…and this is a 
The vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University has compared atheists to Biblical plagues, which is quite nice of him. He seems to have forgotten that, in his mythology, those are usually sent by his god to chastise people and get them to change — is he going to ignore this divine message that is winging his way in March? Probably.
Anyway, the funniest part his screed is the first line: Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny. It's funny because the rest of it is his clumsy attempt to attack atheists in a clever, witty, or funny way. It's cute in a oh-look-at-the-tyke-playing-dressup fashion, but it really undermines his message that it's bad to mock other ideas. Unless his message is really that it's OK to mock, except you don't get to mock the Catholic church.
Oh, wait…he does specifically tell the atheists to target smaller cults, so I guess that is his message!
He also whines a lot that the atheists are going after Catholicism, specifically. Sorry, not true: we despise all religions equally. It's just that Catholicism is fairly prominent, and populated by oblivious wankers who like to go all indignant and loud at the mildest poke. And since we like to hear them squeak, poke we do.
Comments
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 4, 2009 11:15 AM
Can be a cracker defiling frog?
Posted by: Kevin | November 4, 2009 11:16 AM
As a committed Pastafarian (red sauce, death to all white saucers) I have always thought that you were primarily an antinoodlinarian. Amazing how wearing a funny hat and worshipping crackers makes some think that they're important enough for PZ to notice them.
Posted by: Spiro Keat | November 4, 2009 11:17 AM
Steady on PZ, you'll upset poor Donohue again.
Posted by: DeanFromBC | November 4, 2009 11:17 AM
Ah, hubris. If we are guilty of attacking anything in greater proportion it would be fundie protestantism. I don't give to much thought to Catholicism at all, despite the fact they are one of the easiest religions to mock.
I like how his parting shot makes us all about hate. Yet one of the big reasons many of us are anti-religious is because of religious intolerance. Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: Newfie
|
November 4, 2009 11:23 AM
Um... where do they hold the nudist ceramics? That wasn't in my newsletter.
Posted by: airbagmoments | November 4, 2009 11:24 AM
Speak for yourself.
I despise some religions waaaaay more than others.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 4, 2009 11:33 AM
Anytime you wanna step up and take responsibility here on Earth for your generally douchebaggy behaviour, RCC, you'll leave us with a lot less ammunition.
Whiny Catholics with persecution complexes are among the most pathetic of God's creatures.
Posted by: Gryllus | November 4, 2009 11:38 AM
What a quite stunningly foot-shootingly bad article! Desperate attempts at humour there
Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 4, 2009 11:38 AM
Not only religions, but all irrational practices including: astrology, psychics, alternative medicines. I am continuously having debates about these things with people.
Why do Catholics feel so special as for us to devote our attention to them?
Posted by: hyperdeath | November 4, 2009 11:40 AM
In Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey series, the computer HAL 9000 is programmed with two contradictory orders, specifically the order to not conceal information, together with the order to keep a particular secret. Consequently, he goes completely insane.
A related phenomenon happens to Catholic apologists. At one end, they believe the Catholic Church to be an almost perfect organisation, a role model for all of humanity, and the highest authority in a vast range of matters. At the other end, they hear all these accusations of bigotry, greed and child rape. The results are very similar, as evidenced above.
Given another 100 words, Craven would probably have started singing Daisy Bell.
Posted by: natural cynic | November 4, 2009 11:45 AM
Ah, Mr. Craven. Methinks thou protesteth too much. Mayhap thou ought to start with that man in the mirror who apparently lacks introspection.
Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something.
And why would that be significant? Especially since you have written that it is belief, and not demonstrated that it is a fact.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 4, 2009 11:50 AM
Don't forget the callous dismissal of child rape as some kind of trivial atheist distortion:
(A more developed discussion of this point starts here on the Endless Thread.)
Posted by: Stuart | November 4, 2009 11:57 AM
'Wankers'? Cool are you turning into a brit, PZ?
Posted by: natural cynic | November 4, 2009 11:58 AM
@10 Hyperdeath:
I thought that it was the cover-up of information which conflicted with the mission and HAL's programming to be honest. That drove HAL to be homocidally sane, trying to get rid of the biological fuck-ups whose unreliability jeopardized the mission.
And what would have happened if HAL had succeeded and entered the portal?
