This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Seriously, King James was a Catholic?
OK, I was responding to lykex. I thought it was obvious who I was responding to. I will start addressing people by name. I am on a touch screen, and it’s a pain to type on it, especially with auto correct, and a limited viewing screen.
Orestes Brownson:Why, then, does [the Protestant] rush into nihilism? Simply, because he is seer enough to see, that, if he admits that anything exists, he will be driven ultimately to acknowledge the truth of Catholicity. Rather than do that, he will sell his soul, as well as his shadow, to the man in black, and consent to deny his own existence. Almost every day, we meet intelligent Protestant gentlemen who frankly acknowledge that there is no alternative but Catholicity or no-religion, and yet who just as frankly tell us that they will not be Catholics.
and is diby sursch a reincarnation of Piltdown Man?
Does diby sursch even realize that this is a blog full of atheists who see both Catholicism and Protestantism as absurd?
PZ Myers @ 4
I think they’re trying to argue that atheists are actually nihilistic Protestants. Or something. Since diby can’t apparently make an argument of their own rather than copypastaing someone else’s irrelevant quote, we may never know!
Define nihilism properly, and show with evidence that it does apply. Or you will be laughed at.
Catholic supremacists are so fucking banal. I thought regular religionists were myopic, but the super duper Catholics manage to see even less than the run of the mill dogmatists. It’s like super dogma.
Previous iteration closed so soon? diby was going for 777.
diby #2
Your post at #728 was directed at me? What post of mine were you responding to?
I’m still confused as to why you’re posting here when you apparently want to debate Protestants. There are plenty of forums dedicated to discussions between different Christian denominations, you know. A simple google search will bring up several to choose from.
I’m not sure there’s much point. diby is using anti-Protestant arguments and doesn’t seem to have realised the fundamental flaw with that strategy.
I suppose talking to imaginary Protestants on an atheist blog is a bit less ridiculous than talking to an imaginary god. It’s still pretty ridiculous though.
Everyone knows that atheists are protestants. Don’t pretend like you don’t know that.
@ diby sursch
Hi, diby. I hope you’re having a good morning. As others have pointed out, this is an atheist blog and most of the commenters are atheists. “Atheist” is a kind of non-Catholic, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily have a lot of insight into what any one of the many, many different varieties of Protestant Christians believe and why, any more than a random Muslim or Hindu would. Have you tried asking a Protestant, or possibly reading a book by (not just about) someone from one of those traditions?
I’m going to pass on some advice from a couple of my Catholic friends. They’ve started taking “Chesterton fasts” when they realized that G. K. Chesterton’s mix of glibness and giftedness was inhibiting their ability to think clearly about various issues (while creating the impression that they were thinking more clearly than ever). They consider this a way of avoiding “the sin of pride”; I think it’s probably good practice for any author with whom you strongly identify, to take a break now and then. There are a lot of authors who have similar effects; Chesterton is particularly tempting for young Catholics because he invites them to feel that being Catholic and his particular form of conservatism is iconoclastic.
If you find yourself quoting Chesterton a lot in conversations like this one, it might be a sign that you could use a breather. I hope you’ll consider it! The commenters here can’t help you with The Inside Scoop on What All Protestants Believe, but they might be able to recommend some books to you.
Please tell me that you are joking diby. It sounds like a joke, and if so, it actually is clever(ish). But there are some people who are staunch advocates of “atheists are culturally Protestant” idea, or whatever, and really do believe that “atheists are essentially Protestants” in some circumstances.
Everyone?
How many imaginary friends do you have?
Unevidenced assertion, dismissed, like your imaginary deity, without evidence. You lose.
Is Rush Into Nihilism their 14th or 15th album?
I can’t understand why on earth diby seems to think there might be protestants here.
Do you think we are protestants? Or are you just incapable of distinguishing between anything other than catholic/not-catholic? (actually that last wouldn’t surprise me; that would seem to be about your level).
Well, here is a Big Clue, just for diby. The people you are talking with here on this blog are not protestants. We couldn’t care less about protestants or catholics or proponents of any religion except insofar as they interfere with other people’s quiet enjoyment of their lives (which is unfortunately a lot).
.
But still, just for a laugh – how about giving us some evidence for the existence of your choice of deity, diby? That’s always fun (well, for a certain value of fun, anyway).
This statement requires a dishonest redefinition of the words “everyone”, “knows”, “atheists”, “protestants”, “pretend”, “know”, “don’t”, “you”, “are”, and “that”.
Even as a joke, it still depends on the above.
I’m not really a fan of Chesterton to be honest. Sorry, barne. You thought you had it all figured out.
Why was the Nicolas Cage Wickerman remake necessary? I mean really, why? The bearsuit scenes just weren’t necessary.
And here we have it. An actual argument. Ok, well, an assertion.
Now is the point we all clamour for evidence. Here’s my counterargument: Protestantism is a form of theism. Atheism is the lack of theism. Therefore, being a Protestant and being an atheist are mutually exclusive.
There are atheists who were Protestants. That doesn’t mean all atheists are Protestant, any more than the existence of ex-Bahá’í atheists make all atheists Bahá’í.
In conclusion: nope.
So are Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Sikhs, Jews, Baha’i, Jains, etc. Even Orthodox, Assyrian, Armenian, and other flavors of Christianity are “protestant.” Because they’re not Roman Catholics. They all just keep it a big secret. Everybody knows that.
And everybody knows you are trolling. Don’t pretend like you don’t know that.
Diby @12:
Surely you are joking.
Where did you all find our new troll?
If that was a joke, it’s actually mildly amusing. If you were being serious … what planet are you living on?
.
I have a question, diby:
What do you think atheists think about religion? What do you think protestants believe about religion? Is there any overlap between the two? (OK that was more than one question, technically, but I won’t hold my breath for diby to answer even one of them).
Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop! @ 25
Showed up in the Thunderdome with a hatful of Inquisition apologia, it seems. Maybe it’s some kind of rite of passage?
Under the bridge.
Bearing false witness is a sin.
There are people in homosexual relationships.
There are people who have had homosexual relationships but are now in heterosexual marriages.
Q: Why is it offensive to suggest that homosexuality is not innate but it’s perfectly OK to tell an ex-gay that they are lying to themselves, and that there is no such thing as ex-gay?
ffs
Hmmm, it is spring time. Maybe he’ll sacrifice a virgin or something.
But wait, that can’t be right. Did you not slaughter an Easter bunny this year, diby sursch? You must wash yourself in the blood, before it’s too late.
@ Rehan Jeffer
A common enough complaint around these parts. Can’t say’s I know. It’s one of the great mysteries of life, such as: “Is diby yanking our chain?” and “Are sharks arseholes watertight below 50 fathoms?”
Fine, show me the evidence that being gay isn’t innate, but rather a learned process….Put up or shut the fuck up.
@ 7 anteprepro
My experience with Catholic education is that it’s an opportunity with a built-in danger. It tends to be very heavy on critical thinking, debate, and logic, but also to have a lot of built-in assumptions and dogmatic first principles that aren’t examined. It’s relatively easy to get past the latter by adhering to the former more closely than you’re supposed to, but it’s also possible to just absorb the whole system, and logic, as in “I’m a logical person; we learned logic in school; my beliefs are logical” becomes kind of a forcefield around the dogmas rather than a method for interrogating and understanding them. That’s a risk; it doesn’t happen with everyone, but when it does, it’s a mess. I don’t know if that makes sense.
diby,
Amazingly, there are bisexual and pansexual people who can inhabit both of those relationships and not feel conflicted.
The Gish Gallop is getting a wee bit old.
Protip Diby, answer the questions put to you by at least some of the other commenters before you continue to ask non-sequitur questions. Oh, and for reiteration atheist does not equal Protestant. Atheist equals no belief in gods. At all.
diby sursch @30
So that’s an, “I can’t back up my assertion so I’m going to change topic!” like you did several times in the last thread? Truly, your Catholic rhetorical techniques are unmatched.
Evidence? You’ve never heard of someone who has left the gay lifestyle? How about the wife of the NYC mayor?
@ diby
Err… you mean like pretty much the entirety of ancient Greek culture? (Inter alia…) Us modern folk, with our lack of bisexuality, are pretty much an aberration in historical terms. Are you seriously trying to pretend Jesus never had sex with another man? Get real!
OK, so at least theophontes admits that he’s a reactionary that wants to take us back to the Bronze Age. Myself, I’m more forward-thinking.
Having only one sexual proclivity is a very modern invention. What the fuck do think was going on in biblical times? They would have called you a deviant.
Anecdote is not evidence. You need larger studies. Like stuff that might be found in sources like this: Google Scholar. You know, third party evidence that, unlike your assertions, can’t be dismissed.
Diby:
Being gay is not a lifestyle choice you ignorant ass.
(and pointing to someone who claims they are no longer gay is not evidence that sexuality can be changed)
Any other homophobic bullshit you want to spew forth?
diby sursch @ 41
1478 is hardly forward-thinking.
I know it says UNMODERATED but sometimes…
Trollikin, trollikin diby, be more subtle, please. It’s not as funny if you flag it up like that.
Diby:
‘Male’ is not the default. Do not assume you know the gender of anyone here.
Bwaahahqahahahahha. So claims a person who believes in imaginary deities, and that a book of mythology/fiction means anything. You aren’t forward thinking, unless you are thinking with your head up your ass.
trolling troll is only trolling
@consciousness razor #50, well, yes. But he’s the squeakiest one we’ve had in a while. Seems like the last few dozen would’ve run away by now.
Bronze age values were far superior to your pathetic religious prejudices. But, having said that, I think that our modern secular values are even more advanced.
For all the good that ancient pagan values held, there were many that were truly reprehensible.¹
…
¹ I think particularly of their acceptance of slavery. Their’s was pretty much in keeping with CHRISTIAN slavers and slavekeepers. No. I really think we have improved vastly in many regards.
@ 20 diby s.
.
Why would you be sorry? Not being a fan of Chesterton is a great start to any day. :D I mistook your earlier quotepile and broad application of the word “Puritan” for a Chesterton fanparty, but I’m happy to hear that’s not the case.
I’m no longer sure that you’re commenting in good faith, though, diby — a lot of people answered your earlier query about the Inquisition and What Protestants Think (though very few if any of us are Protestant Christians), but instead of acknowledging most of the replies you’ve gotten, you’ve jumped to a totally different question about. . . gay people? I guess this is how conversation might work if we were all drunk, but it’s 10 in the morning where I am and it feels a little odd.
Speaking only for myself as a regular ol’ bisexual, I’ve never told anyone that they were lying to themselves about their sexuality, and I don’t recommend that others do so either. It’s rude.
Wow. Where the sudden homophobia come from? I thought that our Catholic supremacist was just interested in whining about how mean and stupid Protestants are and whipping up apologetics for the Inquisition. Do you mean to tell me that a hardcore Catholic is also a bigot? It simply cannot be!
So Atheist Ireland, in very Catholic Ireland, is full of Protestants? Ex-Muslims are all really Protestants? Those lucky people who were brought up without a speck of religious instruction are all actually Protestants?
Word of warning: This thread is mostly unmoderated. If you are preparing to segue into full-on ranting homophobia, though, you should know that overt bigotry will still get you canned.
@54
I don’t know! Seems Gish Gallop-y to me. Unless it’s going to come back around to how opposition to Pray Away the Gay is worse than the Inquisition in some respect.
@ PZ
We need to set up a dictionary of diby-to-English. Let me start with:
Barne, sexual orientation is a social construct. It’s simply ludicrous. Where does it end? LGBTQRXYLMNOPQRXYZ
That’s not even enough letters to cover the 50+ Facebook designations. You really have to be an atheist to believe in all of this. I wish you luck in your journey to recover from your deviant behavior. You can always join Courage when you’re ready.
PZ mentions overt bigotry.
Right on cue:
Jesus fucking Christ on a dildo seesaw.
buh-bye, diby sursch
@ chigau
I can feel it coming on. The trolling, the bigotry, the homophobia, the bi-phobia…. but especially the being-fucking-boring-and-bringing-nothing-to-the-party-BS-ism.
Ignorant diby is floating closer to the sort of homophobic language that will incur a ban, but is simply wrong about the recent Facebook alteration which did not concern sexual orientation at all. It provided a list of options for identifying the gender preferences of transgender, genderqueer, and intersex people – many of the large number of options being the result of combining descriptive terms such as transgender or transsexual (adjectives) with man, woman, or person (nouns).
What puzzles and confuses me is how small diby’s world must me. If you’re not Catholic, you’re Protestant. If you’re not straight, you’re deviant. If you’re not pro-Christian empire, you’re pro-Muslim invasion. If you’re not a dog, you must be a cat. Doesn’t it get boring? Aren’t they in the least bit curious about all those people they’re dismissing?
I don’t have any hatred for the homosexual. But the homosexuals don’t respect me and my faith, they now feel as though they even have the right to shutdown our parades in Boston and NY if we don’t give them what they want. Who are the bigots?
With regard to gay adoption, we have to think about what is good for the children. Homosexuals need to realize that their own desires do not trump those of innocent children.
diby:
Just how many unevidenced assertions are you going to toss out? Seriously. You are jumping around so much (apologizing for the Spanish Inquisition, claiming the Crusades (all of them) were defending Christendom against the evil Muslim, now gays) that I (and I suspect others) are really pissed off by your unabashed lying and poorly executed Gish Gallop.
You really had to go there? What an asshole.
Most here know my personal history. I really don’t give a flying fuck if you do or not. That said, of the men I have known who have raped children, both of them were in heterosexual marriages and both had children. So fuck off, you hater.
diby sursch @ 65
Got a source for that?
So the desire of children to have parents means they’re not allowed to have parents if those prospective parents have the wrong combination of sexes? That sure makes sense.
@ diby
THE? As in “THE” homosexual? “THE” negro? “THE” atheist?
You are a bigot.
Loving home? Free of bigotry?
Why won’t you answer my questions fuckweasel?
No. No. I was not implying pedophilia. Not at all, you read that wrong. I meant that a child needs a mother and a father, and that it’s quite selfish for adults to put their own selfish desires above that of the child. As a child, I was terrified of homosexual couples, I can’t imagine being forced to be adopted into a same sex household. We have to think about the child that has no say in this. Adults don’t get to put their wants above these children.
@ 59
Aw, diby, that’s sweet, except. . . no it isn’t. I thought we were talking about why it’s rude to dismiss other people’s stated sexual orientations?
I’m not sure where you’re going with the Facebook example. Facebook has a lot of options for sexual orientation? Is that a bad thing in some way? If so, you’ll have to explain why having a lot of options is worse than having only a few. It almost seems as if you believe that declaring something to be ludicrous is the same as providing evidence against it. Is that something you believe?
It might help to keep in mind that what you think is obviously ludicrous is not necessarily ludicrous to everyone, in the same way that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not obviously ludicrous to Catholics even though many non-Catholics feel as if they’ve scored a point just by describing it.
You’ll probably be banned now for the aforementioned bigotry, so I may never learn the answers to these questions, but if the banhammer is merciful, maybe you can let me know what you’re thinking here. Where does the ludicrousness come in?
Diby:
Fuck off you homophobic asspimple.
And so if they can’t have a mother and a father, it’s better that they get neither, and get shuffled around the foster care system until they’re old enough to be kicked out, right?
And obviously your own homophobia (you said it right there!) is a universal fear which is present in all children, even the ones that haven’t received Catholic indoctrination.
And in thinking about them, we must assume they’re more afraid of homosexuality than not having loving, dedicated parents. Right.
You just think they’re dangerous deviants who need to get back in the closet. “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner” is stupid both because there is no sin or sinner and because you’ve demonstrated amply that you do indeed hate homosexuals.
Boo-hoo. Why does your hatred deserve respect?
Got some citations for those “Shutdown parades”? Because you have a long history of bearing false witness and I’m not going to believe you without corroborating evidence. Also who are the bigots? Lemme see, one side wants to freely express themselves and have equal rights to love who they choose. The other side wants to shove them into a closet, silence them, and keep them from loving relationships. Nope, Catholics are still the bigots.
Oops, science dismantled this “point” a little while ago. Turns out that the outcomes for children in a gay family are no worse than those of a heterosexual couple. In fact it’s better to be raised by a gay 2-parent home than by a single hetersexual parent. Indeed the ONLY thing that harms children raised by gay parents? You diby sursch. Hatred and bigotry towards their parents harms the children. Catholic bigots need to realize their own desires do not trump those of innocent children.
Why, I am sure you would even let The Homosexual use your bathroom!
Your faith doesn’t deserve respect, for one. For two, the only way they are disrespecting it are by existing. Can you go five seconds without inventing new ridiculous ways in which you are supposedly persecuted?
World’s tiniest violin.
All we go with the ones who are saying that it is their religious faith to use the legal system to deprive the other group of equal rights.
Because no parents are better than gay parents. I can’t say I am surprised. All the most blatant homophobes are irrationally opposed to gay adoption as well. Fucking bigot.
Sadly, your irrational fears aren’t as forgivable or quirky as an adult.
False. We have long-term studies on gay adoption in now diby, we can dismiss your bearing of false witness with actual science.
You’re still terrified of homosexual couples. And if the best you can say against gay adoption really is just a bad argument from incredulity then shut up.
Fine, provide evidence from google scholar that being raised by homosexual parents is bad for children….Until you provide evidence, your assertions are properly dismissed as fuckwittery.
@ diby
Ahaaa…?
OKaaaaay….
Listen diby: How do you get to dictate to the other fucking 7 + billion people how they should live their lives?
Huh, bigot?
@63 Xanthë, Amy of my threads
Thanks for clearing that up! Facebook’s interface hurts my brain, so while I technically have an account, I don’t really keep up with their updates (or log in at all if I can avoid it)
Sorry. You sure used the correct code words and/or dog whistles so I think my misunderstanding is understandable.
So you advocate the abolition of divorce in any circumstance?
Oh, look, another extremist Christian who hasn’t really read the bible.
Ah, diby has outthought you here! Xe isn’t actually thinking about the good of the child. Xe’s merely insisting that we shouldn’t force adoptions to same-sex couples on poor, homophobic children against their wills.
Because that’s totally going to happen, because the adoption system is run by fucking idiots and only The Noble Catholic Church, Bastion Of All That Is Good And True And Certainly Not An Organization That Protects Those Who Prey Upon Children can stop it from happening. If means a couple of hundred thousand children who’d be happy to have a same-sex couple for parents miss out, that’s a price diby is willing to pay!
And diby…. how do you explain that your imaginary fairygod created teh ghey amongst all mammals, all lizards, all birds … fuck… anything above the level of a turnip. You get mah drift? You are smarter than a turnip, I take it?
Well theophontes, should diby ever respond I assume the answer will be the cop-out falldidit where they will explain there was no gey in the Garden of Eden until the women screwed it all up. But that’s not an inherently sexist story at all nosiree, because diby said so. And we’re probably the real sexists for bringing it up.
Pretending that you think atheists are actually protestants has a certain humour to it. But bigotry isn’t funny, diby
@ 69 (lol) diby:
As a child, I was terrified of spiders, I can’t imagine being forced to be adopted into a household of arachnid lovers. We have to think about the child that has no say in this. Adults don’t get to put their wants above these children. /snark
@ snoof
Sorry. As much as I respect your valuable opinion, I must point out that the Catholic Church, under its very thin, tarnished, veneer of respectability, is a club for child abusers. That is the entirety of their cause.
That whole story about Jeebus this, YHWH that, street processions ,and the like, is just a cover. A ruse to hide the real intent. That of industrial scale child abuse. People join the Catholic church for sex. No more, no less.
The evidence? The ongoing attempts by the cat-licks to cover up every last case of child abuse that their (so called) holy men have committed.
I refer specifically to the paedophile priestly class.
There are, patently, many millions of lay cat-licks who endorse this status quo however.
… aaand by not refreshing I missed all the massive open declarations of bigotry that diby spewed right after that. You really are a piece of work, you nasty little hater.
My vision isn’t simply limited to parades in New York or Boston. Or even the eastern seaboard. I promise to one day shut down parades everywhere. But here’s where your wrong. I am not affiliated with the LGBT AntiParade League. Their vision is far too parochial. I will end parades in the name of Protestantism.
We are. Being adopted into a stable, loving family, that just happens to be gay, is far better for the child than staying in foster care, or being adopted into an unstable, unloving family that happens to not be gay.
Or for that matter, being adopted and then indoctrinated by a bigot like you, dibs.
I’m anti-parade, but it has nothing to do with religion. I just hate when the things get in the way of me going about my daily routine. I need to cross that street!
I also wish the president would stop visiting my city.
diby
Yes you were. You claim not to have meant to, but I do not beleive this claim, because the phrasing you used was identical to that used by your fellow religious bigots to smear gay people. As usual, when called on it, you change the subject and claim you meant something else. You really are a shit.
Some children are terrified of ANY unfamiliar adult. Clearly such children must never be adopted by anyone.
But I suspect that if the child strongly objects to the prospective adopted parents for ANY reason, a humane adoption agency would reconsider forcing the adoption through.
A faith that motivates you into spewing such disgusting hateful drivel as have just done does not deserve respect from ANYBODY.
And you who twist your faith into justification for such disgusting hateful drivel also does not deserve respect from ANYBODY.
With regard to gay adoption, YOU need to realize that your own religious desires and hates do not trump those of innocent children who need loving, stable homes, including gay ones.
@ diby
Can you name a single prominent catholic that has not abused a child? One? At least one that has not abused a child nor covered for another priest?
Pope Francis has been trying to fob off all the cases of child abuse by catholic priests on “the devil”.
Yeah sure. Make shit up.b
Are you going to support or denounce such shit?
lol, poor you. you were afraid that WHAT might happen? What do you think those gay couples might DO to you?
@ diby
If the pope had a single ounce of dignity, would he (always “he”, penis and all) not disband the whole church of child-fuckers and apologise to the world for the shameful abuse his (so called) church has inflicted on decent people?
@ diby
Are you going to trivialise the abuse that the catholic church has visited on humanity? That would be the easy, cat-lick, option. Deny your own wrong-doing. At all costs.
lol “the people I oppress aren’t taking it quietly, poor me! mmeeeeee!”
diby
In which case heterosexuality flies out of the window, too. I’m fine with that.
Ogvorbis
Well, we know the catholic solution to single mothers: Drug them, take away the children, force them into adoptions, lock them up in the Magdalene Laundaries and sell the children to good catholic couples. Such loving and compassionate people.
Just so everyone knows, it was my idea many years ago that LGBT people should co-opt the alphabet, just like we co-opted the rainbow and the word “gay”. I mean, we had a good start already, “L” and “T” are very popular letters. Now I understand we have “Q” and “I” (a vowel was needed for sure). I think we already had “Q” before when we took back the word “queer” from the ranting homophobes and made it our own. This diby person better watch his step, we already own his “b” and his “i”. Now, he is just “dy”. I’m surprised that a non-gay would have such a fabulous idea, but he took it too far. “LMNO” are not as necessary as he seems to believe. wink, wink!
Once again, the inestimable John Scalzi comes to the rescue:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/03/07/speech-and-kirk-cameron/
@ Giliell
Wait a bit. The cat-licks is about to deny that that ever happened. Evah!
Perhaps we should ban the right of Catholics to adopt children? Or at very least ban priests from adopting children. I mean, maybe children aren’t afraid of priests and Catholics, but they should be, and we gotta look out for the best interest of The Innocent Children (TM), and it is about The Children, not the feelings of the adoptees. It would certainly save far more children from abuse than banning gays from adoption would.
How about it, bigotty diby? That not up your alley?
I call bullshit, Cupcake. This clangs false, and noisily so.
So, what’s up next on the list, the mega-misogyny rant?
signed,
A bisexual atheist who was raised catholic.
In 104: Adoptees should be adopters.
I would like to know how one (homosexual or not) behaves when one respects Catholics and their faith. I would think it involved not making tasteless Jesus jokes or asking about the problem of evil or playing rough with the crackers or calling His Holiness “Fluffy.” I guess I don’t see how sexual preference fits into it.
Who taught you to fear them?
ChristineRose:
Simple. To fully respect the Catholic Church, you must accept, without questions, the dictates of the Pope,the teachings of the Church, and accept being governed by the rules of the Church even if you are not Catholic. Anything else would just lead to, er, um, something?
Extremely late to the party, but in regards to the reference to David Brooks as a universal example of “secularist” thought WAY back in post 627 from the previous thread…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BTW, my kids are completely not concerned by homosexual people. They’re people, right? If they wanna play “family” and both girls fight about who gets to be “mum” they simply agree that there are families with two mums so they can both have their cake and eat it.
Sadly I was barely even aware of the existence of gay people when I was growing up, aside from hearing (and sadly, possibly using) some unfortunate slurs tossed around the playground. So I don’t know if I would have been scared of homosexual couples. But I doubt it, unless someone went out of their way to tell me I should fear or that they were evil. Of course, that is likely the source of diby’s fear. His beloved Church taught him to fear.
@105 Inaji
Hey! That was my niche! Oh well, i’m happy to share…
I knew about gay and lesbian people growing up, and was never taught anything negative. One thing for sure, GLBT peoples never, ever came up in catholic school. Sex wasn’t talked about at all, except as something you weren’t even supposed to think about*, let alone do.
*We were supposed to cough up instances of “impure thoughts” in confession, which was 3 times a bloody week.
Azhael:
We can be niche bedfellows. :D
I never even knew that gays existed until I was 12. I had a teacher for English and social studies who told us the first week of class that we might hear rumors around school that he was gay, and that they were true. He had been married to a woman for 20 years and raised 2 heterosexual sons before getting a divorce. His children were fine with him, and he had had a stable partnership with another man for 10 years.
My mental response to that was “Oh. Okay.”
Nothing traumatizing about discovering that someone could romantically love someone of the same gender.
*giggle* Subthread won!
*blink* what
I hope somebody posts this on FSTDT.
Really?
Wasn’t it one of the US Founding Fathers who observed that, upon enough education and reflection, Protestants became Deists while Catholics became atheists?
In People’s Republic of Pharyngula, troll finds YOU!
What makes you think so?
Really, what evidence makes you think so? You probably think this is all somehow self-evident, so that no evidence is needed, but that’s not how it works.
*blink* What, why?
My reaction to learning that there were people who fell in love with people of their own gender was “ah, so that exists, too” – nothing more. Why would it scare anyone?
I grew up Catholic.
Of course. Any halfway fundamentalist Catholic wants to abolish divorce in all circumstances.
Funnily enough, the reason for that is a decidedly Protestant-style argument from Scripture: Matthew 19:1–9.
…Wow. O_o
I just can’t wrap my head around what confession must actually be like since I grew up prostetant (and so according to diby, still am) and we just did a blanket “Forgive us for all our sins” request each weak during service. You’re supposed to go around making a catalog of your sins? I think I’d just have to make up a number of impure thoughts and masturbation sessions. Maybe throw in a couple of disrespecting my mothers. And I probably forgot to do the hail Maries the Priest told me to do last week…
Or I could talk about the bacon cheeseburger I had for lunch.
Serves me right for singing with my choir tonight. Never going to catch up to this conversation. :)
This is where I went to catholic school: http://www.saintanneschool.net/ It’s changed a lot. Apparently, a different order of nuns took over in 1980.
U Frood:
Lying was standard in the confessional – you had to make shit up, there’s only so much sinning one can do in the space of a week. Besides, lying one day in confessional meant you had something to confess the next time.
I went to a catholic high school, and while we had mass once a month I don’t think anyone had to go to confession there. It was attending that high school that started my path to atheism, because naturally they had us read the bible. I ceased to be Christian, in any form, by the end of exodus.
Rowan:
I managed to avoid catholic high school (Mater Dei), and got into a public one instead. At St. Anne’s, there was in school mass on Wednesdays and Fridays, going to confession wasn’t an option. Then of course, there was Sunday mass with the family, and it was expected you’d go to confession.
I hated confession. It’s so forced and shameful and all it gets you is more praying for no good reason.
Last time I had to go was before marriage because catholics are amazing and all that, and the priest asked me whether I’d had sex with men other than (now)Husband. And it made me angry and ashamed and was definitely a final sort of turning point in turning away from the whole shebang. *shudder*
I was going to say!
The few times I had to go, I couldn’t even think of anything and fell back to “quarreled with my brother”.
(…though, as my sister always says about him: “Mom!!! He’s quarreling!!!”)
…Awesome. :-)
Odd question; having had sex with him before marriage would be just as sinful.
rq:
Oh yes. Bless me father for I have sinned…we always had to recite the act of contrition, too. Nothing like keeping you feeling exposed, humiliated, and scared of hell.
David
Apparently not, since we had a child from that sex and a second on the way at this point. Adultery isn’t as bad if you’re just fornicating with your spouse-to-be.
Inaji
Those words (“Bless me father for I have sinned”) still make me shudder. Why the fuck should I tell a judgmental stranger about things I don’t really want to tell anyone else (for one)? Why the fuck should I beg some imaginary deity for forgiveness if I can’t even figure out what I’ve done that’s so drastically wrong (for another)? How the fuck can I be forgiven things for which I’m not even particularly sorry (for yet another)?
But yes, the humiliation and fear really do a number on the whole ‘staying in line’ bit. Still clearing out the residue, and it’s been years since I felt like it mattered in a real sort of way (it obviously still matters somewhere psychologically in the background). Stupid and horrible and pointless.
Ugh. Way to screw people over, especially impressionable kids. Religion really is a nasty mindfuck isn’t it! (as one of those lucky people who never had any of this crap forced on me as a kid, I know I often fail miserably to really grok what this shit would be like if instead of a distant oddity (an “other people do funny rituals and believe weird stuff” kind of thing) it were imposed when you’re little, by people in your life who you feared OR loved OR respected OR who had power over you or any combination of the above … sometimes I think it’s a wonder anyone escapes! Hats off to all those who do and who are decent and compassionate people in spite of every attempt to teach them to hate or despise the non-approved kinds of human being.
Confession always puzzled me.
I was a child and my ‘sins’ were childish (fighting with sibling, lying to parent…).
It was only once a week and I had to make up most of it.
I could never figure out why I needed the priest.
If God knew everything about me, why was the priest interferring?
chigau @131:
Reporting structure is vital in the architecture of any hierarchical system. How else would you know your place (lowest) in the chain of command?
Rob Grigjanis #132
Yeah.
That’s part of why I lost interest in Catholicism.
I know how special I am and if God can’t grok that, fuck ‘im.
.
Also I really like the Latin.
When they dumped that, it was just too boring to go to church.
chigau @131:
Easy. That way the priest knows which little boy or little girl will be amenable to his rapes.
Back in the 11th century, priests in England were not allowed to inquire who the woman was when a man confessed adultery. Some were using that knowledge to blackmail women into fucking the priest.
@ 105, Inaji, azhael
We’re everywhere! Disrespecting the faith of (probable) trolls just by existing, it seems.
I never had to do much confession growing up, but as practiced, it was a flawless recipe for getting kids to make up random harmless sins to avoid having to disclose anything about their lives.
I stopped being a Catholic at about 16 years old so I knew only about 5 or 6 priests.
In my little prairie town (and district), I never heard a hint of a whisper of an indication of any priestly misconduct (other than alcoholism).
Not even in the subsequent 40 years.
I really wonder what I missed.
For whatever reason, I never heard anything about homosexuality as a kid among the Protestants… but I invented it. I just assumed that since every movie, TV show, or book that I ever saw had either one (1) female character or none at all, that it made sense to ship all the males with each other. <_<
Must admit it was a bit jarring to suddenly see a rabid anti-protestant Catholic osmosing out of the woodwork.
Almost like there was a time warp back to the 7 Year’s War or something….
It’s part of the same argument, guys. That is, the free will bit. Don’t you see what you’re doing? Anytime sin comes up, you atheists bring up pre-destination. But you don’t believe in free will for those who practice faiths.
You will continue to do this (discover news sins and say people are born that way – sex addiction, polygamy etc.) until the collapse of Western civilization.
From someone who is relatively an outsider to all religions, confession really reminds me of Scientology’s “auditing”. Or basically “bad therapy” + “blackmail fodder”.
diby
What the fuck are you on about? I don’t recall any response like that. Are you talking to yourself again?
Go take your slippery slope, make it more slippery, and go fuck yourself with it.
Polygamy is in no way new. It’s right there in your book.
