What motiviation drives the "Evangelical Atheist" behavior?

Professor Dawkins of Oxford University in England has a point when he says that teaching young children to believe in such lies and myths as 'true' is 'child abuse, e.g. in flat earths with 'domes' (Heb. 'Req'iak', lit. 'beaten bowl' = i.e. round at the top, flat at the bottom...) that clearly don't exist in nature (Genesis 1:6-8) or in the idea of vegetation and trees, herbs, grass all being 'created' (Heb. 'bara') BEFORE there was any Sun, the Moon and the Stars (Genesis chapter 1:11-12- can you say PHOTOSYNTHESIS? can you say Pre-Scientific illiterates? ) , or in Virgin Births (Matthew chapters 1-3, Luke chapter 1-2--- now there's a Big Phallusy if there ever was one !! ) , or in Talking Snakes (Genesis Chapter 2:4b to 4:30: hint: snakes have no vocal chords) , or in Unpointed Paleo-Hebrew Speaking Donkeys (Numbers 22:1-35, or in Suns and Moons that stand still so warlilke illiterate nomads can 'take revenge on their enemies' (read the vomit in Joshua chapter 10) or in bodilly resurrections (Matt 22:15ff and the contradictory parallels of the 'event' found in Luke 24:1-12 or John 20:1-29) or ascensions (Luke/Acts 1:3-11) and the list goes on and on.

To tell a child or a young teenager in these post-scientific days that these ancient pre-literate myths o the ancient near east (believed literally by some modern people today called Fundamentalists, most of whom cannot even read the original texts of the books they purport to believe !) are literally-real, literally-solid, literally-scientific, and 'literally true' would be like expecting a 17 year old student who has just got an A+ on his Chemistry exam that there is an eternal godman living smack in the North Pole called 'Santa Claus' (so he better behave or else !) and that a Tooth Fairy Exists, and the SandMan comes in at night to put 'sleep' in his eyes, and there is an Easter Bunny who lays literal eggs every Spring---all to be taken 'literally true', and if he didn't believe every word, then his family will disown him as a 'heretic' and even worse, perhaps, he'll burn in the fires of Hinnom for ever and ever and ever and ever.

Now that's child abuse, and Professor Dawkins is right. It's time we stop foisting these myths on grown ups as well. It just makes them into walking morons as citizens who believe 'in magical thinking', and who never really face facts square in the face....like doing something about our dying planet, for example, without reverting to the old tired nonsense, 'don't worry, we'll all be raptured with the Holy Ones---amen, the god of the Jews will save us all !!....'

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Sigismundus]

reply to post by Sigismundus


Your point fails from the start, in that you assume that religious beliefs are false. If they are not false, then it is clear that Dawkins is wrong, along with every other atheist.
However, the critical point is that a negative cannot be proven, even Dawkins pink unicorns or garage dragons, which he likes to refer to. In fact, because Dawkins refers to such creatures as fantasies - it only goes to illustrate how little faith he has in evolution - as theoretically, both are possible.

How do you teach little children what is morally right?

Hi Speak Plain

Now, come, come....Do you REALLY believe in talking snakes? I mean REALLY?

Do you REALLY believe in a Flat Earth surrounded by a Solid Reqiak Dome? have you not seen pictures of the earth from space? All faked?

Do you REALLY believe that illiterate desert nomads can cause the SUN and the MOON to stand still so they can finish a battle 'and be revenged on their enemies?

Do you REALLY believe in Virgin Births?

Do you REALLY believe that Trees and Grass and Vegetation was 'created' BEFORE our Sun, our Moon and the stars in our Galaxy?

Do you REALLY believe in 'bodilly resurrections' of executed Daviddic pretenders crucified for armed sedition during reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius during an Insurrection at the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of the Roman General Pompey?

Do you really believe that sickness is caused by sin or fever daemons?

If so, you're scientific knowledge is at about the level of an Assyrian scribe around 500 BCE.

And the fact that some extremist post-exilic Yahwistic priests (exiled to Assyria, and others later to Babylon etc.) who wrote all those childish pre-scientific myths in the Torah to foist upon illiterate masses also believed in such nonsense is no excuse for them.

And foisting such vomit on children (or young persons in general, such as teenagers) is child abuse. It does not prepare the child for the 'real world' they soon will be entering...and they invariably are in for a VERY rude awakening.

Dawkins is right on !

Could you please tell me how this bus advert is personally insulting and hateful in any way?

It is entirely benign and innocuous. You are really reaching if you take offense to this personally.

I don't take offence - I am not religious. The implication of this is that if you believe in God you worry and fail to enjoy your life.

That is personally insulting.

My conclusion: Atheists are all dumb #ers with massive chips on their shoulders and no knowledge of the topics on which they opine. There should be a separation between atheists and the state.

Well, this is a sweeping generalization based on your own pre-formed opinion. This is exactly the same as saying that all religious people are ill-educated, bigoted zealots. Looks like you could use some of those critical thinking skills you seem to loathe.

I think you failed to see the irony in my sweeping generalisation about atheists.

My critical thinking skills are exemplary and if you try to insult me again I will # you up.

And foisting such vomit on children (or young persons in general, such as teenagers) is child abuse. It does not prepare the child for the 'real world' they soon will be entering...and they invariably are in for a VERY rude awakening.

Dawkins is right on !

Telling children that scientists who are entirely beholden to those who financially support them are in fact objective guardians of truth is likewise not preparing them for the 'real world'.

Telling children the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are real doesn't prepare them for the real world.

Telling children that obsessive atheist fundamentalists like Dawkins are 'spot on' doesn't prepare them for the real world.

Telling children anything but the form of truth you happen to believe is, logically, failing to prepare them for the real world.

However, it is a desperate attempt by an thick as pig# intellectual dictator to politicise his own beliefs and apply them to everyone to say that any of this is child abuse.

Have you ever known someone who suffered real child abuse? I mean kids who've had their skin burnt with cigarettes, been beaten daily, been raped by people who are meant to be looking after them, that sort of thing?

I suspect, just suspect, that you haven't ever known anyone who has suffered like this otherwise you would not rank believing in religion on anything like the same level as this.

This is like me saying that lying to your girlfriend about cheating on her is as bad as beating her to a pulp, raping her and then leaving her in a gutter. It's absolute bull#.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra


I don't take offence - I am not religious. The implication of this is that if you believe in God you worry and fail to enjoy your life.

That is personally insulting.

Well then, the original religious bus advertising should be considered personally insulting to atheists, as it implies that they cannot "live."

My critical thinking skills are exemplary and if you try to insult me again I will # you up.

Obviously your critical thinking skills are not exemplary in the least, seeing as you resorted to threatening me with violence as opposed to giving me an intelligent answer.

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi Speak Plain

Now, come, come....Do you REALLY believe in talking snakes? I mean REALLY?

If you are referring to the Garden of Eden, then snake is one variation, the serpent was in fact Satan, and yes - looking at the events in the world I am definate that Satan is very much alive and well

Do you REALLY believe in a Flat Earth surrounded by a Solid Reqiak Dome? have you not seen pictures of the earth from space? All faked?
I've never said that the Earth is flat, and neither does the Bible. Such lies and misrepresentations are typical of atheist writers though.

Do you REALLY believe that illiterate desert nomads can cause the SUN and the MOON to stand still so they can finish a battle 'and be revenged on their enemies?
Again, more lies by atheists. It is only their opinion that they were illiterate desert nomads. However, the real point is do miracles happen, and as I do not claim to be able to answer every unexplained phenomena, I would not be arrogant enough to say that miracles are impossible. I trust the Bible as truth, so if it says something occurred, then it occurred.

Do you REALLY believe in Virgin Births?
I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Again, miracles by definition are not common repeatable events, and contravene known laws - hence a miracle. It seems like no less a miracle than the big bang theory in which a pinhead of matter, by some mysterious force, explodes and creates a perfectly ordered universe.

Do you REALLY believe that Trees and Grass and Vegetation was 'created' BEFORE our Sun, our Moon and the stars in our Galaxy?
Yes. Light was created first, and light is all that is needed to grow vegetation. Ever seen how cannabis is grown? I was in a cave last week where greenery was growing on the rocks underneath ordinary light bulbs.


Do you REALLY believe in 'bodilly resurrections' of executed Daviddic pretenders crucified for armed sedition during reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius during an Insurrection at the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of the Roman General Pompey?
Yes - see miracles.

Do you really believe that sickness is caused by sin or fever daemons?
Yes.

If so, you're scientific knowledge is at about the level of an Assyrian scribe around 500 BCE.
No it isn't. You assume alot of knowledge about what is possible and impossible and about my academic knowledge.

And the fact that some extremist post-exilic Yahwistic priests (exiled to Assyria, and others later to Babylon etc.) who wrote all those childish pre-scientific myths in the Torah to foist upon illiterate masses also believed in such nonsense is no excuse for them.
Your opinion

And foisting such vomit on children (or young persons in general, such as teenagers) is child abuse. It does not prepare the child for the 'real world' they soon will be entering...and they invariably are in for a VERY rude awakening.

Dawkins is right on !

I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. Now will you answer a couple of questions for me:

Can you give evidence of macro evolution ever occurring? You are welcome to directly quote from Dawkins, who hasn't to my knowledge yet ever managed to do so.

Where do morals come from in the world of the atheist (I asked this earlier, but got no answer)?

reply to post by speakplain


Morality emerges from empathy, not Atheism or Theism.

Empathy is a universal property of all living things in the Universe ...

Various Religions only "define", "regulate" and "enforce" (with promise of eternal life) basic aspects of that emergent phenomenon.

Bible (for example) does not imply that morality comes from God or that his morality is higher then ours.

