Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...

[Blue Meanie]

Busa_Rush said:

Dawkins has been proven to be a nobber on many an occasion over the years, he likes nothing more than a scrap with anybody involved with religion and that's all this is, a poke at religion.

For fks sake, Busa, read the statement made by Dawkins. The newspaper article is a load of bks. All Dawkins did was give the name of a Human rights lawyer to Hitchens... That's it! he is supportive of it, but he has nothing to do with the lawyers who wish to have the pope 'charged'.

As for the rest of your statement, I would like you to back that up. Dawkins has been involved in debates, and TV programs, as well as author some books.

[Sisyphus]

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

Others have answered this. The charge against the pope is that he covered up priest buggering kids, as part of a systematic reaction to protect the church.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/richard-d...
Dawkins isn't a moron, he is a very smart biologist!

The Pope has been accused of all sorts of things over the years, current and previous, but there's no evidence to support any of the current allegations and it's all simply farcical.

Dawkins has been proven to be a nobber on many an occasion over the years, he likes nothing more than a scrap with anybody involved with religion and that's all this is, a poke at religion.

I'm sure I saw a letter signed by him that was basically saying bks to the abused kiddies the church is more important.

It's more to do with what religion has been poking than having a poke at religion but you carry on living life as an apologist for a bunch of kiddie fiddlers if it makes you happy.

[Blue Meanie]

Ratzingers 'letter'

Ratzinger said:

All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm


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

A letter from '85 regarding keeping the name of the church above the rights of the victim

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36325154/ns/us_news-fa...

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 12th April 16:13

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

Busa_Rush said:

Dawkins has been proven to be a nobber on many an occasion over the years, he likes nothing more than a scrap with anybody involved with religion and that's all this is, a poke at religion.

For fks sake, Busa, read the statement made by Dawkins. The newspaper article is a load of bks. All Dawkins did was give the name of a Human rights lawyer to Hitchens... That's it! he is supportive of it, but he has nothing to do with the lawyers who wish to have the pope 'charged'.

As for the rest of your statement, I would like you to back that up. Dawkins has been involved in debates, and TV programs, as well as author some books.

Could we compromise on Dawkins being a "nobber" who likes nothing more than a scrap with anybody involved with religion, but in this particular case he has only played a minor "me too!" role?

[drivin_me_nuts]

Indeed the Pope may be guilt of putting the needs of his church above the needs and rights of those under his banner who have raped. Yet are Dawkins et al the appropriate peoples to be taking action. A man with his own self seeking career agenda stands up to the leader of the Catholic church and this is done in the name of those who have been abused... for justice... for 'rights'.

I don't for a nano second believe that his intentions are even 0.000001 percent honourable. The man is a self seeking publicist. No more, no less and this represents the perfect opportunity for him to get his message to the wider community. Excellent PR for brand Dawkins, perfect win-win. Justice for those who have been abused. Fogive me for saying this, but not a chance in hell.

[Blue Meanie]

drivin_me_nuts said:

Indeed the Pope may be guilt of putting the needs of his church above the needs and rights of those under his banner who have raped. Yet are Dawkins et al the appropriate peoples to be taking action. A man with his own self seeking career agenda stands up to the leader of the Catholic church and this is done in the name of those who have been abused... for justice... for 'rights'.

I don't for a nano second believe that his intentions are even 0.000001 percent honourable. The man is a self seeking publicist. No more, no less and this represents the perfect opportunity for him to get his message to the wider community. Excellent PR for brand Dawkins, perfect win-win. Justice for those who have been abused. Fogive me for saying this, but not a chance in hell.

Yup... No-one on PH can read. Dawkins has NOTHING to do with this... he simply recommended a human rights lawyer to someone else!

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series? There seems to be a great deal of animosity towards him, and I can't really think of anything to back it up. Please, some examples. The article from the OP has been proven to be a pile of st, and yet here we are, still talking about how Dawkins is a moron, and a smarmy git, when he hasn't done anything to warrant it, at least for this instance.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 12th April 17:47

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series?

Goes to church at Christmas because he like singing carols. Not promoting any books; just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians.

You have to admire the sheer hypocrisy of that though!

[LDN]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series?

Not promoting any books; just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians.

Good man!

[ludo]

LDN said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series?

Not promoting any books; just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians.

Good man!

Didn't work though, they just turned the other cheek.

[Halb]

ludo said:

LDN said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series?

Not promoting any books; just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians.

Good man!

Didn't work though, they just turned the other cheek.

Typical!

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series?

Goes to church at Christmas because he like singing carols. Not promoting any books; just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians.

You have to admire the sheer hypocrisy of that though!

The stupid, it hurts! the hypocrisy, it hurts! Dawkins was called by a journo, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND! He did not try to get in the paper at all. Seriously, are people simply ignoring what Dawkins wrote regarding the article in the OP?

Is this just a nice excuse to divert attention away from what the Pope, and church has been doing? Ad Hominem attacks on someone who had nothing to do with the article in the OP?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 12th April 18:12

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series?

Goes to church at Christmas because he like singing carols. Not promoting any books; just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians.

You have to admire the sheer hypocrisy of that though!

The stupid, it hurts! the hypocrisy, it hurts! Dawkins was called by a journo, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND! He did not try to get in the paper at all. Seriously, are people simply ignoring what Dawkins wrote regarding the article in the OP?

See my first post on the thread, you will find that I demonstrated quite clearly that I knew what Dawkins had or hadn't done (so less of the insults please). His involvement in this particular case was minimal, but that doesn't mean he is not a "nobber"

You asked for an example of self-publicising, I provided one. Do you really not find it hypocritical that Dawkins calls religion "the root of all evil" and then goes carol singing?

[Swilly]

Busa_Rush said:

The Pope has been accused of all sorts of things over the years, current and previous, but there's no evidence to support any of the current allegations and it's all simply farcical.

So without evidence you are suggesting one should not believe as to believe would be farcical !?

[s2art]

ludo said:

You asked for an example of self-publicising, I provided one. Do you really not find it hypocritical that Dawkins calls religion "the root of all evil" and then goes carol singing?

Not really, he mentions his reasons in his book. Also, given he is CofE and they dont seem to have any requirements in what people believe, its not completely obvious that its a real religion anymore. More the Tory party at pray coupled to a social service.

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

See my first post on the thread, you will find that I demonstrated quite clearly that I knew what Dawkins had or hadn't done (so less of the insults please). His involvement in this particular case was minimal, but that doesn't mean he is not a "nobber"

That is called an Ad Hominem attack, Ludo. You address nothing of what he says, and attack character instead. You might want to look that up. I do find it slightly hypocritical that you object to insults in the same paragraph you call someone a nobber. As for your notion of a "me too!" role, he was asked by someone else. he did not go to the papers, or attaract attention. He was called by a journo.

You asked for an example of self-publicising, I provided one. Do you really not find it hypocritical that Dawkins calls religion "the root of all evil" and then goes carol singing?

No, you never.. What example? You simply said "he gets in the papers".. That is not an example. He does call religion "the root of all evil"... He also backs that up with 2 documentaries, and a book. Again, you say nothing about what you disagree with, and simply 'attack'.

I like some songs that talk about the devil, and yet I am not a satanist. You can like something, without believing what it is talking about. Pretty poor argument on your part. Carol singing, gregorian chanting, etc, all have artistic merits that are apart from their religious meaning.


Anything to say about the child abuse scandal, or the vaticans role in this, or are you simply going to attack someone who had feck all to do with the article in the OP.

[Swilly]

I think what is farcical is this thread... that so many want to criticise Dawkins (for whatever he did or didnt do) as opposed to wanting to criticise a church for whom the association with child abuse has become part of western comical culture !!

Is anyone suprised any more at these stories ?

I must say the proposition of someone trying to have the pope arrested and charged is electrifying though!! What a political hot potato that will be !!

[Blue Meanie]

Swilly said:

I think what is farcical is this thread... that so many want to criticise Dawkins (for whatever he did or didnt do) as opposed to wanting to criticise a church for whom the association with child abuse has become part of western comical culture !!

On the nose! I think people are wishing to divert attention from the Pope and the Church, and lead it off on some pointless, and meaningless focus on someone else.

[Blue Meanie]

The superb Jon Stewart...

http://tv.gawker.com/5512126/jon-stewarts-crusade-...

[Dr Jekyll]

ludo said:

Do you really not find it hypocritical that Dawkins calls religion "the root of all evil" and then goes carol singing?

He doesn't call religion the "root of all evil". The title "Root of all evil?" (note the question mark) was chosen by others for one of his documentaries.

[Blue Meanie]

'The Root of all evil?', and 'The Enemies of Reason' can be found here...

http://web.mac.com/blue_meanie1976/atheism/Video.h...