Thursday, March 26, 2015

Atheism Is Good: Daylight Atheism

Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism claims that Atheism is necessary… for the Good of mankind.
”In fact, I’d go further and say that a politically active, engaged atheist movement is a force for good in the world. The more success it enjoys, the more potential it has to benefit everyone. As such, it deserves our support and advocacy, even when it may stumble or go astray.”
Atheism is not doing a very great job for the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, etc. Atheism allows any cultural desecration and mass annihilation because it contains no proscriptive moral principles whatsoever. So the first statement here is obviously false, is oblivious to the lack of principles in Atheism, and to the specific documented history of Atheism as a governing morality.
”In what ways is atheism a force for good? There are so many answers to this question. I could write about people suffering nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell, or people with mental illness who are treated with prayer and exorcism instead of medicine. I could write about children in faith-healing sects who suffer and die from curable ailments, or the crushing burden of guilt and shame over sex, or cults that box all their members into a narrow, rigidly defined role in life. Defeating all these pernicious beliefs, and offering an alternative path to people harmed by them, is a positive good.”
"Nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell"? Histrionic much? These issues are dredged largely from the overheated Atheist imagination of their prevalence, and is belied by the lack of their actual prevalence and by the miniscule import which they present as social issues. Plus, most of these are being fought by responsible religious organizations devoted to them, not by Atheists.
”As well, I could say that atheists do good deeds in the world. I could write about atheists who support each other in community, or who’ve given money and time to help the needy. I could even say that atheism contributes to peace around the world. “
Atheists do support each other, until one of them crosses the line and thus becomes a target as a heretical abomination (Antony Flew comes to mind). As for giving anything, Atheists are known to donating the equivalent of two Latte’s per month to charities, and AtheoLeftists are known for not paying their taxes, too. Without principles for morality, behavior becomes just whatever you can get away with.

