Support NeoGAF

[Captain_Spanky]

Richard Dawkins is such an attention starved child. I swear he probably listens to Linkin Park. It's like watching an angsty teenager in an adults body.

 

[Yagharek]

Richard Dawkins is such an attention starved child. I swear he probably listens to Linkin Park. It's like watching an angsty teenager in an adults body.

Ad hominem attacks dont help anyone's argument, least of all yours.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Richard Dawkins is such an attention starved child. I swear he probably listens to Linkin Park. It's like watching an angsty teenager in an adults body.

I have never seen or read a piece of media which portrays Dawkins in this way.

Can someone link me to footage of Dawkins acting like an attention starved child? I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm actually kind of serious. The guy seems very intellectual and rational.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Ad hominem attacks dont help anyone's argument, least of all yours.

Well considering that's almost the entire basis of his agenda I think it's fairly appropriate.

I have never seen or read a piece of media which portrays Dawkins in this way.

Can someone link me to footage of Dawkins acting like an attention starved child? I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm actually kind of serious. The guy seems very intellectual and rational.

Well saying you're going to arrest one of the biggest public figures in the world for one thing is kind of attention whory. He won't do it. He just wants people to look at him. I mean is he going to go after Roman Polanski? George Bush? Any one his little heart desires? Or is it just because the pope represents God and Dawkins has serious issues with that. And religious rebellion is almost the ultimate form of patriarchal rage, generally the domain of teenagers.

 

[Yagharek]

To me it sounds like Dawkins enjoys public speaking. He comes across as very enthusiastic about encountering arguments founded in logical fallacies.

The thing that probably irritates his detractors is that he can be very direct about a point, and they seem to me to take it as a personal insult when what he is attacking is badly thought out ideas.

Well considering that's almost the entire basis of his agenda I think it's fairly appropriate.

Are you for real? His agenda is simply arguing against irrational behaviour.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Are you for real? His agenda is simply arguing against irrational behaviour.

Religion makes people do bad things therefore religion is bad isn't exactly rational. And I'm 100% serious, Dawkins is a joke.

 

[RiskyChris]

Or is it just because the pope represents God and Dawkins has serious issues with that. And religious rebellion is almost the ultimate form of patriarchal rage, generally the domain of teenagers.

Or maybe the Pope is a bad man and no one else is giving him shit about it.

Religion makes people do bad things therefore religion is bad isn't exactly rational. And I'm 100% serious, Dawkins is a joke.

Dawkins is the joke, not crazy guy on message board without a clue.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Well considering that's almost the entire basis of his agenda I think it's fairly appropriate.

I don't think you understand what ad hominem means. Either that or you've never actually seen Dawkins speak.

This is ad hominem: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20713731&postcount=471

 

[Mumei]

Ok correct me if I'm wrong but all this is saying is that they allowed him to continue to work, right? he confessed and served time in prison, where he got paroled.

Seriously, because if this is it then there's no case, I thought the pope had hidden the fact that he raped children from the local authorities, but all he did was not fire him, morally reprehensible and a reason he should resign immediately, but I don't see the crime here, only the incompetence of the american justice system that let a predator on the streets.

You might be right about that case; I don't know about others.

On a side note, I still can't believe that Dawkins receives this much vitriol from people. Hitchens, I get - he's an asshole even when he has a point, and he says some pretty reprehensible / stupid things.

But Dawkins is, well, mild-mannered. At worst, he can be a bit acerbic when condemning actions done for religious reasons. I don't really get where the "Attention whore!" meme has come from.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Well saying you're going to arrest one of the biggest public figures in the world for one thing is kind of attention whory. He won't do it. He just wants people to look at him. I mean is he going to go after Roman Polanski? George Bush? Any one his little heart desires? Or is it just because the pope represents God and Dawkins has serious issues with that. And religious rebellion is almost the ultimate form of patriarchal rage, generally the domain of teenagers.

so in other words, you can't link me to any evidence of this?

okay. soldier on, sir.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

The 'man in the sky' hoax is the reason the organization escapes prosecution, and any rational person will realize this regardless of whether they believe it is a hoax or not.

I don't have a problem with faith alone as long as others are not injured by the actions of the faithful. The catholic church is a criminal organization, but not everyone who is catholic is a criminal.

Note how some of the people people who realize that their Scientology church is a criminal organization leave it yet still believe in Scientology.

yeah no

I still think the actions of church officials should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but no.

 

[thefro]

Ebert is down for this

http://twitter.com/ebertchicago

Dawkins and Hitchens plan to arrest the Pope. Or at least hear his confession? http://j.mp/dx5T7g

 

[Yagharek]

Religion makes people do bad things therefore religion is bad isn't exactly rational. And I'm 100% serious, Dawkins is a joke.

Irrational behaviour often goes hand in hand with religion. Not always, and its not always harmful. But in this instance religion has been used to justify immoral and illegal behaviour, hence the move by Dawkins et al.

Dawkins in this case is arguing for the arrest of a person who deliberately covered up child abuse and enabled future child abuse. That is at the very least perverting the course of justice, and probably much worse. Thats why Geoffrey Robertson is involved I assume.

 

[fortified_concept]

Because I think it's a bad thing for the "new atheism" movement to be doing.

As something completely unrelated to atheism, it's probably a good thing. If the Pope has broken the law, he should be prosecuted. I just wish someone else could be leading the charge. It would be much better if a child advocacy group were the one doing this.

Like I said 99% of people are just going to perceive this as Atheism vs. Catholicism. This doesn't help promote atheism. It draws lines in the sand.

Oh, you just see it just from the PR perspective, I might have misunderstood your previous posts. On one hand you might have a point on the other you shouldn't care what the sheep will think about it, if you always had that mentality you wouldn't even be an atheist.

I am not religious, but I am not a fucking atheist. Atheists are fucking assholes, and every bit as zealous as the most the most extreme believers of any faith. All hail Atheismo!

Personally speaking, I'd rather be a rational asshole (and I am!) than a well mannered idiot. Btw you don't know what the hell atheism is. Atheism also refers to people that perceive deities and gods just like any other mythical creature: There's a strong chance it doesn't exist but they're open to the possibility. Actually for most people atheism isn't dogmatic.

 

[Pachinko]

ah religion wars on gaf, always a sight to behold.

You get a bunch of religious folks coming in hating on the loud angry but mostly harmless atheist speakers (seriously when was the last time an atheist killed an abortion doctor?) and a bunch of rational agnostics, sensible religious types and yes, atheists just quietly laughing about all of it in the background.

One of these days I should read the god delusion.

 

[Mumei]

I don't think you understand what ad hominem means. Either that or you've never actually seen Dawkins speak.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe he has seen him speak. I mean, just watch as Dawkins uses nothing but ad hominem attacks against Fr. George Coyne.

Man, he's such an ass. It's like he's not even interested in having a civil conversation!

 

[Captain_Spanky]

so in other words, you can't link me to any evidence of this?

okay. soldier on, sir.

Not when it's right there, I shouldn't need to. Saying you'll arrest the pope, rather than actually arresting the pope, makes you an attention whore. He's not going to do it, and has no intention of doing it. It's a douchy publicity stunt. If you need more, I assume you can use google?

Okay, soldier on, sir.

I don't think you understand what ad hominem means.

Attacking the arguer, not the argument, right? And Dawkin's schtick is "religious people do bad things, so religion is bad" seems like, at least, a variation on that.

 

[Salazar]

And I'm 100% serious, Dawkins is a joke.

An exceptional scientific mind counts against this proposition. So, for me, does a sceptical temperament in which matters of intellect are indissolubly allied to matters of principle.

In any case, Dawkins is an ultimate pragmatist. To call him dogmatic is, especially in this context, so very ludicrous.

And yes, perhaps I am just a confirmed sucker for an action that pits a leading humanist mind, a leading scientific mind, and a profoundly skilled man of the law against dogma, bureaucracy, and brute (literally ex cathedra) misuse of authority. If argument wins—and heck, in law and post-Enlightenment civilization, it should—the Church loses.