It takes a lot of fucking gall for a fucking Catholic to come in here and start preaching to us about having sex properly. The Catholic fucking Church’s opposition to consenting adults having sex has resulted in them helping facilitate the spread of AIDS through Africa. Because condoms are ebil. All while the very same Catholic fucking Church is doing everything it can to make sure that its sacred, holy, flawless priests can get away with raping children.
Your faith is poisonous. Your continued support of it is worse than most alleged, yet harmless, sins you rail on against. This is because your religion is unhinged from reality, and any moral standards you can actually draw from that religion are arbitrary and dangerous to act upon, due to their disconnect from the world that we actually live in.
diby sursch
Very slippery.
Warned about homophobia, on to free will.
You will run out of goal-posts soon.
CaitieCat @180 in the Lounge: Context is everything. I read blf’s comment as a parody of a macho rugby supporter’s attitude towards soccer, including gratuitous misogyny/homophobia. That’s based on reading many comments by blf about many things. If blf actually felt that way, I’d be surprised. Wouldn’t you?
Sorry? Huh? Who brought up sin? Who talked about pre-destination? Who is talking about free will? diby you’d have much better luck arguing if you actually talked to us rather than a strawman atheist who is somehow also christian and doesn’t represent us. You did this at the end of the last Thunderdome. Lemme quote you Snoof @729 last time
That’s about the gist of it. You aren’t talking to us at all diby.
Wait hang on, I thought that what things were sins were put down in your old book. How then can we “discover new sins”? Do you have a new book of the bible or something? A Neo new testament as it were?
Also when did we get to “Sex Addiction”? I assume you’re bearing false witness to try and pull a slippery slope argument, trying to say that accepting gays leads to sexual immorality and the apocalypse. However you’re failing, so far all you’ve done is furiously blow a dog whistle (like you did with the gays=pedophiles messages you sent upthread).
But speaking of sex addiction whoever said that it or polygamy were somehow inherent? Sexual orientation is inherent, choosing to have more than one wife like in the bible is not.
Seriously diby, in future try actually speaking to us instead of to the complete strawman you’ve erected. You embarrass yourself.
Minor problem for you. Your deity doesn’t exist, so the coneept of sin is fuckwittery. Try again with solid and conclusive physical evidence your deity isn’t imaginary or shut the fuck up with presuppositions it exists!
I meant you do believe in free will for those who practice faiths.
You go on potty-mouthed rants against people of faith, presumably because you believe they were not born that way. Then you seek out any deviance you can find and justify it by saying there’s no control over that – whether it be homosexuality, polygamy, transgender, divorce etc.
We’re all sinners. We should hate the sin, not the sinner. But the sinner can be saved by Christ and His Church. One does not have to continue living in disorder; one has a choice.
Heh. Divorce is a deviance, huh?
You know what, diby. I am not gonna worry about moral advice from someone who clearly has no sense of perspective. I am not gonna worry about moral advice from a defender of child rape. I am not gonna worry about moral advice from someone who makes a big deal about people’s sex lives, while also acknowledging that it doesn’t even fucking matter in your religious system anyway, because Jesus is a Get Out of Morality Free Card. I am not gonna worry about moral advice from someone who thinks that all “sins” are the same. I am not gonna worry about moral advice from someone who uses their arbitrary and nonsensical religious dogma in order to force others to live how they personally feel others should live, even if that means an increase in suffering and a decrease in freedom. I am not gonna worry about moral advice from someone who believes that their objective moral authority comes from a book that does absolutely nothing to speak out about pedophilia, a very little to speak out about rape, but absolutely does set up rules about mixing fabrics, what foods are moral, and what you should and should not be doing on The Seventh Day.
You have nothing, diby. You have a morality that is so archaic that you don’t even realize how many modern morals you have needed to insert into it in order to function while ostensibly “using” it. You have a belief that is such utter gibberish that your fellow religionists can be justified in believing everything and its opposite, and have divided countless times over it as a result, when not just blindly obeying Magical Priestly Authority Figures. Do you even look at yourself? Do you even realize how pathetic you are? Are you just not aware of the idiocies and evils that you support? Or are you aware, because then I can only wonder how you even sleep at night.
Are you really a Catholic or just a Poe?
Even the Catholic church acknowledges that people have no control over their sexual orientation. The recommended solution is celibacy. The church does not consider celibate homosexuals to be sinners, nor does it claim to cure the “disorder.”
You are free to practice your faithl. I am free to tell you if you want me to listen to you, you either put up evidence for your imaginary deity, and that your babble isn’t mythology/fiction, or you take your delusional fuckwittery somewhere else. Like back up your asshole.
Without your imaginary deity, there can be no sin. Life is easy if you reject imaginary deities, and treat holy books with proper respect. None.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/
Some people shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
Other people work on the Sabbath.
Some people rape children.
Other people don’t worship the right god.
Some people organize a genocide.
Other people have sex with a consenting adult with someone who is the same sex.
Some people abuse their spouses and children.
Other people get divorced.
Some people torture people for information and don’t care if they are innocent.
Other people masturbate and have sex with condoms on.
Some people defraud the lower classes of millions.
Other people steal bread to feed their family.
But we’re all Sinners (TM)!!!
Because every sin is a sin and exactly equivalent in value! And they don’t accumulate above “1”! And Jeebus resets the score to “0” anyway!
The Biblical worldview is just like “Whose Line is Anyway”: “Everything’s made up, and the points don’t matter”
Evidence for your imaginary deity Diby: physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. No evidence, and you can’t claim your deity exists, and without your deity, your babble is mythology/fiction, and your churches sophistimicated theology is nothing but bullshit based on twin lies.
Now, where the fuck is your equivalent to the eternally burning bush???
So now diby has gotten to the “I am lazy, time to just shart out random links” phase of trolling?
Now, that’s actual Protestant thinking. Checkmate atheists! diby wins.
Or, perhaps, not. :-)
—
diby, your article is paywalled. Presumably you have access to it (otherwise I can’t think why or how you’d have linked to it), so could you perhaps post the substantive parts of it? Thanks in advance.
OK, I see that now. It wasn’t paywalled a short while ago. Anyhow, here’s a review of the book by an evangelical protestant – notice how similar he sounds to all of you, you protestants.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/03/12956/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute&utm_campaign=5ca7592942-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-5ca7592942-84107697
Oh THAT’S where Diby got his moronic idea that atheists are Protestant Puritans, someone on some website wrote it. Pro-tip diby, it’s bad form to give an empty link to a website. ESPECIALLY a website that demands a paid subscription to read its articles. Though I must say the short intro paragraph gave me a chuckle, the thesis as far as I can tell is “Liberalism is a religious but it sucks compared to OUR awesome and totally TRUE religion”.
Who gives a shit what you, a delusional fool who believes in imaginary deities thinks?
I’m an atheist. Your deity is non-existent, which makes any holy book based on said deity mythology/fiction. There is nothing whatsoever left to base any religion on. No deity, no holy book, no church, no tithes, no theology, no buildings, etc. So, when are you going to quit lying to yourself? Only then, can you quit lying to us.
So that “you” is just you here, not all of the rest of us, since we don’t “practice faiths.”
That is false. Should I call it a “strawman” (really, a big clusterfuck of strawmen), or am I supposed to believe you’re genuinely and sincerely confused? Troll or not a troll? I don’t know.
First: those things are justifiable because nobody is harmed by them. Divorce is the only one in your list which even has the potential to be harmful, but it can be much less harmful than staying in an awful marriage. That’s the same as saying it’s the better moral option in those cases. We should do the better moral option. Thus, it’s the right thing to do. It is not “deviance.” That is just a dogmatic assertion that you’ve made, justified by nothing at all. You need the moral and intellectual capacity of a cabbage to accept that dogma, if you’ve examined it at all. More likely, you haven’t even examined it. You just do what you’re told.
There’s another point to be made here. I think determinism’s true and that people are responsible for their actions. (That is, they are generally, but there are some obvious cases when they aren’t.) I don’t call that “free will,” because people tend to have this confused idea that that term means human volition is not caused by anything (i.e., “contra-causal free will”), that it basically stands in for the claim that we have souls. That’s not just false. It isn’t even coherent, because if you have no reason for acting (even if “you” are a soul and it is not caused by anything), that doesn’t mean you are responsible. It means everything you do is completely arbitrary and irrational, totally unmotivated by anything at all, including what you to take to be moral doctrines you thought you got from Catholicism. If that’s “freedom,” then freedom is absurd and nobody actually wants that anyway, so it doesn’t matter. However, if that’s actually not what you mean by it, despite your claim about people of “faith” above, you’re welcome to the term as long as you express the idea coherently.
Gotta love when religious people use religion as an insult. And the “you are all secret Protestants!” shit is still a stale, old chunk of bullshit. It’s not an original observation, and it just doesn’t work. At very least it doesn’t apply well to the atheists who tend to gather here. Not unless you broaden Christianity/Protestantism to a ridiculous degree, and then conveniently ignore all of the ways that we match the supposed pattern.
That we don’t match the pattern, that should say.
We aren’t Protestants diby, we’ve gone over this. Atheists don’t believe in god. Protestant Christians do. That’s a big difference right out the gate.
And that review is rather interesting, because it’s damning to your argument. Your argument over and over seems to be “You atheists are actually Protestant Christians”, but the review seems to suggest that the book is much more nuanced. For anyone who actually cares, it seems that just like the bible, diby doesn’t understand this other book he’s pulling clobber verses from. The book sounds much more nuanced, suggesting that certain progressive trends came out of protestant social reform movements. That’s actually an interesting thing to look into, but the reviewer suggests the author overly lionizes Protestantism and criticizes the book for it (though sadly it’s to reflexively argue that “Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity aren’t all bad!”) Additionally it’s clear that the author of the book seems to be bemoaning that there isn’t a dominant progressive Christian philosophy in America anymore, and that somehow progressivism needs to be Christian to be good.
So in summary diby’s moronic assessment that Atheists are Protestants comes from a cherry-picked, contextless, selective quotation of a book that probably isn’t true that they don’t seem to have read nor understood. How very Christian.
I’m a tad confused. Secularism is a religion. Liberalism is a religion. What ISN’T a religion?
ištógmuzapi s’e uŋ cupcake:
I’m not.
Chigau:
I remember when St. Anne’s dropped the Latin mass and went permanently with English. Even though it was pure bullshit, I like the Latin mass, everything sounded much prettier.
Anteprepro:
Catholicism!
diby sursch
You are a miserable sinner and you are going to burn in hell for all eternity.
I, on the other hand, am just going to die.
Inaji:
I’m sure, specifically: diby’s specific hard right-wing Bill Donohue-esque version of Catholicism.
Because regular Catholics are librul and thus too Protestant for diby’s tastes.
Omnicrom @ 164:
It would seem, to a certain person, that even those of us who grew up catholic are magically protestant.
Presumably nothing. If you define everything as a religion and conclude that everyone else is just accepting things on faith then you can quash some of the cognitive dissonance of believing a lie. If Evolution is a religion and Darwin was its holy figure than you can dismiss people on religious and therefore spurious grounds. By denying facts and reframing everything to just be people taking things on religious faith then you can’t be wrong because it’s just “he said she said”. It’s easier to say to yourself “Those people are following a false faith” than “Those people are following the actual real evidence and I’m not”. It quiets the mind to bear false witness about science like that. When you lie for Jesus you first lie to yourself.
Pastafarianism?
*toddles off*
First Rule of Jesus Club: Do not tell the truth about Jesus Club.
Second Rule of Jesus Club: Do not think about Jesus Club.
Third Rule of Jesus Club: IF someone says “prove that” or asks for evidence, the fight is over and you won!
Fourth Rule of Jesus Club: Only two lies to a sentence.
Fifth Rule of Jesus Club: One Crusade at a time.
Sixth Rule of Jesus Club: No skirts, no Jews.
Seventh Rule of Jesus Club: Crusades will go on as long as they have to.
Eighth Rule of Jesus Club: IF this your first night of Jesus Club, you have to lie.
Public Service Notice: If anyone’s interested in confronting some MRAs, a bunch have descended on Libby Anne’s blog Love, Joy, Feminism after she made a post about notifying the management of her local YMCA about a man wearing a sexist t-shirt. I think the regulars over there could use a couple more zealous feminist commenters. I’d join in myself, but I’ve got to get some sleep.
p.s. threadrupt, but for the record, I’m an atheist. The religion I left was Paganism, not Christianity. If I’d been a Christian, I’d have been a Catholic (which is the religion of my immediate forbears), not a Protestant. So whatever method you’ve used to determine that I am or ever was or ever could be a Protestant is in error, diby.
potty-mouthed??!
diby sursch
You are a buffoon.
And puts the lie to his earlier claims of being a Polish Catholic all ‘askeered of Protestant/Nazi/eugenicists. Would anyone from Poland use such a 1950s-suburban-mother-type phrase? I don’t think so. Pure troll.
I was trying to remember the part of my old religion’s service that basically served as group confessions.
“We confess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. We have sinned against you in thought word and deed…”
Then for some reason, I got part of Weird Al’s “I lost on jeopardy stuck in my head.”
“You don’t get to come back tomorrow, you don’t even get a lousy copy of our home game. You’re a COMPLETE LOSER”
I think it fits, though.
Ináji and anyone else
re: Latin
I think that I was getting a wee Latin vocabulary.
…
mea culpa
hmmm
mea sounds like ‘me’
culpa sounds like ‘culpable’
‘It’s my fault.’
wow
that’s what that means?
…
oops
I missed the sermon.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
still a buffoon
This statement only makes sense if one creates entirely new definitions for the words “notice”, “how”, “similar”, “sounds”, “all”, “you”, “protestants”, “to”, and “of”.
It’s funny how dibs drops a link that makes a claim (utterly unsupported by anything remotely resembling logic or reason, or course) that “today’s secular liberals are the direct descendants of the past century’s Puritans and Protestants” and purports to take it as support of a position that secularists are the same as protestants, while simultaneously denying that those past century’s Puritans and Protestants are fundamentally different from Catholics, even though they in their turn are the direct descendants of Catholics.
Even if the assertion is true, it is irrelevant.
Can’t speak to YOUR familiar relationships, dibs, but I am a direct descendant of my father, but I am also decidedly NOT my father.
I’m so tired of this.
All your talk about free will is incomplete and dishonest, dibs, because you deliberately neglect to leave out one key word.
“Absolute”.
Put “absolute” in front of every one of your mentions of free will in this thread, and then you will have something that approximates an honest argument.
But we all know why you do not do this, dibs.
You know, deep in your heart, the truth.
Free will is partial and relative, dibs.
But you are an intellectual coward who is afraid of this truth, so you fudge dishonest arguments by leaving the key word “absolute” out of your arguments.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-poverty-of-sexual-orientation
diby sursch #185
re: your link
Was there a point?
Hey, Diby
Do you ever reply to any argument or evidence presented to you?
Oh, wait, I remember, you only preach because you’re already convinced that you and you alone hold the truth (are we arguing with the fucking pope or what?
I don’t know, but have you ever heard of a guy called King David?
That’s a moderately interesting and very infuriating article diby, and it comes from a person who doesn’t quite seem to understand sex, sexuality, and sex research. Or perhaps is doing their damnedest to dismiss sex, sexuality, and sex research. While they do cleave onto the good point that sexual orientation is more than just Gay, Straight, or Bi, I knew trouble was coming when they made the very tired and very telling potshot at “Oh Facebook has 50 gender identities” (which incidentally is about the only good thing I can think of that Facebook has ever done).
However I find the car analogy that article sinks a good deal of time into to be over-simplified, twee, and flat wrong. I find the article’s dismissal of pornography as “A dead-end street” to reveal a lack of understanding of sexuality, and it’s very definitely from a sex negative viewpoint. Also the way the article devolves into “Monogamous love is best and normal for all” marginalizes and pidgeon-holes people stupidly. It’s actually rather ugly the way the article uses his long-term, happy, and monogamous relationship with is wife to basically dismiss and erase every other possible sexual identity and sexual orientation. What starts as a good point about needing to see more than 3 types of sexual attraction (for they are as many and various as stars in the sky) the author assumes the very privileged position that there’s actually only one sexual attraction: His.
Incidentally if you’re trying to argue “Oh this article says that gays can change orientation” you’ve failed once again diby (funny how you keep doing that). While the author stupidly and shortsightedly dismisses and marginalizes sexual orientations that aren’t his own, and indeed the entire article is basically “I’m happy with my wife so talking about sexual orientation is for sophomoric seculars” they do say that the only orientation change he sees is finding sexual satisfaction and attraction to his spouse. In other words the article is backhandedly endorsing find and falling in love with a loving and committed partner. I’m not sure that Deacon John would not be happy with my analysis of his article, but nowhere does it demand the loving partner be of another sex.
Incidentally diby would you like to actually use your own words next time? My summary of the article is WAY cleaner than it actually is because it’s a muddled work where the author defines himself in pretzels to defend his privilege and boo-hiss all those nasty seculars who care about people he wants to other and ignore. If you want to link to something fine, but perhaps you could explain WHY you’re linking to it? If the best you’ve got is “I’ll link these heathens to bad articles that influence me and then wait for them to praise Jesus” you’re going to be waiting an awful long time for converts.
Dibsy has clearly been raptured, and replaced with a link spamming bot.
Deacon John followed that up with another piece. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-poverty-of-homosexual-orientation
Elaborating a bit further, but for you of course, I can see the secularist that reads these articles and thinks it’s simply another way to put down gays and take away their rights. But the flip side is that there’s a real point to be made in that the whole slew of orientations and identities that are being created now seem to serve one purpose: to normalize homosexuality and push gay “marriage”. I think proponents of gay marriage have to seriously ponder the ramifications that are playing out. As we see, gay “marriage” is clearly leading to more and more redefinitions. As much as some liberals don’t want to admit it, polygamy won’t be far behind.
Oh there we go, Christian bigotry on display. From both the article’s author and you diby sursch.
That’s because it’s what those articles are. I’m glad you can see where we’re coming from.
Correct! You get a cookie. By promoting understanding and removing the stigmatization from non-heterosexual orientations and straight sexual identities we can work to end discrimination, bigotry, and prejudice. I think equality and justice are positive goals. I understand your church disagrees considering how it’s been anti-justice for more or less its entire history. In a decade or two people who put scarequotes around “marriage” will be marginalized and recognized as the bigots they are and even the Catholic Church will have to hurry up and pretend it was never the horribly anti-gay bigoted organization it is. I mean the Catholic church has always preferred Mammon to god, and you gotta keep raking in the tithe yanno?
Can you list some of these “redefinitions”? And what “ramifications” are playing out besides slippery slope nonsense? And what’s necessarily wrong with polygamy? I mean one man with many wives was the most biblical form of marriage, shouldn’t you be in favor of it diby?
See whenever someone like you comes in telling us to FEAR THE GAY AGENDA I’m totally nonplussed. Because I’m a part of it. I’m a Cis white male who is stridently and actively pro-gay. Not everyone here is Cis, White, or Male, but generally Pharyngula is pro-gay, and that means you need to change tacts diby. You can’t come in shouting about how the horrible gays are coming, Pharyngula welcomes them open-armed. If your only recourse is to try scare people to your god by sowing fear about the horrible Other that is two people of the same sex who love each other then you’ve come to the wrong place. You’ll be waiting a long time to get yourself some converts if all you’ve got is injustice and hate.
So what?
This is a GOOD thing.
This will never happen for the simply reason that polygamy is ALREADY HERE. It was invented, spread, and popularized, long ago, by religion.
It is unsurprising that you, dibsy, so spectacularly miss the whole point of gay marriage, and the lynchpin upon which the whole issue swings for secularists.
It is about EQUALITY. The push for gay marriage is not a push for indiscriminate acceptance of all relationships of all kinds, no matter what. Indeed for most of us gay marriage is not a singular issue in and of itself, but merely one facet of the larger issue of EQUALITY.
Everything flows from EQUALITY. It is our support for EQUALITY that produces our support for gay marriage.
And so EQUALITY remains our litmus test. That which promotes EQUALITY we support. That which limits EQUALITY we oppose.
Polygamy is ANTI-EQUALITY at its very roots. It is about relationships founded on a fundamental INEQUALITY of partners, which makes it the EXACT OPPOSITE in principle as gay marriage.
There is no link whatsoever between the two.
And now that your misunderstanding concerning EQUALITY has been addressed, dibsy, all further attempts by you to suggest a link between gay marriage and polygamy shall be considered deliberate dishonesty and discussion in bad faith on your part. A deliberate attempt to draw a false equivalency between two things that are in fact exact opposites, for which you can, as of now, no longer plead ignorance.
A homosexual “marriage” and a marriage are not equal at all. I’m not sure what PZ Myers teaches in Biology class, but it is a scientific fact that only a man and a woman can produce a child – of course the exception being our blessed Mother Mary. So in no sense can it be equal to a marriage.
The previous poster just gave you your answer about polygamy. He said there’s nothing wrong with polygamy. That’s the logical conclusion, polygamy will be the next “civil rights” issue. Of course liberals like that poster will sweep polygamy’s inherent misogyny and anti-women nature indeed the rug in the name of equality and liberty and freedom of choice. The anti-women position will become the next feminist movement – let’s all marry one man and be emotionally tortured! Women’s rights!
Diby
Well, so far you have not made a single credible argument why being not-straight is a bad thing. You can howl at the moon until you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t change a thing. And no, your personal “I was terrified as a child” doesn’t count. We don’t base our laws on the irrational fears of people who don’t understand much of the world and are afraid of the dark.
diby sursch @ 194
If reproduction was necessary for marriage, we’d have to divorce all non-fertile couples. Like those including post-menopausal ciswomen. Are you suggesting that your grandparents’ marriage should be dissolved?
Would you care to quote someone? Because as far as I can tell, the argument is that polygamy already exists, and has existed for several thousand years, and very commonly in an Abrahamic religious context. Or don’t King Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 sex-slaves count?
diby sursch
This one got boring quickly.
@ 194:
Your “blessed mother Mary” doesn’t cut any ice here—please stop saying shit like that.
Secondly, polygamy is not on the menu—at least not in any Western country. Gay marriage—or “marriage” as you’re careful to call it—is exactly the same institution as straight marriage (no scare quotes from me). Absolutely nothing is different in the legal definitions or the rights and obligations it confers. All that’s different is that the pool of eligibility has been extended by at most a few percent. It changes nothing at all. No polygamy, no box turtles—nothing!
I can sum it up for you: The parts don’t fit. It’s that simple.
The last wedding I went to was between a 56 yo woman and a 52 yo man. I guess they should have been stopped from getting married because there won’t be any children coming forward from that union…
The wedding before that was of two lesbian friends. One of the brides was 6 months along at that point.
You are mistaken.
(Documentary evidence can be found all over the internet.)
I can sum it up for you more succinctly then: The parts don’t fit where they are supposed to fit. It’s that simple.
Who supposes what? I can assure you that a variety of genitals and other body parts fit in a pleasurable variety of combinations.
That’s less succinctly.
It’s also assuming teleology. Your argument rests on the assumption that there’s a divinely-mandated “purpose” for certain organs. NEWSFLASH: We’re (mostly) atheists. We don’t believe in your teleology, any more than you believe in the Buddhist principle of dukkha or the animistic belief that inanimate objects have spirits.
(And I note your shifting of the goalposts from “BABIES!” to “penis-in-vagina is the only way” when it comes to marriage. You just can’t pick a topic and stick with it, can you? Maybe it’s because your arguments suck.)
You “sum it up more succinctly” by adding six words? You’re a spectacularly stupid person.
I thought I was on a forum with people that had an appreciation for science. Sodomy is harmful, per what medical professionals tell us. There are numerous health risks associated with it. It’s sad to see so many anti-science types who put their political agendas above getting this health information out to people.
Diby
And your evidence is?
Hey, you know a big health risk associated with heterosexual sex is for almost 50% of those who do it? Pregnancy! Really dangerous thing, definitely bad for your health.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-health-benefits-of-not-getting-pregnant
Name three. Preferably from peer-reviewed medical journals.
It’s considerably safer than unprotected PIV sex, since there’s no associated risk of pregnancy (which kills thousands of women each year).
Also, I thought we were talking about marriage! What does sex have to do with it?
The argument is summed up as: other things are risky, too!
Hey, tell me how that does not apply to not-PIV-sex*?
BTW, lesbians have the lowest risk sex life of all…
*just to get this clear, there’s nothing “homosexual” about all those varieties of not-PIV-sex. So far I have not found any sexual practise that can only be realized by gay people.
Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great.
Okay, now you have to be trolling. You’re not funny, fuck off.
Now?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=J9KOhMRjnJ0
As the scholar said: The Church in England was not corrupt.
Pst, diby the troll with the impoverished understanding of words (and everything else) – polygamy ≠ polygyny. Polygamy encompasses both polygyny and polyandry as well as any combination of several consenting adults of any sex.
Here is a huge, huge helpful tip just for you! (no, don’t thank me) – the important bit? Is this one: consenting adults.
Trolls so often seem amusing at first, then after a while they pall – especially as it becomes clearer that they are essentially a one-trick pony. Diby should either get some new material or piss off.
So every sperm, which we produce and resorb by the millions every day, is sacred—but eggs, which are produced one per month, not so much. Your “god” really is a fucking asshole! Good thing he doesn’t exist.
@115 Inaji
*blushes*
@135Barnestormer
Ah, yes, it’s my second favourite way of blaspheming.
@119 U
For a non-catholic you seem to have an insight into the young catholic mind.
In my case it was the obligatory masturbation and impure thoughts, (although i wasn’t about to confess they involved boys), fighting with my brother and of course, taking the name of the lord in vain…frequently. Everytime, in that order…as quickly as possible.
And after a certain age i didn’t bother with the praying, since i was supossed to do it in my head, how would they know if i was praying or thinking about how the Jesus on the cross was actually kind of fit…
If there are arguments against polygamy, then those arguments will continue to apply after we allow gay marriage.
If the only arguments against polygamy are “That’s not how marriage has been conducted in the recent past”, then why shouldn’t we allow polygamy?
There is not point to be made with opinion pieces that aren’t backed by real academic evidence. Which is why you, amongst your many fallacious assertions, think an op-ed piece is the same as an article from the academic literature. It never will be. It, like your assertions, can be dismissed without evidence.
Unevidence assertion, dismissed as fuckwittery. The “gay” (no need to list one way or the other) marriages I see are the same as any “het “marriage. Two people working together to keep things going, and enjoying each others company, with a little sex every now and then.
Channeling Monty Python? Why would be the obvious question, since your claim is pointless.
Oh no no no, U Frood — the are robust, rigorous, and entirely internally consistent!
• First, recorded history is obviously a deception perpetrated on our fragile secular minds by that wily ol’ Satan: ergo, polygamy is a , our damnable tolerance for which leads to . Repent! or the Prophecy of Sursch shall manifest!
• Second, by fiat of bald assertion, . Dare not to question this puerile puff of rhetorical flatulence by demanding evidence of heretics tortured, lands invaded, or any other perpetration of anything resembling the actual horrors of those historical Catholic orgies of iniquity.
• Third, an embarrassingly blinkered piece of question-begging (riddled with yet more empty assertions) proves that ostensible secular progressives are .
If only the scales could be lifted from our eyes!
It’s fascinating to see how the argument morphs. From comment #194 through #206, posted in under an hour, we’ve gone through arguing that gay marriage is bad because gay couples can’t procreate; because the “parts” don’t fit; because, while the parts fit, you’re not supposed to do that kind of thing; and because sodomy is harmful.
It’s the “only point” all over again. This troll appears to be quite unable to stick to a single train of thought.
After all, .
If the great and far-seeing diby sursch* cannot imagine any other served by allowing people to define their own sexual identity, THEN THERE IS NO OTHER PURPOSE.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
* Unlike all of us, clearly, diby’s . Hark! The herald blowhard’s screeds!
He does realize that Monty Python were ridiculing the catholic position on contraception, doesn’t he?
Unable, or unwilling. Perhaps there’s some vague awareness of how terrible xir arguments have been.
I think diby is bearing false witness about my post @191. Lemme go and quote the what I said about Polygamy there.
Naturally in context I was pointing out diby’s intellectual dishonesty. Polygamy in the form of one man, many wives, was very much a thing in the bible. It WAS “biblical marriage”, and saying you’re defending “biblical marriage” is one of the most common lies told to justify the fight against gay marriage. Additionally as opposablethumbs @215 pointed out, in theory, polygamy between consenting adults isn’t a problem, and as our good reverend battleaxe @198 pointed out there is no movement pushing towards polygamy so you can take your slippery slope arguments and shove them.
And speaking of hypocrisy it’s absolutely stunning that the strident, trolltastic Catholic is trying to claim the Pro-Woman. It’s breath-taking that a follower of arguably the most monolithically misogynistic organization in the world is somehow trying to position themselves as an ally of women. diby, in our dimension the Catholic church’s policies routinely kill and devalue women. You can’t position yourself as a TRUE feminist when your agenda is entirely Catholic.
Yes, when will the “pro-woman” Catholic Church let women have the Priest job? Don’t feministas assert that women should be every position of power? Does that mean Priests are powerless, that women are too powerful for such a menial job?
[-slippery slopes work both ways]
@199diby
You are doing it wrong.
@202
After the previous comment i question your hability to make authoritative statements about how things are supossed to fit.
@206
You should start by talking to medical professionals instead of ignorantly putting words in their mouths.
“Gay sex” is A LOT more than “sodomy” and may not involve anal penetration at all. Also, penetrative vaginal sex has numerous health risks associated with it and that doesn’t seem to be stopping straight couples. The thing to do when an activity entails certain potential risks is to be safe and responsible to minimize those risks for you and everybody else involved.
Finally, anal sex happens more frequently between heterosexual couples than between same-sex couples.
@211
Let the pagan spill theirs over mountain, hill and plaaaaaaain…
If there ever was something that was supremely disposable, surely, that must be spermatozoa…
Well hell, I for one would like to thank ole diby for hir kind participation here. This has been a very useful remedial course in logic/atheism/social justice 101.
Thanks ds.
/snark
Taking a break from Cupcakeville, There Bee Dandelions Here! I’m so excited.
On the seriously depressing side, my beloved Bombus Ternarius is about to go on the endangered list.
First they came for the bees………
Sigh
It breaks my heart every time I hear of a new entry or a new extinction. We are so efficiently killing everything, including ourselves.
Wow.
There are over 250 species of bumblebee.
I have to pay closer attrntion.
Everyone knows that diby surch is a protestant atheist troll bent on making sure that Catholics look stupid, cruel, ignorant, idiotic, and bigoted. Don’t pretend like you don’t know that.
We lost our unreflecting vampire, and got this shuffling zombie instead. Bah, says I. Bah.
I am a medical professional, dibsy.
I can tell you flat out that sodomy is less harmful than pregnancy.
It is established anatomical fact that the internal volume of the average vagina is quite a bit larger than even the largest recorded erect penis, at least in humans. (And in ducks, with the infamous corkscrewed male penis, the vagina in the female also has a corkscrew – that turns in the OPPOSITE direction.)
It’s true the parts don’t fit. NONE of them do, because they were never actually “supposed” to fit anyways.
Once more poor dibsy demonstrates that he truly does not understand the concept of EQUALITY at all.
Where equality matters, dibsy, is FOR THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. It doesn’t matter if the mechanics of the institution are not identical.
The thing that MATTERS, is for PEOPLE to have the EQUAL opportunity to marry the individual THAT THEY WISH TO.
Actually I though xe was bent on making all godbots, irrespective of particular denominational delusion, look stupid, cruel, ignorant, idiotic, and bigoted.
Amphiox:
I wish that was true in my case, then sexy fun times with my ex wouldn’t have been complicated by working around what was a painful size for me.
You should really go and watch some online footage of bonobos engaging in social activity. And stop wasting our fucking time.
If the parts don’t fit, you must acquit.
*hands Owlmirror a fuming tankard of grog, and an internet*
Diby:
1- There is no proof any god exists let alone your unspeakably evil god.
2- why should anyone believe something as silly as “sperm is sacred”.
3- re: marriage equality–why are you so hellbent on denying myself and countless other LGBTQI people equality? If I got married tomorrow how would YOU be harmed?
4- not everyone who gets married can or wants to have children. In addition, many homosexuals have children-adopted or biological. Why should desire to procreate be a factor is who gets to marry?
Bonus question:
Why are you commenting here?
Tony:
A burning desire to share the stupid?
@Tony:
Because Monty Python
My comment is awaiting moderation? With one lone link?
@Tony:
Because Monty Python ( youtube.com /watch?v= fUspLVStPbk )
If every sperm is sacred, why did god create a process by which, even under the best of circumstances, millions of sperm are wasted? Once again, god turns out to be a shitty engineer.
Imagine: The guy has the ability to alter reality at the most fundamental level, inhuman levels of intelligence, combined with being timeless, so he can take as long as he needs to plan things out, yet he still manages to bungle things so outrgeously that the average teenager could do better.
If I was religious, I’d be offended at the insult these people were giving to god. Thankfully, I’m not, so I can settle for making fun of them.
But isn’t the whole point of Christianity that God’s pissed off at us whatever we do?
It is double remarkable since this god apparently already knows how to engineer far more efficient sperm, and has put them in some of his animals…
Saturday evening of a long weekend and no-one in the neighbourhood is having a party.
tsk
Kids these days.
I really hate that our troll has abandoned us. I so rarely interact with people who have a direct connection with the REAL deity and I had some questions about the virgin birth.
When Mary was impregnated was it missionary position? I assume it goes without asking but God may not have been as focused on the impropriety of female-superior positions back then.
Was He a gentleman or did he make her sleep in the wet spot?
Did He at least hang around and cuddle for a while afterwards? Please tell me that He didn’t hop up, wrap his robe around him and say “My work here is done.”
Finally, for God’s sake, tell me that he didn’t crack any ‘second coming’ jokes on the way out!
It sure would be nice if the troll would return: inquiring minds need to know!
O
Ha! Opus wins!
Here’s a nice film recommendation that surprised me and far exceeded my expectations – Godzilla. To me it was much better than Pacific Rim. There was something really old school about the film. Some of the monster demolishing cities scenes – Las Vegas and San Francisco were really well shot. Some of it was actually weirdly poignant the way it was filmed. Perhaps I’m weird (I know I am) but I really thought the movie was one of the best of these types of monster films I’ve seen in ages.
Another real cool limited release sci fi film to check out is – Under the Skin – really eerie too and quite interesting.
…a co to kurwa jest?
Have you ever heard of the concept of evidence? You don’t seem to be noticing, but you’re talking about testable, scientific hypotheses here.
Is sexual orientation innate? Well, if it’s not, it can be changed by outside influences, right? Lots of people have tried to change theirs. As far as anyone can tell, they’ve all failed. In Western culture, which assumes that everyone is completely heterosexual, famous people like Ted Haggard and less famous people by the hundreds have tried to be completely heterosexual – and again and again, they fail. In Roman culture, Emperor Claudius was completely heterosexual, and the historian who wrote down his life remarked how bizarre it was that he wasn’t bisexual like every other man.
Is gender identity innate? Well… do I even need to explain this?
Polygamy is a practice, not a personality feature. A practice obviously can’t be innate. Is polyamory (look it up!) innate? Perhaps; I don’t think it’s been studied much.
Divorce is a practice again. Don’t be silly, and stop telling people they need to remain shackled to an asshole just because they mistakenly said “yes” once.
us?
Not everyone on this blog is American. It may well be that current secular movements in the US trace their values back to that peculiar American construct called “mainline Protestantism” – but what has that got to do with me? I grew up in a place where there were very few Protestants, and practically all of them were Lutherans (no Presbyterians, no Baptists, no Methodists…), and now I’m living in another place that is mostly godless but most of the religious are Lutherans, followed by Sunni Muslims.
What’s the point? That the labels Facebook provides aren’t exhaustive? I think we knew that already…
From there:
1) It is not a truth that we’re all either male or female. Here, look.
2) Why does he call them ? Because he happens not to have them? Is that why?
You’re being remarkably stupid today.
You’re being really remarkably stupid today.
hmm. Has anyone informed the web-weaving spiders?
Good point – however, even web-weaving spiders don’t innately go to the registrar’s office. :-)
Chigau:
Perhaps you should throw a two day Victoria party.
Ináji
I hate parties.
I’m just gonna drink and plant the garden.
And, quite likely, burn some raspberry canes.
and burn everything else that displeases me
Chigau:
Aye, me too. It’s a shame you can’t burn them.
chigau:
What are raspberry canes?
The “atheists are culturally Protestant” idea? Nearly a century ago, Bertrand Russell wrote an essay, “On Catholic and Protestant Skeptics” about 18th and 19th cy. ones (collected Why I Am Not a Christian). He noted that their former religions colored their attitudes, though he did not insist that it was an absolute correlation. Ex-Protestants can be Catholic-like and ex-Catholics Protestant-like.
Protestant-like ones are ones who left their former religion because they decided that it was a Bad Thing. Much like Protestant reformers and sect founders. Many of us do indeed seem Protestant-like by that definition, even many ex-Catholics.
Catholic-like ones are either more-or-less nihilists or else they crave some all-encompassing church. BR mentions Lenin as a Catholic-like one who created a new “church”: the Soviet Communist Party. A less successful one was Auguste Comte, who created a “Religion of Humanity” that one critic described as “Catholicism minus Christianity” — it massively ripped off the practice of the Catholic Church. Most recently, we’ve seen the likes of Alain de Botton and his craving for “atheist temples”.
God did not have sex with Mary. Haven’t you ever heard of the holy spirit?
Bertrand Russell was another proponent of the eugenics evil, also euthanasia.
diby the bigot:
Snarky response: How do you know? Were you there?
Non-snarky response: You don’t seem to understand that this blog is largely populated with people who do not believe in superstitious bullshit like virgin births, invisible/intangible/undetectable deities who rape women, or nonsensical father/son/holy ghost crap.
The burden of proof is on you. You need to provide evidence that your deity exists. Your holy book is *NOT* evidence. Get thee gone. Thou hast work to be done.
(oh, and try to become more enlightened and lose any and all bigoted views you have, k?)
diby:
There is nothing evil about euthanasia.
@262
diby sursch
lol, that’s basically “god didn’t have sex with mary. haven’t you heard of god?”
from wikipedia:
Now we’re in for a lecture about the TRUE and CORRECT understanding of the “holy spirit”. And I suspect there will be no evidence that it even exists, and possibly no evidence that the interpretation is correct.
evidence diby, evidence. have any? why not diby? why don’t you have evidence? is it because your god is fictional diby?
God had sex with the holy spirit?
Ištógmuzapi s’e uŋ Cupcake:
Well, someone fucked her, Cupcake. You’d think they could have come up with something at least relatively novel. Take the birth of Athena, a virgin goddess:
Now that’s a good story. I’d take Athena over Mary any day.
Tony!
re: raspberry canes
Where I live raspberry plants are on a 2 to 3 year cycle.
They send up new growth from the root.
Those stems may or may not have fruit.
Those stems will definitely have fruit the next year, and the year after.
After that the stems (canes) are dead.
Spring clean-up involves taking out all the dead and disposing of it.
Usually (in my garden) by fire.
Fire Good.
Ináji
I await the Disney movie.
*snort*
I thought YHWH fucked Mary in the ear. Now the Egyptians thought you could get a woman pregnant by coming in her mouth, but auricular sex…I dunno. (Is that where “auricular confession” comes from?)
So are you telling me that you have no respect whatsoever for the Church? We know what happened to the Greeks, and everything was lost in the aftermath. We know what happened to the Roman Empire. But everything was not lost. The Church kept the knowledge in tact. It was the Christians that had the thankless job of converting savages and barbarians throughout Europe, ultimately resulting in human flourishing of the thirteenth century up to our present day. I can respect the atheist, but I cannot respect the atheist that denies he is where he is right now because of the Church.
diby:
Who are you talking to? I seem to recall you saying:
What happened to addressing people by name?
If you’re responding to me, then the answer is
F U C K
NO.
We know what happened to the Greeks, and everything was lost in the aftermath. We know what happened to the Roman Empire. But everything was not lost. The Church kept the knowledge in tact. It was the Christians that had the thankless job of converting savages and barbarians throughout Europe, ultimately resulting in human flourishing of the thirteenth century up to our present day. I can respect the atheist, but I cannot respect the atheist that denies he is where he is right now because of the Church.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge, perhaps it was a magickal pearl necklace.
diby:
Who are you talking to? I seem to recall you saying:
What happened to addressing people by name?
If you’re responding to me, then the answer is:
F U C K
N O!!
I emphatically do NOT respect the church. I reserve my respect for *people*, not institutions. If I *was* going to respect an institution, I would not respect the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has:
• kidnapped newborns and sold them to people they deemed worthy
• oppressed LGBTQI individuals across the planet
• spreads harmful misinformation about contraception
• covered up thousands upon thousands of child sexual abuse cases; they have moved priests around, shielding them from the authorities, blamed the victims, and more
• oppresses women and denies them their human rights–including the right to an abortion
That you could even ask this question pisses me the fuck off. The Raping Children Church is a vile organization. No, not all the members of the church are guilty of crimes against humanity, but with every dollar you give to the church, you support the status quo of an organization that is corrupt and evil.
You are so ignorant of history that it boggles the mind. I don’t give a rats ass if you respect me. I will never deny your humanity, or the rights that you possess as a human. I will never wish you harm. I will never seek to oppress you or deny you the right to life, liberty, and happiness.
YOU, HOWEVER, WOULD DENY ME AND COUNTLESS OTHERS THOSE RIGHTS. I DO NOT RESPECT YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
Feel free to fuck off and never come back.
(bizarre…I didn’t hit submit twice)
Fucking shit! Are you really this stupid? Maybe if Christian mobs hadn’t burned most of the books and torn their authors limb from limb (Hypatia, for example), monks, much later in the middle ages, wouldn’t have had such a hard task piecing some of the fragments back together.
The “savages and barbarians” respected Classical culture and wanted to acquire it, until they were “converted” to the anti-knowledge, anti-culture cult you call “the Church”. And many more books were lost n clash between Christianity and Islam, but since Islam is basically a Christian heresy, no Christianity, no Islam.
Classical civilization might very well have recovered, especially with the influx of new blood, if your knowledge-hating, culture-hating religious barbarians hadn’t taken over the Ancient world.
@273
diby sursch
lol, “the” church.
no, they don’t get any respect from me.
I do not deny that the church has HELD BACK the world, done much damage, and that the awful position the world is currently in is partly the fault of the church. I do not deny it.
diby sursch #273
we’ve gone past 11
“In the clash between Christianity and Islam”. I insert one character, and it deletes five instead!
Why should an organization suffering from the twin fallacies of an imaginary deity and mythical/fictional holy be given the time of day? Yep, no respect for ANY religion.
By the way Diby, if your church is so fucking moral, why aren’t the kiddie diddlers and the evidence to convict their sorry asses turned over to secular authorities after they are defrocked? Because of lack of morals on the part of the church. No respect for immoral folks pretending they decide what is moral.
Respect must be earned.
You mean the Fourth Crusade, where Catholics sacked the Greek Christian city of Constantinople?
Bit of an own goal, there.
Christians happened to it.
This was the same Church that set books on fire, and sometimes their authors as well.
Why should victims thank their robbers and murderers?
Liar.
Which church? The Catholic Church? The Episcopalian Church? The Orthodox Jewish Church? The Church of Madoka? The Church of Haruhi? The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Actually it doesn’t really matter. The answer is no. I do not respect any church.
Actually to my knowledge a lot of what we have carried on from the Romans and Greeks were maintained by those brown-skinned Ah-Rabs. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall that the Catholic church’s tendency to warm themselves with paper kindling meant that Greek and Roman philosophy and mythology were saved not in Europe but in the Middle East. I know that Aristotle’s teachings had a big impact on Judaism, and they got it from the Arab world.
There’s so much wickedness packed into this one little clause I can barely scratch the surface. Instead I’ll merely pose a question: After the Roman Empire fall who started to promote Christianity across Europe? Hint: It was those people you dismiss as savage barbarians. Or when people become Christian are they not savage barbarians? And can you appreciate that saying something like that leads to incredibly unfortunate implications?
So what happened between about 500 AD and the Renaissance? You know that period called colloqually “The Dark Ages”? You know why they were dark? Lemme give you a clue: the Catholic church had unparalleled political power and pull. The Renaissance only started to come about when the Catholic church’s power began to weaken with the Anglican schism and the start of Protestantism. But then again you came in telling us that no-one should object to the Spanish Inquisition, so I suppose you consider the weakening of the Catholic church to be a bad thing.
I do accept that the Catholic church has massively influenced the world, and that it continues to influence the world. That’s the problem, because the Catholic church is not a good thing.
Varnish your own damn cache server.
Owlmirror:
Ah so this is a problem with the site…
They were the Dark Ages because Roman Empire fell, and there were just constant raids from savages and barbarians. Everything was destroyed. The Church, luckily, in that time copied all of the classics, and made sure these were spread out in the midst of all of the chaos. At the same time they had to go out and put their necks on the line to civilize all of the savages. All of this took time. That’s why they were the Dark Ages. But the thirteenth century was probably the greatest, and that flourishing continued. There was so much science going on from the thirteenth century and on. Protestants like you pretend that the Church was against science, but they were not. The Church created the University system, and there was a great deal of progress in the sciences promoted by the popes. Unfortunately many scientists today are ignorant of that history and just accept the one stain, Galileo, as all they need to know. They’re no different than the ignoramuses who say, “All I needed to know about Islam was 9/11.”
“civilise the savages”??!!
Fuck you Diby. Your idea of “civilise” is abominable.
Fuck you for your homophobia.
Fuck you for your dishonest historical revisionism.
I hope you are banned.
You have to understand that the Catholic laity is more informed on the history of Western civilization than the average person. The average person swallow the protestant narrative wholesale.
If you don’t have the time to read original source documents and scholarly work, you can watch some videos by scholars such as this as a start. http://youtu.be/w8ysmbkCzQU
diby:
I see you’ve chosen not to fuck off. You must like being mocked and excoriated.
I don’t believe the above is true, so you’ll need to provide proof to convince me.
Oh, and you still haven’t explained why you’re here. What do you hope to accomplish? If you’re here to proselytize, save it. No one is buying your catholic bullshit (or any other religious bullshit).
Diby
Finally we’re making some progress here: NO, we don’t.
Also, you should read more history books and less catholic fiction.
Ištógmuzapi s’e uŋ Cupcake:
Jesus Jumped Up Christ, just how long does it take for the penny to drop in what passes for your brain?
Absolutely no respect at all for religion in general, and no respect in any way, shape or form for the RCC, a corrupt institution invested in spreading misery and perpetuating evil from the beginning. <spits>
I’m saying this: When PZ Myers or anyone else here gets into a discussion/argument with a protestant, as they often do, you can use Catholic arguments against their faith because they’re true. You don’t have to be a Catholic to use the Church fathers etc. And you may ask, why? Well, like or not, the RCC accepts evolution, maybe not sufficiently to your liking, but it’s better than young earth creationists. Catholic arguments are your best bet. And if you convince them of the truth of Catholicism, evolution and an acceptance of science won’t be far behind.
I guess the christian troll is going to blather on endlessly rather than engage with anyone…
This is how almost every protestant is converted to Catholicism, the early church fathers. http://youtu.be/WRiRzSTiMl8
Buahhhaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaa
Because you say so, I guess.
Cupcake, seriously, we’re totally not interested in the religious version of Star Wars vs. Star Trek, because both are still fiction.
This callous dismissal of mass murder is chilling. What a vicious little shit you are.
Well, if you’re interested in a Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate… http://youtu.be/63H4jQ_noN0
You can learn something so as to be able to argue against someone who is passing out Ray comfort propaganda. Or you can continue just calling them ignorant fools – in movie equivalency, you’d be Howard the Duck.
“Only a Catholic can argue convincingly against a know-nothing like Ray Comfort!”
diby, if all Catholics argue like you, it’s no wonder they needed to use violence to spread their ideas.
Snoof:
:Snort:
don’t forget south america.
and the pacific islands.
and Africa…
yes, those all turned out soooo well.
reminds me of that scene from “meaning of life” when the American is addressing death by saying…. “let me just tell you something…”
my reaction now is similar to death’s then.
