Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Why/how do atheists have an agenda?...why this crazy Christian backlash?
 
So_Cynical said:
Why/how do atheists have an agenda?...why this crazy Christian backlash?
Click to expand...
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.
 
So_Cynical said:
Why/how do atheists have an agenda?.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
So_Cynical said:
Why/how do atheists have an agenda?...why this crazy Christian backlash?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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'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).
 
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
"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/
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top