Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Dumb and dumber

with 18 comments

Catholicism is second only to Islam, and a close second it is, in supreme stupidity. Although… there’s Hinduism. And Scientology. And Mormonism. And Adventism. And… but I must get to the point.

Now this is particularly rich: There are moves to beatify Pius XII. And Benny Dick* is personally defending his dead buddy Eugenio.

Pius XII!? Are you shitting me?

No Catholic-born Nazi, not Goebbels, not Himmler, not Bormann – not even Adolf Hitler, who died with his name still on the rolls of the Catholic Church, and for whom the Catholic Primate (Primate – any placental mammal of the order Primates with good eyesight and flexible hands and feet) of Germany ordered the Requiem sung after his suicide – was ever excommunicated for being a Nazi.

Yet Eugenio Pacelli, the rogue who sat in the stool of Peter under the preposterous assumed name of Pius XII – pious, no less! – had not the slightest inhibitions after WWII, in 1949, about excommunicating all Communist members throughout the world with a single stroke of his stick dipped in Jewish blood; his pen.

The reason for this screaming inconsistency is platitudinously and embarrassingly obvious – the Communists were “atheists”; the Nazi’s, according to Herr Hitler “… acted in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator… I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” (Mein Kampf, 46; Speech, Reichstag, 1936.)

Was it not the selfsame Eugenio that prevented the return of Jewish children, seperated from their parents by the Catholic Nazi Leaders, to their parents – so as to save the souls of the children?! Who did nothing whatsoever about the Nazi concentartion camps?

Beatify Eugenio!? Canonise him!? Purleaze! One can not even remember this scum bag with fondness if one worked at it.

Also in the news at this time is the execution by firing squad early on Sunday morning of three Islamists sentenced to death for the Bali bombings which killed 202 people. Yes, yes, of course they shouted “Allah Akhbar”. The cry of the dumb.

A family member expressed the hope that  “… our brothers, God willing, be invited by green birds to heaven now”.

What!?

Fucking green birds!? What is fuck is this!?

It takes birds now to get martyrs into the lascivious company of 72 virgins? Green birds?

Religion. What a crock. Monty Python should no longer be writing news releases. Really. It is funny, of course. Hillarious even. And entertaining too! But someone somewhere may just take this nonsense for real. Is that possible?

* The title “Pope” is the most ludicrous assumption in the embarrassing history of religion. I, for one, do not acknowledge it and will not address the holder of the “Stool of Peter” – a most apposite description of this fabrication, this prevarication – as “Pope”. Benny Dick is the assumed name of the current defecator on the stool – Mr Ratzinger.

Written by Nathan Bond

November 9, 2008 at 08:26

Posted in Religion must go!

Tagged with , , ,

18 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Yes, you did. So did I.

    Con-Tester

    November 17, 2008 at 19:13

  2. Like I said ….

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 17, 2008 at 16:11

  3. Daan Van der Merwe wrote (15 Nov 08 at 8:11 am):

    You … accept the proven scientific facts as sufficient to reject the existence of any supernatutal power.

    No. I reject a supernatural realm as unproven for want of compelling reason and evidence. That science offers alternative empirically viable accounts is just icing on the top – icing that makes the supernatural superfluous in addition to implausible. In keeping with the zetetic approach, then, I reject the use of such hypotheticals because using them as though they were true is fundamentally dishonest.

    Daan Van der Merwe wrote (15 Nov 08 at 8:11 am):

    I respect your views without branding you as a bunch of wanking, stupid, brainless, shortsigted dummies.

    That’s a bald-faced lie. Your naked and caustic derision in these pages refutes you.

    Daan Van der Merwe wrote (15 Nov 08 at 8:11 am):

    For the same price, you, together with the other 3% of Atheists inhabiting our planet, have no right to refer to 86% of the world population being religious, as dumb and dumber or such derogative terms.

    “No right,” you say? On your god’s authority once again, I suppose. Some arrogant chutzpah you’ve got. Quite apart from the tedious threats of alleged post-mortem violence and suffering we heathens are to face that you religious jerks feel justified in drawing our attention to with liberal abandon, there’s a thing enshrined in most liberal democracies’ founding charters called “freedom of expression.” You should look it up sometime. It exists precisely because such stupidities as organised religion are so deeply entrenched in society and have repeatedly sought to protect themselves from criticism by appropriating for themselves special dispensations and such rights as you now seek to deny those of a different view to you here on this blog. You do not have a right not to be offended. If you don’t like it here, point your browser at another URL. But don’t preach to me about “rights” and your sore toes, okay? Because I don’t give a shit whom I offend.

