Monday, November 30, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

by Greg Craven - Sydney Morning Herald

Thanks to Sally Luxmoore for the link.
Also discussed in the Forum at http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=98168&start=0

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html

Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny.

FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.

Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer's blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?
...
Continue reading
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html

Posted: Monday, November 30, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 189 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #436638 by retep57 on November 30, 2009 at 2:28 am

Blind mindless creatures heading in endless circles towards an "artificial light" describes moths and catholics (and other religious automatons ) to me.

This article seems to be written upside down, Antibiotics are antidote for plague, rationality cure for religious superstition, for this dufous to call atheists bogon moths takes the biscuit,

Other Comments by retep57

2. Comment #436639 by Roland_F on November 30, 2009 at 2:31 am

The Sydney Morning Herald seems to be a strange newspaper if these kind of drivel is officially published as an article - and not just as some readers comment.
Greg Craven being himself a member and staunch supporter of the biggest transnational pedophile organization is calling humans who are not sharing his superstition and his membership in one of 33000 Christian denominations an unwelcome plague.

The widespread and systematic torture and rape of children is a disgust for the criminal perpetrators and not for the ones who bringing it to the daylight.

Other Comments by Roland_F

3. Comment #436640 by NewEnglandBob on November 30, 2009 at 2:36 am

This writer is a breathtaking spewer of hatred and vileness.

There is not a fact in that so-called article. It just oozes slime.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

4. Comment #436642 by Inferno on November 30, 2009 at 2:41 am

See the Atheist response article linked at the bottom of the page.

Other Comments by Inferno

5. Comment #436643 by Bonzai on November 30, 2009 at 2:42 am

This guy is the Vice Chancellor of a University??!!

What a breathtakingly stupid piece, completely devoid of content. It is basically a long winded way to say 'fuck you!'. And they accuse Dawkins of stridency..

Other Comments by Bonzai

6. Comment #436644 by andrew.trapp on November 30, 2009 at 2:45 am

Is Greg Craven for real, or just a poe? Can being such a rabid apologist for Catholicism really make a person that mentally deficient?

Of course he is following precisely the Catholic dogma of viciously attacking their detractors while simultaneously painting themselves as the hapless, innocent victims.

Other Comments by andrew.trapp

7. Comment #436645 by bleonard1401 on November 30, 2009 at 2:49 am

This must be a crappy newspaper (no references or examples of atheist attacks). You could just as easily find a witless article like this anywhere in the bible belt of America. I could almost see someone like Ted Haggard spewing something this ignorant out of his mouth while being applauded by his congregation. Sigh.

Other Comments by bleonard1401

8. Comment #436646 by Inferno on November 30, 2009 at 2:53 am

Worse, they are not traditional atheists.

That's right, we're not going to "grin and bear it" anymore.

you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

On the other hand, believers get to think themselves much brighter than Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins etc. Does this constitute an argument£

The second factor has to do with wit.

Ummmm, are you going to get to any arguments against atheism£

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all.

Of course "new" atheism is not new. That's because the theists haven't come up with a new argument in about 200 years. Also, notice the sloppy writing. The author referred to what is "new" about these atheists above - it's the strength of their voice, not necessarily the message.

I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do

And that's the real message here. "Please don't attack me. Just leave me alone." Should we politely dismiss the catholic churches influence on family planning funding in Africa£ Should be politely dismiss the inherent gay hatred in the bible and its direct impact on western secular laws£

Other Comments by Inferno

9. Comment #436647 by mirandaceleste on November 30, 2009 at 2:55 am

I think Greg Craven and Bill Donohue would get along splendidly. They could sit around spewing ignorant hate and whining about how Catholics are SO oppressed and are the completely innocent victims of "atheist hate" or whatever. Staggeringly huge and completely unjustified persecution complexes like the one on display here just SLAY me, I swear. So ridiculous.

