Comments on: reasons to be angry

reasons to be angry

nickyskye — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:27:03 -0800

A list of reasons why an atheist blogger is angry.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:32:34 -0800

Man. She sure is angry.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:33:09 -0800

Great stuff. Thanks.

By: grubi

grubi — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:36:54 -0800

Angry. And right.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:41:45 -0800

A bit overstated here and there (Still angry about Galileo?), but nice to see it all written out.

By: klarck

klarck — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:41:50 -0800

Angry. With strawmen.

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:43:03 -0800

I'm angry that Mother Teresa took her personal suffering and despair at her lost faith in God, and turned it into an obsession that led her to treat suffering as a beautiful gift from Christ to humanity, a beautiful offering from humanity to God, and a necessary part of spiritual salvation. And I'm angry that this obsession apparently led her to offer grotesquely inadequate medical care and pain relief at her hospitals and hospices, in essence taking her personal crisis of faith out on millions of desperately poor and helpless people. Wait, what?

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:43:32 -0800

"List of Things I Have Successfully Masturbated To." Maybe I'm just dead inside, but I disagree with the author's assertion that anger is "... one of the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal." A motivation, a catalyst, sure, but y'know, everyone's angry about something. You can go ahead and work up a big head of steam over this or that, that's a perfectly natural human reaction, but at the end of the day education, dignity, and money trumps getting het up every time.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:44:32 -0800

I get angry when believers trumpet every good thing that's ever been done in the name of religion as a reason why religion is a force for good... and then, when confronted with the horrible evils done in religion's name, say that those evils weren't done because of religion, were done because of politics of greed or fear or whatever, would have been done anyway even without religion, and shouldn't be counted as religion's fault. BING BING BING--WE HAVE A BOOKMARKED POST TO PULL OUT LATER

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:45:58 -0800

Creationism. A strawman.

By: doctor_negative

doctor_negative — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:46:31 -0800

I'm an atheist, but who gives a fuck? She's just annoying.

By: JeremiahBritt

JeremiahBritt — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:46:56 -0800

The Gallup Poll thing has me confused. "Would you vote for an atheist for president?" "45 Atheists No" "55 Atheist Yes" Doesn't that mean 55% said yes, not 45%? Or is that only 55% of atheists would vote for an atheist?

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:47:51 -0800

You know when she is really going to be angry? When God sends her to hell to burn for all eternity for her blasphemies. She is going to be pretty angry then.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:48:08 -0800

Yup. Strawmen. It's extremely important and good that atheists are making the initial consciousness raising mumblings that presage the formation of a useful campaign. Not quite there yet, though. The discussion of the ways atheists are discriminated against are useful - the strawmen and the championing of the Christopher Hitchens sort of atrocity-oglers are less so.

By: Hugh2d2

Hugh2d2 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:48:48 -0800

I've had the argument with my father about being too angry. He said it was fruitless to be so pissed off at the way the world works and to just relax and take what they give you. I called bullshit on that and told him if all the angry people from his generation would have STAYED angry, we might have made some progress on race relations/poverty/personal freedoms by now. As it is, their anger gave way to comfort.

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:48:51 -0800

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:48:55 -0800

I'm an atheist, but who gives a fuck? She's just annoying. So where did you get the name doctor_negative?

By: Sparx

Sparx — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:52:31 -0800

When God sends her to hell to burn for all eternity for her blasphemies. She is going to be pretty angry then. That's hot!

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:52:34 -0800

This blogger is angry about things that people do that affect her, which is reasonable. She's also angry about things that people think, which is sort of laughably hypocritical. Let's see if I can take the hypocrisy one step further. You know what makes me angry? People like this blogger who get angry about things that other people feel and think. Man, that really busts my chops.

By: frobozz

frobozz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:53:08 -0800

If 45% would vote for an atheist, I would think that's a giant leap forward even from 20 years ago. Seems a strange thing to get worked up over, at any rate. Most of these aren't things that atheists have any corner in being annoyed about anyway - catholic priest scandal? Pretty sure religious people were angry about that as well.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:54:44 -0800

Wow, someone managed to sum up exactly how I felt about this: Much of what she's angry about seems to be the non-homogeneousness of humanity and society - the fact that different people have different beliefs and that most of them aren't the same as hers. This seems to be a silly thing to be angry about. Except I would have said "stupid" instead of "silly".

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:54:54 -0800

Sounds like somebody needs to fill a Jesus-shaped hole in her heart.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:55:19 -0800

Surely if she would just calm down and explain these things in a polite manner, all those people who believe a bearded old man in the sky created the universe in six days will submit to reason.

By: pokermonk

pokermonk — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:56:57 -0800

Except I would have said "stupid" instead of "silly". My vote is "immature."

By: prostyle

prostyle — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:57:15 -0800

A list of reasons why a~~n atheist blogger is angry~~ moderator is going to delete your post.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:57:26 -0800

...45% would vote for an atheist...[is] a strange thing to get worked up over... How about you put it this way: A majority of Americans will only vote for a candidate that (profess to) believe in the supernatural. Given current events involving ignoring and/or manufacturing evidence, one would think this would be not all that strange a thing to worked up over.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:58:12 -0800

I'm angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives. Atheist husbands beat their wives as well.

By: ORthey

ORthey — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:58:28 -0800

She's also angry about things that people think, which is sort of laughably hypocritical. Wait... we can't get angry at what other people think? Why not? These are her opinions. Yeah, she's pretty high and mighty about them, but she's pissed. Only discussing what people do and not what they think, now that would be ridiculous.

By: klocwerk

klocwerk — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:58:29 -0800

Much of what she's angry about seems to be the non-homogeneousness of humanity and society - the fact that different people have different beliefs and that most of them aren't the same as hers. This seems to be a silly thing to be angry about. No, much of what she's angry about is that the rest of "humanity and society" tells her she's worthless and belittles her. This is not about different beliefs, this is about being told that you're not a moral person by a group of people who molest children and lie about it, start wars in the name of their "benevolent" god, and write-off the death of innocents as "God's will."

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:58:43 -0800

ANGRY BLOGGER! ANGRY BLOGGER!

By: small_ruminant

small_ruminant — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:59:00 -0800

rocket88 & TPS- exactly. You don't have to be atheist to be angry about most of these things. And I don't like proselytizing no matter who's doing or why.

By: pokermonk

pokermonk — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:59:20 -0800

(The over/under on this thread is 192.)

By: ORthey

ORthey — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:59:30 -0800

It doesn't really appear to me that she's claiming that all atheists are always good people, Ironmouth.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:00:15 -0800

Anger is natural. Great. Taking a shit is natural too, but I try not to do it in public.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:01:11 -0800

I'm angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives. Atheist husbands beat their wives as well. And do their wives stay because of the will of God? That's kind of the crux of the point.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:02:08 -0800

I'm angry at atheists who don't realize that a belief in the non-existence of a God who is by definition unknowable is just as much a matter of faith as someone who believes in that God's existence. I'm angry at atheists who don't understand that promoting atheism is proselytizing. I'm angry at people who dress up in Yankee Doodle outfits in an attempt to lend themselves credibility in matters of politics, but then proceed to attack religion, which is neither political, not atheistic. I'm angry at atheists whose atheism is in fact thinly veiled anti-Catholicism. Guess what, Galileo believed in God, and he was the one being persecuted.