I hope you like it, it’s from the movies and all, and you seem to be keen on using movies thematically.
dipshit.
uh, scientists are the only ones that matter on this opinion.
frankly, we don’t give a flying fuck whether the RCC says they agree with science or not.
for the record though, you’re wrong, they don’t. they made a strawman of evolution, then said they agreed with that.
http://listverse.com/2011/06/08/top-10-shameful-moments-in-catholic-history/
the catholic church supported the slave trade in South America with Portugal.
the catholic church has had HUGE negative impacts in Africa, and has seriously harmed the efforts of medical educators there to limit the spread of many diseases, the latest being AIDS.
everywhere they have gone, throughout all of history, the church has been nothing but a massive profiteering racket, completely unconcerned for the actual cultural welfare of the people it put the screws to… literally.
here’s how you can save yourself, and start to regain the respect of people with real empathy and solutions for the world’s problems:
excommunicate yourself.
do the world a favor, and take one small step towards removing support for the most corrupt institution in the history of humanity.
you actually mean MISINFORMED, rather like Fox News viewers.
…and atheists know more about your own religion that you do.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928
“I can respect the Jew, but I cannot respect the Jew that denies he is where he is right now because of Hitler.”
you really are a fucking complete idiot.
really.
Funny how ‘all of the classics’ seem to have perished or been lost in all the subsequent centuries… When supposedly the catholic church was in such amazing control of civilization and scientific achievement. Oops, I guess?
And this:
Fuck you. The fuck makes you think all those ‘savages and barbarians’ wanted to be converted? “You’ll enjoy the Greater Glory of God, damn you, whether you like it or not!” Really, so much compassion and love. So goddamn much. I guess riding roughshod over the cultures and ways-of-life of peoples (all peoples, come to think of it, not just the European savages and barbarians) that were developing just fine, thank you very much, is something to be proud of.
I can understand cultural exchange, that stuff’s awesome, especially when new things are learned and mutual ties forged and all that co-operation stuff happens and progress ensues. But cultural imposition à l’Église? Fuck that shit.
The Catholic Church is Not a Force for Good
I’m not a Fox News viewer. It’s too liberal; too protestant. All of the “Catholics” on it are catholic in name only. I prefer people of faith to the secularism of Fox News.
Now I really know diby isn’t of this world.
The “Catholic” hosts support gay “marriage” and other such protestant causes. It’s shrilly, shrilly liberal.
The SCOTUS messed up on DOMA, but it’s still the greatest scotus ever. Scalia is an intellectual giant. I just know that this country is in good hands with a Catholic court.
What about the Protestants that are against gay marriage? Are they secretly Catholic?
I find it absolutely hilarious that diby thinks we want or need (seriously!?!?!?) catholic arguments against protestantism. That’s a real laugh-out-loud moment. Honestly, diby? You need big-endian help to argue against the little-endians, or vice versa?
Here’s your clue: we have no interest in using one bunch of rubbish against another, closely related (and from any distance at all, practically identical) bunch of rubbish. One flavour of nonsense against another flavour of nonsense.
The only remotely relevant point is that there are different flavours (xtianity, islam, judaism, hinduism etc etc), and none of them have any greater claim to being right than any others (i.e. no claim at all).
But thank you for making me laugh, when I have to be inside finishing off some work on such a sunny day.
You say that, but I know for a fact you have no idea what you mean when you say it, or have an actual constitutional argument to support it.
because you’re a fuckwit.
like feces.
eeewwww!!!!!!! ugh, and may I say eeww.
Ok, diby is a fake.
I’ll just say that it’s bad enough with all the people who are genuinely homophobic, it’s not fucking funny to have people like you trolling by using the same homophobic rethoric. You are an arsehole diby, slightly less than when i thought you were for real, but still a fucking arsehole…
G.K. Chesterton: Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves. The truth about the Catholic attitude towards heresy, or as some would say, towards liberty, can best be expressed perhaps by the metaphor of a map. The Catholic Church carries a sort of map of the mind which looks like the map of a maze, but which is in fact a guide to the maze. It has been compiled from knowledge which, even considered as human knowledge, is quite without any human parallel.
…by making them themselves, and profiting from them.
the CC always has been nothing more than a giant racketeering and kickback operation.
there should be an international version of RICO to charge them under.
G.K. Chesterton: Thus, for instance, Catholicism, in a sense little understood, stands outside a quarrel like that of Darwinism at Dayton. It stands outside it because it stands all around it, as a house stands all around two incongruous pieces of furniture. It is no sectarian boast to say it is before and after and beyond all these things in all directions. It is impartial in a fight between the Fundamentalist and the theory of the Origin of Species, because it goes back to an origin before that Origin; because it is more fundamental than Fundamentalism. It knows where the Bible came from. It also knows where most of the theories of Evolution go to. It knows there were many other Gospels besides the Four Gospels, and that the others were only eliminated by the authority of the Catholic Church. It knows there are many other evolutionary theories besides the Darwinian theory; and that the latter is quite likely to be eliminated by later science. It does not, in the conventional phrase, accept the conclusions of science, for the simple reason that science has not concluded. To conclude is to shut up; and the man of science is not at all likely to shut up. It does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God.
Liar. You have swallowed cat-o-lick propagand whole, and know nothing but lies and bullshit. The only thing that could save your arguments are academic third party evidence.
Nope, I have absolutely no respect for your propaganda. Nothing but lies and bullshit.
Actually we use the truth in both cases, both against you and protestents. Your deity doesn’t exist, your dogma is bullshit as the babble is a book of mythology/fiction. And you haven’t shown anything for either of those lies….
Your theology based on twin fallacies? Laughable.
Strunk and White, Elements of Style
read u some.
it actually destroys the very core concept of religious dogma itself, but you haven’t figured that out yet.
to be sure though, correlation is not equal to causation in your case.
ah. that explains you.
dude, cut back on the chronic.
That was weird.
Yawn, since the gospels are mythical/fictional, you babble is only good for nicely told tales meaning nothing except in your delusional mind, just like any mythology. Arguments based on the babble are dismissed as fuckwittery. The babble doesn’t prove your deity exists.
You guys with your dirty mouths would probably enjoy More.
St. Thomas More to Martin Luther: throw back into your paternity’s shitty mouth, truly the shit-pool of all shit, all the muck and shit which your damnable rottenness has vomited up
St. Thomas More, Killer of Protestants. Definitely someone I’d enjoy. Not.
Why would I enjoy anything a delusional fool like yourself thinks I should read. I’ll just throw it immediately into the junk pile for disposal.
Grow up, will you? You’re actually still stuck at the stage where you think the profanity in itself is what matters? If profanity was the point, I could easily copy-paste page after page of “shit”, “fuck” and so on.
The profanity is not in itself the point. It’s there to highlight the point. When I call you a fucking shitstain, I’m doing it to express my opinion of you as a person; someone who’s willing to defend the most vicious atrocities for the sake of a bad joke; someone who actively enjoys causing other people distress; a sadist.
I rather think we’ve been telling you to do that since you got here.
somehow, the message must be starting to sink into that thick skull of yours, albeit perhaps unconsciously.
And yet you guys are the ones that tell me you have compassion and understanding for murderers in the present day, that is, cases that we can control, and that I’m a fucking shit stain for not having that compassion and understanding for murderers.
That’s the puritans for you. We have to oppose all past ills and oppression, and let it be known that we do so, so as to be moral and right, but when it comes to those we can control, we must actively endorse and sanction violent crime in the present. Sorry, but I’d rather clean up the mess here and now, and not write scolding critiques of age-old oppressions all to get a pat on the back from another puritan.
LOL
we already warned you about playing rhetoric troll here.
your intellectual dishonesty know any bounds?
I doubt it.
you mean like the CC endorsed and covered up pedophilia in its own ranks for decades and decades?
or do you mean in the past as well, like the inquisition?
are you sure you have a brain in your head?
When did anybody say that? Unless you cite your source, it is nothing but bullshit, like all your posts and alleged analysis. Which is even more bullshit.
what am I saying? not just pedophilia, but outright rape.
I think all there is left to say can be said by Tim Minchin at this point.
….and continue on to the rest of you motherfuckers.
go excommunicate yourself and do the world a favor.
G.K. Chesterton did one very good thing: He opposed eugenics when the concept was getting popular in Britain. The resistance by him and others saved a lot of people from the forced sterilisations so many suffered in Sweden and USA.
Swedish intellectuals and religious leaders bought eugenics bait, hook and sinker. We actually got an Institute for Racial hygiene before Nazi germany did.
— — — — —
“St. Thomas Moore, Killer of Protestants.”
I don’t recall if they were burned on stakes or “merely” decapitated.
Xians sure have this thing about burning people alive.
In Sweden we were content to decapitate “witches” and burning them afterwards, but the catholics were more old-school.
Having compassion for someone as a human being does not necessarily equal wanting to hang out with them all the time, or professing them to be a good person. Just because I believe someone should have the same rights as everyone else doesn’t mean I should like them. And so with Thomas More – he burned a lot of people for nothing more than that they didn’t agree with him and his ideas. He’s still a (vile and evil) human being, but that doesn’t make him likable or a desirable companion or someone to enjoy. Ew.
Then go on and get all those catholic priests charged and convicted of child rape and abuse in general, that would do lovely for a start. Then there’s the carpets that need vaccuuming, but you know, before you get to that, there’s a few other things in the present day that will need your attention.
When you condemn atheistic communists, by far the greatest evil the world has ever seen, with the same fervor as you do More and a few dead, we can talk.
oh god, the atheism drove communism gag again.
yeah, we’ve NEVER heard that tired bit of misinformation before…
also, Tu Quoque.
and
fuck off, motherfucker.
Fox News is telling the Catholic church to perform gay marriages? I’ve never heard that.
Or do you mean they’re just saying the state should allow it. I’ve never heard THAT on Fox News either, but it’s at least possible. And so what. The Church is not part of the state, so it’s not affected by what types of marriage the state wants to recognize.
And while there are some protestant churches that accept gay marriage, the most vocal ones are still as opposed to gay marriage as the Catholics. No one would call gay marriage a protestant cause.
also, historically, the RCC has had more negative impacts on more cultures than the communists ever even dreamed of.
and of course, atheism probably has more people who embrace it now than it ever has before in all of human history.
and yet…. we haven’t committed global genocide!
yay us!
In that, I meant puritan protestantism – ie. Liberal, secular progressive.
Puritanism morphed into that because that’s the logical conclusion of it, while the South was secular during the time of the puritan, and didn’t become religious until the puritan became the progressive. So it’s context. I love the southern protestants, but like the puritans of the north, that to will run out to its logical conclusion, which is atheism.
@ diby
That pretty much sums up the catholic church. The organisation you are so vociferously trying to defend, has institutionalised child rape. What could be more evil than that?
Jesus said “suffer the children”, not “make the children suffer”.
no, you love the strawmen you keep erecting here.
it’s damn creepy, really.
Who are you talking to?
Been there, done that. The fact that you weren’t around when I did it is not my fault. I don’t mind repeating that there have been some truly horrible things committed by certain communist regimes.
So, now that I’ve condemned these people (with whom I have nothing in common except a conclusion on one single subject, entirely unrelated to the horrors they committed), are you going to condemn the organization which at this very moment is shielding child abusers?
Remember, you started off defending the Catholic church. This discussion didn’t start with communism. If it had and then people had deliberately avoided criticizing the communist crimes, then you might have a point.
However, what’s really happening is the exact opposite. You brought up the Catholic church. We pointed out the horrible crimes it has committed and is committing right now. You then started dodging and changing the subject.
Your church is an active force for evil in the world. It’s not ancient history, it’s right now.
I have news for ya Dibsy:
the logical conclusion of ALL theology is atheism.
in fact, that is EXACTLY what atheism actually is! It’s nothing more than the inevitable conclusion those of us who have thought about the issue of the existence of deities have concluded after a very thorough examination of the evidence, and the sociology, and the psychology of humans.
atheism is indeed not just the only logical choice, it’s the only rational one.
everything else requires compartmentalization, since there is no evidence in support of the tenets of ANY of the worlds major religions, not any of the Abrahamic ones, not even the nontheistic ones like Buddhism. Not Shinto, not any Native American religion, nor Polynesian religion… none of them.
What about the 50 million babies killed in the womb?
Who gives a shit about talking to a True Believer™? You all sound the same. Delusional and not with it.
Bunch of non-sequiturs there, typical of a delusional True Believer™.
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity. Makes your whole theology a pile of excrement without a deity….
Listen, I understand those in the South that “defend” the Confederacy. It’s their heritage that they are defending, they have every right to be annoyed with shit-for-brains atheists that want to make the South all about slavery and oppression. Like “defending” the Inquisition, it’s a matter of perspective. You can’t sit there and sling the shittiest of shit to defame an entire civilization and culture and not expect a defense in the defense of perspective.
“But you fuck one goat…”
Fixed that for your True Believer™. True Believers™ have no perspective. If they did, they wouldn’t be True Believers. They swallow hole their own delusions and ignore real evidence that refutes their sorry ideas.
Dumbass Diby:
It makes perfect sense that you would understand Confederacy defenders. You and they are emotionally committed to defending a system of belief which is built on oppressing millions of people. Only the victims are different.
It wasn’t their atheism that made them terrible. And don’t you dare start on this track, too. You can’t compare two evils and decide one is better. They’re both terrible – the RCC has simply had more time to wreak havoc on the world.
Babies in wombs? Those are fetuses diby. Some of them medically, some of them spontaneously. Your imaginary souls don’t exist, and your attempt at tu quoque fails.
also, lol at diby for being like “you can’t argue against protestants unless you have catholic arguments!” umm I actually can. I can also argue against catholics!
No one needs catholic arguments to point out that evolution happened. We have the science. What a pathetic service diby tries to offer.
I’ll put it to you this way, imagine it was the norm in our culture to bring up Jews that encouraged Muslims to conquer Spain. I would expect Jews to “defend” the conquest of Spain. Why? Because it’s not fair to them or their faith to be constantly bringing that up. That doesn’t define them, and they would be in the right to defend themselves from the nonsense.
Non-Catholics really have no idea what it’s like living in this country, and the vicious attacks on our faith.
Perfect example of bullshit promulgated by True Believers™. There are no babies in the womb. Babies don’t exist until they are born. Basic definition of a baby, something you can pick up, hold, and be peed upon by. Inside the womb, it is a zygote or fetus. Ignoring reality makes you sound delusional and foolish.
The Confederate States of America were all about the right to own slaves — that is why there are multiple places in the CSA’s Constitution that specifically forbid the Confederate government regulating slavery in any way shape or form.
Modern Confederate Heritage has its roots in the reaction to the Civil Rights movement. Prior to the Civil Rights movement in the South, the Confederate Battle flag was quite rare in the South. Certainly no state governments flew the flag to honour ‘heritage’, so you are wrong on two points. I thought you wrote that you understand? I guess ‘understand’ is another one of those words for which you have your own definition.
Yeah, it is a matter of perspective. You showed up and claimed that the Spanish Inquisition (you conveniently left out the horrors of the inquisition against the Cathars or the Bogomils or other heretic groups of the mid to late middle ages) was no big deal. Which I suppose could be correct if, in your perspective, torturing tens of thousands because they were descended from Jews or Muslims is okay because they deserved it.
You are the one who made the claim that the inquisition was no big deal. It’s not as if you showed up, told us you are Catholic, and we immediately tore into you about the inquisition. You brought it up. And then you keep bringing up more horrible things that your church has done in the name of gods and claim that we are attacking the church by letting you know what actually happened. And this has happened for every damned subject you have brought up.
And, at the same time, you have ignored every single bit of history, history supported by actual evidence, that has been brought to your attention in response to your continuously changing assertions of the perfection of the RCC. You seem to have no problem with rapists, with child abusers, with torturers, with suppression of free thought, with the banning of books, as long as it comes from your church. I, however, along with most of the people here, do have a real problem with rapists, with child abusers, with torturers, with suppression of free thought, with the banning of books, whether it comes from a belief that this is what gods want (the RCC, modern fundamentalist Protestantism, the GOP, Fox News) or if comes from a belief that this will create a secular paradise (Marxism-Leninism, Mao-ism, Pol Pots idiocy). Either way it is wrong. For you to claim that, since we object to the horrors visited on the world by the Roman Catholic Church, Universal and Apostolic, that we somehow agree with the horrors visited on the world by extremists of all beliefs, sects, religions and non-religions. And you are wrong. But, without actually reading what we write, you will never grok that, will you?
