-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Punch a Catholic Day
- Thread starter Apex
- Start date
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
The part about actually punching people is sarcasm (if just barely). But his comment about Catholics being "credulous, brain-damaged nitwits" is certainly not.
And, in case some do not notice, his post is actually more than just an insult to Catholic "god-bothers". He is also mocking accommodationist atheists.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Punch a Catholic day...
Sounds like a good idea to me!
Sounds like a good idea to me!
As we see on another thread, hatred against some is more socially acceptable than against others.
This guy is well known & respected? I never heard of the lout before today. I'd caution him against trying
out this practice. Some Christians have much in common with atheists....we punch back....& then some.
Last edited:
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Among the activist atheist groups he is. Just about every college atheist organization wants him to speak at their school and he speaks at just about every major atheist/skeptic event.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
This is just sad. People really need to stop this kind of crap, from all sides.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Hm, true. What day is "Punch a Ginger Day"? Maybe we can replace that one with "Punch a Gay Day".But it wouldn't make sense to punch gays on Ash Wednesday.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Fortunately there are some atheists/skeptics who are trying to stop it on their side.
Phil Plait's Don't Be A Dick talk at TAM8 Now Online
Unfortunately, many prominent figures in the atheist/skeptic movement are against it.
Confrontation all the way : Pharyngula
Blag Hag: Required reading for the accommodating atheist
Friendly Atheist » There
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Meh. I read on Christian blogs all the time how I deserve to go to hell and be punished for all eternity. I don't see how one prominent Atheist making a joke at the expense of an inane ritual on his own blog and garnishing it with a fair degree of vitriol is really cause for alarm.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
1. It shows how a good portion of the atheist/skeptic movement are emulating that which they despise the most, radical extremists religion.
2. Equivalent comments from the opposite side of the belief spectrum tend to generate lots of commotion around here.
3. It is a glaring example of what Revoltingest mentioned in his post.
I think P.Z. Myers' post in the OP is pointlessly inflammatory, but I also think Phil Plait went too far with that speech.
I don't think it's necessary to be completely accommodationalist, especially in terms of wider skepticism beyond matters of religion: for instance, if an antivaxxer has decided not to protect his children against completely preventable diseases because he's decided to take medical advice from Jenny McCarthy and not his family physician, I damn well hope that he feels ashamed of himself... especially if a bit of shame will motivate him to get his kids inoculated. There are many contexts where I think it's entirely appropriate to call foolish ideas foolish, even if it ruffles the feathers of the people putting the ideas forward.
Also, I think that Plait's central message, i.e. that confrontation makes people less likely to accept skeptical arguments, is false. I remember when that speech first came out online - I can't remember how many stories I read from people who were now skeptics, but had previously held onto decidedly unscientific opinions that they only abandoned after being forced to re-evaluate them because of some situation occurred where they were made to feel foolish for holding them.
Confronting someone about a bad claim that they're making probably won't cause them to immediately respond with "well, now that you mention it, you're right! I have been an idiot!", but it can often plant a seed of doubt that begins to grow. It can also have a powerful effect on the "lurkers" who haven't adopted the idea yet, but are considering it.
Also, I think there's some serious irony in calling people "dicks" as part of an argument about how you won't get anywhere by insulting people.
I like a different approach that another skeptic came up with a good slogan for: don't be reckless. Be deliberate.
If a skeptic or atheist is going to raise someone's hackles, fine by me... but have a reason behind it. I think P.Z. fails this test with his post, but I think that Phil Plait and the "don't be a dick" crowd miss the mark as well.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it doesn't. That's like saying having a campfire in your back garden is emulating the holocaust.
Does it? As far as I've seen, it takes a great deal more vitriol than what P.Z Meyers is spewing for any comments made by any religious figure to be worthy of note. I don't see why it's such a big deal.
I still think everyone's overreacting for no reason whatsoever. Could he have chosen his words more carefully? Yes, he could have. But that's the most I could say about his comments. They don't seem any more or less derisive or offensive than the kind of stuff I read on a daily basis, and don't seem nearly half as derisive or offensive to a lot of stuff that goes unmentioned.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Seems you took away a completely different interpretation of Phil Plait's talk than I did.
Quite possibly. What interpretation did you take from it?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Yes and I'll bet there would have been even fewer posts than 3 in response if the thread had been called "Punch a Brown-Eyed Person Day". And I bet there would have been an uproar if the title was "Punch a Jew Day".
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because according to the FBI there were 1,135 victims of anti-Jewish hate crimes, and 1,461 victims of anti-gay hate crimes, vs. 58 victims of anti-Catholic and 0 victims of anti-brown-eyes hate crimes in the U.S. in 2009? Could it be that the "uproar" in response to prejudice against group X is roughly proportional to the magnitude of discrimination which occurs, in practice, against group X? Would that be so unreasonable?
Anyway ... PZ Meyers' blog post was just dumb, in my opinion.
I've heard of him, and read a few articles he wrote in which he explained evolution / argued against Creationism. But I have never read his blog and now, after reading the OP and browsing one of Meyers' other posts, I don't want to read anything else he has to say.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Yep, that's not as funny as he probably thinks it is, but that's PZ Meyers for you.
The Phil Plait approach sounds like too much work. I think I'll keep being intolerant of anti-empirical opinions and keep trying not to let my intolerance of terrible ideas cause me to mistake people who have terrible ideas for terrible people.
I don't have an agenda, though. I think humanity is a lost cause, at least as far as reason is concerned. Maybe if I wanted to proselytize I would get involved with the "should 'we' do it this way or that way" skeptics' 'movement' debate, but as it is I'm just passing the time.
The Phil Plait approach sounds like too much work. I think I'll keep being intolerant of anti-empirical opinions and keep trying not to let my intolerance of terrible ideas cause me to mistake people who have terrible ideas for terrible people.
I don't have an agenda, though. I think humanity is a lost cause, at least as far as reason is concerned. Maybe if I wanted to proselytize I would get involved with the "should 'we' do it this way or that way" skeptics' 'movement' debate, but as it is I'm just passing the time.