One of the things I find most amusing is that often find both militant atheists and militant "non-denominational" Christians in my orbit, and both sides take a very strong stance against my Catholicism. Pace Bishop Sheen, of course, they attack what they think they know is Catholicism, not what actually is Catholicism...but what's always been amusing to me is how, in the end, it's almost impossible to sort out an atheist's anti-Catholic canard from a non-denom's anti-Catholic canard.

They sound almost the same, really.

That's kind of a cruel thing to say, I suppose, but it's been true for me for more years than I care to remember at this point. I'd be lying if I said that there weren't times when the only difference I can perceive between an atheist and a non-demon is that one is flinging out verses of Scripture in copious quantity, while the other is not. And I have to say, based on past debates, that even that is not always a reliable predictor; I've had atheists come at me with Scripture as well.

Now, atheists and non-denoms wouldn't associate normally, so it's odd enough that they would pursue the same ends by similar means when the target of their ire is the Catholic Church. What's odder still is that the pathologies of personality that are evident in the sort of people who would engage in that kind of exercise are almost identical on both sides of the religious spectrum -- indeed, they all very neatly fit the profile of what Vox Day calls the "social autist":

It's not exactly a mystery why no one likes Dawkinsian atheists or they are so much less likely to marry and stay married. They're so completely materialistic and socially autistic that they see everything through a purely literal lens. As I've said before, they're the sort of men who will answer a woman asking "do I look fat?" by saying "yes, I think you need to lose ten pounds; that dress makes your butt look monstrous." This social autism is highlighted by the observable fact that they're completely mystified why even women without religious faith dislike them; they're somewhat like engineers, if engineers were given to rabidly attacking everyone they meet.

Literally thousands of readers understood that this abridged quote from Charles Darwin - which also appeared in abbreviated version in Christopher Hitchens's book - was a humorous and sarcastic means of referring to the way in which my supposed hatred for science somehow renders me sans credibility. It had nothing else to do with the chapter; it was merely a joke. Kelly of the Rational Response Squad, for example, clearly understood this. Indeed, she found the book's sense of humor to be a little alarming even though it has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the arguments contained therein because she understood the appeal of the approach.

I imagine it must be difficult to tell a joke when Rick is within earshot:

"So a rabbi, a priest, and an atheist walk into a bar-"

"Did they? How do you know that?"

"What?"

"When did they walk into the bar? What was the bar's name? How do you know, did you actually see them or is this just hearsay? Were there any witnesses - not that eyewitness evidence means anything - but who saw them? And even if they did see three men walking in, how could they know the priest was actually ordained properly? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"

"Um...."

"What's the point of beginning a story with a lie? It's intellectually dishonest and distorts the meaning of the events being incorrectly described! I see no point in continuing!"

(Rich angrily storms off in search of his next victim. The joke-teller rolls his eyes, the two women who were listening to the joke when Rich interrupted watch him go with the same sense of frozen horror that causes commuters to stare at car wrecks, and they shiver with momentary disgust.)

"So, anyway, a rabbi, a priest, and an atheist walk into a bar...."

The reality is that Rich was looking for an excuse, any excuse, that would allow him to avoid reading something that systematically destroyed several of the foundations of his lack of religious faith. If he hadn't found one in the chapter heading of the book's first chapter, he would have simply manufactured another. This is typical atheist behavior, claiming to be unable to find that which they are resolutely avoiding.

Or am I the only one who can see the parallel?