Atheism Has Now Become: Voidism

The definition of Atheism continues to morph away from representing any position at all, especially one that requires honest justification for its existence. So let’s follow this to the limits of what is possible in the Atheist rush to deny any intellectual responsibility.

Now the concept of Atheism has been force fit into this concept: there is no concept. Atheism now is defined as having no belief regarding any god or gods. In other words, it is a conceptual and intellectual void. Perhaps the only true void in the entire universe, it seems.

There is no rejection, because there is no opinion on the subject which exists in a mental void. They have heard the god theory and come away with a void.

Now, a void is not arguable. A void is nothing. And this concept of “no concept” has come up recently as a result of successfully arguing that Atheists have neither logic nor empirical truth to support their position. So now they claim not to have a position, it is merely a void regarding gthe subject. Yet even a void as a worldview has consequences.

How does one develop a mental void? Further, why does the Voidist feel the need to fight against the Non-voidists? How do they defend the position of Voidism? If Voidism is the complete lack of a concept or position, then what is the basis for their worldview?

This last question directs a fatal arrow at the heart of Atheism’s new Voidist position. If they have no position, then they cannot argue for it or against its contrary – there is no differentiable contrary to a void, except for everything which is not a void, which is: everything.

Further, a worldview which starts with a void as its base axiomatic truth proposition cannot be thought to produce anything of value. There is nothing in Voidism, literally, to direct thought processes, for example (and this is shown here daily). There is nothing to describe a Voidist moral concept (no concepts, remember?).

Starting with a void, the Atheist develops everything from thinking patterns to morals basing them on the void, filling in the empty space with whatever he wishes. Perhaps he steals concepts from others, perhaps he just makes stuff up as he needs it. It is the Voidist, self-induced moral system and anti-rationalist thought process which makes the Atheist the most suspicious person on the planet.

So about that Voidist claim to be based on logic and evidence: that is clearly not the case. There is no logic which dictates the existence of a mental void, and certainly no logic which is based on a void; logic is based on absolutes, the opposite of a void. There is no evidence which reveals the existence of the Voidist’s lack of mental activity surrounding the concept of possible deities. So the claim is false.

Of course, true and false do not exist in mental voids, either. So Voidists merely declare things either true or false depending on which of those states is convenient for the Voidist’s self-induced morality and thought process. Further, Voidists are free, conceptually, to believe whatever they, themselves, say, whenever it is convenient to say it.

Voidism is rationally deniable, but that is of no concern to the Voidist. That position, that Voidism is rationally deniable, sets the Voidists off and away as members of the anti-rationalist community, a la Nietzsche, and separates them from rational society… whether they like it or not.

Rationality is not accepting whatever you wish the truth to be as actually true; rationality involves submitting oneself to the outcome of logical principles as they are applied to propositions. Where there is no concept to be discussed or analyzed, there is no rationality involved, either in that void or the consequences of that void.

So if anything either valid or true comes out of Voidism, it is purely a random accident, not a purposeful, logical, analytical consequence of the Void. And with so many false possibilities for every proposition, but only one true possibility, the chances of Voidism producing anything of rational value is asymptotic to p ~ 0.