Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

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


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.
 
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. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
I find it hard to believe that a mod hasn't stepped in here to cull this off-topic nonsense :2twocents
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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 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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :p:
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top