He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry. — 3017amen

If someone is publically identifying as an atheist and then talking about religious people or religion, then they are likely to be angry because religion has had so much power over minds and society. There are likely many instances where atheists come into public view in other contexts and either you just do not know they are atheists or even if one does for some reason, they are not coming off as angry. They are then speaking aobut other issues. Vocal side-takers in society are often angry, period, regardless of what the issue is or what side. And I say this as a theist. Religious people have to understand how much power religions have had in society and the vast amount of power abuse those religious have perpetrated. Religions are also responsible for intra-psychic violence which a lot of atheists (and theists) assume is part and parcel of believing in God. Theists who thinks these facets of religions are not intra-psychic violence - because guilt and shame are seen as good or not even noticed by them - will obviously not call these facets that. If religoius people, and especially liberals ones, cannot understand the incredible anger generated by the religions, my suggestion would be to find an atheist and ask them and really try to listen. Say that you are going to listen first, so perhaps they will be calm about it.

And that's the toilet calling the bathroom sink white having Bill OReilly say atheists are angry. He was a bully, often angry and screamed over guests on his shows apart from the things he did to women and people lower down on the staff of Fox and elsewhere.

He was, both publically and privately, an aggressive prick. And now he sees this as a quality of atheists? Maybe he's coming out...

And that's the toilet calling the bathroom sink white having Bill OReilly say atheists are angry. He was a bully, often angry and screamed over guests on his shows apart from the things he did to women and people lower down on the staff of Fox and elsewhere. — Coben

Yep. Absolutely. He could be projecting some inner Gilligan's there. Then on the other hand, it seems, so are the angry atheist's.

Thank for your contribution. Listening is important. Challenging the status quo is another issue altogether... . The same energy should be directed toward uncovering the hypocrisy and false paradigm's…not to mention all the other political baggage and psychological 'pathologies' associated with same :yikes: .

Greetings!

I'm not a Bill O' Reilly fan by any stretch. If anything, though I'm not sure of this, he's probably a far-right religious person who is more aligned with Fundamentalism than not. Nonetheless, his point is well taken. Or, at least he is raising the question that appears to be a valid one. He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry.

As a Christian Existentialist (or Liberal-moderate Christian if you prefer) myself, my observation has been, that much like the Fundy, the typical Atheist appears to be angry all the time. Even Einstein commented on that prevailing thought process in so many words, here: — 3017amen

Hmmm, well:

Greetings!

I'm not a Richard Dawkins fan by any stretch. If anything, though I'm not sure of this, he probably had some personally traumatic experience with religion that influences his perspective. Nonetheless, his point is well taken. Or, at least he is raising the question that appears to be a valid one. He is suggesting that the majority of religious people are delusional.

As an atheist (or agnostic atheist if you prefer) myself, my observation has been that, much like someone who is detached from reality, the typical religious person is delusional all the time. Even Einstein commented on that prevailing thought process in so many words, here:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry. — 3017amen

Well, O'Reilly is a professional bullshitter, so what he says is on him (and why are you watching this garbage anyway?) But if you really think that "the majority of atheists is angry," then you know nothing. Atheists are as heterogeneous a group as the population as a whole, and being angry is certainly not a distinctive trait of theirs. (Citing Einstein as an authority on this issue is clueless or disingenuous - he wasn't an authority on sociology of psychology, and he's been dead for more than half a century.)

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change t — ZhouBoTong

Yo bonghits,

There is a little irony in your parody.!

Are you thinking you could be the majority?

LOL

We all can get angry at times...and "being angry" seems to be part of the American DNA sequence.

But to be lectured about that by O'Reilly is like being lectured on weight control by Chris Christie.

It's just your perspective - Christians give atheists the shits. We are nice to each other.

Citing Einstein as an authority on this issue is clueless or disingenuous - he wasn't an authority on sociology of psychology, and he's been dead for more than half a century.) — SophistiCat

Hi SC!

Thanks for your thoughts there. If you're saying science cannot multitask then I suppose that's also saying something about you. That's another paradigm buster.

And right now, relativity still holds, at least for now ! Haha

Nice! Actually, it's not just my perspective.

LOL good one Frank. I agree. Albeit he did ask the question for a reason. Although I didn't see the full clip ( edited video) I think the context was relative to atheism protesting against prayer, and other first amendment rights.

To that end, that's where the anger rears its head. Personally I think they should teach both in public school.

Bonghits,

You seem like a good candidate for this question. I don't know if you're from the states here but even if you're not, you might could answer this question, since you're an atheist. Do you feel resentful that America has In God We Trust on our currency?

I would love to see atheism and agnosticism given a MUCH greater spotlight than either now gets.

Tough hope, though...particularly with the "atheist" aspect.

We tend to get locked into negativity on words like liberal, socialist, communist, atheist, and the like. We need some small steps forward...and then a lurch toward them.

Luckily, we see more and more of that here.

Perhaps an "openly" non-theist candidate can come forward an make a splash.

Yeah. I'm thinking about attacking some of the problem through education.

I know one could argue a slippery slope here, but having a class in public school that covers atheism, theism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I think would be very helpful.

For instance my beef about fundamentalism goes back to early church politics and the dismissal of 'lost Gospels' and other texts such as Spinoza's philosophy... . Let students make up their own minds. There's nothing wrong with vetting all.

At the same time it's worth noting the virtues (and vices) of Christian philosophy are practiced subconsciously. One virtue being the Golden rule.

Do you feel resentful that America has In God We Trust on our currency? — 3017amen

C. 1964, silver certificates stopped being printed and Fed. Reserve notes took their place. And silver coins were replaced with "sandwich" coins of relatively little intrinsic value. On the silver certificates was printed (on the one dollar note) "One dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand." Over years the exact wording changed slightly. On the reserve notes, "In God we Trust." So, yes, some resentment would be in order. And silver coins ring very nicely if dropped.

As it happens, the phrase "In God we trust" goes back to the civil war. But it was a conspicuous replacement in 1964 for the promise of a precious metal in exchange - on demand! - for a wad of linen.

You seem like a good candidate for this question. I don't know if you're from the states here but even if you're not, you might could answer this question, since you're an atheist. Do you feel resentful that America has In God We Trust on our currency? — 3017amen

Resentful...a bit severe, but probably, yes, a little.

Are you resentful that it was not added to our currency until 1956?

There is a little irony in your parody.!

Are you thinking you could be the majority? — 3017amen

You may want to re-read my "parody"? It never even suggests atheists are the majority? I am not sure what "irony" you are referring to either?

Is being angry a fault at all times? I think there's such a thing as righteous anger.

I would venture to say that the sort of thinking that views “the other” in black and white terms and makes blanket generalizations about them is wrong. Obviously I can’t speak to your personal experiences with Atheists, but assuming you’re being honest, and I have no reason to doubt that, your experiences alone don’t warrant generalizations of this magnitude. It is a fact that all humans experience anger sometimes, but no one experiences anger all the time. That being said, I do feel that a person can become angry quite often when specific topics are brought up as a result of their personal beliefs, values, and experiences. I would assume that most Jews are easily angered by Nazi propaganda, dogma, doctrine, etc. It appears that Atheism and Christianity have a generally antagonistic relationship. Often on both sides. So I think it naturally follows that a Christian/ Atheist would appear angry more often than not when these ideologies are discussed.

We tend to get locked into negativity on words like liberal, socialist, communist, atheist, and the like. We need some small steps forward...and then a lurch toward them. — Frank Apisa

@3017amen, I must commend you for starting this thread. I have often ridiculed you on these pages, and I still maintain that you suck as a philosopher, but you obviously have other fortes and admirable virtues that are not philosophy-oriented, but humane, accepting, socially inclusive, empathetic and thus sympathetic. You are a psychologist in this sense more than a philosopher, and you are a peacemaker, as this thread shows.

Or maybe you are a poet. I dunno.

One virtue being the Golden rule. — 3017amen

Then there is the silver rule, and then there is the bronze rule.

Yeah. I'm thinking about attacking some of the problem through education.

