Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Happy Dawkins Day!

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    uncleoswald wrote: »
    The only study I was able to find the remotely fitting your claims is this one: DEMOCIDE VERSUS GENOCIDE This the one you mean? If so you'd have to do some pretty amazing contortion to derive what you have from it. Apologies if it was another study.

    But you'd have to be just a tad biased to look at those statistic of yours and not see they are ridiculous, that 94% of Nazi Germany was christian rubbishes it instantaneously.

    Yes, Rummel's work is the source of my claim. First of all for clarity, I agree entirely with his central thesis that the issue is primarily totalitarianism versus democracy. As he says power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. My question however is what are the factors that allows citizens to murder millions of their fellow citizens, why does it happen in countries that outlaw religion so much and not in countries that maintain religious freedom. In gaining absolute power the totalitarian leader's first act is generally to replace God with man, the supreme leader becomes God.

    The Nazi example is more challenging that it appears on the surface. Keep in mind that in all totalitarian regimes the populations would have been largely religious as well before totalitarianism. Russia was a religious country before the 1917 revolution. There is much evidence from the testimony at the Nurenburg trials that the Nazi leadership were planning to replace Christianity with a state religion after the war was won.

    The best approach to keeping totalitarianism at bay is limited government and protecting democracy at all costs. Ceding more power to the state creates the environment for future totalitarianism. Maintaining religious freedom is an important factor in a secular democracy, the state should have no role in either promoting religion or limiting religion.


  • Options
    #93
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,126 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The Northern Ireland conflict was an ethnic conflict just as the War of Independence was an ethnic conflict. When debates in the English parliment in the mid 19th century referred to the indigenous Irish as animals and subhuman, was that because of religion?

    Religion was a large element of it. Loyalty to king vs. loyalty to pope.
    How could the catholic Irish be regarded as the equal of a protestant Englishman when they rejected the reformation, refused to accept the monarch as the head of their church, and continued to give allegiance and obeyance to what the protestants regarded as corrupt and erroneous Rome?
    Was the same behavior towards all other vicitims of the British empire because of religion?

    No that was because of race.
    The catholic Irish were white Europeans but were still regarded as inferior.
    When Northern Ireland Loyalists treated Narthern Ireland Nationalists as second class citizens it was because they regard all Irish, whether Northern or Southern, as a separate ethnic group, and that is still true of many loyalists today who hate to be called Irish.

    What about protestant southern Irish though?
    67.5% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden at the last count. Clearly however religion is benign in Sweden. This in my view is a good thing, religion should be benign.

    If benign means staying out of the affairs of the state as much as possible, I agree :)
    If the 67.5% figure is a census figure, it's probably as suspect as our 84% catholic figure in our census is. Even if accurate, it's a steep decline from 95% in 1970 and 83% in 2000.

    Source: Swedes depart church in droves

    Also:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden wrote:
    In a Eurobarometer Poll in 2010, just 18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".[3] In a 2009 Gallup poll, 17% answered yes to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?".[4] Less than 4% of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2% are regular attendees.[5] Some scholars consider the nation to be a place where religion is regarded with “benign indifference”.[6]


    State inflicted murders for countries that had outlawed religion: 150M
    State inflicted murders for countries that did not outlaw religion: 0.5M
    A bit of a difference. These numbers do not include those killed in wars between countries.

    This oul' nonsense has been debunked countless times.
    Religion as it was originally conceived and practiced was generally altruistic in nature. Powerful organized religions as you describe are a recent enough phenomena. Religions should not be allowed have any legal power in any modern day state.

    Depends what you define as recent, the christian religion has been very powerful for a long time (e.g. Crusades, Spanish inquisition). I can cetainly agree with the last sentence.

    I agree science and religion are separate. However, you cannot extend that to say the two are incompatible which seems to be what you are saying. Science was established by people with religious beliefs, the scientific method was developed by people with religious beliefs, there are thousands of scientists worldwide today who hold religious beliefs. The argument that religion is irrational does not hold up.

    The fundamental conflict is that science is based on evidence, faith is based on the absence of evidence.
    No scientist could be taken seriously if they were to make assertions within their field which were not supported by evidence. They'd be at risk of losing their post.
    Outside their own field it appears that many of them are as fallible to irrationality as anyone else.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #94
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Yes, Rummel's work is the source of my claim. First of all for clarity, I agree entirely with his central thesis that the issue is primarily totalitarianism versus democracy. As he says power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. My question however is what are the factors that allows citizens to murder millions of their fellow citizens, why does it happen in countries that outlaw religion so much and not in countries that maintain religious freedom. In gaining absolute power the totalitarian leader's first act is generally to replace God with man, the supreme leader becomes God.

