Complaint about haunted bread on Late Late Show

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

When a very active mod like yourself regards other posters on the thread as having 'irrational beliefs' then it's no wonder so many believers steer well clear of the A&A threads.

Or, more likely, they realize WHY we call them irrational beliefs......... because they are in every way unsubstantiated........... and that coming to a forum like this they will be expected to do what THEY know can not be done..... which is to substantiate the things that they claim.

This forum is not hostile to people with beliefs different to our own. We ARE generally more hostile to people asserting and espousing unsubstantiated nonsense by declaration or fiat.

If you think the explanation for our universe, or life within our universe, is related to the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agency and you can offer any level of substantiation at all for such a claim.......... then you will find people here quite welcoming to discuss it with you.

If you want to tell us that haunted crackers contain some aspect of the soul of a long dead unemployed carpenters son however "just because" and we should respect your "faith" in the matter........... then you will find people generally less welcoming. And rightfully so.

kylith

nuac wrote: »

btw I think the priest who complained about the "haunted bread" was fully entitled to do so. This still a mainly Christian country. I am not a very fervent Catholic; I considered it offensive.

Do you know what's offensive? Being told that I deserve to burn in torment for eternity because I don't believe the same thing as Christians.

I think that if one side is condoning eternal torture and the other side is making flippant remarks about second-rate wafers then it's clear which side is more objectionable.

nuac

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I know, it must be like finding intelligence at a Healy-Rae/Lowry fundraiser.

Those guys are extremely intelligent. They could buy and sell most of us, and probably have already done so.

nuac

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm. This might explain why I am having so much trouble getting my non-stamp collectors club up and running...

MrP

Filthy philatelists:)

gctest50

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As he looks out each week on his ageing shrinking congregation, I'm sure that'll be a great source of comfort to him

But if you're into the old self-delusion, you might as well 'go large'

Some of them can make all sorts of claims and still go to bed at night and sleep like their god during the Holocaust

Da Boss

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs,should he disagree fine but show some respect lad. I've my names for atheists too but I've enough respect 4 them not to say any remarks, certainly inappropriate in national tv

smokingman

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs,should he disagree fine but show some respect lad. I've my names for atheists too but I've enough respect 4 them not to say any remarks, certainly inappropriate in national tv

You peak my curiosity fine sir; what are these names you have for atheists?

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs

Ridiculing a belief is not the same thing as ridiculing the holder of the belief. In fact some very intelligent and admirable minds have been infected with some ridiculous and unsubstantiated nonsense ideas.

Newton for example was one of the, if not arguably the, brightest and most admirable minds our species has produced. And some of the ideas he believed in were ridiculous nonsense.

I understand some people wishing to play the "I am so offended" card like to be offended on behalf of their ideas, but that is not something anyone here, or on TV, should be expected to pander to. If you are offended or insulted by the words or ideas of another person, then realize the problem is yours not theirs.

That deals with the "insult" and "ridicule" of which you speak but with "destructive" I think you were just giving in to pure hyperbole and exaggeration there. What is "destructive" about such comments exactly?

But when it comes to bad and ridiculous claims and ideas, they SHOULD be ridiculed. People should be shown respect, but ideas should not. We are a species with the gift of the faculty of humor and I see no reason to shine the light of that gift on patently ridiculous and wholly unsubstantiated nonsense.

I did write a passage on your precious cracker bread before. I wonder if you find it equally "destructive" or you are equally triggered by it.

Da Boss wrote: »

I've my names for atheists too but I've enough respect 4 them not to say any remarks, certainly inappropriate in national tv

Ah but notice the interesting difference here. The comments the person on TV made were mostly about crackers and the beliefs about the crackers. Here however you claim to have "names" about "atheists".

So he was making his comments about objects and beliefs. You are name calling actual people. That is not a small difference, and that you think they are equivalent is very telling. He had "names" for "haunted bread" but you escalate it by having (presumably derogatory given your description) names for actual PEOPLE.

But do not hold back at all. You will find the people here are not offended or triggered by mere words and beliefs in the same way you demonstrably are. Trot out your list of words and names and I think you will find the majority of users here will not rush to plead offence but will in fact instead merely engage with you as to whether they thing your labels are accurate or applicable or not. The users here will not shrilly cry "I am so offended by your words" but will attempt to reason with you as to whether your selected words and name calling are linguistically valid or not.

Samaris

Given how clear fundamental Christians make themselves on the topic of people not agreeing with them, I think many atheists are fairly inured to religion-based insults.


I have a lot more time for the Christians that quietly get on with trying to live as Jesus (who was a pretty good man with some good ideas) than the rabid OT wavers that get a lot more interest out of the bits of the Bible that allow them to be awful human beings to others. I wish there were more of the former about. Unfortunately, it has always been more difficult to rouse a rabble to the banner of "Let's all try to get along!" over "Kill the heretics!"

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

I have a lot more time for the Christians that quietly get on with trying to live as Jesus (who was a pretty good man with some good ideas) than the rabid OT wavers that get a lot more interest out of the bits of the Bible that allow them to be awful human beings to others. I wish there were more of the former about.

There could be. Precisely because they go about it quietly, you're less likely to notice them.

Delirium

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs,should he disagree fine but show some respect lad. I've my names for atheists too but I've enough respect 4 them not to say any remarks, certainly inappropriate in national tv

you do understand that 'haunted bread' was referring to the bread used during the Eucharist, not Roman Catholics?

nozzferrahhtoo

Delirium wrote: »

you do understand that 'haunted bread' was referring to the bread used during the Eucharist, not Roman Catholics?

It is not clear he does realize that, and I am not sure which is worse. That he does realize it or that he does not. Either has worrying implications.

Certainly when I obtained a large number of these crackers, pre and post latin mumbling services to engender them with haunty-ness, I received a few death threats and odd comments from some theists.

A few of those comments, not just one but a few of them, likened my possession of the crackers to things like "How would you like it if I came and kidnapped your child?".

Which suggests to me that the user above would not be alone in the move of equating actions and comments and labels directed at a piece of bread......... with those directed at real actual people.

kylith

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs,should he disagree fine but show some respect lad. I've my names for atheists too but I've enough respect 4 them not to say any remarks, certainly inappropriate in national tv

As per my earlier comment on this thread: you believe we atheists deserve to burn in damnation forever, I believe your magic crackers are silly. Which belief is more offensive?

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

As per my earlier comment on this thread: you believe we atheists deserve to burn in damnation forever, I believe your magic crackers are silly. Which belief is more offensive?

Could it be that a still more offensive belief is your belief that Da Boss believes what you say he believes?

magicbastarder

that's whataboutery though. (edit: that was a reference to kylith's post, not the one immediately above)

it boils down to this - if someone believes that they regularly eat the actual flesh of their actual god as part of a religious ceremony - except that flesh is, to any test which it can be put to, bread; they've gotta expect that people who don't follow their religion will find it laughable.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

Could it be that a still more offensive belief is your belief that Da Boss believes what you say he believes?

I can only assume that a Christian follows Christian teachings, which are that non-Christians go to hell where they have an awful time of it altogether.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Could it be that a still more offensive belief is your belief that Da Boss believes what you say he believes?

Best hold off until the poster confirms, even if it is a central christian belief.

Though it's one which most christians will go to some lengths to avoid confirming as the extreme silliness of the belief becomes a little obvious.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

There could be. Precisely because they go about it quietly, you're less likely to notice them.

Very many Catholics also seem to thoroughly enjoy strong religious humour that was previously banned due to being offensive to Catholics, Father Ted being the best example of this, and of course Life of Brian. The argument that the Rubber Bandits humorously talking about haunted bread is offensive to most Catholics would appear to be specious on this basis. One priest in Kerry taking the hump and a few more hard liners following suit is hardly representative of the views of 'most Catholics'.

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

I can only assume that a Christian follows Christian teachings, which are that non-Christians go to hell where they have an awful time of it altogether.

robindch wrote: »

Best hold off until the poster confirms, even if it is a central christian belief.

Though it's one which most christians will go to some lengths to avoid confirming as the extreme silliness of the belief becomes a little obvious.

