Now on ScienceBlogs: Personal Technology Costs Rising Rapidly
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
A person has not much excuse for living who can make no better use of life than passing it in a nunnery.
[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays]
« Mr Deity and Death | Main | Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Intelligent Design »
Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: November 11, 2009 9:37 AM, by PZ Myers
Apparently still smarting from the trouncing Catholics received from Hitchens and Fry, a site called Catholic Truth Scotland is trying to recoup some dignity…by running an online poll? We could tell them that that won't work.
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [70.6%]
False [29.4%]
I fear those numbers are about to change in a way that will make them very unhappy.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/124505
Comments
Posted by: fauxrs | November 11, 2009 9:46 AM
nov 11, 9:45 am
True [54.5%]
False [45.5%]
not even 10 minutes after the original post :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2009 9:49 AM
Jebus, already up to 71% false after my vote. PZ, that is a good crystal ball you have. ;)
Posted by: Tezcatlipoca | November 11, 2009 9:49 AM
Thanks for the link! Don't forget to check out the debate and register to cheer and jeer from the sideline (registration required) in the blog.
http://catholictruth.nfshost.com/blog/
Posted by: Michelle R | November 11, 2009 9:49 AM
The tables were already turned after I boted. Something like 76 to 24 for us. That's making me wonder just how much traffic these guys have. It's too easy!
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 9:51 AM
@Michelle R, #4: A lot, from the atheist and such camps, obviously.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 11, 2009 9:52 AM
It's like 20/80 now, without pharyngulation. There is hope in the world.
Posted by: Jonathan | November 11, 2009 9:53 AM
Thanks for putting the link up!
Posted by: rwtwm | November 11, 2009 9:54 AM
85.3% say false!
That was quick indeed!
Posted by: JBlilie | November 11, 2009 9:57 AM
They are not likinh it already! It's about 90/10 against
Posted by: quedula | November 11, 2009 9:57 AM
Ha, ha, how did you know PZ? - 89% false now
Posted by: JD | November 11, 2009 9:58 AM
90% False. They got smoked.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 11, 2009 9:59 AM
Utterly pharyngulated! Behold the power of the godless and tremble!
Posted by: strangest brew | November 11, 2009 10:01 AM
Bless 'em...they never learn!
Is anyone going to jeer from the sidelines on the debate they are going to lose...unless tis a fix already!
Posted by: Kristian Käll | November 11, 2009 10:02 AM
Current score.
True [7.8%]
False [92.2%]
Posted by: Desert Son
|
November 11, 2009 10:03 AM
Voted.
This Veteran's Day/Armistice Day, to those military personnel past and present who read Pharyngula: thanks for your service.
[New complementary close under construction],
Robert
Posted by: Samil | November 11, 2009 10:03 AM
True [7.6%]
False [92.4%]
Haha!
Posted by: FastLane | November 11, 2009 10:03 AM
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [7.5%]
False [92.5%]
Bwahahahahaaaa >:-)
Posted by: Dancaban | November 11, 2009 10:04 AM
Saw the video and enjoyed it all. What I would like to have asked the bumbling bishop at the end who tried to squirm out of the question was why the Catholic church is not the force for good in the world. You know best in class etc etc. If not why not?
Posted by: David Wiener
|
November 11, 2009 10:05 AM
Wow - that was fixed fast.
However, I now do believe in miracles because type pad actually worked quickly and correctly. Praise be to his noodly appendage.
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 10:05 AM
7.1% last I checked. Sweet!
Posted by: edivimo | November 11, 2009 10:06 AM
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [6.6%]
False [93.4%]
And they are making another debate, too...
Posted by: JarrodB | November 11, 2009 10:08 AM
I LOVED watching the debate. And I like to believe the changed voted really were changed minds. However, this poll... asking if the catholic church is a force for good on a catholic website... nice to have our say, but will probably only be met with denial and a well-fed martyr complex.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | November 11, 2009 10:09 AM
The Hitchens debate was just a red herring to distract your attention from the fact that Catholic bishops are determining your government's health policy while enjoying their tax-free status
Posted by: strangest brew | November 11, 2009 10:10 AM
#21
"And they are making another debate, too..."
Yep! but it seems they get to pick the anti debaters from their forum...I hope for the best...I strongly expect the worse!
Posted by: Deen | November 11, 2009 10:10 AM
Went to the site, voted, and learned a new word: sedevacantism. Apparently the last few popes have been too modern for these people...
Posted by: Baron Scarpia | November 11, 2009 10:11 AM
By the way, this was linked to an online debate. You can see the audience spouting nonsense at http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2782.
It's amazing how many Catholics are going against their own Pope and endorsing creationism. Why, one would almost think they're just using the idea of God to lend credence to their own ignorance!
Posted by: rawnaeris
|
November 11, 2009 10:12 AM
True has already dropped to 5.6%
and False is up to 94.4%
Poor things won't know what hit 'em.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 11, 2009 10:12 AM
Um-hmmm... I smell a rat...
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 11, 2009 10:12 AM
Posted by: Nick Husher | November 11, 2009 10:13 AM
What an ugly website. The goggles, they do nothing!
Posted by: Rox1SMF | November 11, 2009 10:13 AM
True [5.2%]
False [94.8%]
Beautiful
Posted by: Nastasie | November 11, 2009 10:14 AM
So, I went and voted before I read the comments, and when I saw it was already at 95% False, I lol'd for real.
The verb "to pharyngulate" should be in the dictionary.
Posted by: Sparky | November 11, 2009 10:15 AM
I just voted.
