…and this is a 
It has become quite amusing to watch the Defenders of the Faith reach for increasingly more hysterical phrasing to describe what the Gnu Atheists are doing. I thought we were writing and talking, but according to William Oddie, we're carrying out a distressing onslaught.
The atheists' utter loathing, all the same, is at times a little frightening in its sheer vicious irrationality. These people are in the grip of a barely restrained hysteria. Take the current issue of the New Humanist, subtitle: "Ideas for godless people"; this issue gives a good idea of what it must be like being godless, and at least it makes you grateful not to be godless yourself. "If you were invited to address Benedict XVI during his UK visit," the New Humanist introduces its special issue, "what would you say to him? Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman, Claire Rayner, Ben Goldacre and many more take part in our Pope quiz."
Ah, yes, the fellow who believes in angels and miracles and magic crackers finds it irrational that people look at his beliefs and point out how silly they are, and even worse, looks at the faith-based bloody-minded malfunctioning policies promulgated by the Pope and criticize them as nonsensical and counter-productive and damaging to humanity. He's upset now because the New Humanist was insufficiently reverent and loving towards the Pope; in the Catholic World Order, after all, we must ignore the real effects of his ideas and instead adore him and kiss his ring.
This is all horrible for anyone who regards Pope Benedict with the admiration and love most Catholics feel for him; and I find myself almost wishing that the decision had been taken to beatify Cardinal Newman in St Peter's Square and not a muddy field, and for the Pope to be spared this dreadful business of a state visit.
Someday, they'll explain to us what there is to admire and love about an old conservative dogmatist who clawed his way up the rigid hierarchy of an ancient institution like the church. I get the impression we're supposed to love the guy simply for the fact that he is a pope.
And oh, yes, that dreadful business — he's getting millions thrown away on the pomp of his visit, will be treated like a king, and only simpering lackeys will be allowed anywhere near him, while his critics are held off…and for that, his critics are deranged monsters because they don't love the narrow-minded old man enough.
Comments
Posted by: Fledgist
|
September 8, 2010 1:23 PM
How dare these horrible people criticise the sacred pope! Don't they know he's the personal friend of Jeebus?
Posted by: Phil
|
September 8, 2010 1:23 PM
We're a "distressing onslaught"? I don't exactly go around converting people to atheism or agnosticism, do I?
As for the current Pope: there are plenty of reports that suggest he helped to cover up sexual abuse while a bishop. Enough said, in my opinion.
Posted by: keeperofthepies#bd89a
|
September 8, 2010 1:25 PM
Defenders of the Faith?
Didn't take you for a fan of Judas Priest.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 8, 2010 1:25 PM
Heard an interview with Geoffrey Robertson I think his name is, one of the lawyers Dawkins and Hitchens consulted wrt the Pope visit, he has written a book, and gave the number of between 4.3 and 5.3% of priests being child molesters.Of 400.000 priests.That's a lot of suffering.
The New Humanist article is great.
Posted by: elonin
|
September 8, 2010 1:25 PM
Guess that is how scared they are to have their leader engage in debate.
Posted by: brian.utterback
|
September 8, 2010 1:26 PM
I must admit that I found the statements to be uncharacteristically vitriolic. I guess I understand the position they are taking, but I was surprised. I guess when you are talking to the ultimate head of a church and you are trying to make a point, it makes sense lay all the evil of that church at that persons feet.
I actually think that most of these people would actually behave much differently if they did find themselves in such a position.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 1:26 PM
I can't believe you got through that entire post without mentioning Ratzi's continuing role in covering up priestly abuse and failing to institute a system to prevent it and hold abusers accountable.
Posted by: raven
|
September 8, 2010 1:27 PM
Onslaught. Hah!!! For a Catholic that is being soft on atheists.
Cardinal Cormac once said that atheism is the "greatest of evils" and blamed it for all the wars in history. I guess the crusades and heretic/witch hunts weren't wars.
Of course, Cardinal Cormac is up to his pointed hat in the RCC child sexual abuse scandals. But hey, at least he isn't an atheist.
Posted by: cervantes
|
September 8, 2010 1:30 PM
Yo Ratzi, ever see somebody die of AIDS? Because that's definitely far more morally acceptable than condoning non-procreative sex, right?
Posted by: jm_birkett#20113
|
September 8, 2010 1:30 PM
Gnu atheist is a contradiction in terms. Everyone knows GNU is just a front for the Church of Emacs.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
September 8, 2010 1:33 PM
To echo #2, its not like we go around doing the proselytising is it?
Hello pot, meet kettle please.
And its almost unreal that here in the UK the government is making massive spending cuts and there is apparently no money to do anything worthwhile, and yet millions have been put aside to finance the visit of an old man who currently stands for a whole lot of wrong.
I'm surprised people haven't been even more vocal in opposing the visit. The could have used the money in so many better ways, IMO.
And whoever wanted to take the vatican seriously could've done so in the comfort of their own homes.
Posted by: rob
|
September 8, 2010 1:35 PM
i can barely restrain my atheist hysteria.
*yawn*
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 1:35 PM
With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, you'd think we were actually doing something.
Alas, we're only speaking and writing. It's hard to avoid the violence inherent in speaking and writing. If you listen to them shrieking in intellectual pain, you'd think we were savaging their ideas.
The louder they cry, the better I feel about the world. It gives me hope that all the writing and speaking going on is making a difference.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
September 8, 2010 1:36 PM
Nothing can stop the Onslaught! Writing and talking are the things that the RCC are most afraid of and with good reason. Once a person starts using their brain to think instead of memorizing ceremony the church has lost an adherent.
Posted by: spencertroxell
|
September 8, 2010 1:37 PM
I'm baking cookies right now, and the pope can't have any of them.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 1:37 PM
@brian.utterback - I expect many ordinary folks would perhaps hold back on their criticism a bit when face to face with the Pope. I might. But I highly doubt Richard Dawkins would hold back anything.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 1:39 PM
And I'd love to see what Hitchen's would say to the Pope. I know he'd hold nothing back.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
September 8, 2010 1:39 PM
...he haz a projekshun...
I'm glad there is such concern. I'm glad they're getting the vapors, and need the couch. I attribute it to the vocal and direct approach the gnu atheists have adopted. I say, turn up the volume.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 8, 2010 1:40 PM
If only they demanded citations for reiki, anti-vax bullshit and all the other crap Oprah peddles.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 1:42 PM
What, it's "horrible" for you? Religious people are having their heroes dragged into the public square and made to account for themselves, and this is very hurtful to them? We hadn't realized. Boo hoo.
I think people-of-faith have gotten way too comfortable with the idea that faith is a cushion. It doesn't just cushion their need to question -- it cushions everyone else's right to question. They apparently seem to think their situation is like that of a small child hearing a politician denounced for various crimes, till he suddenly shouts out "but that's my Daddy!!!!" -- and everyone stops and slinks away sheepishly. Oh dear. Can't touch that anymore. We must be considerate of the wee lad.
Catholics are not small children. It's ironic that the gnu atheists are the ones who have to repeatedly point this out.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 8, 2010 1:45 PM
Ugh. I posted #19 on the wrong thread. Sorry.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
September 8, 2010 1:46 PM
I'll relinquish my "hysteria" over the RCC as soon as they:
1. Stop covering up sexual abuse scandal
2. Stop influencing political policies
3. Stop being anti-contraceptive
4. Stop blocking LGBT rights
5. Stop blocking women rights
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
September 8, 2010 1:47 PM
And how they do lash out when their charmed status is challenged. Of course, their hypersensitivity is completely necessary. Necessary for the protection of their unsupportable, fragile notions about reality.
Posted by: F
|
September 8, 2010 1:49 PM
Oh,
fuck the Powp.
Posted by: sheik.djibouti.al.nayt
|
September 8, 2010 1:50 PM
This description reminds me of how Kim Jong Il is often photographed surrounded by sycophantic members of his military, for example:
http://www.luxuo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/kim-jong-il.jpg
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 8, 2010 1:58 PM
So, loathing an iniquitous old monster who, it seems likely on current evidence, has covered up child abuse and facilitated further child abuse, and whose pronouncements on condoms have directly resulted in countless preventable deaths through HIV infection, is indicative of "vicious irrationality"? I fail to see what is so irrational and "hysterical" about reviling Pope Palpatine for his manifestly harmful and immoral actions.
As for the idea that we atheists are "frightening" well, one has to wonder about the kind of person who finds writing and talking so terrifying. We have not actually done anything. Unless, of course, these terribly stealthy Gnu Atheist militants we keep hearing about, but which never seem to be much in evidence, are fighting a secret war against the church. Mind you, it is odd that there seems to be no instances of actual harm being done to the church or the clergy by the 'ebil athiest conspiriturs'. They can't be much cop at this geurilla war business, can they?
Whenever I hear rational, evidentially supported ideas expressed peaceably through speach or writing described as 'attacks' or 'onslaughts' I start to worry about the motivation behind such statements. Perhaps the fundies think that, if they can establish that speach criticising their woo is equivilent to violence, then they can have dissenting voices criminalized, or can even exhort their followers to respond to such intellecual 'violence' with actual stone-you-to-death, burn-you-at-the-stake physical violence. You know, like in the 'good old days' of the Spanish Inquisition...
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
September 8, 2010 1:59 PM
Raven @8
Oh yes. For example, the Thirty Years War was fought between Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists.
Posted by: druidbros
|
September 8, 2010 2:03 PM
Hey they didnt even mention our foaming at the mouth! I am so offended.
Posted by: Susan
|
September 8, 2010 2:05 PM
Well, that and he has a pointy hat.Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 8, 2010 2:07 PM
Not to mention the fact he can shoot lightning from his fingertips. That's gotta be worth some love right?
Posted by: cag
|
September 8, 2010 2:09 PM
GHP # 22, I see a problem with your list.
I'll relinquish my "hysteria" over the RCC as soon as they:
1. Stop
covering up sexual abuse scandal2. Stop influencing political policies
3. Stop being anti-contraceptive
4. Stop blocking LGBT rights
5. Stop blocking women rights
Posted by: Doug Little
|
September 8, 2010 2:09 PM
Fuck, you scared me there for a minute. I thought you were talking about Bill Oddie which along with the rest of the Goodies amused me when I was a little tacker. It would have been a massive shame to see such a creative person fall like that. Disaster avoided, carry on.
Posted by: Montanto
|
September 8, 2010 2:11 PM
Why do I get the feeling that those paragraphs sound even more moronic in context?
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 8, 2010 2:12 PM
Well, that and he has a pointy hat.
He'd lose to Nanny Ogg any day and would ask the Sweeper to be sent to another time if he had to deal with Granny Weatherwax.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 2:14 PM
I love the pope because he is my ideal of the older gay man.
Darling outfits, hordes of male minions, power, glory, and he never has had sex a woman.
Excuse me--gotta fap.
Posted by: Montanto
|
September 8, 2010 2:14 PM
And I'm sorry, "MOST" Catholics?" Cause back when the election was occurring most of my catholic friends were muttering "Anyone but Ratzinger."
Posted by: Girl Noir
|
September 8, 2010 2:21 PM
"Barely restrained hysteria"? Look, guys, we're not the ones issuing death threats and plotting to take over the government.
Posted by: Holytape
|
September 8, 2010 2:22 PM
what would you say to him?
"you know most men compensate for, umm.. you know, with a big fancy car. But that hat? Well, what I am trying to say, is that that hat isn't fooling anyone and it makes you look silly. And the whole condoms are bad in Africa and child abuse scandel means that you are an evil prick."
Posted by: jaybgee
|
September 8, 2010 2:29 PM
I find it hilarious that the example of hysteria and vicious rationality they give is "Ideas for godless people", because you know that's what some rabid atheist foaming at the mouth would scream.
Posted by: jaybgee
|
September 8, 2010 2:33 PM
Um, that should read "vicious irrationality" not "vicious rationality".
Posted by: sendittodevnull
|
September 8, 2010 2:40 PM
Time for a little Tim Minchin I suspect. He pretty much summarises all I'd have to say on the subject (only he says it better, and in tune; hope you appreciate the restraint in not embedding the actual video)
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
September 8, 2010 2:41 PM
Would you leave your kids with a man you only know because he claims to be able to speak with God?