Posted by: Lynna | November 4, 2009 12:13 PM
"At the bottom, of course, lies hate." Oh dear. One more log on the "I'm being persecuted" fire. If you want to say "of course" let's say what you really mean, "Of course religion is so great and good that only someone filled with irrational hate would object to any religiously inspired actions." Jerry Coyne's talk in the "Jerry Coyne at AAI" thread provides a succinct list of reasons to object to religion, and objective ways to measure religion's deleterious effects.
I feel a little like I'm howling into the void, but let's say it once more, just in case anyone is listening: No, I do not hate my fellow mortals. I don't hate Christians nor any other followers of religions. I thoroughly despise the deleterious effects your beliefs have on education, health care or medicine, and most of all on my fellow mortals ability to think. You religious proselytizers have lithified the brains of some our most well-meaning human beings.
Not having a sense of humor, and a sense of irony, is a sure sign of a hardened belief system. Making fun of the more outrageous beliefs of christians is funny. Just check out the blasphemous comedians.
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
November 4, 2009 12:14 PM
Really? Although their supernatural claims are equally false, religions differ in the behavior they demand of the faithful. To the extent that these demands affect the actual behavior of the faithful, I would say that religions vary in terms of how contemptible they are. As Sam Harris has noted, religion would be a much more minor concern in a world full of Jains than in a world dominated by the Abrahamic religions.
Posted by: Chester Burton Brown | November 4, 2009 12:14 PM
Personally, I'm wondering why the poor fellow doesn't just polite ignore atheists. He is, after all, suggesting that we ought to be ignoring him.
...On reflection, that suggestion seems to have some merit. Done.
Yours,
CBB
Posted by: Andrea | November 4, 2009 12:16 PM
To be perfectly fair, I do hate Catholicism a lot more than I hate many other religions. Last time I hecked, Wiccans were a bit silly, but weren't in the business of terrorizing rape victims and promoting the spread of deadly STDs.
So, yeah, I do hate Catholicism rather a lot.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 4, 2009 12:17 PM
Two direct hits! You'll sink their battleship.
It's also a typical whine about how the RCC gets picked on unjustly. Poor rich, hypocritical abusive babies! Jebus' sacred heart bleeds for them.
Posted by: SEF | November 4, 2009 12:24 PM
I prefer the frogs. Among the great many things I found to despise about the bible and its believers was the suggestion that frogs were a fearful plague visited upon people, ie rather than the adorable boggle-eyed flipper-footed critters I know them to be. My RSV even has a helpful illustration of a few frogs sitting around in their usual state of vague bewilderment and mixed optimism/pessimism.
I've even had a frog come up into my house, as per Exodus 8.3, all the way through the drains and sewers but into a toilet bowl rather than a kneading bowl (since that and the oven would have required something more akin to an actual special creation and relocation miracle) and the upstairs bathroom rather than a bedchamber. My response was to lovingly scoop it out and take it safely to the pond; and then start looking hopefully around for more of them every time I went into any bathrooms etc for weeks and months afterwards.
WANT MOAR FROGS! Plagues - ur not doing them rite.
Posted by: Gryllus | November 4, 2009 12:26 PM
@stuart #13 - Yep, looks that way - if we can get proof of him eating marmite then we can all call PeeZed officially
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 4, 2009 12:27 PM
Speak for yourself, PZ. I despise some religions a lot more than others. If the Catholic Church wants to go on encouraging overpopulation and HIV proliferation in Africa and covering up child molestation and abuse in Ireland and elsewhere, and tell their members that they're actually eating the body and blood of a 1st-century Jewish carpenter every Sunday and that this is a good thing, while telling non-members they're going to Hell, then they're going to keep on getting a larger share of my disdain for irrationality and superstition. I realize that I'm mainly speaking of a difference in scale, but the heirarchical structure is built into Catholic doctrine and so the damage they're able to do with their resources and organization is an effect of their faith.
Some religions are merely irrational. Others are destructive.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 4, 2009 12:31 PM
I believe self-congratulations are in order. Cheers, everyone!
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 4, 2009 12:35 PM
The thing that sets the Catholic Church aside from many other religions is the fact that it hasn't split and schismed near as much as the various Protestant strains, and thus still retains a huge monolithic organization that has wielded huge political power in past years and has a big gilded palace with a big gilded old fart at the head of it. Catholic Church: If you want us to stop picking on you, stop being such an easy target.
