Militant Atheism

January 20, 2010

There is a striking paucity of corroborative evidence for the existence of leprechauns lolling in pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but you never see eleventeen fuckjillion leprechaun enthusiasts banding together to kill, maim, oppress, and otherwise fuck with people who don’t give a flying fuck about leprechauns and just want to be left the fuck alone.

Here’s the deal: As soon as the motherfucking jeezus-, abraham-, mohammed-, and other-fucking god botherers shut down their fucking churches, shut the fuck up about their fucking stupid deities, stop maiming, killing, and opporessing, and otherwise leave decent people alone, then I assure you, the “militant atheists” will concern themselves with them to the same extent they do leprechaun enthusiasts.

172 Responses to “Militant Atheism”

  1. Katharine Says:

    PhysioProf, my opinion is that below a certain IQ and/or under certain psychological controls by other religiobots, people aren’t going to care about reality. They just want to believe what makes them feel good because they’re dumb and only able to realize that in the real world, most of them are unable to achieve anything of significance because they are totally incapable of nuanced thought.

    A possibly illustrative example is the difference between the dialogue of Whatsername the Botanist (who was awesome) and The Military Meatheads (who were not awesome) in Avatar (I won’t spoil the plot, but it’s illustrative): Whatsername the Botanist is nuanced, can use ten-dollar words accurately, takes lengths to explain herself, and generally tries to do things in an intelligent way and control her emotions in certain circumstances. The Military Meatheads were not nuanced, did not use any ten-dollar words, used short sentences that made them sound like morons (which they were), didn’t explain things in depth, and did not know how to control their emotions.

    I don’t think we’re going to be able to do much about religiobots, barring directly improving human intelligence, until there is some drastic upheaval in the US educational system (I am confused as to why chemistry is not a prerequisite for biology, for example) and a restructuring of culture to favor the smart.

  2. FrauTech Says:

    Now look here; this country was founded on Leprechaun ideals. Our forefathers were avid Leprechaun enthusiasts and all of our laws are based on Leprechauns. So your “free thinking” ways are not only WRONG but unpatriotic, sir. I’m sure when they meant Democracy they meant freedom to exist as a pro-Leprechaun country, so you can take your anti-Leprechaun fascism back to Nazi Germany.

  3. Robin Says:

    Stolen from someone on Twitter recently: “A militant Christian shoots abortion doctors. A militant Muslim hijacks aeroplanes. A militant atheist argues with people.”


  4. “A militant atheist argues with people.”

    Or starts a gulag. Depends on the country, I guess.

  5. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Was atheism the cause of 20th century atrocities? [No.] Even according to ardent anti-Soviet and anti-Communist historians, such as Hannah Arendt and Richard Pipes, atheism was not a relevant cause.

    Keep in mind that the predominantly Christian United States has the highest proportion of its people in prison of any country. Our prison system has no parallel among developed nations in its brutality. And we have an obvious and profound classist and racist bias in our entire justice system.

    I certainly don’t want to excuse the wrong actions of the Soviet Union and China, but we must be accurate and unprejudiced in our analysis of injustice and oppression if we are to have a hope of eliminating it, instead of merely ensuring that only those who threaten our own privilege are oppressed.


  6. Sorry, BB, we will have to disagree. You cannot have true communism without atheism, just as you can’t have true capitalism without an accompanying belief in free markets. One drives the other and any atrocities resulting from these beliefs, implicate the underlying belief system. (Ideological clarification: As an ex-communist, I regard communism as a religion, with *the leader* taking the psychological role of Jesus or whoever… concept stolen unabashedly stolen from Eric Hoffer.)

    In fact, modern atheism, particularly the internet variety, is taking on all the characteristics of a new religion, complete with saints, symbols, sacred texts, fellowship and iconography. I think it serves the same psychological purpose.

  7. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Sorry, BB, we will have to disagree.

    We do in fact disagree: there’s no “have to” about it. However, you’re wrong and I’m right.

    You cannot have true communism without atheism.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “true communism” (actually, I have a pretty good idea, and you’re almost certainly as moronically wrong ) but if you mean “true communism” as a pejorative, then one has to conclude your grasp of logic is as deficient as your grasp of history. Note that you cannot have the worst sort of fascist tyranny without oxygen either.

    As an ex-communist, I regard…

    How you personally regard “communism” is entirely irrelevant and as moronic as the rest of your opinions.

    In fact, modern atheism, particularly the internet variety, is taking on all the characteristics of a new religion…

    If you yourself typify the religious, you would be asserting that modern atheism is characterized by a complete inability to grasp basic logical thought, a complete disdain and disregard for intellectual development and the propensity to make up facts without even a nod to the truth.

  8. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Keep in mind Daisy that all of us “right-thinking” folks have absolutely no desire whatsoever to persuade you about anything. We already know that you’re completely impervious to facts, logic and basic rational thought. We read your commentary only for entertainment value, to laugh at you and thank Darwin we have escaped whatever unfortunate circumstances have destroyed your ability to think.


  9. The real problem I have with the new “modern atheism” is how lightening-fast its adherents haul out the vicious insults. I knew you would be unable to reply to me without unkindness and cruelty, even though I was painstakingly polite. Now, how did I know?

    Do you see how highly-privileged, very well-educated people like yourself look down on us common, ordinary people (like me) who have religious beliefs? Believe it or not, I am pretty well-spoken compared to my working-class peers, and yet you reduce me to a moron. (Aside: How can you call yourself a communist when you openly despise the masses, most of whom have some semblance of beliefs like mine?) If you truly believe I “can’t think”–I wonder what kinds of associations you have with the people who clean your public toilets for you? (Do you treat waitresses, UPS delivery personnel and salesclerks badly if they wear crucifixes?) I do menial work compared to the likes of you and Comrade Physioprof (who takes care to let us know of his job-description right in his screen-name, so we will be intimidated and/or treat him with due respect), and your proud elitism based on your advanced education (I have no college degree) is not what I call progressive… I honestly can’t tell you and the old-south snobs apart without a scorecard.

    THIS obvious hatred and superiority is what frightens people about atheism; it is EXACTLY the sensibility that led to the gulag: “You are shit, we know best, now, into the re-education camp with you.”

    Isn’t this what you are saying?

    As a communist, precisely what will you do after the revolution with all of the religious people who refuse to renounce their gods?


  10. And BB, the question I asked you a while back, about how you could join a religious cult while being an atheist, still stands. When I met you, you were major-league gung-ho about the Kerista cult. Now you are gung-ho about atheism. Forgive my skepticism, but which one is the real Barefoot Bum?

    Do you dislike your former believing self that much? Or didn’t you really believe? If not, why did you say you did?

  11. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    The real problem I have with the new “modern atheism” is how lightening-fast its adherents haul out the vicious insults.

    Oh come on, Daisy. First of all, I’ve known you for quite a while now, directly or indirectly through your conversations with my wife. It took me quite a while to develop my insulting antipathy to you. And you have viciously insulted her as well. “Pot? This is the kettle. You’re black!”

    More importantly, my atheism has absolutely nothing to do with me insulting you. I insult you because I personally can’t stand you, I think you’re a complete moron, and I personally am a gigantic asshole. Deal with it.

    Do you see how highly-privileged, very well-educated people like yourself look down on us common, ordinary people (like me) who have religious beliefs?

    You’re a fucking moron, Daisy. I dropped out of high school. Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!

    And BB, the question I asked you a while back, about how you could join a religious cult while being an atheist, still stands.

    They were interesting people, they didn’t take their made-up religion very seriously, and the women wanted to fuck me and they were smokin’ hawt physically and intellectually. and I was young and more-or less open minded.

    Now you are gung-ho about atheism. Forgive my skepticism, but which one is the real Barefoot Bum?

    You can use my real name, it’s “Larry”. As difficult as it might be for you to understand, those of us with actual brain cells do grow and change over time.

  12. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Also, I’m hardly “privileged”. I’m a little smarter than average, but well within 2 standard deviations from the mean. I’ve never had a lot of money; even when, back in the day, I made a decent upper-middle-class income, I mostly spent it on raising my sister’s children when she was… indisposed… and taking care of my sick mother.

    And… uh… I’m a communist.

    So go take your whining about privilege and shove them up your moronic, superstitious ass.

  13. drugmonkey Says:

    Comrade PhysioProf is kind of a dickweed at times. (there, is the kind of respect you meant, DD?)


  14. Ummm…Bruce?

    So do you consider political speechifying/analysis by working class people to be “whining” too? Interesting view from a communist.

    Comrade P. has referred to you as his “colleague” and I therefore assumed you had a similar job. My apologies. Also, since you mentioned your wife (I initially didn’t, you did)… her ability to quit a very pricey job and run off to Europe for an enviable period, as well as the fact that you live by the ocean, made me think yall had lotsa money. Sorry if that was incorrect… but if it is, can I ask how yall manage that in fucking SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA? Certainly, the most expensive city in the country.

    Regarding your wife: Its awfully dashing, terribly masculine and courteous of you to mention her here, but my observation is that she is more than able to defend and take care of herself.

    Larry, I am aware that people change… I almost joined Kerista myself, as I said. (I was a friend of Way’s, we had mutual friends on the Plexus newspaper collective.) I was a communist myself. References available upon request.

    Speaking of which, you missed the question. Could you answer it?:

    As a communist, precisely what will you do after the revolution with all of the religious people who refuse to renounce their gods?

    I’ve noticed that the obnoxious fundie-religious people call people wrong, bad, evil, immoral, etc… while atheists prefer the insults stupid, idiot, moron, dumb, etc. All I can hear is the hate on both sides. The actual words mean little, except that the user of the words wants to eliminate the person they are using them against.

