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

← Why Are Atheists So Angry?

Why Are Atheists So Angry? - Comments

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 1 by SaganTheCat

with atheists it's "anger", with theists it's "passion"

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:27:49 UTC | #601274

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 2 by Mrkimbo

We're angry because you and your ilk are a load of silly cunts who bore us shitless with fairy tales when life is short and there is much to do. Comprende?

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:29:00 UTC | #601276

andersemil's Avatar Comment 3 by andersemil

LOL "Rabbit" David Wolpe... Careful of those angry atheist hounds, David!

I'm angry because theists use fairytales and supernatural beings to defend very real-world but insane politics that directly affect my life!

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:38:57 UTC | #601281

El Bastardo's Avatar Comment 4 by El Bastardo

The last two sentences say it all really.

Our first response to life should be gratitude and wonder that we share this remarkable world so far beyond our poor power to grasp.

Shows the ignorance of this mind set, lets' not try to understand or investigate. Let's not figure it out but just assume it was put there by some great power for some great purpose and think we assume we couldn't possibly understand something so great.

Now, let the derision begin!

Classic Atheist baiting. This is the religious version of "Come at me bro". Lets claim Atheists are angry and insulting, and then finish by goading so you can then say "Look at all the nasty comments, see they are mean. What do you mean I asked for it?"

This from a man who believes god once said "I'll swap you your foreskins for Israel"

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:50:45 UTC | #601287

Sample's Avatar Comment 5 by Sample

Rabbi Wolpe, if you are reading...


We treat each other with exceeding courtesy;

we say, it's great to see you after all these years.

Our tigers drink milk.

Our hawks tread the ground.

Our sharks have all drowned.

Our wolves yawn beyond the open cage.

Our snakes have shed their lightning,

our apes their flights of fancy,

our peacocks have renounced their plumes.

The bats flew out of our hair long ago.

We fall silent in mid-sentence,

all smiles, past help.

Our humans

don't know how to talk to one another.

-Wislawa Szymborska


Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:59:24 UTC | #601291

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 6 by sunbeamforjeebus

I had considered a long and articulate dissertion here in reply to Rabbi(t) Wolpe,individually addressing his confusing and simply untrue assertions.That was until I read comment no;2 fromMrkimbo, who actually states my exact opinion most succinctly thus:
We're angry because you and your ilk are a load of silly cunts who bore us shitless with fairy tales when life is short and there is much to do. Comprende?

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:02:49 UTC | #601294

angry_liberal's Avatar Comment 7 by angry_liberal

In the first two points the author appears to get it. That is all I really ask for from my religious friends. As friends they should be able to understand how I feel. This guy seems to get it unlike most religious people I know. They seem to deny any connection and regard criticism of religion as beyond the pale rude.

There is an element of truth of in the third point. People who are religious leaders are trained and experienced communicators and know better than to get angry. Many atheists (such as myself) see society as a broken machine, religion as a major theme in the malfunction and are actually slightly shocked (albeit naively) to find that our views are not more widely held. This leads initially to incoherent anger. We actually need to wise up, get over this and start communicating our position without throwing irate insults - however much nonsense gets thrown at us.

The fourth point takes the biscuit - and crumbles the pieces into the toilet. All of us who are interested in science are absolutely awestruck at the shere awesomeness of what science has uncovered. What religion demands is like taking a window with a beautiful view over a lake, forests and mountains, covering it with a cheap wallpaper and demanding that we sit around all day saying how wonderful the wallpaper is and teaching our children how wonderful the wall paper is.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:03:30 UTC | #601295

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 8 by Stevehill

This is a fairly thoughtful article: why should he get 2,000 angry responses for writing a piece about religion? If you're not religious, why read it? Why comment? I ignore articles on womens' fashion: it has absolutely zero interest for me. Do I feel compelled to post long comments saying what sad deluded fools they all are for wasting their time and money on these fripperies? No.

So Wolpe does raise an interesting question.

My objections are that, firstly, religion is still used as a cover for doing real harm, all over the world:

  • Catholics deny contraception to AIDS victims, or abortions to women whose lives are in danger.

  • Jews claim god told them to go and invade other people's countries by force of arms.

  • Islam... well, where do you begin on a spectrum from womens' rights to 9/11?

  • Secondly, even if as a secular atheist I would be quite content to ignore other people's beliefs and just let them get on with it, they won't let me do that. They are in my face, and in my family's face, all the time, and they assume that they have a right to do this, for obsolete historical reasons.