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [5.1%]
False [94.9%]
I don't think the Church is as popular as it thinks it is. That's the problem when you live in an echo chamber.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 11, 2009 10:15 AM
<obligatory>...anyone who says differently is selling something.</obligatory>
Posted by: Magda | November 11, 2009 10:16 AM
11/11, 7:15 am in California:
True - 4.9%
False - 95.1%
Woohoo! We rock, thanks PZ and that was a fabulous debate!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | November 11, 2009 10:18 AM
The Catholic Church is surely not a force for good in the world, as evidenced by the design of that website.
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 11, 2009 10:19 AM
WOW! Thanks chaps! Can hardly beleive the turnaround.
The vote was True 83.3%, False 16.7% when I first saw it.
Pity it's not possible to go into negative figures...
Come and join in the arguments!
Posted by: John Robinson | November 11, 2009 10:20 AM
Maybe this game is getting too easy!
Posted by: nichole | November 11, 2009 10:20 AM
o/t but sweet sir squid shirt! http://sircritter.com/design/sirsquid/
Posted by: strangest brew | November 11, 2009 10:21 AM
#28
"Um-hmmm... I smell a rat..."
RATzinger is that? ;-0 getting me coat as I type!
Apparently 'Donkeybreath' is whining that the new blockbuster '2012' ends up destroying to many Catolik edifaces to ignorance during the film...
My whine is they did not destroy anywhere near enough...go figure!
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
November 11, 2009 10:22 AM
I watched the video last night and it was a massacre. Whose bright idea was it to use those two against Hitchens and Fry? The bishop didn't even have an argument, he just kept repeating "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world" for most of his talking, and Widdecomb was just a screech-owl dodging traffic.
I loved Fry's comment asking 'what good is the church?', and Hitchens was just as lovably bad-tempered about the whole bunch of child-molesting, misogynistic, condom-obsessed blowhards.
Those two should really go on a worldwide tour, talking in every city. Catholicism would be dead in 2 years :)
Posted by: nichole | November 11, 2009 10:22 AM
that whole site is full of fabulous shirts! check out the "teach the controversy" section!
Posted by: John Robinson | November 11, 2009 10:23 AM
But it's still a lot of fun. Keep the polls coming PZ.
Posted by: Alan Clark | November 11, 2009 10:24 AM
4.2% v 95.8%
Wow, that didn't take long! Send more Polls!
Posted by: GnomishBrigand | November 11, 2009 10:29 AM
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [3.7%]
False [96.3%]
Posted by: Meanie-meanie, tickle a person | November 11, 2009 10:30 AM
We’ve had an influx of atheists on our blog recently
Why, yes, I guess you have...:)
Saw the dabate, and it was a hoot. Hitch and Fry just wiped the floor with those two nonentities. Pity they couldn't have come up with better opponents, there might have been some real fireworks. Our guys made their points, their guys were just, you'll pardon the expression, lambs to the slaughter.
And I still say that was John Cleese in drag...
Posted by: strangest brew | November 11, 2009 10:31 AM
Having a sniff around the site found this catolik spin...behold and wonder at their bloody audacity!
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:MGZe0zM38dsJ:www.hli.org/files/relative_frequency_of_child_molestation_by_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals.pdf+homosexuality+relative+frequency+of+child+molestation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
It would be quite funny...if it was not so very sinister.
Do you see the slight of hand there?... totally obvious!
Posted by: Oldcola
|
November 11, 2009 10:32 AM
Prophetic! PZ is a Prophet!Posted by: rover serton | November 11, 2009 10:33 AM
Wow, I'm proud to be part of this active community! Vote early, vote often. Bet it wiped the smug smile off their faces quick.
Posted by: FrankieAvocado | November 11, 2009 10:33 AM
Annihilated.
3.4% "true"
96.6% "false"
http://screencast.com/t/ZjQ4ZjM4
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 11, 2009 10:34 AM
and after the recount...oh it appears even less people think christianity is a force for good. Well, thats what you get for letting pharyngula help with the recount.
Posted by: Carlie | November 11, 2009 10:34 AM
You know, it's the little things in life like this that make me happy.
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | November 11, 2009 10:34 AM
Oh those are unhappy numbers -LAAAAUUUUUGGHH!
Posted by: Clint Burky | November 11, 2009 10:35 AM
Pure Quality!
Bugger 'em!
Posted by: llewelly | November 11, 2009 10:39 AM
Not at all. Christians love the feeling of faux-persecution.Posted by: Giford | November 11, 2009 10:41 AM
Can't believe no-one else has spotted this Poe already:
>The images of the Mass (above) link to a website which explains, beautifully, the traditional Mass in pictures However, since this site subscribes to the error of sedevacantism, we recommend that you restrict your visit to the Mass in pictures only. We warn against reading the rest of this site.
Gif
Posted by: KI | November 11, 2009 10:46 AM
Meanwhile, the shit-o-lic bishops corrupt and demean the health-care bill by putting their restrictions on abortion into it. Why can't we tax these useless parasites out of existence? Why must we tolerate their refusal to respect the separation of church and state? Smash the "Catholic" church and use the rubble to rebuild the (church/state) wall.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
November 11, 2009 10:48 AM
We turned that one around promptly. Good work, guys.
Posted by: Tim | November 11, 2009 10:49 AM
"True: 3%
False: 97%"
Validation: MAJOR FAIL.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 11, 2009 10:49 AM
From the site:
that debate which was inherently hostile to the Church
... You mean "reality is inherently hostile.." Hey, it's not our fault that you guys picked an absurd position to defend. That was a "lifestyle choice" you morons made.
Posted by: rawnaeris
|
November 11, 2009 10:50 AM
huh, it does look a Poe-ish. Oh well, the poll definitely needed to be pharyngulated then.
Posted by: Vern Rutter | November 11, 2009 10:51 AM
False = 97.1%
Posted by: mark chapman | November 11, 2009 10:51 AM
true 2.9
false 7.1
almost there!
Posted by: Samil | November 11, 2009 10:52 AM
Can we make it to 99.9% false?? I hope so!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 11, 2009 10:53 AM
website make chimp's brains ouchy
Posted by: mark chapman | November 11, 2009 10:54 AM
in my excitement, i failed @ my last comment.. let the flame begin :S
2.9%
97.1%
on the plus side when it gets too 99% no there will some tears and not from the alter boys :)
Posted by: gre | November 11, 2009 10:57 AM
Ya it changed alright!
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [2.7%]
False [97.3%]
Maybe they'll get the hint this time?
Peace
Posted by: Beige | November 11, 2009 10:59 AM
I wrote a nice long blog post about that debate, because it annoyed me somewhat. Those defending the motion seemed to be taking the issue on an individual level and thus their argument leaned towards "the church has good people in it, therefore the church is good", but the left them hopelessly unable to defend the attacks from those against the motion, because they were never going to attack individuals, they were always going to attack the leadership and the institution as a whole.
Although, I suppose that trying to defend individuals was their only hope, seeing as the institution as a whole is utterly indefensible. Looks like they recognise it, they just can't admit it.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 11, 2009 11:01 AM
Yay! A poll I can crash in my backyard. I don't have to imagine myself to be an expat from some small town in the US when voting on their little local paper's site. Gee some of those places have caused an awful lot of people to run away!
Thanks for the help of all you expat Scots over the water there.
Posted by: flyonthewall | November 11, 2009 11:07 AM
ouch false is up to 97.5%.
that's gonna leave a mark!!
Posted by: gettingfree | November 11, 2009 11:08 AM
POLL regarding Cincinnati atheist billboard...
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20091110/NEWS01/911110333/
Posted by: David B
|
November 11, 2009 11:25 AM
I've voted and passed the info onto 2 secular discussion boards, though that is beginning to look unnecessary.
David
Posted by: Scaryduck | November 11, 2009 11:31 AM
97.8 of the Queen's percentage points.
Our work here is done.
Posted by: Frank | November 11, 2009 11:32 AM
Ugh. The Bishop and the Conservative MP had some really bad arguments. Honestly, I think that had you asked Hitchens and Fry to argue for the church and the Bishop and MP to argue against it would have gone the other way. Hitchens and Fry are both very good debaters and came in with a lot of research. When Hitchens brought up Rwanda, the opposition were helpless.
Fortunately, I think that seriously is the best public speakers that the church can throw up. People who are well read on the subject don't tend to be their allies. But considering how weak Ann Widdencombe is in debate, I should think that the Liberal Dems or someone could unseat her in Maidstone and The Weald. She's a nasty piece of work I'd love to get out of parliament.
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 11, 2009 11:34 AM
By the way, this is what I was told on the site, by 'Bernadette' [on November 11, 2009 at 12:46 am] who also says (nice touch, this) "I’ll pray for you in my family Rosary."
"Richard Dawkins is a nasty evil person and anyone who associates themselves with Richard Dawkins is also evil and nasty".
Oh well, that's me, then. Evil & nasty.
Posted by: Rewarp | November 11, 2009 11:44 AM
97.8% against. Glad to be of service.
Posted by: samil | November 11, 2009 11:49 AM
We're almost at 99.9%!! we can do it!!! :)
Posted by: sushiguru | November 11, 2009 11:59 AM
@ 1655 hrs:
True: 2%
False: 98%
FAIL. Of course, they'll blame it all on a 'concerted campaign' to vote no but conveniently ignore the untold millions of catholics who failed to vote yes; perhaps they just don't believe strongly enough and more mass and confession is required: "I'm sorry father for I have sinned, it's been 2 days since my last confession. I've had impure thoughts about girls, I masterbated last night, and I failed to vote 'yes' in an online poll on whether the church was a force for good in the world..."
Posted by: sam | November 11, 2009 12:03 PM
True [2%]
False [98%]
Posted by: Petursey | November 11, 2009 12:10 PM
What a shame the true's are now under 2%.
I declare that poll well and truly pharyngulated !!!! if anyone is interested I had a bit of a go at the catholic's on my blog today as well http://petursey.wordpress.com
Posted by: Walton | November 11, 2009 12:15 PM
No need. She's retiring at the next general election.
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | November 11, 2009 12:15 PM
What fun it is to engage in activities like this without fear of being burned at the stake. Gawd, we've come a long way!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 12:17 PM
I was not aware of that.
Happy days.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 12:21 PM
You know, for Catholic in Britain to complain about persecution really does show a remarkable lack of knowledge about British history.
There was a time when Catholics really were persecuted. The homes of well to do Catholic families often had priest holes so that priests could be hidden from the authorities. Catholics were executed and driven into exile. Barbaric stuff.
It hardly compares to be pitted against Christopher Hitchins and Stephen Fry in debate, no matter how unfair that might be.
Posted by: Jimmy Groove | November 11, 2009 12:42 PM
You know, I wonder what causes this affinity between fundamentalism and bright, primary colors? The only other places you see colors like that are in day care centers, and yet most fundamentalist sites are just loaded down with these eye-strainers.
Posted by: edivimo | November 11, 2009 12:44 PM
You know, we can pharyngulate that debate too. At 9pm, local time, we can vote against the motion, more details:
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2801
Posted by: Stuart | November 11, 2009 12:44 PM
Congrats on you wonderful triumph.
Posted by: george.w | November 11, 2009 12:47 PM
I love how they tell you what exact resolution to use when viewing their website. It must come from centuries of habitually telling people how to view the world.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 11, 2009 12:51 PM
Catholic truth? An oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Posted by: Acai | November 11, 2009 12:53 PM
True [5.2%]
False [94.8%]
Beautiful!
Posted by: drksky | November 11, 2009 12:54 PM
98% to 2%. Effective Pharyngulization
Posted by: AmExPat in Finland | November 11, 2009 12:57 PM
False 98.2 %
Pointless but fun.
Posted by: Quine | November 11, 2009 12:57 PM
The sad part is that they are too stupid to realize that putting up a link to the debate on their web will just get more people to watch it, and see that they are stupid.
Posted by: S | November 11, 2009 1:03 PM
I loved the way Stephen Fry asked the catholics (in the debate) - "Then what are you there for?" LULZ! And that Anne Whitaker - If there is one thing I hate more than a woman-hater, it's a woman-hating woman. She actually left the Church of England to join the RCC because the English church began ordaining women? Shame on you Brits, for electing her into your parliament.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 11, 2009 1:06 PM
False 100%. What, did 'True' have 2 votes before this started?
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 11, 2009 1:08 PM
Ah, weird. Actual numbers after refreshing: 98.4% False
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | November 11, 2009 1:09 PM
I voted "False" based on the Site Design alone. That in itself is evil.
Posted by: Quarks | November 11, 2009 1:16 PM
Ha Ha
98.4% - 1.4%
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
November 11, 2009 1:22 PM
How totally unchristian of you to trounce that poll.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2009 1:25 PM
Poe indeed – it's impossible to tell if it's a parody or the real thing. In fact, I don't see a reason to think it's not the real thing.
Komsomol'skaya pravda.
...We seem to have pharyngulated the site in the other sense: it doesn't load anymore. Oh, there it is.
EVIL·&·NASTY
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2009 1:27 PM
Hey! That's a reversal!!!
But the reversal is reversing, too:
EVIL·&·NASTY
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | November 11, 2009 1:35 PM
96.8% false -- it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Scratch that: dynamiting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 1:37 PM
They're deleting our votes!
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 11, 2009 1:44 PM
I think they've called the vatican. (I would if I were in their position)
Email your friends!
Posted by: Yelena | November 11, 2009 1:46 PM
deleting votes? doesn't look like it:
True [2.2%]
False [97.8%]
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 1:47 PM
No seriously. I'm not using proxies, I haven't messed with my cookies... and yet it just up and gave me the poll choices again, with a higher True count at the end! They're deleting votes so blatantly.
Posted by: Quine | November 11, 2009 1:49 PM
I can see it now: a giant web server farm set up under the pavement of St. Peter's to out-vote and out-robocomment any negative statements made against them.
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 1:50 PM
@Quine: that does sound kinda funny...
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 11, 2009 1:50 PM
"that debate which was inherently hostile to the Church"
Well, we have to take up a contradictory position, don't we?
Yet more evidence that you can't possibly be meek and polite enough to satisfy these people, so there's no point in trying.
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 1:53 PM
2.1% now...
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 1:55 PM
2%...
Posted by: Paul | November 11, 2009 2:00 PM
I do hope we don't have to explain how poll percentages work? True percentage going up doesn't imply False count going down...
Also, 1.8%
Posted by: Galactic Atom | November 11, 2009 2:01 PM
True [1.8%]
False [98.2%]
Posted by: Kawa | November 11, 2009 2:03 PM
@Paul: You forget the part where I got the options again by no act of my own.
Posted by: UXO | November 11, 2009 2:08 PM
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [1.7%]
False [98.3%]
FAILryngulated?
Posted by: UXO | November 11, 2009 2:14 PM
Oh, and this is hee-larious:
Translation: their bullshit hocus-pocus is slightly different than our bullshit hocus-pocus. Whatever you do, be sure not to expose yourself to alternate perspectives, or you may fall into the trap of applying logic to this whole rickety house of cards and then where would we find an inexhaustible supply of altar boys to bugger?
Posted by: Samil | November 11, 2009 2:16 PM
I also did get the option to vote a few times for some odd reason.
Posted by: middlekk | November 11, 2009 2:25 PM
98.3% no.
Maybe if they passed out something other than stale crackers every Sunday?
Posted by: toth
|
November 11, 2009 2:27 PM
Can I just say, that is a horrendous website? Note the pulsing, rainbow-colored animated text on the top right and the low-quality clipart of a preacher.
Posted by: Dahan
|
November 11, 2009 2:27 PM
98.4%
Come on folks. Let's get that 99%. It sounds so nice.
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
November 11, 2009 2:39 PM
Current stats from this poor lil' poll:
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [2%]
False [98%]
Posted by: Jim | November 11, 2009 2:40 PM
It was 98.3 to 1.7 after I voted, but after a couple of refreshes it is back to 97.9 to 2.1. Get those votes out!
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 11, 2009 2:59 PM
It closes in an hour.
Some very nasty views on that site.
Rub their noses in the dirt!
Posted by: Anonym | November 11, 2009 3:13 PM
Truth, implicitly, must be absolute; any qualification of the term pollutes it (viz. 'Catholic Truth').
Posted by: Mr T | November 11, 2009 3:16 PM
I'm sorry, guys. I voted for "false" earlier in the day, but now I'm not so sure.
I've just learned that our beloved papa (Spanish for "potato") has cut a record deal, featuring himself singing and praying, to be released on November 30. Surely this will be so terrible that it will cause vast numbers of Catholics to lose their faith in God. It's not much, but at least he's trying.
Posted by: Susannah | November 11, 2009 3:20 PM
98.1%
Somebody's pushing back! With a feather.
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 11, 2009 3:41 PM
Poll pharyngulation is a source for lulz in the world:
_ yeah.
_ hells, yeah.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | November 11, 2009 3:54 PM
Re: Beige @ #68:
As a debate, this was awful. Not only did the bishop use individuals doing good as his argument, but he failed utterly to show that those individuals were in any way *motivated* or enabled to do good by the Catholic Church.
And Andrew Greeley has (not on the web that I've found) an excellent rejoinder to the bishop's diversionary tactic of claiming that the church is not just its hierarchy but the "body" of all (of its) believers. Greeley says, essentially: then why does the hierarchy never admit that the parish priests and the laity can be inspired by g-d?
Posted by: Ivan | November 11, 2009 3:57 PM
@Meanie-meanie, tickle a person, 46:
I see what you did there (with your username).
Made me LOL because it's fun to see something that almost functions as a secret code for communication between former fundies.
Posted by: logicalTruth | November 11, 2009 4:01 PM
its crushed...
True [2%]
False [98%]
Posted by: Don | November 11, 2009 4:11 PM
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [2%]
False [98%]
Posted by: Mathematician | November 11, 2009 4:19 PM
You have half an hour or just under to vote in the debate if you want to, here:
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2772
(same thread the debaters' arguments are in).
Registration required and I haven't read the privacy policy, mind.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
November 11, 2009 4:21 PM
I popped this in OT on another thread, butit's relevant here so I'll repeat it.
Here's another nice example of that Catholic force for good.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/schoolgirl-suspended-for-cancer-head-shave-20091110-i6q3.html
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 11, 2009 4:21 PM
Hey! They're fighting back! False is down to 97.9%!
Posted by: Whateverman | November 11, 2009 4:23 PM
All poll-bombing aside, I wish there was a "maybe" or "not sure" option available.
Posted by: Haunted | November 11, 2009 4:26 PM
Did anyone follow the debate? Dreadful stuff from their resident apologist.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2772#comments
Anyway, the voting as to who won the debate is now commencing and surprise surprise the resident catholics are voting as you would expect. Could that too be pharyngulised? Registration required.
Posted by: Prod to be a Merkin | November 11, 2009 4:37 PM
#134: Back up to 98% with my vote.
Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 11, 2009 4:58 PM
The caption for photo 34 of the Mass your not really supposed to see says:
Just wondering, do they then take the linen cloth to the sacred laundry or do they just give it a good shake and let the jeebus bits fall where they may? Perhaps the sacred church ants take care of the remaining cracker crumbs...
Not only are these people not a force for good but they're just plain nuts as well.
Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 11, 2009 5:00 PM
Oops, the linen is for the blood not the body parts, my bad.
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 11, 2009 5:03 PM
If you can bear to log on, you can vote on the main debate:
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2772#comment-21079
Give them a shock - Lots of NO votes!
Posted by: la tricoteuse | November 11, 2009 5:19 PM
The best comment on that debate is, by far, the exorcism prayer for all the poor, demon-possessed souls who voted no.
Shocking.
I was also quite appalled the apparent moderator's treatment of the atheist debater (prefacing all of his turns with "come ON" and the like, while being very respectful towards the pro-Catholic debater), and his/her subsequent vote.
I dare say that he/she, like many of the other voters, was voting less on the content of the debate and more on whether or not he/she was a Catholic. Again, shocking.
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 11, 2009 5:25 PM
Yes, speaking as RussellsTeapot (for I am she) it's been tough. They are not a nice crowd.
- Feels strange without my demons...
For some reason they have treated me as male throughout. Something to do with teapots, maybe? The spout, perhaps?
Posted by: Woof
|
November 11, 2009 5:26 PM
No no no... it's Terry Jones. Imagine that voice saying spam spam spam bacon and spam.
Posted by: Bump | November 11, 2009 5:58 PM
At 4:55 pm CST its 2% True 98% False.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 11, 2009 6:10 PM
Hah, probably the "Russel". Atheists just keep breaking all assumptions, don't we?Posted by: Ivan | November 11, 2009 6:10 PM
I think I have to break my general rule about avoiding one-word responses and overuse of Internetian (rhymes with Venetian), thus:
LOL!
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 11, 2009 6:12 PM
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2772#comment-21101
Results:
They won the internal vote, (unsurprisingly) at
For the motion = 112 votes
Against the motion = 14 votes
But the biggy, the THE WEBSITE POLL VOTE
was 59 people out of 2,989 voted that it was TRUE to say that the Catholic Church is a force for good, with 2930 out of 2989 voting FALSE. This represents an overwhelming vote against the motion that The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, therefore, based on which, the motion would not have been carried.
I make this approx 600:1.
Well done all of us!!
Pity it's only a silly old poll.
Posted by: SovietChris | November 11, 2009 6:30 PM
I feel deeply ashamed to share a country with these people - Scotland isn't immune to Christian idiocy... just look at our phenomenon of the 'wee frees'!
Posted by: vh | November 11, 2009 7:06 PM
Even in scotland the catholics haven't managed to be a force for good. I remember at a march in edinburgh our bottle shop lost so much stock to theives we had to close down for the day! great examples of catholics
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2009 7:27 PM
As I said: Komsomol'skaya Pravda.
Or a "whatever" option? :-)
BTW, it allowed me to vote again.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
November 11, 2009 8:04 PM
Posted by: strangest brew | November 11, 2009 10:31 AM
Having a sniff around the site found this catolik spin...behold and wonder at their bloody audacity!
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:MGZe0zM38dsJ:www.hli.org/files/relative_frequency_of_child_molestation_by_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals.pdf+homosexuality+relative+frequency+of+child+molestation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Referencing Paul Cameron is an automatic fail, no further analysis needed.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
November 11, 2009 8:06 PM
Dang, even italics fails like blockquote. FMHwa12ID
Posted by: Brian Jordan | November 11, 2009 8:19 PM
It's a bloody good job it was only a cracker that PZ nailed. Not for nothing were HepA filters introduced into hospital labs: the invisible aerosol from a spilled drop of blood can get *everywhere*. I'd hate to think of poor PZ with jebus flowing through his veins!Posted by: Janet Holmes | November 11, 2009 8:28 PM
Why are these religious web-sites always so fugly? It made my eyes water, really it did ...
Posted by: defiantskeptic | November 11, 2009 9:58 PM
Tee hee look at those numbers.
True [1.8%]
False [98.2%]
Posted by: hr1 | November 11, 2009 10:46 PM
LMFAO @ "pharyngulate" as a verb :-)
The man speaks, and online polls fall...
Current status: 98.3% against.
Posted by: WMDKitty | November 11, 2009 11:53 PM
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
True [1.8%]
False [98.2%]
*evil laugh*
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2009 12:37 AM
Christopher Hitchens? Which Christopher Hitchens? The man who argued passionately for war in Iraq, and is still unapologetic about it? A war that was utterly groundless? That killed in the hundreds of thousands of people? That had millions of people fleeing their home for fear for their lives? That broke a country for a generation, spread human misery deep and wide, AND replaced a horrible, torturing secular government with a horrible, torturing government of bearded religious yahoos? And HE's lecturing others on morality and being a force for good in the world?
I'd say something on the lines of straws and beams, but I'm afraid it would not be well received by this audience.
Posted by: Mr T | November 12, 2009 1:09 AM
Never mind Hitchens and bearded religious yahoos and straws and beams... how is it there are Pygmies + Dwarfs??
Posted by: John Bunyan | November 12, 2009 4:20 AM
As an ex-pat Scot living in Madrid, Spain, this poll made my day.
True 1.7%
False 98.3%
Ha ha ! Regards all
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 12, 2009 5:40 AM
Anonymous,
I agree with you about Hitchens, as do quite a few here - and the majority are certainly against the invasion of Iraq. That doesn't make the RCC any better.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 12, 2009 5:52 AM
CTCC @ 133,
WTF !
That's not even disgraceful anymore, that's just plain sad.Evil fucking morons.
anon @ 158,
I fail to see what your rant against Hitchens' Iraq opinions, which many here disagree with btw, has to do with his stance against the RCC or religion in general.And spare me this "I personally disagree with him on A therefore it is not possible for him to be correct on B,C or D ever again" bullshit.
Posted by: Haunted | November 12, 2009 6:15 AM
Ha, the catholics from that website seem to be flirting with holocaust denial
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2814#respond
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 12, 2009 7:17 AM
Another reason Catholicism is not a force for good in the world: Catholic Church threatens to pull social services arm in the capitol of the USA if the District of Columbia allows same-sex marriage. Fuckers.
Posted by: Quasarsphere | November 12, 2009 8:14 AM
Yes indeed, Haunted. Take a look at their current poll.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2009 9:19 AM
Rorschach @ 162
Sorry but since no one else seems to mind, I felt I needed to point out that the guy who poses as the arbiter of morality (telling good from evil) is a man who was a very public and prominent proponent of an honest-to-God bloodbath, and unrepentant about it all. He's a man who can stare mass death and human misery in the face and fail to recognize it. In a honest world he would be spending a couple of years in a desert flagellating himself instead of, of all things, lecturing others for their being a force for evil in the world.
Contrast his and the "force for evil" position on that issue. What was that clown in a funny hat saying in those days, again? Ah yes, a preventive strike against Iraq is neither legally nor morally justified/a "crime against peace" with no justification on grounds of self-defense. If I have to pick one, I know whom I'll take my moral guidance from, thank you.
So, yeah, in the morality/force for good debate let's keep the focus where it belongs: on proper condom use in Africa and not, you know, providing medical care and education to poor Africans (or Asians). Because that's what matters.
Posted by: Sally Luxmoore | November 12, 2009 9:54 AM
Don't know if any of you have the stomach for much more (not sure if I have) but they now appear to be into holocaust denial.
I can hardly bear it...
Some good rationalists are already in there, arguing with them. If you have the strength, come and fight the good fight.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2814#comments
May the Force be with you!
Posted by: middlekk | November 12, 2009 9:54 AM
Dear Anonymous:
You have us confused with people who "follow" other people. Christopher Hitchens is not our pope, nor a cardinal, not even an archbishop. He's just a guy who wrote a fairly decent book outlining the reasons why the god hypothesis is a dangerous anachronism in this modern world.
He is also an insufferable blowhard and an unrepentant boozehound with political views that are somewhat to the right of the mean of this audience.
Criticize his politics all you want.
One can be right in one area and totally completely whacked out in another. Witness Francis Collins, who is a stellar scientist on the one hand, but a completely lousy theologian on the other.
Posted by: Baron Scarpia | November 12, 2009 10:29 AM
So the Pope spoke out against the Iraq war? Good for him.
And with a billion followers around the world (apparently), and obscene amounts of wealth in the Vatican's bank account, with the ability to help influence international policy, what else did he do about it?
The Church did more to ensure gay people couldn't marry in Maine than seriously protest against the Iraq war.
Posted by: Yahzi | November 12, 2009 12:25 PM
Sally - you've been doing great over there! Keep up the good work.
Anonymous - try broadening your history before you complain. We brutalized that entire region for 50 years, paying the biggest thugs we could find to oppress their own people so we could pump oil at the lowest price. When the thugs turned against each other, killing millions, we gave them weapons. When the thugs turned against us, we funded revolutions and imposed sanctions that bankrupted the common people. Iraq's sanctions alone may have killed 100,000 infants. And finally, after half a century of this kind of explotation, we decide to send our own people over there to try and create basic conditions like freedom of speech, women's rights, and democracy - and what do we get from the likes of you? A plea to return the good old days, when Iraqis savaged Iraqis using American weapons and money, and we were free to bury our heads in the sand and ignore our contribution to the violence.
The war in Iraq might not be good, but it's better than another 50 years of funding oppression.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2009 1:16 PM
@Baron Scarpia:
a) "a billion followers around the world": maybe I have to break it to you, but for better or for worse, nominal Catholics are not drones robotically following each and every one of the pope's advice
b) "obscene wealth of the Vatican" so you know how much money is the Vatican bank accounts and how it should be spent? Are the Vatican bankers the same as the jewish bankers who as everyone knows control international finance?
c) "ability to help influence international policy": well there you have the extent of the Catholic Church's ability to influence international policy: the pope condemns a policy. And he is ignored. As Stalin reportedly said: the pope, how many divisions?
@middlekk
And I never argued that Hitchens was or should be "your" (that's what you say. "Us". "Our". Pharyngulites?) pope. I have no beef with him writing a book arguing for atheism - I am an atheist. That has never been my point. I do question why anyone should pay any attention to, let alone celebrate, his judgement, his capacity to assess morality.
How much energy has Hitchens spent on screeds against the evil that is mother Theresa? Hitchens saw the Baghdad morgue overflowing with corpses. He did not wince. He does not regret his warmongering. He sees the Catholic church promote conjugal fidelity over condoms. He cannot be whipped into enough of a moral outrage.
Sorry, after hundred of comments, I thought *someone* should point out the track record on morality of one of the panel participants.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 12, 2009 1:35 PM
Hitchens is a hypocrite, but that still doesn't make him wrong when he points out the evil the Catholic Church has done.
The argumentum ad hominem, in other words, is still a logical fallacy.
Posted by: Yahzi | November 12, 2009 1:39 PM
Just read the blog post on the Holocaust denier. Bleah!
It's like Glenn Beck - "All I'm doing is asking questions!"
It's like these people have never taken logic 101. I'd love to ask all them - "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
On the other hand, the Catholic Truthers would probably say - "Of course not! Why would I?"
:P
Posted by: Yahzi | November 12, 2009 1:48 PM
Anoynmous - you seem to have misplaced a few salient facts:
a) "a billion followers around the world":
True, they are not lockstep followers. They're just enablers. American Catholics routinely commit mortal sins such as birth control and divorce. And yet, when the Pope condemns these sins and works to make them illegal in other countries, American Catholics keep quiet and send money.
b) "obscene wealth of the Vatican"
We know exactly how the wealth of the Vatican should be spent. We know this by referring to Jesus's own words. "Sell all have, give to the poor, and follow me." Curiously, owning billions of dollars of property all around the world, driving around in Popemobiles, and being buried in rare wood coffins does not look like giving to the poor.
c) "ability to help influence international policy":
The Vatican has a seat at the UN. True, it's a non-voting seat: but how many other non-governmental institutions have any seat at all? How can you deny that having a permanent seat at the world's governing body does not cout as "influence" on international policy? Obviously the Vatican thinks it does, or they wouldn't bother to staff the chair.
Posted by: Greg Tingey | November 12, 2009 3:28 PM
@ 84 - Catholics were persecuted in Britain for a very good reason.
They had made many attempts to kill the Queen (Elizabeth) they attempted to kill James I, they DID kill William the Silent of the Netherlands, ANd Henri III & IV of France.
I'm NOT suprised they got crushed, in England - even atheists like me, have a special dislike for the murderous liars of the catholic church .....
BTW there a NEW pool at "Catholic Truth" regarding the Holocaust Denier and deliberat LIAR Bishop Williamson.
SIGH.
Posted by: caseywollberg | November 12, 2009 5:30 PM
Anonymous, your "arguments" have already been defeated, so I would just like to add that you are presenting yourself as a simpleton. And, by the way, I like Hitchens; he's a stellar debater and most of the time I agree with his moral stance. I'm not certain I agree with his stance on Iraq; as Yahzi has pointed out, it is a complex issue (one I'm sure he knows more about than you do)--especially the moral implications.
Your assumption that Hitchens is indifferent to the suffering of innocents shows how stupid you are. Even if it turns out he was somehow wrong to support the invasion, a mistake doesn't automatically make one a hypocrite. You simply don't like the man.
So do what others have done: express your *opinion* that he is an "insufferable blowhard" or an "unrepentant boozehound" (opinions which, incidentally, I do not share). Beyond that, get over yourself and realize that the actual issues going on in the world are far more complicated and nuanced than the simplistic backdrop you are using for your caricature of Hitchens.
Posted by: Mack | November 12, 2009 9:06 PM
Anon:
The current pope was a member of the Nazi Youth. Yeah, he's really a model of moral behavior, that one. And, as for the lie campaign the rcc is running in Africa regarding condom use, and how it spreads HIV/AIDS, yes, that is evil. Condoms save lives. Condoms prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy and all manner of nastiness. Telling people not to have sex doesn't work. Abstinence only education doesn't work. Condoms do.
Oh, and the conjugal fidelity versus condoms argument; in many areas, the fastest growing group of HIV/AIDS sufferers are married young to middle aged women, who contract HIV from their husbands.
Posted by: Anomymous | November 12, 2009 11:17 PM
@Yahzi#170
Our options are not limited to a) funding a puppet dictator or b) invading a country that was no threat to anyone, making hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees in the process of a little social engineering experiment in the Middle East.
I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe we could choose to obey international law, the UN charter, and do neither. I know, too radical to some. Me, I'm just an ignorant simpleton using ad hominem "arguments" and not a towering moral giant like Hitchens.
