Who’s doing the demonizing?

Published December 8th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson

Who’s doing the demonizing? I suppose you live south of the 49th, but Athiests who refrain from thrusting an agenda on others (and yes, lots of religious folks do do that) do not get very much flack here. Nor do Sihks, Buddhists or Unitarians. These sects do not, and this is where it might be instructional to your group to sit up and pay attention, construct websites with the single clear purpose being to discredit spiritual people. You are disrespectful and frankly, not too evolved. The rest of the world is striving to move toward to-ler-ance and you’d be well advised to follow suit. I don’t wear a turban, carry a hymn book, wear a cross, a ceremonial sword, I don’t wear blessed underwear or confer with tree goods but I do know that we’d all be better off saying, “I agree to disagree” and cease and desist with campaigns to uncover someone else’s faith as a sham. I think defamation is the word you’re looking for, as opposed to demonisation, unless whereever you’re from really IS the way it’s depicted in South Park (I thought it was a parody!) no one is “DEMONISING” intellectual curiousity,…that’s called ‘science’.

Your logic is not up to snuff. So, if this is not in the name of humour, it’s in the name of logic. Excuse me while I go and ponder that disconnect. There are many, many illogical things that happen in the world with amazing regularity. Does that necessitate a campaign to discredit it? One example, so many people gorge on fastfood that obesity is an epidemic. —> Therefore we should start a campaign to uncover their stupidity and shame them into more informed behaviour while acting as laugh material for the rest of us non-fatties. (the ones who know “the truth” about food)

Have you ever heard of relativism? Do you know that the chances are very, very good that Jesus, the Bhudda (arguably several incarnations) and Muhhomed (sp?) all walked the earth?

73 Responses to “Who’s doing the demonizing?”

1 4 5 6 7 8 10
  1. ID LOL says:

    On the topic of being overweight The Body Mass Index, the standard for telling if you are overweight was created between 1830 and 1850 by the Belgian polymath Adolphe Quetelet. I am 5′ 10″ and weigh 160 lbs I fall in to the normal range but I consider my self to be thin and bird chested, if I were to gain 10 lbs I would then fall into overwieght catagory. I do not agree with the BMI and believe it needs to be revised now that food is more abundant and nurishing.
    On a related note I have travled to europe and do agree that the US has a higher percentage of overweight people. To call it a pandemic is a misuse of words.

  2. pieces o'nine says:

    @ Bobby:
    Why, in the name of all that is noodly, is this page so gratuitously huge?
    Was it an attempt by the author to OPEN OUR EYES to the incontrovertible proof of his screed? If so, I fear that he has failed, as I am not able to take in more than a few words at a time at this humongous point size! Where is the man who can interpret this?
    Or…can it be?…is it a sign that I have been CURED(!) of my nearsightedness and may now cast out the hated bifocals? FSM be praised!!!

  3. Magister Munkie says:

    As stated many, many times.. most of us don’t give a hoot what you believe. If you think that god is a giant coffee bean, and to drink coffee is sacreligious, that’s great. But as soon as you start bringing your faith and belief (Read: stuff only you care about. Doesn’t bother us in the slightest) you’ve overstepped the mark.

    Teaching ID in schools? Making wholesale decisions on the way the entire population lives their own lives (Abortion, gay marriage)? And mixing faith into politics so openly? You Americans have my sympathy.. In Australia, we simply vote for the party which has, what we think, is the best policies. Heck, I’m not even sure of the religious direction of our current Prime Minister, nor the previous, nor the one before him. It never mattered.

    In closing.. believe what you want. Go crazy, really. Just keep it all to yourself.

  4. Wench Nikkiee says:

    I just read a couple of articles written by, on one blog, a theist molecular biologist railing against ID…….
    “Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas”
    I, for one, have religiously ignored the topic before now. I have done this partly out of a sort of professional courtesy to its supporters, with whom I share most other beliefs (and in many cases a personal affection), partly out of a belief that the idea was too obscure to argue over, and partly because the idea is so patently ridiculous to me that I felt that pointing this out would be somewhat akin to telling a friend that they have really, really bad breath. I mean – it would be an uncomfortable moment for both of us. But then how will they ever know, if I don’t tell them?”
    [Religious conservative, Mac Johnson]
    and the other……
    “An Immoral Godless Pseudoscience”
    “I am posting today about a dangerous teaching that is passing itself off as science, when in fact it is an anti-religious philosophy that has the potential to undermine the moral foundations of our society.
    I am referring, of course, to Intelligent Design.”
    [James F. McGrath, assistant professor of religion at Butler University.]
    After reading the latest dishonest, rabid and hate filled anti-evolution (the usual) posts on the Expelled blog today, following links to these blogs was a noodly breath of fresh air. I’ve always been disappointed and have often strongly criticized theists who accept evolution and didn’t stand up against the ID/creationism movement.
    Hoping to see many more similar posts from others in the near future!
    Both these articles were posted on the respective blogs on the 15/11 and are open to comments. Mac Johnson in particular has copped a lot of flak from his regular readers by speaking up. There are quite a few pats on the back from others as well. :))

  5. roger the cabin boy says:

    wtf why is everything so big?

  6. Washington Irving says:

    You would think that someone who is trying to make a strong argument against FHMism would care enough to spell everything correctly, especially since there are applications such as spell check that do that for us. “Muhhomed (Sp?)” is not only distracting but it completely detracts from the strength of the argument because it demonstrates to the reader that the writer probably does not know much, if any, about Muhammad or the islamic religions that he appears in. This also demonstrates the ignorance inherent in this article. This is not to say that the writer is ignorant or unintelligent but it should be noted that the argument is sufficiently lacking in rational logic and support, the two basic elements of a sound argument.

    This argument, however whatever its conclusion or make-up is should be respected. The fact that this writer can state their discontent freely and state that he/she has been offended is possibly the most important idea in this whole debate. However, stating that one was offended by FHMism or that many have been offended by FHMism simply cannot have any argumentative power. People will be offended in almost every debate on almost any issue. The fact that someone was offended is no basis for an argument. It is unfortunate that some people are offended by FHMism but the FHMists are in no way responsible for this since their intended purpose was in no way malicious. In this case, the writer of this ‘hate mail’ and others who are supposedly offended have only themselves to blame for the offense. Maybe those who take offense have a sense of the logical fallacies inherent their argument and become defensive when their reality is challenged.

    With sincere respect for the writer “who’s doing the demonizing?” (henderob) and all other theories,


  7. K Dales says:

    As should be clear, most (not all, but most) of the people who contribute here are all about tolerance. I have no disrespect at all for people who have a sincere and genuine faith and allow others to have the same, or different, or none. It is when one faith tries to establish itself above others, or tries to disingenuously manipulate the definition of science in a misguided attempt to provide itself with “proof” that is not real proof, that I (and, I suspect, most of the others who contribute to these discussions) feel the need to speak up. Does your tolerance extend to those of all beliefs, even those who believe that no religious faith explains this universe? Does your respect for the truth lead you to speak up when you see science being watered down by those who try to use it to support views that are not supported by the weight of scientific research? Do you believe that truth comes in the content of the discussion, and not the size of the font??? If so, you have nothing to worry about here.

  8. Mike Meier says:

    Hopefully “tolerance” is not what the world is moving toward, in that the word basically means – to put up with. I hope the world is moving more towards more along the lines of “accepting”, or “inclusive” or “multi-whatever”. There is probably a fancier and more easily marketable word that encompasses these concepts.

1 4 5 6 7 8 10

Leave a Reply