The Religion of Atheism

Atheist Prayer

By Russ Pevoto:

„Our father nada, who art in nada, hallowed by thy nothingness.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done,
on earth, and only on earth, because there is no heaven.
Give us this day our daily fill (or thrill),
and let us forgive ourselves our own trespasses, but by no means do we forgive the trespasses of others.
And lead us not into temptation, for we can find it ourselves.
Deliver us from the evils of religion.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever,
nothingness without end, Amen.”


Here is an isolated comment from Grayling in an interview published on PZ Meyer’s site:


‚That is nonsense. As has been well said, atheism is to religion what not collecting stamps is to stamp collecting. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not believing in gods and goddesses is not a religion.'”

It is amazing that highly paid Atheist philosophers such as Grayling, Dawkins and Pigliucci use such transparently useless and false analogies. Or maybe they just can’t come up with a real life analysis – with evidence – that actually provides a proof. It can be said that if these people had actual facts on the subject, they would be scientists; but they have only opinions, proclamations, and lots of attacks with denigrations of contrary opinions.

Having a God belief, proselytizing it and attacking other religions as your main function in both life and profession, that is in fact a religion. But there is much more in the way of comparison that can be made, and not phony comparisons but real comparison to the characteristics of religion: what makes up a religion.

What exactly constitutes “being a religion”? The internet has dozens, maybe hundreds of conflicting definitions for religion. Here is a fairly inclusive composite definition.


Religion is a complete worldview composed of some or all of the following elements:

1. Cognition of essence of reality, and levels (Godelian) of reality:

a. Natural essence (First Principles of existence and truth)

b. Intuitive essence (First level of validation)

c. Spiritual essence (Second level of validation).

2. Stories concerning the essences:

a. Origin Story

1. Origin of the cosmos

2. Origin of life

3.Origin of man

b. Purpose of Life Story

c. Value of Life Story

d. “Becoming” Story

e. Afterlife / Beyond life Story

3. Statements of Belief

a. Statement of Faith (Non-negotiable)

b. Statement of Ethos

c. Statement of Heresy

d. Statement of The Sacrosanct

e. Statement of Evangelism

f. Statement of Evil

g. Statement of Apostacy

4. Hierarchy

a. High Priests

b. Teachers, evangelizers

c. Becomers

5. Sacred Legacies

a. Texts, documents, unquestionable absolute truths.

The ATHEIST Worldview

Unlike, say, Buddhism, Atheism has almost all of these features. Let’s expand each worldview component to see how Atheism fits:

Cognition of reality, and levels (Godelian) of reality:

a. Natural essence (First Principles of existence and truth)
Atheism is first and foremost Naturalist and Materialist. For now, we will assume that the Atheist accepts the First Principles of existence and truth (although many do not).

b. Intuitive essence (First level of validation)
By accepting the First Principles of existence and truth, by default the Atheist affirms the existence of intuition, which is the means for validation of the innate truth of the First Principles. This will produce stress for the Atheist, who might deny the concept of intuition, but who will exercise intuition by accepting the materialism of the First Principles. This produces a violation of the second First Principle: a paradox, within which the Atheist lives. Many Atheists circumvent this conundrum by denying that any first principles exist.

c. Spiritual essence (Second level of validation)
Atheism will specifically deny any spiritual essence. This denial becomes part of the Atheist Statement of Faith, coming up.

Stories concerning the essences:

a. Origin Story

i. Origin of the cosmos

ii. Origin of life

iii Origin of man

Evolution is the Origin Story of Atheism. It is the Atheist’s ABSOLUTE Truth, unassailable, unquestionable cant; dogma. It is manipulated into forms for explaining not only the cosmos, life, and human origins, but also the origin of morality, and anything else that had an origin.

b. Purpose of Life Story
Life is a random accident according to the absolutist dogma of Evolution. Atheism therefore sees absolutely no purpose to life beyond the perpetuation of one’s own genes, as natural selection occurs. So the sole purpose of life is genetic self perpetuation.

c. Value of Life Story
Again, life being a random accident according to absolutist Evolution cant, life has no value; there are no values in a randomly assembled world. The evolutionist claim of evolved morality is not accepted by many Atheists. Some claim that human value is in procreation; others claim that value is found only in the ability to produce. So life, by itself, has no inherent value, and eugenics can (and has) become a “legitimate” topic.

d. Becoming” Story
The evolution of life to produce the evolutionist is the “becoming” story. There is nothing else to become, once one has naturally materialized, so to speak. However, “becoming” an Atheist is seen as total liberation from annoying absolute moral restrictions, and frequently restrictions of any kind including western, rational, non-contradictory thought (first principle based). There is a thought that humans will evolve into something higher-ordered, becoming a race of super-humans. However there is absolutely no sign of such a genetic lineage so far.

e. Afterlife Story
With nothing else to become, once the spark of life has gone there is nothing left but the material fodder for worms (M.M.O’Hair).

Statements of Belief

a. Statement of Faith (Non-negotiable)
The dogma of Evolution is taken on 100% faith as follows; faith that there is no other possible position; faith that science will find all the answers; faith in the connections drawn between supposed genetic ancestors; faith in the supremacy of the mind of man.

A Faith Statement might be as follows:
I have complete, non-negotiable FAITH in the following tenets:

· Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.

· Faith that the appearances of design are false.

· Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.

· Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence.

· Faith that a multiverse that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).

· Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, with no actual purpose beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine). Even so, it is the supreme intelligence in the universe.

· Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable.

· Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.

· Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).

· Faith that empiricism is the one and only true path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment.

· Faith in Evolution, which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth. See “Heresy”, below.

· Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.

· Faith that after death there are only worms.

b. Statement of Ethos
Anyone familiar with Jeffry Dahmer, Madelyn Murray O’Hair, or Peter Singer will realize that the ethical code of Atheism is “Any Code I Desire” (A.C.I.D.) In fact any code that benefits me, right now, at this very moment. The code is total Narcissism.

c. Statement of Heresy
The fight for the minds of school children is in fact a battle to eliminate heresy from the religious world of Atheism by means of governmentally-enforced installation of the Sacred Text of absolutist Darwinism into the schools. Referral to a second Godellian level of validation (spirituality) is heresy to the Atheist, who will take it as a serious affront to the Atheist Faith. So the exclusive installation of the sacred Precepts of absolutist Darwinism into the minds of children is imperative.

d. Statement of the Sacrosanct
Naturalism, and Materialism are sacred Beliefs. Empiricism and Forensics are the Sacred Rituals. Absolutist Evolution is Sacred Truth, unquestionable and therefore sacred dogma.

e. Statement of Evangelism
Evangelism is highly organized and fatly funded; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have been government funded to the tune of millions. Evangelism is done primarily by threat, just as is Wahabi Islam; it is a form of domestic terrorism. A heretic is threatened with financial ruin by litigation by the fattened Atheist Evangelists. However, indoctrination is already state-imposed in many public school systems. The next generation is under constant evangelistic siege.

f. Statement of Evil
As with any cult, evil is seen everywhere in the form of other religious faiths. In a stunning twist of logic, the purveyors of the ethical code that protects the Atheist (Christianity, the Bible and the Ten Commandments) are deemed evil. And any attack on the Sacred Precepts of Absolutist Darwinism are evil. The credo is that “science is not to be corrupted by the inroads of ’religion’ in the classroom”. So the denial of the next Godel level and the internal Type 2 (b) paradox are institutionalized.

a. High Priests
The celebrity scientists and philosophers clearly are the high priests of Atheism: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Stephen J. Gould, Bertrand Russell, Theodore Dobzhansky, Carl Sagan, celebrities all. In politics, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao. In the media, pick a channel; in Hollywood, pick a movie star; in the U.S. Senate, pick a Pro-Choice senator.

b. Teachers, evangelizers
The tool of Evolution, plus the duality of modern secularism has made most school teachers into evangelists for Atheism. The media of all types is also secularly dualist, and promotes not only Evolution, but all forms of corrupted thought that contributes to secularization.

c. Becomers
Every young person on the way to college is a potential “becomer” for the Atheist evangelist to victimize. In fact, the inroads into lower schools made by Planned Parenthood operatives has made even first graders into to potential candidates to victimize.

Sacred Legacies
a. Texts, documents, unquestionable absolute truths.
The theory of Evolution, being the only hope for the Atheist, is the holiest of absolute, unquestionable truths. In fact, by way of contradiction and paradox, the completely relativistic universe of the Atheist is interrupted by one Holy, Absolute, Unquestionable, Unassailable Truth: Evolution.

Without Evolution, the Atheist has no logic at all because everything else in the Atheist world is relative; only Evolution is Absolute Truth. With Evolution, the Atheist need only deny a few details here and there, such as in Darwin’s Dodge, and Darwin’s Horrid Doubt, along with the other Darwinian falsifications. Then all the rest of life is free of all restrictions.

So Atheism satisfies the criteria for religion-hood. In fact it’s a better fit than some other religions, such as Buddhism. Atheism is the religion of self, of narcissism.

Supremacy of the Mind
When Atheism concludes that there is no deity, it presupposes that the human mind is capable of knowing all that a deity might know, all that a deity could do, all that a deity would see. This automatically places the Atheist mind in an exalted place, as the source of all truth.

“My mind is supreme”.
As the source of all truth, the Atheist mind and its thoughts about itself and reality become an objects of awe and worship, and the situation becomes that of pagan self-worship. The Atheist might argue (and done in Kaufman v. McCaughtry) that, no, Atheism is the anti-religion. This merely summons the next question: Is an anti-religion a religion?

Aside from the affirmative legal arguments, consider this: Is disorder (entropy) a form of order? Is a null-set a set? Is zero a number? So is believing in “nothing” the same as believing in “something”? Is it the “something” that makes it a religion, or is it the belief? If it is the belief, is belief in “nothing” a religion?

The Atheist Faith
Belief in nothing is a belief without proof, a leap of faith. And because self-validation is an act of Godellian illogic as well as a classical paradox, Atheism is a blind leap into illogic…the very definition of “religion” that Atheist’s love!

The answer is clearly “yes”, Atheism is, in fact, a religion. And it develops its own sets of rules to govern it. One such set is Secular Humanism, also legally declared a religion. Other rabid Atheist groups have their own sets of rules. So Atheism, the “anti-religion” paradox, and despite flimsy denials, is a religion. It is auto-pagan (self worship)…Narcissism.

How Do Atheists Determine Morality?

“Some say there is no objective morality. When told that a certain individual believed that morality is a sham, Samuel Johnson responded, ‘Why sir, if he really believes there is no distinction between virtue and vice, let us count our spoons before he leaves’.”

Atheists bristle at the suggestion that a-theism equates to a-morality. Yet the “Paradox of the Honest Atheist” clearly illustrates the paradoxical dilemma that the Atheist position produces with respect to morality, including all self-derived ethics.

Because the Atheist mind is the “source of all truth”, morality is determined by each individual Atheist mind. So there will be as many moralities as there are Atheists… creating a chaotic amalgam of contradictions (Godel Type 2 (b) Paradoxes) under a single banner.

Or perhaps the Atheist co-opts an existing morality, while rejecting the source of that morality. This would be an intellectually compromising position. Yet I co-opted the Judeo-Christian ethic myself, as did many others also, ignoring the intellectual dishonesty such a position entails. This is a common state of existence for many Atheists: ignore the contradictions and live inside the paradox.

Chapman Cohen [(1868-1954) third president of the National Secular Society, Britain’s largest Atheist organization] wrote in “Morality Without God”:

“The moral feeling creates the moral law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God; it has nothing to do with a future life. Its sphere of application and operation is in this world; its authority is derived from the common sense of mankind and is born of the necessities of corporate life.”


“Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere, nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works up again what already exists. That is the path of all evolution.”

So according to Cohen, the moral feeling came first, then evolved into rules. But just as Darwin refused to address First Life and the origin of the mind, so Cohen does not address the origin of the “moral feeling”, which might be called conscience. And Cohen’s model does not refute that separate populations might develop antithetical codes for their “morality”. His model simply states that for evolutionary success, people learned to get along by doing mutually compatible things. Or at least not getting bashed.

But is the concept of “If you touch my wife, I’ll bash you!” really a moral precept? From the offender’s view point there are two possible points of perception:

(a) I shouldn’t touch his wife because he will hurt me;

(b) I shouldn’t touch his wife because it is wrong.

The first is entirely pragmatic, and could be circumvented when the wife is alone. The second is conscience based, and works under all conditions. Is it likely that (a) will evolve into (b)? No, because evolutionary theory demands the perpetuation of one’s own genetics over all other activities. Perception (a) is the only possible result of the theory of evolution. The concept of “wrongness” could not have evolved, under the definition of survival of the fittest. Just as the existence of selflessness falsifies Darwinian evolution, so it falsifies Cohen’s evolutionary theory of morality, “Evolving Morality” is seen to be another evolutionary crutch for propping up Atheism.

But the most damage to Cohen’s “Evolving Morality” is done by asking who benefits from ethics and morality. It is not the fittest, the strongest. And it is not enough to say that the entire group benefits, because the benefit is not equally realized. It is the weakest, the least fit who benefit the most and are protected from the stronger and more fit. This is directly counter to Darwinist evolution.

The Fittest as an Ethic?
The single moral premise that appears universal to Atheists might be “survival of the fittest”, the main conclusion of the Darwinists. As a moral premise, this suggests that anything that advances the race/species is acceptable. More simply put, “anything that benefits me is acceptable”, which would equate to amorality.

This is compounded by the statements and beliefs of Atheists such as Aldous Huxley, Julian Huxley, Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro, etc, that Atheism is the freedom from all moral constraint. In fact “freedom from all constraint” is a main attraction factor in accepting Atheism. So morality (or amorality) is a prickly subject indeed for the Atheist, who might subconsciously realize the disingenuous nature of claiming to be moral.

Behaving Like an Atheist?
If an Atheist is behaving like an Atheist, how is he behaving? Like a Christian? Like a Buddhist? Hindu? Can a person legitimately claim both Atheism and the morality of, say, Judeo-Christianity? Shouldn’t an Atheist behave exactly as if there is no deity?

The Religion of Atheism


by Matt Slick

Okay, so the title of this article is a bit provocative.  But, I wanted to get your attention.  You see, I got the idea for this article after attending the 33rd annual atheist convention in Seattle, Washington, in April of 2007.  It was a very interesting experience, and I learned things I did not expect to learn.  While sitting in the crowd and listening to speakers and watching the atheists’ reactions, it dawned on me how utterly religious they seemed to be.  No, I’m not saying they believe in a God; and I’m not saying atheism is a religion.  But, they sure acted as though it were.  Let me explain.

As I sat there watching, taking notes, and listening, I formulated a list that I think is accurate and representative of what I saw at the convention.  Please take a look.

  1. Creed
    1. No God, anti-God, pro-homosexuality, anti-Christianity.
    2. Atheism is a belief.  I know that many atheists will disagree with this, but the atheists gathered around a common belief of no God, or lack of God, and the need to increase what they perceive as separation of church and state in America.
  2. Crisis
    1. Created a problem and offered a solution.  The problem was religious oppression in society with atheistic ideals as the solution.
  3. Assemblies
    1. Gathered in groups with meeting times.  Atheists don’t meet nearly as frequently as Christians do in their churches, but they do have state meetings, national meetings, and regular gatherings.
  4. Pulpit
    1. The lectern from which speeches were made, their ideas were promoted, and their reasons for their belief system were validated.
  5. Evangelistic
    1. The atheists sought converts to their cause.  They frequently spoke about getting the idea of atheism out into society and to move people away from theism.
  6. Celebration over converts
    1. Rejoiced when converts to their belief system were announced.  There was applause and excitement when there were announcements about people who had „come out of the closet” and announced their atheism.
  7. Zealous for their cause
    1. They wanted their cause and belief system expanded to the extent of changing America to reflect their thinking.
  8. Exclusive
    1. Only they have the truth.  The atheists repeatedly spoke of how atheism was the truth, and that theists and deists were ignorant of facts and reason.
  9. Us against them mentality
    1. There was a profound description of the division between atheism and theism with the atheists being the ones who were defending themselves against the intrusive theists.
  10. Concerned about public image
    1. This is normal.  They were very concerned with how they were perceived and wanted to change their negative reputation.
  11. Lack of critical thinking
    1. This is common everywhere.  Though they thought they were rational, by far most of the arguments and comments weren’t.
  12. Misrepresentation of opposing views
    1. Again, another common trait among people who gather in groups, have a common ideology, and see others as being less enlightened.
  13. Voting block
    1. The atheists mentioned voting as a group in order to progress their cause in society.
  14. Infighting
    1. This is normal for groups.  We don’t all see eye to eye.  But, they all held to atheism even though they had disagreements about some particulars.
  15. Money
    1. They didn’t have tithing, but there were plenty of things for sale.  And, let’s not forget to mention how they sought donations to help cover the costs of promoting atheism, paying speakers, renting facilities, etc.

Now, I’m sure there are atheists who will debate a few of the issues listed.  But, I am just rendering my opinion of what I saw.

I think it is rather ironic that those who are against religion so much are, in actuality, so religious themselves.  I couldn’t help smiling and seeing the natural tendency of people to gather around an idea, develop a cause, and then promote it.  Unfortunately, the atheists have gathered around non-belief and want that non-belief promoted in society.  All I have to say is eternity is a long time to be wrong.

Atheist Revolution and the „Atheist Manifesto”

This review of “The Atheist Manifesto” by Joseph Lewis is presented by blogger Atheist Revolution[otherwise nameless] who thinks that the quotes he has chosen are inspiring:

Atheist Revolution:

”Remember, this was written in 1954 long before anybody was talking about „new atheism.” And yet, Lewis was not afraid to call the abolition of religion. I cannot remember the last time I actually caught myself exclaiming „hell yeah” while reading a book, but Lewis’ manifesto did indeed have that effect.

”I’ll end with my favorite sentence in the book, one with which I wholeheartedly agree”(see the last quote from Lewis, below).

Joseph Lewis:

”Do you know that the religionists opposed the use of anesthesia on the ground that God sent pain as a punishment for sin, and it was considered the greatest of sacrileges to use it—just think of it, a sin to relieve man of his misery! What a monstrous perversion!”

A charge made against “religionists” as if it were a belief of all religions. A charge without specificity, made as a blanket condemnation.


”It is because of the Biblical curse on man’s search for knowledge, which has so paralyzed his mind during the past ages, and its detrimental effect upon progress, that makes the Bible the most wicked, the most detestable, the most pernicious, and the most obnoxious book ever published. It has been a curse to the human race.”

The Bible enjoins Christians to seek only the Truth, and to question all premises that are made, in order not to be fooled by human lies and “philosophy” over the facts of what happened. (If philosophy were “fact”, it would be science, not philosophy).


”As long as man loves a phantom in the sky more than he loves his fellow man, there will never be peace upon this earth; so long as man worships a Tyrant as the „Fatherhood of God,” there will never be a „Brotherhood of Man.””

Exactly so, except that the qualifier is not necessary. It should read, “There will never be a ‘Brotherhood of Man’”. Brotherhood of Man is capitalized properly because it is a godless religion, based on irrational and unprovable tenets as well as distortions which are demonstrated in the hate rant presented here. The abolition of all religion in order to establish this universal godless religion is the objective. As Atheist Revolution says, “hell yeah”. Tolerance? None visible here.

And Atheism Is NOT A Religion?


HIGHER GROUND: Atheist to give invocation before N.Y. town’s meeting

„Last month, the town of Greece, N.Y., won its fight to offer a prayer before its government board meetings, but with that victory came the stipulation that anyone was free to say one.

Next month, the town is making good on its word, and welcoming Dan Courtney, a member of the Atheist Community of Rochester, as he gives the invocation.

Mr. Courtney told the Religion News Service that his speech will “focus on inclusion.”

“For too long the invocations at these meetings were invitation only affairs, as if the public space was a private club. The result was over a decade of solely Christian prayer,” Mr. Courtney posted on his Facebook page. “The Court may have ruled in favor of the Town of Greece, but the real legal victory” is ensuring that “the party is no longer private. And the festivities have just begun.”

Mr. Courtney is scheduled to give the invocation at the town’s board meeting July 15.”

Mr Courtney had better make it an actual prayer, since that is what he is being allowed to do. Anything less should result in his banishment from giving further invocations. Who/what would an Atheist pray to? Well, most likely he will give an Atheist speech against Christianity to a group of mostly Christians. That would be fair, if that is what he is asked to do. But it is not, so if that is what he does, he is a liar about giving a prayer to open the meeting.

Excerpts From Horowitz’s „Progressives”

David Horowitz was a „radical leftist” in his early years. He renounced leftism, and has devoted his life to revealing the underlying principles of leftism. The following are quotes taken from a review by Paul Hollander of Horowitz’s second book, „Progressives”.

„[T]he community of the left is a community of meaning, and is bound by ties that are fundamentally religious. For the non-religious, politics is the art of managing the possible. For the left, it is the path to social and personal redemption…For the left, politics is ultimately not about practical options on which reasonable people may reasonably differ. It is about moral choices that define us as human. It is about taking sides in a war that will decide the future of mankind… „[159]

Horowitz correctly observes that,

„Our century was a stage for the destructive drama of a secular religious faith called socialism, inspired by dreams of a socialredemption that would be achieved by human agency, through the force of politics and the state.” [189]
[Emphasis added]

The specific reason that AtheoLeftists cannot be persuaded by logic, by empirical data regarding the hundreds of millions callously killed by Leftism, or by the obvious failures of every socialist state to provide for its people, is that Leftism is a religion, fervently believed despite all evidence to the contrary. Today’s evidence is Venezuela; ignoring that evidence are the millions of „free stuff” Bernie Sanders Leftists. It will never stop; it never has. The war will proceed forever and must always be fought, at every level – from local SJWs to Congressional, Supreme Court and bureaucratic proto-dictators. It is a perpetual civil war and no one is exempt.

There is only one question: what tactics are required in order to prevail.

How Atheists Think

On another thread, below, an Atheist takes issue with the parody on Atheist arguments. It’s amazing how many Atheists are literalists despite their hatred of literalism. Nonetheless, I have responded with the following list regarding the Atheist thought process:

1. Denial of intellectual responsibility for saying why they reject theist arguments.

2. Constant and consistent use of rationalization to backfill their emotional conclusion which has no intellectual or evidentiary content.

3. Backfill the intellectual and moral void they have created for themselves with visions of their own self-endowed elitism.

4. Live a life of arrogance despite also living a life dependent upon logical fallacy, which is now deeply embedded in the worldview.

5. Claim logic and evidence as the basis of their worldview, despite being based totally on emotional rejectionism and neediness.

6. Evangelize, claiming that critical thinking means being a critical person, who criticizes everything except Materialism and Scientism and Leftism.

7. Demand that government be beholden to their views, and only their views, exclusively (because they are so tolerant).

8. Be vociferously offended at the mere sight of religious artifacts and activities which are not yet underground and are thus visually offensive. The FFRF has claimed to be made physically ill at the sight. BUT:

9. Demand total tolerance for any possible amoral activity engaged in by the amoral/immoral. That’s because those activities are now morally acceptable, and religion is the only remaining immorality and cannot be tolerated unless it is underground and not available to be seen by impressionable children who might be corrupted. Media tolerance for sex and violence is fine; media attachment to the offensive morality of the Other cannot be tolerated, and is purged by consensus.

10. Form and fund large organizations which attack small entities which display religious symbology, especially very small towns and school districts. Do not attack Los Angeles, it might win, and that would destroy the ability for future attacks on the Other.

11. Claim that no one but an Atheist can understand Atheism.

12. Claim that other Atheists are wrong; only you personally understand Atheism.

13. Claim Atheism is not a religion.

14. Form churches.

15. Split into denominations due to dogma differences.

16. Create an individual morality which fits the individual Atheist’s proclivity and thus is also volatile.

17. Insist that Atheists are Good without God.

18. Campaign against theism with billboard and bus sign attacks, claiming that the presence of religion is an attack on themselves, the Victims.

19. Become the Saviors of mankind, as well as Victims. Classism is thus natural to the Atheist.

20. Being the Saviors/Messiahs requires the designation of classes of Victims and Oppressors; the government is the perfect place to apply Messiahism, since it has the ability to attack the Oppressors and keep the Victims on the plantations.

Updated for grammar.

Now Get A Degree In „Non-Belief”!

University of Miami affirms America’s first academic chair for Study of Atheism
The Appignani Foundation recently donated an amount of $2.2 million to the University of Miami to endow America’s first academic chair for the study of atheism, humanism, and secular ethics.

„The Appignani Foundation, established in 2001, supports secular activities that address significant, viable and long-term human goals. In an interview given to the New York Times, Appignani said that the reason why he would like to have an academic discipline that deals with atheism and secularism established, is to “eliminate discrimination against atheists.” This would pave the way for atheism to be made “legitimate.”

The University of Miami has been cautious and reluctant at first, about the notion of secularism and atheism as a stand-alone academic discipline. Their main concern has been that the discipline would be seen by many people as an advocacy position for atheists. The University has a religion department, however, they do not take an advocacy position while teaching about various religions. The University wanted the word atheism dropped from the title of the chair. They also proposed to call it a chair in philosophical naturalism. Louis Appignani refused. The initiative wouldn’t have been implemented had the University not relented. Thomas J. LeBlanc, Executive Vice President and Provost of the University of Miami, in an interview, made it clear that the University would not be taking an advocacy position while teaching about atheism or secular ethics.

According to Harvey Siegel, a philosophy professor at the University of Miami who helped Appignani to broker the arrangement, they started discussing this idea more than 15 years ago. It took a lot of persuading from their side to make the University agree to their proposal.

Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, said that it is very important for the study of morality to be shackle-free of religion. The University of Miami has just taken a very bold step in that direction.

But, Atheism is not something! Atheism is just „non-belief” – i.e., nothing! So many people take that position (so convenient for avoiding having to make arguments in support of Atheist worldviews), so how can „nothing” be studied, much less in a scholarly fashion? How can „non-belief” be an academic discipline, complete with laboratories and degrees and office hours?

The real question comes quickly to mind: will the study of Atheism honestly appraise the consequences of Atheist rejectionism, or will it serve to bolster its false image of superiority in intellect and evidence? Because the long quest to get the academic chair installed was based on the fervent desire to „legitimize” Atheism, skepticism is definitely warranted.

Well, someone must be wrong about Atheism being „nothing”, just a non-belief. Otherwise the U of Miami is making an expensive mistake.

Atheism Is a Religion.

It has ordained ministers. Creeds. Churches. Megachurches with mottos. And prayer.

According to their creed and prayer, they worship their own minds. And that’s how they achieve elitism.

And they pray for this:

„deliver us from denial of logic”,

…which is an admirable pursuit except that Atheists (the capitalization is justified, just like Presbyterians) use non-aristotelian rationalization as their logic rather than grounded deductive testable logic. So when they say „logic”, they mean something entirely foreign to the standards of objective deductive processes.

Their statement of faith is both non-coherent and ignorant of the actuality of the entities which they blindly worship:

“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”

The „facts of science” do not support that belief system, cannot support it, and will never support it. Science has nothing to test regarding non-physical phenomena, including thought – which is non-determinate; or beyond death; or whether non-scientific facts can exist. So this belief statement asserts a blind belief in something which is, at its base, logically absurd, and that directly contradicts their claim to logic (at least to the type of logic which is part of rationality and reason).

There will be Atheists who object to all this, but at the core, they really are all of similar beliefs: personal intellectual and moral superiority; Scientism; Rationalization; Denialism.

The Paradox of the Set of All Sets

The famous Bertrand Russell paradox which destroyed the attempt by him and Whitehead to outline the totality of mathematics, was just this:

The set of all sets cannot contain itself, so it is not the set of all sets.

This brings to mind a note to myself which recently re-surfaced, which said,

All things which exist are physical;
the source of all physical things is physical.

This statement of Philosophical Materialism is just as logically incestuous as the Russell Paradox. Is it actually the case that the source of all physical things is a physical thing which created itself,ex nihilo? And of course, subsequently created all other physical things?

In other words, all other physical things couldn’t exist until and unless the first, creating physical thing created itself, under Philosophical Materialism and Atheism.

Where in nature do we see something come into physical existence without an identifiable prior causal existence? Even a quantum field is required in order to produce particle pairs, according to the Copenhagen understanding of quantum physics. Either particles are created by energy, or particles actually are energy (Quantum Field Theory). But what sort of a physical „thing” would the first, self-creating energy/particle be? What gives a probability field a positive value?

That is the paradox which surrounds the underlying theory of Philosophical Materialism, which is a necessary subset of Atheism – the rejection of a non-material creating entity. To drive the nail further home, the only valid evidence under the physicalist, Philosophical Materialism constraint is empirical data which is obtained in disciplined experimental fashion, successfully replicated, peer reviewed (for whatever that is worth), with open data for public examination of methods and results.

Can this empirical evaluation be done with regard to the „first self-creating physical thing”? Or even „any self-creating physical thing” That would require creating an absolute void containing not even any quantum field, much less radiation or outside particles. Then how, within this logically and actually empty environment could the creation, ex nihilo of course, be induced? Be replicated? It cannot be done. It is an effect without a cause outside itself, so there is no prior cause available to initiate the effect.

This seems almost too simple to avoid the truth of it. But it is not apparent to Atheists, who need the concept of physical self-creation and Philosophical Materialism in order to protect their chosen worldview. But they should have to admit that both logic and empirical evidence fail to indicate any value to support their choice. Why do they not admit to this, but rather claim the opposite: to have logic and evidence for their belief? There is only one remaining possibility, outside of insanity, and that is emotional neediness for their Atheism to be true.

Atheists have a choice:

A physical thing can and did create itself, as the source of itself, the cause of itself. (Not a property of known physical things; never observed; not inducible; a theory out of desperation).

Physical things always existed. (Infinite regression)

Physical things are illusions or delusions. (self reference).

Philosophical Materialism, and therefore Atheism, fail logically and empirically.