By: PostIronyIsNotaMyth

PostIronyIsNotaMyth — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:03:20 -0800

I'm angry that atheist conventions have to have extra security, including hand-held metal detectors and bag searches, because of fatwas and death threats. Ever been to a temple on the High Holy Days? I'm angry that almost half of Americans believe in creationism. And not a broad, "God had a hand in evolution" creationism, but a strict, young-earth, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" creationism. Yeah, that sucks but you know what, welcome to America. I'm angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives. So there are some sexist fucking religious people. Fuck em. I don't go to temple with them. My head rabbi is a woman and I consider myself a feminist agnostic Jew, with much of my outlook coming from Reform Judaism. My point is that religion isn't homogenus. Trying to paint all religions and religious experiences with the broad strokes of fundamentalism is like calling all atheists Commies. Hell, under the USSR you could find all that same kind of bullshit (no questioning of doctrine, the institutionalization of hate-mongering , intolerance of homosexuality) but I don't think it had anything to do with it being an atheist country. Yeah, it totally sucks that the most fucked up religious people are right now the ones with the most power. But even the evangelical movement is starting to crack, and split into a movement that hopefully focus less on personal morality and more on issues of poverty and the environment.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:04:00 -0800

Surely if she would just calm down and explain these things in a polite manner, all those people who believe a bearded old man in the sky created the universe in six days will submit to reason. Surely if she would just blog about how damn angry she is, all those people who believe a bearded old man in the sky created the universe in six days will be convinced. Assuming this is one of those atheist blogs that has a vast readership of religious fundamentalists who are very, very, very easily swayed. Coals to Newcastle/choirpreach/linkbait. Anger goes best with BlogAds.

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:04:02 -0800

You know who else was angry?

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:04:05 -0800

Much of what she's angry about seems to be the non-homogeneousness of humanity and society - the fact that different people have different beliefs and that most of them aren't the same as hers. This seems to be a silly thing to be angry about. Right. Because though beliefs have consequences, all outcomes are equally desirable.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:04:06 -0800

Well, I pretty much agree with her.

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:05:13 -0800

Wait... we can't get angry at what other people think? Why not? These are her opinions. She can get angry about whatever she wants to. But she does a lot of accusing believers of being intolerant of her beliefs. Getting angry about their beliefs (as opposed to their actions) may be emotionally true, but it is laughably hypocritical. It's also not particularly useful, in my opinion, except presumably as catharsis for her and her readers. Catharsis has its place, I guess.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:05:34 -0800

I'm angry at atheists who don't realize that a belief in the non-existence of a God who is by definition unknowable is just as much a matter of faith as someone who believes in that God's existence. I'm angry at anyone who doesn't realize that declining to believe in an unproved proposition is the same as belief. If you offer me some land for sale in Florida and I ask for a picture, does that mean I have a religious belief in the non-existence of the land? That I will continue to hold in the face of evidence?

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:06:31 -0800

I'm angry at atheists who don't realize that a belief in the non-existence of a God who is by definition unknowable is just as much a matter of faith as someone who believes in that God's existence. I'm mildly annoyed at having to explain the difference between weak and strong atheism and usually also burden of proof and the argument from ignorance over and over again.

By: khaibit

khaibit — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:07:21 -0800

I'm angry that she doesn't know how to use the word fundamentalist. One who believes in the fundamentals. This is easiest to demonstrate with religion, (wrong and an incorrect interpretation of scripture I'd argue, but that's beside the point) but not solely related to it.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:08:23 -0800

Pretty sure religious people were angry about that as well. Really? I thought most of them attributed it to the, God works in mysterious ways catchall reason. They sit around wondering how the God is going come up with enough money to pay those huge fines, while their bank accounts are having automatic deductions to the church taken out every week. Except for the few that could cash in on it.

By: Marquise

Marquise — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:08:26 -0800

I'm angry that the atheists I know get really smug about pagans.

By: frobozz

frobozz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:11:09 -0800

Given current events involving ignoring and/or manufacturing evidence, one would think this would be not all that strange a thing to worked up over. I don't see the point of wasting good anger on something that it won't help. The best way to convince your average citizen that it wouldn't be unthinkable to vote for an atheist is to be their normal atheist neighbor, or daughter, or whatever. This particular issue isn't something that angry protests are going to fix; and, as I mentioned, the numbers seem to me to be more a cause for optimism than anything else.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:11:38 -0800

I'm getting so tired of this nu-athiesm. It's a fucking religion I tell ya. I'm firmly in the "couldn't give a shit about any"theist

By: mullacc

mullacc — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:11:38 -0800

I'm angry that according to a recent Gallup poll, only 45 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for President. If that's in any way accurate, it seems like good news to me. I'd have taken the under on 25%.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:13:36 -0800

CitrusFreak12, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice By Christopher Hitchens, also an online Google book.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:14:25 -0800

I don't see the point of wasting good anger on something that it won't help. The best way to convince your average citizen that it wouldn't be unthinkable to vote for a woman/minority is to be their normal woman/minority neighbor, or daughter, or whatever. This particular issue isn't something that angry protests are going to fix; and, as I mentioned, the numbers seem to me to be more a cause for optimism than anything else. - circa 1954

By: frobozz

frobozz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:18:01 -0800

- circa 1954 Fifty whole years, oh my god! Give it three hundred more and I might begin to wonder a little.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:19:04 -0800

I thought most of them attributed it to the, God works in mysterious ways catchall reason. They sit around wondering how the God is going come up with enough money to pay those huge fines, while their bank accounts are having automatic deductions to the church taken out every week. It's my understanding that in North America most of that formally institutionalized tithing is practiced by Mormons, hardcore Protestant groups, and Jewish congregations. That is to say, not so much the Catholics. But it's always refreshing to see someone ostensibly on "my side" break up the fundies/literalists' monopoly on gross generalizations, mindless contempt and cheerful ignorace.

By: neat-o

neat-o — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:21:30 -0800

I am angry at every true believer, choking the roads with their dogma-mobiles, and right at noon on Sunday, just when the grocery stores can begin selling beer, and I sit, ailing silently with a consuming desire for hair of the dog, while this parade of devotion prevents me from getting the very succor I so crave...

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:22:25 -0800

That is to say, not so much the Catholics. *cough*

By: schroedinger

schroedinger — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:22:38 -0800

oh shit lookit this dude being angry on the internet

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:23:50 -0800

Atheist husbands beat their wives as well. No we don't. We dismember their bodies, seal them in an oil drum filled with lye and toss them in the river. You know; because it was gods will.

By: Caduceus

Caduceus — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:25:18 -0800

Anger is natural. Great. Taking a shit is natural too, but I try not to do it in public. I'm sure someone who doesn't know what "strawman" actually means will accuse me of creating one, but without a great deal of righteous anger being aired out in public, women would still not be able to vote, black people would still have separate bathrooms and get lynched on occasion, and gay people would still be sent to institutions instead of living happy, functional lives. Of course, some gay people still are sent to institutions, which is probably one of the things she's angry about. Yeah, it totally sucks that the most fucked up religious people are right now the ones with the most power. But even the evangelical movement is starting to crack, and split into a movement that hopefully focus less on personal morality and more on issues of poverty and the environment. I wouldn't hold your breath. I'm angry that she doesn't know how to use the word fundamentalist. One who believes in the fundamentals. This is easiest to demonstrate with religion, (wrong and an incorrect interpretation of scripture I'd argue, but that's beside the point) but not solely related to it. Ahem. From the American Heritage Dictionary. fun·da·men·tal·ism n. 1. a. Often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in 1920 in opposition to Liberalism and secularism. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement. 2. A movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles. (Emphasis mine.)

By: GalaxieFiveHundred

GalaxieFiveHundred — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:25:19 -0800

I'm angry that fleetmouse used the "I'm mildly annoyed" formulation before I got a chance to. I was gonna make a funny. But I'm in no mood for that now.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:27:48 -0800

That is to say, not so much the Catholics. Aren't they the wealthiest church holding somewhere in the range of $1,000,000,000,000 in assets? But I see your point. I just get so angry.

By: macmac

macmac — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:28:56 -0800

Yeah, it is okay to angry with someone's ideas, when they push those ideas down your throat and make you live by their rules. The majority of the people in this country believe that there is some giant Santa Claus in the sky that approves or disapproves of every little thing that they do. And, unfortunately, they use that as a justification to make other people live by their completely arbitrary and unjustifiable rules. And that matters. It changes the quality of life for all of us. If most of the Christians in this country were like the Menonites, secluding themselves to living life the way they think is right, there wouldn't be a problem. But when instead of limiting their own actions and options they decide that NO ONE should have those choices -- well, that's fucking insane, isn't it? Just because you think that Santa Claus loves the little stem cells doesn't mean that my family members should be sentenced to live with Parkinson's, does it? And yeah, not all believers are like that. But as long as there have been religions, there have been people that have been people that have used them as a way to power and a vehicle to make other people live by their rules. For every group of Menonites there's also a group of far-right Christian fundamentalists. For every Zen monk, there's an Islamic mullah who says that women who don't cover their hair renounce their right to live. So yeah, that makes some of us pretty fucking angry. Is that so strange? And if it feels like all this person is doing is attacking straw men, that may be because there are so many of them put out there as earnest defenses by people who don't seem to know any better.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:30:47 -0800

*cough* I read that too, it's the third google result for Catholic+Tithing. It's an interesting piece, even if it doesn't mention whether or not the Catholics in the story were tithing in the manner Mr_Zero described.

By: khaibit

khaibit — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:32:22 -0800

Yup, atheists not rigidly adhering to anything. Nothing at all.

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:32:54 -0800

But as long as there have been religions, there have been people that have been people that have used them as a way to power and a vehicle to make other people live by their rules. I agree with you on that point 100%. You know what I do about it? I fight it, as an activist with Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I give money to them and to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I watch the media in my area for instances of religious abuse of power in my area and I respond. This woman's got a big old blog with a lot of entries about how awful religion is, and in none of her blog entries do I see her trying to do anything about it.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:38:42 -0800

But I see your point. I just get so angry. Dude, you should totally blog about it! Kidding aside, if the opinions of most of the Catholic folks I know (And my own, back when I was practicing) is indicative of the mainstream NorAm Papist take on the subject, most Catholics are disgusted with pedophile priests and the Vaticans' sheltering of them in the same way many Americans are disgusted with the Administration. They are not going to toss their rosaries into the river or burn their citizenship documents just because the people running the show are horribly flawed beings.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:39:11 -0800

I'm tired of atheist = obnoxious blowhard on the internet. Can we have some peppy, perky atheists? Ones who are all kinda like, "It's groovy, man...you can have your invisible sky guy, and I'll have my...um...nothing, I guess, and together in mutual contentment we will now proceed to chill? And can you pass the Cheetos?" But no. Instead we get these fire and brimstone types who, as a rule, effortlessly suck all the joy out of any room they enter. It's a drag. They're a drag. Shut up, militant atheists.

By: Prospero

Prospero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:39:13 -0800

Wait--so you mean that if I click on the link in the OP, I'm actually not going to get rickrolled?

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:47:35 -0800

I'm tired of atheist = obnoxious blowhard on the internet. Can we have some peppy, perky atheists? Seconded.

By: Mastercheddaar

Mastercheddaar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:48:29 -0800

I love selfish people that think the personal freedoms in this country only apply to them. I'm angry because no one agrees with me! BOO HOO Bitch. You choose to be angry because you don't believe in God. It's true that anyone can choose not to believe in anything in this country but don't expect everyone to bend over backwards just forone person's goofy views! I tolerant them because it means that they have to tolerant me in return. Tolerant does not mean accept. I don't accept their views and I don't expect them to accept mine. However, I really don't want to hear the whole, "I'm angry because no one thinks I'm right!" I got a solution to the girl who wrote this blogs problem with her anger.... OPEN UP YOUR HEART TO OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST AND LET HIM FILL IT WITH PEACE AND LOVE! Agree or disagree with me... I don't really give a damn Mastercheddaar

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:48:56 -0800

I'd like to thank the posters in this thread for reminding me how many religious people are so completely wrapped up in a religious mindset that atheism looks like a religion to them. I don't know how to reason with such people. It's not that atheists (well, most of us) actively believe there's no God, though such a formulation is sometimes rhetorically useful or fun. ("Smile! There's no Hell!" is a favorite of mine.) The truth is that most of us don't believe in God. There's a difference between not believing in God and believing that there's no God. Now, I understand why you keep bleating about how atheism is a religion, too- the idea that there are ways of knowing about reality which not only aren't based in faith but actively deny that faith is a source of knowledge at all is rather anathematic to a faith-based conception of reality. If you can insist that atheism is a faith, you can avoid confronting the central claim of atheism- that knowledge and faith need not be related.

By: dead_

dead_ — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:51:02 -0800

Obnoxious. As long as bloggers like this lady are using the word 'atheist' to describe themselves, I think I had better come up with a different way of describing my views. Any ideas?

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:51:06 -0800

Here's the most intelligent response I can muster: Every public teaching that is based in opinion, educated or not, is a religious teaching. The second an atheists demands assent without knowledge, that atheist is a religious person. The real opposite of believe isn't disbelief; it's indifference. This person is certainly not indifferent. In other news, this reminds me of the bumper sticker I'm hoping to have printed up: IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE ONE OF THE HAPPY FEW

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:52:03 -0800

I'm tired of atheist = obnoxious blowhard on the internet. Can we have some peppy, perky atheists? Ones who are all kinda like, "It's groovy, man...you can have your invisible sky guy, and I'll have my...um...nothing, I guess, and together in mutual contentment we will now proceed to chill? I'm tired of black person = obnoxious civil rights activist. Can we have some nice, friendly negroes? Ones who are all kinda like "It's okay, man, you have your drinking fountains and I'll have mine and we can chill?" ALTERNATE RESPONSE: Yes, because when you're hitting someone in the face repeatedly, it's so obnoxious when they ask you to stop.

By: kimota

kimota — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:52:27 -0800

ANGER IS AN ENERGY! ANGER IS AN ENERGY!

By: Pater Aletheias

Pater Aletheias — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:52:53 -0800

I'm too laid back to get really angry at anything short of personal injury, but I would agree that a lot of the things on the list are pretty annoying. I do think it's weird that she doesn't like it that some people have opinions about the heart of the Christian faith. I get angry when religious believers insist that their interpretation of their religion and religious text is the right one, and that fellow believers with an opposite interpretation clearly have it wrong. I get angry when believers insist that the parts about Jesus's prompt return and all prayers being answered are obviously not meant literally... but the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination, that's real. And I get angry when believers insist that the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination aren't meant literally, but the parts about caring for the poor are really what God meant. How the hell do they know which parts of the Bible/ Torah/ Koran/ Bhagavad-Gita/ whatever God really meant, and which parts he didn't? This isn't that hard. The Bible itself gives some pretty clear signals about that the most important stuff is. "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." --Micah 6:8 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." --Matthew 22:36-40 Yes, there is a lot of stuff in the Bible and some of it is unpleasant. But bad ideas get dropped or marginalized in the text, and better ones are re-affirmed and exalted. There is no text that says "When you sum everything up, what God really wants is for you to hate and oppress people." But there are hundreds of texts that say something like "It all boils down to loving others and taking care of people in need." Anyone who thinks that that isn't the heart of the Christian faith isn't reading the Bible very well, and I don't might saying that, even if it makes a certain atheist blogger very angry. [Of course, I've read other atheist bloggers who get mad if Christians like me aren't vocal enough about reclaiming the faith from spiteful fundies. So it's damned if you do; damned if you don't. If atheists believed in damnation, which they don't. Suddenly, I'm trying to remember why I care what she thinks, anyway.]

By: d13t_p3ps1

d13t_p3ps1 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:53:08 -0800

:) i'm a perky atheist, kittens. I used to be an angry neo-pagan but then I grew up. I am pretty much the happiest person I know, actually.

By: dhammond

dhammond — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:54:08 -0800

Proselytyzing about atheism is only slightly less annoying than proselytyzing about Christianity. You don't believe in God? Great. Now shut the fuck up. Most of us don't care.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:54:09 -0800

The real opposite of believe isn't disbelief; it's indifference. This person is certainly not indifferent. As long as believers keep voting to outlaw gay marriage and abortion and such in the pursuit of their beliefs, the idea that we should be indifferent is a sick joke and an abomination. Religion kills. Religion hurts people, and it drives people to hurt others. That pointing this out causes one to be pointed at as unreasonable and "obnoxious" is fucking infuriating.

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:56:13 -0800

I don't mind the anger, but she gets to a point where she's trying to explain a huge wad of different things and she's 8,000 words in and that anger just fizzles. I wish she'd either gone for a less argued piece (as the best angry rants usually throw logic out of the window) or curbed the anger and split her issues out over a number of articles. As it is, she starts to wander around by the end of the article, hiccuping with a quiet and undecodable confusion.

By: dead_

dead_ — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:57:02 -0800

I do like perky atheist, I guess. But now I'm thinking, how can I shorten this down: "I-just-don't-care-about-your-views,-yes-that-goes-for-you-too-ist"?? If this can be truncated to one word, I think we might be on to something.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:57:32 -0800

Pope Guilty: "There's a difference between not believing in God and believing that there's no God." The difference isn't really between those who believe and those who don't. It's between those who express hesitation between two difficult-to-know propositions and those who are confident, bold, and forceful in their haphazardly-chosen convictions.

By: edd

edd — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:58:59 -0800

'Yup, atheists not rigidly adhering to anything. Nothing at all.' Clearly no strawmen here either.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:00:25 -0800

The difference isn't really between those who believe and those who don't. It's between those who express hesitation between two difficult-to-know propositions and those who are confident, bold, and forceful in their haphazardly-chosen convictions. And that doesn't even for a second interfere with the fact that "atheism is a religion, too" is a strawman.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:04:47 -0800

I'd like to thank the posters in this thread for reminding me how many religious people are so completely wrapped up in a religious mindset that atheism looks like a religion to them. No, that's not why atheism "looks like a religion," nor is that phrasing entirely accurate. Rather, atheism is starting to adopt many of the negative traits of religion -- militancy, stubbornness, groupthink, and viewing their ideological opponents as subhuman -- under the guise of the "fight fire with fire" philosophy championed by the diatribe linked in the FPP. When one considers the fact that the vast majority of the "angry atheists" are overfed, spoiled brats surrounded by first-world freedoms and luxuries, having never experienced any significant degree of religious oppression but with an enormous, masochistic persecution complex, their words become laughable. How does it feel when a cartoon featuring a talking turd has a more mature and rational position on religion and atheism than you? These people are only useful as a boogeyman for the Bible-thumpers: "Look! The militant atheists want to rape Jesus!"

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:06:18 -0800

It's between those who express hesitation between two difficult-to-know propositions and those who are confident, bold, and forceful in their haphazardly-chosen convictions. There are not two propositions. There is only one: "God exists". I do not believe this proposition has sufficient evidence to warrant belief. I confidently and boldly retain this skepticism. I forcefully expound on it when pressed.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:07:53 -0800

You don't believe in God? Great. Now shut the fuck up. Most of us don't care. You know the problem though? As I stated earlier I hate using the athiest tag myself. Here's an example of why we have to discuss a nonbelief however ridiculous that is (and it is preposterous!)... I'm getting married next May. We are both non-religious. We can't marry on a Sunday (we could if we were religious - any religion, not just Christian.). We can't have music that mentions God, angels, alludes to being religious or has a gospel choir etc. So, most of you may not care but non-believers are treated different throughout the world simply for not believing. What is crazy is that I would be respected as long as i believed in something. This not believing shit must be powerful stuff considering the lengths authority goes to in order to make it awkward for me not to trust reason.

By: Abiezer

Abiezer — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:08:01 -0800

Apropos of not very much, great Christian fundamentalist cranks I have admired #1: Major-general Thomas Harrison, the regicide.

I have served a good Lord and Creator; he hath covered my head many times in the day of battle. By God I have leapt over a wall, by God I have run through a troop, and by my God I will go through this death and He will make it easy for me.

Pepys watched Harrison's grisly execution, where he made that speech:

I went out to Charing Cross, to see Major- general Harrison hanged, drawn, and quartered; which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition.

By: oddman

oddman — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:09:31 -0800

"I'm angry that so many believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping list for God." Why does this upset her exactly? This kind of thinking has no measurable impact on her life, at all. I'm religious, and this kind of praying upsets me because I feel that it cheapens and misconstrues our relationship with God. I just don't see why this would upset her. It's like getting mad at people who don't accept that Dumbledore is gay.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:10:55 -0800

How does it feel when a cartoon featuring a talking turd has a more mature and rational position on religion and atheism than you? I think the instant that you cite South Park as having a mature and rational view on anything, you kind of lose all credibility. Anyway, I love this: the vast majority of the "angry atheists" are overfed, spoiled brats surrounded by first-world freedoms and luxuries, having never experienced any significant degree of religious oppression but with an enormous, masochistic persecution complex, their words become laughable. Do you think that's an argument? Seriously? And if so, what is wrong with you that makes you think that way?

By: LarryC

LarryC — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:11:15 -0800

Angry people are often boring as hell.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:11:18 -0800

Yes, because when you're hitting someone in the face repeatedly, it's so obnoxious when they ask you to stop. Who in the world is hitting you in the face, though? Atheists may be a minority, but a persecuted one? Really? I'm sorry, but I don't see it.

By: thehmsbeagle

thehmsbeagle — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:11:49 -0800

It's stunning to me how many extremely angry atheists don't realize that they sound exactly like extremely angry evangelical Christians, only they've swapped "There is no God, and you are a FOOL for thinking otherwise!" for "Jesus saves, and you're going to hell for thinking otherwise!" and "I want to have atheist meetings and you can't stop me!" for "School prayer, rah rah rah!" Fundies of every single stripe have more in common with each other than with the less-angry, more-sensible folks they allegedly share their belief structures with.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:12:20 -0800

I get angry about pathetic arguments on the Internets that go nowhere, change no one's mind, and are just an excuse for all involved to feel better about themselves, as if they actually accomplished something rather than shouting with their fingertips into an electronic void. Wait; wait! It just changed to apathy. Ahhhh. So much better.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:12:58 -0800

Goddamn. This post pisses me off. Just kidding. This atheist/religionist dichotomy, as we keep illustrating here, is not really about religion; it's about power. Sensible people believe that arguments that lead to the placement of controls on individual liberties should have some logical and humane underpinnings. The fact that "God said it" is not sufficient evidence on which to base public policy. First, it's highly debatable what, if anything, God said or didn't say. Second, just because God said it doesn't make it a good way to run a society (especially a secular society). And yet we see more and more politically powerful religionists willing to jam what we absolutely, fundamentally disagree with down our throats by force. The fact that some people have religion is absolutely not the problem. The fact that they want to run everyone else's lives is. As with so much else these days, being nice and civil only seems to lead to more of the same. I think anger is a pretty legitimate response.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:13:18 -0800

It's like getting mad at people who don't accept that Dumbledore is gay. I don't care how many people get mad at me!!! Dumbledore is not gay!!!

By: edd

edd — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:15:45 -0800

'the fact that the vast majority of the "angry atheists" are overfed, spoiled brats surrounded by first-world freedoms and luxuries, having never experienced any significant degree of religious oppression but with an enormous, masochistic persecution complex' The term 'overfed, spoiled brats' applies just as well to the kinds of figures these people are generally criticising. That they are surrounded by first-world freedoms is entirely why they get aggravated when others in that same society try to infringe on the freedoms their society is supposed to be built upon. Are they supposed to just give up and not fight because they'd be worse off in Saudi Arabia or something?

By: katillathehun

katillathehun — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:17:27 -0800

I'm not an atheist, but there are some things on her list I can certainly understand. You really don't have to be an atheist to be pissed off about them. The teacher who told the comic artist he couldn't draw in heaven, for example. That's just effed up, right there. It's when she says things like, "And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because 'Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that.' As if that fucking matters," that I want to roll my eyes. Okay, sure, those offenses are important, but you can't judge an entire group by those offenses. Why doesn't it matter if someone isn't "like that"? Why is it insulting for a Christian to believe that God doesn't support hatred and religious violence and judging? How DARE a Christian not subscribe to the "God hates fags!" view! I mean, where do they get off? She started out with intelligent criticism which turned into aimless angst. Yeah, okay. Fine. You're angry. But have a point.

By: jeblis

jeblis — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:17:56 -0800

IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE ONE OF THE HAPPY FEW Or better known as "ignorance is bliss"

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:18:21 -0800

Hehe, poop. NO TIME TO LAUGH ABOUT IT NOW.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:20:17 -0800

Because the other thing I'm angry about is the fact that, in this piece, I've touched on -- maybe -- a hundredth of everything that angers me about religion. This piece barely scratches the surface. I know, almost without a doubt, that within five minutes of hitting "Post" and putting this piece on my blog, I'll think of six different things that I'd wished I'd put in. I could write an entire book about everything that angers me about religion -- other people certainly have -- and still not be finished. Whinging, that. grrrrrI'm so angry I can't even tell you how angry and this is only one hundredth of my stinky anger, it's so easy to think of things that PISS ME OFF so lookout!! grar grar Put me in the perky pile. Secular Humanist is an okay term for me. I'm not pleased with religiosity in the governance of our nation, claim no fealty to any other, take solace in believing I see the world as it is, and speak sweetly of the awe of cold realism. also, Metafilter: Tolerant does not mean accept.

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:20:22 -0800

Okay, sure, those offenses are important, but you can't judge an entire group by those offenses. When the group in question subscribes to a dogmatic doctrine with a scriptural call for offenses of this nature, we most certainly can. I get so tired of the "I'm not that kind of Christian argument". Who decides who is more Christian between two parties who self identify as Christian?

By: malusmoriendumest

malusmoriendumest — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:22:27 -0800

This is precisely what she was talking about. A lot of bored, sarcastic adults who respond to a heartfelt expression of opinion by shouting, "Sit down, and shut up! You're just making it worse for the rest of us! You don't have a right to be angry!" Everyone has a right to be angry. Everyone. And I'm angry at all of you.

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:23:37 -0800

Fuck. Reading through this thread I've encountered every tired anti-atheist argument that I just don't have the energy to debate anymore. Atheists are just as fundamental as Christians, et al ad nauseam. How many times do we have to explain burden of proof? How many times do we have to point out that when there is insufficient evidence for a hypothesis, those of rational minds naturally reject it? For fuck's sake, this is why we never get anywhere. There's no institutional memory for these debates, it's the same old talking points over and over, that when met with rational criticism and response, simply crop up again and again like so many weeds.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:25:30 -0800

I'm tired of atheist = obnoxious blowhard on the internet. ... I'm tired of black person = obnoxious civil rights activist. Can we have some nice, friendly negroes? Ones who are all kinda like "It's okay, man, you have your drinking fountains and I'll have mine and we can chill?" Pope Guilty, as one atheist to another -- that is a horrible comparison. I've been an atheist my entire life, including growing up in the Assemblies of God headquarters of Springfield, MO. One year, I was the only child in class not invited to another student's birthday party because I told the class I didn't believe in god (or maybe I was just a huge loser, but I'm pretty sure it was the god stuff). Being an atheist in this country is mildly annoying, period. No lynchings. No firehoses. No bodys burned and buried in the swamps.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:26:59 -0800

DU: "There are not two propositions. There is only one: "God exists". I do not believe this proposition has sufficient evidence to warrant belief. I confidently and boldly retain this skepticism. I forcefully expound on it when pressed." How is "God does not exist" not a proposition? What is your position on this proposition? Do you ask that others accept this proposition without knowledge? I don't think you do, but friend, you're not really a typical atheist. Atheists are just human beings. We need to recognize that the vastest majority of human beings accepts silly propositions on faith every single day, from the notion that atoms are little balls of foam stuck together to the notion that God is a happy man with a flowing beard who wants to give us candy in heaven to the notion that Muslims are silly fools and everyone from another country is a crazy sod. People are so stupid as to routinely base public policy on these stupid beliefs.That doesn't exclude atheists, unfortunately. Most atheists are atheists for the wrong reasons. That's not in any way an argument against not believing in god. It's just an argument against being a card-carrying member of a support group.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:28:38 -0800