It's amusing to see atheists getting all pontifical and issuing infallible pronouncements about what is, and what is not, a "central Christian belief". While this is a belief commonly held by Christians, it's also a belief commonly rejected by Christians. The only way to know whether Da Boss believes this is to ask him, and simply asserting that he believes it without having taken that simple step is, yeah, something he might conceivably find quite offensive.

See, here's the thing. Fr. Whatsisname says that he finds what was said about the eucharist quite offensive, and the general response in this forum has been, well, you just have to suck that up, Father. Fair enough. But if you take that stance, and then immediately go on to impute offensive beliefs to other people so that you can get all offended by the beliefs you have imputed to them - well, Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. If Fr. Whatisname has to suck up the offense he felt watching the Late Late, then you certainly have to suck up the offense that you have manufactured for yourself so that you can gratify your need to be offended.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If Fr. Whatisname has to suck up the offense he felt watching the Late Late, then you certainly have to suck up the offense that you have manufactured for yourself so that you can gratify your need to be offended.

Its a fair point, but talking for myself here, what is objectionable is what I'd see as a minority of religious hardliners attempting to censor religious humour presented by our national broadcaster without reasonable cause. There is a tendency for some religious posters here, such as Daboss, to attempt to line up all Catholics behind their argument on the basis that they are a Catholic and 78% of the population are also Catholic. This is a clearly fallacious position as the Catholic majority are a varied bunch that have long since stopped lining up in support of the whims of the hierarchy on these types of matters. While it is reasonable for us to say we find something offensive, it is not reasonable to say someone else should similarly find it offensive because we're part of the same club and the source of offense should be censored on that basis.

Peregrinus

While others may have advanced the position you describe, smacl, I don't think Da Boss has.

I agree with you that there's a serious discussion to be had about to what extent society can or should restrict offensive speech. And I probably incline towards the answer that I suspect you incline towards; "it's offensive!" is generally not a sufficient justification for restrictions on free speech.

But, whatever answer someone may offer to the question, I don't think the answer is defensible if it it distinguishes between speech offensive to those people over there, and speech offensive to us or to a group that includes us. Nor do I think it matters greatly whether the group offended is a very large one or a smaller one. If somebody does say "we Catholics are 78% of the population and our feelings should be protected!", I suggest that the fact that they are 78% of the population is irrelevant. But the corrollary of that is that, if it turns out that, actually, only 7.8% of the population is offended, that's also irrelevant.

Da Boss

Some reasonable comments there, some Unreasonable. I put this to all atheists here(there seems to be quiet a few of yee). Yee claimed that us followers of Christ have names that are offensive to atheists ,yet yee atheists ,many whom seem to think they are saints(if I can use that word or is it offensive ),do no wrong. Well yee are the same people who call us faithful brainwashed/dangerous, priests rapists(true for a small minority,true too 4 atheists) and call nuns murders

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

While others may have advanced the position you describe, smacl, I don't think Da Boss has.

I disagree, Da Boss has clearly nominated himself as a spokesperson for all Catholics in the statement below.

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs

This is utter nonsense, as the rubber bandits are very popular and doubtless many of their audience are Catholic. For example, Ryan Turbridy is a self proclaimed Catholic yet he found the humour amusing. Da Boss is misrepresenting the opinion of all Catholics, because he is no more aware of that opinion than you or I.

But the corrollary of that is that, if it turns out that, actually, only 7.8% of the population is offended, that's also irrelevant.

That's fair enough, but that is a different argument. Many people find many things offensive for many reasons. However, we need to be very careful about the subset we restrict and why do so. My position is that this should include incitement to hatred here, but not certainly not blasphemy or religious humour.

smacl

Da Boss wrote: »

I put this to all atheists here(there seems to be quiet a few of yee). Yee claimed that us followers of Christ have names that are offensive to atheists ,yet yee atheists ,many whom seem to think they are saints(if I can use that word or is it offensive ),do no wrong. Well yee are the same people who call us faithful brainwashed/dangerous, priests rapists(true for a small minority,true too 4 atheists) and call nuns murders

How about you direct your question to any atheists rather than all atheists as none of us are in a position to state what all atheists might think. Similarly, when referring to specific claims refer to the specific posters that made those claims. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in a god or gods, they don't necessarily have anything in common beyond that.

