Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Angry Atheists: Richard Dawkins by Ali-Radicali Angry Atheists: Richard Dawkins by Ali-Radicali
Often times, religious people will characterise non-believers as "angry atheists". I find this expression ridiculous; it's a hollow ad hominem that gets thrown out there to dismiss any argument from the atheist by attacking his character.

First of all, being angry does not mean you're wrong. Sure, people who are angry are often angry for bad reasons, or act unreasonably because they are angry. That does not mean that being angry automatically means you're irrational. there are situations where anger is absolutely justified, like when your freedom is being suppressed for idiotic reasons.
Atheists have every right to be angry at theists when they are trying to legistlate their religion through the government. Freedom of Religion means freedom FROM religion, so governments should not endorse any religious position.

Secondly, the claim that atheists are angry or militant is a classic case of projection on the part of the theists. The theist is projecting his own frustration at people "rejecting" his god, onto those people, and assuming they must be angry at his god.
Sorry, Atheists don't believe in god so we're not angry at him, we're frustrated by the things YOU do in his name. The worst thing that atheists actually do is start debates and law suits.

PS: I didn't intend to make prof. Dawkins look quite so goofy, this was a bit of a rush job D:


Single layer stencil, spraypaint.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpsychopathgod1984:
PsychopathGod1984 Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2014
Richard Dawkins not read by any scientist I know and in a minority of people who are so ugly they can only get layed by fat chicks!
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Your post is so bad, I'm not even going to bother responding. Instead I'm going to reflect on the irony of having my virility impugned by a brony.
Reply
:iconpsychopathgod1984:
PsychopathGod1984 Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2014
I actually have a nice skinny boyfriend Mr. Believes Stereotypes!  
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Edited Dec 16, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Look, I'm not actually the one making that ad hominem based on stereotypes, you are. Need I remind you, your opening salvo was the implication that Dawkins is read only by ugly, sexless virgins. I actually don't care about your sex life, but it seems you're awfully interested in speculating about mine. The only reason I brought up your bronydom was to make a point about your use of gendered shaming language; specifically that liking a show about colourful pink ponies is not a stereotypically masculine thing to do, so I'd expect people who do, to have a bit more self awareness when it comes to shaming others to conform to traditional gender roles. To make an analogy, you come off like a chihuahua yapping at a german shepherd for not being a "real dog".

That's all, unless you want to continue flagrantly displaying your stupidity and lack of self awareness.
Reply
:iconpsychopathgod1984:
PsychopathGod1984 Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014
I really happen to know that a lot of Religious people are like what Richard Dawkins says. But there are also a lot of Scientist who believe in God! Scientist who believe Science supports atheism  are in the minority! I am sorry for just coming off insulting! But realize before arguing Dawkins he is a minority view. Maybe not as much as creationist. But most Scientist are of the Unitarian faith if any and not atheist. Most experts agree that any absolute truth type belief can impair thinking and not just religious beliefs. Mostly I believe that my beliefs are close to the preaching's of Jesus thereby follow him. But I have rejected some typical Christian doctrine I disagree with but mostly believe the Bible except in places were the interpretation from my knowledge would have to be metaphorical in order to be true. I support Helen Keller's view of the Old Testament creation story and I bet you have no idea what that even is as most people know nothing of her as christian socialist figure but just know as a blind and death girl who is the subject of sexist jokes!
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Edited Dec 20, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
A theistic scientist warrants hightened skepticism because, even if they've compartmentalised their religious beliefs, the fact that they could still hold such beliefs despite knowing about probability and falsifiability seriously calls their credibility and skepticism into question.  Skepticism is the cornerstone of the scientific method. People who are uncritical of their ideology might still be able to be skeptical about their science, in the same way that a broken clock can still be right twice a day, but it is by no means a certainty. If a scientist can find room for a god as an explanation for stuff, what's to say they cannot find room from little green men as an explanation for their science?

