Support NeoGAF

[RiskyChris]

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.

There is a massive massive group of people who are neither haters nor defenders, and a lot of them are probably Catholic. The Pope being connected with the threat of arrest is not good for the church's image to this group.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

"Wear this priest proof chastity diaper so he can't Cath-o-lick you anymore."

 

[BobTheFork]

Didn't someone try to bring the Catholic church in America up on RICO charges for covering up abuse? I remember hearing about it and it never went anywhere.

 

[Haly]

"Wear this priest proof chastity diaper so he can't Cath-o-lick you anymore."

Two questions, I'm curious.

How is the quote relevant to anything?

Why are you still in this thread?

 

[speculawyer]

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

Nice strawman. You are the joke.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Nice strawman. You are the joke.

That wasn't really a straw man dude.

Two questions, I'm curious.

How is the quote relevant to anything?

Why are you still in this thread?

Oh shit, thread police. I had no idea this was such serious business. I had no idea I needed your permission to post here. My apologies.

 

[devilhawk]

I think our dear Captain Spanky has been hitting the Captain Morgan a bit too hard.

 

[Yagharek]

That wasn't really a straw man dude.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Yes. Yes it was. (Except for the fact you didnt include an argument of your own, just a statement that Dawkins was wrong).

 

[Captain_Spanky]

I think our dear Captain Spanky has been hitting the Captain Morgan a bit too hard.

Naw I'm more of a Sailor Jerry type. But I've been know to party with any salty seadog who offers.

 

[Haly]

Oh shit, thread police. I had no idea this was such serious business. I had no idea I needed your permission to post here. My apologies.

So you basically admit to... what, trolling now?

 

[jdogmoney]

Yes. Yes it was. (Except for the fact you didnt include an argument of your own, just a statement that Dawkins was wrong).

:lol

I think underplaying things is usually funnier.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Yes. Yes it was.

Nope. If Dawkins was purely interested in making people see rationality he would have no reason to go after the pope as he'd have more than enough evidence to do so without such a needless publicity stunt. However he's focusing on the acts of the Catholic church, in an attempt to show that religion enables such behaviour, and is therefore culpable. I shouldn't really have to spell this out, but no that isn't a strawman.

I mean it's obvious why he does it. If he stuck to the rational side of argument (that is, the side of the argument pertaining to the irrational nature of religion) there'd be nothing to talk about. Of course religion is irrational.

So you basically admit to... what, trolling now?

Now THIS is a strawman. I said I had position x (that you had no right to police my participation in the thread).

You are suggesting I have position y (That I have admitted to trolling) and have advanced your argument in accordance with position y, not x.

This is a strawman.

 

[Haly]

Nope. If Dawkins was purely interested in making people see rationality he would have no reason to go after the pope as he'd have more than enough evidence to do so without such a needless publicity stunt. However he's focusing on the acts of the Catholic church, in an attempt to show that religion enables such behaviour, and is therefore culpable. I shouldn't really have to spell this out, but no that isn't a strawman.

It's hard to use evidence against people who can swallow an entire book without a shred of evidence and then regurgitate it to each other and their offspring.

They don't listen to reason, but they'll listen to the church. What's the obvious target then?

This is a strawman.

I wasn't policing. I'm genuinely interested as to what you're trying to accomplish in this thread. Some people are defending Dawkins, some people are calling him a jerk for being mean to the pope, some people are being cynics. Some people clarifying debate terms.

You started out as part of group 2 but now you're kind of in your own minority where you just piss people off by talking. Then you tried to brush it off by ignoring people calling you out, and saying this thread was SERIOUS BUSINESS and then accusing me of policing (a strawman? perhaps). I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a troll. Since trolling tends to be indicative of a troll, argument y is perfectly valid.

 

[RiskyChris]

I mean it's obvious why he does it. If he stuck to the rational side of argument (that is, the side of the argument pertaining to the irrational nature of religion) there'd be nothing to talk about. Of course religion is irrational.

If he would have nothing to talk about then that would explain why he has to take other means of expressing his desire for rationality. The Pope is one of the highest profile targets you can hit when it comes to defaming the church.

This is ridiculous. The man can't just read from a book and make the world change. Something needs to happen, even if it's as simple as managing a media narrative.

 

[Yagharek]

Nope. If Dawkins was purely interested in making people see rationality he would have no reason to go after the pope as he'd have more than enough evidence to do so without such a needless publicity stunt. However he's focusing on the acts of the Catholic church, in an attempt to show that religion enables such behaviour, and is therefore culpable. I shouldn't really have to spell this out, but no that isn't a strawman.

I mean it's obvious why he does it. If he stuck to the rational side of argument (that is, the side of the argument pertaining to the irrational nature of religion) there'd be nothing to talk about. Of course religion is irrational.

Did you miss the part about him 'going after the pope' because he covered up and condoned child abuse? This particular case has nothing to do with rational arguments vs irrational belief systems.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

It's hard to use evidence against people who can swallow an entire book without a shred of evidence and then regurgitate it to each other and their offspring.

They don't listen to reason, but they'll listen to the church. What's the obvious target then?

I don't know, but it's certainly not the church. Attacking it will just make them dig their heels in deeper. I mean the highest ranking Catholic in the world had the reaction of "oh shit cover it up" not "oh shit I guess we got a problem here" when he found out that his underlings had been systematically abusing children. This is not an organisation that will be brought down by "enlightening" its members. They don't care. Dawkin's actions are masturbation.

This thing is, people can shout at Catholics about the abuse until they're blue in the face. But as far as most Catholics are concerned, and quite rightly, the Bible didn't tell them to abuse kids, or to cover it up. So it's not a problem with their religion. Now of course you bring in Papal infallibility and things get theologically tricky, at least for the Catholics. But religion with that amount of hierarchy is, in general, troublesome.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

If he would have nothing to talk about then that would explain why he has to take other means of expressing his desire for rationality. The Pope is one of the highest profile targets you can hit when it comes to defaming the church.

This is ridiculous. The man can't just read from a book and make the world change. Something needs to happen, even if it's as simple as managing a media narrative.

It won't change anything, and it's naive to think it would. At best it's a symbolic gesture that'll encourage a lot of back patting among. In real world terms the Catholic Church would just move on.

Anyone that believes for a second that Dawkins will actually arrest the Pope is fooling themselves. Especially now he's announced it this far in advance. If he was actually going to do it he would have...well waited and actually done it. It's chest beating and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's not really drawing attention to the issue as it's already well known. It's not changing people's minds. It's just...there.

 

[MattKeil]

A rainbow of ignorance

If you'd actually read any of Dawkins' work, you'd be aware that one of the things he has a serious problem with when it comes to religion (especially organized) is when religious belief or association is used as a shield against rational analysis or societal responsibility. One of the examples he has used in the past is that of Quakers being fairly easily excused from mandatory military service, whereas someone who just said they didn't want to kill people would not be able to get out of it.

He is a strong opponent of the irrational "untouchable" quality often ascribed to religious opinions and figures, and thus his desire to take direct action against the Pope in this situation is fairly understandable. The publicity is necessary as part of the plan to bring Benedict under secular legal scrutiny. Dawkins is acting upon one of his core beliefs as a humanist and as someone with an interest in justice. To dismiss what he's doing here as mere attention whoring is to out yourself as either ignorant or willfully contrary simply due to the person involved.

In other words, he's not wrong, and if this is what it takes to get the ball rolling in terms of making the people involved in the perpetration and covering up of recurring child rape as part of the actions of a worldwide organization whose primary service is peddling morality, more power to him.

 

[Jet Grind Radio!]

 

[phisheep]

I'm curious as to the actual grounds Dawkins and Hitchens are hoping to cite to 'arrest' the Pope. From the OP's article, I see a few powerful statements by the two New Atheists, and a reference to two high-profile lawyers who have apparently discussed the possibility of prosecuting (in a criminal or civil court) the Pontiff with the Crown Prosecution Service. Oh my! So what exactly are the specific allegations? What evidence is being presented? Regardless of one's one personal 'spiritual' beliefs, and opinions of the Catholic Church, everyone should be looking at this entire move with some extreme suspicion.

Regarding The California Priest Scandal, from what I've read of the situation, it's not at all as clear cut as the reports have suggested. For starters, the letter that was sent to the Vatican by the offending priest's bishop was about a request for laicization; it was not a letter detailing the priest's crimes. The letter was dated in 1985, and the delay the Pope allegedly recommended lasted until 1987, when the offending priest was officially defrocked (he had been removed from pastoral services long before the letter in question was even sent to the Vatican). Secondly, the local parish and public were already aware of the priest's trangressions: He had long been reported to the police and charged prior to this 1985 letter, thus making any suggestions the Pope conspired to cover up the situation utterly absurd. Thirdly, all evidence of the priest's trangressions was destroyed by the California civil courts system after he had completed his extremely light sentence - not by the Pope in his dark damp cell deep beneath St Peter's. Lastly, the office that the Pope ran in 1985, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, did not handle the pederast/pedophile priest cases until 2001 (the letter that the Pope received dealt solely with the laicization request, and nothing more). Why the press has failed to properly vet and present the story - in all the articles I've read in the papers, none have queried a canon lawyer about the contents of the letter and the canonical situation the abusive priest was in - is a question that ought to be at the forefront of people's minds.

Now I'm not saying the letter, and the delay in defrocking the priest, was the correct thing to do, but it is far from the type of clandestine conspiracy that some eager beavers have tried to make it to be.

Sanest post so far.

The letter isn't evidence for what people seem to think it is evidence for. So if there are grounds for arresting the Pope, this isn't it.

In the absence of other evidence, this approach by Dawkins and Hitchens would seem to be a petty and spiteful abuse of the legal process, and not something to be supported by anyone who has due respect for the law.

(Of course, there may be other evidence, but I don't see anyone talking about it).

 

[Haly]

I don't know, but it's certainly not the church. Attacking it will just make them dig their heels in deeper. I mean the highest ranking Catholic in the world had the reaction of "oh shit cover it up" not "oh shit I guess we got a problem here" when he found out that his underlings had been systematically abusing children. This is not an organisation that will be brought down by "enlightening" its members. They don't care. Dawkin's actions are masturbation.

This thing is, people can shout at Catholics about the abuse until they're blue in the face. But as far as most Catholics are concerned, and quite rightly, the Bible didn't tell them to abuse kids, or to cover it up. So it's not a problem with their religion. Now of course you bring in Papal infallibility and things get theologically tricky, at least for the Catholics. But religion with that amount of hierarchy is, in general, troublesome.

I'd ask for hard data on whether or not Dawkin's activism has gained any traction in religious communities but I'll admit I'd be hard pressed to find any of my own so I'll refrain from doing that.

There is more to the Church than just religion, it is also a community. If the community's image is tarred people will want to distance themselves from it. It's not nearly as hopeless as some of you paint it to be, and it's not going to get better if you just sit there and say "well this is useless".

Besides, getting the pope arrested is an achievement in an of itself. If I had that opportunity I'd jump on it like a shot, just to see if I could do it. Nothing wrong with masturbation, unless you listen to those priests anyway.

 

[RiskyChris]

It won't change anything, and it's naive to think it would. At best it's a symbolic gesture that'll encourage a lot of back patting among. In real world terms the Catholic Church would just move on.

Anyone that believes for a second that Dawkins will actually arrest the Pope is fooling themselves. Especially now he's announced it this far in advance. If he was actually going to do it he would have...well waited and actually done it. It's chest beating and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's not really drawing attention to the issue as it's already well known. It's not changing people's minds. It's just...there.

The more you say it accomplishes nothing the more true it gets.

 

[Pre]

I'm not sure why Richard Dawkins thinks that his goal in life should be to make everyone match his line of thinking.

 

[Salazar]

In the absence of other evidence, this approach by Dawkins and Hitchens would seem to be a petty and spiteful abuse of the legal process, and not something to be supported by anyone who has due respect for the law.

Geoffrey Robertson's endorsement of their case makes me believe otherwise. He is someone who irrefutably has great respect for the law, and for whom the legal community has great respect. I don't think you needed 'petty and spiteful', nor can they really be supported. I think the action is quite sincere.

 

[Salazar]

I'm not sure why Richard Dawkins thinks that his goal in life should be to make everyone match his line of thinking.

The reason (well, one reason, and the most polite one) you are so hazy on this proposition is because it's fucking wrong. He doesn't.

 

[Haly]

I'm not sure why Richard Dawkins thinks that his goal in life should be to make everyone match his line of thinking.

Saying his goal in life is to "make everyone stop thinking stupid things" is a more accurate way of describing his stance while still being woefully uninformed and overgeneralized.

 

[RiskyChris]

I'm not sure why Richard Dawkins thinks that his goal in life should be to make everyone match his line of thinking.

I'm not sure why you think that's what Richard Dawkins thinks.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

If you'd actually read any of Dawkins' work, you'd be aware that one of the things he has a serious problem with when it comes to religion (especially organized) is when religious belief or association is used as a shield against rational analysis or societal responsibility.

That isn't a problem of religion. That's a problem of people. How many times do people justify what they do with "it just is" or "because I said so" or even "it's different because it's me". Religion isn't unique or special in that regard.

He is a strong opponent of the irrational "untouchable" quality often ascribed to religious opinions and figures, and thus his desire to take direct action against the Pope in this situation is fairly understandable.

That I can get behind. So he wants to bring down the guy a peg or two, but that won't really solve anything. As a symbolic act it will only have meaning to those who already don't see the pope as untouchable.

To dismiss what he's doing here as mere attention whoring is to out yourself as either ignorant or willfully contrary simply due to the person involved.

No it IS attention whoring. He wants to bring attention to what he's doing and what the pope has done. Hence the words "a publicity stunt." If he really wanted to arrest the pope he would have moved behind the scenes, arranged a team of very good lawyers and grabbed that cunt when he set foot in the country. As it is, now he's going to find that very hard as you can bet your ass they're going to step up security.

In other words, he's not wrong, and if this is what it takes to get the ball rolling in terms of making the people involved in the perpetration and covering up of recurring child rape as part of the actions of a worldwide organization whose primary service is peddling morality, more power to him.

How will this get the ball rolling exactly? Also you didn't finish the sentence: "making the people involved..." you just kinda trailed off. What exactly is the aim of this exercise? It certainly isn't to actually prosecute the pope. The dude could just pull a Roman Polanski.

 

[krameriffic]

Nope. If Dawkins was purely interested in making people see rationality he would have no reason to go after the pope as he'd have more than enough evidence to do so without such a needless publicity stunt.

Or maybe he has recognized the pattern that simple rationality doesn't work on religious people. Otherwise, there would be no religious people.

No, at some point, playing the game pushes us to drastic measures. When one realizes that the peaceful path doesn't work on human beings one turns to things that do work. Sensationalist bullshit like this is inevitable. Personally I'm content to let the world bury their heads in the sand and enjoy their little delusions somewhere far away from me.

 

[FiRez]

I like Richard Dawkins, but this seems a little too ambitious and not entirely necessary.

 

[RiskyChris]

I like Richard Dawkins, but this seems a little too ambitious and not entirely necessary.

Why is it not necessary to hold the Pope accountable.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

The more you say it accomplishes nothing the more true it gets.

Well what does it accomplish then? What's the point? As I said it cannot be to arrest the pope because that won't happen now he's announced it.

 

[phisheep]

Geoffrey Robertson's endorsement of their case makes me believe otherwise. He is someone who irrefutably has great respect for the law, and for whom the legal community has great respect. I don't think you needed 'petty and spiteful', nor can they really be supported. I think the action is quite sincere.

I'm a fan of Robertson as well. But I don't see in the reports I've read anyway that he has 'endorsed' their case - not yet anyway. He has been employed by them to put a case together if there is one (and it there doesn't seem any certainty yet on what grounds it could proceed, and if they are not sure yet whether it is even criminal or civil there can be no question - not yet anyhow - of an arrest).

Maybe it isn't petty and spiteful, but that is certainly what it looks like to me announcing something like this before there are proper established grounds for an action.

 

[BocoDragon]

What does Richard Dawkins want, then, if not just to convert others to his way of thinking?

I mean, he wants to make society a better place by removing religion from public thinking. Sure. But a Muslim wants you to convert you to Islam in order to make society a better place too. So what's the big difference?

Honest question.

 

[RiskyChris]

Well what does it accomplish then? What's the point? As I said it cannot be to arrest the pope because that won't happen now he's announced it.

I don't know what Dawkins' endgame is, but trashing the Pope's credibility is a good start when you want to reach the religious crowd.

What does Richard Dawkins want, then, if not just to convert others to his way of thinking?

I mean, he wants to make society a better place by removing religion from public thinking. Sure. But a Muslim wants you to convert you to Islam in order to make society a better place too. So what's the big difference?

Honest question.

He wants society to be a better place by having people embrace independent thought instead of believing dogma. I don't see how that is equivalent to trying to spread religious faith.

 

[Haly]

What does Richard Dawkins want, then, if not just to convert others to his way of thinking?

I mean, he wants to make society a better place by removing religion from public thinking. Sure. But a Muslim wants you to convert you to Islam in order to make society a better place too. So what's the big difference?

Honest question.

The difference is Atheism, or even just a vacuum in place of organized religion, allows for scientific progress and rational thinking of problems.

Will it be a utopia? No. Will it be better than what we have now? Most likely yes.

See abstinence thread.

 

[BocoDragon]

I don't know what Dawkins' endgame is, but trashing the Pope's credibility is a good start when you want to reach the religious crowd.

You catch more flies with honey...

 

[Davidion]

The conversation on this affair was doomed from the beginning. Unless I'm missing from the article, Dawkins and Hitchens have simply made their intentions public and not shouted it aloud from atop the mountain. And while it isn't much chest beating, the whole crimes-against-humanity angle is already a gross exaggeration of what the likely charges would actually be.

It's all lovely and great that a world renowned human rights lawyer is involved, but until I actually see articulated charges brought up, I'm going with the opinion that it's just PR drummed up to to embarrass the Church.

All that having been said, I'd like to see what comes out of this.

 

[speculawyer]

That wasn't really a straw man dude.

Yes, it is. He doesn't say that EVERYTHING religion does is bad.

And he doesn't say EVERY religious person is bad.

When religion does make people do bad things, then religion is bad. Do you think 9/11 was cool? Or would you agree that it was an example of religion making people do bad things? If people let their kids die because they think prayer is all they need, don't you think that is bad? Do you think fucking children is bad? Is it wrong for someone to say that there should be accountability? Really?

 

[Haly]

You catch more flies with honey...

The only way I can interpret this is "Dawkins should hand out Bibles and the Word of God".

Davidion how dare you be rational and calm in a religion thread. STOP IMPOSING YOUR IDEOLOGIES ON ME.

 

[BocoDragon]

The difference is Atheism, or even just a vacuum in place of organized religion, allows for scientific progress and rational thinking of problems.

Will it be a utopia? No. Will it be better than what we have now? Most likely yes.

See abstinence thread.

So atheism is better than religion? Well, Islam is better than atheism (Or Christianity, etc).

Is there really much tangible difference between the two? In both cases we want to convince others that they are wrong because we think it would be better for everybody.

Personally, as an atheist, and unlike Dawkins, I promote co-existance with religion. I want atheism to be seen as a logical and moral position to be held.. but I have little interest in making everyone believe the same thing as me.

 

[speculawyer]

That isn't a problem of religion. That's a problem of people.

Really? You couldn't make two sentences before not making sense.

Guess what . . . religion is people. Religion doesn't exist without people. Religion was created by people. You can't just say well . . . religion would be just fine if it weren't for those people fucking it up.

 

[adversesolutions]

Personally, as an atheist, and unlike Dawkins, I promote co-existance with religion. I want atheism to be seen as a logical and moral position to be held.. but I have little interest in making everyone believe the same thing as me.

This isn't about the co-existence of two ways of thinking. If it were, your stance would make a lot of sense.

This is about whether secular international law applies to an institution which claims statehood but is guilty of child rape internationally. It's a matter of secular law and nothing more.

 

[jdogmoney]

You catch more flies with honey...

http://xkcd.com/357/

I don't understand you, sir. You say atheism is a moral and logical position, but you don't like when someone follows through with a reasonable expression of their heavily informed by atheism worldview.

I think the main point here, if there is just one, is that "religion is not above criticism".

 

[Davidion]

The only way I can interpret this is "Dawkins should hand out Bibles and the Word of God".

Davidion how dare you be rational and calm in a religion thread. STOP IMPOSING YOUR IDEOLOGIES ON ME.

In regards to the "catch more flies" comment that he has; the main problem I have with the catch-all Atheism/non-religious banner is that while it's great to have the attack hounds like Dawkins and Hitchens, there's a noticeable lack of public figures that actually do any outreach. Vinegar's nice but we're a bit short on the honey aspect here.

I'd like to be a bit more rational on this whole conversation, especially when you consider that at the root of it all, the real ostensible substance of the Atheistic/Agnostic perspective IS rationality. Obviously, the conversation regarding religion and lack thereof doesn't play out so cleanly.

I'm too dazed at 4:30 in the morning for threads like this. :lol

 

[Salazar]

I'm a fan of Robertson as well. But I don't see in the reports I've read anyway that he has 'endorsed' their case - not yet anyway.

Agreed. Endorsed is strong. But allowing his name to be made public, as I suppose he did, is a tacit affirmation that a satisfactory case exists or could be formed. Satisfactory in that it meets technical legal strictures. I don't know if being commissioned so volitionally means that he reckons the case has a chance. It's not as if a clerk in his chambers passed this to him.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Really? You couldn't make two sentences before not making sense.

Guess what . . . religion is people. Religion doesn't exist without people. Religion was created by people. You can't just say well . . . religion would be just fine if it weren't for those people fucking it up.

Are you high? Yes. People fuck things up. You may as well attack people. Attacking religion isn't attacking the problem. People are irrational fucktards and will ALWAYS find an excuse to act on their on selfish whims.

 

[Tieno]

If they go after Michael Jackson, they should go after the pope too. Give him a fair trial and a chance to redeem himself, that's the least we can do for the pope. It can be the biggest resurrection or crossing since Jesus Christ.

 

[RiskyChris]

Are you high? Yes. People fuck things up. You may as well attack people. Attacking religion isn't attacking the problem. People are irrational fucktards and will ALWAYS find an excuse to act on their on selfish whims.

Dude the church is a real thing that does real harm because of its influence, it is the problem. Why would you attack people? The fuck kind of vector you gonna approach from? That's right none, because it's a futile exercise.

On the other hand, the church represents millions of voices. Good target.

 

[soul creator]

Are you high? Yes. People fuck things up. You may as well attack people. Attacking religion isn't attacking the problem. People are irrational fucktards and will ALWAYS find an excuse to act on their on selfish whims.

by this logic, no one should ever debate or discuss any type of idea.

"Don't try to change Republican Party platform, blame the people! Trickle down economics actually works, it was just the wrong people in charge!"