Pope resigns months after launching social networking effort Pope Benedict announced his resignation today, becoming the first pope to relinquish the leadership of the Catholic Church in six centuries - and just months after becoming the first pontiff to join Twitter. The 85-year-old will step down at the end of the month, clearing the way for a conclave to elect his successor. He is …
Finally, he's going. My only hope is that he will be charged and stand trial for the crimes he has allegedly committed while in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If he is innocent then he will finally have cleared his name over his alleged involvement in the harbouring of paedophiles. If not, he will be sent down and, upon his death, may he burn in hell. Either way, his continued occupation of the post has brought nothing but disgrace to the Catholic Church and undermined the good work done by those beneath it.
If he'd at least had the guts to say it was because of the cover-ups, he might have got some respect, but he's repeatedly refused to accept any real culpability.
"If not, he will be sent down and, upon his death, may he burn in hell."
Actually, is there not something in the Bible about those who are punished on Earth being let off the hook in the afterlife, and those who escape punishment on Earth being damned to eternal torment? Perhaps someone ought to remind him that the longer he denies any wrong-doing, the less time he's got to receive Earthly just before departing this mortal coil....
(These revelations were the straw that broke the back of my dwindling faith. Now totally definitely agnostic.)
Quite the opposite.
If I didn't have such a strong belief that there is no god, that book would have put me off atheism. Richard Dawkins comes across as an arrogant asshole. In fact, I describe him as a Fundamental Atheist - his way is the only way, and anyone with an opposite view is an idiot.
It is, but then Dawkins is rarely correct on matters scientific... it's probably one of the reasons he likes to keep to the unfalsifiable philosophical storytelling side, as real science rather inconveniently usually proves him wrong (note in particular his repeated attempts at proving "bad design" in biology.)
Eh? I've read a few of Dawkins' books - not many, so I may have missed something.
But surely one of his main points - indeed, one of the principles of evolution by natural selection - is that there is no design in nature, whether good, bad or indifferent.
Where does Dawkins try to "prove bad desigh"?
Actually, I agree about the arrogance, even though I'm on the side of rationality and science.
Whenever he's arguing, whether in print or on film, he always seems to descend to snide, smartarse comments that do his case no good whatsoever.
I jokingly used to say that I was on the "Richard Dawkins paramilitary wing of atheism", until he made such a tit of himself that it stopped being funny - if it ever was.
It's possible for a man to be arrogant and correct... though maybe not on the horrific rape, torture and murder of the medical student in Mumbai (Dawkins couldn’t see what the fuss was about).
If only “Pope” Dawkins had something to say on the “Humanist Delusion”
"It's possible for a man to be arrogant and correct."
However, it is usually impossible for an arrogant man to convince anyone else that he is correct. Dawkins is an expert at preaching to the choir such that the choir think he's actually said something meaningful, but his entire writing style is antagonistic, and no debate that starts with one party calling the other stupid ever bore fruit....
I've read Dawkin's God Delusion , I've also read the late great Chris Hitchen's God is not Great. In my case they're preaching to the already converted, I found both books enjoyable.
I guess to someone who has fully bought into the "I must have an explanation for everything, and fill it in with an intelligent creator where we don't have a full explanation" then Dawkin's and Hitchen's will come across as arrogant.
I honestly can't see how "The God Delusion" would put any atheist of atheism. I could see how it would antagonize The blindly faithful.
The blindly faithful seem to be very untrusting of atheists. Atheists like me have been persecuted by the theists for centuries, so if we are a bit argumentative then that is because we are trying to guard against what we class as the craziness, wishful thinking and tortured illogic of theology, and don't wish for them to get into positions of power, or to let their crazy ideas enter our heads.
Theocracy has to be the worst form of government I can think of, it not only has Big Brother / Daddy in the Sky, it is also detached from reality, and the people making its rules up don't even realise that humans are making the rules up , and say it is God's Law. That is crazy, and that is what we need to guard against.
Yeah I'm a fundamental atheist, and proud, and I don't want nutters running any country I live in.
I'd much rather have Richard Dawkin's in charge than true believer Tony Blair , The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Pope , or any other of the religiously deluded.
I've read many (most?) of his books, and whilst it was a breath of fresh air after (catholic) high school, the more preachy books are becoming a bit cringe-worthy - I agree with many of his views, but not with the way he presents them - in many cases deliberately antagonistic, and seems to be happy to abandon the moral high ground and stoop to the level of the right wing hardliner religious set. I believe the moral high ground is worth a lot more than that.
The books on evolution are a different story - he waffles on a bit, but The Selfish Gene among others is what sparked an interest in evolution, and an appreciation of the natural world for me. I'm sure there are some who disagree with his scientific views as well, but that's what science is all about.
