Thursday, March 14, 2013

Explaining the Angry Atheist

For once, Inmalafide wrote a piece that doesn't involve enough foul language it manages to insult all 6.6 billion people on the planet.  Of course I merely skimmed the article, so maybe I missed something, but regardless, his article highlights how the left hates religion, which reminded me about one of the more curious phenomenon out there - the Angry Atheist. 

The Angry Atheist confuses and confounds your average conservative or even your average innocent bystander.  Most people don't know where the visceral hatred Angry Atheists have comes from and are kind of shocked by it.  Most people's thinking is:

"Well, if you're an athiest, then what do you care about religion?  Shouldn't you be some kind of easy, laid back, live and let live sort of guy?  What's with all the hatred, mockery and ridicule of people who just happen to believe in a religion?"

Thus when an unsuspecting person breaches the topic of religion or mentions their particular faith, they are completely blindsided by the ensuing screed delivered to them by the Angry Atheist.

However, being brought up on an extremely religious household and becoming an agnostic myself, I believe I can explain why some atheists are so angry and thus explain this phenomenon.

First, understand I have no skin in this game.  I couldn't care less what people's religion is.  If there's any problem I have with religion, it's that most participants of all religions do not participate in the religion for anything as noble and selfless as worship or a god, but rather for ulterior and selfish motives.  Finding a spouse, socializing, business connections, belonging to a team, heck, even rationalizing taking over the world.  Whatever the reason it isn't for "god."  But for the few sincere and legitimate practitioners of religion, I respect them and leave them be.  So whether you're a Jew or a Catholic or even an atheist, I don't care.

Second, NAAALT (Not All Atheists Are Like That).  I know the majority of atheists are the laid back, live and let live types.  I have atheist friends and I am certainly no fan of religion.  Remember, we're focusing on the ANGRY Atheists who feel compelled to foist themselves into people's personal religious decisions.  Not Bob at the water cooler who doesn't go to church.

With those caveats out of the way, there are two primary sources of Angry Atheists,

The first source are formerly religious people that had religion forced on them.  And not just forced on them, they suffered some kind of abuse.  I'm not talking sexual abuse, but psychological abuse.  A brainwashing that religion forces on the child, to the point it IS a cult.  Cults being what they are, they destroy the individual for the "commune" of the cult.  You are no longer your own person, and as a child, not only are you not #1 in your own life, your parents and your family put you second to the cult as well.  I would estimate around 30% of all Christian-based religions are at this cult-level in the US, and, naturally, when a young person grows up and "escapes the cult" they have the wool removed from their eyes and realize they were merely being used by a sadistic and self-serving commune.  They also realize that their youth was not just wasted, but taken advantage of, and the only and natural consequence is hatred and revenge.

In this case the Angry Atheist has a legitimate beef with religion.  But instead of attacking the religion on genuine and weak grounds (ie-most people don't believe it and participate in it for ulterior and self-serving reasons) they just bash it in general.  They lack the finesse to surgically strike at people's hypocrisies and just call them "idiots" instead.  They have such a hatred for the religion, they need to "undo it" and therefore lack the ability to realize that a true revenge would to let people remain in the religion/cult and that will cause more damage.  And finally, they also lack the ability to move on and let it go.  Their experiences were so bad, they just cannot let the injustice of what happened to them stand, and thus partially lessen their lives in the process.  A bit of forgiveness and understanding might be called for.

The second reason or "variant" of the Angry Atheist should shock no one - they're crusaders.

It is no coincidence your average Angry Atheist is also a leftist.  The reason why is that atheism is the easiest religion of them all, requiring no effort, thought, ponderance or work.  You simply "declare" you're one and POOF!  You're in the club and you now "belong."

In this sense, it's the epitome of irony, because the Angry Atheist is simply joining another religion.  It's just not so much an "absence" of religion (as a true laid back atheist would be), it's an "ANTI-religion religion."  They have a vendetta, they have a crusade, they (like all other religion people) now have a purpose and belong to a club - we must destroy other people's religion.  If anything, it's a testament to the most cowardly (and borderline psychotic) mentality of a Crusader-Angry-Atheist because his/her "religion" is simply to destroy something others have built.  They can't just let it be.  And it is here we see the parallels between Angry Atheists and leftists because their psychologies are the same.

First, both are hypocrites.  Leftists and Angry Atheists are such because the average liberal does not "care about the poor" nor does the Angry Atheist "really want to stop cultish and abusive religions."  They are in it first and foremost for themselves.  The leftist will ALWAYS trumpet and parade their ideology first thing in a conversation because that is CORE to their being.  The Angry Atheist will as well.  They claim membership to these groups FOR THEIR EGOS, not for anything as noble as "helping the poor" or "stopping abusive religion."  They are crusaders, and most ironically (again) they are the most devout, zealous, and extreme of religious people.  Their religions just happen to be godless.

Second, both are usually worthless people (I am reminding normal Atheists, this does not include you).  They have no value beyond their religion.  They are too lazy to go and develop a skill, a trade, a career, and develop themselves as a human and live an interesting and productive life.  And instead of enduring or expending the effort, rigor, development, trials, tribulations and challenges in life that would give them a core and worth, they instead claim allegiance to a "holy and noble crusade" they really couldn't less about to fill that hole.  The average leftist joins the Peace Corps and does nothing to help Africans while the Angry Atheist rips on religious people because their liberal arts degree isn't getting them a job.

And finally, they are envious.  Since they are too lazy to go out and get what they want out of life, they must criminalize and villainize what others have.  The leftist criminalizes "wealth" and "the rich" while never resting a second in their lives to concoct lies and false rationalizations to confiscate said wealth.  The Angry Atheist wishing to belong to something, but not wanting to expend any effort to meet the standards of that club (not to mention, no doubt also envious of religious people's tendency to be wealthier as well), rips on religion, allowing him to immediately join a group of anti-religion religion, thereby giving him an identity and belonging.

If you got intellectual warm fuzzies, buy something you have to buy anyway on Amazon for the ole Captain.  Proceeds go to his "Poor Starving Bachelor Fund"

41 comments:

Roberto Severino said...

Excellent description of Atheistkult. They all seem like angry, bitter jerks who think they are better than everyone because they know how to "pwn" a creationist for the sake of pwnage, whatever that even means. They have a legitimate beef with religion but ultimately attack the wrong things about it. They also haven't been exposed to Eastern concepts about deities like in Asia. I saw a great video about Taoism the other day.

Another observation I wanted to add is that a lot of the atheists I've met had a pretty rough time in Catholic School, so that's most likely an influence.

Lastly, if you want another great conservative website to read, then I think The American Conservative is an excellent site and one of the best written ones I've come across. You have a variety of different people on the right, from the paelocons to even the more libertarian leaning conservatives who write articles. Plenty of anti-war conservatives too and others who examine stuff like meritocracy and classical conservatism (Burke, Kirk, and many others. Before the neocons came up). It's sort of like reason.com, but I usually end up getting a lot more out of it in terms of analyses.

Andrew said...

I call them Evangelical Atheists. Having proselyted religion, I'd only seen the level of vehemence displayed by the Angry Atheist by members of other faiths angry at people of other sects for challenging their own faith by believing in something else. They take it a step further by trying to force conversion to their belief system by legislation. Eventually they'll utilize force.

grerp said...

There seems to be a very high coincidence of involvement in both anti-religion causes and gay rights. Some of these people are just unstable and some of them were unable to fit in to their original culture because of something largely beyond their control, so because religion refuses to validate their sexual identities, it must be destroyed.

Their progression of demands seems to be tolerance --> inclusion --> acceptance --> celebration --> destruction of original culture. And they're getting stalled at acceptance and basically throwing a tantrum. It's very tribal, and it seems to have come out of nowhere, but I think that the snowball has just hit that lower part of the slope and absorbed all the white down there, rolling on faster.

There is just this absolute refusal to be a minority even when you are part of an absurdly tiny demographic like transsexuals.

Anonymous said...

There are x number of religions in the world. Let's say 10,000. There's what the religious believe, and there's what I, an atheist, believe.

Here's the difference: You think 9,999 religions are bullshit. I think 10,000 religions are bullshit. That's it.

And you know far more atheists than you think. Wildly more. You remember that line Sean Connery had in The Untouchables, the one where Kevin Costner says, "How do you know I'm a Treasury Officer? I just told you that?" And Connery replies, "Who would claim to be that, who was not?"

I routinely tell people I'm Christian, Catholic, or "a routine churchgoer" whenever I find myself in the middle of a bunch of sky fairy worshippers. Just about all religions mandate condemnation for unbelievers (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for certain do). There's no "holy" books telling me to hate religious people. Some of my family and best friends are quite religious. But I've met bucket loads of churchgoers who, when someone has the balls to say, "No, I don't believe in all-powerful old men who live in the sky," turn six shades of white and start sweating because they don't know how to handle it. Religions develop cohesion because they have provisions for how to deal with outsiders. Think about that the next time someone tells you how much they love Jesus or think Mohammed was awesome. Especially Mohammed, cause in his religion, being an atheist is a mandatory death sentence.

