Richard Dawkins Plotting Pope Arrest

Agreed.

Do u blame the pope for those peoples ignorence

You can't blame the Pope for anything since it is part of the dogma that he is infallible that along with the diplomatic immunity of Vatican City makes it a futile gesture

Not the beginning since faith in dogma has been eroding for some time but this will certainly be a big blow to it.

But there is still a whole lot of inertia to people's beliefs so I doubt there will be all that much change for a while

Death to organized religions that enslave the minds of men.

Isn't that Thank God for Atheists? Even if that is an oxymoron, otherwise there would be nothing to balance things out.

hehehehe

That was funny . ; )

There are no rules in International Law, the whole thing is fucking made up. It's all about politics de jour, whatever is on the books can be spun or changed to fit that.

That being said it does seem like an over the top stunt.

Even assuming that were the case then "politics de jour" are still on the side of the Pope since there still is much more political influence there.

An "over the top stunt" is right since the potential backlash from it could be considerable with a large amount of people forced to defend the Pope even if they don't agree with the matter because it is an article of faith that the holder of the office is infallible.

A much better way to approach it since the legal argument is moot, is to focus on the hypocrisy of the values that the church is supposed to stand for and the position that they are promoting in order to defend those people.

Getting people to renounce their beliefs because of a higher moral standard than the church has lived up to is a lot more efficient than grandstanding protests that have a bigger downside.

Justice is a lot more than vengance is it is a lot better served by people giving up faith in church dogma and it would be a lot more effective to reduce the church's power by losing a lot of members.

"large amount of people forced to defend the Pope even if they don't agree with the matter because it is an article of faith that the holder of the office is infallible."

Exactly why organized religion is so dangerous. No human is infallible ESPECIALLY not a pope who is accessory to many cases of child molestation. The Popes of the middle ages certainly werent infallible either when they were killing "infidels" imprisoning "heretics" and more corrupt than the Pakistani military...

So attacking that kind of thing by arresting the Pope is only going to make that danger a lot worse right? In an extreme case it could lead to a crusade with troops launching a Holy War against the UK.

Instead of trying to exact vengance with moral outrage, a much better strategy would be to use the hypocrisy in that dogma of infallibility to increase the doubts that people have about the church.

It weakens them a lot more when they lose members because people find the church less and less legitimate or useful for bringing meaning into their lives

You really think that the same people who think the Pope is infallible are having doubts about the sanctity of the church? The thing you're missing is that these people have no logic. No reasoning skills. In their minds the Pope is a vessel for God on Earth and thats that.

I say arrest the Pope and sell the Vatican! The Catholic Church has been robbing people blind for milennia anyway...

Not the core true believers, but those are a lot smaller in number than those affiliated with the church. Not every have the same degree of belief, some are part of the church because their parents were, some out of habit, some because their friends are, some for business contacts.

Do you really think that arresting the Pope will change the minds of those on the fence with lukewarm beliefs? That will just drive them more and more towards the hard core dogma.

That is certainly counter-productive, since attacking it head on will only get a reaction of closing ranks to protect what they have.

Going after the head is useless since even if they could make the charges stick another Pope would just be elected.

It is the immense size of the Catholic Church that gives it a lot of its power so the more motivated those members are to leave it that weakens the body of the church a lot more substantially since they can't replace those as easily as the Pope.

No i know youre right. Theres no way people are going to sit idly by and let the Pope get arrested. I just really wished that the money that gets wasted on the Vatican actually went to doing some good around the world instead of being used to convert people and let child molesters get away with their crimes for decades. A man can dream cant he?

They've gotten away with a lot worse than that so the focus should be on how much less good they have done than they were supposed to do and how much they failed to live up to the values they espouse.

That way it will stave out the converts so they get a lot less of them, that's a lot more practical dream that more and more will leave the church for something better.

Arresting the Pope will do more harm than good toward that since grabbing attention and satisfying moral outrage is fleeting while giving them an incedent to rallying the faithful to their cause is a lot longer lasting

"lessens"? What are these "lessens"? I think someone needs to write LESSONS 10 times on piece of paper, turn it over and spell LESSONS.

