1. Intellectual Anarchy is Freedom.
Atheists commonly claim a massive relief and feeling of freedom when they adopt the VOID. The obvious reason is that they have placed themselves into a rules-free zone, where there are no moral restrictions and no intellectual guide-lines, both of which are quite bothersome to the rebellious. But total freedom is actually anarchy, and for Atheists, it is anarchy of morality and intellectual process. The freedom gained is very heady, and it has consequences, none of which are morally or intellectually beneficial;
2. No Absolutes, absolutely.
This is necessary to prevent the need for a source for absolutes, and to prevent any danger of being subject to anything outside the self. The VOID is freedom from absolutes. The consequences, again, are untethered intellects and moral vacuum, both of which are filled with the individual ego.
3. Intellectual superiority.
Atheists are automatically self-endowed with intellectual superiority, merely by asserting empty rejections of theist arguments with no counter arguments to support their own opinions.
The self-endowed faux elitism which Atheists think they have breeds contempt for all contrary inputs. Contempt and its handmaiden, ridicule, are the main intellectual outputs due to the lack of tethered, disciplined deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning requires that an answer be respected due to the validity of its premises. Atheists cannot respect answers which do not support their narrative, so they rationalize premises which support their preselected answer. When that fails, ridicule is next.
4. It is True that there is no Truth.
This is an example of non-coherence which results from the Atheist necessity for supporting narrative at the expense of rational argumentation.
Also, for Atheists, it is not necessary to anchor arguments in first principles because there are no first principles. Circularity (self-reference) or infinite regression is just fine, as is reference to Materialism or Scientism (deductively false ideologies). Logic is whatever the Atheist declares that it is.
Materialism declares that physical existence is all that there is. All hypotheses can be proven with material evidence, including the hypothesis of Materialism (which, under Atheism, is actually an objective Truth, or universal law). The inability of Materialism to prove its own premise renders it quickly irrational due to its non-coherence.
6. Moral superiority.
Atheists are self-endowed with the moral authority to define morals, and redefine them at a moment’s notice, as the situation requires. This is both situational and consequentialist, simultaneously. Here are some common features:
(a) There is no common morality which exists in the Atheist Void.
(b) Primary Default: Consequentialism, where the end justifies the means.
(c) Self-endowed tautological morality, tailored by the Atheist self to match the self’s desired behaviors, ego, and worldview.
(d) The common claim to be “Good without God”, despite rejecting the concept of Good, and having no Common Morality other than self-endowed moral authority and tautological morality.
(e) Self-endowed moral authority to decide on life or death for others (Will to Power).
This is why the untethered, VOIDist Atheist is dangerous.
(f) Moral authority to decide what is moral for others.
Includes complete tolerance of Atheist antics, and equal outcomes for the herd (humanism). This is why the untethered, VOIDist Atheist is Leftist and totalitarian in worldview.
Intellectual honesty, a fixed morality, and a history of compliance to that morality are all requirements of trust generation. Atheists cannot provide the conditions which engender trust; they demand that trust be administered to them based on their self-endowed superiority instead.
8. Re-definition is Intellectually Sufficient to Avoid Answering For Their Denialism.
Atheists redefine many concepts in order to protect their narrative, starting with the definition of Atheism itself, which is redefined in order to avoid having to provide any rational arguments for their rejection of theist arguments.
9. Atheists Have Empathy Beyond the Hypothetical.
Atheists have been shown to be empathetic to the tune of two latte’s per month. And they are less likely to actually help actual people, but rather they hold the concept of “humanity” as a theoretical entity which they think they love instead of actual people. This is an artifact of the self-endowed elitism of Atheists, who are far above the herd and know better than the herd how to manage the herd’s business.
10. Skepticism produces knowledge.
One Atheist tactic is to remain skeptical of everything except the non-coherent beliefs of Atheism. The use of “you can’t prove that” can be taken clear down to the level of pyrrhonianism and the brain in a vat type of know-nothing intellectual dodges.
