Well that didn’t take long. Already I’ve got some believers in the comments howling at me. Splendid. The door is always open to you here at WWJTD. However, no quarter will be given here either. Know that before you make yourself at home.
It has become clear to me that I should have a weekly comment round-up post highlighting some of the most deliciously bad comments from the week (and maybe even some of the good ones, but I’m a cynic so let’s start with the bad). How does every Friday sound?
Anyway, I couldn’t resist responding to the believers who spoke up yesterday, so without further ado…
First, we have Clarissa.
JT should give a FULL and COMPLETE explanation of why he left the SSA.
In the meantime, I am thankful that he will not be helping organize against Christian kids.
First, why on earth would you think I owe you any explanation for why I do anything? Should I also give a FULL and COMPLETE explanation for why I had Cheerios this morning instead of eggs? How lordly do you have to be to feel you have a right to know why I do anything?
Second, is there a conspiracy here I didn’t know about? Was my initial explanation not good enough? Did you read that I’d left the SSA and think to yourself, “There’s no way someone would enjoy the freedom of working from home as a writer, and there’s no way JT realized his frankness and working for an organization that plays the political game were incompatible. There must be something deeper here!” ? Look out, villains: Clarissa’s on the case. Someone rising from the dead seems legit, but the idea that someone would enjoy working in their PJs smells fishy.
Unless, of course, you were just trying to passive aggressively hint that people you don’t like were dishonest or more wicked than they’re letting on with no evidence whatsoever.
Third, what is this “organize against Christian kids” malarkey? To my knowledge, I never did anything for or against Christian kids. That simply wasn’t my job. I helped atheists to form clubs, resist discrimination, organize events, etc. You call it organizing against Christian kids, as though I can’t work to support atheists without actively working against Christians. It’s an indictment on Christianity that in response to the admonition of “Please treat us as equals” I still get “Why do you organize against our kids?” from binary-minded people like you.
But even for those student groups who do like to vocalize their skepticism of Christianity, so what if they do? Do you jump down the throats of groups like the FCA for “organizing against” the atheists they try to convert? If not, stop playing oppression Olympics and get some perspective. Like so many Christians, you seem to be possessed by the idea that anybody not in your camp must have motives against the equality/well-being of Christian people and not just disgust for Christian ideas. Who needs to interact with ideas when you can go straight into their skulls and extract their sinister motives, right?
Next up we have
Tom Ted Seeber (whose trolling I have been warned about). I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Tom is a Catholic. I’m guessing this because on my post where I said “Hi Patheos” he came in with a non-sequitur about Catholic priests doing “such and such” (where “such and such” is “rape children”). Has a much nicer sound than “pedophilia.”
The problem comes when atheists use irrational means to criticize. One I paricularily battle over and over is the “priest x did such and such to me therefore the entire religion is false” without ever asking the question “is what the priest did within the confines of orthodoxy for his own religion”?
If the answer is no, then he has no more proven religion false philosophically than a physicist sleeping with a student proves the law of gravity to be false.
A guy who believes someone rose from the dead accuses others of irrationality. If only we could use irony to pay off the debt.
Well Tom, nobody is saying that priests raping children makes Catholicism untrue. The Catholic belief in someone rising from the dead, of crackers becoming flesh, of wine becoming blood, of someone walking on water, and the host of other impossible things (that’s why they’re called “miracles,” right?) without a lick of evidence to support them is what makes Catholicism untrue.
Now, what we do say is that this is proof that religion either doesn’t seem to make people more moral or, in this case, that it seems to lend support to immorality. For instance, if any good human being discovers a person has been raping children, they call the police. This is what virtually every atheist would do, regardless of whether the perpetrator was playing for our ideological team or not.
But when god’s direct representative on earth (the Pope) aids and abets the priests who did “such and such” to the boys in their care, makes it possible for them to do it to others, and then refuses to work with the authorities to stop and to punish the crime, it destroys the arguments that adopting your religion is an antidote to immorality. It seems to be a moral poison, not a cure, especially when you consider the fact that millions still give money to the institution doing this knowing full well where a part of that money has gone.
That’s what we’re saying, and it’s the damn truth. The unfortunate thing is that almost every prominent Catholic seems to be more annoyed at atheists for pointing this out than at the church and its cabal of priests who prioritize PR over children. If enough Catholics had the moral impetus to police their own, it wouldn’t be on the shoulders of all those “immoral atheists” to root out the predators of the cloth.
Anyway, thank you both for swinging by the blog and for making your feelings known. Like I said, the door is always open. Bring your friends.