 

[MetatronM]

This is a situation where I agree with the message (Pope Benedict is a criminal who aided and abetted other criminals who should be made to face the appropriate consequences) but can't say I really care for the messengers. Or the fact that they're only really doing this for the PR it'll bring them.

You don't "ambush" someone by announcing it 5 months in advance.

 

[Yagharek]

Attacking the arguer, not the argument, right? And Dawkin's schtick is "religious people do bad things, so religion is bad" seems like, at least, a variation on that.

You have it backwards. He attacks the logic behind religion. On a purely philosophical standpoint all he is saying is that there is no proof for god/s, so why should people believe in them.

 

[CassSept]

Obvious attention whoring.
While the current pope is horrible, there are heads of state that are way way worse. Seriously, they could've chosen anyone, but they decided on pope.
Hmmm, I wonder why.

 

[Haly]

Attacking the arguer, not the argument, right? And Dawkin's schtick is "religious people do bad things, so religion is bad" seems like, at least, a variation on that.

Religion is an arguer now?

It is a variation on ad hominem in much the same way q -> p is a variation on p -> q.

Obvious attention whoring.
While the current pope is horrible, there are heads of state that are way way worse. Seriously, they could've chosen anyone, but they decided on pope.
Hmmm, I wonder why.

Vulnerable target that furthers his promotion of rational thought.

But I see your point, it's clearly better to not choose anyone at all and let everyone get away with everything!

 

[fortified_concept]

This is a situation where I agree with the message (Pope Benedict is a criminal who aided and abetted other criminals) but can't say I really care for the messengers. Or the fact that they're only really doing this for the PR it'll bring them.

You don't "ambush" someone by announcing it 5 months in advance.

It's the smartest way to do it. I doubt any court would convict the Pope so what they're doing here is trying to force him to cancel his visit. They know it's the biggest victory they can get that's why they're announcing it beforehand.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Obvious attention whoring.
While the current pope is horrible, there are heads of state that are way way worse. Seriously, they could've chosen anyone, but they decided on pope.
Hmmm, I wonder why.

I don't think there is any argument as to why they've chosen this specific issue to spearhead. It isn't a deceitful, covert, subtle act. It seems to be intended to be the opposite.

 

[Yagharek]

Obvious attention whoring.
While the current pope is horrible, there are heads of state that are way way worse. Seriously, they could've chosen anyone, but they decided on pope.
Hmmm, I wonder why.

Because the Pope doesnt have diplomatic immunity, the Vatican isnt a UN recognised State and he condoned child abuse?

 

[Captain_Spanky]

You have it backwards. He attacks the logic behind religion. On a purely philosophical standpoint all he is saying is that there is no proof for god/s, so why should people believe in them.

And this involves arresting the Pope...how?

And it somewhat seems he misses the point of God/s.

 

[Salazar]

This is a situation where I agree with the message (Pope Benedict is a criminal who aided and abetted other criminals) but can't say I really care for the messengers. Or the fact that they're only really doing this for the PR it'll bring them.

This childish cynicism about PR and supposed ulterior motives about selling books is arrant rubbish. Yes, Hitchens and Dawkins and Robertson have written books and appeared on television and radio. They are 'public intellectuals'. Part of the role of the public intellectual is to act in public, to act with public effect, to cause social and political ripples. Publicity is the means, not the end, and to suggest that it discredits them is an insult and a stupid, frail one.

 

[RiskyChris]

Not when it's right there, I shouldn't need to. Saying you'll arrest the pope, rather than actually arresting the pope, makes you an attention whore. He's not going to do it, and has no intention of doing it. It's a douchy publicity stunt. If you need more, I assume you can use google?

It's a publicity stunt that is embarrassing to the church.

 

[Staccat0]

eh, I bought a copy of God Delusion, but this reeks of vile self promotion. I'm not saying the pope shouldn't be held acountable like anyone. Only that their involvement combined with this sort of "warning shot" makes it clear they don't care about justice for the victims and instead want to use their tragedy to "get" the church

There are classier and more respectful ways to get shit like this done in the name of the victims rather than in the name of self interest.

 

[Jex]

There's a difference between writting books, having conferences, going on TV etc and then saying you're going to ambush the Pope.