(Among a great many other things)
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 4, 2009 12:39 PM
Look, now it applies to Christians.
Fuck you Catholic Church, and all you stand for.
I know--so damn adorable. I captured one and kept it as a pet in a fishtank when I was eight or nine. I'd tie bits of food to strings and dangle them around like they were flies for it, and I'd kiss it on its froggy little mouth.
I ♥ Frogs.
Posted by: Fordi | November 4, 2009 12:58 PM
Headline adjustment: "A plague of atheists is spreading, and Catholics are within the infection radius."
I mean, if you want to be accurate AND spin it negatively.
Posted by: SEF | November 4, 2009 1:01 PM
I find that my frogs get their most excited about worms. So excited that they'll charge across the pond and over the top of rival frogs to get to the worm first.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 4, 2009 1:06 PM
Yeah, I'm kinda pissed about that 'hate' thing, too...
I mean, in my case, it's not that I'd see anything much wrong with hating the more horrific things the RCC has done and is cheerfully doing to this day... Nor feeling something similar toward the dodgy, slimy apologists they trot out to try to imply such entirely appropriate offense is somehow irrational or unreasonable given the record and the facts on the ground, here... But see, just writing 'hate' is just a bit off, really, seems to me... lacks the appropriate oomph, most of all...
So, please, let's call it more properly what it is... Blue pencil out, and please could we switch 'hate' for 'horrified, repulsed, revolted disgust', please and thanks, ya blithering, craven, vomit-inducing, lying fuck, if you could?
(/In the name of accuracy is all... Kthxbye.)
Posted by: Lynna | November 4, 2009 1:10 PM
The thing is, we tell the truth about religions, and sometimes the truth is funny.
Posted by: ChaCha | November 4, 2009 1:10 PM
If I chuckled while reading the vice-chancellor's article, does that make me an accomodationist?
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 4, 2009 1:16 PM
Well he's right about one thing. Attacking Christians isn't really clever, witty or funny. It's more like playing Basketball with a retarded kid, and calling him out for double dribbling. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
You don't have to be clever to see why Christianity is wrong, you just have to be sane.
You can be witty about it, but what's the point, when your audience is too stupid or too entrenched to understand your witticisms?
Lastly, there's nothing funny about modern people, in an educated society, with an unprecedented wealth of information readily available at their fingertips, putting all their faith in a poorly written, inconsistent, bronze age fairytale, describing events that occur in no other contemporary literature. When that realization hit me, it was absolutely the most terrifying thing I have ever experienced.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 4, 2009 1:24 PM
OT, but have y'all seen this?
There is apparently a new sea opening up in Ethiopia:
http://futurity.org/earth-environment/seafloor-dynamics-at-work-splitting-continent/
Frightening if you live in Ethiopia or certain neighboring countries, but for that reason, certainly worth paying attention to.
Posted by: Stuart | November 4, 2009 1:28 PM
Come on, atheists can get a bit repetitive in your 'witticisms'. The current trend is to hilariously throw around the terms, 'Believing in Magik' or 'Pink Unicorns' or 'Flying Spaghetti Monsters'. I would type more, but I'm doubled over with laughter, just thinking about it.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 4, 2009 1:41 PM
Yes, yes, let's quickly move away from the previous admission that "the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something." Something? What something? Despite this being an "advantage," the dispute between atheists and Catholics -- or atheists and theists in general -- has absolutely nothing to do with belief in anything! The existence of God doesn't come into it. Truth doesn't matter. Not at all!
Instead, we'll frame atheism as a "diverting pastime." The fact that atheists are whinging on about whether God exists or not is incidental. Certainly, the existence of God is a question neither theists in general nor Catholics in particular care about. Which makes it all the more puzzling that atheists would bring the matter up with them.
Ah, it must be because atheists are trying to show themselves as clever, and witty. And because they're mean.
Let's divert the issue to atheists' style, and their personalities, and their language, and their demeanor, and their manners, and anything and everything but their arguments. And let's do it in a clever, witty, and mean way, so that they'll be distracted from the fact that we don't address what they're saying, and, like us, will focus only on how we say it.
Silly apologist.