As for contributing to peace, yes, Atheists have declared war on entire classes of people, wiped them from the face of the earth, and declared peace after their pogroms have suppressed all dissent, with dissenters either dead or in gulags far from reporters and visibility. The Kulaks and other peoples are now "at peace". People making the “Atheist peace” claim have been termed “useful idiots” by real Atheists.
”I could write about all these things, but I won’t. The better answer is more fundamental: because atheism is the acknowledgement of reality, and reality matters.”
Already completely out of touch with documented, historical reality, yet he is claiming “reality” as an exclusive feature of Atheism. No; because for Atheism, reality doesn’t actually matter; the false narrative that it matters is what matters. Because what is emerging in this narrative is the principle of Philosophical Materialism, which cannot be proven under its own principles to be what it claims: the true, limiting principle of reality. The entire rest of reality doesn't matter to Atheists.
”There are many liberal religions that don’t perpetuate the evils I listed. There are believers who’ve built hospitals, who’ve marched for justice, who’ve helped to feed and clothe the poor. I don’t scorn them for their activism. But I do insist that even their ideas, however laudable they may be, are ultimately based on things that are unreal: the promise of another life beyond this one, the idea that prayer and scripture-reading can be used to discover truth, the belief that morality consists of obedience to the decrees of an unseen being.”
And here it is: pure denialism without hope of proof, assumed to be axiomatic and the actual truth without any hope of evidence, logic or empirical testing for confirmation. It is, in fact, a metaphysical position which is not reducible to physical evidence. Because it is presented as Truth, without proof, it is a religiously held blind belief, one that has no basis in reality OR the charge of "unreality".
”Even if taught with the best intentions, these beliefs subtly denigrate reality. They encourage us to focus not on the here-and-now, on the tangible and the real, but on some other realm that’s held up above this life.”
Actually that is exactly what Atheism does. Atheism makes the claim of knowledge, as this author does, that there positively is no existence which is not physical. In its naïve form, as this Atheist produces, reality is solely material, cause and effect (contra Hume), and deterministic. That "reality" is held up above and supreme to the observation that reality contains non-deterministic, untestable, unmeasurable features such as non-deducible existence of consciousness, intellect, qualia, etc., all necessarily derived from minerals deterministically according to Materialist Atheism. Reality which is artificially limited to physical existence cannot explain these, and that is not due to immature science. It is because these things are not causally produced (or they would be merely automatic responses, easily Reproduced), and it is thus because science cannot produce hypothetico-reductive-falsifiable laws which can be validated objectively regarding these effects.
” Even when they call for social action, they promote the belief that evil and suffering are in some sense necessary, part of a greater plan that’s beyond our grasp.”
There is much that is beyond the grasp of the artificially limited comprehension of Atheist ideologists. That doesn’t mean that these esoteria are false. It merely means that they are ideologically constrained from objectively considering them.
” And just when it’s become most crucial that we collectively make the right decisions if humanity is to survive and flourish, they assert that beliefs based on ancient folk tales, wishful thinking, and nebulous personal conviction are just as good as, if not better than, beliefs founded on science, evidence, and reasoned reflection.”
Here it is: the Ad Hominem rejection of non-Atheism using prejudicial pejoratives, followed by the admiring, even worshipful abeyance to Scientism and personal elitist opinion. Both Scientism and subjective opinionation are anti-rational. Especially when they are directed at moral principles under the influence of the moral VOID of Atheism. And it is most egregiously dangerous when it is directed at "humanity", for the GOOD of all the herd.
”The great moral conflicts of the next hundred years must be settled on the basis of what’s true, not just on who believes more fervently.
Whups. This statement directly contradicts the contiguously previous statement. Scientism/Opinion cannot produce anything which is True, especially and particularly regarding morals. So it's EITHER Truth OR Scientism/Opinion. One could ask the Kulaks how it worked out for them, except they were eugenically mass murdered by the Scientific Atheists under Lenin. (For the Good of Humanity, no less). And it actually is not “who believes what more fervently”. Under Atheism it is purely the Will To Power; belief is not an issue.
”Even when we aim at the right ends, letting faith guide our steps will always lead to diverted and wasted effort, will always threaten to trip us up and lead us down blind alleys, and will always breathe life into the very fundamentalisms that pose the threat in the first place.”
Atheists love the word, “fundamentalism”, because they infer from it that there are evil principles involved which keep them from what they really want, and what they want is for everyone else to be exactly like them: government to be Atheist; society to have no rules; tolerance of all behaviors except dissent of course, which is the only evil. So having “fundamental” principles for one’s behavior goes directly counter to the moral anarchy of the Atheist VOID and its children: totalitarian control of the masses, for their equality and their own GOOD. Under Atheist total control it has been demonstrated sufficiently that only the elites actually get the perquisites and the freedom to use them; the Other gets squashed under the “equality” dictated top-down. Those are the consequences of Atheist fundamentalism.
”Most of all, faith keeps us from what’s real.
In a sense, this statement is correct, but not in the manner intended. Faith in Scientism, Materialism, the personal supremacy of the Atheist-elitist mind, these faiths do keep the Atheist from comprehending the fullness of reality. This happens by restricting the concept of reality to the sensorily perceived mechanical superset of universal existence (our visible, touchable physical world), and the restricted ability to hypothesize and deduce outside that ideological, arbitrary limitation. The perceivable universe is now known to be just a subset of what is actual (probably consisting of all quantum waves with no mechanical component at all at the common sublevel). And even at the perceptible level, the ability to apply cause/effect is limited to certain categories of existence.

Atheists probably acknowledge the sub-existence: invisible atoms, subatomic "particles", quantum energies, and so on. But Atheists refuse to acknowledge any higher existence than themselves. And this despite the multi-dimension theories of strings, and the multilevel verification theory of Godel, not to mention the Russell paradox which mathematically demonstrates the inability to have a superset which is the defining truth for all subsets. Atheists are not the top superset, regardless of their beliefs.

The Atheist assertion of what’s “real” and what’s "important" is, to say the least, myopic and self-centered. At worst, it is a deception being practiced upon credulous believers, not unlike what a cult would proclaim as truth to their credulous believers.
The cosmos is beautiful enough as it is, deep enough as it is, glorious enough as it is; we need no small human fantasies to embellish it, nor a dusting of mythology to confer it all with meaning.
And here we have the unsubtle revelation that there is no actual meaning in the Atheist worldview. That then, is the reality which he has been going on about. There is no meaning, so he wants everyone to accept whatever manufactured meaning he applies to their existence. Again, a claim reminiscent of historical Atheist governing principles.
”The real story of how everything came to be and where we fit into the grand picture is more spectacular and awe-inspiring than any religion, and it has the virtue of being true.”
If he is referring to the evolutionary Modern Synthesis of Darwinian principles, then that is known to be not even accepted by the evolutionary elites in the Atheist/Materialist community. That’s fail #1. Not so spectacular, beautiful, or awe inspiring. The second is his declarations of superiority superlatives in order to appear to degrade all non-Atheist beliefs. And again, he mistakes his proclamation to be Truth – or at least he wants the reader to make that mistake.
Embracing reality in all its fullness, unclouded by false hope or illusion, is the most profound of all the gifts that atheism has to offer the world.”
He is actually blinded by the false hope and illusion of his belief in religious Scientism and Philosophical Materialism. And he uses this delusion as support for his claim that Atheism is Good. In all, he has presented no actual material evidence and no deductive logic for his case, and that results in his case being presented as a religious sermon or worse, a set of blind beliefs without basis in actual material fact declared true, despite the failure of the materialism espoused.

