My Most Recent ‘HATE’ Mail- and My Response

My Most Recent ‘HATE’ Mail- and My Response

By David G. McAfee

Please ‘follow’ me on Twitter for future updates

                 This is the most recent “Hate Mail” that I’ve received regarding the posts on my website- I decided to post it because, not only does it demonstrate the ignorance of the religious majority, but acts as a defensive insult to my personal life, occupation, and university schooling with absolutely no evidence or stated justification. I also wanted to give my readers a chance to review my responses (located, point-by-point, in the footnotes section). I did the author a favor by cleaning up some of the spelling/grammar errors before posting- please keep in mind that this e-mail was in NO WAY prompted by any correspondence by me personally and was solely in response to my blog:

 On 04/15/2010, at 11:14 AM, I received  the following message to my e-mail from a man who wishes to remain anonymous.

                 For someone who thinks they have an idea about religion here is a suggestion; do not quit your day job, unless of course your day job IS describing religions in which case I would suggest something more the line of working at McDonald’s.   Your ignorance about the topics you are discussing is not only staggering but you are in essence a complete liar as from what I have seen from your blog you hardly put out “an objective point of view.” Your entire blog “reeked” of hatred and intolerance toward religious beliefs.   Indeed, I would hardly call a person who on the one hand says that he studies “religions and their various effects on society (positive and negative) from an objective point of view” and then in the same blog has an article called “Author of “The God Virus” speaks in Santa Barbara.”[1]  

                And yet nowhere do I find one article talking about the POSITIVES of religion. For instance you mention all of what you consider the bad in religion (which if you had half the education you claim to have, you would have come across a little thing called ethical relativism) but never mention any of the good that it has accomplished such as feeding the poor. Please do not retort with the tired notion “well that is common to all of humankind” as I am going to have to educate you by saying that murder, rape, incest, etc are also all common to mankind but you seem to give the idea that these are indicative of the religious books as you mention but fail to note this, thus confirming your bigotry to such belief systems.[2] 

                I could go on with so many more points but I do not have the time or the desire to give you the proper education that you so desperately need. So my suggestion Mr. Mcafee (I say Mister because I cannot possibly believe any university with half an accreditation would actually screw up and give you a degree at least in theological studies[3]) is to quit your quaint little blog and actually do something more productive with your time that will no longer have you looking like a complete idiot. And before you decide to respond with the typical responses that are so prevalent with the secular community.[4]

                 1. No, I am not someone who just is too blind to reject all of this “religious nonsense.” You know nothing about me so please do not begin to start forming opinions about my beliefs. I do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God for instance.[5] What does irritate me is your complete lack of integrity and honesty. Many of the arguments that you make are based off of a error called “World View Confusion.” You might want to look that up next time you are studying all of those “Religious Study” books assuming you did not lie about that as well.  At any rate if either of us is “too blind” that would be you as your blog clearly shows. In short no scholar would take you seriously unless they were either too drunk to disagree with you or you had forced them into a lobotomy. 

                 2. No, you did not “hit the nail on the head and as a result struck a nerve.” I frankly do not care what you believe. What I DO care about is someone pasting extremely biased information and saying it is objective. Shut one’s eyes tight and opening one’s arms wide, either way one is a fool. If the religionists are fools for “opening their arms wide” then you are just as big a fool for “shutting your eyes tight.”[6] There are other that I have considered as possible response but I am not going to take any more my time to bother to put them down. 


[1] To address your first “argument”, I’d like to properly inform you in regards to the quote that you inserted. When I said that I study “religions and their various effects on society (positive and negative) from an objective point of view”- I was referring clearly to the distinction between RELIGIOUS STUDIES courses and departments in public universities (which present religion from an objective, phenomenological approach, and the bias study of THEOLOGY (which you incorrectly cite when quoting my university studies in the third paragraph) that is defined as “the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.” As for the “God Virus” presentation, it is ironic that you point out that post specifically- because, if you’d done any research or read the book, you’d realize that it’s about the intolerance, ignorance, stubbornness, and lack of logical thinking common among religionists- which you so obviously suffer from.

[2] This is an important point and I’m glad you bring it up. I am not denying that some people use religion as a motivation for doing ‘good’. I am arguing two points. #1: Though religion is often used as a motivator for positive behavior, it shouldn’t have to be; people should be strong enough to behave morally in accordance with their own humanity and conscience- religion is the middle man. #2: Everybody is aware of the “Mother Theresa” positive aspects attributed to various religions, but it is my job to educate those who, like yourself, who believe that religion is solely a positive institution. The biggest wars in mankind, the KKK, Nazism, and many other negative movements found their root in religion, and that cannot be ignored. To sum up my response to this point, I’ll quote Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg: “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

[3] Again, I do NOT study theology. See point #1.

