…and this is a 
Bill Donohue, the vitriolic cranky grandpa of the Catholic League, has a guest column in the Washington Post. It's not very interesting — it's more of Donohue's tedious yapping about communists, godless libertines (that is, those wicked gays), and how the ACLU is out to smash Judeo-Christian culture — but it ends on a strange note I hear a lot lately.
The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they're too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels.
Where does this nonsense come from? It's wishful thinking and weird stereotyping and a kind of desperate hope that, while they may be totally outclassed on the intellectual front, religious conservatives can find solace in mindless rabbity procreation. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have my children propagate by way of the wastefully prolific r strategies. They are human beings, and they shouldn't aspire to be lagomorphs or rodents or blatellids.
Also, when I recollect the many godless people I have known, most are fairly conventional middle class couples (self-selection, of course — most of the people I know are like me, conventional and middle class); most have a small number of children; most are concerned with raising those kids well. I also know gay atheists, atheists who are unmarried, atheists who are young and getting married, atheists who are in childless relationships by choice, etc. It's true, I don't know any atheists who have chosen to breed like rabbits.
Strangely enough, though, I also know a number of ordinary Christian people, and they all seem to have roughly equivalent demographics: middle class, some with kids, some without, some heterosexual, some homosexual, all diverse and following their own paths. I did know a few Mormons who bred like rabbits in Utah (one woman I knew had 15 kids!), but that was also correlated with a weird kind of poverty that was deeply dependent on government support, and wasn't a model for family life that I was ever tempted to follow.
I suspect that the whole of the difference in reproduction rates that people like Donohue find so essential to propping up their self-esteem has nothing to do with atheism or religion at all, but is more a matter of affluence: people with wealth and education choose to have fewer children and invest more in the few that they have, and also people with more education tend to abandon conservative religious beliefs. That's the real enemy of religion that Bill needs to rail against: intelligence and material success.
Which leads to my deepest wish for Bill Donohue and all the people like him. May your children and grandchildren be prosperous, healthy, and happy, and may they all succeed in finding wisdom in learning. And if my wish should come true, your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be more like me than like you. Godlessness is cultural, not genetic.
Oh, and in a final ironic twist, I am a fellow of perfectly ordinary conventional morality with a family and three healthy, well-adjusted, and well-educated children. Mr Donohue is divorced and has two children. Despite my radical secularism and cultural nihilism, I've managed to outbreed him!
Comments
Posted by: Shygetz | October 20, 2009 10:11 AM
Wait a minute...this Catholic scold is DIVORCED!?!?
I call shenanigans.
Posted by: JackC
|
October 20, 2009 10:11 AM
I have a dream - more a mental image really - that a large percentage of the horrid "Quiverfull" movement children become educated and see the Light of Atheism before they reach majority.
That would be such poetic justice.
JC
Posted by: Kobra
|
October 20, 2009 10:11 AM
How appropriate that they (those among the lower half of the IQ distribution graph) would reduce themselves to the behavior of nonhuman societies (I might be grossly misusing that word, but I'm not a bio major, so please don't let it bug you too much).
Posted by: Jack
|
October 20, 2009 10:12 AM
Of course, the biggest fallacy with this line of stupidity is the inconvenient fact that religious belief (and, indeecd, atheism) is not hereditary. Many atheists come from religious parents. I do. Lots of us do.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
October 20, 2009 10:14 AM
Yeah, I thought the trendy thing to do was to get an annulment. That way you don't have to call it a divorce.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 20, 2009 10:19 AM
Ahhhhhh. I thought I felt a warm wind blowing out of the North this morning, now I know why
Posted by: Rorschach | October 20, 2009 10:21 AM
Interesting choice of words for a catholic "every sperm is sacred" person, this "breed like rabbits" rhetoric.
I dont know much about the WaPo's usual journalistic credentials, but their requirements for the quality of guest columns dont seem to be all that high.
Posted by: Holytape | October 20, 2009 10:23 AM
Are you sure Bill Donohue isn't a cast member of Monty Python in drag? I can help but think that every sperm is sacred. How far is his brain demented by syphilis, if he can sit down and think, “hmm breeding like rabbits is a virtue.” May, just maybe, all of his anger at women and homosexuals stem from a deep seated sexual frustration. Mainly, he isn’t getting any now that his ex-wife dumped him.
I wonder he would find this offensive ? It does display Santo Nino de Atocha is a heroic light.
Posted by: Queue | October 20, 2009 10:23 AM
The strangest line in that screed, for me at least, is the suggestion that godly people don't own dogs, or at the very least are lazy dog owners.
How is it that dog walking is equated with the anonymous sex at bathhouses and indescriminate aborting of children as a means of birth control?
Bill must be a Pharyngula reader, he saw your post about the altruism of godless dogs in Chile and decided that they must be four leggeded minions of the devil.
Posted by: Silmarillion
|
October 20, 2009 10:29 AM
Well both my parents are Catholic and us kids all turned out atheist or gay, so well done to them I say. Although Donahue's mention of "bathhouses" has me wondering. Are there secret atheist meetings going on down there that I don't know about?
Posted by: DaveX | October 20, 2009 10:30 AM
Donohue needs to remember that our kids don't necessarily inherit our point of view-- though I certainly hope rationality proves catching to my kids!
Posted by: ERV
|
October 20, 2009 10:32 AM
...they're too busy walking their dogs...
LOL, wut?
Posted by: Holytape | October 20, 2009 10:34 AM
Personally, I aborted at least half dozen kids on my morning dog walk. At least, I bring along and old bread bag to pick up the fetuses. Unlike other rude liberals who leave their aborted fetuses on the sidewalk.
Also if we are too busy going to bathhouses for homosexual orgies, where are all of the fetuses coming from? There are only two possibilities, either us liberals are kidnapping the rabbit-breeders, and aborting their itty bitty babies. Which would explain the bible thumpers high birth rate, they are simply imploring the old survival method of swamping the predators, kind of like cicadas. Or all of the fetuses are the result of virgin impregnations. Jesus keeps trying to come back, but he always ends up in the baby oven of some liberal and gets the coat hanger. It all makes sense.
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=31723563” Maami Wata
Damn my slow typing for my apparent copycat statement at #8.
Posted by: Sean Wills | October 20, 2009 10:36 AM
Yeah, that dog-walking pandemic is really killing the secular sabotage movement. Damn you, canine welfare charities! Why did you have to make them look so cute and vulnerable in your ads?
Seriously, are we sure Donohue is serious with this? I wouldn't put anything past him, mind you, but still...
Posted by: JackC
|
October 20, 2009 10:37 AM
Forgot to add - three offspring here as well, and an in excess of 26-year marriage going strong. Only one, thank you. All three harmonics are quite capable of rational thought on their own, are quite artistic and I am very pleased with the results so far.
Put that in your smug pipe and smoke it, Billo.
JC
Posted by: marie-annick
|
October 20, 2009 10:37 AM
Just for the record, I'm a gaytheist with one son. He's a skeptical little bugger too. Last year, he wouldn't let me get away with telling him St. Nicholas put candy in his shoes on Dec. 6th. I eventually had to tell him that we put the candy there to honour the memory of a nice man who was called St. Nicholas.
Posted by: Randomfactor | October 20, 2009 10:39 AM
What Donohue doesn't seem to grasp is that we don't *HAVE* to outbreed the god-botherers.
We're converting *THEIR* children. And there's not a damned thing they can do about it but breed us some more potential converts
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 20, 2009 10:39 AM
Interesting choice of words for a catholic "every sperm is sacred" person, this "breed like rabbits" rhetoric.
Speaking of "every sperm is sacred":
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/25955.html
(No, I won't link to the anchoress). They really are a semen cult.
Posted by: Sean Wills
|
October 20, 2009 10:40 AM
Yeah, that dog-walking pandemic is really killing the secular sabotage movement. Damn you, canine welfare charities! Why did you have to make them look so cute and vulnerable in your ads?
Seriously, are we sure Donohue is serious with this? I wouldn't put anything past him, mind you, but still...
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
October 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Well, except for the bath houses and abortions, my wife and I fit the bill. Childless by choice, 2 dogs and 4 cats. However, my wife has noticed that the strongest correlation between a couple's decision not to breed is with concern for the environment. Humans are pretty much a blight. Bill doesn't see that with 7 billion folks on the planet, his brainless rabbit-like fecundity is a surer path to oblivion than a mere decision not to breed.
We humans are probably on our way out. It's just a matter of how many species we take with us. But, then, Bill wouldn't care about stuff like that.
Posted by: JackC
|
October 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Holytape - I am REALLY glad I finished my breakfast BEFORE reading that Etsy page. I hate it when cereal comes out my nose.
JC
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 20, 2009 10:46 AM
I already made the comparison to anything Donohue writes with spoiled milk in another thread... so I'm not going to bother reading his drivel in the WaPo or anywhere else... I already know it's gonna stink and trigger my gag reflex. Don't get me wrong... I like to stay informed and keep up to date with what the opposition writes and says... but some people, for me, have gone beyond the point where anything they say or write has enough merit to even consider reviewing. Donohue has long been on that list for me.
As far as the whole "atheists don't breed" meme... we all know that's just uber-stupid. I come from a family of 5 kids, all raised in strictly roman catholic Charlestown, MA (a burgh of Boston)... all with catholic school in our background.... and besides myself, my other siblings consist of 2 atheists, one "twice a year" catholic, and a "none". I see little hope for our kids being big into the church either.
Posted by: Lau P. | October 20, 2009 10:47 AM
Just a little fun and games for you: Bill gets killed.
http://www.southparkstudios.dk/episodes/1105/
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM
|
October 20, 2009 10:48 AM
The dog walking crack is a reference to two things. First, the idea that secular married couples are so busy with their careers, therefore turning their backs on the big sky daddy, that they neglect to have children. So they have dogs to place in the child void. Second, GLBT couples that insist in not being in heterosexual relationships. They cannot conceive (We will ignore adoption and artificial conception.), therefore they have dogs to fill the child void.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 20, 2009 10:48 AM
So let me get this straight... He watched Idiocracy and nobody told him that world isn't one to aspire to?
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | October 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Is it still OK in the US to obliquely refer to homosexuals as those who go to bathhouses? Presumably other stereotypes are OK too, so there shouldn't be any outcry at all over the 'fried-chicken community' or the 'money-lending ethnicity'. Perhaps even the 'men who wear black dresses and rape choirboys demographic'? I can't believe the WP would publish something so offensive, but perhaps I am simply too innocent.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 20, 2009 10:52 AM
He has obviously seen the first 10 minutes of the film "idiocracy" and decided that this would be a good thing. Methinks he shold watch the rest of the movie. Although to be honest, he might think such dystopia is a good thing.
Posted by: Hillary Rettig / www.lifelongactivist.com | October 20, 2009 10:53 AM
isn't anyone else astonished that a major newspaper would run such a hate-filled screed? I mean, it's completely unacceptable and over the top, even by the degraded standards of today's journalism.
everytime I start to feel sorry for the newspapers, I see something like this and am reminded why I can't wait for them to fail.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 10:56 AM
He's just following right-wing nutjob dogma. In his delusional mind, you're BORN a catholic, unlike teh ebil gheys who choose to be that way.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 20, 2009 10:56 AM
I can't believe the WP would publish something so offensive, but perhaps I am simply too innocent.
The WaPo, particularly the op-ed pages, is pretty much worthless.
Posted by: bobh | October 20, 2009 10:56 AM
Another secular liberal - 5 kids, all secular liberals. Take that Donohue!
Posted by: Ronald Kephart | October 20, 2009 10:57 AM
"I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have my children propagate by way of the wastefully prolific k strategies."
PZ, Didn't you mean r- strategies (as opposed to K- strategies)?
Ron
Posted by: Valhar2000 | October 20, 2009 10:57 AM
An idiot wrote:
Because, as we all know, good christians are so busy screwing (in a godly way) that they'd rather let their dogs poop on the kitchen floor.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 20, 2009 11:00 AM
Damn Tabby beat me to it. Damn you pharyngula grammar nazis for making me double check my spelling and grammar (even though i still missed one)
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 20, 2009 11:01 AM
The dog walking thing strikes me about the same as my local troll's WoW arguments (that I hope he's really given up on):
Obviously, because we're geeks, it's expected that we're obese poopsockers so into the game we detach from reality and rely on Wikipedia to tell us everything. That's why we do such pointless things as calling him on his logical fallacies instead of revering his anecdotes as infallible proclamations from the ivory tower.
Posted by: Richie | October 20, 2009 11:06 AM
You most certainly meant r not K. Weeds and rabbits follow the r syndrome whereas species that dominate in a stable environment tend to be K strategists.
Posted by: Russell | October 20, 2009 11:13 AM
Yeah, they seem to pin their hopes on a "rabid, conservative gene."
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 11:18 AM
Hillary Rettig @ #28:
Not at all. Less than a decade ago, we had people using a tragedy resulting in the deaths of thousands as an opportunity to attack their political opponents on national television. More recently, a U.S. Senator was falsely accused of treason, again on national television, solely because he was a Muslim, and the man who made that accusation now has his own show, even though there are rumors that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, rumors that he has made no effort whatsoever to address. False and hateful accusations are the lifeblood of the American right wing. To this day, they screech at the top of their lungs the most vile slanders against the President of the United States, to a national audience of idiots that hangs on their every word, less than a year after calling everyone who dared disagree with the last President a traitor. Nationally syndicated columnists (not guest columnists but paid regulars) are comparing Obama to Hitler, without the slightest hint of irony or shame. How is Donowhore's hate-filled screed at all surprising?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus
|
October 20, 2009 11:19 AM
PZ (@OP):
Oh, even without knowing you except through these pages, I'd be willing to bet your morality is actually unconventional and extraordinary!
But it seems that you're using morality here to indicate personal sexual preferences and marital choices. I don't mean to rag on you for a casual application of a common English usage... but I think the notion that there's some inherently moral character to personal decisions about sexuality and/or marriage1 is, IMHO, a fundamentally religious bias, and one that I believe lies at the heart of a large percentage of what's perverse about American culture.
That one of our most prominent and clearheaded atheists would use the word morality in this way is just one indicator of how deeply and perniciously this bias is embedded in our culture.
1 Mind you, there are plenty of ways that sexual or marital choices can be immoral... but they're never immoral because they're sexual per se. Sexual assault, for instance, is immoral because it's assault, not because it's sexual; marital infidelity may be immoral if it constitutes a betrayal of your partner or a breach of promise... but it's not inherently so merely because it's marital.
Posted by: Mu
|
October 20, 2009 11:20 AM
In regards to the divorce, the Catholics have no issue with a (civil) divorce. It's just that you cannot divorce in the eyes of the church, so you can't remarry.
Posted by: Sandra Kay | October 20, 2009 11:22 AM
Hi. Can someone here please point me to something that has an answer to the argument the world is to perfect so god must have made it? Thank you so much! I know Ive read tons on it but I cant find and I don't know how to find it and I need it. Love you all!
Posted by: Victor
|
October 20, 2009 11:22 AM
And me, godless atheist with no dog to walk. The shame.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 20, 2009 11:24 AM
Watching print media as it succumbs is like watching a lung cancer patient smoke outside the hospital. Gonna stick with those bad habits right up to the minute the doc pronounces you, eh?
Posted by: raven
|
October 20, 2009 11:24 AM
That isn't even true. The Catholic birth rate in the USA is essentially identical to the national average. They do what all sane, responsible people do and plan their families and ignore the fossilized RCC heirarchy.
Speaking of membership, IIRC, only 20% of Catholics attend Mass regularly.
Overbreeding as a political strategy is really stupid. It just guarantees a lot of uneducated kids that end up ignorant and at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap. Their kids aren't going to run the USA, they are going to mow my lawn and do my laundry.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 20, 2009 11:25 AM
Perhaps BD is too dumb and ignorant to know that the more a set of parents procreates, the greater the chances that one of their offspring will be homosexual. So let 'em procreate all they want. They'll only be undoing themselves.
Second of all, how does BD square the fact that atheism is the fastest growing demographic vis a vis the question of religion, and that organized religion is seeing a marked decline over time? I'm not one to count eggs before they're hatched, but taking current stats as they are, BD is tipping at windmills.
In closing, for BD: I'm an atheist with an agnostic wife, and guess what: We're procreating.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 20, 2009 11:27 AM
More recently, a U.S. Senator was falsely accused of treason, again on national television, solely because he was a Muslim,
Keith Ellison (D-MN) is a Representative, not a Senator.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 20, 2009 11:28 AM
Not sure if the point has already been made, but at its core, despite their outward proclamations about morality and sanctity of human life, blah, blah, blah... the real reason behind the RCC's continued policies against birth-control, against gay rights (despite there being nothing in the gospels in that regards), etc. is the most common reason for most decisions made by large institutions: financial. Every child born into the church is another opportunity for tithing. And there is no greater evil than depriving the church of potential future income.