    Daan Van der Merwe wrote (15 Nov 08 at 8:11 am):

    Should you however choose to maintain your view towards believers as naive dummies, we don’t have much more to discuss, if any, and my response will be very simple: “Fuck you too. And your deputy.”

    That, too, is your choice, of course. I’m well aware that you know better than everyone else combined and that you’ll never relinquish your hold on your crutch. Pity, then, that you can’t or won’t put it up for scrutiny. After all, I did mine. So I’ll just keep ridiculing these fairytales you hold so dear and you can keep spraying ovum onto your countenance with these pathetic attempts ad hominems. You can expect to be answered in kind for just as long as Nathan will tolerate it.

    Con-Tester

    November 15, 2008 at 16:15

  4. Dear Connie

    Thank you very much for that remarkably astute analysis of the current scientific position on the origin of the universe. I expected nothing less from you. {I’m serious.) You strike me as a highly intelligent fellow. (I’m still serious.)

    But you see Con, I’ve heard and read all that and much more. I fully agree with you and Nathan that this lack of scientific proof doesn’t spell “God”. Not even remotely. And that’s my whole point, Conroy. You, Nathan, Bewilderbeast, Rick and DW accept the proven scientific facts as sufficient to reject the existence of any supernatutal power. That’s fine. That’s cool. That’s super, laudable, commendable, tonatious. I respect your views without branding you as a bunch of wanking, stupid, brainless, shortsigted dummies.

    For the same price, you, together with the other 3% of Atheists inhabiting our planet, have no right to refer to 86% of the world population being religious, as dumb and dumber or such derogative terms. Should you however choose to maintain your view towards believers as naive dummies, we don’t have much more to discuss, if any, and my response will be very simple: “Fuck you too. And your deputy.”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 15, 2008 at 08:11

  5. Some physicists have speculated that the universe’s (space, time and matter) expansion arose spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in the pre-existent void, whatever that may have been. Quantum mechanics allows uncaused particle/anti-particle pair creation from otherwise empty space, and these so-called “virtual particles” exist for a short period (as governed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) before the pair mutually annihilate again. Actually, it’s a bit more complicated, but that’s the idea in coarse strokes. These virtual particles are not speculative; their existence has been confirmed repeatedly. A similar or related effect may have been responsible for the universe we now see.

    But it gets more interesting than that. While many questions remain to be answered, there is some evidence and good reason to suppose that the total energy content of the universe may be zero – in other words, there’s no nett mass/energy cost. It looks crazy but the physics is sound. This thought prompted MIT physicist Alan Guth to call the universe “the ultimate free lunch.” Here’s a decent layman’s overview.

    Still, the bottom line is that we don’t yet know for certain. But, as Nathan indicated, our ignorance is not a licence to invoke more ignorance. And even if it could somehow be shown beyond any doubt that the universe had a supernatural origin or cause (what is this “supernatural” thing, anyway to begin with?), we are left with two further difficulties. First, we would still be a very long way off from showing that this supernatural cause is anything like any of the gods mankind has dreamt up, and second, we are left with the new problem of what that supernatural cause’s origin is.

    Con-Tester

    November 14, 2008 at 15:15

  6. Nathan!

    Nee, jy het dit mos al vir my verduidelik en ek sien jou punt.

    Ek wil net graag vir Professor Conroy 250+ IQ Tester die woorde “I don’t know” (how the big bang happened)sien skryf.🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 14, 2008 at 15:10

  7. Daan

    Ons weet nie hoe die Groot Knal gebeur het nie. Maar, Daan, hoekom nou dié misterie met nóg ‘n misterie probeer verduidelik: Dit was “Gód”? Nou van wáár kom “God”? Nee, “AsjKockidOvi” het “God” gemaak! Oóóóó!! En “AsjKockidOvi”? Nee, fôk, wié weet!?

    Nathan Bond

    November 14, 2008 at 13:39

  8. As a matter of fact, I did think of it.

    Okay.

    If the Big Bang wasn’t caused by a Supernatural Power, by what or Whom was it caused?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 14, 2008 at 12:35

  9. Daan Van der Merwe wrote (14 Nov 08 at 6:13 am):

    I’m just trying to convey my utter displeasure with your superior, omniscient attitude.