    In Britain we have an established church. The head of state may not be a Catholic. The church gets 26 unelected places in the legislature (no other democracy does this). Every single state school, funded by taxpayers, is required to provide a compulsory daily act of Christian worship: four year olds get five religious services a week. In a country where less than 2% of us attend a service at the established church even once a week. A third of our schools are faith schools run by churches. Often, children of atheist parents are told, by the state, that their children must go to these schools, because of where they happen to live. Some of these schools produce kids who do not "believe in" evolution. Others produce kids who have had no sex education, and end up single mums aged 15.

    Religions expect laws to be passed to accommodate their narrow interests - e.g. the huge row we had about requiring adoption agencies to consider gay couples; the recent cases where a hotel was held to be wrong to refuse entry to a gay couple; where a couple were held to be unsuitable to be foster-parents because they were homophobic... these religions think (still! In 2011!) that equality laws are for other people, that they are exempt.

    And that's why I'm angry. Stay out of my life, and in return I'll ignore - and even defend - your right to practice whatever bizarre rituals you wish. Out of sight of my children.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:06:35 UTC | #601296

    Southpaw's Avatar Comment 9 by Southpaw

    I'm sorry, is this an old article that he's found and decided to post? Every one of these issues has been answered many times before, not least in The God Delusion and Unweaving the Rainbow. As for 'religion's serious thinkers' - The Emperor's New Clothes, anyone?

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:07:57 UTC | #601297

    Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 10 by Carl Sai Baba

    There is an arrogant unwillingness to engage with religion's serious thinkers.

    Wolpe, who has been debated (and often hammered like a prophet to a cross) by Harris, Shermer, Dawkins, Ridley, and Hitchens, apparently does not consider himself to be one of "religion's serious thinkers".

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:11:08 UTC | #601298

    Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 11 by Jos Gibbons

    Why Are Atheists So Angry?

    Partly because religious people will use literally any criterion for deciding whether to be theists other than whether evidence for theism’s truth exists. Calling atheists angry is a good example of this.

    How harmless is it to post an article about why people should read the bible on a site devoted to religion?

    One’s use of one’s free speech is often harmless, but it may well elicit a critical, harmless response from others’ free speech.

    it evoked more than 2,000 responses, most of them angry. I had previously written a similarly gentle article about how God should be taught to children that evoked more than 1,000 responses, almost all negative and many downright nasty.

    “Angry” and “nasty” are quite subjective concepts, and we could argue indefinitely about what percentage of the posts were like that. The important thing to remember is one is more likely to deem a critical post against one’s work as “angry” or “nasty” than is someone else who isn’t of one’s own mind, and a post is more likely to be critical in the first place if the audience agrees to a lesser extent with the author. It’s worth bearing in mind “disagreement” may be disagreement with the claims made, or thinking the arguments offered to support them invalid, or feeling lies, misrepresentations etc. are used, or feeling the author hasn’t bothered researching the topic or authors they’re discussing. Note none of these are genuinely personal attacks.

    It is curious a religion site draws responses mostly from atheists, and the atheists are very unhappy.

    A public site discussing a topic, even if it is pro one side, can expect a sizeable response from people of all views and none on the issue. What is more, the notions of “unhappy”, “angry” etc. will be more likely to be ascribed by the author to those who disagree with him, for the reasons mentioned above (both the lens through which critique is viewed and who is likely to offer a critique).

    They are unhappy with the bible, the idea of God and anyone who presumes to offer religious advice to the religious.

    They are unhappy with thinking conclusions are reasonable due to the Bible asserting they are true, believing a god exists without evidence, praising the god of religious texts when the deities in question are often morally reprehensible in their described decisions, and (like most people) with efforts to propagate views they think are utterly wrong, whether as advice to those who already accept such ideas or as advice to those who don’t (and, in truth, Holpe would have preferred his advice to be taken on board by non–religious people too).

    Only the untutored assume religious people predominate on websites devoted to religion.

    Does anyone assume that? What form does the corrective tutoring take?

    In the past when I have debated noted atheists the audience was heavily weighted toward my opponents. Why seek out a religious site solely to insult religion? I wondered: Why are atheists so angry?

    One isn’t angry merely because one seeks to comment on a website where one’s view may be in the minority or, as Holpe points out, the majority. It is not as if in any case the Washington Post’s religion section aims to be pro–religious; it wishes to discuss religion per se. Holpe’s criteria for assessing who is angry will result in him feeling that way about all commentators he encounters who disagree with him.

