Answering Why Atheists Are Angry?

We all know why Greta Christina is angry: she wants prolific bisexual sex without restraint or constraint, and the elimination of pretty much all men, except those she might need, sexually.

But that doesn't explain all Atheist anger. For that task, James Kirk Wall explains why (some) Atheists are so angry:

” But to really understand the mindset of an atheist is to understand it’s not about god at all. The following is what the atheists believe, and it must be understood to understand their world view.

There has never been a word of god, only words of men claiming to speak for god. And that’s a big difference.

Atheists are not angry at god, they’re angry at men claiming to speak for god that impede scientific progress or promote bigoted and unethical behavior.”

This is too general; some Atheists are, in fact, mad at a deity which would present them with consequences for their actions when they want no consequences, period – at least for themselves.

But there are plenty of angry Atheists, who would subscribe to this statement, if they actually thought that far. So let’s take a look into the logic of the statement.

1. ”There has never been a word of god…”

This is a statement of fact, made without any substantiation whatsoever, much less made with either disciplined logic or material, empirical evidence for its support. It is, in fact, unknowable to any finite human, and that should be obvious at the outset. Therefore it cannot be known to be true, ever. Since it is made as a robust, known truth, that declaration is certainly false.

2. ”…. only words of men claiming to speak for god.”

While there is undoubtedly much of this going on, there is no proof of the “only”. And there will never be any proof of the “only” in that statement, so the statement cannot – ever – be known to be true. Yet it is stated, again, as a robust, known truth, which cannot be known, and is therefore certainly false.

Since this is the basis for Atheist anger, according to James Kirk Wall, it is obvious that these angry Atheists are angry about a false premise. The full argument would be this:

IF [(there has never been a word of god) AND (there have only been words of men claiming to speak for god)], THEN [ I am a self-righteously angry Atheist ].

If the premise cannot be known to be true, and its assertion of truth is false, then Atheists have no realistic reason to be angry. At least not for this reason. But the assertion actually has more attached to it:

” Atheists are angry at the arrogance and dogmatism that god claims have caused. They find the notion that simply adding the word "god" to a claim is supposed to somehow make that assertion beyond criticism to be intellectually damaging.”

Now let’s parse this follow-up anger excuse.

1. IF [god claims have caused arrogance and dogmatism], THEN [ Atheists are self-righteously angry ].

Hm. Atheists have singled out “god claims” as the causation for arrogance and dogmatism. They are not angered by Atheist dogmatic atrocities, under say, Lenin’s Marxism for example, only those instances of arrogance and dogmatism which are god-claim-causal. So where is the disciplined logic and material, empirical evidence that this statement is true and valid: that all god claims produce arrogance and dogmatism? Certainly some have. But all god claims? What percentage of god claims producing arrogance and dogmatism does it take to hit the Atheist anger threshold? And why is the Atheist anger threshold infinitely high with regard to Atheist atrocities, which far and away outnumber theist atrocities?

2. IF [adding the word “god” to a claim makes that assertion beyond criticism], THEN [that is intellectually damaging].

If “intellectually damaging” is a concern to angry Atheists, they would first and foremost use disciplined Aristotelian deductive logic to analyze their own worldview premises; but they do not do that and in fact they reject such analysis when it is done for them. So “intellectually damaging” is not a serious reason for “Atheist anger”. They cede that ground by refusing the use of logic for the analysis of Atheism.

However, taking a look at the premise, the concern is that adding the word “god” to a statement removes the statement from the realm of Materialist analysis. And yes that is a valid situation. Here’s why: Materialism cannot be used in analyzing non-material entities, no matter how much the Atheist might demand that to be the case. That demand is irrational and it contributes to Atheist intellectual self-damage, which at its best is severe.

And now for James Kirk Wall’s wrap-up:

” Unfortunately intelligent discussion is often stymied by the promotion of insulting, divisive and dismissive stereotypes. Many prefer scripted scenes and softball interviews to real debate. It’s a cowardly way to protect unsubstantiated beliefs from humiliation.”

The inability to address non-material views with Materialist criticism is one of the things which angers Atheists; they believe that theists should take Materialism seriously, but they don't (and for good reason, it's irrational).

And Wall is disingenuously not talking about the obvious application of these words to Atheists, of course. But that is where his reference is most congruent. Especially the reference to “unsubstantiated beliefs”, which is a spot-on description of Atheism, which always and forever has neither logic nor material evidence to support its position and worldview. One thing we can know about Atheism is that Atheists never write regarding their anger about the Atheist atrocities of the huge Atheist governments and the hundreds of millions of humans which they tortured and murdered. When Atheists get angry about that, then they can be considered to have an anger which is honest, and not before. In the meantime, their displays evince mere humor at their whininess due to the ineffectuality of their beliefs for addressing the issues which theism presents.

If it’s “not about god at all” as Wall claims, then it is merely whining about not being able to get their own way – a universe to themselves, where they are the gods of no-consequence existence, licensing all behaviors and opinions except those which either demur from behavioral anarchy, or which place the restrictions of principled character on the poor Atheists.