Why so hateful?

For those who don’t know, I’m one of the ‘answerers’ over at Ask The Atheists. It’s a nifty little site where people can anonymously ask a bunch of atheists questions about pretty much anything you can imagine. Lots of the questions are the sort of thing you’d expect a theist to ask an atheist (What if you’re wrong? Why don’t you believe in gods? Isn’t the universe proof that God exists?). Today, one popped up that I found particularly grating:

Why do Athiests [sic] HATE so much?

One of the reasons I consider myself an agnostic, rather than an atheist, is because I just can’t bring myself to be associated with all the hate and vitriol that spews forth from atheists (or, at least, from their spokespersons).

Why not live and let live? Why not let them have their prayer?

The “In God We Trust” and “Under God” complaints and lawsuits particularly rile me. These are not just prayers, they are a part of our national history and tradition, whether you like that fact or not.

I know a number of Christians, as well as a number of Atheists. And it’s always the Christians who help out, and the atheists that complain and hate.

I can never accept the title of Atheist so long as it is associated with such hate.

There are a few obvious problems with this.

First, the idea of atheist “spokespersons.” No names given, and no examples of what they say that the questioner finds so hateful. Clearly this person is so overcome with frothy-mouthed, keyboard-pounding rage that citing so much as a single example would be far too much exertion to tolerate.

Second, the only examples given are things which have nothing to do with hate. Complaints and lawsuits about violations of the US Constitution are a matter of principle, not anger. We’re a formally secular nation with a Constitutional separation of church and state. Our founding documents strictly lay out that there can be no religious test for public office. Yet we’re told that there’s something wrong with being bothered by slogans that go against the Enlightenment spirit that was so deeply ingrained in the thinking of our founding fathers. Set aside for the moment the bizarre notion of requiring people to recite a pledge of allegiance; that it contains a declaration that we are a nation under god means that anyone who disagrees is considered to be refusing to pledge allegiance to a country whose Constitution says no such declaration need be made. Not to mention that an argument from tradition is ridiculous; slavery is a part of our national history and tradition, but you’ll not find many Americans who’ve managed to pull that one off lately.

And “in God we trust?” I’m sure that the god-botherers out there do trust in their various tribal gods… but the slogan actually leaves out more than just atheists. It also leaves out polytheists, who believe in many gods. It leaves out any who believe in a goddess. It’s a silly phrase refuted by the fact that we have a military. If we really trusted in the God that so many claim as their own, we’d trust him to guard us against our enemies.

But even these two things are minor complaints. My main problem with this question is that mealy-mouthed call for ‘fairness’:

Why not let them have their prayer?

Those slogans? This isn’t about letting them have their prayer. It’s about keeping them from forcing it on us.

And asking why we can’t live at let live? I’m fine with it – as long as their beliefs don’t hurt anyone. But time and time again, we see horrific examples of people being taken advantage of, at the price of life or fortune.

Consider the followers of Harold Camping, for example. Much ado has been made in the atheist community about his kooky numerological predictions that the Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011. Most people I’ve seen are laughing about how this is just another example of people predicting the end of the world, bound to fail as all the others have. Many are aware that Camping did the same thing before, putting the Rapture in September 1994, and blamed his failed prediction on a mathematical miscalculation. But what many don’t know is just how much of a leech he is. I’ve seem claim that many of his followers donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his ‘church’ back in 1994, and while I can’t confirm that, it would not surprise me in the least. Camping has been pimping the 2011 Rapture for at least six years at this point, and as you can tell in this video, he’s definitely convinced a small but dedicated flock that he’s right:

No idea where part 2 is.

I strongly urge you to watch this video all the way through to the end. Harold Camping is destroying these people’s lives. They’ve abandoned everything they had to be his messengers.

Why else do I worry about ‘letting live’? Because not everyone is rational or sane, and beliefs about demons, the end of the world, and other such nonsense can contribute to people committing terrifying acts of violence. Take, for example, the California mother who, in an attempt to save her children from the Tribulation, took it upon herself to slit their throats with a knife and drive them off to an empty house to die. Perhaps religion is not directly to blame for her actions, but were it not for the Christian idea of the Tribulation, it’s conceivable that she might not have tried to kill her children.

“But Mike,” I hear you saying, “these people are all stupid or crazy. Most believers are smart, rational, good people, and these were big lies – not the sort of thing to which a majority would fall prey.” Perhaps this is fair, in a way. But then, consider the “small” lies that the majority do accept.

Most Christians accept the concept of a human sacrifice as a scapegoat for the sins of humanity. I find this idea horrifyingly immoral.

Islam teaches that women are worth half as much as men, and deserve half as much inheritance. The thought repulses me.

Hinduism teaches that people live and die repeatedly because of our own ignorance, and that anyone born into a bad situation deserves it because it was their actions in a past life that put them there. This supernatural victim-blaming is partly to blame for the existence of caste systems and the mistreatment of the ‘untouchables.’

Many of the seemingly insignificant beliefs of the various religions seem innocent enough at first glance. But dig a little deeper – follow the ideas to their rational conclusions – and you’ll rarely find things which affirm the value of human existence or rational inquiry.

So why do “Athiests” HATE so much?

In my case, I hate ideas that denigrate the humanity of others.

I hate the fact that people accept these self-destroying ideas and claim that those of us who don’t are somehow broken, inferior, and in need of correction.

