The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Bad Taste

March 5, 2006 | 34 Comments

In G.K. Chesterton’s The Ball and the Cross, a devout Catholic, Evan MacIan, is brought before a magistrate after smashing the window of an atheist newspaper. This dialogue ensues after MacIan is asked to explain his conduct:

“He is my enemy,” said Evan, simply; “he is the enemy of God.”

Mr. Vane [the magistrate] shifted sharply in his seat, dropping the eye-glass out of his eye in a momentary and not unmanly embarrassment.

“You mustn’t talk like that here,” he said, roughly, and in a kind of hurry, “that has nothing to do with us.”

Evan opened his great, blue eyes; “God,” he began.

“Be quiet,” said the magistrate, angrily, “it is most undesirable that things of that sort should be spoken about–a–in public, and in an ordinary Court of Justice. Religion is–a–too personal a matter to be mentioned in such a place.”

“Is it?” answered [Evan], “then what did those policemen swear by just now?”

“That is no parallel,” answered Vane, rather irritably; “of course there is a form of oath–to be taken reverently– reverently, and there’s an end of it. But to talk in a public place about one’s most sacred and private sentiments–well, I call it bad taste. (Slight applause.) I call it irreverent. I call it irreverent, and I’m not specially orthodox either.”

A hundred years have little changed the state’s treatment of faith: constant demands for public acknowledgment and respect for religion coupled with an aversion to anything approaching real discussion or understanding.


34 Responses to “Bad Taste”

  1. Chris Treborn
    March 5th, 2006 @ 11:42 pm

    look at what it says: one nation under god.

    we swear by the bible. God is the only one who can judge man, but man can apply God’s law to stop evil for man is charged with this responsibility

  2. Dada Saves
    March 6th, 2006 @ 10:09 am

    Look what what says, ChrisT, the Pledge of Allegiance? (Originally a Boy Scout oath.) Are you an infant?

  3. Chris Treborn
    March 6th, 2006 @ 1:44 pm

    dada, why do you have to attack me? Lily said that the atheists here are mostly rude and offensive. I guess she was right.

  4. Dada Saves
    March 6th, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

    I don’t HAVE to attack you, ChrisT. I choose to, because God made me this way. Take it up with the manufacturer.

    Lily’s a big girl; she understands a website called the Raving Atheist is going to draw a raucous crowd. Jump in and have at it — you’re quite welcome here. But no pansies allowed!

  5. Pixi
    March 6th, 2006 @ 2:28 pm

    The atheists here are not rude and offensive, they just seem that way because all the theists here are childish and ignorant.

  6. Chris Treborn
    March 6th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

    thanks pixi for proving my point

  7. jahrta
    March 6th, 2006 @ 3:37 pm


    if you want to play with the big boys, you can’t keep crying that you’re gonna run hom and take your glove and ball with you every time someone says something that exposes the holes in your logic, or calls you immature for clinging to a belief in your supernatural sky-daddy.

    The site is maintained by one of us for all of us (atheist community at large). TRA does not decide who gets to stay and who has to leave (with very few exceptions – see also: Carico). When someone is banned there’s a damn good reason. TRA does not control who says what to whom. We atheists have no central leadership, and just about the only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in the supernatural, and absolute disdain for those who choose to live their lives based upon the teachings of a 2,000 year old fairy tale written by misogynistic slave-owning homophobic and superstitious assholes with a rudimentary (at best) understanding of the world around them.

    That having been said…welcome aboard!

    I’m sure you’ll provide us all with boundless entertainment :)

    now dance for me, monkey boy!

  8. Chris Treborn
    March 6th, 2006 @ 3:52 pm

    It seems you prefer ranting to logical discussion. This is not surprising, but I don’t mind. Jesus has his reasons for everything, I just don’t know what they are.

  9. jahrta
    March 6th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm

    I love how theists, when presented with an argument, or just simply something they don’t like, will ask for some divine strength or will to carry on, rather than simply choose to leave the scenario which is causing them distress in the first place. Why do you feel compelled to subject yourself to “us atheists” chris?

    Oh, and by the way, the day that I see something approaching “logic” in a post by a theist is the day that horned, hoofed paisley gibbons might come shooting out of my ass.

  10. Thorngod
    March 6th, 2006 @ 5:24 pm

    ChrisT’s nom de plume is too clever to have been devised by the poster. Methinks he doth toy with us.

  11. Choobus
    March 6th, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

    This Chris T sounds like a fucking cockmuncher to me. That’s just my opinion of course. Mr T, do you munch cocks?

  12. Chris Treborn
    March 6th, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

    Mr Choobus, if by “cockmunching” you mean homosexual sex, then no I do not. The bible teaches us that homosexual sex is wrong in the eyes of the lord. Even for those who do not believe in the teachings of Christ should realize that homosexual sex is unnatural. IF everyone did it there would be no children and we would die out. This is good evidence that “nature” (God) did not intend for us to do such things. Gays just need understanding and help, not hatred. That doesn’t mean that what they do is right though.

  13. Chris Treborn
    March 6th, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

    Mr Jahrta, I was not asking for divine strength to carry on. I was just saying I don’t know what Jesus has intended for me or anyone. It is impossible for me to understand what God intends just as a cat cannot understand how a computer works.

  14. Steno
    March 7th, 2006 @ 3:31 am

    “look at what it says: one nation under god.

    we swear by the bible. God is the only one who can judge man, but man can apply God’s law to stop evil for man is charged with this responsibility”

    So says you, a deluded man. The one nation under god thing only came about recently. The God reference was originally left out, and later amended by Christian opportunists. We do not swear by the bible. You do. And the rest of your God references are silly ideas you shouldn’t be trying to impose on others. It is man’s responsibility to accept when he believes delusions, and it is other man’s responsibility to accept it was man who made up the idea to begin with, meaning man can stop thinking that way should man be responsible enough to choose to.

  15. Dada Saves
    March 7th, 2006 @ 8:12 am

    ‘ChrisT reborn’ — Are you mocking god with this name? It ain’t gonna like that.

    It’s one thing to say ‘dogs don’t understand taxes’ (I take mine to H&R Bark), but you shouldn’t be dissing cats. Mine can certainly operate a computer, even without opposable thumbs. How do you manage?

  16. Chris Treborn
    March 7th, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

    ok dada if you want to lie then I can’t converse with you. It is highly unlikely that your cat can operate a computer, but even if it did it would not understand how the computer works. In the same way, we can’t understand the things God does. It’s only arrogant people who think they can understand what god thinks

  17. Steno
    March 7th, 2006 @ 7:23 pm

    “In the same way, we can’t understand the things God does.”

    So what you’re saying is that you’re being arrogant enough to know you can’t understand the nature of this thing you arrogantly claim real with a meaningless mystic claim as proof? I agree. You are being extremely arrogant with your God concoction.

  18. Choobus
    March 7th, 2006 @ 7:51 pm

    dude, are you SURE you’re not a cockmuncher? You certainly seem like the sort of godidiot who would enjoy munching cocks.

    what a twat. Imagine the bastard love child this assclown would have with Lucy Muff. Think about that and then tell me you’re against abortion!

  19. jahrta
    March 8th, 2006 @ 11:21 am


    Your assertion that homosexual sex is not “natural” is clearly not based upon any type of actual research into the matter. Homosexuality has been found to be present not only in humans, but in other animals as well, most often in those with highly-developed brains, like other primates. It is not uncommon for male chimps to fellate the dominant male in the group in a show of submissive obedience and acknowledgment of the alpha male’s power over him (kinda works the same in prisons). While this act alone may be viewed more as a display of power rather than a sexual relationship, there have been documented cases of homosexual pairings in higher primates both in and outside of captivity. Also, roughly ten percent of all humans are homosexuals (and maybe a bit higher if you want to count those who are bisexual). This isn’t anything “new” – people are just feeling more comfortable talking about the way that they are. And by the way, no one “chooses” to be gay. It is not something someone can switch off and on freeely. Sexual preferences have been linked to brain chemistry, and so it would seem that it comes about naturally. If your god exists, and has anything to do with creating the human race, then he apparently hardwired roughly ten percent of any given populace to be gay, and we can extrapolate what we know about the human genome and sexual behavior in general to postulate that ten percent of the human race has most likely ALWAYS been gay (perhaps a bit higher in ancient greece, but you get the idea). Many social scientists have gone so far as to theorize that homosexuality is nature’s way of helping to ensure that we don’t propogate ourselves into extinction, as we only have one planet with limited resources, something that theists all too often can’t get through their skulls.

    Oh, and about a cat not understanding how a computer works…do you? Can you build one?

  20. TruBlu
    March 9th, 2006 @ 11:40 am

    isn’t it “One Nation Under a Groove”?

  21. Chris Treborn
    March 9th, 2006 @ 3:04 pm

    Choobus, you are heading for hell with your love of filth. I will not respond to you unless you stop being so disgusting. I have already said that I believe that the gays are against God. The bible is quite clear about homosexual sex, and common sense will tell you that your anus is not meant for that. I don’t really care about gay monkeys as that has nothing to do with mankind.

    Jahrta, I may not be able to build a computer but if the workings were explained to me I could understand how it operates. I don’t thinlk a cat would ever get it. Similarly, no matter how hard humans try they are simply incapable of comprehending God.

    You have proved that you atheists are unable to have debates without becoming rude and offensive. Does Choobus speak for you all? This person is foul.

  22. hermesten
    March 9th, 2006 @ 3:27 pm

    “Mr Choobus, if by “cockmunching” you mean homosexual sex, then no I do not. The bible teaches us that homosexual sex is wrong in the eyes of the lord.”

    Well, God and I chat it up quite a bit, and just about all he wants to talk about is co-ck. It’s probably no surprise to anyone that God is a size queen. God is always making fun of Christian fundies and what they say about the Bible and homosexuality. I love it when he sings “if homo sex is wrong, I don’t wanna be right” in a really high-pitched sexy voice. I can’t tell whether he’s a he when he does that, if you know what I mean.

    Anyway, according to God, all that stuff in the Bible about homos is a big joke. He says it’s not sex if you can’t get pregnant, and since homosexual activity doesn’t produce pregnancy, it’s not sex. I don’t argue with the Big Guy (wink, wink), especially when he’s watching Gay male porno, or jacking off to a Johhny Depp movie.

  23. Thorngod
    March 9th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm

    Where, oh where are Lily and SBW? ChrisT Impersonator is making old granny sleepy.

  24. Chris Treborn
    March 9th, 2006 @ 4:15 pm

    thorngod, saying the same thing over and over won’t make it any more intelligent, or true.

  25. Jahrta
    March 9th, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

    “Jahrta, I may not be able to build a computer but if the workings were explained to me I could understand how it operates. I don’t thinlk a cat would ever get it. Similarly, no matter how hard humans try they are simply incapable of comprehending God.”

    But I DO understand God, Chris – I understand that he is a delusion shared by billions of people who are too weak to accept the fact that one day in the very near future, in the grand scheme of things, they will cease to exsist.

    Remember – just because you want something to be real, doesn’t make it so.

    The burden of proof is on you because you want us to believe in your fantasy, yet you have no proof and only poorly formulated conjecture laced with homophobia.

    By the way, are all those catholic school girls who like it in the ass also headed for hell, or is it only a “sin” if you’re gay and like the ass sex?

    Please clue us all in

  26. Chris Treborn
    March 9th, 2006 @ 4:43 pm

    jahrta, I knew that choobus was no different than the rest of the foul mouthed atheists. He doesn’t bother to hide what you are all really like, and look how little it takes to get to the real filth. Your opinion is that God is a delusion, but based on what? Your assertion is as unprovable as and religious statement, which makes you a hypocrite.

    remember jahrta, just because you want something to be false, doesn’t make it so.

  27. jahrta
    March 10th, 2006 @ 11:33 am

    “remember jahrta, just because you want something to be false, doesn’t make it so.”

    Once again, Chris, your logic has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese. I don’t “want” there to be no god. I am not emotionally invested in a universe without a god. I have taken emotion out of the equation to be able to see the evidence that shoots down just about everything that the Bible claims as fact. I have utilized occam’s razor, as well as common sense, to arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being that fits the bill of your “god” character.

    Furthermore, I have seen the evolution of your mythology as it has arisen in various cultures throughout the world. The founders of your religion cannibalized choice cuts and bits of lore whenever it suited their needs until they had crafted their own cult, a tool to rule over the masses and make them complacent, fearful and ignorant of the world around them. It doesn’t matter, though. We could (and have) bring this material right to your eyes and you’d refuse to read or otherwise acknowledge it. Go check out “The God Who Wasn’t There” for starters.

    Personally, I think it might be neat if God were real (assuming he’s not the dick they wrote about in the bible, but instead some other entity that has exsisted since the dawn of time) but all the evidence I’ve ever seen points to the contrary, and everything theists try to present in the way of supporting evidence for their fairy tales looks like something a four-year-old slapped together with crayons. Sure, you might be tempted to pin it to your fridge with some magnets, but deep down inside, you know it’s crap :)

    Chris, a parting thought – you can’t prove that there isn’t a three headed invisible llama in my backyard – does that mean that it might actually be there? If you think this is a ridiculous question, I’d advise you to qualify that assertion with some type of reasoning that doesn’t contradict your entire belief system :)

    P.S. – Choobus deals with you as he does because he has learned throughout his travels that people like you are deserving of nothing more :)

  28. TruBlu
    March 10th, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

    Chris T, Choobus speaks for himself and not ALL ATHEISTS in the same way as you speak for yourself and not ALL THEISTS. Or maybe you do speak for Osama too?

    The reason he (and others) ridicule you is because your argument is so weak you look rather silly. Us being unable to disprove something, doesn’t make it real, but even if it did, we could offer you, as evidence, the entirety of the known world and universe since the dawn of time. What can you offer as evidence? A book? 2 contradictory books? Several contradictory books? Why do you trust one over the other, perhaps because your parents told you to? Did your parents also tell you about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
    Or perhaps you equate the belief of millions of others in the same God as you as proof. What about the belief of even more billions in a different God? And of no God?
    You say God is incomprehensible to Mankind just as a computer would be incomprehensible to a Cat. So how do YOU know about him then? How do YOU know what he thinks of homosexuals? How do YOU know He is a he, or anything about him? If we cant possibly understand him, how do you? And in fact, how do you know he exists. There’s a pink elephant in my fridge, but he’s far too complex to understand. How do you disprove that?

    Or are you basing it all on a book written thousands of years ago by man?

  29. mary lou
    March 11th, 2006 @ 11:59 pm

    Even as an atheist, I see you have typed God’s name with an upper case G. That is very respectful, and I am sure God is pleased with you, as well as loves you very much.

  30. Facehammer
    March 12th, 2006 @ 11:00 am

    “saying the same thing over and over won’t make it any more intelligent, or true.”

    Horse’s mouth, people.

  31. Mia
    March 12th, 2006 @ 11:38 am

    Why do you people waste your life arguing at each other? Is it because you truly think that this is worth your time?
    The burden of proof for God’s existence is a simple concept. This is what I’ve found to be true; at least part of it, as there is so much detail I could get into that I could write a book.
    There is a moral code we naturally follow- we as a whole decide that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. For example, stealing and killing are said to be wrong by society. But if right and wrong don’t matter because no matter what you do, you die and nothing counts, then why do people make a fuss in believing that they were unjustly treated when someone steals their car or the like? Simply because we have decided by natural instinct that it was wrong. But how did this natural instinct get come to be if we know that nothing counts?
    All laws/codes must be created by someone. Governments do not come into existence by miracle. The founding fathers come up with satisfactory rules and tell the people to follow them, and if they don’t, there is punishment suitable for the crime. Just so, the natural moral code we follow is likewise created and made by someone else, and we are expected to follow it. If we break the moral code, there is punishment, and also a strange feeling of guilt that shouldn’t be there if there was no right or wrong.
    It is the fact that we decide there is right and wrong which suggests that there must be an absolute right and an absolute wrong; a God and a sort of anti-God. But if one is right, then the right God must be greater than the wrong god, because the right God created all the moral codes and the feelings we get when we break them or follow them that make us determine if they are right and wrong. The anti-god just disobeyed them and tried making up his own rules based on the truth, but were not exactly it.
    And God, as creator and ruler over these rules, has the right to administer punishment when they are broken. But because we are still alive and not incinerated, we can assume that this God is merciful.
    There is more I can say on this, but there is already a good book that explains all this called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, a former atheist.
    As for the issue of homosexuality, it goes against the natural code. People feel that it is wrong, and that it goes against things natural. Even the pagans, the Romans, did not believe that homosexuality was moral.
    Do you know how this argument erupted? Over what is said in the Pledge if Allegiance. It seems rather petty to argue about such an unimportant issue. It’s pretty clear that this country is no longer “under God” now, anyway, so it doesn’t matter when or how it was added, because if it is said, it is said fruitlessly.
    I pray you find the truth.

  32. Los Pepes
    March 12th, 2006 @ 12:17 pm

    Mia –

    Killing is not wrong because of some god-given code or law. Here is why killing is wrong:

    Human beings have evolved into social animals. We tend to live in groups, and accomplish major tasks using teamwork. If killing one-another was a permitted act, every human (because they are rational) would suddenly realize that there is a pretty good chance that somone is eventually going to kill him or her. So, in the interest of self-preservation (not group-preservation), the group is going to say, “Alright guys, no killing allowed”.

    As far as a “natural code” goes, there simply is not one. Nature has no inside or outside. Any occurance of anything, from an ant-hill to a nuclear-bomb is simply part of nature. In other words, you cannot step outside of nature to view nature, because your stepping outside of it is part of it.

    Oh, and both the Greeks and Romans had very long periods on time within their societies where homosexuality was just fine. And “Pagan” implies a large number of pre-christain religions, some of which did practice some degree of homosexuality.

    I can post links for all this if you like.

  33. jahrta
    March 12th, 2006 @ 1:47 pm


    C.S. Lewis was never an atheist, but a theist who was “mad at god” over events in his own life. No one who could seriously consider himself to be an atheist could be mad at someone who they didn’t believe even existed, now could he?

    Oh, and before I forget, The Chronicles of Narnia is a steaming pile of shit. Never before have I read anything so totally fucking stupid.

    Of course, that’s a matter of personal opinion. Maybe you think it’s good writing when santa claus hands a ten year old boy a sword to go fight minotaurs and such. Fucking retarded (the book, not you per se).

  34. jahrta
    March 12th, 2006 @ 1:50 pm

    The greeks did not only condone homosexuality, but thought it was good practice for young adolescent boys to receive a sexual “education” from older men. Read a(nother) book

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links