    They are convinced religion is a fairy tale that impedes rational thought. No avalanche of counterexamples, from noted scientists who are believers to the way in which the scientific method has flourished in the monotheistic west (as opposed to say, the non-monotheistic eastern societies) will serve to dissuade. That which is understood to have happened to Galileo is all, apparently, one needs to know.

    Religious scientists don’t mean religion doesn’t impede science. With millions of scientists in the world, it’s interesting the same example or two keeps getting mentioned all the time, such as Francis Collins. Nor can we assume science flourished in monotheistic societies because of their monotheism; aside from the post hoc fallacy, one must wonder also why such societies took so long to do science, why they destroyed all the records they could of earlier science, and why that earlier science was done by those in polytheistic societies, and why in both types of society scientists have tended to be less mainstream in their views on religion and have become more so over time. The Galileo affair is noted not so much as an end–all point but as a classic example of how we should and should not think; accept science, and do not let any other way of thinking trump it. Unfortunately, religion continues to make people fail in this regard on a massive scale, and that is a powerful objection to it.

    There is an arrogant unwillingness to engage with religion's serious thinkers.

    Insofar as this is true, it could be because even the most thorough debunking of the views of one theologian only meets with “But you haven’t done this one yet”. There are too many theologians to deal with this; however, if any pro–religion argument actually worked, it would be so famous the bad ones would no longer be recited.

    Too many internet users hope a couple of insults will substitute for argument.

    There, fixed.

    They suffer from the incredulity of those who cannot believe anyone would disagree.

    Oh, atheists know others would disagree all right. Many atheists are former theists.

    "I am right" becomes "you are stupid for disagreeing."

    Atheist criticisms of religious writers on the Internet actually don’t call the writer stupid very often. The rationality (only of the position at hand) is often questioned, but the individual’s intelligence is not.

    In a world in which so much is still not understood, to discount the supernatural is to lack the openness to mystery that should be a human hallmark. Firstly, we should aim to be rational, not “human”. (Humans vary quite a lot.) Secondly, the use of the supernatural to “explain” the currently inexplicable doesn’t actually work; it is an argument from personal incredulity, but offers no new insights. Thirdly, open–mindedness means being open to new ideas when evidence supports them, not at all times.

    All of us ought to be astonished by our miraculous ability to talk, think, dream and disagree.

    That’s not miraculous; that would mean it violates physical law. Clearly it does not, as it is routine. It’s really, really cool, but that’s not the same thing.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:23:38 UTC | #601306

    PrayForMe's Avatar Comment 12 by PrayForMe

    We're angry because we're so utterly frustrated.

    We live in a world which is shaped by nonsense, and we don't understand why this should be the case.

    This nonsense means that our children are taught boring lies, like the world being 6000 years old, when the facts are so much more splendid and glorious. The nonsense means that, in much of the world, gays, non-believers, women and all sorts of other people, live in terror because of their beliefs/sexual orientation/desire for independence/desire for knowledge. The nonsense creates divisions which need not exist, and sometimes, people kill each other because of these differences. The nonsense prevents the widespread use of sensible sexual practices, and causes the proliferation of aids and other diseases. The nonsense kills natural human curiosity and enquiry, so there could be a great many more thinkers and scientists, to learn about the wonderful, awe-inspiring mysteries of the universe, and teach them to the rest of us.

    All of this nonsense exists because of irrational, stupid belief. And when we try to argue about how stupid and irrational those beliefs are, we face these problems:

    The convention that it is 'disrespectful' and rude to criticize religion.

    Ancient, crappy circular arguments - the bible is the word of god, and the bible says god exists etc.

    The insane notion that faith is virtuous because it is not based on evidence. That somehow blind faith is better than knowledge, even though there can be no sensible reason for this.

    The insane notion that 'god is true to me,' and the presentation of personal 'religious experiences' as usable evidence for the existence of god.

    It really can be incredibly hard work, being an atheist, and it feels like we are banging our heads against a brick wall. It really hurts, but without the brick wall, the world would be so much better. That's why we're angry.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:26:07 UTC | #601309

    irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 13 by irate_atheist

    I see no difference between the way of thinking displayed by the author, than with the ravings of a paranoid delusional schizophrenic who believes the voices in his head are real and are telling him what to do.

    Epistemological humility -- the acknowledgment that we are at the very first baby steps of understanding -- is far wiser than arrogance on either side.

    You and your ilk are the ignorant arrogant ones and you have not the slightest warrant to assert what evidence - real evidence - is:

    "The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning" of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction—itself composed of mutually warring factions—has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted." - Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:31:09 UTC | #601311

    AlexP's Avatar Comment 14 by AlexP

    Ok, let's take a look at Wolpe's points:

    1: Am I angry with religion for the evil it has done, intensified or kept alive?

    Yes. Definitely. But neither is religion the only source of "evil", nor are religious people universally in agreement with everything their religion says or commands.

    I am angry, not with religion itself, but with men who treat it as divine, as special, as sacred. Of people who treat religious teachings with a reverence and respect unachievable by any "mundane" thought or opinion.

    2: It is immensely frustrating, to say the least, when a persons remains adamant in his beliefs, even when they are obviously contrary to evidence, common sense and every other aspect of the real world he spends his life in.

    What makes me angry isn't disagreement, not even unflinching disagreement. But rather the notion that to maintain your position regardless of the evidence is a virtue. That, the more obviously incompatible a belief is with a rational mind, the more laudable it is to hold onto it.

    Yes, that does make me angry. Ignorance is not a fault per se, but willful ignorance is.

    3: There are a lot of serious religious thinkers, but even more who never gave a real thought about their religion.

    Frankly, I do not intend to engage religion on a theological basis. Partly, because the very foundation of any theology - "theos", god - has never been sufficiently ( or even remotely) proven, which makes every thought founded on this premise worthless until there is reason enough to consider a divine entity.

    But mostly, I don't consider confronting religion theologically important. We don't care about your personal beliefs. They are completely yours. And as interesting and challenging as it can be to debate religion with an educated person, what matters is not to "eradicate" religion from everyone's mind, educated or not, but to remove it from the pedestal that grants it special rights and respect.

    I am not angry that people are religious, but I am angry when religious feelings and religious rights are somehow worth more than their mundane counterparts.

    4: Actually, that is a good example of what makes me angry.

    The idea that trying to understand the universe is somehow devoid of awe, of wonder, of mystery and beauty - this idea I consider insulting. Because its completely to the contrary of what I experienced.

    There is joy and wonder in understanding. When I learn the processes behind natural events ( or technical devices ) I do not shrug and complain "You spoiled it for me!". The universe does not feel smaller through explanations, it feels bigger, richer.

    Isn't it far more interesting to find out just how a stage magician fooled us, to learn how he used our own expectations, our prejudice, our very way to think to mislead us - rather than just saying "its magic"?

    The desire to understand is the beginning of wonder, not the end.

    Also, I find it rather curious how many religions claim to have gained their knowledge from the most powerful and wise being in the universe, not from the small and limited human minds science must work with - but it is somehow science and reason that are "arrogant" and religion that is humble.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:31:19 UTC | #601312

    valla's Avatar Comment 15 by valla

    1. Actually many people resent what religion is doing right now, and it's not only flying planes into buildings: it's basically its will to impose religious practices on everyone. Religious pressure groups don't limit themselves to lobby to defend their interests, which is legitimate, they lobby to impose religiously inspired legislation to everyone. This is unacceptable and I don't see why people shouldn't be angry about it. Why shouldn't I be angry if I will die for a disease that could be defeated by embryonic stem cell research?

    2. The monotheistic west relied for more than a thousand years on the scientific discoveries of polytheistic Ancient Greece. Scientists can be believers or non believers, but it is a fact that most of them are non believers.

    3. This is simply not true, as is demonstrated by the numerous "god debates". By the way, if audiences in those debates tend to sympathize with the non-believing orators it is, I suspect, primarily for the reason that, non believers, agnostics or uncertain people are more interested in those debates and attend them. Religious people tend to be content with their faith, which they consider a virtue, and don't really want to have it discussed. By the way, you can't escape the fact that in general the arguments put forward by the non religious side are more straightforward and compelling than the convoluted and often obscure points made by the religious side.

    4. It's actually the other way around. Those who don't take god as an explanation tend to be much more curious, and are very much in awe in front of every new, amazing scientific discovery. They happily admit they don't know a lot. Those who have "faith" already know the only truth that really counts: where's the mystery? Anyway, after you read a book by Hawking or by Dawkins, you don't get very impressed by half-baked stories of miracles.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:41:38 UTC | #601314

    Hellboy2's Avatar Comment 16 by Hellboy2

    Actually, I agree 100% with comment 8 by stevehill. Very well put sir.

    I will add though, that we atheists are not just (or particularly) angry, as much as completely exasperated. We don't need to be told that your viewpoints, and methods of spreading them, are valid - they're really not (read God Delusion, God is Not Great, End of Faith etc for intelligent and obvious rebuttals to all religious dogma). But the fact is you are indeed entitled to have them - but please are we.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:45:30 UTC | #601316

    Gmork's Avatar Comment 17 by Gmork

    People who are against wrong thinking will conflict with many cultures, religion being one, bad science being another. In the bubble of religion, such a person is called an atheist.

    Seeing as we are prone to wrong thinking, it can be frustrating to see people willingly embracing it.

    As long as your head is in religion, you will see atheists. On a larger scale, an "atheist" is usually a person who is against wrong thinking in many contexts.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:46:12 UTC | #601317

    Zalvation's Avatar Comment 18 by Zalvation

    Dear Rabbit Wolpe,

    I commend the notion that our brains are “…our only organs of understanding”. As children, we have little voice in what is implanted into our brains as it is very much governed by those who instruct us, I’m sure you will agree. Should this process not then start by teaching children the cognitive reality of what we do know as opposed to what our creeds can merely imply? Anger can often be invoked when the criteria of truth is distributed as a case that is irrefutable. All the major religions believe that god has predestined the laws of nature, if so he has then also determined our actions and behavior – the brain is psychologically bound - and determinism, it can be argued, negates free will. Children should be explicitly taught that all acts of evil or immorality must be determined by god. Easy to accept, for it makes god responsible for the actions of Hitler and Stalin, rapists and murderers, pedophiles and all else we term evil or amoral, and thus god is permitting evil. On the other hand, we must also teach that if there is no god to determine our actions and behavior we therefore admit to the notion of free will and in doing so, the responsibility for our actions and those of others is regulated by the due process of the laws governing our society. We admonish, we re-educate, or we punish on the understanding that the offence was committed as an act of free will. Believers in god who wish to condemn and punish acts of evil will be denying god’s will, for determinism, we can argue, is incompatible with free will. Or do we excuse Hitler and Stalin for being simply a part of god’s predestined universe? That thought makes me rather angry…

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:50:34 UTC | #601320

    strangebrew's Avatar Comment 19 by strangebrew

    It seems the god soaked are completely befuddled about the reaction that they get when they publicly fluff for jeebus!

    They really are shocked and fearful. Is it the intolerance really starting to be a reality that they all boast about and pompously claim as always directed at it a secular uncaring world...or is it those pesky atheists that should rot in hell for questioning a 'personal' belief? Is it a conspiracy of all the enemy against the bhabi jeebus?

    The classic 'atheists are soulless' chant is perfectly exemplified by...

    Finally, I will go so far as to say that there is sometimes in the atheist a want of wonder

    It identifies the major flaw in theist counter argument. They are confusing the awe of ignorance for the awe of a natural process that is understood in function. It does not mean it is any the less spectacular...nor does it mean it is a mystery only made possible by a belief in imaginary beings.

    Because they are intellectually lazy and fail repeatedly to understand the available science behind nature they assume that because they are ignorant of process that everyone else is! Certainly b'twixt'n'b'tween themselves the paucity of smarts is markedly apparent, but they compound the ignorance by refusing to study the scientific evidence . It is no excuse to claim ignorance of the how when they display arrogance of attitude...they don't know.....and they don't care! they should be thoroughly ashamed of their utter stupidity.

    They patently fail repeatedly to understand that " godwotwentngonendidit" is not an answer that is either correct or helpful! It is a blanket assumption that is no longer required...they do not need their 'blanky no more...they are to old for having childish needs against a scary world.

    The more honest do admit to the massive evil and murder that religion has perpetrated...then nonchalantly dismiss it.

    Then we get the triteness...

    to discount the supernatural is to lack the openness to mystery that should be a human hallmark.

    Nope sherlock! discount the supernatural is to grow up as a species and intelligently confront the world on a one to one stand on your own evolved feet and meet the challenges of life as only a developed sophisticated and honorable life form can and should! Without recourse to an invisible, magical sky fairy.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:51:11 UTC | #601321

    peanutsplatters's Avatar Comment 20 by peanutsplatters

    I love the posts on this page. The world may just turn out ok.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:52:06 UTC | #601322

    PrayForMe's Avatar Comment 21 by PrayForMe

    I should add that, although we are angry, we don't express that anger with AK-47s and bombs, and we don't fly aeroplanes into buildings.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:53:39 UTC | #601324

    peanutsplatters's Avatar Comment 22 by peanutsplatters

    I love the posts on this page. The world may just turn out ok.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:54:50 UTC | #601325

    Stevehill's Avatar Comment 23 by Stevehill

    I love the posts on this page. The world may just turn out ok.

