Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
If it causes unnecessary harm to other beings, it’s wrong.
[/quote]

But why is causing unnecessary harm to other beings wrong? Other than your “feeling” it is so?[/quote]

…his other quote read, “We all know pedophilia is wrong because it causes suffering to a defenseless child for purely selfish sexual gratification.” Do you agree with this scenario?[/quote]

Sure I agree with it. But then, I’m not an atheist making this assertion.

If there is no God, then I would just like to hear a justification for why causing suffering to a child is wrong. Just saying “it causes suffering to a defenseless child” doesn’t in and of itself make the act wrong.

23

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?

Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”

This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.

Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]

…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]

Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.

What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]

…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades!

24

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Wolves are known to kill for no other reason than the thrill and the bloodlust of the kill. No consumption of the victim. Is this wrong? Are these wolves evil?[/quote]

I reckon they’d be arrested if they ever set foot in Heathrow.

25

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?

Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”

This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.

Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]

…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]

Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.

What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]

…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades![/quote]

Have fun making your point, Eph. You are arguing something I never brought up nor had any intention of arguing.

26

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
If it causes unnecessary harm to other beings, it’s wrong.
[/quote]

But why is causing unnecessary harm to other beings wrong? Other than your “feeling” it is so?[/quote]

…his other quote read, “We all know pedophilia is wrong because it causes suffering to a defenseless child for purely selfish sexual gratification.” Do you agree with this scenario?[/quote]

Sure I agree with it. But then, I’m not an atheist making this assertion.

If there is no God, then I would just like to hear a justification for why causing suffering to a child is wrong. Just saying “it causes suffering to a defenseless child” doesn’t in and of itself make the act wrong.

[/quote]

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…

27

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?

Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”

This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.

Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]

…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]

Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.

What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]

…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades![/quote]

Have fun making your point, Eph. You are arguing something I never brought up nor had any intention of arguing.
[/quote]

…no worries mate, the hole Rome is digging for itself is too deep to crawl out from unscathed…

28

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
If it causes unnecessary harm to other beings, it’s wrong.
[/quote]

But why is causing unnecessary harm to other beings wrong? Other than your “feeling” it is so?[/quote]

…his other quote read, “We all know pedophilia is wrong because it causes suffering to a defenseless child for purely selfish sexual gratification.” Do you agree with this scenario?[/quote]

Sure I agree with it. But then, I’m not an atheist making this assertion.

If there is no God, then I would just like to hear a justification for why causing suffering to a child is wrong. Just saying “it causes suffering to a defenseless child” doesn’t in and of itself make the act wrong.

[/quote]

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

If it’s so obvious, you should have no problem justifying for us just why this is so.

(btw, “religious damnation” is not the reason most Christians use to justify our own moral opposition to this practice)

29

WRONG â??verb (used with object)
12. to do wrong to; treat unfairly or unjustly; harm.

  1. to impute evil to (someone) unjustly; malign.

Just the English language, no God here.

30

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?

Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”

This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.

Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]

…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]

Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.

What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]

…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades![/quote]

Have fun making your point, Eph. You are arguing something I never brought up nor had any intention of arguing.
[/quote]

…no worries mate, the hole Rome is digging for itself is too deep to crawl out from unscathed…
[/quote]

The people who perpetrated these crimes should be punished and the victims or potential victims protected. I’m pretty sure I already said that once.

31

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?

Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”

This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.

Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]

…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]

Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.

What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]

…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades![/quote]

Have fun making your point, Eph. You are arguing something I never brought up nor had any intention of arguing.
[/quote]

…no worries mate, the hole Rome is digging for itself is too deep to crawl out from unscathed…
[/quote]

The people who perpetrated these crimes should be punished and the victims or potential victims protected. I’m pretty sure I already said that once.[/quote]

…and apparently those crimes reach the highest echelons of the catholic church, and as such the pope should be held accountable for those crimes…

33

[quote]AceRock wrote:
WRONG â??verb (used with object)
12. to do wrong to; treat unfairly or unjustly; harm.

  1. to impute evil to (someone) unjustly; malign.

Just the English language, no God here.
[/quote]

Both definitions beg dearly for a further definition of terms.

What is fair? How is it measured? What is justice? What is evil?

See push’s question about wolves posed above, if you plan on continuing to pursue this using your previous argument.

34

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

If it’s so obvious, you should have no problem justifying for us just why this is so.

(btw, “religious damnation” is not the reason most Christians use to justify our own moral opposition to this practice)[/quote]

…because i say it’s wrong to sexually abuse a defenseless child. Because the law states it’s wrong. What more do you need?

35

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

The people who perpetrated these crimes should be punished and the victims or potential victims protected. I’m pretty sure I already said that once.[/quote]

…and apparently those crimes reach the highest echelons of the catholic church, and as such the pope should be held accountable for those crimes…
[/quote]

And I’ll bet that Richard Dawkins is just the man for the job. Godspeed you, Mr. Dawkins…err…I mean, good luck!

36

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

If it’s so obvious, you should have no problem justifying for us just why this is so.

(btw, “religious damnation” is not the reason most Christians use to justify our own moral opposition to this practice)[/quote]

…because i say it’s wrong to sexually abuse a defenseless child. Because the law states it’s wrong. What more do you need?[/quote]

I say tomayto, you say tomahto, and pedophiles say something else. What makes your opinion more valid than theirs?

And:

Are all laws moral ones? Was pedophilia, then, okay in ancient Greece?

37

Well, the term wrong seemed to beg for further definition.

And you conveniently skipped over part of 12: HARM.

It seems obvious to me that to harm another being is inherently wrong, and it also seems obvious to me that you agree with me on this feeling.

You just want me to justify it without God. Like that makes our similar feelings different somehow.

I have my reasoning and logic to fall back on, and you have your faith in God.

What’s the difference, if we reach the same conclusion? Are we arguing semantics cuz we’re bored? Obviously.

Oh, and Push, wolves are just badass. It’s how they roll.

39

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Well, the term wrong seemed to beg for further definition.

And you conveniently skipped over part of 12: HARM.

It seems obvious to me that to harm another being is inherently wrong, and it also seems obvious to me that you agree with me on this feeling.

You just want me to justify it without God. Like that makes our similar feelings different somehow.

I have my reasoning and logic to fall back on, and you have your faith in God.

What’s the difference, if we reach the same conclusion? Are we arguing semantics cuz we’re bored? Obviously.

Oh, and Push, wolves are just badass. It’s how they roll.[/quote]

The difference is that you have not justified your “reasoning” that harming a child is “wrong.”

Here, I’ll change the question a little bit for you to make is easier on you:

I think you’ll agree with me when I say that pretty well EVERYONE, atheists and religious nutcases alike, excepting complete sociopaths, believes that harming a child is wrong. If so:

Why do you think this is? Specifically, why is it that, as you say, we have both reached the same conclusion?