Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
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.



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:
Click to expand...

54b8f691f11abbe3129d785944fd65d4.jpg
 
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.

Stumbling block for atheists - the word "faith"

Even though they have it

Weird
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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. :D
 
SmellyTerror said:
From the article you just linked to:



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. :D
Click to expand...

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

You can read right?
 
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."
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

You guys are funny :)

Good luck with your jihad!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...#ixzz0jl8CNMH1

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

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. :D
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SmellyTerror said:
Dude. Dude.

Seriously.

More from the first link you posted:



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

Or:



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?



...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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Why because I dont agree with you?

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

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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top