I’m not sure how I stumbled on this site, but suffice it to say I did. I read the article by the priest who wrote it, about how the big bad atheists are taking over the blogosphere, and maybe even the entire Intertubes, with their “aggressive’, “crude”, “negative”, “dismissive” commentary on all things religious.
As you would expect, I disagreed with him, and left a comment. I said something similar to this:
The atheists you complain about will probably stop being so aggressive when:
- Theists stop voting for and electing politicians on the basis of their religious beliefs.
- When theists stop trying to legislate morality according to their religious beliefs
- When theists stop interfering in scientific research that conflicts with their religious beliefs
- When theists stop intruding in others sexuality and sexual identity.
- When theists stop insisting that their religious beliefs be taught in public school.
I thought it was a very neutral comment, directly addressing his complaint. It wasn’t disrespectful, or crude or overly aggressive in tone. It actually followed another comment left by someone else who disagreed, equally civil.
As you’ve probably guessed, when I went back later, both comments had been deleted (hence my inability to quote exactly from my comment). I found that somewhat ironic, given this statement in the piece:
…this is a free country and their advocacy for atheism should not, of course, be censored.
Except, of course, on his blog. What does he do? He censors two atheists. And not even two “aggressive”, “crude”, “negative”, “dismissive” atheists. Just two atheists who disagreed with him.
No hypocrisy there.
No irony either.
This is a good example of the whiny mentality that some Christians have. If someone deigns to criticize their beliefs, they immediately take it personally, get defensive, and accuse the critic of persecuting them. Or being strident. Or being aggressive. Or being crude. Get the picture?
All of which is a deflective tactic designed (perhaps subconsciously) to keep from addressing the substance of the criticism. If you avoid the criticism by jumping on the offensive, then you don’t ever have to confront the vacuity and lack of substance of your beliefs.
The other delusional aspect of this priest’s response is indicated in the last section, where he shows that he has not the foggiest understanding of atheistic criticism. He thinks that they really don’t disbelieve in his particular version of Sky Daddy, that they actually do believe, they just don’t realize it yet.
My wager, as a person of faith, is that everyone — and that includes Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins — implicitly wants God and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.
He’s clueless, and this comes from a mentality that cannot imagine anyone NOT believing in his god. So there just has to be another explanation. And his explanation is that atheists are so fascinated by god that they spend all of their time fixated on him.
What a fool.
I left another comment after I noticed the first two missing, but this time I took a screen shot to preserve it.
2nd Update. The above was deleted right away, so I left another comment, calling him on his hypocrisy, and that was deleted.
LAST EDIT, THEN I’M DONE:
As an experiment, I left an agreeable comment on the site, just to see if it would be deleted. Here it is with intentional misspellings intact:
Dog, I hated writing that.