Robertson: Atheists Want People To Be Miserable And To Steal “Your Holiday”

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””

  1. It’s ok, Gene, you can maintain without actually ever addressing the argument that “any atheist can have dogma” does not translate to your silly syllogism, continue straw man arguments, then go on about your logic. While pointing to “see I’m right, they agree with me too”, another logical fallacy. A pattern of misunderstanding, often set off by an emotional response or a shared misconception, or on blog comments too much skimming, too little reading for understanding. That’s why there is a fallacy of arguing by numbers. Your pattern argument is misapplied, but a nice twist to avoid admitting a fallacy.

    The only time I got angry in any of this, across many posts, was the cheap “I feel sorry for your kids”, which is cheap intellectually, rationally, and emotionally. Sorry you stooped to it. I of course stooped to something similar with how your children have likely been browbeaten down. Whether you have children or not.

    BTW, in this environment you can’t see “spittle spray fury”, though if you called it that it must be.

    At 4:25 I wrote: “No, I wrote “any atheist can have dogma” and then further on brought up Marxist-Leninism as an example. Unless you want to maintain and argue that “any atheist can’t have dogma”, the statement holds. The implied is any one atheist, not atheists as a class.”

    “…implied premise by analogy that atheists are dogmatic as a class like Marxists.” No, I used Marxist-Leninists as an example of atheists who can be dogmatic. That horse you’re beating to death started at the front of the cart until you moved it behind and bludgeoned it.” Interjection: the analogy was wholly your own. “Any” isn’t “all”, nor “some” “all”. You’re too busy trying to win the argument that you don’t read the others argument, but you do make things up to help you win.

    Your reply at 4:31: “I’ll just ignore that two atheists took exception to your characterization as atheists as dogmatic then. If that makes you feel better about your bad logic.”

    Your reply, no addressing what I wrote, but an immediate movement into the fallacy of argument by numbers, and finishing with the mantra of “your bad logic”. Wash, rinse, repeat. Whatever load, wash, rinse, repeat.

    There is a pattern here, Gene, but you won’t see it. Anyway, this horse is just a stain now, for either side.

  2. Is Richard Dawson starting some new dogmatic system I be required to join? Anyone know?

    Because this is the modern day ‘Christian’ we are talking about. The con men Charismatics, the Evangelicals, the Apocalyptic Cults who force our politicians to support war crimes.
    The militant Christians who supported the war in Iraq and the cheerleaders of Bush. Who made a war for oil a ‘crusade’. Who support the settlements and the Zionists.

    Yea, they are all dangerous religious freaks. All of them.

  3. I see no one in a “spittle spray fury” except perhaps you, Ariel.

    And three people seeing the same flaw in your logic is hardly coincidence. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

    Really, it’s pretty obvious you don’t divorce your arguments from yourself, but bad logic is something you can overcome if you work at it. Or maybe not. But just because you use bad logic doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. Just illogical.

  4. HenMan,

    Yeah it was pre-Vietnam in origins, but used in Vietnam.

    Gene H.,

    You’re absolutely right, no two people ever make the same mistake in comprehension. I think that horse is just a stain on the road now so you can stop beating it. We both prove “any atheist can be obstinate”, but I don’t think that phrase means “all atheists”.

    It’s that dogma word that blinds with emotion. Just like “atheists have beliefs” can set some atheists into spittle spray fury.

  5. Gene H.,
    “I’ll just ignore that two atheists took exception to your characterization as atheists as dogmatic then.”

    Two can read as badly as one. You need more for your appeal to numbers.

  6. Amazing…. I’ve yet to see anyone get upset because people are slamming pat Robertson….. Amazing….. I’m sure someone will soon…. After all…. He thinks he is chosen to speak ……at least for a few…..

  7. Ariel-

    Actually, George W. Bush flew a pre-Vietnam era jet. The problem was that he didn’t fly it long enough. If I had walked away from the Army without permission like GWB walked away from the Air National Guard, I would have spent several years in Leavenworth. And FYI, George Bush was, is, and always will be a blithering idiot.

  8. I’ll just ignore that two atheists took exception to your characterization as atheists as dogmatic then.

    If that makes you feel better about your bad logic.

  9. Gene H.,
    No, I wrote “any atheist can have dogma” and then further on brought up Marxist-Leninism as an example. Unless you want to maintain and argue that “any atheist can’t have dogma”, the statement holds. The implied is any one atheist, not atheists as a class.

    “…implied premise by analogy that atheists are dogmatic as a class like Marxists.” No, I used Marxist-Leninists as an example of atheists who can be dogmatic. That horse you’re beating to death started at the front of the cart until you moved it behind and bludgeoned it.

  10. No. They were tied to your implied premise by analogy that atheists are dogmatic as a class like Marxists. The only thing that needs cleaning is your logic.

  11. Gene H.,

    “What you have said does not prove you were not making the logical errors attributed.” Except the logical errors you claimed I made were tied to the false syllogism you made up from whole cloth. Neither quote of mine implies that silly syllogism of yours. Clean up on aisle #2 still needed.

    But do keep carrying on and on and on…

  12. HenMan,
    “Regarding George W. Bush: A father with an unlimited supply of money can make a G.P.A. rise as easily as he can make Air National Guard records disappear.” As can a politically powerful Senator.

    Neither, though, can help in being a pilot of one of the most difficult to fly jets of the Vietnam era.

  13. What you have said does not prove you were not making the logical errors attributed.

    Carry on.

  14. Gene H.,
    Quoting me :”any atheist can have dogma (a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds).”

    “Marxist-Leninism is the height of dogma, Catholicism and the Orthodox lose the race only by a nose and only in the 20th Century. Lenin even had a term for heretic, it was revisionist, and treated them like Torquemada.

    Quoting you: “Just because Marxists are dogmatic and many Marxists are atheists does not mean all atheists are dogmatic – that’s a double false equivalence (between Marxism and atheism and by conflating political dogma with religious dogma) and the fallacy of composition.”

    Glad you can do a simple false syllogism. It is in fact quite silly and easily knocked down. Must be why you used it. Clean up on aisle #2, yep its #2, need some straw swept up.

    Unfortunately for all you wrote, nothing I wrote implied that syllogism whatsoever. We at the least agree that bad logic is bad logic.

    As for dictionaries, you like yours, I like mine. I pull from Merriam-Webster, I do like the OED for etymology. I think authoritative implies authority. YMMV.

  15. Those who have read the Russ Baker “Bush: Family of Secrets” will have had a great time seeing what HW does.
    Amazing man. You wonder how he kept it all straight:
    contacts, agreements, contracts, murders ordered/done, Laundering cocaain money, etc. Not to mention the JFK job
    and the failed attempt on Reagan. And a war hero besides and CIA chief.

Comments are closed.