I know one could argue a slippery slope here, but having a class in public school that covers atheism, theism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I think would be very helpful. — 3017amen

Right you are. One thing that should happen as soon as possible is: All comparative religion courses (there are tons of them) should include agnosticism and atheism as part of the comparisons.

At the same time it's worth noting the virtues (and vices) of Christian philosophy are practiced subconsciously. One virtue being the Golden rule. — 3017amen

Agareed!

My two cents: Atheists have a lot to be angry about; after all they lack the security blanket of a sky-daddy who will, according to believers, set all things right in the end, being perfect as faer is, and have to face the harsh realities of life as we know it. A person with good parents has less to worry about and less to be angry about than an orphan and atheists are veritable orphans.

He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry. — 3017amen

O' Reilly calls atheists angry because they sue schools for having kids sing a Christmas Carol. Now, this practice would also piss off Jews and Muslims. Children who are not Christian should not be asked to sing Christmas carols.

The real problem here is excess Statism.

For what reason should the government be involved in the field of education in the first place?

Parents may (or may not) appoint service providers to assist them with the education of their children, but from there on, we can witness a gigantic Statist land grab in which politicians have the temerity to impose their views onto other people's children by dictating the terms under which education is organized, aka, the public-school indoctrination camp.

I want the politicians expelled, kicking and screaming, out of all the land grabs that they have unlawfully appropriated.

That is one of the main reasons why the core of my finances is in bitcoin. Our financial blockchain-based technology is clearly better. Sooner or later, we will effectively manage to bankrupt and destroy state-run fiat currencies, and in that way, expel the politicians from the field of money. The politicians have to go, while by themselves they will not agree to go. So, we will simply have to make them go.

Our goal is to compete away and thoroughly destroy excess Statism until it has been completely annihilated. Excess Statism is the enemy. Furthermore, our stuff is simply smarter and better than their outdated crap. In fact, we should do the same for education, and destroy excess Statism there too.

...Mmmmm… , well, thank you?

Look I'm just trying to spread the love. We've got to uncover these deep feelings of resentment, anger and so forth. Life is too short.. Even Einstein talked about religious feelings (positive feelings) in his observations and work in Cosmology... awareness is key. I mean, just read cognitive science/William James... .

To that end, I have yearly mantra's with my friends, some of which have included the concept of awareness. It was awesome. We would say...'hey, any awarezness today?' (We put a Z on it for fun.) We learned so much from it we extended it another year. (We would see things in business meetings where there were MIT grads who were so angry it more or less stifled their professional growth, as it were. And they seemingly were unaware.)

Then we had another one called 'engage with a smile', which is basically the law of attraction. It's amazing how many people I've met through that... . I work in a City and live in the country, (and play in a band part-time) so I have opportunities to interact with folks and try different things relative to human nature stuff. This year's mantra is Faith. It helps with worry and rumination. What does it mean to have faith... .

I know all this is somewhat idealistic. I'm not trying to fix the world-obviously I'm not qualified or capable-but I bring these questions into focus so that they can possibly go a long way in the discovery and uncovery of Being. We all have gifts; let's not limit ourselves with an overemphasis on negative energy. Discussion is good.

Sentient existence must exist for a reason.

So I think it naturally follows that a Christian/ Atheist would appear angry more often than not when these ideologies are discussed. — Pinprick

Yep. And thanks for your contributions there. This stuff is real. It's deep and hurtful. Man made Religion can give the concept of God a bad name. People have been scarred for life in the abuses of same. But it doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

But guess what, we live in the information age now. Why can't we move past the old paradym's and be a little more sophisticated about our views (say, concerning EOG ?). There is no reason why we can't. Wouldn't that help with the anger issue?

When I see Ronald Reagan Jr. on TV with his infamous commercial where he say's ...'I'm an unabashed atheist not afraid of burning in hell', he comes across as having an axe to grind... . It's as if he's projecting his ignorance about something.

Yep. We're back to, perhaps, what Einstein posits concerning the Cosmic Religious Feeling(s):

https://www.thymindoman.com/einstein-on-the-cosmic-religious-feeling/

...just some inspiration from a man who was at best, an agnostic. My question is for the atheist; wouldn't agnosticism be a better alternative?

