Damn Right I’m Angry: Part One
Kelly O'Connor
02/13/08
I don't find it surprising that the two writers I will be addressing here find atheists to be angry, selfish, and in one case, diseased. The patronizing attitudes of these men would drive the most timid among us into a fit. So, obviously, I nearly convulsed while reading these two articles-both full of condescension; spewing venomous rhetoric that does nothing more than add up to one giant attack on the character of everybody without a belief in their mythological friend.
Marty Fields, a pastor at a Presbyterian Church, and Jacob Stein, an orthodox Jew who has mistaken his skill in fallacious argumentation for philosophy: You two are winning the award for "Arrogant Deluded Fatuous Pricks of the Year." It's a coveted prize, and you were nearly overtaken by Dinesh D'Souza, but even he isn't this moronic.
Marty Fields, who will not be addressed as "Reverend" here as I have no reverence for him or his ilk, wrote an op-ed entitled "Angry Atheists". He starts out by accusing atheists of being philosophical dilettantes, using the "same old tired arguments that you heard in your freshman philosophy class." Ironic, coming from a proponent of a religion that hasn't come up with a new argument in 2000 years. I think that tops freshman year philosophy, eh?
He goes on to list the books of the "Four Horsemen", but his target here is mainly Christopher Hitchens. He passes over The End of Faith as being the first, and in his mind, the least offensive, tome published by the quartet. He must not have read it, because I have read all of the aforementioned, and Harris' The End of Faith is positively inauspicious in its relentless attack on religion. I guess it's in vogue these days to label Hitchens as the black sheep of the group, but in reality, Hitchens has stated that he has no desire to see the end of religion, in sharp contrast with the others. He uses Hitchens' God Is Not Great as the example of an increase in hostility from atheists, labeling his book "visceral and the angriest of all."
Hitchens is on the debate circuit quite frequently, and I have yet to see him be anything but mild-mannered and honest. The honesty is what is offensive to Fields. How dare you have an opinion that Mother Theresa or Jerry Falwell were anything but paragons of morality? In debates, Hitchens is respectful of his opponent, just as the example that he cited between Russell and Copleston. He has no obligation to be respectful of their beliefs or opinions, though, and neither do any of us.
Fields accuses us of being "intellectually inept," but with his clear lack of knowledge, one can only assume that he must be looking at his own internal mirror. Atheism is increasing worldwide, a fact easily proven by population studies and surveys. He calls us arrogant, and yet he is the one who claims to have the answer for every person on earth's search for meaning and value. Instead of "gasping for air", atheism is thriving, and it's not surprising to see the religious in denial-purposely pulling the wool over their eyes and pretending that their fairy tales have validity.
Of course, this shouldn't be shocking coming from people who base their lives on compartmentalization and self-deception. Speaking of dishonesty, I wonder what Fields would think of Jacob Stein's acerbic and unscrupulous diatribe titled "Why Atheism is Not a Religion." Trust me, that is the only thing upon which we agree.
To be continued...
Blog Info: READERS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO PROMOTE THIS BLOG ON THEIR SITE FOR ONE YEAR. Give Kelly a year and she'll give you major media theism debunked!
Subscribe (free) to our onsite feed : 
Please support this project and make a widget to put Kelly's feed on your site (simple and sleek).
This piece is part of a year long series (ends Oct 31, 2008) that Kelly of the Rational Response Squad will be writing to address theist talking heads in the media. Kelly is a Psychology major, co-host of the RRS Radio show, and has been featured on ABC debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. All articles may be reprinted in any major media publication or any blog. All articles will be submitted by Kelly or an assistant to the major media outlet that initially published the story as well as to the author of the original piece(when possible). Reprints are encouraged in blogs and must link to source. Reprints in media will be thanked in our book, so please alert us if you repost any story. Media outlets may shorten articles if necessary without removing context. Upon completion, a book and documentary will be made about the year (ending Oct. 31, 2008) and our plight to have dishonest argumentation countered with rational and factual answers in the press. If you would like Kelly to address any major media story from a theist talking head, please post a link to the article in her blog. We welcome messages from leading atheists asking us to refute stories attacking them and their views. At the end of the year the writings will be given some bulk, some supporting citations, and edits from a publisher to be compiled in a book. The book will include a documentary DVD shot from Sapient's vantage point as he works alongside Kelly, asking her questions about the project as it moves along.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -Thomas Jefferson
"By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. And I succeed." -Albert Ellis
Sam Harris I think comes
Sam Harris I think comes off that way because of his personal demeanor is very friendly and inviting where as Hitchens I find to be relentless in his ability to treat his opponents as flies on the wall repeating the same boring thing over and over (which for hte most part they are) but he just gies off that air of "blah blah blah".
Harris even got dealt with politely when he was in the spin zone which shocked me. He tends to hit a bit harder against Islam which is why I think he gets a bit of a free ride in comparison with Dawkins and Hitchens.
Either way...always fun to have people attack these guys. Nothing new.
- Tarpan
Good to know that they
Good to know that they don't let lies get in the way of their holy work.
Oh, wait... Paul let them off the hook in 1 Corinthians 9:21-23.
Looking forward to part 2
There is absolutely no
There is absolutely no substance to Field's article. It was simply whining about mean atheists. And he has the gall to call Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennet intellectual inept? It would be funny if it wasn't so sadly ironic.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I am whatever you say I
I am whatever you say I am.
But angry is a good start. I'm also rude. These guys aren't our buddies. Of course we come of angry, we want to destory them.
duh!
Is it any mystery that in
Is it any mystery that in my mind, the above arose memories of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? Perish the thought!
Anger? Desperation? Dwindling numbers?
More like projection, once again...
That's Mississippi for
That's Mississippi for you.
I lived just a little north of Laurel for two years in the late nineties. In order for Mr. Fields to get any of those books, he'd have to order them online or drive into Hattiesburg and ask the bookstore clerk to special order them. He'd have to tell them it was for research otherwise they'd tell him the books were out of print.
At no point in this 'ministers' diatribe has he asked "Why are atheists more vocal nowadays?" The thought has probably never occurred to him.
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
Death Throws
Those are just death throws your hearing Kelly.
Just death throws.
Your life is a love story!
mindcore wrote: Those are
They are the death throws of a mortally wounded dinosaur that is too old and whose legs can no longer keep it standing up; but it sure is able to do a lot of damage if we underestimate it - turn your back on it, and you'd better be prepared for the swipe it will inevitably take at you...
Do you know what pisses me
Do you know what pisses me off the most about his article? That he states that atheists, due to our 'decline in influence' are making a desperate last stand. Seems to me that many of these religious folk are the ones who are desperate. "oh noes, my flock may SEE the truth!"
Great job Kelly!
-Renee
"Tell you once you had better listen because tell you twice and I have spent one more breath closer to death. ."
Quote: "I nearly convulsed
Sheesh. Pot, meet kettle.
The Saint
The_Saint wrote: Quote: "I
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man"
consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
The Sapient (and wikipedia)
P.S. Care to actually prove anything now?
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
Quote: P.S. Care to
To you? Nah. What would be the point trying? Besides, if you can't recognize your own hypocrisy, it wouldn't do much good for me to point it out, would it? I don't care enough about you or your silly crusade to "end religion" to waste more time than it takes to occasionally read your posts, get a good laugh, and make the odd comment or two.
When I think of the RRS, all I can think about is the Monty Python movie "Life of Brian", and how much your little band reminds me of the 'PFJ'; sitting around in dark corners, plotting the overthrow of some insideous empire, but completely incompetent at carrying out any of your half-witted plans.
The Saint
The_Saint wrote: Quote: "I
Now that you're through projecting, what else you got?
If you had evidence, surely you'd have brought it by now.
