If you want to discover what kind of people atheists are, scroll down to my recent posts and read the responses. I am a troll. I am a cretin. I am a moron. I am a nut-job. And so on. For those who go beyond abuse, there is shrieking complaint. How dare you suggest atheists weren't around when this happened? How can you say atheists don't have feelings? How can you exploit this tragedy in this way? How come your God didn't prevent this, huh?
Actually my point was a simple one, and it seems to be unrefuted. Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy. Of course atheists have feelings and there were undoubtedly atheists among the mourners at Virginia Tech. But the Richard Dawkins philosophy--that we live in a meaningless world where there is no good and no evil--whatever its intellectual merit, seems arid and unconsoling when human beings are really hurting.
One atheist wrote to say that rather than rely on idle promises of fantasies of life after death, what atheists would say is that we need gun control laws and a better health care system. Fair enough, but is this what you tell a crying mother? "Madam, you should feel much better because new gun control laws and mental health reforms are on their way."
I wonder if the abuse that atheists heap on people when their ideas are questioned is indicative of a deeper malady. Atheists like to portray themselves as devotees of reason, but read the responses and see how much reason you discover there. Rather, it looks like these fellows hate God, and this hate spills over to anyone who brings up God's name. Call it the atheism of revenge. They blame God for screwing them over in some way, and unbelief is their form of payback.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 8)
76. I wrote: "Do you mean that an act would be ethical or unethical only if there is a God? If so, why?"
Let me be more specific. What reason is there to believe that the existence of one or more Gods is necessary for any given act to be ethical or unethical?
Wes at 7:29PM on Apr 21st 2007
77. I don't think you understand atheism, you say that it has nothing to offer to console those who are hurting.
The way you state it it sounds like you expect it to offer this, as well as be able to answer other meaning of life type questions.
Atheism solely addresses the non-existence of god. It does not answer any meaning of life type questions. It doesn't tell us how to live our lives, it doesn't tell us what is just and right and what is immoral and wrong.
It solely addresses the non-existence of god.
If you want non-religious spirituality check out humanism. They could have had speakers from humanist organizations address these people.
Having Richard Dawkins address the grieving would make about as much sense as having a sports personality, ceo or other business person, or other scientists address the grieving.
I don't think you understand what atheism actually is, its an answer to a single question, its not a religion.
Robert Francis at 12:37PM on Apr 22nd 2007
78. Oh yes indeed... The religious are SO much more in touch with the feelings of their fellow humans than those cold-hearted atheists! Puh-leeze.
The Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), which is not affiliated with any national Baptist organization, announced plans to protest at victims’ funerals only hours after 32 people were killed in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. They also may protest at other events on the Virginia Tech campus.
The organization, founded and led by Fred Phelps, believes the United States has condemned itself to destruction by accepting homosexuality and other “sins of the flesh.” Phelps’ daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, said the Virginia Tech teachers and students who died on Monday brought their fate upon themselves by not being true Christians.
“The evidence is they were not Christian. God does not do that to his servants,” Phelps-Roper said. “You don’t need to look any further for evidence those people are in hell.”
Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student responsible for the killings who took his own life after the shootings, was sent by God to punish those he killed, and America as a whole, for moral decline, said Phelps-Roper, while adding that she believes Cho is also in hell for violating God’s commandment to not kill.
“He is in hell,” Phelps-Roper said. “But he was also fulfilling the word of God.”
As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg said, " with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil; - that takes religion."
Buckster at 8:37PM on Apr 21st 2007
79. What is it precisely, that you speaking on behalf of God have offered them?
S at 8:53PM on Apr 21st 2007
80. I wonder if the abuse that theists heap on people when their ideas are questioned is indicative of a deeper malady. Theists like to portray themselves as devotees of reason, but read the tirades against atheism and see how much reason you discover there. Rather, it looks like these fellows hate atheists, and this hate spills over to anyone who points out their irrationality.
Dinesh, you're a perfect example of someone who is terrified that his own poor excuse for "faith" might be threatened by those of us who don't share it. It's just too bad that you, unlike so many other loons, have a public platform from which to promote your intolerance.
Frank at 11:44PM on Apr 21st 2007
81. Turns out Liviu Librescu, the heroic professor, was not a religious man.
After read D'Souza, this is very SHOCKING! How can that be possible?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704200365apr21,1,4739235.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Jack Fisher at 11:00PM on Apr 21st 2007
82. What is the matter with this man? Did he actually not read the responses to his first article? In his initial blog he asked a childlike question, and was given dozens upon dozens of straightforward answers-- some very meticulously and painfully spelled out for him and any other "christian" struggling to comprehend any differing set of laws other than what their parents and society demanded they believe in. The responses were, I thought, easy to get. I agree some were more complex than others, and filled with rather large words and ideas, but there were certainly plenty that anyone with a junior high school education could grasp, all giving him basically the same pointed answer that he professes to be curious about. We answered him loud and clear: we were doing what any good person would do after a tragedy: respecting the victims, respecting the families, reaching out in various ways depending on our proximity to those affected. Atheists came on here and related rather personal stories of grief and loss, and how they had been comforted or had comforted others in this event or other times of great loss. After literally dozens of answers describing in detail what any given atheist was doing in this aftermath, he comes back on with "Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy." Is this a joke? Is he for real? Bigotry is one thing. Vapidity is one thing. Inability to understand another's point of view is one thing. Sheer stupidity and being just plain dense are one thing. But this new blog in response to the heartfelt outpourings of human beings who have been attacked for something they had no part in... this new blog is malicious, hateful baiting. Either that, or he indeed did not bother reading those responses as soon as he recognized the overwhelming tone of disgust at his opportunistic soapboxing and/or clear answers which made his entire blog look as ridiculous and childish as it was. (Oh wait, I almost forgot that suspicious first little response... so awe-filled and reverent: "wow.... Mr. D'Souza... you said a mouthful..." And if he didn't write that response himself or have his mom write it, I'll eat my own hat.) Either that or he IS reading through all of them, but rather than having any cruel intent with this last blog, he is simply unable to comprehend what he reads other than the simplest "you are truly an idiot to write this offensive post"-type replies. Maybe all or most of this is just simply beyond what he can grasp. In any event, these responses have served a purpose-- to show anyone capable of critical thought what an atheist is and is not, and what they stand for. I have never been prouder of what I am and what atheist means than reading these posts the last few days. People who are so full of love, and compassion, of integrity and intelligence, of a kind of strength in ourselves that no christian will understand, and the conviction that it's up to us to make the world a better place, instead of sitting back and crying or praying or waiting for someone or something else to do it for us instead. I love that christian mentality you see on redneck bumper-stickers: "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out." Unfortunately, that is what we are again seeing (never ever voiced as crudely out loud, of course) in the christians after this tragedy, just like all the others... "Someone you loved was killed? That's ok, he went to heaven, he's in a better place. Some terrible, crazy person did killed people? Well, he's in hell now, paying for it, that's for sure, so we can deal." What an easy, mind-numbing way to get by. I personally would not have peace in my soul if I was taking such a useless stance in society and forgoing my responsibility to help my fellow man and animals sharing this world with me. Someone on one of these posts made the bizarre comment that an atheist cannot do good. Obviously, I disagree. But more than that, you strange little fellow: you are good because you think you'll be punished if you aren't-- you are good because you think you're being watched. Atheists are good for a noble reason: it is right. And noble is forgiving Mr. D'Souza, either for his ignorance or, worse, his baiting of people who have done him no wrong and wished him no harm. Mr. D'Souza, I hope someday you will find peace with yourself and no longer feel a need for the unprovoked hatred and prejudice you have been spewing here.
sue at 12:13AM on Apr 22nd 2007
83. Mr. D'Souza, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. I've read every one of the responses to your two previous articles, and I find very little hate expressed there. I also notice that a considerable number of *Christians* have called you out for your exploitation of the V-Tech shootings.
Stop, just stop.
Rick Dawkins at 2:06AM on Apr 22nd 2007
84. Mr. D'Souza:
The first rule of ecology (and maybe of life) is that you can never do just one thing. Applied to the present case, the rule recommends that you give some thought to the following:
1. By promoting the oxymoronic delusion of "life-after-death", you devalue life (both of those who were murdered and of those who mourn their loss), and
2. By promoting belief beyond what evidence warrants, you provide intellectual support for the terrorists.
If you don't desire to support terrorists and devalue life, then I recommend for your future writings that you abandon theism for humanism.
zoro at 5:25AM on Apr 23rd 2007
85. When atheists mention that you're an ass because of your ignoramus spouting and exploiting tragedies like a Christian vulture, maybe you should take us at our word and understand that it's not your (non-existent) God we hate. It's you. It's all just you. Because you're subhuman scum, unlike the many other believers who unlike you don't go out of their way to spit in the face of their compatriots on a day of national tragedy.
BlackBloc at 8:39AM on Apr 22nd 2007
86. If there is a God, I hope he has reserved a special place in hell for people who exploit mass murder to advance their own vain and empty rhetoric.
GTK at 9:23AM on Apr 22nd 2007
87. I also have a reaction about that... gggrrr. Even we are atheists or agnostics... we are people too. We feel pain, we feel sadness and we do mourn.
Atheists like me are still human.
Chino at 12:18PM on Apr 22nd 2007
88. Your point FAILS miserably and demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of how us atheists, especially the humanists, think.
Science gives us explanations: This man was psychotic. He commited great social evils and the human cost is henious and completely unjustified. That is what our science would 'say' about this catastrophe.
I've personally been there for people going through great personal hardship in general. Usually I say nothing. The words I speak are whatever they need to here to feel better. I don't lie and say 'God has a plan' or 'this happened for a reason'. I listen to all they have to say and offer all the support I can give, and it usually works to help people through whatever crisis there may be.
So you want to know what an atheist would say. It would boil down to: "This is a heinous crime, a violation of humanity's trust and a waste of life. What may I do to help any of you through this?"
No platitudes, simply condolences and offered help. Now that you have your answer, can you see why we would find your claim that we have nothing to offer to victims offensive?
Zachariah at 4:24PM on Apr 22nd 2007
89. Mr. D'Souza, you are quite a piece of work. Directly insulting a class of people, taking advantage if a tragic incident to promote your agenda, and then complaining that atheists are "heaping abuse" on you?
Maybe your faith would be a bit more convincing if you appeared to have a shred of decency?
george at 4:38PM on Apr 22nd 2007
90. "Actually my point was a simple one, and it seems to be unrefuted. Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy."
And what does christianity have to say? Apparently we'll never know, as the christian who murdered these beautiful young people committed suicide.
Dale at 8:26PM on Apr 22nd 2007