Monday, September 7, 2015

Valerie Tarico, on Something...

“There is no god — now what?”: How to find meaning in an atheist world

Tarico interviews Filmmaker and photographer Chris Johnson on the dangers of religion and his new documentary, “A Better Life”

“Our public conversation about atheism is two dimensional,” says Johnson. “It’s time to open the next phase. For ten years we’ve talked about what we don’t believe in. The dialogue kicked off by the New Atheist movement was much needed, but after we strip away gods and superstition, what is left? How do we see ourselves and our lives and our relationships? That’s what we need to talk about next.”
This is the necessary admission that they have nothing else, beyond rejection and personal opinions for moral constructs.
"Some people were expecting to hear the same thing from everyone—why religion is wrong. But instead, the atheists in the film were talking about really big questions: How do we find meaning and purpose? How do we relate with each other? How do we deal with our own mortality? How do we interact with the world around us? They talked about dimensions of the religious experience that are accessible to people outside of religion. So many people get incredible experiences going to church. But if you assume that all of this is natural, then these powerful experiences have natural causes. So we can ask, how can we have the same rich experiences without the things we don’t like about religion?"
Blatantly groping for religiousness without a deity. For blessings without a blessor, in a creation without a creator. Creating meaning in a material universe which has no meaning. Consider this sentence, excised from its context:
" If we can get that without the false truth claims of religion, we get the best of both worlds."
Atheism, being purely rejection without evidence or rational argument, gives the Atheist nothing. It empties the soul of hope. It empties the mind of logic. All because of rejecting the fundamentals: the single moral authority; the single source of rationality in a universe based on laws which are not man-made. Atheists have nothing but the accident of their existence in a cold and dying universe which cares nothing for them.
"People think that to have profound meaningful experiences and commitments takes religion or some higher power outside of yourself. But it doesn’t.

In fact, an evidence-based rational perspective can make you more understanding and compassionate. The naturalist worldview recognizes many complex causes and effects in people’s lives and that can lead to compassion. If you look at the bishop in Les Miserables who lies and saves Jean Valjean from going back to prison, that is an act of grace—an act of compassion. This idea of grace, the idea of undeserved forgiveness—we tend to think of that in a religious sense. But if you look at the world as purely natural, then you could be inclined to think of that in the same sense. I’m an atheist and the story of Les Miserables resonates with me in the same way it does with many believers. The ideas of compassion and forgiveness are universally human and not strictly religious."
This is a common Atheist lie.

The huge Atheist experiments of the 20th century, Marxist-Atheist Communism, were the exact opposite of compassionate and forgiving, and on a hugely bloody, torturing-murderous exercise of Atheism in power. This is evidence. It is the evidence-based rational perspective to which Atheists are blind and seemingly intellectually immune. And that places Atheism into the blind belief category.

Fact: compassion and forgiveness are NOT universally human; and they are strictly religious, in fact they are primarily Christian. (Not Islamic, for certain). The author is co-opting Christianity at every turn, while leaving out the deity. This is because Atheists want themselves to be the pinnacle of existence. By stealing Christianity from its deity, the Atheist may pretend to be what he is not: the deity himself.

But this Atheist is just a thief; without the prior existence of Christianity he has nothing new to offer. At least Atheist philosophers have contrary moral/ethical programs (all starting with consequentialism) which they wish to promote.
"If there is no god pulling the strings, then all that is left is the world and the people around us."
Nothing for the Atheist, except Christian precepts to steal.

Atheists are always suspect. That is because there is no moral authority behind any of this or any other Atheist moral/ethical proclamation. Only the presupposed "elitness" of the Atheist exists as a source for authority, and that is a delusion, an affect which Atheists try to maintain, despite their failures to ever produce either evidence or logic for their position, which flies in the face of their claim to be grounded in both evidence and logic.

There is more at the site, if you care to read it. I didn't.


Steven Satak said...

I don't blame you for not wanting to read the rest of it.

It's as familiar a trod path as ever I saw. They take the world as a going concern, give God the boot and then declare themselves gods in their own right. Not because logic says so, or indeed, any other tool of reason, or even the evidence of objective reality they so claim to love.

It's because they said so.

As you pointed out, they start with the assumption that they are our intellectual superiors. Somehow, this gradually morphs into the assumption that they are our MORAL superiors as well. Which is fine, I suppose, as it protects them from their eternal nemesis - shame. However, when you strip away the sophistry (something these atheists never examine too closely), nearly ALL their appeals are to their own authority and to a 'logic and reason' that is neither logical or reasonable. The rest they attempt to smother in a blizzard of buzz words, meaningless phrases, 'isms' followed closely by insults.