Most of your post is an appeal to popularity fallacy or an appeal to authority, either way, fallacious bullshit. I don't know or care about Helen Keller's religious beliefs, as far as I'm concerned coming up with bullshit rationalisations and apologeia for demonstrably false claims is not a meritworthy endeavor. The only real eye opener here is the fact that I'm being argued at by a gay christian apologist, that's definitely a new one. Otherwise, same tired old fallacies.
Reply
:iconpsychopathgod1984:
PsychopathGod1984 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2014
So in other words you are arguing that a theistic scientist because they disagree with you must be wrong?
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Nice strawman, jackass. No, I'm calling their ability to be skeptical in other avenues (I.E. science) into question, since they so very clearly aren't able to skeptical about their metaphysical beliefs. They may be right, they may be wrong, but their ability to draw the right conclusions is compromised by a lack of critical thinking (again, in AT LEAST one avenue of life. It may well be that they only apply these low standards of evidence to their religious beliefs, not their science).
And the be clear, this applies to any ideology, not just a religious one: feminism, extreme left or right wing economic beliefs, libertarianism, heck, even atheism are (or have the potential to be) totalising systems where adherence to unquestionable dogma is enforced and dissident voices are censored or excommunicated.

People can draw the right conclusions for the wrong reasons. Being an atheist doesn't guarantee reason or even sanity, however when one publicly touts demonstrably false/unfalsifiable beliefs(I.E. religious ones), that definitely warrants additional skepticism for any other claims that person makes (beyond that which would otherwise still apply to any claim made by anyone).
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconherrgraf:
HerrGraf Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
Huh ? I didn`t write "first of all" .

" First of all, being angry does not mean you're wrong. Sure, people who are angry are often angry for bad reasons, or act unreasonably because they are angry "

---- That was a part of your describtion .I merely quoted it to tell you that he is wrong .

" .... and no, inciting people to mock an IDEA is not hate speech. Hate speech is when you incite hate against people. "


---- Yes , Richard Dawkins wants that his followers hate and ridicule religious people . He does not only refer to the ideas themselves.

" But I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt. "

-Richard Dawkins ([link])

" Thirdly, Dawkins is exactly right in characterizing fundamentalist religioun, apparently your church is too "liberal" to kake these teachings as dogma but that doesn't mean that other christians dont. "

---- " We believe that the wafer, or the bread, and the wine, once "consecrated (blessed)" ("set aside for God's use") are the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ, which can feed us spiritually in our body. But we also believe that the wafer is still a wafer and the wine is still the fruit of the grape; we do not deny the evidence of that which God has given us eyes to see. The Lord's Supper is truly a wonderful mystery. "

Reverend William A. Kolb ([link])


The christians who think that the wine is literally blood are wrong . Don`t believe everything you are told about a group of people . Those sources (Wikipedia for example , where you would read that the blood of christ is "literally" blood ) are not always reliable . I am pretty sure that my church never tried to teach me that the wine literally becomes blood .

Dawkins never said that he is talking about fundamentalists only . So his speech is not only a hate speech , he is spreading false information about a very large group of people .

Thats propaganda . Isn`t it the goal of Atheist to spread reason ? Well , Dawkins is doing the opposite .
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and assume your sect of christianity is a protestant one, in which case: good for you, at least you're being spared some of the BS in christianity. But just because you don't believe in transubstantiation doesn't mean that no one does, honey. You are not the sole representative of christianity, and it takes quite some narcissism to assume that because you believe something "all true christians" believe the same.


Again, if you don't believe in creationism, a young earth, the flood, evolution denialism, transubstantiation, the infallibility of the pope, homosexuality being a sin and all that other nonsense: good for you. Now stop covering for all the crazy backwards christians that DO believe all this kooky nonsense, the fact that you're not taking any effort to distance your religion from this ridiculous nonsense is the reason why scientists today still have to waste their precious time refuting stone-age mythology.
Reply
:iconherrgraf:
HerrGraf Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
I am a catholic , not a member of any "sect". But I wouldn`t call transubtation bullshit .

Note that only the substance of the wine changes , its properties (taste, smell , appearance etc )stay the same . Dawkins howver talks about it as if the wine literally becomes blood. Thats not quite true as you can read in the quote by Reverend William A. Kolb . If fundamental christians define this teaching differently , than they don`t understand it .

Those other teachings are nonsense to put it bluntly , I agree ... thought that was pretty obvious .

Dawkins however encourages his followers to mock and condemn "religious people" in general . Not only the idea that being gay is a sin for example .

----- " But I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt. "

- Richard Dawkins
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Catholicism is a sect of christianity, KTHX, just like any other denomination.

If the wine's taste, smell appearance, etc. do NOT change during transubstantiation, what DOES change? What is this "substance of the wine" of which you speak, and how does it change? Can you demonstrate that?

And it's nice that you just dismiss any christian that doesn't agree with your interpretation of dogma. It's nice to see how you think it's "obvious" that the world isn't 6000 years old, round and revolving around the sun. Too bad these ideas were all at one point part of christian dogma, part of the "unquestionable truths" in the bible. Hilarious that you (apparently) think gaybashing etc. is unchristian, because I'm pretty sure the gaybashing christian would think the same of you and your liberal positions. And he'd at least have leviticus etc. to refer back to.



Mocking someone for something stupid that person says or does is not a hate crime. Christianity is not some inherent immutable property of a person, like gender or race, it is a choice the believer makes, and it is a choice that the rest of society has every right to comment on and ridicule.

Inciting people to ridicule black people for their ethnicity, or homosexuals for their sexuality, or women for their gender, that would be a hate crime. Inciting people to mock ridiculous ideas, and the people that hold such antiquated notions, isn't. If you don't want to get ridiculed, don't believe things for which you have no rational justification or evidence.
Reply
:iconherrgraf:
HerrGraf Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2013
Catholicism is a sect of christianity, KTHX, just like any other denomination.

------- Depends how you define „sect“ . Originally „sect“ was merely a word for denomination , but in modern times sect has become another word for cult for many people .

„ The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society . „



If the wine's taste, smell appearance, etc. do NOT change during transubstantiation, what DOES change? What is this "substance of the wine" of which you speak, and how does it change? Can you demonstrate that?

---- The matter changes and the wine becomes the spiritual body of christ without changing his properties when it is blessed by a priest. If you would belief in God you could experience the change when you take part in a fair. But you still wouldn`t be able to witness the change with your eyes only .


And it's nice that you just dismiss any christian that doesn't agree with your interpretation of dogma. It's nice to see how you think it's "obvious" that the world isn't 6000 years old, round and revolving around the sun. Too bad these ideas were all at one point part of christian dogma, part of the "unquestionable truths" in the bible. Hilarious that you (apparently) think gaybashing etc. is unchristian, because I'm pretty sure the gaybashing christian would think the same of you and your liberal positions. And he'd at least have leviticus etc. to refer back to.

---- I have science to refer back to when I want to disagree with these Dogmas , just like you .


Mocking someone for something stupid that person says or does is not a hate crime. Christianity is not some inherent immutable property of a person, like gender or race, it is a choice the believer makes, and it is a choice that the rest of society has every right to comment on and ridicule.

Inciting people to ridicule black people for their ethnicity, or homosexuals for their sexuality, or women for their gender, that would be a hate crime. Inciting people to mock ridiculous ideas, and the people that hold such antiquated notions, isn't. If you don't want to get ridiculed, don't believe things for which you have no rational justification or evidence.

---- Its not hate crime , I agree .

It is hate speech however.

To quote you -

„ .... and no, inciting people to mock an IDEA is not hate speech. Hate speech is when you incite hate against people „

----- Dawkins does not care about your personal beliefs as long as you are religious and not an atheist like he is . He does not only refer to fundamentalists as I`ve said several times , he refers to religious people in general .

" But I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt. "

---- Here he says that people who have not decided for themselves whether they want to believe in teachings like the ones we`ve mentioned , should be mocked so that they become atheist in order to fit into the group .
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
There is no substantive difference between a cult and a religion, the only difference is the level of societal acceptance. And just because christianity has been around for 2000 years, and people have gotten used to the idea, doesn't mean christianity's absurd notions (say on cosmology) are any less insane than the ravings and rantings of a scientologist or mormon.

You believe that wine that has been blessed by a priest is somehow completely different from the wine in its pre-blessed state.... depsite the fact that the wine tastes, smells looks and feels exactly the same, and in all probability is indistinguishable even if we make use of modern analytical tools like gas chromatography and spectroscopy.
Yet despite the fact that the crackers and wine do not change in any demontrable fashion, you INSIST that they have now become "the body and blood of christ". Which is completely nuts, and deserves to be ridiculed. If I wave my hand over a cheeseburger and say abracadabra, it's still a cheeseburger. If I'd go about telling people that I've changed it into "the spiritual body of Elvis Presley", people would treat me like a basket case, and rightfully so. So why is it not crazy when a priest does it?

Science says crackers and wine do not change during transubtantiation. If you dismiss creationism etc. based on science, where is your scientific evidence for transubstantiation? Is there some property of blessed wine that cannot be reproduced with unblessed wine? Can you demonstrate any differences (chemical, molecular,... anything?). If not, you're just cherry picking, both from the bible and from science. You're justifying the dogmas that you've rejected by pointing toward science, ignoring the fact that science disproves pretty much every concrete statement of fact in the bible, not just the ones even christians find absurd.


Inciting ridicule is still not the same as inciting hate. Dawkins doesn't tell people to commit acts of violence, he does not advocate religious segregation, he isn't telling people to "hate" christians (unlike a ton of fundamentalist churches which regularly talk about how evil it is to be an atheist or muslim/buddhist/jew/sikh/etc., might I add).

And no, Dawkins isn't advocating ridiculing fence sittters. Please get some reading comprehension. He's telling people that he thinks the most effective way to "convert" fence-sitters is to openly ridicule (fundamentalist) RELIGION, not fence-sitters.
Reply
:iconherrgraf:
HerrGraf Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2013
There is no substantive difference between a cult and a religion, the only difference is the level of societal acceptance. And just because christianity has been around for 2000 years, and people have gotten used to the idea, doesn't mean christianity's absurd notions (say on cosmology) are any less insane than the ravings and rantings of a scientologist or mormon.


--- Thats wrong . The church does not force you to do anything .You can go to church maybe once a year and you could still call yourself a christian. Once you`ve become a member of a cult however you have to follow a strict doctrine .Cults are much smaller than christianity and more regimented . Also , a cult will exploit you , in a way that the catholic church would not . All they ask of you is maybe a little church tax .

Science says crackers and wine do not change during transubtantiation.

--- Philosophy is also science . And the substance theory is Philosophy .

Yet despite the fact that the crackers and wine do not change in any demontrable fashion, you INSIST that they have now become "the body and blood of christ

--- No , I insist that they have become the „spiritual“ body of christ . Which is something entirely different from actual flesh and blood . I know it is hard to understand for someone who is not religious or knows a thing or two about philosophy , but please don`t quote me wrong just to make your ideas look better .

And no, Dawkins isn't advocating ridiculing fence sittters. Please get some reading comprehension. He's telling people that he thinks the most effective way to "convert" fence-sitters is to openly ridicule (fundamentalist) RELIGION, not fence-sitters.

---- I think you are reading that quote wrong because it suits your beliefs better .The keywords are „them“ and „nobody“ . These word can`t refer to religion only , they have to refer to people,
He is clearly saying that he wants to convert people by making christians „the butt of contempt .
He wants that they are getting laughed at .
But disparaging a person or a group based on his religion is also hate speech . Belief it or not . I checked the definition .
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Wow, you're defending the catholic church... really? The institution that brought us witch hunts, the inquisition, the crusades, anti-semitism, and, more recently, collaboration with the nazis, AIDS-denial and a campaign of misinformation regarding contraception and lest we forget, widespread pedophilia and an institutional attempt to cover it up.
Yeah, a total paradise of liberty and freedom of thought, totally not like a cult at all. /sarcasm.


Calling christian beliefs a "philosophy", and then claiming them to be scientific is a nice little verbal trick, but should only fool an eightgrader. It's an obvious equivocation fallacy, in which you're switching between varying uses of the word "philosophy".

Philosophy within the realm of science deals with logic and arguments. It is more of an extension of mathematics than what we colloquially call "philosophy".
But good luck trying to find scientific literature to support your assertion that transubstantiation is science; I'd love to hear you cite examples. Just know that according to philosophical naturalism, supernatural explanations are DE FACTO unscientific.

So please, feel free to cite peer reviewed papers on transubstantiation, feel free to name a single way in which the wine or crackers are different, and if you can't, feel free to admit that the only difference occurs in your head, not within the cracker or the wine.


I'm not reading the qoute wrong, you're not using your brain right. How would openly mocking and ridiculing fence-sitters constitute a good strategy for convincing them to become atheists? Clearly, Dawkins is referring to christians when he says we should mock "them". You don't need a degree in linguistics to figure that out.
Furthermore, when he says that these christians should be mocked, that is shorthand for ridiculing christianity. There's a small distinction between the two, but it's a meaningful one.Simply mocking christians and jeering at them would be a hollow ad hominem, little better than atheists get from theists. No, the whole point of the speech is to tell people it's OK to publicly ridicule christian ideas, and therefore, the people who cling to them for doing so.
It's the difference between calling you an idiot outright, or first laying out why your argument is a disaster and THEN calling you stupid.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconherrgraf:
HerrGraf Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
---First of all, being angry does not mean you're wrong. Sure, people who are angry are often angry for bad reasons, or act unreasonably because they are angry

Richard Dawkins :

[link]

He fails to understand that the wine merely symbolizes the blood that Jesus shed . Christianity does not teach that the wine literally becomes blood .

In his speech , Dawkins clearly preaches hate against all religious people , and not only those who are fundamentalists .

Because of claims like that the term angry/militant atheist has been invented .
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
First of all, I wasn't even arguing against Dawkins, let alone using "anger" as an argument. Reading the art description would've saved you the effort of typing your first paragraph.

Secondly, you need a "secondly" if you're going to start with "first of all".

Thirdly, Dawkins is exactly right in characterizing fundamentalist religioun, apparently your church is too "liberal" to kake these teachings as dogma but that doesn't mean that other christians dont.

.... and no, inciting people to mock an IDEA is not hate speech. Hate speech is when you incite hate against people.
Reply
:iconspockck:
spockck Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2012
i want it!
Reply
:iconkampy:
Kampy Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
hehe great stencil
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner May 22, 2012
Is that a Dawkins troll face I spot?
Reply
:iconlinus108nicole:
linus108Nicole Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2012
LOL Dawkins is the most polite, gentle, and patient person ever. There is this video on YouTube where he is debating this idiot creationist woman and he was so nice I wanted him to get angry at her because she wasn't even answering his questions and just spouting bullshit! And there's this other video of him reading his hatemail which is just hilarious.
Reply
:iconluciferv:
LuciferV Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2012
:trollface: ?
Reply
:iconvepurusg:
vepurusg Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2012  Professional General Artist
Quite well done.

And your description is excellent!
Reply
:iconshaniapain:
ShaniaPain Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
this is fantastic- i saw the thumbnail and i almost got mad because he's not an angry, irrational person.
youre explanation's dead on- it doesnt matter what religion youre into or if youre atheist- people should leave you be about it- considering there are plenty of atheists that dont get offended when theists go on about what they think is right.
religion is all just opinions so people, especially ignorant people, should think about what theyre judging and then take a look at the rediculousness that is their own beliefs.
Reply
:iconpajamanaruto:
PajamaNaruto Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2012  Student General Artist
I couldn't agree more with your words, as well as your artwork. It's difficult trying to get this message across to some people who are poorly read when it comes to the correct definition of what exactly it is we people, as atheists, mean when we say we practice no religion. I think I dislike it more when the same uneducated people point and say we're Satanists, even though we don't believe in that crap either. -_-
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
March 1, 2012
Image Size
248 KB
Resolution
859×1200
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,172
Favourites
15 (who?)
Comments
37
Downloads
82

Camera Data

×