Vatican excludes Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens from atheist debate guest list

[DavidDvorkin]

The Pope wants a series of debates but he wants to be sure that the most effective atheist debaters are excluded.

Also known as stacking the deck.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Hitchens is a shit, so I have to give Cardinal Rat some dap for doing that. nt

[joeybee12]

3. I'd exclude Hitchens from everything...n/t

[Captain Hilts]

6. I hate him even when I agree with him. He's a first class shit. nt

[roguevalley]

36. he's a deplorable dipshit and he attackes people personally.

I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire. I hate the feel that way about anyone but he and dawson push my buttons hard. There are great debaters out there that don't carry heavy baggage like these two. I know some love them but I find their fundamentalist-type aggression no different than the fundamentalist-type agression from the other side. They both turn me off. IMHO.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. But he's a witty and sharp debater

And that's the reason he was excluded, not because of his shittiness.

[joeybee12]

14. Probably...but I'll only give you sharp, not witty...

caustic and hurtful, but not witty.

[Arkana]

23. It breaks my heart that Dawkins will not be allowed to strut his stuff.

[Deep13]

40. I don't agree.

I don't agree with everything Hitchens says, but on religious matters he's spot-on. Yeah, he's a drunk, but that's no concern of mine.

[Warpy]

2. Yeah, he's hoping they'll all be inarticulate and powerless

before his great powers of conversion.

Good luck, Ratz.

[Seneca]

4. Fuck the Funny Hat Man

"Irony and sarcasm"? Maybe - but never without logic and the facts. Who is this clown to tell us who is or is not "noble"? Doesn't he have some child rapists to protect?

I would love to see Hitchens rip the child rapist apologist a new one. But Dawkins would be a real treat.

[NC_Nurse]

8. My thoughts exactly.

[timtom]

38. It's kinda like DU.

Skinner, et al own this place, have made rules, and then invited certain people to join. Trolls are not welcome. Disruptors are not welcome. I'd even bet that Ann Coulter is not welcome.

The pope has done essentially the same thing. If I had a name and had been invited to the colloquium, I doubt that I would attend. Just as I wouldn't go to Free Republic.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ananda]

7. Chortle. If they did attend..

.. they might make a citizen's arrest, or at the least, win the debate!

Heaven forfend!

[rurallib]

9. related item: Indianapolis Cols choose to play Bloomington North

in Super Bowl.
ETA - even stacking the deck, the Ratsos will have a hard time selling their fairy tales.

[izquierdista]

10. Live people

Next on the list of people that are too effective to debate with the Vatican.

"You see, if we only allow Galileo and Copernicus and that Ingersoll fellow speak, we get the last word. Unfortunately, we don't have anything to counteract that Carlin video on YouTube..."

[fascisthunter]

11. lol... can't take it can ya?

well, Dawkins did a fine enough job in eviscerating the church for it's historically recorded actions.

[vixengrl]

12. They would rather be condescended to by "noble atheists"

than criticized, I think.

[madrchsod]

13. do the losers gets draw and quartered?

[UTUSN]

15. HaHAH, it's the Church of the Ostrich!1 n/t

[Festivito]

16. Sounds like those debates could use some commentary.

If they are stacking the deck, you should probably be able to make them look foolish.

Then, the atheists can hold a debate and invite the pope, or, whomever.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. That's not a bad idea

Dawkins and Hitchens could set up a debate and invite the Pope.

[Festivito]

18. Warning: I'm a long-time DU anti-atheism arguer.

But, I do want you to have a fair fight.

It should all be in good fun.

[DavidDvorkin]

19. Meaning that you argue against atheism?

Or against atheists? Or in favor of religion?

Personally, as a long-time atheist, I can't see the point of a debate, no matter how fair and open. The theist believes in the existence of God because of faith. The atheist requires proof. "I believe!" "Oh, yeah? Well, I don't?" "Oh, yeah? Well, I do!"

[Festivito]

26. Yes. Most atheists I talk with seem to be agnostics or Spinozaists.

And, I do like to know what people believe and especially why they believe it. (I like people who search for truth, and I don't trust people who say have the truth, whether that is the truth of God or the truth of atheism.)

But, my main reason to argue on DU is not being for or against atheism, it is that atheism has become to a degree the state religion -- bear with me. But, again, but, that's not the problem. The problem is the enforced lack of religion as a denial of free practice in what is the largest employer and largest landowner in the country is really pissing off the religious sector who would should and ought be a large voter block for Democrats and moreso for me: be strongly opposed to Republicans.

Unfortunately, the apoplectic responses I usually get, although not from you, tend to confuse words such as atheism and atheist and the meanings to a degree that I can only excuse these people by thinking they are off their meds.

I don't mean to vent. I'm just thinking back to all the pitfalls I've experienced around here. Type too much and they only respond to the last sentence. Type too little and everything previously said is ignored. I sometimes think I'm dealing with paid disruptors trying to keep that voting block from our side.

[darkstar3]

28. Your entire problem would seem to circle around

the fact that you believe atheism to be a religion. When you learn how much of a mistake that assumption is, you will lose your need to vent.

[Festivito]

29. Go piss in someone else's Cheerios.

You would deem my "entire problem" as wanting Dems to win to "circle around" one persons belief, specifically my belief. (Stupid.)

And, further, I did not say it here, you assume that I mean it, but don't expound on your assumption.

So, you jump in the middle, express yourself poorly showing what I mean when I speak about the DU vocal atheists.

Sad.

Please go away and piss somewhere else.

[darkstar3]

30. Funny you should use that phrase,

considering that what you do when you make statements regarding atheism as a religion, especially a state religion, is piss in a whole lot of people's cheerios.

STFU & GTFO.

ETA: It's also funny that in a prior post you should gripe about "apopletic responses" and then use one of your own. Have you no sense at all of irony, sir?

[Cleobulus]

31. WTF are you talking about, a "state religion"? Just because the government has to be neutral...

and secular, which may piss off a minority of people, doesn't mean it supports an official position on Atheism. Don't confuse the two. Secularism is both necessary and good in a pluralistic society, to argue otherwise means you advocate for some type of enforced conformity in religion. That is unconscionable.

[Festivito]

32. Government has to be secular? Can it mention religion? /nt

It seems a ridiculous statement.

[darkstar3]

33. Which religion?

Do the words "establishment clause" ring a bell?

[Festivito]

34. I was talking with someone else. Leave! /nt

[darkstar3]

35. Poor bastard.

You still don't understand the concept of an open forum, do you? That the question came from someone else makes it no less legitimate. Do you know of the establishment clause, or not? Do you see how a non-secular government allowed to mention religion at will would violate the establishment clause?

[Cleobulus]

37. Of course, in generalities, but the Government should not encourage or discourage people to...

follow any religion in any way.

[trotsky]

39. When the majority religion in this country is something other than Christianity,

and if you're still around, you'll probably be tooting the establishment clause horn louder than anyone else.

[skepticscott]

46. The state religion? Enforced lack of religion?

That would be really hysterical if it weren't so completely wrong. How many self-professed atheists are in Congress, as opposed to Christians or Jews? How many in the cabinet? Or on the Supreme Court? Why are people less likely to vote for an atheist for public office than members of just about any religious group? Why does every candidate for president in the US (and most other important public offices too) have to loudly and openly profess their religious faith in order to be taken seriously? Why do we have a National Day of (Christian) Prayer, but not any type of recognition of non-belief? I could go on and on, but why beat to death a point that sensible people already get?

And who has been denied the "free practice" of their religion in this country by any of what you're ranting about?

[Arkana]

22. "Anti-atheism"?

How is one "anti-atheist"?

[laconicsax]

24. Presumably by believing in every god ever imagined. n/t

[Festivito]

27. How does one change words and then ask about their own word choice?

Perhaps if you take the words apart and put them back together.

[struggle4progress]

20. "If, as the Bible makes clear, God is Justice and Love, then who are

the contemporary atheists? Those who wear the label, but fight for a civilization based on equality and love ...? Or those who believe in God but as an idol who blesses and protects their power and possessions in a world divided into rich and poor?"

from the cover of "Atheism and Liberation," by Venezuelan Jesuit Antonio Perez-Esclarin, English translation 1978 published by the Catholic Foreign Missionary Society of America's Orbis Books

[Deep13]

42. The Bible does not describe a loving or just god. nt

[struggle4progress]

47. As you read it

[laconicsax]

50. As it's written.

The god of the Bible is vindictive, petty, and jealous.

[struggle4progress]

51. ... He .. said, "Teach me the Torah while I stand on one foot,"

... Hillel .. said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; everything else is commentary" ... Tractate Shabbath 31a

There are readings other than yours

[darkstar3]

52. Just about as many readings as there are people.

Now how can they all be holy, true, or even useful?

[laconicsax]

55. Duh! The ones you agree with are true, the others are false.

The true ones are holy and useful, the false ones aren't.

Didn't you ever read the handbook when you were a theist? It's one of the rules...#75 I think.

[laconicsax]

53. Bible > Torah.

Didn't you know that? The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. The entire Tanakh is a long narrative about a vindictive, petty, jealous god, and the New Testament isn't much better.

Either way, Hillel's lesson requires such a selective reading of the Torah that most of it needs to be discarded or written off as "commentary."

Hell, right off the bat, Sir. Smites-a-Lot creates Adam and Eve without a sense of right and wrong, then severely punishes them for not knowing the difference between right and wrong. What a just and loving god.

Later, after seeing that no one is living up to his ideals, he massacres everyone (infants included) save one family with livestock. What a just and loving god.

Shortly thereafter, some people get together to build a tower. God, presumably feeling threatened by a large phallic representation, destroys the tower, scatters the workers, and makes them unable to understand each other. What a just, loving, and certainly not-jealous god.