You expect the Pope to actually live according to the teachings of Jesus and move out of that modest city of opulence he currently resides in? Bah. Fat chance.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 20, 2009 11:30 AM
So associating humans with (the other) primates is offensive, but associating Catholics with bunnies is not just okay but good? I don't get that guy.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 20, 2009 11:31 AM
I think it's more precise this way.
What the fuck.
What suddenly happened to "what God has connected, Man shall not separate"?!?
You know, suddenly I agree with comment 7. The good Mr Donohue is quite probably a parodist. Poe's Law strikes again.
BTW: r = reproductive rate, K = carrying capacity.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 11:40 AM
@ PZ:
But can you woffle your nose? :-D
@ Donohue:
If he imagines that to be the whole of the evidence, then he ought to be very surprised at the way religion is failing and losing ground (according to official statistics on religions). He's probably overlooked that though, as well as the key evidence that any sufficiently honest and well-educated people leave religions and join the secular and atheistic side. Atheists don't need to outbreed by breeding true when they can simply acquire the best of the rest.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 11:41 AM
Sandra Kay @ #41:
It's a load of horseshit.
The vast majority of species that have ever existed are now extinct. That means that almost all of the supposed "perfect designs of almighty god" were in fact dismal failures.
The canary's entire repoductive strategy is to dump it's eggs into the nests of other birds, where the baby canary kills the other chicks and steals their food. Canary parenting is not only imperfect, it's wholly devoted to exploiting the imperfection of other species parenting strategies. IIRC, blue-footed booby bird chicks are known for pecking in the heads of their siblings.
Reproduction in general is so inefficient that males of many species have to produce millions of sperm per ejaculation, of which at most a handful ever have a chance of fertilizing an egg. How is this immense expenditure of resources "perfect"? And that's before even considering those species who produce offspring in vast numbers only to have most of them die at the larval stage (though it's basically the same principle, just at a different developmental phase).
The urethra of the human male is routed through the prostate gland. A compressible tube right in the middle of a gland prone to swelling. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that that's a stupid design, and it's only one of many in the human body alone, from spines optimized for four-legged movement in a bipedal species to the inability to produce vitamin c to needing sunlight to make vitamin d but getting skin cancer if exposed to too much sunlight.
While you're at it, look up any autoimmune disease (rheumatoid arthritis for example). These are painful, delibitating conditions caused by the immune system fucking up and wreaking havok on the body's own tissues. If this system was designed by a god, he's either an imbecile or a sadistic bastard.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 20, 2009 11:43 AM
What a coincidence! I'm just about to open my new business venture- a chain of bathhouses and abortionariums that offer dog boarding and walking services. Beats that stoopid daycare stuff.
I always laugh when christian conservative nutjobs proclaim that outbreeding the opposition is the solution to all their problems. I can tell Billo from personal experience that as a gay man, I was born and raised to straight parents.
Billo, we aren't coming for your kids, we ARE your kids.
Suck it.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | October 20, 2009 11:44 AM
First, the USA has bath houses?! Is that like the YMCA or is that a euphamism what the churchs' baptizmal fonts become at night when the doors are locked and the children are defenseless?
Second, as an atheist, my godless brain only wanted to get married to a theist in hopes of constantly having sex because of a unsatiable need for procreation... so, why is it that I found out now after I already asked her to marry me that she only wants two or three kids? *cries* My sex life will be over by my early 30s! I guess I'll just have to get a dog to take on long walks...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 20, 2009 11:44 AM
That's technically true, but still all other seriously conservative catholics (such as the EU commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner) get annulments. Why didn't he?
Stupid Design.
Compare your eyes to a squid's, and weep. Then think of the way you were born… And lastly, try to ponder whose stupid idea it was to use DNA as the material of heredity. DNA falls apart when stored in water. We spend lots of energy to constantly repair it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 20, 2009 11:45 AM
Hmm. "No God" is the top trending topic on Twitter right now (say that ten times fast).
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 11:46 AM
@ BlueIndependent #45
Quite coincidentally, I was reading about that once again last night.
On the other hand, if Catholicism is only being maintained by some of its families overbreeding like mad, the resulting homosexuals might previously (ie when they had to pretend not to be homosexual or for fear of being tortured and killed) have been propping up the priesthood - whose numbers are falling even more rapidly than those of general religious adherents.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 20, 2009 11:47 AM
Indeed. And watching sad little whiners like Donohue trying, as they slip slowly and inexorably to the margins, finally to comfort themselves with these notions that their long-long-past-its-expiry-date clutch of superstitions will somehow remain relevant despite everything if'n they just keep enough of their followers and their trod-upon womenfolk poppin' out enough fresh whelps regularly is actually... well...
Well now, does it make me a bad person that it doth carry for me a rather pleasant aroma of schadenfreude?
I mean, awww... Bill... that isn't the cold breath of your own pathetic impotence in the face of change ya feel on the back of your neck now, is it, ole' chum? Not feelin' ya wasted yer life now with these mouldy old lies or somethin', I should hope, oh ya dear ole' nutter... And I do so sincerely hope yer not starting to worry maybe you did not pick the winning side or anythin' in this thing, honest....
'Cos, y'know... that'd make me so sad for ya. Really... it would. Cross my (apparently) black atheist heart...
(/And those of my kids. And of the dog I don't own, natch...)
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 20, 2009 11:53 AM
Wait a minute -- doesn't Donohue contradict himself from one paragraph to the other? Looks like there are two best and only ways. Naw, that can't be.
I note that in his article culture and Western civilization are constantly equated with Christianity. Presumably, the Greeks and Romans -- and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment -- were cultural aberrations from the outside, and they had little effect. Mideastern special revelations and mysticism, though, are exclusive to the West.
I also think it's funny that a religion which puts so much emphasis on apologetics, and on demonstrating, through reason, that God exists, is having a spokesperson brag that their beliefs are best spread through the mindless indoctrination of small children. I mean, sure, we know that their arguments don't work, and that their best hope is encouraging a lot of unthinking cultural adherence -- but it's odd that they would basically come out and admit this by talking about outbreeding us.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus
|
October 20, 2009 11:55 AM
One modest request: Can we please call this doofus Donohue or something? All this trashing of Bill and BD is getting me seriously bummed out. Jus' sayin'....
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 11:57 AM
@ Sandra Kay #41:
Here and here and here (for starters).
Oh no it isn't! It's a badly cobbled together mess - indicating unintelligent design by zillions of unthinking chemicals working over billions of years.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus
|
October 20, 2009 12:01 PM
Here (@57) is a key example of what I meant (@59):
You can see where stuff like that isn't exactly filling my day with daisies and hummingbirds.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 20, 2009 12:01 PM
"the world is to perfect so god must have made it"
How much heroin do you have to shoot up to think the world we live in is a perfect place?
That statement negates itself.
Posted by: raven
|
October 20, 2009 12:06 PM
Well the world isn't perfect and that is just obvious. That may be why you can't find any information making that claim. In early xianity, there were two main theories. The Gnostics believed the world was so evil and defective that it couldn't have been created by the real god. They theorized that there were two gods, the real one and a lessor creator god of the bible. The creator god wasn't too smart and made a huge mistake. Jesus came to salvage everything.
According to fundie xians, after the Fall, death entered the world and the biosphere is running down because of genetic entropy, evolution is impossible. Soon we will all be mutated, deformed zombies lurching into work, going home to feed the zombie dog and kids with food made from zombie plants. When the mutations get to be too much, the entire biosphere will just die. Their creator god can't even keep a biosphere running for more than a few thousand years because he is an incompetent idiot. According to the fundies, we will all stagger toward a Zombie Death Future.
Posted by: Zmidponk | October 20, 2009 12:07 PM
Of course, the other little thing is that the atheist population rises much more via deconversion, not procreation (or I would imagine so, anyway), so, even if Donohue was correct to say that religious conservatives 'outbreed' atheists, that wouldn't mean anything apart from that there would be more potential deconverts around.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
October 20, 2009 12:11 PM
I do think Donohue is something of a satirist (at least I've started to trend that way in my thinking). I mean, he has a blurb about his book from Stephen Colbert posted on his website.
Posted by: daveau
|
October 20, 2009 12:12 PM
There is still one ethnic bath house in the city of Chicago; the Division Street Russian & Turkish Baths. It serves men & women in separate facilities. It's rare, I know, but there used to be more. It's not all Man's Country, Mr Doucheohue.
And it's cats, not dogs. Other than that, he's got us pegged...
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 12:14 PM
@ raven #63:
Read #41 again, more carefully this time. Sandra Kay is asking for the opposite of what you imagine her to be requesting.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 20, 2009 12:15 PM
... heh. Apologies. But that did make me cackle...