No? Congratulations, you're more rational than a catholic.
Posted by: Nullifidian
|
September 8, 2010 3:06 PM
What I would like to know is why this is in any sense considered "new atheism". I think if anyone demanded of Madalyn Murray O'Hair that she genuflect before an old man in a silly hat, she'd have given them a far more colorful response than any printed in the New Humanist.
Perhaps the author wants us to go back 500 years when atheists had to keep quiet and be respectful of the Pontiff or face the Inquisition.
Posted by: Stonyground
|
September 8, 2010 3:06 PM
I find it most encouraging that believers are getting so rattled over the 'new atheist' phenomenon. The fact is that we were always aware of religion's unpleasant side but our desire to live and let live overcame our distaste. I suppose that 9/11 was the tipping point for many of us, we decided that yes you have a right to your beliefs, however stupid we think them to be but we are not prepared to put up with you screwing up our lives and the lives of others in the world at large.
All that we are doing is speaking and writing, we are not bombing or murdering, we are not infringing upon anyone's rights apart from those who think that they have a right to persecute others.
Posted by: Leon
|
September 8, 2010 3:15 PM
The New Humanist is exhibiting barely restrained hysteria by running a poll asking what people who disagree with the Pope would say to him? Well, stop the presses--by this definition, the Internet is full of barely restrained hysteria from all points of view.But I forget: the "hysteria" bar is held that low only for those who are critical of religion, isn't it? The Pope could give a public shouting diatribe on the stand, and the faithful would label *us* hysterical or intolerant for mocking or criticizing it.
Posted by: catsmate
|
September 8, 2010 3:22 PM
>
> Well, that and he has a pointy hat.
>
Meh, it's not that pointy, really.
Posted by: Roxane
|
September 8, 2010 3:27 PM
Sigh.
Clearly we have to get better at our onslaughts.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 8, 2010 3:29 PM
"This is all horrible for anyone who regards Pope Benedict with the admiration and love most Catholics feel for him"
Suck on it.
"I must admit that I found the statements to be uncharacteristically vitriolic."
Oh PLEASE. I saw nothing uncharacteristic in any of the replies I read.
"I guess when you are talking to the ultimate head of a church and you are trying to make a point, it makes sense lay all the evil of that church at that persons feet. "
When he has been demonstrably responsible for a good portion of that evil in his professional life and/or does nothing to correct said evils, then yes.
"I actually think that most of these people would actually behave much differently if they did find themselves in such a position. "
I rather doubt it. I suspect it would depend merely on how many goons the Pope had around him and how ornery they looked.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 8, 2010 3:37 PM
I loathe the pope but there's nothing irrational about it. I can give several reasons why I feel that way about Benny Ratzi. If Oddie thinks loathing "His Holiness" for supporting and protecting child rapists is irrational, then a quote from Tim Minchin is appropriate:
Posted by: JimNorth
|
September 8, 2010 3:42 PM
Nothing can stop the Onslaught! Our two major weapons of destruction are writing and talking and pointing out silly ideas....Our three major weapons of destruction include writing, talking, pointing, and laughing....Our Four...oh sod!
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
September 8, 2010 3:45 PM
Not so long ago "officials" at Buck House conjured up reasons for barring Nick Griffin of the BNP from a garden party (who would want to go?) to save Ol´Lizzy any embarrassment should she meet him. Fine, one might not like the manifesto of the BNP but Griffin is a constitutionally elected member of the EP.
It seems, however, that Mrs Windsor will suffer no such embarrassment at meeting The Rat this month. One commentator in the British press even suggested that it will be a "poignant" meeting because both "world leaders" were alive during the second world war. Nothing was mentioned that while Lizzy was driving an ambulance around London, The Rat´s organization was keeping shtum about the Nazis.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 8, 2010 3:47 PM
"I actually think that most of these people would actually behave much differently if they did find themselves in such a position. "
I wouldn't be respectful to that fucking fat-ass fraud in a frock. I'd tell him I think he's a baby-rapist enabling, woman-killing piece of shit who needs to pull his head out of that medieval ass and face the real fucking world of the 21st century, fuck his fairy tale fantasies.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
September 8, 2010 3:48 PM
Yet another data point for the massively supported proposition that accomodationism is stupid. What the god-botherers are most afraid of is simply our visibility- and with good reason, as that visibility is of great value in showing those who are still trying to shake off their religious brainwashing that they are not alone. We must not shut up and hide as they want us to. We will not be intimidated by bluster.
Posted by: melissa.b.elliott
|
September 8, 2010 3:48 PM
I owe him nothing and he has no authority over me, real or imagined (I'm a protestant non-theist), so there would be nothing stopping me from saying what I really think: that if hell was real, Satan's made his list and has checked it twice, having a Pope is gonna be nice!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 8, 2010 3:51 PM
Anyone who feels love and admiration for Pope Benedict is, at best an idiot, and at worst, horrible.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 8, 2010 3:54 PM
That's what we like about our Aquaria, she's such a mild, polite, kind person who'd never give offense regardless of the provocation.
Posted by: bcoppola
|
September 8, 2010 3:57 PM
spencertroxell#15:
You vicious, irrational MONSTER!!
What kind of cookies?
Posted by: Ströh
|
September 8, 2010 4:01 PM
Onslaught? He [i]did[/i] get that we are gnu atheists and not GUN atheists, right?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
September 8, 2010 4:11 PM
Quoted for uncle-fucking truth.Posted by: britt.parrott
|
September 8, 2010 4:13 PM
I completely agree with this assessment. It is frightening how much time we atheists have to spend in our utter loathing of those whose ideas are irrational. I recognize that it is a vicious cycle but we are in the grip of a barely restrained hystria, which is the dominant belief in god or gods and all that follows from such nonsense.
While I would love it if atheists could spend our energy discussing and arguing over real concerns, we occasionally have to take time to beat back the stupid. It's not a pleasant task for most, but at least no one is still getting burned at the stake for doing it.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 8, 2010 4:25 PM
An onslaught?