Finally, your blog is really becoming little different from the average feminist blog, or stupid white bitch daytime TV show.

An economist yammering about atheists.

If it weren't for the 8 ounces of apple pie moonshine in my bloodstream right now, I might just find something worthwhile to put my attentions to. But Goddamn, is this shit awesome!

daniel_ream said...

"Atheist" simply means "without god(s)" (from the Greek a + theos).

Call these people what they really are: anti-theists.

bluefire said...

While there are some Atheists deserving of your description I'd like to give the view from an (occasionally argumentative) Atheist here.

Why do Atheists care about the religiosity of others? The same reason cultural conservatives
(religious or not) care about "other persons" (or societys in general) intellectual and cultural leanings: because it matters.

I often find the same religious persons who are asking "why do Atheists care at all" have no problem criticising
beliefs and trends of other groups (quite harshly).

Well, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot both consider current events a culture war that should be fought, and
consider particular parts of it shielded from critique where the Atheists should just keep quiet.

If you think that culture and society matters, then you should also accept that the general societys view of reality and
epistemology matters. Therefore religious views matters.

For the record, after finding the manosphere I have found that I have alot of common views with the religious conservatives.
They have also changed in some respects to be more similar to those parts of the manosphere.
But I will still critique religion and the religious faiths.

Amethyst said...

I had once heard that Evangelical Atheism was an offshoot of Protestantism. That the arguments used by the Protestants of the 16th century to skewer Catholics and "Papists" were similar to what many Atheists use today. It wouldn't surprise me if true.

If you look into the background of many Atheists, you'll also find that a lot of them had neglectful, absent or abusive fathers. The relationship with a person's father does a lot to shape their perception of God, (at least here in the West.) If the first "god figure" you have in your life fails you, then how can you trust the concept of God, once you hear about Him?

kurt9 said...

"Well, if you're an athiest, then what do you care about religion? Shouldn't you be some kind of easy, laid back, live and let live sort of guy? What's with all the hatred, mockery and ridicule of people who just happen to believe in a religion?"

No shit! I'm an athiest and this is precisely my attitude towards religion.

Anonymous said...

i find Malcolm Muggeridge's comment to be true:
“If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.”

i think this goes a long way to explaining the religious fervor that liberals have towards both politics and environmentalism. people will be religious regardless of whether they are atheists or not. they simply will transfer their natural inclination to be religious to a different venue. it also explains why political systems which regard religion as "competition", such as communism, have killed so many, or why movements such as environmentalism have been willing to sacrifice millions of third world children to malaria or death from vitamin A deficiency. people simply become religious about something else. personally, i'd rather see people burn off their religious tendancies by becoming lutherans.

you might ask why this should be.

it never ceases to amaze me that people who believe in evolution cannot see the obvious survival advantage religious belief confers on a group. in fact, there is quite a lot of scientific support for the thesis that we are biologically hardwired to be religious. to believe otherwise is to believe, beyond all evidence to the contrary, that the vast majority of people in this world are religious in spite of the fact that religion confers a negative survival or reproductive advantage.
what was said about communism can also be said of atheism: "great theory, wrong species".

Anonymous said...

Here's Angry!!!

www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2013/02/05/niagara-atheist-takes-school-battle-to-tribunal

Anonymous said...

I usually refer to people like this as "Angry Turds".

Anonymous said...

Atheism is, indeed, a religion unto itself because it has one thing in common with ALL religions: it believes in something it can never prove; it relies on faith alone for its belief system.

After all, one cannot prove that there is no God, so a truly open-minded person, who had no predispositions either way, would accept the possibility of God existing (especially in the absence of other explanations for our being here) without necessarily believing that God exists. Yet, self-declared atheists are absolutely CERTAIN that there is no God, often even to the point where they feel they must convince others of this "truth".

Additionally, one can easily identify the more "faithful" of the atheists, because they use the most ridiculous descriptions of various religions, such as saying that Jews or Christians worship a "sky fairy" or "an invisible man in the sky" or some other such silly kindergarten-level mischaracterization of what are actually very complex religious belief systems. But they HAVE to characterize religions that way, either because they are incapable of understanding the religious system, or they are afraid to understand it.

Plus, there is always present in our current culture that strain of Alinskyism which says that is it far easier and more effective to ridicule something or someone than to provide a thoughtful analysis. So, we have many of the intellectually decrepit who resort to childish characterizations and insults because they are not capable of providing any greater argument for the atheism that they desperately need to believe in.

After all, if one is forced to confront these religions as they ARE, rather than the cartoon version that leftists sell, then one might actually have to believe, and then one would have to give up the stealing, lying, murder and fornication or risk judgment. Much easier to believe that there are no consequences.

S. Harvey said...

Atheists don't believe there is no god the same way other people believe in god. They believe there is no god the same way other people believe there are no dragons.

Although I agree with the captain on the idea that these 'angry atheists' are crusaders. I think they are a defensive crusade against religious zealots who would trample the rights of others as they feel gods laws are above the laws of the land.

People who would put creationism in the science room need to be battled. People who would deny rights to gays need to be battled. I that battle means pointing out flaws in peoples religious systems, fine.




Dystopia Max said...

"Here's the difference: You think 9,999 religions are bullshit. I think 10,000 religions are bullshit. That's it."

A false and pernicious dichotomy.

I think all 10,000 have enormous bullshit elements but will nevertheless assist people in finding the truth if they examine them in the totality of human experience. And most tend to accumulate bullshit accretions through time, sneaky ideological movements passing themselves off as tradition, and politics, but human ingenuity and Divine inspiration can divide wheat from chaff.

Also, some actually true truths about the world are actually discoverable by actual humans, so it's probably a whole lot fairer to say that 10,000 religions are on various places on the Bullshit Spectrum.

I suppose the very notion that truth is both discoverable and accumulate-able makes me a "progressive" by Ferd's definition, but I tend to be leery of atheists saying nice things about the religious tradition they most closely hew to despite not believing in any of the central tenets that make its lifestyles possible.

Just as plenty of people will say nice things about science but groan and leave the room when you discuss the latest journals or theories, so too will people praise all sorts of nice things in religion without lifting a finger to study the creed that brings them about nor ask why they're not in your current faith tradition.

Kevin said...

@ Anonymous 2:17PM:

You wrote:

"After all, one cannot prove that there is no God, so a truly open-minded person, who had no predispositions either way, would accept the possibility of God existing (especially in the absence of other explanations for our being here) without necessarily believing that God exists. Yet, self-declared atheists are absolutely CERTAIN that there is no God, often even to the point where they feel they must convince others of this 'truth'."

Well, I'm a (small-"a") atheist (as opposed to the anti-theists). The difference is not subtle, but the definition is. I do not believe in a god or gods. Anti-theists believe there is no God. They profess a belief. I do not. As someone once said, I submit that you and I are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you disbelieve in all other possible gods, you might understand why I disbelieve in yours.

You also said, "... if one is forced to confront these religions as they ARE, rather than the cartoon version that leftists sell, then one might actually have to believe, and then one would have to give up the stealing, lying, murder and fornication or risk judgment. Much easier to believe that there are no consequences." See, this is where I have a problem. Why is it that Man is incapable of behaving well without the threat of post-mortem "consequences"? I assure you that morality does not depend on such sanctions. And insistence that we godless must be thieving, lying, murdering fornicators might have some influence on our attitudes toward the Godly and their Invisible Friend(s). (/sarcasm)

sth_txs said...

I understand your point Captain.

I'm still an agnostic but do attend Catholic Church with my girlfriend. We are not living a hardcore Catholic life by any means, but I do find some good philosophical aspects to consider in regards to living life. I don't agree with the church on various issues, but I'm not there to debate that.

I to was irritated over the years about those who live a life of debauchery and then find redemption in religion.

tspoon said...

I don't mind christian people. They give to charity more often. They don't cause much trouble and they pay their tax and participate in their community. Predominantly religious countries experience lower suicide rates, which to me translates to higher rates of contentedness, although (not shitting you) athiests have challenged me on that point in other venues.

It used to be that you couldn't go many places without encountering a christian pontificating on their belief. Now, it's an atheist, and some of their assertions make christians look downright rational in comparison. I miss the old days...

Ofay Cat said...

The invisible has much in common with the non-existent.

I am a catholic atheist. I quit the church at age 14. That was that age when I began to learn about astronomy. I began to get a sense of what the universe was. How big is not even a question unless you puny human brain can grok infinity.

Most people I have met have no clue what a galaxy is. I actually ask them. Once one gets a sense of the fantastic phenomena that we now know about, it is difficult to consider that an all-powerful, all- wise and allegedly an all merciful creature who is apperently everywhere all the time with a personal interest in say ... my sex-life or my favorite sports team. It is just plain silly.

I marvel that the imaginary deity or deities are even given gender. What such a fantastic creature might require a gender for boggles the mind.

Now, all that said, I have no beef with believers with the exeption of Muslims for obvious reasons, they want to kill me for not wanting to be as totally stupid and superstitious as they are.

Christians and others are fine. Most of them benefit from their faith and are generally good folk. I would never attack them or even criticize them for their beliefs. They are free to believe what they want as am I. It's all good.

Anonymous said...

"You think 9,999 religions are bullshit. I think 10,000 religions are bullshit. That's it."

Read the post again, carefully this time.

Thesauros said...

Most people don't know where the visceral hatred Angry Atheists have comes from and are kind of shocked by it."

There's no need to be shocked. satan's main characteristics are arrogance and anger, attributes emulated by atheists the world over.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that Man is incapable of behaving well without the threat of post-mortem "consequences"? I assure you that morality does not depend on such sanctions. And insistence that we godless must be thieving, lying, murdering fornicators might have some influence on our attitudes toward the Godly and their Invisible Friend(s).



It is not post-mortem consequences that establish morality - it is the belief in an absolute truth, an absolute standard which applies to everyone, everywhere. THAT is not possible without God (or gods, if you like). If you believe we are merely evolved apes and have no souls, then the only LOGICAL limit to what you do is what you can get away with (and will benefit you).

An atheist might resist stealing $1,000 from an open cash register because he thinks "Golly, if I do that, the cashier will be punished or someone will go hungry and I'll feel bad" but the Christian will resist it because it is WRONG, regardless of whether it hurts anyone or not, and regardless of whether it makes him feel bad or not.

If there is no feeling bad about a deed, what motivation does an atheist have for not doing something? In other words, if raping someone or stealing makes the atheist feel good, what reason would he have for not doing it, if he can get away with it?

On the other hand, an atheist should ask himself where the "bad" feeling comes from. God? Or is it an evolved trait? or is it culturally ingrained? In any case but "from God", then the "feeling bad" is merely something to be overcome, an unnecessary hindrance to an atheist's getting whatever he wants, much like fear is a feeling to be overcome in battle, remorse, pity, honesty or whatever would merely be feelings to be overcome in the pursuit of his own gratification.

If the atheist dares to say that there is an absolute standard of morality, then he has to answer where it comes from. There is no logical answer without God.

V10 said...

Ask an angry atheist about Islam, particularly when it's in a public venue (speech, debate, rally, whatever). 4 times out of 5 this will knock them on their ass as they try to contort themselves around bashing religion while defending diversity.

Funny how credible death threats takes all the snide edginess out of them...

RM Odom said...

If you aren't an epistemological agnostic and don't use the terms 'faith' or 'science' in your reasoning I really would like to hear your explanation.

Also spot on description of the origins and faults of atheistkult, it's the main reason I identify as an
Agnostic stoic with elements of toaism/zen when ever topics go religious. I just can't keep up the Dawkins hatred all the time without thinking:
" I take myself way too seriously"

Bowers said...

It's the same reason capitalists are violently opposed to communism - it's a scam designed to trick others into conformity while the leaders reap all the rewards.

True atheists want freedom for their fellow man, being decent to each other because it's the right thing to do not out of fear & move forward with greater technological developments, get off this planet & speed up progress.

Mark L said...

Kevin said:

"Well, I'm a (small-"a") atheist (as opposed to the anti-theists). The difference is not subtle, but the definition is. I do not believe in a god or gods. Anti-theists believe there is no God. They profess a belief. I do not. As someone once said, I submit that you and I are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you disbelieve in all other possible gods, you might understand why I disbelieve in yours."

Ah . . . can you prove there is no God? Unless you can, your disbelief is faith-based. It is a belief rooted in the way you think things are rather than in the way they actually, verifiably can be proved to be. Which is the definition of a religion.

This is my main reason for opposing the exiling of other religions from the public square in favor of athiesm. Because it *is* a religion. It should no more be the established religion of the United States than Christianity or Islam or Hinduism.

People that really don't care about religion are agnostics rather than atheists.

Anonymous said...

The idiocy in having to make these statements in the comments of this post... sigh.

"Ah . . . can you prove there is no God? Unless you can, your disbelief is faith-based."

It is no more faith-based than my not believing in a gold unicorn on the moon with a 500ft dick.

Your claim is just as patently ridiculous. I'm very much not an anti-theist, but then when I read moronic crap like this...

Mark L said...

"It is no more faith-based than my not believing in a gold unicorn on the moon with a 500ft dick."

That can be proved or disproved through physical observation. One example: a golden unicorn that size would produce a masscon that would have noticeable (albeit low-order) gravitational characteristics.


For that matter, if it were on the surface of the Moon it would already have been spotted. It would be larger than the various moon-landing probes on the moon that have been visually detected. Several of the various radar mapping satellites around the Moon could detect an object such as you are describing even if it were buried.


The existance of a golden unicorn is falsifiable. The existence of God is non-falsifiable.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.


Peter Pan said...

True atheists want freedom for their fellow man, being decent to each other because it's the right thing to do not out of fear & move forward with greater technological developments, get off this planet & speed up progress.

*Why* is it the right thing to do? What is your objective standard?

As someone once said, I submit that you and I are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you disbelieve in all other possible gods, you might understand why I disbelieve in yours.

I am sorry but that argument is patently retarded - someone never played 'which of these is unlike the others' in grade school, now did they? The only way that you can dismiss a collection of objects (in this case a multitude of different gods) in the same manner is if they are all supported by the same claims...different gods make different claims, and different evidence would be needed to be examined to claim there existence or not. You can't dismiss the Christian God whose existence is testified to in the Bible on the same basis as you would Zeus or someone like that.

A lot of arguments for atheism come from a combination of

a.) A religious person hurt them in the past (as is the case with the Captain)

b.) A small set of patently ridiculous arguments (such as the 'one less god' argument, or the 'science is the only way we can know about things argument' or like Ofay Cat above, the 'I simply can't believe in a god since I observed some phenomena totally unrelated to the question of whether a god exists or not' argument.

Now as a few people have stated here...atheists and agnostics and theists alike are free to believe what they want - no complaints here.

But if you are going to argue for what you believe, at least don't use incredibly elementary and childish arguments that no serious atheist or theist philosopher would ever consider - do some background reading on both theism and atheism before spewing outdated and naive arguments. Heh heh...'one less god' - that one totally cracks me up!

Zog said...

Angry Atheists aren't necessarily leftists. I have a friend who is the epitome of a self-made wealthy capitalist - successful investor, CEO of an aggresive mining company. I'm a typical "don't give a damn" atheist and we argue - not about theology but about attitudes.
Anecdotal I know but, Captain you should be careful of broad generalizations.

foo said...

All of this is beside the point. Both the Christian and the pagan eat at McDonalds and shop at Walmart while feeling self righteous. No one gives a fuck about what they believe, as long as their line of credit remains and visa gets their payment on time.

I am a high priest in the real faith of this world. I have been a founder and exec of a successful advertising company. Like the skalds and bards of old, I sell to you not things, but images of yourself.

All religions are simply window dressing on top of the true trinity - Greed, Need, and the father of all markets, Fear.

The First Joe said...

I'm an atheist, aaaand I don't give a crap about religion until it becomes an excuse for doing fucked up shit:

Killing (including suicide bombing), stoning, chopping bits off babies' genitals etc. etc.

Also: Spreading ignorance and pseudo-science through tax funded schools: e.g. creationism.

Also, also: ripping off, brainwashing and exploiting people: Most money-grubbing churches have this in some degree. Some are worse than others. Some were FOUNDED just to get $$$ (Scientology)


If you're religious and you leave everyone else to get on with their own lives, don't shove you religion in my face, and don't mutilate* your kids (or cause them to die by refusing to let them get blood transfusions* (Jehovah's Witnesses) because your magic sky-fairy said so)... then I have no problem with you.


*Religious freedom, means you don't get to enforce irreversible body mutilation on your kids, or deny them medical care.
That kid has a right to chose their religion, and a right to their own bodily integrity. Which choices the kid is not not competent to take until they are adult.
As far as I know, in the EU, only Germany has had the balls to forbid religious circumcision.

So, yeah, you won't find me protesting outside any churches. I had no idea that even happened, until I read about American atheists doing it on the internet. :p

Hoss said...

Maybe someone can tell me how
many hospitals and charities
atheiests have.

The First Joe said...

"The existence of God is non-falsifiable."

The existence of a god or gods is highly improbable, which puts the burden of proof on whoever the fuck is asserting there is a god / gods / fairies or whatever.

In other words, you can spin tall tales all day, but don't expect or be surprised when no-one takes you seriously.

Irony: Most of the comments in here actually demonstrate a bunch of reasons WHY those angry atheists are so angry.

The obfuscations, "very complex belief systems" - complex bullshit is still bullshit. Feminist genderwhateverthefuck theory is incredibly COMPLEX and also: bullshit.
Incisive understanding of reality is most often realised through simple, elegant (often mathematic) explanations. Complexity is generally a red flag for waffle hiding nothing of substance.

The strawmen and chop-logic etc.

"it never ceases to amaze me that people who believe in evolution "

Scientists do not "believe" in evolution, it is the theory that best fits the observations and which is yet to be disproven. Rigorous scientific method is a VERY particular thing - "belief" does not get a look in.

"cannot see the obvious survival advantage religious belief confers on a group"

Says who? You? I'm an atheist, and a scientist and it's cystal clear to me that a lot of religions help the tribes that cleave to them in the sense it gives them motivation and strengthens their cohesion when e.g. fighting other tribes for resources.
But: It's proven track record as a USEFUL lie (e.g. in inter-group warfare), does not make religion TRUE.
And it becomes HARMFUL when humans want to acheive something bigger and better than inter-group warfare (e.g. colonising other planets.)

By analogy:
It is USEFUL for the purposes of human scale navigation on foot or horseback for journeys of less than a few hundred miles to think of the Earth as flat. Which most humans who had no opportunity to observe the curvatur of the Earth would have believed in the past. Again, it's not true.
And again it's harmful if you want to make bigger journeys where the Earth being round matters.




The First Joe said...

"You can't dismiss the Christian God whose existence is testified to in the Bible on the same basis as you would Zeus or someone like that."

Bullshit. Yes, you absolutely can. Both are fictional entities.

There you go, I just dismissed them.

And guess what, neither Zeus nor the Xtian god will be smiting me with a lightning bolt.... because... they don't exist.

One last time:

The burden of proof lies on you, asserting the existence of the improbable entity "god".... and a bunch of legends written in the Bronze Age (largely plagiarized from earlier mythos, at that!) is not "proof", not even close.

Peter Pan said...

All religions are simply window dressing on top of the true trinity - Greed, Need, and the father of all markets, Fear.

This isn't really the place to discuss this, so I won't say anything more than to note that you made quite the bold, sweeping generalization with absolutely no attempt at backing it up.

I could make similar generalizations about atheists, and how their atheism is an attempt to rationalize away their fear of moral judgement and accountability. With no god higher than themselves, they are free to do anything they want, aka 'do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.'

That is no less fair a generalization that what you stated above.

Peter Pan said...

Both are fictional entities.

There you go, I just dismissed them.


Really dude? Did you take 5 seconds after you typed that to read what you just wrote?

In case you didn't notice - you assumed your argument to be true in order to prove it! In other words - your argument is: "there is no God because there is no God".

The Captain likely does not want his blog space taken up by a debate on the existence of God, which is why I don't take this any further, but I can't help but reply to some of the stupider posts in this thread. Some things are too painfully dumb to be left unanswered.

And guess what, neither Zeus nor the Xtian god will be smiting me with a lightning bolt.... because... they don't exist.

Your understanding of religion (especially Christianity) here is not even at that of a 5 year old in Sunday school - you clearly don't know anything of what Christians believe and are getting your guffaws tilting at atheist caricature windmills set up by the Atheistkult and leftist media, thinking you have hit a real target.

The burden of proof lies on you, asserting the existence of the improbable entity "god".... and a bunch of legends written in the Bronze Age (largely plagiarized from earlier mythos, at that!) is not "proof", not even close.


On what basis can you arbitrarily shift the burden of proof one way or the other? Oh right...you are the type of atheist who believes that there is no God because...wait for it...there is no God! Brilliant!

As for the earlier mythos crap above - presumably, you are regurgitating the alleged Mithraism/Christianity link, long since refuted. The only people who still state that sort of crap are hack atheists writers - serious atheist and theistic writers left that behind years ago. Do a little research via reputable sources before you post such garbage.

As to *proof* that the Bible is indeed reliable...beyond the scope of this comment thread (As I said earlier the Captain surely does not want this sort of debate to start here in earnest, so I am restricting my comments to a few of the dumb, but very common, Atheistkult arguments.)

Ironic that in this post about angry atheists showing themselves to be retards, we have one such example here in this thread.

Tom said...

I'm no theologist but I always thought an atheist is someone who actively denies the existence of God, an agnostic is someone who is not sure if He exists and is questioning his faith, and a non-religious person is one who doesn't care either way.

If you're lookng for something different try praying to Tyche, the ancient greek goddess of fortune, a.k.a. Lady Luck. I pray for aces and kings mostly. Sometimes she answers my prayers and grants me good fortune though she can be fickle at times. Also some of her temples in Vegas offer free cocktails.

Anonymous said...

I am Atheist and I couldn't care less what other people believe in as long as they don't try to "force feed" those believes to me.

Bowers said...

Peter Pan asked: Why is it the right thing to do - what is your objective standard?

It's logic, something you seem to struggle with - working together is how our species progresses & the more complex the problem the more ideas are needed & sources of exotic materials from across the globe to make advancements, I note you didn't challenge the conning of people.

I'll put the burden back onto you, what do you do for a living? I may be wrong but until I can rule out that your money (or someone close to you) doesn't come from such a source & so you have a vested interest in the scam continuing your argument is likely out of self-interest.

For disclosure I'm an engineer.

PC Geek said...

@Bowers

It's logic, something you seem to struggle with - working together is how our species progresses & the more complex the problem the more ideas are needed & sources of exotic materials from across the globe to make advancements,

Fail.

You have committed a fundamental fallacy that secular folks often do when trying to define objective morality – namely trying to shoehorn utilitarianism into actual objective morality. What you are basically saying is that right and wrong are based on ‘whatever leads to the best outcome for our species’ but there are numerous problems with your formulation

1.) Who determines what is best for our species?

2.) How do you objectively measure this?

3.) What happens when there are competing visions of what is best for our species? I would imagine you and Adolf Hitler have very different visions what is the best way to progress as a species, right?

In the end, you are just kicking the can down the road and stating another just another version of ‘morality is whatever I personally feel is best’ or it’s wider alternative ‘morality is whatever a sufficiently large group of people at the time feel is best’. Numerous men far smarter than either of us have tried to define a secular objective morality and have failed. Note how just about any atheist simply adopts the morality of his host culture, usually minus a few things that he/she does not like and can get away with in the context of that society.

I note you didn't challenge the conning of people.

I did address it, albeit obliquely. Whether religion is a con or not is a function of whether or not it is true or not, and as I mentioned above, this blog is chiefly about economics, and I seriously doubt that the captain really wants a debate about the existence of God here on this thread. (Especially since it is an old thread by now.) While there is much evidence backing Christianity this is not really the place to address it. I only mentioned the morality stuff above in response to your challenging my statements – otherwise I would have simply left this thread alone.

Stick with economics and the related topics our host discusses – there would be far better places to have a discussion about religion. I appreciate his forbearance in allowing my posts on this thread and it is due to respect for the cap'n that I am not attempting to 'take over' a thread to something he surely did not want.

I'll put the burden back onto you, what do you do for a living? I may be wrong but until I can rule out that your money (or someone close to you) doesn't come from such a source & so you have a vested interest in the scam continuing your argument is likely out of self-interest.

For disclosure I'm an engineer.


In the end, the only thing that matters is who is correct or not, but either way, I’ll bite – I do not have an ecclesiastical position, if that is what you are asking. I work as a software engineer who ends up also donning the project management hat every now and then as per the whims of management.

Now I have a question for you – since you said above True atheists want freedom for their fellow man, being decent to each other because it's the right thing to do not out of fear - how do you define ‘true atheist’ – what is your objective definition of that? Weren’t Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin also atheists? Why are they less ‘true atheists’ than you are? Who gets to make that determination, and how is it objectively defined?

Bowers said...

@PC Geek/Peter Pan:

Market forces determine the path of our species not some ideal set out by someone with an agenda unlike the egomaniacs you mentioned - there's a problem with your argument though in that they did believe in god & thought they were him! Also, you keep going back to what morality is why isn't it as simple as this: live your life without harm to others & work for a living to provide for yourself & any others you see fit - where does god fall into that simple philosophy? If you don't agree with your employers or if you think they are evil people don't work for them, make your own mind up!

A true atheist does not think he's anything special, has the answers etc, just gets on with his own life, aware that he has to make things happen not some magic man who can wave his hand & make it all better.

I have no such delusions about my mortality or fallibility, if you'll bear with me here's how I think our future will play out (but I could be wrong): Space exploration will eventually become affordable as we develop ways to harness the resources out there (and there's almost limitless amounts) leading to the next wave of freedom for the individual to do their own thing with no-one to get in their way.

With resources abundant the problems of the past will melt away, exposing the real control freaks for the sickos they are for trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives just for a power trip.

Since you claim to be a software engineer I'm very surprised at your stance on religion since if that were true in your own life you'd realise that you control your destiny & make things happen, I know when I'm developing plant layouts no almighty force helps me & when problems happen during installations it's me who has to pull my finger out & solve them!

I suppose the bigger question is why do you think you have the answers? If you don't derive funds from religion what's your interest in this? I've already stated mine: It's to stop people extracting funds (my taxes) for their agenda to speed up progress, which in turn will enhance my life.