You don't have to agree. But the writing has been on the prophetic wall from many sources. The Great Harlot will fall, maybe not now, but eventually it will crumble to dust.

although i kind of agree - religious fanatics have the power to influence law and often cause big trouble where there need be none. For example the arrest of death metal band 'behemoth's lead man, on blastphemy charges. But when people sees a fanatical athiest they often see them as harsh and big-headed, maybe because of religion being hardwired into our brains since a young age!

"What the Pope has done is severely wrong I'm not gonna argue with that. And I even think he should be potentially tried for his crimes."

So you basically agree with what Dawkins is doing but you just don't like his attitude. Well then the rest of your comment is worthless.

It is pretty black and white I think. The pope did something wrong and you say that he should be tried for it. That has nothing to do with Dawkin's attitude, his zealotry, his close minded arguments, or whatever else you might dislike. You are needlessly attacking the person while agreeing with his arguments.

I expected more from a staff member..

it has a lot to do with Dawkins' attitude. Dawkins is not doing this to save the children or for any moral reasons. He is (in my opinion based on his past behaviour and attitude towards religion and particularly Christianity) only doing it out of his hatred for the Church and religion and his strongly held fundamentalist-atheist beliefs.
He is basically leading a religious crusade, a war on Christianity (and a war on religion on a more general scale) based on his differing religious beliefs and his atheist values.

Atheists so strongly decry that religions bring about war and and hatred and argument, and the champion of their religion (which a strong atheist belief practically is) himself brings about argument and hatred against other religions, he doesn't preach tolerence and sees those of other religions as below him and invites his followers to think this also.

So basically I feel a lot of what Dawkins says has to do with his attitude, and i think it is important to question his motives.

It is not a needless attack, and you say I agree with his arguments which i don't. An argument is more than a conclusion and I have yet to hear his reason and logic behind his conclusion, which whatever he might spin is probably a coverup for his religious hatred and I find it hard to believe otherwise.

I hope this is a sufficient explanation of my opinions on the matter

Thank you for clarifying.

The person drawing up the charges doesn't matter to me. I don't care that it is Dawkins. I think the correct and moral thing would be to charge those involved accordingly for covering up such heinous activity. If adequate proof can be presented that the Pope has a hand in it then charge him. That does not constitute in and of itself a religious crusade--It is doing what is right. You don't seem concerned with what is right and wrong, but what the underlying motive is underneath it all. His motives might not be agreeable but his actions are agreeable, given the circumstances. Concealment of child rape is a crime and it is appalling that no one else has thought to do this before but instead let those in the church walk free numerous times. Those involved should have been charged long ago, not reassigned and protected.

Dawkins was raised in the Catholic church and freely admits he was sexually abused by a priest. He also states frequently that child molestation in the Catholic church is deplorable and he sympathizes with the children it which it occurs. To say he is only doing it because it is the church is almost illogical. As an atheist, I want to see chargers brought up not because it is the church, but because they have broken the law and our moral norms.

My thoughts exactly, thank you.

Your personal insults towards Dawkins has little to do with the guilt or innocence of the Pope. And the juvenile name calling, coming from a staff member, seems odd.

Dawkins, and vocal atheists like him, are heroes. They have broken the silence, and continue to call bullshit on the silly religious superstitions that made possible the sexual abuse of children for centuries.

You have no knowledge of Dawkins' motives.

Atheism is not a religion.

For arguments, try reading Dawkins' books.

Your opinions are confused and uninformed, colored with an anger and bitterness that is rather unbecoming, making you appear childish.

dunno why so many people downvoted this but its true.

Dawkins was raised Anglican not Catholic.

What a vile comment.

What you say might be true of your generation but not mine.

I second that and If I'm networkd with him then I won't be soon.

some points.

Religion is a system of faith and worship or a belief in a higher power than our own actions. A belief that is generally the way people think about the world and something science says is just come out of human heads and not based on the outside world.

