This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Cardinal Cormac: 'Atheism the greatest of evils.'

Cardinal Cormac: 'Atheism the greatest of evils.' - Comments

DoctorE's Avatar Comment 1 by DoctorE

Well this dude is doing everything wrong hahahaha

Thu, 21 May 2009 15:43:00 UTC | #362632

EvidenceOnly's Avatar Comment 2 by EvidenceOnly

What Mr. Cormac is saying is that a lack of SUPERSTITION is 'the greatest of evils, greater even than sin itself'.

His delusions have obviously resulted in severe brain damage.

His successor doesn't seem to be any better.

Thu, 21 May 2009 15:46:00 UTC | #362637

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 4 by Mark Jones

That's right, he should be much more concerned about the irreligious going about their everyday business, harming no-one, than the believers in positions of authority abusing minors. *They're* definitely the greater evil.

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:00:00 UTC | #362646

Thurston's Avatar Comment 3 by Thurston

A Catholic priest calls atheism 'the greatest of evils'. Worse than peodophilia or fascism even?

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:00:00 UTC | #362645

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 5 by Cartomancer

'You see the things that result from this are an affront to human dignity, destruction of trust between peoples, the rule of egoism and the loss of peace.
And where would the most noble catholic church be without the dignity that shields them from suspicion? Without the trust that parents place in them to look after their children? Without the peaceful concord brought about by everyone ignoring priestly abuse for the greater good of holy mother church? How dare the egoism of all those abused children cause them to place their own health, welfare and happiness above the continuation of the church's important works!

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:07:00 UTC | #362652

zeerust2000's Avatar Comment 6 by zeerust2000

For Jesus, the inability to believe in God and to live by faith is the greatest of evils.
'You see the things that result from this are an affront to human dignity, destruction of trust between peoples, the rule of egoism and the loss of peace.


How strange....those are all things that I would have described as effects of religious belif, particularly institutionalised belief.

1. "affront to human dignity". .how about the belief that we are all born in sin and need forgiveness from the moment we arrive in the world? If this isn't an affront to human dignity I don't know what is.

2. "destruction of trust between peoples"...this doesn't even deserve a comment. Religious conflict between communities?. Enough said.

3. "rule of egoism"...witness the stupifying self-certainty of some people of faith. The anti-science creationist/ID nonsense in the US is an excellent example of religiously inspired egoism.

4. "loss of peace"...see 2. above.

One can never have true justice, true peace, if God becomes meaningless to people.


So I suppose that no pre- or non-christian culture is capable of true justice or peace.

I just hope that thinking readers can see this stuff for the (pardon me) crap that it is.

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:09:00 UTC | #362654

b0ltzm0n's Avatar Comment 7 by b0ltzm0n

I'm reminded of that old Upton Sinclair quote:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:26:00 UTC | #362665

chippy's Avatar Comment 8 by chippy

Incredible. Not to rise to the 'honorable' cardinal's defense, but it bothers me that some of you guys have called him evil. I take exception with that. Evil itself is 'supernatural' and is no more real than god and arguably wouldn't even exist as a myth if theism and other religions didn't exist. Using the word evil to denounce clergy actions, no matter how haneous those actions are, indirectly acknowledges the existance of 'evil' thereby acknowledging the existance of god. Do we really want to give the church credibility that they don't deserve?
Sherri

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:32:00 UTC | #362667

Joshua Slocum's Avatar Comment 9 by Joshua Slocum

Here's the comment I left on Ms. Gledhill's blog. I hope others here will leave theirs on her electronic stoop, too. Remember, complaining about it here at rd.net is not enough.


Merely "extreme," Ms. Gledhill? That's all? His statement calling atheism a greater evil than sin itself warrants nothing more from you than a bland, indirect characterization, "extreme?"

Your profile box indicates that you "offer your views on the issues of the day" in this blog. Have you no view - none whatsoever - about that vile statement? Had the statement been "Islam/Judaism/Hinduism is the greatest of all evils," would you have been so . . . blase?

As an atheist, it stuns me how socially acceptable it is for religious figures to hurl the most disgusting epithets at the faithless, provoking barely a whimper of public protest. To borrow from Sojourner Truth - ain't I a man?


EDITED: To close blockquote, and do the proofreading I should have done on the Times site before hitting "submit."

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:36:00 UTC | #362670

Ardiem's Avatar Comment 10 by Ardiem

This guy seems to be so blatantly deluded, I can only draw two possible conclusions:

1. He is mentally retarded - he simply cannot see that he is not making any sense.

or

2. He's actually a rather clever athiest in showing everyone how utterly ridiculous the whole faith thing is by using irony. Simply swap any mention of non-belief, athiesm, reason or secularity for faith, god, or whatever religious term suits. Genius.

Or maybe he's just a total wank.

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:38:00 UTC | #362674

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 11 by Cartomancer

sing the word evil to denounce clergy actions, no matter how haneous those actions are, indirectly acknowledges the existance of 'evil' thereby acknowledging the existance of god.
Not at all. Simply using a word such as "evil" does not in the slightest give it any kind of metaphysical ontological presence, much less the connotations that the christian churches would give it. That would be like saying that words like "up" and "down" have real existence, rather than simply being human conventions to denote relations that are meaningful to ourselves.

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:39:00 UTC | #362675

b0ltzm0n's Avatar Comment 12 by b0ltzm0n

Incredible. Not to rise to the 'honorable' cardinal's defense, but it bothers me that some of you guys have called him evil. I take exception with that. Evil itself is 'supernatural' and is no more real than god and arguably wouldn't even exist as a myth if theism and other religions didn't exist. Using the word evil to denounce clergy actions, no matter how haneous those actions are, indirectly acknowledges the existance of 'evil' thereby acknowledging the existance of god. Do we really want to give the church credibility that they don't deserve?
Sherri


Hey Sherri, maybe I've had a little too much wine, but I think evil exists. Say a priest found out that one of his fellow priests was sexually abusing young boys, but rather than reporting him to the proper athorities decided to inform his management, who then simply had the priest in question transferred to another location. I'd say that is pretty evil. Is the issue semantics?

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:44:00 UTC | #362680

Wosret's Avatar Comment 13 by Wosret

Yeah, well, fuck you too, guy.

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:49:00 UTC | #362682

Joshua Slocum's Avatar Comment 14 by Joshua Slocum

@ Sherri, #379654 -


Evil itself is 'supernatural' and is no more real than god and arguably wouldn't even exist as a myth if theism and other religions didn't exist. Using the word evil to denounce clergy actions, no matter how haneous those actions are, indirectly acknowledges the existance of 'evil' thereby acknowledging the existance of god.


I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I agree more with Cartomancer and b0ltzm0n. Further, I think we miss an opportunity to grab the public conversation when we refuse to take back strong terms of moral condemnation from the religious who've co-opted them. Secularists, rationalists, atheists, and political liberals, in my view, have neutered their vocabulary to make what ought to be roars as quiet as whispers. We're forever "disturbed," "saddened," "troubled," and "disappointed" (can you just hear the limp hands wringing?) when we ought to be "angry," "outraged," "appalled" and "shocked."

I don't agree that "evil" is an inherently religious concept. It has a perfectly secular connotation: that which so offends the sensibilities of any decent person that it cries out for the strongest public condemnation. I think we ought to take it back and turn it against the religious who exemplify it.

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:52:00 UTC | #362683

Frankus1122's Avatar Comment 15 by Frankus1122

5. Comment #379639 by Cartomancer

It must be the case that the Catholic Church sees the Irony Meter as a device of the Devil. It cannot be the case they are unaware of its existence.

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:58:00 UTC | #362685

Ardiem's Avatar Comment 16 by Ardiem

Evil is just a word to describe acts of malice, everyone is capable of it (although as the saying goes, it generally takes religion). I disagree that it has specific supernatural connotations unless used that context. So I'm with Joshua, Cartomancer and b0ltzm0n on this one.

This clown saying athiests are evil is a sweeping generalisation and has absolutely no factual basis. His mindset is so backward, he may as well say all Africans are cannibals - it ought to cause the same level of shock and outrage too.

Thu, 21 May 2009 17:02:00 UTC | #362686

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 17 by Steve Zara

Well, this is fine by me. For political reasons I label myself a New Atheist.

If the Catholic church wants to consider me a supporter of greatest of evils, that is fine by me. That matches my view of their influence in the world. Also, as a gay man in a loving, long term relationship, I do really wicked things. But to discuss this further is probably inapoppriate.

Thu, 21 May 2009 17:08:00 UTC | #362687

chippy's Avatar Comment 18 by chippy

Wicked? By your own moral standard or the church's?

Thu, 21 May 2009 17:33:00 UTC | #362699

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 19 by NewEnglandBob

This is so typical of someone who knows that their worldview is losing out, so they rant and rage and call others evil. The poor delusional cardinal is having his temper tantrum.

Thu, 21 May 2009 17:40:00 UTC | #362702

Bullet-Magnet's Avatar Comment 20 by Bullet-Magnet

I think that every time someone makes a remark like this, we should release a mini campaign featuring that quote in question over pictures of ourselves stroking white cats and raising an eyebrow deviously.

Thu, 21 May 2009 17:45:00 UTC | #362705

lisadp's Avatar Comment 21 by lisadp

This is standard dogma in the church in which i participated as a kid.

The reason why atheism is the greatest evil in the eyes of anyone dedicated to the future of belief in God is because obviously it's the greatest threat.

Once a person doesn't believe there is nothing with which to threaten her.

For me, working up the guts to disbelieve in my teens was hampered by the idea (hammered into me by church leaders) that unbelief is the greatest evil and doubt is a tool of the devil, therefore to be righteously ignored.

Thu, 21 May 2009 17:53:00 UTC | #362711

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 22 by Enlightenme..

Are they turning their attention to us now?

Last month, the great evil abroad in this world was Secularism wasn't it?

-----------

Edit:
Oh, I missed the article immediately previous to this one, where the Anglicans are agreeing with Ratty's lot.

Thu, 21 May 2009 18:04:00 UTC | #362717

Frankus1122's Avatar Comment 23 by Frankus1122

21. Comment #379699 by lisadp

For me, working up the guts to disbelieve in my teens was hampered by the idea (hammered into me by church leaders) that unbelief is the greatest evil and doubt is a tool of the devil, therefore to be righteously ignored.


Yes. If it makes perfect logical, rational sense, then it must be the Devil.

Nice move there Church leaders.

"The Truth of the Church lies in paradox."

"So, you mean it must be true because it doesn't make sense? That doesn't make sense."

"That is the Devil talking son. Now help me get this stain off the front of my trousers."

Thu, 21 May 2009 18:07:00 UTC | #362720

Temaskian's Avatar Comment 24 by Temaskian

Hardly surprising. Belief can excuse you from all sins, even the worst, and most hideous ones, so faith must be the ultimate good.

So the corollary, that no faith is of the utmost bad, is only natural.

Thu, 21 May 2009 18:43:00 UTC | #362732

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 25 by Border Collie

Woof, woof ...

Thu, 21 May 2009 18:45:00 UTC | #362733

Quine's Avatar Comment 26 by Quine



I feel like we are getting somewhere when the hypocrites come out with these completely witless statements. It also relieves me of any self reproach in calling them witless.

Thu, 21 May 2009 18:53:00 UTC | #362734

MGBOY's Avatar Comment 27 by MGBOY

What a tool!

Thu, 21 May 2009 19:05:00 UTC | #362735

happyfinesad's Avatar Comment 28 by happyfinesad

Comment #379631 by Thurston:

"A Catholic priest calls atheism 'the greatest of evils'. Worse than peodophilia or fascism even?"

Of course. Didn't you know that atheism is the gateway to all of those things? Or wait... No. No it isn't.

Thu, 21 May 2009 19:06:00 UTC | #362737

mintcheerios's Avatar Comment 29 by mintcheerios

The days of Catholicism are numbered anyways. It's not a good sign when your religion becomes world famous for child rapists.

Thu, 21 May 2009 19:30:00 UTC | #362744

theantitheist's Avatar Comment 30 by theantitheist

The systamatic abuse of children for 70 years vs ...........................

Hard to way up which is the most evil I presume.

Hopefully Ireland will go the way of Spain now, piss off one generation of people enough and you break the cycle of Dogma being handed down.

It made me laugh/cry when I read the quote "but the true problem would be if this issue hid all of the good work we do"

Drug lords also take care of the poor and needy. When it suits them. Shall we forget their crimes??

At least their is a choice with drugs.

I would commetn one last thing, a lot of these "schools" got given $10,000 a month per child, with $8,000 of this then being directly transferred to Rome. The Irish people (not the fucking side show of a government) should demand this money back. = 70 years x 12 months x $8,000 x 50,000 chidren p/a) . Thats $336,000,000,000. I'd also ask for interest. No wonder the Pope can afford to keep paying the settlements for his little kiddy fiddler brigades. (Although the $800m settlement agreed in Ireland was paid for by the Irish tax payer).

I know I said one last thing but this is the last for now. Ireland was a Theocratic state when this happened, who now can say it is a good idea.

Thu, 21 May 2009 19:43:00 UTC | #362746