Old testament is a good example of that

Originally posted by infolurker
What drives the "Evangelical Atheists" to attempt to "convert" others?

the same ego that tells them that they are the supreme being in the universe.

there is a certain personality type that sees itself as righteous, sees itself as an exemplary example of humanity. in the past, where various religious systems were viewed by the society as being the code by which you live your life and the explanation for all creation, these were the guys casting the first rock at a stoning or lighting the torches at a witch burning. they invariably based their justification in a twisting of the teaching or an extension that wasn't really warranted.

now society has placed science in the position previously occupied by religion, and the same personality types are twisting the teachings and extending where they have no warrant. luckily these days they have to content themselves with throwing insults.

there will always be, and always has been, a certain demographic of vain glorious, self obsessed mouth pieces, almost as full of their own importance as they are hot air, that will mouth off and insult anyone who disagrees with their half arsed, half formed opinions and use citations they don't have the capacity or will to understand as a justification for their idiocy with a blind disregard for context or complexity.

it's not an atheist thing, it's a wind bag thing. atheism is just the new vouge among these idiots.

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Well then, the original religious bus advertising should be considered personally insulting to atheists, as it implies that they cannot "live."

You're reaching. One is an imperative, the other a reference. HUGE difference, rhetorically speaking.

Besides which, the atheist is advocating an essentially hedonistic worldview, which is far more damaging than a few speculations about the afterlife.

Obviously your critical thinking skills are not exemplary in the least, seeing as you resorted to threatening me with violence as opposed to giving me an intelligent answer.

Who said anything about violence? You insulted me, I warned you not to.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra


You're reaching. One is an imperative, the other a reference. HUGE difference, rhetorically speaking.

No, you are reaching. You are wriggling all over the place trying to shift all the blame onto the atheist bus campaign, whilst refusing to lay any blame on the religious campaign. Why? Because of the following:

Besides which, the atheist is advocating an essentially hedonistic worldview, which is far more damaging than a few speculations about the afterlife.

That is your preformed opinion, and you will do anything to hang on to it. I can see that now. Hedonistic? Nobody said anything about hedonism. Enjoying your life is now hedonistic? Well then, count me as a hedonist. I'm sorry that you don't enjoy your life, for fear of being a hedonist.

Who said anything about violence? You insulted me, I warned you not to.

Oh really? I thought you said you were going to "f" me up. Where I come from that means violence. Perhaps where you come from"f" you up means to have a civilized discourse. But, somehow, I doubt that.

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Well then, the original religious bus advertising should be considered personally insulting to atheists, as it implies that they cannot "live."

i think it actually implies that jesus said anyone who believes in him will live, he said nothing about god. besides which, of course, if you don't believe jesus was anything special i don't see an issue with people stating his opinion.

the atheist bus ads were very clearly meant to insult or annoy theists, why are you even arguing over it?

Originally posted by pieman

i think it actually implies that jesus said anyone who believes in him will live, he said nothing about god. besides which, of course, if you don't believe jesus was anything special i don't see an issue with people stating his opinion.

the atheist bus ads were very clearly meant to insult or annoy theists, why are you even arguing over it?

Since Christians believe that Jesus was God, I don't see how you can say that the bus advert has nothing to do with God.

The Atheist ads were simply exercising the rights of Atheists to also have their voices heard. Why are YOU even arguing over it, since you say that you don't see a problem with expression of opinion.

The double standard is unacceptable to me. If you want to run bus adverts with religious texts on them, fine. But then don't get all bent out of shape when others run bus adverts expressing their opposite opinion.

Play fair.

This discussion has caught my attention. The main reason for that is with all this bickering about the bus ads, what's the point? You both have your views and we're clearly not headed anywhere in the scientific direction. There will be no solid conclusion to this disagreement. See name.

As for the OP. I'd first like to state that, AS FAR AS I'VE NOTICED, the evangelical atheists as well as evangelical christians are seemingly a small portion of both sides. I think there is perhaps somepsychological reasoning behind the overall motivation. Rebelling against authority figures/parents was mentioned earlier, and that can very well be part of the overall picture. Besides the psychological aspect, I view the whole situation as a 'fight fire with fire' ordeal. The side that begins is more likely the one with social or psychological issues.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

a reply to: infolurker


www.thedailybeast.com...

Long story short: of the 126 people listed by Paulkovich, there are only 10 or so whom we might expect to have written about Jesus. And it’s probably worth mentioning that there are, of course, writers from the first centuries CE who refer to Jesus, and even write quite extensively about him. But since those authors all got bundled into a collection called the New Testament, we should probably just dismiss them from the discussion. By his own admission, Paulkovich isn’t the first writer (by which we mean philosopher or gynecologist) to take this approach. In 1909, John Remsburg compiled a list—strikingly bereft of characters from I, Claudius—of 41 authors who never mention Jesus. The premise of both lists is the same: if Jesus was super-famous, a “mythical super-Savior,” then how is it that no one talks about him?