Atheist Anger
Joan F (MI)
I want to talk about atheists and anger.
This has been a hard piece to write, and it may be a hard one to read. I'm
not going to be as polite and good-tempered as I usually am in this blog;
this piece is about anger, and for once I'm going to fucking well let myself
be angry.
But I think it's important. One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the
newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?" So I
want to talk about:
1. Why atheists are angry;
2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary;
And 3. Why it's completely fucked-up to try to take our anger away from us.
So let's start with why we're angry. Or rather -- because this is my blog
and I don't presume to speak for all atheists -- why I'm angry.
*****
I'm angry that according to a recent Gallup poll, only 45 percent of
Americans would vote for an atheist for President.
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.
I'm angry that atheist soldiers -- in the U.S. armed forces -- have had
prayer ceremonies pressured on them and atheist meetings broken up by
Christian superior officers, in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm
angry that evangelical Christian groups are being given exclusive access to
proselytize on military bases -- again in the U.S. armed forces, again in
direct violation of the First Amendment. 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. And I'm angry that Christians still say smug,
sanctimonious things like, "there are no atheists in foxholes." You know why
you're not seeing atheists in foxholes? Because believers are threatening to
shoot them if they come out.
I'm angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert
Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, "No, I don't know that
atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as
patriotic. This is one nation under God." My President. No, I didn't vote
for him, but he was still my President, and he still said that my lack of
religious belief meant that I shouldn't be regarded as a citizen.
I'm angry that it took until 1961 for atheists to be guaranteed the right to
serve on juries, testify in court, or hold public office in every state in
the country.
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.
And on that topic: I'm angry that school boards all across this country are
still -- 82 years after the Scopes trial -- having to spend time and money
and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools. School
boards are not exactly loaded with time and money and resources, and any of
the time/ money/ resources that they're spending fighting this stupid fight
is time/ money/ resources that they're not spending, you know, teaching.
I'm angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because
the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus
cry.
I'm angry that women are having septic abortions -- or are being forced to
have unwanted children who they resent and mistreat -- because religious
organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or
inaccessible.
I'm angry about what happened to Galileo. Still. And I'm angry that it took
the Catholic Church until 1992 to apologize for it.
I get angry when advice columnists tell their troubled letter-writers to
talk to their priest or minister or rabbi... when there is absolutely no
legal requirement that a religious leader have any sort of training in
counseling or therapy.
And I get angry when religious leaders offer counseling and advice to
troubled people -- sex advice, relationship advice, advice on depression and
stress, etc. -- not based on any evidence about what actually does and does
not work in people's brains and lives, but on the basis of what their
religious doctrine tells them God wants for us.
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.
I'm angry that so many believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping
list for God. I'm angry that believers pray to win sporting events, poker
hands, beauty pageants, and more. As if they were the center of the
universe, as if God gives a shit about who wins the NCAA Final Four -- and
as if the other teams/ players/ contestants weren't praying just as hard.
I'm especially angry that so many believers treat prayer as a cosmic
shopping list when it comes to health and illness. I'm angry that this
belief leads to the revolting conclusion that God deliberately makes people
sick so they’ll pray to him to get better. And I'm angry that they foist
this belief on sick and dying children -- in essence teaching them that, if
they don't get better, it's their fault. That they didn't pray hard enough,
or they didn't pray right, or God just doesn't love them enough.
And I get angry when other believers insist that the cosmic shopping list
isn't what religion and prayer are really about; that their own
sophisticated theology is the true understanding of God. I get angry when
believers insist that the shopping list is a straw man, an outmoded form of
religion and prayer that nobody takes seriously, and it's absurd for
atheists to criticize it.
I get angry when believers use terrible, grief-soaked tragedies as either
opportunities to toot their own horns and talk about how wonderful their God
and their religion are... or as opportunities to attack and demonize
atheists and secularism.
I'm angry at the Sunday school teacher who told comic artist Craig Thompson
that he couldn't draw in heaven. And I'm angry that she said it with the
complete conviction of authority... when in fact she had no basis whatsoever
for that assertion. How the hell did she know what Heaven was like? How
could she possibly know that you could sing in heaven but not draw? And why
the hell would you say something that squelching and dismissive to a
talented child?
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.
I'm angry at the trustee of the local Presbyterian church who told his
teenage daughter that he didn't actually believe in God or religion, but
that it was important to keep up his work because without religion there
would be no morality in the world.
