Comments

  1. says

    Oh yes. Hilarious. So much so that I forgotta laugh.Much more appropriate is this little gem from the Denver Post."So it pains me to witness fellow atheists acting like a bunch of irritating '80s televangelists and defeating the entire purpose of unbelief by organizing, grousing, wagging their fingers and, worst of all, proselytizing. Take the billboards popping up in Las Vegas this year that read "Reason's Greetings" and "Heathen's Greetings." The man behind the billboards claims to only want to make people think — because only atheists can really think, after all. "People that drive by who have an open mind may think to themselves, 'Maybe I should question some of my dogmatic beliefs,' " Richard Hermsen, a local atheist activist, explained.Granted, atheists have some reason to be annoyed by the general public. A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2007, for instance, found that more than half of Americans would, under no circumstances whatsoever, vote for an atheist. No group fared lower than heathens. Not Mormons. Or even the Jews — and we probably killed Christ. USA Today also relayed that a University of Minnesota study taken that year found that Americans rank atheists as the most disliked minority group in the entire country, topping other groups who richly deserve such honors, like journalists, for instance.It's this kind of close-mindedness many atheists find most annoying. For a long time, in fact, I believed H.L. Mencken's line that, "God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable."But then poll after poll illustrates that religious people — in the throes of ignorance, granted — are far happier, far more charitable and far from helpless."Think about that and let it sink in for a bit while you are wondering why you feel empty on this day while the rest of the world is rejoicing.God bless.

  2. Martin says

    Hmm, yes, well, the fact that it's after midnight on the eve of what is supposed to be your holiest day, and you're spending that time trolling atheist blogs instead of being with your family or out singing carols or taking in homeless orphans or flinging yourself bodily across the threshold of abortion clinics, or whatever it is the Anointed Christian Master Race does on a night like this, pretty much gives us a good idea of what you consider "rejoicing." Hope that's working out for you.George Bernard Shaw said it best: Saying that a religious man may be happier than a nonreligious man is no more to the point than saying that a drunk man is happier than a sober man.As for "thinking about" the fact that Christians are totally bigoted assholes towards atheists and letting that "sink in," well, thanks, but we're well aware of the fact as we live with it every day. You guys are empowered by hatred. We get it. The thing is, you want that to destroy us when it only makes us pity you.I don't know about you, but today's a day off! Time to be spent with family, dogs, good food, comfy naps! What's there to for me to feel empty about?Oh, right. Believers must always flatter themselves by thinking unbelievers are "empty." I think it's called "overcompensating" and "projecting." That's pretty much all that superstition provides, I suppose. From our vantage point in the reality-based community, pardon me if we're not especially envious.And I just love the way Christians always sign off their hate screeds with "God bless." I'm sure he will, JD. May a pink unicorn bring you lots of candy.

  3. says

    Here is a link to the AP feed of the woman sackin' the pope hosted on Youtube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpDffQJjm9cI have to agree with JD, it is hilarious! Unlike JD I did remember to laugh, and laugh hard. I think the best part is when she knocks the pope down. Side note, the report said that the pope fell on top of her. How strange it is to hear about a catholic clergyman going down on a woman, and one of consenting age at that!

  4. says

    Most disjointed article ever. It reads like three different articles about three different subjects where put into a blender, and then the pulp was uploaded.As for jd, I don't think I could add much to martins reply beyond the fact that I think you should grow the fuck up.Anywho, we Australians have a 10.30+gmt head start, and I've had a great day so far. Hope you all have a fantastic day off too. Happy festivous guys! ~murphy

  5. says

    @JD Curtis-I am an atheist, and I love Christmas. It was hijacked by Christianity, but its roots are not Christians, neither are its most famous symbols (the Christmas tree, the mistletoe, heck, even the Nativity Scene has Pagan elements). Many Christian through the ages and even some today think that it should be a time of fasting, prayers and penance, not of celebrations (did you know that "O Holy Night" was heavily criticised for being too secular? I guess not). The heart of Christmas nowadays, regardless of ones belief or disbelief, is eating and drinking excesses, sharing, manifestations of love and friendship, it is not the birth of a Jewish philosopher in Bethlehem, especially since he was not even born there to begin with. Felling empty on Christmas? You never ate a bûche de Noël to presume such a thing about me (and yes, the bûche de Noël is ANOTHER Christmas icon which has its roots in OPaganism). And yes, that makes me materialistic, but Christmas is a holiday that is deeply materialistic. And I love it for it. But whether or not one enjoys Christmas does not make the Nativity Story true. As for Christians being more charitable, I don't know about it, but I will not take your word for it: where are your proofs? Forgive me, but I think you are speaking through your ass on this one. In any case, you seem to be confusing moral/goodness with charity and charity with faith. Many great artists are atheists, many doctors too, a vast majority of scientists of course, and it does not diminish their accomplishment and the good deeds they did. I do give money to charity, although rarely religious organisations, as I am never sure if my money will go to proselytise or to the cause. When I give money to say Cancer Research UK, the personal faiths of the researchers (if they have any) are irrelevant. I am contributing, modestly, to a fight against a terrible disease. I do not hope for being rewarded in Heaven, or even to be rewarded myself in this life. You measure the morality of an action by its effects or potential effects in this world. I would wish you a Merry Christmas, but I have loved ones to spend time with, presents to unwrap, music to listen to and frankly I don't give a damn about you enjoying Christmas. But Merry Christmas to my fellow heathens. I love you guys.

  6. says

    JD Curtis I took you seriously until you wrote this:"you feel empty on this day while the rest of the world is rejoicing."Sir, fuck you! You can't promote open mindness and then at the end of your speech accuse all atheist of being incapable of enjoying their SECULAR holiday.I actually had very pleasant dinner with my family, we exchanged gifts and had a great time. Simply because we enjoyed each other instead of talking to an invisible sky being does not make that day unenjoyable.You bigoted asshat. Thank you and Merry Christmas.

  7. says

    Speaking for myself, my family and i had a great day. Much food was consumed, many glasses of wine were imbibed. My 2 year old niece was particularly adorable.And as i was sitting there in my post eating glow i was treated to the spectacular site of some mad woman attacking an OAP and God most resoundingly not getting involved.Great times.Although my catholic wife to be couldn't understand why i found it funny. Wonder why?

  8. says

    "But then poll after poll illustrates that religious people — in the throes of ignorance, granted — are far happier, far more charitable and far from helpless."Citation needed."Think about that and let it sink in for a bit while you are wondering why you feel empty on this day while the rest of the world is rejoicing."Except the Jews…and Hindus…Muslims…Buddhists…Jehova's Witness…etc"God bless."I seriously don't know what to say other than fuck you. Thanks for coming by, judging everyone and being an asshole trying to make others feel bad. You're a good christian.

  9. says

    @JD"So it pains me to witness fellow atheists acting like a bunch of irritating '80s televangelists and defeating the entire purpose of unbelief by organizing, grousing, wagging their fingers and, worst of all, proselytizing."a)There is a purpose to unbelief? Did I miss a memo?b)Your quote JD, seems to suggest that the entire purpose of belief is to do all those things that were listed. Or maybe that's just how the journalist views his faith."The man behind the billboards claims to only want to make people think — because only atheists can really think, after all."Straw man anyone?"But then poll after poll illustrates that religious people — in the throes of ignorance, granted — are far happier, far more charitable and far from helpless.""What kinds of polls are these? The greasy polls of catholic priests?"Think about that and let it sink in for a bit while you are wondering why you feel empty on this day while the rest of the world is rejoicing."Wow!! And you didn't even quote the stupid that time. You came up with that all on your own. Clever boy!"god bless"It's funny. When my mother (the vicar) says that to me I find it a bit annoying. But at least she's sincere. I don't believe you were. I believe you meant that with sarcasm. How did that commandment go again?

  10. says

    Hey JD, did you forget that this blog isn't like Ray Comfort's? Here, the comments aren't funneled through a filter and the moderators don't look for any reason not to allow a post.I know it's hard to actually think for yourself but try it for a while, you might like how it feels. Anyway, I think you have ventured outside of the comfort(no pun intended) of your little bubble, and that's dangerous. So off you go, back to the safe haven of non-thought. Oh, and since I just haven't been able to say it on Ray's blog to you, you're a douchebag of the highest order and god(with a lower case g). god god god. jesus.

  11. Martin says

    Well, actually, IPU, I did pop a couple of reply comments JD tried to make here, for reasons very explicitly stated right above the comment text field: "Comment moderation will only be enabled when behavior from one or more commenters is offensive to the bulk of the blog's readership." Moderation is currently enabled due to Markuze, true. But as JD really sought to do nothing at all when he came here but be offensive, I'm really not interested in anything he might have to say. And before certain concern trolls pop out of the woodwork to cry "Unfair!", remember, it's our blog and we make the rules. I remind everyone for the 80,000th time we're happy to encourage comments from theists who disagree with us and want to argue about this or that topic. That's a very different thing from JD's juvenile trolling. You want to talk to us and challenge us, great. You want to flame us to salve your ego, start your own blog.

  12. says

    Just a suggestion Martin, but with the passage that reads:"Comment moderation will only be enabled when behavior from one or more commenters is offensive to the bulk of the blog's readership."I would consider changing it to "both offensive and non constructive to the bulk of the blog's readers" or something along those lines (if possible).I know this would probably be the sentiment behind it the words, but for clarity it might be useful to verbalise it.It would certainly help to draw the distinction between the kind of offense that the religionists love to complain about from atheists and the kind that troll like behaviour we see here.

  13. Martin says

    A-Astrologist: Well, it's a thought, though I wonder if it might be more hair-splitting than is actually necessary. I mean, there are times when I will let a gratuitously insulting comment through (like JD's original one), simply because it can be useful on occasion to allow bitter and angry theists to show their true colors. But if you then want to keep going in that vein, well, the point has been made, and anything further is hardly helpful.One could also say that the original post here, in which I simply had a giggle at the spectacle of the pope being tackled by a crazywoman, was hardly "constructive" and even a little mean spirited, to which I plead guilty with no hesitation. You do that sometimes on blogs. And it's not like she really hurt the man, which I certainly wouldn't have joked about much as I think the pope and indeed the very concept of papacy is cretinous. So hey, I found the event funny, and I suspect so did a lot of people.Now, if someone wants to say I was out of line for joking about that, hey, you're free to do so. If you want to go on with some self-satisfying rant about us horrible atheists, you can do that, too. At least once. If there's nothing else in your arsenal, then hey, point made, you're done.Anyway, I can only say I'm delighted to have bruised the sanctity of JD's Christmas with my juvenile sense of humor. I mean, nothing made him spend Christmas Eve here. He could have been decking the halls, or wassailing, or whatever.

  14. says

    Then you show yourself to be the intellectual wuss that you really are Martin. Sad. I stated nothing offensive and if you want to have an echo chamber, then have at it.Bunch of atheists standing around in a circle-jerk laughing at an old man getting knocked over and spouting off verifiably incorrect information regarding atheists and charity.Just don't go and off yourself at an early age like many of the fellow practitioners of your non-theistic religion are much more prone (statistically) to do to teach those theists a lesson. That would be counter productive. Instead, keep doing what you are doing. Maintain an intellectually dodgy blog and continue to exhibit your social autism for all to see. Nothing will drive others to examine issues with an open mind more than acting like a bunch of howler monkeys who didnt get their daily banana.Darwin bless you,JD Curtis

  15. says

    To paraphrase jack handy…You know, when I see a woman jump a barrier, and crash into the pope, my first instinct is to laugh… But then I think, if I were an ant and that woman and the pope were to fall on me, well that's not quick so funny is it?

