Tweet
This article was originally posted at GoddamnLiberal.
What would you do if your GoddamnLiberal weren’t here to venture into the most frightening corners of the internet and peel out some nasty scraps for you to feast upon? How would you know what the wingnuts were saying about you, and where to direct your librul anger?
Let’s start with The Blaze. The Blaze! Which is quickly becoming my favorite Internet Dump! It’s all that’s left of Glenn Beck now that he’s been almost fully neutered by left-wing atheist Marxist Muslim activists. Poor thing. And Glenn Beck’s Ghost has been salivating over the Reason Rally since the minute he found out about it. So, okay, let’s see what you’ve got, Glenn.
Here is a textbook exercise in the Timeless Art of the Circlejerk: it is a post by a Blaze writer about the appearance of another Blaze writer on the Blaze creator’s internet teevee thing. And just in case you have forgotten who Glenn Beck is:
Some basic takeaways from this post:
Todd Stiefel helped fund the rally
Camp Quest is for the indoctrination of children, of course
Tim Minchin said the F-word a zillion times, giving Baby Jesus a zillion sadz
The words “atheist” and “anarchist” both start with the letter “A”
The rest predictably digresses into a rambling rant about Jimmy Carter and Louis Farrakhan.
Good ol’ Fox News. They’re always up for a good scrap, right? Noted apologist Larry Taunton wrote the following about the atheist movement in a piece called “The Rally For Nothing In Particular”:
Paradoxically, it has become a kind of religion, a Church of Unbelief complete with a saint (Christopher Hitchens), a high priest (Richard Dawkins), and holy writ (anything Dawkins writes). And now, with the political nature of this rally, Dawkins is set to become the Pat Robertson of atheism.
Religious apologists really like this argument: Atheism is like a religion. Okay, if you count all of the things that have nothing to do with belief at all, like that they organize and value community. And anything the “high priest” Richard Dawkins writes is “holy writ”? Hardly. Most of us are skeptics before we are atheists, so we will never accept anyone’s words dogmatically. Having said that, there’s a serious problem when people cannot recognize the difference between respecting a brilliant person for his contributions to society and blind worship. And the Pat Robertson remark? I’m not even sure what that means. Dawkins is pretty far from running for office. And he lives in England anyway! Does it mean he will be the embarassing old coot of atheism? Eh, I guess time will tell on that front. Fuzakeruna breaks it down quite nicely on reddit.
Hooray for Fairness! And Balance!
Okay, one more: this rabbi is pissed off about the “arrogance” of the rally:
I know many intelligent, thoughtful people who are not sure one way or the other, about the existence of God. Generally, they are classified as agnostics. While I disagree with their position, usually they are very aware of the reasonable arguments for God’s existence and I, on the other hand, understand very clearly the questions that bother them. What is most striking about the modern atheistic movement, however, is the cloud of arrogance that seems to hover above its most well known proponents; much like the ubiquitous dust-cloud that followed the Peanuts character, Pig-Pen. A striking example of this arrogance is the name they chose to give to their gathering over the weekend in our nation’s capitol: “Reason Rally”
Bah. What are these “reasonable arguments for God’s existence,” good sir? Also, right after he describes these very intelligent, thoughtful people as being “not sure” about the existence of God, he asserts that he disagrees with their position. What position? Since when is “not being sure” a position? And this is a common misconception about atheists – that they are 100% “sure” of something one cannot be 100% sure of. It’s nonsense. “Agnostic” is just a nice transitional label people like to use because it doesn’t offend the way “atheist” often does.
Alright, Right Wing, see ya at the next outrage! KIT, LYLAS and all that.
6 Comments
Nothing in the universe is more arrogant than a true believer. Generally, they think that questioning their delusions is “the height of arrogance.”
And calling atheism a belief rather than an absence of belief is just the old believer’s ploy of trying to claim that the absence of belief is also a faith.
“I don’t believe in Thor,” is not the same as “I firmly believe that Thor never existed,” but believers would have it so.
You’re shooting fish in a barrel when you take on the likes of Glenn Beck, but that’s OK. I’m sure it can be fun. For some. Not very sporting, but I suppose that’s not the point. If your point is that he’s an ignorant idiot, I agree with you.
I disagree with you on atheism, though. It IS like a religion. Here’s why. In any position taken in an argument or a debate, one must presuppose something. In matters like whether or not God, or gods, or more advanced species really exist, if you say that they don’t and never have you are making a presupposition. If you really believe in that presupposition, you are engaging in an act of faith. Period.
Agnostics just say they don’t know about these things, and often conclude that no one else really does, either. That includes atheists. Atheists don’t KNOW that God or Thor does not exist, they simply believe they don’t, the best reason being that they find no evidence for their existence. But just because there is no evidence for such a thing that is unprovable by our science does not necessarily mean it ain’t so.
Atheists can be every bit as arrogant and obnoxious in preaching their beliefs as the Bible-thumpers who preach hellfire and damnation, and certainly every bit as intolerant of people who don’t believe as they do.
It is true that nothing in the universe is more arrogant than a true believer. That applies to true-believing atheists as well.
Let the screaming by evangelical atheists begin. You will only prove my point.
So you have faith in not Thor?
Twisted illogic is not reasoned argument and demanding proof of any assertion of a god is not belief, no natter how hard you try to twist and turn about it.
Using illogic to critique logic is an old ploy, the Inquisition was very good at it. Were you an Inquisitor in some past life, come back as an atheist for punishment? I’m being sarcastic there, BTW.
Typical evangelical response. I was talking about presuppositions, which point you cannot answer so you won’t. So you attack me by accusing me of twisting the truth. Agnostics demand proof of gods, too, but they don’t have enough faith to BELIEVE that there are definitely none. That’s a big difference between them and evangelical atheists.
There are non-evangelical atheists who will admit that their belief that there are no gods is an act of faith. At least they are as intellectually honest as theists who admit their beliefs are also acts of faith and not facts.
Evangelical belief-system pushers of whatever stripe never do that. They insist their beliefs ARE facts. Which is exactly what makes them arrogant and obnoxious.
I will believe in any god you can prove. Go ahead.
I don’t believe-in a goddamned thing. I have no faith.
I think that makes me an atheist, but more to the point I don’t give a good goddamn what you think.