• The Horseman Envy

    First we got the pseudoscientific concept of penis envy, by Sigmund Freud. Then, the fatwa envy was born.

    Let me introduce a new concept — the Horseman Envy:

    Horseman envy will be the term used for the phenomenon of atheists who suffer delusions of grandeur and as a result, they think they can’t be wrong, and don’t understand why other atheists won’t worship them or accept everything they have to say in an uncritically fashion.

    The frustration that stems from this situation turns into a visceral and sick hatred of those called Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse (also known as Horesmen of Atheism) —namely Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett— and any other activist who may pose a threat to their delusions of being adored uncritically.

    Thus, atheists suffering the Horseman Envy will engage in a series of activities against those more successful and/or honest atheists, in order to discredit them. Such activities include but are not limited to: libel, defamation, doxxing, bullying, labeling them as rapists (with no evidence neither trial whatsoever), distorting their arguments beyond recognition to make them look like bigots (strawmanning), labeling them racists, accusing them of being ‘conservatives’ (?) or ‘libertarians’ (??), policing their words, or just making stuff up.

    Many of the Horseman Envy afflicted atheists have adopted a postmodernist and pseudoscientific philosophy they like to deliberately conflate with feminism in order to justify their behavior. It remains unclear why they are still considered part of the secular humanist community and why they keep on being invited to speak at Skepticism conferences (one of them, even divorced himself officially from the skeptic movement).

    (Image: UAJamie1 via photopin cc)

    Category: AtheismPhilosophySkepticism and Science


    Article by: Ðavid A. Osorio S

    Skeptic | Blogger | Fact-checker

    3 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • ThePrussian

      Very well said

    • Graham Martin-Royle

      Horseman Envy. Nice one, it explains a lot of behaviours. I’ll have to remember that.

      • And more people will remember if you share this post on your social media 🙂

    • Dave

      Glad you posted this. For awhile I’ve been struggling to describe this phenomenon where some parts of the atheist movement seem to think it runs on highlander rules and if they can just take down one of the big names, they will be more important.

    • The first time I saw someone suggest that PZM would want to replace one of the horsemen was way back in 2011 in one of ERV’s proto-Pit threads: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22hitchens+soon-to-be-vacated%22

      (To my recollection, it’s been suggested many times since in subsequent endless threads.)

      He may well be envious of the horsemen’s fame and influence, or he may not. I don’t think the envy hypothesis fits the data quite so well as the idea that ongoing efforts at “swamp-draining” the top men in skepticism is part of an ideologically driven moral panic intended to root out any suggestion or appearance of politically incorrect behaviour. Hence the attacks on Dawkins’ alleged sexism and Harris’s alleged racism, and the lack of attacks on Dennett. This is about achieving purity of thought.

      • Brive1987

        Pre 2010 PZ was of this mind:

        “Another problem with the Four Horsemen analogy is the number. As we all know, there are quite a few more vocal people who have been active in atheism and humanism and secularism in general than just the four. What about Victor Stenger or Pascal Boyer? Richard Carrier, Julia Sweeney, Dan Barker? Don’t they get horses? And what about me? You know, I’m as atheist as those others and I’m probably “atheier” than some of them. (Although I do have to admit I haven’t written a book yet. I’m on sabbatical this year to finish my book, so maybe I’ll get a horse after all.)”

        It didn’t happen, the book didn’t happen (hence THA) and then he found SJ feminism. Game over.

      • What’s the data?

        They’re atheists? Are they really trying to be politically correct? Ohh, they’re even stupidder than I thought!

    • Allison Kirkpatrick
    • Michael R

      I think the motivation of radical liberals like PZ Myers is laziness. It’s dead easy to take the huffy stance i.e. “stop offending everyone, everywhere, at all times, harumph!”. If anyone is offended, at any time, the radical liberal goes into frothing, feral mode. It’s an easy, dumb, lazy mindset. That’s why folks like PZ love it. It’s brain sleep. He loves it because he can turn off his brain and “harumph!” whenever someone in the galaxy is offended. That’s my guess.

      • But that’s not of “radical liberals”. Actually, they can be defined as the very antithesis to liberal values

    • Pingback: Inhuman, just inhuman | Avant Garde()

    • Pingback: I support Atheist Ireland against Paul Zachary Myers’ behavior | Avant Garde()

    • Pingback: It's not about click-bait; it's about hating Dawkins()