Posted by: Vicki | November 4, 2009 1:45 PM
Rey @ 24:
The Catholic church has had lots of schisms. In a real sense, every denomination now called "Protestant" is descended from such a schism. Go back far enough, and you'll also find schisms between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Nestorians (of whom there are still a few), and lots of groups that have faded or been slaughtered over the centuries.
Also, I disagree with all religions. I fear and/or despise the ones that are acting to hurt me, people like me, or other innocents. The Unitarian Universalists didn't send lots of money to Maine and California to pay for lying ads against same-sex marriage. Zen Buddhists aren't spending their time trying to convince people not to use condoms.
Posted by: nic nicholson | November 4, 2009 2:19 PM
"And since we like to hear them squeak, poke we do."
That's a t-shirt, right there, P-Zed! lol
Posted by: vanitas | November 4, 2009 2:44 PM
Yeah Sastra !!! #34 -- on the money as per usual.
Posted by: Steve | November 4, 2009 2:44 PM
He thinks he's been attacked? My, how sensitive. I attack CHRISTIANITY. The poor fools who dedicate their lives to it, and the crooks who benefit from it I just feel sorry for.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 4, 2009 3:15 PM
The fear is in the eyes, and the stench of bigotry and voided bowels is wafting, poor bunnies are passing bricks.
They have started to realise that they are not cock 'o' the heap, where they have squatted for so long like a fat and gangrenous dollop of acidic envy imitating an extremely sinister and malevolent diseased crow.
In fact they are slipping down the slope of bankrupt superstitious balderdash faster and more furious then their competitors in jeebus, they are obviously not amused.
In fact notice the genuine humour is rather sparse, instead it is sickly rather embarrassing attempts at being clever, and that was never one of religions stronger traits, never has been and in a Jesuit it is a definite anathema!
It comes across as exactly as what it is, incoherent, false, pouting and frightened drivel.
Claiming god given plagues, (was there any other sort in the bible?) are a basically negative happening and equating that with Atheism is an obvious slip of metaphor, so shot through the foot the fool limps on!
Every day they are getting the metaphorical crap kicked out of their righteousness pompousness, they are very afraid that after so many centuries their protection scam has finally been busted.
Mistakes are being made, only they are not being so easily swept away under the carpet of dogma and catolik charm.
Spluttering hysterical pontifications and other vacuous claims ridiculi as they panic is the only avenue left, but they are losing, they know it!
That is one reason their obnoxious opinion pieces are getting so very insulting and rather bitter and yet they demand all the respect and special privilege in Christendom.
Despite the train wreck that religion actually is!
And despite the train wreck they actually are!
Their attitude is reminiscent of kindergarten bullying when the bully gets to pick on a bigger stronger and more able kid by miscalculation.
All of a sudden they claim and cry that they are in fact the victim to anyone in hearing distance...poor bunnies are so distraught.
The slyness bitterness and cowardice is endemic in the small minded.
With ignorance bigotry and intolerance their hand is complete.
They might trump the hard of thinking, but the rational ones always have a royal.
They do fear it will flush them away down the u-bend of religious fantasy, where all the previous gods ended up.
Jesuit tears before bedtime methinks.
oh dear!...how sad!...never mind!
Posted by: Bunk | November 4, 2009 3:25 PM
Damn it, I told Algie to stop handing out those pamphlets. You can't go anywhere without him harassing you on every street corner. Next thing you know he'll be banging on your door at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday morning.
Posted by: Flea | November 4, 2009 3:32 PM
I don't know about you but what turns me on is not hate but envy of their lovely garments.Posted by: lurker42 | November 4, 2009 3:40 PM
SEF #20: My new hero.
Posted by: ColonelFazackerley | November 4, 2009 3:42 PM
Some religions are more benign. On the other hand, catholic dogma kills people, condom use saves lives, abortions can save lives
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 4, 2009 4:07 PM
It's true, actually. Always been one of the ongoing challenges in the field. A bit like trying to write satire about the Bush II administration was--you can't have the cartoonist just do a panel of the guy standing there saying 'Yes, we're holding 'em indefinitely without trial 'cos we don't have the evidence to hold 'em if they go to trial...'
... because, well, they actually said that...
(Or I guess you could... But then, you could also just as well run it in news, not editorial... And the cartoonist still starts looking a bit redundant...)