    You and the fundies are identical in your intolerance. If you get enough power, you will happily start your own inquisition, as the most famous fundamentalist atheists in history also did. Try as you might, you can NOT equivocate and wish away the atheism of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robespierre, Enver Hoxha, et. al. just as believers can’t wish away Torquemada, the Thirty Years War, Dr Dobson and the Borgia Popes…

  15. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Keep in mind too that I don’t think you’re actually developmentally or otherwise lacking ordinary human intelligence. You’re obviously capable of writing grammatically correct sentences with correct spelling, and you’re capable of communicating ideas as well as anyone.

    I just think you have your head shoved so deeply up your ass that you need a glass navel to watch television. Your failings are fundamentally moral, not physical.

  16. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    So do you consider political speechifying/analysis by working class people to be “whining” too? Interesting view from a communist.

    Categorically? Of course not. In your particular case? Most definitely.

    Comrade P. has referred to you as his “colleague”

    We are fellow bloggers.

    [S]ince you mentioned your wife… her ability to quit a very pricey job and run off to Europe for an enviable period, as well as the fact that you live by the ocean, made me think yall had lotsa money.

    We are careful and prudent with our money. While not rich, we are admittedly not dirt poor.

    my observation is that [your wife] is more than able to defend and take care of herself.

    Of course she is, and I’m not defending her. I mention her only because I’ve read your writing and formed an impression of your character through your interactions with her. We live together; I occasionally read over her shoulder.

    As a communist, precisely what will you do after the revolution with all of the religious people who refuse to renounce their gods?

    Nothing much. Nothing much needs to be done other than withdrawing government support for ridiculous superstitions. At worst, churches and other religious organizations would be treated like any other organization, neither specially oppressed nor (as they are now with tax exemptions) specially privileged.

    You and the fundies are identical in your intolerance.

    When did I ever say that tolerance was a virtue? I’ve never been tolerant. I’m similar (a different concept from identical with the fundies in that I eat, shit, piss, breathe, fuck, work, play and pay my taxes.

    The difference between atheists and fundamentalists is what we’re intolerant and intolerant of. And you’re no model of tolerance yourself.

    If you get enough power, you will happily start your own inquisition, as the most famous fundamentalist atheists in history also did.

    Indeed? You have developed precognitive telepathy among your other superhuman talents?

    Try as you might, you can NOT equivocate and wish away the atheism of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robespierre, Enver Hoxha, et. al….

    Yet another example of your obtuse refusal to employ ordinary logic. Yes, they were atheists. So what? No one ever said that atheism turns you into a saint. Keep in mind that Hitler was a vegetarian; should we thus draw a connection between vegetarianism and maniacal genocide? Of course not. You can’t just assume, invent or speculate about a causal connection to be persuasive: you have to actually prove the connection. I will repeat my original point: people who have studied the issue professionally do not concur.

    And yes, you are indeed entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. And we’re entitled to our opinion that you’re an idiot.


  17. Nothing much needs to be done other than withdrawing government support for ridiculous superstitions. At worst, churches and other religious organizations would be treated like any other organization, neither specially oppressed nor (as they are now with tax exemptions) specially privileged.

    Would you allow Christians to serve in a communist govt, say, on the Central Committee or at the head of trade unions? Or would you deny all Christians these rights? Would you allow public proselytizing or would you outlaw it? Would you put Christian presses or TV stations out of business if they criticized the communist govt?


  18. You can’t just assume, invent or speculate about a causal connection to be persuasive: you have to actually prove the connection. I will repeat my original point: people who have studied the issue professionally do not concur.

    Can you name a communist/atheist govt that has allowed freedom of religion on the level I described above?


  19. Some of us will have instant (Pavlovian) respect for anyone who has the title of “doctor” or has a Ph.D., even if we really don’t WANT to respect them… it’s the way we were raised to behave.


  20. And you’re no model of tolerance yourself.
    :(

    I invite you to go to my Facebook page (same name) and have a look at my friends-list. I am proud to say, I think every type of individual is represented. In my personal life, I am considered very tolerant and open-minded. If I don’t come off that way in print, that’s a problem, and thank you for the criticism.

    (Criticism/Self-Criticism=Chairman Mao)

  21. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Would you allow Christians to serve in a communist govt, say, on the Central Committee or at the head of trade unions?

    Sure. Why not? As long as they didn’t explicitly bring their religion into official business or use their position to promote their ridiculous superstitions, it would be no more of my business than their sexual orientation or proclivities.

    Would you allow public proselytizing or would you outlaw it?

    Allow it. Ridiculous speech is best countered by more speech, not censorship.

    Would you put Christian presses or TV stations out of business if they criticized the communist govt?

    Any honest government should welcome honest criticism from any sort. I would not, of course, be any more tolerant of libel or slander than I am of assault, but I would place that sort of determination in the hands of an independent judiciary.

    Can you name a communist/atheist govt that has allowed freedom of religion on the level I described above?

    Why should I? No one has ever consulted me about the structure or policies of any communist government. Indeed the last communist government fell in 1976 (with the death of Mao) when I was a teenager. I’m not responsible for the errors of the past, and I have no intention of repeating them.


  22. Dude, I totally get to be your Commissar of Science, right?

  23. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    If I don’t come off [as tolerant] in print, that’s a problem, and thank you for the criticism.

    It’s not a criticism. Tolerance is not a virtue. If you want to be “tolerant”, you’ll have to agree with and support everyone, without regard to the content or moral status of their opinions, which I think would be too ridiculous a position even for you.

  24. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Dude, I totally get to be your Commissar of Science, right?

    You’ll of course have my support, but any official position must of course be subject to the will of the people.


  25. It’s not a criticism. Tolerance is not a virtue. If you want to be “tolerant”, you’ll have to agree with and support everyone, without regard to the content or moral status of their opinions, which I think would be too ridiculous a position even for you.

    Kindness, decency and respect are what I call tolerance. These are values I was raised with as a working class person (and I believe *RESPECT FOR EVERYONE regardless of their station in life* is a working-class value, in opposition to the blatantly bourgeois values of oneupsmanship made popular in corporate America, the
    Academy… and certain outer reaches of Blogdonia). I was raised to believe all people are equal and are children of God. I am not “better” than they are, or better than you are or anyone else… and any such belief of mine is an illusion, as well as categorically wrong and immoral.

    I can’t think of a single person I agree with 100%. Agreement has nothing to do with attempting to be civil; in fact, civility and respect make DISagreement possible without accompanying murder and mayhem.

    There are many people I have disagreed with that I still admire: Obama, Pete Townshend, JG Ballard, et. al. There are many people I have agreed with that I often wish would STFU (numerous bloggers I won’t name) because they can make already-volatile situations worse with their incendiary and insensitive rhetoric.

    True intolerance would be if you decided that Christians should be put in reeducation camps or gulags. Or if you thought shutting down Pat Robertson and that crowd was a good idea. And you don’t. Thus, you got some tolerance yourself, dude, even if you won’t admit it! :P

    Indeed the last communist government fell in 1976 (with the death of Mao) when I was a teenager

    Does Fidel know?

  26. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    True intolerance would be if you decided that Christians should be put in reeducation camps or gulags.

    <shrugs> In that sense, I’m tolerant of just about everyone except violent criminals. Since I have never advocated actually physically punishing anyone for their opinions, your accusation that I’m intolerant has to be seen as a baseless lie. So you’re a liar.

  27. El Picador Says:

    You two need to get a room. Srsly.

  28. El Picador Says:

    Some people are more equal than others though Comrades

  29. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    You two need to get a room. Srsly.

    We have one, and you’re in it. You’re free to leave.

  30. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    You’re free to stay as well. We like being watched. ;)


  31. Let’s go back to this comment, which I think deserves more careful consideration.

    Do you see how highly-privileged, very well-educated people like yourself look down on us common, ordinary people (like me) who have religious beliefs? Believe it or not, I am pretty well-spoken compared to my working-class peers, and yet you reduce me to a moron. (Aside: How can you call yourself a communist when you openly despise the masses, most of whom have some semblance of beliefs like mine?) If you truly believe I “can’t think”–I wonder what kinds of associations you have with the people who clean your public toilets for you? (Do you treat waitresses, UPS delivery personnel and salesclerks badly if they wear crucifixes?) I do menial work compared to the likes of you and Comrade Physioprof (who takes care to let us know of his job-description right in his screen-name, so we will be intimidated and/or treat him with due respect), and your proud elitism based on your advanced education (I have no college degree) is not what I call progressive… I honestly can’t tell you and the old-south snobs apart without a scorecard.

    THIS obvious hatred and superiority is what frightens people about atheism; it is EXACTLY the sensibility that led to the gulag: “You are shit, we know best, now, into the re-education camp with you.”

    There are two different ways to read this statement, both wrong. First, you might be saying that I look down on religion because “common, ordinary people” are religious and I despise common, ordinary people. Alternatively, religion is correct or good because common, ordinary people are religious.

    I look down on religion because it’s false; not just false but ridiculously false. Period, end of story. I don’t care if someone has a million dollars or is struggling for a pot to piss in. If they are religious, they have a false belief. If they want to keep their religion to themselves, then it’s none of my business, but if they feel free to express their opinion, I feel free to express mine.

    Remember, you started off this discussion by attributing to 21st century Western atheists the worst excesses of 20th century Russian communists. I got all up in your shit not because you’re religious, not because you’re working class, and not because you expressed an opinion I disagree with. I got on your case because you expressed a stupid opinion unsupported and actually contradicted by the historical facts.

    And of course your immediate response is to ignore the substantive merits and whine about how I’m not being respectful or kind. No, I’m not. This is not a venue for people who insist on being treated with kid gloves.

    Few communists — and I am definitely not one of those few — believe that class is any kind of guide to objective truth. Members of the working class are just as capable of being wrong about the truth as anyone else. Our political goal is to support and fulfill the material interests of the working class, not privilege their beliefs about the truth.

    Indeed one of the reasons that the working class actually is exploited is because they have absorbed a lot of bullshit propaganda. One of my chief grievances against religion is precisely that the working class has allowed their resistance and unity to be compromised by religious propaganda.