    The Nazi example is more challenging that it appears on the surface. Keep in mind that in all totalitarian regimes the populations would have been largely religious as well before totalitarianism. Russia was a religious country before the 1917 revolution. There is much evidence from the testimony at the Nurenburg trials that the Nazi leadership were planning to replace Christianity with a state religion after the war was won.

    The best approach to keeping totalitarianism at bay is limited government and protecting democracy at all costs. Ceding more power to the state creates the environment for future totalitarianism. Maintaining religious freedom is an important factor in a secular democracy, the state should have no role in either promoting religion or limiting religion.
    I've very little to add but to note that you are even more intellectually dishonest then you appeared to be when claiming Dawkins never gave credit to Hamilton for the concept of the selfish gene.

    Who on earth claimed here that religious freedom wasn't important? You seem to hint that an absence of religion will result in genocide but then don't have the conviction to stand by those claims.


  • Options
    #95
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    uncleoswald wrote: »
    Who on earth claimed here that religious freedom wasn't important? You seem to hint that an absence of religion will result in genocide but then don't have the conviction to stand by those claims.

    That's not what I'm saying and is a complete distortion of what I'm saying, so less of the dishonesty card please.

    What I'm saying is that states that deny religious freedom, in fact work activiely to replace the concept of God with the concept of man as God, disproportionality commit acts of genocide on their own people compared to democratic states that practice religious freedom.

    .. and I stand 100% behind that claim, the evidence is overwhelming. It wasn't Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot doing the killing, it was people convinced there is no God and their leaders were effectively God.


  • Options
    #96
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Is Dawkins planning on outlawing religion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    nagirrac wrote: »
    That's not what I'm saying and is a complete distortion of what I'm saying, so less of the dishonesty card please.

    What I'm saying is that states that deny religious freedom, in fact work activiely to replace the concept of God with the concept of man as God, disproportionality commit acts of genocide on their own people compared to democratic states that practice religious freedom.

    .. and I stand 100% behind that claim, the evidence is overwhelming. It wasn't Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot doing the killing, it was people convinced there is no God and their leaders were effectively God.

    So we've gone from a half arsed and ill thought out claim somebodys a plagarist, to 'TeH AthEist RegImes' Ver 1.02. Great stuff.


  • Options
    #98
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    Irish internet atheist crack me up with the persecution complex. You'd swear we were living in theocracy the way people go on.

    If people don't want to send their kids to religious schools they're free to find like-minded people and set up an educate together school. They'll fail though, because there is feck all demand, and religious schools have a track record in producing results.


  • Options
    #99
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,720 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    Irish internet atheist crack me up with the persecution complex. You'd swear we were living in theocracy the way people go on.

    If people don't want to send their kids to religious schools they're free to find like-minded people and set up an educate together school. They'll fail though, because there is feck all demand, and religious schools have a track record in producing results.

    Possibly a stupid question, but how exactly do you compare a system where it's been almost exclusively Catholic schools as far back as records exist? I mean there are only about 65 ET schools in the Republic AFAIK. How do you do the comparison? Just by the law of averages, the Catholic schools could provide 65 schools that have results as good as or better than the best ET schools. How do we know that proportionally that the ET schools aren't producing students that do better than the average student that goes to the Catholic schools?

    And why should parents have to start their own schools in a country that claims to have a public school system? If a family moves to an area with only a religious school, they don't have time to build/set up a new school. They want to get their kid in a school ASAP. It's really disingenuous to tell parents to "go build your own school" when they complain about a lack of non-Catholic schools in a location. The system shouldn't be allowing religion to be such a divisive problem.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #100
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,126 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    nagirrac wrote: »
    What I'm saying is that states that deny religious freedom, in fact work activiely to replace the concept of God with the concept of man as God, disproportionality commit acts of genocide on their own people compared to democratic states that practice religious freedom.

    .. and I stand 100% behind that claim, the evidence is overwhelming. It wasn't Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot doing the killing, it was people convinced there is no God and their leaders were effectively God.