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

10. Comment #436648 by Muetze on November 30, 2009 at 2:57 am

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Uh ... yes. That's actually pretty well to the point. I don't see how you make this less depressing by couching it in sarcasm.

I am tempted to quote Stephen Fry's recent outburst that impressed me so much: "Yes! Yes! Are you getting the message? There is a reason we hammer home these issues; because they matter. They matter to people's hearts and souls."

Other Comments by Muetze

11. Comment #436649 by aglnl on November 30, 2009 at 2:59 am

Same online edition also has this article, which is essentially a response to the Greg Craven one:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-new-crybaby-theists-20091105-hyyc.html

Other Comments by aglnl

12. Comment #436650 by moniz on November 30, 2009 at 3:00 am

"It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity."

Because we don't accept the concept of "Big Daddy" in the sky watching over everything, we lack imaginative capacity?

When Catholics have the imaginative capacity to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then maybe that argument will stand.

Other Comments by moniz

13. Comment #436651 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 3:05 am

Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

Because people by and large ( atheist included )
are not comfortable with letting others believe or behave differently then they would like them to.

Quite simply and becomming more obvious every day is that atheism is now a tool being used in the same way that religion has been. It is no longer just a position that there is no god to contrast the religious view that there is one. Both positions concerned with policy, what should be allowed, what should be taught, what should be advertised and what should not be.

The climate change/environmentalism "movement" was hijacked, the same is now happening with atheism.

Other Comments by russkid

14. Comment #436652 by SaintStephen on November 30, 2009 at 3:08 am

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.

It's not hate, candyass, it's ridicule. Big, big difference. Religion is funny as hell!

Other Comments by SaintStephen

15. Comment #436653 by Bonzai on November 30, 2009 at 3:08 am

Pat Condell's latest piece is a perfect reply.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4682,Aggressive-atheism,Pat-Condell---YouTube,page1#436217

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #436654 by zengardener on November 30, 2009 at 3:10 am

This frustrates me. After all this time telling people that "New Atheist" is just something that the theists have dreamed up to make atheism sound like a pop fad that will quickly die out, the theists are starting to say that the "New Atheists" are just the same as all the old atheists, to make it sound like atheists are just trying to repackage last year's Christmass sweater.

I've already heard this double speak twice today!!!

And then to have the nerve to say,

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.

.

And yet, the arguments have not been rebuked, the crimes have not been answered for, and they still blithely go about dragging humanity down.

Other Comments by zengardener

17. Comment #436655 by SaintStephen on November 30, 2009 at 3:17 am

Quite simply and ~~becomming~~ becoming more obvious every day is that atheism is now a tool being used in the same way that religion has been. It is no longer just a position that there is no god to contrast the religious view that there is one. Both positions [are] concerned with policy, what should be allowed, what should be taught, what should be advertised and what should not be.

Spoiling for a fight, russkid? Why must you always be the antagonist rather than simply asking questions if you are ignorant on something? If atheists don't concern themselves with the manner in which children are being raised, particularly in the free world, the battle for rational materialism is dead and lost. Educating children to think scientifically is priority number one, IMO. Every thinking atheist is rightfully concerned with "what should be taught." Since I know you're not stupid, maybe you can explain yourself better.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

18. Comment #436656 by mordacious1 on November 30, 2009 at 3:20 am

What's this? Laurie Fraser is the 8th plague? ROFL

Other Comments by mordacious1

19. Comment #436662 by Dhamma on November 30, 2009 at 3:35 am

As always they attack us, and not our arguments. Tiresome, very tiresome. If they at least gave me one GOOD fucking argument for believing in their god, I'd be thankful - but they never come. Absolutely never.

"There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate." Exclusive to atheists? Tell that to IRA, your christian (by definition friendly) comrades.

Other Comments by Dhamma

20. Comment #436668 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 3:43 am

Spoiling for a fight, russkid? Why must you always be the antagonist rather than simply asking questions if you are ignorant on something? If atheists don't concern themselves with the manner in which children are being raised, particularly in the free world, the battle for rational materialism is dead and lost. Educating children to think scientifically is priority number one, IMO. Every thinking atheist is rightfully concerned with "what should be taught." Since I know you're not stupid, maybe you can explain yourself better.

