Theories on Why Atheists are met with Hostility

[Hollie]

That is because the 1600s was not that long ago.
​

they didn't even have twitter.....

But they did have the church forcibly holding back the advancement of knowledge by keeping Europe in the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

 

[sealybobo]

Many atheists are progressive liberal thinking democrats.

Moving from one religion to another religion doesn't seem like such a big change in thinking to me.

Based upon your bogus allegation that there is a "Religion of Liberalism" then you have become a devout follower of the "Religion of Conservatism".

The world doesn't always work in a tit for tat fashion.

Conservatism is built on the notion of adhering to policies which have been SHOWN to work. This is a grounding in rationalism and reality where evidence guides positions.

Liberalism works on an entirely different basis. It rejects the evidence of the present, and now pay attention, it embraces the PROMISES OF THE UNKNOWN. There is no way to escape this faith-based foundation. Liberals launch revolutions and seek change and they always desire to implement something that hasn't been tried before. This means that liberals have no evidence backing their vision. Liberals take society to the edge of a cliff and have us jump off on the basis of a promise that we will float upwards instead of plummeting into the canyon below.

There is no corresponding Religion of Conservativism because Conservativism values the tried and true, hence no need for faith-based visions and secondly most conservatives get their religious fix from God-focused religions so that have no need to satiate their brain with a political-religion based on faith-based propositions.

Nice right wing twist. Just remember conservatives will stick with what they know even when it isn't working. Just look at how the GOP handled the Iraq war. Stay the course. Or how they are so stubborn to keep their tax breaks for the rich in place regardless of if they are working or if we can afford them.

No leader in history has launched two wars and at the same time cut taxes for the rich like Bush did. That wasn't ever done before. Was Bush a progressive?

How about when the GOP deregulated the banks and mortgage industries? Actually you are right. Conservatives actually undid the regulations we put in place after the Great Depression so technically ou are right. They took us back to old school. Unfortunately like it did back then, those old policies caused the second great recession.

It's funny to watch you guys lashing out. It's liking watching a spazz in a boxing match against an actual boxer.

Whatever loser

 

[Rikurzhen]

Many atheists are progressive liberal thinking democrats.

Moving from one religion to another religion doesn't seem like such a big change in thinking to me.

Based upon your bogus allegation that there is a "Religion of Liberalism" then you have become a devout follower of the "Religion of Conservatism".

The world doesn't always work in a tit for tat fashion.

Conservatism is built on the notion of adhering to policies which have been SHOWN to work. This is a grounding in rationalism and reality where evidence guides positions.

Liberalism works on an entirely different basis. It rejects the evidence of the present, and now pay attention, it embraces the PROMISES OF THE UNKNOWN. There is no way to escape this faith-based foundation. Liberals launch revolutions and seek change and they always desire to implement something that hasn't been tried before. This means that liberals have no evidence backing their vision. Liberals take society to the edge of a cliff and have us jump off on the basis of a promise that we will float upwards instead of plummeting into the canyon below.

There is no corresponding Religion of Conservativism because Conservativism values the tried and true, hence no need for faith-based visions and secondly most conservatives get their religious fix from God-focused religions so that have no need to satiate their brain with a political-religion based on faith-based propositions.

Nice right wing twist. Just remember conservatives will stick with what they know even when it isn't working. Just look at how the GOP handled the Iraq war. Stay the course. Or how they are so stubborn to keep their tax breaks for the rich in place regardless of if they are working or if we can afford them.

No leader in history has launched two wars and at the same time cut taxes for the rich like Bush did. That wasn't ever done before. Was Bush a progressive?

How about when the GOP deregulated the banks and mortgage industries? Actually you are right. Conservatives actually undid the regulations we put in place after the Great Depression so technically ou are right. They took us back to old school. Unfortunately like it did back then, those old policies caused the second great recession.

It's funny to watch you guys lashing out. It's liking watching a spazz in a boxing match against an actual boxer.

Whatever loser

You guys are the ones throwing everything plus the kitchen sink into the fight. You're policy and history illiterate. The regulatory state under Bush grew the highest in modern history:

After eight years in office, President Bush is on track to be one of the biggest regulatory budget spending presidents in history, according to a new study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis.

An analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, President Bush is not alone among Republican presidents. The report also describes how eight of the 10 largest increases in regulatory spending have occurred under the leadership of Republican presidents. All but one of Richard Nixon’s annual budgets make the top 10 increases in the last 50 years, and Gerald Ford’s 1976 budget also makes the list. In addition, Nixon’s first term holds the record for the biggest increase ever at almost 82 percent. Reagan was the only president to reduce total regulation spending, bringing expenditures down by one percent during his first term.
​

You fundamentally misunderstand the mortgage meltdown - no amount of regulation could save, and no amount of lack of regulation, could cause the meltdown. Look at what the Dept. of Justice is STILL DOING:

In the suit, filed in state court, prosecutors outlined how, since 2009, Evans Bancorp has created a map that defined the “trade area,” places in the Buffalo metropolitan region where the bank would make mortgages and other loans. The bank, prosecutors contend, deliberately excised much of Buffalo’s East Side.

Rival banks, the authorities said, lent to neighborhoods on the East Side at a far higher rate than Evans Bank, suggesting that the lending patterns did not stem from a dearth of willing minority borrowers.
​

Bankers like making money, not losing money. They like making safe loans, not risky loans. The root cause of the mortgage meltdown was government trying to implement social policy, not by allocating funds in Congress, but by mandating that banks be the agents of change. Forcing banks to loan to risky minority borrowers or to face penalties:



You have a profound misunderstanding of the world and politics. That's why you look like a spazz, throwing all sorts of gibberish into the mix and it doesn't actually make your case.

 

[PostmodernProph]

That is because the 1600s was not that long ago.
​

they didn't even have twitter.....

But they did have the church forcibly holding back the advancement of knowledge by keeping Europe in the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

don't forget open sewers and bounties on rats.....

 

[Hollie]

That is because the 1600s was not that long ago.
​

they didn't even have twitter.....

But they did have the church forcibly holding back the advancement of knowledge by keeping Europe in the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

don't forget open sewers and bounties on rats.....

I can't forget. You hyper-religious types are a constant reminder of the damage that can result from unthinking allegiance to dogma.

 

[Bush92]

That is because the 1600s was not that long ago.
​

they didn't even have twitter.....

But they did have the church forcibly holding back the advancement of knowledge by keeping Europe in the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

don't forget open sewers and bounties on rats.....

I can't forget. You hyper-religious types are a constant reminder of the damage that can result from unthinking allegiance to dogma.

You egotistical narcissist are always masturbating your ego with questions like this that, in your own nihilistic Goth Boy mind, make you look so anti everything...so cool...so smart.

 

[September]

So...

Back to why Atheists aren't worthy of sharing the Earth with the rest of us.

Because I said so, and my word is the Wyrd
​

 

[Hollie]

That is because the 1600s was not that long ago.
​

they didn't even have twitter.....

But they did have the church forcibly holding back the advancement of knowledge by keeping Europe in the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

don't forget open sewers and bounties on rats.....

I can't forget. You hyper-religious types are a constant reminder of the damage that can result from unthinking allegiance to dogma.

You egotistical narcissist are always masturbating your ego with questions like this that, in your own nihilistic Goth Boy mind, make you look so anti everything...so cool...so smart.

If you pray real hard, maybe your gawds will cause me to be in a terrible motor vehicle accident tomorrow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But they did have the church forcibly holding back the advancement of knowledge by keeping Europe in the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

One of these days I am going to break down and ask you where you get your history from so I can get a copy of it and laugh at all the lies it contains.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They didn't have modern technology?

OMG!!!! Stop the presses, Medieval Europe, which managed to all but eliminate slavery, advance the standard of living for everyone, including peasants, devolped farming techniques still used today, gave us windmills, glasses, mechanical clocks, and water mills that powered sawmills, did not have modern technology.

Perhaps you should spend some time reading actual history books, if facts don't scare you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't forget. You hyper-religious types are a constant reminder of the damage that can result from unthinking allegiance to dogma.

Did you know that the Dark Ages never really happened?

That is the advantage of not getting history from popular myths, you learn things that most people never understand. Cracked has a column just for idiots like you.

5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe About the Dark Ages Cracked.com

 

[MaxGrit]

One of these days I am going to break down and ask you where you get your history from so I can get a copy of it and laugh at all the lies it contains.

lol its sad but they have been brainwashed to defend the lies

 

[Hollie]

I can't forget. You hyper-religious types are a constant reminder of the damage that can result from unthinking allegiance to dogma.

Did you know that the Dark Ages never really happened?

That is the advantage of not getting history from popular myths, you learn things that most people never understand. Cracked has a column just for idiots like you.

5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe About the Dark Ages Cracked.com

Well, as long as you read that on the internet, it must be true.

 

[Hollie]

But they did have the church forcibly holding back the advancement of knowledge by keeping Europe in the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

One of these days I am going to break down and ask you where you get your history from so I can get a copy of it and laugh at all the lies it contains.

One of these days, I'll suggest that you leave early from your meeting at the Flat Earth Society and study some relevant history.

Some truths about the damage that you religious extremists have caused to humanity will be a valuable lesson for you.

 

[Hollie]

They didn't have modern technology?

OMG!!!! Stop the presses, Medieval Europe, which managed to all but eliminate slavery, advance the standard of living for everyone, including peasants, devolped farming techniques still used today, gave us windmills, glasses, mechanical clocks, and water mills that powered sawmills, did not have modern technology.

Perhaps you should spend some time reading actual history books, if facts don't scare you.

How stereotypical that a fundie would hope to ignore the actions of the church in its ruthless suppression of science.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's use your own idiocy to expose your abject stupidity!

Theology = The faith-based view, contradicted by economic facts, that unfettered deregulated capitalism is beneficial to society.

I must have missed the period in history when we had unfettered and unregulated capitalism, can you point me to it? Would your attempt to point out the actual evidence to back up your claim actually result in you having to admit that your claim is not based on facts?

His parallel doesn't work because he ignores the fundamental difference. Liberalism always sees a better alternative based on "some new thing" that they've dreamed up. How can one attest that the alternative is better if it's never been tried before? To make such a claim is a religious gesture. A belief in something that cannot be tasted, seen, heard, smelled, or touched. It requires a leap of faith to believe that the untried alternative is better than the present practice, which you can measure and evaluate.

It's no coincidence that so many obnoxious Atheists are liberals. People have an affinity for religion, very few don't have it. Substituting the religion of Liberalism for the religion one inherited from one's parents doesn't make one into a stone-cold rationalist. No rationalist could buy into the mumbo-jumbo of Liberalism where so much of the belief structure is built on a foundation of faith.

The Religion of Conservatism is based upon misplaced faith in failed dogma. Let's begin with your "creationist" belief. You believe that tax cuts for the wealthy will "create jobs". That has never happened but you still preach that fallacy.

Then we have the dogma of "free markets" that the conservative faithful believe in to the point where they have lost their own jobs to godless places like China.

The belief in "deregulation" is another one of the tenets of your Religion of Conservatism that requires blind faith because in every instance that you have tried it there has been a subsequent economic disaster such as the S&L crisis, Exxon & Arthur Anderson and the repeal of Glass-Steagall leading to the greatest collapse since the Great Depression.

Oh, and then there is your belief in warmongering. You believed that Saddam had WMD's and that you would be greeted with flowers and candy. You believed that you would turn the ME into a democracy. None of that was true but you believed all of it without question and that takes blind faith.

Shall we move on to your absurd belief that gay marriage will destroy society? How about your belief that the Constitution should be changed to stipulate that life begins at conception?

Then we get to the most sacred of all cows in the Religion of Conservatism. "Guns don't kill people" is what you believe when the entire world can see the video of the Uzi that killed the instructor. On top of that we have your worship of the Almighty Dollar which must only belong to the 1% and never be "wealth distributed" in the form of living wages to hardworking Americans.

So it is no coincidence that so many conservatives are extreme right wing fundamentalists. It requires an absolute faith that everything you believe will work in spite of all of the hard evidence to the contrary.

No sane rational level headed person could hold their beliefs in the failed dogma of the Religion of Conservatism without a massive cognitive dissonant leap of faith. Since you believe in all of the above that means that are not an atheist but a devout believer in the Religion of Conservatism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Many atheists are progressive liberal thinking democrats.

Moving from one religion to another religion doesn't seem like such a big change in thinking to me.

Based upon your bogus allegation that there is a "Religion of Liberalism" then you have become a devout follower of the "Religion of Conservatism".

The world doesn't always work in a tit for tat fashion.

Conservatism is built on the notion of adhering to policies which have been SHOWN to work. This is a grounding in rationalism and reality where evidence guides positions.

Liberalism works on an entirely different basis. It rejects the evidence of the present, and now pay attention, it embraces the PROMISES OF THE UNKNOWN. There is no way to escape this faith-based foundation. Liberals launch revolutions and seek change and they always desire to implement something that hasn't been tried before. This means that liberals have no evidence backing their vision. Liberals take society to the edge of a cliff and have us jump off on the basis of a promise that we will float upwards instead of plummeting into the canyon below.

There is no corresponding Religion of Conservativism because Conservativism values the tried and true, hence no need for faith-based visions and secondly most conservatives get their religious fix from God-focused religions so that have no need to satiate their brain with a political-religion based on faith-based propositions.

Nice right wing twist. Just remember conservatives will stick with what they know even when it isn't working. Just look at how the GOP handled the Iraq war. Stay the course. Or how they are so stubborn to keep their tax breaks for the rich in place regardless of if they are working or if we can afford them.

No leader in history has launched two wars and at the same time cut taxes for the rich like Bush did. That wasn't ever done before. Was Bush a progressive?

How about when the GOP deregulated the banks and mortgage industries? Actually you are right. Conservatives actually undid the regulations we put in place after the Great Depression so technically ou are right. They took us back to old school. Unfortunately like it did back then, those old policies caused the second great recession.

It's funny to watch you guys lashing out. It's liking watching a spazz in a boxing match against an actual boxer.

How old are you? That kind of puerile response puts you in middle school at best. Your abject ignorance and pathetic attempts at making points puts you in that same age range.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Easy enough to understand. Consiering how annoying it is to have religious people trying to convince you of all this good stuff in heaven if you follow their rules, consider how annoying it is if the message becomes "there's nothing and no point to anything." It'd be like being locked up with a college philosophy major.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Many atheists are progressive liberal thinking democrats.

Moving from one religion to another religion doesn't seem like such a big change in thinking to me.

Based upon your bogus allegation that there is a "Religion of Liberalism" then you have become a devout follower of the "Religion of Conservatism".

The world doesn't always work in a tit for tat fashion.

Conservatism is built on the notion of adhering to policies which have been SHOWN to work. This is a grounding in rationalism and reality where evidence guides positions.

Liberalism works on an entirely different basis. It rejects the evidence of the present, and now pay attention, it embraces the PROMISES OF THE UNKNOWN. There is no way to escape this faith-based foundation. Liberals launch revolutions and seek change and they always desire to implement something that hasn't been tried before. This means that liberals have no evidence backing their vision. Liberals take society to the edge of a cliff and have us jump off on the basis of a promise that we will float upwards instead of plummeting into the canyon below.

There is no corresponding Religion of Conservativism because Conservativism values the tried and true, hence no need for faith-based visions and secondly most conservatives get their religious fix from God-focused religions so that have no need to satiate their brain with a political-religion based on faith-based propositions.

Nice right wing twist. Just remember conservatives will stick with what they know even when it isn't working. Just look at how the GOP handled the Iraq war. Stay the course. Or how they are so stubborn to keep their tax breaks for the rich in place regardless of if they are working or if we can afford them.

No leader in history has launched two wars and at the same time cut taxes for the rich like Bush did. That wasn't ever done before. Was Bush a progressive?

How about when the GOP deregulated the banks and mortgage industries? Actually you are right. Conservatives actually undid the regulations we put in place after the Great Depression so technically ou are right. They took us back to old school. Unfortunately like it did back then, those old policies caused the second great recession.

It's funny to watch you guys lashing out. It's liking watching a spazz in a boxing match against an actual boxer.

Whatever loser

You guys are the ones throwing everything plus the kitchen sink into the fight. You're policy and history illiterate. The regulatory state under Bush grew the highest in modern history:

After eight years in office, President Bush is on track to be one of the biggest regulatory budget spending presidents in history, according to a new study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis.

An analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, President Bush is not alone among Republican presidents. The report also describes how eight of the 10 largest increases in regulatory spending have occurred under the leadership of Republican presidents. All but one of Richard Nixon’s annual budgets make the top 10 increases in the last 50 years, and Gerald Ford’s 1976 budget also makes the list. In addition, Nixon’s first term holds the record for the biggest increase ever at almost 82 percent. Reagan was the only president to reduce total regulation spending, bringing expenditures down by one percent during his first term.
​

You fundamentally misunderstand the mortgage meltdown - no amount of regulation could save, and no amount of lack of regulation, could cause the meltdown. Look at what the Dept. of Justice is STILL DOING:

In the suit, filed in state court, prosecutors outlined how, since 2009, Evans Bancorp has created a map that defined the “trade area,” places in the Buffalo metropolitan region where the bank would make mortgages and other loans. The bank, prosecutors contend, deliberately excised much of Buffalo’s East Side.

Rival banks, the authorities said, lent to neighborhoods on the East Side at a far higher rate than Evans Bank, suggesting that the lending patterns did not stem from a dearth of willing minority borrowers.
​

Bankers like making money, not losing money. They like making safe loans, not risky loans. The root cause of the mortgage meltdown was government trying to implement social policy, not by allocating funds in Congress, but by mandating that banks be the agents of change. Forcing banks to loan to risky minority borrowers or to face penalties:



You have a profound misunderstanding of the world and politics. That's why you look like a spazz, throwing all sorts of gibberish into the mix and it doesn't actually make your case.

Ironic coming from someone as ignorant as you are.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One of these days I am going to break down and ask you where you get your history from so I can get a copy of it and laugh at all the lies it contains.

lol its sad but they have been brainwashed to defend the lies

Ironic!