  16. Martin says

    Well, here's my take on the "laughing at an old man getting knocked over" thing. What's funny about the incident wasn't so much the pope getting knocked down, as what the pope getting knocked down meant. In one moment of lunacy on the part of some anonymous woman, centuries of Catholic beliefs were washed away as if by a wet rag.1. Catholics believe the pope is the infallible voice of God on Earth. God speaks to humanity through the pope, and vice versa. You'd think that God would have been a little more on the ball about ensuring that his earthly avatar was a little better protected, if not inviolable. (Especially when the dingbat responsible tried to do the same thing last year!) Instead, what was revealed when he was knocked over was, ironically, just what JD said about him: the pope is nothing more than an old man in a gaudy robe. He has no divine mandate, no powers to bless, no direct hotline to the hereafter. It's all smoke and mirrors, stuff and nonsense.2. But it also helps to remember that this poor meek and helpless "old man" that we atheists are such meanies for mocking was one of the figures directly involved in the covering up of priestly pedophilia, and the shifting of such sexual predators around from parish to parish. So not only did Ratzinger attempt to shield pedophile priests from criminal investigation, he also enabled them to continue their crimes and harm more children. So, you know, boo fucking hoo that this poor "old man" got knocked down. Compared to all those kids who took it up the ass thanks to his looking the other way, it's pretty small beer.3. Again, the pope wasn't harmed. And though no psychological report on the woman has been released, I'll lay you even money that the following will turn out to be true: she was not trying to harm the pope (if she had been, she'd have had a weapon), but simply contact him. She was most likely someone who believed too fervently in what Catholics are taught to believe about the pope's divine character. She felt that if she could only touch him, embrace him, smother him physically, she'd be immersed in divine grace. In short, she's the religious-maniac version of one of those Twilight fans who want to throw themselves onto Robert Pattinson.So, consider the ramifications of the pope-tackle, not just the spectacle of the tackle itself, and yes, there's quite a lot there to find funny.

  17. says

    Martin,I totally agree… and as far as Heir Ratzinger is concerned, you've only scratched the surface.I was just trying to be funny with my comment, no deeper meaning was intended.

  18. says

    "Just don't go and off yourself at an early age like many of the fellow practitioners of your non-theistic religion are much more prone (statistically) to do to teach those theists a lesson. That would be counter productive"Am I the only one creeped out by this sarcasm mode? Seriously?"I love Jesus so go kill yourself you fuck".Ok yeah, this is THE reason I will point people like FThinker and Seth and Philospher Mess as to why atheists ARE angry atheists. Putting up with this shit from total strangers daily, wtf?

  19. says

    As to JD's article…yes I think it's a great idea to link to an article that opens with blatant Antisemitism of "The Jews are so nasty compared to us good peace loving Christians".

  20. Martin says

    Ing: Am I the only one creeped out by this sarcasm mode?Ing, again, that's just all that guys like JD have. It's wishful thinking, I suppose. The fact we're happy, normal people makes him livid! But it's his problem, not ours.

  21. says

    "This is what Christianity turns people into"To be fair Martin (just to be devil's advocate lol), I can more than imagine this individual being a douchebag without christianity. I don't see why we need to be making excuses for this guy's behaviour. Besides, there are plenty of perfectly polite (and for the most part rational) christians out there. They just aren't loud enough or in your face enough to be easily noticed.

  22. Martin says

    Fair point, A-A, and it serves me right for letting JD push my buttons like that. I've deleted the original comment and placed it below as it should have read.—–See what I mean? JD is basically an empty-headed (and empty) douche who has nothing to contribute of value. This is the sort of behavior religious fundamentalism encourages and lets people justify. Little blind vessels of ignorance and hate whose only capacity for feeling good about themselves comes directly from feeling bad about others.Again, I'd pity JD, but I figure, he's an adult, and can make his own choices. And so if he chooses to be a bad person, it's his life, or whatever passes for it.Finally, here's some helpful information on the whole subject of religion, irreligion, and societal health. Unlike Conservapedia, Phil Zuckerman cites legitimate sources for his facts. :)

  23. says

    I'm curious what JD Curtis said that got modded. Mostly cause we don't have any reason to hide from him and it'll be good demonstrating how nasty he is.Also I get so say "I heard that Curtis!"