    Fail 1. Atheists deny the existence of god, but do not require that god be replaced with an earthly deity.

    Fail 2. Atheists are usually among the forefront of those demanding religious freedom, for obvious reasons.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #101
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,126 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    Irish internet atheist crack me up with the persecution complex. You'd swear we were living in theocracy the way people go on.

    If people don't want to send their kids to religious schools they're free to find like-minded people and set up an educate together school. They'll fail though, because there is feck all demand, and religious schools have a track record in producing results.

    Cash-poor and time-poor parents are the obvious agents of societal change, right?

    :rolleyes:

    Because setting up a school from scratch is easy, according to the catholics who will never have to do it.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Cash-poor and time-poor parents are the obvious agents of societal change, right?

    :rolleyes:

    Because setting up a school from scratch is easy, according to the catholics who will never have to do it.

    Its a supply and demand thing.

    84% of this country is Catholic.

    There are no Hindu schools, there are no Sihk schools, and there are no Scientology schools.

    If people want religion free schools then they should set them up. Either that, or move to a secular country. Ireland is a Catholic nation.


  • Options
    #103
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    Its a supply and demand thing.

    84% of this country is Catholic.

    There are no Hindu schools, there are no Sihk schools, and there are no Scientology schools.

    If people want religion free schools then they should set them up. Either that, or move to a secular country. Ireland is a Catholic nation.


    No idea where you got that notion. We're a secular Republic thats only now beginning to match the reality with the principle. Part of that entails removing the church from the educational system.


  • Options
    #104
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,720 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Nodin wrote: »
    No idea where you got that notion. We're a secular Republic thats only now beginning to match the reality with the principle. Part of that entails removing the church from the educational system.
    Indeed.

    Ireland is listed among the secular states that exist in Europe.

    and from the Ireland wiki page:
    As with other predominantly Catholic European states, Ireland underwent a period of legal secularisation in the late twentieth century. In 1972, the article of the Constitution naming specific religious groups was deleted by the Fifth Amendment in a referendum. Article 44 still remains in the Constitution: The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion. The article also establishes freedom of religion, prohibits endowment of any religion, prohibits the state from religious discrimination, and requires the state to treat religious and non-religious schools in a non-prejudicial manner.

    Link

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #105
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    Article 44 of the constitution says "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion".

    93.8% of the country is religious, with 84.2% of those being Catholic.

    Hence, most of the schools being religious ones. There's nothing to stop people setting up whatever school they like to suit their needs. Most people want Catholic schools, so that's what we mostly have.

    tumblr_lh6sayYpIJ1qzaxefo1_400.gif


  • Options
    #106
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,720 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    Article 44 of the constitution says "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion".

    93.8% of the country is religious, with 84.2% of those being Catholic.

    Hence, most of the schools being religious ones. There's nothing to stop people setting up whatever school they like to suit their needs. Most people want Catholic schools, so that's what we mostly have.

    tumblr_lh6sayYpIJ1qzaxefo1_400.gif

    so how do you resolve the conflict with the state not allowed to show bias to one religion, considering your eloquent rebuttal boils down to "build your own schools"? Why should people stay quiet about the government failing to fulfill its duties with regards to the education system.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #107
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Fail 1. Atheists deny the existence of god, but do not require that god be replaced with an earthly deity.

    Fail 2. Atheists are usually among the forefront of those demanding religious freedom, for obvious reasons.

    Fail2. Atheists are at the forefront of demanding freedom from religion. I am not aware of any efforts by atheists to demand that individuals or groups be allowed practice their religion without state interference, and there are plenty states that deny religious freedom in this fashion. Religious freedom is a 2 way street.


  • Options
    #108
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    Article 44 of the constitution says "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion".

    93.8% of the country is religious, with 84.2% of those being Catholic.

    ....feck all to do with anything, really, as this is still not a "catholic" nation. Its a secular state with a lot of catholics in it.
    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    Hence, most of the schools being religious ones.

    The reasons are historical, being due to financial poverty on the part of the state and the influence of the Church, rather than some decision on the part of the populace to go with "religous" education. National schools were originally non-denominational.


  • Options
    #109
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Nodin wrote: »
    The reasons are historical, being due to financial poverty on the part of the state and the influence of the Church, rather than some decision on the part of the populace to go with "religous" education. National schools were originally non-denominational.

    True that, but there would have been no schools or education at all if the church has not set them up and kept them running. For example, mainly in rural areas they kept the flag flying for education for over a century after the Act of Union in 1800, where if it were not for them Catholics would have had no education. Education never have taken off in Ireland in the early 20th century were it not for Church investment. The state had very little money, and certainly not the money to build schools, so a lot of our grandparents, and for some of us our parents, would have had no second level education. As it is the vast majority had access to it, and it was of a high standard.


  • Options
    #110
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,126 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    Its a supply and demand thing.

    Indeed. Most ET schools are heavlily oversubscribed. You are presuming that because most non-religious parents are forced to send their kids to religious schools, the very fact that their kids are enrolled in a religious school means they're OK with that.
    84% of this country is Catholic.

    84% of people, or their mammies, ticked a box on a very badly worded ambiguous question.
    Some people think that once they were baptised catholic, they must tick the catholic box.
    The question refers to membership of a religion, not belief or practise. The catholic church no longer allows members to leave.
    The person who completes the census form is not required to consult with the rest of the household as to their religious views.
    The question is NOT in any way asking parents how they wish their children to be educated.
    There are no Hindu schools, there are no Sihk schools, and there are no Scientology schools.
    Because the current system is unworkable. The only way everyone can be accommodated on an equal basis is to take religion out of education.
    If people want religion free schools then they should set them up. Either that, or move to a secular country. Ireland is a Catholic nation.

    Ireland is, notionally, a secular country. What we are talking about is the failure of the state to vindicate the rights of parents set out in the constitution. Give me a million euro and I'd be more than happy to take it to the Supreme Court and ECHR.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #111
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,126 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Fail2. Atheists are at the forefront of demanding freedom from religion.

    You can't have freedom of religion if people are obliged to profess a theistic belief. Atheists believe in freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. Generally this leads more people away from religion rather than towards it, but that's not our fault :)
    I am not aware of any efforts

    Rather convenient to deny that something exists by simply claiming to be unaware of it. Atheists do campaign for freedom of conscience and against discrimination. Bit rich to expect them to effectively campaign in favour of religion though, eh?
    by atheists to demand that individuals or groups be allowed practice their religion without state interference, and there are plenty states that deny religious freedom in this fashion. Religious freedom is a 2 way street.

    There are plenty of states where religious freedom is denied in law or in practice, but invariably this is because of a majority religion imposing its view.
    The only remaining country with 'state atheism' is North Korea and the Kim cult of personality is effectively the state religion.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Yitzhak Rabin, as someone who, through dealings on other forums, would have a lot of time for you as a poster, I must say I am very disappointed with your contributions to this thread. "Build your own school", "leave the country" and "deal with it" - I can't say I ever imagined I would ever see such puerile arguments coming from you.


  • Options
    #113
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    A quick question since this has gone down the schools route, what is the current demand for non denominational education in Ireland, against demand for additional local denominational schools as I seem to remember reading in (irishtimes I think) that there was less than expected demand? (I say vs demand for local denominational education as I've heard of parents groups wanting more Catholic school places somewhere in Dublin).


  • Options
    #114
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    A quick question since this has gone down the schools route, what is the current demand for non denominational education in Ireland, against demand for additional local denominational schools as I seem to remember reading in (irishtimes I think) that there was less than expected demand? (I say vs demand for local denominational education as I've heard of parents groups wanting more Catholic school places somewhere in Dublin).
    Department of Education surveys in 43 towns and suburbs over the past six months found that two-thirds of parents wanted a more diverse range of schools -- meaning a reduction of the church's overwhelming dominance of school patronage.

    The results of the consultation with 10,000 parents on future control of local schools can be revealed today, with Education Minister Ruairi Quinn pointing out that a majority of areas surveyed had shown sufficient parental demand for wider choice of schools.
    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/quinn-will-announce-church-to-lose-school-control-29167728.html


  • Options
    #115
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,160 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    A quick question since this has gone down the schools route, what is the current demand for non denominational education in Ireland, against demand for additional local denominational schools as I seem to remember reading in (irishtimes I think) that there was less than expected demand? (I say vs demand for local denominational education as I've heard of parents groups wanting more Catholic school places somewhere in Dublin).
    The picture is mixed, and not necessarily easy to read.

    First off, the recent consultation hasn’t yet been published. Various interested parties have seen it, but naturally most of what they say about it may be somewhat selective and self-serving. So take everything you read with a pinch of salt.

    Secondly, the consultation didn’t seek to measure demand for non-denominational schools “against demand for additional denominational schools”. The consultations were conducted in 38 different districts, but they were all established areas with settled populations and sufficient total school places, so there was no question of providing additional schools of any kind. The only issue was whether some of the existing schools should be transferred from denominational to non-denominational patronage. (Opinions about transfers in the other direction were not sought. Nobody, not even the Catholic church, thinks we need a greater proportion of church schools.)

    Thirdly, although about 10,700 responses were received, apparently this is only a fraction of the parents involved; the substantial majority did not respond at all. Whether this indicates they are satisfied with the status quo, or they just have no opinion, is a matter for debate. But they can’t really be counted with any confidence as people who support change.

    As far as I can see from the somewhat selective reporting, the approach of the Department is as follows:

    1. A viable school requires four teachers; somewhere between 80 and 100 pupils.

    2. In any district, if the parents of 80-100 pupils (or more) express a desire for a non-denominational school, the Department considers there is sufficient demand to justify the provision of a non-denominational school. This criterion was met (and presumably in many cases exceeded) in 23 of the 38 districts surveyed. Given that there is no question of additional schools being provided, this can only be done by transferring one of the schools in the area from denominational to non-denominational patronage.

    We don’t know what percentage of parents in any of the 23 areas indicated that they wanted a non-denominational school. As long as the parents of 80-100 children (which, presumably, is less than 80-100 families) indicated that they wanted a non-denominational school, the Department’s threshold is met, regardless of how many parents there are in the district, or how many answered the survey. Consequently we still have no idea what percentage of parents actually want to send their children to a non-denominational school. We do know that, with 10,700 responses in 38 districts, the mean response per district was 282 parents (presumably representing more than 282 children).

    Presumably, if existing schools are transferred to non-denominational patronage, parents who chose the school wholly or in part because of its denominational character will have to be afforded the opportunity to transfer to a school which is retaining its denominational character. Conversely, parents in other schools in the district will have to be given the chance to transfer to the non-denominational school, if that is what they want. So all this could be quite disruptive in the short term.

    At the moment the ball is in the court of the Catholic bishops; they have been asked to tbring forward proposals for divesting themselves of one school in each of the 23 districts where the Department has found sufficient demand for a non-denominational school. I think we can expect them to be very aware of how disruptive this might be.

    A further complication is the fact that there is more than one possible patron for the non-denominational schools. Parents were invited to suggest the patron that they would prefer, and in most cases Educate Together was the preferred patron. But parents who indicated that they wanted a non-denominational school under the patronage of An Foras Patrúnachta or the VEC might not transfer to an ET school. The fact that the parents of 80-100 pupils (or more) indcated a desire for a non-denominational school doesn’t mean that, when the occasion actually arises, they will necessarily transfer their children to that school when it becomes available. It may not be under their chosen patronage, or they may feel that the transfer would be disruptive to their children, or whatever. You can expect the Catholic bishops to point this out too, and to suggest that at some point parents should be asked to commit to making the transfer.


  • Options
    #116
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Ah Dawkins, the Jesus of atheism. I don't get why atheists need to have a figurehead to look up to. Sounds like a very Catholic thing to do. Ask him yourself if you ever get the chance if he is atheist, you'll probably be surprised by his answer...


  • Options
    #117
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,720 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Ah Dawkins, the Jesus of atheism. I don't get why atheists need to have a figurehead to look up to. Sounds like a very Catholic thing to do. Ask him yourself if you ever get the chance if he is atheist, you'll probably be surprised by his answer...

    Any other stupid generalisations up that sleeve? :rolleyes:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #118
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Ah Dawkins, the Jesus of atheism. I don't get why atheists need to have a figurehead to look up to. Sounds like a very Catholic thing to do. Ask him yourself if you ever get the chance if he is atheist, you'll probably be surprised by his answer...

    Your posts never fail to make little sense.


  • Options
    #119
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Your posts never fail to make little sense.

    Dawkins is not an atheist. That enough of an explanation for you?


  • Options
    #120
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Dawkins is not an atheist. That enough of an explanation for you?

    And how have you come to this conclusion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    And how have you come to this conclusion?

    He said it himself this time last year, look it up


Advertisement