How to Annoy Athiests in One Easy Lesson

Share

A few weeks ago the Pink Flamingo did the dastardly and insanely rash thing of stating what she thinks about atheists and the fact that they have created their own “religion” by not having one.  The comments have been interesting in the usual liberal sort of way.  In other words the Pink Flamingo is a drooling, bigoted, ignorant idiot who should not really be allowed to continue writing such an ill informed blog.

I get a kick out of these people and their superior intellect.  What business do I, just a poor little ol’ ignorant Episcopalian who dropped out of kindergarten have even being on the same planet as are they?

Darn it if I did not insult them by calling their lack of religion a religion:

Let’s try a few definitions of religion:

“something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience”

Yep, I think that completely describes our little atheists to a “T”.

Let’s try a few definitions of religion:

“something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience”

Yep, I think that completely describes our little atheists to a “T”.

Webster defines  “religious” as”

a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent , zealous

I also find the degradation of our cultural literacy and educational systems when it is difficult to find a definition of “religious” that does not deal with matters of “faith”.

extremely scrupulous and conscientious; “religious in observing the rules of health”

or

Scrupulously faithful or exact; strict.

One of the problems with our increasingly politically correct and liberalized culture is the growing miasma of mendacious malignant stupidity (for want of a better word).

Religion can be anything.

Did you know that?

A person can be religious about something that had nothing to do with “faith” or a deity.

Did you know that?

The average sport’s fan is quite religious in the zeal for a team.

The average atheist is quite religious in the fact that they are not religious.

We’re dealing with cultural ignorance on a momentous level.  By their simple act of not admitting that atheism is a religion, atheists are proving themselves pathetically ignorant. In fact, by not having a “religion” you are one of the glorious 14% of the world’s individuals – but actual atheists make up only something like 2.3% of the world’s population.   Something like 78% of us ignorant stupids of the world believe in some sort of an organized religion.   My gosh you are elite!

“…Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck’s Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in “God” or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” According to this definition, religion refers to one’s primary worldview and how this dictates one’s thoughts and actions….”

I think one of the things I find most fascinating about atheists and those who are determined to force their version of no religion upon an unwilling world is the regimes who went ahead with the practice.  We’re talking the French Revolution which was as much against the Catholic Church as it was the nobility.  Then there was Marx and his lovely little followers like Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and the like.

Find one society or country where atheistic practices are not the result of totalitarianism – please.  Tell me where they are.

Marx once wrote that religion is “the heart of a heartless world”.  Please define that for me in the context of the millions upon million of innocent individuals who lost their lives so that the followers of Marx could exterminate religion from their countries.

I find fascinating that leading atheists think religion leads to totalitarianism.  While I will be the first to admit that there are certain Islamic cults and there are certain allegedly “Christian” cults that are totalitarian in scope, I don’t think anything is more totalitarian than a good atheistic Marxist state.

In other words, in order for the enactment of a total atheistic state, one must rely on the historical practices of the French Revolution and it’s basically obscene prosecution of the Catholic Church, or the Stalinist or Maoist example where tens of millions of individuals were slaughtered at the altar of Marx.

I find the liberal mindset and the demands of totalitarian thought towards the culture of political correctness and rigidity of thought absolutely fascinating.

There are no more dogmatic nor less tolerant individuals than true liberals.  At least we Christian Republicans allow the freedom of expression and thought.  It’s too bad liberal atheist dogma can’t embrace the live and let live values the average (and I said “average”) Christian Republican embraces.

Naturally you, the atheist, is going to point to the Salem Witch Trials, Inquisition, Crusades, etc. to prove that Christians are evil.   That’s fine.  I will like to mention that I had a couple ancestors executed as witches during those days in Salem.  I had a few ancestors lose their heads during the misc. religious wars in Europe, and am quite proud of my Crusading ancestors.

Have fun with this.

One thing all these comments have proved is that atheists don’t seem to have a sense of humor.

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, and Leaning Straight Up, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Share

13 thoughts on “How to Annoy Athiests in One Easy Lesson

  1. Sad that you have issues with something that is different from you rather than just co-existing with it.

    I read this with an open mind. Too bad you wrote it with a closed mind aiming to slam your enemy “athiests.”

    What else are you opposed to that you care to share in your little village where you reign supreme as its outstanding idiot?

  2. You wrote:

    “Find one society or country where atheistic practices are not the result of totalitarianism – please. Tell me where they are.”

    Because you said “please”:

    1. Sweden (up to 85 percent nonbelievers)
    2. Denmark (up to 80 percent)
    3. Norway (up to 72 percent)
    4. Japan (up to 65 percent)
    5. Czech Republic (up to 61 percent — was dominated by Communists until 1989, but so was neighboring Poland, which was and is exceedingly religious and had a more repressive Communist government)
    6. Finland (up to 60 percent)
    7. France (up to 54 percent)
    8. South Korea (up to 52 percent)

    … and many other countries where nonbelievers are widely accepted and respected, but are not over 50 percent, so I’ll leave them off the list. You only asked for one anyway.

  3. There is a difference between a non-believer and a practicing atheist. There is a difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

    SJR
    The Pink Flamingo

  4. A non-believer does not believe in a god. An atheist does not believe in a god. There is not difference.

    An agnostic position can be applied to both atheism and theism. It pertains to knowledge, as in one cannot know if there is a god or not. Therefore, one can technically be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Since I see no evidence of any supernatural deity I have no belief in one, nor can I be certain I can ever have knowledge of such an existence. Agnostic atheist. Simple as that.

    Secondly, communism and socialism are economic views and have nothing to do with religion. And if you want to cry about Marx, Lenin, etc. then I should remind you that more blood has been shed over religion.

    Your blog is full of vitriol and ignorance. You don’t even seem capable of tolerating a person who does not believe in a god, much less ‘loving’ them as you claim. I actually feel bad for you.

    Exchange the word atheist in the title of your post to some other minority. Still think it’s acceptable? You’re a bigot, regardless.

    The only thing that annoyed me about your post was the fact that you couldn’t even be bothered to spell atheist correctly.

  5. My spell check went out – I did a copy/paste to correct the spelling – and missed a few words. Sorry, I insulted you. My dyslexia gets in the way of proofing quite often.

    SJR

  6. Pink, I must congratulate you on your humorous columns. They are a source of much laughter whenever I read them. They remind me of “Kids Say The Darnedest Things.” You know, Where the adult asks the kid; “What does this word mean?” And the kid gives some silly off the wall definition and all of the grownups break out in laughter.

    However that is not why I write you. I write you because the title of your blog makes the claim that you have annoyed Atheists. You also claim that you have insulted Atheists. Before you go patting yourself on the back, can you please show one comment from that blog where an Atheist complains of being annoyed or insulted? Didn’t think so.

    You see dearie, before an Atheist or any other intelligent person will complain about being annoyed or insulted they must first be the target of something of substance. I see Atheists correcting your false definitions, but none complaining of being insulted or annoyed. Believe me it would take much more than some bible thumper who got a computer for Xmas and thinks she’s a Journalist now to annoy or insult an Atheist. You give yourself too much credit. Your columns full of invective and misinformation are the journalistic equivalent of bringing a pocket knife to a gunfight. (And I mean that in a nice way.)

    You stated in this column;
    “In other words the Pink Flamingo is a drooling, bigoted, ignorant idiot who should not really be allowed to continue writing such an ill informed blog.

    I get a kick out of these people and their superior intellect. What business do I, just a poor little ol’ ignorant Episcopalian who dropped out of kindergarten have even being on the same planet as are they?”

    Well Personally I think you’re being too hard on yourself, but if that’s how you want to describe yourself, Who am I to argue with you? Especially when seeing that when you attempt to give the definition for ReligioN you instead gave the definition for religioUS. Really if you want to include definitions in your blog it would really help if you gave the definition for the word you are describing.
    Websters gives the definition for ReligioN as;
    1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a GOD or of GODS having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.

    2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice.

    Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998

    Bit of difference between your definition and Websters definition there, isn’t there? Seems to me that Websters defines ReligioN as having a faith in a god or gods.
    Seeing as how Atheists have no such faith, why do you insist on defining Atheism as a ReligioN? That’s kind of like defining Bald as a hair color, isn’t it?
    Why if I didn’t know any better I would think that you might be trying to slip something past people by intentionally giving them a wrong definition. But then again you being a christian, you would never do something as dishonest as that? Now would you? That would be, well, that would be Lying, wouldn’t it?
    So instead of assuming that you are dishonest we must accept your explanation given earlier of your being, now how did you put that again? Oh yeah;
    “In other words the Pink Flamingo is a drooling, bigoted, ignorant idiot who should not really be allowed to continue writing such an ill informed blog.
    A poor little ol’ ignorant Episcopalian who dropped out of kindergarten.”

    Kind of harsh, but if that’s the moniker you care to describe yourself with, so be it. After all, it is a reasonable excuse for your ignorance of the meaning of the word Atheism. Not to mention a valid excuse for your being ReligioUS.

    Perhaps if you had posted the CORRECT definition of ReligioN, instead of ReligioUS you would have seen that ReligioN is defined as having a belief in a god. Something that Atheists do not have.

    I’m glad we could be of service in providing you with the correct definitions for your column, and in the future if you wish to annoy or insult Atheists (instead of giving them belly laughs) perhaps you may wish to bring along someone of substance. Someone who could raise the level of the discussion to a level that would be interesting to an Atheist on a serious level instead of the babble from a self confessed Kindergarten dropout.

    Well there is one bright spot in all of this for you. At least with your ignorance of what Atheism is, and your inability to even provide the correct definition of religion, no one will be looking at you with disdain because of your superior intellect.

    And remember;
    There probably is no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

  7. Pariahjane;
    Where do you get your information?

    Secondly, communism and socialism are economic views and have nothing to do with religion. And if you want to cry about Marx, Lenin, etc. then I should remind you that more blood has been shed over religion.

    Your statement is not backed up by any proofs. Are we to take your word for it? The deaths related to Marxism in the last 100 plus years far outscores any religion. Even the 400 years of jihads leading up to the crusades and all the Muslim inspired genocides and persecutions in Africa and Europe and the Middle east cannot compare to Marx and Lennin’s influence over Europe, Asia, South America, The Caucus’ Cuba, etc., In both cases (jihad and communism) the justification is found in the attempt to create utopia on earth. Resources; The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Crusades, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and Liberal Fascism. You really should get out of your liberal bubble and read more challenging sources. It changed me from a couch potato Democrat to a ‘mad as hell’ conservative. Mad at the liberal lies which misdirected my life for decades just as they are yours. If your going to assume what you’ve learned in school is accurate, you are as sad a case of misinformed ignoramus as was I for too long. Those books I referred to are footnoted and seriously fact checked. Can you say the same for your sources? If you really want to be serious about your knowledge, let me recommend a couple real studies; Migrations and Cultures, Conquests and Cultures both by Thomas Sowell. A web site with great historians to study is http://libertypen.com/LibertyPen.html
    Here you can watch these historians giving speeches and making concise arguments for common sense in today’s political issues.

  8. Thanks for another failed article.

    I thought for a second that this article was going to be better than the; “Atheistic Assault on Christians”, I was wrong; again owned by the atheist community.

    Hector C, Educated Atheist.

  9. Being an athiest, I am annoyed by this blog entry, just as the title suggested. Well done Pink Flamingo, you achieved what you set out to do!

Comments are closed.