I never said anything about the severity of those skeletons - child rape, torture, murder, genocide, it's all there - and all irrefutable and mostly unpunished too. This does not diminish the severity of any one crime of course, nor excuse the perpetrators, but it does demonstrate one point - if you're going after the Pope, then why not the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other religious leader?
Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi
- Thread starter keyser87
- Start date
by the way for those saying Richard has incited religious hatred could you inform me how and where he has done this?
Im guessing it must have been at a huge rally calling for the heads of believers to cut clean off, considering some(minority) on this thread want to equate it to what the pope has done.
Im guessing it must have been at a huge rally calling for the heads of believers to cut clean off, considering some(minority) on this thread want to equate it to what the pope has done.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Because we have the evidence, here and now. If this does actually go ahead (not likely, i know) it would be a huge leap forward for justice and would open the door to people who were previously untouchable.
and there lies the key issue, no one should be above the law. If Hitler youth boy was the CEO of a business he'd be someone girlfriend in prison right now but because hes the head of a religion or head of a state hes a free man.
At the very least im sure there will be tax payers out there who don't want to fund this guys visit.
Do we have direct evidence against the Pope himself (and not just the Vatican)? I have no problem admitting that I'm ignorant of the facts here.
it was his name on the letter. If you do a quick google search it comes up with specific cases eg.
source
u mad Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in giving your religion undeserved respect?
Good luck to him.
Does stink of cover-up, I'll grant you that one and butt out on the subject.
I guess you haven't been here long. Dolph has a reputation to defend.
I guess you haven't been here long. Dolph has a reputation to defend.
orly?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
It's not a fair comparison. If my father was convicted for sexually abusing children I wouldn't bring the subject up no.So you would air your dirty laundry in public at every given opportunity?Are you for real?
The Catholic Church (current pope included) remained quite about members of the church who were still in a position where they could abuse children, and also prevented criminal charges being brought by covering up previous abuses.
That is unacceptable for anyone, not least from an organization who claims to hold moral authority.
I hope the pope doesn't come to this country. I also hope Dawkins and crew leave the Catholic Church to it's own devices, they're doing a good enough job at showing their true colours without assistance. Outside interference is just a distraction.
Last edited:
International Criminal Court, in The Hague, I would presume?
I'm not a christian, I just have equal disdain for extremists whatever their faith, and many of Dawkins' positions and stunts show him to be an extremist, he's just a clever enough one that occasionally he makes sure he puts something in to seem reasonable to those who share his unprovable faith.
There is also a thread over in SC about changes in the law to prevent abuse of the legal system by random members of the public to threaten people visiting the UK that is very relevant to this thread.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18121509&highlight=arrest+CPS
Personally I think they are doing it for publicity. Perhaps not for themselves, just the situation and bringing it to the attention of the masses on their own terms, not murdoch's.
You don't see the difference between reporting a sex crime, or in fact a stream of sex offences, and shouting and telling the world all about it, they're completely different things... If you'd let someone get away with crimes like that which you KNEW about then you're condoning their actions.So you would air your dirty laundry in public at every given opportunity?
his unprovable position of 'you have no evidence of God'...?
Atheism isn't a faith, atheists aren't asserting they don't believe there is a God they are simply evaluating evidence to come to that conclusion. As soon as/if solid evidence ever comes about for a God or Gods then every atheist would have no choice to believe in God.
Its like when people beleived the Earth was flat, were they wrong to do so? Or did the limited amount of evidence lead them to that conclusion and as soon as evidence to the contrary came out they went ahead and adopted the conclusion of the evaluation of evidence. Same goes here for Atheists, why think there is a God if its unprovable?
Im assuming since you've analysed Dawkins position to make such a claim you have read his 'spectrum of theistic probability' right? You know where he states a scale from 1-7 of differing positions to strong atheist to strong theist, number 7 was this:
Then going on to say
6 being
If you honestly think Atheism is a faith based construct I really doubt you have ever actually read or understood anything Dawkins has ever said.
I also like how you lump him with religious extremists, lets see
religious extremists: fly planes into buildings, bomb trains, try to get non science taught to children, marry pre-pubescent girls off, deny abortion in any circumstance, bomb abortion clinics, wage wars against other religions and other sects of their own religion, mutilate girls for learning.
atheist extremists: write books critiquing religion, sit in halls giving lectures on why religions are bad, debate religious leaders on their positions, debate those trying to get non science taught in schools, advertise atheism on buses and bill boards.
Yeah they are easily lumped in together aren't they.
Last edited:
You do know there is still a flat earth society, don't you. Yes indeed, some people still believe the Earth is flat.
The same would likely happen with at least some atheists. Even if God personally turned up on their doorstep, they would find some way to claim it wasn't God.
I'm not suggesting Dawkins is one of those, but nonetheless that possibility does exist.