One of those is clearly ridiculous.

 

[jdogmoney]

Obvious attention whoring.
While the current pope is horrible, there are heads of state that are way way worse. Seriously, they could've chosen anyone, but they decided on pope.
Hmmm, I wonder why.

Because they have evidence?

No one else will?

 

[Yagharek]

And this involves arresting the Pope...how?

And it somewhat seems he misses the point of God/s.

Because it is someone hiding behind the church's own internal rules which are seen by its members as being above criminal law.

And he misses the point how? Instead of making vague one-liners in an attempt to sound clever, put some substance in your replies. It's not good for healthy debate what you are doing now.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

An exceptional scientific mind counts against this proposition. So, for me, does a sceptical temperament in which matters of intellect are indissolubly allied to matters of principle.

In any case, Dawkins is an ultimate pragmatist. To call him dogmatic is, especially in this context, so very ludicrous.

And yes, perhaps I am just a confirmed sucker for an action that pits a leading humanist mind, a leading scientific mind, and a profoundly skilled man of the law against dogma, bureaucracy, and brute (literally ex cathedra) misuse of authority. If argument wins—and heck, in law and post-Enlightenment civilization, it should—the Church loses.

your problem was the big words. I don't think the good captain understood.

 

[Haly]

And this involves arresting the Pope...how?

And it somewhat seems he misses the point of God/s.

Arrest the pope.

Draw attention and criticism to the church.

Challenge allegiance of churchgoers.

Chip away at faith in ones religion.

Help bring about new generation that can think for themselves rather than learn about morals from a book and/or prevent people from using said book to advance their own selfish criminal prerogatives?

Religion in general has done, has been used to do, is doing, IS being used to do, a lot of stupid stuff in general. You can fight it with logic only so far but when the premises of religion favors faith over rationality you're going to have to step up your game.

 

[fortified_concept]

eh, I bought a copy of God Delusion, but this reeks of vile self promotion. I'm not saying the pope shouldn't be held acountable like anyone. Only that their involvement combined with this sort of "warning shot" makes it clear they don't care about justice for the victims and instead want to use their tragedy to "get" the church

Again, the only justice they can get is to force the dipshit out of their country. There's no chance in hell for real justice in this fucking world and they know it.

 

[Karma Kramer]

And this involves arresting the Pope...how?

And it somewhat seems he misses the point of God/s.

Enlighten me

 

[CassSept]

But I see your point, it's clearly better to not choose anyone at all and let everyone get away with everything!

No, that wasn't my point. Benedict should pay for his crimes, but I feel people are overreacting here. Especially I don't agree with Dawkins' choice of words ("crimes against humanity"?). And as already said, it isn't really ambush if you announce it 5 months prior to the visit.

 

[dschalter]

It may be a publicity stunt, but it is also fully justified. The RCC has protected child rapists for far too long and the use of religion as a shield for indefensible is something that should not be acceptable in the modern world.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

your problem was the big words. I don't think the good captain understood.

Well that's a good reply. Is that an attempt at...what is it you big boys called it...an ad hominem attack? Oh and is my level of snark high enough?

Help bring about new generation that can think for themselves rather than learn about morals from a book and/or prevent people from using said book to advance their own selfish criminal prerogatives?

Religion doesn't actually prevent that really. Lots of religions people can think for themselves, lots of athiests can't I mean if you're going to go after creepy religions there's Gor (I think it's called Gor)for a start. Or a finish, it only has 2 members.

 

[Haly]

No, that wasn't my point. Benedict should pay for his crimes, but I feel people are overreacting here. Especially I don't agree with Dawkins' choice of words ("crimes against humanity"?). And as already said, it isn't really ambush if you announce it 5 months prior to the visit.

You don't like the way he's calling someone out for being a dick?

Well, I guess it makes discussion more interesting but it's a really odd stance to take. Also, the people overreacting are the ones who are saying Dawkin is wrong for being a jerk to the Pope.

This isn't a game of chess where it's customary for both sides to show sportsmanship.

Religion doesn't actually prevent that really. Lots of religions people can think for themselves, lots of athiests can't I mean if you're going to go after creepy religions there's Gor (I think it's called Gor)for a start. Or a finish, it only has 2 members.

Yes, but there are also a lot (see about geographically around 70% of the United States) that can't.

Some of you guys are making the mistake of grouping Atheists together as if it was a kind of ideology. Granted some dictionaries define it as such but it is not that. It is a neutral state of being from the moment we were born because there is no such thing as starting out with religion. Religion always comes after. Atheism is the neutral state. It'd be like blaming life itself because one guy committed a crime. "That guy committed a crime because he was alive, everything that's alive should be held accountable for his actions."

 

[Salazar]

Again, the only justice they can get is to force the dipshit out of their country. There's no chance in hell for real justice in this fucking world and they know it.

It might, might have been G.A. Cohen who said that justice exists, undiminished, whether or not it can be achieved or applied. Conceptually, it's still fucking there, and its implications indict the fuckers who fall on the wrong side of it. To wit, the Pope.

Edit - Cohen's point might have been that the compromise of demonstrating justice in lieu of enacting it shouldn't be scorned.

 

[jaxword]

It's a publicity stunt that is embarrassing to the church.

Exactly. Does anyone actually think it's anything BUT this?

Seriously, it's obviously an attempt to draw negative attention to the Pope's visit. There's not going to be an arrest at all. This is how you play politics and manipulate people. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but you'd have to be pretty uneducated to not understand what he's doing.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Well that's a good reply. Is that an attempt at...what is it you big boys called it...an ad hominem attack? Oh and is my level of snark high enough?

how old are you?

 

[Captain_Spanky]

how old are you?

Twice as old as half my age. How old are you?

 

[IrishNinja]

There are classier and more respectful ways to get shit like this done in the name of the victims rather than in the name of self interest.

fair enough point, but as has been said here for a bit now - no one's done much of anything that we know about. can you name any of these classier/more respectful ways?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

It's a publicity stunt that is embarrassing to the church.

Unless the Church calls it as a bluff. I doubt they actually would (they'll most likely ignore it completely), but it's a possibility.

 

[Panipal2009]

This is a situation where I agree with the message (Pope Benedict is a criminal who aided and abetted other criminals who should be made to face the appropriate consequences) but can't say I really care for the messengers. Or the fact that they're only really doing this for the PR it'll bring them.

You don't "ambush" someone by announcing it 5 months in advance.

Maybe you could offer up the names of someone who's absolutely perfect in every way who should be doing this instead.

Or maybe you could think about whether your opinion of the messengers amounts to jack-shit.

 

[CassSept]

You don't like the way he's calling someone out for being a dick?

Well, I guess it makes discussion more interesting but it's a really odd stance to take. Also, the people overreacting are the ones who are saying Dawkin is wrong for being a jerk to the Pope.

This isn't a game of chess where it's customary for both sides to show sportsmanship.

I agree that pope has to pay, but did he really have to say "for crimes against humanity"?
Also even if they succeed, it won't really change anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing anything, but unless pope himself announces that he, uhhh, sinned?, was wrong, or anything, it's not like the current situation will change. Those who hate pope will keep on hating, those who defended are too brainwashed to think for themselves. All it will be is publicity stunt.
At least that's my opinion on that.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Haha 30 seconds in to Xavier series 2 and there's already religion/child abuse jokes. "Did he pope your pooper?". Genius, and somewhat appropriate.

 

[Haly]

I agree that pope has to pay, but did he really have to say "for crimes against humanity"?
Also even if they succeed, it won't really change anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing anything, but unless pope himself announces that he, uhhh, sinned?, was wrong, or anything, it's not like the current situation will change. Those who hate pope will keep on hating, those who defended are too brainwashed to think for themselves. All it will be is publicity stunt.
At least that's my opinion on that.

Well, you're free to think that and there's nothing wrong with it but a lot of people in this thread feel Dawkins is right for doing something. While his argument is not quite as foolproof as Galileo's there is no doubt in my mind that Galileo would have agree with Dawkin's motives if he was alive today. Even if it might not amount to anything, if there's a slight chance it'd be a waste not to take it, honorable behavior be damned.