tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post3532796334486265776..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: Leftists, On Charlottesville: Untwisting the RhetoricUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-3655260547645356542017-08-21T05:58:01.196-05:002017-08-21T05:58:01.196-05:00My original conception of Atheism as partially rat...My original conception of Atheism as partially rational was an error, even considering that the Atheist ignorance of logical deductive processes might be corrected. For internet aggressive Atheists, that is not the case. <br /><br />Here's why. Most Atheists acquire their Atheism between the ages of 12 and 20. These ages are the most vulnerable to rebellion, irrational rejection, and unformed frontal cortex restrictions on logic. (Frontal cortex maturity does not occur until as late as 28 years old). Further, most Atheists had missing, weak, tyrannical or Atheist fathers.<br /><br />So Atheism is not rationally acquired (I have found no Atheist argument which is grounded, formated Aristotelian deduction, much less one which passes Reductio Ad Absurdum). In fact, most Atheists demand a material, empirical proof for the existence of a non-material, fundamental entity. Ironically, this is posited under quantum theory, where many scientists claim that consciousness must precede all existence, and be present in all existence (Copenhagen Model).<br /><br />Atheists will not discuss such things without inserting logic errors, which they deny are errors. Atheism is therefore a faith, unprovable, yet necessary to the worldview of the Atheist. <br /><br />In other words, religiously held despite cogent evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />Finally: I don't despise Atheists: "some of my best friends are ..." And that is the Truth. I do denounce those who claim to have "evidence and logic" which supports Atheism, yet who can produce nothing of the sort. This type usually devolves to "I don't have to prove Atheism; you have to prove theism" (using material, empirical techniques, of course. There is another type who claims that Atheism is the null proposition, and of course it is not, because of the existence of a rational universe within which logic existed as valid law for the entire existence of that universe.<br /><br />This is too long, probably just a rant that doesn't address your concerns.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-70218559102963777282017-08-21T05:57:18.793-05:002017-08-21T05:57:18.793-05:00Jess,
When I started this blog a decade ago, I nai...Jess,<br />When I started this blog a decade ago, I naively thought that Atheists would discuss the logic of their philosophy calmly and using the deductive principles of Aristotle and the Empirical principles of Bacon. That did not happen in 99% of the cases, and in the other 1% the discussion culminated in refusal to accept responsibility for obvious documented logic errors in their arguments. In virtually all cases the Atheists promoted the Leftist Progressive NewThink of the day, defending the normalization of disorders and dis-civil behaviors, as well as shaming etc. At one point I was cyber-stalked in an attempt to doxx me (I reported that to the FBI).<br /> <br />Every category or class of humans has its bad actors. And generally there is a dominant sub-class which serves to define the class. For Atheists there are the calm, non-aggressives, making no waves (I was one of those), and there are the internet, aggressive, attack-oriented, closed except to narrative-du-jour. The radicalization of the Left half of the nation was accompanied by moral rejection of all religious principles and the acceptance of the Marxist self-as-moral-arbiter-for-all. That is possible only under Atheism, and the elitism follows that.<br /><br />There is a contingent of Progressive Christians who follow the idea that whatever they think is also the will of God. Many of these do not believe in divinity, and thus put themselves on a par with Jesus, self-endowing with god-hood for themselves. These are not Christians at all, under the readings of the red print in the New Testament, but are self-endowed moral arbiters and thus are the same as Atheist but dishonestly do not admit to it.<br /><br />The major Atheist organizations are very Leftist, and the major Leftist organizations are very Atheist.<br /><br />If one believes that the universe is orderly and can be understood under rational princples applied to objective, replicable observations, and yet will not admit that a) something never comes from nothing; b) Logic does not emerge from chaos, then no rational discussion can happen.<br /><br />If one asserts that material existence explains itself, then no rational discussion can happen.<br /><br />If one asserts that X = X + Y, where Y is non-zero, then no rational discussion can happen. This is the case for evolution, BTW, which we can discuss in detail if you wish.