    Not so lekker when the table’s turned, yes? Anyway, your emotional response to what I write says a lot more about you than it does about me. Nor does it affect the validity or otherwise of what I write.

    Needless to say, instead of resorting to passive-aggressive snivelling, there’s always the option open to you of presenting a few counterarguments with substantiation where appropriate. Maybe you just haven’t thought of that.

    Con-Tester

    November 14, 2008 at 09:53

  10. You are right Nathan. Of course you should not stop trying. My point is, however, that if your only way to fight religion is to mock religion and to brand religious people as brainless dummies, well, firgitaboutit. How did you put it the other day? No hope is indeed better than false hope.

    Rick! Goed om van jou te hoor. Ek is ‘n belese man, maar ek is bevrees ek ken nie daai storie nie. Ek dink egter nie jy kan rassisme hoegenaamd met godsdiens vergelyk nie.

    Professor Connie, you are right. My conduct was childish and churlish and I stand to be corrected. I’m just trying to convey my utter displeasure with your superior, omniscient attitude.

    PS. Please pray for me during my Std 6 exams, professor.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 14, 2008 at 06:13

  11. Daan Van der Merwe, your latest comment (13 Nov 08 at 4:38 pm) could easily pass for one of those spot-all-the-errors exercises given to Std 6 pupils. What do you hope to achieve with this childish, churlish ridicule of yours? That efforts to oppose religion should cease anon, maybe? Can you even smell what you’re shovelling?

    Con-Tester

    November 13, 2008 at 18:02

  12. Daan

    Jou bydrae laat my dink aan die storie van die duisende seesterre wat op die strand uitgespoel het…..ek vertrou jy ken die storie. Dis normaalweg ‘n storie wat gelowiges geniet om te gebruik. In hierdie geval is dit egter heel gepas vir die ongelowiges se argument.

    Rassisme was 30 jaar gelede die norm. Alhoewel ons nog n ver pad het om te loop, kyk watter vordering het ons in SA reeds gemaak. Ek glo dat dieselfde kan met geloof vermag word.

    Rick

    November 13, 2008 at 17:35

  13. Daan

    I do not expect to eradicate religion. But I also do not expect that organised crime will be eradicated. That does not mean we should stop trying! I suggest that even though we can not eradicate religion, we could at least stop behaving as if religion is worthy of respect.

    All I can reasonably hope for is that one of my readers may one day, looking at a grandchild being baptised, for example, or drinking from the communion cup, realise in a moment: “Fuck, but this is a load of crap. I’m a doos, just like Bond said.”

    Nathan Bond

    November 13, 2008 at 17:03

  14. Nathan

    This is what I have been trying to tell you a few months ago.

    On your crusade to eradicate religion for being a dangerous ideology, no matter how laudable your mission, you will never succeed by ridiculating religion.

    Look at the comments: You have only impressed Bewilderbeast and Professor Doctor Con Tester (Ph.D Quantum Physics) (Ph.D Philosophy) (Ph.D Economics) (Ph.D Political Science) (Ph.D Strategic Studies) (Ph.D (Honoris Causa) Theology) (Ph.D Astronomy) (Ph.D Archaeology) (Ph.D Zoology)

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 13, 2008 at 16:38

  15. I didn’t realise ole Eggs Benedict was related to Benny Hinn! They’re all family, huh?

    Did I send you this? “Heaven Less Opulent Than Vatican, Reports Disappointed Pope”
    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30972

    bewilderbeast

    November 12, 2008 at 23:57

  16. Why some people actively resist science — a psychological perspective. The article shows how beliefs, acquired early on in life from an authoritarian base and held within a group, can become practically immovable and how they resist competing beliefs. This is especially relevant in religiously derived controversies like the evolution/creation war and also the idea of a transcendent reality.

    Con-Tester

    November 10, 2008 at 11:48

  17. Yet another example in a long and proud tradition of persecution. Without faith-based thinking and the advice in the bible re witches and suffering them to live, it is hard to imagine how people can be manipulated into such base behaviour. Again one can hear the clamouring voices: “Ja, but that’s not my religion. Mine would never do things like that!”

    Really?

    Con-Tester

    November 9, 2008 at 15:56

  18. As I keep pointing out, religion facilitates the grossest atrocities and miscarriages of justice by subverting all that is good and decent in people. Once again, we can brace ourselves for the “Ja, but that’s not my religion” disclaimers. Wake up and smell the devastation, please!

    Con-Tester

    November 9, 2008 at 15:38


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: