Sunday, October 01, 2006

Atheism: The Religion of Peace

As the Left whines about President Bush leading the country toward a theocracy and considers Christians in mocking tones as knuckle-dragging, intolerant, anti-intellectual, toothless boobs, I find it necessary to exercise some knuckle-dragging, intolerant boobery. This will allow me to speak at the level of the scoffers.

For many years now we have been being forced toward an atheocracy, not by the will of the citizens through their duly elected officials, but by rulings of the puppets of the atheofascists; the courts. Some may claim that the Constitution requires this in its demand for the separation of church and state. In addition to the use of laughable revisionist history and irrational 'logic', this faith has resulted in the favored status of the minority atheist religious faith over that of the majority.

Many may think that atheism is not a faith, but simply the result of rational philosophy. By definition, however, this cannot be the case. Rational philosophers know that proving a negative such as 'there is no God' is impossible. The basis for atheism, therefore, starts with an act of blind faith. From this jello-esque foundation, they unabashedly snicker like children at others of a different faith and often refuse to even hear, let alone consider, the rhetoric and opinions given by them. Third graders often show more maturity.

Many atheists are fond of saying that wars and other 'evils' are caused by religious beliefs. With this I tend to agree. The Nazi's many Crusades, the Soviet Witch Trials, and the Chinese Inquisitions are some of but a few examples of the religious faithful. Of course the Christian cultures also suffer their similar black eyes, but in comparison the Christians are made to look like pikers. This is probably because Christians don't hold their faith with an equivalent depth of jealousy and religious fervor.

Although atheism is at least as old as other forms of prostitution, in more modern times it has been given an hallusinogenic erection by the disciples of Charles Darwin and his scientifically proven fact of evolution. Atheism's Old Testament of materialism soon proved to be incomplete in the incarnation of the savior so a New Testament edition of postmodernism was acquired by revelation. The Christian assertion of 'God's Word says it, I believe it, and that settles it' has been replaced with 'I believe it and that settles it'. The Law of Parsimony proscribed by Occam's razor has been fulfilled. It has to be true.

Absolutes are dead. Truth is also dead. To each his own. Whatever floats your boat. If someone asks an atheist why it is wrong to rape, kill, butcher, and eat babies he cannot (or should not be allowed to) appeal to a dead absolute. Has he found it in our genes, molecules, or atoms? Other aspects of evolution? Human tradition? Self interest? Whatever the answer, he should be required to examine that faith statement with the same rigor with that by which he rejects God's existence.

In reality, such proof is not required. Without an external absolute, 'truth' becomes the result of judges, guns, and money. Atheism is a power religion that must be evangelized by brainwashing and force. The aforementioned Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese examples list only a few of the more colorful atheofascist pastorates. They are creative and fervent, however, and will continue their apostolic ministries with vigor.

(I don't want to give the impression that all atheists fall into the atheofascist sect. In fact, there are hundreds of atheists who would be content to live, work, and play alongside others who live and talk their faith outside of Sunday morning.)

At present in the United States shoving the atheistic faith down our throats has not yet come at the end of a gun barrel. Mockery is one basic weapon. Since that strains the imagination to view that as intellectual superiority, it really is kind of funny. A response matching the depth of thought would be something like, "D'uh", or "Nanny-nanny boo-boo", or "Pfffffttt". More serious, however, is the favoritism to the atheistic faith forced by the courts and bureaucracy into the schools and laws. The atheocracy has made many strides toward a monopoly in these areas.

An atheocracy has nothing to offer a culture other than 'freedom' to pursue prurient interests. That will succeed for awhile and will produce several cultures, both medically and balkanly, but will fail to impel Culture forward.

If one considers medieval times to be the Dark Ages, one should consider in depth the darkness that would be created by men seeking power to wield their own salvific visions without a classical United States to stop or contain them by force.


*Now here's a post by Todd, the semi-negligent proprietor of Mr. Pterodactyl that demonstrates what I would consider a profound intellect of a non-Christian. It was written on June 11th, 2004, and I have been mulling it since.

"Well, it happened again. Somebody asked me about my religion.

I suppose it doesn't really happen that often. It seems like it does though. Somebody asks me, so I say I'm an atheist.

[By the way, I don't really think 'atheist,' but having no belief in supernatural entities that are responsible for the creation of the universe and expect me to behave in certain ways, it's the only word people understand. Agnostic, maybe, but that’s for another post.]

Often, the person then comments, "what made you choose that?" Or something similar. I never could answer that to my own satisfaction until the other day.

One does not choose beliefs. One comes to them. I don't remember ever deciding to become atheist; that is a result of experience and reflection. Likewise, I didn't choose my political views.
I do choose what books I read, what movies I watch, what foods I eat, based on what I like or prefer, but I never consciously chose what books, movies, foods to like.

So where do these things come from? I cited ‘experience and reflection,’ but that’s not completely satisfactory either. What experiences can I credit with having formed my religious/political views? Or my food preferences, for that matter? I can’t turn to the influence of others; I was raised in a (more or less) Christian atmosphere, the people around me have had widely varying political opinions, I just can’t get enough kimchi (most Americans can’t stand the stuff). I can’t assert superior intelligence, much as I’d like to; there are many perfectly intelligent people who I disagree with on any issue you care to name. I can’t claim some special knowledge that others lack; how would I even know I had it?"


If John Calvin were an agnostic, that's probably how he would have stated it. (Except the part about kimchi!)

3 comments:

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

”For many years now we have been being forced toward an atheocracy, not by the will of the citizens through their duly elected officials, but by rulings of the puppets of the atheofascists; the courts. Some may claim that the Constitution requires this in its demand for the separation of church and state. In addition to the use of laughable revisionist history and irrational 'logic', this faith has resulted in the favored status of the minority atheist religious faith over that of the majority.”

You’re so garrulous Steve-O, but you never seem to say anyting. The constitution does require what I would call non-cognisance by government of religion. Calling this truth “laughable” or “revisionist” does nothing to disprove it. If you consider the courts “atheofascists,” you must consider Madison and Hammilton to be the same.

”Many may think that atheism is not a faith, but simply the result of rational philosophy. By definition, however, this cannot be the case. Rational philosophers know that proving a negative such as 'there is no God' is impossible. The basis for atheism, therefore, starts with an act of blind faith. From this jello-esque foundation, they unabashedly snicker like children at others of a different faith and often refuse to even hear, let alone consider, the rhetoric and opinions given by them. Third graders often show more maturity.”

There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule that you cannot prove a negative. Certain things are logically impossible and can therefore be proven not to exist. A “square circle” for example. A square has certain properties (4 equal sides, 4 right angles) and a circle has certain properties (a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center). The properties of these two things are mutually exclusive. Similarly, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God allegedly has certain properties that are mutually exclusive of eachother, i.e. a being cannot be all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time. Knowledge of what is to come makes the actor powerless to change it etc.

”Many atheists are fond of saying that wars and other 'evils' are caused by religious beliefs. With this I tend to agree. The Nazi's many Crusades, the Soviet Witch Trials, and the Chinese Inquisitions are some of but a few examples of the religious faithful. Of course the Christian cultures also suffer their similar black eyes, but in comparison the Christians are made to look like pikers. This is probably because Christians don't hold their faith with an equivalent depth of jealousy and religious fervor.”

For starters, Hitler and the Nazis were like totally Christians. He quoted Luther in like all of his speeches and had veto power over bishops in Germany. His genocide was based more on race than religion, but to say it wasn't religiously motivated at all is a bit of a stretch. Secondly, the Soviet and Chinese Inquisitions had nothing to do with Atheism. Perhaps the perpetrators were largely secular, but that wasn’t their alleged reason for carrying out the atrocities. Whereas the Crusades, the Inquisition, the current problems in the middle east are all because of religion and carried out in the name of religion.

”Although atheism is at least as old as other forms of prostitution, in more modern times it has been given an hallusinogenic erection by the disciples of Charles Darwin and his scientifically proven fact of evolution. Atheism's Old Testament of materialism soon proved to be incomplete in the incarnation of the savior so a New Testament edition of postmodernism was acquired by revelation. The Christian assertion of 'God's Word says it, I believe it, and that settles it' has been replaced with 'I believe it and that settles it'. The Law of Parsimony proscribed by Occam's razor has been fulfilled. It has to be true.”

Wow, you made short work of that straw man. Maybe you’re ready to take a look at what Darwin and his “disciples” actually think. NOBODY THINKS EVOLUTION IS A FACT. That’s not what a fact is. Evolution is a theory. But a theory is not something less than a fact. It has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with reasonable conjecture based on observed evidence. I talked about science more here:
http://yuiopqw.blogspot.com/2005/11/science-101-shana-one-of-my-rare.html

”Absolutes are dead. Truth is also dead. To each his own. Whatever floats your boat. If someone asks an atheist why it is wrong to rape, kill, butcher, and eat babies he cannot (or should not be allowed to) appeal to a dead absolute. Has he found it in our genes, molecules, or atoms? Other aspects of evolution? Human tradition? Self interest? Whatever the answer, he should be required to examine that faith statement with the same rigor with that by which he rejects God's existence.”

I already dealt with this idiocy in a comment to one of your other posts and you never responded. God may be based on largely agreed upon morals, but it’s not the other way around. If the vast majority of us agree that it’s wrong to kill, what is added by alleging that the basis for that idea is a fictitous god? Why does it matter what fictitous god we use? What’s wrong with not knowing why our big brains are equiped with something that makes us think it is wrong to kill eachother?

”In reality, such proof is not required. Without an external absolute, 'truth' becomes the result of judges, guns, and money. Atheism is a power religion that must be evangelized by brainwashing and force. The aforementioned Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese examples list only a few of the more colorful atheofascist pastorates. They are creative and fervent, however, and will continue their apostolic ministries with vigor.”

People come to atheism and agnosticism by examining the religions they come from with scrutiny. I know absolutely nobody that has gone the other way.

”At present in the United States shoving the atheistic faith down our throats has not yet come at the end of a gun barrel. Mockery is one basic weapon. Since that strains the imagination to view that as intellectual superiority, it really is kind of funny. A response matching the depth of thought would be something like, "D'uh", or "Nanny-nanny boo-boo", or "Pfffffttt". More serious, however, is the favoritism to the atheistic faith forced by the courts and bureaucracy into the schools and laws. The atheocracy has made many strides toward a monopoly in these areas.”

You have a truly odd view of the world. Our society is becoming more religious. It is the Christians that are shoving their garbage down our throats. It’s you bible-thumpers that mock us for “not having a moral compas” or some other such nonsense. Not discussing religion in schools and laws is not advocating atheism, it’s non-cognisance. That’s all. You want to pray, do it at home or at recess or durring class, just keep it to yourself. The General Social Survey says we are statistically smarter by the way. The GSS says fundamentalists have 1.9 fewer years of education. They also score markedly lower on the GSS's IQ test. Not that that really proves anything.

”An atheocracy has nothing to offer a culture other than 'freedom' to pursue prurient interests. That will succeed for awhile and will produce several cultures, both medically and balkanly, but will fail to impel Culture forward.”

What an incredibly wordy and incredibly useless sentence. And right after a paragraph where you summed up your opponents arguments as the equivalent of “pffffft.” Do you have any reason to think this? Of course you don’t. Since when did you care about reason. The truth is that the general rule in this world is that the more secular a society is, the stronger the economy and the longer the average lifespan, and the higher the average level of happiness. The more religios a society? You know the answer to that. Perhaps in some ways, the US is an exception to that rule, but for how long?

”If one considers medieval times to be the Dark Ages, one should consider in depth the darkness that would be created by men seeking power to wield their own salvific visions without a classical United States to stop or contain them by force.”

Perhaps one should consider in depth the brightness we could achieve by discarding the archaic “morals” contained in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and the Book of f-ing Mormon, and embrace science and freedom and equality and love for our fellow man, not because we read it in some shitty book, but because we have a sense of right and wrong hard-wired into our big brains.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

Oh, and onemore thing. It's not just the left that has a problem with bush "talking to god" and his theocracy and all. I am by no means left of center.

Steve said...

Jeez,
"...embrace science and freedom and equality and love for our fellow man, not because we read it in some shitty book, but because we have a sense of right and wrong hard-wired into our big brains." That is a statement of faith. Belief in God(s) and the supernatural is similarly hard-wired.

"Perhaps one should consider in depth the brightness we could achieve by discarding the archaic “morals” contained in the Bible,..." Another statement of faith. We have already seen its depth in Hitler, the Soviets, the Chinese, etc. Hitler was a Christian? By 1939 his Nazis had denounced, arrested, imprisoned, or executed 7,000 pastors.

"You want to pray, do it at home or at recess or durring class, just keep it to yourself." Freedom of speech stops where?

If someone asks an atheist why it is wrong to rape, kill, butcher, and eat babies...

"I already dealt with this idiocy in a comment to one of your other posts and you never responded." Here:

"Why is murder wrong absent god? Human well-being, in this life, increases in a world without murder. It's a bit of instinct, a bit of game theory. It's economics and physics and math. It's feelings and thoughts that come from our brains that maybe we don't quite understand entirely yet. It is the same things that led the inventors of all of the world's religions to place such tenets into their mythologies."

What in that paragraph does not constitute a statement of faith?

James Madison, a Federalist, originally opposed a Bill of Rights altogether, but for the political expediency of gaining acceptance of the Constitution he relented. In 1789 he served on the Congressional committee which authorized paid Congressional chaplains. In 1812, President Madison signed a bill that financially aided a Bible society in its aim in mass distribution of the Bible. Throughout his Presidency, Madison issued several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.

Alexander Hamilton wrote concerning the French Revolution, 'To establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity is to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes to make a gloomy desert of the Universe.' Hamilton proposed the formation of the Christian Constitutional Society to spread Christian government to other nations. He also wrote, 'The law... dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. Ho human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.'

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”
Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., United States Supreme Court ruling, Feb. 29, 1892. Majority opinion written by Justice David Josiah Brewer.

According to the opinion of modern historians and intellectual elite, not only did the nation’s founders and authors of The Bill of Rights not know the meaning of what they had enacted, but even over 100 years later the Supreme Court still did not know what these words meant. Such revelation wasn’t given until the latter 20th Century. A true miracle!

The First Amendment never intended a non-cognition of religion, but instead prohibited the formation of a national church such as to favor the Baptists over the Lutherans. The individual states were permitted this, however.