“I'm angry that atheist soldiers who are complaining about this are being harassed and are even getting death threats from Christian soldiers and superior officers -- yet again, in the U.S. armed forces.” uh, yeah: “Military officials in Iraq are investigating allegations that an Army specialist is being harassed for being an atheist but said Saturday that they cannot find an officer the soldier has named in a federal lawsuit.” Sounds like there are some fanatic dolts giving the guy a hard time which the military is investigating (although they strangely can’t find any records of one of the people the guy named). Helps to have your facts straight instead of being, y’know, angry. But incoherently rage in one hand, do rational activism in the other (ala’ gurple) see which actually gets you anywhere. Y’know, I think it’s the vacillation that’s most vexing. There’s this tortuous labyrinthine logic at work in most religions (mostly instead of saying “I don’t know”) that you really wouldn’t expect from atheists or atheism. Yet it’s there more often then not. Mostly because folks can’t seem to stand on just “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” and have to go into all the why’s and wherefores like they’ve got life and the whole universe figured out (stick with me folks, I’ll lay it all down for ya). So: God does/doesn’t exist (Some 1/2wit) Yeah, ok. But what does that mean? You: I don’t know. How easy is that? I’m not talking about defending against encroachment. Hell, no one wants someone else’s schtick shoved down their throats, but like abortion - there are non-religious reasons to oppose it. And there are no atheists who are homophobes? So much of what “atheists” talk about is not the absence of God. (Much as what “Christians” talk about have little to do with Christ) There’s a guy out here pressing a lawsuit against the state’s moment of silence law saying it’s unconstitutional and infringes on his rights since it’s sort of a back door to prayer. That’s great. That’d be pretty much what I expect from an atheist who feels strongly about his atheism. (And I have to say I welcome the sharper and more broadly defined line between church and state) But there are myriad political and philosophical positions based on opposing what religious folks support merely because religion is bad or some such. Kinda sounds off the track of the “no God” thing. At least as off track as “God” is in other areas as well.

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:29:56 -0800

Religion kills. Religion hurts people, and it drives people to hurt others. There are evil people in this world...that's a given. Most of those evil people are religious (only because most people in general are religious). You see that fact and blame the religion as the cause of their evil. But what about the evil atheists? What causes their evil? What about the non-evil believers? How do you account for them?

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:30:41 -0800

If you offer me some land for sale in Florida and I ask for a picture, does that mean I have a religious belief in the non-existence of the land? That I will continue to hold in the face of evidence? posted by DU at 12:05 PM on October 30 No, it means nothing because the analogy is silly. Like I wrote, God is by definition unknowable. Your request for evidence of something unknowable is silly. If god could be known by way of evidence, then he wouldn't be unknowable, and that would not meet the definition of God.So of course no one can offer any proof. In other words, to ask for proof of God is to completely misunderstand what people who believe in God think God is. In other words, to ask for proof means you don't understand belief. Furthermore, the burden of proof in this context is on the atheist, not the believer. This is not someone saying "I do not believe in God". That would be a statement about their belief system (which by the way is also totally unprovable and unknowable to anyone other than the person making the statement.) This is someone saying "There is no God". That is an objective statement about the nonexistence of God. The believer believes in a God that by definition cannot be proven under the rules of logic or science. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Thus, God is defined in such a way that he violates all of the fundamental laws of physics. That's the definition. That doesn't mean he can't exist, it means that physics can't define him, or be used to demonstrate his existence. That this is the case reflects a deficiency in physics, not God, according to the believer. If the atheist believes there is no God, then the atheist is in fact stating that nothing can exist that is outside the laws of physics. What is the proof of this assertion? More significantly, what are the implications of this when the person making the statement is not a physicist and probably does not have a complete understanding of all of physics?

By: jeblis

jeblis — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:31:13 -0800

Bookhouse Being an atheist in this country is mildly annoying, period. No lynchings. No firehoses. No bodys burned and buried in the swamps. No it's not that bad now, for either group, but in the history of the world it has been just as bad. I'd say it's a pretty fair comparison. The only real exception is that it's easier for an atheist to hide.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:32:43 -0800

Wow, turns out that was one of her less irritating blog entries.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:33:54 -0800

How can you tell Atheism isn't a religion? When an Atheist rapes a child, they go to prison.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:33:56 -0800

IF YOU'RE OUTRAGED, YOU SHOULD HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN CHOOSING WHICH BUMPER STICKER BEST REPRESENTS YOU AS A PERSON. AND TRY PUBLIC TRANSIT, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS ASSHOLE.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:33:57 -0800

In other words, to ask for proof means you don't understand ~~belief~~ FAITH. I mean, come now.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:35:52 -0800

koeselitz: "IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE ONE OF THE HAPPY FEW" jeblis: "Or better known as 'ignorance is bliss'" No, friend. The point is that "intelligence" and "outrage" don't fucking go together. It might well be that the enlightened are actually very happy, rather than seething with wrath.

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:36:46 -0800

In other words, to ask for proof means you don't understand belief. Pastabagel, as opposed to some others in this thread, at least understands this crucial difference between religion and atheism. Atheists don't understand (or, at least, practice) "belief", as Pastabagel is defining belief.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:37:04 -0800

The more and more truly obnoxious fundamentalist atheists that turn in the wake of the fairly obnoxious Dawkins and Hitchens has started to make me think that it could all be a huge cosmic joke on god's part to recruit more to his side.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:37:45 -0800

but in the history of the world it has been just as bad. I'd say it's a pretty fair comparison. The only real exception is that it's easier for an atheist to hide. If we're pulling out the entire history of the world, it's been just as bad for just about everyone. There are still survivors of those bloody civil rights years. They probably wouldn't agree with you.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:38:43 -0800

blah blah. woof woof. yadda³. and the beat goes on...

By: amro

amro — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:39:25 -0800

I agree with much of her rant, but this: I'm angry at the believers who put decals on their cars with a Faith fish eating a Darwin fish... and who think that's clever, who think that religious faith really should triumph over science and evidence. Um, wasn't the Darwin fish a "clever" response to the Jesus fish? So the Jesus fish people have no right to respond in kind? And yeah, bumper stickers are dumb.

By: The corpse in the library

The corpse in the library — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:39:38 -0800

I'm getting married next May. We are both non-religious. We can't marry on a Sunday (we could if we were religious - any religion, not just Christian.). We can't have music that mentions God, angels, alludes to being religious or has a gospel choir etc. Why not? What's stopping you? If you want it, go nuts.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:39:46 -0800

And do their wives stay because of the will of God? That's kind of the crux of the point. Hey, DU, the wives gave atheism a fair shot and got beaten for it, so maybe now its God's turn at bat.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:41:24 -0800

I swore I wouldn't get involved in the LOLXTIANS/LOLATHEISTS discussions, but hey I break promises all the time. You know what really gets her angry? The fact that she can't reconcile her atheism with the fact that an established religious organization is not a religion. It infuriates her that the practices of a church bear no relevance to the existence or lack thereof of any sort of higher power or spiritual existence beyond the material world. In fact, what's eating at her at the back of her (completely understandable and wholly sympathizable) mind is the nagging suspicion that her choice of belief system is motivated almost wholly by (entirely justifiable) political and social conviction rather than sincere belief or lack thereof. For instance, I feel confident that somewhere in her mind there is a voice telling her that condemning the hypocrisy of religious folk who trumpet the good deeds of religion, all the while insisting on a myopic view of its evils is in itself the very same hypocrisy. Anyone can bust out the old canard about religion being an influence for harm in a society, but it takes rather more honesty with one's self to recognize that Buddhism is hardly a force for evil in the world and Jainists are perhaps the only people in the world who can honestly say that they literally wouldn't hurt a fly. Anger of this variety, although I could obviously be mistaken in this instance, is often the result of a need to reinforce to oneself one's own belief system. "But of course Atheism is the way to go! Look at the Spanish Inquisition! Fuck Christianity!" But Atheism doesn't need to be reinforced, and religion doesn't have to be the enemy. One is perfectly capable of disbelieving in spirituality and divine presences without condemning that belief. And one is also perfectly capable of condemning the corruption and petty tyrannies of certain organized religious institutions without believing that those institutions reflect on the legitimacy or existence of the divinity they allegedly believe in. The idea that Atheism is the cause which best scrutinizes the faults in a given religious organization is arguable at best. Just ask Martin Luther. I'm an Agnostic (tm), and I endorse this comment.

