. I guess you have a thick hide; but somebody with your strange attitude would need a thick hide. Why don't you try returning to the topic.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Calliope - thank you for the support.


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Whatever you like!  It doesn't take faith to *not *believe in something, but if that is what you want to think it makes no difference to me




But it does. Because you invest your faith into another thing/area/system whatever. 

I'd feel safe assuming you have all your faith pinned on science - science being the reason you have no faith in god

Is that right?


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> But it does. Because you invest your faith into another thing/area/system whatever.
> 
> I'd feel safe assuming you have all your faith pinned on science - science being the reason you have no faith in god
> 
> Is that right?




No, it is wrong.  You are also wrong in presuming to know what my religious affiliations are.

But to follow your fallacious argument.........

If a person has faith in science and simultaneously does not believe there is a god, then that faith is in science.   The "faith" is not atheism, unless you are saying that science and atheism are the same thing which they are not.   They are not even related.   There are many people who have faith in god and also in science.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

You didn't answer my earlier question...... if atheism is a faith, what exactly is the faith *in*?  Faith in what?  Nothing


----------



## bassmanpete (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> If it was a case of, "believe what you want, just don't get in my face about it," I have no problem with it.




I feel the same way, but they do get in our faces about it, that's the problem. The problem is bigger in the USA but there are signs that it's increasing here and in Europe. Wanting creationism taught as an alternative to evolution, and religious organisations not employing people of other faiths, gays, or atheists to give just two examples.

As well as the attempt to have the pope arrested, there was a petition, now closed, to stop his upcoming visit to the UK being state funded.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/petition-the-pm.html"

Ruby, you've submitted some fine posts but you can't reason with the unreasoning.

Anyway, I say arrest the pope, close down the Vatican, sell of all the art treasures and give the proceeds back to the poor from whom most of it came in the first place


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> But it does. Because you invest your faith into another thing/area/system whatever.
> 
> I'd feel safe assuming you have all your faith pinned on science - science being the reason you have no faith in god
> 
> Is that right?




Why don't you stick to the topic? All this god stuff has been done to death on other threads.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Why don't you stick to the topic? All this god stuff has been done to death on other threads.




I agree, and will say no more about it.


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> No, it is wrong.  You are also wrong in presuming to know what my religious affiliations are.
> 
> But to follow your fallacious argument.........
> 
> ...




Listen, I'm not arguing, I'm discussing, and if you see it as a win or lose situation then that's your problem. I find this text driven medium difficult enough - far too many unkown variables - without "arguing". 

The first part of your response - I agree they are not mutually exclusive, but generally speaking they are. Your response is one of those unkown variables I mention.   

Second part - I didn't answer it because it's such a commonly asked one - but - your atheism is a faith in yourself. No one has faith in nothing, ask any existentialist.

You're right, I don't know your affiliations. And I don't really care as it makes no difference to me.

Thanks


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Why don't you stick to the topic? All this god stuff has been done to death on other threads.




I walked in on this conversation, so why don't you mind your own business

How's that?


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 April 2010)

Be nice if you guys actually addressed the reasons given for what it's not a faith - or even to show us that you read the posts at all.

"Are so!" might have worked in the playground. Not so much here. Just makes you look like buffoons.



> ...your atheism is a faith in yourself. No one has faith in nothing, ask any existentialist.




No-one has faith in nothing, true, but that doesn't make atheism a faith. It's not a "faith in yourself", either (go look it up). People who believe in god have faith in lots of other things (including faith in themselves, faith that gravity will hold them to the planet, etc), not just that one thing, right? So the lack of that one faith does not suddenly become a faith in itself.

A: I have a fish!

B: I don't.

A: Ahh, but that lack of a fish, IS ITSELF A FISH!

B: ....you're an idiot.

Saying athiesm is a faith don't make it so. Read my earlier posts where I've already explained how you're wrong. Try to answer them to show me how I'm wrong, or you're just wasting everyone's time.

----
*Atheism vs religion is relevant here:* the Pope is apparently to be accorded special treatment (ie immunity from prosecution) entirely on the grounds that he has a special relationship to an imaginary sky wizard. Another bloke, who is a famous ********, and also strong proponent of the view that imaginary sky wizards should have no bearing on how we live our lives, suggests that this immunity is bollocks.

For some reason, this is a Really Big Deal.

The only reason this is even being discussed is the respect accorded imaginary sky wizards and those who apparently speak to them via their extremely awesome hats (why else would you need such a hat?). That same respect also means that I and my atheist brethren effectively contribute money to the awesome-hat people, despite the reasoning for doing so being utterly stupid. 

I mean, they're all happy to be tax free, and happy for the people *worshipping other gods *to be tax free, EVEN THOUGH THEY THINK THE OTHER RELIGIONS ARE FALSE. Atheists and Bhuddists agree on the non-existence of the Catholic god, atheists and Catholics agree on the non-existence of the Hindu gods, atheists and Muslims agree on the non-existence of the crazy **** that Bhuddists believe....

...yet it's only atheists who wonder why the hell all of these guys get special treatment.

And now it's even a matter of debate that a guy who has apparently committed crimes might possibly be arrested for them. When would this even make sense to talk about if not when it relates to the nutty attitude we have towards religion? Of course he gets arrested! Why is the suggestion even news?

Because a combination of power-struggles, fear, mental illness and smart-arses making stuff up as they went along *has left us with religion*.

Yet for some reason, recognising that this is all nonsense will bring about mass death and destruction. Religious people, whose bretheren have slaughtered my fellow atheists whenever they could find them since the beginning of time, are apparently terrified that prosecuting a bloke in a funny dress for what are clearly crimes, will cause mass genocide, Hitler's zombie, blood rain, and cats marrying dogs.


...and now they want to tell me that my lack of a fish is actually a fish. You can't expect me to let that go by without comment. :


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Smellyterror..... thanks for giving me a good laugh!

What no-one has thought to mention is that Geoffrey Robinson QC is also in on this "arrest the pope" lark.   Is anyone going to call him an idiot?  He's the Queen's Counsel who apparently first suggested it might be a goer.


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

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

Pretty good definition there - says it better than I could, although there are many definitions of the word.

Stumbling block for atheists - the word "faith" 

Even though they have it

Weird


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Be nice if you guys actually addressed the reasons given for what it's not a faith - or even to show us that you read the posts at all.
> 
> "Are so!" might have worked in the playground. Not so much here. Just makes you look like buffoons.
> 
> ...


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
> 
> Pretty good definition there - says it better than I could, although there are many definitions of the word.
> 
> ...




From the article *you* just linked to:



> A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist...
> 
> Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.
> 
> ...there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.




You can read, right? 

Honestly, if lack of belief in a god is a faith, explain to me how lack of belief in Santa is not also a faith.

...and if it IS, if any statement of disbelief in anything at all is "faith", then explain to me how the word has any meaning at all.

I say again: a baby is an atheist. It doesn't believe in god, right? Well, does it? So you're saying babies actually have a religion now, are you? They have faith in a thing they don't even understand?

*If no-one had ever thought of god, or if gods had never revealed themselves to humans, we'd ALL BE ATHEISTS. So we'd all, apparently, in your world, actually be walking around with a faith we don't even know exists.*

Awesome.

Now if we want to get into Atheist vs Agnostic debates (ie. most people who think they're Agnostics are actually Atheists, due to a misunderstanding of what the two words mean) then we'll need to start a new thread, because that's a biggy.


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> From the article *you* just linked to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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

You can read right?


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 April 2010)

Dude. Dude.

Seriously.

More from the first link you posted:



> The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[40] Common atheist responses to this argument include that *unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[41] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility*.[42] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."




Hey, I was saying this stuff! I'm totally a philosopher.

Or:



> The strictest sense of positive atheism *does not entail any specific beliefs *outside of disbelief in any deity; as such, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs




You posted me a link to show how right you were, and it shows how wrong you are. I'm not sure that this link posting is working out too well for you. Now you want me to read the one on Faith?



> Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust




...and atheism is the *lack* of a confident belief or trust in the truth of the propostion that there is / are god or gods. That's what atheism IS. Which, it seems to be, is EACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the definition of faith you've just presented as proof.

This link stuff is pretty sweet. Maybe if you keep looking you can find an out-of-context defininition of faith that you can shoe-horn in to fit. Keep trying.


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

A round of bumpats & you elect a thread winner by democratic vote 

You guys are funny 

Good luck with your jihad!


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_fairness_for_the_pope.html#ixzz0jl8CNMH1

Betcha SmellyTerror & Ruby & Calliope & the rest of the echo chamber don't read it.


----------



## spooly74 (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_fairness_for_the_pope.html#ixzz0jl8CNMH1
> 
> Betcha SmellyTerror & Ruby & Calliope & the rest of the echo chamber don't read it.




Probably because it's not relevant to the case in question, happy to be corrected though.

The alleged cover up/delay/whatever, concerns a former Rev. Stephen Kiesle.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_fairness_for_the_pope.html#ixzz0jl8CNMH1
> 
> Betcha SmellyTerror & Ruby & Calliope & the rest of the echo chamber don't read it.




Always happy to rise to a challenge Atlas!!

I have read it and it paints a slightly different picture from the one I read in a previous link you pointed me to (for which I thank you), and other articles I have read.

However, I would be more inclined to accept the word of Geoffrey Robertson QC, who is mounting the legal challenge and who is less likely to get his facts wrong than an American journalist!   Have you heard of Geoffrey Robertson, Atlas?

If Geoffrey Robertson proves to be wrong, then nothing will come of it, and the hooha will die down until next time someone dares to challenge the catholic church!!

Incidentally, still haven't had any answers to the questions I have asked you.   Do you have answers, or do you just rant at random?


----------



## Tink (14 April 2010)

Nothing will happen

Dawkins has had his 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## dutchie (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_fairness_for_the_pope.html#ixzz0jl8CNMH1
> 
> Betcha SmellyTerror & Ruby & Calliope & the rest of the echo chamber don't read it.




Atlas79

What an excellent link you have given us to illustrate how the RC Church tries to ignore the actions of some its priests.

Quote from link

"Murphy next surfaces in 1996, 22 years after his last reported offense. Amid the scandals that swamped the church, some of Murphy's victims pressed the archbishop of Milwaukee to take action. He wrote to Ratzinger, who had by then risen to head the Vatican's Congregation for the Defense of the Faith.

The letter, one of only two in the files bearing Ratzinger's name, asked for advice on how to proceed. Ratzinger did not respond. The archbishop brought charges nonetheless."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_fairness_for_the_pope.html#ixzz0l3LN4rPu

Murphy's victims pressed Archbishop to take action. Archbishop pressed Ratzinger for advice on how to proceed.
Ratzinger's response - none (perhaps a case of -if I ignore this long enough maybe it will go away, either way if I don't respond then no one can blame me)

What he should have done,morally, is to advise the Archbishop to go to the police so that the judiciary could determine innocence/guilt and a suitable punishment if guilty (certainly more than a "banishment")

None action is not a defense if you know something is wrong.

Its because the Church does not act appropriately in these cases that it is left to people like Richard Dawkins to try and get real justice.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

You are right Tink, nothing will happen.  The real purpose of the exercise (which has been a success) was to bring to public awareness the whole business of catholic church hypocrisy and the assumption that the pope is for some reason immune to prosecution.


----------



## Tink (14 April 2010)

If Dawkins had the children on his mind he would be chasing Blair and all the governments that have abused these children through the years.

Does he have the care of the children on his mind?

Thats the question.


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 April 2010)

> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...#ixzz0jl8CNMH1
> 
> Betcha SmellyTerror & Ruby & Calliope & the rest of the echo chamber don't read it.




Since all of my responses have been to the tragi-comic awfulness of the arguments presented (Hitler is a leftist athiest / atheism is a faith) and not at all addressing the substance of a legal case (something I don't know enough about to comment on - there's a concept you could try out), I'm not sure how relevant this is to what I've been saying. You have actually been reading what I've written, right?

...but I'll take a closer look at this opinion article tomorrow, if only because so far everything you guys have shown to present your case has given me a belly laugh.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Tink said:


> If Dawkins had the children on his mind he would be chasing Blair and all the governments that have abused these children through the years.
> 
> Does he have the care of the children on his mind?
> 
> Thats the question.




Tink, you have proffered this specious argument before.   One person cannot take up *all *fights on *all *fronts.  There were children involved here too, so why *not *take up this particular fight?

If Dawkins had decided to chase some other child abuser, would you then say, "Why didn't he go after the catholic church?  They are known child abusers."   You are being ridiculous, and adding nothing to the debate.


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Dude. Dude.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...




