How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

Petar said:
I guess it's blowback, but you'd think that the industrial scale socialist genocides of the 20th century would be enough revenge at this point. I myself am basically an atheist, but I absolutely despise turbo-atheists. Most useless bunch of people around.
Click to expand...

You are confusing political genocide with theological genocide... the difference being the motivation.
 
Frank Lee Seaux said:
But, perhaps the reason some atheists seem so smug is because they are only recently experiencing the freedom of expression of what they truly believe and are feeling somewhat empowered.
Click to expand...


Imagine being the only person in OZ who knew the Wizard was a big fake. You might feel an odd sense of authority because of acquiring unique knowledge.
 
erowe1 said:
I don't think there ever was such a time. The atheists of generations past were like that too.
Click to expand...

The atheists of past generations were, by necessity, very quiet on the matter, and when they bothered to publish anything at all about their beliefs, or lack thereof, they either did so anonymously, or did so under the euphemistic guise of Deism. Otherwise, they were amazingly silent, by one means or another(voluntary or death).
 
It's interesting to read how much shit people gave Baruch Spinoza back in the day and I don't think he was really Atheist. Maybe a skeptic or vaguely pantheist.
 
FreedomFanatic said:
You won't find a professing Christian that annoys me halfway as much as a raving anti-theist.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you seem to equate atheism with anti-theism. What is quite obviously true, however, in so many instances all over the internet, is the most vocal(evangelizing) theists(Christians especially) are blatant anti-atheists. With such common remarks as:

"All atheists deserve the torment in Hell they are bound for."

"All atheists deserve to die."

And,

"Atheists are naturally evil and gluttonous. That is why they choose not to believe. So they can get away with doing whatever they want."
 
Secular humanism seems to be the new prestige religion/philosophy of the intellectual class and political elite, so... Hopefully that means we'll start to see more philosophically and politically challenging Christians now, as more start to realize they aren't part of the status quo anymore, and aren't so complacent with state power.
 
I think even Richard Dawkins finds Bishop John Spong interesting with a positive message.
 
VIDEODROME said:
I think even Richard Dawkins finds Bishop John Spong interesting with a positive message.
Click to expand...

That's because "Bishop" Spong is a theological liberal nut. He is a virtual atheist, so that is why an idiot like Richard Dawkins likes him.
 
Sola_Fide said:
That's because "Bishop" Spong is a theological liberal nut. He is a virtual atheist, so that is why an idiot like Richard Dawkins likes him.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can call Dawkins an idiot. Now, I don't agree much with his methods but an idiot he is not.
 
Natural Citizen said:
I don't understand how you can call Dawkins an idiot. Now, I don't agree much with his methods but an idiot he is not.
Click to expand...

An idiot (to me) is someone who uses arguments that are below the rationality level of your random atheist internet poster. There is nothing worse than Dawkins. In fact, I LOVE when these unthinking atheist idiots listen to Dawkins and come on the internet to debate. It's fun times.
 
Sola_Fide said:
That's because "Bishop" Spong is a theological liberal nut. He is a virtual atheist, so that is why an idiot like Richard Dawkins likes him.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. The guy is hardly a Christian. He rejects the Virgin Birth, rejects the resurrection of Christ and even criticized a document by the Catholic Church because it reaffirmed the teaching that Jesus Christ is the one and only savior for humanity. He also claimed "Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead."
 
The Devil knows time is running out so he is pushing his people to work faster.

:D
 
Frank Lee Seaux said:
You are confusing political genocide with theological genocide... the difference being the motivation.
Click to expand...
The Soviets attempted theological genocide too. Especially Christians and "mystic" religious communities in the east like Mongolia. Wiping out religion was very much part of the Soviet agenda.
 
angelatc said:
I have had tons of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door. One of them even ended up becoming a family friend, but none of them got defensive or told me I was going to burn in hell if I didn't come around to their way of thinking.

From their standpoint, you're a spiritual anorexic. They know you're not going to eat the food they're bringing, but because they care about you they're trying to leave you some crackers anyway.

And to them, your irritability and combativeness is just a symptom.
Click to expand...

Mormons don't come around here. They barely have a presence in this area. We get visitors from the Jehovah's Witnesses and a few Protestant sects.
 
Sola_Fide said:
An idiot (to me) is someone who uses arguments that are below the rationality level of your random atheist internet poster. There is nothing worse than Dawkins. In fact, I LOVE when these unthinking atheist idiots listen to Dawkins and come on the internet to debate. It's fun times.
Click to expand...

One of the things that I've always found almost comical are those who like to just throw his points around all over the place and place them into context just because he's an atheist. One of Richard's more critical shortcomings is that he just recites things but never says "oh, yes...and here's why". And so you have people just passing things around that they couldn't discuss in correct context if you paid them to try.

In this regard though, I find him useful. Useful because others who typically remain out of these controversial discussions via political platforms and who do say "And here's why" are able to do so in the atmosphere in which is it counts and aren't subjected to the circus. Historically, it only takes around 2% to cause and bring change. And so I'm content for Richard to kind of occupy the other 98% of religious/atheist politicos.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
This just isn't true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_authors
Click to expand...

I get how you're pointing out that he was wrong to use the phrase "past generations" but if you look at the years those authors lived it is a relatively new freedom to write such works. Even during those times many famous authors were too scared to write about their lack of religious faith and went to their grave without giving opinions on such things.

As more volumes of Mark Twain's autobiography get published, atheists will be able to add him to their ranks. There's a reason why he did not want it released until 100 years after his death. He feared persecution of himself and his descendants.
 
fr33 said:
I get how you're pointing out that he was wrong to use the phrase "past generations" but if you look at the years those authors lived it is a relatively new freedom to write such works. Even during those times many famous authors were too scared to write about their lack of religious faith and went to their grave without giving opinions on such things.

As more volumes of Mark Twain's autobiography get published, atheists will be able to add him to their ranks. There's a reason why he did not want it released until 100 years after his death. He feared persecution of himself and his descendants.
Click to expand...
Proof? He also might have wanted to avoid publishing really unpopular stuff because it would've damaged his career.:toady:
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
Proof? He also might have wanted to avoid publishing really unpopular stuff because it would've damaged his career.:toady:
Click to expand...
Many people would call that persecution. Many Christians today can be found screaming that they are being persecuted. It's probably more accurate to define it as discrimination.

Anyways, my proof: the introduction in the first volume of his autobiography. Also the fact that one doesn't feel it's necessary to wait 100 years after death before releasing such material unless they are worried about their descendants rather than just their own career.
 
fr33 said:
Many people would call that persecution. Many Christians today can be found screaming that they are being persecuted. It's probably more accurate to define it as discrimination.
Click to expand...

Who cares? If people voluntarily refuse to buy something in the market, there is nothing wrong with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top