11. Atoms produce Life when Connected Properly.
Atheists generally refer to evolution as the “intellectually satisfying” story of the creation of life… except they must dodge the issue of first life. But there is a general feeling, espoused by Dawkins and others, that atoms could have jumped to life given the proper conditions. This is a religious article of faith which is accepted without evidence.
12.Life is an accident of the universe, existing in an accidental entropic backwash, and having no existential value or purpose, and is parasitic to the revered and beautiful natural earth.
Atheists are quite prone to projection without evidence and this is a prime example of moral projection placed onto ontological projection.
13. Electron Position Predestines All Neural Activity and Therefore Every Thought.
The idea that man might be an “uncaused causer” deals a death blow to the materialist and scientismist underpinnings which Atheists apply to their VOIDism. This endangers the Atheist narrative. They now wish to argue that there is no free choice, but man can choose between options, another silly redefinition put in place to protect the narrative, but which cannot account for the atomic predestination that is required for Materialism, and which is violated by human choice and agency. In other words, free will: we both have it and don’t have it, a non-coherence which doesn’t bother Atheist logicians in the least.
14. Consciousness Doesn’t Really Exist As An Actor in Free Will.
The Unconscious neurons in the brain do all the thinking and then inform the conscious mind, which merely accepts the information passively. We are impotent, causally, in our conscious mind. The unconscious mind is in total control, and we are merely along for the ride. This is based on the blood flow monitored in MRI scans of the brain. It jumps to conclusions without any further information other than blood flow. Even many Atheists ridicule this as the new phrenology. But it seems necessary for the narrative, especially to the empirically ignorant.
I’m sure that there are many more concepts which fail logic, yet which are necessary to the maintenance of the Atheist VOIDist narrative. Add to them in the comments if you think of them.
I have asked atheists for a "dogma" or "standard" by which they make moral judgements. I am still waiting. Thus far they have referred to reasonings and their observations to make conclusions. It is so frustrating talking to people that have no foundation other than their own reasonings to discuss matters. I fear many theists do the same thing as well.
Are there any atheists can be trusted, or are they all morally reatarded?
Are there any atheists that can be trusted, or are they all morally retarded?
There is the possibility that an Atheist will subconsiously adopt a Christian (or other religious) morality and will behave reliably within that moral system.
However, it is difficult to know that this is the case with any specific individual.
And even so, the Atheist is not constrained by any "absoluteness" of any moral system, having rejected all absolutes. Such constraint is what engages the conscience.
I personally have AtheoLeftist friends whom I trust implicitly because I have known them a very long time (I have a history) and their behavior is well known to me. Thus I can adequately predict their future behavior (if not their opinions) and I am comfortable with it. I'm sure that there are many like this. But those are not the ones who write books, infest academia and the media, and show up on blogs and such with chips on their shoulders and spewing arrogance.
The influential Atheists include academicians and authors who make a living writing philosophical non-coherence for the emotionally needy. There is quite a market there, and there are a lot of them. In terms of trust, they can be trusted to be squirrely, both morally and intellectually, in the sense that internal contradiction is no problem in their worldview in either intellect or morality.
When meeting an Atheist I think it best to trust but verify. In other words, engage optimistic skepticism.
You are telling us that you spent the majority of your life intellectually and morally bankrupt, and that these are the things you believed. Too bad that during that time you never bothered to learn logic, or understand human morality. And you definitely never learned about what your fellow atheists actually believed, or what arguments they use to justify their beliefs.
And now that you've "seen the light", you still understand none of those things.
I was a non-theist, not a crusading evangelical Atheist like yourself who pretends to know everything, but has no arguments or evidence to support any of his claims. I was a logic engineer, designing logic circuitry for instruments used by other engineers. I paid no attention to other Atheists for several decades. It wasn't until I looked at what Atheists actually say to each other and to the public that I learned that every Atheist position is both internally contradictory (irrational) and hostile (chock full of hate for the Other, as you express it in your arrogant way). That motivated me to examine the principles of valid knowledge, the logic underlying belief systems of Atheists, the First Principles and syllogistic logic of Aristotelian hypothesis formation and validation, and informal fallacies in rhetoric.
