Study: Now People Give Reasons For Not Trusting Atheists

Atheists remain most disliked religious minority in the U.S.

"Ten years ago University of Minnesota sociologists conducted research showing that, among a long list of racial and religious minority groups, atheists were the most disliked group of people in the United States. Last month they followed up with new research that shows that Americans still have negative opinions of atheists and the non-religious--and now they have a good theory about why that is.

Their findings are available online in the article “Atheists and Other Cultural Outsiders: Moral Boundaries and the Non-Religious in the United States” (Social Forces). The research team comprises Department of Sociology professors Penny Edgell, Douglas Hartmann, and Joseph Gerteis and graduate student Evan Stewart.

Survey data collected in 2014 shows that, compared to data collected in 2003, Americans have sharpened their negative views of atheists, despite an increase in people identifying as non-religious and an increase in public discussion of non-belief.

The findings of this most recent survey support the argument that atheists are persistent cultural outsiders in the United States because they are perceived to have rejected cultural values and practices understood as essential to private morality, civic virtue, and national identity. Moreover, any refusal to embrace a religious identity of any type is troubling for a large portion of Americans.

Forty percent of Americans view the non-religious--atheist, agnostic, no-religion, and spiritual-but-not-religious--as problematic, even though 33 percent of the survey respondents identify with those categories.

By the numbers, researchers found that:

40% of Americans disapprove of non-religion
33% of respondents fall into a broad “religious nones” category: 3.8% as atheist, 3.5% as agnostic, 7.1 % as “spiritual but not religious,” and 18.5% as “nothing in particular.”
27% of Americans say that atheists “don't share my morals or values.”

Comparing the “religious nones,” respondents had less negative views of people who say they have no religion, and feel more positively about those who are “spiritual but not religious.”

These attitudes are strongly driven by a belief that religiosity is central for civic virtue, that societal standards of right and wrong should be rooted in historic religious traditions, and that Christianity underpins American identity.

Some measures of the respondents’ attitudes show that Muslim-Americans are as distrusted, and in some cases more distrusted, than the non-religious. Analysis of these attitudes will be the subject of another paper by the same research team forthcoming later in 2016.

“There are no mainstream, cultural expressions or depictions, on television for example, to present atheism to the general public,” says Edgell. “It’s only in the last decade that a secular coalition of American atheist and non-religion organizations have gotten together. I expect that in the near future we’ll see more effort on their part to change perceptions and lobby to change policy,” regarding the role of religion in everyday life.

The survey was conducted by GFK Group, with just over 2,500 people participating."

Interesting. Atheists are trusted about the same as Muslims, now.

Atheists and "Disbelief"

The inability of Atheists to support the supposed “rationality” of their position is illuminated by the completely irrational attempt to claim mere disbelief, rather than outright rejection for cause. The Atheist pretends to have a position which cannot be analyzed or even discussed by having asserted this transparently false claim. The Atheist making this claim apparently thinks that there is no possible way to penetrate this illusion, so that he will never be required to actually provide rational reasons or reasoning for his rejectionism.

Let’s take a look at the logic underlying such claims.

Either a person has heard the posits of a creating deity, or he has not.
If not, then he is ignorant.
If so, then he knows the posits.

If a person knows the posits about a creating deity, then either he accepts them or rejects them or cannot decide.
If he cannot decide, he is an agnostic, not an Atheist, yet he either has reasons and reasoning, or he does not.
If he rejects them (Atheist), either he has reasons or reasoning, or he does not.
If he does not have reasons or reasoning, then he is not rational in his rejection.

If he does have reasons or reasoning, then either the reasons are comprised of disciplined logic and/or material evidence, or not.
If not, he is not rational.
If he has rejected the posits using disciplined logic and/or material evidence, then he can present that to support his rejection, or not.
If not, he is intellectually dishonest, and doesn’t want his disciplined logic and/or material evidence examined, analyzed and refuted.

If he doesn’t want his disciplined logic and/or material evidence examined, analyzed and refuted, then he is either an intellectual coward, or he knows that the logic and material evidence are false (intellectual fraud). Both of these eventualities indicate emotional disturbance in that individual.

Since Atheists do not ever present either logic or evidence which prove categorically and incorrigibly that the posits of a creating deity are immutably false, then it is proper to assume that either they do not actually have either logic or evidence to support their rejection (This is supported by the Atheist belief in “Hitchens’ Razor”), or they are intellectually dishonest. Or in this case, both.

If they claim mere “disbelief” without any responsibility to support their position with logic or evidence, Then it is proper to assume that either they are intellectually dishonest in their claim, or they have no reason or reasoning in their disbelief. Both of these are intellectually empty positions. Both of these are universal amongst modern Atheists.

Here is a simple form of a posit of a creating deity:

Either the universe always existed, or it came into being.

If it is thought to have always existed, then a) it is an infinite regression (fallacy); b) the Big Bang and Expansionary Theory is a false theory (anti-science).

If the universe is an infinite regression, then empirical evidence is needed; there is none.

If the universe came into being at the Big Bang, then empirical evidence is needed; that evidence exists.

If the universe came into being, it violates the null hypothesis that “nothing” is more parsimonious than is “something”.

If the new existence of a universe is less parsimonious than its prior non-existence, it is proper to assume that there is a reason that the universe came into existence, overcoming the null hypothesis. That reason correlates with a cause, pre-existing the material universe, with the power and causal ability to create the universe, and is therefore greater than the universe.

Further, that causal power had a reason to create the universe, and therefore was an agent.