I'm angry that so many parents and religious leaders terrorize children --
who (a) have brains that are hard-wired to trust adults and believe what
they're told, and (b) are very literal-minded -- with vivid, traumatizing
stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they'll be too
frightened to even question religion.
I'm angrier when religious leaders explicitly tell children – and adults,
for that matter -- that the very questioning of religion and the existence
of hell is a dreadful sin, one that will guarantee them that hell is where
they'll end up.
I'm angry that children get taught by religion to hate and fear their bodies
and their sexuality. And I'm especially angry that female children get
taught by religion to hate and fear their femaleness, and that queer
children get taught by religion to hate and fear their queerness.
I'm angry about the Muslim girl in the public school who was told -- by her
public-school, taxpayer-paid teacher -- that the red stripes on Christmas
candy canes represented Christ's blood, that she had to believe in and be
saved by Jesus Christ or she'd be condemned to hell, and that if she didn't,
there was no place for her in his classroom. And I'm angry that he told her
not to come back to his class when she didn't convert.
I'm angry -- enraged -- at the priests who molest children and tell them
it's God's will. I'm enraged at the Catholic Church that consciously,
deliberately, repeatedly, for years, acted to protect priests who molested
children, and consciously and deliberately acted to keep it a secret,
placing the Church's reputation as a higher priority than, for fuck's sake,
children not being molested. And I'm enraged that the Church is now trying
to argue, in court, that protecting child-molesting priests from
prosecution, and shuffling those priests from diocese to diocese so they can
molest kids in a whole new community that doesn't yet suspect them, is a
Constitutionally protected form of free religious expression.
I'm angry about 9/11.
And I'm angry that Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on pagans, abortionists,
feminists, gays and lesbians, the ACLU, and the People For the American Way.
I'm angry that the theology of a wrathful God exacting revenge against
pagans and abortionists by sending radical Muslims to blow up a building
full of secretaries and investment bankers... this was a theology held by a
powerful, widely-respected religious leader with millions of followers.
I'm angry that, when my dad had a stroke and went into a nursing home, the
staff asked my brother, "Is he a Baptist or a Catholic?" And I'm not just
angry on behalf of my atheist dad. I'm angry on behalf of all the Jews, all
the Buddhists, all the Muslims, all the neo-Pagans, whose families almost
certainly got asked that same question. That question is enormously
disrespectful, not just of my dad's atheism, but of everyone at that nursing
home who wasn't a Baptist or a Catholic.
I'm angry about Ingrid's grandparents. I'm angry that their fundamentalism
was such a huge source of strife and unhappiness in her family, that it
alienated them so drastically from their children and grandchildren. I'm
angry that they tried to cram it down Ingrid's throat, to the point that
she's still traumatized by it. And I'm angry that their religion, which if
nothing else should have been a comfort to them in their old age, was
instead a source of anguish and despair -- because they knew their children
and grandchildren were all going to be burned and tortured forever in Hell,
and how could Heaven be Heaven if their children and grandchildren were
being eternally burned and tortured in Hell?
I'm angry that Ingrid and I can't get legally married in this country -- or
get legally married in another country and have it recognized by this one --
largely because religious leaders oppose it. And I'm angry that both
religious and political leaders have discovered that they can score big
points exploiting people's fears about sexuality in a changing world,
fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse
for why their fears are justified.
I'm angry that huge swaths of public policy in this country -- not just on
same-sex marriage, but on abortion and stem-cell research and sex education
in schools -- are being based, not on evidence of which policies do and
don't work and what is and isn't true about the world, but on religious
texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago, and on their own personal
feelings about how those texts should be interpreted, with no supporting
evidence whatsoever -- and no apparent concept of why any evidence should be
needed.
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. (Of course,
to be fair, I also get angry when atheists do the opposite: chalk up every
evil thing done in the name of religion as a black mark on religion's
record, but then insist that the good things were done for other reasons and
would have been done anyway, etc. Neither side gets to have it both ways.)
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. I'm angry
at believers who have so little respect for the physical world their God
supposedly created that they feel perfectly content to ignore the mountains
of physical evidence piling up around them about that real world; perfectly
content to see that world as somehow less real and true than their personal
opinions about God.
(Note: The litany of specific grievances is now more than halfway over.