BTW, haven't you heard? The good old days are already back: Old habits from Saddam Hussein’s era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. “Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards,” says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch
How many trillions of borrowed dollars, how many thousands of alliance soldiers lives, how many hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, how many millions of refugees so that, as I was saying in a previous comment, a horrible, torturing secular regime could be replaced with a horrible, torturing regime of bearded turbaned fundamentalists?
Yeah, that's what I see Hitchens look back on and still regard as good and necessary, and that's why I'm horrified to see him sit on a panel and pontificate on what is good and what is evil in the world
Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2009 11:33 PM
@Marjanović #172
In any real-world situation you will find a mix of good and bad. I expressed already why I regard Iraq as a disaster and an epic moral failure, even though some good (Saddam Hussein no longer in power) came out of it. You weigh the pro, you weigh the con, and pass overall judgement. So let's not rehash Iraq again and illustrate with mother Teresa instead. Pro: devoted her life attending to the poorest, sickest and most wretched people on Earth, opened hundreds of orphanages, hospices, taking care of thousands no one else would touch with a ten-foot pole etc. Con: anti-abortion, accepted money from Duvalier. Hitchen's verdict: a fraud and a fanatic. My own: are you kidding? See, Hitchens has chosen to spend a chunk of his life (writing a book, columns and a movie) to warn the world about the evil that is mother Teresa, because the nun is failing to pass a leftist purity test.
No I'm not a Catholic. Yeah, I'm pro-choice, and pro-condoms. Yet, can you seriously weigh the pro and the con, and come out against mother Teresa? Well, Christopher Hitchens can. Yeah, this is subjective, as is any call in a discussion about morality. I guess this is an ad hominem attack. So be it then. Sorry, but whatever valid points about this or that about the Catholic Church he can be making, most of which I probably agree with, I'd never trust that man's judgement about who is a force for evil and who is a force for good in the world. He has, in my eyes, shown himself out of place, as incapable of judging overall moral character as a creationist sitting on a PhD committee for a biology thesis. He is ignoring or belittling what goes counter to his views: the good work done by mother Teresa, her selflessness, the magnitude of the human misery unleashed by an Iraq invasion he's so proud of having supported, the good work educating and tending to the sick done every day by hundreds of catholic organizations by thousands of Catholics positively affecting the lives of thousands of people, compelled to do so by their faith, often for nothing more than food and lodging. Doctors spending years off in the third world or ordinary people visiting prisoners, visiting forgotten old people, tending charity bazaars. I know such people. Do you? No? Maybe you should get out more.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 12, 2009 11:58 PM
uh, no. the reason atheists don't like Mother Theresa is because she spent her entire life telling the poor of india that their pain suffering was a good thing, instead of actually helping them alleviate their pain and suffering.Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2009 12:06 AM
@Yahzi #174
a) I was responding to Baron Scarpia, who was apparently arguing that since there are a billion nominally Catholic people in the world, therefore anything the pope says goes. It does not work that way. The pope condemned the Iraq war, and yet the government of even catholic countries (Italy, Spain) entered the coalition invading Iraq. As I said, for better or for worse, nominally catholic people disregard what the Vatican says.
b) Catholics need and want churches, which require maintenance and care, which require money. In addition, there are thousands of people and charities dependent on continuing financial support from the Vatican. You feel you know the optimum long-term management of funds for everyone involved, I'd trust that the Church that has been doing this for a couple of millenia knows how to do this reasonably well without your advice. "Popemobiles" donated by corporations or individuals? Please!
c) yes the Vatican has a seat at the United Nations. I'm rereading myself to see where you could have gotten the impression that this is refuting anything I wrote. The Vatican has influence, in that it can express a moral condemnation, and a significant fraction of mankind is supposed to pay attention. But that's the extent of its influence. It has no armored division to stop any army, and no invader has to kiss the pope's ring before he can proceed. The pope can go tsk-tsk such as in this address to president Bush:
"You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you visited me, first at Castelgandolfo on 23 July 2001, and again in this Apostolic Palace on 28 May 2002."
etc and still be ignored in the rush of warmongers like Hitchens to disarm Saddam Hussein (the next Hitler!) of his WMD. Do you find this hard to believe? Do you think the pope snaps his fingers and the world grovels at his feet? Have you been reading too many bad Dan Brown novels?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2009 12:39 AM
@caseywollberg #176
You are right, I am a simpleton, and utterly stupid. On the other hand, unlike stellar debater Christopher Hitchens, I have never passionately argued for a military invasion that resulted in an orgy of bloodshed (repeat a hundred thousand times). Which is worse?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2009 1:18 AM
@Mack #177
FYI Attendance to Hitler Youth was compulsory. Ratzinger's family was anti-nazi. The pope had a cousin who was euthanized by the Nazi party's eugenics program.
Posted by: anonymouroboros | November 13, 2009 3:56 AM
I find it ironic that one can read the first paragraph of Anonymous's post at #166 as a description of the current pope. It almost matches up completely (besides the "proponent" part). I actually thought so until I read further down and realized he was talking about Hitchens.
If you're not a Catholic as you say in post #179, what's the point of defending the most indefensible of their policies, as you did in #166 at the end. At best, it makes you look like you're rationalizing their policies; at worst, it makes you look like an apologist for the needless suffering of millions in the third-world. Isn't it a bit inconsistent to condemn everything Hitchens does because he supports an "orgy of bloodshed" even though his other positions are relatively sound, but to regard the misinformation campaign about condoms propagated by the Catholic Church and the pointless spread of sexually-transmitted infections enabled by their inaction as insignificant, apparently, just because they do some good elsewhere?
Posted by: acai berry | January 3, 2010 1:47 AM
Ths s grt nfrmtn ths s gd t knw y tlk bt nfrmtv sbjctpst.
Posted by: baju
|
February 1, 2010 1:41 PM
I think that seriously is the best public speakers that the church can throw up