Science requires a belief in that our observations are what is actually happening in the outside world, they require a belief in the higher power of the laws of physics and the way the universe works, powers/forces that are beyond our power and actions. You may think my choice of the words belief are somewhat wrongly accredited to science. However if you think that all measurements, all observations, and all ideas of science and the world have come out of human heads, it is only what WE think about the world based on fallible human observations. Descartes suggests that these observations are fallible and so cannot be trusted and this you cannot rely on them. AND THUS science also requires faith and belief, faith and belief in your observations and the laws of physics.
Plus it is impossible... IMPOSSIBLE... to know for 100% that God doesn't exist, so to sit there and blindly say he doesn't takes a bit of a leap of faith. Just as saying God does exist does. We can say science points to him not existing, but as I have discussed science is fallible. And worth noting that once we genuinely believed the Earth was flat, once we genuinely believed the sun revolved around the Earth, once we believed in the 4 humors theory of medicine these were all wrong. Science has been wrong continually throughout the past and almost never right (look at the history of science). As a result of this on probability arguments there are high chances we are still wrong to this day and will be ad infinitum. I'm not saying things can't be explained without God, because I don't think we have sufficient proof of God either, but I'm just saying our science is very likely wrong and could be (COULD be, not is wrong) in the attempts to disprove a God. There are even vast parts of science we don't understand still to this day. VAST parts. As a result of not being able to prove some things science all so his areas of illogicality as it can't truly validate itself.

Another point... zealousy... zeal is defined as a great energy or enthusiasm in a pursuit of a cause or objective. Great is important, it doesn't just mean it has an interest but more that someone dedicate every inch of their life to it. Dawkins through his books, TV appearances, attempts to introduce an Atheist advertising campaign on London busses, has dedicated his life completely to proving God doesn't exist and to bring down the church.

I am not averse to argument, I am in fact encouraging argument and debate. And as you said it's important to question ideals, and I am doing this to those that do Dawkins. And I strongly believe as a graduated student of Philosophy (and thus logic and reason) that only through questioning and being able to answer can you arrive at a strong reasoned belief. I think some people idolise Dawkins and Hitchens and their kind a bit too much without ever questioning, if they teach you one thing it should be to question ideals, never believe without question. Some people blindly follow their teachings without even considering the possible failings in their arguments. If there is no failings then great, if there is then they should look at the other arguments and try to come to a conclusion for themselves.

To finish I want to point out I have been around Dawkins' works for years alongside other Philosophy works in my home since a child. I am well versed in both sides of the argument. I have been raised in a non-religious household, and I identify myself as agnostic (based on the fact atheism and belief in God requires faith, faiths I do not have in the validity of the atheist nor God arguments).

I gotta say I agree with a lot of the things you’ve said. As a non-believer I find Dawkins annoyingly hypercritical, bigoted and a media whore. For #($*’s sake the man believes growing up in a religious household is a form of abuse and for a time was a signed supporter of a petition asking to outlaw the teaching of religious belief’s to minors. That’s pretty hardcore, most atheists (or even secularist for that matter) do not support government coercion to end religion.

The man is a mouthpiece for anti-religious ideas NOT atheism and he and his supporters do a disservice to either movement when they confuse the two.

That being said the fact that some would question the virtue of Dawkins actions shouldn’t come as a surprise or affront to anyone, most of all atheists. There is nothing about being a non-believer that requires I support everyone else that claims to be a non-believer, especially when that individual in my opinion is a bigot. Seriously the whole, “put his personal motivations aside” line is such a load of nonsense.

No one is talking about giving the Pope a pass because Dawkins is involved. In fact I think a lot of people have it backwards by giving Dawkins a pass just because the Pope is involved in another scandal. The whole thing is almost like forgiving the sins of klan and allying with them because you agree that intercity violence is out of hand. Is intercity violence (or religion) out of hand at times? Of course, but agreeing on one issue does not mean we agree on the solution or even the cause of the problem itself.

As for the religion science comparison I have to disagree. The whole thing is comparing apples to bowling balls. The priest class in its varied forms train to establish an emotional connection to a concept/entity/worldview they will never meet (unless of course they’re right about the whole god thing) and will never judge. Scientists observe and study with the aim of making accurate future predictions. Belief is not interchangeable between the two.

Now as far as the supporters of either discipline goes, well I won’t argue that point. I’m no scientist, a lot of things I accept as a matter of faith.

Descartes was wrong when he said "I think therefore I am". That is when he became fixated on the mind delusion as identity. The truth is "I am therefore I think". This conveys a completely different identity, one that is beyond the realm of thought and emotion. One that is based on the NOW. "I am" first and foremost, "I am not my mind, my mind is a tool that I use."

You're a little more hopeful than I, but I must agree that I'd love to see the end of the Catholic church in my lifetime.

How can he help them ? He cannot go back in time and rescue them , so Justice , might be the only comfort left them at this juncture . Compensation ? You still have to go for justice first .