Analysis of why anger is necessary and valuable is coming up soon. Promise.)
I get angry when religious leaders opportunistically use religion, and
people's trust and faith in religion, to steal, cheat, lie, manipulate the
political process, take sexual advantage of their followers, and generally
behave like the scum of the earth. I get angry when it happens over and over
and over again. And I get angry when people see this happening and still say
that atheism is bad because, without religion, people would have no basis
for morality or ethics, and no reason not to just do whatever they wanted.
I get angry when religious believers make arguments against atheism -- and
make accusations against atheists -- without having bothered to talk to any
atheists or read any atheist writing. I get angry when they trot out the
same old "Atheism is a nihilistic philosophy, with no joy or meaning to life
and no basis for morality or ethics"... when if they spent ten minutes in
the atheist blogosphere, they would discover countless atheists who
experience great joy and meaning in their lives, and are intensely concerned
about right and wrong.
I get angry when believers use the phrase "atheist fundamentalist" without
apparently knowing what the word "fundamentalist" means. Call people
pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even.
But unless you can point to the text to which these "fundamentalist"
atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut
the hell up about us being fundamentalist.
I get angry when religious believers base their entire philosophy of life on
what is, at best, a hunch; when they ignore or reject or rationalize any
evidence that contradicts that hunch or calls it into question... and then
accuse atheists of being close-minded and ignoring the obvious truth.
And I get angry when believers glorify religious faith without evidence as a
positive virtue, a character trait that makes people good and noble... and
then continue to accuse atheists of being close-minded and ignoring the
obvious truth.
I get angry when believers say that they can know the truth -- the greatest
truth of all about the nature of the universe, namely the source of all
existence -- simply by sitting quietly and listening to their heart... and
then accuse atheists of being arrogant. (This isn't just arrogant towards
atheists and naturalists, either. It's arrogant towards people of other
religions who have sat just as quietly, listened to their hearts with just
as much sincerity, and come to completely opposite conclusions about God and
the soul and the universe.)
And I get angry when believers say that the entire unimaginable enormity of
the universe was made solely and specifically for the human race -- when
atheists, by contrast, say that humanity is a microscopic dot on a
microscopic dot, an infinitesimal eyeblink in the vastness of time and
space -- and yet again, believers accuse atheists of being arrogant.
I get angry when believers say things like, "Yes, of course, the human mind
isn't perfect, we see what we expect to see, we see faces and patterns and
intention when they aren't necessarily there... but that couldn't be
happening with me. The patterns I see in my life... they couldn't possibly
be coincidence or confirmation bias. I'm definitely seeing the hand of God."
(And then, once again, those same believers accuse atheists of being
close-minded and only seeing what we want to see.)
I get angry when believers treat the gaps in science and scientific
knowledge as somehow proof of the existence of God. I get angry when,
despite a thousands-of-years-old pattern of supernatural explanations being
consistently and repeatedly replaced with natural ones, they still think
every single unexplained phenomenon can be best explained by God. And I'm
angry that, whenever a gap in our knowledge does get filled in, believers
either try to suppress it (see above re: evolution in the schools), or else
say, "Okay, that part of the world isn't supernatural... but what about this
gap over here? Can you explain that, Mr. Smarty-Pants Scientist? You can't!
It must be God!"
I get angry when believers say at the beginning of an argument that their
belief is based on reason and evidence, and at the end of the argument say
things like, "It just seems that way to me," or, "I feel it in my heart"...
as if that were a clincher. I mean, couldn't they have said that at the
beginning of the argument, and not wasted my fucking time? My time is
valuable and increasingly limited, and I have better things to do with it
than debating with people who pretend to care about evidence and reason but
ultimately don't.
I'm angry that I have to know more about their fucking religion than the
believers do. I get angry when believers say things about the tenets and
texts of their religion that are flatly untrue, and I have to correct them
on it.
I get angry when believers treat any criticism of their religion -- i.e.,
pointing out that their religion is a hypothesis about the world and a
philosophy of it, and asking it to stand up on its own in the marketplace of
ideas -- as insulting and intolerant. I get angry when believers accuse
atheists of being intolerant for saying things like, "I don't agree with
you," "I think you're mistaken about that," "That doesn't make any sense,"
"I think that position is morally indefensible," and "What evidence do you
have to support that?"
And on that point: I get angry when Christians in the United States --
members of the single most powerful and influential religious group in the
country, in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world -- act
like beleaguered victims, martyrs being thrown to the lions all over again,
whenever anyone criticizes them or they don't get their way.
I get angry when believers respond to some or all of these offenses by
saying, "Well, that's not the true faith. Hating queers/ rejecting science/
stifling questions and dissent... that's not the true faith. People who do
that aren't real (Christians/ Jews/ Muslims/ Hindus/ etc.)." As if they had
a fucking pipeline to God. As if they had any reason at all to think that
they know for sure what God wants, and that the billions of others who
disagree with them just obviously have it wrong. (Besides -- I'm an atheist.
The "They just aren't doing religion right" argument is not going to cut it
with me. I don't think any of you have it right. To me, it all looks like
something that people just made up.)
On that topic: 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? And if they don't know, if
they're just basing it on their own moral instincts and their own
perceptions of the world, then on what basis are they thinking that God and
their sacred texts have anything to do with it at all? What right do they
have to act as if their opinion is the same as God's and he's totally
backing them up on it?
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. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our
world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize
it because it's not how it happens to play out for them. It's like a white
person responding to an African-American describing their experience of
racism by saying, "But I'm not a racist." If you're not a racist, then can
you shut the hell up for ten seconds and listen to the black people talk?
And if you’re not bigoted against atheists and are sympathetic to us, then
can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and let us tell you about what the
world is like for us, without getting all defensive about how it's not your
fault? When did this international conversation about atheism and religious
oppression become all about you and your hurt feelings?
But perhaps most of all, I get angry -- sputteringly, inarticulately,
pulse-racingly angry -- when believers chide atheists for being so angry.
"Why do you have to be so angry all the time?" "All that anger is so
off-putting." "If atheism is so great, then why are so many of you so
angry?"
Which brings me to the other part of this little rant: Why atheist anger is
not only valid, but valuable and necessary.
*****
There's actually a simple, straightforward answer to this question:
Because anger is always necessary.
Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this
country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the women's suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the
gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war
movement today, you name it... all of them have had, as a major driving
force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over
mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness.
I mean, why the hell else would people bother to mobilize social movements?
Social movements are hard. They take time, they take energy, they sometimes
take serious risk of life and limb, community and career. Nobody would
fucking bother if they weren't furious about something.
So when you tell an atheist (or for that matter, a woman or a queer or a
person of color or whatever) not to be so angry, you are, in essence,
telling us to disempower ourselves. You're telling us to lay down one of the
single most powerful tools we have at our disposal. You're telling us to lay
down a tool that no social change movement has ever been able to do without.
You're telling us to be polite and diplomatic, when history shows that
polite diplomacy in a social change movement works far, far better when it's
coupled with passionate anger. In a battle between David and Goliath, you're
telling David to put down his slingshot and just... I don't know. Gnaw
Goliath on the ankles or something.
I'll acknowledge that anger is a difficult tool in a social movement. A
dangerous one even. It can make people act rashly; it can make it harder to
think clearly; it can make people treat potential allies as enemies. In the
worst-case scenario, it can even lead to violence. Anger is valid, it's
valuable, it's necessary... but it can also misfire, and badly.
But unless we're actually endangering or harming somebody, it is not up to
believers to tell atheists when we should and should not use this tool. It
is not up to believers to tell atheists that we're going too far with the
anger and need to calm down. Any more than it's up to white people to say it
to black people, or men to say it to women, or straights to say it to
queers. When it comes from believers, it's not helpful. It's patronizing. It
comes across as another attempt to defang us and shut us up. And it's just
going to make us angrier.
And when believers tell passionate, angry atheists that extremism is never
right and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, they're making a
big, big mistake. Not just because they're making us want to spit in their
eye. They're making a mistake because they're simply mistaken. Read this
piece from Daylight Atheism on The Golden Mean. Read the quotes from the
abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the
American Revolution. And then come tell me that the moderate position is
usually the right one.
And you know what else? I think we need to have some goddamn perspective
about this anger business. I mean, I look at organized Christianity in this
country -- not just the religious right, but some more "moderate" churches
as well -- interfering with AIDS prevention efforts, trying to get their
theology into the public schools, actively trying to prevent me and Ingrid
from getting legally married, and pulling all the other shit I talk about in
this piece.
And I look at atheists sometimes being mean-spirited and snarky in blogs and
books and magazines.