No rest. No mercy. No matter what.
(I wonder if anyone will get that)
Posted by: daninorlando
|
September 8, 2010 4:27 PM
I was going to say something pithy, but I can't be bothered. I just want to say: "I'm sorry, can you fuck off now?"
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 4:34 PM
Hysteria? Hysteria?
Excuse me. I resent that term. Consider:
I am afraid to let anyone know my thoughts, I believe that most of the rest of the people in the world are crazy, I see giant conspiracies to keep people in ignorance of the truth that I know, and I can tell that my mother secretly fantasizes about me burning alive for millions of years.
Hysteria?
Please.
Posted by: JimNorth
|
September 8, 2010 4:39 PM
@Shala - sorry, none of us play magic (the gathering)...
Posted by: Moosebite
|
September 8, 2010 4:41 PM
Doctor: "It's fucking horrible that I'm cutting off your gangrenous leg... maybe I shouldn't worry about it..."
Patient: "It's GANGRENOUS. Fuck it, it's just a leg. I don't want to die..."
...
Patient: "Are you really a doctor?"
... If only.
Posted by: legistech
|
September 8, 2010 4:51 PM
If hell were real, I think Satan wouldn't have just "a" pope, he'd have most of them. Possibly even all of them.
Posted by: toddcaton
|
September 8, 2010 4:54 PM
OH NO, THE HYSTERIA!!! IT'S BARELY RESTRAI--
Wait, asking "what would you say to the pope?" constitutes hysteria? That's disappointing.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 8, 2010 4:57 PM
I dunno, I work on the assumption that Satan would have some standards and would deny entry.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 4:58 PM
The Secret was criticised for promoting the idea that wishing and believing ... that the Universe wants you to be happy, and wants to give you what you desire.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 5:03 PM
Sorry, posted on wrong thread. Some fellow on the Hall thread is arguing that Oprah is being viciously attacked.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
September 8, 2010 5:05 PM
inflammatory rhetoric and over blown hyperbole ever to tools of politicians, demagogues, priests and con-men.
well some here do use some pretty strong language and common english expressions in their criticism. now if we used a long dead language to speak our critiques...........
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 8, 2010 5:09 PM
"The Parson is here! Oh my God, it's him! The earthly embodiment of the Elected Chair of the National Congress of Deacons!"
Posted by: rontheeditor
|
September 8, 2010 5:13 PM
Absolute rulers of tiny sub-city states with a population of about 800 nominally celibate old men who do not recognise the equality of women do not get state visits.
That is just an excuse to get sods like me to pay for the visit which Benny boy will use to try to poach priests from the church of England which has been effectifly leaderless since the crypto Catholic Tony Blair appointed a totally useless leader.
Posted by: Moggie
|
September 8, 2010 5:28 PM
#55:
But, don't you see? He's their father. You're supposed to love papa, no matter what.
I was bemused by the apparently genuine love for JP2, but at least, by the time I was taking notice, ordinary Catholics had got to know him. The "love" for Ratzi appeared to start when the smoke had barely cleared over the Sistine Chapel, and most of the ordinary folk knew little about the guy. They love the office because that's what they're conditioned to do. It's a useful trick for the church, and one I fully intend to employ if I ever reach CEO.
Posted by: amir.c.najmi
|
September 8, 2010 5:30 PM
@#61
Akroma :)
Posted by: psycchick
|
September 8, 2010 5:31 PM
As a mental health professional, I always think of "projection" when I read these problems.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 5:48 PM
It's no coincidence that abusive parents (and their enablers) use exactly the same manipulation tactic on their children.
Posted by: Felix
|
September 8, 2010 5:49 PM
The way these people use the word 'Love', it's just disgusting. It's physically apalling.
But, he expresses the near-wish that the Pope had stayed away. See how close gnu atheism is to winning? We're already at the stage where irrationalists almost follow our wishes just to make us shut up. That, my friends, is power. No threat of torture or immolation, just an announcement that more essays and blog posts are in the works.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 5:51 PM
@ #75 - that's one of my favorite and most played cards, and I'm embarrassed I didn't know the flavor text!
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
September 8, 2010 5:54 PM
I am still scratching my head...
What about the New Humanist was supposed to make someone happy they weren't godless again?
Posted by: Shala
|
September 8, 2010 6:17 PM
Akroma :)
I think someone should shoop PZ's head over Akroma's.
Posted by: blf
|
September 8, 2010 6:23 PM
Not an ambulance, a truck. And not until 1945.† For most of the war, she was not in London, effectively having been evacuated with many of the other children / teenagers.
† She would have been c.19 in 1945, so it's perhaps not surprising she didn't perform uniformed service until then.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
September 8, 2010 6:25 PM
Whenever I hear Catholics talk about how awful and mean Atheists and the like are, I get the impression that they have no clue that a double standard is an informal fallacy of logic. They are perfectly comfortable applying one set of standards for themselves and another set for everyone else. They are, after all, members of THE church which represents God and is therefore, without question, most holy and correct and unassailable. Anyone who disagrees with them is "obviously" on the wrong side of the discussion, so smarmy kindness and condescension are the correct attitudes to greet them with. They seem to have no clue why anyone would ever be upset at them, for they are, after all, nice people, blessed by God, and no one in his right mind would ever question that.
Oddie's rant is a good example of projection. He lays onto the atheists all the irrational behaviors that he is himself most afraid of displaying. "Barely restrained hysteria" describes his rant fairly nicely, though with his peculiar world view, he is being rational. And, of course, he falls into Bible quotes to justfiy his apologetics. "That’s the deal. Get used to it" indeed.
Posted by: SEF
|
September 8, 2010 6:44 PM
I'm making a citizen's arrest!
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
September 8, 2010 6:46 PM
blf #82
Yes, you are correct blf. Sorry, I got carried away.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
September 8, 2010 6:56 PM
' That's the deal. Get used to it.' Our Odditie's been reading that little swaggerer Tom Friedmann, surely, and picked up a few pointers. But I liked Timberwoof's juxtaposition of those words with 'he falls into Bible quotes'. 'That's the deal. Get used to it.' You can just imagine YHWH thundering that out as he flings the Ten Commandments down Mount Sinai at some mildly protesting Israelites and proceeds to get the other Israelites to kill them in some unpleasant way, together with their wives, children, servants and slaves...
