The term denialist has a well documented entomology. It refers to the the state of denial, ('She/He is in denial'). See wikipedia entry.
The term came into common usage because the target group referred (incorrectly) to themselves in their state of cognitive dissonance as 'sceptics'. Scepticism also has a precise meaning. It doesn't refer to people who reject scientific theory without presenting contrary evidence.
Science can only be validly questioned by science. Constructing another framework based on non science (e.g feelings, or dogma) and presenting this construct as if it falsified the science is simply nonsensical. It's like trying to debate in a language you made up yourself. It is just babble.
Therefore the fact that people do not like the implications of AGW does not, in anyway, make it less true. We are not choosing clothes from a rack. We are not debating whether the purple shoes will go with my slacks. And it's the implications that denialists do not like. Notably, no-one ever questioned Tyndalls experiment, nor whether the greenhouse effect was real until it became clear from the numbers that we needed to change our habits. Then suddenly, the whole theory was controversial.
The sun's output did matter in the Little Ice Age. Sol doesn't put out constant energy, perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling.
Some sort of... er proof for your alternate theory might be useful.
This climate system of ours is more complex and dynamic than the AGW devotees are willing to admit.
If it is as complex as you say, I have to wonder why you are so comfortable making such bold predictions. Particularly given that you don't offer any evidence for you contradictory theory.
Perhaps what the GP was referring to was the cargo that is, the Dragon capsule is designed to carry cargo to the ISS, which only requires cargo becuase it has humans in it, or to take the humans themselves to the ISS and bring some back.
In other words, it is not Space X that is part of the steam age of space travel, but the cargo they carry to remain profitable, that is, humans. Human oriented space travel is the anachronism.
I'm not at all dismissing what Space X has achieved, it is amazing and quite encouraging to see what can be done by focusing on fit for purpose, rather than increasing the profits of middle men defence contractors. As a stack then, Space X is an achievement. I sincerely hope then, they carry it forward into a delivery system for 'flight age' cargo - robotic and other unmanned probes destined for other planetary bodies.
There was an interesting discussion recently about the order of succession. Apparently the Poms are planning to change the order of succession so the the crown will descend to the first born child regardless of gender.
If they do that, and Australia doesn't, in the future the Queen of England and the King of Australia will obviously be different people.
Again, you've somehow (inadvertently, I have to assume) , failed to address the actual topic at hand:
As an event localised in the north atlantic, the "little ice age" tells us what, exactly, about an event that is global in scale, and caused by something completely different?
Are you, perhaps, a Jesuit?
Wrong again. Not that I have any umbrage with the Jesuits.
You appear to have a talent for the ruthless pursuit of heretics.
Troll fail. You expect that the strength of you convictions will suffice against science. Fail again.
For all your chest beating, you present not a single fact - and, in so doing, continue to strengthen my initial point.
You original point being this:
When Europe came out of the Little Ice Age, temperatures warmed up even faster than what has been observed lately.
Which given that you cannot meaningfully link this statement to the current topic of conversation, show mean what to me exactly?
Without the Apollo program, we would not have the Saturn V - the vehicle that allowed us to launch the Voyager probes. The Apollo program itself - not exactly a huge advance scientifically and the important bits (obtaining samples of moon rock) could certainly have been achieved much more easily using a probe with a return vehicle to carry the sample. Nevertheless, the program itself enabled the Voyager probes, which were, and still are, simply awe inspiring.
And at the time he first proposed it, it was a step backwards, and even now, it is barely treading water. After all, we already have a continuous human presence in LEO - and the moon, although further away, is not much further. And it is boring.
Meanwhile, voyager II is LEAVING THE SOLAR SYSTEM. Huygens has landed on TITAN. TITAN! And Cassini! Oh Cassini. Words fail.
People like Newt are squeezing the life out of everything that is fascinating and beautiful and awe inspiring and kick arse about space exploration. Just sit back, take a moment to imagine what we could achieve with that funding if we dropped the pretence that humans serve some purpose in space. For the money it would take to fund that farcical, laughable boondoggle, that ridiculous, narcissistic epitaph to a bygone era, that space age equivalent of a horse and buggy for just 3 or 4 years, we could do almost anything.
Drill into the ice of europa. Plunge into Saturn. Visit the Oort cloud. We could fund instruments that can stare into the heart of the universe, measure the pulse of our galaxy - what's there? What barely guessed at things lie in wait for us? We'll never know, while-ever we let hollywood decide how space travel looks, rather than science and originality.
Sorry, owing to their inherent usefulness neither of those technologies rate as either 'bread' or 'circus' and are therefore disqualified from the list of potential political promises.
You've somehow (inadvertently, I have to assume) , failed to address my first question:
When Europe came out of the Little Ice Age, temperatures warmed up even faster than what has been observed lately.
And an event localised in the north atlantic tells us what, exactly, about an event that is global in scale, and caused by something completely different?
Your amusing little schtick reworking denial by constructing a fantasy world in which science is merely competing with rhetoric (denialism) for your attention/acceptance is not amusing or new enough that you are excused from your obligation to present actual facts.
I am agnostic not because I am "ignorant", but because my analysis of the studies that I have read - many, many of them - arrives at the following conclusions:
1. Neither case is particularly compelling; and
2. Both cases are presented by people with vested interests and evidence of fraud, so neither side is particularly trustworthy.
What you really mean to say is that you are a sceptic - i.e. you are merely repeating the rhetoric of those who went before you (and failed) , which is that climate change requires or desires belief from you. The truth is, nobody cares what you believe.
You are like a guy who, when informed by an oncologist that he has terminal cancer says: "Sorry, I'm not convinced".
Cancer doesn't care whether or not it has made a compelling case for it's own existence. As for the oncologist, he correctly interprets such statements for what they really are: a coping mechanism for dealing with bad news, commonly known as 'denial'. The cancer will still kill you regardless of your mental state.
Or you are like a broke man who walks into a 5 star restaurant and says: "sorry, this food doesn't compel me to eat here". Er, sorry but you lack the currency for such words to carry any weight. The restaurant cares nothing for your view if you can't spend anyway.
Thank you, by the way, for providing an example that proves my point. You regurgitate the groupthink, and instead of relying on science to make your argument for you, instead immediately go to an attack on the man, rather than the facts. This is the sort of behavior that makes me profoundly distrustful of the proponents of "global warming" as a postulate.
Well, if you have facts or science to present, then present them. You can't engage in rhetoric and expect not to be called out on it. This is not kindergarten. No amount of bawling will move teacher.
When Europe came out of the Little Ice Age, temperatures warmed up even faster than what has been observed lately.
And an event localised in the north atlantic tells us what, exactly, about an event that is global in scale, and caused by something completely different?
Look, when it comes to the whole "Global Warming" thing, I'm an agnostic.
Given that you are an agnostic ('no knowledge') I'm wondering how it is that you feel qualified to comment on the matter? If you have no knowledge in a given subject, does your opinion carry any weight?
I have no dog in the fight; no ox of mine will be gored one way or the other. I am perfectly willing to be convinced either way, and I'm equally skeptical of both sides.
Is that important?
Why is it important?
You seem to think that the fact that you are ignorant/unconvinced is representative of a failure. Whose failure is it? Whose job is it to convince you?
I'd suggest that is is your job to research topics which you are interested in discussing, and when posting comments, post from a position of knowledge, not boasting of your ignorance.
By the way, I wasn't in a quest to disprove your god,
Per my earlier - Christianity has live alongside other religions, including atheism, since it's inception. So the fact that other beliefs contrast with our own does not constitute a challenge.
I was pointing out the absurdity and self-inconsistency of religion.
I'm sure you are aware of it already, but for non-atheists atheism is a religion like any other. So when you say that, we hear "I was pointing out the absurdity and self-inconsistency of other religions." which, again, is what every religion says about every other religion. What is new here?
Surprise me.
I can give you an example: god sends his son to die for the sins of the people, and this is supposedly a 'sacrifice'. Yet how can that be a sacrifice if god's son is also a god (trinity) and he can't actually die?
What is sacrificed? I sacrificed some of my hair last month! OMG, ZONG! Well, it grew back, OK then.
Muslims object to the notion of Jesus as God's Son by saying that in order for that to be so, God must have had sex with Mary. That for them is repugnant, God would never do that.
If I understand your objection correctly it would be that Jesus, knowing that he would rise again, could not really sacrifice himself by dying. Sacrifice must have a cost component - it has to cost something. In this particular case, it wasn't actually his death, nor his physical suffering that was the cost component - although these elements were important for a number of reasons. The cost component was rejection by God, a breaking of that relationship.
But again, this is not a new objection - having first been raised approximately 50 years after the events in question.
Is it one or three gods, by the way?
God is all powerful omnipotent yet he can 'sacrifice'? His son? Himself? Is he his own son, and if he is all powerful and omnipotent, can he commit suicide? If not, why not, and if yes, then how does this reconcile with him being all-powerful, omnipotent forever?
enjoy
Not entirely sure that I follow you, but it sounds like a repeat of the "How long would it take for God to create a rock that he couldn't lift" gag, which is a logical fallacy - and not new either. The fallacy can be generalised to an attempted disproof of the concept of infinity (fallacious because as we now know, various things are actually infinite).
Well, an answer dealing with an objective response (it's meaningless) is quite different from a answer touching on your emotional response "I don't care") since the latter is not an answer and is subjective, and the former is - within a narrow range of the value of is. By which I mean Nihilism, but then of course every question would be meaningless:
Q: What is 5x2 ?
A: The question is meaningless!
But that approach seems lacking in intellectual rigour and pre-supposes a basis for determining meaning - which again, implies one the three answers above. Even if the answer doesn't affect us personally, it still carries intellectual weight, in the manner of questions on the astronomical scale. The exact mechanics of fusion may not personally impact me, the sun still shines on me regardless of how well I understand the mechanic. Nevertheless the study of fusion is intellectually satisfying.
Or more specifically, none of the criticisms made by athiests toward Christianity are interpreted as threats by Christians. Why should they? Those same criticisms have been posed by those opposed to Christianity for 2000 years, none of them are new or in any way innovative.
In which case, I would say that Christians are familiar with the following criticisms and attempted proofs/disproofs used by angry atheists (or if you prefer, the more common term: neo-atheists):
Disproof by moral objection ("Your God is morally repugnant")
Disproof by pure assertion ("There is no God")
Proof by false analogy (like "Quote: Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby. Unquote.")
Proof by Strawman/non-sequitor
Proof by Caricature
I could go on, if that really interests you.
You mean things like keeping creationism out of science? That's not angry atheism that's reacting to fundamental christians.
Again, I think you are projecting.
I don't see the 'Angry Atheism' you talk about
Really? I wonder if you can explain how a topic about a man persecuted by Muslims, in a country with rampant persecution of Christians, turned into a topic for people to spew bile and make sweeping generalisations about other people they've never met? Angry much?
but I do see reactions to fundamentalism and extremism of all stripes - I suppose it's nice to blame 'Angry Atheism' but you should look for the cause, not a symptom.
I'm not sure if there has been a rise in fundamentalism and extremism - I think we are just more sensitive to it and more exposed to it because of greater contact with a wider and more diverse range of people. And notably, amongst the fundamentalists (an ill defined term) I would include some Atheists, as well as Climate Denialists. What marks those people as fundamentalists is a tendency toward moralism , and a tendency to argue using caricature and strawman rather than dealing in fact. So in a sense, the 'rise' of atheism is more akin to a slew toward fundamentalism (driven by the causes I mentioned earlier) than an actual increase in the number of atheists, not a reaction to a rise in fundamentalism, but part of it.
the OT-god is more like "Yeah, I'll fuck up your life for giggles" anyways.
No he isn't
fuck him.
Nobody cares about your judgements
the NT-god is more like "Yeah all is forgiven just try to do the right thing",
No he isn't
but for some reason pretty much all hardcore christian sects would rather go with trying to interpret specific rules from it - probably because that relieves them from thinking and from the fact that the world isn't black and white but thousand shades of gray.
Ironic then, that you feel free to apply broad generalisations to 100s of millions of people whom you have never met and never will, but claim that it is them looking at the world in black and white.
If the treatment of one atheist by the Indonesian government compels you to such extraordinary leaps of associative logic, then I can only imagine how the treatment of non-atheists by the Chinese Government makes you feel given that roughly 300 Christians are currently incarcerated, courtesy of the government, owing to their stubborn non-atheism.
I guess by your logic theists have 300 times the affirmation that you have.
Hitler denied that Jesus was a Jew, claiming that Jesus was in fact, Aryan. This alone rules out any possibility that he was in any sense a Christian. His fundamental belief was Arianism. In his speeches he made allegorical references to Jesus, but to a Jesus made subordinate to Aryan doctrine, as with everything else he did, everything was subordinate to Aryan doctrine.
Of course it could be argued that Arianism had it's foundations in Atheism, as with other early abuses of modernism. But Hiters interpretation included a lot of spurious elements, making his something like a proto-postmodernism, with the 'Self' of post-modernism replaced by the Aryan image of the perfect man.
The atheist mythology of a Christian Hitler, is ironically, much like Hitlers view of Jesus, a distortion of the truth made to fit an underlying doctrine.
Or more specifically, none of the criticisms made by athiests toward Christianity are interpreted as threats by Christians. Why should they? Those same criticisms have been posed by those opposed to Christianity for 2000 years, none of them are new or in any way innovative.
There has been a blossoming of what we might term angry atheism in the West in the last 30 years or so. This is not a sign of Christianity failing, but rather, frustration at the failure of Modernism to deliver on it's promise. Atheists blame that failure and the lack of critical thinking (post modernism) on Christianity, which is errant nonsense. Modernism failed of it's own accord. Atheists are in some ways deluded about the nature of the world they live in and the motivation of the non-atheists they live amongst. And especially they've failed to notice the way that Christians have interpreted their statements - as an opportunity to bring the question of God out of the cultural box that post modernism placed it in, and back into the spotlight of public dialogue. Angry Atheism is nothing more than an opportunity for publicity for the Christian mind.
Apart from the fact that no real life example of rule fits neatly onto a grade with 'religious rule' at one end and 'secular rule' on the other, there is plenty of suppression of religious freedom even in countries that we would classify as secular for example, France.
Indonesia is an example of that aforementioned complexity. Even though notionally a secular state, it is in reality a Muslim state, but even then, the level of government control and influence differs vastly between, say Sumatra or Java, versus West Papua or Aceh. As does the localised approach to dealing with both cultural and religious differences.
You are the confusing the question of whether or not there is a deity with the question of what people believe. These are only the same thing in the doctrine of atheism - which is not assumed to be true, unless you are an atheist.
In short a lack of belief or lack of knowledge is agnosticism. Agnostics self identify as a group distinct from Atheism (in fact, they insist that they are not atheists) and those of us who aren't atheists can't see any reason to accept the atheist assertion (against the people who are actually agnostic) that agnostics are in fact, atheists. Or to put it another way: the foundational question Is the a God or God(s) might be answered in three ways:
1. No - Atheists
2. Yes - Theists
3. Don't know (lack of belief) - Agnostics.
Slashdot Mirror
The term came into common usage because the target group referred (incorrectly) to themselves in their state of cognitive dissonance as 'sceptics'. Scepticism also has a precise meaning. It doesn't refer to people who reject scientific theory without presenting contrary evidence.
Therefore the fact that people do not like the implications of AGW does not, in anyway, make it less true. We are not choosing clothes from a rack. We are not debating whether the purple shoes will go with my slacks. And it's the implications that denialists do not like. Notably, no-one ever questioned Tyndalls experiment, nor whether the greenhouse effect was real until it became clear from the numbers that we needed to change our habits. Then suddenly, the whole theory was controversial.
The sun's output did matter in the Little Ice Age. Sol doesn't put out constant energy, perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling.
Some sort of ... er proof for your alternate theory might be useful.
This climate system of ours is more complex and dynamic than the AGW devotees are willing to admit.
If it is as complex as you say, I have to wonder why you are so comfortable making such bold predictions. Particularly given that you don't offer any evidence for you contradictory theory.
In other words, it is not Space X that is part of the steam age of space travel, but the cargo they carry to remain profitable, that is, humans. Human oriented space travel is the anachronism.
I'm not at all dismissing what Space X has achieved, it is amazing and quite encouraging to see what can be done by focusing on fit for purpose, rather than increasing the profits of middle men defence contractors. As a stack then, Space X is an achievement. I sincerely hope then, they carry it forward into a delivery system for 'flight age' cargo - robotic and other unmanned probes destined for other planetary bodies.
If they do that, and Australia doesn't, in the future the Queen of England and the King of Australia will obviously be different people.
Are you, perhaps, a Jesuit?
Wrong again. Not that I have any umbrage with the Jesuits.
You appear to have a talent for the ruthless pursuit of heretics.
Troll fail. You expect that the strength of you convictions will suffice against science. Fail again.
For all your chest beating, you present not a single fact - and, in so doing, continue to strengthen my initial point.
You original point being this:
When Europe came out of the Little Ice Age, temperatures warmed up even faster than what has been observed lately.
Which given that you cannot meaningfully link this statement to the current topic of conversation, show mean what to me exactly?
Had I mod points, then you know - but well said
Actually the bread is just as much a distraction as the circus [ref wikipedia article on origins of the phrase]
Without the Apollo program, we would not have the Saturn V - the vehicle that allowed us to launch the Voyager probes. The Apollo program itself - not exactly a huge advance scientifically and the important bits (obtaining samples of moon rock) could certainly have been achieved much more easily using a probe with a return vehicle to carry the sample. Nevertheless, the program itself enabled the Voyager probes, which were, and still are, simply awe inspiring.
Meanwhile, voyager II is LEAVING THE SOLAR SYSTEM. Huygens has landed on TITAN. TITAN! And Cassini! Oh Cassini. Words fail.
People like Newt are squeezing the life out of everything that is fascinating and beautiful and awe inspiring and kick arse about space exploration. Just sit back, take a moment to imagine what we could achieve with that funding if we dropped the pretence that humans serve some purpose in space. For the money it would take to fund that farcical, laughable boondoggle, that ridiculous, narcissistic epitaph to a bygone era, that space age equivalent of a horse and buggy for just 3 or 4 years, we could do almost anything.
Drill into the ice of europa. Plunge into Saturn. Visit the Oort cloud. We could fund instruments that can stare into the heart of the universe, measure the pulse of our galaxy - what's there? What barely guessed at things lie in wait for us? We'll never know, while-ever we let hollywood decide how space travel looks, rather than science and originality.
Sorry, owing to their inherent usefulness neither of those technologies rate as either 'bread' or 'circus' and are therefore disqualified from the list of potential political promises.
When Europe came out of the Little Ice Age, temperatures warmed up even faster than what has been observed lately.
And an event localised in the north atlantic tells us what, exactly, about an event that is global in scale, and caused by something completely different?
Your amusing little schtick reworking denial by constructing a fantasy world in which science is merely competing with rhetoric (denialism) for your attention/acceptance is not amusing or new enough that you are excused from your obligation to present actual facts.
I am agnostic not because I am "ignorant", but because my analysis of the studies that I have read - many, many of them - arrives at the following conclusions:
1. Neither case is particularly compelling; and
2. Both cases are presented by people with vested interests and evidence of fraud, so neither side is particularly trustworthy.
Agnosticism (agnosticism) = lacking gnosis (knowledge).
What you really mean to say is that you are a sceptic - i.e. you are merely repeating the rhetoric of those who went before you (and failed) , which is that climate change requires or desires belief from you. The truth is, nobody cares what you believe.
You are like a guy who, when informed by an oncologist that he has terminal cancer says: "Sorry, I'm not convinced".
Cancer doesn't care whether or not it has made a compelling case for it's own existence. As for the oncologist, he correctly interprets such statements for what they really are: a coping mechanism for dealing with bad news, commonly known as 'denial'. The cancer will still kill you regardless of your mental state.
Or you are like a broke man who walks into a 5 star restaurant and says: "sorry, this food doesn't compel me to eat here". Er, sorry but you lack the currency for such words to carry any weight. The restaurant cares nothing for your view if you can't spend anyway.
Thank you, by the way, for providing an example that proves my point. You regurgitate the groupthink, and instead of relying on science to make your argument for you, instead immediately go to an attack on the man, rather than the facts. This is the sort of behavior that makes me profoundly distrustful of the proponents of "global warming" as a postulate.
Well, if you have facts or science to present, then present them. You can't engage in rhetoric and expect not to be called out on it. This is not kindergarten. No amount of bawling will move teacher.
When Europe came out of the Little Ice Age, temperatures warmed up even faster than what has been observed lately.
And an event localised in the north atlantic tells us what, exactly, about an event that is global in scale, and caused by something completely different?
Look, when it comes to the whole "Global Warming" thing, I'm an agnostic.
Given that you are an agnostic ('no knowledge') I'm wondering how it is that you feel qualified to comment on the matter? If you have no knowledge in a given subject, does your opinion carry any weight?
I have no dog in the fight; no ox of mine will be gored one way or the other. I am perfectly willing to be convinced either way, and I'm equally skeptical of both sides.
Is that important?
Why is it important?
You seem to think that the fact that you are ignorant/unconvinced is representative of a failure. Whose failure is it? Whose job is it to convince you?
I'd suggest that is is your job to research topics which you are interested in discussing, and when posting comments, post from a position of knowledge, not boasting of your ignorance.
By the way, I wasn't in a quest to disprove your god,
Per my earlier - Christianity has live alongside other religions, including atheism, since it's inception. So the fact that other beliefs contrast with our own does not constitute a challenge.
I was pointing out the absurdity and self-inconsistency of religion.
I'm sure you are aware of it already, but for non-atheists atheism is a religion like any other. So when you say that, we hear "I was pointing out the absurdity and self-inconsistency of other religions." which, again, is what every religion says about every other religion. What is new here?
Surprise me.
I can give you an example: god sends his son to die for the sins of the people, and this is supposedly a 'sacrifice'. Yet how can that be a sacrifice if god's son is also a god (trinity) and he can't actually die?
What is sacrificed? I sacrificed some of my hair last month! OMG, ZONG! Well, it grew back, OK then.
Muslims object to the notion of Jesus as God's Son by saying that in order for that to be so, God must have had sex with Mary. That for them is repugnant, God would never do that.
If I understand your objection correctly it would be that Jesus, knowing that he would rise again, could not really sacrifice himself by dying. Sacrifice must have a cost component - it has to cost something. In this particular case, it wasn't actually his death, nor his physical suffering that was the cost component - although these elements were important for a number of reasons. The cost component was rejection by God, a breaking of that relationship.
But again, this is not a new objection - having first been raised approximately 50 years after the events in question.
Is it one or three gods, by the way?
God is all powerful omnipotent yet he can 'sacrifice'? His son? Himself? Is he his own son, and if he is all powerful and omnipotent, can he commit suicide? If not, why not, and if yes, then how does this reconcile with him being all-powerful, omnipotent forever?
enjoy
Not entirely sure that I follow you, but it sounds like a repeat of the "How long would it take for God to create a rock that he couldn't lift" gag, which is a logical fallacy - and not new either. The fallacy can be generalised to an attempted disproof of the concept of infinity (fallacious because as we now know, various things are actually infinite).
Why? If their God is false, why do you need to fear them? What is it you are afraid of?
Q: What is 5x2 ?
A: The question is meaningless!
But that approach seems lacking in intellectual rigour and pre-supposes a basis for determining meaning - which again, implies one the three answers above. Even if the answer doesn't affect us personally, it still carries intellectual weight, in the manner of questions on the astronomical scale. The exact mechanics of fusion may not personally impact me, the sun still shines on me regardless of how well I understand the mechanic. Nevertheless the study of fusion is intellectually satisfying.
Really? Like what?
Not following you. Are you referring to this?
Or more specifically, none of the criticisms made by athiests toward Christianity are interpreted as threats by Christians. Why should they? Those same criticisms have been posed by those opposed to Christianity for 2000 years, none of them are new or in any way innovative.
In which case, I would say that Christians are familiar with the following criticisms and attempted proofs/disproofs used by angry atheists (or if you prefer, the more common term: neo-atheists): Disproof by moral objection ("Your God is morally repugnant")
Disproof by pure assertion ("There is no God")
Proof by false analogy (like "Quote: Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby. Unquote.")
Proof by Strawman/non-sequitor
Proof by Caricature
I could go on, if that really interests you.
You mean things like keeping creationism out of science? That's not angry atheism that's reacting to fundamental christians.
Again, I think you are projecting.
I don't see the 'Angry Atheism' you talk about
Really? I wonder if you can explain how a topic about a man persecuted by Muslims, in a country with rampant persecution of Christians, turned into a topic for people to spew bile and make sweeping generalisations about other people they've never met? Angry much?
but I do see reactions to fundamentalism and extremism of all stripes - I suppose it's nice to blame 'Angry Atheism' but you should look for the cause, not a symptom.
I'm not sure if there has been a rise in fundamentalism and extremism - I think we are just more sensitive to it and more exposed to it because of greater contact with a wider and more diverse range of people. And notably, amongst the fundamentalists (an ill defined term) I would include some Atheists, as well as Climate Denialists. What marks those people as fundamentalists is a tendency toward moralism , and a tendency to argue using caricature and strawman rather than dealing in fact. So in a sense, the 'rise' of atheism is more akin to a slew toward fundamentalism (driven by the causes I mentioned earlier) than an actual increase in the number of atheists, not a reaction to a rise in fundamentalism, but part of it.
the OT-god is more like "Yeah, I'll fuck up your life for giggles" anyways.
No he isn't
fuck him.
Nobody cares about your judgements
the NT-god is more like "Yeah all is forgiven just try to do the right thing",
No he isn't
but for some reason pretty much all hardcore christian sects would rather go with trying to interpret specific rules from it - probably because that relieves them from thinking and from the fact that the world isn't black and white but thousand shades of gray.
Ironic then, that you feel free to apply broad generalisations to 100s of millions of people whom you have never met and never will, but claim that it is them looking at the world in black and white.
I guess by your logic theists have 300 times the affirmation that you have.
Emotive response is purely subjective so I suspect that the level of emotional response is on another axis.
Of course it could be argued that Arianism had it's foundations in Atheism, as with other early abuses of modernism. But Hiters interpretation included a lot of spurious elements, making his something like a proto-postmodernism, with the 'Self' of post-modernism replaced by the Aryan image of the perfect man.
The atheist mythology of a Christian Hitler, is ironically, much like Hitlers view of Jesus, a distortion of the truth made to fit an underlying doctrine.
Religious types don't do reason.
And neither does Richard Dawkins, although your description probably covers him implicitly anyway.
Or more specifically, none of the criticisms made by athiests toward Christianity are interpreted as threats by Christians. Why should they? Those same criticisms have been posed by those opposed to Christianity for 2000 years, none of them are new or in any way innovative.
There has been a blossoming of what we might term angry atheism in the West in the last 30 years or so. This is not a sign of Christianity failing, but rather, frustration at the failure of Modernism to deliver on it's promise. Atheists blame that failure and the lack of critical thinking (post modernism) on Christianity, which is errant nonsense. Modernism failed of it's own accord. Atheists are in some ways deluded about the nature of the world they live in and the motivation of the non-atheists they live amongst. And especially they've failed to notice the way that Christians have interpreted their statements - as an opportunity to bring the question of God out of the cultural box that post modernism placed it in, and back into the spotlight of public dialogue. Angry Atheism is nothing more than an opportunity for publicity for the Christian mind.
Apart from the fact that no real life example of rule fits neatly onto a grade with 'religious rule' at one end and 'secular rule' on the other, there is plenty of suppression of religious freedom even in countries that we would classify as secular for example, France.
Indonesia is an example of that aforementioned complexity. Even though notionally a secular state, it is in reality a Muslim state, but even then, the level of government control and influence differs vastly between, say Sumatra or Java, versus West Papua or Aceh. As does the localised approach to dealing with both cultural and religious differences.
In short a lack of belief or lack of knowledge is agnosticism. Agnostics self identify as a group distinct from Atheism (in fact, they insist that they are not atheists) and those of us who aren't atheists can't see any reason to accept the atheist assertion (against the people who are actually agnostic) that agnostics are in fact, atheists. Or to put it another way: the foundational question Is the a God or God(s) might be answered in three ways:
1. No - Atheists
2. Yes - Theists
3. Don't know (lack of belief) - Agnostics.