I thought you could read - *Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] *The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.

Atheism is a "thing" Get that? Or perhaps you're a little too dim. But keep trying anyway.


----------



## Tink (14 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> You are being ridiculous, and adding nothing to the debate.




Why because I dont agree with you?

There is alot of good in the Church, unfortunately you dont see it.


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Atheism is a "thing" Get that? Or perhaps you're a little too dim. But keep trying anyway.




*Yawn!*


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Why because I dont agree with you?
> 
> There is alot of good in the Church, unfortunately you dont see it.




Here you go - making assumptions again.   You don't know *what *I see in the church.   This thread is about one aspect of it, and it is indisputable


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Since all of my responses have been to the tragi-comic awfulness of the arguments presented (Hitler is a leftist athiest / atheism is a faith) and not at all addressing the substance of a legal case (something I don't know enough about to comment on - there's a concept you could try out), I'm not sure how relevant this is to what I've been saying. You have actually been reading what I've written, right?




Mate, "tragi-comic" is the kind of word someone uses when they're straining to sound intellectual. Give that a rest.

As for Hitler:

National *Socialist* Workers Party.

He was a socialist. Socialists are leftists. Hitler's policies were often identical to Stalin.

A video you badly need to watch but won't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psp8gJxxfdQ

Most relevant parts start at 2 mins 30. No one who watches this will think Hitler was on the right any more & we can put that to bed.



Sorry to offend the "stay on topic" nazis. (How about that, a conversation which meanders onto other related things! Boo hiss.)


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> *Yawn!*




Oh look, a bolded yawn even. 

Look, I wasn't talking to you; my points kept going over your head. Go back to sleep.


----------



## explod (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Mate, "tragi-comic" is the kind of word someone uses when they're straining to sound intellectual. Give that a rest.
> 
> As for Hitler:
> 
> ...




Has nothing to do with the current ills highlighted at the moment with the Catholic Church or Dawkins and the contemplated arrest of the Pope.

And as for *belief* it is just that, and no amount of asserted belief, or scripture, or word meanings going back to Latin can change that, or make a fact.

Show me the true stories, not fairy tales.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> I thought you could read - *Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] *The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.
> 
> Atheism is a "thing" Get that? Or perhaps you're a little too dim. But keep trying anyway.




I think it is obvious who the dim ones are in this debate. Your concept that you have to have faith in order to have no faith is ridiculous. You should stay out of debates where you are so completely outclassed. You're a pushover.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2010)

Now they have really put their foot in it. One of the Pope's henchmen says homosexuality if more to blame than celibacy for the priests' pederasty.



> Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, added fresh fuel to the paedophile priests scandal by saying on a visit to Chile yesterday that there was a stronger link between paedophilia and homosexuality than with celibacy.





http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ophilia-gay-link/story-e6frfku0-1225853432015


----------



## explod (14 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> I thought you could read - *Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] *The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.
> 
> Atheism is a "thing" Get that? Or perhaps you're a little too dim. But keep trying anyway.




Atheism is not a thing it is a state of mind or mindset.  

And faith and belief are one and the same, in having faith one believes however none of this can make the next step which is to know.   

As an atheist I will believe in what I know, if God was to appear in person and for example, part the sea, then I would believe in him because I now know.  

However this is way off the topic and I think that may be the idea of some posters so that we will not continue to question the ethics of the Papacy


----------



## So_Cynical (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> I don't object to atheism. I object to militant atheism.
> 
> As for not answering your questions, people aren't doing me the courtesy of answering my questions or my points, other than to deliberately distort them. So why should I bend over backwards and play nice for you guys?




So i was wondering if i was the only person who thought the term "militant Atheism" was a little over the top and silly...turns out im not alone in thinking its a little made up and irrelevant....Google search results below.


Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for militant Atheism
Results 1 - 10 of about 217,000 for militant Hinduism
Results 1 - 10 of about 996,000 for militant Islam
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,600,000 for militant Christianity


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Typically, certain people - let's call them "atheists" - will not concede a glaringly obvious point, well made and made very clearly. You have been spanked

Anyway, back to the OP kids


----------



## Fishbulb (14 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> I think it is obvious who the dim ones are in this debate. Your concept that you have to have faith in order to have no faith is ridiculous. You should stay out of debates where you are so completely outclassed. You're a pushover.




Oh please 

Who are you again? Doesn't matter, but try to keep up.


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> So i was wondering if i was the only person who thought the term "militant Atheism" was a little over the top and silly...turns out im not alone in thinking its a little made up and irrelevant....Google search results below.
> 
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for militant Atheism
> ...





And this proves what exactly?


----------



## Ruby (14 April 2010)

explod said:


> However this is way off the topic and I think that may be the idea of some posters so that we will not continue to question the ethics of the Papacy




Yep!  I think that is the plan Explod.   So brainwashed are they that they can't conceive of their infallible pope doing something wrong, so they throw all these red herrings about to deflect us on to a different course.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Yep!  I think that is the plan Explod.   So brainwashed are they that they can't conceive of their infallible pope doing something wrong, so they throw all these red herrings about to deflect us on to a different course.




Yes the three Papal apologists, Atlas, Fishbulb and Tink have done everything they can to try to derail this debate. No doubt they feel very protective about their religion. But this thread is not about religion or Catholics or faith or Atheism.

It is about whether the Pope should be taught a salutary lesson over his apparent condoning of his pederast priests nasty behaviour. I am sure the majority of decent priests would like to get rid of this pall hanging over their heads. The ball is in the Pope's court. If he wanted to he could fix the mess immediately.


----------



## weird (14 April 2010)

Interesting article, relevant to the discussion,

http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse

By Thomas Plante, Ph.D., ABPP
Department of Psychology
Santa Clara University


----------



## So_Cynical (14 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> And this proves what exactly?




If nothing else it proves that militant Christianity is about 2600 times the issue that militant atheism is...and that militant Christianity is about 2600 times as written about, worried about, and thought about.

Amazing even compared to Islam, with militant Christianity getting more than twice as many page hits..after 9/11 Osama and 2 wars, all in the internet age and yet there's more than twice as much material available on the net about militant Christianity than there is about militant Islam.


----------



## Atlas79 (14 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes the three Papal apologists, Atlas, Fishbulb and Tink have done everything they can to try to derail this debate. No doubt they feel very protective about their religion. But this thread is not about religion or Catholics or faith or Atheism.
> 
> It is about whether the Pope should be taught a salutary lesson over his apparent condoning of his pederast priests nasty behaviour. I am sure the majority of decent priests would like to get rid of this pall hanging over their heads. The ball is in the Pope's court. If he wanted to he could fix the mess immediately.




Agnostic here, stated earlier I'm not christian but enjoy the benefits of a society founded on judeo-christian ethics. Shows how closely you guys read the posts of dissenting opinions, eh?




So_Cynical said:


> If nothing else it proves that militant Christianity is about 2600 times the issue that militant atheism is...and that militant Christianity is about 2600 times as written about, worried about, and thought about.
> 
> Amazing even compared to Islam, with militant Christianity getting more than twice as many page hits..after 9/11 Osama and 2 wars, all in the internet age and yet there's more than twice as much material available on the net about militant Christianity than there is about militant Islam.




Hold on a minute, how's it prove that?!?



> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,600,000 for stephen Hawking
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 47,900,000 for Britney Spears




You religious fanatics are hillarious, just wish you weren't so aggressive in attacking other faiths


----------



## Ozymandias (14 April 2010)

This thread has devolved into timewasting. Tink and Fishbulb are clearly just baiting with their meaningless one or two liners, they probably don't even believe their side of the argument, and just enjoy winding people up. As for Atlas - it's clear he isn't going change his views no matter how much logic or evidence is piled up against them.

I think explod, So_Cynical, Calliope and others should feel good that they've made their points so well and thoroughly, and move onto other threads. No one is going to read this thread and be convinced by Atlas, Tink etc. unless they're already a member of the crazy camp. 

It's ok to let the other side have the last word - if that word is meaningless piffle.


----------



## weird (14 April 2010)

weird terminology,

militant Christianity 

I thought that **** was over with the crusades, and Ireland, which from history shows it was a country and class war, as opposed to religion.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_conflict_between_the_Catholics_and_Protestants_in_Ireland

I clicked on a few threads in google ... seems like an attention seeking headline for some non-Catholic churches.

Unless it is a cult, I don't think you will find too many army training extreme Christians, with a terrorist bible in the backpack.

I think everyone will agree that crimes against children is terrible, and the Catholic church has handled it well in some situations and also badly (which is the reason for this thread).  

Not a defense, but it is a massive ship, and if you read the article I posted before, it should shed at least some more light on not only the Catholic Church, but overall society in general, in regards to this problem.

People love blaming religion for 'wars', lets replace the word 'war' with colonialism.

This has nothing to do with the original intention of this thread, but how it has digressed, and certainly nothing to do with religion, but has something to do with word 'militant' anyone want to explain why these countries did this ?

http://www.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/g101ilec/seasia/seh/sehcol/sehcolfr.htm

We could also add virgin America and Africa to this.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,600,000 for stephen Hawking
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 47,900,000 for Britney Spears




:dunno: Lets see, Steven hawking, super smart but not exactly good to look at, not a self promoter or a multi million dollar industry.

Britney,  good to look at, infamous, dumb, a self promoter and a multi million dollar money spinner with dozens of photos on the net exposing her privates during her break down.

Not quite in the same league as the subject at hand...lets try that and see what we get.

Results 1 - 10 of about 61,700 for sexual abuse Richard Dawkins
Results 1 - 10 of about 252,000 for sexual abuse atheists
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,180,000 for sexual abuse priests
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,020,000 for sexual abuse catholic church
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,680,000 for sexual abuse church


----------



## weird (15 April 2010)

A lot of girls say pink or purple is their fav. colour, and they are 50% odd of population, but google disagrees,


*Results 1 - 10 of about 1,240,000,000 for black [definition]. (0.26 seconds)*
*Results 1 - 10 of about 1,060,000,000 for white [definition]. (0.41 seconds)*
*Results 1 - 10 of about 337,000,000 for yellow [definition]. (0.13 seconds)*
*Results 1 - 10 of about 149,000,000 for purple [definition]. (0.24 seconds)*
*Results 1 - 10 of about 299,000,000 for pink [definition]. (0.18 seconds)*
*Results 1 - 10 of about 1,050,000,000 for red [definition]. (0.47 seconds)
*Results 1 - 10 of about 818,000,000 for blue [definition]. (0.41 seconds)*


----------



## bunyip (15 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> As for the molestation nonsense:
> 
> The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts.
> _*In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.*_[/SIZE]




Maybe so, maybe not.

The point is that in general society, people who sexually abuse children are hunted down and put in prison wherever possible, and when eventually released from prison, are reviled and rejected by society to the extent of even being run out of town in some cases. (e.g. QLD paedophile Dennis Ferguson)

By comparison, the Catholic Church has taken a much different attitude towards paedophile priests. Rather the turning them over to the law for punishment, the Catholic church has harboured and protected them, and allowed them to continue in positions that facilitate them committing further sexual atrocities against children.

Indeed, the highest authority in the Catholic church, none other than the revered pope himself, is one of those who have protected paedophile priests and attempted to cover up their crimes. Worse still, he allowed them to commit further such crimes.
For that, there is no excuse, and the pope must be held accountable for his actions under the same laws of society that the rest of us have to live by.


----------



## Atlas79 (15 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> :dunno: Lets see, Steven hawking, super smart but not exactly good to look at, not a self promoter or a multi million dollar industry.
> 
> Britney,  good to look at, infamous, dumb, a self promoter and a multi million dollar money spinner with dozens of photos on the net exposing her privates during her break down.
> 
> ...




Mate I'm amazed at your earlier example & the ability to discern from a google page count the contents & implications of millions of websites. Some supercomputer of a mind you've got there.

Holy smokes, you guys are bonkers. No kidding. Before this began I was being tongue in cheek calling you fanatics and all that. Less so the longer this goes.


----------



## Atlas79 (15 April 2010)

Ozymandias said:


> This thread has devolved into timewasting. Tink and Fishbulb are clearly just baiting with their meaningless one or two liners, they probably don't even believe their side of the argument, and just enjoy winding people up. As for Atlas - it's clear he isn't going change his views no matter how much logic or evidence is piled up against them.
> 
> I think explod, So_Cynical, Calliope and others should feel good that they've made their points so well and thoroughly, and move onto other threads. No one is going to read this thread and be convinced by Atlas, Tink etc. unless they're already a member of the crazy camp.
> 
> It's ok to let the other side have the last word - if that word is meaningless piffle.