By: Xurando

Xurando — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:41:38 -0800

I'm angry about what happened to Galileo. still. II may be wrong but isn't Galileo still in orbit?

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:41:47 -0800

Pastabagel, I would be very interested to hear your argument in more detail as to how exactly the burden of proof is on atheists with regard to the God hypothesis. I respect your contributions here a whole lot, but this smacks of some ol' bullshit.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:43:07 -0800

re: belief I think I, as an atheist, practice belief. Philosophy, to me, has dictated that conscious observation that creates my subjective reality is incomplete, yet I believe that what I witness and understand it truer than any embodiment of God heretofore set forth. I go for the unknowable, unprovable God without protest, but that makes all pronouncements about him/her/it meaningless and all traditions, rites or rules inherently arbitrary. I would convert to Judaism if I felt like doing a bunch of work for no reason.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:43:27 -0800

Religion kills. Religion hurts people, and it drives people to hurt others. That pointing this out causes one to be pointed at as unreasonable and "obnoxious" is fucking infuriating. posted by Pope Guilty at 12:54 PM on October 30 Sex kills, sex hurts people and it certainly drives people to hurt others. So does money. In fact, other than revenge, the most common motives for murder are sex and money. Religion may have a checkered history, but that means its history is both black and white. Churches have run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, orphanages. They provide community support in times of crisis. Most of the religion that kills is religion that is subverted for political ends. Not the other way around. Politics is not subverted for religion. Religion is not about a power dynamic between people here on earth. Politics is. Religion often makes a great cover story for some kind of political decision, but in the end the decision is always about consolidating power in the already powerful.

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:45:18 -0800

Religion is not about a power dynamic between people here on earth. You have got to be kidding.

By: Uther Bentrazor

Uther Bentrazor — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:47:56 -0800

BIBLE FIGHT!

By: rtha

rtha — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:48:52 -0800

Being an atheist in this country is mildly annoying, period. No lynchings. No firehoses. No bodys burned and buried in the swamps. Okay, so no firehoses or lynchings. But students and instructors at, say, the Air Force Academy having their careers affected because they refuse to pray is more than "mildly annoying." Having HIV/AIDS education and policy be poisoned by self-proclaimed Christians who lie about condom failure rates, and who insist on abstinence-only "education" because they believe this is what the Bible teaches is more than mildly annoying - it kills people. IF YOU'RE OUTRAGED, YOU SHOULD HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN CHOOSING WHICH BUMPER STICKER BEST REPRESENTS YOU AS A PERSON. AND TRY PUBLIC TRANSIT, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS ASSHOLE. HEY ALVY! Did you read the whole post? You know, the other ~4600 words around that one bit about the bumpersticker? And where did you read that Greta has a car? Where did you read that she doesn't take public transport? Maybe like a lot of us, she is surrounded by cars even if she doesn't have one!

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:49:11 -0800

I've said it before and I'll say it again : You are all retarded.

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:51:10 -0800

Point taken, Ambrosia Voyeur. It's as pointless to make sweeping generalities about atheists as it is about anyone else. It would be perhaps closer to true to say that most atheists don't revere this kind of belief.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:51:50 -0800

It's stunning to me how many extremely angry atheists don't realize that they sound exactly like extremely angry evangelical Christians... Oh no, the dreaded Sounds Like argument! It utterly renders all content null and void, categorizing disputes by who sounds like what! For more information, see the Has A Similar Cover To book judging method.

By: Anything

Anything — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:52:52 -0800

dhammond: Proselytyzing about atheism is only slightly less annoying than proselytyzing about Christianity. You don't believe in God? Great. Now shut the fuck up. Most of us don't care. kittens for breakfast: I'm tired of atheist = obnoxious blowhard on the internet. Can we have some peppy, perky atheists? Ones who are all kinda like, "It's groovy, man...you can have your invisible sky guy, and I'll have my...um...nothing, I guess, and together in mutual contentment we will now proceed to chill? And can you pass the Cheetos?" But no. Instead we get these fire and brimstone types who, as a rule, effortlessly suck all the joy out of any room they enter. It's a drag. They're a drag. Shut up, militant atheists. Yeah, that bitch is totally foaming at the mouth. You better take a good distance or you'll get some of that spit on your hipster detachment cred. dead_: I do like perky atheist, I guess. But now I'm thinking, how can I shorten this down: "I-just-don't-care-about-your-views,-yes-that-goes-for-you-too-ist"?? If this can be truncated to one word, I think we might be on to something. How about nihilist? Just keep your scissors off my Johnson and your ferrets out of my bathtub.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:52:57 -0800

Pope Guilty, as one atheist to another -- that is a horrible comparison. I've been an atheist my entire life, including growing up in the Assemblies of God headquarters of Springfield, MO. One year, I was the only child in class not invited to another student's birthday party because I told the class I didn't believe in god (or maybe I was just a huge loser, but I'm pretty sure it was the god stuff). Being an atheist in this country is mildly annoying, period. No lynchings. No firehoses. No bodys burned and buried in the swamps. That the severity is not the same does not change the fact that the logic is identical.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:53:59 -0800

rtha: did you read the thread? Alvy Ampersand was responding to me, I do believe. I was pointing out upthread how much I hate those "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention" bumper stickers. Nothing to do with the ANGRY BLOGGER.

By: jeblis

jeblis — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:54:08 -0800

lazaruslong how exactly the burden of proof is on atheists I think it's pretty clear that Thor should be default until you prove otherwise.

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:55:00 -0800

Religion often makes a great cover story for some kind of political decision, but in the end the decision is always about consolidating power in the already powerful. I'm with you as far as you go, there, Pastabagel. But I would say further that when politics and religion mix -- and they do mix, often -- it gets very difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. It becomes just a matter of definition, really.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:55:44 -0800

I'm angry that even after 135 comments, the MetaFilter community has not resolved the dispute over whether God exists. I expect that the matter will be settled within the next 135 comments.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:56:11 -0800

Pastabagel: God is by definition unknowable. I believe there is a country of rainbow unicorns on the dark side of the moon. I also define this country and the unicorns therein to be unknowable by mortal humans. Now that I've created this mythos you have only two options, according to your argument. You can either subscribe to the Religion of the Rainbow Unicorns or you can subscribe to the Relgion of the Anti-Unicornists. Which is it?