I hate that a glib denial of the reality of death has led to so many millions of people over the centuries being fed patronizing and condescending lies about how poverty and suffering are trials that will give them eternal glory.

I hate that I live in reality and am surrounded by people who wish for nothing more than to be removed from it.

I hate that people, in believing that their gods will everything that happens, view each other as disposable means to their gods’ ends. Mother has cancer? Not to fear, her suffering is meant as a lesson to you. Lost a child? Don’t worry; your child died so you can learn to enjoy life more. Sole survivor of a plane crash? Cheer up; God has plans for you, and everyone else died so you could recognize that.

Keep your religions. Enjoy them if you must. But I’ll have no part of it. And I won’t hate you – but you can be sure that I’ll hate what these fictions do to you.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Why so hateful?

  1. Katy

    I want the stuff all these people leave around after the rapture. I don't want much $10,000 will help out a little and if I could have one of them sign over a good car for my daghter it would be helpful. I will take their green bananas too.

    Reply
  2. Phil

    For someone who claims intellectual superiority by applying "reason" Mike's response to the agnostic's comment is irrational. For example, someone using their intellect would have written, " agnostic's complaint is not backed-up by evidence." Mike's "intellectual" response read, "Clearly this person is so overcome with frothy-mouthed, keyboard-pounding rage that citing so much as a single example would be far too much exertion to tolerate." As an example of irrationality Mike's comment is unique.

    Mike writes of religious ideas, "dig a little deeper – follow the ideas to their rational conclusions – and you’ll rarely find things which affirm the value of human existence or rational inquiry." Unfortunately, as the evidence shows, Mike neither values human existence or rational inquiry. His platitudinous pontificating is devoid of rational inquiry and full of implied hatred of religious believers.

    He states, "I hate the fact that people accept these self-destroying ideas and claim that those of us who don’t are somehow broken, inferior, and in need of correction" while claiming that those who do not share his "enlightened" viewpoint "are somehow broken, inferior, and in need of correction". Mike is as much of a secular fundamentalist as those he accuses of religious fundamentalism.

    He continues, "I hate that a glib denial of the reality of death has led to so many millions of people over the centuries being fed patronizing and condescending lies about how poverty and suffering are trials that will give them eternal glory." Switch it to politics and the Marxist denial of reality is equally as culpable. The caricature Mike provides in his penultimate paragraph is an insult to the very reason he claims to represent by tarring all with the same brush without so much as a look at evidence. Then again the "rational" Mike has already concluded that all religions are fictions so he doesn't want to examine evidence. Ultimately, it's not just the ideas Mike hates, it's the people who hold views with which he disagrees that he really hates. His problem is his self-induced paranoia which prevents him from recognising the irrational basis on which he spouts his own version of the "truth".

    Mike seems driven by matters of little importance and overly concerned with matters of "principle". His claim that the appeal to tradition "is ridiculous" is invalidated because of the historical existence of slavery is special pleading. He returns to special pleading by referring to the Californian mother who slit her children's throats to avoid the Tribulation. He argues, "Perhaps religion is not directly to blame for her actions, but were it not for the Christian idea of the Tribulation, it’s conceivable that she might not have tried to kill her children." It's equally conceivable that had she belonged to a White Supremacist group she might still have cut their throats. Mike's reasoning is not rational, it's speculative and nonsensical. The influence of the past on the present requires greater discernment than Mike appears to possess.

    This snide and sneering side of Mike is evident when he attempts to ridicule "In God We Trust" by using the silly phrase "god botherers". He then adds, "why we can’t live at let live? I’m fine with it – as long as their beliefs don’t hurt anyone. But time and time again, we see horrific examples of people being taken advantage of, at the price of life or fortune." What was that Mike said about, " this person is so overcome with frothy-mouthed, keyboard-pounding rage that citing so much as a single example would be far too much exertion to tolerate?." What's that I hear – oh yes, the sound of chickens coming home to roost.

    Referring to Harold Camping he writes, "he’s definitely convinced a small but dedicated flock that he’s right." So did Lenin whose policy on "god botherers"

    created a society propagating atheism in Russia through the League of the Militant Godless. That example of "enlightened thinking" was also a "horrific example of people being taken advantage of, at the price of life or fortune."

    Eventually, it might strike Mike that the common thread in these opposites is the human condition which applies to all, religious and irreligious alike.

    In fairness it's perhaps unrealistic to debate with Mike who describes himself as " a deconverted fundamentalist Christian who now proudly calls himself an atheist and a skeptic." They do say pride goes before a fall. He also claims, " I try to promote the use of reason and evidence as the best tools we have for determining what is true and for solving real-world problems." Here's the bad news Mike, you've failed. Try taking a course in humility instead of trying to humiliate religious believers. You may learn something, then again it may be beyond you.

    Reply
    1. MikeTheInfidel Post author

      What reality are you living in? Seriously. First, you claim to know what I'm thinking; then, you flaunt your misunderstanding of what special pleading is; and finally, you try to link me to Soviet Russia.

      Had a single word of what you said hit home or reflected who I am or how I think at all, I might be bothered by it. Instead, I'm just annoyed by your somewhat disturbing overuse of my name.

      Regardless, thanks for dropping by, Dr. Thomas.

      Reply
    2. MikeTheInfidel Post author

      I saw this again while going through and tidying up my blog.

      All that needs to be said in response to your rant?

      "Try taking a course in humility instead of trying to humiliate religious believers. You may learn something, then again it may be beyond you." Said the pompous, condescending gasbag.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s