    I’m not going to try to force any religious person to change his or her mind. If members of the working class such as yourself want to hold on to bullshit religious propaganda, then the revolution will have to wait until you’re ready to let go of it. I can’t make a revolution; I can only give the working class my advice. All I can do is tell you in the strongest possible terms that religion is indeed bullshit, and that you’ll never be free until you learn how to find the truth. If you don’t like it, don’t listen.

  32. drugmonkey Says:

    given the beating that you are administering, that would make us…eeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww

  33. Isabel Says:

    “[S]ince you mentioned your wife… her ability to quit a very pricey job and run off to Europe for an enviable period, as well as the fact that you live by the ocean, made me think yall had lotsa money.

    We are careful and prudent with our money. While not rich, we are admittedly not dirt poor.

    Hahaha and definitely not working class, or lower-middle class.:) Oh yes “careful and prudent”, I’ve heard that one before! Big Baby, you’re funny! Oh no you’re not privileged AT ALL! Hahaha.

    No wonder you didn’t understand why CPP needed to be re-educated!

  34. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Depends on what you mean by “privileged”. And by no means are we “highly” privileged. We both work for a living, and by occupation we’re on the lower rungs of the professional-managerial middle class.

    So what? What precisely is your point?

    I understand the role of accident and circumstance in my own very modest material comfort. I’ve never criticized your economic circumstances nor have I suggested that your economic situation is in any way a reflection of your moral or intellectual character, in either an absolute or a relative sense. Indeed, unlike you, I’ve drawn no connection whatsoever between economic class and intellectual and moral character.

    I’m perfectly capable of judging your moral and intellectual character on the basis of your writing, not your bank account.

  35. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Sorry, Isabel, I confused you with Daisy. Easy to do: you’re both idiots.

  36. Isabel Says:

    What about your family of origin? What did your parents do? Have you or your wife inherited money? Do you own your SF home? Why did you drop out of school?

    Last night I dreamt that we all turned out to be living in SF, even CPP, and everyone came over to my house for a friendly game of volleyball.

    “I understand the role of accident and circumstance in my own very modest material comfort. ”

    CPP does not think cultural and economic privileges count in the same way that gender and race and sexual identity privileges count.


  37. Not only is it the height of absurdity for more-or-less anonymous commenters on the Internet to argue over credentials, but I also fail to see the relevance of class credentials to any component of the discussion at hand.

    Similarly, I fail to see any relevance whatsoever to this discussion of what you think CPP’s attitudes are regarding cultural and economic privilege.

  38. Isabel Says:

    Oh please. We’re on his fucking blog, he personally attacked me recently for bringing class privilege into a discussion on a feminist blog recently (even though I was not alone in my opinion and it was very relevant to the particular thread), yet the dude is OBSESSED with race and gender privilege. On another (recent) thread you said you didn’t see why he needed education on class privilege. Hence my remarks about it on this thread.

    Why do I need to explain this? It’s completely relevant. And why be coy about your background? It’s not about “credentials” it’s about your vantage point. I’ve noticed it’s always the privileged types who become arrogant, humorless commies and who join cults etc.

  39. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Why do I need to explain this? It’s completely relevant.

    It may be obvious to your twisted, bizarre mind, but it’s not obvious to my own twisted, bizarre mind.

    And why be coy about your background?

    I’m not being coy. I’ve already answered the question.

    You’re just changing the subject. I’m not sure why, but it sure looks like you’re trying to get Daisy off the hook for making egregiously stupid comments.

  40. El Picador Says:

    I’ve noticed it’s always the privileged types who become arrogant, humorless commies

    so who becomes hilarious, ebullient commies?

  41. Isabel Says:

    “I’m not being coy. I’ve already answered the question.”

    you completed ignored my questions. Whatever. I think I can guess the answers. I know your type.

    I don’t want to fight with you black-hearted elitists anymore. I’m a lover not a fighter, so this is very taxing for me.

    “so who becomes hilarious, ebullient commies?”

    I’ve never met one of those, have you:)

  42. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    I don’t want to fight with you black-hearted elitists anymore. I’m a lover not a fighter, so this is very taxing for me.

    Who asked you to chime in?

  43. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Are Isabel and DaisyDeadhead the same person? That would explain a lot.


  44. Jesus fuck! You fuckers know each other from some kind of rival San Francisco sex+drugs+mysticism cults back in the day? Now wonder this blog is turning into a group therapy session for troubled teens in the fucking Haight.

  45. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    Daisy claims to know me from my Kerista days; I have no idea who she is.

    As for me, I’m having the sort of fun here that I deny myself on my own blog. I’m most grateful you provide a much better venue than I could for this kind of… well, there are multiple people using words, so it must be a conversation, no?


  46. But in all seriousness, the vacuity and surreal character of this discussion really is astounding.

    It starts with Robin’s comment: “A militant atheist argues with people.”.
    DaisyDeadhead disagrees: A militant atheist also “starts a gulag.”

    Not so, I calmly reply: Whatever unjust persecution and imprisonment might have occurred in the Soviet Union was, in the opinion of professional historians, most emphatically not due to atheism. Atheism is neither sufficient nor, as I note, necessary for unjust persecution and imprisonment.

    The entire remainder of the conversation consists of Daisy and Isabel attempting to justify their opinion lacking both actual evidence and ordinary logic and reason. I’m willing to calmly supply facts, evidence and argument, but I’m considerably more insulting in response to sloppy and fallacious reasoning.

    Neither my position nor the tone of my response has anything whatsoever to do with race, gender, class or any sort of “privilege”. Reason, logic and evidence neither establish nor are the result of any sort of privilege; they are available to any and every person who chooses to employ them. Even people who are substantially developmentally disabled are capable of reasoning correctly.

    The refusal to use reason is a personal moral failure. It is as much of a moral failure as racism, sexism or classism. It requires the same kind of response: moral condemnation and ridicule.

    There is no correlation whatsoever between race or sex and the use of reason. The refusal to use reason does not result from lack of education: I know all too many people who are highly educated and still refuse to use reason, and there are those, such as myself, who lack a formal education and still can and choose to do so. The ability and will to use reason is not the result of socio-economic class; the use or refusal to use reason does not create or place anyone in socio-economic class.

    Moral condemnation and ridicule do not have the primary effect of converting or changing the people directly being condemned or ridiculed. When successful, they modify the social environment to discourage other people from adopting the deprecated traits. Morally condemning and ridiculing sloppy, fallacious reasoning and marginalizing those who choose not to use correct reasoning is no more “elitist” than morally condemning sexism, racism or classism and marginalizing those who refuse to adopt these equalitarian values.


  47. And honestly: why would the relative socio-economic difference between me and Daisy be any more relevant to the character of “militant” atheism or even the moral value of evidence, reason and logic than would a relative difference in height or hair coloring?

  48. Isabel Says:

    elitist-splainer!

    “Morally condemning and ridiculing sloppy, fallacious reasoning and marginalizing those who choose not to use correct reasoning ”

    This is scary shit.

  49. Isabel Says:

    “shut down their fucking churches, shut the fuck up about their fucking stupid deities, stop maiming, killing, and opporessing, and otherwise leave decent people alone, then I assure you, the “militant atheists” will concern themselves with them to the same extent they do leprechaun enthusiasts.”

    CPP why the hell should anyone “shut down their fucking churches,” (I love churches) or “shut the fuck up” unless they are forcing atheists to listen? How exactly? Conflating “trolls and proselytizers” with “religious people” seems to be a major flaw of your argument.

    Religion has been a part of human societies since forever, and you (or militant atheists) want it stopped RIGHT NOW. It’s fucking annoying. Just on that basis alone. The idea of 100% pure rational humans scares me, mainly because some people apparently think this is an actual possibility. It’s especially scary when they assert that they have achieved that goal.

    “stop maiming, killing, and oppressing, and otherwise leave decent people alone,”

    THIS is obviously a reasonable request, but the vast majority of religious people are not doing those things, at least certainly not intentionally. And we know from history at least that while atheism may not specifically lead to those things it also does not prevent them from happening.

    Proselytizer of all stripes, including “moral condemners” like your friend Larry here, are all equally annoying to me and most other people.


  50. Loonabel, this blog is 100% indifferent to whether it is “annoying” to you or anyone else.

  51. Isabel Says:

    “THIS is obviously a reasonable request, but the vast majority of religious people are not doing those things, at least certainly not intentionally”

    This is not well stated…I think what I am trying to get at is that it is not religion itself but twisted uses of religion, and other human irrationalities, that is the problem. There is no nuanced analysis going on, just blanket condemnation of all religions. And a simplistic view of human rationality, as if complete self-awareness and rational action were possible, and that religion needs to be eliminated and rationality will be left. We are irrational in many more ways than that.

    Yes BB I agree – this thread is even funnier than the religion vs reality one!

  52. Isabel Says:

    CPP I’m not asking or expecting you to care. So there!

    You sound a little paranoid and narcissistic btw.

    I’m just trying to point out the flaws in your argument.

    You’re welcome.


  53. What “argument”? For fuck’s sake Loonabel, don’t tell me you’re turning into a high-school debate-team champeeeeeeeen.

  54. Isabel Says:

    You’re right – it wasn’t much of an argument was it.

    The flaws in your spewing?
    :)


  55. Let’s take one point at a time.

    Morally condemning and ridiculing sloppy, fallacious reasoning and marginalizing those who choose not to use correct reasoning…

    This is scary shit.

    Why does this scare you? Is it bad that it scares you? Is it always a bad thing for people to be scared? People who might contemplate murder are hopefully scared

    The idea of 100% pure rational humans scares me, mainly because some people apparently think this is an actual possibility.

    Why does this scare you? Why should you be scared of other people who are 100% rational? Are you… gasp… intolerant of rationality?