They're like two-year-olds, emotionally immature, yet as adults desperate to shore up and feed their egos by using their intellect (but not the reason it affords them) to deny, deny, deny - all on the basis of 'because I said so'.

And they are so corrupted by the time we see them on the internet, they believe men cannot see this. That, in fact, men are just as easy to fool as the Sugar Daddy in the Sky.

Joke's on them, I suppose. I sometimes wonder if atheists truly believe anyone exists but themselves? Yet the time will come, sooner for some than others, when they will get their fondest desire - to be left alone by the One who made them. As CS Lewis pointed out, the Face that sees everything will be turned away from them. They will be left alone with themselves to make the best of what they find there. And what they find there will be Hell.

I do wish more folks would read "The Great Divorce".

Phoenix said...

...on the dangers of religion...

This broad classification allows the Atheist to include Islamic atrocities which they will use to tarnish Christianity.

Stan said...

Unfortunately for them, in this argument they have to defend the atrocities of Atheist Communism, still happening as well as historical.

Russell (106) said...

CS Lewis had them pegged when he called them men without chests in "The Abolition of Man"

That dystopian future shambles ever closer.

Steve 11 said...

Compassion is strictly religious: That's a gutsy claim. Can you provide a hasty syllogism for that, with a clear definition of what you mean by religious? I'll admit in advance to being impressed if that can be done here.

Stan said...

What is claimed here is that Atheism does not provide any sort of intellectual or moral support for behavior principles. It does, however, form a basis for egocentrism based on the perception of eliteness which one acquires merely by becoming an Atheist. And that differs diametrically from compassion.

There are studies which show that Atheists and Leftists are miserly givers to the poor, even face-to-face. One excuse is that they assume that government should take care of the needy. But other studies show that Leftists (mostly Atheist) are more likely to not pay their taxes.

Further, the common Leftist concept of compassion is that government should level outcomes (not opportunity, as per the US Constitution), by redistribution from haves to have-nots. This is done via tax games to favor certain demographics and punish other demographics (but fails due to cronyism which produces giant holes in tax law), and by gargantuan government programs which feed tax dollars to the perpetual underclass.

Religious compassion a la Judeo-Christianity is one-on-one (the Good Samaritan comes to mind). So there is a difference in definition between Atheist use of the term, and religious use of the term.

Take a look at the new movement to have Atheist Churches. Their intent is to provide religious-type benefits, primarily social. Their intent is not to provide soup kitchens or any other benefit outside their own group. In fact, their "services" consist largely of hate rants by "comedians". They do not pursue truth or virtue because there is no truth in a relativistic universe and there is no Good or Evil for the same reason.

An interesting twist is the Atheist Philosophical pursuit of "Virtue Ethics", which is Class-oriented and redistributionist (Marxist). Virtue Ethics exists in an intellectual universe within which there is no such thing as "virtue". So the Atheist philosopher can define is concept of "virtue" however he wishes, and thus he is the ultimate moral authority for all humans - i.e., he is God. This is an Atheist version of "compassion" which is totalitarian and far from any religious concept... or common usage of the term.

Steve 11 said...

Re: Atheist void
I like the treatment of this issue in this blog. You can't trust my morality, it could change at any point given new information. It has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. I vote for the politicians that reflects my morality, even though I am in no way qualified to determine what people ought to do.

Re: Christians giving more to charity, and more inclined towards one-on-one help.
Inarguably true. I checked Canadian stats for charitable donations, which if anything might be left-biased.

Re: Compassion:
Sounds like a redefinition of compassion to disinclude atheist direct donations to, say, children's hospitals.

What are people's views about fanaticism as a better predictor of trustworthiness than religious affiliation? Would this not explain the presence of atheistic countries, some of which score high on freedoms and low on crime, while others are a total mess, as well as the same situation for countries who report high levels of religious affiliation?

Stan said...

"Re: Compassion:
Sounds like a redefinition of compassion to disinclude atheist direct donations to, say, children's hospitals."

Actually that has been taken into account. However, if you have differing data, then go ahead and share it.

As for fanaticism, I'm not sure I understand your point. If, for example, you are referring to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. as being very free yet Atheistic, then you are referring to parasitic socialist populations who cannot defend themselves nor produce their own necessities, but rely on other societies to produce for them. They are incomplete societies. And further, they are about to be submerged by their own political correctness as ever more Islamics enter them and exercise their "diversity", and the violent backlash from the (homogenous, Atheist) citizenry will continue and probably increase according to the size of the invasion. But still, I'm not sure I'm addressing the issue you bring up.