Arresting the pope.

[Aragami]

I can't believe you people think it would be cooler if Dawkins would just shut up and keep to himself.

I think it would only be appropriate to finally see the pope in jail. You disappoint the hell out of me. I also don't get thinkers that think it's best to try not to influence the beliefs of others. Lame.

[Oxygen]

i wonder if you guys can stay on the same thought -of the thread- for at least one page =\

[Foppish Dandy]

That would be boring.

[Oxygen]

she knows..she was just wondering

[Foppish Dandy]

Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?

[Oxygen]

she always refer to me as a third person..don't worry about it

[Old Ape Face]

Does she now?

[Bernard_Monsha]

Originally Posted by Reidar

1. Total misrepresentation of Dawkins, again. He says that many scientists do too much in terms of appeasement, not that they're too idle and simply aren't on the offensive like him.

No it specifically tries to tie them to a naive man who thought he could bargain with a genocidal madman. It is not something he chose at random he specifically chose the most incendiary language possible.

Originally Posted by Reidar

2. He doesn't distinguish between Shia and Sunni Muslims, either (though Hitchens often does), nor does he need to for the overarching point of faith in the same way that I don't need to delve into the intricacies of Goldilocks vs the tale of Hansel and Gretel to say that fairy tales are imaginary. If you want really detailed scrutinizing look to Hitchens, but that isn't Dawkins' thesis.

No he avoids the finer points because that would require effort on his part.

Originally Posted by Reidar

3. Much of it is sophistry. I'm frequently being told, "Well, don't mind that particular passage in the holy tome; it's not meant to be literal."

No it's not, you do realize as does Dawkins that even as far back as the 5th century Augustine warned against literal interpretation. He is also quite aware as I am sure you are that the birth of modern analytical and scientific study arose from the Medieval period were Christian metaphysics which reject Aristotelian and Greek philosophical concepts and replacing it with a structure that became the basis for modern science. He dismisses it as sophistry because he knows it is a would unglue his argument, since what he proposes is the descendant of all those theologians and believers in superstition.

Originally Posted by Reidar

I'm surprised at how sensitive and defensive people can get over what really amounts to very objectively-phrased criticism that isn't anywhere in the same stratosphere as "hatred". I'm an antitheist in the vein of Hitchens and I love listening to the highly renowned theologian William Lane Craig, someone who's denounced atheist authors as not being intellectually bright. I don't cry foul and say he's an intolerant fundamentalist for it.

Dawkins is not objective in the least, the fact you think he is speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by Reidar

Embrace the joust from ideas contrary to your own and relish the opportunity for refining your position on the most profound topic in existence today instead of being reductionist and settling for, "No, he's too mean." You do yourself and your mind a disservice with the latter.

My objection lies in the fact he is mean his entire argument is structured around anecdotes and Douglas Adams. He never tries to tackle the difficult issue just make smug proclamations and declares himself right that I could read on any internet forum. If you want to read an excellent book tackling it read Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.

Originally Posted by KatayokuのTenshi

Honestly I doubt I could tell the difference between those two and a heron...

You should feel fortunate having never met any of the latter, the former tend to be self righteous pricks who are on the opposite end.

Originally Posted by CrossboneGundam

For the stupider people: Dawkins is an IRL troll.

Bingo.

[superplough]

[Caster13]

[waltsoph3]

I heard about this story. What a waste of time and money.

[Northern Reaver]

Yup lets just see Dawkins duke it out with the vatican, 3...2...1 FIGHT!

[Aragami]

You guys understand it's not that people want to see the pope suffer in prison right? I don't think he deserve life, or anything. I just think it would be highly significant and a symbol.

I haven't looked into the credibility of this article or its specifics. My impression is Dawkins is a mediocre writer. I wouldn't say he is trolling us for the lolz, but he may be leading us on if this has no posibility to transpire. Still, I think it's great that he is putting it out there that the pope is not above the law. The sort of issues he is talking about are meaningful, in this case, imo. Through this confrontation he is creating a meaningful conflict with deeper implictions. It would not mean much to write fiction about this. We actually need to see it play out in RL. He is more like an avant garde artist than a troll. However I don't think I would award him the title of artist. But seriously a lot of those avant gardes are being controversial to be controversial to get results/attention, or be relevant.

[Schadenfreude]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -Stephen Roberts

[Caster13]

Originally Posted by Northern Reaver

Yup lets just see Dawkins duke it out with the vatican, 3...2...1 FIGHT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_65P...eature=related