A while later, god decides that a couple of towns are so depraved that everyone should die, infants included. He sends some angels down to see if anyone is worth saving and, finding a guy who offers up his daughters to a rape-gang, they save him and God destroys the towns (he kills Lot's wife too out of spite). What a just and loving god.

Fast-forward a few generations and his 'chosen' people are enslaved. What does he do? He tells one of them (a murderer) to go demand freedom for the Israelites. Rather than just letting the pharaoh say, "sure, why not?" he manipulates Pharaoh to say no, then punishes him for doing so ten times! Finally, after killing the first-born sons of every Egyptian household, God decides that he's had his fun and stops making Pharaoh say no. What a just and loving god.

A little while later, said 'chosen' people are at the foot of a mountain receiving laws. What are the first few laws? "Worship me and no one or nothing else!" What a not-jealous god!

Need I continue through the last three books of the Torah and examine the petty laws handed down from on high?

[Arkana]

21. Looks like he doesn't want to debate the A-team of atheism.

Is Michael Newdow invited?

[struggle4progress]

25. The intent is probably not debate but discussion, with the aim of exposing

common ground

[skepticscott]

44. Such discussions are intended only

to give the RCC a warm and fuzzy veneer, and to make them look conciliatory, as opposed to rigid and uncompromising. But they are nothing more than hypocritical puffery in the end, and even more so now that Ratzi is in charge. The Catholic church firmly maintains that it is the one and only True Church, and that all other religions are false or flawed, and do not lead to salvation. Even within Christianity, their position is that all other denominations are deficient in some way. It's hard to see that any important common ground can be reached in a meeting between the Pope and a room full of atheists (or Jewish or Muslim leaders), when what he's really thinking all along is "You are all going to hell!"

In the end, I suppose, the best that can be hoped for is that the various religious factions can coexist without slaughtering each other and taking innocent people with them.

[struggle4progress]

48. Their aim is "a better dialogue with other cultures and faith, including those with no religion"

according to the article

Vatican reaches out to atheists – but not you, Richard Dawkins
By Jerome Taylor, Religious Affairs Correspondent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-reaches-out-to-atheists-ndash-but-not-you-richard-dawkins-1987518.html

[darkstar3]

49. Do you take all claims at face value?

Does credibility enter into your calculations at all?

[struggle4progress]

54. Of course. So could you post your bank account info and social security number please?

I just got an email from Nigeria saying that world peace would result if I could provide a list of various people's bank accounts together with their social security numbers

[skepticscott]

56. Try thinking a little deeper

for a change and ask yourself what their real purpose (as opposed to their stated purpose) is for this so-called "dialogue". Then we'll talk.

[struggle4progress]

57. I understand there is no chance you will examine any of the texts I have mentioned

at various times in this forum, such as

Belo's Materialist Reading of the Gospel of Mark

Bentley's account of the Marxist-Christian dialogue in Europe Between Marx and Christ, or

Bloch's challenging Atheism in Christianity, or

Miranda's Marx and the Bible, or

Perez-Esclarin's Atheism and Liberation, published over 30 years ago by a Catholic Missionary society (see #20 above)

or anything else suggesting a long history of productive dialogue between people with different worldviews. You will, I suppose, simply dismiss such references as "Courier's reply" -- but to me they show that useful insights can result when discussion circles carefully around points of agreement

[skepticscott]

58. Perhaps you'd care to actually list some of those insights

and justify why they are "useful", instead of just resorting to your usual name-dropping. With a veritable library of such wisdom at your fingertips, that should be easy, right? And while you're at it, please provide your wisdom about what the Catholic Church hopes to gain from a "dialogue" with people that it knows it has as little hope of convincing of anything as they themselves have of being convinced, and that it is completely and utterly certain are all going to hell.

What does the Catholic Church expect will be different after this "dialogue", other than their PR image? Is the Catholic church prepared to give ground on anything, or to alter their doctrine or practices in even the tiniest way as a result of a discussion with atheists? Will they come out of it saying, sincerely "wow, we never thought of things that way before"? Or will be treated to some insubstantial but obligatory mush about "connections" and "building bridges" and the like? We both know the answer to that.

[struggle4progress]

59. My point: such dialogue has a long pedigree

[skepticscott]

60. So do war, bigotry, slavery, genocide

and a few other pleasant things I could name. So your point would be what?

And, as usual, when asked for anything substantial to back up your cut-and-paste claims, you turn into Duck Dodgers.

[struggle4progress]

61. A counterfeit dialogue like this has not nutritional value. Bye.

:hi:

[skepticscott]

62. I asked you to introduce something substantial

into the discussion, instead of a list of meaningless book titles, and you refused.

See you in the 24th and 1/2 Century.

[Deep13]

41. Not clear what a debate is supposed to accomplish.

If they want the truth, investigate the evidence.

[Onceuponalife]

43. Of course the pope would not want two of the smartest atheists

in the debate. He is a coward.