This is Why People Hate Atheists

[Nephew Twiddleton]

He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?

He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement.  Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching.  Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.

I saw a video where he and NDT had a conversation so that a biologist could ask a physicist and a physicist could ask a biologist, and I was like, oh, right, he's meant to be a biologist. Forgot about that, because of his primary interest in the non-existence of something.

I liked it, and God only came up during the questions from the audience. Presumably because, again, of his primary interest in the non-existence of something. But it was watchable. He wasn't a douche, he and Neil were just talking about the universe from their specific scientific fields and asking the other to make sense out of something for them.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I have to hand it to Nigel for fixing me good, because I was very much in the Dawkins camp for quite a while.

I was very much confused by his name for quite a while. I would read articles mentioning something he said, or some debate or whatever, and all I could think was, "Wow...that must have been a really awkward episode of Family Feud."

[Suu]

On the other end of the spectrum, Are militant atheists using chemtrails to poison angels in heaven?

http://harddawn.com/are-militant-atheists-using-chemtrails-to-poison-the-angels-in-heaven/

President George W. Bush famously fought against the scientists entrenched in his administration. At many points they promoted evolution "theory" and "global warming" over good old-fashioned common sense. They tried to uproot Christianity in our schools through activist judges. And while President Bush fought the good fight, he ultimately did not win the battle. The long line of anti-theists ruling the inner halls of power since Lyndon Johnson remained in control.

So what is at the heart of this secret society of globalist atheism? One of their most significant concerns is the power of Faith. They despise the Glory of Jesus and the hope that He brings to countless Americans. The atheists are so insanely dedicated to their obscene cult they will try just about anything to destroy every remnant of Christian Love on this earth. As this sickening obsession was wed to advances in aerial spraying technology in the last century, one can surmise the evil compound that resulted. In this formula, it seems quite logical that the atheist's next step would be to attempt the widespread murder of Jesus's very Heavenly Agents of Love.

Angels. They are much more than a Christian bedtime story. They are much more than the sweet flutterings in the ears of believers. Angels are quite literally the factory workers of faith. They are tireless and everywhere. They accomplish innumerable feats, from minor pangs of guilt to the throbbing passions of love. The angels are there to guide us, to inspire us and, ultimately, to remind us of our obligation to Jesus. The fly through the air at His beckoning. They are gentle and ever willing. We would be far less human and humane were it not for the angels. And that is exactly why atheists fear the power of angels.

Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes. Why do we have war? It's the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.

(Yes, Satire site is satire, but some of the comments lead me to believe otherwise.)

[Cain]

Besides, everyone knows atheists use radios to prevent angels from messaging people

[Reginald Ret]

Well the proof of the pudding is in the two types of athiests.

One are people who have arrived at a set of conclusions based on the information at hand and their own analytical judgements.

The other is a band of people who:

• are elitists, craving a feeling of intellectual superiority, generally they were free thinkers up to a comfortable point where they don't wish to think about it any more.
  
• are Dogmatists, insecure in their atheism that they must defend it and MUST tell you about it
  
• Bitter closet thiests
  

Personally my belief There is no god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone.

But it could just as easily have been "There is a god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone".

I can't decide between "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so there can't be a god that takes an active interest." and "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so it doesn't matter if there is a god or not." At the moment when it comes to religion I am leaning towards Laplace's position: "I have no need for that hypothesis".

EDIT
Wait, why did I respond to this thread by stating my position on atheism?
Damn canned responses in my brain need to shut the hell up.
Apologies, continue as if i said something relevant but unmemorable.

[Sita]

I have to hand it to Nigel for fixing me good, because I was very much in the Dawkins camp for quite a while.

I was very much confused by his name for quite a while. I would read articles mentioning something he said, or some debate or whatever, and all I could think was, "Wow...that must have been a really awkward episode of Family Feud."

Was beginning to think I was the only one to have thought that.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Well the proof of the pudding is in the two types of athiests.

One are people who have arrived at a set of conclusions based on the information at hand and their own analytical judgements.

The other is a band of people who:

• are elitists, craving a feeling of intellectual superiority, generally they were free thinkers up to a comfortable point where they don't wish to think about it any more.
  
