Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
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.

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
Click to expand...

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

Watch. Then we'll talk.
 
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?
 
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...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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)
 
Tink said:
Calliope, governments have hidden child abuse for years and they werent religious.

What is Dawkins doing about them?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Maybe. The point is; Does the Pope condone their behaviour?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Atlas79 said:
You have the free choice to ignore the pope and everything he says
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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?
Click to expand...

Good post

Quoted for truth
 
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.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous conclusion. Completely nonsensical. Must you fight all fights to have a say in one fight?
 
Trembling Hand said:
That's a ridiculous conclusion. Completely nonsensical. Must you fight all fights to have a say in one fight?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Atlas79 said:
You don't need for there to be a god or a devil for there to be hell on earth.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
, lets enforce it.



No conspiracy theory excuses hold water.
 
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.)

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top