We have previously discussed the war on atheists and agnostics that seems to be accelerating with the rise of people claiming to have no religious affiliation or belief in God in the United States, according to recent polls. There is a steady stream of statements from the national and international campaign by leaders against atheists, who appear to be fair game for hateful, ill-informed rhetoric. While you may have seen this already, Pat Robertson pushed this trend to a new low: telling his many viewers that atheists want to everyone to be miserable because they are miserable. They therefore what “to steal your holiday [Christmas] away from you.”
Here are his words of wisdom:
It’s, well, Christmas all over again. The Grinch is trying to steal our holiday. It’s been so beautiful, the nation comes together, we sing Christmas carols, we give gifts to each other, we have lighted trees, and it’s just a beautiful thing. Atheists don’t like our happiness, they don’t want you to be happy, they want you to be miserable. They’re miserable, so they want you to be miserable. So they want to steal your holiday away from you.
There is obviously a rising concern among political and religious leaders that faith is declining in society. Thus, even though the non-religous is now a majority in places like England, politicians are ratcheting up such rhetoric. Robertson’s rhetoric is particularly raw and inciteful, as are comparisons of atheists and agnostics to terrorists. It is an ironic twist. The effort to leave religious expressions to each citizen (as opposed to religious displays by the government) is viewed as a war on religion. There remains an insistence that the government affirm religious — and generally Christian — values and objects of faith. Robertson’s comments not only reflect a surprising insecurity as to the place of religion but an open hostility to those who want their government to be secular-based.
146 thoughts on “Robertson: Atheists Want People To Be Miserable And To Steal “Your Holiday””
Forgot Economics, only remembered it because Viner’s quote came to mind: “Economics is what economists do”. Combine that with S.I. Hayakawa’s “the word is not the thing”, and tentativeness should be the rule. “Proof” and “certainty” are for the religious and various political totalitarian movements. And Hoffer’s “True Believers”.
“Just because religious people have to control others in totalitarian structures does not mean the 21st Century agnostic or atheist has that same goal.
Reality based people tend to move on when something is proven to be a failure. As Einstein said, ‘repeating the same action expecting a different result is insanity’. Sure, there are insane people of every philosophy. but stop using such a broad brush.”
Ignoring the 21st Century reference, again you, as well Gene H. confuse any with all and some with all. It’s very apparent in the 20th Century (I noticed your move to the 21st to avoid the 20th) that some atheists did move to totalitarian structures, did justify them dogmatically, and killed a lot of people by that justification. Read Marxist-Leninist tracts from the time, understand the term “revisionist” as Lenin used it, and look at all the deaths.
Any is not all, some is not all, but neither any nor some mean none.
“Reality based people tend to move on when something is proven to be a failure.” In 35, Einstein, with others, argued that Quantum Mechanics led to logical contradictions. Quantum Mechanics goes back to well before Einstein, and in fact he’s considered one of the contributors to Quantum Mechanics in it’s first phase. In 1925 QM was seen as explaining what Maxwell couldn’t and by 27 was accepted theory. So Einstein was still behind the curve 8 years later. He was deterministic and had a real hard time with the probabilistic nature of QM. He never fully accepted QM. Its good you hedged with “tend”.
The problem with the term “reality based people” is there is nothing in any of the behavioral sciences to support the way you mean it, and that’s an inference of mine that you can easily destroy by further argument. I’m not like Gene H., my inferences are what I see with full realization I may see wrongly. Though I will stick firmly to this: No one person is “reality based” in all ways at all times, and has intellectual and emotional impediments to knowing when they actually are not; the phrase is hubris, nothing more.
“tend to move on when something is proven to be a failure” is a phrase so fraught with intellectual peril. “proven to be a failure”, how much in physics has actual been proven to be a failure, not applicable in any circumstance? Certainly not Newton, yet he missed entirely “time/space”. When does science actually “prove” anything, if “prove” means “certainty”? If science “proves”, shouldn’t we stop now? Why search further except those areas not yet “proven”?
In the social sciences, the political, or behavioral, anything “proven” yet? Anything “proven” in philosophy yet? Facts can be proved, but facts aren’t anything I’ve mentioned until now.
“oh for gods sake, more religious & spiritual people trying to paint athiests in the Marx-Lenin corner…. ”
That’s a knee-jerk response, if you are drawing from my words. That Marxist-Leninists were atheists doesn’t mean all atheists are Marxist-Leninist. It was just an example of how (some) atheists can have dogma, and obviously not religious dogma but still dogma. Doesn’t mean “all” atheists have dogma, or “all” atheists are dogmatic, but nothing more than an example of how some atheists have dogma. “Any atheist” does not mean all or some, just any.
Your inference is your own and only applies to you.
““BTW, in this environment you can’t see “spittle spray fury”, though if you called it that it must be.”
Those were your words, not mine.” It was the application, I never wrote that in this environment I saw “ssf” over beliefs. You inferred that it could be?
“The rest of what you say is self-rationalizing gibberish trying to dig your way out of the logical hole you put yourself in.” All sound and fury signifying nothing. There’s no rebuttal there, just your claims based on really bad logic from a lack of comprehension, and certainly egotism. You have to comprehend before you can argue.
I clearly notice that you haven’t addressed in any rational way my rebuttals. You just make more declarative statements based on your first argument. You haven’t addressed any of my rebuttals. You couldn’t even address the simple “any atheist can’t have dogma”, or the simplest yet of “any”, “all”, “some”. The latter your source of mass confusion leading to you silly syllogism, which I agree with because it’s easily seen as silly. Seen it since Semantics in 8th grade. I didn’t make it but you did. I am, however, depressed by those that use “implied” or “inferred” to create a straw man. It’s a tinge dishonest.
It’s not rational, but it is sophistry driven by egotism. Doesn’t make you a bad person…
I have to wonder if in those wee, small hours of a quiet night you ever think your logic fallible; your comprehension of anothers argument poor; or that you may be wrong, not on the trivial so easy to admit, but the substantial where you have admit you you were truly wrong, abjectly so.
Nah, we both know that’s never happened. On face value.
“BTW, in this environment you can’t see “spittle spray fury”, though if you called it that it must be.”
Those were your words, not mine.
The rest of what you say is self-rationalizing gibberish trying to dig your way out of the logical hole you put yourself in.
Comments are closed.