Roffles! Wow...

So you came to convert me and others to your faith, eh? What about live & let live, O tolerant atheists? You guys object to the term "militant", right?


----------



## Ozymandias (15 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Roffles! Wow...
> 
> So you came to convert me and others to your faith, eh? What about live & let live, O tolerant atheists? You guys object to the term "militant", right?




Participating in a discussion in which you try to convince another of your viewpoint or correctness on a fact hardly qualifies anyone for the label of militant. By that definition, you yourself would be militant, since you've participated in this discussion. 

But I see I've been drawn into yet another of your straw man arguments, despite my own previous post... so I'll just leave it here.


----------



## Tink (15 April 2010)

Never let facts get in the way for a good story.


*Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope *


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Agnostic here, stated earlier I'm not christian but enjoy the benefits of a society founded on judeo-christian ethics. Shows how closely you guys read the posts of dissenting opinions, eh?




So you claim to be a fence sitter. It is difficult to tell from your posts what you are on about except that you dislike atheists.



> Never let facts get in the way for a good story




Good to see you admit it Tink.


----------



## bunyip (15 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Never let facts get in the way for a good story.




Indeed - *never let the facts get in the way of a good story! *

I think that statement perfectly sums up Christianity, Catholicism in particular, and religions in general.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

Ozymandias said:


> This thread has devolved into timewasting. Tink and Fishbulb are clearly just baiting with their meaningless one or two liners, they probably don't even believe their side of the argument, and just enjoy winding people up. As for Atlas - it's clear he isn't going change his views no matter how much logic or evidence is piled up against them.
> 
> I think explod, So_Cynical, Calliope and others should feel good that they've made their points so well and thoroughly, and move onto other threads. No one is going to read this thread and be convinced by Atlas, Tink etc. unless they're already a member of the crazy camp.
> 
> It's ok to let the other side have the last word - if that word is meaningless piffle.




Ozymandias, I think the response by Atlas to your post illustrates your point perfectly. i.e."" meaningless piffle"



> Roffles! Wow...
> 
> So you came to convert me and others to your faith, eh? What about live & let live, O tolerant atheists? You guys object to the term "militant", right?


----------



## Fishbulb (15 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes the three Papal apologists, Atlas, Fishbulb and Tink have done everything they can to try to derail this debate. No doubt they feel very protective about their religion. But this thread is not about religion or Catholics or faith or Atheism.
> 
> It is about whether the Pope should be taught a salutary lesson over his apparent condoning of his pederast priests nasty behaviour. I am sure the majority of decent priests would like to get rid of this pall hanging over their heads. The ball is in the Pope's court. If he wanted to he could fix the mess immediately.




Good example of your inability to actually keep up with events

If you had've read my original posts instead of responding in a stereotypical reactionary fashion, you would have noticed that I am not catholic, nor did I defend the pope. 

You need to stay in after school tonight


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

I still want to know why Dawkins isn't trying to arrest Tony bLIAR.


----------



## dutchie (15 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> Indeed - *never let the facts get in the way of a good story! *
> 
> I think that statement perfectly sums up Christianity, Catholicism in particular, and religions in general.




Best post in this whole thread!


----------



## Fishbulb (15 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Atlas, you still don't understand.   Atheism is *not *a faith; there *is *no dogma.   And without the belief in a god, there is no vacuum either.
> 
> As you are clearly *not *an athiest, you are in no position to argue with this




And it was at this point I waded into the the atheism faith or not thing...

Which I proved was btw.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Good example of your inability to actually keep up with events
> 
> If you had've read my original posts instead of responding in* a stereotypical reactionary fashion,* you would have noticed that I am not catholic, nor did I defend the pope.
> 
> You need to stay in after school tonight




I think you should stay at school until you mature enough to be able to enter a debate with a clear head. As in the case of Atlas it is difficult to understand what you are arguing about. You claim you would like to see the priesthood cleaned up, but you attack everybody who shares this view.

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder, but what drives your obsession to be so disagreeable is a mystery. It could be that with your left wing bias, you perceive the rational posters here as being reactionary and you see us as class enemies.


----------



## Tink (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> I still want to know why Dawkins isn't trying to arrest Tony bLIAR.




Well I have been saying that Wayne but they arent listening.

He would rather wait 6mths for the Pope

If they cant work out Dawkins has an agenda, well................ what can you say?


----------



## explod (15 April 2010)

> If they cant work out Dawkins has an agenda, well................ what can you say?




Of course he has, to eradicate fairy tales and tell the provable truth about nature and life.  The current agenda is the Pope.    Tony Blair is part of politics for which voters are to blame.


----------



## Fishbulb (15 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> I think you should stay at school until you mature enough to be able to enter a debate with a clear head. As in the case of Atlas it is difficult to understand what you are arguing about. You claim you would like to see the priesthood cleaned up, but you attack everybody who shares this view.
> 
> You obviously have a chip on your shoulder, but what drives your obsession to be so disagreeable is a mystery. It could be that with your left wing bias, you perceive the rational posters here as being reactionary and you see us as class enemies.











Amateur psychology

Seriously, go back and read the relevant posts, and then respond again in your self stated "clear headed" way.


----------



## Tink (15 April 2010)

explod said:


> Of course he has, to eradicate fairy tales and tell the provable truth about nature and life.




Oh please explod, you have your beliefs I have mine


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Well I have been saying that Wayne but they arent listening.
> 
> He would rather wait 6mths for the Pope
> 
> If they cant work out Dawkins has an agenda, well................ what can you say?




Exactly, this is the main point, everything else is diversion and fluff.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Seriously, go back and read the relevant posts, and then respond again in your self stated "clear headed" way.




Yes, I have reread your posts. The only thing consistent about you,  is your crude language and your sneering attitude to any attempt to find out what you are on about. What you stand for is still a mystery.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> I still want to know why Dawkins isn't trying to arrest Tony bLIAR.




Another red herring.


----------



## Timmy (15 April 2010)

Tink said:


> If they cant work out Dawkins has an agenda, well................ what can you say?






wayneL said:


> Exactly, this is the main point, everything else is diversion and fluff.




I might have misunderstood your point Wayne, but I thought the main point was holding to account the senior executives of an organisation that sheltered child rapists and allowed the rapists continued access to children within the organisation?  The fact that Dawkins has an agenda is of only minor consequence compared to addressing the suffering of the raped children.

For example:
Lets say I was walking down Campbell Parade on Bondi Beach, on St. Patricks Day and saw a drunk Irishman being thrown out of a pub by a bouncer.  The Irishman picks himself up, pulls a gun, and shoots dead the bouncer.  A bystander says, just loud enough for me to hear, “I hate Irishmen”, and then proceeds to confiscate the gun and hold the shooter until the proper authorities arrive.

Does the bystander have an agenda?  Yes, certainly sounds like it.  Has the bystander, nevertheless, done the right thing?  I think so; a murderer (alleged, LOL) has been apprehended and will go to trial.

Same with Dawkins – maybe he does have an agenda, but his plans to hold the CEO of the organization responsible for the sheltering of criminals (and also thereby allowing the criminals to re-offend) and bring him to trial, is to be commended.




wayneL said:


> I still want to know why Dawkins isn't trying to arrest Tony bLIAR.



I am not sure of Blair’s offences (and don’t want to take this thread further down the path off topic), but surely anyone is free to arrest him if he thinks Blair has committed a crime?


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Another red herring.




Why?


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> Why?




I have no idea of your motives. But to get back to Dawkins, perhaps it is, as Tink suggested, he has an agenda and arresting Blair is not on it.


----------



## Tink (15 April 2010)

explod said:


> Of course he has, to eradicate fairy tales and tell the provable truth about nature and life.




As I have said before, explod has hit the nail on the head

Dawkins is trying to eradicate the Catholic Church from Britain. Ban him coming there.

If he was really concerned about the children, he would be cleaning up his own backyard


----------



## Fishbulb (15 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I have reread your posts. The only thing consistent about you,  is your crude language and your sneering attitude to any attempt to find out what you are on about. What you stand for is still a mystery.




Heh heh....crude language. 

I guess you'll try anything huh?

Anyway, I'm done with you


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Timmy said:


> I might have misunderstood your point Wayne, but I thought the main point was holding to account the senior executives of an organisation that sheltered child rapists and allowed the rapists continued access to children within the organisation?  The fact that Dawkins has an agenda is of only minor consequence compared to addressing the suffering of the raped children.
> 
> For example:
> Lets say I was walking down Campbell Parade on Bondi Beach, on St. Patricks Day and saw a drunk Irishman being thrown out of a pub by a bouncer.  The Irishman picks himself up, pulls a gun, and shoots dead the bouncer.  A bystander says, just loud enough for me to hear, “I hate Irishmen”, and then proceeds to confiscate the gun and hold the shooter until the proper authorities arrive.
> ...



As I stated early in the thread, those in the Catholic Church (or any other organisation) responsible for perpetrating, aiding or abetting crimes should be called to account. No question about that.

The point is that Ratsarseinger is not the only alleged criminal to appear in the the UK.

If Squawkins is truly concerned about these things, he would be extremely active in trying to arrest a number of "leaders". But he has a bee in his bonnet about religion, clearly.

Fine, but up til now he addressed this on an intellectual level. His foray into political activism is not based in concern for humanity (as evidenced by inaction elsewhere), but by pushing his ideological barrow, perhaps even publicity wh oring.

Blair was complicit in the slaughter of Iraqi children in the prosecution of an illegal and unjustifiable invasion and occupation... amongst several other things, yet not a peep from Dawkins about that.


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> I have no idea of your motives. But to get back to Dawkins, perhaps it is, as Tink suggested, he has an agenda and arresting Blair is not on it.



Thanks.

I believe that was substantively my point.


----------



## Ruby (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> .
> 
> The point is that Ratsarseinger is not the only alleged criminal to appear in the the UK.
> 
> ...




Firstly, as I have said in a previous post, *one person cannot fight all fights. *

The British Government has already held an enquiry into the issue of Tony Blair and the Iraq invasion (and please let us not go down that avenue unless it is on a different thread!)

Richard Dawkins makes no secret of the fact that he has a "bee in his bonnet" about religion.   Of course he has!   This is exactly why he is involved in this particular issue.   He wants to highlight the hypocrasy of the roman catholic church in protecting perpetrators of child abuse.   What he may or may not think about Tony Blair is a different issue.   Why even introduce the subject?? It has no relevance to this particular debate.

Incidentally, my understanding is that it was Geoffrey Robertson QC who decided to mount this legal action and asked Richard Dawkins if he wished to participate.


----------



## Ruby (15 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Dawkins is trying to eradicate the Catholic Church from Britain. Ban him coming there.




Well, Tink, I think that is  rather silly statement!! - "trying to eradicate the catholic church from Britain"   I think it is far too well entrenched for anyone to aim so high!

But yes....... ban the pope!   If I could ban the pope from coming to Australia I would, especially if my taxes were funding it.


----------



## Tink (15 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> But yes....... ban the pope!   If I could ban the pope from coming to Australia I would, especially if my taxes were funding it.




well well well, now you're showing your true colours Ruby

Because you dont want something it should be banned?


----------



## Ruby (15 April 2010)

Tink said:


> well well well, now you're showing your true colours Ruby
> 
> Because you dont want something it should be banned?




Such an inane comment is not worth a response


----------



## Timmy (15 April 2010)

Are the ad hominum attacks on Dawkins a distraction from the issues of holding the senior executives of organisations that shelter child-rapists (and thereby allow continuation of child-rape) accountable?


----------



## Tink (15 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Such an inane comment is not worth a response




Calling me brainwashed, you got a response

Sorry if I upset you.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

Timmy said:


> Are the ad hominum attacks on Dawkins a distraction from the issues of holding the senior executives of organisations that shelter child-rapists (and thereby allow continuation of child-rape) accountable?




Exactly. As I said, red herrings. In this case it is trying to paint Dawkins as the villain and the Pope as the victim.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Calling me brainwashed, you got a response




Although you add nothing to the debate except snide remarks, you are the only Dawkins hater here who makes no secret of being driven by religious dogma.


----------



## Tink (15 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Although you add nothing to the debate except snide remarks, you are the only Dawkins hater here who makes no secret of being driven by religious dogma.




Calliope, I think I have added my fair share.

As I said, if you are happy having something banned because one group doesnt want it, then its a start to more than just one thing.


----------



## bunyip (15 April 2010)

Tink

I have a couple of questions that I hope you have time to answer. They're not loaded questions that are designed to trap you - I'm genuinely interested in hearing your views on this, seeing as you're a practising Catholic.