As for Odditie's cringing love for our great Rat-father, what I find so annoying is the human tendency to near-deify almost anyone who gets put in a powerful position: The Queen, the Dalai Lama, Mao-tse-tung, Stalin, the recent President Bush (among the Republican right); you might have some respect for some people in high positions, but this cringing, currish, slobbering 'love'...? Was it this sort of love ('the greatest of these...')that Paul was talking about in Corinthians? Perhaps Odditie might go into the question.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 8, 2010 7:18 PM
The pointing and laughing is being construed as "loathing"? And here I thought it was just hysterical laughter at the clueless who believe very silly things.
I don't know which of the pope's ring PZ is suggesting people kiss - the ring he can't remove?
I really pity the pope for choosing to visit a muddy field while being attended to by hordes of lackeys and pampered by a government whose nominal chief is the head of a different religious cult which happens to be accepted as a legitimate branch of the pope's own cult despite the fact that the founder of that aforementioned cult had a policy of exterminating members of the pope's cult. It's all very confusing.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 8, 2010 7:27 PM
Oops ... I forget the monarch isn't the chief of the Church of England. Nor is the current monarch a direct descendant of the monarch who exterminated catlicks.
Posted by: druidbros
|
September 8, 2010 7:32 PM
Speak for yourself paleface.
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
September 8, 2010 7:39 PM
Check out Freethinker uk to see how the British police have sunk even lower by colluding with The Rat´s organization.
Apparently, anybody trying to arrest The Rat will be arrested themselves.
No mention of what the charge would be.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
September 8, 2010 7:59 PM
Breach of the peace, probably.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 8:06 PM
Hell, when the president of China made a state visit to London, the police arrested people who carried signs.
It is also apparently now legal for policemen in London to push bystanders to the ground so hard that it kills them. I'd be careful out there.
Posted by: xrayzed
|
September 8, 2010 8:20 PM
"I get the impression we're supposed to love the guy simply for the fact that he is a pope."
Well, yeah. That's the way it's supposed to work: God picked him to lead the flock, QED loyalty and devotion must follow or you're being disobedient and spiteful to God.
It doesn't make much sense to me, but if you can handle the idea of magic crackers and flying dead people it's not that hard to accept.
Posted by: fcaccin
|
September 8, 2010 8:37 PM
Perhaps the other guys are. This sounds a lot as a suitable anthem for the (not so)gnu clergy.
Vicious rationality IS the onslaught.
Posted by: Nick
|
September 8, 2010 9:01 PM
How would a Catholic recognise these qualities. Surely, they are unknown to them.
Posted by: dxv515
|
September 8, 2010 9:09 PM
hey bitches!
@78
"we" don't want you to shut up. Keep at it! As a matter of fact "we" would be disapointed if none of you made a visit to the UK to protest the Pope. words are just words... what follows next bitches?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 8, 2010 9:12 PM
@#96 -
Yawn.
You don't get to say "bitches" unless you're Rick James.
Posted by: dxv515
|
September 8, 2010 9:17 PM
@ PZ Myers
Where is the fun in that? Please by all means hate the Pope and please tell the internet world just how much you do! Let the games begin!
Posted by: dxv515
|
September 8, 2010 9:22 PM
@97 he is dead. can't say much of anything, can he? death..remember?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 8, 2010 9:28 PM
dxv515 wrote:
And you post here despite the fact you're an obtuse pissant who's incapable of bringing anything to a discussion. Moron, remember?
Posted by: amir.c.najmi
|
September 8, 2010 9:29 PM
@81, or at least give him her sword.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
September 8, 2010 10:01 PM
Hey troll, how about his lies the condoms don't help the situation with AIDS? How about his opposition to birth control, or to stem cell research? How much would you love someone causing so much misery while living in boundless luxury?
Incidentally troll since you obviously haven't noticed, you are putting money in PZ's pocket by boosting his web traffic. Please keep doing it, I'm sure coming right out of cardiac surgery he can use it.
Posted by: ggwizz
|
September 8, 2010 10:13 PM
I'd say it like Gomer Pyle.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
September 8, 2010 10:40 PM
@ dxv515:
1. Mr. Ratzinger is an abhorrent person who as an official of a large corporate entity shielded his employees' illegal actions from scrutiny by law enforcement. Are we supposed to "love" him for this actions? For deliberately protecting pedophiles? Are you a pedophile? Do you support Mr. Ratzinger's position in shielding his employees from legal scrutiny of what are admittedly systemic, ongoing illegal acts? Which continued for years at least in part BECAUSE of Mr. Ratzinger's actions?
2. Mr. Ratzinger's organization demands, despite all of the truths told in #1 above, that we respect it as a moral arbiter. With a moral compass that only a psychopath could possibly support: That women place themselves and their children at risk for early death. That women should be subjugated to the role of second-class citizen. That medical research into some of the most compelling issues of our time be cut off completely because of some vague questions over an imagined supernatural piece of a 16-cell lump of frozen nothing. That 2 people who love and respect one another not be afforded the same rights and human dignity to be allowed to love one another as another two people merely because they are of the same gender. Are you saying you support Mr. Ratzinger's organizational positions absolutely and without question? That doesn't mark you as either "faithful" or "loving". It marks you as a blindly obedient bigot.
Do you REALLY think Mr. Ratzinger, as the head of a criminal, amoral organization devoted to nothing more than the enrichment of that organization deserves nothing more than contempt from the rest of us?
Please, oh please, enlighten us as to which parts of Mr. Ratzinger's teachings we should take to heart so that we may love him as a moral teacher? Perhaps that women shouldn't be even minor officials in the criminal enterprise?
Respect that? Never. "Love" that? HA!!!
You get what you give. He gives nothing but hatred, cynicism, and bigotry. We're allowed to judge him by his actions.
If you think yourself "superior" to me because I do not respect Mr. Ratzinger, you're wrong.
Posted by: chemicalscum
|
September 8, 2010 10:50 PM
The Emperor has no clothes.
No wonder they get angry when you point it out.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
September 8, 2010 11:16 PM
The Rat Zinger with no clothes?
BRAIN BLEACH!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Moosebite
|
September 9, 2010 12:07 AM
Damn, someone should put one of those old police boxes as close as they can to the podium where ratzi will be speaking during his visit. I wonder if that would put him off...
Better yet, put them everywhere. Litter the streets with them for his visit.
Just don't use Steven Moffats', I hear that's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside...
Posted by: dnbarabash
|
September 9, 2010 12:12 AM
And with Belgian flags.
Posted by: Autumn
|
September 9, 2010 12:54 AM
What's the difference between Neil Armstrong and a Catholic priest?
Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.
Catholic priests fuck children.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 9, 2010 1:48 AM
@Don Quijote#90: Hardly surprising - after all it's the same organization that murdered that Brazilian guy, lied about what happened, insisted that the Brazilian was a terrorist, then covered up for the crooked cops and made statements to the effect that the murderers were some sort of heroes.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 9, 2010 1:54 AM
The Catholic Church is just copying God--do the craziest, most vicious things unimaginable, and convince folks that not only is that behavior moral, but a requirement for a moral life.
Posted by: eccles
|
September 9, 2010 2:19 AM
I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church now a proud Atheist. Herr Papst RatSlinger, Der Fuhrer of Vatican City should be held hauled before the International Court of Justice for haboring criminals: Paedophile Clergy
His "Unholiness" can be contacted on his toll free phone number 041 NUN to tell him what a mob of wankers he has.
Posted by: Moggie
|
September 9, 2010 3:07 AM
#90:
That's pretty standard, I think. In England and Wales, citizen's arrest is not legal if there are police present who could make a conventional arrest. Everywhere the pope goes in public, you can be sure there will be police nearby, so a citizen's arrest would be illegal.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 9, 2010 3:35 AM
dxv515
AGAIN???
please, can't we just toss this asswipe in the dungeon and have done with it?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 9, 2010 3:38 AM
what follows next bitches?
evidently much whinging from the peanut gallery, if you're the example.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 9, 2010 3:38 AM
Holding up a moral leader to account for protecting paedophiles... what I wonder is why that the rest of society isn't outraged at the deference given to someone who actively protected child rapists?
People really need to stop thinking that abstaining from speaking when it's due is a good thing to do. It's not being "respectful" to pay deference to protectors of child rapists any more than it is to welcome someone who funds suicide bombers. Why does the abhorred get excused when it comes to religion?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 9, 2010 3:41 AM
DVX15...
better known as the child Bill Donohue had with his favorite crack whore.
Posted by: davrosfromskaro
|
September 9, 2010 4:10 AM
This is all horrible for anyone who regards Pope Benedict with the admiration and love most Catholics feel for him;
Even my mother-in-law who is a practising catholic thinks Ratzinger is an absolute disaster who is dragging the church even further into disrepute with his failure to engage with the real world.
Of course, I think this is a good thing as I believe it's making even die-hard catholics question some of the rubbish that the pope spouts
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 9, 2010 5:50 AM
I can't help wonder whether the strident blather from certain corners about the flock's love for Papa Ratzi is to make up for a lack of spontaneous affection compared to that engendered by JPII. I don't know any Catholics*, but certainly Benny isn't attracting the sort of respect from many non-Catholics of my acquaintance that Johnny-P did.
* Well, we accuse one of my aunts of being a crypto-Catholic, but she's at least nominally converted to a flavour of Protestantism. Oh, and I guess her uncle is a nominal Catholic, but he's schizophrenic and only borderline communicative, so it's hard to know what if anything he actually believes.
Posted by: THEHARMONIKZ
|
September 9, 2010 6:57 AM
I for one will be at the protest.Wearing my Pz loves Crackers T-shirt.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
September 9, 2010 7:04 AM
Benny Baby had very little 'brotherly' love for JP2.
In fact he was incensed by the liberalism that JP2's reign engendered.
He was a right bastard as a Cardinal apparently...they did not call him 'god's Rottweiler' for his sonny personality or affability.
He wanted to restore the RCC to pre 1600ce standards of Latin in masses and penances and indulgences.
He is a medievalist...even still retains top doggy position of the inquisition department at the Vatican...yep still there...but they keep it quite!
And is capo de capo of the exorcist crew.
This dude is a seriously twisted deluded and completely barking lunatic...and he is well aware of the little kiddy penchants of his minions.
Having written letters to attempt to minimize the damage fallout by ruling that victims had the burden of proof to provide and must remain silence for ever there after.
Respect for such a creature is hard to find anywhere.
It seems he is not that keen on conferring sainthood on his predecessor either.
He is going as far as he can to reverse all JP2's pronouncements...an unprecedented behaviour in the cult.
That is why he will never publicly endorse Evolutionary theory, and fired the Vatican Observatory chief when the chief rebuked Benny for giving credence to the ID nonsense.
Replaced him with a goon that babbles about ET and how they would be an opportunity to convert to RC doctrine no doubt.
Benny will allow dipshit retards like Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to pontificate and insult atheists even though Benny spouts smug little homilies about serving all of mankind and how important interfaith initiatives are before thoroughly insulting Islam.
And he allows holocaust deniers like Bishop Richard Williamson back into the fold quite readily...interesting that JP2 refused to have them back whatever.
This evil little perverted toe rag needs a few evenings with the administrations of Floyd Rubber methinks...
Posted by: nikephorius
|
September 9, 2010 7:06 AM
There is an interesting article appealing (optimistically) to the good sense of devout Catholics in the Independent, a UK newpaper:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-catholics-its-you-this-pope-has-abused-2074029.html
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
September 9, 2010 7:07 AM
William Oddie
The oh so saintly Cardinal Newman. A man who, in 1863, thirty years AFTER the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire, said that he would not condemn slavery because it's in the Bible, St Paul thought it was ok, and anyway God had "ordained" it as just another "condition of life" to be borne, just like sickness or old age.
Newman also opposed the 1832 Reform Act.
He also said
What does Ratzinger say about this charming man?
Only if you start from a very low base, Ratzi.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 9, 2010 7:23 AM
Anubis wrote:
Seemingly one has to look no farther than the British government.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
September 9, 2010 7:49 AM
@nikephorius
Johann Hari doesn't mess about - have a look at the last paragraph here for more details!
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
September 9, 2010 8:07 AM
#124
That might be confusing respect with abject drooling cowardice methinks ;-)
Posted by: yaburrow
|
September 9, 2010 8:51 AM
What I would say to the Pope:
Why did you cover up the child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?
Why did you promote cardinals who were covering up the child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?
Why did you prevent the perpetrators from being prosecuted by secular criminal courts?
Why did you let them continue to be priests where they could carry on abusing children?
Why do you continue to preach against condoms which would prevent the transmission of AIDS?
Why did you then try to blame the epidemic of child-abuse in your church on gay people?
Why do you refuse to reform a system that fosters abuse of this kind?
Posted by: robinsrule
|
September 9, 2010 9:52 AM
dxv515:
More people leave the Catholic church.
Posted by: NotMyGod
|
September 9, 2010 10:47 AM
Yeah, because when you get atheist extremists together with all their irrational hatred, they express that by flying planes into buildings! No, wait, wait... they kill abortion doctors! No, hold on... they institute child marriages and genital mutilation! No, hold on, it'll come to me... Um...
Yep, we're vicious, all right.
Posted by: Moosebite
|
September 9, 2010 11:30 AM
Anything I want to say to the pope I would say with my chainsaw.
Posted by: locka99
|
September 9, 2010 11:32 AM
I expect not many people love this pope. They might revere him, but let's face it, this guy is one creepy looking bastard. Pope John Paul had a lovable face, smile and seemed quite personable. It is easy to imagine that people would have loved JP, even some of his detractors. On the other hand Pope Benedict looks like Emperor Palpatine with a smile so terrifying that you could use it to punish children.
Posted by: Moosebite
|
September 9, 2010 11:49 AM
Haha. That's hilarious, even without the irony.
Posted by: yaburrow
|
September 9, 2010 11:49 AM
Talking of the Emperor Palpatine (yes, you're right, are they by any chance related?), Adam Buxton's video sci-fi send-up of the inauguration of the current pope still cracks me up. Particularly "the enclosure of the dark ones".
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 9, 2010 12:00 PM
locka99 @ 131;
I can almost imagine Pope Palaptine sitting aboard a throne room on the Pope Star, taunting his victim with such lines as...
"Now, behold the piety-power of this fully operational god-botherer station!"
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 9, 2010 12:03 PM
Of course, standing at Pope Palaptine's right hand would be Darth Beck...
Posted by: mhatter1970
|
September 9, 2010 12:06 PM
Actually, interesting to read the whole article by William Oddie. His perspective is that all the Atheist vitriol is actually good for the Catholic church, as it gives them a point of opposition and "makes them relevant." Not unlike PZ's relationship with William Oddie; if he didn't have anti-atheist rants from the Catholic Herald to whine about, where would he be? Publishing pictures of mating octopi only gets one so many page views...
So can all us intellectually superior atheists here concede that we need the "kooks" as much as the "kooks" need us? If not, there wouldn't be a place to come together and play this game of "look at the even more witty thing I came up with to say to the Pope!" What would give our lives meaning then?
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
September 9, 2010 12:35 PM
Would you really want your offspring to sit on this old nonces lap?
I do but suggest that this would be a far better result...
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 9, 2010 1:16 PM
mhatter1970 @ 136;
The Catholic church was never 'relevant' to reality in the first place, and its grip on political power has been slipping for centuries Its current media profile is mostly provided by the ever growing litany of instances of clerical child abuse that have come to light now that the church no longer has the power or social influence to silence its critics or sweep nasty scandals under the rug.
If atheism is so beneficial to the church, why the constant desire to see atheism fail or even (among the more crazed adherents) be purged?
Atheists are helping to highlight how ridiculous religion truly is. We are demonstrating to the silent groups of those who do not believe that they are not alone, and that one can live a ethical, fulfilled and worthwhile life without the crutch of an imaginary god. This terrifies many religious conmen who see their parasitic livlihood imperilled, as is evidenced by the massive overreaction to the (very moderately worded) atheist bus ad campaigns.
Well, he would still be a Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota. You know, his career.
Also, PZ criticises the harm that religion and various types of woo cause to society. He is not reliant on the Catholic Herald for that material. Sadly, it is all to commonplace in the modern world, with everything from violent religious maniacs to homeopathic snake-oil salesmen infesting every corner of the globe.
And then there is always Huffpo...
Just because you are not into cephalopod pron...
There you go again. I cannot speak for all atheists, but I do not feel any great 'need' for the world's theistic hucksters and charlatans, and I doubt that I am alone in this. I would happily go through life without constantly running into religious delusion and the pain and suffering it spawns. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.
Also, "intellectually superior atheists"? You are starting to sound like a concern troll. We point out the utter ridiculousness of many religious beliefs, and we call religious bigots on the harm their hatreds cause. Most of all, we do not allow theists to claim authority (and still less seek legal and political power) from their invisible magic man in the sky unchallenged. A person can be highly intelligent and yet still vulnerable to religion's insidious embrace. Many of the regulars here used to be fully inducted into all kinds of religious woo before they broke free of their conditioning.
You might want to learn a bit more about the people here before you start making blanket pronouncements.
We socialise with like minded people here. If the world was suddenly to shed all pernicious mythology, we would still be able to socialise with like minded people. Why are you assuming that the facet of the various commentators that you see here on Pharyngula is all that there is to these people? We do have offline lives, you know.
If the only price I had to pay for a world free of the kind of unaccountable religious power that shields child rapists from prosecution, advocates an irresponsible attitude toward condoms that as killed millions, promotes misogyny and homophobia, and drives people to mindless violence, was the loss of one online blog that I like to peruse, then it is a price I would happily pay in an instant and without any regrets.
I have got a hot tip for you; life has no inherent meaning. The universe is vast and, on current evidence, utterly without awareness. There is no power imposing meaning on our existence. Any meaning we find in our lives is meaning that we choose for ourselves. At the end of the day, it is about being the kind of person that you can respect, and about being able to look at yourself in the (figurative) mirror and like the person you see.
Most atheists are not given to seeking the validation of a 'meaning' imposed on their lives. If they did, they would likely be highly religious instead. In most religions, all the supposed 'answers' are spoonfed to confirm existing prejudice, and the intellectual oblivion of false certainty awaits. I doubt anyone here derives the 'meaning' of their lives solely from their visits to Pharyngula. The fact that you would suggest they might confirms in my mind the impression that you are just another troll. One of many that we routinely have to endure here.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
September 9, 2010 1:57 PM
Insightful Ape,@ 102
this idiot has been leaving steamy liquid messes in other threads, you give him too much credit....by way of a response, he will never provide anything more cogent than a ball scratch and grunt.Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 9, 2010 2:06 PM
@138
Ugh, it's just like visiting my father...
Posted by: mhatter1970
|
September 9, 2010 2:11 PM
G. Greenwood @137
Agree with the latter part; the former, not so much. Wishing the Catholic church out of existence (or, if you prefer, "relevance") does not make it so. Reality, as I see it, is the world we live in. The Catholic church specifically, and organized religion in general, has had a very real, demonstrable impact on human civilization, independent of the ludicrousness of their beliefs.
I'm surprised that you find the "intellectually superior atheist" tag so offensive. (Ironic, too, given that PZ's next post was on precisely that topic.) Do you not think atheists are, as a general rule, intellectually superior? I do. In fact, it is because of this belief that I find the "poke the retard" nature of so many posts here so immature. I would hope that instead of spending all our times nursing past grievances and making snarky one-liners, atheists would be able to rise above the fray, and lead by example, instead on devolve into name-calling and grudge-settling.
Couldn't agree more; I never meant to imply that anyone here (well, besides PZ) derives all or even a significant portion of the meaning in their lives from this blog. I very much doubt they do. But seriously, as an obviously intelligent person, do you not see the ironic pointlessness of all the name-calling? Atheist criticizes Catholic for criticizing humanist for criticizing Pope...
Um please, let's be honest. PZ is an Associate Professor of Biology at a backwater satellite campus for a third tier state university. He hasn't published anything peer-reviewed in at least 15 years, and his scientific CV is painfully thin. To suggest that PZ is not primarily a blogger / atheism evangelist / cultural provocateur is to be as delusional as the papists you so despise. Why does PZ get paid to fly around the world, hobnobbing with Dawkins et al.? It is certainly not because of his academic contribution to biology, and he himself admits he hasn't been in a classroom for over a year.
Sorry if I've given you the vapors by not towing the party line. If by "troll" you mean someone who does not agree with everything our host does/writes, then guilty as charged. I am, like I suspect many of us are, trying to find my way in the world, an ex-religious type who is seeking out like-minded folks for a sense of community. I don't expect anyone to agree with me all or even most of the time, and I certainly don't have all the answers. But isn't one of the principles of people like us that all statements / beliefs can be questioned? And that doing so is not treasonous, but actually helpful and engaging? I hope that does not extend only to the beliefs of others, but also of those who are like-minded atheists.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
September 9, 2010 2:19 PM
So they have finally given up on their claim to relevance through being an exclusive source of morality? About time.Posted by: Qwerty
|
September 9, 2010 7:04 PM
madhatter@136:
"So can all us intellectually superior atheists here concede that we need the "kooks" as much as the "kooks" need us? If not, there wouldn't be a place to come together and play this game of "look at the even more witty thing I came up with to say to the Pope!" What would give our lives meaning then?"
It isn't all about witticisms as the pope won't grant his African believers the use of condoms which threatens the lives of those who cannot or will not abstain froms sexual intercourse.
The hushups of preistly sexual abuse is also a worldwide scandal.
Though your kooks comment is interesting in that I've always thought that faith and organized religions would have little or any relevance were it not for us sinners.
And, personally, I am going to commit "sins of the flesh" while I still have flesh as the hereafter is just a dream.
Posted by: echidna
|
September 9, 2010 11:22 PM
The phrase you are mangling is derived from "toe the line".
No, it's more a person who incoherently throws comments around like weapons, without engaging withthe substance of other commenters' posts.
You also equate intellectual acumen with politeness, as if they ever had anything to do with each other. You claim intellectual superiority for atheists, but measure PZ in a derogatory way on his research rather than his teaching (at a teaching university).
To be less of a troll, make your points, back them up, and engage in conversation.
Posted by: mhatter1970
|
September 11, 2010 7:56 PM
Thanks echidna! Good to know there is at least one archetypal grammar Nazi round these parts; every blog needs one. I feel like such a cretin! So sorry my "mangling" of the language with a single letter typo left my post incoherent to you. (The W key happens to be next to the E on my keyboard.). If it helps, go back and read it with your correction in!
BTW, you missed a space between "with" and "the" in your first paragraph. Don't worry, I was still able to soldier through...
I find it interesting that you charge me with not engaging other posters. I kinda felt like that's exactly what I was doing (go back and look, I'll wait. Also, QED! ) I was agreeing with Greenwood about somethings, disagreeing about others. You know, instead of just resorting to name calling, e.g. "troll". Not sure where I equated intellect with politeness, but I realize my typo there you off your game. Since I am such an intellectual snob and also (as you point out) derogatory, I would be quite the hypocrit if that were that case.
So I suspect what you really mean by "engage" is "agree with PZ about everything, just like the rest of us here do." I actually went and read the whole article by Oddie, and I found it a lot less incoherent than PZ made it sound, but then I was raised to think for myself, thank you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 8:07 PM
False fuckwit. Nobody agrees with Dah Poopyhead (PZ) on everything, and we call him out when we don't. What is your excuse for not writing in a clear fashion, if we are misunderstanding your inane posts?Posted by: mhatter1970
|
September 11, 2010 8:53 PM
#146
Thanks for joining the party, Nerd of Redhead. Please let me know what exactly I have written that is difficult for you to follow. I'd be happy to walk you through it.