Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

[Ozymandias]

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]

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


Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope

 

[Calliope]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[dutchie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Another red herring.

 

[Timmy]

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.

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.

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]

Another red herring.

Why?

 

[Calliope]

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.