My view is that popes, this one and all those before him, are nothing special as people, and for the life of me I've never been able to understand why they get such adulation and hero worship among Catholics.

My questions to you are....

* Do you, as a practising Catholic, go along with all the adulation and hero worship that millions of Catholics shower on the pope?

* Do you absolutely revere him like so many or your fellow Catholics do? 

* Do you understand what they see in him?

* Or do you, in all honesty, wonder what all the fuss is about when it comes to Catholics' attitudes towards the pope?


----------



## nunthewiser (15 April 2010)

Thankyou.

This thread has finally given me hope that maybe oneday i can arrest the Queen.


----------



## Boggo (15 April 2010)

All the news you may ever need relating to the world's largest pedophile ring...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/maintopics/clerical-abuse-scandals/gbsnql/


----------



## Timmy (15 April 2010)

The ad hominum attacks on Dawkins, dismissing him and Geoffrey Robertson because they have an agenda need to be seen in the context of the crime.



> No matter how you look at this tragic, never ending affair, there is unarguable evidence that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – as the Pope was known then – was directly informed of *the rape of scores of German children*, by one priest, Peter Hullerman, who worked in a parish under his direct control.
> 
> Not only that, but it was the very same Cardinal Ratzinger who chose not to report or defrock the priest, allowing him to undergo therapy – and go on to rape again and again.



My bolding ... a score is 20, so 'scores' is least 40 ...

As for the apologists:


> Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and his steely Jesuit Press Secretary, Federico Lombardi - have spent the past week avoiding, covering up and pointing the finger at anyone and everyone in *a desperate attempt to deflect accusations that in the end, the buck stops with the boss.*



Again, my bolding.  Too many of these apologists around.  

For me, the enormity of the crime far outbalances any agenda Dawkins and Robertson have.

Source of quotes: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...orcer-with-a-gentle-manner-20100414-scxh.html


----------



## Frank D (15 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> My view is that popes, this one and all those before him, are nothing special as people, and for the life of me I've never been able to understand why they get such adulation and hero worship among Catholics





Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being 
the only formal religion they have. Hence, why Krudd and other leaders
 like Obama are worshipped, even though it makes no sense at all.

Sport is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the 
only formal religion they have. Hence why Sports people are
 worshipped.

The same can be said of the Pope. 

Faith is a powerful thing and it's the foundation of humanity, whether
 it's religious or not.


----------



## SmellyTerror (15 April 2010)

*Atlas: *


> Mate, "tragi-comic" is the kind of word someone uses when they're straining to sound intellectual. Give that a rest.




Ma, der usin' dem big werds. GET PAW'S SHOTGUN! Dey’ll be usin’ LOGIC next!!!

Criticising the word use and/or punctuation of the other party is an admission of defeat, isn't it? : Tragicomic was my attempt to use a word that wasn’t directly insulting, or contrary to the board’s rules. Would “retarded” have made you happier?

Ok, we’ll go with that. Your arguments were retarded. Laughable. Pathetic. So mind bogglingly stupid that I couldn’t help pointing and laughing. So far from reality, if I set fire to reality you couldn’t even see the smoke plume from where you are. So nonsensical you could mash your face into the keyboard 20 times, run it through a spell checker, then an auto-translator from English to Japanese to Finnish and back to English, and it’d still make more sense than the festering assault on the human senses you came up with. Your argument is to rational debate what an obstructed bowel is to the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

Is that better? We cool now?



> As for Hitler:
> 
> National Socialist Workers Party.
> 
> He was a socialist. Socialists are leftists. Hitler's policies were often identical to Stalin.




So, as I said, by your rationale North Korea is democratic? Calling themselves socialists don't necessarily make it so. Weren't you the one going on and on about not taking Hitler’s word for it? What happened to your selective cynicism? Wait! I've got a relevant quote for ya:



> Hillarious - so you will take the word of a genocidal dictator at face value?
> 
> You don't suppose he was, oh, maybe trying to fool people? Get legitimacy, get trust...?
> 
> ...




"Socialism" wasn't a dirty word back then. To a lot of people it simply meant "provide a basic level of workers' rights". Tacking "socialist" to your party's name was a good way to indicate you were willing to consider unemployment benefits. since we're using Wikipedia today:

_Despite many working-class supporters and members, the appeal of the Nazi Party to the working class was neither true nor effective, because its politics mostly appealed to the middle-class, as a stabilizing, pro-business political party, not a revolutionary workers’ party_.

See also Hitler's repeated attempts to blame "socialists" among others for the loss of WWI.

It doesn't matter how insulting you try to be to argue that up is down. Yeah, there are good arguments to suggest fascism is a "third way" beyond the left-right spectrum (that’s what the Nazis said, too). There are interesting parallels how, at the extreme of left and right, the results can be quite similar. But there is no-one on this earth that I am aware of - apart from yourself - who has ever maintained that fascism was left wing.

Here's the standard interpretation, as displayed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum and pretty much any Introduction To Politics textbook you can find:







...you're going to need to start promoting your novel theory, though, because there's definitely a dissertation in there.

Sorry, big word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissertation




Fishbulb said:


> Atheism is a "thing" Get that? Or perhaps you're a little too dim. But keep trying anyway.




It... it's a thing? What? Are you using english here?

So... so let's just back up here. Imagine I was inventing a word that meant "not faith". It's the opposite to faith, and designates a lack of faith. With me so far? For ease of use, I'm actually going to call it notfaith.

Right. So someone has faith in the universal goodness of human nature. I have notfaith in this. This person says - sure, I have faith in the goodness of human nature, but your notfaith is faith too! Your faith is in the notfaith of the universal nature of human goodness. See? Notfaith is actually faith!

NOT X IS X. 

FAIL. 

Do you see why that's dopey? To have a notfish, you must have a fish. To have a notferrari you must have a ferarri.

*Atheism is a lack.* It is an absence. The lack of a hat is not a kind of hat. The lack of a kidney is not a kind of kidney. The lack of an 10th finger is not a kind of finger. YES, you still have 9 OTHER fingers. But the lack of an 10th finger is not, in itself, a kind of finger.

We'll say that people with a missing their 10th finger (we'll assume that's a thumb) are a-thumbists.

You're saying that their a-thumbism is, in fact, a kind of finger, on the grounds that they have other fingers. That their lack of a thumb is, in fact, a thumb. If you can’t see how this is idiotic, I’m not sure there’s any arguing with you.

An atheist must have a lack of faith in god. That's what an atheist is. An atheist may well have lots of other faiths in lots of other things, but atheism denotes a lack of a faith in a very particular thing. The lack of a faith in a thing is not itself a faith. Arguing that it is, is just flat out ignorant.

You've consistently ignored my question: do you think babies are born with a faith? *Because they are atheists*. (One of the links YOU POSTED explains that, if you won't take my word for it). Suggesting that babies (or anything incapable of understanding the concept of god, including dogs, beluga whales and inanimate objects) subscribe to a faith is pure, gold plated crazy. But you must necessarily be proposing just that to insist that atheism is a faith.

You think you know what this word means. You are wrong. Your posting links that directly contradict what you think you know IN THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY’LL PROVE YOU RIGHT just shows how completely divorced from reality your belief in this matter is.

Step back. Forget what you think you know. Relearn, because it’s not possible to be more wrong than you are now.



> This thread has devolved into timewasting. Tink and Fishbulb are clearly just baiting with their meaningless one or two liners, they probably don't even believe their side of the argument, and just enjoy winding people up. As for Atlas - it's clear he isn't going change his views no matter how much logic or evidence is piled up against them.




Yeah, with you there...


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Timmy said:


> For me, the enormity of the crime far outbalances any agenda Dawkins and Robertson have.




Yep it's a despicable crime alright (spit on ground in disgust. ), but as far as enormity, I would have thought killing and maiming children would be right up there too.

But if Dawkins (and his supporters) admits to an agenda, then fair enough, he has an agenda.

Just so long as the debate is framed around that fact.


----------



## SmellyTerror (15 April 2010)

If a prosecutor is saying he's got enough to justify an arrest for the Pope, that doesn't mean he's got enough to arrest the Prime Minister. Laws are often written to permit what are otherwise crimes in the prosecution of war (can't very well have a war without blowing stuff up, can you?). It's entirely possible that there is no law under which to prosecute the Prime Minister.

And Dawkins doesn't like the Pope, so he's jumping on board.

...the point of the story to me is the reaction to the suggestion that a Pope could be arrested.

Agendas:
*Robertson: *point to make re: no-one above the law; look at me I'm a big time QC

*Dawkins: *god should not bring special treatment; look at me I'm a big time atheist

*Pope:* god DAMN my hat is awesome!

*Religious nuts:* **** the atheists!

*Atheist supermen: ***** the god-botherers!

*Completely impartial SmellyTerror:* I'm ever-so-smart, don'tchya know!

*Forum trolls: *Oh sure the Pope feeds kiddies to pedos, but what about the WEIMAR REBUBLIC, EH? And... and... those militant atheists militantly letting us know what they think in TEXT on FORUMS. People who write on forums should be KILLED.

*Catholics:* I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I licked the Pole! But I hate... oh, flashback.


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Hahah Smelly. 

But good luck arresting the Pope.


----------



## Timmy (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> Yep it's a despicable crime alright (spit on ground in disgust. ), but as far as enormity, I would have thought killing and maiming children would be right up there too.
> 
> But if Dawkins (and his supporters) admits to an agenda, then fair enough, he has an agenda.
> 
> Just so long as the debate is framed around that fact.




Actually,thinking about it, I don't think its necessary to admit to any agenda to bring someone to trial for raping children (or killing and maiming) ... the agenda Robertson and Dawkins have is irrelevant, it is enough that this sort of crime be prosecuted.


----------



## Atlas79 (15 April 2010)

SmellyTerror, your graph is meaningless. On the far right is anarchy with zero government, not fascism with almost total government control. Could you explain how a state of freedom can exist on a spectrum between two totalitarianisms? 

You'll find the video I linked to earlier worth your time.


----------



## Timmy (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> But good luck arresting the Pope.




That's true, I can't see Robertson or Dawkins getting within a mile of him.


----------



## SmellyTerror (15 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> SmellyTerror, your graph is meaningless. On the far right is anarchy with zero government, not fascism with almost total government control. Could you explain how a state of freedom can exist on a spectrum between two totalitarianisms?
> 
> You'll find the video I linked to earlier worth your time.




You think anarchy... is far RIGHT.

... 



You're taking the piss now, aren't you? I'm being trolled. Christ, my word count is going towards your score at Something Awful or 4Chan, isn't it?

God, you really had me going there, but you just went too far at the end. I should have seen it right from "Hitler is a lefty atheist". Athiest is bad, but lefty too? Nah, I'm an idiot to have fallen for it. No-one sucked up cold-war anti-commie propaganda to the extent you've pretended to. "Freedom is right wing". Hahahaha! I'll have to use that one in my sig.

/sigh
I'd better go do some work. Coming onto forums and being troll-food is clearly not my talent.


----------



## Atlas79 (15 April 2010)

Certainly didn't say a state of anarchy is a good thing, or a place any sane person would want to live, just that that's where it's actually positioned on the political spectrum. The traits of German _national_ Socialism & Soviet _International_ socialism if summed up in one phrase would be: _total government control_. It's coke vs pepsi, slight & token differences. 

The opposite of this is what? Zero government, which is a bad idea also.

Ergo, Hitler as a national socialist was indeed on the left of the spectrum, the far left in fact. Did you know the holocaust was originally Karl Marx's idea, that Hitler borrowed it from him? Marx called it "the great socialist conflagration" in his writings.


----------



## explod (15 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Certainly didn't say a state of anarchy is a good thing, or a place any sane person would want to live, just that that's where it's actually positioned on the political spectrum. The traits of German _national_ Socialism & Soviet _International_ socialism if summed up in one phrase would be: _total government control_. It's coke vs pepsi, slight & token differences.
> 
> The opposite of this is what? Zero government, which is a bad idea also.
> 
> Ergo, Hitler as a national socialist was indeed on the left of the spectrum, the far left in fact. Did you know the holocaust was originally Karl Marx's idea, that Hitler borrowed it from him? Marx called it "the great socialist conflagration" in his writings.




What you are now entering into is full of conjecture and your take in my view without going further is pure gobbledy gook.

*And continues to be way off topic*

This thread is of benefit to no one and is going round in unrelated circles, recommend it be cut off at the socks.


----------



## SmellyTerror (15 April 2010)

It's funny, but.

Atlas: Nope. Fool me once. I'm not getting stung again. There are enough Goons laughing at me already.