You have my sympathy, tho'. One of the reasons I tend to go by 'AJ' online is a particularly infamously annoying apologist for Scientology who used to be on Usenet an awful lot has the same first and last names as I do... You just could not sign on as 'Andrew Milne' in a thread anywhere in those days without it becoming an issue... Fucking annoying, that was.
Posted by: ButchKitties | October 20, 2009 12:16 PM
Of course I'm constantly aborting my kids. My dog needs protein in his diet to keep up with all our walks to the bathhouse, and canned dog food is expensive.
Posted by: raven
|
October 20, 2009 12:21 PM
That isn't true either. There is no such thing as xianity. The Catholics hate the Protestants, the fundies hate everyone and everyone hates them back. The Mormons and the Jay Dubs get in a few punches here and there.
Xianity is deeply divided and they used to fight bloody wars killing tens of millions until the mean old secular authorities took away their armies and heavy weapons.
Donohue is pursuing an old strategy. It is simply The Big LIe, popularized by another Catholic, Joseph Goebbels. Can't say it turned out too well for him. He ended up killing his six kids and wife before shooting himself.
.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | October 20, 2009 12:21 PM
So I assume you're doing the responsible thing and taking fertility drugs and using artificial insemination to be sure of a dozen abortions a month to make sure your dog doesn't starve, right?
I would hate that you provide Donohue the excuse to say we torture our dogs too.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM
|
October 20, 2009 12:22 PM
How much heroin do you have to shoot up to think the world we live in is a perfect place?
It's all too beautiful!
(Now this bloody stupid set up is telling me that I commented too many times. This is so fucking bloody buggy. And spam still gets through.)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus
|
October 20, 2009 12:28 PM
Except, of course, during National Brotherhood Week!
Posted by: littlejohn | October 20, 2009 12:30 PM
Sometimes we have to admit it when they get it right. Ann Coulter, otherwise despicable, hit the nail of the head with the title "Godless," and this guy's right about me. The only pregnancies I caused (back in my misspent youth) ended at abortion clinics. After tiring of the expense, I got a vasectomy at, yes, Planned Parenthood. To the best of my knowledge, I have no children and never will. Sorry. Other people's children are cute and amusing, and are welcome to play in my yard. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for anyone's braces and music lessons. Hey! Turn down that music! Do you have to ride that damn motorcycle around here? Bah!
Posted by: daveau
|
October 20, 2009 12:34 PM
Janine@72-
I love that song.
Posted by: Bostonian | October 20, 2009 12:38 PM
I love some of the comments on this article, a great meany of which have surely been posted by people clicking on the link above. I particularly like this comment:
Posted by: Frank B | October 20, 2009 12:43 PM
My father was a fourth generation minister, so my brothers and I went to church and Sunday school religiously. Then my parents switched from a Methodist church to a Unitarian Universalist church and my brothers and I went to a Quaker high school. So we were headed out the door so to speak. One brother has two lesbian daughters, one brother is childless, one brother adopted two mixed race children, and I had three atheist-like children. I would say that Bill Donohue has to get busy with some young tootsy, he is falling behind.
Posted by: Sandra Kay | October 20, 2009 12:45 PM
Ooo, thank you so much. What if you were discussing this with someone who is not a creationist, someone just christen? And I'm not sure he's trying to say us and animals are to perfect, umm, just everything? I think it could be the argument that everything couldn't come from nothing! What is a good comeback for that?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 12:45 PM
How did I get cuckoos and canaries mixed up? Not to mention the Ellison mistake.
Posted by: Ian | October 20, 2009 12:48 PM
Why does BillDo hate the institution of the priesthood? Is he an anti-Catholic bigot, or simply reject traditional Catholic values? :)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 20, 2009 12:53 PM
Hi. Can someone here please point me to something that has an answer to the argument the world is to perfect so god must have made it? Thank you so much! I know Ive read tons on it but I cant find and I don't know how to find it and I need it. Love you all!
Give them a copy of Candide.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 12:55 PM
@ Sandra Kay #78:
Point out that by making up a god (or adopting a god someone else made up) they are still requiring everything to come from nothing - because in their story the god(s) had to come from nothing in order to then make the rest of the stuff.
They haven't made the problem go away at all. They're just shoving in an extra stage - and not even a particularly sensible one. They've made matters worse because they want their ex nihilo god to be an intelligent intentional being (typically with a bunch of other complications such as omniscience etc).
How much easier it is for a universe to simply be a messy accidental splurge which then takes humungous amounts time to self-organise, quite naturally and unintentionally. They're the ones postulating a 747 god somehow self-assembling from nothing before even getting on and creating the junkyard.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 1:00 PM
Sandra Kay @ #78:
What is "perfect"? How does one measure "perfection"? What is the precise level of "perfection" that could not arise without divine intervention, and how was this determined? What method can be used to measure the world's "perfection" and compare it to the aforementioned level? No one claiming that "perfection" proves the existence of their imaginary friend will be able to provide a satisfactory answer to even a single one of these questions, much less all of them. And even if they could, they'd flee in terror from the NEXT question: What evidence do you have that the god required to account for all this "perfection" is the same god your cult worships?
Of course, they'll never dare define "perfection" because if they did they'd have to justify their claim that the world is "perfect", instead of just asserting it and ignoring such things as constantly-shifting continental plates that ram into each other and shake everything up, or meteors crashing into the planet and kicking up enough dust to alter the climate and kill almost all life.
If something can't come from nothing, where did god come from? If you exempt your imaginary friend from this rule you're just assuming your conclusion, but if you don't you only push the problem back. Or you could just admit that god is nothing. :)
Posted by: MikeM | October 20, 2009 1:00 PM
Oh, I don't know. Our local paper still runs Cal Thomas's absolutely ridiculous columns. If there's enough room for Cal, there's certainly enough room for Billo.
My dog, these guys have Duggar envy. Blech.
(I've been married for 18-1/2 years. Two kids, 12 and 15. No pets.)
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 20, 2009 1:02 PM
Hey Billy D.,
My folks were (and still are) very religious (xtian) and I was raised accordingly. Then that pesky thing called reality crept into my brains and encouraged me to question the existence of deities. I followed my curiosity through physics, geology, anthropology, biology, and astronomy. I decided that there really was no real reason to think deities are real, and I think that this scenario happens more often than mentioned.
No Billy, your deity is not real. None of them are or ever have been. You've allowed yourself to be fooled by your emotional need for comforting ideas about how important you "know" you must be.
Hopefully your children choose not to follow your delusions and turn out to be greater offspring from a lesser sire.
Posted by: Sandra Kay | October 20, 2009 1:04 PM
Ok! Thank you #82!! Is there a site that lists all of the atheist arguments to typical crap? Like god of the gaps? and something from nothing? Thats what I really want.
Posted by: Pareidolius | October 20, 2009 1:15 PM
Donohue is just not the sharpest tool in the shed. His analogies lack flair and coherence. Look at the time! I gotta stop posting now. Have to walk the dog to the bathhouse. I love the lunchtime abortion floorshow. Now where's my red sequined cape . . .
Posted by: lneely | October 20, 2009 1:15 PM
Does anybody else find it grossly offensive that apparently a childless relationship is a "bad thing," while the breeders don't give a shit about their kids and, by Donohue's own twisted confession, only do it to propagate their mindless, childish superstitions?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 20, 2009 1:18 PM
/raised eyebrow
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Sandra K,
Regarding the something from nothing argument, I've always found the quote below quite relevant:
The fact is, the existence of the material Universe is a mystery. Positing the existence of a deity that caused the Universe is trying to solve a mystery by invoking an even greater mystery - which only introduces more questions and solves nothing.
Posted by: Pareidolius | October 20, 2009 1:24 PM
Sandie Kay honey, I have three words for you: Editing! Editing! Editing! First you write your breathless screed. Next, you stop, take a breath and re-read it. Spell-check follows to make sure you spelled your own religion correctly, then post the sucker. That way it'll be teh perfect post, just like your bronze-age sky-god's universe is teh perfect universe.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 1:28 PM
@ Sandra Kay #86:
Have you not seen TalkOrigins yet? You probably need the Index To Creationist Claims. However, it's not simply "atheist arguments", as you suggest, but scientific evidence and arguments.
Posted by: Walton | October 20, 2009 1:28 PM
Speaking for myself, I have no desire to "breed like a rabbit", nor indeed to breed at all; for two main reasons. Firstly, I don't see myself as a stable or responsible enough person to raise a child properly. Secondly, in an overpopulated world with millions of starving and unwanted children, I can't see any real moral reason to reproduce - especially as I don't particularly want to pass on my negative traits to any future progeny.
