Euphorics

These would be the so-called "new atheists", but such militant internet age atheists even earned a nickname: "euphorics". As in, they are very happy to be atheists, maybe more than anyone should. They are elated, glowing with happiness. They are also known as "fedora atheists" and "Reddit atheists".

They love science more than anything, since to them, science is first and foremost a weapon for their arguments. People are inherently enticed by science, but what these pseudo-intellectuals do is to sabotage it. They claim it to themselves only, ridiculing anyone of faith while they do. They seem to have this speech of "this wonderful thing is ours. If you want some of it, strip away from your delusions". Just check out the YouTube comments to any video vaguely scientific and you'll see they appear out of nowhere, finding any chance to insult religious people or their beliefs - even if the video in question is about orthodontics. By doing so, they are precisely making people resent science, driving people away from the wonders of discovery. And this leads people towards attitudes like denying evolution or global warming; they end up hating science.



Once again, euphorics do not represent atheists in general. This should come out as obvious: how many people do you know who enjoy being enormous douchebags towards others? Most individuals are respectful to each other, and it's no different with atheists. In terms of social conduct, euphorics are not representative of the majority of non-believers, but they are nevertheless loud enough to paint a very negative image of what it means not to believe in a god. They are a minority even within atheists, but their singular deportment leads people into figuring this is how atheists are, mostly. Which is a tragedy for the group as a whole.

In the same way you have extremists in all ideologies, you have extremists in atheism as well. It's almost like if they enjoy being constantly pissed off, even at things that are not worthy to be pissed off about, like an actor thanking God or a truck commercial. It gets to the point they don't seem interested in spreading enlightenment, but in hurting people, insulting them as deeply as possible, and evoking reason as a justification. Maybe it's all part of the human nature, like a sporting rivalry: it's not enough for them to love what they love, for there's that human need to clash with people with different viewpoints or preferences. It feels good, like a drug.

I do not have any solid data about which demographics compose the euphorics, but by seeing them on the internet, I have this vague idea of who they might be. Mostly young and socially frustrated males, but that on the internet find comfort among others with a like-mind. Namely, in places like YouTube, Facebook and most famously Reddit. People who almost certainly suffer from a severe case of madonna-whore complex, given that internet atheist circles became common places for all kinds of misogyny. Needless to say, they have a very black-and-white view of feminism.

They can be from anywhere in the world, and they group in internet communities where they all pat each other in the back and incentive their behaviours, retracting into social bubbles where everybody reassures what they want to hear. I think they don't seem to want any respect from outside such bubbles, and if they do, they clearly don't know how to get it. For people who don't believe in any sort of afterlife, they sure seem to be wasting their lives at this world by acting like that. You can be the most tolerant human being in miles, pro-science, progressive, secular and even irreligious, but should you believe in God, some douchebag from Bad Religion - who even my atheist cousin denounced as a "dick" - will ask his audience to mock you hard. Tell me about religious intolerance; this is intolerance 101 right there.

When you confront euphorics about their behaviour - not the validity of religion, which is what they want the most - they may declare they're unaware on how much obnoxious they are being, claiming they're just saying what needs to be said. They may also respond their anger is because they're fighting back years of discrimination and religious-based authority. And most worrisome, they may even validate their ways, saying aggressive action is the only way to properly wake people up. They try to find a reason to sanction what they do, instead of recognising there's a problem within this group that needs to be confronted. Because what they do now doesn't solve anything, and as observed this far, it only makes things worst. It stains the image people have of atheists; it pushes people away from what they are (supposedly) promoting, for no-one wants to hear a loud, foul-mouthed person who either is or behaves like a 12-year-old. In short words, it's akin to the speech violence will solve your problems.

I would be ingloriously hard pressed to find a better example to the adage of trying to put out the fire with gasoline. But then, again, I don't think these guys are trying to put out any fire. They want it to burn, because as long as there's a fight, there's a chance for them to exercise a delusional intellect they don't have.

And it gets to the point they clash even with other atheists, who do not approve of such aggressive (and regressive) attitudes. Some euphorics might pull the argument of being against the notion of "atheists versus atheists": that the group is not supposed to keep fighting itself, and that atheists should not criticise them since they're atheists too... as if their attitude - which is extremely prejudicial for the group's already unprivileged social status - was meant to be shielded by group mentality over good sense; a form of shushing valid criticism. Other euphorics however will just plain contest the atheism of those criticising them: they can't be for real... right? Yeah, as if "atheism" meant anything other than not believing in a god.