MrPudding

nuac wrote: »

[/B]

Those guys are extremely intelligent. They could buy and sell most of us, and probably have already done so.

Oh yes, very intelligent. They even know a thing or two about road building.

MrP

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

Yee claimed that us followers of Christ have names that are offensive to atheists

A bit of historical revisionism going on from you there I fear.

I think you will find it was YOU that claimed that YOU personally had names for them that you refuse to share here, despite us being agog to hear them.

And in fact what I claimed, though you appear to have simply ignored the post, was that if you actually come out with what "names" you have for them you will find they are not actually offended at all, but will simply attempt to explore the reasoning behind your choice of "names".

The worry is however that you do not appear to be cognizant of the VAST difference between labeling a BELIEF and labeling a PERSON. A concern I and at least one other user raised which you have not only failed to address, but somewhat exacerbate in this post.

Da Boss wrote: »

many whom seem to think they are saints(if I can use that word or is it offensive)

Not offensive at all no. And certainly not as offensive and lacking in decorum as inventing thoughts on their behalf that no one here has expressed themselves. I have not seen a single person here who "seems to think" any such thing at all. You have whole sale made that up.

Da Boss wrote: »

Well yee are the same people who call us faithful brainwashed/dangerous, priests rapists(true for a small minority,true too 4 atheists) and call nuns murders

Insult is not insult if it is true. And that faith and aspects of faith are potentially harmful or dangerous is entirely true stuff to say. I myself have given examples of this, I can give more if you request it. But suffice to summarise: The more divides from reality a world view becomes, the more potential for real world harm it contains.

As for priests being rapists, I think you will find most people.......... aside from maybe one, perhaps two people suffering from human hyperbole........ already realize that only a certain number of priests are pedophiles. In fact many of the abuses of children by priests were probably not even done by pedophiles. Remember sexually abusing a child does not automatically mean you are a pedophile.

No, what such people MOSTLY have an issue with is not the existence of pedophile or pederast priests, but the impression they have that the crimes of those priests were ignored by, facilitated by, protected by the hierarchy of the church at the time(s).......... or that the victims of such abuses have been silenced, moved, hidden, ignored, victimized, and not paid proper justice or reparations.

Atheists are no less prone to hyperbole than any other group of humans, so of course the occasional ill founded and nonsense generalization about the sexual persuasion of priests will pop up here and there. Such loud mouth should not be used as an "out" to dealing with the more genuine and well founded concerns, worries and fears that the majority of atheists ACTUALLY have on the matter.

realdanbreen

smacl wrote: »

Atheists are simply people who don't believe in a god or gods, they don't necessarily have anything in common beyond that.

Oh I think most atheists have a lot in common.EG they seem to spend almost as much time attending church services, weddings, confirmations, communions, funerals etc as most believers do. They will give the excuse for doing so as not wishing to offend anyone. I don't think strong principles were ever founded on 'not wishing to offend anyone'.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Oh I think most atheists have a lot in common.EG they seem to spend almost as much time attending church services, weddings, confirmations, communions, funerals etc as most believers do. They will give the excuse for doing so as not wishing to offend anyone. I don't think strong principles were ever founded on 'not wishing to offend anyone'.

I have met, and worked with, a hell of a lot of atheists and I am yet to meet one myself who attended any such service because they did not want to offend.

EVERY atheist *I* (YEMV) have discussed this with goes to such services because the service means something to their friend or their family member, and it means something to them AND that friend and family member to share in such life events that are TO THEM significant.

Interesting that you use the word "excuse" though, which is the implication there is something there they have to justify or excuse. There is not. Being an atheist in no way means you are expected to not go to such facilities or attend such services. So there is nothing to excuse or justify there, outside the realm of your own head that is.

So all I am seeing here is you projecting your own narratives on being an atheist, and what yOU think the "strong principles" they hold are, onto actual atheists who do not share any of them at all.