    What precisely are you defending? Are you defending your right to make up facts about the world? To draw conclusions from those facts that aren’t compatible with logic? Because fundamentally, that’s what Daisy was actually doing: making up facts about the world and drawing illogical conclusions from those facts.


  56. Is it always a bad thing for people to be scared? People who might contemplate murder are hopefully scared about the possibility of life in prison: is that a bad thing? If it’s not always bad for people to be scared, why should it be bad in this particular case for you to be scared of moral condemnation and ridicule?

    Is moral condemnation and ridicule always bad? Should we then not morally condemn and ridicule sexists, racists and classists? If not moral condemnation and ridicule, what instead should we show sexists, etc? Tolerance, kindness and respect?


  57. (Remember: no one is arguing that people should not feel emotions or have intrinsic desires or preferences. There’s nothing at all “irrational” about being human. We’re talking exclusively about accurate observation, identification of objectively true facts about the world and the nature of objective reality in general. Human consciousness is an actual part of objective reality.)


  58. The topic at this point of the “discussion” is whether Daisy deserves moral condemnation not for being “religious” (whatever that means), but for lying — making statements of fact that are objectively false — and fallacious reasoning: drawing conclusions that are contradicted or unsupported by ordinary logical reasoning.

    (The subtopic is whether it’s “elitist” or somehow motivated by class to condemn people for lying or using fallacious reasoning.)

    Should people be permitted to lie without criticism or condemnation? Should they permitted to purport to logically substantiate a position using faulty logic? That’s the issue at hand.

  59. Isabel Says:

    “and ridicule sexists, racists and classists? If not moral condemnation and ridicule, what instead should we show sexists, etc? Tolerance, kindness and respect?”

    All those groups are based on oppression; they could not exist without it, by definition. That is why the condemnation and ridicule seem justified. This is not true of religion (or at least not necessarily true).

    And I don’t know if I support “moral condemnation and ridicule” of anyone, but especially not entire classes of people such as less intelligent people, religious people, or poor people.

    And yes, the goal, or ideal of 100% rationality does scare me, as does Drugmonkey’s ideal of 0% plant intoxicant use. Maybe not so much scare me as seem extremely undesirable to me. I don’t know if I would want to live in that world.

  60. Isabel Says:

    As far as Daisy I have no idea what you are talking about. But it seems like you make be stretching the definition of lying a bit – how is she hurting anyone? At least, how is her “fallacious reasoning” hurting anyone, or breaking any moral codes? Is she some kind of bad citizen?

    Or else I missed something – what did she lie about? The past?

    What exactly happened between you two at that commune??


  61. And I don’t know if I support “moral condemnation and ridicule” of anyone, but especially not entire classes of people such as less intelligent people, religious people, or poor people.

    I am supporting the moral condemnation and ridicule only of the “class” of liars and frauds. I’ve never condemned or ridiculed anyone for being less “intelligent” (whatever that means; “intelligence” is not a very well-defined property) or poor.

    To the extent that atheists condemn religious people as a “class”, we do so because they are a subset of the class of liars, or people who defend the rights of liars to lie. (Of course, atheists do not condemn every possible kind of “religion”… we do not, for example, condemn people who religiously brush their teeth every morning and evening.)

    how is [Daisy] hurting anyone?

    She is directly and explicitly slandering atheists, justifying and contributing to their oppression. I take just as much umbrage at her lies as a feminist would take responding to the lie that women were intellectually inferior to men, or that supporting the rights of women have historically led to tyranny and “gulags”.

    Additionally, by supporting religion, she is indirectly supporting the fake legitimacy and use of religion by the ruling classes in the wholesale exploitation and oppression of the ruled classes, as well as its “retail” use by parasites and con artists.


  62. What exactly happened between you two at that commune??

    I told you: I have no memory of ever meeting or interacting with Daisy IRL, not during the mid-1980s when I was in the commune, or at any other time.

  63. Isabel Says:

    “I take just as much umbrage at her lies as a feminist would take responding to the lie that women were intellectually inferior to men”

    Aren’t you a feminist?

    I would only take “umbrage” if I were forced to hear the words. Are we back to “trolls and proselytizers” or does it offend you when she claims to belong to some religious group or for whatever reason is not an avowed atheist like you? She is not saying “Repent sinners!” or whatever, or dragging you to church with her.

    Now I admit, if you were saying “You can believe that men and women are equal but I have my own belief system” and you were someone I actually knew and had to deal with irl I might ‘take umbrage’, but what she is saying is not anything about you. Now maybe she supposedly thinks that you are going to hell, but I doubt she really thinks that. :)

    I see that she is appearing to you to be irrational regarding reality itself, but just because she has some belief it does not follow necessarily that she is denying reality. As with your experience with the SF sex cult, not everyone is taking their religion as literally as it may seem to outsiders or as seriously as militant atheists seem to assume (I love it when they pout that they know more about a religion than its adherents do).

    I hate to admit it but I am with Stephanie Z and Laden regarding the potential for at least perception of religious intolerance, and their recent qualified defense of Henry Gee’s explosion of “paranoia.” (If you haven’t been following that drama BB it is too complicated to explain sorry).

    Did you grow up in a religious household, Larry? Which religion was it? You have an interesting perspective.

  64. smmo Says:

    In fact, modern atheism, particularly the internet variety, is taking on all the characteristics of a new religion, complete with saints, symbols, sacred texts, fellowship and iconography. I think it serves the same psychological purpose

    The only way to know for sure is if religion disappeared and there were still atheists, having their atheist meetings with their atheist icons and ceremonies. Why don’t you religious folk disappear and we’ll see?

    Religion has been a part of human societies since forever.

    So has sexism. So have a lot of other horrible things. We can evolve, you know. Why are religious people always so fucking negative?


  65. Aren’t you a feminist?

    I think so. And I do indeed take umbrage at lies about women’s capabilities.

    I would only take “umbrage” if I were forced to hear the words.

    What a moronic point. You seem to be taking umbrage here, even though you are by no means forced to hear my words. I don’t recall anyone demanding or even asking you to participate in this conversation. Not that you shouldn’t participate, but neither you nor Daisy has been “forced” to do so.

    [J]ust because she has some belief it does not follow necessarily that she is denying reality

    I’m not arguing that all beliefs are necessarily denying reality. It’s objectively true, however, that the particular belief she commented on does indeed deny and contradict reality.

    Now maybe she supposedly thinks that you are going to hell, but I doubt she really thinks that.

    I have no idea whether or not Daisy thinks I’m going to hell. She didn’t say anything at all about that. She said that militant atheists start gulags.

    And seriously: what the fucking fuckity fuck fuck fuk? How divorced from reality are you, anyway? Why are we suddenly discussing hypothetical beliefs that you doubt someone else actually has? You’ve gone past changing the subject, you’ve gone past even moving the goalposts; we’re not at the “arguing with the voices in your head” stage of lunacy and delusion.

    As with your experience with the SF sex cult, not everyone is taking their religion as literally as it may seem to outsiders or as seriously as militant atheists seem to assume…

    Again, I have absolutely no fucking clue how seriously Daisy takes her religion: that’s not a part of the discussion.

    Remember, Isabel, that none of us can hear the voices in your head; giving us only half the conversation is confusing and unproductive.


  66. we’re now at the “arguing with the voices in your head” stage of lunacy and delusion.

  67. Isabel Says:

    “Now maybe she supposedly thinks that you are going to hell, but I doubt she really thinks that.

    I have no idea whether or not Daisy thinks I’m going to hell. She didn’t say anything at all about that. She said that militant atheists start gulags.”

    That was just an example of how Daisy is not thinking of YOU as in “you are inferior to X…” in your other three examples, i.e. sexism, racism, and classism.
    Your ugly, humorless side is popping up again…

    …moving on.

    “Religion has been a part of human societies since forever.

    So has sexism. So have a lot of other horrible things. We can evolve, you know. Why are religious people always so fucking negative?”

    Again, these are not parallel, equivalent situations.

    Religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

    And often it is a good thing.


  68. That was just an example of how Daisy is not thinking of YOU as in “you are inferior to X…”

    Why not use the actual text of the conversation. I am indeed a “militant” atheist. Militant atheists start gulags. Whether Daisy is thinking of me doesn’t mean she’s not referring to me.

    If I were to say, “Women are weak, hysterical creatures incapable of rational thought, and must be protected and defended by men,” would that be OK because I wasn’t thinking of YOU as in “YOU are inferior to men?”

    Logic and reason Isabel. Learn them, love them, make them your friends.

    Religion is not necessarily a bad thing.

    And often it is a good thing.

    Depends on what you mean by “religion”. If you mean doing something consistently and rigorously, of course “religion” can be a good thing.

    If however, you mean the kind of religion “militant” atheists refer to and criticize, i.e. belief in supernatural beings or forces that have a causal effect on physical reality, then yes, religion is always a bad thing and never a good thing. At best, if it’s compartmentalized and not taken very seriously, it’s tolerably bad.


  69. At best, if it’s compartmentalized and not taken very seriously, it’s tolerably bad.

    Indeed this seems to be the whole point of CPP’s OP: If the religious want us to treat religion as if it were compartmentalized and not taken very seriously, i.e. to treat religion as if it were as irrelevant as belief in leprechauns, then it would be incumbent on them to act like the people who do indeed believe in leprechauns, i.e. to compartmentalize and not take their belief in leprechauns very seriously.


  70. And note the idiomatic conditional: He’s not saying the religious should “shut down their fucking churches”, he’s saying when they do so, then we will treat them like people who don’t erect churches to their ridiculous beliefs.

    Of course if religious people don’t want atheists to treat their beliefs as trivial and irrelevant as belief in leprechauns, then there’s no harm in leaving their churches up.

  71. Isabel Says:

    Well “church” seems to pick on Christians. So I hope he will treat the Jews with respect when they burn down their synagogues.

    I have no interest in anything militant. Makes you boring, and boorish. When was the last time you met a militant Catholic, or Jew? I’m not sure I ever have.

    I grew up believing in God, Santa Claus, and the tooth fairies and leprechauns, in a family that valued education, art and science. Now I study and teach evolution. Never felt a drop of conflict.

    I even still talk to God from time to time.

    Go ahead and laugh.

    I’m very bored.


  72. Go ahead and laugh.

    Hehehehehe

    I’m very bored.

    Hardly surprising.

  73. Isabel Says:

    I forgot to add, I think my religious experiences have enriched my life. If I had been brought up in some kind of fundamentalist religion I might feel differently. But this world you and Drugmonkey yearn for, where everyone is stone cold sober and rational at all times, and there are no churches or synagogues and children no longer believe in fairies just sounds unappealing. I’m quite sure it’s also unattainable.


  74. I think my religious experiences have enriched my life.

    You’ve had some life-enriching experiences. Excellent. The question is: are the conclusions that you’re drawing from those experiences actually true?

    But this world you and Drugmonkey yearn for, where everyone is stone cold sober and rational at all times

    Who said anything about sobriety? Why do you think I hang out on a blog that’s powered by motherfucking Jameson’s Do you have any fucking clue how much I drink and/or how many drugs I take?

    Like I said earlier, rationality has nothing whatsoever to do with emotions. Emotions exist, they are part of objective reality, and the 100% rational person accepts and understands his or her emotions as facts about objective reality in precisely the same sense that we accept the mass and size of the Earth and Sun as facts.

    But this world you and Drugmonkey yearn for, where… children no longer believe in fairies just sounds unappealing.

    We certainly want our children to use their imagination. Indeed, imagination is good for everyone. It’s a fact about objective reality that people do have imagination, and it’s a fact about objective reality that using one’s imagination is not only beneficial but necessary for beneficial human functioning.

    Do you want a world where children are indoctrinated into believing that fairies are just as real as rocks and trees? Do you want a world in where we indoctrinate our children into believing that anyone who points out that fairies are nothing more (or less!) than products of our imagination is an enemy who wants to put the fairy-believers in a gulag? That anyone who wants to correctly discern the difference between imagination and reality is therefore simply against the use of imagination? Do you want a world where those who imagine that fairies are blue are the implacable enemies of those who imagine that fairies are green?

    The kind of religion that “militant” atheists oppose is just and only the kind of religion that refuses to recognize the difference between imagination and reality. We oppose just and only the kind of religion that says their imaginary God is just as real as — if not more real than — rocks and trees. No one erects a church to the product of his imagination, and whatever we do erect to the products of our imagination do not deserve the label of “churches”.

    This distinction has been made many times, explicitly and unequivocally, that I must suspect either willful ignorance or actual insanity in those who ignore it.

  75. Isabel Says:

    How does believing in the tooth fairy or santa work with your kids if you don’t pretend it’s true? “Hey kids let’s pretend a fairy is going to take your tooth and leave you something in exchange, except don’t worry, fairies aren’t real, it will just be me or Daddy” somehow I don’t see that affecting the kids’ imaginations in quite the same way.

    My deal with kids is if they ask me directly if something is real, or true, I tell the truth (I had to come up with this deal because do tend to goof on kids a fair amount, which probably makes me a child abuser in your eyes). With Santa or Tooth fairy they just accept it until they are ready for the truth. God is more complicated (or the ghosts of one’s ancestors) but seems to fill a need and it is hardly insane to believe in them.

    Having a part of one’s brain that still remembers these beliefs connects us forever after to our forbears, all of whom most likely did believe in fairies or some equivalent. Organized religions are a major level of cultural complexity. Can’t I be a cultural Catholic? Have you ever been to a Latin mass? It’s a beautiful experience. Call me willfully insane, but I don’t want anyone to destroy the synagogues. It would really upset Henry Gee, and many other holocaust survivors’ descendants.

    Do you think all the movies and books that tell kids they won’t see/experience something “unless you believe” are evil? I guess you would. (Like the Polar Express or Spiderwick Chronicles and many others where often only the children experience something because the adults “no longer believe”).

  76. Isabel Says:

    Also I can see you are upset about Daisy’s gulag remark, but I took it to mean that being atheists did not stop them from starting a gulag. I think this is an important point. She was just mirroring the contention of militant atheists that everything bad done by religious people or nations can be blamed on their religion.


  77. How does believing in the tooth fairy or santa work with your kids if you don’t pretend it’s true?

    I don’t know about your kids, but once my kids were at the age where they could understand the difference between real and make-believe (4-6 depending on the kid), they quickly figured out that Santa was make-believe.

    God is more complicated (or the ghosts of one’s ancestors) but seems to fill a need and it is hardly insane to believe in them.

    Except that God-belief past the age of about 4-6, i.e. when people develop the cognitive skills to tell real from make-believe, is at least delusional.

    God belief is not evidence of “insanity”, if you mean an organic brain pathology such as schizophrenia, but it seems pathological in some sense, delusional or neurotic.

    Having a part of one’s brain that still remembers these beliefs connects us forever after to our forbears…

    I can connect perfectly well to my forebears with my memory of facts about actual reality. I don’t have to delude myself by thinking that ghosts or spirits or other spooky bullshit is actually real.

    Can’t I be a cultural Catholic?

    First of all, you can be pretty much anything you want to be. You can even be a deluded idiot and really believe that an old Nazi in a funny hat really does have a direct hotline to the creator of the universe. I may point and laugh, but no one (other than lying religious people such as Daisy) is or has been talking about sending you to a gulag just because you’re a deluded idiot.

    Second, I don’t really know what a “cultural” Catholic or Muslim really is. If you don’t actually believe any of the superstitious bullshit is actually real, and you won’t defend people’s right to exempt their own belief in superstitious bullshit from rational criticism and contempt, then you have ipso facto removed yourself from the domain of what “militant” atheists criticize.

    Have you ever been to a Latin mass? It’s a beautiful experience.

    I have. It was a lot of fun. I enjoy many kinds of spectacle, but I don’t believe — nor do I need to believe — that Busby Berkeley or George Lucas has a direct hotline to the creator of the universe.

    Do you think all the movies and books that tell kids they won’t see/experience something “unless you believe” are evil? I guess you would.

    I don’t know about “evil”, but I definitely do not approve. Fantasy and imagination are one thing; actively encouraging delusion is quite another thing.

    Also I can see you are upset about Daisy’s gulag remark, but I took it to mean that being atheists did not stop them from starting a gulag.

    Read these comments — Robin, Daisy, me, — and then tell me whether you have difficulty understanding the plain meaning of grammatically correct declarative sentences in the English language, you’re stupid, you’re lying, you’re completely insane, or you just don’t give a shit about the basics of factual accuracy.

    She was just mirroring the contention of militant atheists that everything bad done by religious people or nations can be blamed on their religion.

    This is not a contention that “militant” atheists actually make. Again, please tell me if you have trouble understanding English or if you’re just a big fat liar.

  78. Isabel Says:

    You are way too cranky and rude and uptight to enjoy chatting with any more. You are not even amusing me anymore. I read those comments! I meant that’s how I took her remark, which may have been badly put, that atheists are just as likely to be fucked up, sometimes in a big way. I am not a liar, just way less cranky than you. You may be a happy drug user but you are still like Drugmonkey in that you want to cut the ties with history and start from scratch in a weird way.

  79. smmo Says:

    The fucking Santa thing is so deranged. No, I don’t tell my son that a guy in a beard breaks into our house on Xmas Eve to bring him presents, but only if he’s good. And this offends people!

    Sometimes we do need to lie to children, or not tell them the whole truth of biopsies or earthquakes. But Santa Claus is the fucking least of it. I have entire conversations with my son where he is the dog and I am me because imagination is fun but he is 4 and he knows that dogs can’t talk and eventually he will know that there isn’t a magic grandpa in the sky. It is just stupid to portray atheists as some sort of robotic killjoys.

    you are still like Drugmonkey in that you want to cut the ties with history and start from scratch in a weird way.

    The same argument that is always used to prop up patriarchy. And of course, not “weird” but inevitable at this point. We have no need to be militant, we are winning. It is the religious that are, in their death throes, flailing miserably.

  80. Isabel Says:

    Good Luck killjoy!

    “not tell them the whole truth of biopsies or earthquakes”

    ironically, I would disagree with you here.

    Also I am not offended by what you do or don’t tell your kids, just by boorishness.

    BB, I hope you were respectful at least during the mass.


  81. Ironically, the whole point of the original comment is that we are accused of being just as “militant” as Isabel’s coreligionists for just being cranky.

    You are way too cranky and rude and uptight to enjoy chatting with any more.

    Not to demand or even suggest anything, but might I be permitted to observe that you are perfectly free to STFU and GBTW?

    And I suspect we might soon see a comment from our esteemed host containing “100% indifferent” and “your enjoyment”.


  82. BB, I hope you were respectful at least during the mass.

    Of course. I was a guest, and I behaved there as my hosts expected me to… just as I behave here.

  83. Isabel Says:

    “Not to demand or even suggest anything, but might I be permitted to observe that you are perfectly free to STFU and GBTW?”

    Asshole, I don’t need your stupid suggestions or permissions. I will leave when I feel like it (or I am asked to leave of course, I never overstay my welcome). STFUA! You are being boor-ing again!

    As long as CPP wants the Jews to shut down the synagogues and this isn’t some campaign where the Jews are more equal than others I won’t complain.

    What would be “equal” is a world where if CPP comes to dinner at my house he won’t have to listen to anyone dissing the Jews and blaming all the world’s problems on them. And vice versa. Anything else is NOT FAIR!

    And very rude.

  84. Isabel Says:

    In other words, if CPP gets to be a Jew, why can’t I be a Catholic (without you assholes pointing and laughing or whatever it is you plan on doing).