Euphorics have become so obnoxious and so full of themselves that they may ridicule any one who would not self-identify as an atheist. This includes agnostics, who would be painted as "cowards", as "atheists without balls", as people who wouldn't just deny or exclude "stupid ideas". They can't stand that we're "copping out", that we don't just "ascend" into their side. When famed scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson declared himself to be an agnostic, euphorics felt utterly betrayed by that - to know one of the greatest science promoters of our generation was not an atheist felt like a stab, as somehow they naturally presumed of course he was an atheist. Most atheists thought that was perfectly natural, and they didn't see a problem with DeGrasse being agnostic at all. But euphorics were swift and furious, declaring in YouTube comments that he was a "spineless coward" and that he had lost their respect. The greatest insanity in this whole story is how euphorics - who do not have a fraction of the life, the experiences and so much so the intelligence of DeGrasse - felt like walking over him, like if he had suddenly become inferior for not being like them.

Carl Sagan is beloved because, even more than a decade after his death in 1996, he still connects with people for having transmitted the wonders of science while avoiding looking smug. He criticised the issues of religion without coming out as a dick, and what I find disturbing is that Sagan became a reference to the passionate, aggressive atheists from our day and age, even if he was the anti-thesis of such people. Atheists love to claim Sagan, even as he was explicitly an agnostic: someone who never denied a god or anything akin to it. Would they call him a "spineless coward" as well?

Maybe so far, you're still not convinced of the points I'm trying to convey. So please, don't take my word for it. Here are the opinions of other atheists.

Brendan O'Neill for The Telegraph:

When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying? Surely non-believers in God weren't always the colossal pains in the collective backside that they are today? Surely there was a time when you could say to someone "I am an atheist" without them instantly assuming you were a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks given to making pseudo-clever statements like, "well, Leviticus also frowns upon having unkempt hair, did you know that?" Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I'm put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think I'm a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes. (...) So, what’s gone wrong with atheism? The problem isn’t atheism itself, of course, which is just non-belief, a nothing, a lack of something. Rather it is the transformation of this nothing into an identity, into the basis of one’s outlook on life, which gives rise to today’s monumentally annoying atheism. The problem with today’s campaigning atheists is that they have turned their absence of belief in God into the be-all and end-all of their personality. Which is bizarre. Atheism merely signals what you don’t believe in, not what you do believe in. It’s a negative. And therefore, basing your entire worldview on it is bound to generate immense amounts of negativity.

Mark Hill for Cracked:

I'm sure many of you can name atheists who express their arguments rationally and politely, but as a casual fan of intense religious discussions I can only recall the prominent people. (...) That means arrogant condescension has become the default tone. We're attracted to people, not because they make compelling arguments but because they're loud and abrasive (...) Whether it's fair or not, atheists (...) have developed a reputation for being... passionate about their beliefs. (...) Reddit's atheism board and its 2 million members became such an infamous cesspool that Reddit removed it from its list of default subscriptions. Do you know what it takes to get censured by Reddit? That's like having the local rapist call you a pervert.

Our conversation continued, and I offered up petitions that the positive contributions of religious people be considered with equal weight alongside the negative. “I understand what you’re saying”, I said, trying to weigh my words carefully, “but how can we discount the role religious beliefs played in motivating the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi?” “Oh, I get it,” the man jumped in with a sneer. “You’re one of those atheists”. I wasn’t sure what he meant, but it didn’t sound like a good thing. I shifted my weight from one side to another — another nervous habit — and picked at an hors d’oeuvre that I thought might be some kind of cheese. “What do you mean, ‘one of those atheists?’” “You’re not a real atheist. We’ve got a name for people like you. You’re a ‘faitheist’”. Not a real atheist. I’d heard words like that before — in my youth, when I was told I couldn’t be a real Christian because I was gay. Once again I didn’t fit the prescribed model, and I was not-so-gently shown the door.

Luke Winkie for Vice:

These are the folks who have, ironically, adopted the attitudes of hardcore evangelicals who try to convert strangers on subway platforms — it’s not enough for them that they don’t believe in God, they want to make sure you don’t believe in God either. Just by being themselves, they make the best case against humanism. If you want to find out why I call these guys Reddit atheists, take a brief dip into the Atheism subreddit. It is a place entirely defined by bitter, faux-enlightened young people sharing “thought-provoking” images about the horrific evils of religion (in practice, pretty much just Christianity) and congratulating each other for being “enlightened”. The site was originally intended to be a place where people talk about atheistic ideas, but as is Reddit’s depressing trend, it soon devolved into a swampy mess of endless, banal clichés, memes, and general anti-intellectualism. It actually rivals Creationism in terms of having a narrow worldview. They’ve actually had a campaign where they would write “once upon a time” on the first page of every Bible they found in hotels, which is probably the lamest form of vandalism ever. Reddit Atheism isn’t about philosophy or even adult conversation; it’s about getting riled up into a frothing-at-the-mouth ideological stupor so you can feel guiltlessly self-righteous for the rest of the day.

Atheist comedian Patton Oswalt raised some eyebrows when, in an interview with Salon, he denounced Richard Dawkins - one of the icons of the euphoric movement - by declaring that he feels about him the same way Christians must feel about former Westboro Baptist Church leader Fred Phelps. It obviously caused a response, but rather than talking about his points, some absolute idiots started misinterpreting him, putting words in his mouth, saying that he doesn't care about the issues of religion. Which is an absurd line of thought given Oswalt's material. This all goes to prove that they don't want to cope with reality, no different than a religious wacko would do. Nobody here is being tolerant with the issues related to religion, since we need to criticise them just as we need to criticise everything that is wrong. But there's a way of doing this, without coming out as anti-altruistic individuals. To show some minimally good behaviour is even important as a way to reach out more people. Why is that so hard for some?

You see, we have to go into the euphoric mindset. They live for an argument. They don't outright declare to be doing what they do for the sake of wanting to see the world burn, but for the sake of "intelligence, reason, and enlightenment". They're fighting the good fight. But deep down, they do want to raise hell like any troll. They do want to go having arguments over something. They have a flame inside and they want to burn others, to get mad, to exercise some superiority they clearly don't have.

Do you remember the infamous "tide comes in, tide goes out" episode with Bill O'Reilly? For sure that response was aggressively ignorant from his part, but what triggered it in the first place? What leaded O'Reilly to defend God's existence in such way? O'Reilly was interviewing David Silverman from American Atheists, and his organisation had put billboards declaring all religions are scams. They perfectly have this right, but this much struck me curious: is this how they want to be seen? As people insulting other people's beliefs almost gratuitously? Who are they going to reach by doing this? It feels so very childish.

This is not so much about their right to do what they did as this is about their personal image. For one thing is to promote secularism, to come with arguments about the fundamental flaws of religion, or to protest when religious morals start making their way into governmental rules. The other thing is what they did, something out of the blue and without much content. For some, their attitude would be justifiable, as they are addressing "urgent themes". But once again, there are better and more intelligent ways of doing it than what they did. For their action was nothing more than a confirmation of negative stereotypes on New Atheism, an isolating tactic. To make that episode even more interesting, mister Silverman - for such a rational and educated man - couldn't explain to O'Reilly what indeed changes the course of the tides: the moon's gravitational influence on our seas. Something you learn at 15.

Look, I do know that there is such a thing as discrimination against atheists, also known as "atheophobia", and that it's a serious issue. It has been happening long before euphorics started fighting back. In fact, as discussed this far, it is a justification for the euphorics to carry on with their attitudes - a very valid and totally not childish "but he started it" justification. However, the point is that this attitude is not helping their cause. An equivalence I like to make is of a boy versus a corrupt soldier with a gun. It is the figure of power who keeps harassing a weak boy and his family, day after day, week after week, until the boy can't take it anymore and starts punching the soldier, to no avail. Just think if this is a wise action from the boy: to start punching a grown man with a gun. It's not going to work, and if the situation was bad for the group before, now it's going to get worse, thanks to unchecked catharsis.

Euphorics brag about their intellect all the time, but they seem to take every word their idols say very seriously. As in, without much room to free-thinking, dare I say. It's almost the equivalent of biblical literalism, while DeGrasse always championed the message of "contest everything, even me" (but then again, he's a spineless coward). Instead of thinking for their own, they adopt the opinions of their examples and act superior because of it. In fact... it's disturbing to see how close to organised religion this movement is. Let's see: they gather around from time to time (as Stedman reported), adopted symbols, have their books (which are treated as holy scriptures), have leaders and icons, try to convert people into their cause (from the presumption they are "saving people"), cannot accept different notions, and itch for arguments. I cannot believe they pulled it off, but euphorics actually managed to match Christianity.

Last year, the Christian drama film God's Not Dead was released, and it was strongly criticised for... well, for many things actually, such as being such an awful film. But one of the main complains was about the pedantic way the atheist antagonist was portrayed. He was smug, condescending and selfish. He had no care for other people's opinions and views. It would be very easy to accuse the film of perpetrating atheophobia... but the point is, are we saying this kind of atheist doesn't exist? Are we saying you can't find people like that? Because obviously you can easily find these stereotypes out there.

And I say this because, insanely enough, some people try to write all of this off; to paint the "angry atheist" motif as a myth, something that doesn't really exist. Once again, they are a vocal minority... but they totally exist. And the first step to solve a problem is to recognise there is a problem: there are angry atheists out there... many of them. Yes, if there was to be a mass confrontation between these kinds and normal atheists, that would be the group-against-itself war that some people would hate. But that would be necessary, like a process modern atheism needs to go through. I'm not asking people to exterminate euphorics, or even to silence them; what is needed is for people to realise euphorics don't owe atheism, just like they don't own reason, humanism or science. They don't speak for atheists.

Do they think they do? Do they think that when they say what they say, they are actually saying the things atheists in general are longing to say, but lack the courage? Do they think atheists are all secretly like them? And that they're silenced by fear or by their own political correctness? If they really believe that, such would prove, more than anything else I have discussed in here, how simply out of touch they are with reality.

They basically became a religion. And it becomes more ironic, for in their view, religion is a problem on itself. That's the genesis of everything, the basic fact euphoric atheism is funded over. But they tend to forget - maybe not surprisingly, since they only remember what is convenient to their bias - that social and educational formation are factors for intolerance and bigotry to proliferate or not. So much so that when you see the most developed countries in the world, they're not necessarily irreligious, but they definitely invest in intellectualism. Just remember this is mankind we're talking about, and bigotry will exist regardless of religion or the lack thereof. People will always find a reason to do awful things - remove religion and it's going to be something else.

People talk a lot about Islam, but if you go to Europe, the mentality of the Muslim there changes dramatically in relation to the Middle East Muslim. And that's because they had a different formation, a different mentality... so much so that the goal of Boko Haram is to safeguard Nigeria from progressive influences like secularism and freedom. Those are treats to religion as a source of truth.

When you move to poor regions from the Middle East, they don't have the level of education we have. It's so easy to speak ill of them, but how did they grow up? They don't have the proper schools, the capacity to educate their people. Religion then becomes primary to the lives of such people, the first and the last, something incontestable. It's not just faith; it's the primary rule that occupies the vacuum. Some people like to declare poverty is a fundamental factor for religious extremism to grow, but I particularly disagree with this notion, for being rich will not change the mentality of some heavily indoctrinated people - if anything, having money raises their power. But if we're talking about a poverty that keeps local education from reaching a next level of intellectualise, then yeah, poverty becomes a factor indeed.

In the graphic novel memoir The Arab of the Future, the main character's father believed in Pan-Arabism, and he believed education was the way for Arab countries to break away from past convictions, and to catch up with the rest of the world. Just remember that Christianity was also once deep into darkness, with inquisitions, crusades and witch-hunts. But that is because Europe hadn't yet reached the level of intellect to contest religious consistencies and to relegate them simply as faith, instead of the truth.


Bad ideas need to be criticised - bad in the sense they're causing actual ill to societies. And education is key to make people perceive that.

_____________

Update
May 5, 2019

It has been four years since I wrote this essay. My original intention with it was to say that religions are not so much the source of ignorance around the world as it is a lack of intellectualism that allows said ignorance to fester. You can have an intellectual society where religions are regarded as personal beliefs, and not as facts. And that when there is not an investment in education, religions - with their easy answers - are more likely to become the status quo. But as I wrote the essay, I caught myself talking more and more about the state of atheism in the 21st century. I talked about how worried I was on how many atheists today are toxic in behaviour, and how this needed to be confronted by the atheist community itself.

And here we are; the alt-right is a massive force upon us. As we know it, the alt-right represents a disregard of a new right-winger generation towards traditional conservatism. They don't care about abortion; they don't care if global warming and evolution are real or not; they don't care about many of those topics that the right has always loved to debate. They care about white supremacy, about chauvinism, about division, about identity politics. And more evidently to me, they don't really care about religion, which has always been a cornerstone of right-wing movements in America. This is clear because, as we move forward in time, we are becoming less religious, but that doesn't mean people are becoming less stupid - which once again, goes to prove that religion is not a prerequisite for stupidity. And many have noticed just how much people in this movement are atheists.

Right-wing atheists are nothing new. There have been plenty of libertarians and objectivists who embraced their own interests over the common good, and noticing that this goes against the teachings of religions - which for better or worse, do believe in the common good - they decided to ignore religion altogether. But be sure of one thing: now we are seeing a surge of atheism on the right end of the spectrum like perhaps never before in our lifetimes. And I think things are linked, they make sense, given all that I've seen. The euphorics, who are so anti-political correctness, found a home in the alt-right, because it shares many of their characteristics. The trolling, the desire to steer controversy and debate, the toxic behaviour, the disregard with common sense, the "fuck the world" attitude. Euphorics embraced the alt-right with gleeful abandon, and this was the result of atheist icons not speaking out against its most troublesome followers.

Things have escalated into this point: this is what happens when you allow bad things not to go criticised.