  24. says

    What's funny about the incident wasn't so much the pope getting knocked down, as what the pope getting knocked down meant. In one moment of lunacy on the part of some anonymous woman, centuries of Catholic beliefs were washed away as if by a wet rag.If that was your point then why wasnt it raised in your initial entry when you posted it? For comparison, if a news story were posted in this forum that Martin's Great Aunt or Uncle was knocked to the ground by someone who was mentally unstable and I openly stated that it was, quote: "funny" , I would imagine that my inbox would more than just a little full and villified through this forum (and rightly so). Is there a single, objective-minded person reading this who could possibly think otherwise? If so, would I be roundly cheered instead?Catholics believe the pope is the infallible voice of God on Earth. God speaks to humanity through the pope, and vice versaAnd what percentage of Catholics believe this? Given that Catholics themselves are a minority within the overall Christian community, it can't be very many of those who are "Christians". Strawman. Epic Fail insofar as a weak attempt to justify your social autism.He has no divine mandate, no powers to bless, no direct hotline to the hereafter. It's all smoke and mirrors, stuff and nonsense.Am I to believe that you utilized the Scientific Method to ascertain these claims of yours? If so, was your study "peer-reviewed"? May I have a peek at it so that we can inform the adherents together of your Nobel Prize-worthy study?So, you know, boo fucking hoo that this poor "old man" got knocked down. Compared to all those kids who took it up the ass thanks to his looking the other way, it's pretty small beer.Jaw-droppingly stupid. Unless you are prepared to argue that Pope Benedict is a pedophile (with some pretty good evidence, btw) then what does him getting knocked down have to do with abuse committed by priests? Apples and Oranges. Since you (predictably) brought it up Martin, is a child…A. 10B. 20, orC. 100times more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse from a schoolteacher than a priest? You brought it up so I'm assuming that you know the answer.Your third point that you raised is speculation and you are trying to CYA after you committed a major faux pas. Hand-waving anyone? To prove my point, what if at the time of the release of the news article it wasnt immediately released to the public that the pope had received an injury? Why bring it up and describe it as "funny" at all? Heck, I'm not even Catholic and I can tell that youre a moron with a sense of humor like that.Unlike ConservapediaIf this is a reference to one of the deleted comments of mine than yes Martin, I am calling you a complete, bald faced liar in a public forum. Please sue me for libel so we can access the records of this blog to prove that the sources I cited re: atheists and charity were..A. ABC News, andB. The Barna Group.As if I needed more evidence, this slashdot.org poll just came out as well.

  25. Martin says

    If that was your point then why wasnt it raised in your initial entry when you posted it?Most of our readers don't need their hands held like you do, JD. The main point of the post was that it was funny that God's avatar on earth could be jumped on by a desperate fan. The irony was fairly obvious, except to those who don't know what irony is. As there's no irony in somebody's aunt or uncle who does not claim to be a divine avatar getting knocked over, joking about it would have been pointless, you see. Or no, I supposed you don't.And what percentage of Catholics believe this?Who knows? Whether it's 5% or 95%, the infallibility of the pope is Catholic doctrine. Now, you obviously don't believe the pope is a divine avatar, which would make this one of I suspect a very small number of things you believe that's actually true. But the Church's doctrine is what it is, and that's where the irony lies: in how one tiny moment centuries of Catholic doctrine was shown to be rubbish.Am I to believe that you utilized the Scientific Method to ascertain these claims of yours? If so, was your study "peer-reviewed"?Oh, hang on. Are you implying you suddenly believe the pope is an infallible divine avatar with a direct hotline to God's Situation Room? Are you going to shift what you believe from paragraph to paragraph just to maintain the pretense of an argument here? Since it seems your entire position can be boiled down to thinking I'm a dick for making fun of the pope getting knocked over, I'd say your talent for making mountains out of molehills has certainly overwhelmed any thought you may have put into these tirades.Unless you are prepared to argue that Pope Benedict is a pedophile (with some pretty good evidence, btw) then what does him getting knocked down have to do with abuse committed by priests?(Sigh.) Jesus, asshole, is there no bottom to your idiocy? First off, Ratzinger's role in the coverup of pedophile priests is a matter of public record, so if you're too fucking lazy to use Google, that's your problem. Secondly, I never suggested the pope getting knocked down had something to do, in any kind of karmic sense, with the pedo scandal. I was merely pointing out that I have no sympathy for the view that it's mean to make fun of the fact he got knocked down, when there are thousands of children who were subjected to much greater harm as a direct result of the coverup and his role in it. Again, this is one of those obvious things that didn't need explanation to our regulars around here. An enabler of child molesters getting knocked over? Yeah, I'll make fun of that. If you don't approve, I don't give a shit, frankly.

  26. Martin says

    If this is a reference to one of the deleted comments of mine than yes Martin, I am calling you a complete, bald faced liar in a public forum.Since you've repeatedly demonstrated what an impaired douchenozzle you are, I'm sure the members of this public forum are duly impressed. If you couldn't take the crack about Conservapedia either, you've really got something up your ass.Yes, you'll find legitimate surveys via Google that show there's a higher suicide rate among the nonreligious. These same surveys also make the point that the presence of a stronger support network among religious communities, and not so much belief in sky-daddy, is what holds suicide rates at bay among the religious, who are no less prone to suicidal feelings than anyone else. Atheists tend to be individualists, whereas when a religious person feels suicidal, they usually have churches and groups to contact.But that's all a big "so what?" It' still the case that no one around here has any suicidal tendencies. And so your introduction of this theme into your autorant shows that you're really just looking for anything you can grab to swing at atheists at this point. All in response to a fairly innocuous post making light of the absurdity of the pope getting knocked down. Anyway, the Barna study you mention also shows that atheists have a lower divorce rate than most Christian groups and are more likely to have attained a high-level academic degree (more than twice as likely as Baptists or Pentecostals, in particular). So if you just want to keep some kind of dick-wagging contest going, Barna isn't really your friend, dude.It's all irrelevant, in the end, to the question of whether or not a God actually exists. It appears Mormons have the lowest suicide rate of anybody. Are they the True Christians(TM) after all?As if I needed more evidence, this slashdot.org poll just came out as well.That poll doesn't say shit about the respondents' religious affiliation, fucknut.Anyway, your other post for the day, the one where you sank into full-on Godwinning ("Herr Martin," yada yada) has been popped. (Another thing you seem to have forgotten is that it's Ratzinger, not me, with the Hitler Youth past.) Since there's really no point in further exchanges, you're done here.

  27. says

    Dude, really? Slashdot.org is your amazing reliable reference? I struggle to understand how you could think any Internet poll is a reliable source of statistical information, but as long as you do, I should point out that the poll DOESNT COMPARE THE CHARITY OF ATHEISTS TO THEISTS AT ALL. It just asks how much slashdot readers donated in 2009. I can only assume that your argument comes with the prepositional premise that slashdot is an atheist website (which to my knowledge is completely fucking false), and even it it was an atheist website, it would prove that 67% (or 2 out of 3) atheists did donate to charity in 2009, which is surprisingly higher than most of the people I personally know that call themselves Christians.As for your other arguments:I don't see that it needed to be blatantly explained in the first post. If you know who the pope is and what he stands for it should be fairly self evident what martin was getting at. Trying to explain the punch line in the first place kinda ruins the joke. You mustn't watch allot of comedy.If martins great aunt or uncle were the self proclaimed right hand of god on earth with over a billion followers world wide, maybe it would be funny. As they aren't, I don't see how this argument from analogy is relevant.I'm pretty sure most (if not all) Catholics believe this. The hole point of being catholic is the dialyse and the church dogma. I you don't accept this then you aren't a catholic, just a generic Christian. As for the part about it being a minority, here is an actually legitimate source for you from the Australian bureau of statistics. According to the latest national census data available (which is a little out of date being 2006 but I doubt its changed that much) Catholics represent 5 million of the 12 million Australians that claim to be Christian. That represents almost half the Christian population and is almost 5 times larger than then next largest group the uniting church. They are actually the majority Christian group. In Australia any way.http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?action=404&documentproductno=0&documenttype=Details&order=1&tabname=Details&areacode=0&issue=2001&producttype=Census%20Tables&javascript=true&textversion=false&navmapdisplayed=true&breadcrumb=TLPD&&collection=Census&period=2001&productlabel=Religious%20Affiliation%20by%20Age&producttype=Census%20Tables&method=Location%20on%20Census%20Night&topic=Religion&(continued…)