Thinking Atheist? publishes articles which a person apparently can upload directly and without editing. Here is an article which is signed only as „Thinking Atheist”, which might lead one to believe that some actual Atheist thought had been produced in defense of their worldview basis. The article is not long, so the revelations contained might be pithy and conveniently logical and thus easily absorbed into a logical philosophy. Let’s see.

First we encounter the Many Religions argument, a disappointment. Many Religions is a very basic failure, being based on the fallacy of False Association: that many solutions to a problem are false does not mean that there is no valid, true solution.

This person calls him/herself “thinking”, yet s/he apparently is working inside the Atheist Void, where the authority of fallacy has no meaning. One should actually study how to think first, and then do the thinking properly. Thinking Atheist actually has trouble reconstructing the basic overtures of primary Atheism. It does not matter how many different religions exist on this planet; that fact does not entail a conclusion that “all” are false.

The next example of this is the claim that a large number of galaxies and stars has some bearing on the existence of god. This mistake is made in the attempt to attack generalized theology by attacking some Christian’s concept of being the only one in the universe capable of having a deity – or some such. But that obviously has no bearing on the existence of a creating agent, or on its ability to interface with humans. Attacking ridiculous notions is easy. And that seems to be the thrust of Thinking Atheist.

Says Thinking,

” However, should other intelligent life exist then to me it cuts a hole in the theory that a Christian, Muslim or Hindu god exists because this other form of life could not possible subscribe to it.”

This is patently absurd. What the creating agent might or might not be capable of doing is perfectly not known to “Thinking”, who made up this false factoid out of nothing whatsoever. Further, a creating agent capable of interfacing with humans is not in the least affected by this claim, much less damaged in any manner.

Undaunted, Thinking continues:

” Not to mention the fact that all theists are squabbling over whose god is actually real. Proof of life out there will be proof that our and their religions (should they subscribe to a definitive god) are false.”

This is another completely absurd claim; Thinking has no clue as to what might happen in other galaxies, under the same deity, in different situations. This is abysmal thinking, Thinking.

Thinking forges on:

” Now bear with me because here I’m going to delve into a bit of philosophy. Proof of life out there may disprove a micro explanation of god but not necessarily the idea of a god. To clarify, as an atheist I do not believe in the supernatural. I reject the claim that gods exist. Without religion there would be no atheism. Calling our philosophy a religion is akin to calling not playing golf a hobby or calling being healthy a disease. I have come to the conclusion that since the logical man cannot yet define the answers of our origin.”

Thinking has muddied up his own philosophy by injecting a rejection based on nothing whatsoever. Now that is a typical Atheist move, but it is not a thoughtful move toward a coherent philosophy. Not only does Thinking have no concept of the rules for thinking, but Thinking also does not know what entails a rational philosophy (hint: a reason for thinking a thought is required).

Further, regarding the tired old clichés regarding the analogy of not-golfing with Atheism, those who don’t golf don’t write irrational articles claiming that golf doesn’t exist, and proudly announcing their a-golfism and how they came into that belief.

” Since he still cannot be sure of the stars and the bottoms of our oceans then how is it that religion, to the logical mind, believes that it can do all this with its quasi mystic imperatives and the contradictions scrawled in its ancient and outdated codex’s?”

This view of religion is the warped caricature of the prejudiced, not the view of an objective viewer. Very, very few believe that religious, ecclesiastical writings of men attempting to comprehend a deity which they acknowledge is outside of material comprehension will reveal the secrets of the bottom of the ocean or any other material knowledge regarding the physics or anatomy of the universe. This claim is created merely to be attacked, a straw man if ever there was one.

”We as the human race use good judgement and logic every day of our lives when it comes to survival, we know not to cross the road in traffic, not to stick our fingers where it burns but when it comes to the most important aspect of our lives theists throw caution to the wind and follow with blind faith? Logic be damned. Would you close your eyes whilst driving on the highway because you have faith that you may NOT crash?”

Having rebelled against the authority of religion as a teen, this individual seemingly absorbed none of the meaning which was available to him. The rational arguments of the Thomasians, the arguments from cause, from existence out of nothing, all deductions are ignored as if they do not exist for Thinking, as s/he attacks the false notion of “blind faith”.

In fact, Thinking gives no indication that s/he realizes the limitations of his/her own knowledge base, the Godellian limits of realizable validity of his/her own “philosophy”, such as it is. To this point, well into the article, Thinking has given no actual facts which demand Atheism in response. All that Thinking has done is to attempt to smear certain concepts which s/he attaches to Christianity, with weak digs at Islam and Hinduism.

Where is the “Logic” which Thinking seems to think goes away with theism? There must be some Logic, mustn’t there? ”Logic be damned”, Thinking screeches while attacking theists (and while ignoring their deductive arguments) – so where, exactly, is it, this Atheist Logic? Surely a person calling him/herself „Thinking” would produce some rational deduction which demonstrates clearly that there can be no creating agent?

But (finally) we get to the part of the article where the rationality of Thinking is on public display:

” I believe that the real answers are far beyond our expectations, far more exciting, far more revealing and far less threatening. My logical mind tells me that even the conative [sic] word “god” is subjective and can be extremely misconstrued when you get right down to it. What is god? Christian theists say it’s a bearded madman in the sky who waved a magic wand and in seven days the world was as it is.”

Thinking is now in hostile bullshit mode. Christian theists say no such thing. We all know what Christianity entails, and it is not the b.s. excreted here by “Thinking”. It gets worse, still:

” Do they have the proof? Not yet, only blind faith and therein lies the problem.

Thinking has betrayed his own lack of knowledge, and has made a universal statement which he cannot support, to wit: if proof is found in deduction, then it exists; if proof must be material, then it is a false requirement, the fallacy of Category Error. It appears to me that Thinking has no concept of fallacies, much less a concept of properly formed and grounded deductive proofs.

The idea of god can be open to interpretation…”

Only by those who deny the actual definition of a creating agent. This point is of no value in any argument for Atheism.

”…it can be theorised that he looks like a flying spaghetti monster, it can be theorised that god is pseudonym for pure energy.”

No, actually it cannot be so theorized. The creating agent would have existed outside of mass/energy and space/time, so these are just more bullshit thrown out in order to be shot down: they are Fallacies of False Analogies, and are used as both Straw Men and Red Herrings.

” I cannot accept the narrow minded and unchanging explanations they give me.”

An outright lie; no theist gave him those analogies. Well the part about him “not accepting explanations” is true, but he doesn’t recognize the existence of actual theist arguments and he makes up several phony arguments instead.

”It is true that the idea of god gives comfort to many it gives them hope. But I believe as humanity is nearing that time where we openly look to the evidence that suggests the contrary we will begin to abandon our addiction to the supernatural and face reality. I accept that this life is all I have, it may be too much for the theists to grasp that when their loved ones die, that’s it. No reunion in heaven.”

It is apparently too much to ask for actual evidence or proof of this assertion which is made as a truth statement. While s/he refers to “evidence” in the same paragraph, where is it? Where is the evidence upon which this conclusion is made? Even a deduction, in the absence of empirical data? None. Nothing. There is only the arrogation of evidence, not a shred of actual evidence. Thinking has completely violated any respect for his/her self-appellation as s/he arrogates intellect to him/herself, without any evidence of actual thought.

”I can sympathise with the hope it gives, I respect its place in our history. But I cannot regress to its archaic truths. In history, faith is continuously replaced with knowledge.”

This is Scientism at its most ignorant; science cannot even prove its own integrity by using science. Science cannot prove anything whatsoever about subjects which are non-falsifiable, including assertions which are in regards to non-material subjects. Science worship is the lowest form of religious belief.

The idea that science will ever tell us how we should behave is not merely absurd, it is a perversion of the concept of science itself, and when made as a truth statement – especially a truth statement upon which a worldview depends – it leads to total irrationality in the proponent.

Thinking is both ignorant of rational thought processes and yet arrogant simultaneously. This article is an exercise in post hoc rationalization after having, as an adolescent, rejected the authority of some sort of ecclesiasticism. Thinking up premises to support a prejudiced conclusion is not in any manner a form of “thinking”. It is a form of prejudice. Thinking Atheist has obviously flattered him/herself with the appellation “thinking”, and in the absence of any evidence, displays the characteristics of the blind belief s/he decries. This is internally contradictory, and of course that is irrational.

An Interview With David Silverman

Meet the Fox News atheist —
the man Bill O’Reilly calls a fascist and Sean Hannity thinks is evil

[Ed.: My comments are in brackets and bold, just like this. Caution: sarcasm ahead.]

„I asked him what his goal was.

“I’m not seeking to outlaw religion,” he answered.

[Remember this when you read further down]

“Every American has the right to practice a religion. But we would be a freer state, healthier, if we dropped the myths of yesteryear. We’d be a more knowledgeable country. Just look at Scandinavia. We see the positive effects of atheism there.”

[Oh yes! Ya gotta love what has been done to Scandinavian countries by the AtheoLeft]

The most critical flaw of faith, he told me, was the notion it offers of an “objective morality” – that is, unquestionable, immutable, heaven-decreed moral absolutes that cannot evolve as our consciousness does. “The lie of objective morality that make people do bad things and think they’re doing good,” with ISIS atrocities and attacks on abortion clinics serving as obvious examples thereof. Such murderers “think they’re doing God’s work, they think they’re doing good.”

[All religion is ISIS and abortion abbatoir attackers; that’s a revelation]

I asked why he chose the present moment to publish “Fighting God.”

“We’re seeing this rise in religious hatred all over the world,” he said, “and a pushback against criticizing religion. Yet religion is the problem.

[Well, it’s not the problem in China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Scandinavia, the EU, etc. And not all religion.]

We see its influence all over, in abortion, gay rights, climate change.

[Oh my yes. To be against killing one’s progeny, rampant buggering, and data molesting is defined as EVIL – objective and TRUE EVIL. It has been revealed as such by… the evangelist Silverman! So it is an objective absolute.]

In Europe, the rise of Islam” – especially with the influx of Muslim refugees – “is leading to the rise of firebrand atheism, as atheists are being pushed into realizing that they have something to fight, and something to defend.

[Hm. So it’s only Atheists who realize this? Who Knew? Atheists must be the Islamophobes everyone talks about.]

In Heidelberg and Basil and Zurich I spoke to packed crowds who wanted to know more about firebrand atheism because of the fear of the rise of Islam.

[Wait, it’s ALL religion, right? Why just Islam?]

Religion is hurting our species, it’s hurting the entire world, and yet we protect it.

[That’s better. It IS all religion, then.]

We need to put religion in its place, which is back in the church.” He paused. “Religion is a scam, a lie codified in our society, demanding respect, even from the non-religious, and cannot be challenged.

[So – you had to go to Europe to challenge religion? It’s codified in the USA? Like a law? Again, who knew? I could swear that you have challenged religion for a living in the USA.]

But religious opinions are opinions just like any other opinions. It’s about time for the lie to come to an end, for the lie to die.”

[So religion is a lie, which is to die? And not to be allowed? OK, then. That’s what I thought you were all about! Now confirmed.]

“How exactly is it a scam?”

“A scam takes money from people for a promise that’s never kept. Religion tells people they will get to heaven. But they never get to heaven.

[Alriiiight! Promise never kept! There’s no heaven! There must be facts and data coming next to support this claim; I can’t wait!]

Religion lies, takes money, funnels money to preachers and then demands respect.

[Whoa, what happened to the PROOF? This is not proof. It is a blanket condemnation based on lack of evidence cum ignorance of actual religion. Again where is the objective empirical proof for this? Obviously it’s not required, since the Atheist evangelist has declared „religion” to be EVIL… absolutely, objectively, morally EVIL. So it’s the Atheist MORAL CODE.]

No really powerful god would have to demand respect. So I refuse to give respect.”

[Oh, now I understand. You know precisely what a deity would do, because… um, why?]

Does disrespecting faith work as a tactic?

“Yes! When no one shows disrespect for religion, those inside the churches feel afraid and abandoned.

[Oh man. You are so powerful that believers actually cower at your disrespect? Impressive!]

Yet religion deserves no more respect than tarot cards or astrology.

[Uh oh. Bad analogy. Those things can be tested empirically.]

This is an outreach effort to those inside the churches.

[Oh yes! Those inside churches are desperate to hear how superior you are to them and their inferior, backward ways which you disrespect with such splendiferous arrogance and intellectual emptiness. Yes, that’ll work.]

We’re saying, you can get out! We can grow the movement by spreading atheism, but also by getting atheists who don’t call themselves atheists to call themselves what they are.

[So they’re all held captive in there? And your Atheism will free them to hate like you do? That’s the way to dream.]

Ninety percent of atheists don’t call themselves atheists; the real number [of atheists] isn’t 3 percent but 35 percent.

[Not according to the experts who take the polls.]

All I need to do to multiply the movement by a factor of ten is get atheists to call themselves atheists, we don’t have to change opinions about God. There are even atheists behind pulpits.”

[Yes. Dream the Dream! So many people can’t wait to hate… you can lead the way!]

What Silverman is cannot be characterized as evidence-based, logic-based or rational; he is an evangelist who spouts hatred for religion. In other words, an evangelistic hate monger in pseudo-rational clothes.

There is more at the SITE, but I stopped here because it is enough to demonstrate the “thought” process of the guy.

Atheism As Religion

How exactly should a religion be defined? Religions have many characteristics in common, which do not necessarily include the belief in a deity (e.g. Buddhism) – although most do. And it cannot be said that religion is belief without reasoning – all though some are – or belief without rational backing – although some are – because there exist grounded arguments which support certain rational, probabilistic beliefs which are physically nonfalsifiable, empirically experimentally unapproachable, yet are rationally acceptable (e.g. Deism).

Nor can it be said that religion is ahistorical – although some definitely are – because some have historical credentials that exceed those of other historical events and figures (e.g. Abrahamic religions, including Islam and Judeo-Christianity).

The religion which is discounted by Atheists is, at its base, a cartoon attitude: blind belief without either rational evidence or physical evidence. While this does not apply all religions, it is the reductive caricature which Atheists believe constitutes religious belief. Yet as has been shown time and again, there is no basis for applying this to all and every religion. Still, it can be applied to other irrational belief systems and worldviews, which we shall now do below.

What of Atheism itself? Outside of maintaining a full set of overt characteristics which are exactly those of theist religions but without the theism, Atheism is exactly a blind belief without either rational or empirical support for its premise, which is that there is not and cannot exist a deity. How is that the case?

Atheism is nothing more than blind rejection without cause of all logical and physical evidence for a deity. That is the basis for the case that Atheism is a blind belief, a religious belief conforming to the definition of religion which is held by Atheists themselves.

Many (a great many) Atheists try to wipe away the need for empirical or logical proof for supporting their own position with the claim that they have no intellectual responsibility for their belief that there is no deity, and that they can reject logical arguments without giving any reasoning. They deny any burden for providing sound, reasoned reasons for their rejections of theist arguments. They ignore the absurdity of this position, because it seems (they think) to give them an effortless “win” for their Consequentialist tactic. This type of win is without any intellectual force because it has no intellectual content. When that attempted evasion fails them logically, as it must, they claim that they really have no “deity belief”, an absurd claim which also fails immediately under the slightest skeptical scrutiny.

They further attempt to obscure their own beliefs by trying to redefine the term, ”Atheism”, to include agnosticism, pure ignorance (all babies are Atheist they claim), apathy and inability to know anything (pond scum, minerals and dark matter).

But in actuality Atheism was and remains the out-of-hand rejection, without reasons which are based in logic or empiricism, of theism arguments and claims. So if the rejection is neither rational nor scientific, it is purely emotionally based. The rejection is pure Rejectionism for rejection’s-sake, or at least for the soothing of emotional neediness of the individual Atheist.

This is confirmed in the occurrence of Atheism as a worldview precursor. First Atheism occurs generally in the adolescent years, up to the young adult years. In some individuals the frontal cortex does not mature until nearly 30 years of age; whether this is applicable to late adoption of Atheism is debatable, but it is certainly the case that a large portion of Atheists acquire their Rejectionism in adolescence and early adulthood.

Second, it generally occurs in individuals who have not studied the discipline of logic, and are not beholden to logical discipline as a worldview.

Third, the existence of the Atheist VOID performs as both emotional carrot and stick in the addiction of the individual to himself as source, rather than to any external source of logic or moral precept. The VOID is the exuberant rejection of all rational and moral authority, which the Atheist sees enthusiastically as a wonderful new “freedom”: free thought and freedom from religious morality. His personal thought and his personal moral judgment overrides all others.

As the Atheist develops his own personal world of thought processing and moral determination, he becomes the equivalent of his own religion, albeit a very self-contained religion, wherein he is the determinant of all things “properly thought” and all things “properly moral”. This is possible only within a cloistered mind which considers itself the apogee of all evolution, and with few, if any, peers. In other words, elite.

And it allows, in fact requires, that any challengers to this new mental and moral elitist anarchy be dismissed, and with no reasons required for that dismissal other than that the challengers are non-congruent with what the cloistered mind believes to be true: that what the Atheist has is all that is of value in the universe. (In fact, after dismissing without cause all challengers to his personal Truth system, the Atheist comes to develop his own personal logic system and his own personal moral code which should, he believes, apply to all of the Other, too; he is, after all, elite).

That lets out both disciplined deduction and careful empiricism, if those do not correspond directly and completely with the Atheist’s conception of reality. And for the most part, they do not.

So the Atheist is caught up in a self-centered religion which blindly believes in its own personally derived Truths, concepts which are not based or grounded in logical reality or in empirical understandings of reality, a religious view which further has uneducated comprehension of what constitutes both rational, deductive conclusions and empirical contingent knowledge. Further, he believes that ungrounded Skepticism produces Truth, when in fact it produces only Rejection, without cause.

And yet the Atheist commonly believes himself to be both rational and scientific, and claims those pursuits as his personal high ground, as if he alone can comprehend them. This demonstrates the irrational, blindly religious characteristic of Atheism, especially when actual logic and the obvious limitations of empiricism are pointed out to him and he rejects that. Unable to reconcile actual disciplined logic with his own thought process, and unable to comprehend the limitations of science output as knowledge, the Atheist continues to live in his own cloistered mind, using his own thought process and his own concept of reality which is limited to his own thought processing.

If the Atheist were, in fact, rational and empirical, then he would demonstrate rational or empirical cause for having rejected theist arguments. But the Atheist cannot provide either empirical, experimental evidence for the non-existence of a deity, nor can he provide disciplined, deductive refuting reasoning which categorically proves the non-existence of a deity. The Atheist cannot prove the non-existence of the non-material. The Atheist cannot prove much of anything at all. What he has is just opinion. The Atheist has nothing to bring to the intellectual party – except rejection without cause. In fact, it is anti-intellectual: religious rejectionism without cause.

There can be no reason to believe Atheist rejections because Atheists can give no reasons and no reasoning for their rejections. They actually have no reasons other than their own emotional attachment to the Religion of Self to which they subscribed when they entered the Atheist VOID.

Atheism, we must conclude, is one of the least rational, most blind beliefs of any religion, because it cannot provide a case for its belief system; yet the Atheist is unable to shake the irrational belief system and its ultimate worldview because it gives him the emotional crutch he needs: false feelings of presumed elitism, and the false freedom of believing in irrational conclusions which have no premises except Rejectionism, much less grounded, rational premises.

Atheism as the Religion of Atomism

From Patheos, The Catholic Channel:

Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism”
by Dave Armstrong

„It’s currently fashionable for atheists to deny that a universe without God is caused by “pure chance” or “randomly colliding atoms,” as their earlier forebears might have boldly and proudly described it.

Yet natural “laws” somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes).

Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist / materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.

Indeed, this is a faith of the utmost non-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists.

Atheist belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). One might call this belief Temporalism.

Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.

Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

Some Atomist utterances even have the “ring” of Scriptures; for example, urgings of an appropriate humility regarding man’s opinion of his own importance, because the universe is so large, and we are so small, as if, somehow, largeness itself is some sort of inherently God-like quality. One Atomist informed me that “order is in the eye of the beholder.” That reminded me of the biblical Proverbs (perhaps he was the Atomist equivalent of Solomon).

Yet in Atomism, each person is gods too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing.

Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (just to warn the devout, faithful Atomist that others of different, much more rational, faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever-inventive and childlike – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the unnecessary addition of mere explanation.”

Go to the source for more.

There are also the myths of Atheist-Atomism: evolution, abiogenesis, and the multiverse, as well as the mutually contradictory determinism and agency/intellect/free will. These are necessary magical beliefs which are essential myths (without a shred of material evidence existing or even possible) for sustaining the belief in Atheism and its handmaiden, Materialism.

Bill Quick and the Standard Canard for Denying the Obvious.

Atheist Bill Quick is easily irritated. As his article wrap-up he says this:

” Some atheists piss me off every once in a while, but not nearly as often or as much as the dumbasses of the “atheism is a religion” crowd.”

He seems to reason that Atheism is not a religion and that’s why he doesn’t have a blog to assert Atheism as the superior religion to all theist and deist and whatever religions. Except that he does do that religiously on his blog, acting pretty much like a religious zealot. Here he resorts to logical absurdity to defend the non-religiosity of Atheism:

”A standard response is to note that if atheism is a religion, then “bald” is a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby, not kicking a kitten is a form of animal abuse and so on. Another is to note that if the definition of religion was expanded enough to legitimately include atheism – say, by defining a religion as “any philosophy on life” – then practically everything in the world would be a religion, such as socio-economic policies or views on equality. (British law has come close to finding this in employment discrimination cases.)”

Quick has resorted to Atheist bumper sticker wisdom, which always is easily refuted. Atheism does, in fact, have a creation story, evolution, which is used to define the value of human life, the purpose of life, and it constrains the afterlife story to a null hypothesis. Atheists don’t have a common moral statement, but that is their common feature: total freedom from morality and absolutes. Further, they evolve almost directly into Consequentialism (which is an anti-morality sort of morality) and Leftist elitism from which they can be excommunicated as heretics if they sin by not adhering to the Leftist dogma regarding the sacred tenets of Atheism: absolute truth of evolution; the non-existence of absolute truth; the absolute moral imperative of support for the killing one’s progeny (women’s healthcare), and the installation of Atheism as the standard morality of government and the public square.

So Quick’s use of silly false analogs is just pitiful in one sense, and desperate in another. No one is demanding that the government be all-bald, all-non stamp collectors, all-non kitten kicker (although that one is a de facto consideration). But Atheists are everywhere demanding and suing for total Atheism and freedom from religion. Does this not remind anyone of the Islamic demand of total Islam? Or else?

But he also fails in his meager attempt at definition: “religion as a philosophy of life”, which is a phony definition that he can knock right down, a cheap, weightless Straw Man. I.e it is a definition that only a defensive Atheist would conjure up.

There is no doubt that Atheists like Bill Quick really don’t like being apprised of their religious affiliation. But that’s too bad, because they are exactly religious, with the same features which they denounce in theism, including religious gurus and even churches. And their religiously defended sacrament is abortion, about which they become hysterical if it is threatened in any manner. And that is because their religion holds that due to evolution humans have no inherent value, and that they, the elites, get to decide who may, under elitist Atheist morality and moral authority, be killed.

If nothing else suffices to define Atheism as a religion, it is their lack of morality combined with their presumption of self-endowed moral authority which cinches it, completely. Atheism is the religion of moral and intellectual ambiguity, expressed as elitist dogma.

Coyne: the Good Atheist

It seems that the institutional philosophers either are stuck in institutional thinking with its attendant fallacies or they maybe have time to write books but not think things through. For whatever reason some of them just can’t rid themselves of fallacies which they use over and over for proofs. A favorite is the False Dichotomy Fallacy. A true dichotomy has one option available; either choose it or don’t – two choices are all that are available.

The False Dichotomy offers two options which are diametrically opposed and which seem to be all the choices that are available, both of which are uncomfortable. But with two options, say P and Q, there are actually four ways to choose: P and Q; P and not Q; Q and not P; not P and not Q.

The deception which philosophers and other manipulators use is to present only two of the four possible choices. For P and Q, then, only the choices P and not Q, and Q and not P are presented as the available choices.

This then is the deception in Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, which Jerry Coyne takes as the „logical” basis for dismissing a deity, disregarding the False Dichotomy Fallacy that his logic is based upon. Coyne is trying to make the case that Atheists are Good while God is Bad, which is the new argument being made by Atheists who are attacking the modern civilization in which they live.

Moving to Evil God, Coyne maintains that the Old Testament God did all sorts of things that he, Coyne, and the Atheists think are bad. Now God did order some things done that only a deity could justify, no argument there. But if a deity is justified in doing what ever a deity does, then Coyne has no case other than his own pique. Says Coyne:

” Now, few of us see genocide or stoning as moral, so Christians and Jews pass over those parts of the Bible with judicious silence. But that’s just the point. There is something else — some other source of morality — that supersedes biblical commands. When religious people pick and choose their morality from Scripture, they clearly do so based on extrareligious notions of what’s moral.”

What the Bible displays is a continuous cycling of obedience, betrayal, and correction. The correction is purposely visited upon a disobedient society by the use of an invading force which brings humility where hubris and contempt had reigned. And this after explicit warnings of what was to come. If one assumes these to be literally true, which Atheists always do, it is clearly the deity’s prerogative to handle his creation as he wishes. But this action, being that of the diety, is neither moral nor immoral in terms of human behavior. By taking on the Bible, Coyne should be obligated to at least understand its meanings and to use a meaningful model to criticize rather than his own fake model. Morality in human terms, according to the Bible, means obedience to the directives given by the deity. Now Coyne might not like the directives, and he might be tempted to compare the specific directives for action to the general directives for daily behavior and then declare his False Dichotomy. But as a declared intellectual he should act in dispassionate fairness when he passes judgment, rather than present False Dichotomies and Straw Man arguments. He does not, however, do that.

This is total blindness to the concept of a deity which is actually more powerful than Coyne is himself. Morality doesn’t come from the daily maunderings of institutional intellectuals; if it even exists it comes from an extrahuman source. The morals of intellectuals have never been consistent, and much less when put into practice have they been humane. Coyne’s argument against God and for Atheist Goodness cannot withstand the most cursory historical glance at the 20th century. Ah, say Atheists, that was coincidentally Atheists slaughtering hundreds of millions of their own countrymen, purely coincidence. In other words, excusing their own belief system for its slaughters.

But as fatally feeble as those arguments are, Coyne’s weakest argument is yet to come:

” Further, the idea that morality is divinely inspired doesn’t jibe with the fact that religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time. Slavery was once defended by churches on scriptural grounds; now it’s seen as grossly immoral. Mormons barred blacks from the priesthood, also on religious grounds, until church leaders had a convenient „revelation” to the contrary in 1978. Catholics once had a list of books considered immoral to read; they did away with that in 1966. Did these adjustments occur because God changed His mind? No, they came from secular improvements in morality that forced religion to clean up its act.”

Religious people continue to improve or at least change their understanding of the deity and its wishes for them. Coyne conveniently ignores that it was the religious efforts of uberChristian William Wilberforce in Great Britain, and the Republicans in the USA that put slavery away – not the force of “secular improvements”. Taking credit for what one did not accomplish is intellectually dishonest, and none of the events he listed was forced by any secular superhero.

Coyne predictably defaults to the Atheist’s religious source, evolution:

” So where does morality come from, if not from God? Two places: evolution and secular reasoning. Despite the notion that beasts behave bestially, scientists studying our primate relatives, such as chimpanzees, see evolutionary rudiments of morality: behaviors that look for all the world like altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval, sharing — even notions of fairness. This is exactly what we’d expect if human morality, like many other behaviors, is built partly on the genes of our ancestors.”

First the absurdity of asserting that “secular reasoning” and Chimpanzee behavior are in the same category as morality is absolutely glaring. But let’s take evolution first: making up evolutionary Just So Stories just doesn’t cut it any more, but Coyne hasn’t gotten the memo. I’m sure he will some day.

But “secular reasoning” as a source of anything meaningful at all is the most absurd premise that can be made. Secular reasoning eschews any absolutes, so it has to base its premise support either on infinite regressions of subpremises, or on circular regression back to itself. Either way it cannot provide any firm grounding for… well, for any valid thought whatsoever, much less a guide for moral human behavior. This is the world in which the secular philosopher moralists live, a world which they make up and then want us to believe is real. For them maybe it is real, but I doubt it, because they do not actually live in the world they pretend is real.

And that is a true dichotomy: to make up rules and reality and then either (a) to live in it, or (b) not to live in it. If one asserts rules and reality, but chooses (b), then he might be hypocritical or maybe insane.

An example is the idea that “compassion” must become a human trait if one is to be a secular moralist. But then the real idea comes to the fore: it is not compassion but confiscation of other people’s wealth to be spread around. The compassion comes not from personal sacrifice but from sacrificing the Other on the altar of secularism. Sacrificing the Other is a large part of secular thought, so it must be moral according to the seculars.

Anyone who values “secular thought” as a way toward morality is suspect. In fact, as Massimo Pigliucci recently demonstrated quite adequately, secular thought is compartmentalized into sects, each of which condemns the other secular thought sects as dealing in “mental masturbation”. They are partly right; it’s just that ALL secular thought is mental masturbation. And Coyne is right in the middle of all that. Why is Coyne “Good”? Because he says so. What is „Good”? It’s whatever he says it is… today. That’s the process of secular thought.

In fact Coyne wrote a book with a title that automatically places the entire book into the mental masturbation category: Coyne wrote: “Why Evolution Is True”. Assuming that evolution is a science complete with verifiability and falsifiability and is proven to be valid, it still is not capable of providing Truth. Science provides only contingent inductive factoids, from which deductive tests can be made, which show merely that no falsification has yet occurred. No matter how many tests are done, science never ever provides Truth. Scientists might presume a factoid to be valid for purposes of subsequent tests, but they do not declare Truth if they understand the basis for science. As both a philosopher and a scientist, Coyne flunks even the basics.

But for some reason, Atheists still respect him. Maybe it’s because he says what they want to hear.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



Przeczytaj jeszcze  Quick responses to atheist claims.

Dodaj komentarz

Twój adres email nie zostanie opublikowany. Pola, których wypełnienie jest wymagane, są oznaczone symbolem *