[4] First of all, in your assertion that I “quit my quaint little blog”; you are attempting to shatter the very core of constitutional rights of freedom of press and speech. While we are on the subject of the Constitution of the United States, however, I must also bring up the point that because we are supposed to have a separation between Church and State, our nation is expected to be a “Secular Community”- like the one you insult. In regards to your statement that I should “do something productive”: What I am doing by spreading secular awareness in a SECULAR nation while simultaneously promoting science, education, intellect, and peace is a pretty productive task. I know many people whose lives have been significantly improved after realizing the dangers of organized religion, and I am helping more people to become informed of the negative effects that the religious majority has attempted to suppress for many years.

[5] Firstly, I don’t think this sentence make a lot of sense. But what I read is that you “don’t believe the bible is the word of god”. That’s completely fine, that simply means that you aren’t Jewish or a Christian- this is not to say that you are not religious, and considering your lack of knowledge on the subject, I’d guess that you are indeed a religious individual whose mind is closed to other considerations. Also to say “You know nothing about me to begin to start [unnecessary repetition] forming opinions about my beliefs”- before you announce something like that, you should probably take a closer look at your own e-mail in which you assume many things about me, as a person. For instance, you call me dishonest (but neglect to indicate a section in which I have presented a LIE), an “idiot”, which I am not, and various other nonsensical terms such as that I am “shutting my eyes tight.” Please formulate a valid argument, if I “lie” please indicate where, and your credentials from which you derived this ‘superior knowledge’.

[6] I am still unclear as to how I am “shutting my eyes tight”. I have read the Sacred Texts, to completion, of many major and minor religions- I am always studying and researching to learn more about how the religious mind works, and its negative and positive effects; I would argue that, by attempting to suppress my writing, you would be denying some people the ability to learn about these things.

Advertisements

20 responses to “My Most Recent ‘HATE’ Mail- and My Response

  1. Unfortunately, these types of emails are common to all of us who speak out against religions. I get them every day. Perhaps one day I will post them, too.

  2. David McAfee’s accuser’s diatribe sounds like several that were launched at me for my statements about theism. The person is obviously very upset and has very few facts to back anything she said up. She prefers to attack the person rather than the argument. That way, she can avoid any of the research that is necessary in any intellectual debate.

  3. Thank you for getting that off your chest. I know it’s a common fight between “aware” people and “Billy Bob” and his complacent “dick sucking wife”. It is futile, these people are inbred to fear this way, but it is a helluva good read for the rest of us!

  4. Hmm. Intolerance rears it’s ugly head. I have often found 2 traits common to people who get angry at anyone who doesn’t accept their belief systems. First they seem to believe that without invisible friends to punish wrong doing that people would behave “wrong”. I have no desire to steal or kill etc. Yet these folks must, as they can not imagine ethical behavior without some eternal threat of punishment. The other is the intolerance manifested in anger. I’m happy to live and let live…happy to share my views but not angry if they are not shared…My guess is this writer doesn’t believe in Thor the thunder god because there is no empirical evidence to believe such a being exists yet can not accept that applying the same criteria to the belief system they subscribe to yields exactly the same result. I have no problem with disagreement, but where does the anger come from?

  5. MMmmm, well. Another debate about religion. I’m atheistic, but I don’t feel the need to point out the many obvious flaws in religions. People have many needs, and if religion gives them a teddy bear to comfort them, and a nasty “god” who smites their enemies…well, so what? The smitten enemies are left with only guesses as to the imaginary smite that was aimed at them by the imaginary “god”.
    If the religious are actually hurting people, that’s another matter, and is illegal. Here in Australia there are laws against inciting hatred and violence, so if the fundamentalists go extreme, they get arrested.
    Sadly the tax exemptions and government subsidies help fringe religions and regular religions maintain their power in education. That’s where the real problem is. The churches hold trillions of dollars in assets that pay no taxes. Most politicians love to hide behind “faith” as a clever public relations ploy. They’ll never hold the churches to account.

  6. One of my favorite writers has this to say:

    “The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes.” — Dave Berry

  7. Like the Inquisition, these people are so strung out emotionally and with irrational wish-fulfillment that they defend the indefensible. First they make it all up and then then are willing to die for it – good plan there! They may sound intellectual but the bottom line is a temper tantrum that you just told them there was no Santa and they really, really wanted those presents.

  8. When I meet people that want to argue in favor of religion I ask them if the read the bible if no I walk away if they say yes I ask if they read Genesis and believe that it’s true and if they yes I roll my eyes and walk away.

  9. Raymond McCarthy

    First of all, I find it amusing that Mr. McAfee does not seem to consider e-mail addresses private. I have already gotten three hate mails this morning. Apparently, I am not the only one who has “hatred issues.”

    As I stated in my lasted email to Mr. McAfee that I adhere to no organized religion as I found that many of them have harmed people. I simply point out that there are people in them that have accomplished good as well, which the people here often ignore and it is irritating.

    The email response that will be forthcoming will be the last in the series whether or not the argument is unfinished as my guess is by now that people here will only regard me as ignorant despite my thirty years in religious studies and theology and from what I can tell they themselves are the ignorant ones. If you are going to respond please do not use the e-mail address above as I already have enough e-mails coming in.

  10. McCarthy is merely engaging in the Ad Hominem fallacy of argument that people often take when they view anyone disagreeing with them. For example:

    “So my suggestion Mr. Mcafee (I say Mister because I cannot possibly believe any university with half an accreditation would actually screw up and give you a degree at least in theological studies[3])”

    @McCarthy: It’s not about people, its about ideas. No matter how ridiculous you find them, your points are lost when attacking the individual.

    @David McCarthy also uses presupposition when he suggests, “I could go on with so many more points but I do not have the time or the desire to give you the proper education that you so desperately need.”

    The assumption is that you do not have a proper education.

    This type of “hate” email supports you, not harms you.

  11. Raymond McCarthy

    You mean such as the following email I got from one of your intellectual readers?

    Sender of email…
    > To be an ignorant fuck like you is pathetic. We love the hate mail you send. Shows how sad you are.

    My Response…
    Isn’t that what you just got finished doing? Sending hate mail?

    Calling someone an “ignorant fuck” is hardly what I would consider a loving response.

    Perhaps before calling someone ignorant you might want to get to know more about the person. I know for a fact that Mr. McAfee was and is ignorant as his views do show but he like you are simply to blinded to see it. Saying that religion is the source of all the earth’s woes is simply…illogical.

    His response…

    Fuck you dude. Can’t stand ignorant fucks like you. You deserve all the hate you get. Sad and pathetic.

    So uh, what was that about intellectual atheists being more tolerant than other people about their beliefs? Tell me, in all of my responses did I ever use that type of language to Mr. McAfee or any other here?

    But THIS IS typical of what I have seen on websites like this one. People who on the one hand claim that they hate religion because it is intolerant but then come back with the biggest bunch of hatred that I have ever seen.

    As in regards to neandergal’s response…

    That was not an insult and I stand by what I say. I cannot imagine any university at this time screwing up and giving him a degree in Theology.

    I know for a fact that I do not need the education as I know what my background is. Do I have a degree? No, but I have done quite a bit of research (thirty years worth. In addition I have had debates with professors and theologians who DO have degrees and won the debates.) I however am not the one putting out a blog in order to “instruct others” am I?

    Mr. McAfee plainly stated that it was his “job” to teach others about this subject (religious studies that is.) From the research that I have focused on in addition to his own blog, it is my view that he is not qualified to do so. Perhaps one day he will be, but for now I cannot see it.

    From what I have seen so far I stand by what I say. I do not think that Mr. McAfee has the qualifications needed to teach anyone. If he can show me something that tells me he does then I will gladly recant the statement.

    The point is that what I said is not an attack, it was in my view an accurate statement based off of the evidence. Perhaps blunt, but nevertheless accurate.

  12. Raymond McCarthy

    But as I said I am not going to go into this any further except to say…

    “ezomologoumai soi pater kyrie tou ouranou kai tes ges oti ekruphas tuata apo sophon kai suneton kai hapekalypahs hauta nepiois”

    Since all of your here along with Mr. McAfee don’t need “ol’ Billy Bob and his dick sucking wife” to tell you what it means I will let all of you “learned individuals” figure it out. After all you are all so brilliant and don’t need the likes of me to tell you as you have it all figured out.

    I’m just a dumb idiot so what do I know?

  13. Raymond McCarthy

    And yes I am aware that my second response will have spelling errors in it. The reason is because I did not care to check them, not because I missed them. I have to mention this before someone here states…”lol! He can’t even catch errors in his own writing!”

  14. Religiously Numb

    Mr. RM sounds rather pompous and full of air, saying nothing but wanting all the attention and crowds of people nodding in affirmation of his rightness. Perhaps he’s afraid if we all ignore him he’ll disappear, which is the same class of people I would put Palin in: less usefulness and relevancy than a cheeto.

    But I think that Dave’s arguments, like the arguments of any thoughtful individual, are still growing and being refined. This doesn’t make them better or worse, just of the moment. Critical thinking means that the individual is constantly moderating themselves– when a better argument and therefore better information is found, then one refines one’s ideas as appropriate. It is the religious who insist that there must be absolute truth, zero sum arguments, binary thinking (right/wrong black/white etc. ad nauseum). One is a sophisticated mind capable of conception that outlives doctrines from the bronze age, and the other is not. I leave it to you to put the label on the appropriate mason jar.

  15. Hi there! Dont let these morons put you off. I was reading Pat Condell’s hate mail last night and it is truly vulgar. Unfortunately, there is just no reasoning with some people. It would be nice if you left the hate male unedited though. It’s always worth a chuckle. 🙂

  16. Believers are not all this sort.

    There must be thoughtful introspective men and women who are open minded enough to consider the possibility that those who are certain that god leads them might just be wrong.

    There must be believers who have read about the expanded universe we are constantly describing, who grasp the fact that in the two thousand years since the death of Jesus we have learned that the stars that were their little lights in the sky are in fact, immense balls of nuclear fueled flame, and that one of the balls gives this earth we are on the climate needed to support life.

    There must be believers whose minds can get around the time and distances involved in just a trip to the nearest star.

    There must be believers who understand that Darwin solved the problem of how we got here when he published his seminal work on evolution and natural selection.

    There must be, I just haven’t found any in the 75 years I’ve spent here. I’ll keep looking.

  17. I was just wondering, if wars are not started by religion, then exactly how did the hate mail from Mr. McCarthy come about? People that can’t fathom the idea of others having no religion, and starting a verbal war, are just like those that fly planes into buildings because they think that is what their “God” wants them to do, my point is only that, if we can’t get along with each other and accept other’s points of view, we certainly will never reach peace with anyone else.

  18. The followings are excerpts from The Crisis of Religion, dealing with problems of similar nature that I regularly encounter:

    “The manner in which the defenders of Biblical fairy-tales have ubiquitously flooded internet websites with depraved information to sustain the falsehood of the Bible, most truly denotes underhanded sponsorship of religion beneficiaries. It gives a picture of sinister aim to confound the credulous minds of numerous faithful, on account to stay tight in business. These actions are factually consistent with the tricks of businesspersons, as they would stage-manage every ploy and tactic to keep their trade out of the erosion of any threat (even to the extremity of sending “Hate Mail” and pursuing sceptics with swords and machetes). These deceptive notions are certainly unedifying and very dishonest to humanity and the very God that these religionists have always pretended to worship. It is as if the people cannot perceive these numerous contradictions reading between the lines with their naked eyes, or that they cannot discern these inexhaustible discrepancies with their astute minds.”

    Even though the author of this hate mail had fervidly denied being a religious adherent, any logical mind would definitely perceive the sound of the voice of Esau roaring loudly in this ‘Hate Mail’ that was supposedly penned down in the handwriting of Esau. In the immortal words of Anthony Trollope, “When people are interrupted in the performance of some egregious stupidity their feelings are hurt.”

    My dear David, please expect more of this “Hate Mail” to come on regular basis. I here close the subject.

    Your friend in reason,

    Adebowale Ojowuro

  19. This gentlemen (and I use that word losely) sound just like the christians I have came up agianst. They want you to be objective to their cause and not with you own. This man has a supiourity complex as most christains do, believing they are better than everyone else, and that everyone else is wrong. What I thought was funny was his statement that to did not believe the bible was the word of god. Ok, then what does this guy actually believe in? Is he one of these guys that wants to start up his own version of christianity with himself as leader? David Koresh and the Branch Dividians comes to mind. He also states that you ( David G. McAfee) have to be objective? Why is this? Why do we have to be objective when christan are truely not subjective to our belief’s? And then there is the name calling, childish name calling that christians do when faced with someone with actual intelligence. I see this time and time again, I believe it is actually a conditioned response to anyone that does not believe as they do and is willing to speak up against christians, when they have no intelligent answer to respond with. This is nothing more than a unintelligent rant by an unintelligent christian. I believe he should step bad and take a good look at where he is coming from, because he makes absolutrly no good points at all.

  20. I find it interesting that Mr. McCarthy does not believe in the bible. Where does his idea of a god come from. The cults that predated religion did not have a bible. They invented there own god. If we follow the evolution of religion the conclusion is that the desert religion’s ancestors are those cults and adopted many of there ideas about god from these cults. I than guess that Mr. McCarthy is a member of a cult without the belief in the bible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s