The second he gets within 10 feet of the pope, the popes secret service are going to pop out of their hiding spots and blow this dudes head off.
Some Christians, especially protestants, hate the pope, and think that being charged is a good thing.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21296745]Has the Pope ever been arrested before? If not, this is not going to end well. This will be a very bad thing. There will be massive riots throughout almost every country in Europe as well as the Americas.[/QUOTE]
This is the problem. He deserves to be put on trial, but if the Pope ends up locked away in a British prison, the foreign relations shit storm will be massive.
Haha, he crazy
[QUOTE=petieng;21296795]This is the problem. He deserves to be put on trial, but if the Pope ends up locked away in a British prison, the foreign relations shit storm will be massive.[/QUOTE]
No they would not be massive in the slightest.
[QUOTE=decilling;21296902]No they would not be massive in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
tell that to 1.13 billion catholics who would be extremely angry that move
I knew i should have checked in the news section today :saddowns:
-GreatSuccess.jpg-
This would be fucking amazing.
Guess what? Richard Dawkings invented the meme!
[quote=Wikipedia]Dawkins coined the word meme (the cultural equivalent of a gene) to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. This has spawned the field of memetics.[41] Dawkins' memes refer to any cultural entity which an observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as capable of such replication, generally through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient (although not perfect) copiers of information and behaviour. Memes are not always copied perfectly, and might indeed become refined, combined or otherwise modified with other ideas, resulting in new memes, which may themselves prove more, or less, efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a hypothesis of cultural evolution, analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes. Since originally outlining the idea in his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins has largely left the task of expanding upon it to other authors such as Susan Blackmore.[/quote]
It's a totally different thing than to what we're used to here on the internets, but you get what I'm saying. Who knows, maybe we'd call them Internet Klapyas if it weren't for him.
[QUOTE=Archy;21297034]tell that to 1.13 billion catholics who would be extremely angry that move[/QUOTE]
I'm sure a good sized chunk of those people are thinking "Charge this fucker, he's perverting my faith" or ditching Catholicism altogether.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21297675]I'm sure a good sized chunk of those people are thinking "Charge this fucker, he's perverting my faith" or ditching Catholicism altogether.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt this in Latin America.
[QUOTE=Mexican;21296680]You'll just give him more power that way.
[img]http://www.fabbricantidiuniversi.it/starwars/immagini/palpatine1.JPG[/img][/QUOTE]
In that case: Woohoo! I hope he resists arrest so that they can shoot him!
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21298493]I seriously doubt this in Latin America.[/QUOTE]
Well then tough luck for latin america
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;21295853]What do you call humanity?
Eventually people will evolve yes?
At what point are we no longer human.
Keep in mind everything stems from basic prokaryotic cells below the surface of the ocean.[/QUOTE]
Well, evolution is survival of the fittest.
We have eliminated that with rules, morals and ethics.
Thus (almost) no more evolution.
Good. I'd be glad to see the Pope punished for what he has done. I'm not a fan of Dawkins myself, but this is a good thing for everyone.
Good fuckin luck.
First Vietnam Tom now this guy? Badass people new fad '10
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;21296353]If you want to go by the bible; the story was dictated by god, so god could have said 7 days, and it would have been for him,since time is relative, but for us it could have been billions of years.[/QUOTE]
So God was moving at way higher speeds than the earth?
[QUOTE=mzathemind;21303815]First Vietnam Tom now this guy? Badass people new fad '10[/QUOTE]
You know what would be really fucking badass?
Vietnam Tom in a battle with the Pope.
[QUOTE=Archy;21297034]tell that to 1.13 billion catholics who would be extremely angry that move[/QUOTE]
what the fuck are they going to do?
[QUOTE=decilling;21303890]what the fuck are they going to do?[/QUOTE]
They're gonna throw their fists in the air and be all like
grrr
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;21303889]You know what would be really fucking badass?
Vietnam Tom in a battle with the Pope.[/QUOTE]
Pope would die no doubt.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;21303905]They're gonna throw their fists in the air and be all like
grrr[/QUOTE]
Avatar matches perfectly.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;21303905]They're gonna throw their fists in the air and be all like
grrr[/QUOTE]
How about massive riots in the streets of almost every country, and possible atheist lynching.
Organized religion has to go, almost all the religious arguments I have experienced all come to the final point that you can't completely disprove god 100% therefore we shouldn't dismiss its existence. I don't think thats logical at all, but I don't mind at all that people hold their own personal beliefs (Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens say this exact thing countless times, but the media has none of that). My problem is with religions that spread their corrupt morality, impact people's lives and influence political decisions. The Catholic Church is the perfect example of this, and I support this legal action by Roberston and Stephens.
Removing organized religion is a step that has to be taken before we get into disproving god. As Christopher Hitchens would say, it's progress of a kind.
There are some good, peaceful religions though.
Buddhism, Sikhism and Baha'i have very good concepts, and even if you don't believe in a god, a new life or anything like that you could join it just for their concepts of peace e.t.c.
Good job on propagating without violence. :smile:
[B]EDIT:
[/B]Religions that must go; The three big ones from the middle east. You know which ones I'm talking about.
Why doesn't he just go arrest Osama Bin Laden while he's at it
[QUOTE=Handsome Pete;21297591]This would be fucking amazing.
Guess what? Richard Dawkings invented the meme!
It's a totally different thing than to what we're used to here on the internets, but you get what I'm saying. Who knows, maybe we'd call them Internet Klapyas if it weren't for him.[/QUOTE]
So we have a lot to thank the good doctor for, and a bit more if he actually succeeds...
I hate to say this, but he probably won't.
Fingers crossed.
I think I'll lay out one of the cases for strong atheism:
Premise 1: Irrationality is bad.
Premise 2: A belief in a God is irrational.
Conclusion 1: A belief in a God is bad.
Then, based on that conclusion:
Premise 3: A belief in a God is bad.
Premise 4: We should try to reduce the amount of bad things in this world.
Conclusion 2: We should try to reduce the amount of belief in a God.
Ok, so first for the bits few people would disagree on. I think we can all agree that premise 4 is true, though perhaps there are some who are much more apathetic than the norm. I'm not going to try to argue to those people. Premise 3 depends on conclusion 1, which in turn depends on premises 1 and 2. So if we assume that premise 4 is correct (which most of us do), then it is just about establishing whether you believe premises 1 and 2 are. If you believe premise 1 and 2 to be right, then conclusion 2 is right.
Well, for premise 2, the primary arguments are that there has been no evidence, as well as the omnipotence/omniscience paradox (can God know the future, yet still be powerful enough change it), or the benevolence/omniscience/omnipotence/evil paradox (Epicurus put it so much better than I could - just google him). Religious people often talk about 'Faith', and acknowledge that it is not a rational thing. Most religious people would agree with premise 2 (after all, if it [i]were[/i] rational, no faith would be required to get into heaven).
For premise 1, which is the most subjective of the statements, I would say that rationality has lead to science, which has advanced humanity more than any other feature. Irrationality is what justifies the suicide bombers, the abusive husbands, child abusers and so forth. Irrationality can, I accept, lead to positive outcomes, such as giving money to charity because you believe it will net you a place in heaven. The point, however, is that rationality can also bring these positives, in the example given, donating money to charity because you do not feel their position in the world is fair. Rationality does not, however, justify genocide. Thus irrationality on the whole is bad.
Pope hates gays so I hope he gets arrested and raped in prison
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.