Hypotheticals are fictional thinking. Keep showing us you have no grounding in reality. Makes it easier to point at you and laugh….
What vicious attacks? I haven’t seen any except when the church hiding kiddie rapers tries to pretend it is a moral leader. It should just shut the fuck up on all moral issues outside of the faithful in a pluralistic secular society. Then, it can’t be attacked as a hypocritical organization.
Which country?
@ diby
Ever heard of miscarriages? That is when your god, YHWH, murders the little
babiesfetuses in their mothers wombs. He does that a lot, your YHWH. Over 25% of viablebabiesfetuses are murdered by you god, right there, in the womb.Huh? You’re saying that, in this scenario, the reason that Jews would defend the conquest of Spain is not that they’re raised that way, but that it’s not fair to constantly bring it up? Other people bringing up how they defend the conquest is the reason they’re defending the conquest?
Did you leave out a sentence or something? This is complete gobbledygook.
Off-troll: I was just reading my Ken Ham book and marvelling at the guy’s lack of thought. Which reminds me, I need to go read Genesis. The bible, not the band.
who is responsible for spontaneous abortions in your mind?
since you’re a Catholic, must be god.
god has killed way more than 50 million fetuses.
go shake your fist at someone who cares.
oh and, just to continue pointing out your intellectual dishonesty…
what about those red herring?
tasty tasty fish.
says the guy who never actually read the confederate constitution.
it was the SOUTH that made it all about slaves, you fuckwit.
reading apparently is not your strong suit.
wait… do you even HAVE a strength?
actually, I’m still waiting for a defense from you… about ANYTHING.
instead, we’re getting red herrings and tu quoque, one after another.
I’m starting to side with those thinking you can’t be serious. you’re just here to yank chains, and I’m fine with that, because I came here to yell at stupidity just like the stinky cheese bait you keep tossing out there.
reel me in, big boy!
Oh boo hoo. Catholics face so much adversity in the US. All that criticism is so oppressive. Even though they face nothing more than criticism US catlicks have it soooooo bad.
To me my fainting chair!
those who reject it, sure, it wouldn’t be fair to label them with it.
but that doesnt’ mean there is no lasting impact of what happened, you don’t then get to pretend it never did.
it also doesn’t mean that those who embrace it still shouldn’t be criticized, and that works for your analogy as well.
you seem to be under the mistaken impression that there aren’t still people in the south who would like to secede and form that constitutional confederacy exactly like it was drawn up over 150 years ago.
you’d be ignorant, but that hardly needs pointing out at this stage. you ARE ignorant… of every subject you have so far managed to form a coherent sentence about in this thread.
does that bother you?
if not, you are probably suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome.
why Catholics have traditionally been so repressed in the US, nobody would ever vote for a Catholic President!
oh wait…
Catholics are the most hated group in America!
oops, no, that’s not right…
Catholics have no representation in Congress!
er… no…
Catholics are excluded from the judiciary!
uh, most definitely no.
tell me again how Catholics are repressed?
fuckwit.
@360
I’m convinced you are not for real, but this was just too funny to skip.
Catholics have no idea what it is like living in any country with a catholic majority and to be non-exclusively heterosexual, female or non-catholic and the vicious attacks on those people’s rights, freedoms and dignity.
If you define oppression as:
1. The government does not follow the dictates of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, and
2. Other churches are allowed to open within the country, and
3. All citizens are not subject to the investigations of the (still extant) Papal Inquisition, and
4. Forcible conversion of non-Catholics is not legal, and
5. Laws that conflict with Catholic teachings are in force,
then you are correct, but only for that definition.
Still and asshole, but correct.
when did you find the time to finish your mobile, voice activated fainting chair?
thought you were too busy with your motorized clutching pearl project?
:)
Martin Luther was a Catholic. Protestantism grew out of Catholicism. So by your logic gay marriage is a Catholic cause.
Wait, you come here, to our space, spew genocidal nonsense and complain that people are mean to you?
What happened to explaining why Catholics “here in Poland” are so afraid of Protestant/Nazi/eugenicists coming for them. Can’t keep your stories straight, shit-for-brains?
I see Diby is one of those people that confuses “People disagree with me but I have massive political and social power and privilege” with “People oppress me”. And is ignorant of history. And is a racist anti-semite. And a massive fucking hypocrite, you hate people for killing what you think are babies but the Inquisition just gets a bad rap? Fuck you.
Hey, Diby! What country, you fucking idiot? There are people here from all over the world. If you’re talking about ‘merica, a lot of us know exactly what it’s like to be catholic and live here, you fucking idiot, as many of us have pointed out we grew up catholic.
Menyambal:
I highly recommend The Book of Genesis, illustrated by Robert Crumb.
@rq, #308:
They’re the classics because they were read by citizens of Imperial Rome and are still read today.
By **definition** they preserved all the classics. If they weren’t preserved, they aren’t read today and thus aren’t classics.
diby is engaging in a bit of circular argument: We preserved the best of the old stuff! We know it’s the best, because we preserved it!
============
@diby, #290:
Once again, racist, elitist, religious douchegabbers can’t be bothered to recognize as “persons” those who don’t have any experience at all of **their** faith.
diby: The average person doesn’t know the difference between Catholics and protestants any better than you know the relationship of Hotai to Zen, the names of the 3 most commonly used tomoe, or the differences between Taoism and Confuscianism.
If you’re not competent to use phrases like “average person,” your arguments have no value here.
If you’re competent to use phrases like “average person,” then your comments are racist as fuck and have less than no value here.
Either way, apologize and leave or apologize and do a hell of a lot better right now.
Wonder-Faint Powers, Activate!
I can just see this in a Shakespearean play… as the Tragic Lead calls out these words, wrist to forehead, a troop of servants rushes in (rather comically falling all over themselves), carrying a large, fluffy yet surprisingly sturdy chaise longue. (I’m rather enjoying this one, actually – noo-voh bah-roke, it says.)
rq:
Seeing as next Sunday is the Glorious 25th of May,* I’ll go with Fred Colon’s pronunciation of chassy longyew.
*Also Towel Day, and Geek Pride Day.
Troll, we can viciously attack the living fuck out of your faith, day, night, and sideways, all we want. It won’t make a damned bit of difference to your faith, because your faith is what you believe, mostly for no damn reason at all.
Now, your person, that we can’t attack, won’t attack and will protect from attack. Your rights, also, are safe.
Your church, as an institution, we can and will criticize, and even take legal action against, if we feel it is needed. But we will never attack the buildings or the persons of the people.
Symbols, yes, if we get to feeling it is needed. A communion wafer, we will desecrate to make a point, provided it was acquired legally.
And when I say “we”, I mean the people of this nation.
But we will not lie down and let your church take over this nation.
Your sense of persecution comes from your sense of privilege.
It is not a baby until it leaves the womb. End of story.
Once again we find a theist troll unable to make an argument without blatant intellectual dishonesty.
The theist position can only be defended with lies.
Inaji #388
To be celebrated by carrying a towel with an embroidered lilac-and-lightsaber pattern?
Towel day? Damnit. I don’t remember where I left my towel.
Dalillama:
If you like. :D I have a white towel with ‘Don’t Panic’ on it in red, and a black towel with ’42’ on it, so I’m set. I also has my Geek Pride pin, courtesy of Think Geek.
Ogvorbis:
You have one week to locate it – get busy, man!
Heh, I’ll be traveling next Sunday, so I’ll definitely have a towel with me.
Beatrice:
That works! I wish our lilacs would be ready to bloom by next Sunday.
Catholic troll is catholic dull.
Our lilacs have leaves…
I doubt they’ll bloom by next week.
Chigau:
Ours too. It will be a while yet before they bloom, though.
Hey folks, thanks for reminding me that I needed to run the towels through the wash.
Inspector Amelia.
Ours are already in bloom.
My lilac is already going over. By the 25th, I may have to wear a sprig of brown instead. *sad face*
Dalillama:
*Jealous*
Looked at our lilacs today. The buds are there. Maybe a week away.
There are so many lilacs currently blooming in my area. So many that they threw a party and invited (no joke) the Guinness Book of Records people.
An anti-Semite? How so?
Look up the definition. Your picture will appear.
The funny part to me is that Jebus was a Jew, not a member of your church.
Strange because I’m a pugnacious defender of Israel. My atheist friends hate Israel.
Yet you think Jews in Spain could be tortured… That is the definition of anti-semitism. Your claims are like the old bigot, I have nothing against blacks, but…..Your but is your doing anything other than allowing them to live their religion like you want to be allowed to live yours.
Let’s see…
You’ve basically tarred the Jews for the muslim conquest of Spain, something they were not responsible for. You have repeatedly endorsed a narrative of Christian conquest, that Christians were justified to kill others for land and force them to convert. You have painted the Jews as bad guys in your own narrative. That’s anti-semitic nonsense and you leapt on it with open arms. And you do yourself no favors when you use the Jews “defending” their non-existent goading of the Muslim conquest of Spain to defend the Inquisition that killed Jews who converted to Christianity by the truckload by dint of being too Jewish.
Three things.
One: I do not believe you have atheist friends. You have repeatedly borne false witness, demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of atheism, and generally come off as a massive asshole. Therefore I genuinely question whether or not your “atheist friends” are as existent as a racist’s “black friends” or a homophobes “gay friends”
Two: It is very possible to be both a “pugnacious defender of Israel” and an anti-semitic bigot. There are many many Christians who support Israel but not the Jews, after all Rapture mythology requires an intact state of Israel so that Jesus can come back and all the Jews can burn in hell.
Three: Even if you do defend Israel and did have atheist friends your standards and worldview is so off-kilter I’m not sure I should take you at your word that you atheist friends “hate Israel”. Just for starters your assumption that Atheists think identically is wrong on its face. Also considering you seem to confuse “Criticism of” with “Oppression towards” I could very readily assume that you confuse “criticism of” to also be “Hatred of”. I can be very critical of Israel and not hate Israel. There’s a level of nuance you have never allowed in the worldview you’ve put forth in this thread.
My surprise—let me show you it. Figures you’d defend the occupation of Palestine by an army of foreign invaders while hyperventilating because the Arabs conquered Spain—a short time after the Goths.
“Israel” is nothing but yet another Crusade. Stands to reason you’d be all for it.
It was political, not religious or racial. They feared that the converts were still secretly Jewish and planning to overthrow the crown again. After 700 years of war, those fears are to be expected.
Why is it expected that Catholics apologize but Jews do not have to apologize for all of those catholic deaths?
Jews have a claim to the land of Israel. Israel has a right to exist. Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel should never have to apologize for defending itself.
I love Israel. I really, really love Israel. It’s an amazing country.
Who is the Jewish Pope?
you still here?
having fun yet?
and, I check in on yet another Tu Quoque from our new chewtoy.
dude, get a new toolbox already!
there are lots of other logical fallacies for you to choose from, other than strawmen, red herrings, and tu quoque.
you’re getting boring.
wait…
so if Protestants evolved from Catholics….
HOW CUM THEIR R STIL CATHOLICS!
answer me that, science nerds!
:P
Total fucking bullshit from beginning to end. If the Jews were to be indemnified for the Holocaust (which is perfectly reasonable), and if the (original) Zionists were correct that possession of a territorial state with a government to take an interest in their welfare is any people’s only protection against that kind of atrocity (and I’m afraid they were), Why in 17 different Holy Hells wouldn’t that have been at the expense of Germany ?!! Why should some innocent third party have their country invaded and occupied?
hadn’t noticed that one; I love Crumb’s artwork.
grabbing it now.
thanks.
Bull fucking shit. They didn’t believe in your religion. You can’t stand that. You must force conversions when your church had the power. They can’t stand having other religious people not bow to your fuckwittery.
I was more picturing Calculon from futurama.
LOL token imaginary friends to the rhetorical rescue!
fuck me, I was right. you have no limit to your intellectual dishonesty.
do people in meatspace actually like you, or are you just making up the concept that you have friends?
If this is how you discuss things with people you are acquainted with in meatspace, they must all be even dimmer than you to want to stay in the same room.
If you job in coming here was to actually make Catholics look like ignorant, misinformed, wankers, then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
you can stop now.
We’ll inform Bill Donahue of your success.
says who?
I disavow all involvement in the formatting of Comment #422.
Bull-Fucking-Shit. It was religious and racial to the extreme. The Muslims had been kicked out and the Jews who remained had to convert to Christianity. However fear there were Crypto-Jews, converted Jews who were still Jewish in culture or religion, about lead to the inquisition and killing THOUSANDS. You’re incredibly defensive about how the Spanish Inquisition killed THOUSANDS. And you continuously defend the killing of THOUSANDS of Jews and repeatedly say it was justified because maybe one or two of those people noticed that they were treated better under Muslim rule than under Catholic rule and you wonder why I call you an anti-semite? Give you a hint: Because you claim that the inquisition was justified in killing THOUSANDS of Jews because of fears of an non-existent international Jewish conspiracy.
Which Catholic deaths are the Jews responsible for? Creeping into towns and poisoning the wells? The Black Plague? Ambushing people and circumcising them? One of the myriad other scary stories that Christians in the middle ages accused the Jews of doing?
The Inquisition killed innocent people for alleged thought crimes BY THE THOUSANDS, but you repeatedly come to its defense, raise claims of a secret Jewish conspiracy to justify authoritarian killings, and then profess to be pro-Jew? You’re incredibly full of shit diby.
And that’s not even getting into your genuinely troubling view on nations, nationalism, and how certain lands are given to people by apparently Divine Right. The way you talk about Muslim Spain and Israel in general betrays a deplorable narrative of history.
diby sursch – To whom does the land belong to in North and South America and the Caribbean? Because this is like the 500th year of the occupation of foreign land by primarily Europeans. If the First Nations people were to ever become capable of rounding up and torturing non-natives, until they swore to leave and murdering them if not, would you find such a course of action moral and ethical?
Gotta dash. Punning and running.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/56045/
As the article notes, thousands of Catholics were murdered by commies. People here are fans of Orwell, and say nothing of his trip to Spain just so he could kill Catholics. Most Jews are fans of Orwell, the vicious anti-Catholic. Seems to me a bit of a double standard going on here.
OK, he’s linking to the WorldNutDaily now—I’m outtahere!
another red herring.
and another…
now it’s become a Gish Gallop.
and therein lies the problem, dibsy.
you’re not only completely and utterly intellectually dishonest, you’re entirely delusional as well.
like I said, we’ll call Bill Donahue and tell him what a fantastic job you have done here.
likely he’ll give you a job… being a blogger on the Catholic League’s website.
or something.
You fucking moron—Orwell went to Spain to fight the Fascists. Nobody forced the Catholic church to identify themselves with Fascism and call in the Nazis to oppose the legitimately elected government!
…do I want to know what this was an overflow of?
Yawn, still nothing but propaganda, which ceases when the academic literature i cited. But then, reality has a liberal bias. Reality does not favor presuppositionalists.
Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] @ 433
No, probably not.
In case you do:
diby sursch turned up in the previous Thunderdome thread spewing Inquisition-apologia here. Since then, xe’s been arguing with strawmen, quoting G K Chesterton without context, making unsubstantiated claims about… well, everything, and defending Catholic torture, murder and genocide.
Holy shit you are not even wrong.
True but irrelevant.
Orwell killed Fascists in Spain who happened to be Catholic. The Inquisition killed former Jews BECAUSE they were believed to be Jewish.
I love how you believe that some people in a group can be used to define absolutely everyone in that group. And also how because some of those people liked some of what a person had to say and in your mind that means that all people must like all things that a person had to say.
So is fair fair diby? Are you a Child Rapist? Some small minority of Catholics are child rapists, and by your logic that means that you as a Catholic are a child rapist. Some Catholics kill people. Have you killed someone? By your logic you’re a Catholic and some small minority of Catholics are murderers so you’re obviously a murderer diby. In fact I bet at least a single Catholic has done basically every bad thing there is to do, so by your logic all Catholics have done every bad thing ever. Or is there some reason to believe that some minority of Catholics does not represent every Catholic in the entire world across the vast spectrum of people who call themselves Catholics? And is there a reason why this alternate explanation can’t also apply to every other religious, social, and ethnic group?
I’ll say this about you diby, you’re at least consistent. You’ve taken that Manichean worldview and ran with it. Catholics are all good all the time, so you must defend the inquistion as a “just” butchering of THOUSANDS of people. They obviously deserved it as well because Catholics said they were wrong and deserved it and all Catholics are all right all the time. Taken through this lens your bizarro world makes sense. It’s one problem is that niggling fact it’s just not real.