The education of children to think scientifically or anything else should not be held hostage by people who are concerned with what statues should be allowed or what billboards are acceptable. Your lack of belief in a god should stop there, and not extend into policy ... as long as it does you are standing on the same ground as the religious people that you battle against.

Leave the decisions about how to educate or what rules to make out of the hands of people who are fighting about whether or not there is a god.

Other Comments by russkid

21. Comment #436678 by SaintStephen on November 30, 2009 at 3:59 am

Your lack of belief in a god should stop there, and not extend into policy ... as long as it does you are standing on the same ground as the religious people that you battle against.

No, the burden of proof is on the believers who make extraordinary claims about the world that they cannot back up with evidence.

Atheists are just like non-stamp collectors. Holy Jebus, I refuse to start rehashing all the arguments just to refute a silly statement out of left field. Surely you cannot be seriously challenging the atheist viewpoint on the education of children. If you haven't picked up on that particular debate in the months you've been lurking on this site then I think you're beyond help in this regard.

Please. Equal footing in the classroom debate with theists? Are you fucking serious?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

22. Comment #436679 by Dhamma on November 30, 2009 at 4:01 am

"A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target"

It makes me think of Marcus Brigstock's rant about religion where he was sure everyone would think he singled out their particular religion.

I think every theistic religion is pretty much equally silly, even if some stand out a little extra, such as mormonism. We don't single out Catholicism, it's just that since most atheists are westerners it's the religion we are most closely related to. Personally I dislike every religion involved in terrorism, particularly islam. Terrorism is the single reason I don't take religion lightly. If religions were only about singing carols, I'd just laugh a bit and continue walking. This is not the case and therefore it's my duty to attack religion with ridicule and valid arguments for why they're wrong.

Other Comments by Dhamma

23. Comment #436680 by Steve Zara on November 30, 2009 at 4:06 am

It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity.

A failure of imaginative capacity?

Craven opens his eyes and sees a world designed for him. The creator of a hundred billion visible galaxies sent Jesus to Earth only tens of generations ago so that Craven and his family can forget about mortality. Nearly four billion years of evolution were set up to result in Craven. He projects into the heavens his own image of himself so that when he asks himself questions about right and wrong, he knows for sure that the response from his unconscious is the voice of ultimate truth.

How much more is the imaginative capacity of those who realise that they can't trust even their own thoughts and experiences. Who are humble enough to recognise that a feeling isn't truth, even when that feeling is shared with others.

How magnificent is the imaginative capacity of those who reject the doctrines of religion and realise that, no matter what their own cultural prejudices may be, women should be treated as equals and those who have a different sexual orientation should be allowed to live full lives without oppression.

How much more we should admire those who reject cherry-picked words from an ancient book and the authority of old men in robes and allow technology and science to explore this amazing universe? Where in the tales of Craven's religion are the buzzing of space with gluon fields inside a proton, or the constant supernova blasts of quasars? Where is the messy and wasteful but vital digital chemistry of DNA?

Craven has no idea what imaginative capacity means. His imagination contains nothing but a small stage on which he is the main actor and the God of his ego and imagination has written all the scripts, which are nothing but flattering and comforting stories to pander to his prejudices and calm his fears.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #436684 by The Truth, the light on November 30, 2009 at 4:09 am

There's a nice follow up article that puts the whining Greg in his place.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-new-crybaby-theists-20091105-hyyc.html

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

25. Comment #436687 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 4:12 am

Surely you cannot be seriously challenging the atheist viewpoint on the education of children.

In fact, I am .. as much as I am challenging anyone who would decide what to teach based on their view that there is or is not a god.

Please. Equal footing in the classroom debate with theists? Are you fucking serious?

Its worse than you think .. you should have no footing at all and neither should they.

Other Comments by russkid

26. Comment #436694 by Dhamma on November 30, 2009 at 4:18 am

The Truth, the light,

Thanks, that was an absolutely superb response. Crybaby theists should certainly be the name for the "new theists".

Other Comments by Dhamma

27. Comment #436696 by SaintStephen on November 30, 2009 at 4:21 am

25. Comment #436687 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 4:12 am

I think that color is what you're smoking. I refuse to bite on this one. Take it up with Dawkins. Seriously. Just post your next one directly to him. It's currently 4:17am GMT. By my calculations, Richard should be up in two hours or less. I'll show you how to highlight the text in bold red and some crazy font if you really want to stand out. I'm pretty sure he'll read it. Can't say whether he'll respond, of course. It would be an interesting experiment. I assert you couldn't frame your question in a manner interesting enough to compel him to respond. He would be well within his rights to simply tell you to "Read my books."

I'm here to help you, though.

I'm always spoiling for an interaction with one of the smartest people on the planet.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

28. Comment #436701 by Dave Porter on November 30, 2009 at 4:32 am

At the end of WWII and the fall of Hitler (a Catholic) we had many war trials for crimes against humanity. Stolen paintings and wealth were at least partially returned to the countries they were taken from.

The catholic church is as, or more guilty as, the Nazi party when it come to crimes against humanity. Why is there not a larger call for the return of the stolen loot by the papacy? If the tons (literally) of gold were returned to Mexico and other countries and used to prop up the peso & other monies, we wouldn't have the immigration problem we do in the U.S. Heck, we would probably be going the other way. The untold worldwide destruction done in the last 500 years by the catholic church needs to be accounted for. When will the world get the justice it deserves????

We as Atheists do have the right to ridicule the catholics. And we need to demand justice.

Other Comments by Dave Porter

29. Comment #436703 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 4:39 am

I think that color is what you're smoking. I refuse to bite on this one. Take it up with Dawkins. Seriously. Just post your next one directly to him. It's currently 4:17am GMT. By my calculations, Richard should be up in two hours or less. I'll show you how to highlight the text in bold red and some crazy font if you want to really stand out. I'm pretty sure he'll read it. Can't say whether he'll respond, of course. It would be an interesting experiment. I assert you couldn't frame your question in a manner interesting enough to compel him to respond. He would be well within his rights to simply tell you to "Read my books."

I would love to .. and I am sure he would agree that his atheism has no buisness in the classroom or government any more than someone elses theism.
A god or absence of one should not be a relevent topic.

Actually hold on, I take some of that back. Only because of the money he stands to make off of book sales and personal appreances ( incidentally I have read the God Delusion ) it might be in his best intrest to keep the topic relevant whenever possible.

Let me posit this ... I bet , and not by % but by actual amount, that I could find more christians who are not opposed to abortion than I could atheists who are opposed to it. That "non-stamp collector" bs is weak. The atheist non-belief defines how its collective would like to shape society as much as the theists belief ... which makes either a threat when it comes to deciding on policy that affects everyone.

In short, I dont think you can keep separate your non belief from the decisions that you make or would like to make for others any more than the theist can seperate his belief from the same thing. I dont say this as a criticism mind you, just that apart from the disagreement on the existence of god you are no different from the theist with regards to the desire to dictate to others what they should do.

Other Comments by russkid

30. Comment #436705 by Bonzai on November 30, 2009 at 4:53 am

A god or absence of one should not be a relevent topic.

Exactly, that would be practically an atheistic position. A-theist, means no-god, no god in classroom and business, not even the mentioning of the absence of god. This is how it should be.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #436706 by RationalFreeThinker on November 30, 2009 at 4:53 am

Oh well.

Greg Craven seems to be sort of Australia's version of 'Wild' Bill Donahoue - who protects Catholic 'honor' like the Taliban protect Islam.

And he pens yet another poor Catholic Church. Oh, our holy community. We are being persecuted. Victimized. Bollocks!!

Ever hear of Andrew Carnegie? And I quote:

“The whole scheme of Christian Salvation is diabolical as revealed by the creeds. An angry God, imagine such a creator of the universe. Angry at what he knew was coming and was himself responsible for. Then he sets himself about to beget a son, in order that the child should beg him to forgive the Sinner. This however he cannot or will not do. He must punish somebody--so the son offers himself up & our creator punishes the innocent youth, never heard of before--for the guilty and became reconciled to us. . . . . I decline to accept Salvation from such a fiend.”

-- Andrew Carnegie, to Sir James Donaldson, Principal of St. Andrews University, June 1, 1905.

Care to note the date. Vocal anti-religious (activist) atheism is nothing new. And, yes, it's true. Reason, logic, thought and the natural world (and nature's 'god') as revealed through the application of SCIENCE, yes - these are truly the enemies of those who follow the so-called Abrahamic faiths.

Good bye and good riddance to bad rubbish!

Other Comments by RationalFreeThinker

32. Comment #436707 by SaintStephen on November 30, 2009 at 4:55 am

The atheist non-belief defines how its collective would like to shape society as much as the theists belief ... which makes either a threat when it comes to deciding on policy that affects everyone.

This is relativist nonsense. I could just as easily say:

The Sleep-Eighteen-Hours-Every-Day Society (SEHEDS) defines how its collective would like to shape society as much as the No-Sleep-Is-Deserved Institute's (NSIDI) beliefs ... which makes either a threat when it comes to deciding on policy that affects everyone's sleep habits.

Opinions and propositions should not all be weighted the same. Rational materialism deals with the here and now -- with reality, and is supported by objective evidence. Religion is mere fantasy.

You've been making relativist arguments for a while now, first in the health care thread, and now here. It's not the de facto superior position in every debate, you know. When all is said and done, twenty or thirty years in the future perhaps, it will be clearly understood by the entirety of mankind, that religion was always a scam, and therefore needs to be treated on the same level as crystal dowsing and Elvis sightings.

Now I certainly don't think you'll be arguing that a group of Elvis sighters would be given the same air time and deference in the local School Board meeting as a group of Nobel Prize Winning Atheists/Scientists, say, who are concerned about the science curriculum being taught to children. And I don't care what the spirit of the relativist Moses tablets implies -- I'm talking about reality, or what really really happens in our world.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

33. Comment #436709 by mmurray on November 30, 2009 at 5:13 am

As someone has said there was an excellent rebuttal to this which cheered me up a bit at the time. You can find comments on it here.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4571,The-new-crybaby-theists,Michael-Brull---the-agecomau,page1#429698

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

34. Comment #436712 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 5:17 am

Exactly, that would be practically an atheistic position. A-theist, means no-god, no god in classroom and business, not even the mentioning of the absence of god. This is how it should be.

It was ... till the billboards and signs on busses and the attacks on theists.

Now I certainly don't think you'll be arguing that a group of Elvis sighters would be given the same air time and deference in the local School Board meeting as a group of Nobel Prize Winning Atheists/Scientists, say, who are concerned about the science curriculum being taught to children. And I don't care what the spirit of the relativist Moses tablets implies -- I'm talking about reality, or what really really happens in our world.

If you would be happy to omitt defining the the group of Nobel Prize Winning Scientists by their theism or atheism then I would concede.

Other Comments by russkid

35. Comment #436717 by BlueCollar8theist on November 30, 2009 at 5:30 am

"In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia."

Well, I do believe this has pretty well struck the proverbial nail on the head. With the exception of the cane toad, that is. Not really sure how that figures into this.

Other Comments by BlueCollar8theist

36. Comment #436720 by wardsie on November 30, 2009 at 5:36 am

I was also disappointed in the SMH for publishing this article. However, to be fair, they also published a rebuttal found

here

Other Comments by wardsie

37. Comment #436722 by alovrin on November 30, 2009 at 5:41 am

I would venture the proposition that Mr Craven has been assailed by Russell Blackford's new book in bookshop's, and he probably stumbled across the demolition of Catholicism by Messr's Hitchens and Fry.
The poor luv'

Anyway keep up that studied air of superiority Greg, those uncouth atheist's are no match for your awesome intellect
*sarcasm off*

Other Comments by alovrin

38. Comment #436723 by Bonzai on November 30, 2009 at 5:41 am

Now it occurs to me that both this article and its rebuttal have been posted before. It dated Nov4.

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #436732 by Ania on November 30, 2009 at 6:13 am

clearly this guy wasted his literary skills arguing for the wrong side.. if only he had been better informed.

Other Comments by Ania

40. Comment #436738 by canatheist on November 30, 2009 at 6:27 am

Uhhmm... that about sums it up

Other Comments by canatheist

41. Comment #436741 by bertie wooster on November 30, 2009 at 6:40 am

Substitute "Jews" for "atheists" in the article and this could have come out of Julius Streicher's odious 'Der Stuermer". This is hate speech, so why should we put up with it?

Other Comments by bertie wooster

42. Comment #436747 by mordacious1 on November 30, 2009 at 6:49 am

38. Comment #436723 by Bonzai

Yeah, I think this guy got upset after the Australian Atheist Convention...I remember Hitch was there in mid-October. This was written a couple of weeks after that. The guy is still a wank though. :)

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #436748 by Roland_F on November 30, 2009 at 6:50 am

Comment #436712 by russkid : It was ... till the billboards and signs on busses and the attacks on theists

Oh dear a crybaby theist ….
Starting the end of the 4th century AD straight after Christianity has been pronounced state religion of the mighty Roman empire, the dark ages started with the suppression of all other religions, the destruction of the Greek literature heritage, burning of the library in Alexandria, the millions of death from the crusades, “holy” inquisition, forced missionary conversion of tribes killing millions, via Hitler executing “gods will” with the Holocaust supported from the Catholic church in Germany and the Vatican, children and youth in the hands of the Catholic institutions around the world are systematically tortured and raped .
Evangelical Christians are sabotaging the Biology teaching wherever they can, Christians have an iron grip on the elementary school education in several countries, and have a strong influence in each government decision board, free airtime and tax exemption to brainwash the people.
Cinema screenings of movies are forbidden (like DaVinci Code) when the Catholic church decides it and force the government to ban it.

And there is hardly a month passing bye where some Christian leader has to insult godless atheist as subhuman, scum, plague (like here from Greg Craven) and whatever name calling is done.

And now the “terrible sin” of atheist according to theist crybaby russkind : [atheist put up billboards and bus slogans]. Well instead of humiliated hiding as godless sub-human scum, the new-atheist are daring to post messages like “”don’t believe in a god, you are not alone” or “you can be good without good ” or “enjoy your life” oh dear what a terrible vicious attack on the worst perpetrators of inhuman atrocities for the last 2000 years.

Other Comments by Roland_F

44. Comment #436751 by Liveliest Crib on November 30, 2009 at 7:03 am

PATHETIC!

With the backing of their many churches and their official dogmas, people have preached lie after lie about atheists. We're immoral, amoral or just heathens who hate god. We have no basis to judge anything in this world, so we act selfishly.

The moment we claim that their churches are not forces for good in the world or that it's okay not to believe in god, we're told that we hate them.

You know what? I'm in a bad mood right now, and reading this didn't help.

So, to you Christians out there who think that I hate you because I do not share your beliefs . . . you couldn't be more wrong, and . . .

FUCK OFF!

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

45. Comment #436752 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 7:13 am

And now the “terrible sin” of atheist according to theist crybaby russkind : [atheist put up billboards and bus slogans]. Well instead of humiliated hiding as godless sub-human scum, the new-atheist are daring to post messages like “”don’t believe in a god, you are not alone” or “you can be good without good ” or “enjoy your life” oh dear what a terrible vicious attack on the worst perpetrators of inhuman atrocities for the last 2000 years.