The_Saint
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man"
consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
The Sapient (and wikipedia)
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
jcgadfly wrote: If you had
Anyone who visits this site who is possessed with a modicum of intelligence can see that the evidence of the RRS's hypocrisy contaminates this site like a virus. I don't provide you with "evidence", for good reason: It's a complete waste of my time. Or, am I to believe that you're different from all the other sycophants, and have the integrity to look at the evidence and say, "Gee, you're right--Kelly really is being hypocritical"?
Doubtful. Were that the case, you'd simply have agreed with my initial post.
The Saint
The_Saint wrote: jcgadfly
You're a funny guy.
I'm a sycophant because I share Kelly's view and not yours? Are you saying that I'd be a right thinking person if I kissed your ass instead without you providing evidence?
See, I did something that you might find foreign - I read the original articles that provoked Kelly's blog entry. Fields' article is an absolute pile of steaming dung based on a poor generalization of atheism (We're all angry, we're all desparate, we can't answer the questions on the meaning of life).
Stein's article is pure projection. He accuses atheists of doing something that they aren't supposed to do - provide a definition of "gods", Theists are the ones who need to give that definition, aren't they? They're the worshipers. Defining something I don't believe in is roughly akin to using something I don't have.
He also falls into the gerneralization trap (Atheists are hedonists, We're all afraid of a higher power that can judge us, we're all liars, unkind and uncontrolled sexual deviants, we're all narcissists and hedonists, we all deny reality)
Can you see why Kelly was offended?
Why Are Atheists So Angry?
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
The_Saint wrote: jcgadfly
WOW, YOU'RE BATTING 1000!
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man"
consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
The Sapient (and wikipedia)
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
jcgadfly wrote: I'm a
No, you're a sycophant because you can't see the hypocrisy right in front of your bloody eyes. Seriously. Kelly opens her rant about Marty Fields and Jacob Stein thusly:
Then proceeds to do precisely what she claims makes her convulse by attacking the character of both parties by labeling them "Arrogant Deluded Fatuous Pricks of the Year". That she then complains about the patronizing and condescending attitude towards atheists by theists is nothing less than hysterical, coming from a group that has staked its claim to infamy on labeling all theists as deluded and intellectually inferior. The hypocrisy is so blatantly transparent on this site, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the so-called "Rational Response Squad" is in fact a parody site, much in the same vein as Landover Baptist Church.
The Saint
The_Saint wrote: Then
Ah, the time-honored theist tactic of compartmentalization. Don't try to attack the substance of the argument (as you know you'll fail) but instead label the whole thing "hypocrisy" and invite everyone who doesn't want to be hypocrits to throw it out unexamined.
Do you have any actual argument against anything that Kelly wrote? 'Cause so far we aren't seeing one.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Tilberian wrote: Ah, the
*Sigh* Your weak attempt at psychoanalysis aside, I'm not at all interested in the substance of Jacob Stein's, Marty Field's or Kelly's collective rants, or refuting any parts therein. I'm only interested in pointing out the hypocrisy of Kelly complaining about the "venomous rhetoric" and "patronizing and condescending" attitudes towards atheists by theists, when this site is positively choked with examples of that same sort of rhetoric and attitudes towards theists.
The Saint
The_Saint wrote:
Would you passively take label and slander? No, you'd defend yourself against it in the court of law and/or the court of public opinion.
Would you stand there while someone threw vitriol in your face? I'd hope you'd do what was necessary to keep that from happening.
The writers came off as Arrogant. Their concept of atheism is Delusional and Fatuous. They have an obnoxious, contemptible attitude that was reflected in their writing so while calling them Pricks is crude, the appellation is appropriate.
Where was Kelly hypocritical, again? Not in her description of the article writers.
Oh, yeah. she didn't agree with you. I guess she should've kept silent as your Bible demands.
There's a big difference
There's a big difference between the shit we talk on theism and the shit the afforementioned theists talk about atheists and atheism. Our shit don't stink.
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
Sapient wrote: There's a
Wow. Your intellectual prowess is astonishing. Resorting to this sort of Special Pleading to exonerate yourself from your shameless hypocrisy only further underscores the lameness that is the RRS.
The Saint
The_Saint wrote:
I'll take a special pleading and compare it to your 20+ ad homs in this thread, and deem you the winner. Good job. <taps on head>
P.S. That wasn't special pleading.
The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
jcgadfly wrote: Would you
Are you joking? Neither Stein nor Fields mention Kelly or the RRS, even in passing, so their comments don't even come close to libel or slander--that is, unless you're arrogant enough to believe that the RRS are the spokesmen for atheists everywhere. In a court of law, the defense against libel and slander is truth; since Kelly's response to Field's op-ed consists only of her polishing the collective knobs of Hitchens, Dawkins, et al and asserting that Field "must not have read" any of the books he's criticized, it's difficult to see where any libel or slander occurs--especially given that Kelly's apparent anger only underscores the truth of the original assessment.
Substitute the word "atheism" for "theism", and you've described the RRS to a perfect tee.
The Saint
The_Saint wrote:
I didn't say they mentioned the RRS. I asked you if you would stand by and allow yourself or those you cared about to be libeled or slandered or simply lied about. the RRS has taken the job of speaking for some atheists. Those articles maligned and lied about all atheists. Kelly defended against those attacks to the group of atheists she reaches here. If someone told lies about Christians would you stand idly by or reach your community? Maybe you would keep quiet - I don't see you putting your faith in action when the heat's on (I could be and hope I am wrong here)
As far as your substitution - two points.
1. Atheists (at least those I've seen here) bring backing for the points they claim as fact. Damn shame you think backing up what you claim as fact is a wasted exercise.
2. We're still back to the main reason behind your complaint - the RRS and atheists in general don't agree with your view concerning your supreme being. Since you don't want to bring up evidence for scrutiny, you're left with using ad homs and lies
Keep defending Christianity just the way you are - you guarantee people will see it the arrogant foolishness it is.
jcgadfly wrote: The_Saint
Just to follow up on that in the same vein. The small print in her first post gives some information about this point....
This piece is part of a year long series (ends Oct 31, 2008) that Kelly of the Rational Response Squad will be writing to address theist talking heads in the media.
If you would like Kelly to address any major media story from a theist talking head, please post a link to the article in her blog. We welcome messages from leading atheists asking us to refute stories attacking them and their views.
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
jcgadfly wrote: Those
Which is the main factor for the rightful anger Kelly and many other atheists feel: these posts unfoundedly suggest that atheists are perverted, sexually irresponsible (in which of all possible meanings of that phrase?), selfish, and ignore science. If that is not slander (against all atheists, by the way), then you have to wonder what is.
And if you, The_Sain, want to quote law, evidence means something tangible, not just any possible account given - there is good reason to include a punishment for those who falsely testify in a court of law.
A dose of raison d'être
Kelly,
Fields and Stein, like all vitriolic purveyors of fantasy over facts, are emblematic of the most virulent of this morass of pious imposters that uses the art of “projecting” to abstain from a personal reality check.
As long as a substantial segment of our credulous society accepts mythology as indisputable fact beyond reproach, by virtue of ancient, apocryphal manuscripts, contemporary civilization will never be free of these unreasoned and unwarranted deliberations.
More people have been executed, persecuted, tortured, oppressed, and needlessly divided, over this fruitless bearing ideology and circular debate of whether a mythical, supernatural being exists and who, as a people, this esoteric deity curries favor.
God and divinity are fabled fantasies born out of a frantic need for ancient man to rally round to explain things he did not understand. God’s continual subsistence in our limited minds today is out of an innate yearning to pacify the fear of our own mortality and errantly justice the purpose of life.
Therefore, only the light of reason – that man made god out of ignorance, fear, and wholly unscientific observations – will mankind be free from the oppressive heat of deliberation about imaginary deities.
-Frank J. Ranelli, Senior Editor – Op Ed News
Frank J. Ranelli