My comment contained this:
“First, Marxist Materialism is Atheist; and that is the theoretical basis, as he admitted just sentences earlier. Even if it were not, the second half of the sentence is astounding in its implications: Atheism is merely a tool to eradicate human cultures, for ideological and political purposes. That is an incredible admission, made rather witlessly as he tries to defend Atheism from its obvious association with massive genocides, unthinkable tortures and eradication of entire cultures.”He replied:
"Suppose Marxist Materialism is atheist. What does that tell us about Marxist Materialism? Absolutely nothing bar that Marx did not believe in god(s)..”False on both counts. First, atheism tells us at least two things; (a) under atheism, there is no moral theory whatsoever attached to this basis for worldviews, so the morality void is definite until backfilled with something agreeable to the atheist; (b) the trend of atheist political progression is overwhelmingly to the political Left, and many migrate to the outer extremes of political Leftism. This is because there also is an overwhelming trend amongst Atheists to consider themselves intellectually superior: elites who can determine morality better than any Other and thus are morally enabled to save the Other, who is classified as Victim unless he is classified as an Oppressor. The atheist elites are thus the natural Messiah class. This was the case in the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, turn of the century Progressives in the west, and the modern progressives of today.
This blogger seems to assume that criticism can only be based on “prejudiced presuppositions”, but in fact history shows these principles to inhere, not prejudice or caricature.
In terms of prejudice and caricature, the author (whoever) conjures up some prejudiced caricatures of his own:
“Atheism Analyzed no doubt believes atheism is synonymous with the big government, baby eating, freedom hating, liberal-socialist Left. But these are his own prejudiced presuppositions.”Again, blatantly false: It is obvious that Atheism, being a void, a null, containing only a single rejection, is merely the springboard which propels the Atheist into a moral and intellectual maelstrom of his own making. The common results are noted above. This is empirically determinable, and not in any manner prejudice or fantasy.
” I am not American so I do not understand most of the references. It's noticeable however that the author must refer to atheism as the 'atheist left'. The additional adjective is necessary because, again, atheism does not entail a political position outside of his imagination. In the original post I offered the distinction between Bolshevism atheism and liberal atheism as an example against Hitchens attempt to ascribe positive values to atheism. Liberals atheists do support political freedom, social contracts, human rights, freedom of religion and constitutional democracy; disputes arise over the scope of rights. Bolshivism flatly rejected these as bourgeois oppression.”Perhaps the author is not familiar with western terminology, which under Atheist Leftism changes frequently. But first, of course there are two terms required: “atheist” and “Left”. That’s because atheism is just a VOID of principles, and is the necessary and sufficient null which allows the untethered thought and moral processes which infested Marxist Materialism to occur and be given “legitimacy”. Under atheism, it achieved such “legitimacy” due to the null, the void of morality and intellectual principles. His final sentence refers to the beliefs of “liberal atheists”. The term, “liberal”, has specific meaning the modern western world; that meaning is the inverse of the original meaning of “liberal” as used by the founders of American democratic republicanism. The new Liberal/Progressives are not attached in any fashion to political freedom (witness the use of government to silence opposition, both political and religious, as well as scientific); nor social contracts (witness the use of government to not enforce existing law, and to force the religious to violate their religious principles); nor human rights (witness the use of government – nonelected judiciaries – to enable the killing of preborn humans, to produce and keep leftist ghetto plantations full of poverty stricken Victims, to deny pesticides and allow the deaths of hundreds of millions of third world people, to deny enhanced agricultural products to third world countries, to enrichen cronies while burdening the future generations with massive debt, etc., etc., ad nauseum); nor freedom of religion (witness the drive by New Atheists to eradicate religion totally; the abuse of religious rights by the US government; the pursuit of lawsuits against any religious opinion in public areas – except for atheist secularism, of course); nor constitutional democracy (the US Constitution is laughed at by the highest officials in Congress, is totally ignored by the Administration which doesn’t enforce laws which are not Leftist, and an administration which attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court, while persecuting political opposition).
In fact, I’m not sure where in the world one would find a significant group of Atheists which actually does adhere to the principles which are listed by whoever at TABD. Most of those principles would usually entail a conservative to libertarian bent, and few, very few, atheists are such.
Next, he tries harder to absolve atheism and atheists with a rule:
” It is always a mistake to claim atheism must necessary entail any social-political viewpoints; all attempts to demonstrate atheism must led to slaughter and cultural decay are absurd.”And that’s not what has been said. What has been said is that atheism DID in fact lead to massive slaughter and genocide, and it IS NOW leading to cultural decay across the west. That is fact. Whether it is a necessary part of atheism is not the point. The point that it has done so; that it is doing so; that the correlation is very, very high, and that the moral void is a necessary part of the worst of the slaughters, genocides and cultural eradications.
” Atheists are libertarians and social democrats and communists and anarchists. We are naturalists and spiritualists, rationalists and romantics, conservatives and liberals, individualistic and communitarian.”
No question about that; atheists have no principles in common with each other, in fact under atheism there are no principles at all, until they create some which they seem to like. Very frequently the principles which they like are the ones that elevate themselves into uber-elitist, amoral, Will To Power, totalitarians. There is NOTHING in atheism to STOP that from happening. So that’s why the correlation is so high.
” But in the polarized minds of the fundamentalists, atheists are dehumanized into forces of evil. We become Satan.”It is in the annals of history that atheists are seen to be such. Many, many, very many atheists. It is no fantasy, it is historical fact. His denialism is couched in the fantasy that anyone who points out the obvious is actually possessed of a polarized mind. If truth is a polar opposite of what he is pushing, then and only then is that the case.
In reality, the mind of he who denies historical reality is the mind to be concerned about.
He closes with my comment, and so will I:
” Denialism requires the suspension of rational assessment. When it is in pursuit of an ideology, especially one with massive evil in its history, suspension of rationality becomes evil itself. Yet in the ideology of Atheism, there is no evil, unless it is to admit that there is evil and they are involved in it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment