This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.

 
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

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.
 

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

You can read right?
 
Dude. Dude.

Seriously.

More from the first link you posted:


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

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

You guys are funny

Good luck with your jihad!
 
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.

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?
 
Nothing will happen

Dawkins has had his 15 minutes of fame.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 

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.
 
Why because I dont agree with you?

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

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
 

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.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...