Whilst i agree that fanatics of any religion (or any fanatics) should never be in a position of power, I do believe that your postulation is flawed as highlighted in your following statement:
"or to let their crazy ideas enter our heads."
You state that you believe in a more scientific view of life, (which I would agree with), but a proper scientist does not dismiss any idea or theory until proven false, (no matter how crazy). Sorry to burst your bubble, but writing books about God not existing does not prove the theory either way.
I choose to keep an open mind about everything.
"a proper scientist does not dismiss any idea or theory until proven false, (no matter how crazy). Sorry to burst your bubble, but writing books about God not existing does not prove the theory either way.
A proper scientist dismisses explanations that don't fit the evidence, e.g. fairies, gnomes, werewolves, trolls, yetis, gods etc. In this way they do not waste their time on nonsense.
I choose to keep an open mind about everything."
It's been said before bue bears repeating: By all means keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Expecting people to respect ideas with no demonstrable basis in reality is what's truly crazy.
"A proper scientist dismisses explanations that don't fit the evidence"
No. NO. NO. That's not science. A proper scientist does not dismiss anything, he rather proposes a hypothesis that fits the current empirical evidence and then devises tests to disprove it with the hope of popping up new evidence for or against the particular hypothesis in the process. He never dismisses an explanation. In science, no explanation is ever accepted as 100% immutable truth because new and peculiar things crop up all the time, therefore no explanation can truly be rejected. They are simply demonstrated to be very unlikely.
It has been the case that explanations that didn't fit the current evidence later became accepted as valid when new evidence was brought to light after prediction by hypothesis. The theory of continental drift, for instance, did not fit "the current evidence" because nobody had yet discovered a viable mechanism, and it was thus rejected by the narrow-minded souls who you seem to evince as "proper scientists". It didn't fit the evidence, you see.
Argue all you want about the existence of gods, or lack thereof, but get your bloody definitions right first otherwise you're just mouthing off without any basis in reality.
Just one question.
You talk about those preaching to already converts.
But then you say
"I guess to someone who has fully bought into the "I must have an explanation for everything, and fill it in with an intelligent creator where we don't have a full explanation" then Dawkin's and Hitchen's will come across as arrogant."
In what way aren't you one of the already converts. Why is it always assumed that a full explanation is only correct if there is no trace of creator/designer?
And just because religion has gone all wrong, I agree with you on that part. Does not mean that the other extremity is all right and well. In fact it's fundamentalism just as the other is fundamentalism.
Don't be blinded by others blindness. Hawing Dawkin's as your Pope would be no better. In fact it could become "nazi germany" all over again just other victims. Stop and think for your self instead and don't follow the blind leaders independent what type of leader they are.
There are a few countries that have been run by atheists, and it's no more beautiful story than compared with the fundamentalistic theist ruler-ships. I can name a few from both sides, can you?
"There are a few countries that have been run by atheists, and it's no more beautiful story than compared with the fundamentalistic theist ruler-ships. I can name a few from both sides, can you?"
Please do. And then please go onto explain how it is in any way sensible to lump in all people who are essentially only bound together by one philosophical statement - which is in essence a rejection of another one - as being in any way comparable to those who identify themselves as ascribing to a complete set of philosophical statements.
Because if you want to argue Hitler was an athiest (when the story is far more complex than that) in the same way Richard Dawkins is an atheist and hence if Richard Dawkins was Pope there would be a Holocaust you are so missing the point your target might as well be in a parallel reality.
Otherwise please continue on how the assertion "dieties don't exist," has any inductive logical outcomes on matters of morality, economics or politics that would be germain to the direction a country would take under the leadership of someone who held that particular assertion to be true.
He's lasted 7 years. In industry, what CEO presiding over falling customer numbers, reduced income, and general staff dissatisfaction, would have lasted so long? Especially as his recipe for fixing the problems as "OK, let's do things like we did last century. Or preferably the one before."
Even his takeover bid for the right wing of the Church of England was a dreadful flop.
The Roman Catholic Church needs to get the headhunters in. Richard Branson might demand more changes than they liked before accepting the job ("Stuff celibacy and let's move to my private island"), Larry Ellison might feel Papal infallibility didn't go far enough, but surely there's someone out there with a good track record?
Ah. Mark Zuckerberg. The very person.
He's only just got the job. Give him a chance to get in McKinsey and decide what to do with underperforming subsidiaries. Given that the Africans are net recipients of money and the Episcopalians and the Anglicans are cash generators, I think we can guess where this might end up.
"Cant be Rupert Murdoch. I think he is a Jew!"
Murdoch? offer him enough money and he will embrace Buddhism and become the next Dalai Lama. Turning him into a Christian should be cheaper, as Christianity is just another Judaic sect.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
