Religious People Are Whiney Crybabies

A believer reacts to someone questioning his faith.

The other night I did two things I never do: listen to a talk radio show, and call in to a talk radio show. The station was WTKK in Boston, and the host was Michele McPhee—a Laura Ingraham wannabe, and a person who may very well have the roundest, most nondescript face in the illustrious history of homo sapiens.

See what I mean?

I was ripping through the radio dial to find some tolerable listening while driving when I came across McPhee bitching and moaning about nationwide billboard advertisements purchased by cheeky atheists. Advertisements such as,

These signs had McPhee’s panties in a bunch, which was annoying enough, but then she proceeded to give a definition of an atheist as, “a nosy, bitter person with too much time on their [sic] hands.” This really pissed me off, because if there’s any group of people that can be described as nosy, bitter, and having too much time on their hands, it’s believers. Believers tell others how they should act, even in the bedroom, which is the epitome of nosiness. Furthermore, I’ve seen numerous, bitter, crotchety old clergy members torment children with tales of Hell, Satan, and eternal damnation. Lastly, it’s believers who go to church, pray, and attend religious functions on their own accord. Talk about too much free time.

Anyway, I called in, and it didn’t take me very long to get on the air, which tells you something about how many people were actually listening to this blowhard. The conversation went something like this:

McPhee: Max, you’re on the air. What do you think of these billboards?

Me: Good evening. Well actually, I’m not really calling about the billboards, but I was wondering if you could repeat your definition of an atheist from ten minutes ago.

McPhee: (Lies) I wasn’t talking about all atheists, just the ones who took out these ads.

After some ranting about nothing, she repeats the definition, “a nosy, bitter person with too much time on their hands.”

Me: I have to say, what you’re describing actually sounds like a believer more than an atheist. One need only consult the sermons of a priest or a pastor to see that they are a very nosy bunch—

McPhee: But you don’t have to go to sermons.

Me: Right, but their words show just how nosy—

At this point I was going to make the point that believers are always trying to regulate other people’s morality and private lives, but this wench was not going to let me complete a thought.

McPhee: Max, Max, do you have something to say about these billboards? I mean, “Yes Virginia, there is no God.”

Me: Ok, would you be saying this critical stuff if these were religious billboards?

Pause

McPhee: (Pulls something out of her ass) Religious billboards aren’t offensive.

Me: Religion by its nature is offensive. It teaches that people that those who believe something else are wrong—

McPhee: Ooook, Max.

Me: What about billboards and church signs that say, “Judgment day is near,” or “Hell awaits unless you repent”? What could be more offensive than that?

McPhee: Do those scare you, Max?

Me: No. I know it’s meaningless. But given that children can read this stuff, I’d say such messages amount to child abuse [psychologically speaking].

McPhee: Alright, Max.

Hangs up on me.

McPhee: Max needs a hug.

Yeah, and Michele McPhee needs nice steaming bowl of the shut the hell up. In order to complete the above sentences, I had to talk over the woman because she literally would not let me finish any of my remarks. And it wasn’t like I was rambling. I don’t listen to talk radio, but I know how these radio jerks work. You have to get your point out in less than ten seconds, but this bitch would not let me speak for more than five seconds uninterrupted, which was more infuriating than her dumbass position on the whole thing, which can be summed up thus:

Waaaa, waaaa. Atheists are buying ad spaces with their own money that challenge what the thousands upon thousands of religious signs across America say. Waaaa.

More and more, I’m realizing that religionists are the biggest bunch of crybabies in the United States today. By their own beliefs, God—the all-powerful deity—is on their side, and yet they feel so incredibly threatened when a group of random people buy billboard space that says, “Heathen’s Greetings.” Are you fucking shitting me? Is your faith that fragile that when some nonbelievers publicly call theism into to question with an advertisement, you think there’s a “war on Christmas” or some such bullshit? I have to believe that, at least subconsciously, many of the “faithful” suspect that their religious beliefs are nothing more than a humongous pile of metaphysical manure. What else would explain this rabid reaction to a few scattered signs? You see, questioning someone’s faith can be like calling a self-proclaimed heterosexual male, gay. If a man’s comfortable in his sexuality, if he’s banged tons of women, then calling him gay is just going to roll right off his back. He’ll probably even laugh. But call a sexually insecure guy a “homo,” and chances are you’ll get a much more impassioned reaction and fervent denial. In which case we must ask ourselves, “What’s really going on here?”

Chinks in the armor of religion. That’s what’s going on. Chinks in the armor.

- Max

A New Way Of Thinking About Atheism

Over the past several years I have been encouraged by the growing interest in, and volume of atheist literature. But as the opportunity for the atheist side to be heard increases, so too does its ability to be misunderstood. Not only do many theists fail to grasp what atheism is, but many atheists seem not to understand the dynamics of their own position. We are long past due for a clarification, lest our discourse stall owing to a poverty of understanding.

Let us consider the following classic complaint about atheism, articulated by a Randal Rauser from www.christianpost.com. I have chosen this paragraph because it encapsulates precisely the misconceptions I would like to dispose of. Rauser says,

“Problems begin when atheists confuse atheism with agnosticism (a confusion which in my experience happens quite often). Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) ‘there is no God’. Agnosticism is the stance where one affirms neither (1) ‘there is no God’ or its negation, (2) ‘there is a God’. Agnosticism is a respectable position. One may very well believe there is inadequate evidence either way to settle the question. But I have encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous. [sic]”

As any intellectually honest atheist will tell you, there is no way to disprove theism (i.e., the existence of god/s). However, there is no way to disprove the existence of unicorns either. Does this fact make the proposition, “Unicorns exist” any more tenable? Of course not. Nonetheless, we cannot say with total certainty that horned horses do not exist, no matter how ridiculous the prospect may seem. So technically, one might say that I’m agnostic about the existence of unicorns. However, calling myself agnostic on this issue (or any other issue, for that matter) isn’t saying much at all. To say one is agnostic about a proposition is simply to say one can’t be certain whether the proposition is true or not. Essentially, declaring oneself agnostic is simply to declare one’s inability to know for sure either way; it does nothing to convey what the agnostic thinks is the likelihood of the proposition being true.

Rauser says he “has encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous. [sic]” It isn’t disingenuous. It’s actually the opposite of disingenuous because the candid atheist realizes the limitations of human understanding, as well as our inability to disprove certain propositions. Personally, I believe that the chances of god existing are infinitesimal, but I cannot know for sure. Thus, technically I’m an agnostic, but again, this word is virtually useless here. Here’s why.

Rauser, like most people, begins with a false assumption: “Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) ‘there is no God’.” My contention that Rauser’s claim here is false will no doubt surprise many. After all, if theism asserts the existence of god, it’s only logical that a-theism asserts the opposite, right? Not quite. It is my supposition that atheism can exist only in relation to theism. Let’s consider: theism is a proposition which we’ll call X. Now consider this scenario in which I use a couple of Humean characters. A theist (that is, a believer in X) whom we’ll call Cleanthes, happens upon a person who has never heard of X, whom we’ll call Philo. The two begin talking with each other about the weather and the theist Cleanthes mentions something about X to Philo, but it is quite clear that Philo does not know what Cleanthes is talking about. Philo has never heard of X, and asks his interlocutor to educate him about the subject. Cleanthes obliges and once he is finished explaining what X is and the reasons he believes X is true, Philo is unimpressed, either by what Philo perceives as a lack of logic in Cleanthes’ argument, or a lack of empirical evidence, or both. As such, while Philo concedes to Cleanthes that he cannot prove X wrong, he finds Cleanthes’ case unconvincing, and also he finds X so unlikely as to warrant no belief in it whatsoever.

Is Philo agnostic? Sure, but only in the sense that he recognizes that human reason is unable to determine the truth or falsity of X. Therefore, Philo is agnostic in that he says he cannot know for sure the truth status of X, but he is also an a-Xist—that is to say, he is an a-theist: he sees no good reason to believe that X is true. In this way, Philo is not affirming a proposition (atheism); he is affirming reasons for believing some other proposition (theism, or X) to be false (or at least, unlikely). One does not argue “for” atheism as one argues “for” theism. Atheism is a negative. One can only argue “for” atheism by arguing against theism—or more precisely, by arguing against the arguments for theism.

Hence, atheism is not a “position” in the same way theism is. Atheism exists only in relation to theism. Theism initiates the debate by claiming something, X. Those who do not ascribe to X, for whatever reasons, are by default a-Xists, even though they may not be able to disprove X and admit as much, and in this way are also agnostic.

Let’s take a quick look at Richard Dawkins’ belief scale to see why “agnostic” is a very unhelpful term in these metaphysical debates.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung,‘I do not believe, I know.’

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that is there.’

3. Higher than 50 per cent, but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non- existence are exactly equiprobable.’

5. Lower than 50 per cent, but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’

7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’

From The God Delusion, p. 73

As we can see, “agnostic” could conceivably describe anyone from a 2 to a 6, and definitely anyone from a 3 to a 5. It does nothing to illuminate the agnostic’s actual position, other than to say that she admits that she can’t be certain either way. For the record, like Dawkins, I describe myself as a 6.9.

So then, what is an a-theist, or atheist?

An (intellectually honest) atheist is a person who says, “While the existence of god cannot be disproven, I think the prospect is so unlikely as to warrant my not believing it. While you could say I am an agnostic in that I cannot be certain either way, I am an atheist in the sense that I see no good reasons for believing theism to be so.”

Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion surrounding atheism and the corrupting influence the term ‘agnosticism’ has had on the theism/atheism debate. If you’re a nonbeliever who still isn’t sure what to call yourself, ask yourself this question: Just because I cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus, would I say that I’m an agnostic on the matter? It would far more practical to call yourself an a-Santa Clausist, wouldn’t you say? Not only that, you’d be much less likely to be institutionalized.

-Max