<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-84109200819864111762017-08-20T19:23:09.646-05:002017-08-20T19:23:09.646-05:00Wait, why do you put Atheist on the extreme right ...Wait, why do you put Atheist on the extreme right of your line!? I think I got something completely wrong here... The so-called skeptic community, the anti-SJWs, anti-PC, pro-Free-Speech are mostly Atheists, or at least secularist. I thought that's why you mentioned the absurdity of the religion being brought up against the Alt-Right, as in it's not relevant. I thought your blog being called 'Atheism Analyzed' was from a point of view of Atheism, analyzing these views. <br /><br />But... it turns out you are the exact opposite?? I used my phone/tablet for blogs and only now looked at the desktop version, where your side posts make it more obvious. Wow, it's... well... good and bad I guess. Looks like we agree on a lot of stuff, at least what you posted over the last few weeks regarding politics. But turns out you despise people like me for being Atheists. Strange!Jessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-26210785968671463852017-08-20T18:05:08.142-05:002017-08-20T18:05:08.142-05:00I should make clear that the political spectrum is...I should make clear that the political spectrum is NOT fascism at one end and communism at the other. The political spectrum goes from freedom to slavery:<br /><br />Traditional Liberalism<<..................>>Communist/Fascist/Atheist/Elitist/Tyranny.<br /><br />Progressivism is the march toward tyranny, away from traditional Liberalism.<br /><br />Consider that it was traditional liberalism that destroyed slavery; it was Leftist Fascism that fought to keep it, and to keep blacks under their thumb of tyranny.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-31640862358276338212017-08-20T17:59:07.380-05:002017-08-20T17:59:07.380-05:00No I don't follow Sargon. Only accessed him on...No I don't follow Sargon. Only accessed him once; as I recall I didn't connect with him and never went back.<br /><br />And then there is the case for Right Wing violence being much, much more prevalent than the "myth" of Left Wing violence. Interestingly, most of the violence he shows is black-draped Antifa, spaced with three skin heads on a corner and the well known single haters who are identical in their hate to Antifa, and are fascists in the same sense that Antifa is fascist-communist.<br /><br />His sources are mostly suspect: NPR, Duke, SPLC, Homeland Security under Obama, and two reports of unknown content from Congressional Research Service and an FBI Report.<br /><br />Still, it is possible that the number of individual instances of violence are higher coming from Fascists. Fascism is Leftist, not a right wing phenomenon. It is only trivially different from Communism, and the tyrannies are virtually identical in quality, with a large edge for Communism in quantity.<br /><br />So, given that the Left includes Communists and Fascists, and NOT classical Enlightenment liberals, who are the only valid "preservationists", then the spectrum of violence is tilted almost completely to the Left... irrespective of David Pakman. <br /><br />Under Obama, any criticism was RAAAAACIST and unconstitutional hate speech: again denial of Rights under the constitution was institutionalized by the IRS, Justice Department, FBI, EPA, etc. The obvious anti-white Racism was condoned and even promoted by Obama, who immediately sided with any black caught up in controversy, especially involving police. That baiting of whites into violence did work on certain individuals, mostly the fascists (actually Leftist).<br /><br />Now the white-baiting of the Obama years has become policy of the Left in the form of overt white-hating, as Sargon demonstrates. I'm not sure what his principle set might be, but his defense was of whites, the same as Alt-Right, which he decried in an obvious contradiction.<br /><br />The Alt-Right is ill-defined, except by Leftists; however, it is mostly traditional, Enlightenment liberals who feel driven to a conscientious rebellion by an occupying power which is Leftist/Communist/Fascist/Anti-Constitution/Scoff-law/Anti-white/Anti-America and unrelentingly totalitarian and unable to yield or tolerate dissent.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-86823265740369214132017-08-20T15:56:39.191-05:002017-08-20T15:56:39.191-05:00Yes, good summary, similar to what Sargon mentione...Yes, good summary, similar to what Sargon mentioned here; so you follow him?<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgccg9xurE8<br />But again, I am not sure whether you concede that violence comes from both sides?<br />Another video from that other side for instance:<br />https://youtu.be/8Coc4NScW4Y?list=PLVrg5xLmCvhEW39MIHcEaQTe7HRlKmgxa<br />With stats showing both sides alongside comparison to islamic terrorism. Jessnoreply@blogger.com