Which speaks, really, to the grumble about the whole 'invisible sky fairy' thing getting a bit repetitive, back up there. I mean, sure, it can. Delivery helps, sure... But ultimately, the fact is: they do believe in an invisible sky fairy, and therein lies the conundrum for keeping things fresh. Comic exaggeration is a bit of a stretch when the reality is already absurd. It's nice when they get into new bits of silly you can riff on, and FSTDT has had some great moments with the wilder turns of phrase the basic clash between sanity and religious delusion does evoke, but still, adding to this stuff with your own commentary is frequently just gilding the lily...
You can go with understatement. Just raise an eyebrow. That can work... But really, it's always going to be a challenge, especially if you want to do sophisticated, subtle humour... 'Cos let's face it, that's always going to be a bit difficult when you're working with a setup man who keeps dropping his pants.
(/And that's assuming he was even wearing 'em when he came on.)
Posted by: Siegmund | November 4, 2009 4:18 PM
At the same time in Germany, cardinal Meisner of cologne comes as close to calling Dawkins a nazi as you can without doing so (in german: http://news.google.de/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=de&hl=de&q=meisner)
Posted by: Caine
|
November 4, 2009 4:39 PM
Craven's response is clearly fearful, but it's not the happy I'm in control, you'll go to hell if you don't do what you're told type of fear they usually inflict on others. It's genuine fear, because people are no longer afraid to walk away; to laugh and to tell the truth. Craven's beloved church is no longer the powerhouse it once was, and he obviously doesn't like being reminded of that fact.
Atheists no longer have to live in fear and secrecy; nor worry about being imprisoned, tortured or other little things, like being burnt alive. Craven seems to be genuinely sorry about that. Tsk.
Catholicism is a nightmare nest of immorality and cruelty. It deserves to be called out and disdained at every opportunity.
*I agree with SEF and Brownian about the frogs too. Frogs are great.
Posted by: Draken
|
November 4, 2009 4:52 PM
I'm not in the mood to translate all of the gibberish Meisner has puked out, but let me try:
"As once the National-socialists considered the human individual only as bearer of its race's heritage, likewise defines the forerunner of the new Godless, the Englishman Richard Dawkins, humans as a container for all-important genes, whose preservation the primary objective of our existence seems to be."
Seine Seligkeit doesn't seem to have read Dawkins very well, beyond the cover text that is.
Posted by: Mac | November 4, 2009 5:04 PM
"Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure."
Would this be possible...?
Ethical, yes, to save the world from these ongoing catastrophes...
But possible...?
Hmmm...
Posted by: speedweasel
|
November 4, 2009 5:09 PM
Stuart @13 said:
'Wanker' is also very much an Australian term. Maybe PZ is getting into an Aussie state of mind in preparation for March.
Interestingly, we Australians tend to call each other 'cunts' in a friendly fashion, whilst I understand most Americans will faint upon hearing that particular endearment.
Fear my cultural relativity.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 4, 2009 5:10 PM
Hmmm. I'll go with Godfree rather than Godless.
Not that Meisner gets Dawkins right in any way, but what about all the "your body is a temple", "your body is a vessel" crap? At least being a container for genes doesn't prohibit one from enjoying life. Keeping up all that 'body as sacred temple' nonsense not only sucks the enjoyment out of life, but it's for a nonexistent reward. Feh.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 4, 2009 5:25 PM
Shortly before this, in the same newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/women-are-being-failed-by-our-hospitals-20091102-htcd.html
Why, yes, there IS a reason for singling out Catholics.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 4, 2009 5:54 PM
Craven cried:
So Craven is just another theist complaining about atheists coming out of the closet. If only we'd keep our mouths shut and not bother goddists like him, he'd be happy. But what's really enraging is when we do open our mouths, we talk about archbishops excommunicating those involved in giving a nine year old rape victim an abortion or how the RCC protected child rapists as a matter of official policy.
Posted by: Discombobulated | November 4, 2009 5:54 PM
Yes, vice-chancellor, the RCC may indeed be singled out for some extra-special scorn, but don't feel too special: you reap what you sow.
An anti-condom religious billboard from Tanzania
Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 5:55 PM
Thanks for posting on it, PZ....
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
November 4, 2009 6:10 PM
Yeah, as Rorschach said, thanks for the post.
I found it heartening that a significant majority of the posters were shredding the article and taking the apologists to task.
