Those Dead-Eyed, Soulless Atheist Types


The eyes are the windows to the soul
Or at least, that’s how they are credited;
And demons show up in a camera’s view
When the image is printed unedited—

The atheist hordes have no spirits inside,
You can tell from their cold, lifeless eyes;
Of course, they will claim it’s a trick of the light—
They are liars, so no great surprise.

Yes, I know that a flash will reflect in your eyes
It’s just physics, that’s all, I’m aware—
But I choose to believe that it’s more than just that…
They’re just atheists—I really don’t care.

Ok, this was weird. The good news first: The Secular Coalition for America just announced that they have met with the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships:

Edwina Rogers led a group of several representatives from the nontheistic community including several of the Coalition’s member organizations, which included Aisha Goss, Deputy Director of the Secular Coalition for America; Wendy Kaminer, Secular Coalition Advisory Board member; Amanda Knief, Managing Director of American Atheists; Maggie Ardiente, Director of Communications and Development at the American Humanist Association; Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University; Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers; and Michael DeDora, Director of the Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy and CFI representative to the United Nations.
Edwina Rogers said it was important that a variety of Coalition members were at the meeting in order to show that the movement is unified. The religiously unaffiliated or “nones” now account for more than 19 percent of the American population. Among people aged 18-29 that number is even higher, with a full 35 percent identifying as unaffiliated, and 42 percent of that segment identifying as atheist or agnostic. The religiously unaffiliated are a growing and politically important demographic-the nones now represent the largest “religious” bloc of registered Democratic voters, comprising 24 percent, according to statistics from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“It’s impossible for the White House to work individually with every organization, but as a unified group the Administration can more efficiently work with us as a community,” Edwina Rogers said. “The role of the Secular Coalition is to be the unifying voice that speaks on behalf of the nontheistic and secular community–we feel this meeting was a prime example of our mission in action.”

But, see, I didn’t find out about this from the press release. I found out about it from The Blaze, where they think it strange that atheists would be interested in meeting with a government Faith office. Where, strangely enough, the commenters focused on… the photograph. If you take a look at the first (SCA) link, you’ll see a normal photograph, like those you have seen in stories on any number of topics. If you click on just the photo itself, though, and open it, you’ll see the unretouched version, before the very minor edits to get rid of flash artifacts in most of the eyes. Anyone using the photo for any story would do what they did, and simply get rid of those nasty white dots.

Anyone but The Blaze, it seems. Their story uses the unretouched (and unflattering) pic, and commenters were quick to point out that

they certainly have strange eyes. The camera doesn’t lie.

and

No indeed something does NOT look right in their eyes. Soulless…sort of like our Dear Leader and his “You can never spend too much of the citizens’ money” wife… If God does not inhabit; evil WILL enter. Indeed….

and

Look at their eyes. Reminiscent of Poltergeist!

and

I know people will just say it is because of the lighting, but take a look at each one of their eyes in the picture…..something doesn’t seem right. They all look evil.

This last commenter was responded to, and doubled down:

@Lucretius…I understand what you are trying to do and the point you are attempting to make. Yes I realize that there could be several factors that cause their eyes to look like that…such as the light from the flash reflecting off of the lenses in their eyes, although they do have this relatively new invention on cameras that stop that…maybe they just didn’t have it turned on. Or maybe it was dust particles reflecting back…..I get that….however, it does not take away from the fact that these people still look dead inside and evil…..and I”m not the only one that has pointed that out, just read through some of the other posts.

What I find so entertaining is that atheists claim to be these “freethinkers” and that they use “science” to explain everything. However, in science you have rules that you must abide by which in all honesty limit your ability to think freely.

And the funny thing? As ludicrous as these comments are, when compared to the other comments at The Blaze, these are the people who are at least commenting on something with some relationship to the real world. There really actually is a photo, and it really does have white spots in some people’s eyes. Sure, there is a simple explanation for it, but it is part of an observable reality. I can’t say the same for many of the other comments there.

Comments

  1. rq says

    I really don’t understand some people.
    But I the poem is lovely, for all its lifelessness. ;)

  2. Randomfactor says

    in all honesty limit your ability to think freely.

    They keep you from making stuff up, yes.

  3. lorn says

    IMHO a lot of people who frequent The Blaze are credulous and easily satisfied by by five second explanation for even complex issues. Most lack even a rudimentary skepticism, knowledge of science and the how the physical world operates, and photography/optics in particular.

    For those sorts of people seeing things in a photograph, and thinking it reveals a hidden truth, is not a unique or singular event. A lot of them also either believe in, or give a free pass to, all sorts of claims about hidden realities revealed by “orbs” that show up in photographs. Run a few searches for the terms: orb, spirit orb, ghost orb. Toss out the Wikipedia entry and anything smacking of science. Go directly to the bulletin boards and those with decidedly right-wing key words, like guns and survival, places featuring pictures of Obama wearing a grass skirt or half worn off face paint and read the commentary, any place that talks about life force, mysterious energies, or psychic vibrations. These people are so tied up and sure spirits exist and that photography reveals hidden truths confirming their bias that they are immune to facts. They see something not immediately obvious as to what it is and their bias pops out to fill in the gaps.

    I am greatly heartened by the Wikipedia page, with some real science showing up at the top of the Google searches. Not too many years ago the top twenty citations would have been all about spirits and mysterious energy. I spent and afternoon of a gun site pointing out simple facts about optics and how cameras work to a half dozen prolific regulars who were absolutely sure some mysterious energy had to be involved. Not willing to let mere fact interfere with a good story a couple dug deep into history of the areas photographed to find compelling storied of violent death and unhappy ghosts. Completely oblivious to the fact that while the human interest and ghost stories were fun to read they really didn’t speak to the fact that the orbs were entirely a result of the photographic flash interacting with dust and insects and showing up as orbs.

    A couple in the group had so convinced themselves that obs were the manifestations of spirits that their runaway imaginations had constructed detailed and elaborate mythologies and stories to explain what they were, where they came from, why they showed up at certain places and time, and why you couldn’t see them with the naked eye.

    If those people can construct an entire unseen universe given just a few blurry balls of light that show up in a photograph they are certainly capable of judging other people based upon how light reflects from their eyes. Given a desire to see evidence of the correctness of their own bias it doesn’t take much to make that confirmation.

  4. Joan says

    Better Dead than Red?

    Perhaps in an effort to get rid of red eye
    Some photo shop person gave subjects the dead eye.
    Compared to the ruckus ensuing from red
    The group’s probably better appearing with dead.
    Just think of the comments. “Demonic Possession!
    Red eyes! They can’t hide that with smiling expression.”
    Still the critics seem haunted by ovals in white
    Apparently giving the viewers some fright.
    Yet think of the dead eyes these goof balls have missed.
    Orphan Annie and Sandy are not on their list .

  5. bushrat says

    I applied to be one of those soulless atheist types, but I could only eat half the baby they gave me during the interview. Now I’m relegated to one of those black souled heathen types instead. Maybe I’ll reapply next year.

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>