Home » Atheism, Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Religion » Frank Turek asks: Why do atheists so often seem to be angry?

Frank Turek asks: Why do atheists so often seem to be angry?

Food for thought, here.

(U/D: News has a poignant case in point, here.)

===========

U/D Nov 9: In tracking responses and access elsewhere I see that the folks over at Anti-Evo have been busy with atmosphere poisoning ad hominems (here, especially the new talking point that I am a liar), sadly, amply documenting the main point of this post. I note for record:

It should be clear to any responsible person:

(i) that there are NO, ZIP, ZILCH responsible Bible believing Christians who support genocide, INCLUDING Dr Craig — that should not even be a question,

(ii) the spreading of a false accusation against any significant number of such will lead to the spreading of a much broader false accusation (one that by the way ALSO implies that Jews who take the scriptures seriously support genocide — see how poisonous this is . . . ) against Christians in general

(iii) Such poisonous slander can also be spread by making invidious associations and asking loaded questions, and it seems

(iv) will easily be believed by a fringe of people who seem to harbour a lot of bigoted hostility against Christians — “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked” — as we have seen here at UD in recent days [cf here and here, note onward links]

. . . so, it is high time that responsible people stop this nonsense before someone innocent gets seriously hurt as the unhinged fringe of the fringe goes off the deep end.

Blood libel is how pogroms get started.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

65 Responses to Frank Turek asks: Why do atheists so often seem to be angry?

  1. I give up KF. Why do Intelligent Design advocates so often seem to be incompetent hypocrites?

    One good loaded question deserves another.

  2. GB, thanks for illustrating the point of Turek’s podcast. (And BTW, did you even listen to it?)

    –> Onlookers, try a read here on.

    GEM of TKI

  3. KF, thanks for illustrating the point in my post.

  4. Or not…

  5. Ya Gino, why are you angry?

    All one has to do is cruise through some of the comments “hate-theists” post on YouTube to see why this question isn’t really a loaded question Gino. It’s actually quite a valid question.

    Vox Day maybe onto something in that atheists tend to display what he refers to as “social autism”. Maybe there’s a link between the two…

    _________

    KR: I give a link to Day’s book, which is also worth a read. KF

  6. KRock

    Ya Gino, why are you angry?

    Not angry, just disgusted by hypocrites like KF trying to win a scientific discussion by demonizing his opponents. It’s both dishonest and despicable.

    Sadly, it seems to be a common tactic among the Intelligent Design and Creationist crowds.

    All one has to do is cruise through any ID website or popular press book to see why my question isn’t near as loaded as it seems either.

  7. I would guess the three biggest factors spurring on the atheists’ outrage would be:

    (i) Insecurity. They realize the emptiness of their irrational faith, and it frustrates them to the point of anger.

    (ii) A bleak, miserable view of existence, leading to a bleak, miserable disposition (why one would reject logic and reason in order to accept such a view, I’ll leave to the psychologists).

    (iii) An underlying lack of morality and respect which will naturally follow from (ii).

    As kairosfocus pointed out above, the mentally ill and dangerously ignorant troll GinoB is the perfect example of this.

    _______

    ED: Jammer, kindly refrain from invective in future.

  8. “As kairosfocus pointed out above, the mentally ill and dangerously ignorant troll GinoB is the perfect example of this.”

    Who’s the angry one here? LOL.

    This whole thread is distractive-bring out the anti-atheist hate fest.

    I thought ID was a religion neutral “big tent” that included atheist ID supporters?

  9. Thanks to Jammer too, for making my point even better than KF did!

    As kairosfocus pointed out above, the mentally ill and dangerously ignorant troll GinoB is the perfect example of this.

    Another shining example of Christian morality and respect. :)

  10. GB: you continue to underscore the problem; pardon, your rage is showing — as, sadly, is jut a tad of bigotry. GEM of TKI

  11. GB:

    I am sorry, but the record is that I have taken time to lay out, argue and carefully document a case on the merits [and in the latest exchanges here at UD you and ilk are conspicuously absent on that side], only to be met with invective, up to and including threats against my family.

    I have pointed out that there is a problem, which I have labelled the trifecta fallacy for the pattern: red herrings, led out to strawmen and soaked in ad hominems then set alight, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere.

    Predominantly (and as Turek points out), it comes from the materialistic side, and anyone who points it out is subjected to a double dose through the turnabout projective accusation tactic, including the classic “you hit back first.”

    Please take some time out and think again.

    GEM of TKI

  12. Dr Rec, it seems you have a basic problem of turnabout. Please, think again. GEM of TKI

  13. Precisely KR, Turek has been sampling from Dr Craig’s debates, and his report makes for thought-provoking listening. The too-quick, snappy and snide reactions above show that he has a serious point.

  14. kairosfocus

    I am sorry, but the record is that I have taken time to lay out, argue and carefully document a case on the merits [and in the latest exchanges here at UD you and ilk are conspicuously absent on that side], only to be met with invective, up to and including threats against my family.

    The Time Cube guy laid out, argued and carefully documented his case on the merits with just as much scientific rigor you did. Do you think Carolin Crocker’s new one-woman organization AITSE should take up his cause?

  15. Onlookers,

    of course, what I just linked is a diagnostic discussion of the problem, with recommendations for fixing it.

    Notice the hostile, projective, turnabout reaction to a diagnosis.

    That should tell us a lot about what is going on.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: The text box linked reads:

    CLOSED-MINDED OBJECTIONISM: One far too often encounters those who are not only locked into thinking in the circle of an often demonstrably erroneous view, but are militantly and — this is the telling symptom — irrationally (i.e. fallaciously) resistant to and dismissive of correction and/or to hearing out alternative views.

    Thus, we may identify and descriptively define a closely associated fallacy to selective hyperskepticism; namely, the fallacy (and attitude) of the closed mind:

    CLOSED-MINDEDNESS*: Stubbornly irrational, question-begging resistance to correction and/or alternative views. (Cf. a typical turnabout accusation on this, here.)

    This fallacy manifests itself in a habitual pattern of thought, feelings and argument that is:

    (a) question-beggingly committed to and/or

    (b) indoctrinated into thinking in the circle of a particular view or position and/or

    (c) blindly adherent to “the consensus” or vision and school of thought or paradigm of a particular set of authorities. [NB*: This last includes today's new Magisterium: "Science."]

    As a result,

    (d) the victim of closed-mindedness becomes unwarrantedly (i.e. fallaciously and often abusively) resistant to new or alternative ideas, information or correction.

    (NB: Cf. discussions on belief, knowledge, warrant and justification here, here [an excellent introductory lecture note], here, here, here, here and here [technical].)

    That is, it is not a matter of mere disagreement that is at stake here, but of

    (e) stubborn and objectively unjustified refusal to be corrected or to entertain or fairly discuss on the merits ideas or points of view outside of a favoured circle of thought.

    In extreme cases,

    (f) the closed minded person who has access to power or influence may engage in the willfully deceptive (and even demonic) practice of actively suppressing the inconvenient truth that s/he knows or should know.

    (By contrast, a properly educated person is open-minded but critically aware: s/he is aware of the possibility and prevalence of error, and so (i) habitually investigates and then (ii) accurately, objectively and fairly describes major alternative views, fact claims and lines of argument on a topic, (iii) comparing them on congruence to his/her real-world experience and that of others s/he knows and respects, general factual correctness, logical coherence and degree of explanatory power; thus (iv) holds a personal view that results from such a process of comparative difficulties, while (v) recognising and respecting that on major matters of debate or controversy, different people will hold different views.)

    _________________

    * It is worth noting that it was unusually hard to find a serious, detailed, balanced and objective discussion of this key concept on the Internet; including in that well known generic reference, Wikipedia. It was therefore saddening — but utterly revealing — to then find the just following in that encyclopedia’s discussion on indoctrination: ” Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one’s own ideas.” (This is of course precisely a case in point of diverting the naive reader from being critically aware on a significant and dangerous possibility for abusing science for indoctrination in various avant garde schools of thought that are often precisely capital examples of propagandistic advocacy, misleading or outright deceptive manipulation and indoctrination. And, given the painful and at points horrendous history of Social Darwinism, the eugenics movement and several other claimed scientific schools of thought over the past 100 years, this is inexcusable. In our day, the self-referentially incoherent and amoral worldview of evolutionary materialism often operates under the false colours of “Science,” even seeking to redefine science to suit its agenda. The 2009 Climategate scandal shows through leaked materials how even leading research and international institutions are not immune to bias, manipulation of data and processing, selective reporting of findings, suppression of limitations, abuse of influence of the peer review process in Journals, Conferences and reports to suppress valid alternative views, and the subsequent indoctrination of the public through resulting deceptive iconic case studies and illustrations.)

  16. GB:

    Proof positive of the problem.

    From observation of your pattern of behaviour here, you have hardly ever actually addressed anything on the merits, but — this is description that is shown above and in several other threads — are ever so swift with snidely dismissive, namecalling, even vituperative comments.

    It is quite clear — pardon a few frank words, words in response to several pretty snide remarks you have already made — that you are showing the classic pattern of the indoctrinated, hostile mindset, that cannot even seriously listen to something outside its preferred circle, and views with sharp hostility those who dare to differ.

    It is not for nothing that the leading new atheist today is on record as dismissing those who differ with him as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

    That is a real problem, and it needs to be faced and fixed.

    GEM of TKI

  17. So I’m wrong, ID is not a religion neutral “big tent” that included atheist ID supporters?

    Or is it….

  18. As a larger reply, if your only exposure to atheists is debate and blogs like this, get out more.

    Everyone is combative and has snappy replies in such forums.

    Should we visit JoeG’s blog, and conclude Christians are cursing, insulting angry people:
    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/

  19. I’m not sure how you understand KF to be attempting to win a scientific discussion with a legitimate question in regards to an emotion.

    I have not once seen any ID advocate here at UD (or any ID website for that matter) display anything remotely close to that of the hate filled verbal castigations atheists deploy on say a YouTube post that’s Christian in nature.

    So I myself see the question Dr. Turek asks as very legitimate… I would even go a step further and ask why atheists seem to be filled with so much “hate” towards anything theistic?

  20. KRock

    I’m not sure how you understand KF to be attempting to win a scientific discussion with a legitimate question in regards to an emotion.

    It’s not a legitimate question. It’s a loaded question designed solely to denigrate a whole group of people KF doesn’t like. [Ed: cf response below, this is an ad hominem based on projection of hostility and an invidious comparison with racism; but the attitude and behaviour of the subset of atheists being addressed, namely the angry loutish ones so regrettably common on the Net, are NOT rooted in unalterable genetic characteristics, but in patterns of willfully chosen -- thus, morally accountable -- behaviour.]

    “Why are Blacks so often such thieves?”

    “Why are Hispanics so often so lazy?

    “Why are Asians so often such terrible drivers?”

    Are those legitimate questions?

  21. I’m pretty sure Joseph has said he wasn’t a Christian before. Did that change?

  22. KRock

    I have not once seen any ID advocate here at UD (or any ID website for that matter) display anything remotely close to that of the hate filled verbal castigations atheists deploy on say a YouTube post that’s Christian in nature.

    You don’t get out much, do you?

    Try Rapture Ready or Evolution Fairy Tale, the latter run by Creationist and hate-monger Fred Williams.

    Then there’s always Pastor Fred Phelps and his infamous God Hates Fags church.

  23. Aren’t those both pure Creationist sites? Or are you on the whole ID=Creationism thing again?

    And what does Phelps have to do with ID? To my knowledge he’s said little about it. Too busy whipping up the hate.

  24. “Why are Blacks so often such thieves?”

    “Why are Hispanics so often so lazy?

    “Why are Asians so often such terrible drivers?”

    Ahh…..the lovely Carly Simon!

  25. Geno

    I think they’d be legitimate questions if that’s what’s been observed. Why wouldn’t they be?

    It’s not to say that all atheists are angry, just that it seems to be a somewhat recurring theme with many atheists. If Christians walked around slapping atheists in the fase everytime they came across one, would the atheist not have a legitimate reason to ask why the Christian does this? If there’s a recurring theme, be it an action or emotion displayed by anyone particular group, are we no longer able to ask the question why? Have we become so pluralistic a society that we can now over look these things?

    The theist has just as much a reason to ask why atheists tend to display anger as the atheist does asking why the theist tends to display joy or vice versa if that were the case.

  26. Sonfaro

    Aren’t those both pure Creationist sites? Or are you on the whole ID=Creationism thing again?

    No, they’re not. They get everything from YECs to those arguing the straight ID party line. The one thing they do have, unlike UD, is people honest enough to admit they think the Intelligent Designer is their Christian God.

    And what does Phelps have to do with ID? To my knowledge he’s said little about it. Too busy whipping up the hate.

    Phelps is an example of a Christian posting the most vile hate-filled rants against everything he thinks opposes his religion, including the ToE.

  27. I’m really sure I am not a christian- I was- decades ago- but even then I never thought Jesus was God or the trinity was anything but some manufactured tri-essensce.

    But even if I was a christian my blog would reflect the “do unto others as they do unto you”- just how many cheeks do you think I have anyway?!

    BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAA

    Nope, not a christian- more of an ancient alien astronaut type.

  28. KRock

    I think they’d be legitimate questions if that’s what’s been observed. Why wouldn’t they be?

    It’s not to say that all atheists are angry, just that it seems to be a somewhat recurring theme with many atheists.

    Where do you get that information? Where is your data that shows the percentage of atheists who are ‘angry’? I’ve know many atheists over the course of my life and haven’t found them to be any angrier or more ‘in your face’ than any other group, Christians included.

    Are there angry militant atheists? Certainly. Are there angry militant Christians? You bet. But it does no one any good to stereotype and denigrate the whole group because of the actions of a few.

  29. Atheists, like any minority that feels oppressed, are only heard when they are angry.

  30. UD is an ID site, but there are creationists that post here. C’mon dude. Just because there are posters there doesn’t make the site itself ID.

    Rapture Ready is definitely a creationist site. Seriously. They have a post on some sort of ‘Prophetic Timeclock’. -_-’

    Same goes with EvoFairytale. They spell it out blatently: ‘creation vs evolution’ is a major theme. A search in their form produces no links for ‘Intellegent Design’ either. A few things crop up for concepts like Irreducible Complexity. Sounds more like Creationists using ID arguments than anything (they tend to do that). I’ll do more fishing to confirm, but at the moment it looks like youre just conflaiting ID with Creationism again.

    -”Phelps is an example of a Christian posting the most vile hate-filled rants against everything he thinks opposes his religion, including the ToE.”

    And again, what does he have to do with ID? That he’s (or thinks he’s) a Christian and many IDists are? I haven’t heard the dude spit three words about ID.

  31. I always thought and said one can be an atheist and an IDist.

    If the designer is some extra-dimentional entity that has nothing to do with eternal salvation, then that should be OK with an atheist.

    Antony Flew was an atheist who finally accepted the design inference. I was unaware of any conversion to religion.

  32. Creation is a specific subset of Intelligent Design- and that subset contains at least two subsets- OEC and YEC- God is the designer and the Bible is the guide.

    If the Bible is shown to be a total fraud- nothing but a collection of good writings- Intelligent Design would not be phased but that “Creation” subset would either go away or need a total re-do.

    OTOH if somehow the Bible were totally proven, then IDists, who aren’t Creationsits, would just say “well that explains that”.

  33. Why are Neo-Nazis so inhospitable?

    You’re comparing race with belief. There is a difference. Beliefs have consequences directly attributed to the beliefs themselves. Race does not, unless you consider bigotry the fault of the victim. Not saying you’re wrong (we’ll get to that), only that it’s a bad comparison and thus, a bad argument.

  34. 34

    KRock,

    Just because GinoB is angry and trolls discussion groups calling people ‘slimy creationist liars who lie in gutters of hypocrisy’ doesn’t mean they all are.

  35. ScottAndrews2

    Just because GinoB is angry and trolls discussion groups calling people ‘slimy creationist liars who lie in gutters of hypocrisy’ doesn’t mean they all are.

    I didn’t refer to ‘people’ as those things Scotty. I specifically referred to you, because you’ve empirically demonstrated those traits.

    You’re the one who has been following me around, trolling my posts, acting like a whining teenaged girl.

    For the most part the folks at UD I’ve met have been open, willing to look at the evidence, and willing to engage in honest discussion. And then there’s you.
    ____________

    ED: GB, kindly moderate tone, terms and focus on personalities. KF

  36. I do apologize for my comments to GinoB. I believe they’re true, but still, I was quite rude.

    GinoB:
    Another shining example of Christian morality and respect. :)

    I’m not Christian, thus your above quoted statement is nonfactual, although I have a hunch that minor inconveniences like facts wont phase you in the least.

    For the record: I’m also not Muslim, nor a subscriber to any other religious belief (although I do respect them and their adherents), yet I am an I.D. proponent. Apparently, someone forgot to inform me that I.D.’s arguments required being religious, rather than simply logical. I guess I’ll have to renounce my support for I.D. and join the non-church of chancedunnit.

  37. 37

    Welcome back Jammer

  38. Geno.. Geno.. Geno..

    I’ve read some stuff on Rapture Ready and I don’t agree with everything they say, but by no means have I ever come across the same sort of filth spewed out by the many “hate theists” that grace the blogosphere or the many other discussion forms that make up the web. And no, I’m not familiar with “Evolution Fairy Tale”. So I guess you’re right, I don’t get out much, sigh…..

    The point is Geno, with many atheists (not all) there seems to be this utter disdain for anything that posits an alternative to a naturalistic worldview. Why?

    Oh, I almost forgot. Phelps is a [vulgarity deleted -- Ed] poor example. Phelps and the very few that follow him may think they’re Christians, but they’re not doing a very good job living ou what they’ve been called to do. Wouldn’t you agree?

  39. Amen!

  40. KRock

    The point is Geno, with many atheists (not all) there seems to be this utter disdain for anything that posits an alternative to a naturalistic worldview. Why?

    Because they’re tired of having their intelligence insulted by scientifically illiterate boobs [F/N 1] who preach that only their particular interpretation of a 2000 year old holy book is correct [F/N2]?

    Because they find it hard to respect holier-than-thou types who preach that *their* religion is the only true one and all others are bogus?

    Because it’s the God-botherers, not atheists, who ring your door bell and park themselves on your porch for 45 minutes lecturing about why you’re going to go to hell unless you believe as they do [F/N 3]?
    ______________

    [Ed: The above is so laced with smears, name-calling, invidious comparisons, and ad hominem-laced caricatures that it requires some corrective remarks. First, of course, Biblical Creationism is not to be equated to the design theory framework, as the resources tab on weak argument correctives will document. On specific points of note as highlighted above:

    F/N:

    1] Observe the snide, namecalling and demonstrably ill-founded dismissal (cf. here here and here which GB declined to address when later invited to put up substantiation or withdraw his accusations — he has also refused to apologise in lieu of substantiation) by appeal to the hostility-laced and slanderous sneer: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

    2] Ed: GB would benefit by seeing and heeding here (and here, especially here), in the context of here, and here. This here on would show core warrant for the historic — it’s not idiosyncratic, easily dismissible interpretations at stake — Christian faith in the teeth of typical popularly promoted objections, here would deal with worldview issues, and here would help him on basics of sound Bible study.] and that virtually all of modern science is wrong [Ed: a demonstrably false, inadvertently revealing smear; and one pivoting on the relatively recent fallacious equation of a philosophical a priori, materialism, force-fitted on the definition of science, cf here on.

    3] As a matter of fact the (heterodox) group most likely to go about knocking on doors today, is annihilationist. More to the point, we could ask even more pointed questions about those who have held our children hostage — complete with unjustifiable threats by leading Science and science edu institutions — in science classrooms turned into months and years of indoctrination in the demonstrably self-refuting philosophical view of materialism under the false colours of science, and now are trying to rewrite history and pretend that science must be materialistic from its definition on [cf here on].

  41. Jammer

    I do apologize for my comments to GinoB. I believe they’re true, but still, I was quite rude.

    LOL! The art form that was perfected at UD – the notpology!

    You guys are too funny!

  42. I was apologizing to the moderators of U.D., whom I respect and whose rules of civility I violated, not to you personally, who I don’t respect.

    As I stated: Nothing I said about you was untrue, I just shouldn’t have said it. At least not here at U.D., where people conduct themselves with class, rather than crass, expletive-filled bigotry like at cow-college-clown P.Z. Myers’ anti-science blog.

    The End.

  43. Jammer

    I just shouldn’t have said it. At least not here at U.D., where people conduct themselves with class, rather than crass, expletive-filled bigotry like at cow-college-clown P.Z. Myers’ anti-science blog.

    …and to top it off, a big steaming portion of hypocrisy crammed into one sentence!

    Now that’s talent!

  44. Who on our side has been vulgar recently? The worst I’ve seen were variations on moron/stupid, with Jammer most recent post being about as vicious as it gets. Someone always comes by to calm them down before the horizon gets crossed.

    Are you really suggesting this board is on myers level?

    Also… you’ve given out your share of nopologies dude. Seems a bit hypocritical of you.

  45. I am a theist but not a Christian (nor a member of any organized religion), and I hold some points of view that radically contradict the beliefs of at least some Christians. I have debated such people a number of times in these blogs, and I must say that although they usually start out civilly enough, when it becomes clear that I have the intellectual resources to resist their attempts to prove me wrong, I often get a response that falls within the description posted by KF in 2.1.2. (Although to be fair, never with as much venom as that so often spewed out by atheists.) For what it’s worth, my theory is that a position that is held for strong emotional reasons becomes part of a person’s sense of their own identity, and when that position is challenged, it is experienced as a threat to their very identity, and thus very strong emotions are aroused, which are reflected in their responses. Further, it seems that the more compelling the case that is made against their point of view, the stronger the response, which is of course what one would expect. Thus one gets the paradoxical situation where the more intelligent the advocate for the opposing view, the more he or she is called stupid, or an idiot, or the like.

  46. Bruce!

    I actually agree with you dude (not so much your worldview, but whatever). The more emotionally involved a person is with their beliefs, the more hostile they are when threatened. Sorry if folks here get testy with ya.

    Still, I think overall folks here are rather professional in general. Definitely better than Myers and Co.

  47. Dr Rec:

    Your response, unfortunately, further illustrates the problem.

    Have you listened to the Turek podcast?

    If you will, you will see that he is speaking of a problem that is a preponderance and intensity problem, with two major public debates and Youtube as the foci for an illustrative cross-section.

    Your reaction was to project a pall of distractive, turnabout, “everybody does it” immoral equivalency; picking an example who by his own statement turns out not to be an example.

    In fact, what you said or implied is not so, there is indeed a preponderance-intensity problem, and it shows, even in this thread.

    Please, face it and do something about it.

    I raise this at this time primarily because we have now crossed a serious threshold, with recent statements in major media by the leading new atheist in the world. He knows, or should know, that projecting a false but tempting accusation against a leading Christian thinker, would cast a pall of suspicion and accusation over all Christians. He knows, or should know, that the accusation implied in his article is materially false, even of its primary subject. And yet, for relatively trivial rhetorical advantage, he stooped to such an act.

    That sort of example from such a level has very serious consequences.

    Something is rotten in the state of our civilisation, and we had better act now, or the gangrene may prove fatal.

    GEM of TKI

  48. GB:

    You don’t know me from Adam, yet you are prepared (on a twisted reading of what is in front of you) to immediately project unto me hostility to — not mere disagreement with — a whole class of people.

    Do you not see that something is very wrong with that?

    FYI, over a lifetime, I have dealt with people from all sorts of races, classes, nationalities, worldviews and ideologies starting from early childhood; after all, I come from a very mixed race culture, and have at least a tri-racial background myself. I have had friends, acquaintances, co-workers, etc who come from all sorts of viewpoints. By thinking in worldviews terms, I have found it reasonably easy to get along with people from these perspectives, though I will say that I have found that there are indeed too many hostile atheists from personal experience. There are other atheists who are not angry or loutish, but this is not about such.

    BTW, do you notice how the shoe pinches when it is on the other foot?

    Not so many days ago, after I and others objected to the blanket effect of accusations raised by Dawkins and promoted by others, including here at UD, we were given dismissive brushoffs.

    Now, look at the headline, focussing on the SO OFTEN.

    This is most definitely not equivalent to “a majority” or to “all,” and yet the immediate reaction is that this is a blanket attack.

    It is not.

    But, I hope it suffices to show just how easily an unbalanced accusation against some can be seen as spreading to all.

    And of course, in the case of Dawkins’ accusations, the truth is that they apply to few ranging down to none.

    Indeed, NO responsible Bible believing Christian thinkers or leaders — specifically including Dr Craig, his principal target — advocate genocide. NO, NIL, ZIP, ZILCH, NYET, NEIN, NADA. Zero.

    And yet, that is the resort, in the teeth of easily accessible evidence.

    But the matter is worse than this.

    Poisonously, far worse.

    For instance, within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, Bible believing Christians, being tagged as “fundies,” were being blamed for being would be terrorists and mass murderers, on the behaviour of Muslim extremists who do not even represent the majority of Islam. (Unfortunately, Islam does have a current problem of a dangerously militant minority who are indeed violent and see themselves as acting in the name of Islam and on legitimate understandings of the core texts and history. That happens with religions, parties, ideologies and cultures from time to time and becomes a challenge to would be reformers.)

    Why is it that such a blanket projection happend, and happened so fast?

    The answer is that in our civilisation, over about a century and a half now, there has been a rising tide of anti-Christian hostility and even bigotry, that likes to fly the flag of Science as their party flag. That is, the rise of evolutionary materialism and associated movements, has created offshoots that have repeatedly resorted to the rhetoric and politics of hostility. To rationalise that hostility, they have consistently projected the notion that Christians are backward fundies or the like, and are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

    This has led to a major problem of bigotry, a problem that has got worse as the cultural consensus on Christian moral principles (and so also general moral principles . . . ) has begun to crumble — and now to collapse — under the impact of the inherent, inescapable amorality of evolutionary materialism. (Notice, very carefully: I here spoke about a worldview, a system of thoughts.)

    What we see on Youtube when major debates are posted is a reflection of that; as Turek has highlighted.

    What happens at unbridled sites like Dr Myers’, is reflective of that.

    What happened in recent months where, since they could not vent hostility in an unbridled fashion here, some vented at MF’s blog until that was not enough and have gone on to set up hate sites, is also illustrative.

    Something has gone seriously wrong, and needs to be set right.

    Shooting the messenger who bears such unwelcome tidings, is not going to help either.

    So, now, what can be done; before it is bloodily — and I mean that, unbridled hostility predictably leads to outright hate and onwards to violence — too late?

    GEM of TKI

  49. BD:

    There is merit in much of what you said.

    A glance at my summary above, will show that it is in fact generic, applicable to any situation where people have been blindly indoctrinated and ideologised. In addition, people often do tend to identify emotionally with strongly held views, and think that a challenge to the views is a challenge to them.

    Just think of how any committee or board of directors can so easily deadlock. A first step to real progress is separation of person, personality and issues.

    Then, we can seek common ground to move ahead by dealing with issues. In this case, the value and validity of science, its importance to the progress of our civilisation, and the world, and as well the need to build a better future, should be enough. Duties of care to respect fairness, the other, the truth, and the right, should also help focus on how to go about this the right way.

    I am not aware of the exchanges that you cite, but if indeed you were subjected to invective rather than reason, that is improper.

    (If you want to see what I think a worldview level grounding of Christian faith in our time and place looks like at 101 level in draft form, cf here.)

    GEM of TKI

  50. Unfortunately, the perception of being a threatened minority can then carry over into situations where such wield levers of power in key institutions they dominate.

  51. semi OT: (but not by much)

    Did God Create Evil? (William Dembski) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCVYqg6TFmA

  52. kf, you may this interesting as well:

    How Could God Interact with the World? (William Dembski)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Cn8NQL0rM

  53. 53

    An interesting additional question is: what in the atheist/materialist worldview warrants anger at ID proponents and theists? After all, under the evolutionary/materialist worldview, whatever IDists and theists say is just the product of materials interacting by deterministic, natural forces.

  54. William J Murray you may find this interesting:

    When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
    Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....gry-at-god

  55. GB:

    Invidious comparison to racism.

    Go, please listen and look. the rage and disrespect are on commonly accessible view for all to see. It’s real, not prejudice . . . judging BEFORE the facts.

    Now, go ask yourself why you made such a quick resort to invidious association with racism, when there is abundant evidence on the objective issue at stake, including on this very thread.

    Please, go look in a mirror.

    GEM of TKI

  56. BA:

    I am beginning to wonder if part of the answer is that some atheists are motivated in material part by anger at God or their God-concept, perhaps in the context of rage at a father-/authority- figure.

    Sufficiently angry that they deny his existence — in the teeth of strong evidence to the contrary — and transfer part of that rage to anyone who reminds them of God. And anything that points to the underlying irrationality of their view.

    Which, would mean that paradoxically the intensity of hostility to design thought is because the design inference is sufficiently well warranted to be perceived as a threat.

    Where of course, deep-seated rage has well known adverse cognitive and social effects.

    At least, this is worth thinking about.

    (And if you are not an angry atheist of the Youtuber or GNU Atheist type or the more traditional forms, this is not talking about you.)

    GEM of TKI

  57. William J Murray

    An interesting additional question is: what in the atheist/materialist worldview warrants anger at ID proponents and theists?

    I’d say it’s their respect for honesty and the resultant dislike for the nonstop lies and smears that are directed at them from the ID proponents’ camp. The loaded question in the OP is a perfect example.

  58. GB:

    I am sorry, but your rage is clearly leading you to say some things I suspect you will regret in calmer moments.

    The original post contains no lies or smears, and responds to a real and recognisable pattern and problem, as can be seen all over the Internet. Your post just above is a case in point, and, for civility’s sake — since you were already warned, I am going to ask you to moderate your tone or leave this and future threads I put up; if you do not resolve the accusations you have made within the next 24 hours.

    FYI, let’s get something straight off the bat: I am not a liar.

    Your accusation there crossed a line.

    A very serious line.

    And, I know it to be false. FYI, Turek points to a problem, which he illustrates with examples, and makes sure by about 3:50 to underscore that this is not meant to imply all atheists, also going on to note and correct cases on the other side. From 5:20 on he highlights the Julie Exline study on anger as a major root of atheism that BA points to above. At about 6:30 he begins to list his own findings. After listing maybe a dozen epithets directed at Craig that indicate gross rage and disrespect by 8:30 he highlights two sent Hitchens’ way, and rebukes such as inappropriate. After finding a parallel with one of his Hitchens debates, he then calls for a reason-based argument, not invective at about 12:00 on. Did you actually listen before accusing as you did above?

    Further to this, Exline is cited in the article BA links:

    Studies in traumatic events suggest a possible link between suffering, anger toward God, and doubts about God’s existence. According to Cook and Wimberly (1983), 33% of parents who suffered the death of a child reported doubts about God in the first year of bereavement. In another study, 90% of mothers who had given birth to a profoundly retarded child voiced doubts about the existence of God (Childs, 1985). Our survey research with undergraduates has focused directly on the association between anger at God and self-reported drops in belief (Exline et al., 2004). In the wake of a negative life event, anger toward God predicted decreased belief in God’s existence . . .

    The study also suggests that, unsurprisingly, continued anger at God tends to stabilise disbelief in him.

    In short, the common observation of angry and disrespectful atheism so common online, is linked to some plausible psycho-social dynamics. (For those struggling with the problem of evil, deductive, inductive or existential/pastoral, I suggest this may help at a first response level.)

    And I think, further, I can fairly challenge you to demonstrate — not assert, imply or assume — dishonesty, smears or lies (not merely errors or points of difference or disagreement, the above cluster requires willful calculated deceit) in the online course here.

    If you cannot substantiate (which I am confident of, since I know my intent in the linked, and the above original post) then in all decency you owe a retraction and apology.

    Kindly, act within 24 hours from the time-stamp of this post.

    Good day, sir.

    GEM of TKI

  59. kairosfocus

    FYI, let’s get something straight off the bat: I am not a liar.

    Your accusation there crossed a line.

    I didn’t say you were a liar, but that video you posted certainly contains some whoppers. IMHO you are just amazingly self deluded and confused, so much so that your wouldn’t recognize reality if it climbed up your pants leg and bit you on the cheeks.

    If you cannot (which I am confident of, since I know my intent in the linked, and the above original post) then you owe a retraction and apology.

    LOL! Sure thing KF. Right after you issue your retraction and apology to Dr. Bot for falsely accusing him of saying all modern religious leaders support genocide.

    Kindly, act within 24 hours from the time-stamp of this post.

  60. GB:

    It seems you are not serious about fixing the problem. You know full well the implications of what you posted, and have resorted to turnabout accusations.

    And, predictably, you have misrepresented the issue that there was with Dr Bot. (ADDED: Et al, cf. here and here above, the f/n here in this site, this post here at UD [note onward documentation and links], and here.)

    You have one more chance to get serious, and if you do not, sorry the continued misbehaviour will take precedence over the 24 hrs window.

    Strike two.

    GEM of TKI

  61. I agree.

  62. It wasn’t so much invective as “stubborn and objectively unjustified refusal to…entertain or fairly discuss on the merits ideas or points of view outside of a favoured circle of thought.” and, usually towards the end of the discussion, characterizing my views (again to be fair, usually not me personally) as “stupid”, “ridiculous”, or something similar. Also, they often would simply ignore the central point I was making and attack something I said that was more or less peripheral to the discussion.

    I would like to say also that this was not universal among those who opposed my views. The majority I would say of those who held opposing views to mine were unfailingly polite and respectful.

  63. GinoB really does a great job of highlighting the main point of the article, doesn’t he?

    The scriptures tell us in Romans 8:7 that
    “…the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot….”

    And the atheists validate this over and over again when presented with evidence of God’s existence.

  64. Gino writes,

    Because they’re tired of having their intelligence insulted by scientifically illiterate boobs who preach that only their particular interpretation of a 2000 year old holy book is correct and that virtually all of modern science is wrong?”

    Scientifically illiterate boobs? Ad hominem.

    Actually, having read the Bible, I can tell you that it does agree with modern science.

    “Because they find it hard to respect holier-than-thou types who preach that *their* religion is the only true one and all others are bogus?”

    This same accusation could be true of atheists who preach that atheism is true and all religions are false. Sorry, your point was…what, again?

    “Because it’s the God-botherers, not atheists, who ring your door bell and park themselves on your porch for 45 minutes lecturing about why you’re going to go to hell unless you believe as they do?”

    “God-botherers”? Another ad hominem.

    And actually, I know a few of these types who don’t believe in hell at all. Try again, and next time try using facts to make your points.

  65. Onlookers:

    It seems clear that Dr Turek’s points are well -made.

    GinoB has provided abundant evidence of that, if further specific evidence was needed. This, as well as heedlessly running out the clock on his deadline to make good or make right.

    Sad, really, but quite clear.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: GB et al, it is clear that you need to calm down enough that you do not push other people into the silly ignorant-stupid-insane-wicked stereotype because they do not share your particular evolutionary materialist worldview. And in particular such a materialist philosophy — which BTW is actually self-referentially incoherent and necessarily self-refuting as a result — is not to be equated to science or “most of modern science.”