4th March 2010
“Nowadays, following a series of outrages in which religious motivation has played a major part, those who reject religion have had enough of pussy-footing around its votaries' sanctimonious self-regardingness, and are talking back. Are they saying that people who believe the ancient superstitions should be burned at the stake? Banned? Forbidden to congregate and "worship"? Forbidden to run schools to proselytise their own small children? No. Nor do they for a instant suggest that the holy should get a taste of the medicine they dished out during these past two millennia – though to hear the squeals from our anonymous ad hominem vituperators you would think so.”
March 4th, 2010 at 1:32
This is a great quote. Isn’t it odd to the point of pathological the reaction of the giant majority to secularism? We’re treated to Fox new’s annual coverage of the “war on Christmas” and the defacing of the tiny number of secular signs and bill boards as well as the “teach the controversy crowd”. When have you ever heard of an atheist defacing a church sign? When has an atheist ever committed a crime in the name of his non-belief? I can’t think of one. But the reaction of the other camp borders panic. Why so threatened? Why so prickly? Why so offended? It has the feel of very very deep insecurity. Doubt must gnaw at them so.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:57
I, too, like this quote (despite it’s awkward wordiness).
It’s easy to say (and repeat) outlandish things when you’ve bought into a mob mentality – no one questions you, regardless of the absurdities spewing forth from your mouth. Just look at Sarah Palin!!
From the minority position it’s disturbing to see the “outrage” (false, without doubt) that the religious feel when their ideas and “sacred” institutions are attacked.
Yet, attacked isn’t even the correct word. Simply pointing out that the term “Christmas”, for example, may be offensive to other members of our society evokes screams of outrage from Christians who (falsely, yet repeatedly) claim that “this country is based on Christianity.”
How petty, inaccurate and puerile.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:35
The greater distance we place between us and the motion of religion the better off society in general will be.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:34
I heard a priest on the radio this morning say “we shouldn’t look for explanations of God”. Which in a nutshell is the problem theists have with atheists. We ask awkward questions and have the audacity to expect answers.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:25
It always astonishes me at the level of backlash against the secular movement in the US. We don’t have the same problem in the UK (or Europe for that matter) so although I enjoy the quote I don’t know what exactly Mr Grayling is referring too?
Indeed secularism is so accepted now we have atheist slogans on public transport and 28,000 people have signed a petition against the pope’s visit in September. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8548831.stm – from today’s news.
Only Islamic hard-liners seem to get offended but they have no sense of humour whatsoever so nobody really cares.
March 4th, 2010 at 14:31
Unfortunately it only takes a spark to ignite controversy when dealing with a person’s faith. What is it about the human psyche that creates such irrational emotion?
March 4th, 2010 at 15:34
The embarrassment of gullibility.
March 4th, 2010 at 16:45
I think you nailed it, Heretic.
March 4th, 2010 at 17:04
I liked this quote as well, in part because it was lengthy enough to let the author explain a little more what they meant. A few of the earlier quotes were one or two sentences where we all got to ‘write in’ what was not specified.
To this quote, then. The old adage about ‘you don’t know to look under the bed unless you’ve hidden there yourself’ explains a lot of the attitude of the religious. As Heretic says, the embarrassment of gullibility seems to motivate some of this attitude.
PEB, you called us (US) on that one. Superstition is closely tied to nationalism here, the religious try to shame us as somehow not loving or caring about our own people unless we ‘go for god’. You might say that your society is a little more mature. Here we seem to be stuck in a fervor.
The real point of the quote, at least for me, is the inequity of the rules of the game. However, if we were to act like the religious wing-nuts it would be a huge step down in character.
Which leads me to ask: Should we extend the ten day rule?
March 4th, 2010 at 17:35
I don’t see anybody struggling with it. I was hoping it might flush out a lucid theistic argument or two, but so far…nada!
March 4th, 2010 at 18:03
Well, AMC, thank you for the intervention. I feel cleaner, somehow…
March 4th, 2010 at 19:43
AMC & steve
Day 7. I must confess, the conversations are more interesting, but less confrontational. I guess it depends on why each of us volunteers to throw our two cents worth in here. Although I think playing role reversal would have been quite interesting and comical, especially by some of you brainiacs. lol
March 4th, 2010 at 20:16
Holysmokes;
Then stand warned; some day, some time (after the ten day wager, and when I have a little more time) I am going to visit the dark side of the farce.
March 4th, 2010 at 22:21
I believe the young persons’ idiom is PMSL!
March 4th, 2010 at 22:22
To be sure, I’ve been tempted to break the pact just to play the forfeit. This could either get very interesting or very very silly
March 4th, 2010 at 22:38
Pleeeeaaaaase make it silly! I’ve read the backlog and find it extremely difficult and boring to read the exchanges with some of the offenders on the site. Nothing gained.
I think the best defense is a witty and ridiculous offense.
In fact, this could be the next 10-day challenge: mock any offensive comment (at least once a day) with a witty riposte in haiku or limerick form. Anyone game?
March 4th, 2010 at 23:22
I’m going to need a few weeks to think about that one. lol
March 5th, 2010 at 0:05
OK, AMC. Looked up PMSL, thanks!
GWOG; I am open to that, you have a few days left to state your specifics.
Holysmokes, you underestimate yourself.
“There was a young man from Nantucket;…”
March 5th, 2010 at 0:06
Ooooh! [mental processes engaging]…O…K lets do it!!
March 5th, 2010 at 0:08
but relevent to the daily quote
March 5th, 2010 at 0:27
Relevance? That would be an important distinction.
However, GWOGs post on this read like it was in reference to the loonies’ comments, and those do not always focus on anything, let alone the QOTD topic.
Ruling please? I am good with whatever you all want to play.
AMC, wasn’t this your idea in the first place?
I nominate you to lay down the law.
[Pretty Please?]
March 5th, 2010 at 1:41
Only agreeing between yourself would be a boring game ain’t it? Yes….yes…..& yes….There will be no challenge.Challenges excites human & is very healthy.Forget about the 10 day stuffs.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:57
I ‘m going too address every person on this site:Not one of you here would stand for anybody standing on a side walk , with a sign that read slander about the atheists.If you tell anything other wise. Then I say you’re lying.
March 5th, 2010 at 21:13
It’s a good thing we agree
That I don’t really care
What you think about me