I see you under that bridge! :


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Another question (sorry if I'm not _au fait_ with all the facts):

If all these guys are known to have done these things, where are the police in their respective jurisdictions?

Why wasn't Ratslinger arrested before he was pope?


----------



## explod (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> Another question (sorry if I'm not _au fait_ with all the facts):
> 
> If all these guys are known to have done these things, where are the police in their respective jurisdictions?
> 
> Why wasn't Ratslinger arrested before he was pope?




The vatican and its outbuildings are its own state, seperate from Italy, and they have thier own little police force under the direction of the Holy See, which in our Aussie language means the Pope's honcho's.


----------



## Ruby (15 April 2010)

SmellyTerror........ You've given me a good laugh - at the expense of a few blinkered people who have been taking this thread way off the track!!

I think the point score must be:-

SmellyTerror................. 10
Atlas............................. -5 (for not answering the questions, and for gross deviation from the subject)


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

explod said:


> The vatican and its outbuildings are its own state, seperate from Italy, and they have thier own little police force under the direction of the Holy See, which in our Aussie language means the Pope's honcho's.




But surely these people were committing these crimes in other jurisdictions where Mr Plod could have collared them? Was Ratslinger at the Vatican the whole time this was happening?


----------



## Timmy (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> But surely these people were committing these crimes in other jurisdictions where Mr Plod could have collared them? Was Ratslinger at the Vatican the whole time this was happening?




Maybe the political will does not exist to arrest the Pope?  Hence private individuals take up the challenge.


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2010)

Timmy said:


> Maybe the political will does not exist to arrest the Pope?  Hence private individuals take up the challenge.




I mean before he was pope. Weren't these crimes when he was a bishop?


----------



## Fishbulb (15 April 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> *Atlas: *
> 
> 
> Ma, der usin' dem big werds. GET PAW'S SHOTGUN! Dey’ll be usin’ LOGIC next!!!
> ...




Look, your logic has too many holes in it. 

I've already made - and proved - my point. Go forth and use birth control.


----------



## Timmy (15 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> I mean before he was pope. Weren't these crimes when he was a bishop?




Yes they were ... no answer for you sorry Wayne, I don't know.


----------



## Ruby (15 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Look, your logic has too many holes in it.




And yours doesn't?   That is if you can call anything you have said logical



> I've already made - and proved - my point. Go forth and use birth control.




What points HAVE you made?  And what have you proven?  Your totally illogical posts are bewildering.

This current post is a case in point.......... what has birth control got to do with priests raping children?


----------



## Fishbulb (15 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> And yours doesn't?   That is if you can call anything you have said logical


----------



## Fishbulb (15 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> And yours doesn't?   That is if you can call anything you have said logical
> 
> What points HAVE you made?  And what have you proven?  Your totally illogical posts are bewildering.
> 
> This current post is a case in point.......... what has birth control got to do with priests raping children?


----------



## Julia (15 April 2010)

Timmy said:


> Actually,thinking about it, I don't think its necessary to admit to any agenda to bring someone to trial for raping children (or killing and maiming) ... the agenda Robertson and Dawkins have is irrelevant, it is enough that this sort of crime be prosecuted.



Yes, agreed absolutely.  The suggestion of a personal agenda other than simply the rightness of charging anyone who abused children is missing the point.



SmellyTerror said:


> You think anarchy... is far RIGHT.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Oh, I don't know.  You have certainly provided many of us with much amusement.  Not to mention the perfectly logical points you've made.



Timmy said:


> Maybe the political will does not exist to arrest the Pope?  Hence private individuals take up the challenge.



Yes.  The power of the Catholic Church is immense, along with the influence bought by their considerable wealth.


----------



## weird (15 April 2010)

Stats of pedophiles, shows it is greater % wise in the greater community than in the Catholic church.

Catholic church is decentralized and centralized. One of the biggest and wealthiest institutes ... yes ... provides help to all countries ... yes. 

I have been on the front line of the help it provides, if you have not or been a receiver then perhaps you may have doubts.  

Same goes for the Salvation Army.

The Catholic church will even fund and create orphanages in Muslim countries, with no reference to Christianity through any related books or related teaching.

This whole attack on Catholic, is pathetic. No ads on TV, no hard sell, no brain washing. Should we appear more susceptible ?


----------



## bellenuit (15 April 2010)

weird said:


> Stats of pedophiles, shows it is greater % wise in the greater community than in the Catholic church.




Could that be because the Catholic Church has been hiding its pedophiles and demanding silence of their victims for decades so stats related to it are of course going to be very much understated?


----------



## weird (15 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Could that be because the Catholic Church has been hiding its pedophiles and demanding silence of their victims for decades so stats related to it are of course going to be very much understated?




Dunno, reasonable point, I have always been an avid crime follower, I believe any sex related crimes have always been under reported.

I hope in the future that kids will be educated more in the future to  'BOTH' go to the police and the principle. Any reports like this, then the child should be immediately removed from the school, if the teacher isn't.


----------



## kanegar1 (16 April 2010)

*Just want to say thanks for the post*

Thanks for that post I learnt alot


----------



## weird (16 April 2010)

Sorry, missed the most important group, parents ... which are ahead of police and principle.

Feel really sorry to any child abused. 

These kids or young or more mature adults need to know that it is wrong for what others did to you. 

And if you can come forward, to either Police, Social Workers, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Doctors, Parents, friends or anyone else I am sure they will support you, if not then find someone that does ... someone will.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2010)

weird said:


> Stats of pedophiles, shows it is greater % wise in the greater community than in the Catholic church.
> 
> Catholic church is decentralized and centralized. One of the biggest and wealthiest institutes ... yes ... provides help to all countries ... yes.
> 
> ...




Yep good post. My daughter and her friend spent the morning volunteering at the Sacred Heart Mission which was through the Church, feeding more than 450 homeless people.

What has Dawkins done for Humanity, apart from attack the Pope and write books.


----------



## gooner (16 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Yep good post. My daughter and her friend spent the morning volunteering at the Sacred Heart Mission which was through the Church, feeding more than 450 homeless people.
> 
> What has Dawkins done for Humanity, apart from attack the Pope and write books.




Even a basic google search would have turned up http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ a charitable foundation that provides aid to those in need.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2010)

gooner said:


> Even a basic google search would have turned up http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ a charitable foundation that provides aid to those in need.




Aaah well there you go - hope you're all giving your donations


----------



## bunyip (16 April 2010)

weird said:


> Stats of pedophiles, shows it is greater % wise in the greater community than in the Catholic church.
> 
> Catholic church is decentralized and centralized. One of the biggest and wealthiest institutes ... yes ... provides help to all countries ... yes.
> 
> ...




Most of the criticism on this forum is not so much an attack on the Catholic church overall, but rather a condemnation of the disgusting priests who  sexually molest children, and the equally disgusting members of the church hierarchy who protect these sub-human animals and give them the opportunity of repeating their crimes.


----------



## explod (16 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Aaah well there you go - hope you're all giving your donations




All people are born instinctively good and remain so with nurture.   However we are all different and that is where it breaks down.   We need to tolerate all sides and try to encourage the good.   

So Athiest or Christian, those active and true to their causes are good.  But I still hate Fairy tales and lies to children, when they grow up they too then think it is ok to lie.

The Papacy does not seem to be and that is the real issue here.


----------



## Atlas79 (16 April 2010)

explod said:


> All people are born instinctively good and remain so with nurture.   However we are all different and that is where it breaks down.   We need to tolerate all sides and try to encourage the good.





ALL people are born instinctively good?? Read about biological psychopaths.


----------



## Calliope (16 April 2010)

weird said:


> The Catholic church will even fund and create orphanages in Muslim countries, with no reference to Christianity through any related books or related teaching.




That is weird indeed, when there are so many impoverished Catholics in Africa and South America. They should divert their charity from the Muslims to more worthy causes, such as promoting contraception in impoverished Catholic communities.


----------



## Julia (16 April 2010)

weird said:


> Sorry, missed the most important group, parents ... which are ahead of police and principle.



Yeah?   It's far from uncommon for a parent to be the abuser.


----------



## explod (16 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> ALL people are born instinctively good?? Read about biological psychopaths.




Biological faults can be identified and corrected with the proper treatment and care = nurture.  The nature of the biological fault cannot be changed but the behaviour within the social context can be changed.   Religion has done it in the past with subconscious imprinting through repitition, ie the chant in the Rosary.

And again Atlas, *this has nothing to do with the misdeads of the Papacy*


----------



## Atlas79 (16 April 2010)

explod said:


> Biological faults can be identified and corrected with the proper treatment and care = nurture.  The nature of the biological fault cannot be changed but the behaviour within the social context can be changed.   Religion has done it in the past with subconscious imprinting through repitition, ie the chant in the Rosary.
> 
> And again Atlas, *this has nothing to do with the misdeads of the Papacy*




You brought it up by spouting off in ignorance. "All people are born good" is factually incorrect. Like it, hate it, whatever, there's no need for opinion on it, that's the fact.

Maybe you should share you cure for psychopathy with the relevant authorities? They'd be delighted to hear from you I'm sure.


----------



## spooly74 (16 April 2010)

explod said:


> And again Atlas, *this has nothing to do with the misdeads of the Papacy*




Indeed!

*Sex Crimes and the Vatican*

A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by Panorama. *Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger *before he became the Pope. It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders. Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes. It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex." It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses. Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3335354490744010763#


----------



## Atlas79 (16 April 2010)

During the Iran / Iraq war, Iranians sent their kids barefoot off ahead of the soldiers to search for mines. With their feet.

Has any authority from Iran ever visited the UK? If so, has Dawkins ever tried to "arrest" them?

Don't seem to recall it.


----------



## spooly74 (16 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Aaah well there you go - hope you're all giving your donations




LMAO


----------



## explod (16 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> During the Iran / Iraq war, Iranians sent their kids barefoot off ahead of the soldiers to search for mines. With their feet.
> 
> Has any authority from Iran ever visited the UK? If so, has Dawkins ever tried to "arrest" them?
> 
> Don't seem to recall it.




Irianians are a repressed people with little opportunities to proper education, this is not the case with the Papacy


----------



## explod (16 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> You brought it up by spouting off in ignorance. "All people are born good" is factually incorrect. Like it, hate it, whatever, there's no need for opinion on it, that's the fact.
> 
> Maybe you should share you cure for psychopathy with the relevant authorities? They'd be delighted to hear from you I'm sure.




You have not read it properly,  good and *instinctively* good is not the same.   Instinct is something as Yung pointed out that comes through the genes, it is our propensity to certain behaviour.  However this is not going to be realised without the right social setting, as a seed cannot grow without the right soil, sun and moisture.

Again however, what you counter with has nothing to do with the wrongs of the Papacy


----------



## Atlas79 (16 April 2010)

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

-Robert Heinlein


----------



## bunyip (16 April 2010)

Two priests are standing side by side at the urinal in the Vatican toilets, answering a call of nature.

One of the priests glances down and notices that the other priest is wearing a nicotine patch on his member.

_"Trying to quit, are you"_? he asks the priest.

To which the second priest replies "_Yes I am._"

The first priest says _"Well, those nicotine patches are meant to be worn on your arm or shoulder - it's not going to work if you wear it on your member._"

The second priest answers _"Well actually it's working quite well - I've already cut back to four butts a day"._


----------



## explod (16 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
> 
> -Robert Heinlein




Are you in that metaphor suggesting that some people are less than others.  This is one of the important issues that the thrust of Dawkins and his followers seek to point out for attention.

The changes if they are possible will not come from gurus, they will come from gradual changes in community attitudes through more equality in education so that people can make objective free choices.   Our role should be to try and do what is right, spread it, and hope that others also pick up the reins.

However the closed shop of the Papacy is of no help whatsoever from what I can see.


----------



## Fishbulb (16 April 2010)

Yes Virginia, it's a metaphor, and they are metaphors for a reason.


----------



## Calliope (16 April 2010)

Explod, you are making the mistake of thinking that Atlas is capable of rational thought. A cursory look at his rantings will show that he is talking nonsense and what's more I think he knows he is talking nonsense. He fancies himself as a clown.  

To take his posts seriously will only encourage him. Ignore him and he, like all show-offs, will pull his head in. A clown without an audience is a nobody.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2010)

spooly74 said:


> LMAO




Its beautiful, isnt it?  but I was talking about donations for helping the poor with Dawkins Foundation


----------



## bellenuit (16 April 2010)

Tink said:


> Its beautiful, isnt it?




I wonder what Jesus would say if he saw it. I doubt if he would approve.


----------



## explod (16 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I wonder what Jesus would say if he saw it. I doubt if he would approve.




Yeh, maybe we could scrape off the gold leaf to aid the good father's with defence


----------



## Sean K (16 April 2010)

weird said:


> This whole attack on Catholic, is pathetic. No ads on TV, *no hard sell, no brain washing*. Should we appear more susceptible ?



Sorry, caught this thread late, but am absolutley shocked that this could be left to go through to the keeper.



I just don't know where to start, so I am not going to even start!


----------



## Calliope (16 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I wonder what Jesus would say if he saw it. I doubt if he would approve.




Well his father can see it, but he doesn't seem too concerned. Or perhaps he has become more tolerant than he was in the old days. when he would have put the slipper in for breaking the second commandment.



> “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.


----------



## Tink (17 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I wonder what Jesus would say if he saw it. I doubt if he would approve.




I think Jesus knows the help and time that the Catholic Church puts towards helping people worldwide. 

It took them years for people to build these beautiful Cathedrals and still I look at them in wonder in how they did it : )


----------



## Tink (17 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> Tink
> 
> I have a couple of questions that I hope you have time to answer. They're not loaded questions that are designed to trap you - I'm genuinely interested in hearing your views on this, seeing as you're a practising Catholic.
> 
> ...






Frank D said:


> Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being
> the only formal religion they have. Hence, why Krudd and other leaders
> like Obama are worshipped, even though it makes no sense at all.
> 
> ...




Regarding your questions Bunyip, sorry took me so long. I think Frank has answered that one perfectly

I think I mentioned to you last time about the World Youth Day and how the atmosphere with the Pope was just wonderful. The peace and the gatherings of all faiths, not just Catholics, peaceful, friendly - was just the best.

I dont think I Hero Worship, but I see the Pope as a messenger of Peace, and where he walks, helping people - its just a nice feeling

I do enjoy watching his mass services, I know you wont understand that one : )


----------



## Calliope (17 April 2010)

Tink said:


> I think Jesus knows the help and time that the Catholic Church puts towards helping people worldwide.




I hope he is also aware that the Papal attitude to contraception is responsoble for the deaths of thousands of Catholics in third world countries each year through AIDS and malnutrition.

I also doubt that these people will ever have the opportunity to join in tours of these cathedrals and "look at them in wonder". If they do, they may wonder why the church is more interested in material things than spiritual things.


----------



## Fishbulb (17 April 2010)

It's pretty stupid - but funny - for non believers to try and use verses from the bible in a lame attempt to highlight a perceived aspect of a believers double standard. 

A: they have no understanding of what the scripture they're using means, and

B; they look clumsy doing it

It's like watching some homonculous or something falling around with a massive sword trying to use it.


----------



## Calliope (17 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> It's pretty stupid - but funny - for non believers to try and use verses from the bible in a lame attempt to highlight a perceived aspect of a believers double standard.




This is not scripture, but sound advice for anyone who may be tempted to respond to your nonsense posts;  



> Never argue with an idiot. They will only pull you down to their level, then beat you with experience



.


----------



## Fishbulb (17 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> This is not scripture, but sound advice for anyone who may be tempted to respond to your nonsense posts;
> 
> .




Aww, now don't be like that. Here's a nice picture to cheer you up.


----------



## Atlas79 (17 April 2010)




----------



## GumbyLearner (17 April 2010)

This thread is so cool.


----------



## Ruby (17 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> It's pretty stupid - but funny - for non believers to try and use verses from the bible in a lame attempt to highlight a perceived aspect of a believers double standard.
> 
> A: they have no understanding of what the scripture they're using means, and
> 
> ...




Fishbulb,as usual you are talking nonsense.   this is the sort of sweeping generalisation we have all come to expect of you.   It's a juvenile tactic people resort to when they know their argument has no legs and they have nothing useful to offer but still try and defend their position.

You don't have to be religious to understand the bible.  Many of the worlds great bible scholars are non-believers

Most religious people have never read and have no understanding of the bible or the messages therein.   They are content to believe the puerile mash fed to them by their priests.

Have you read the bible??  Do you understand everything in it??  No?  I am sure your mother taught you about glass houses and throwing stones!


----------



## Julia (17 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


>






GumbyLearner said:


> This thread is so cool.




Atlas and GL:  I'm finding it difficult to understand what these posts contribute to the thread.  Really they just demonstrate complete lack of taste on your part.

I have no time for religion or the Pope, but don't believe reducing any discussion about the subject to such puerile tripe furthers anyone's cause.


----------



## Ruby (17 April 2010)

Tink said:


> I dont think I Hero Worship, but I see the Pope as a messenger of Peace, and where he walks, helping people - its just a nice feeling




Tink - I would like to ask you  a serious question, and I challenge you to answer it. First I would like to present a scenario.

Your daughter comes home from school shaking with shock and hysteria and tells you her male teacher, whom she liked and trusted, has raped her.  You and your husband go straight to the headmaster (let's assume for the sake of the argument you have not gone to the police) who tells you that yes, it is unfortunate, but if you make a fuss it will not look good for the school and the teacher's career will be irreparably damaged.   He offers you a compromise - he will move your daughter to a different class - says "tut, tut" a few times, and says that if you go to the police he will take the side of the teacher and deny the abuse.

Until now you have thought of this headmaster as an excellent leader, good community member - does charitable work etc, etc.   You now start to find out that this problem, and its coverup have been going on for years.

Here is my question:-  Knowing what you now know, would you think this headmaster was a "messenger of peace........helping people.."?

This is not a trick question.   The answer is 'yes' or 'no'.

This is what this thread is about


----------



## Atlas79 (17 April 2010)

Reading all this, it strikes me that a government is at least sometimes justified in lying to its citizens, by omission or by actual misinformation. A raging mob can only be handled by being steered into a fenced pen for a while, where the noise it makes, the bricks it throws etc, will do minimal damage (to inconsqeuential targets). For, once roused, the mob will _never_ be persuaded to set the bricks down and chill out.

Dawkins is a malicious shepherd.


----------



## Calliope (17 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Atlas and GL:  I'm finding it difficult to understand what these posts contribute to the thread.  Really they just demonstrate complete lack of taste on your part.
> 
> I have no time for religion or the Pope, but don't believe reducing any discussion about the subject to such puerile tripe furthers anyone's cause.




They are red herrings,Julia. I know it is puerile tripe, and deliberately provocative in order to get a response. However, if ignored they have no traction.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> They are red herrings,Julia. I know it is puerile tripe, and deliberately provocative in order to get a response. However, if ignored they have no traction.




I'm not trying to provoke anything. I apologize for offending you Julia and Calliope. I just thought that the picture of Santa was more relevant to the fairy tales point raised by explod than photos of US presidential brides. FWIW! 

I'm done with posting anymore on this thread. I've heard and copped enough from godbotherers in my life and now want to learn more about atheist values to get a more balanced objective perspective of all bloggers. I think ASF is in need of an atheist values thread so others can learn more about being a good atheist.


----------



## Atlas79 (17 April 2010)

Gumby, what you need to understand is that you've now tangoed with a new bunch of god  botherers, but they have no overarching morality to constrain them, and they have a different god. Reason or science or logic, as evidenced by this thread, is nothing to do with it. It is ALL about silencing and attacking the unbeliever. "Why" is a blank that can be filled in later. It feels nice to feel superior to others, that is the underlying orientation of it.

Your call for a set of atheist values is on point. But I don't see why Christian (or whatever) values can't be adopted by those who don't necessarily swallow the Christian story of creation.

The values themselves aren't the problem - if lived up to, they're benign. The charge against the church is that they DON'T live up to the values.


----------



## Tink (17 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> This is what this thread is about




This thread is about Richard Dawkins and his agenda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html


----------



## Calliope (17 April 2010)

I think it is time the anti-atheists woke up to the possibility that they have been taken for a ride. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins, Hitchens and Robertson have no intention of arresting the Pope or anyone else. There is absolutely no way the British establishment would allow that to happen.

These three guys obviously have a sense of humour, and looked around for a way to put the Pope under the spotlight. And it certainly worked.


----------



## Ruby (17 April 2010)

Tink said:


> This thread is about Richard Dawkins and his agenda
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html




EXACTLY!!!   And his agenda is to bring to account a pope who has been complicit in covering up paedophile priests.

I didn't think you would answer my question!!!!   You have fallen right in Tink!!


----------



## Ruby (17 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> I think it is time the anti-atheists woke up to the possibility that they have been taken for a ride. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins, Hitchens and Robertson have no intention of arresting the Pope or anyone else. There is absolutely no way the British establishment would allow that to happen.
> 
> These three guys obviously have a sense of humour, and looked around for a way to put the Pope under the spotlight. And it certainly worked.




I think you're spot on Calliope.   Dawkins said himself that he didn't expect it to happen, but they wanted to raise some awareness to the fact that a pope is as answerable to the law as the next person.  He and his mates will be having a good laugh!!

Look at the anger it has raised here!


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Dawkins said himself that he didn't expect it to happen, but they wanted to raise some awareness to the fact that a pope is as answerable to the law as the next person.  He and his mates will be having a good laugh!!
> 
> Look at the anger it has raised here!




But all Dawkins has proved is that the pope is NOT as answerable to the law as the next person.

He has enhanced his own profile however.


----------



## gooner (17 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Gumby, what you need to understand is that you've now tangoed with a new bunch of god  botherers, but they have no overarching morality to constrain them, and they have a different god. Reason or science or logic, as evidenced by this thread, is nothing to do with it. It is ALL about silencing and attacking the unbeliever. "Why" is a blank that can be filled in later. It feels nice to feel superior to others, that is the underlying orientation of it.
> 
> Your call for a set of atheist values is on point. But I don't see why Christian (or whatever) values can't be adopted by those who don't necessarily swallow the Christian story of creation.
> 
> The values themselves aren't the problem - if lived up to, they're benign. The charge against the church is that they DON'T live up to the values.




Overarching morality? Christian values?

What, like stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death?


----------



## Ruby (17 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> But all Dawkins has proved is that the pope is NOT as answerable to the law as the next person.
> 
> He has enhanced his own profile however.




He hasn't proven anything yet.   However, I think Geoffrey Robertson will put up a good case, expecting nothing to come of it but raised awareness of the whole sleazy Vatican cover-up; and in *that *they are already highly successful.


----------



## explod (17 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> He hasn't proven anything yet.   However, I think Geoffrey Robertson will put up a good case, expecting nothing to come of it but raised awareness of the whole sleazy Vatican cover-up; and in *that *they are already highly successful.




What do you have against Dawkins?

To me he is just a realist.

And well said Waynel.    Game, set and match.


----------



## bunyip (17 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Gumby, what you need to understand is that you've now tangoed with a new bunch of god  botherers, but they have no overarching morality to constrain them, and they have a different god. Reason or science or logic, as evidenced by this thread, is nothing to do with it. It is ALL about silencing and attacking the unbeliever. "Why" is a blank that can be filled in later. It feels nice to feel superior to others, that is the underlying orientation of it.
> 
> Your call for a set of atheist values is on point. But I don't see why Christian (or whatever) values can't be adopted by those who don't necessarily swallow the Christian story of creation.
> 
> The values themselves aren't the problem - if lived up to, they're benign. The charge against the church is that they DON'T live up to the values.




At least in the post above you've outlined some points that make sense.

You're right - basic Christian value of goodness, integrity, consideration for others, can be adopted by anyone, Christian or otherwise, believers or otherwise, creationists or evolutionists.
There are many non-Christians who do in fact embrace these values in their day to day lives.

You're also right in saying that the values are not the problem. The charge is that the church doesn't live up to these values.

There's nothing wrong with basic Christian values, in fact they outline a basic guideline for decent living, and the world would be a better place if everyone lived by these values.
The charge against the church that they don't live up to the values is a legitimate charge in some cases, particularly with regard to crimes of sexual abuse of children by priests, and the covering up of these crimes by church officials, and protection of the offenders.

Having said that, Christian churches are involved in many good and admirable deeds for the betterment of humanity. Tink has mentioned some of these within the Catholic church. On another thread I mentioned some of the good things done by another church that I was involved with.

Nevertheless, sexual abuse of children is a crime against humanity, and anyone involved in it should be locked away for the term of their natural life. Those who protect the offenders, cover up their crimes, and place them in positions within the church where they have the opportunity of repeating their crimes, should also be locked up in prison for length periods.

Is the pope one of these people? The available evidence appears to indicate that he is.


----------



## Ruby (17 April 2010)

explod said:


> What do you have against Dawkins?
> 
> To me he is just a realist.
> 
> And well said Waynel.    Game, set and match.