But its always the 'but can't we just all be friends?' posts that disappoint me the most.
Posted by: raven | November 4, 2009 6:16 PM
The RCC has had the grace or fortune to make itself less and less important.
The heirarchy has fossilized in place. They really have become an anachronism. They are also having a hard time getting good clergy. No one wants to be a lifelong virgin anymore or sees the point.
There is a huge gap between the members and the clergy. No one bothers to pay any attention to the preists anymore. The birth rate of US Catholics is identical to the national average.
On a malevolency scale, I would score them far less of a threat than the fundies.
Posted by: SEF | November 4, 2009 6:20 PM
It's somewhat reminiscent of Pastor Ray Mummert whinging about him and his fellow anti-intellectual god-botherers not simply being allowed to get away with destroying children's education:
Except, of course, that Mummert was accidentally honest there while Greg Craven is still stuck on projecting. So they are sources of amusement for different aspects of their lack of awareness.
Posted by: Coran | November 4, 2009 6:25 PM
I noted at the time that the whole article seemed to be the bastard offspring of PZ's "Courtier's Reply" and Greta's "Shut Up, That's Why" http://bit.ly/2uxj1Y
Posted by: Andrea | November 4, 2009 6:36 PM
@56 Maybe on the scale of the United States, the Roman Catholic Church is less of a threat than fundamentalist Christians; after all, both sects mill around with denying women abortion rights, and the RCC isn't as outspoken in its anti-science positions as some Fundies are.
But let's be honest. On a lobal scale, the RCC does a hell of a lot more damage. There aren't a billion people that listen to James Dobson or Ken Ham or any other crazed fundie Christian. But there are a bilion people who are, at least nominally, under the guidance of Ratzi. A billion. If just ten percent of those billion take the shit that he says about condom use, or women's rights, or gay and trans rights seriously, then we are dealing with a massive, global problem.
And from my experience, US Catholics aren't exactly representative of global Catholicism. Look at Latin America, for Chrissake. Do we need to re-iterate the case of the raped nine-year old whose mother was publicly disgraced and excommunicated for daring to save her daughter's life? In Nicaragua, women suspected of maybe having abortions are chained to hospital beds, and have their bodies treated like crime scenes, and then tell me that the RCC isn't a huge threat to any kind of standards of decency and ethics in this world.
The RCC is one of the single largest, most cohesive forces for evil in this world.
Posted by: mrcreosote | November 4, 2009 6:36 PM
follow up letters
http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/lack-of-fact-logic-and-argument-20091104-hxv5.html
Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 4, 2009 7:29 PM
Actually, I don't despise all religions equally. Some are worse than others in their attempts at interference with our lives, their tendencies to apocalypticism, etc. Im fact, I can think of several criteria that I'd use. Some religions don't deserve to be despised at all, merely disagreed with politely over cucumber sandwiches. Of the others, the Cult of Misery is one of the worst. I'm happy to say this plainly. The Roman Catholic Church gets especially despised status, in my book, because that's what it merits.
Posted by: Xenithrys | November 4, 2009 8:54 PM
Today's opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald is a good response to that bit of lunacy, and I especially like the term "cry-baby theists":
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-new-crybaby-theists-20091105-hyyc.html
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 4, 2009 10:04 PM
I liked this comment from the op-ed article Xenithrys linked:
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | November 4, 2009 10:13 PM
Andrea's #59 response to raven #56, exactly.
The Catholic church is a global organization, and is doing evil on a grand scale, whether or not it has significant influence on the street where you happen to live.
In a lot of ways, it can be compared to the USA: as individuals, most Catholics and Yanks are just nice ordinary people... do I need to complete the sentence? Apart from the insanity of religious belief, it's a combination of corporatism (employees of a corporation, obliged to act in its interest and not their own, carry out the actions of a sociopath), self-absorption (other belief systems and other points of view are neglected and dismissed) and partly the unhinged and increasingly desperate attempts to claw back the power they once had so easily, while slowly losing it.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 4, 2009 10:15 PM
Was it John Lennox who said theists owe a debt of gratitude to "New Atheism" for pricking the conscience of believers?
I think he is right. The literal, historical, critical, cannonical, exegetical, hermeneutical, theological scholarship of Bultmann, Schnackenberg, etc. was getting so...... boring. It was putting people to sleep.
Discussing religion and the bible really was turning into …what was that expression…”chloroform in print”.
Satan was just about to breathe a contented sigh of relief then Two Big Giants came stomping into the room in their steel capped boots and "woke the sleeping baby".
The first one was named "New Atheism" and he was like a breath of fresh air. The Circus had come to town complete with Boxing Tent and some good old showmanship. "I Hate God and I Hate Religion. Anybody got a problem with that?" Suddenly discussion religion didn’t make you a geek. It was everywhere. Hurray! Something new to talk about at the water cooler.
Lion (IRC)
PS – I yeah I forgot to mention the name of the other clumsy oaf who woke the baby that satan was carefully trying to put to bed. Usama Bin Laden.
Aggressive New Atheism – I wish there was no God.
Violent Political Theism – I wish I was God.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 4, 2009 10:18 PM
Yawn, Still no evidence from the Lyin' Lion. Another pointless and wasted post the delusional fool.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 4, 2009 10:27 PM
Lirc the Irksome @ #65:
No. There's no evidence for god; for any god. Until you place actual evidence on the table, it's
Xenithrys @ #62, thanks for the link. I particularly liked this bit:
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 4, 2009 10:30 PM
That was a really embarrassing article to read. Not all our universities produce such terrible minds I swear!
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 4, 2009 10:33 PM
Lion IRC #65 wrote:
I suspect that, if there is a smile of relief here, it's pretty forced. The so-called New Atheists haven't exactly been greeted warmly. The problem is that theology only works if you're on the inside. Apologetics are only good to reassure people who already have faith, and want to keep it.
On fair, common, and impartial ground, the atheists win the arguments, both at the water cooler, and in the philosophical debate. When someone has the facts on their side, you don't see them mewling about "needing to have faith" or claiming that honest debate is bullying, let's change the subject now.
The so-called New Atheists want to drag religious claims out into the open, so that they can stand or fall on their merit. And we're not distracted by the psychological tricks which work with the very young, the very vulnerable, or those who are looking for a reason to believe. I wouldn't be too sure that your fellow religionists are eager for this.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 4, 2009 10:37 PM
Quit being intentionally stupid Lion.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 4, 2009 11:35 PM
You are still bleating, lyin' jerk?
I thought the credit for bringing religion back into the "public square" went to such glorious names as Joe McCarthy (archnemesis of those godless commies), Francisco Franco ("Spain is the spiritual reserve of the West"), and Jerry-new-orleans-had-a-level-of-sin-that-was-offensive-to-god-Falwell.
Thanks for clearing the matter.
Oh, and when was the last time I wish elves didn't exist?
Hmm...
But I do wish that creationism didn't exist.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
November 5, 2009 12:03 AM
The discussion is livening up in the comments (as linked to by Xenithrys at #62)
There's a nice turn out from the atheists, god-botherers and even the fence-sitters.
What it really needs, though... is a good dose of Smoggy :)
(although I doubt his best work would get past the moderator)
Posted by: Blair | November 5, 2009 12:40 AM
Impressive, Greg Craven trots out the usual tired old mantra we normally hear from creationists. Still, the Catholic Church isn't averse to a little plagiarism when it suits. Poor old Mister Craven must be lacking a little inspiration.
The highlight of his sad little rant was actually the Google advertisement above his pithy words, ironically it was advertising "Single Christian Girls, meet attractive Christian women 30+ NOW"
Good one God.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 5, 2009 12:54 AM
Is that a request for a miracle?
Posted by: David | November 5, 2009 2:04 AM
Well I suppose it's not so bad being attacked with words by a Catholic. How long ago was it that these Craven bastards killed people who disagreed with them?
Posted by: Rorschach | November 5, 2009 2:30 AM
Lot's of people in those comments going down the "why cant we all respect each other" route.
I want to throw things at them.
Posted by: maxamillion
|
November 5, 2009 3:17 AM
From last nights "Hungry Beast"
Jesus Has Issues
http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/jesus-has-issues
I think the Catholics will not like thins one.
Posted by: Matt | November 5, 2009 3:19 AM
As somebody who studied at ACU, boy am I glad that the religious aspect never made it into any of my classes. Almost surprisingly, they do a good exercise and sport science course, and the pharmacology people from the school, of nursing left a good impression on me. Arguably that's for the simple reason that none of the religious nutjobs in the place have any say in what we study :-)
Posted by: Rorschach | November 5, 2009 3:26 AM
maxamillion,
thanks for the link, that is awesome ! Will post it on FB.....
Posted by: SEF | November 5, 2009 4:28 AM
@ David #75:
Not long ago at all! (Depending on which countries and groups of them you're considering, since people do so like to play the not-my-catholics or no-true-catholic game.)
In addition to the usual crimes of violence dotted around, there doesn't even have to be much of a "disagreement" per se (at least on the part of the victim!) to prompt a Catholic to murder someone. It's sufficient for the Catholic to find someone's mere existence offensive.
Posted by: Sean the Blogonaut | November 5, 2009 7:12 AM
I see that you have picked up an American to Australian dictionary ie oblivious wankers. That's the spirit. Keep it up and we won't try to get you with that ol' Drop bear malarkey.
Posted by: SEF | November 5, 2009 8:00 AM
PS to my #80:
Ireland and parts of Africa and Asia are notable places where Catholics (acting as a group rather than just as individuals) have continued killing people for disagreeing with them. Although sometimes they kill each other or themselves instead.
But of course the US has quite a side-line in murderous anti-abortionists killing medical staff. I'm not sure what the split between Catholics and the various Protestant etc groups is for that sort of activity.
Posted by: DynamicUno | November 5, 2009 10:47 AM
Oooh, Mr. Craven used a lightbulb joke to put atheists in their place! BURN! *roll eyes*
Here, I fixed it:
How many atheists does it take to screw in a light bulb? One - to pick up a lightbulb and simply screw it in properly so that it actually works according to well understood electromagnetic principles.
It's still not funny, but at least now it's accurate.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 5, 2009 11:15 AM
That woman's and the baby's deaths were tragedies of shame. She either refused to acknowledge or simply wouldn't admit she was pregnant because that would mean admitting she had premarital sex, and we can't have that. When you've been living in that kind of denial for 37 weeks, your mind is already fucked and you're not going to see the newborn as an actual human being.
Her parents never met her boyfriend. Her mother cleaned the blood off her legs because "there would be men in the house" when she called for an ambulance. Because it's not like she'd want EMTs coming to take her daughter to hospital after a hemorrhage, to see that her daughter's legs are covered in blood.
After this devastating show of shame and secrecy, a family has lost their daughter and grandchild at the same time. But at least she didn't have an abortion.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | November 5, 2009 11:15 AM
Brownian, OM #25
Merci rosbif!
Posted by: SEF | November 5, 2009 12:10 PM
And from another bunch of Catholics who regard themselves as the one true Catholics, with the Rome strain being the pretenders, there's this.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 5, 2009 9:55 PM
I can see why people get up at those concern trolls. Being silent isn't respectful, it's keeping peace for the sake of being inoffensive. Why is speaking out equivalent to being disrespectful? Furthermore, why does one deserve respect because they believe something silly about the universe? I don't respect homoeopaths in the slightest. I would love to see homoeopathy fall off the memeosphere. Yet does this mean I hate homoeopaths or those who use the medicine? Of course not. When I speak out on homoeopathy, it isn't a personal attack on all those who practice it.Yet if homoeopaths keep to themselves and don't use their insane ideas to harm others, then I'll leave them alone. Their freedom to swing their arms when it comes into contact with someone's face. Same goes for Catholics. I don't have to respect the beliefs or those who believe in them, but I'm perfectly happy for them to be Catholic just as long as they don't harm others. It's asking far too much to expect anything more.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 5, 2009 9:59 PM
The "why can't we all get along" folks annoy me just as much as the ones yelling and screaming persecution and you're so intolerant.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 5, 2009 10:17 PM
SEF's link @ #86:
[...]
And those grand morals of the old testament live on. Disgusting doesn't begin to cover it.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 6, 2009 1:42 AM
My long winded response to the original article.
Posted by: Correa, M | November 9, 2009 1:07 PM
If you can not attack an idea, attack its proponent. And that is what Mr. Greg Craven, vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, is obviously doing. A very sleazy argument in any debate.
Posted by: baju
|
February 2, 2010 5:25 AM
I thoroughly despise the deleterious effects your beliefs have on education, health care or medicine, and most of all on my fellow mortals ability to think