But Bill Donohue, of course, doesn't give a flying fuck about the actual interests and needs of children. For him, as long as the Church's coffers and membership rolls are swollen with millions of indoctrinated drones, he's happy. He displays his utter moral bankruptcy and blithering stupidity with every word he writes.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 20, 2009 1:29 PM
Did I just waste a thoughtful post on an insincere brain-washed god-bot?! Piss.
I'll have to be more careful about reading upstream before I post.
Love you all!
Posted by: Nick Novitski | October 20, 2009 1:31 PM
Sadly, both of these are heritable, and correspond to religious belief as well. I think he has more of a point than you concede, though it's a bizarrely materialist one for him to be making.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 1:32 PM
@ Pareidolius #91:
Another one who apparently needs reminding in turn of the importance of reading, reading, reading!
Posted by: Tom Woolf | October 20, 2009 1:33 PM
Are the atheists and other wretched left-wingers not breeding? Anecdote-wise, here's one example of where we are breeding:
My family was Catholic. Six of the eight kids in my family were confirmed (the two youngest, which includes me, were not). We are now well into our breeding years, and there are even some grandkids around.
Of the 8 siblings, 4 are atheists, and two of them had kids. All, to the best of my knowledge, are atheists, except for one who is, I believe, wiccan.
The remaining 4 believers - one might have been considered Catholic, but the others are not religious in any manner. Their kids? One atheist (actually, a pastafarian), the two children of the maybe-Catholic might still consider themselves Catholic (I don't hold that against them - they are family and deserve a break), and the two remaining kids have never mentioned belief nor non-belief in front of me (one did marry a devout christian, and I was warned to not make anti-religious jokes).
So, two believers begat 4 atheists and 4 believers who begat a wiccan, 6 atheists, 2 believers, and two unknowns.
I like those numbers.
Posted by: Quicksand | October 20, 2009 1:35 PM
Okay, maybe you have outbred him THIS round, but you're passing along the godless-gay-dogwalking gene, so who's gonna have the last laugh? Maybe it's recessive.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 20, 2009 1:36 PM
Sandra:
talkorigins.org and ironchariots.org are two very useful sites for dealing with IDiotic arguments.
Posted by: Pareidolius | October 20, 2009 1:38 PM
SEF
Bblockquote>Another one who apparently needs reminding in turn of the importance of reading, reading, reading!
This is teh snark, no?
Posted by: uppity cracka | October 20, 2009 1:39 PM
any time he mentioned "activist", "libertine", "radical", or "gay" i just replaced it with "jew" and imagined he was yelling the words at me in german. it was better that way.
Posted by: Pareidolius | October 20, 2009 1:40 PM
Sees blockquote fail. Skulks away in shame . . .
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM
|
October 20, 2009 1:44 PM
any time he mentioned "activist", "libertine", "radical", or "gay" i just replaced it with "jew" and imagined he was yelling the words at me in german. it was better that way.
We know that the windbag does not like secular jews. He blames them for all the anal sex we see in mainstream Hollywood movies.
It must be nice to be so disconnected from reality.
Posted by: uppity cracka | October 20, 2009 1:52 PM
@ 103-
and to think i was only trying to be funny. who knew comedy held such incisive powers of truth? i'm like the jon stewart of smartass blog comments.
Posted by: cag
|
October 20, 2009 1:55 PM
Sandra Kay #41. I'm sure that the Donner Party (party of 87) would agree that the earth is Intelligently Designed. Having the Sierra Nevada Mountains conveniently located with no easy pass was indeed intelligent. Calling the Donner party of 62. Last call Donner Party of 48.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM
|
October 20, 2009 1:58 PM
Here you go, uppity cracka.
Garbage Mouth-December 16, 2004
Posted by: uppity cracka | October 20, 2009 2:01 PM
well, this guy's all kinds of fun! wait a minute, HOLLYWOOD likes anal sex? he doesn't make it difficult, does he?
Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | October 20, 2009 2:10 PM
This isn't always a good thing, Donahue, particularly if your group of religious conservatives don't like converts very much. Right now the Satmar Hasidim up by where I live are busy turning their double helixes into Möbius strips as they have no one to reproduce with except their cousins.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
October 20, 2009 2:16 PM
Wooo! High five to PZ (& others here). I'll add my 33 years wed to the same guy & 3 non-believer spawn to PZ's three.
When I read the prick was DIVORCED and only had 2 kids - all I could say was a dirty word - in triplicate.
I noticed (back when Phyllis Schlafly was lecturing about the evils of working women while busy running her Eagle Forum) that this hypocrisy is very common in the conservative morality crowd. As long as you talk a moral hardline, you don't actually have to live it. And their followers lap it up.
Posted by: recovering catholic
|
October 20, 2009 2:19 PM
I didn't know PZ and the Trophy Wife have three kids--knew about Skatje and Conlann, who's the third?
And I'm proud to say that we have two highly skeptical, intelligent, successful and critically thinking grown sons of our own (even if we did make the mistake of having them circumcised as newborns).
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 20, 2009 2:26 PM
There is, mind you, something more than vaguely disturbing about Donohue pretty much admitting that his idea of an ideal zealot is undereducated, overworked, trapped in a cycle of poverty by their own fecundity, raising way more kids than they can possibly hope to put through college... Kids who I'm sure he's hoping will wind up in exactly the same trap therefore...
It's mildly amusing in the developed world, where, for the most part, the followers aren't buying. Catholics smile and nod when the pope and company rave on about birth control, and see to it by their various means that they have a sane number of progeny who can they can then give a decent start to in life...
And me, I'm glad they do. Believers or no, I wouldn't wish the trap that fucker's baiting on anyone...
I'm not sure I'm so amused places where anyone is buying such BS... But then, as Walton pointed out, like that ole' fuck gives a rat's ass, really who gets hurt...
And hey, misery and poverty beget piety like little else, after all...
(/Oh yeah, baby... Blessed are the poor. For those poor wretched suckers will need our food banks... And that makes us all feel so very good about ourselves...)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 20, 2009 2:29 PM
Isn't it obvious?
PZ, being the evil atheist he is, ate the third kid a long time ago.
Posted by: DingoJack
|
October 20, 2009 2:30 PM
Sastra quotes Donahue:
Then asks if Donahue is suggest two 'singular' solutions.
Well clearly not. Obviously all the religious types are going to form an alliance against those evil, dog-walking, bathing, responsible liberals, and fuck each other's brains out to boost the ever older and ever dwindling population of believers. (Of course there's some question whether anyone will actually be allowed to join the alliance; it might mean their members might actually hear new ideas quelle horreur!" -DJ
Posted by: raven
|
October 20, 2009 2:35 PM
One of my friends is from a Catholic family of 6 kids. None of the kids has any interest in the RCC whatsoever.
What is so good about big families anyway? They usually seem pretty miserable Her parents were well to do with enough money to send them to Catholic schools. But resources were always tight and their was a lot of tension as the kids fought for more than their share. They don't dislike each other in the least.....now but growing up was tense. The parents were so busy working to support 8 people in style that they never noticed one kid was failing in school until CPS stepped in. He was so near sighted that he couldn't see anything and they never noticed that he was all but blind.
If Donohue really thinks idiots breeding like bunnies is going to solve the decline of xianity in the USA, it hasn't worked yet and no reason to expect it will. Grasping at straws would be a better strategy.
Posted by: smittypap | October 20, 2009 2:40 PM
I really enjoy Bill's column for the Weekly World News... http://weeklyworldnews.com/opinion/ed-anger/
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 20, 2009 2:41 PM
He says "libertinism" like it's a bad thing!
Does anyone else notice how the rightwingnuts are so damn paranoid these days? Have they always been this loopy, if perhaps in smaller numbers? Or am I only noticing it now that I have full-time Internet access and I enjoy reading stuff other than comic book fanfic?
You know, Bill, I like families, too. In fact you'll probably find that not only do I like families, but I like families in a lot more permutations than you do. I like children; I want them all to be warm and well-nourished, loved, educated and safe, and we don't give them those advantages by making as many as possible. I don't particularly "like" anal sex but I respect the fact that other people do. I like the public square without nativity scenes but I can still appreciate the charms of a nativity scene on the church lawn. I like libertinism, too. Actually I'm not quite sure what you mean by libertinism, but given your usual frothing I'll just assume you mean "anyone with a better sex life than mine who doesn't apologize for it," and that probably covers 90% of the population of North America or more, so it's probably something that I like. I can lick godless pussy on Wednesday evening and snuggle my friend's baby on Thursday. I may pretend to eat his little hands, but the baby thinks it's funny, so there's another little libertine on the make, I suppose.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 20, 2009 2:58 PM
I think, in a sense, they've always been this nuts. But that the current political climate is, shall we say, aggravating a preexisting condition...
(Tom Tomorrow had a funny bit on this today, speaking of...)
Posted by: Richard Wolford
|
October 20, 2009 3:01 PM
Tell me about it, I suffer from ankylosing spondylitis, which is extremely painful and causes all sorts of other problems. Any deity that designed my immune system should have their omnipotent ass handed to them.
And seriously, Hollywood has a fixation for anal sex? I mean, there's nothing wrong with anal sex and the only movies I've seen it in didn't come from Hollywood, so I think there may be a geography fail here somewhere.
Posted by: Walton | October 20, 2009 3:01 PM
What I do not understand is how Bill Donohue earns (as of 2006) over $300,000 a year for ranting about the evils of secularism, and Glenn Beck earns several million a year for incoherently blithering at a camera; whereas I can't even get a single job offer, and am likely to be facing unemployment and poverty after I graduate next summer. Maybe I'm just an utter failure at life.
Posted by: daveau
|
October 20, 2009 3:29 PM
Walton@119-
Is it too late to change your degree?
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us
|
October 20, 2009 3:35 PM
Check out Branford Clarke's political cartoon "IN PROPER HANDS", depicting a "Jew" surrounded by dollar signs and the labels "Corrupting Movies" and "Indecent Fashions". "Rome" is labeled with "World Domination" and "Parochial Schools". The "PROPER HAND" grabbing both by the scruff of the neck is labeled "KKK". These are Donohue's old tactics.
Posted by: Sili
|
October 20, 2009 3:41 PM
You ask why D'ohohue is divorced?
Try for a moment imagining being mrs. Donohue.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 20, 2009 3:57 PM
Divorced you say? I did not know that. Was an annulment through his church sought and granted. I'm curious as to whether or not his children have been officially declared bastards. If it happened I'm willing to bet his wife poneyed up the money.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 20, 2009 4:05 PM
I'm such a bad atheist. I don't have a dog.
As for Sandra…my paradise is the Natural History Museum.
I like to see the placed overfilled with bones of all the species that went extinct as the creator looked the other way.
Posted by: llewelly | October 20, 2009 4:06 PM
uh oh. I've never been to any bathhouses, and I've never aborted any babies ... am I going to be drummed out of the secular saboteurs conspiracy?
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 20, 2009 4:08 PM
I dunno if that's logical: when I imagine being Mrs. Donohue, I get this irresistable urge to run around on a very busy freeway.
Posted by: DaveL
|
October 20, 2009 4:21 PM
I've never been to a bathhouse, or been involved in an abortion. We don't really walk our dogs; we live on acreage and they get their exercise running free. Of course, I'm sure he would consider things like travelling abroad, riding our horses, reading books, and advancing our careers, to fall under the same category of "things secularists do to distract themselves from the pointlessness of their childless existence." Note: when Catholics do these things, it's called 'living life to the fullest'.
I think Mr. Donohue needs to duck into a church sometime and count the gray heads. Better yet, try the same trick in a rectory.
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 20, 2009 4:29 PM
they're too busy walking their dogs,
No, no, no - atheists have cats. Pet of the devil and lesbians and single women and all, you know.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 20, 2009 4:44 PM
So then that's what "aborting their kids" means.
No Bill, sorry. Normal, legal abortions, are performed on fetuses, not kids. Just a small error in semantics I felt the need to correct you on, you sputtering drama-queen.
(all emphasis mine)
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 20, 2009 4:45 PM
Walton, I'm sorry to hear that. Surely if you can't get a job in your desired field, there's always something available at McDonald's or such, isn't there?
Posted by: IaMoL
|
October 20, 2009 5:13 PM
Really? Well there I go again weirdly refusing to make a choice about a prescribed dichotomy. So what's wrong with having it both ways? - a dog and a cat or two?Posted by: JimNorth | October 20, 2009 5:20 PM
I'm sorry. I read that as walking their gods.
(RevBDC FTW #112)
Posted by: Chris Pollock | October 20, 2009 5:49 PM
I suppose I don't fit Donohue's stereotype either. I'm as atheist as they come, have 4 children, and don't like dogs. I do have a soft spot for cats, but I wouldn't keep one (in Australia) owing to the damage that they do to the wildlife.
Much as I dislike the man, I have to say that Donohue does have half a point. I think there's good evidence that a lot of personality traits are influenced by genetics, and it's not too implausible that susceptibility to irrational ideas may be one of them. If less rational people really do produce more children on average, it will be very bad news for future generations. Note that I wrote "if".
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 20, 2009 5:54 PM
welcome to reality (and Capitalism), where your worth to society and humanity is usually inversely proportional to your income :-pPosted by: Paul
|
October 20, 2009 6:01 PM
Amazingly, you thinking something does not make it true. I don't suppose you could give us a survey of the evidence you drew that conclusion from?
Posted by: llewelly | October 20, 2009 6:03 PM
ERV October 20, 2009 10:32 AM
Since pit bulls feed on innocent babies, only an atheist would admit to owning one.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 20, 2009 6:12 PM
@ Chris Pollock #133:
Religiosity is one of the things that was found to be a heritable trait. Not the specific religion, of course, but the degree to which one did or didn't go overboard in it.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 20, 2009 6:14 PM
Chris Pollock #133 wrote:
While I think there is some evidence for inherited tendencies towards mysticism (schizophrenics tend to have relatives who are mystically-inclined and there's a hypothesis that there may be a genetic connection), I think that the sorts of irrationality in religion is far too diffuse and varied to be pointed like that. Religion is strongly connected to upbringing, and religious believers run the gamut. There are also plenty of other forms of irrationality and follower-behavior unconnected to religion, as well as plenty of people who are deeply religious, but otherwise skeptical and reasonable.
There's an interesting article in this month's Skeptic Magazine which suggests that religious belief declines as abstract and hypothetical thinking increases -- and that is something which can be taught.
Posted by: wasd
|
October 20, 2009 6:18 PM
Irrelevant, the fastest growing group of Americans is those who describe themselfs as “non religious”. Have all the kids you want, their numbers wont change the facts and evidence of the world in which they will live.I believe skepticism is genetic, though it often skips generations. Every family can have a kid that is born skeptic. Those “non-religious” Americans are demographically indistinguishable from the rest of America. Plenty of kids dont buy into religion despite having two religious parents, just like plenty of kids without religious and/or churchgoing parents. Just like plenty adults, southerners, non-southerners or republicans and democrats. Just like plenty people living among catholics, protestants, jews, muslims, hindus or buddhists. “non religious” types are found everywhere. The only survey question that really set this group apart was one that shows respondents were way WAY more likely to understand evolution. The causal direction is obviously that religious fanaticism causes ignorance of biology so better creationists wont help here.
I believe this survey was even mentioned by some blogger somewhere.
@16 Last year, [my skeptic son] wouldn't let me get away with telling him St. Nicholas put candy in his shoes on Dec. 6th.
If only Americans could celebrate one evening of sinterklaas! Then they would understand just how breathtakingly insane Bill OReilly sounds when he puts on his GI-joe war-on-christmas costume and starts ranting about preserving a tradition. Anyways, with the fifth of December fast approaching I have to start preparing soon. There is so much to do for saint Nicolas his birthday. There is cleaning up the white horse, making room for the steam boat, cleaning the leaves from the roofs so the horse doesn`t slip dropping the poor old guy (who is in remarkable good shape despite his age) oh and lets not forget putting on blackface and scaring the kids by threatening to put them in a bag and kidnap em to the home of saint Nick in... Spain*! Ahh.... I just love traditions ;-)
So maybe the tradition has already been updated and used to have slightly less to do with the Birthday of Jesus than some in Oreilly`s audience might think. And why wouldn`t one update sinterklaas? Its already way better than a creepy old white guy sneaking around town and giving all the virgins in town an apple and giving the rest salt...
*) nope, not a joke, I mean seriously did you really think all those present could be carried by a bunch of tiny little elves? No in the real world this old fashioned guy has a bunch of black helpers who do his heavy lifting.
