This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining - Comments

themoonsays's Avatar Comment 3 by themoonsays

Wow. What a moron. And an idiot. And an ignorant bore. Wait, am I proving her point by calling her that? Anyway, what a stupid stupid person.

More misunderstanding of science. Like anyone should be surprised about that.

What a way to trivialize the argument. I wonder which, if any of the books she mentions, she has actually read.

Sun, 17 May 2009 10:47:00 UTC | #360991

RichardofYork's Avatar Comment 1 by RichardofYork

I'm first today , and my comment? not worth bothering with

Sun, 17 May 2009 10:47:00 UTC | #360989

notsobad's Avatar Comment 2 by notsobad

Again, a theist reaching the level of irony only a deluded person can.

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence

The problem with Christians -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against Thor's/Zeus'/FSM's ... existence

engaging believers seriously

I'd start with a banana.

Sun, 17 May 2009 10:47:00 UTC | #360990

Born Again Atheist's Avatar Comment 4 by Born Again Atheist

"if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist"

Actually it's: "if science can't prove something, it open-mindedly continues to investigate."

Sun, 17 May 2009 10:51:00 UTC | #360995

Dave White's Avatar Comment 6 by Dave White

Do waste your time reading this. It made me smile, yet saddened me.

For someone like Charlotte Allen to accuse atheists of being whiny, her article comes off like a spoiled American princess disatisfied with her "Sweet 16".

She fails to make one solid point regarding the flaw of an atheist argument. She instead throws a bunch of short incoherent rants (which I assume she attempts to pass as paragraphs in conventional writing) into the LA Times and claims atheists are a bunch of pathetic, incoherent whiners. Can anyone right for the LA Times anymore? Where can I sign up if the benchmark is this low?

I have read few hypocritical writings that could top this. If you purchased the LA Times this morning and are out of toilet paper, no need to leave the house. Charlotte Allen to the rescue!

Sun, 17 May 2009 10:58:00 UTC | #360997

lepouse's Avatar Comment 5 by lepouse

sounds like she's never met an atheist before in her life

Sun, 17 May 2009 10:58:00 UTC | #360996

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 7 by mirandaceleste

Wow. I haven't read anything that ignorant, clueless, angry, or so full of unsupported assumptions in a long time.

And that's quite the quote mining of the Examiner article. If I remember right, isn't that referring to Creationists, not religious individuals in general?

Sun, 17 May 2009 10:59:00 UTC | #360998

cpr.tahli's Avatar Comment 8 by cpr.tahli

i agree, we are boring, arrogant and often obsessed with religion.

despite being a smug, obsessed and arrogant atheist myself (yes i am a hypocrite), i am very tempted to just calling myself "agnostic" because im so embarresed by other atheists. =\

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:01:00 UTC | #361000

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 9 by Teratornis

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.


Well, that's rarely a problem with faith, always ready to wake up the party with a suicide bombing or two.

Is it just me, or did anyone else fail to feel the love and compassion and turn-the-other-cheek forgiveness of Jesus from his representative on Earth, Ms. Charlotte Allen?

Suppose someone handed Ms. Allen one billion dollars. I imagine she'd then feel considerably less stressed when Richard et al. whip up her cognitive dissonance with their rational doubts, because when you have a billion dollars, it puts everyday frustrations in a different light.

Well, having a sure promise of eternal life would have to beat a billion dollars any day. So why don't people who claim to have eternal life ever behave as if they have something so mind-blowingly wonderful? Instead they get all defensive and upset whenever the slightest breeze of reason jostles their mental tightrope act.

For God to be somewhat credible, the people who claim to believe in God would have to start behaving as if they really do.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:02:00 UTC | #361001

PaulJ's Avatar Comment 10 by PaulJ

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering.
Time to invoke PZ Myers' Courtier's Reply.
What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses.
This is like saying, "even for believers, there's no evidence for the existence of God."