By: katillathehun

katillathehun — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:56:26 -0800

When the group in question subscribes to a dogmatic doctrine with a scriptural call for offenses of this nature, we most certainly can. And how do you know the entire group subscribes to that doctrine? How do you know the entire group interprets that doctrine the same way?

By: small_ruminant

small_ruminant — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:58:13 -0800

Who in the world is hitting you in the face, though? Atheists may be a minority, but a persecuted one? Really? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. posted by kittens for breakfast I do think atheists are persecuted in a lot of situations in this country, (especially in the military). So is anyone not of the mainstream, white, Protestant persuasion.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:58:49 -0800

Stynxo: "I've said it before and I'll say it again : You are all retarded." Very true. We really are. And it bears repeating. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to call my health insurance provider and attempt to sort out everything that went wrong with my enrollment last week. It's all about priorities, you see. My hedonism requires that I follow whatever gives me the most pleasure, and right now, "talking to computerized health insurance telephone gizmo" trumps "atheism thread on mefi."

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:59:24 -0800

That the severity is not the same does not change the fact that the logic is identical. Regardless of whether that statement has any validity, I don't think it was the logic button you were attempting to press by likening atheists (and the potential harm in being one) to civil rights marchers in the '60s.

By: jeblis

jeblis — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:59:40 -0800

Y'all please keep commenting so I can post the good ones here: Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01:42 -0800

Did you read the whole post? You know, the other ~4600 words around that one bit about the bumpersticker? And where did you read that Greta has a car? HONK IF YOU'RE OUTRAGED BECAUSE YOU COMPLETELY MISREAD MY MOCKERY OF IMAGINARY BUMPER STICKERS AS BEING AN ATTACK ON SOME ATHEIST BLOGGER. AND START PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:03:20 -0800

DU: Obviously I don't agree with your binary. Do you think reality is proveable? It's not.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:03:23 -0800

Pastabagel, I would be very interested to hear your argument in more detail as to how exactly the burden of proof is on atheists with regard to the God hypothesis. posted by lazaruslong at 1:41 PM on October 30 There isn't a burden of proof on the believer, because the believer does not believe that God can be proven. The believer has chosen to define him in a way that is literally impossible to prove. It's a matter of faith not a mathematical proof. But the atheist does not believe this. Specifically, the atheist must believe that God can not exist, not merely that he does not. The impossibility of God's existence has to be based on something, it must be impossible under some theory or set of rules. The laws of mathematics? Physics? Logic? In what context is God impossible? How is the atheist defining God so as to refute him? In other words, the atheist is bound by the laws of the universe as humans have imperfectly defined them up to this point in history in a way that the faithful are not. Furthermore, in the case of atheism as manifested in this blog post, it is more than a mere statement of disbelief. It is a statement of certainty that there is no God. How can she be so certain? What has convinced her of this? From reading her posts, she is convinced of the non-existence of God based on the actions of people who had all manner of political, financial, and psychological reasons for acting as they did in the specific cases she cites. But it is illogical to conclude that because people behave poorly God cannot exist. But what this blog post represents is the atheist who wants to argue that God does not exist, i.e. to persuade others of the nonexistence. That statement requires proof as well.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:05:21 -0800

Can we have some peppy, perky atheists? With nice tits? Because say what you like about this one, she's got that whole hurf durf thing going on. That's probably why she's as angry as she is. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if we started selling some of those charity calendars, you know the type -- '12 Naked Infidels: There's no God dictating their love lives' -- we'd start seeing a dramatic increase in those who lack faith.

By: telstar

telstar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:06:30 -0800

It doesn't matter with what pretty words you defend "faith". Those of us who have been on the receiving end of saharasian religionism know full well what what you're trying to cover up.

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:06:39 -0800

Specifically, the atheist must believe that God can not exist, not merely that he does not. Nope. Unless by "the atheist" you're referring to some specific atheist you know makes this claim.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:07:03 -0800

I'm with you as far as you go, there, Pastabagel. But I would say further that when politics and religion mix -- and they do mix, often -- it gets very difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. It becomes just a matter of definition, really. posted by gurple at 1:55 PM on October 30 I understand what you're saying, and the sentiment, but remember that the politics of it is often not public, it is what is happening behind closed doors when decisions are being made. What we are seeing that mixes the two is the spin and the PR.

By: mdn

mdn — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:07:52 -0800

What's funny is that atheism is really growing in popularity in the first world, and it's religious belief that's rare, especially among young people. Very few modern citizens even really understand the original questions that religion was trying to address, and are looking through a scientific lens, so have a bizarre distorted understanding of what "god" is meant to be. As I said here, the actual philosophical background for these questions is deeper than it's often made out to be by simplistic accounts, made by both atheists and believers in the modern age (as Hegel suggested, many religious people responded to the enlightenment claims that their myths made no scientific sense by trying to defend them but on scientific terms, and so essentially shot themselves in the foot by shifting their own ground, as they should have stuck by them as sources of meaning not fact). ANyway. It seems to me that it's far more embarrassing for a college kid to try to claim to be religious these days than to claim atheism. I teach at a catholic college, but even the kids who go to church talk about sex and drugs and drinking. I get the impression that most people who claim to be religious are older & have families, and want to bring the kids up with some kind of structure. The essential belief is not that strong. Even mother theresa wasn't sure. And plenty of people who claim atheism are NOT rational, so to imagine that stopping someone's adherence to one belief is going to suddenly make them purely consistent and careful thinkers is ridiculous. You think sports fans will stop imagining their lucky hat has an affect on how the team does? You think patriots will stop believing how you treat the flag matters to the health of the country? You think individuals will notice when they love their kid even if he fucks up and gets a DUI, even while condemning the random person who rams their car when drunk, or whatever, just because you got them to give up church? Promoting rationality is a far more complicated process than convincing people there's no afterlife.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:08:35 -0800

*waves a hankerchief soaked in blood of infidels at Peter McDermott*

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:11:45 -0800

Regardless of whether that statement has any validity, I don't think it was the logic button you were attempting to press by likening atheists (and the potential harm in being one) to civil rights marchers in the '60s. It was, but that's a nice attempt to pretend that the logic of domination should only be noticed in cases where you're happy with the domination.

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:12:02 -0800

Metafilter Bingo!

===================================================
|         |         |         |         |         |
|Fatty    |Strawman | Bush    | Hurf    | Windoze |
|         |         |         |  Durf   |         |
===================================================
|Begging  |         |         |         |         |
|  The    | Hitler  | Atheist |   SUV   |  iPod   |
|Question |         |         |         |         |
===================================================
|invisible|So this..| Free    |  Name   |         |
|   Sky   |...it    | Square! |   My    | USian   |
|   Man   |vibrates?|         |  Kitty  |         |
===================================================
|         |         |         |         |         |
|Pancakes | Smokers |Radiohead|  Sucks  | Woz     |
|         |         |         |         |         |
===================================================
|  Hive   |  Ann    |         |         |         |
|  Mind   | Coulter | Pony    |  OSX    | Liberal |
|         |         |         |         |         |
===================================================

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:13:22 -0800

It seems to me that it's far more embarrassing for a college kid to try to claim to be religious these days than to claim atheism. I would love to go to whatever college you're fantasising about here.