That is one of the worst articles I've ever read... Adding Daniel "lame" Came to the list of fuckwit journalists.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Australia's most senior Catholic charged with sex offences
- Thread starter malg
- Start date
That is one of the worst articles I've ever read... Adding Daniel "lame" Came to the list of fuckwit journalists.
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,819
That is one of the worst articles I've ever read.
why ?
If he is a psychopath then naturally he would claim his innocence of the charges.
He was "friends" with convicted child sex abusers and new what was going on in areas he was responsible for many years especially in Ballarat Victoria and did nothing to address it other than attempt to pay off those who were affected ( many committed suicide ).
Never reporting the matters to higher authorities at the time , sweeping it under the carpet , trying to buy off innocent victims to keep it out of the press and away from the police guise.
For a person in his position he deserves jail time for these sins alone.
The police would not have charged him unless they had more than here say evidence from those that have come forward.
I don't like his chances of returning to the Vatican but we shall see.
He was "friends" with convicted child sex abusers and new what was going on in areas he was responsible for many years especially in Ballarat Victoria and did nothing to address it other than attempt to pay off those who were affected ( many committed suicide ).
Never reporting the matters to higher authorities at the time , sweeping it under the carpet , trying to buy off innocent victims to keep it out of the press and away from the police guise.
For a person in his position he deserves jail time for these sins alone.
The police would not have charged him unless they had more than here say evidence from those that have come forward.
I don't like his chances of returning to the Vatican but we shall see.
why ?
I don't have all day but his attack on what he calls "new atheism" is that the Big Bang and evolution don't explain how life and the universe started, when the Big Bang actually does describe how the universe started and evolution isn't the theory of life starting.
His defence of Craig is an appalling piece of justification and he fails to acknowledge what atheism really is throughout - a rejection of the evidence (or lack of) in a deity.
It's a shocker.
Yup. Some of the recent books I've read about the beginning of the universe (or at least, um, this one) are utterly mind blowing. Actually about 3/4 through Brian Greene's Hidden Reality...akin to reading William Burroughs at times. A bit pop science maybe, but really mind blowing theories (I'm not quite ready for reading papers yet...I need easing into the Quantum world). Best reading it from the horses mouth rather than a newspaper journalist.
To keep the debate open, if there is an all seeing 'creator' it would be wholly unimaginable for our species (there's a good explanation knocking around why we won't be part of a 'computer program' that involves the sheer number of atoms - and the even deeper parts at Planck level - and their position in space/time..which you'll need information for...thats one big hard drive).
I don't know a great deal about all this..but it makes fascinating reading and a bearded god new seems as twee as Enid Blyton.
To keep the debate open, if there is an all seeing 'creator' it would be wholly unimaginable for our species (there's a good explanation knocking around why we won't be part of a 'computer program' that involves the sheer number of atoms - and the even deeper parts at Planck level - and their position in space/time..which you'll need information for...thats one big hard drive).
I don't know a great deal about all this..but it makes fascinating reading and a bearded god new seems as twee as Enid Blyton.
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,819
I don't have all day but his attack on what he calls "new atheism" is that the Big Bang and evolution don't explain how life and the universe started, when the Big Bang actually does describe how the universe started and evolution isn't the theory of life starting.
His defence of Craig is an appalling piece of justification and he fails to acknowledge what atheism really is throughout - a rejection of the evidence (or lack of) in a deity.
It's a shocker.
think the main point is Dawkins doesnt debate against apologists like hithchins did
think the main point is Dawkins doesnt debate against apologists like hithchins did
Well yes that's true but the article still stinks.
I prefer Hitchens out of the two and he was far more affective against religious apologists but Dawkins is a scientist first and foremost and probably has other interests.
Well yes that's true but the article still stinks.
I prefer Hitchens out of the two and he was far more affective against religious apologists but Dawkins is a scientist first and foremost and probably has other interests.
quite agree he seems to have a short fuse with regards those who disregard scientific fact to support faith re the pell video and others and certainly when souls and the like are peddled out to support a deity
quite agree he seems to have a short fuse with regards those who disregard scientific fact to support faith re the pell video and others and certainly when souls and the like are peddled out to support a deity
Hitchens was the ultimate and when you watch Dawkins debate, there's so many times when you think "Hitchens would have won this argument easily by now".
Zin 'messiah' Zimmer
Well-Known Member
Religion is like many things, but let me use money, for the example...
There is the power of good with money; you can live well with it, you can help others with it and you can live a life of contentment.
There's the power of evil with money; you can think it's the only thing that matters, you can act like your view is the only view and you can be utterly corrupted by it.
I'm not particularly religious by any stretch, but I don't have a definitive answer for existence of a Higher Power or not, because I don't pertain to know what's outside my Bubble anymore than Hawkins or The Pope. Hawkins' arguments wins are because he debates with people that have a 'literal' viewpoint.
One's knowledge is contained to the learning one is limited to.
So, for example, if 'The Bible' was written at a time where expression was limited, then that's what people learned. So, if the universe was created in 'six days' as some followers believe, they interpret that in the literal sense. Just a smidgen of the arguments against that view would be 'from what perspective are they presuming the length of a 'day' when they are talking about a Higher Power's version of 'Time'?
Anyway, I'm not going to debate the Christian/ Muslim religion's flaws as I would be here all day!!
I can't be arsed today, I have Jap porn to watch!
Oh, by the way I'm glad the dirty priest has been charged and I hope The Pope makes him go and face the music! That would be awesome!!
I can see hundreds of priests jumping from a high point, should the charges are ever upheld!
You should stick to the last film you saw thread, Bigg, theology may be a stretch (:
As for priests facing the music.... your understanding of the Catholic Church must be quite sheltered, this is but another dirty old bastard, protected by his institution and canon law.. he'll end up with 3 Hail Marys and a reclusive lifestyle in one of the many retreats owned by the Vatican...
To put this in to perspective, the current popes main advisor has been pardoned on 2 separate incidents due to his astounding work in the 'charity' sector...
Burn that shit down!!!