    So you said! :-)

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:01:28 UTC | #601328

    jameshogg's Avatar Comment 24 by jameshogg

    It takes a lot to make me angry.

    One of the things you learn about being short tempered in the past is that it leads to hyper-sensitivity towards the slightest thing that does not go your way. Wanting the world to be in order 100% of the time, without exception, on pain of impromptu outrage is not healthy.

    This leads to a very important conclusion: why feel angry over something you cannot change? And more so, even if you COULD play God and make the Universe revolve around you, why do you think it is necessary to be angry in order to do so? What contribution does your anger make that your rational mind is incapable of?

    I have been into Psychology long enough to know that you cannot control your emotions, just as you cannot control your thoughts. It is probably more knowledge than I required in order to arrive at that conclusion. So that is why I have avoided saying "choose to feel differently" here. Just knowing that anger is both clouding for your rational mind and redundant amongst the many other available motives for doing something is enough to give your brain the message.

    Because when people kill and do stupid things over nonsense, what else can you do other than change our biological state as a species? If they end up putting us into a real-life 1984 through gradual destruction of our rights, that is an inevitable consequence of our nature. Personally, I am not going to waste my time being angry over things I cannot change and just getting on with being happy with what I have got, while I still have it. Richard Dawkins' intro to Unweaving the Rainbow is more than enough for me.

    People are stupid. Get over it. It is not worth the anger.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:05:11 UTC | #601330

    Corylus's Avatar Comment 25 by Corylus

    Could those throwing c-bombs about kindly remember that some of us on here actually have them, and really don't like them disrespected.

    Many thanks.


    Comment 9 by Southpaw :

    I'm sorry, is this an old article that he's found and decided to post? Every one of these issues has been answered many times before,

    Yes, we have been around and about this one before! I recall answering it in detail in 2007.

    I whittered on (as I do at times) but boiled it down...

    Bottom line with all this? Is there one single point that can sum the above up?

    I would simply make the point that it is often informative to look at when an atheist is asked the question 'Why are you so angry?' There is a fair bet that this is generally after a considerable amount of time being politically unrepresented, dictated to by the unworthy, lied to and insulted.

    Who wouldn't be a little cross??

    Nothing new under the sun.

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:06:54 UTC | #601331

    theOperative's Avatar Comment 26 by theOperative

    Is there a link to what he actually published and the comments ?

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:13:40 UTC | #601333

    Ode2Hitch's Avatar Comment 27 by Ode2Hitch

    Rabbit David Wolpe lol

    Why are atheists so angry? Could it be we are just so tired of the tedious non sequiters put forward by the faithful like the good rabbit here?

    He almost starts well in the first point/point and a half. Then slips straight into the usual 'atheists are just as close minded as the religious they charge with close mindedness' atheists are arrogant and theirs beliefrs are based on faith just as much as.....

    I can't finish this here..... i am simply too angry right now - anyone know where I can reach Elma Fudd?

    Damn Wabbit!!

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:16:55 UTC | #601335

    TheRationalizer's Avatar Comment 28 by TheRationalizer

    It makes me wonder why so many people would want to go to a paedophile website and post objections to molesting children if they aren't interested in molesting children themselves.

    Oh yes, because they object to child abuse perhaps?

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:19:03 UTC | #601336

    alexandra_1982's Avatar Comment 29 by alexandra_1982

    There are serious religious thinkers? Maybe, but I haven't heard of any I could take seriously... And as for wonder: the physical universe holds enough mystery for me. Why should I need belief in the supernatural when only science will aid us in unraveling those mysteries?

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:26:01 UTC | #601342

    scotsman2010's Avatar Comment 30 by scotsman2010

    "There is an arrogant unwillingness to engage with religion's serious thinkers"

    Thinking "seriously" about fairies in your garden doesn't make them any more real.

    If religion's "serious thinkers" were to produce a shred of evidence, then I'm sure most scientific-minded people would be happy to engage. We'll not hold our breath for that though!

    Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:28:00 UTC | #601344