Posted by: Jimmy in San Jose | October 20, 2009 6:24 PM
There was an interesting comment along this subject to Dr. Dawkins when I went to his book signing in Palo Alto CA earlier this month. Someone asked him if he thought Freethought was an evolutionary advantage, and he said no. Evolutionary advantages are those that help you reproduce. I guess we are inferior to catholics for this reason...? :)
Posted by: Sili
|
October 20, 2009 6:25 PM
BZZZZZZT!There are no innocent babies. They're all born with original sin.
Posted by: BenW
|
October 20, 2009 7:03 PM
I am an atheist that chose to breed like a rabbit.
My wife chose against it.
She won.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 20, 2009 7:20 PM
Dear Damned Atheists,
I'm so sorry you are losing the culture wars. The problem is that you have never understood the appeal to the masses of parades of pseudo-celibate men in ornate dresses with the divine mandate to tell their flocks to 'do as I say not as I do.'
Brer Donohue is only telling it like it is when he says religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits. A true rabbit for Jesus readily humps anything down a burrow and negotiates the secular briar patch without fear of being out foxed by rapacious atheists.
Many of God's most faithful conservative rabbits (especially the ex-wed ones with tiny quivers) are too busy rooting their dogs to walk them, they don't go to bathhouses (why pay for what you can extort for nothing in the church toilet), and they don't abort their kids because it denies them the chance to bring them up to own guns and shoot each other.
As Brer Donohue says, time is on the side of the angels, leprechauns, fairies, goblins, elves and jabberwocks.
Yours, humping furiously for God and the Pope,
Smoggy
Posted by: The Ungodly Goddess
|
October 20, 2009 7:43 PM
Ewwww.... Bill Donohue has kids?? Someone had sex with Bill Donohue??!! (Surely this is proof that there is no god.)
Posted by: Sandra Kay | October 20, 2009 8:27 PM
Sorry 89 and #91! I know I don't belong here. I just really wanted that info. Thanks for not making to much fun of me.
And I think some of you might I'm a believer, I am not! I just wanted to know what to say to my friend who is.
I don't want to embarrass myself (I really look up to you all) but I really wanted to know.
Thank you for pointing me to talk origins I've seen it before and forgot about it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 20, 2009 9:12 PM
Sandra Kay - Way back in June you asked for guides to spotting flawed logic and other bad arguments.
Since then, I've found a few sites that are much more appropriate than the lame suggestions I made at the time.
By now you've probably gotten a much better handle on it, but at least by posting this I can clear your question out of the "I shoulda said ..." list in my head.
Posted by: Lyvvie | October 20, 2009 10:05 PM
When are they going to learn that atheists aren't pro-abortion?? That would be greatly reducing our major food source. Keep having those babies, feed the atheists!
Posted by: llewelly | October 21, 2009 12:29 AM
Lyvvie | October 20, 2009 10:05 PM:
The sad fact is that the atheist community has come to be dominated by young "new atheist" punks who are too impatient to wait out the time required for a good meal. As soon as these "new atheists" see a pregnant woman, they immediately begin encouraging her to get an abortion, so that they can feed as soon as possible.
It's wasteful, and it's irresponsible. It would be far wiser and more efficient to wait for the fetus to grow to a healthy weight of 8 pounds or so, which would provide several atheists with a great meal. Instead, these greedy young fools, in their impatience, rush the fetus off to the dinner table when it is only a few ounces - a mere appetizer!
Posted by: Ragutis
|
October 21, 2009 1:40 AM
In all fairness, I feel I must present some evidence that seems to support Bill Donohue's assertion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSEgFCFZU-Q
Posted by: Patrick Oden | October 21, 2009 3:21 AM
Well, the 'religious conservatives' can continue to breed like rabbits, and the liberal intellectuals (teachers and thinkers, etc) will continue to educate those bunnies. It's the circle of life.
The enlightenment is steered by the enlightened, even if the manpower is supplied by the dark ages.
There is no religious conservative too far gone that a good education cannot remedy.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 21, 2009 4:07 AM
@Sastra 138
There's an interesting article in this month's Skeptic Magazine which suggests that religious belief declines as abstract and hypothetical thinking increases -- and that is something which can be taught.
Alas, the holy rollers had already figured this out in the 70's when some school districts tried to teach elementary school kids critical thinking skills. First the threats to pull the kids out of school, then the drive to pack the school boards.
It's pretty disgusting when you come down to it.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 21, 2009 4:52 AM
I disagree. Too much dishonesty can easily prevent education from working. Eg the ones who already don't seem to believe in their supposed god but are in it quite knowingly and blatantly for personal power.
Posted by: Walton | October 21, 2009 5:09 AM
If I were you, I wouldn't keep making jokes about eating babies. Many humour-impaired religious conservatives will read this page and think you're being serious. :-)
Posted by: DLC
|
October 21, 2009 5:24 AM
I have no idea why the WaPo would publish that insane rant.
Is it opposites day or something ?
Oh, and Bathhouses ? Perhaps that's the last time Bill D got any and he's really cranky about it now.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus
|
October 21, 2009 9:54 AM
Walton:
Jadehawk has already alluded to this, but your ruminations @119 give me hope that you're in the process of coming to a more reality-based view concerning the reliability of the "free" market's assignment of social value. I've always thought there was hope for you!
BTW, what's this about poverty after graduation? I thought you were planning to join the military; don't you Brits pay (and feed) your soldiers? Or have you adjusted your life's course (as, naturally, most college students do at least once)?
Carlie:
Hmmm... since I'm neither a lesbian nor a single woman, nor (AFAIK) is my wife either of those things, as cat owners (well, cat servants, actually, but you know what I mean), we must logically be... heavier than a duck!
Posted by: catgirl
|
October 21, 2009 10:09 AM
Well, that's a step closer. But in reality, most abortions are done when there's an embryo, not a fetus. I would go even farther and say that embryos aren't aborted; pregnancies are.
Posted by: Coryat
|
October 21, 2009 10:48 AM
Any of you want to live in my warren?
Posted by: Gwenny | October 21, 2009 12:35 PM
Hmmm, well I'm against the enslavement of other lifeforms, so no dog to walk. And I'm a fat old curmudgeon of a woman, so bath houses are out. And I have four spawn, being personally opposed to abortion. And three of those four spawn are godless heathens. And one of those godless heathen spawn has four spawn of his own.
I know . . I know . . I don't represent the norm. Bite me.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 21, 2009 12:47 PM
That is a very harsh assessment of pet ownership.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 21, 2009 12:51 PM
snicker
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
October 21, 2009 1:08 PM
Not "pets," "companion animals."
No, thank you.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/gtpooh#38129
|
October 21, 2009 2:11 PM
@aratina cage You don't consider depriving other creatures of their freedom, however pleasant the cage, for your pleasure and companionship to be slavery? I know, they are SO better off being cared for by you than they would be in the wild. ::suppresses an eyeroll:: I believe that was one of the arguments for "good" slavery in the antebellum South. And if they are SO happy, why do they always try to escape?
And it comes at the price to the environment. The pet industry is a multi billion dollar a year business that diverts huge amounts of food away from humans and loads the ecosystem with toxins from the manufacture of pet toys and accessories. It amazes me that I see folks screaming about cutting carbon emissions and yet they contribute to pollution by owning spoiled animals.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 21, 2009 2:26 PM
So is the argument that we should just let the animals be executed rather than take them home and provide for their needs? Or is it that we should take them out in the country after we rescue them from execution, and set them loose and let them fend for themselves?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 21, 2009 2:29 PM
Bill, is that you? Or is this Gwenny?
Domesticated animals... in the wild?
LOL. You're pulling my leg, right? Would it make you happier to let companion animals fend for themselves?
Got any peer reviewed evidence for this? First of all, nobody said anything about buying dogs from disreputable sources. It simply was not endorsed by anyone here, yet. Second, you seem to be advocating massive starvation of companion animals. Third, my little girl likes her dresses during snowy days and wouldn't dream of running off into the woods unless it was in pursuit of a squirrel or feral cat.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 21, 2009 2:33 PM
Hmm... I thought humans didn't own cats, but rather cats simply deigned to tolerate the inferior humans that fed them and tended to their literbox.
Posted by: Walton | October 21, 2009 2:34 PM
Well, now that I'm frantically searching for graduate jobs - and realising that unemployment is a very real prospect - I have come to realise that orthodox libertarian theory has a rather unrealistic perspective on the labour market. Libertarians, while focusing on state coercion, tend to ignore the reality of economic coercion. In the end, due to the need to earn a living, the average person faces far more control, on a day-to-day basis, from his or her employer than from the government. And most people have little real choice of employers, especially those of us who are graduating in the middle of a recession. Libertarians frequently don't seem to realise this; it's perhaps no coincidence that a lot of my libertarian/conservative friends are independently wealthy, and (unlike me) don't have to worry about finding a job to make ends meet.
So, contrary to some of my previous statements, I would now argue that it is sometimes legitimate for government to intervene to protect the interests of workers, and to redress the imbalance of power between employers and employees. Abstract libertarian theory is all very well, but, like any other political theory, it doesn't always survive contact with the facts on the ground. Ideology should always be tempered by reality and compassion.
I had something of a change of heart, and the idea of joining the military didn't work out. I currently have no idea what I'm going to do for a living, and am desperately searching for jobs.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 21, 2009 2:54 PM
I'm sure my two rescue dogs would rather have not been rescue dogs and would rather have stayed where they were... for however short a life that would be.
I also am pretty sure that when I come home from work that my big 105 Lab tackling me is a gesture of hate and escape instead of happiness.
It's the tongue lashing I get that really sets it off.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 21, 2009 3:06 PM
Oh, boy! Here we go with a totally OT debate on animal rights, and nobody even had to bring up vegetarianism!
For the record, I'm in favor of protecting animal welfare but if I weren't allergic to cats I'd probably have three by now. I rescued a newborn kitten and inadvertently taught him not only to spend every night tucked into his crate but also to sleep in a distinctly human-like position complete with front paw flung melodramatically over his eyes. Go me!
Though, by #162's logic, I suppose the critter would have been better off if I'd left him to get picked up with the trash, and starve to death if he didn't suffocate in a heap of garbage first. No, I guess that isn't fair, as I'm fairly sure it was his original human owner and not his feline mother who abandoned him by that trash heap. I suppose the right thing for that rat-bastard Lushnjar to do would have been to toss the mama cat and the whole litter out to the hills to fend for themselves among the snakes. Or maybe the Divjaka forest would have been better; more places to hide from the tourists' obnoxious kids, and more wild animals to prey on the kittens. Now who can guess where I was living at the time?! But either way, I'm sure that scampering around my guest room and snuggling up to a warm water bottle in his box under my handknit shawl was simply a terrible situation for the poor oppressed little feline. You could tell by the racket he made when I tried to put him to bed without first allowing him his I-knead-you time. It was like a little cotton plantation in my house.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 21, 2009 3:24 PM
NoR- "Hmm... I thought humans didn't own cats, but rather cats simply deigned to tolerate the inferior humans that fed them and tended to their litterbox."
Stereotyping and bigotry. I have a cat, and while I do at times feel objectified and treated as property, she is a champion cuddler, complains to me when I stay up too late reading Pharyngula, keeps the inside of my house bug free, and likes to share my pillow at night.
Oh, and the strangest, most un-catlike thing of all, she actually comes when I call her! A cat that obeys? SRSLY??
Posted by: Liz | October 21, 2009 3:33 PM
If cats are slaves, why can't I get them to do some work? Also,
I don't think they want to live in the wild. One of them occasionally
slips out. Within 5 minutes, she is crying to come back in.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 21, 2009 3:50 PM
Sounds like she has you well trained. ;) I know cats can be affectionate. Our old cat would have have a cuddle & purr session with my mother in the afternoon when my mother watched her soap. But the cat didn't want to be seen by anyone else doing it.Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus
|
October 21, 2009 3:52 PM
aratina cage (@164):
Definitely not me; I'm almost offended that you would ask that! ;^)
My response to (presumably) Gwenny is that what she(?) describes certainly would be slavery... if cats and dogs (and horses and guinea pigs and tropical fish and...) were people.
This just in: Cats. Are. Not. People!!!
Film at 11:00!
Walton:
Some of us here can now die happy; our work is done! ;^)
And as for...
...I must say I'm somewhat pleased about that, as well. I didn't relish the idea of you getting your (newly enlightened) ass shot off in some FSM-forsaken illegal war.
As for the panic you feel at your impending graduation, be of good cheer. To paraphrase the impresario in Shakespeare in Love, it will all turn out well. Why? I don't know; it's a mystery.
Besides, there's always graduate school!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 21, 2009 4:13 PM
I had a feeling you would call me out on that. ;)Whoever posted #162 (gtpooh) may not have been Gwenny, either, but for Spam's sake, whoever it was reached Donohue's wildly exaggerated level of craziness in the first sentence. If the person in #162 had any compassion, xe would have known how desperate companionless dogs and cats are (among other domesticated animals) to just survive. It's cruel and inhumane to turn out your pet rabbit for the owls or allow your dog to starve to death on plastic bottle caps. I wouldn't doubt if #162 was an animal abuser, a complete hypocrite.
Posted by: raven
|
October 21, 2009 4:19 PM
This is just silly. Dogs and cats are human commensuals, not slaves. They get something out of it and so do we. Look how many dogs there are in the world versus how many wolves. In evolutionary terms, being a dog was a howling success.
My cats were volunteers. They showed up at the door one day and looked thin and hungry. So I gave them a bowl of food. They could leave any minute they want because they are indoor-outdoor cats.
And of course they are far better off than in the wild. Most dogs would just die and cats don't last much longer in N. America.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 21, 2009 4:24 PM
I can't even get a single job offer, and am likely to be facing unemployment and poverty after I graduate next summer. Maybe I'm just an utter failure at life. - Walton
Well there's no doubt you're entering the search for employment at a tough time, but it's far too early to feel that! You are clearly bright and determined, if (I'd guess) rather socially inept. There must be sources of careers advice available to you. What do your tutors say about the class of degree you're likely to get? (I'm not asking you to reveal this unless you really want to, but they are likely to have a good idea by this time, and my guess is that they are not giving you bad news about it.)
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 21, 2009 4:26 PM
My dear late friend K had a teeny kitten show up on her doorstep one morning, thin and flea-ridden and crying her little lungs out. My friend's then-fiance picked up the kitty, who then stopped crying and patted his beard with her little paws. So, yeah, they kept her. I don't think the kitty would have preferred the alternative.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 21, 2009 4:32 PM
"You don't consider depriving other creatures of their freedom, however pleasant the cage, for your pleasure and companionship to be slavery? I know, they are SO better off being cared for by you than they would be in the wild. ::suppresses an eyeroll::"
Wait, what?
Are you fucking serious? Have you ever owned a pet, or at least spent some time with people who do?
If you think pets spend all their time trying to escape from the evil clutches of their oppressive owners, you need to check in with reality occasionally. Or once, even.
My cat has lived with people all her life (I am not her first owner), and if I "gifted" her with the freedom you seem to know she wants so badly, she'd be dead inside a week. She has no concept of how to survive in the "wild" (Suburban Phoenix could hardly be considered the wild).
I'd call you a moron, but that would would be an insult to profoundly stupid people. So, just FUCK OFF.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 22, 2009 8:36 AM
-Sorry 89 and #91! I know I don't belong here. I just really wanted that info. Thanks for not making to much fun of me. -
Sanrda...why would we make fun of you? and why would you think you weren't welcome here?
Posted by: SEF
|
October 22, 2009 9:24 AM
@ Richard Eis #178:
You evidently haven't been following along the thread and seeing the sort of replies to Sandra Kay written by some of the usual poor-of-reading-comprehension, hard-of-thinking, rabid-attack-dog bunch.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 22, 2009 11:32 AM
That was rabid? Wow, pharyngula must be getting a bit old and toothless. I only really counted one grammar nazi and a missed understanding. Compared to about 10 solid replies.
Thats better than most blog posts i'd say.
Posted by: Sandra Kay | October 22, 2009 5:57 PM
Hello! To Pierce R. Butler #146 Thank you! I have a lot to read now. I cant believe you remember me.
Richard Eis #178, sounds dumb I know. I'm just not very good at talking to people and am terrified of all social situations. I'm scared of people, LOL. And yes I did get a lot of great responses. It gave me so much more to think about and I appreciate it so much.
Someone told me about the book candide. I ordered it.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 22, 2009 6:05 PM
I can't even get a single job offer, and am likely to be facing unemployment and poverty after I graduate next summer. Maybe I'm just an utter failure at life.
Someone needs to read C. Wright Mills' "Sociological Imagination" and come to a better understanding of the relationship between "personal troubles" and "social issues."
I can't believe I'm going to give encouragement to Walton, BUT BUCK THE FUCK UP! (and get some anti-depressants, which you've been told here over and over and over and over.....) It ain't about you. It's an intensely bad labor market for just about everyone (there's always prostitution...). I got so many rejection letters last year I lost count (and that's in addition to the "we've canceled the search" letters). They were from places that had over 400 applicants for one position. At some point, the shit gets kinda arbitrary and not about any fault of any individual. It's about social systems..........