And I think, Can we please have some goddamn perspective?
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.
Are you really looking at all of this shit I'm talking about, a
millennia-old history of abuse and injustice, deceit and willful
ignorance -- and then on the other hand, looking at a couple of years of
atheists being snarky on the Internet -- and seeing the two as somehow
equivalent? Or worse, seeing the snarky atheists as the greater problem?
If you're doing that, then with all due respect, you can blow me.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled attempts at civility.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
AndyS
I think that athyests should band together, form pairs,
and go door-to-door asking people "
" Have you heard about the bad news ?? "
Andy in Eureka, Texas
High Miles
> Atheists and Anger
>
>
I'm a lifelong atheist and not at all angry.
Don't feel that I've ever been mistreated because of my status.
Although, I heartily agree will all the stated justifications for anger.
I do feel entitled to make fun of people who believe in those invisible,
non existent gods of theirs, people who with physical gestures presume
to 'bless' themselves, and folks who pay others to bless them.
Public praying is offensive to me, and people who pump tons of
money into their "houses of worship" seem to be.....................fools.
Since throughout history and right up to this day, religions have
caused wars, torture and flat out robbing of people, the world
would likely be better off without them.
But all the negative aspects of religions don't make me angry.
They are more a source for criticism, humor and fun poking.
Joan F (MI)
prevents us from having good regulations.
I really don't spend time being angry, but I really hate hypocrisy.
Evelyn
EXCELLENT!
Thank you for posting this. I will be sharing it around....
Evelyn
Ken
wrote:
Xian Fundies are all mentally ill charlatans
(think Harold Camping, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, Pat Robertson,
Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker)
Religions are based on delusional thinking, but as long as some
proselyting fuckwit doesn't ring my doorbell when I'm taking a crap,
don't care what other people want to think they believe
ctowers
>
> EXCELLENT!
>
> Thank you for posting this. I will be sharing it around....
>
There was no need to copy the whole damn thing just to say that!
Xavier Onnasis
news:GMednbRjbeyiNUPQ...@giganews.com:
> Atheists and Anger
being angry at theists is a hopeless exercise.
in this world there will always be morons and fools and an endless supply
of theists. and being angry at all of those idiots requires a life-long
committment that will sap all kinds of otherwise useful energy that could
be better devoted to other endeavors. so I figure it's better to ignore
theist assholes (and republicans), and get on with the real work of
making a better planet for our children and grandchildren...presumably
there's still some hope that we can indeed prevail
>
> http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/ath
> eists-and-an.html
>
--
XO
ctowers
>
> I think that athyests should band together, form pairs,
> and go door-to-door asking people "
>
> " Have you heard about the bad news ?? "
>
I don't know what that is suppose to mean, explain please.
Nantz
wrote:
>
> > Atheists and Anger
>
> being angry at theists is a hopeless exercise.
>
> in this world there will always be morons and fools and an endless supply
> of theists. and being angry at all of those idiots requires a life-long
> committment that will sap all kinds of otherwise useful energy that could
> be better devoted to other endeavors. so I figure it's better to ignore
> theist assholes (and republicans), and get on with the real work of
> making a better planet for our children and grandchildren...presumably
> there's still some hope that we can indeed prevail
>
---------------
I often hear religious people say atheists are less moral. A few
figures I had written down. Of the prison population,
39% are catholic
35% are protestant
7% are Muslin
1.7% are Jewish
.20% are atheists
Also 21% of atheists have been divorced
27% of born'again christians have been divorced
BTW, several studies in several countries show that atheists scored 6
IQ points higher than religious people. So there! :)
Evelyn
wrote:
I didn't copy it. My news reader is set to leave the entire previous
posting in a reply, unless I personally snip it out. I chose to
leave it.
Evelyn
ctowers
Learn some netiquette -
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
Evelyn
Joan F (MI)
don't recall seeing you here before. It doesn't bother us regulars.
High Miles
Nobody here gives a shit.
High Miles
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 10:32:54 -0400, "ctowers"<zcto...@zgmailz.com>
> concept seems mostly to have died somewhere along the way.
>
Mercifully
ctowers
> Do you wander through Usenet look for offenders of your sensiblities?
> I don't recall seeing you here before. It doesn't bother us regulars.
>
Evelyn
wrote:
You are the only one who seems to have an issue with it.
Nantz
Were you being courteous when you swore and chewed her out? Sometimes
I'm not sure what courtesy is.
When you speak down to people you must first make sure you are higher
than they are or it might backfire.
ctowers
Calm down, you're letting your imagination run wild,
nothing you allege ever took place.
The netiquette rules seem to be spot on, I wish I was
smart enough to have written them.
Joan F (MI)
You have a strange view of courtesy.
Joan F (MI)
Ken
> >
> Bite me.
Hee hee hee!
I'm usually a lot more direct as in: FOAD
Ken
I don't know if you've ever seen 2.5 Men, but Charlie's brother
answers the door to see two mormon/JW/7th Day types who immediantly
say: "Have you heard the good news?"
Alan replies: "Yeah Yeah, but first I want to tell you my good news. I
just hooked up with a really great looking young babe who's so hot
she......"
Nantz
>
> I don't know if you've ever seen 2.5 Men, but Charlie's brother
> answers the door to see two mormon/JW/7th Day types who immediantly
> say: "Have you heard the good news?"
> Alan replies: "Yeah Yeah, but first I want to tell you my good news. I
> just hooked up with a really great looking young babe who's so hot
> she......"
-------------------
Years ago I had a conversation with a JW at my front door. He said
"How can you criticize the religion if you don't know much about it?"
So, he handed me a book (I think the word kingdom was in the title)
and said he'd be back in a week to see what I thought about it.
The only thing I remember from that book was one page which explained
why a woman was a thief. It seems that while the mother was pregnant
with her the father would beat his wife, saying "Take that! Take that!
Take that!" So, obviously the child grew up to become a thief.
Why don't they know this is really stupid?
--------------------
Evelyn
wrote:
I wish you were smart enough to realize that including the entire
previous posting is NOT against netiquette. It is an option to trim
not a necessity.
My previous answer to you still applies.
AndyS
Andy comments:
Good on ya', Ken !!!! But it really isn't worth responding to
someone whose IQ is lower than their shoe size....
Just another troll......
Andy in Eureka, Texa
ken
>
> - Show quoted text -
We otta start a thread for good come-backs for when "they" come to
visit us and start off with their spiel.
I used to be nice to them, letting them down easy, but it doesn't
help.
They take notes that are then passed on down to the next group of
proselytizers.
How do I know this?
Because after I started saying: "I'm an atheist and you people are all
mentally defective!", they now pass right by my house like it's an
open hole into their imaginary Hades
AndyS
Andy comments:
Have a little compassion..... It took a long time to find your
address....
,,,,, and you need to get the letters on your mailbox replaced.....
Andy in Eureka, Texas
ctowers
>
> I wish you were smart enough to realize that including the entire
> previous posting is NOT against netiquette. It is an option to trim
> not a necessity.
>
> My previous answer to you still applies.
Netiquette isn't a list of absolutes, it's a *guide* to courteous
online behavior.
What you did wasn't wrong, but it wasn't very polite to let the
readers scroll through all that text either.
It would have been a courtesy if you had trimmed the original
post, as the other responders had done.
Nantz
>
> You might as well give up this battle because there's no way you're
> going to change anyone's habits. You'll just get more frustrated.
> I've tried intermittently for years and occasionally someone will
> agree but then go back to adding one line at the end of several pages.
> My best advice is to just skip posts that are very long if your news
> reader tells you how long they are before you download the body.
---------------
Mild disappointment is ever so much better than deep frustration,
isn't it? :)
Hez
I think the original post on Atheism and Anger WAS the bad news, no? I
loved this post, and even moreso, I could say it was the best-written
rant on matters of theology and atheism and the tensions between that
I've ever seen. A lot of people try to use persuasive and
condescending argument, but this is plainly spoken as sense.
And I DO waste time on anger, because the same insensible,
delogicalizing (I just made that word up to suit my particular need
for it here!) people taught us that anger is some sort of emotional
'tarnish' afflicted on us; anger is a not only a right, but a feeling
and an actual emotion, and should not be invalidating just because
some schmuck may have beat his wife once when drinking too much and
showing off for his friends or because a 'pious' and 'wise' person may
whistle Dixie while some whacko is setting the country on cruise
control. Anger is the recognizance and call to action after offense.
Those are the people (THE SAME PEOPLE, I think, the retards!) that
taught everyone that. There has been that subtle and steady
progression of anger being something invalidating the last few years,
so I welcomed the words Atheist and Anger in the same post.
(BEAMING)
Loved it. I'm not a member of the group, though. Just happened by and
appreciated it. Good stuff. I particularly liked the point on a
million prayers. How does God know whose to answer? A lot of those
people praying in a stadium are just plain assholes, and God knows it!
Does he pick the lesser asshole? Religion propagates and sprouts such
silliness, it can only be silliness when you really look at what these
people are saying, but supported by so much mental and emotional
manipulation can be so terrifyingly convinced.
And 9/11- ''THEN THERE SHALL BE MUSLIMS TO TAKE OUT THE SECRETARIES,
THEN, OKAY PEOPLE?", said God the Almighty.
Have a nice summer!
Heather
Rita
Hi, Heather. YOU are a member of the group now -- stick around,
I like your style.
This group does not have a moderator -- anyone can post as often
as you choose to and on any topic.
High Miles
We just hang out here to have a place for opinion dumping and view sharing.
Never hurts to share some funny or just interesting stuff either.
And I enjoy poking fun at
............................believers......................... too. :-D
Dorothy
Nantz
>
> >
> You too girl.
> We just hang out here to have a place for opinion dumping and view sharing.
> Never hurts to share some funny or just interesting stuff either.
>
> And I enjoy poking fun at
> ............................believers......................... too. :-D
>
-------------------
If there is a god I'm sure he's poking fun at the believers too. I
mean, he is supposed to be a smart guy. Surely he sees the humor in
some of the religious cult practices. At least, that's what he told
me. :)--Nantz--
th...@haha.net
<jungl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Andy comments:
>
> I think that athyests should band together, form pairs,
>and go door-to-door asking people "
>
> " Have you heard about the bad news ?? "
>
> Andy in Eureka, Texas
And I do think they should erect statues and shrines to such warm,
loving atheists as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin.....Those saviours of
humanity.
High Miles
>
Besides, there are a lot more dangerous christians than there are non
believers.
AndyS
> >
> Here's a quarter kid..........................................
> Nobody here gives a shit.
Andy comments:
Can I have a quarter too so I can't give a shit ???
Andy in Eureka, Texas
th...@haha.net
>On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:42:50 -0400, th...@haha.net wrote:
>
>Why do you believers insist Hitler was an atheist? He was a Catholic.
Yes; and Stalin was a candidate for the Russion Orthodox clergy.
They became atheists.
th...@haha.net
Hmmm....Mr. Hitler killed 20 million.....Mr. Stalin killed 40
million........How many people did
Billy Graham kill?
Bible says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". This bothers you,
doesn't it? It is, after all, the impetus for atheism. Restriction on
sexual desires. ...
Rita
That's a theory I've not come across before.
That wishing to commit adultery makes people atheists.
So it is all about sex?
Nantz
>
> That's a theory I've not come across before.
> That wishing to commit adultery makes people atheists.
> So it is all about sex?-
------------------
Does that mean that Jimmy Carter is an atheist? And how about all
those bible quoting congress critters caught up in a tidal wave of
adultry? I'm trying to think of the name of just one atheist caught in
this business, but I can't.
Rita
wrote:
I very much doubt any person wishing to be elected to Congress
would admit to being an atheist, not if they wished Republican
support. Look at how all the GOP Republican hopefuls are
falling all over each other to tout their Christian credentials.
Congresscritters may offer a religious denomination up for
public consumption but how many go to church or what they
really believe we can't know.
High Miles
Non believers have simply thought far too thoroughly to fall for all the
lies and rubbish
required for being a "believer".
All you have is a book of tales for evidence and reason to believe.
Dress it up as you may, it will never make sense or be acceptable as truth.
Your Hitler vs Graham argument is typically pathetic. :-D
High Miles
fantasy that
following the trail of bullshit will win
him...........................eternal life, no less.
High Miles
They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying uncover anything
to make their days tolerable.
High Miles
be denied public offices of any sort beyond rat catcher.
Rita
<2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
As if there have not been countless wars and atrocities
committed in the name of religion.
>
>
>
High Miles
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:26:44 -0500, High Miles
> <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Someone who swears to believe wholeheartedly in religious dogma should
>> be denied public offices of any sort beyond rat catcher.
> Prime Minister is most likely an atheist.