Further, the creating agent created the rational laws for ordered material existence which were installed, rather than mere chaos, when chaos (non-ordered) would be the null hypothesis. Given the existence of rational laws for ordered existence, then the creating agent is rational.

Therefore, it is more rational to conclude that the universe came into being in opposition to the null state of non-existence, and it did so due a creating agent which is sufficiently powerful, purposeful, and rational.

Now, this argument can be rejected by Atheists who are not ignorant of it, for two possible reasons: 1) rational objections using disciplined logic and/or material evidence, OR 2) emotional reasons. But the Atheist cannot claim to have NO reasons or reasoning, to have mere disbelief without cause for disbelief, without also being obviously intellectually dishonest and emotionally based, and completely without any intellectual content in his position.

Atheism reduces and resolves to blind belief that there is no creating deity, and does so in the complete absence of disciplined logic and/or material evidence; in fact it must deny disciplined logic and existing material evidence, in order to maintain the blind belief.

Reason Rally: Once "Firebrand in the Belly", Now, More Like Post-Party Intellectual Indigestion..

VOX writer Emmett Rensin goes to the Reason Rally; returns without "reasons":

American atheists are on the rise. They have radically different visions of the future.
Reason Rally 2016 believes science can cure the social ills of religion. But it isn't sure what a "healthy" society will look like.

What that voting bloc looks like is less certain. Decker is not proposing the formation of a new political party, and from the long list of Reason Rally's sponsors his movement suffers no dearth of extant advocacy organizations. Among the stated goals of this year's Reason Rally are comprehensive sex education, acceptance of climate science, and an end to discrimination against the gay community.

Is this only the Democratic Party, in secularly inflected tones? Several speakers in a row refer to what is being built as a "progressive" movement, but do speakers like Penn Jillette know? Do the attendees?

The first Reason Rally was more strident. It was militant — a celebration of defiance animated by a clear purpose, a style more typical of New Atheism as it has developed in the United States over the past 20 years, fleshed out by leaders like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and lately as much dedicated to a disdain of the excesses of identitarian liberalism as to any particular account of empirical triumph.

Four years ago, Dawkins encouraged attendees to "ridicule" the faithful. As the Atlantic's Green reported then, "a band fired up the crowd with a rousing sound that lampooned the belief in ‘Jesus coming again', mixing it with sexual innuendo … Attendees sported t-shirts and signs with slogans like 'I prefer facts' and 'religious is like a penis' (involving a rather extended metaphor)."

This year, it is difficult to imagine that the organizers haven't asked the speakers to limit their politics, to remain "on-message" and positive. There is no denouncement of religion, only its consequences. There are no attendees holding signs that say "BAN GOD." There is nothing quite so pointed this time, but without this animating antagonism, what is left?

The comparison to a convention of Non-stamp collectors is interesting. Read the entire article HERE. It's interesting.

The Irrefutable Argument For Atheism?

Ben Love, writing at ExChristian.net, claims to have found an argument for Atheism which he feels is self-evident and irrefutable. When he discovered this argument he left Christianity. Needless to say, the comment block is filled with compliments on this feat, and on Ben’s brilliance.

Here’s the argument:

“It is no different with free will. The one who enables the choice must be considered complicit in the end result. After all, the end result occurred under the umbrella of the enabler’s purview. This logic is amplified when we consider that if a higher being gives responsibility to a lesser being, the higher being should be held accountable for what the lesser being does with that responsibility. I can’t help but feel that not only are these conclusions self-evident, they are also irrefutable. That is why, to me, God’s complicity in our sinfulness renders the entire theological understanding absurd. The argument inherently undermines itself and collapses… and the belief system collapses with it.”

So. Regarding free will; if God creates beings with free will to choose evil, then God is responsible for the evil which his free-agents do.

This, he says, is mathematical in the following sense, that of the identity equation:

If X=Y, and Y=Z, THEN X = Z and therefore if Z = Bad, then God, X, is bad.

Presumably Ben doesn’t really think that God = Human is a substitute for X=Y. Because it is obvious that:

God /= human

So it must be a sub-characteristic of God which is equal to human. Since this is about free will and culpability, then it might be one of those. Let’s try Free Will first:

Free Will of God = Free Will of humans?

Well that doesn’t work, because God’s free will is much different and more powerful than the free will of humans which is miniscule in comparison. Even if the categories overlap, God is not asserting the same free will decisions which a human is asserting. So If they are not equal, the identity equation doesn’t apply.

Let’s try culpability, then:

God’s culpability = Human culpability?

Culpability is a quality which an external observer decides is applied to an actor, based on rules laid down for that actor, which the actor violates. It makes sense for God to observe and judge humans based on rules made for humans, applying culpability as it is found. It makes no sense for humans to observe and judge God based on rules made for humans but not for God. So God cannot be culpable for violating rules made for humans, and being judged by humans. While God has enabled free will for humans which enables evil choices, God cannot be judged based on the rules for humans.

Then let’s try morals:

God’s morals = human morals?

That is hardly equitable either, for this reason: IF God made morality for humans, and humans are not equal to God, then why should we expect human morality to apply to God? For example, which of the Ten Commandments even makes sense if it is directed at God? None. So the equal morality option fails.

What other possible attributes of God might equate to the corresponding attributes of humans? Intellect? Capacity for Ethical fabrications? Love for specific objects? Universal Love? Fear? Lust? Greed? Hate? Empathy? Compassion? None of these work in attempting to equate God and humans in the equation of identity which Ben uses.

As a further test, the mother of a child which grows up to be a man who does evil deeds is not considered culpable for the deeds of the grown child. Hitler’s mother is not considered the mother of the Third Reich. This goes directly contrary to Ben’s claim.

The identity equation part of the argument is the main basis for the conclusion being drawn. That has been shown not to work, when substitutions are actually tried, rather than presumed, as Ben does.

But the argument also goes further, because it can be expressed in words and maybe syllogisms as well.

Here’s Ben:

”If God (x) gives us free will (y), and free will (y) results in our sinfulness (z), then God (x) is responsible for (z). If X = Y, and Y = Z, then X = Z. At this point, Y is just a needless middle man. If X = Z, then God is responsible for sin. To state this differently, the one who permits the choice is ultimately the one responsible for the choice. If God, being a perfect intelligence compared to us, saw fit to entrust his imperfect creations with free will, one would have to assume that this perfect intelligence knew ahead of time what would happen. Moreover, one would have to conclude that he who permits the choice is just as responsible as he who made the choice.”

Ben equates God to human free will. Then he equates free will to sinfulness. But God is not equal to human free will and human free will is not equal to God. So the equation is not applicable; but maybe his argument is:

“…the one who permits the choice is ultimately the one responsible for the choice.”

This is true for a parent child relationship, where the child has no maturity to understand and no self-control to adhere to the guidelines of the parent, and the parent leaves the child unsupervised in a dangerous environment. But are adult humans mere children, with no decision capacity or moral or intellectual tools for self-regulation rendering them unable to know or understand the outcome of free will choices? That’s not the case. Theism relates that God expects humans to know and understand the outcome of their free will choices. In fact there are several cases which do inhere and can cause “evil” outcomes due to non-complicity with God-driven moral rules:

First, is immaturity.

Second is mental incapacity.

Third is rebellion in a mature, normative mind.

Fourth is accidental non-complicity.

Fifth is emotional non-complicity.

Sixth is the intellectual presumption of X = 0 or null (no God; no rules; no complicity required)

Of these only numbers three and six are truly culpable for their actions (possible the fifth, as well). If we assess number three, we can conclude that free will did indeed enable evil outcomes. Yet the backward equality for assigning responsibility still stops at the human, because there is no equality between human and God. Further there is no expectation that God has the responsibility for preventing evil actions by human actors, because if it exists, then God set it up to work that way. God does, in fact, create the Good vs. Evil dichotomy by which Evil is an expectation, when free choice is abused.

But perhaps Ben thinks that God should prevent evil. And in fact this is an unstated premise in his argument:

“If evil exists, then God is responsible for stopping it.” (Ben’s assumption, paraphrased).

There is no equivalent theist theology which believes that, and so that argument doesn’t invalidate either theism or the proposition that a creating deity exists. Theism posits that God created a balance, because if only Good exists without Evil, then first there is no longer any valid benchmark by which Good can be determined, and second, any choice made would be between two “good” choices, and there would be no development possible for humans to attain moral intellects. Most importantly, this is a moral judgment made by a human which is demanded of a deity; such a demand is irrational, because humans have no power over a deity, and thus any demand is a useless exercise.

Because this necessary but unstated premise is meaningless, the entire syllogistic statement of the argument being made is necessarily false. I.e., this necessary but false premise is sufficient to render the entire syllogism false.

Further, by going Atheist, Ben assumes membership in the ideology within which there exist neither good nor evil. What exists, exists in a frame of deterministic, unvalued, nonpurposeful, material existence in which what exists is neither good nor bad, it just “is”. Since the Atheist perception is that there is no God, then nothing exists in Z which is evil. So option six, above, is moot. Yet Ben also sees that evil does in fact exist, and he blames it on God.

So Atheism according to Ben is internally contradictory.

It was Dawkins’ claim that what Hitler did was “distasteful, but not evil”. Because evil doesn’t exist in a purely material universe.

The syllogism has failed, completely.

And the second part of the identity equation fails, also, because under Atheism, Z = 0, and under theism Z = a necessary construct set up by God. Neither is equal to "human free will", Y.

Conclusion:
There is no equality in either kind or degree between X and Y, as Ben tries to use them to hold qualities of humans and God. There is no equality in degree or kind between Y and Z, either. So the identity equation produces no useful connection for the culpability which Ben claims exists.

In fact, the assertion of the identity equation, without the actual use of data plugged into the equation, is a basic, functional, error in logic, the A fortiori Fallacy, with an embedded Category Error. I.e., since the identity equation exists and is valid, it exists and is valid in a circumstance where a Category Error is asserted.

Finally, the syllogistic form demonstrates that there is a necessary but false premise which negates the validity of the argument.

Now Get A Degree In "Non-Belief"!

University of Miami affirms America’s first academic chair for Study of Atheism
The Appignani Foundation recently donated an amount of $2.2 million to the University of Miami to endow America's first academic chair for the study of atheism, humanism, and secular ethics.

"The Appignani Foundation, established in 2001, supports secular activities that address significant, viable and long-term human goals. In an interview given to the New York Times, Appignani said that the reason why he would like to have an academic discipline that deals with atheism and secularism established, is to “eliminate discrimination against atheists.” This would pave the way for atheism to be made “legitimate.”

The University of Miami has been cautious and reluctant at first, about the notion of secularism and atheism as a stand-alone academic discipline. Their main concern has been that the discipline would be seen by many people as an advocacy position for atheists. The University has a religion department, however, they do not take an advocacy position while teaching about various religions. The University wanted the word atheism dropped from the title of the chair. They also proposed to call it a chair in philosophical naturalism. Louis Appignani refused. The initiative wouldn’t have been implemented had the University not relented. Thomas J. LeBlanc, Executive Vice President and Provost of the University of Miami, in an interview, made it clear that the University would not be taking an advocacy position while teaching about atheism or secular ethics.

According to Harvey Siegel, a philosophy professor at the University of Miami who helped Appignani to broker the arrangement, they started discussing this idea more than 15 years ago. It took a lot of persuading from their side to make the University agree to their proposal.

Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, said that it is very important for the study of morality to be shackle-free of religion. The University of Miami has just taken a very bold step in that direction.

But, Atheism is not something! Atheism is just "non-belief" - i.e., nothing! So many people take that position (so convenient for avoiding having to make arguments in support of Atheist worldviews), so how can "nothing" be studied, much less in a scholarly fashion? How can "non-belief" be an academic discipline, complete with laboratories and degrees and office hours?

The real question comes quickly to mind: will the study of Atheism honestly appraise the consequences of Atheist rejectionism, or will it serve to bolster its false image of superiority in intellect and evidence? Because the long quest to get the academic chair installed was based on the fervent desire to "legitimize" Atheism, skepticism is definitely warranted.

Well, someone must be wrong about Atheism being "nothing", just a non-belief. Otherwise the U of Miami is making an expensive mistake.

Polymath David Berlinski on Atheism's Science Pretentions

How To Be An Atheist

In Ten Easy Commandments:

Why Wymyn Can't Join the Atheist Movement

Wait! There's an Atheist movement?

5 reasons why it's so difficult for women to join the atheist movement

"First, women are more devout because they have to be. Women’s religiosity is directly related to economic security. "

OK, bogus sociology/anthropology, and sociology/anthropology is a bogus science as even anthropologists/sociologists admit.

"Second, sexism is real and has an effect on women’s participation and leadership within the atheist community."

Poor dears can't stand up for themselves. (Maybe they need men to fight for them... ?)

"Third, men of all ideological persuasions are overrepresented in media — why should atheists be any different?"

See #2; this is rehash. Next:

"Fourth, I know it’s obvious, but it still bears saying: Atheism and secularism are part of a movement, with leaders, on Earth. This social movement is no less subject to norms than anything else and we live on a thoroughly patriarchal planet. "

See #2; more rehash. Next:

"Fifth, it’s no exaggeration to say that managing sexism is exhausting, depressing and distracts from work women could be doing as visible spokespeople of fighting for higher and equal pay, or immigration policies that include uneducated women, or ending sexual predation, or advocating for the right to control our own reproduction."

Well, gosh! They can't handle it, fer sher. See #2. It's all the same stuff: women are poor dears who can't compete, for all sorts of manufactured reasons. In fact, #1 has no relevance to the complaints of feminist weakness and lack of ability. It's all #2, then: Victimhood Disorder.

Well, it's good to know that these feministas are too weak to have any influence. Maybe they think that nagging is the solution, like old fish-wives? Actually it's hard to feel sorry for self-pitying chronic victims. Especially in times of female presence in both industrial CEO positions and in strong political positions (Fiorina comes to mind).

Victimhood is a sorry and unnecessary mental disorder. At least it is unnecessary for individuals who are not part of the codependent Messiah Class/Victimhood Class relationship which forms under the neo-Marxist hatred of freedom.

The Connection Between Atheism and Social Justice

Atheism starts with rejection: “there is no deity”. It sometimes quickly progresses to denial: “I have no beliefs regarding a deity”. Atheism becomes a moral and intellectual VOID.

The Atheist VOID is highly conducive to the self-creation of personal moral principles. It is common for those moral principles to apply to others, rather than to the Atheist self. This, in turn, produces a highly “moral” Atheist self, and also a highly “immoral” Other. This engenders eliteness for the Atheist, who has done nothing of merit to produce such eliteness.

Atheists have tended to aggregate into moral groups. This allows the Atheist-Leftists to identify common elitist morals for the Other, and those become the Class designations for placing the entirety of humanity into tribes or classes. The three classes start with themselves, the elites, who they designate as the saviors of the “downtrodden”. They become the Messiah Class. Since they need someone to “save”, they designate “Victimhood” Classes which are determined by their own criteria. And there needs to be someone to save the Victimhood classes from: those are everyone else – the Oppressor Class.

This is Cultural Marxism, which is Atheist to the core.

The Messiah Class is self-anointed (in Thomas Sowell’s words) to attack and destroy the Oppressor Class. The methodology is moot; whatever works is the motto of Atheist Consequentialism, under which the only immoral tactic is the one not used (Alinsky).

Not all Atheists become Leftists and Social Justice Warriors. Christopher Hitchens was a conservative. But Hitchens also used the Class System. He merely defined the classes differently from the Left. The Marxist tendencies to destroy the Oppressor Class in order to save the Victimhood Class were still in play and strong in Hitchens.

However, the majority of Atheists do tend toward Leftism. They have granted themselves superiority in logic and evidence and intellect, despite having no evidence of any superiority in any of those things. But having granted themselves this superiority places them directly in the elitist class, with the self-granted responsibility to save the world from their lessors.

In the western nations, the Atheist Social Justice war is against Christians, straights and males, as well as any who hold to moral principles which are not Social Justice principles.

Atheist Social Justice Warriors cannot be negotiated with; they view themselves as morally superior, intellectually superior, logical and evidence-based. Thus they are "right" in every subjective sense. The Atheist Social Justice Warrior has joined a group which is socially narcissistic, and can see no defect in himself and considers all criticism to be due to defects in the Other. The phenomenon of the Atheist Social Justice Warrior, then, is one of psychological defect, a mental state of delusion - a delusion which cannot be removed even by logic, rational argumentation, blatant objective evidence, or common sense.

It can only be contained. It must be; it's intent and objective is to destroy the rest of us.

A Dozen Reasons NOT To Engage Atheists

Twelve Reasons Why I Never Argue With Internet Atheists

I have found #12 to be particularly true:

"12, Atheism is dull - Atheists themselves may be exciting, charming, entertaining and vivacious people. It is not the atheists I object to as much as atheism. I say it is dull because it is, at its essence, it is a negation and a denial. There can be nothing festive about it. There can be nothing intriguing or mysterious about it. It is not fecund. It is a reduction not an addition. It is a negative not a positive. It is something empty, not full. I wrote further about this earlier this week here. It is therefore as motivating as a yawn… and as interesting."

Atheism is exactly nothing, in the sense of intellectual contribution. It is purely negation via denialism. The problem, though, is that after that anti-intellectual beginning in a person's worldview, the remainder of the worldview becomes intellectually corrupt as well. This is due to having lost the need for logic in support of one's worldview, any manner of irrational premises are easily adopted and claimed as Truth, including the premise that it is true that there is no truth.

While Atheism is dull, taken by itself, it is as exciting as any psychopathic adventure when extended to other elements of a worldview.

Why Atheists Are Not Trusted.

This study confirms the analysis which has been made here on this blog: "Atheist As Other". It is shown in many polls that Atheists are trusted at levels commensurate with child molesters. This study, done in 2006, gives support for that lack of trust, and enumerates the reasons why that is the case.

"In these interviews, the atheist emerges as a
culturally powerful “other” in part because the
category is multivalent (Turner 1974), loaded
with multiple meanings. For all these respondents,
atheists represent a general lack of morality,
but for some, this lack was associated with
criminality and its dangers to safety and public
order, while for others the absence of morality
was that of people whose resources or positions
place them above the common standards
of mainstream American life. To put it somewhat
differently, atheists can be symbolically placed
at either end of the American status hierarchy.
What holds these seemingly contradictory views
together is that the problem of the atheist was
perceived to be a problem of self-interest, an
excessive individualism that undermines trust
and the public good. In this, our respondents
draw the same link between religion and the
taming of self-interest that Tocqueville wrote
about over a century ago (Tocqueville [1992]
2000, see especially volume 2, parts I and II).
It is important to note that our respondents did
not refer to particular atheists whom they had
encountered. Rather they used the atheist as a
symbolic figure to represent their fears about
those trends in American life—increasing criminality,
rampant self-interest, an unaccountable
elite—that they believe undermine trust and a
common sense of purpose.

In recent public discourse, atheists take on a
similar symbolic role. We found that the figure
of the atheist is invoked rhetorically to discuss
the links—or tensions—among religion, morality,
civic responsibility, and patriotism. In particular,
the association of the atheist with a kind
of unaccountable elitism has surfaced in recent
public debates. The civically engaged atheists’
awareness of the negative stereotypes of atheists
has led to the coining of a new term,
“Brights,” around which to identify and organize
and thus, according to one prominent Bright,
to challenge the association between atheism,
immorality, and lack of civic commitment. One
of those advocates has gone so far as to claim
the following:7

Many of the nation’s clergy members are closet
brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone
of the nation: brights take their civic duties
seriously precisely because they don’t trust God to
save humanity from its follies (Dennett 2003).

In a review of the book The Twilight of
Atheism, Charlotte Allen (2004) not only associates
atheism with totalitarianism but also sees
this notion of the “Brights” as particularly troubling
because of the intersection of science with
big money and the ability to influence public
policy. She worries if atheism,

“may yet be experiencing a new dawn: a terrifying new
alliance with money and power, of a kind even
Marx could not have foreseen”

[Emphasis added]

The danger to civilized society comes not from biker gangs and other bottom feeding ne'er-do-wells who are de facto Atheists; it comes from the elites for whom no objective moral code applies. These are now found throughout government and big money lobbying and financial institutions.

No amount of whining that they are "good without God" can serve to overcome their obvious lack of objective moral principles, or any kind of morals at all save making their own personal behaviors into "moral principles". Atheists seem to think that people who do have actual objective moral principles against which their behaviors are measured cannot see the difference (possibly because Atheists themselves cannot). So Atheists demand moral parity at a minimum, and ultimately promote themselves to moral supremacy since they cannot fail to be moral under their own tautological moral system.

This amounts to pure irrationality, and increases the distance between Atheists and the rest of the human race.

Further, Atheists tend very strongly to Leftist anti-American standards; it is the Atheists who engage in elitist totalitarian Othering of the bulk of Americans. That's how Marxism works, on its way toward totalitarian control: "othering" while claiming to be the saviors of those who are Othered.

Atheists are held in total disregard because their lack of principles (both moral and intellectual) renders them completely incompatible with a principled society. Atheists respond that principles are discriminatory, an irrational position which serves only to lock in the disregard with which they are held... and deserve.

It is arguable that Atheists start as damaged and broken people who go on to attempt to damage and break entire social structures in order to normalize themselves, even to be able to view themselves as "saviors" of society by reducing it to their own level of moral and intellectual chaos.

Remember that it was Silverman who declared in a federal lawsuit that the mere sight of the 9/11 "cross" damaged Atheists by giving them dyspepsia. That their rationalizations are so entirely irrational completely escapes them, proving their irrationality.

What Constitutes "Atheist Free Speech"?

When theists profess a belief in a deity, it offends Atheists, or so the story goes; it makes some of them physically ill. Atheists are "marginalized" by Christmas and thus there is the "War on Christmas" as Atheists exercise their free speech with attack billboards and lawsuits. So there is a polar difference between the types of speech involved.

When a theist worldview is expressed, it usually is a positive expression of acknowledgement of the existence of a power higher than the theist. Atheism is not attacked or even considered.

However, when an Atheist worldview is expressed, it frequently involves a direct attack on theists. In fact, the entire thrust of Atheism is just that, and nothing more, because there is no positive tenet of Atheism which even could be presented. Atheism is by its very nature a rejection of the Other. Atheism thus is self-endowed with elitist superiority, including moral elitist superiority. Atheists do not shrink from telling the world exactly that. So attacking theists is THE form of Atheist free speech.

Now why would Atheists think that this type of free speech should be seen as endearing by the Other? Why should anyone else who is not Atheist seek their company? When they complain about being marginalized, do they realize that their own actions have implicated their hostility/hatred for the Other? Why should the Other want to be around those who hate them and have placed them into the Oppressor Class? Why should they patronized those whose mere existence is "superior" to them, and is expressed as such shrilly, stridently? Yet that is what the Atheists demand.

To expect that is irrational, to the max. And that fits with Atheism perfectly, because there is no rational case to be made FOR Atheism. They can present NO deductive case FOR their worldview, they can only despise the worldview of the Other, along with despising the Others as well. They can present NO empirical experimental scientific data which supports their worldview, they can only demand that Logical Category Error be placed on the Other. Atheism is as far from rationality as is possible.

Otherizing is the modus operandi of Atheism. And of Leftist, three class totalitarians. It would be irrational of the Other to accept Atheists and Leftists in general into their circles, because who wants to associate with those who want to destroy your worldview?

One Less God vs Thomist Deduction

From another commenter at Feser's blog, replying to a drive-by interloper trying to use the (useless) "one less god" argument that "we are all atheists, and atheists believe in one less god than you do" childish argument:

"Wotan. Zeus. Thor. Poseidon. Apollo.

"I reply: All of whom are mythical anthropomorphic super beings. God however in the Classic Sense is the Uncaused Cause, Pure Actuality, etc...whose existence can be known by reason alone. Sorry but it is impossible for any Classic Theistic philosophical argument for the existence of the Classic Theistic God to be used to argue for the existence of any of the above mythical beings."

Atheists do not do logical deduction; they use bumper sticker quotes as their reasoning. They even fill books with such reasoning, rarely or never attempting to approach actual arguments.

A Site Called "God Is Pretend" Has Been Challenged

The website/blog called "God is Pretend" makes some strong claims on its "about" page. I have request a response from the author on the several topics in an email to him as follows:

You make the standard Atheist claims of being logical and evidence based. You denigrate theism as if you have direct empirical evidence regarding its claims, such as the existence of a creating agent for the universe. And you must have disciplined, grounded, valid deductive Aristotelian-type arguments which categorically destroy theist deductions.

So where are these to be found? Specifically, under the Enlightenment concept of objective, material evidence, what deduced, experimental, replicable and replicated, open data, peer reviewed study can you point to which proves your claim? And if you cannot produce these, please explain how it is possible for you to claim to be an Enlightenment-based, objective knowledge based, Aristotelian deductive logic based intellectual presumptively superior to non-Atheists?

And while you're at it, please address the darkest of ages, which were and are those under the Atheist totalitarians of the 20th century, some of which continue today. These were enabled by their worldview which is based on the superiority of the strongest human through Friedrich Nietzsche's denial of absolutes (Beyond Good and Evil), the belief in humanity solely as animals in herds, the absolute lack of absolute morals beyond those defined by the diktat. Please explain why these things have nothing to do with Atheism and are the dark ages of religious oppression.

Explain why it is that you have the right to judge others, but the people you live around do not.

You say,
" I find the very notion of religious belief ridiculous to the nth degree, and anyone who has set aside logic and critical thinking enough to espouse religious belief is undeserving of respect."

Please define logic and critical thinking, especially if you do not provide any disciplined deductive counter arguments to theist arguments, or empirical proof for your position.

I will publish all this on this blog: atheism-analyzed@blogspot.com

And I will comment on it, using Aristotelian deductive logic principles and I will analyze whatever empirical experimental proof you have to support your position.

Frankly, your claim to intolerance seems straightforward; your claims to logic, empiricism, and critical thinking seem to be unsupported.

Regards,
Stan at atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com

If he responds, then we'll have a discussion; if not, then we'll take a look at his "FAQ" claims, using actual deductive logic and analyzing whatever empirical data he has to back up his claims.

UPDATE:
His email address is not valid, so I posted a comment pointing here.

Poster Boy For Atheist Irrationality

From Salon’s Jeffrey Taylor, who “analyzes” the debate surrounding Bill Mahr and Reze Aslan:

”The so-called “New Atheists,” including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, have tried to do the opposite: get people to examine religion and help them understand it as innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous. Their aggressive secularism has, of course, stirred controversy and resentment. It was bound to do so. For millennia, the faithful have held the high moral ground virtually unopposed. Now (at least occasionally) under fire, some modern-day believers have taken to levying a clever yet false counter-accusation; namely, that the so-called “New Atheism” amounts to a “religion all its own” and that nonbelief can be just as hazardous as nonbelievers say religion is.

Aslan has proven a masterly practitioner of this ruse. He has used it to muddy the rhetorical waters to the extent that both belief and nonbelief come off, in his telling, as comparable, with “fundamentalism” a problem for both.

“Atheism is a belief system like any other belief system,” he told HuffPost Live last week in a lengthy interview about – again – Bill Maher’s stance on Islam. “It’s a set of propositions about the nature of reality. And like any set of propositions, it can neither be proven nor disproven.”

This is patently untrue: nonbelief is not a “belief system.” Atheism simply denotes nonbelief in a god, and the rejection of god-related assertions, advanced without evidence, or with risible semblances of evidence drawn from the holy writings themselves in dispute, that an invisible, almighty Supreme Being superintends the universe, grants our wishes or not as He sees fit, and demands to be both loved and feared. Smart atheists know that God’s inexistence cannot be proven, but find no reason to accept the absurd claims the three Abrahamic faiths make, and every reason to react with anger and contempt when adherents of those religions attempt to impose them on the rest of us. The religious argue that the absurdity of their holy books’ tenets presents them with an opportunity to win bona fides with their god by suspending their critical faculties and believing them anyway, but no rational human being should be obligated to respect their decision – let alone submit to their mandates.”

Atheism is, in fact, a belief system no matter how diligently Atheists queue up to deny it. Even the author of the above admits such in his internally contradictory denial:

First he claims that there are no beliefs. Then he claims that god-related assertions are rejected, presumably because the Atheist BELIEVES them to be false. This is non-coherent: irrational.

But he charges ahead with more, itemizing the premises which Atheists Believe are false. So false as to be, in his term: risable, in other words, BELIEVED to be suitable for ridicule.

Atheism has necessary and sufficient beliefs about the nature of reality, and one belief is that they have no beliefs. That is a logically falsifiable statement, under Reductio Ad Absurdum, and it is internally contradictory, thus failing the First Principle of Non-Contradiction. It could not be more irrational. This is followed with other unfalsifiable beliefs such as the presupposition of Naturalism/Philosophical Materialism, which is the fundamental premise supporting all of the elements of their worldview (except for their elitism due to BELIEVING in it).

All these BELIEFs tumble out of the BELIEF that they can reject a premise without giving any reason or reasoning for having rejected it.

Atheism is a continuing process of irrational justifications necessary to justify the first non-coherent premise which they BELIEVE. They protect these irrational justifications by calling them rational BELIEFS and claim to be evidence and logic based at the same time. Nothing short of emotional disruption can explain this behavior.

An "Atheist Meme" Failure

Sometimes a link will lead to another link until you reach something like... Atheist Memes. This is a site which consists of Atheist bumper sticker slogans, mostly of the ridicule or sloganeering kind. This one "meme" caught my attention:

Let's count the errors in this Atheist bumper sticker logic.

On the Christian side,

1. Subjective evidence is implied to be unreliable. Yet Atheism, itself, is based not on any supporting evidence or disciplined logic, but on emotional rejectionism. And that is purely subjective neediness. All knowledge is subjectively acquired and assimilated, with subjective discrimination and analysis. And all knowledge is contingent, especially that which claims Materialism yet has no material evidence for its claims (including the validity of Materialism).

2. Inconsistent Reasoning? There is nothing "inconsistent" about the arguments (from Aquinas to the simple challenge on this blog) which Atheists cannot defeat. It can be shown that Atheists in general do not use Aristotelian deduction at all, but that they always rather use Peirce's abduction and/or probabilistic methods such as Bayes Theorem which allows them to fabricate probabilities to fit their preconceptions and emotional needs, or they resort to ridicule. Bumper stickers never back up their claims, and some, like Atheist bumper stickers, cannot back them up.

On the Atheist side,

1. Objective Evidence which supports (much less proves) that Atheism is true does NOT exist. And when invited to disprove miracles such as Lourdes where objective evidence exists against Atheism, Atheists merely ridicule, rather than even attempting to refute that evidence. So this claim is patently false, as in a blatant lie.

2. Demonstrably consistent reasoning for Atheism does not exist. If Atheists had a single valid, true argument, they all would make it. There is no such argument, and Atheists commonly resort to faux Scientism, a logical error. That was refuted by Karl Popper, long ago. When asked to prove that a creating agent for the universe absolutely cannot exist, Atheists head for the door. This claim is also a lie.

Since both of the claims against Christians and both of the claims for Atheism are false, then the Atheist bumper sticker fails its own standards, and is inconsistent logic. Totally inconsistent logic.

Atheist Invocation At Public Meeting Refers to Harry Potter For Moral Principles

Headline:

Atheist group delivers opening message to City Council

"An atheist group gave the opening message for the Sioux Falls City Council meeting Tuesday night — likely a first in city history.

Siouxland Freethinkers President Amanda Novotny said in her message we must “let all voices be heard and understood equally.”"

Here is the entire preachment:

"Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members, citizens of Sioux Falls, and all those present for this opportunity to provide an inspirational opening to your meeting.

Often at this time, you are asked to bow your heads. Instead, I ask you to lift your head up and look around. Turn your attention to this room - a room that has heard countless discussions, frustrations, and successes; a room where important decisions regarding your city are routinely made.

Now take a moment to soak in the presence of the men and women in this room, gathered here at this time and place to engage in their civic duty, to contribute and work towards creating a better community. Think of the hundreds and thousands of others who are also affected by the ideas shared here. Let all voices be heard and understood equally.

It is also often customary to read from a book during an invocation, and tonight will be no different - I’ll be sharing a quote from J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” in which Professor Albus Dumbledore said:

“Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.”

Athough our differences may be many, we are bound together in similarity as members of the human species. As humans, we have the capacity to appreciate and thank each other; to utilize compassion and reason in our decision making. I ask those present to join me in showing gratitude to the men and women that serve the great city of Sioux Falls. We need only look to each other for guidance, and work together to overcome any challenges we may face."

Of course, there is no Book Of Atheist Moral Principles, because there is no morality under the concept of Atheism, especially with its parasitic attachment to evolution. So whatever she said is just her, being as politically correct as she thinks is politically correct. But to reference Harry Potter as a source of objective morality (and if it's not, why bother?)... well, J.K.Rowling must be ready to create another universe, and I hope she does; it would be a great place for Atheists to migrate to, and sit around and admire their superiority. I think it would be located near Boston, or maybe a San Francisco city park.

Seriously, though, look at the quote for a moment: "...if our aims are identical...". There is very little that Atheism generates in its adherents that has any commonality with the aims of a responsible culture, much less identical. The adherents of Atheism are overwhelmingly Leftist, and "humanists" are some of the farthest into Leftist Freethought totalitarianism, given their propensity for worshiping the concept of abstract humanity at the expense of individual humans. Making the New Man was the humanist mantra for a century, and it still is. And consider the phrase, if "our hearts are open". Now apply that idea to the last hundred Atheists you have encountered. The enjoinment is purely put upon the Other to accommodate whatever it is that the Atheist/Humanist is up to at the moment; in other words, accept their chaotic imposition on your culture with an open heart.

They must be seen for what they are, and stopped.

Another Pamphlet For Orlando Schools

Ten Principles of Atheism

1. There is no God; therefore,
2. There are no morals with the authority of God; therefore,
3. I can lie;
4. I can cheat;
5. I can steal;
6. I can kill;
7. I can and will attack those who do have principles, because
8. I have no principles; there is no set of Atheist Principles;
9. I don’t want principles;
10. You should not have or want principles, either, because, like me, we are just animals in an empty universe.

If God does not exist, everything is permissible. —Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Attack Atheists Are Allowed To Distibute Weaponized Literature in Schools

‘Christianity is Abhorrent’: More Atheistic Materials to be Distributed in Public Schools

"ORLANDO – A federal judge has given a secular organization the green light to distribute more atheistic and anti-Christian materials to Florida public school students, in spite of the materials’ graphic content and offensive language.

As previously reported, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) learned last year that a Christian ministry had made Bibles available to Orlando high school students on “Religious Freedom Day.” To counter the Bible distribution, FFRF sought permission from the school district to give students a variety of atheistic and anti-Christian materials.

According to reports, the Orange County School Board permitted FFRF to distribute several books and pamphlets, including a booklet entitled “What’s Wrong With The Ten Commandments?” and a brochure entitled “What Is An Atheist?” However, the board prohibited FFRF from giving students several other publications, citing the materials’ “disruptive” and inappropriate content.

FFRF promptly sued the school board for not allowing the distribution of the materials. Eventually, the school board complied with the organization’s demands, giving FFRF permission to distribute the previously-prohibited materials. Then, earlier this month, a district judge officially dismissed the FFRF lawsuit, thus giving the green light to the in-school distribution of atheistic materials."

Christianity Is Abhorrent

"The materials approved by the Orange County School Board include a variety of graphic and anti-Christian content, including references to oral and anal sex, a description of God as the “most prolific abortionist of all,” and a number of explicit sexual references and offensive expletives.

Furthermore, the materials repeatedly attack Christian beliefs and doctrines, including the life of Jesus Christ.

“On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile,” alleges the FFRF booklet “Why Jesus?”

“He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell),” the booklet states. “He instituted no social programs. Being ‘omniscient,’ he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things.”

Similarly, the “Dear Believer” booklet attacks the Bible’s message and content in a demeaning first person tone.

“Christianity, besides being false, is also abhorrent,” it alleges. “It amazes me that you claim to love the god of the bible, a hateful, arrogant, sexist, cruel being who can’t tolerate criticism. I would not want to live in the same neighborhood with such a creature! The biblical god is a macho male warrior.”

“Do you see why I do not respect the biblical message?” the booklet adds. “It is an insulting bag of nonsense. You have every right to torment yourself with such insanity—but leave me out of it. I have better things to do with my life.”

Many people have expressed concern at FFRF’s literature, arguing that the graphic, insulting material is inappropriate in a public school setting."

Are Atheists Like Vampires?

Sort of:

Atheists Fear the Cross As Much As Vampires Do

"But American atheists and “freethinkers” can’t think rationally. They have a superstitious fear of anything that resembles a Christian symbol; so much so that they will spend millions of dollars to remove those symbols from any place in this nation. Like the vampires in the horror movies, atheists tremble in fear when they see a cross. The reason for the fear is never clear, and never rational; but then, again, atheism has never been rational to start with.

In fact, there is an even deeper resemblance between atheists and vampires. Just like vampires, atheists are parasites: They can never build their own society; they have to borrow Christian capital. When the West was built to become the most prosperous and just civilization the world has ever known, and when America emerged to become a City on a Hill with liberty and justice for all, there were no atheists around to help build it. It was Christians who made America what it is today. The atheists appeared much later on the scene, only to consume what others have produced. And even today, American atheists never volunteer to go live in societies that were based on atheism – the Soviet Union and North Korea come to mind – but they prefer to stay here, in America, built originally on Christian principles. Just like vampires, atheists have no blood of their own but they like to suck the blood of a civilization created by Christianity

It definitely is the case that AtheoLeftism sucks the morality and character out of a culture, and history shows what is left in cultures where that has happened before.