Actually .. I am not a theist, and I might ask you whose tone sounds more like that of a crybaby.
Further, I only hold that the atheists are proving to be no better in practice (presently) than the theist with regard to extent that they will go to impose their position on others.

I never said that your billboards are terrible, but if theirs are then yours are as well. I cant recall if it was in this thread or another where someone challenged me to clarify how the atheists are guilty using a strategy to enforce their views
where the ends justify the means ... I think you just did it for me and thank you.

Other Comments by russkid

46. Comment #436754 by SaintStephen on November 30, 2009 at 7:16 am

If you would be happy to ~~omitt~~ omit defining ~~the~~ the group of Nobel Prize Winning Scientists by their theism or atheism then I would concede.

Certainly. We'll call them brights, ala Daniel Dennett. Their atheism will be suffused in with their words, anyway. It doesn't matter what we call them, btw. Because we're talking about physical reality. The physical reality is, no school board on the planet would let Elvis-sighters have even five minutes of air time, but would most likely welcome the input from Steven Weinberg, say, on the topic of the high school science curriculum, and in particular his take on where the boundaries of science should be, if there are any (and there really aren't). If Professor Weinberg started addressing the topic of atheism, I'm not sure there would be much of an outcry from the meeting attendees or the board members, and I'm quite certain the doors wouldn't burst open with incoming SWAT team members, there to apprehend Weinberg for daring to mention atheism in the classroom.

What I'm trying to say is it's all about people, real people, and not necessarily about the letter of the law. Ever seen a real courtroom? Nobody ever cheats in the courtroom, do they? Not the lawyers, certainly! lol

When it comes to the education of children, IMO, the methods of science underlie every subject. Religion stays as a subject for Western Culture, and not as something with anything but folklore to share with the world concerning science, reality, or even ethics and morals.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

47. Comment #436755 by russkid on November 30, 2009 at 7:23 am

Certainly. We'll call them brights

Is this any different than calling creationism intelligent design ?

The physical reality is, no school board on the planet would let Elvis-sighters have even five minutes of air time

Im not sure if that is the best or worst analogy I have heard .. but if it is good it is only because Elvis sighters who might try to influence a school board based on their Elvis sightings are no different than atheists who might try to influence a school board based on their position that there is no god.

When it comes to the education of children, IMO, the methods of science underlie every subject.

They do .. but what about atheism ? I dont suppose that you are trying to equate the two ?

Other Comments by russkid

48. Comment #436756 by Dhamma on November 30, 2009 at 7:26 am

Further, I only hold that the atheists are proving
to be no better in practice than the theist with regard to extent that they will go to impose their position on others.

I surely want people to become atheists. However I'm not telling them that if they don't become it they will go to hell. See the difference? I AM going to hell, simply because I rejected Jehovah's witnesses by the door.

I don't preach atheism until someone pulls their crap on me.

Other Comments by Dhamma

49. Comment #436758 by SaintStephen on November 30, 2009 at 7:40 am

...but if it is good it is only because Elvis sighters who might try to influence a school board based on their Elvis sightings are no different than atheists who might try to influence a school board based on their position that there is no god.

Wrong. The default, base, genesis, root, a priori foundation of what we should teach our children, immediately upon entering grade school, IMO, is that truth is discovered only after an a posteriori examination of the evidence. Religion provides no evidence, at all, anywhere, so it is nothing but a curiosity like people who don't believe in universal health care.

There is nothing to argue about, in other words. Science is a methodology, religion is just another elective class. Atheism is not the lack of belief in God, it is the result or discipline of looking at the evidence, of any situation, before making any wild speculations or judgements. If you persist in equating atheism with religion in the simplistic terms of your last post, I will have to opt out of this discussion.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

50. Comment #436760 by rapidflex on November 30, 2009 at 7:51 am