...just some inspiration from a man who was at best, an agnostic. My question is for the atheist; wouldn't agnosticism be a better alternative? — 3017amen

Yup. Especially those atheists who make claim to science, logic, and reason.

Agnosticism is where science leads; agnosticism is where logic leads; and agnosticism is where reason leads.

Yep x 2. I know it's hard to be objective all the time. (Actually it's kind of impossible.) We all can't be like the fun character of Dr. Spock. That's probably one reason why I'm somewhat fascinated with the distinctions between, say, indictive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Haha.

Yep. I agree to the extend of separation of church and state, as being a good thing. Kind of a no-brainer, but did you know that countries like Syria do not separate politics from religion and vise versa?

This is one of the reasons they fight all the time.

But there again, one musn't dichotomize, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. In a free democracy, we must make laws that provide for such peaceful expression while at the same time discouraging extremism and discrimination. Easier said than done I know.

Kind of a no-brainer, but did you know that countries like Syria do not separate politics from religion and vise versa? — 3017amen

I am actually not familiar with the details of how Syria works. Many countries have implemented a Statist approach to education resulting in the widespread presence of public-school indoctrination camps. Teaching Christianity to the children of Christian parents is most likely what these parents want, and therefore, in my opinion, the best solution. The same remark can be made for children of Jewish or Muslim families.

This is one of the reasons they fight all the time. — 3017amen

Not all the time. In fact, there was not much of that kind of fighting going on in the Ottoman empire until its last decades.

In a free democracy, we must make laws that provide for such peaceful expression while at the same time discouraging extremism and discrimination. — 3017amen

From an Islamic point of view, people cannot make new laws, because God has made all the laws already.

I personally do not see any legitimacy in laws invented by someone who is just another person, just like myself. I simply do not respect that kind of laws. That is not a form of "extremism". It just acknowledges the principle that players cannot be allowed to be player and rule maker at the same time. It would give them too much of an advantage over the other players.

Furthermore, filling out a ballot paper is certainly not sufficient to effect that, because that does not amount to putting skin in the game. That approach has simply no credibility.

"Discouraging extremism" is actually a misnomer. It is more of a feeble attempt to convince religious people to put secular law above religious law, and to put politicians as law makers above God as sole law maker (or even next to). That will never happen.

Religion is about communities self-governing their own affairs. It is not just about "peaceful expression". For example, the religious community has its own marriage and divorce laws. We will not consider whatsoever to ever adopt someone else's views on these matters.

...just some inspiration from a man who was at best, an agnostic. My question is for the atheist; wouldn't agnosticism be a better alternative? — 3017amen

Believe it or not, my first serious engagement with the god issue was through atheism - I was bowled over by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet, the so-called four horsemen of the atheism. It's as if I discarded a belief before I even adopted it. After a couple of years living with the atheistic crowd, I began to lose the faith that I never actually had: I went public with my atheism and was quite happy to wear the badge of disbelief.

Fortunately, I decided I should check out other points of view on god and encountered agnosticism. Agnosticism, to me, is the refusal to commit to a side in the god-debate for the simple reason that the evidence and arguments from both sides of the divide are unsatisfactory and this is an incontrovertible truth and thus is the best option in my mind. Both unfortunately and as expected, agnosticism doesn't get as much publicity as its more flamboyant cousins, atheism and theism, and so people, unaware of its existence, simply don't have it in their list of available belief options. I don't blame anyone for it though; after all to say "I don't know whether god exists/not" is rather dull and uninteresting.

Well at least you don't come across as angry with an axe to grind, regardless... .

As far as uninteresting, this is one reason I like to read from theoretical physics... whether it's from Dawkins, Einstein, or probably my favorite Paul Davies, it's all good. I take bits and pieces from all perspectives.

Though Dennett comes across as the stereotypical angry or resentful Atheist, or maybe he's just an angry man LOL. He doesn't get very good book reviews.

Thanks for sharing. I suppose life must be good when folks can find the time to get angry about such things.