jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (9 posts)

Would you rather sit down and have a talk with Dawkins or the Pope? Why?

  1. The Demon Writer profile image66
    The Demon Writerposted 7 years ago

    Would you rather sit down and have a talk with Dawkins or the Pope? Why?

    I would go with the Pope. It would be a very intense conversation that mostly involved me trying to convince the Pope that Catholicism is a bad thing.

  2. Lady Wordsmith profile image81
    Lady Wordsmithposted 7 years ago

    Do we have to choose?  I'd rather sit down and talk with both of them together actually.  I could probably sit there and not say and word, and let them both thrash it all out.  That would be fun.  But I suppose that the Pope might feel that he was being ganged up on being in a room with two atheists, and that wouldn't be something that I'd want to happen.  I'd like the Pope to feel comfortable, so that I could have a good chat with him about why I think his religion gets so many things wrong. 

    I used to be a Catholic - well, had a vaguely Catholic upbringing, in that I went to a Catholic church now and again, and I was told that I was a Catholic.  Thankfully for me, I grew out of it smile

    Love and peace to all!


  3. The Demon Writer profile image66
    The Demon Writerposted 7 years ago

    Linda, you just described me perfectly. We have very much in common it seems!

  4. profile image0
    Chasukposted 7 years ago

    I'm an atheist, but I pick the Pope. I know all of the answers to the questions I might ask Dawkins; I've read his books. Further, I have no interest in changing his mind on any topic. He promotes no evil, whereas I feel the Pope does. Maybe if he talked to me, he would be persuaded of this. Of course, this is unlikely, but stranger things have happened,

  5. tom_caton profile image81
    tom_catonposted 7 years ago

    If the pope could be given some sort of truth serum...

  6. peterxdunn profile image59
    peterxdunnposted 7 years ago

    I would like to interrogate the pope. I would ask him, 'When you were the previous pope's enforcer - what was it, exactly, that you enforced?' (I know the answer to this question - a bit of googling should get you there)

    I would also ask him to explain why he allows some catholics: filipinos for example, to believe that he speaks the word of god. This has led to situation where desperately poor people: that barely make a living crawling all over rubbish tips looking for scraps, have more and more children because the pope says that using contraception is a sin. Children are being born to families that live on the streets - they will grow up on the streets - and when some shopkeeper decides that the presence of these street urchins is bad for business he will shoot them and they will die on the streets.

    Dawkins speaks for himself - both eloquently and eruditely - through his books and lectures. I would suggest that people read his stuff before attempting to engage him in converstion.

  7. Tusitala Tom profile image61
    Tusitala Tomposted 7 years ago

    I'm inclined to think along the lines of Westman Todd Shaw.   Closed minds in both instances, I'd say. 

    Of course, I have my own views, opinions which I like to believe are the truth (an ever-evolving one with me) but I'm pretty sure that whatever I come up with is really only a philsophy I can live with.   It may be 'my truth,' but I know it's not the WHOLE Truth.

  8. nightwork4 profile image60
    nightwork4posted 7 years ago

    the pope only because then i could tell him how much damage his religion and his only personal stupidity does to this planet.

  9. Rob Hanlon profile image60
    Rob Hanlonposted 7 years ago

    To choose between the two mentioned, it would be Dawkins ~ though one person I'd love to have a chat with is Leonard Cohen because he would be infinitely better company I would imagine.

Closed to reply