Explod....... I am *very *pro-Dawkins, as you will see if you read my posts.


----------



## explod (17 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Explod....... I am *very *pro-Dawkins, as you will see if you read my posts.




Apologies, damned explosions get in the way, scatoma, or similar, I think its called .    

The other word triggerred by the excellent post just put up by bunyip is *humanism*


----------



## Atlas79 (17 April 2010)

gooner said:


> Overarching morality? Christian values?
> 
> What, like stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death?





In what country is this done today by Christians?

Besides, if true - it isn't, not that something being true or not is a measure for you guys, what matters is if it's a useful slur - it would be just what I said: a VARIATION from those values, not following those values.


----------



## Solly (17 April 2010)

Mexico Bishop Says pr0n, TV to Blame For Priest Abuse

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A prominent Roman Catholic bishop in Mexico blamed eroticism on television and Internet pornography for child abuse by priests, in the latest incendiary comments on sex scandals in the church.

"With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children," Bishop Felipe Arizmendi said during an annual meeting of Mexican bishops near Mexico City on Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/16/world/international-uk-mexico-bishop-abuse.html

At first I thought I had received spam on the Reuters feed, I find this to be an incredible position to take on this issue.


----------



## Fishbulb (17 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Fishbulb,as usual you are talking nonsense.   this is the sort of sweeping generalisation we have all come to expect of you.   It's a juvenile tactic people resort to when they know their argument has no legs and they have nothing useful to offer but still try and defend their position.
> 
> You don't have to be religious to understand the bible.  Many of the worlds great bible scholars are non-believers
> 
> ...




And hopefully your mummy taught you that the reason you keep burning your hand is because you keep putting it on the stove repeatedly. The idea is to stop.


----------



## bunyip (17 April 2010)

Solly said:


> Mexico Bishop Says pr0n, TV to Blame For Priest Abuse
> 
> MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A prominent Roman Catholic bishop in Mexico blamed eroticism on television and Internet pornography for child abuse by priests, in the latest incendiary comments on sex scandals in the church.
> 
> "With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children," Bishop Felipe Arizmendi said during an annual meeting of Mexican bishops near Mexico City on Thursday.




That Mexian Catholic bishop is none too bright. If he had any sense he'd realise that the problem lies in the idiotic rule of the Catholic church that priests must be single and celibate. 
Every normal human is hard-wired by nature to have a desire for sex. This particularly applies to men. When that desire is suppressed by some moronic, outdated rule within a church, it's no wonder that randy priests run off the rails and start looking for covert means of sexual release.

Sooner or later the silly old fogies who make the rules of the Catholic church will open their eyes and realise how downright dumb and stupid it is to have a 'single and celibate' ruling towards priests. 

They'll allow priests to marry and and have families and be normal men. 
When that eventually happens, not only will much of this ongoing sexual abuse problem disappear, but priests who are married with families and have all the normal life experiences that go with family life, will be far better equipped than single celibate priests to provide worthwhile guidance, advice and counselling work within their church.


----------



## gooner (17 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> In what country is this done today by Christians?
> 
> Besides, if true - it isn't, not that something being true or not is a measure for you guys, what matters is if it's a useful slur - it would be just what I said: a VARIATION from those values, not following those values.




This is the morality of the bible - these are the values of Christianity. If the bible is the word of God, then time does not change them.

It is atheists/humanists that have moved society away from such barbarism. The church still condemns adulterers and homosexuals and discriminates against them. Christians have killed doctors providing abortion services in the US and other countries.  Uganda, which is a Christian country, imprisons homosexuals. The catholic church condemn abortion even in the case of rape. There are plenty more examples of church supported barbarism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/3216229.stm


----------



## weird (17 April 2010)

gooner said:


> This is the morality of the bible - these are the values of Christianity. If the bible is the word of God, then time does not change them.
> 
> It is atheists/humanists that have moved society away from such barbarism. The church still condemns adulterers and homosexuals and discriminates against them. Christians have killed doctors providing abortion services in the US and other countries.  Uganda, which is a Christian country, imprisons homosexuals. The catholic church condemn abortion even in the case of rape. There are plenty more examples of church supported barbarism
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/3216229.stm




Gooner, your arguments are so flawed, Catholics would ignore your comments as complete tripe, only incredibly ignorant persons would ever consider those comments as being true.

You will find crazy behavior in all areas of society, even 'democratic' countries doing none democratic behaviour.  Don't cover all of anything with red paint, because of the actions by a minor few.

Also believe Jesus said, if you have never sinned throw the first stone. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Also if we follow your logic then anyone performing 'other' acts , such as pedophilia, will be judged, but also should be judged by the law of the land ... however not with anyone throwing rocks at them (I guess unless if that is how society finds justice in those countries ... although Catholicism is totally against capital punishment, so I guess not in those cases either).


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2010)

16 pages on Richard Dawkins.

Good Lord!


----------



## Fishbulb (17 April 2010)

Not really about Dawkins

More that the mention of Dawkins name brought out the forum fruitloops, otherwise known as atheists. 

Here's a couple I prepared earlier -


----------



## Solly (17 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Not really about Dawkins
> 
> More that the mention of Dawkins name brought out the forum fruitloops, otherwise known as atheists.
> 
> Here's a couple I prepared earlier -




Genesis 1:27 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


----------



## Calliope (17 April 2010)

That's Fishbone and Atllas obviously. I guessed they were related. It's obvious now why they post tripe.


----------



## Julia (17 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> The values themselves aren't the problem - if lived up to, they're benign. The charge against the church is that they DON'T live up to the values.



Thank you for finally saying something sensible.



Solly said:


> Mexico Bishop Says pr0n, TV to Blame For Priest Abuse
> 
> MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A prominent Roman Catholic bishop in Mexico blamed eroticism on television and Internet pornography for child abuse by priests, in the latest incendiary comments on sex scandals in the church.
> 
> ...



If these comments (especially that it's difficult to respect children) are symptomatic of the attitude of the Catholic Church, then no wonder atheism is on the rise.


----------



## Joe Blow (17 April 2010)

Ladies and gentlemen,

This thread has degenerated somewhat and is in danger of being closed due to the increasing prevalence of silliness and unnecessary ad hominem attacks.

In summary:


Lets stop the derogatory generalisations about atheists and catholics as groups. This debate is about Dawkins and the current Pope and atheism and catholicism as concepts/philosophies/world views.
No more silly photos please. They add nothing to the debate and from this point forward they will be removed.
Play the ball, not the man (or woman). Debate the issues, don't attack those participating in the debate.
Your co-operation is appreciated.


----------



## Solly (17 April 2010)

Joe Blow said:


> Ladies and gentlemen,
> 
> This thread has degenerated somewhat and is in danger of being closed due to the increasing prevalence of silliness and unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
> 
> ...




Yes Joe I agree, we need to lighten up a bit...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 April 2010)

Joe Blow said:


> Ladies and gentlemen,
> 
> This thread has degenerated somewhat and is in danger of being closed due to the increasing prevalence of silliness and unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
> 
> ...




Jeez Joe, you certainly know how to slow a thread down !

I haven't been following this as I think Dawkins is a bit of a twat as all of this area was covered by Blaise Pascal a couple of hundred years ago. 

If it hasn't been mentioned before on a stock forum thread about an atheist going up against god, it should be.

I'll quote from wikipedia.

Lets hope Dawkins is right for his sake, as if he's not, he gets to arrest an old man but pays by going to hell. Not a good wager.



> Blaise Pascal
> 
> Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his PensÃ©es, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.
> 
> Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.




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

gg


----------



## Joe Blow (17 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez Joe, you certainly know how to slow a thread down !




Sorry GG, just trying to get it back on track rather than slow it down. I have sensed an increase in both silly photo posting and hostility/antagonism between ASF members in this thread and felt it was having a negative impact on the quality of debate. Believe me, I hate to sound so stern all the time, but if I don't people will think I'm a pushover and they can get away with anything. 

Lets just debate the issues folks. There's plenty of interesting debate/discussion to be had without resorting to personal attacks on other ASF members or insulting generalisations about atheists and catholics. I certainly have no objection to robust debate. In fact, I enjoy reading it. Lets just try and not let things degenerate any further.


----------



## Fishbulb (17 April 2010)

Ahh well, it was fun for a while.


----------



## weird (17 April 2010)

Thanks Joe, for jumping in and trying to bring this thread to course.

Solly interesting post after Joe, I am a huge Monty Python fan.

Bringing this thread closer to its original post, lets hypothetically indulge this for a while ... 

while I come from a family of 5 lawyers, but I am not trained in law, 

lets change the Pope, to the President of the United States ... 

who here will not be biased on a point of view without hearing the facts ... for any crime put to the charge ?


----------



## So_Cynical (17 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez Joe, you certainly know how to slow a thread down !
> 
> I haven't been following this as I think Dawkins is a bit of a twat as all of this area was covered by Blaise Pascal a couple of hundred years ago.
> 
> ...




Reading thru the Pascal wiki its pretty clear Pascal's a fence sitting philosopher with next to nothing in common with Dawkins...also clear that Pascal is dealing with the philosophic side of the debate. For the vast majority of atheists there is no debate and no philosophy needed.



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Anti-Pascal wager
> 
> Richard Dawkins argues for an "anti-Pascal wager" in his book, The God Delusion. "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc." [22]


----------



## avish22 (17 April 2010)

I think it's not a hot news, it become an ordinary daily happening news. The Catholic Church is in trouble.

Anand Vishwakarma


----------



## Atlas79 (17 April 2010)

gooner said:


> This is the morality of the bible - these are the values of Christianity. If the bible is the word of God, then time does not change them.
> 
> It is atheists/humanists that have moved society away from such barbarism. The church still condemns adulterers and homosexuals and discriminates against them. Christians have killed doctors providing abortion services in the US and other countries.  Uganda, which is a Christian country, imprisons homosexuals. The catholic church condemn abortion even in the case of rape. There are plenty more examples of church supported barbarism
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/3216229.stm




Bzzt, wrong.

That is all.


----------



## weird (17 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Reading thru the Pascal wiki its pretty clear Pascal's a fence sitting philosopher with next to nothing in common with Dawkins...also clear that Pascal is dealing with the philosophic side of the debate. For the vast majority of atheists there is no debate and no philosophy needed.




Agree, Pascal has very little to add.

People bring a lot of prior prejudice to these types of discussions in regards to the Catholic church,

which is comparative to some general or even only Australian attitudes to Americans, aboriginals, foreigners, etc ...

that discussions around facts are so laden with additional comments filled with prejudice, 

that is makes almost any discussion .... just basically become a hate fest. 

Stay with what you know folks, hate what you don't know ... seems the mantra ... but not the Catholic one. If you disagree with my statement, then you know ****e about the Catholic beliefs.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 April 2010)

avish22 said:


> I think it's not a hot news, it become an ordinary daily happening news. The Catholic Church is in trouble.
> 
> Anand Vishwakarma




I'm sure if this bloke was around he'd know how to sort them out hey Anand.


----------



## Atlas79 (18 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Thank you for finally saying something sensible.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcWzlxECaPo


----------



## Solly (18 April 2010)

Tink said:


> This thread is about Richard Dawkins and his agenda
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html




Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear. 

I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 April 2010)

Solly said:


> Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear.
> 
> I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.
> 
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/




As usual Solly mate, an excellent pick up from an interesting article.

A quote from Jerry Coyne.



> As recently as 1979, the Cambodian genocide killed 1.7 million people. These were murdered by communist atheists. War crimes tribunals are now being set up in Phnomh Penh. It is perfectly reasonable to be critical of the many bad things done in the name of religion, but I don't see Dawkins loudly decrying the actions of atheists in Cambodia. Why? Because his preference appears to be to emphasise religiously motivated barbarism over the many atheistically motivated wrongs.
> 
> Many now see Dawkins as something of a narrow-minded fundamentalist himself, increasingly redolent of a man with no sense of smell going around shrieking to everyone that their sense of smell is a delusion.
> 
> Perhaps Dawkins imagines that by promoting his grim personal philosophy as the ultimate truth, and by viciously attacking ancient moral systems upon which Western Civilization is founded, he will bring about some sort of atheist utopia. He seeks to magnify wrongs done by religions, and to breeze over the immense horrors brought about by some atheist belief systems. Yet we have seen what atheist utopias can look like.




The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.

gg


----------



## gooner (18 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As usual Solly mate, an excellent pick up from an interesting article.
> 
> A quote from Jerry Coyne.
> 
> ...




"communist atheists"??

No doubt that communism was the driving force for the Cambodian genocide. But not atheism. The communists suppressed the church and trade unionists and any possible opposition to the regime. But this does not make them atheist.  Where is the evidence that the Cambodian genocide was in the name of atheism?


----------



## Solly (18 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.
> 
> gg




gg, very well said.

Also here's another timely tweet from that "Cranky old man" on the front-line from South Melbourne.

http://twitter.com/FatherBob/status/12319665892


----------



## Ruby (18 April 2010)

Solly said:


> Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear.
> 
> I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.
> 
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/




Thanks Solly.  Both of these article should be compulsory reading for Tink, Fishbulb and Atlas...........   the first as an example of totally flawed logic, lack of factual information and apalling journalism full of conjecture and bias; and the second to give a sensible, logical, factually correct (claims can be substantiated), non-hysterical view.

People do not have to like Dawkins, or even to agree with him, but that is not a reason to make absurd statements about what he does or doesn't do/think/believe.


----------



## Calliope (18 April 2010)

It is obvious that this thread was opened with the intention of inciting moral outrage against Dawkins. It starts off;

"This arrogant missing link is now proposing to arrest the Pope."

This putdown has been taken up by by many as an invitation to denigrate all Atheists while at the same time denying any support for the Pope's shortcomings.

Atheists, like GW sceptics, have become a convenient scapegoat for all sorts of people with chips on their shoulders whose favourite sport is to attack dissenters.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> Thanks Solly.  Both of these article should be compulsory reading for Tink, Fishbulb and Atlas...........   the first as an example of totally flawed logic, lack of factual information and apalling journalism full of conjecture and bias; and the second to give a sensible, logical, factually correct (claims can be substantiated), non-hysterical view.
> 
> People do not have to like Dawkins, or even to agree with him, but that is not a reason to make absurd statements about what he does or doesn't do/think/believe.





From Fitzgrald's article.



> His particular bile is reserved for the Judaeo-Christian traditions. You will not see him spouting off so vociferously about Mohammed. He is too cowardly for that. . .




Atheists don't have the bottle to attack Islam with the same ferocity as they attack Judaism and Christianity. Is it because they hate Western thought, or just pure cowardice?

gg


----------



## Tink (18 April 2010)

I just dont understand why people all just dont get along

What ever you believe is your choice.

As I said at the start of this, if Dawkins was interested in helping 'Crimes to Humanity' he would be cleaning his own backyard.

End of story.


----------



## Ruby (18 April 2010)

Tink said:


> As I said at the start of this, if Dawkins was interested in helping 'Crimes to Humanity' he would be cleaning his own backyard.
> 
> End of story.




this is exactly the sort of comment I was referring to.   You are assuming without any supporting evidence that there is something in his own backyard that *needs *cleaning and that if there is, he is not already attending to it.  Assumptions like this add nothing to a debate


----------



## Calliope (18 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Atheists don't have the bottle to attack Islam with the same ferocity as they attack Judaism and Christianity. Is it because they hate Western thought, or just pure cowardice?
> 
> gg




Who are you talking about? The vast majority of Atheists have never attacked anybody and certainly not with ferocity. 

For your information this majority has never been involved in organised Atheism. You single out a few militant atheists to denigrate the rest, and even quote a ratbag like Fitzgerald. For a little enlightenment you might care to read;



> Why should anyone join an "atheist" organization? Simply put -- they don't exist. The very good reason of why most atheists would never dream of joining an atheistic organization is because most atheistic organizations are not atheistic at all, they're shills for ideological commitments other-than-atheism. And when I say other-than-atheism, I of course mean self-described leftist organizations. Humanism, vegetarianism, identity politics, and all sorts of patent nonsense go under the umbrella of atheism, as any jaunt around the net or an appearance at your local atheist organization will show you



.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/versluys1.htm


----------



## explod (18 April 2010)

I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.

In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives.   Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this. 

Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap.  ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist.   He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.

The criticism of Dawkins is unwarranted, he is entitled to his opinion first of all and to state his distinct conclusions backed up by the facts as we know them at this time.   

Dawkins is an extremerly well educated, gentle and peaceful man who seeks only the truth.

Religion is based on fairy tales which of course give people a nice fuzzy feeling inside.    The Pope not only presides over this but the offenders within his ranks.


----------



## Tink (18 April 2010)

explod said:


> Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap.  ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist.   He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.




So cant he live in a world with other people and other beliefs?

Thats HIS opinion


----------



## Ruby (18 April 2010)

explod said:


> I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.
> 
> In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives.   Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this.
> 
> ...




Great post Explod!!


----------



## explod (18 April 2010)

Tink said:


> So cant he live in a world with other people and other beliefs?
> 
> Thats HIS opinion




A silly question Tink, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, based on each ones individual experience but not to impose them on others if they amount to unprovable crap.

Dawkins imposes nothing he just states the facts.   It is apparent that the Pope hides the facts.


----------



## Tink (18 April 2010)

*Everyones entitled to their own beliefs -* exactly right.


----------



## Calliope (18 April 2010)

Explod,

You say you disagree with my post #330 and yet you do not say why you disagree. You also say;



> everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, based on each ones individual experience




I have been an Atheist since my secondary school days when the scales fell away from my eyes. That is a long time ago, but since then I have never  been involved with any Atheist organisation. All Atheists I know are individualists and none that I know have never tried to impose their views on others.

You give the impression (I could be wrong) that you support militant Atheism. That's not my cup of tea.


----------



## spooly74 (18 April 2010)

Tink said:


> *Everyones entitled to their own beliefs -* exactly right.




Do you believe the Pope to be infallible?


----------



## Fishbulb (18 April 2010)

explod said:


> I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.
> 
> In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives. - but he is most vocal where Christianity is concerned. I don't blame him, if he tried that with Islam he'd be in exile like Salman Rushdie was - Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this.
> 
> ...




...


----------



## Ruby (18 April 2010)

Fishbulb.......The fact that religion is based on fairy tales, allegory, myth, partial history.......is not "populist assumption"  There is ample evidence for this fact.  Religion was made up centuries ago, before we had any scientific explanations for anything, to explain the unexplainable.

there is absolutely no evidence for the truth of any religious dogma.


----------



## Frank D (18 April 2010)

Ruby said:


> there is absolutely no evidence for the truth of
> any religious dogma.




Fair enough comment if you truly believe that….

However, I’m happy to live by the moral standards set by the ten commandments written in the old testament.

I’m not happy to live by the moral standards told to me by governments

i.e . “Climate change is the greatest *moral *challenge of our time”


----------



## Calliope (18 April 2010)

Off topic, but in a lighter vein. Theism certainly had some wacky beginnings.



http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/emrods.htm


----------



## Fishbulb (18 April 2010)

Frank D said:


> Fair enough comment if you truly believe that….
> 
> However, I’m happy to live by the moral standards set by the ten commandments written in the old testament.
> 
> ...




I concur


----------



## Ruby (18 April 2010)

Calliope......thank you for a good laugh.   Yep!  The bible is full of truths like that!


----------



## So_Cynical (18 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As recently as 1979, the Cambodian genocide killed 1.7 million people. These were murdered by communist atheists.
> 
> The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.
> 
> gg




At your brilliant best again GG  The Khmer Rouge leadership sure were atheists and communists...they were also mostly French educated men under 5 feet 10 in height that ate alot of rice.

So following your line of thinking GG .. Eating rice, communism, gods, botherers, French education, atheism, and impaired height all lead to genocidel tendency's.  But then the greatest genocide in our time (deaths per day) was carried out by Christian Hutu's in Rwanda who coincidently used to be a french educated, are short in stature, and eat rice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> So following your line of thinking GG .. Eating rice, communism, gods, botherers, French education, atheism, and impaired height all lead to genocidel tendency's.




And I would add to that throwing a leg over Carla Bruni.

So there are many out there with genocidal tendencies.

gg


----------



## gav (18 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> *For the vast majority of atheists there is no debate* and no philosophy needed.




Sounds very much like the religious folk you detest.  You have a lot more in common than you think.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 April 2010)

gav said:


> Sounds very much like the religious folk you detest.  You have a lot more in common than you think.




Much like how the Tooth fairy, Santa Claus, gods and the abominable snowman have at-least one thing in common.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2010)

Did anyone read George Pell's rediculous comments in the papers today trying to defend the Pope. Whatever respect I might have had for the man dissolved.


----------



## bellenuit (18 April 2010)

Those who try to pass the Holocaust off as being the product of atheism, because of the very disputable claim that Hitler was an atheist, forget one very important fact. The Holocaust wasn't the work of one man but of an entire nation that was overwhelmingly Christian. The philosophical underpinnings that allowed that nation to attempt to exterminate from the face of the earth one particular religious minority was the belief that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, the son of the Christian God, and that they collectively shared the guilt for that act. Though not a view formally espoused by the Christian churches anymore, it is however the underlying cause for the 2000 year persecution of the Jews and ultimately the reason that the Holocaust was perpetrated by those in power and a blind eye turned to it by much of the rest of the world. 

Religion was the cause of the Holocaust, not atheism, irrespective of the personal beliefs of Hitler.


----------



## Atlas79 (18 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Those who try to pass the Holocaust off as being the product of atheism, because of the very disputable claim that Hitler was an atheist, forget one very important fact. The Holocaust wasn't the work of one man but of an entire nation that was overwhelmingly Christian. The philosophical underpinnings that allowed that nation to attempt to exterminate from the face of the earth one particular religious minority was the belief that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, the son of the Christian God, and that they collectively shared the guilt for that act. Though not a view formally espoused by the Christian churches anymore, it is however the underlying cause for the 2000 year persecution of the Jews and ultimately the reason that the Holocaust was perpetrated by those in power and a blind eye turned to it by much of the rest of the world.
> 
> Religion was the cause of the Holocaust, not atheism, irrespective of the personal beliefs of Hitler.




Breathtaking lunacy. Breathtaking.

Unless you refer to Marxism as a religion in this case. In which case we are agreed. Marx predicted the holocaust, Hitler used his ideas. Nazism & Soviet Marxism = Coke vs Pepsi. But in the PC age, we aren't allowed to point out that some religions are different from others, any more than some people are different from others. That's now taboo.

Eradicating a religion was among the purposes of the holocaust (aka The Great Socialist Conflagration.) Why did they want to wipe out Judaeism, and catholicism? Because *benign* religions stand in the way of totalitarianism. Why else would they always, always eradicate it? (Or turn it into a tool of the state, as per examples already given & ignored.)

But then this has been covered many times in this thread. As Adolf's minister of propoganda said, if you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one.

You were clearly paying attention.


----------



## Fishbulb (18 April 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Those who try to pass the Holocaust off as being the product of atheism, because of the very disputable claim that Hitler was an atheist, forget one very important fact. The Holocaust wasn't the work of one man but of an entire nation that was overwhelmingly Christian. The philosophical underpinnings that allowed that nation to attempt to exterminate from the face of the earth one particular religious minority was the belief that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, the son of the Christian God, and that they collectively shared the guilt for that act. Though not a view formally espoused by the Christian churches anymore, it is however the underlying cause for the 2000 year persecution of the Jews and ultimately the reason that the Holocaust was perpetrated by those in power and a blind eye turned to it by much of the rest of the world.
> 
> Religion was the cause of the Holocaust, not atheism, irrespective of the personal beliefs of Hitler.









I'll take it back if you admit you weren't serious


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 April 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Nazism & Soviet Marxism = Coke vs Pepsi.




I have a similar view Atlas. They are ideological cousins that only one-eyed inbreds tend to follow for want of a better analogy. Both dictatorial and funded by banking puppet masters.


----------



## Fishbulb (18 April 2010)

Religion is never the cause of disaster. It has always been and always will be stupid people.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Religion is never the cause of disaster. It has always been and always will be stupid people.




Synonym for stupid -> bigoted.


----------



## explod (18 April 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Religion is never the cause of disaster. It has always been and always will be stupid people.




Religion, being the organisation imposing its dogma, indoctrinates people and therefore makes them stupid.  Religion is the culprit Fishbulb.

As is the Pope and his cronies in shielding bent priests


----------



## Fishbulb (18 April 2010)

This thread has about exhausted itself for me. Unless a new direction opens up, I'm done with it.


----------



## noirua (18 April 2010)

Some citizens arrests can go disastrously wrong. I remember a newspaper report some time back when a group of citizens arrested a youth who stole a handbag. After a long struggle they sat on him until police arrived, unfortunately he'd been suffocated.


----------



## Joe Blow (18 April 2010)

Time to shut this thread down at long last I think. 

Sadly, the level of debate has not improved and from the looks of things is unlikely to.


----------

