Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

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

Stats

Views
1,096
Favourites
15 (who?)
Comments
30
Downloads
82

Camera Data

×
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 3 days ago
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 3 days ago  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 2 days ago
I actually have a nice skinny boyfriend Mr. Believes Stereotypes!  
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Edited 2 days ago  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 1 day ago
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
: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
Add a Comment: