1. Denial of intellectual responsibility for saying why they reject theist arguments.Updated for grammar.
2. Constant and consistent use of rationalization to backfill their emotional conclusion which has no intellectual or evidentiary content.
3. Backfill the intellectual and moral void they have created for themselves with visions of their own self-endowed elitism.
4. Live a life of arrogance despite also living a life dependent upon logical fallacy, which is now deeply embedded in the worldview.
5. Claim logic and evidence as the basis of their worldview, despite being based totally on emotional rejectionism and neediness.
6. Evangelize, claiming that critical thinking means being a critical person, who criticizes everything except Materialism and Scientism and Leftism.
7. Demand that government be beholden to their views, and only their views, exclusively (because they are so tolerant).
8. Be vociferously offended at the mere sight of religious artifacts and activities which are not yet underground and are thus visually offensive. The FFRF has claimed to be made physically ill at the sight. BUT:
9. Demand total tolerance for any possible amoral activity engaged in by the amoral/immoral. That's because those activities are now morally acceptable, and religion is the only remaining immorality and cannot be tolerated unless it is underground and not available to be seen by impressionable children who might be corrupted. Media tolerance for sex and violence is fine; media attachment to the offensive morality of the Other cannot be tolerated, and is purged by consensus.
10. Form and fund large organizations which attack small entities which display religious symbology, especially very small towns and school districts. Do not attack Los Angeles, it might win, and that would destroy the ability for future attacks on the Other.
11. Claim that no one but an Atheist can understand Atheism.
12. Claim that other Atheists are wrong; only you personally understand Atheism.
13. Claim Atheism is not a religion.
14. Form churches.
15. Split into denominations due to dogma differences.
16. Create an individual morality which fits the individual Atheist's proclivity and thus is also volatile.
17. Insist that Atheists are Good without God.
18. Campaign against theism with billboard and bus sign attacks, claiming that the presence of religion is an attack on themselves, the Victims.
19. Become the Saviors of mankind, as well as Victims. Classism is thus natural to the Atheist.
20. Being the Saviors/Messiahs requires the designation of classes of Victims and Oppressors; the government is the perfect place to apply Messiahism, since it has the ability to attack the Oppressors and keep the Victims on the plantations.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
How Atheists Think
On another thread, below, an Atheist takes issue with the parody on Atheist arguments. It's amazing how many Atheists are literalists despite their hatred of literalism. Nonetheless, I have responded with the following list regarding the Atheist thought process:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This presents a hilarious contradiction:
13. Claim Atheism is not a religion.
14. Form churches.
15. Split into denominations due to dogma differences.
Except now they want to call it something else besides a church, possibly in order to downplay the religious overtones of their beliefs.
The common "belief" is that atheists do not have any "beliefs," merely an "absence of belief."
On the face of it, self-contradictory, but then, that's how they "roll."
I find it highly amusing to see schisms over absence of belief.
Rhetorical question:
How many different varieties and shades of "nothing" (absence of belief) can exist?!?
The few atheists that are forming churches do it as a joke.
No atheist I have ever says our disbelief is our belief because, indeed, that would be absurd.
One of the most common ways Atheists misrepresent themselves is to claim that Atheism encourages skepticism.
Sure they encourage skepticism only when theists make claims but do they really allow their own unsubstantiated beliefs to be questioned and most importantly what are the consequences of questioning Atheist dogma?
Answer:They ridicule,ostracise,label you insane for having a different view,they are intolerant of intellectuals who believe in God,God-believing scientists do not get promotions and risk being fired on basis of their beliefs.
In this article,Atheists were opposed to Francis Collins being nominated as director of the National Institutes of Health.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
vivalaleta said:No atheist I have ever says our disbelief is our belief because, indeed, that would be absurd"
Yes,that is absurd and that is exactly what Atheists claim.You can visit Dawkins over here for his absurd conscession: http://www.richarddawkins.net/books/5449#
Secondly,can you clarify something?Are you saying Atheists have no belief or are you saying that they do but it's not based on disbelief?
The Atheist claim of "disbelief" is an intellectual prestidigitation, an attempt at illusion performed to try to fool the observer. This is necessary to give cover to the poor Atheist who cannot give reasons for rejecting theism when pressed for actual logic or empirical data.
The use of this transparently false redefinition in order to avoid intellectual contact demonstrates the stunting of the Atheist intellectual development at the point where their emotional needs are satisfied, and the rational consequences are ignored. This is exactly the juvenile level of intellectual development, which is the stage at which most Atheists reject all authority - especially moral authority, meaning religion and God - and pursue themselves as the arbiter of all things.
But even as arbiter of all things they can give no reasoning for their rejectionism because it is purely emotionally based, not rationally based in terms of grounded Aristotelian logical deductions (which most of them can't perform), and certainly not in terms of empirical findings (which most of them do not understand, and so they merely claim fealty to Scientism).
As the PZ Meyers cult demonstrates, PZ's refrain, "ridicule works" is the most commonly used rhetorical device, having been honed in the 4th grade, on the playground. For them, it's who they are.
Another example of immature intellect is the refusal to address the issue of abiogenesis. After claiming that evolution is fact, based on piles of inference only, they assert a probablity of 1 for their inferences. But with abiogenesis, the probability of the self-assembly of a working, living, reproducing cell (which requires RNA and DNA and other ancillary molecular functions, not to mention life) is so low that they must invoke faith, or merely insist that "evolution is not about that". Evolving life from dead minerals is not evolution? The intellectual deviancy is stunning.
But it is in keeping with the emotional nature of Atheism and the stunting of the intellect at the age when rejectionism replaced rationality. It is now known that the frontal cortex doesn't mature until the 20's and as late as 28 years of age.
This recent study shows that the frontal cortex in Atheists contains less mass (is thinner) than in non-Atheists. There are also studies which show that Atheists tend toward Aspberger's and also narcissism.
And if you think Atheistic Scientism is not a religion, read this.
That last link illustrates how atheists do in fact have religious beliefs, one in which they substitute God with their brand of science fiction. As you mentioned, how can evolution occur without the first life-form? How does life cause itself into being, let alone self-replicate and become more complex? Billions of dollars invested in research and experimentation and these *intelligent* scientists could not create life from non-life, yet we're supposed to sit here and buy this crap that it just created itself, to say nothing of the universe itself.
Micheal they absolutely do have beliefs. In the late 70s they were more vocal about their metaphysical beliefs. Let's look at 2001 for instance. It is about a human becoming a god.
I've said often that evolution is the creation story in the Humanist eschatology. It is a requirement to believe humans evolved to this point so that they can believe human will evolve further.
How Atheists Think as a title suggests that all or the vas majority are guilty of at least most of these thought(forgive the overstatement) processes. This is comparable to the kind of things I criticize the atheists on Quora for doing. The constant use of exaggerated claims and overstatement is a sign you are unlikely to persuade those who are on the fence. If you are just preaching to the choir fine. For those who aren't already convinced you are giving them reason to distrust and ignore everything you say.
Carl,
Had you read the very first part, you would have seen that this was a response to a parody. Atheism is self-parodying. That's what I did. listed the self-parodying factoids that demonstrate how Atheists think in the same tenor as the Atheist parody.
Post a Comment