• are Dogmatists, insecure in their atheism that they must defend it and MUST tell you about it
  
• Bitter closet thiests
  

Personally my belief There is no god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone.

But it could just as easily have been "There is a god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone".

I can't decide between "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so there can't be a god that takes an active interest." and "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so it doesn't matter if there is a god or not." At the moment when it comes to religion I am leaning towards Laplace's position: "I have no need for that hypothesis".

EDIT
Wait, why did I respond to this thread by stating my position on atheism?
Damn canned responses in my brain need to shut the hell up.
Apologies, continue as if i said something relevant but unmemorable.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Seems an echo chamber in there...doubt I'll get a reply. But this:

OH SNAP buddy! Excellent reply! Did it get followed up by screeching about how you're WRONG WRONG WRONG?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.

Speaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.

If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.

If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.

If, otoh, his motives are simply to exercise his contempt by provoking idiotic gravity doubters, while amusing the like-minded, thus inflating his e-peen to cosmic levels...then...well...he's a douche who should probably stop existing as soon as possible.

Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus, could rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.

The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.

Holy shit, did you write that? I love you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?

He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement.  Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching.  Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.

I saw a video where he and NDT had a conversation so that a biologist could ask a physicist and a physicist could ask a biologist, and I was like, oh, right, he's meant to be a biologist. Forgot about that, because of his primary interest in the non-existence of something.

I liked it, and God only came up during the questions from the audience. Presumably because, again, of his primary interest in the non-existence of something. But it was watchable. He wasn't a douche, he and Neil were just talking about the universe from their specific scientific fields and asking the other to make sense out of something for them.

You wanna know why he wasn't a douche, and didn't try to call Tyson out on his agnosticism? And I'd put cash money on this?

Because Tyson outclasses him intellectually and charismatically. Tyson is a fast thinker and an eloquent speaker with the academic background and verbal skill to make just about anyone feel like an idiot. And politically, he has nothing to gain by alienating the most popular science speaker in the world.

[minuspace]

Because I have no such shame -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

At 0:38, atheism buckles 

[P3nT4gR4m]

So here's something that I'm wondering about. It applies to the athiests v's theists debate but it can arise in other situations. It's about this burden of proof thing.

The atheist's position is invalid because they can't prove there's no god, right? I can't help thinking that this clause is subject to abuse.

Staying away from the larger metaphysical question of whether there's some kind of creator or emergent consciousness, within or beyond the universe and sticking to the narrow, orthodox christian theory that planet earth was created a couple of thousand years ago by Cartman from Southpark, why is there a burden of proof necessary? Surely when a theory is so blatantly ridiculous, one is intellectually allowed to dismiss it as so, without having to provide evidence?

Is it something to do with the number of people who do believe the theory?

Here's a theory - earths gravity is a function of the existence of human pinkie fingers. If we were to remove all the pinkie fingers from every man, woman and child on the planet, we'd collectively be able to fly. It's highly unlikely that anyone could ever provide hard evidence this theory is false, but, lets face it, it's pretty fucking ridiculous. Say maybe only half a dozen people believe it. We'd dismiss it out of hand, surely? Or would we be required, to maintain intellectual honesty, to accept it as a possible hypothesis?

What if one and a half billion people believed it? Does this change how ridiculous it is? And, if so, why? The bible is a series of stories about talking snakes and people with magical powers and shit. Sure I can't actually prove it never happened but I'd be prepared to bet anything and everything I could raise as a stake.

I'm thinking the ability to dismiss the ridiculous is inversely proportional to the number of people who believe it?

I think that this frustrates the hell out of atheists and I could kind of sympathise if it wasn't so fucking funny.

[hooplala]

The burden of proof isn't on the atheists, what makes you think it is?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Burden of proof is an inapplicable term here anyway, because, as I've said many times, matters of spirit and faith are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Which is one thing many atheists seems to have missed the memo on, persisting, infuriatingly, in conflating science and atheism as if atheism is a "scientific" viewpoint. It's not. Indifference is. "I am certain god does not exist" is not a scientifically rational statement, any more than "I am certain that god does exist" is. The reality is that in the case of an untestable question, science does not apply.