  28. says

    (…continued)Where is your scientific peer reviewed research that pink unicorns or Herbert the giant transcendent space hippopotamus doesn't exist? We shouldn't accept claims we have no evidence for, and all the evidence so far (unless you're taking the pope word for it) supports the hypothesis that the pope is just an old man with no powers.Pope Benedict doesn't have to be a paedophile himself to be guilty. He just has to be an accessory to the other priests crimes. And I think his actively protecting them from the law and shuffling them around t world so they can continue abusing children is at the very least complicit with their crimes. By the way, did you know that Charles Manson never actually killed anyone? According to you, because he never committed murder himself, he shouldn't be behind bars.Whether or not being abused by a priest is more likely than a teacher is irrelevant. The fact is that there are priests abusing children. The real question is, what would the public outcry be if the federal department of education started shuffling paedophile teachers to different schools around the country to protect them from prosecution? And why aren't we seeing that same outcry with the catholic church?What if the pope was hurt? If it didn't come out right away, I don't see that it could have been any worse than some light bruising. But even if it did, it would have been unfortunate, but it wouldn't have negated the point that martin was making about him supposedly being gods right hand and being so easily knocked over by a crazy lady.The point about sources is already covered at the top.I'm almost excited to see what sort of nonsense ill-conceived diatribe will come from the theistic mind of JD next. Maybe we could combine his posts and turn them into a script for a David Lynch film. Murphy

  29. says

    Woops sorry, just rereading it after posting, i linked to the 2001 census data not the 2006 census data. Its more or less exactly the same, but i wouldn't want to be accused of supplying false information. Here is the correct link http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?action=404&documentproductno=0&documenttype=Details&order=1&tabname=Details&areacode=0&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&javascript=true&textversion=false&navmapdisplayed=true&breadcrumb=TLPD&&collection=Census&period=2006&productlabel=Religious%20Affiliation%20%28full%20classification%20list%29%20by%20Sex&producttype=Census%20Tables&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&topic=Religion&On this table there are much more denominations, took me a minute or so to work out that the Catholics are listed as "Western Catholics".also, sorry about the spelling. Rereading, I've noticed a few errors. The spellcheck is a bit shit on my laptop, but think most of its still legible.Murphy.

  30. says

    "If this is a reference to one of the deleted comments of mine than yes Martin, I am calling you a complete, bald faced liar in a public forum. Please sue me for libel so we can access the records of this blog to prove that the sources I cited re: atheists and charity were.."Weren't you argueing that theists are happier than atheists? Why are you being so nasty to people trying to have humor? I consider this an exception to the "first one mad looses" internet arguement falacy…since you know, if you're argueing we're unhappy going off like the love child of JOe Pesci and Glen Beck is not a good idea.Also… " I am calling you a complete, bald faced liar in a public forum."I *HEARD* that Curtis!"I *HEARD* that Curtis"

  31. Martin says

    Geoff, thanks for the feedback and info. Here's a helpful commenting tip for the future: epic URL's the size of War & Peace can be shortened to a manageable length via the service at http://bit.lySo the URL you provided, I have truncated to http://bit.ly/5DtMGGAlso, you can simply create a hyperlink using basic HTML code. So that for folks to see your link, you could just get them to click on it. A quick tutorial on that is here.

  32. Martin says

    Ing, I decided to pop your most recent comment. Mainly, it included the full text of an email exchange you had with JD. Private communications between individuals are not the sort of thing that should be aired publicly without the consent of both participants, and as JD assumed your emails were between the two of you, it isn't right to air them in a public forum to further attack him, especially now that he's currently unwelcome here, so could not defend himself. I will say that all of the comments of his I rejected were hardly, as he tries to describe them, more civil and thoughtful. They were very much more belligerent than even his first. And I'm always amused in general at the way theists love to point out how they never resort to profanity unlike their nasty atheist opponents. Frankly, I've always felt that to be a transparently dishonest way of justifying acting like the worst sort of antisocial prick while at the same time claiming some sort of moral high ground because at least you never used any dirty words. That sort of spin doesn't pass here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>