I learned that people like yourself present themselves as experts, yet have examined none of the inductive/deductive principles which are necessary to form a valid worldview. Especially egregious is the lack of knowledge of Enlightenment Atheist values of empiricism, and of Modernism, both of which conflict categorically with modern ignorant Atheism which values the consistent internal logic errors of a Dawkins, of a Dennett, and a Pigliucci.
Atheism is frequently expressed as "freedom": freedom from principles, such as morality and logic and reasoned discourse.
It boils down to this: the only actual Atheist weapon is scorn. There is no possible evidentiary proof for Atheism. There is no possible deductive hypothetical syllogistic proof for atheism. Yet that is the claim of Atheists: to be based in logic and evidence. They actually have neither. So what is left for the Atheist is merely empty comments of contempt like yours above, in the form of pseudo-elitist scorn empty of all content, but full of arrogance.
Lots of arrogant assertions. No arguments. You really should listen to yourself.
He's right, Im-Skeptical. You present no proof for anything. People like you believe that Atheism is automatically true no matter what evidence is against it.
I'm an atheist and I essentially Base my morals on simple Asimov style rules.
1) I shall not harm humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm
2) I do not harm others or through inaction allow others to come to harm except where this would conflict with the 1st law
3) I obey the rules of my socity except when such would conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws
4) I protect my own existence except where thus conflicts with the first 3 laws
I guess one of the reasons it's difficult to pin atheists down on morals is we prefer to make our own judgement rather than be told what is morally right and thereby give up our responsibility to make moral decisions.
By those simple standards most gods as described in various religions are morally questionable and I'm a little wary to trust individuals that would forgo their own reason to use such material as a moral guide.
This has a counter argument which is "unintended consequences". A prime example is the era of Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages. The action was taken in order to prevent the obvious debilitation of alcoholism on individuals and society. That objective seems beyond reproach in its intention.
What actually happened was that alcohol became more widespread as it went underground, and the Mafia became wealthy, organized and lethal, taking virtual control of many cities. Death by alcoholism, bad alcohol, murder became epidemic.
These sorts of unintended consequences occur both in daily life as well as in huge government nannyism.
This disastrous history of unintended consequences invalidates the first two principles you quote.
Because the first two principles cannot even pretend produce harmony and utopian behaviors, the remaining two principles are without any force, to the extent that they refer to 1) and 2).
So this resolves to the following principles:
1) I obey the rules of my society.
2) I protect myself.
Once the paradox of unintended consequences is diminished, the rules are pretty much trivial; they could describe barbaric societies and cannibal tribes as well as any other group of homosapiens. They are not even moral or ethical in nature, because they address only self-involvement and self-protection.
"Relying on their own reason" is the mantra of the progeny of the Marx/Neitzsche/Lenin complex. Their voluminous writings bristled with the elitist self-assured, self-righteousness of their own ability to devine what is "good" and what is "bad" for the masses (aka the "Herd").
Rationalism in ethics, morals and social engineering led to the messiah complexes of those who considered themselves superior, vastly superior, to the Herd. So what they dictated to the Herd must naturally be better for the Herd than for the Herd to self-determine.
It became rationally apparent that certain parts of the Herd were impervious to the messiahs' inputs, and thus the Herd required intelligent and rational culling. Hence, 150,000,000 humans were culled as was rationally required for the health of the Herd.
Rationalizing one's own ethics/morality is not new; it has been done literally to death, and it still is in progress. But there is an unintended consequence here, too.
One cannot know, when encountering an Atheist, what the current moral philosophy of that Atheist might be. That is because the Atheist makes up his own morals, generally to match his own proclivities. This has downsides. The person who encounters the Atheist cannot know if the Atheist has some sort of moral grounding or if he merely makes up "principles" as he goes along, in order to cover for his own behaviors. The inability to know an Atheist's actual working principles leads to distrust, especially considering that the Atheist is at liberty to change his principles at will, on the spur of the moment need to eliminate a previous constraint. Thus the Atheist is considered with distrust, since his self-derived principles are, at a minimum, ephemeral.
Result: The Atheist is trusted at the same level as the child-abuser and rapist (poll results available if you wish).
They all said this, the Result: 100's of millions killed through Atheism!
Post a Comment