The irony of Atheism is that it produces exactly the intellectual tyranny which it claims to be fighting, and there is more than ample historical data to support that knowledge. Yet Atheists persist in producing false testimonies like this, as if there exists no history of Atheist control of societies and science for them even to consider. Whether that is due to ignorance or evil is up to the observer to decide.

In the final analysis: there is NO document containing The Official Atheist Moral Principles; there are no such things Moral Principles which are common to all Atheists, or even most Atheists. And thus there is no Atheist definition for Good or Evil. Therefore, no Atheist can legitimately claim to be Good Without God: that is irrational.

This Atheist article is based on the following premises, which are presented as axiomatic:
1. Materialism is true;

2. Atheism is Good;

3. External Fundamental Principles for behavior are evil;

4. Non-Materialists are delusional.
Each premise is demonstrably false under logical analysis:
1. Materialism is interally non-coherent, being unable to prove its own premises under its own arbitrary limitations.

2. Atheism has no common definition for GOOD; therefore the term is either non-existent for Atheists or is purely relative and unusable.

3. Atheism has no common definition for EVIL; therefore the fundamentals of belief systems cannot be evil. Further, unrestricted behavior under Atheism more closely resembles traditional conceptual EVIL when its historical consequences are considered.

4. Rejection of a non-coherent, unprovable, arbitrary ideological claim is not irrational, it is logical.

8 comments:

JBsptfn said...

I made a couple of comments on that link, and gave them the link to this web entry. However, the comments need to be approved (not surprising). That article just seems like more Atheist childish drivel.

Stan said...

As a generalization, Atheists don't come here, except to ridicule, and that's a thing of the past mostly. They don't come to defend Atheism, because it is indefensible using logic or evidence to support it.

I just now recalled an Atheist professor whose work I subjected to the standard logic. He came by and got very, very angry when he could not rebut the logic. He stomped out with a hail of insults thrown behind him in his foaming wake of hate. That was more than a couple of years ago...

Steven Satak said...

Stan, Stan. It's like I tell my son until he's sick of hearing it... whenever someone tells you they are doing something for your own good (or the good of humanity or some other such abstracted drivel), put one hand on your wallet and run.

Whatever it is, is guaranteed to be unpleasant for you and not them, will be paid for by you, not them, and will end up with them making the decisions and retaining the power, - not you.

Just like in the old stories, you have to invite the vampire in before it can work its doom on you and those you love.

JBsptfn said...

Well, as predicted, my comments haven't been improved. However, what's funny is that, in the comments section, there are people that call themselves "Progressive Christians" who don't seem to believe in the Bible and the afterlife.

Steven Satak said...

@JB: not surprising. The place is obviously an atheist echo chamber. No dissenting comments are recognized or desired. They just want you to shut up. And when they control what appears in the comments section, that's what happens. Every time.

Phoenix said...

In fact, I’d go further and say that a politically active, engaged atheist movement is a force for good in the world. The more success it enjoys, the more potential it has to benefit everyone. As such, it deserves our support and advocacy, even when it may stumble or go astray.”

But fascism and communism were both Atheistic political movements.Both resulted in mass slaughters.Atheists could argue these movements went astray but Daylight Atheism encourages their support no matter what.

Phoenix said...

Atheist moral principles can be defined as what feels good and what feels bad or what I like and dislike.
If the constituents of matter is all we are then Atheists must demonstrate how a particular arrangements of quarks and leptons become evil or good.
Clearly that should settle all theodicies once and for all,because the demonstration would be empirical,since it deals with the fundamental building blocks of the universe.The Atheist might retort,"one day science will solve this"

Steven Satak said...

"One day science will solve this"

Isn't that the founding principle behind Scientism?

And of course, what it is, is handwaving away any intractable problem the speaker cannot (or, more often, will not) address; in fact, the exact sort of thing Christians are accused of doing.

The difference of course being that our Sky Daddy is said to be responsive to prayer. The follower of Scientism must be content with feelings of superiority and moral certitude. There is not the least shred of evidence that these feelings reflect reality, but then, for the faithful, re-inventing their own reality is second nature by now.