Richard Dawkins

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by MrSylvester

Yeah, because having sex with everything that moves s SOO healthy to one self. We object to sex before marriage even if ones partner is a boyfriend whom you're close with personally because sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage. In marriage, once you get married you can never turn back; in engagement and courting, there is turning back. How would a husband feel if he found out his girlfriend already gave herself to some other guy? There is nothing wrong with not being a virgin exactly; if you are not a virgin it doesn't mean that you've become sub-human like the garbage pail kids or Orcs (I hate Orcs, they're always so chaotic evil) but for Pete's sake, get away from sexual faults. I don't think being Catholic means you have an unhealthy sex life. The fact that a lot of devout Catholic families had tons of children shows that Catholics have pretty healthy drives... for food! Its Catholic Italy that gave us pizza, how much more do you need than that?!

Now get this: Hitler ate sugar. Hitler was evil. Therefore, sugar is evil. No, let me give another, better example. The American revolution kicked natives out of their homeland, the French revolution killed 40,000 people including innocent Priests, nuns and Bishops, socialism made many economic downfalls and even outright killed people, countries like France, Italy and even Spain with its second Spanish republic and Mexico under Benito Juarez stole Church lands and even banned religious education (and yes, this happened in the US too, so much so that in 1922 the law was overturned)... therefore, the concept of democracy is bad, evil and leads people to kill other people. Since democracy is evil, and sugar is evil and Hitler is evil, etc... all democrats are Hitler and reincarnation is thus proven to be true.

Also, before atheists point out that Catholics killed people too, note that we may have killed people but at least we are not Hitler... or Jeffrey Dahmer.

OF COURSE DEMOCRACY ISN'T EVIL! Its the way people use it. Pope Leo XIII wrote about Christian democracy wherein people can choose what they want as long as the choice actually follows Catholic conscience. However, the 'enlightenment' didn't simply consist of making advancements to science and politics but was very anti-religious in nature and that is bad because if our religion were true, wouldn't depriving people of it be a bad thing? The Church naturally opposed the enlightenment and its ensuing atrocities. It also opposed socialism which was seen by many as the means to the future. Now that we know its faults, it certainly isn't a good thing. There were devout Catholics who did bad things like Pius IX and the Mortara case but the enlightenment's value isn't judged by the abuses that happened in it; why should Catholicism be judged just because some Catholics did bad things?

One of you was Hitler. He made a point of never repudiating his Catholic faith. He had many beliefs that were incompatible with Catholicism but remained at least nominally so. Neither did the Church excommunicate him, or any other fascist leader. From memory, all members of communist parties were excommunicated.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by ConfusedTim

This is not directly related to this thread other than itis about a God or not but have alook at this website whch shows the scale of the universe. I cant imagine anyone thinking that all of this scale and beauty is merely an accident.


http://htwins.net/scale2/

The idea of 'accident' implies someone or thing able to direct or influence events. We do not say it is an 'accident' if there is a landslide out in the jungle, or a planet is struck by an asteroid. I cannot, for that reason, imagine me thinking that all this scale and beauty is an accident.

I can and do think that all this scale and beauty is.

[LittleSoldier]

Originally Posted by ConfusedTim

I know Patrick has tried to get Richard (my speciality is butterflies) Dawkins on his show but i dont think that would be acting as a Christian. You see dear old Dickie is just not very good when he is debating some of the grown ups. He has just had another stuff up (see extract below) to add to his colection of other blunders.

Taken from Daily Telegraph

Rev Giles Fraser was debating with Richard Dawkins. The two men were debating some new figures produced by Prof Dawkins’s think tank, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. (A typical Dawkins touch: not just any old Foundation for Reason and Science but the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.) The statistics purport to show that most people who identify themselves as Christian turn out, when questioned on what they actually think, to be “overwhelmingly secular in their attitudes on issues ranging from gay rights to religion in public life”. Dawkins’s conclusion is that these self-identified Christians are “not really Christian at all”.

If you were trying to come up with a definition of misplaced intellectual arrogance, you could not do better than having the planet’s most famous atheist issuing diktats on who does and doesn’t count as a proper Christian. Prof Dawkins then announced, triumphantly, that an “astonishing number [of Christians] couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament”.

The transcript of the next minute or so only hints at how cringingly, embarrassingly bad it was for Dawkins.

Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Dawkins: Yes I could.

Fraser: Go on then.

Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
It was a golden minute of radio.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTV-py1W8Rk

ROFL!!! I laughed and laughed! Thanks for the link.

[LittleSoldier]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

One of you was Hitler. He made a point of never repudiating his Catholic faith. He had many beliefs that were incompatible with Catholicism but remained at least nominally so. Neither did the Church excommunicate him, or any other fascist leader. From memory, all members of communist parties were excommunicated.

The Church does not have to formally excommunicate any Catholic. A Catholic is automatically excommunicated when he/she performs certain actions, such as providing an abortion.

Hitler excommunicated himself because of his apostasy. But this is way off-topic.

What does this have to do with Dawkins claiming to know the full title of Darwin's book and then not being able to provide it?

If you wish to discuss Hitler's excommunication I will be happy to provide sources that show he was, indeed, excommunicated. But please start a new thread.

[LovePatience]

It looks like Dawkins admitted he is agnostic, not atheist. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-agnostic.html

So he is more logical than I thought. There's a world of difference between atheistic faith and agnosticism, and it seems that being a famous scientific atheist he was able to recognize this. Hitchens was no scientist.

[MrSylvester]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

One of you was Hitler. He made a point of never repudiating his Catholic faith. He had many beliefs that were incompatible with Catholicism but remained at least nominally so. Neither did the Church excommunicate him, or any other fascist leader. From memory, all members of communist parties were excommunicated.

Because somebody isn't excommunicated doesn't mean that he is disliked, and setting aside the fact that Pius XII tried exorcizing Hitler, the fact that he refused to meet him and the fact that excommunicating him would bring more evil repercussions than before. For the record, the communists were already atheist and Goebbells was excommunicated in 1931, years before the Nazis actually pursued their murderous policy. I agree that Pius XII should have spoken against Franco IF knowledge of his executions was known. I don't know on this subject but I certainly know that Franco himself killed Catholics in order to further his own end in the Spanish civil war, and thats terrible. If soldiers were killed durig a battle it is somewhat excusable but killing a village of innocent people be they Catholic or not is nexcusable and both sides were guilty of this. Its gray and grey morality at its worst with Pius XII though being FAR from evil or incompetent could have acted more to fight Franco, not Hitler. To say that Pius XII should have spoken more publicly on the Nazis is like saying tha you want Pius XII to wear a bullseye on hs chest, go in fornt of Hitler's residence and call him a blithering idiot for thinking that race equals goodne... BOOM! Headshot).

[Contra Mundum]

[quote=MrSylvester;8998020]
There were devout Catholics who did bad things like Pius IX and the Mortara case but the enlightenment's value isn't judged by the abuses that happened in it; why should Catholicism be judged just because some Catholics did bad things?
[/QUOTEl]

Because atheists are illogical and don't know how to argue.
How about this: the church has so many holy people, therefore Christianity is true. Such logical fallacy never scosses their minds, although this is exactly how they think when they want to prove their clever points.

[MrSylvester]

To those Catholics who think atheists are all fanatical snobs who think religious people are idiots: don't. Just don't, as it gives those atheists who are outright jerks more fuel to hate us. I've met more than my fair share of atheists who were decent and open to what we actually said despite thinking religion not being the best option. Its obvious that no atheist thinks religion is the best option to do good, just as we don't hold atheism to be the best option to do good.

Lets say a normal average atheist met the Blessed Mother and told Her about what he thinks on religion. Would She tell him to go away from Her presence? No, She's the Mother of Mercy and She rejects nobody. She'll tell him calmly and gently why he is wrong, She'll try to convince him to abandon atheism by showing him the beauty of Catholicism and having faith in Her. She may act differently towards each atheist. She will be nice to some but to others who are really proud and obnoxious She'll rebuke them and berate them severely; the same thing She does to Catholics who think they are on top of the world because they say Her Rosary or go to Mass everyday or give a half hearted reason you suck speech to every non-catholic they meet. We shouldn't be rpud for the things we do, we should never be proud. Our intention should be to please Mary and bring more children to Her.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by MrSylvester

To those Catholics who think atheists are all fanatical snobs who think religious people are idiots: don't. Just don't, as it gives those atheists who are outright jerks more fuel to hate us. I've met more than my fair share of atheists who were decent and open to what we actually said despite thinking religion not being the best option. Its obvious that no atheist thinks religion is the best option to do good, just as we don't hold atheism to be the best option to do good.

Lets say a normal average atheist met the Blessed Mother and told Her about what he thinks on religion. Would She tell him to go away from Her presence? No, She's the Mother of Mercy and She rejects nobody. She'll tell him calmly and gently why he is wrong, She'll try to convince him to abandon atheism by showing him the beauty of Catholicism and having faith in Her. She may act differently towards each atheist. She will be nice to some but to others who are really proud and obnoxious She'll rebuke them and berate them severely; the same thing She does to Catholics who think they are on top of the world because they say Her Rosary or go to Mass everyday or give a half hearted reason you suck speech to every non-catholic they meet. We shouldn't be rpud for the things we do, we should never be proud. Our intention should be to please Mary and bring more children to Her.

good advice

[HombreconHambre]

Some decent points on Dawkins's recent Radio 4 debacle:

http://franktalkwithfrank.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/442/

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

One of you was Hitler. He made a point of never repudiating his Catholic faith. He had many beliefs that were incompatible with Catholicism but remained at least nominally so. Neither did the Church excommunicate him, or any other fascist leader. From memory, all members of communist parties were excommunicated.

Not all by any means, James Connolly was never excommunicated, neither was Countess Markievicz nor Jim Larkin. There's three members of socialist and communist parties from my own country who were not excommunicated and indeed in the case of one was a convert to the Church.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by HombreconHambre

Some decent points on Dawkins's recent Radio 4 debacle:

http://franktalkwithfrank.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/442/

Decent points? It reads more like an hysterical polemic to me.

Sarah x

[CrazyRachel]

Originally Posted by ConfusedTim

I know Patrick has tried to get Richard (my speciality is butterflies) Dawkins on his show but i dont think that would be acting as a Christian. You see dear old Dickie is just not very good when he is debating some of the grown ups

"Dear old Dickie" lol! Its so true though, he is not at all a good debater. The poor guy just crumbles. I cant believe some people actually find any credibility in his documentaries. Did you see "Faith School Menace" when he confronted this big tough Irish Catholic dad who sent his daughters to a Catholic school? Sure enough I was on the Catholic dad's side as he was bringing up his own daughters in the way he saw fit as is his right to do as a parent and no one not even Dickie Dawkins has the right to tell him how to do that, but Richard looked so terrifed of the guy I actually felt really sorry for him. And its not that the Catholic dad was being agressive, he simply put his point over so well and with such determination that it was impossible to argue with him. Ah, Dear old Dickie lol. If he wasnt such a faith basher in such an anti faith period in time he wouldnt have a fraction of the fame he has as a scientist seeing as how he's never made any breakthroughs or discoveries or done anything useful at all as far as science is concerened.

[HombreconHambre]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

Decent points? It reads more like an hysterical polemic to me.

Sarah x

Hysterical, polemical and bang on the money .

[CrazyRachel]

Originally Posted by MrSylvester

To those Catholics who think atheists are all fanatical snobs who think religious people are idiots: don't. Just don't, as it gives those atheists who are outright jerks more fuel to hate us. I've met more than my fair share of atheists who were decent and open to what we actually said despite thinking religion not being the best option. Its obvious that no atheist thinks religion is the best option to do good, just as we don't hold atheism to be the best option to do good.

Lets say a normal average atheist met the Blessed Mother and told Her about what he thinks on religion. Would She tell him to go away from Her presence? No, She's the Mother of Mercy and She rejects nobody. She'll tell him calmly and gently why he is wrong, She'll try to convince him to abandon atheism by showing him the beauty of Catholicism and having faith in Her. She may act differently towards each atheist. She will be nice to some but to others who are really proud and obnoxious She'll rebuke them and berate them severely; the same thing She does to Catholics who think they are on top of the world because they say Her Rosary or go to Mass everyday or give a half hearted reason you suck speech to every non-catholic they meet. We shouldn't be rpud for the things we do, we should never be proud. Our intention should be to please Mary and bring more children to Her.

Very well said. And its not that all athiests even dislike religion, its just not for them for this or that reason. I've even met a few who have told me they really wish they did have faith, but simply dont know how. Bless them.