@dildo:
Here’s an example of one of the classics that the Catholic church saved. It was a copy of a mathematical treatise by Archimedes, and the 13th century monks cleaned off all the boring text about math and re-purposed the parchment for religious texts.
‘Cause mathematical knowledge is sooo much less important than religious stuff.
Esteleth:
adding to what Snoof said, our current troll has expressed homophobic and misogynistic views as well.
@mykroft they did what? To what?!
*faints dead*
I couldn’t care less about anti-Catholicism, I’m just saying that it’s interesting, all of these double standards. Chesterton is an anti-Semite; but Orwell is simply anti-Fascist.
You guys will come up with any justification for dead Christian bodies.
Has anybody here said we are going to kill any Xians? Nope. Not happening. That is your own paranoia, which you should be ashamed to show in public. Your are one delusional fool.
diby:
You have a very tenuous connection to reality.
It’s the authoritarian mindset, hard at work doin’ it’s thang.
LOL.
this, coming from the moron who just spent 2 days in a failed attempt to defend the Catholic Church from it’s black history.
uh huh. Tell us another one!
can you even see over the army of strawmen you are erecting any more?
do you want me to get you a soapbox to stand on?
egad. I must be tired.
convert all instances of it’s -> its.
funny, it always comes out right when I’m talking to my friends…
I meant in the same manner as puritans. I will discuss. Puritan fascists like Bill Donahue will bully and get people fired.
thousands of non catholics were as well.
but then, it wasn’t even communism that was at the root of those mass murders, let alone atheism.
it was authoritarianism. the exact same authoritarianism that has driven the Catholic Church, and indeed ALL organized religion, for millennia.
don’t you think it’s about time you authoritarian types stopped being so paranoid you feel you have to destroy anyone who criticizes your group?
I love how in the dibyverse people can’t be more than one thing. Orwell can’t be both anti-Catholic and anti-fascist. And Orwell didn’t fight fascists who happened to be Catholic, the one attribute that existed for those Fascists was their Catholicism. Unless you’re saying that all Catholics are Fascist, which would be internally consistent because as we know in the dibyverse if an member of a group displays a trait all members of that group have that trait. Ergo all Catholics including diby are Fascist because there exist fascist Catholics, nevermind that in the real world there are non-fascist Catholics. Of course in the dibyverse the one attribute of all Catholics is being the best at everything, so obviously there are no fascist Catholics because fascism is not the ONE TRUE ATTRIBUTE of all Catholics.
It also explains the bizarre line about Chesterton who nobody to my recall said was an anti-semite. In diby logic if Chesterton’s ONE TRUE ATTRIBUTE is not anti-semitism and Chesterton is a Catholic like diby and we accuse diby of being an anti-semite because he’s anti-semitic that means we also accuse Chesterton of being an anti-semite because in the dibyverse Catholics, like any other group, is 100% homogenous. The dibyverse runs on complete dream logic but it does exist occasionally.
And here we see another choice trick of diby logic. In reality Bill Donohue is a loud and outspoken Catholic. Presumably diby doesn’t like him for whatever reason, so in the dibyverse Bill Donohue is actually a Puritan and not a Catholic so therefore he doesn’t pollute all Catholics ever with his negative ONE TRUE ATTRIBUTE.
Diby have you tried coming back to reality? It’s much easier than twisting yourself into these stupid logical knots.
translation:
you will fabricate, erect strawmen, and when called on that, rapidly toss out a netful of red herring as a lame attempt at a smokescreen.
bored now.
And your bullying, lying, and bullshitting is dismissed because your intentions are pure? Bwahahahahahahahaha. You are one paranoid delusional fool.
Puritan? Donahue is like you… a diehard Catholic.
did we ever settle which country you were from?
I’m fairly certain at this point diby’s defining “Puritan” as “someone I don’t agree with” and “Catholic” as “someone I agree with”.
I haven’t read absolutely all of Orwell’s writing, but where is he identified as being an anti-Catholic? Never mind a “vicious anti-Catholic”?
If there had been a left-leaning government elected in Denmark, followed by a Fascist revolution, supported by thousands of Eskimo troops ferried in on German aircraft from their Overseas Province (Greenland), and backed up by thousands of Nazi “volunteers” and Luftwaffe air support, you don’t think Orwell would have gone to fight the Fascists there, even though most of them were Lutheran? Seriously?
A catholic is whoever dibsy wants to be a catholic.
A puritan is whoever dibsy wants to be a puritan.
A protestant is whoever dibsy wants to be a protestant.
What an impressive display of Christian honesty we have here!
Well Wikipedia quotes Orwell being skeptical of faith, and provides a quote of someone who wrote a biography of Orwell that called him anti-Catholic, and diby wishes to demonize Orwell so they add “Vicious”. I assume diby heard Orwell was anti-Catholic from some random article by some random wingnut. Goodness knows diby seems to read a lot of wingnuttery, they’ve provided lots of wingnut articles like the about how being gay is like driving a car with square wheels or the one on the WhirledNutDaily.
This has pretty much run its course.
Is there any reason to keep diby sursch?
other than that there is no other troll?
Are y’all still having fun?
Diby has plumbed vast depths of boring that I’ve yet seen from a troll. Diby is, in fact, so boring that I’d rather scrub the toilet than read another post from them. I’m pretty sure my toilet has seen less shit than the amount that Diby is spewing forth.
Via Crisis: Chesterton shows that the problem of homosexuality as an enemy of civilization is quite old. In The Everlasting Man, he describes the nature-worship and “mere mythology” that produced a perversion among the Greeks. “Just as they became unnatural by worshipping nature, so they actually became unmanly by worshipping man.” Any young man, he says, “who has the luck to grow up sane and simple” is naturally repulsed by homosexuality because “it is not true to human nature or to common sense.” He argues that if we attempt to act indifferent about it, we are fooling ourselves. It is “the illusion of familiarity,” when “a perversion become[s] a convention.”
Diby, what about young men who grew up ‘sane and simple’ who aren’t repulsed? Are they not men? My male cousins have no problem with their sister who is a lesbian who came out when they were in high school. They certainly weren’t repulsed by her.
Also, nature worship is awesome. I still feel all those ‘spiritual’ warm-fuzzies-connectedness-awe when I visit the redwood groves I used to worship at. Those trees are like old friends.
diby sursch @ 460
So in other words, Chesterton assumed that his own preferences and prejudices were the “correct” way to do things, and that anything different is inherently “wrong”. Because reasons, apparently. As rationalizations for homophobia go, that’s paper-thin.
chigau (違う) @ 458
If diby sursch ceased to post at this point, I wouldn’t shed a tear.
*starts singing* Myyyy treeeeeee is an awesome treeeee
His only reply to a request for the justification of the continuing occupation of Palestine was: “Jews are big fans of Orwell, and Orwell fought against Franco in Spain, and Franco was a Catholic, so….” Yeah, the non sequiturs come hard and fast.
Orwell was anti-Catholic because Franco was a Catholic. Diby, you know who else was a Catholic?*
*(I don’t expect an answer—I doubt if Diby is familiar with all internet traditions.)
@dildo
The Catholic Church didn’t save classical knowledge. At best, they preserved the ability to read and write, as a means of propagating their cult. The church hated anything pagan. They smashed the penis off of many classic male nudes, because they were considered immoral. Romans who lived in villas became “villains”, pagans who practiced the old religion (wicca) became wicked. They demonized anything that didn’t conform to the One True Faith.
Basically, they were the Taliban of the Dark Ages.
@461 Rowan vet-tech
Redwoods are the best! It’s a good thing I don’t live where there are redwoods, or I would just sit in the woods all day and never do anything and be perfectly happy. So peaceful <3
omnicrom
I’m reminded of a line from Father Ted:
Father Ted: I’m not a fascist, I’m a priest. Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do, whereas… priests… More drink! (All cheer)
y’know what?
using your own, personal, cutsie variations on a commenter’s nym is really cute and clever
but it sure makes the old ctrlF thing more difficult.
And we should believe Chesterton was correct about this over every Psychologist who has ever done studies that have shown that there’s nothing at all problematic mentally with being gay? I mean besides the problems caused for them by bigoted homophobes like Chesterton and diby sursch.
And I agree that diby has become quite dull. Once I figured out the logical rules of the dibyverse there’s nothing fun about unpacking the stupid shit in the alternate universe they will themselves into believing they inhabit. If it gets dull I’m just going to start posting clips from a ridiculous Soccer anime.
Just don’t go crazy with German punk-rock lyrics—that’s ended badly in the past.
Seriously, though, from Diby I’ve noted the ad hominem fallacy, the tu quoque fallacy, the strawman fallacy (although since he’s such a fan of burning at the stake, maybe it should be the Wicker Man fallacy?), and the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I’m not even counting non sequitur and post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Did I miss anything?
they are DEVO.
D
E
V
O
I’m not really expecting anything coherent from him—basically all I’m doing at this point is trying to run up the board so it’ll go past 500 and the page will stop taking so goddamn long to load. That’s probably a bannable offense in itself, so I’ll shut up now.
Five bucks says Chesterton would have scored highly on the RWA index.
just like dibsy.
Well, I guess the fact that catholic fascists were killed in the Civil War justifies that catholic fascists started it in the first place by staging a coup against the elected democratic government. And the murder and torture of thousands after the Civil War because they were afraid that those people could repeat the crime of electing a governemnt again. Also the stealing of thousands of children because you have to make sure they don’t grow up thinking for themselves. All totally justified. Resistence? Never!
…Kevin Bacon?
Hilaire Belloc: The Mohammedan struggle was a very close thing; it nearly swamped
us; only the armed reaction in Spain, followed by the Crusades,
prevented the full triumph of Islam. The onslaught of the
barbarian, of the northern pirates, of the Mongol hordes, brought
Christendom to within an ace of destruction. Yet the northern
pirates were tamed, defeated and baptized by force. The barbarism
of the eastern nomads was eventually defeated; very tardily, but
not too late to save what could be saved. The movement called the
Counter-Reformation met the hitherto triumphant advance of the
sixteenth-century heretics. Even the Rationalism of the eighteenth
century was, in its own place and time, checked and repelled. It
is true that it bred something worse than itself; something from
which we now suffer. But there was reaction against it; and that
reaction was sufficient to keep the Church alive and even to
recover for it elements of power which had been thought lost for
ever.
Oh gods, Diby got more boring. I’m gonna go to bed. Unconscious is significantly better than any more Diby dribble.
like the Library at Alexandria?
oh wait…
say, there’s yet another albatross to hang around your neck, or at least your precursor’s necks.
DIBSY!!!
WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM?
I figured maybe if I turned up the volume a bit, it might pierce that thick skull.
the only thing we suffer from now is the same thing we always have.
authoritarian nitwits like you.
I’m dead serious. YOU are the problem.
until humanity starts recognizing that people like you just don’t process information in the same way rational human beings do, and deal with that, YOU will always be the problem.
It’s a waste of time to try and get an authoritarian to recognize and modify their behavior according to the way they process information.
the rest of us need to do it for you.
We will do that by simply modifying the information your trusted authorities tell you.
In fact, we already are.
Notice how different your new Pope seems?
I could disassemble diby’s racist and hateful historical revision.
Or I could post ridiculous soccer moves from a goofy anime
Decisions decisions…
Oh, Jeebus fuck! First G. K. Chesterton, now Hilaire Belloc! How many Wrongway Corrigans* of historical writing is he going to come up with? Hey Diby! Here’s a book by an actual priest who says the Gunpowder Plot wasn’t really a Catholic conspiracy! Go to town!
Or better yet, read S. R. Gardiner’s debunking of it.
*Come to think of it, old Wrongway was probably a Catholic too. Wheels within wheels….
Here’s a glorious deconstruction of Belloc’s idiocy by H. G. Wells—in response to 24 lengthy articles attacking him, which none of the Catholic journals carrying them would allow him to rebut.
Pope Francis has already expressed his opposition to gay “marriage” and gay adoption. He’s simply using a pastoral approach to gain new converts, the moral and canon law does not change. He has also quoted Chesterton, says he’s a fan.
I’ve read Wells’s idiocy. If Belloc were alive today, he’d say “Mr. Belloc still objects.”
Glad you caught on! The new pope is no better than any of his predecessors. He’s merely less scary looking.
Reading it again now and came across this, for which I am accused in the present day. See, when you read this, you see how true it is that you are all rotten protestants.
“He has come to believe this: that there is a vast “modern European” culture of which the English-speaking world knows nothing, of which the non-Catholic world knows nothing, and with which he is familiar. It is on his side. It is always on his side. It is simply and purely Belloccian. He certainly believes it is there. It sustains his faith. It assuages the gnawing attacks of self-criticism that must come to him in the night. Throughout these papers he is constantly referring to this imaginary stuff—without ever coming to precisions. Again and again and again and again—and again and again and again, he alludes to this marvellous “European” science and literature, beyond our ken.”
So you recognize your idiocy? Good. Read the rest of that Wells piece and take it to heart.
I suppose you’re a Gunpowder Plot Truther, too, right? It was a False Flag Operation™, I bet.
He does not quote it; it does not exist for him to quote; but he believes that it exists. He waves his hand impressively in the direction in which it is supposed to be. It is his stand-by, his refuge, his abiding fortress. But, in order to believe in it, it is necessary for him to believe that no other English-speaking men can even read French, and that their scepticism about it is based on some “provincial” prejudice or some hatred of Catholics, or southern people, or “Dagoes,” or “foreigners,” or what you will. That is why Nature wilfully ignores the wonderful science of this “Europe”—and why our Royal Society has no correspondence with it. But he has to imagine it is there and make his readers imagine it is there, and that there is this conspiracy of prejudice to ignore it, before he can even begin to put up any appearance of a case against such a resume of current knowledge as the Outline of History.
still haven’t answered that simple question…
what country are you from dibsy?
of course answering even simple questions is apparently beyond your ken, based on what you’ve shown us so far.
do your parents know you’re using their internet connection?
@ diby sursch
Oh you godfapping buffoon! The crusades led directly to the Islamisation of Xtian Byzantium by destroying Constantinople. Don’t you even know the history of your own murderous church?
Does he still endorse the institutionalised rape culture of the cat-lick church? How you dare come and discuss morality, after the sordid things your religion’s priests, and their apologists, have done? It was secular efforts, informed by secular morality, that exposed your church as a dark satanic mill of sexual predation.
Watch how your little pope hides behind The Devil ™ to escape facing that simple truth, and his moral responsibilities.
Creationists haven’t changed much in the last 90 years, either. Wells again:
And that is what makes it an evil, evil thing.
Quoting Chesterston and Belloc doesn’t strengthen your arguments, dibsy.
It weakens them.
Not that they had much in the way of strength to begin with.
@ The Rev. #493
Oooh, shiny new word…!
{snatches away and scuttles off stage right}
Belloc… Belloc… where have I heard that name in a different context..
Once again, Dr Jones, what was once briefly yours… is now mine!
muahahhahahaa.
wait! before you run off, did you catch “Frowsty” in there as well?
surely that’s worth carrying off to your horde of shiny shiny words?
@ichthyic
Well, he is DEFINITELY not spanish, i’ll tell you that much.
In the off-chance that diby is for real, and even if he is not, i just want to say that people like him, or what he is acting as used to be dominant in Spain. Used to….But things have chanced, we’ve had enough of the fascists…the catholics….their homophobia, their mysogyny, their fucking myths and mindbogglingly ridiculous church. You and your church are disappearing, dying off…and we are rejoicing at every step as we see our country being rid off your fucking stench.
Who the fuck cares? He’s nothing but an old guy in a fancy frock for us. So far there is NO scientific evidence that non-hetero sex and relationships are inherently bad for either those who practise them or society and there IS actual evidence that kids in a non-hetero family are doing just as well as those within “traditional” hetero families.
Here’s a hint: Those children in the foster system that those gay people would like to care for and adopt, they come from heterosexual people who fucked up so badly that authorities thought it necessary to remove them.
Also, I hate it when homophobic bigots try to co-opt my family for their hateful agenda. We are not an argument, we are people. And we will still be a family if one of the kids turns out gay. And my gay BIL is still part of my family.