>
> From the International Humanist and Ethical Union web site:
>
> With opposition leader, Tony Abbott an outspokenly conservative
> Catholic whose religious beliefs have motivated policies that
> seriously threatened women’s reproductive rights, Australian atheists
> and other freethinkers will welcome a leader who keeps religion out of
> politics.
>
> "Julia Gillard’s stance on religion is unknown, and this is exactly
> how it should be," says Nicholls. "As a rational and highly
> intelligent person I would hope she is an atheist, but at the very
> least, I hope that with her appointment, there is an opportunity to
> take 'God' out of the Australian Parliament."
>
Wonderful.
It's long past time for all gods to be taken out of every government.
Xavier Onnasis
news:k8nmu6dqdue2rpmvg...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:30:08 -0500, High Miles
><2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 6/4/2011 8:50 AM, Emily wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:42:50 -0400, th...@haha.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 12:48:21 -0700 (PDT), AndyS
>>>> <jungl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that athyests should band together, form pairs,
>>>>> and go door-to-door asking people "
>>>>>
>>>>> " Have you heard about the bad news ?? "
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy in Eureka, Texas
>>>> And I do think they should erect statues and shrines to such
>>>> warm, loving atheists as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin.....Those
>>>> saviours of humanity.
>>> Why do you believers insist Hitler was an atheist? He was a
>>> Catholic.
>> >
>>Besides, there are a lot more dangerous christians than there are
>>non believers.
>>
> Hmmm....Mr. Hitler killed 20 million.....Mr. Stalin killed 40
> million........How many people did
> Billy Graham kill?
hmmmmm...how many did Jim Jones kill??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
how many died in the Spanish Inquisition???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
and what kind of death tolls were wracked up in various
slaughters conducted by "america's founding fathers"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples#Massacres
(and since these were america's fouding fathers, they
must by definition be christian, right???)
you should note too that while it seems the jury is out as to whether or
not Hitler was a Christian, there's not doubt whatsoever that he was a
dyed-in-the-wool theist...
<QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views>
In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote neither as an atheist, an agnostic, nor as
a believer in a remote, rationalist divinity. Instead he expressed his
belief in one providential, active, deity:
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the
reproduction of our race...so that our people may mature for the
fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the
universe...Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves
be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."[14]
</QUOTE>
> Bible says "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
the bible also says, "thou shalt not kill". but so-called christians
(and theists of all other stripes as well) kill all the time.
> This bothers you,
> doesn't it? It is, after all, the impetus for atheism. Restriction
> on sexual desires. ...
--
XO
th...@haha.net
Mr. Hitler and Mr. Staliin slaughtered over 60 million people within a
30-year period in the 20th century......Jim Jones was not a Christian,
neither were any of the others...including many of the founding
fathers. They were all either pagan or groups descended from pagan.
An AC/DC preacherdoes not a Christian make. Fratrricidal clergy do
not Christians make.
If one is sodomite, or adulterous, believing in God can be so
confining, so you all disbelieve.
Which God thinks is very funny.
And,being a beleiver, so do I.
Evelyn
>Mr. Hitler and Mr. Staliin slaughtered over 60 million people within a
>30-year period in the 20th century......Jim Jones was not a Christian,
>neither were any of the others...including many of the founding
>fathers. They were all either pagan or groups descended from pagan.
>An AC/DC preacherdoes not a Christian make. Fratrricidal clergy do
>not Christians make.
>If one is sodomite, or adulterous, believing in God can be so
>confining, so you all disbelieve.
>Which God thinks is very funny.
>And,being a beleiver, so do I.
It is quite true that Stalin and Hitler were monsters. But both of
them were to some degree, products of Christianity, even if they did
not follow the religion very well (to say the least).
Jim Jones certainly was a Christian preacher.
Sodomy and adultery have always existed. What do you call it when
King David in the bible. lusted after the wife of one of his generals
and had him sent to the front to be killed, so he could marry her?
Disbelief comes from many things, but the least of those things is not
rebellion against biblical injunctions. Disbelief mostly comes from
seeing that there is no proof of any god, or any proof that what he
(presumably) says makes any sense.
You can't make people believe anything. Would you force them?
Don't answer that.
Evelyn
C.W. Zinn
Seems this is lifes eternal struggle to find something to allay
mankinds fear of the unknowable.
Bud
High Miles
The very term unknowable should urge us not to waste time or energy trying.
D