I can't help feeling this very article is an example of the whiny petulance the author is complaining about.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:05:00 UTC | #361002

Chris Davis's Avatar Comment 11 by Chris Davis

Sorry, Charlotte. Trouble is, though, no matter how objectionable we are, your sky wizard still isn't actually there.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:11:00 UTC | #361006

Nova's Avatar Comment 13 by Nova

A lot of what she says is just an outright blatant misrepresentation. And her idea that it's atheists that aren't seriously challenging theism with arguments is completely absurd. It's the theologians and priests who have power and influence without justifying it, that's what faith is all about. Faith does whatever it wants without justifying it whereas rationalist atheism is all about creating a more reason based society by countering religion, superstition and pseudoscience. She's just another writer jumping on the bandwagon of sticking negative stereotypes to atheism which is all too common now, she's a flea; seemingly without even the slightest attempt to understand what rationalist atheism is.

The irony being that it is her who is seemingly angry as are the many others who have written about atheists this way, angry that faith really is just that weak and that those theologians really don't have deep secrets locked up somewhere.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:14:00 UTC | #361008

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 12 by Diacanu

So, what case is she making?

God may or may not exist, but believe in him anyway, or you'll be boring and whiny?

Well, that doesn't reek of desperation.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:14:00 UTC | #361007

PaulJ's Avatar Comment 14 by PaulJ

It's a good sign that we're getting more angry articles like this. It means the atheist movement is getting noticed.

With regard to Ms. Allen's complaint about the number of atheist blogs she's found, it's instructive to compare the results returned from a Google search for "atheist blog" with those for "christian blog".

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:16:00 UTC | #361009

Diogenes of Sinope's Avatar Comment 15 by Diogenes of Sinope

By the end of the article I wanted to punch the writer in the face. Every argument she makes is so completely wrong that I'm tempted to think that it may be a deliberate polemic.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:16:00 UTC | #361010

Koreman's Avatar Comment 16 by Koreman

The last part says it all. It's hard to keep on believing in Santa as a grown up while there are no presents. Boohoo. Stop taunting.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:17:00 UTC | #361011

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 17 by Teratornis

Comment #377922 by cpr.tahli:

despite being a smug, obsessed and arrogant atheist myself (yes i am a hypocrite),


Well, sort of. Real hypocrites always stay in character and would never dream of breaking the fourth wall as you just did by admitting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_wall

To really be convincing at hypocrisy you have to convince the audience you really have no awareness of it.

i am very tempted to just calling myself "agnostic" because im so embarresed by other atheists. =


Somehow, people of faith appear immune to any such embarrassment, no matter how spectacular the steady parade of religious scandal and outrage becomes.

How many Muslims, for example, looked for a different name after 9/11? No, instead the vast majority of Muslims unite around the idea that it's unfair to lump them in with the 30% or so who support the idea of suicide bombing.

But if you don't like the idea of being tarred by Ms. Charlotte Allen's earnest attempts to besmirch the term "atheist", just reply "I believe in facts" when people ask you what you believe.

I've used that reply a few times, and each time it has ended the conversation (regrettably - because it would be interesting to continue the conversation onto the question of what is a fact). Evidently most people believe in facts, or imagine they should, and telling them you believe in facts puts the burden on them to explain to you why you should believe in some additional things which are not facts.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:18:00 UTC | #361012

ekted's Avatar Comment 18 by ekted

What an utterly shallow and superficial view of the issue Charlotte has.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:21:00 UTC | #361013

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 19 by Teratornis

Comment #377932 by Diogenes of Sinope:

By the end of the article I wanted to punch the writer in the face.


George W. Bush wanted to punch Saddam Hussein in the face. Can you do better than George W. Bush? Maybe use reason and skill to identify the author's factual errors and logical fallacies, instead of going straight for the JDAMs?

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:24:00 UTC | #361015

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 20 by mirandaceleste

If you want to read some more of her ignorant, angry ranting, check out this 2008 article from The Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/yoan85 I'm not even sure how to describe what she's arguing in it, other than "women are much dumber than men and science has proven this to be true." Sigh.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:26:00 UTC | #361017

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 21 by Teratornis

Comment #377935 by ekted:


What an utterly shallow and superficial view of the issue Charlotte has.


But it's the view that possibly 80% of the American public has.

We should thank Charlotte for giving us insight into the emotional reaction the majority of believers tend to have when the gentle breeze of reason threatens to tip them off the tightrope of faith.

Staying on that tightrope requires endless struggle.

In contrast, nobody has to make any particular exertion to continue disbelieving in Thor, Odin, and all the other N-1 religions they doubt. Doubt is effortless.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:28:00 UTC | #361018

ahmunnaeetchoo's Avatar Comment 22 by ahmunnaeetchoo

Where's the substance?

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:28:00 UTC | #361019

artisfact's Avatar Comment 23 by artisfact

I cant stand theists--and it's not because they believe in god. It's because they're crashing planes.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:32:00 UTC | #361022

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 25 by Mr DArcy

Charlotte Allen says:

Another topic that atheists beat like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin commercials is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwin-o-mania stems from the fact that this year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, but haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God's way of letting his living creation unfold?


If evolution is God's way of letting his living creation unfold, then why wait some 13.7 billion years before endowing humans with souls? Doh! Stupid of me, I forgot God works in mysterious ways! Now at what point in evolution did hominids gain souls, or did they evolve too? Was Adam the first, and doomed, human with a soul? Did God really enjoy watching Tiktaalik struggling to breathe air and take a few steps out of the water before it collapsed under its own weight? Did God really create the snowball Earth, and then later sent in a meteorite to wipe out the dinosaurs? ("Them'll make righteous coal some day!").

Yes we boring atheists can ask more questions in 2 minutes than a theologian can ever answer!

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:33:00 UTC | #361024

madmax0412's Avatar Comment 24 by madmax0412

I just love this bit,

"And then there's the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn't exist but is evil to boot. Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion," accuses the deity of being a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak" as well as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... bully." If there is no God -- and you'd be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he's good or evil?"

Quote mining at its best. She obviously hasn't read Dawkins' comment in the full context.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:33:00 UTC | #361023

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 26 by Mark Jones

A seriously bad article; is this woman qualified in *anything*? Her writing doesn't betray any learning.


And then there's the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn't exist but is evil to boot. ... If there is no God -- and you'd be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he's good or evil?

David Robertson makes this non-argument; how could any thinking person take it seriously? The plausibility of a proposal necessarily requires *everyone* to consider its internal consistency. So the sceptic must examine theodicies. To compound her stupidity, she then says:

The problem with atheists ... is that few of them are interested in ... taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, ... God's goodness with human suffering.

So she complains that atheists are intent on examining the problem of evil and then complains that atheists aren't interested in examining the problem of evil. Brilliant.

Is it a spoof?

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:35:00 UTC | #361027

root2squared's Avatar Comment 27 by root2squared

What a disgusting, intellectually bankrupt arrogant person.

She finds atheists boring because she does not have the brains to comprehend what they are saying. I'm sure she would also find Einstein explaining the TOR a crashing bore. On the other hand talking snakes are so fascinating. Idiot.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:37:00 UTC | #361030

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 29 by Teratornis

Comment #377939 by mirandaceleste:

If you want to read some more of her ignorant, angry ranting, check out this 2008 article from The Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/yoan85 I'm not even sure how to describe what she's arguing in it, other than "women are much dumber than men and science has proven this to be true." Sigh.


I read it as a variation on this theme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

At least she hints at having some awareness of evolutionary psychology in that one. Now if she could only get up to speed on the evolutionary psychology of religion.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:40:00 UTC | #361032

huzonfurst's Avatar Comment 28 by huzonfurst

So far Teratornis has hit every theism-killing nail square on the head - I loved the "I believe in facts" response!

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:40:00 UTC | #361031

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 30 by NewEnglandBob

The author is throwing a temper tantrum and is just spouting nonsense because she knows the she and her irrational cohorts are getting decimated by facts by calm and reasoned atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett.

Sun, 17 May 2009 11:44:00 UTC | #361034