  85. Asshole, I don’t need your stupid suggestions or permissions.

    Then just consider them a bonus.

    I will leave when I feel like it

    That you are still here indicates, then, that you still want my suggestions and permissions. Because I too will leave only when I feel like it, and until I do I will keep making suggestions.

    What would be “equal” is a world where if CPP comes to dinner at my house he won’t have to listen to anyone dissing the Jews and blaming all the world’s problems on them. And vice versa. Anything else is NOT FAIR!

    I don’t know what’s stupider, your bizarre, twisted sense of fairness and “equality” (everyone should speak only as you please in your presence) or the gobsmacking absurdity of CPP either extending or accepting such a dinner invitation.


  86. In other words, if CPP gets to be a Jew, why can’t I be a Catholic (without you assholes pointing and laughing or whatever it is you plan on doing).

    We’re not pointing and laughing at you because you “are” or call yourself a Catholic, we’re pointing and laughing at you because you’re a complete idiot and you say ridiculously stupid shit.


  87. Anything else is NOT FAIR!

    Ah… memories of when my kids were three years old. And when they were teenagers. And just last week. Come to think of it, kids are fucking stupid until they’re 30… at least.

  88. Isabel Says:

    “gobsmacking absurdity of CPP either extending or accepting such a dinner invitation.”

    ?!?!

  89. Isabel Says:

    BB you are still withholding important information about your family of origin. What’s the deal?

    We need to know your socio-economic status and religious background. Before you joined the cult and met Daisy etc.

    And don’t worry about the anonymity; we’re all friends here, no one is lying.

    xxx


  90. We need to know…

    “We”? You and the mouse in your pocket?

    no one is lying.

    No one except you.

    My mother was a bearded lady in the carnival; my father an anonymous penis from a glory hole. I live in a cardboard box in the Civic Center park. I use a laptop I found in the trash during the dotcom boom. I leech off of public wi-fi sites at coffee shops. I make enough money on welfare and panhandling so I can recharge my laptop at the cafe.

    Just kidding. I’m the scion of an ultra-wealthy family; my grandfather held the patent on ribbed condoms, which he stole from a brilliant but unworldly Bolivian immigrant. I live on a trust fund from my father’s investments in deformed cattle and novelty joy-buzzers, which seem to be recession-proof industries. My toilet is made of solid 24 carat gold, soft enough that I can scratch scatological aphorisms in the seat with a safety pin… my unmentionable digestive problems require such a diversion.

    Satisfied?

  91. Isabel Says:

    No. We need the truth and we need it NOW. In the interest of full disclosure.

    No more beating around the bush. Obviously you are hiding something.

  92. smmo Says:

    Well how about my truth. Perfectly nice reasonable Episcopalian upbringing, tasteful smells and bells, no fire and brimstone. Yet I still looked around me and made the decision that religion is a load of crap. Sorry, no childhood trauma ascared me offa Jaysus stories to satisfy your puerile interest.


  93. We need the truth and we need it NOW.

    You can’t handle the truth!

  94. Isabel Says:

    smmo, is there no complexity at all to your thought processes? What does “nice, reasonable” mean anyway?

    Who asked you anyway? My interest is not puerile. BB is leaving out an important piece of the puzzle you nitwit.

    Get lost!

  95. smmo Says:

    Hey I thought BB was the designed meanie in this thread? What gives Isabel?

    I have no intention of getting lost. I’m enjoying the hell out of this. Also, not your blog. The Xian kindness, so thin on the ground.

    smmo, is there no complexity at all to your thought processes? What does “nice, reasonable” mean anyway?

    Get a dictionary. They have them online now!

    My interest is not puerile. It is both puerile and entirely irrelevant. The biographical fallacy, it isn’t just for literature anymore.

  96. Isabel Says:

    “Get a dictionary. ”

    It’s totally subjective. Nice is not even a real word. What the hell does it mean???

    ” pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory ”

    *Yawn* – no wonder you opted out. You wish you were Catholic don’t you?

    “. It is both puerile and entirely irrelevant. ”

    Who the hell are you to judge my intentions? How arrogant can you elitists get?

    I am not after a simple cause and effect, I am observing a complex pattern.

    Stop distracting Larry, he’s ashamed of his background, or else he is hiding something, and is very skittish at the moment. We may have lost him altogether, and if so it is your fault! Anyway, it isn’t his atheism I am analyzing, it’s his attitude.


  97. Don’t worry, Isabel, I’m not going anywhere. I’m having waaaaay too much fun abusing you. Keep saying stupid shit, and I’ll stay to laugh.

    My background has nothing to do with either my atheism nor my attitude.

  98. Isabel Says:

    ” Keep saying stupid shit, and I’ll stay to laugh.”

    You mean like:

    “My background has nothing to do with either my atheism nor my attitude.”

    Hahahahahahha.

    Not possible, sorry!

    Don’t worry I think I have you figured out. I know your type:)

  99. Isabel Says:

    Also, Larry dear, I think you are a little confused about who is abusing who here. NOBODY abuses me without my permission, sorry.

    Face it: you will never escape the past.

    I will pray for you.

    Goodnight!

  100. vegofish Says:

    I am not a religious man, But the thought of physioprof and his comrades burning eternally in Hell
    helps strengthen my resolve to have faith.


  101. “Now wonder this blog is turning into a group therapy session for troubled teens in the fucking Haight”

    Good point.

    Now, imagine a slimy, slippery, fast-talking, beatnik-era SOB/con-man in his 50s, preying on those same “troubled teens” (all girls)… when he got older, he started a cult and invited younger males in (like Barefoot Bum) to keep the young women interested. By calling it “group marriage” the slimy SOB was able to fuck them all, as well as audition the newbies, the aforementioned troubled teens. This “stable” was maintained by the likes of Barefoot Bum and the other pimp-apologists, who enthusiastically backed their leader and enabled him to a fare-thee-well. I was merely one of the eggs (young women/”troubled teens”) broken to make the Keristan omelet, just another idiot, as BB says (proudly imitating his leader).

    He is right about that; I didn’t know what hit me.

    This is undoubtedly the real reason for my hostility towards BB. Pimp-apologists married to feminists kinda get on my nerves.

    PS: Have a great Lent, Isabel.

  102. smmo Says:

    Pimp-apologists married to feminists kinda get on my nerves.

    PS: Have a great Lent, Isabel.

    If BB has to answer for the crimes against women of some pissant cult I think it only fair that Daisy answer for the crimes against women of the Catholic Church.


  103. If it was personal, then I do apologize and take full responsibility for that. But I am a dissenter within the Church myself; I think I will probably get it before the rest of you do.

    Barefoot Bum was THERE, up close and personal, aiding and abetting his leader in his many exploits. A bit different, but then, I don’t expect his friends to understand.

    Maybe if it was you, you’d have felt differently.

    BTW, smmo, rape-apologism is no better than pimp-apologism.


  104. You know Daisy, I just don’t care what you and your magical sky fairy think about me. I honestly don’t care if you think I’m the most evil person in the world. I’m not going to change my beliefs or behavior one iota, nor apologize or feel the tiniest bit bad about my past because of you.

    You’re nothing but a drunk, hostile, fearful little child lashing out at anyone who dares to disagree with your ignorant self-righteous superstitions and neurotic hang-ups.

    You can take your baseless innuendo, your lies, your insincere apologies and your magical sky-fairy and shove them up your sanctimonious pursed-up little asshole. Sideways.

    Jackass.


  105. Also note that I’ve never defended the Kerista commune, here or anywhere else. I haven’t attacked them, either. I acknowledge I was a member, twenty five years ago, and that’s all. I really don’t give a shit about what anyone thinks, good, or bad, about Kerista. I myself have long since moved the fuck on with my life.

    Daisy, maybe you can pry your head out of your ass long enough to join the rest of us in the twenty fucking first century?

    Maybe not.

    And my name is Larry. If you’re going to slander me and lie about me, do it fucking right, jackass.


  106. Has your feminist wife “moved on” regarding sexual assault and oppression that she has experienced?

    No, I won’t forget. The Kerista cult USED WOMEN, period. If you were a member, you did too.

    Stop defending it by pretending it didn’t happen and/or was no big deal. It was and it is. (I realize the experience for the males was pretty good, of course.)

    I haven’t “lied” about you; what have I said that is a lie? You admit you were a member of Kerista, I am merely explaining to people here, what that membership meant and what it guaranteed the male members: unbridled access to every woman in the cult (as long as you didn’t piss off the leader, named Jud).

    Stubborn holdouts were singled out for something called “Gestalt O Rama”–in which the group would cut you to ribbons and castigate you until you gave in. Fact. Larry was right there, claiming to believe in goddesses that he did not believe in and participating in Gestalt O Rama with aplomb, all to have access to the women Jud helpfully procured for him. And he feels no need to apologize for that. He’s not embarrassed, since as he assures us, the women were “smokin hawt” and therefore, all of his participation was justified.

    Right?

    God has nothing to do with this, Larry… the goddess named Kerista? Maybe.

    I think your words speak for themselves.


  107. This is a ludicrous conversation, Daisy. I’m not going to discuss it any more. I’m not going to answer fact-free innuendo.

    If you want to accuse me of sexual assault, find a district attorney and make a complaint. Otherwise, you’re engaging in libel, and I have legal remedies.

    And CPP, there’s a line between affording free speech and enabling libel. You might want to talk to your own attorney about your liability here.


  108. And Daisy, I think it’s slimy and despicable that you would use my wife’s rape to attack me over our philosophical differences. You truly are a horrible person.


  109. (sigh)

    Dude, there are a million atheists on the net. Believe it or not, you ain’t the smartest or the best. I was EXPLAINING and COMING CLEAN WITH YOU regarding why I had singled YOU out to argue with: I met you in the cult, and your ideological about-face (in several respects), makes me sick. Period. Hypocrisy stinks.

    I am not accusing YOU of sexual assault. You did whatever Jud told you to do; he was the only one allowed to commit sexual assault. I am saying, you aided and abetted your leader in doing so, you assisted him in browbeating women (I REFER TO MYSELF, ASSHOLE, NOT YOUR WIFE, WHO WASN’T EVEN BORN YET!) who held out on him.

    In fact, one woman named “Geological” (they all gave themselves goofy-ass names from a ouija board) who wouldn’t go along was put in “solitary” and not allowed to even be w/the other males… she was finally let back in when she agreed to have Jud’s baby.

    And one more question, Larry: What was your Keristan name? “Laf”?

    Since you are so certain of your good behavior as a Keristan, surely you won’t mind telling me?


  110. Daisy, I think it’s slimy and despicable that you would use my wife’s rape to attack me over our philosophical differences. You truly are a horrible person.

    Wait, what?

    You ordered me to GET OVER IT and MOVE ON. And I merely asked, has your wife been able to do this, when you order HER to do move on? Or is it just other women who have experienced what she did?

    She hasn’t “moved on”; she still talks about it.

    So do I.


  111. If you want to accuse me of sexual assault, find a district attorney and make a complaint. Otherwise, you’re engaging in libel, and I have legal remedies.

    LOL! I expect this from right wing trolls, not self-styled communists. Run to the state to make the mean feminist shut up! Yes, that’s quite radical. (as radical as I have always assumed you really are, Larry! ROFL)

    Bring it on, honey. I got names, dates, places, and most importantly, saved letters/correspondence, including one signed “Geo” (was it “Geo” or “Geological”?)….I can prove everything I am saying.


  112. This is not the fucking place for making factual allegations of people’s behavior from decades ago. You wanna play that game, get your own motherfucking blog, Daisy.


  113. I wondered when you’d step in… boys protect boys, after all.

    Just as Larry (Laf) still protects Jud, by calling me a liar. And now, you protect Laf. Good work, CPP!

    Where’s that male feminism of yours I hear tell of? Ohhhh never mind, I’ve always heard that “male feminists” were a myth anyway.

    I guess so. No talking about rape here, missy, at least, not by one of my best friend’s cult-leader!

    Got it.


  114. I’m not telling you not to talk about rape. I’m telling you that my blog is not the place for accusing particular individuals who are not public figures of crimes that allegedly occurred decades ago.


  115. Yes, you are.

    Laf/Larry wanted to know why I disliked him, now he knows. And so do you.


  116. Of course Comrade PhysioProf the supposed “male feminist” would shut a woman up when she reveals how a man has shown himself to be a rape apologist. I hope all eyes are watching.

  117. smmo Says:

    BTW, smmo, rape-apologism is no better than pimp-apologism.

    It sure the fuck is, Daisy. Look in the mirror.

    At least BB wised up and rejected his cult. You didn’t. And that “I’m fighting the power from within the church” nonsense cuts no ice from my own mother, so it sure as shit isn’t from you. How’s that working out by the way?

  118. smmo Says:

    I was EXPLAINING and COMING CLEAN WITH YOU regarding why I had singled YOU out to argue with: I met you in the cult, and your ideological about-face (in several respects), makes me sick. Period. Hypocrisy stinks.

    This is deranged. You too were in this this cult, and are apparently not anymore, aren’t you then also a hypocrite? Or are people who switch from one cult to another an exception to your rules? What is hypocritical about changing one’s mind? I’d really like to know.


  119. At least BB wised up and rejected his cult. You didn’t.

    What?

    I didn’t even join it, after my um, smashing introduction.

    Are you following the thread?

    You too were in this this cult, and are apparently not anymore, aren’t you then also a hypocrite?

    No, I was not a member. I ran away screaming, and slightly damaged. I feel sorry for the women who hung around for decades.

    Please try to keep up.


  120. And that “I’m fighting the power from within the church” nonsense cuts no ice from my own mother, so it sure as shit isn’t from you.

    Am I supposed to care about that?

    Look, I don’t even know who you are, and as far as I’m concerned, you’re just Larry under another name.


  121. Me: BTW, smmo, rape-apologism is no better than pimp-apologism.

    smmo: It sure the fuck is, Daisy.

    Could you explain what you mean here? Rape apologism IS better than pimp-apologism? How so?

  122. smmo Says:

    The Catholic Church is a cult too. I’m not the one with the reading comprehension problem.

  123. smmo Says:

    Who I am? I am a woman, a feminist. Am I supposed to have credentials to argue with you? What the fuck kind of attitude is that?

  124. smmo Says:

    Typo, I meant it sure the fuck isn’t. Sorry for that.

    You as a Catholic engage in rape-apologism, pimp-apologism, genocide-apologism, misogyny-apologism, and etc., every damn day of your life. See, Daisy, slicing and dicing the RCC, Kerista, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, whatever, and tallying up their crimes and their good deeds smacks of bigotry. They all suck. Picking out the good ones is a pointless exercise in cultural prejudice and historical accident. The problem isn’t which religion/cult is in power, the problem is people like you and their belief in their imaginary friends fucking everything up.


  125. smmo, let me also address this:

    What is hypocritical about changing one’s mind?

    Not a thing… point is, he hasn’t changed his mind at all.

    Upthread, BB claims with a straight face: “the women wanted to fuck me and were smoking hawt”…. this is a delusional statement. No, they did not all want to fuck him. They were REQUIRED TO FUCK HIM AND EVERY MAN IN THE HOUSE, and he doesn’t seem to understand the difference, even now. If any women held out and/or refused (and some tried), they could be ousted, with attendant repercussions of poverty and lack of residence (in the most expensive city in the USA).

    As a feminist, how do you feel about that?

    You as a Catholic engage in rape-apologism, pimp-apologism, genocide-apologism, misogyny-apologism

    (etc) (the usual atheist fulminating)

    smmo, well, we can all play that: if you are an American you engage in rape-apologism, blah blah blah. Yes, I suppose you’re right. As the Apostle Paul famously said, there is not one righteous, no, not one. Includes me, you and Barefoot Bum.

    Upthread, Isabel asked why CPP can be Jewish but Catholics can’t be Catholics? No takers on that? I have always wondered, too.

  126. smmo Says:

    Yes, me be an American is EXACTLY the same thing as you being a Lent observing defender of the Catholic Church. I was born here, not exactly something I could do anything about. And if you’re going to use Paul to back up any argument at all, well then you have no bloody argument. Paul hated women, but you probably suppressed that.

    If Kerista (which you seem to know an awful lot about for not being a member) coerced women anyone involved needs to reckon with that. Him, you, anyone else. Just as you have to reckon with the what the church is doing right now. The difference being, of course, that BB left the cult and you’re still in yours and DEFENDING IT TO THIS DAY.

    CPP can be Jewish. You can be Catholic. And I think you’re both equally idiotic for doing so. As I said, I’m an equal opportunity hater.


  127. smmo: “Yes, me be an American is EXACTLY the same thing as you being a Lent observing defender of the Catholic Church. I was born here, not exactly something I could do anything about.”

    1) smmo, actually I feel the very same way about being Catholic, which I have written about at length on my blog, if you’re interested in details and follow-up. (Certainly, I do not expect a self-identified “hater” to understand, just letting you know, I am aware of the argument, which is why I am using it.)

    2) “Paul hated women, but you probably suppressed that.”

    Actually, I believe that Paul was gay; I have always thought his “thorn in the flesh” referred to that. I believe John Boswell also thinks so? It isn’t an original idea but I forget who first posited it. (No time to google all that now, sorry.)

    3) “If Kerista (which you seem to know an awful lot about for not being a member)”

    Kerista had a series of publications (books, comics and newspapers) as well as a TV show in the Bay Area. You could show up on Tuesday nights for their “rap session”–which in retrospect, as I have said, was not a good idea.

    And now, I am being told I must vacate the thread or be sued by erstwhile communists. But hey, never let it be said that atheists are against free speech, right!? ;)

    Pax vobiscum, can’t afford a lawsuit, smmo. I hope you understand. Email me if you’d like to argue further and we can then say what we want, or at least *I* will be able to.

    As Gidget used to say, toodles.

  128. smmo Says:

    actually I feel the very same way about being Catholic

    You may feel that way but religion is voluntary, citizenship is not. Feelings ain’t facts.

    Actually, I believe that Paul was gay

    And? Whatever his sexuality he did irreparable damage to women. To human beings. As do all cults and cult leaders.

  129. max Says:

    Communism does not equal atheism. Nice try bigot,just another reason why all bigoted feminists should be given to the saudis to teach some manners. See how you like it in a real patriarchy.

  130. Valerie M Says:

    Of course Comrade PhysioProf the supposed “male feminist” would shut a woman up when she reveals how a man has shown himself to be a rape apologist. I hope all eyes are watching.

    Even I saw that one, and I’ve got to be one of the least up-to-date.

    But then I never understood why CPP got feminist cred in the first place.

  131. Isabel Says:

    This is a sad state of affairs.

    Things have really gotten ugly around these parts lately.

  132. BikeMonkey Says:

    They say the pot is stronger nowadays but you have to wonder. Have you googled that cult? Phewee.

  133. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Lol fucknut. Yeah, why not threaten a feminist with a bit of patriarchal rape, nothing wrong with that.

    All atheist states in recent history have involved serious crimes against humanity. That says nothing about whether atheists can run states without murder, but certainly says they’re no better at it than religious people.

  134. ThreadorAll? Says:

    No one ever said that atheism turns you into a saint.

    No, but people do always lay the atrocities of the religious at the door of religion, and said that without religion that kind of atrocity just wouldn’t happen.

    If you believe God wants you to kill unbelievers and you are in power, you will.
    If you believe there is no God, we’re all the products of evolution, and that the future can only be improved if those who oppose improvement are removed permanently and are in power, then you will kill them.

    Ideologies don’t kill people, people do. But any ideology can and will be used to justify their deaths. No position is immune to this, not religion, not atheism.

  135. ThreadorAll? Says:

    It should be, tolerance is a good thing, unlimited tolerance is not. Kind of like water.

  136. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Lol! Loon-abel. See it’s like Is-abel, which is her handle, but you’ve taken the ‘Is’ and replaced it with ‘Loon’ which as we all know is an insult, thus turning her name into an insult! Genius.

  137. ThreadorAll? Says:

    The only post in this thread so far that makes complete sense

  138. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Yeah, you haven’t put up an argument.

  139. ThreadorAll? Says:

    “She is directly and explicitly slandering atheists, justifying and contributing to their oppression”

    Lol, by admitting that all recent attempts at explicitly atheists states have ended in mass murder? That’s not a reason to oppress you, it’s just a reason not to believe your lie that if religion was eliminated we’d all be less inclined to be “maiming, killing, and opporessing” each other.

  140. ThreadorAll? Says:

    “She said that militant atheists start gulags”

    They do! A fact you just cannot admit because it does not fit with your political worldview.

    The correct response to that accusation is not to deny historical fact, but to attack the interlocuter. Do they realise that the vast majority of people talking about ‘militant atheists’ mean Richard Dawkins? Who used the term first, because they get to define what type of militant atheist they are talking about, though if they didn’t make this clear it could be their fault that there is misunderstanding.

    If you wish to pretend that history has not happened you will have to invent a militant atheist communist leader of the USSR who didn’t send people to gulags. Or pretend that they weren’t sent to gulags, or pretend that he wasn’t an atheist. There’s no point saying that he didn’t send them to the gulags because he was an atheist, you can’t possibly know that and it’s irrelevant as the claim is simply: Militant atheists sometimes* send people to gulags.

    *this was implicit in her original post.

  141. ThreadorAll? Says:

    You’ve reinterpreted the point. If someone said “a militant feminist argues with people” and someone else replied “or shoots people and writes the S.C.U.M. manifesto” it would be foolish to assume that they were referring to you

  142. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Word

  143. ThreadorAll? Says:

    “Except that God-belief past the age of about 4-6, i.e. when people develop the cognitive skills to tell real from make-believe, is at least delusional.”

    You’re right, and what do we do with the delusional? We lock them up.

  144. ThreadorAll? Says:

    It’s just stupid to think that religious people believe in a magic grandpa in the sky. It’s the same kind of pathetic derisory misinformation that creationists come out with when they say “Evolutionists believe we evolved through random chance”. Perhaps there are a few people who believe these stupid things, but the rest of us know that anyone accusing the other side en-masse of believing such stupid things is either disingenuous and lying to make the other side look stupid, or part of that stupid minority who thinks that’s what is actually true.

    I vote for disingenuous on your part. Your comment makes me think of someone who merely derides the other viewpoint in the full knowledge that that is not what most of them believe merely to make it sound stupid. It’s an anti-intellectual and anti-rational decision on your part to slander the other viewpoint so as to make yours look better, when other truer things are waiting to be said
    Feel free to prove me wrong by posting how you think that is what they actually believe.

  145. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Yeah, and I bet you don’t laugh at religious people for being religious either…

  146. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Prurient

  147. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Iff BB has to answer for the crimes he was around for and possibly participated in, then all people who did the same in the Catholic Church should to.

    Yep, sounds about right.

  148. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Someone get a little too close too the truth for you?

  149. ThreadorAll? Says:

    I guess that banging all those vulnerable young women did you no harm then BB? Lucky that they were all as lucky, eh?

  150. ThreadorAll? Says:

    So you deny being part of the cult, and participating in these so called Gestalt O Rama intimidation sessions?

  151. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Thank God you’ve shut her down dude! I was getting worried for a minute.

  152. ThreadorAll? Says:

    “male feminist” like Glenn Beck’s a rational human being

  153. ThreadorAll? Says:

    No, you’re the one with a dictionary problem.

  154. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Fuck off, where has she ever defended the immoral actions of the Catholic Church? That’s right, you’ve got nothing.

  155. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Talk about missing the point. You can be American without supporting everything America does, she can be a Catholic without supporting everything the Catholic church does.

    If you disagree with that you’re a fucking idiot.

  156. Isabel Says:

    CPP has been doing this to me for a while – he knows I speak the truth so he needs to paint me as a crazy person, as in “don’t listen to her she’s crazy!”

  157. Isabel Says:

    “, and everyone came over to my house for a friendly game of volleyball”

    Hahaha keep dreaming Isabel!

  158. skeptifem Says:

    WTF are you serious? Unless you are completely ignorant you know that the police don’t do a damn thing about sexual assaults.

  159. skeptifem Says:

    Because then you would have to re-evaluate your friendship, right? How hard that must be for you.

    When I got raped I had an asshole friend like you, who still hung out with the dude that raped me, and was friends with him after I told everyone what happened. You are acting like there is some kind of neutral space where you can just not say anything one way or another, but it doesn’t exist when it comes to rape. it is hard to say “I don’t give a shit about rape” any louder than trying to not take a pro/con position on the shit that your friend used to do.

    I mean jesus christ, isn’t this the kind of activism men are supposed to do? To disapprove of that kind of behavior in other men so loudly as to discourage it from within groups of men? Thats what all the men against violence/rape groups are about.

  160. skeptifem Says:

    You said a damn lot about it without ever specifically addressing what was brought up about it. Makes me think a lot more of it is true than you want to admit in public.

    If anything of what she said is true you SHOULD be attacking it or at least showing some fucking remorse.

  161. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Nah, participating fully in a cult designed to exploit vulnerable (but hawt!)women is not something that needs to be renounced, denounced or criticised.
    He needs not make any apologies, unlike Daisy who is a constant critiquer and dissenter within the Catholic church who would apologise for anything she had mistakenly participated in that caused harm, she needs to renounce, denounce and be criticised.

    Logic, ydiw

  162. ThreadorAll? Says:

    Nah, it’s cool, BB is just showing us how the Catholic church should have reacted to the sexual assault scandal. It should have said “why not find a district attorney eh?”

  163. skeptifem Says:

    Unless you protest and inform yourself, you DO support everything america does. It is a perfectly fine comparison. Our tax dollars support terrible violence in the world.

  164. skeptifem Says:

    Who gives a fuck if it is voluntary? if you don’t do a fucking thing to help the situation it is irrelevant. If you just throw up your hands and go “I didn’t pick this! My money goes to help, but I didn’t actively do anything to assist!” you are an asshole. Compliance is assisting, and the sins of america are about 10,000x worse than the sins of child raping catholic priests. They never sent bombers to viet nam because an election didn’t turn out the way they wanted, ffs. They didn’t turn a blind eye to the mass rape and slaughters in latin america in regimes that were our ecomonic friends. I mean christ, there are so many incidents of our government supporting monsterous dictators that it is hard to see why the fuck anyone would privilege the catholic church over the USA for polciy decisions, especially considering that the actions YOU AND I are repsonsible for are way more important than the ones we have no control over. You can condemn other people all day, there is very little moral content to such an act, it exists just to make you feel better about yourself. Confronting what you are responsible in your country (even if you arent american) is a lot more meaningful because you can DO SOMETHING about it.

  165. Katharine Says:

    Here’s an idea!

    Using arguments other than is or is-not arguments – arguments from morality, cultural perceived need, et cetera – to defend your cult of choice and your imaginary friend – is really fucking stupid!

    Your deity doesn’t exist, learn to be good without one.

  166. Katharine Says:

    Also, I’m seeing idiots on both sides of the argument here.

    BarefootButthead, go get yo’self an education. Uneducated people suck dick. No wonder you joined a cult.

    Braindead Daisy and ThreadbareBrain, you need to learn a little more Communist history and some philosophy. I have never seen two people more idiotic on this blog. If anything, most of my fellow atheists are actually a little bit to the right of me, and I’m socially very liberal/economically a-bit-left-of-center.

    skeptifem, feminism and atheism are both worthy causes. Please to stand up for both, not pick one or the other.

    I do agree that this Kerista cult seems to be total batshit.

    At least that’s how I’m reading this, and I admit I have no knowledge of the situation other than what’s been stated here.

    And CPP, I think, has the right to police his own comments if he chooses to, and I’d say is within his rights and is perfectly fine if he chooses to tell you to have this argument elsewhere and not in his blog comments. This is, after all, his blog, and they are free for you to set up one of your own.

  167. Katharine Says:

    Also, fuuuuuck. DaisyBraindead, you do know atheism was around before Communism, right? It’s as least as old as the Greeks.

    I mean, for fuck’s sake, the first society that had an imaginary friend probably had members that saw the fact that the society’s imaginary friend was bullshit.

  168. Isabel Says:

    I don’t know if you’re the best example of a “good” atheist, Katherine.I mean, aren’t you the person who wants to line up all the low IQ people and shoot them?

  169. Isabel Says:

    “You can condemn other people all day, there is very little moral content to such an act, it exists just to make you feel better about yourself.”

    Exactly Skepti dear, this is what I have been trying to tell you. Well, I’m glad to see it’s finally sinking in.

  170. Jack Parsons Says:

    “Would you PuLeeze keep your revolting blood-obsessed perversion of Judaism out of my face?”

  171. Mal Says:

    “so who becomes hilarious, ebullient commies?”
    Not sure whether you could call him a ‘commie’ or not but how about Marshall Berman (author of “Everything Solid Melts into Air”)and quite a few scholars and readers of Marx that I know – not to mention old Marx himself who could be mildly amusing on occasion. An aside: actually as an atheist I’m seriously fucking annoyed by some of the downright racist (or could that be “culturalist”) points of view over the building of the cultural centre near ground zero. I’m supposed to be on the same side as a complete arsehole like Pat Condell. Piss on that!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers

%d bloggers like this: