Are There as Many Atheist Nuts as there are Christian Nuts?

It goes without saying lots of people will answer yes.  They will gleefully point to one specific atheist they consider to be a nut, me.

But, for myself, I don’t see any atheists that look at nuts as, for example, Michelle Bachmann.  She has recently said, again, the end of the world is near.  What she bases this prediction on is utter nonsense.

She is not the only one.  There is Freddie Phelps, the Westboro Baptist guy who protests funerals and football games because he thinks the god hates gays.

Let’s keep going, there was the radio star, Harold Camping, who predicted specific dates for the end of world.  He failed several time then had a stroke.

Herbert W. and Garner Ted Armstrong had huge end of times audiences.  Broadcasting the end of times has been a radio and television staple for generations.  It makes one ask if followers ever get it that these people are nuts.

Every summer there is someone carrying a cross from one end of the country to the other.  I don’t get the point of that.

There is Pat Robertson who believed the god told him Obama would lose the last election to Mitt Romney.  God is always telling him things, but he would deny admitting he is hearing voices.

We have to remember all these people read the same Bible are Christians who ridicule them.  The main character is the Bible claimed the world would end in his lifetime.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/08/1245335/-Rep-Michele-Bachmann-declares-that-we-are-in-the-End-Times-His-day-is-at-hand?detail=email

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Are There as Many Atheist Nuts as there are Christian Nuts?

  1. Michael Ross says:

    “The main character in the Bible claimed the world would end in his lifetime.”

    That, I presume, would be Jesus. Could you give me that reference? Idon’t recall Him saying such a thing.

    As for Christian nuts, Camping , Phelps and the like are in the same category as your snake handlers. I have never known any Christian that thinks those two are anywhere near normal by any criteria. Michelle Bachmann is another case. She close to an establishment Republican. Being conservative I agree with her on many issues. I am not a warmonger and don’t believe the world is going to end anytime soon. I don’t believe Bachmann can be put in the nut case category, she’s too mainline Republican.

    A nut case is anyone that, right or wrong, believes strongly in something. You certainly qualify on that count, as do I. Most Americans believe in nothing at all except sports and entertainment.

    • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

      If Michael doesn’t believe that Michelle Bachmann belongs in the nut case category, then I can only conclude that he is just as far out there as she is. Having an opinion doesn’t make you a nut case, but believing nonsense does. Trying to insist that others believe or live by the same nonsense as you do makes you a nut case.

      The real danger about Fred Phelps is not that he spouts such hateful garbage; it’s that he makes loons like Michelle Bachmann look moderate by comparison, and Michael is using Phelps to make extremists like Bachmann seem somehow less outrageous just because she doesn’t picket funerals.

      • Michael Ross says:

        If you wish to put Bachmann in the nutcase classification, you will get no argument from me.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          As I recall you said she was “close [to] an establishment Republican. That’s what’s wrong with the Republican party. You are absolutely right. Establishment Republicans leave no daylight between themselves and Michelle Bachmann. Good grief, I remember when Ronald Reagan was pro-choice. The Republican party has gotten so far away from the mainstream that it will be miracle if they can win an election at the national level within a generation. Now you have Republicans saying that it won’t matter if we don’t raise the debt limit. All of this because the party sucked up to evangelical Christians and tea baggers (some overlap there) and sold it’s soul for votes. Now that the nutcases are making themselves comfortable in the front room, moderates are jumping ship. I don’t think that atheists, as a group, have a tendency to latch onto outrageous crazy ideas because most of us need persuading before we buy into something. We need evidence and then we weight that carefully.

          • Michael Ross says:

            “I don’t think that atheists, as a group, have a tendency to latch onto outrageous crazy ideas because most of us need persuading before we buy into something.”

            A few years ago the idea of 2 men or 2 women being a marriage was outrageous. Now, thanks to the mainstream media, it is the norm. To say marriage is only 1 man and 1 woman is outrageous.

          • StanB says:

            Nice homophobic phrase there. Teabagger.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            Homophobic means hating homosexuals. I don’t think tea party supporters qualify there, but you may have inside information I am not privy to. The term “tea bagger” has become a part of our current lexicon, but I agree, it is rather informal, but we’re all a rather informal group, aren’t we?

        • noblindersome says:

          Crackpot Bachman is today trying to refresh the age old nonsense that a ‘crisis in the Mideast ‘ is the ‘beginning of the end’ as the Bible predicted. It ‘fits’ in nicely with her crusade against Obama and liberals. Her political Chataqua tent is based on this.
          Well it was used by the crackpots when the Bushes and Clinton had to deal Mideast events, when Reagan had his entanglements (funny how the 250 dead marines that were killed in Lebanon in 1982 the Bachmans will never acknowledge), when Carter got trapped by the radicals in Iran , when Ford dealt with the war under his term, as did Nixon and LBJ , the war of 1967, and Kennedy had to deal with the Mideast tarbaby that lingered on after Ike had to deal with the crisis in the Suez!
          Ever since the creation of Isreal, the ‘end of the worldites’ have been screaching. WHY do nuts like Bachman think this is reasonable ? Oh what did P T Barnum say..?

  2. Michael Ross says:

    Atheists Can’t Find Atheists to Support Atheism

    No atheist nuts among the American Founders:

    http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/atheists-cant-find-atheists-to-support-atheism/

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 4:29 re: link to Political Outcast

      This is a common trick done by Christians trying to establish that the founding fathers “really meant for this to be a Christian nation”. They run out the Federalist Papers. The very same men who wrote the Federalist Papers were involved in writing the Constitution. While writing the Constitution, they were careful to leave out any substantive role for religion. There were plenty of opportunities. State Constitutions declare Christianity as the official religion. They referred to state Constitutions a lot, but carefully left out what they did not like, religion.

      But then, the Constitution had to be ratified by approaval from these very states that had included religion in their own Constitutions. So what did the founding fathers, all politician in one way or another do? They went from state to state campaigning, talking up how the god had created this document and the states it contained. As a part of the campaign, they published the Federalist Papers, with lots of god stuff, and circulated them far and wide.

      As PT Barnum said, “There is a sucker born every minute.” (He denied he every said this.)

      • Michael Ross says:

        There may well have been atheists among the founders. Its just that the Christian ethos was so strong that they remained closeted.
        They say whatever they have to to stay in power. You politicians never change.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Michael 4:43 “You politicans never change.”

          Correct. We are the same today, tomorrow and forever. I find politicans among those who wrote the Bible.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Michael 5:11 More about politicians. There was a dufus Republican House member on the tube yesterday answering the daily question, how do we end this impass? He said, “Our founding fathers knew what to do. Benjamin Franklin stepped forward at the Constitutional Convention when things were at an impass and said, ‘We all need to pray together to get through this.’ That’s what we should do in Congress, get together and pray.” He didn’t mention that Franklin’s motion was voted down.

          He also failed to mention that one of the most vocal opponents of the prayer motion was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the celebrety secularist among the Founding Fathers, Thomas Payne, wrote a lot of the Federalist Papers which used the god to appeal to voters.

          So much for using the Founding Fathers as sources of endorsement for Christianity in our government.

  3. JB says:

    I’m an atheist and I try to make rational decisions. But sometimes I just go with my gut feeling like when I read “mainstream media” in a comment and then discount everything else that is said there. If said media was demonstrably consistently wrong as implied it would soon be far from mainstream, but it’s not.

  4. entech says:

    Love this caption The leaf is on the fig tree, the squirrel is in the woodshed, the nuts are in the Congress. Except that different countries have different names for their elected governments this could be anywhere.

    As most of the topic is American politics I have no comment. On the headline itself I would say that without a head count it would be hard to tell, but if you were looking for a majority vote it could go either way, especially if by some strange chance everyone voted honestly.
    In general terms as many atheist nuts as Christian nuts, sorry to be a Paine (sic) but do you mean in proportion to actual atheist vs actual Christians, or in absolute terms. The ability to believe anything without proof would give a head start.

    In a word, probably.

  5. Wanna B Sure says:

    Why do the twist-ties on plastic bread bags have to be turned clockwise to open? Is it just one rogue bakery, or is it wide spread? Is it going viral? Is it some left wing conspiracy?

    • wolfy32 says:

      And why is it that everytime I go to open a loaf of bread and the twist ties are always on the same, I choose to open them by “untieing them” the wrong way?

      Maybe the twist ties are laced with something and the only way to get it into us is by us poking ourselves with the twist tie as we try to figure out which way to untie it….

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Sounds like something from the KGB.? Another conspiracy perhaps?

        Years ago, the Chrysler Corp had left hand threads on the left side of the car, and right hand threads on the right side of the car when you changed a tire. Caused a lot of confusion like the twist- ties. We just have to be smarter than Chrysler and the twist-ties.

        • entech says:

          I always buy my bread direct from the local baker, he puts it into a cheap recycled paper bag.

          I would assume the model of car you refer to had center locking wheels. Sports and racing cars still do. There is good and logical engineering knowledge and thought behind this. The direction the thread tightens is matched to the direction the wheel rotates in such a way that as the wheel rotates the tendency is for the nut to tighten.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            It had nothing to do with center locking wheels, nor did the thread direction make any difference in wheel rotation. You are talking about the bearings, and their locking pins. I said “when you changed a tire”, which would mean the rim, with the mounted tire. Usually with 5 or 6 lug nuts. (left or right). I believe Chrysler products changed the left/left-right/right several years ago.

      • entech says:

        Wolfy, there is a good religious reason for the ties. If you notice bottles, jars in the food container business all have a right hand thread as do most nuts and bolts etc. People have to learn to accept some things with out thinking about them, logically you would expect to tighten the tie clockwise and we don’t need too much logic, people might start to think for themselves, think freely and apply reason and we most certainly can’t have that.
        Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
        Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Once the bag is opened, You have the freedom to tighten/close it any way you wish or reason. Bottles and jars on the other hand are a different matter. Once they are created, reason dictates one must comply for the benefits contained. Even cross threading leads to disaster.

          • entech says:

            Again, I only buy enough bread to last with out being sealed up.

            I don’t think reason comes into bottles and jars, it is physical necessity. Some nuts do get completely screwed up, I think that is the kind of nut the topic is about, think of threads as analogous to pathways through the thought patterns, they too get stripped and crossed, then we have so many different systems of threads some try to get the wrong nut onto the bolt, some think they have succeeded.

            My earlier comment about there probably being something like equal numbers comes from the idea that to be a nut you don’t need to have strong and strange religious ideas, it only gives you a head start.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            So you eat so much bread that it won’t dry out before the loaf is gone, or You must buy it 4 slices at a time.
            There are all sorts of threads. some are fine, some are coarse. Only a fool would use the wrong application, but some try. Then there are the wing nuts.

          • entech says:

            Not sliced just small loaves.

            Different threads for different needs, same thing when different people have different needs they choose different denominations (or even religions, need another turn on the wheel, be a Buddhist and ride again).

            Yes wing nuts, that is the topic :)

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Ya, all that from a guy that confuses wheels from rims. Sheesh. And an engineer at that. Something about philosophy and so much dust through which to see.

          • entech says:

            Oh dear, I am sorry, I was wrong, I did not go back far enough in history. I do recall, vaguely, seeing the design you are talking about on a 1928 Fiat, the tire was held in place by a removable rim that bolted onto the wheel. So 4 pieces wheel, retaining rim, inner tube and tire. Probably the last time you could change a tire without removing the wheel.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            They must have funny cars in Australia. Here, on cars, there are wheels/rims, ( as a single unit), with tires, attached with multiple nuts to a brake drum or rotors with protruding bolts. But you know this. More philosophical “dust”, and verbal gymnastics.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Re: 2:38–You must not have been on a farm when tractor tires would be changed while the wheel remained on the tractor. Then there were also split ring tires on trucks, and a few old JD tractors. On Tractors, some wheels were attached with splines, and Ubolts. On trucks, there are usually the same systems as on cars, with the exception of a seldom used wedge system on the “spokes” of the wheels, an inconvenience in that every time a rim was removed and replaced, due to a flat or new tires, one had to align the whole assembly so as not to wobble. A rather time consuming enterprise. This was about the only system that had a center hub similar to what you were referring to. International Harvester trucks, and a few two ton or larger trucks in the Chev -GMC lines if I remember right. Even then, there were internal multiple bolts, not a single bolt on the end of the ax. (which would make sense to have the nut going in the correct direction, to prevent loosening. But of course, you were on ships that didn’t need wheels, and probably didn’t have any working knowledge on the subject. Us farm boys did. Blow all the smoke (or dust) as you wish.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          You probably had left hand and right hand oars for you to use so you didn’t go in circles in your boats. (sorry–ships).

          • entech says:

            Oh double dear, apology withdrawn. Apology given to self and reminder to please refrain from commenting .

            @ 2:56
            Funny cars in Australia? example of ignorance Fiat is an Italian car.
            Modern cars are mostly built using this design, note 1928 was not a year in which modern cars were made!
            No philosophy involved.

            3:16
            True I have never been on a farm. It may have slipped your notice being a farm boy but ships and farm rarely get together.
            Better get ‘realist’ to start saying prick instead of Dick. The rest of your post is better commented on as the ravings of a “pedantic prick”, the alliteration is quite nice and it is more euphonious.

            @ 3:18
            You were right the first time, boats can have oars, ships can’t.
            I knew you would be aware of the left/right oar thing, it is an old joke used by the professional seaman (me) on the ignorant and gullible. somewhat akin to “did you know the last rivet in a riveted ship always goes in the same place?” , if anyone offers to show you the “golden rivet” – run.

            I thought we were having a humorous episode, I should have known better. You cannot help yourself if you don’t think you have a devastating argument you turn personal.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Strange. No connection with Fiat and Australia. How would you make that connection? I wasn’t.
            @3:16 comment of yours, and your vulgarity is noted. Had you grown up on a farm and worked on this equipment, your assumptions of a narrow understanding/application of “left-right” would have come to the fore, and would have considered the other possibilities , (which I provided).
            Had you grown up on a farm, you would know what real BS was, instead of your own specific brand.

            All in all, it has been a fun time. Nothing important, but it did take the pressure off the “nuts” in the topic, and place it on the nuts that keep the wheel on the hub, left or right, (without the need of a lock-nut or key).

  6. JB says:

    1960-1962 Pontiac Bonneville and Catalina had left hand thread studs/nuts on the left hand (drivers) side wheels. I was told it was so the wheel changing instructions could be (allegedly) simpler. But I am at a loss to describe them.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Sorry to inform you, but you are in error. I personally owned a 62 Pontiac. Bought it new, and did change the tires myself. Right hand threads on both sides. ‘Fraid you were told wrong. Sorry.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      I also know the 60 and 61 Pontiacs had right hand threads on both sides. They did have an unusual gear shift on the automatic drive though , with reverse to the far right, instead of left of neutral which is standard today.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      As an after thought: that unusual shift configuration was handy for rocking free in snow, but with high drive only one click from reverse, one had to be careful not to accidentally go too far and put it in reverse when forward was the intent. On more than one occasion people did back into things when they meant to drive off forward, (like into cars parked behind). I saw that happen right in front of a bar. (not me). Go figure.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        After sleeping on it, I believe it was low forward next to reverse, not the higher drives. One could see Google 62 Pontiac drive indicator, also “Hydromatic” @ images,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>