Consider this Atheist who has created her own reality and system of truths, and is trying to convert the world, a woman who has both a real name and a fake name which she uses simultaneously: D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. In her article, "An Atheist Here to Destroy?", she affirms the title, and goes on to explain how mysticism is true, and all religions are false (or part true, or something, it's not clear). She makes assertion after assertion, firmly convinced that her mystical truths are self-evident and in no need of explanation, evidence, or rational support.
She starts with these "truths":
"It has been suggested that I am an "atheist" and am "very destructive." However, I am neither a theist nor an atheist, although, for the most part, I prefer atheists because they can think for themselves and are not as vicious as "believers." Their morality comes not from the outside, imposed by some supernatural figure, some repressive puppetmaster in the sky, but from within, as dictated by their own autonomy, wisdom and maturity."Now, it's hard not to agree with the last comment, because Atheists do, in fact, get their morality from their own autonomy, their own (lack of) wisdom, their own (lack of) maturity [note 1]. But do Atheists in general think for themselves? Do they employ syllogistic arguments coupled with actual physical evidence to make a case for their beliefs. Emphatically, no.
She proceeds to ramble on mystically, with many mystical assertions self-obvious only to herself, and then there is this, which is where I stopped:
"Let us think back to when we were children, before we started getting conditioned--or, more appropriately, brainwashed--by those around us. We did not see race, gender, ethnicity or religion. We saw other children, beings with smiling faces exuding innocence. The unbridled, radiant love of life beamed from our souls and flowed from our hearts. Then we started to learn that we were no longer one empathetic being but were part of a variety of groups that separated us from each other. Suddenly, we were "boys" or "girls," "blacks" or "whites." We were "Americans" and "Russians." We were "Christians" or "Jews." And those over THERE were not like us over HERE. Again, this is extremely ugly and is at the root of all kinds of prejudice and bigotry that go on day in and day out. These are, in reality, false separations.""One empathetic being"? The absurdity prevented me from reading further. Anyone who has ever been around children knows that they are born as selfish narcissists. When children spontaneously share and care, their parents video the event and put it on YOUTUBE because it is so rare.
And so, backing up through her fanciful personal universe, I came to realize that she is not living among us. She is long gone from our perceived reality, and fully acclimated to her own.
The quote that started this page really should state more inclusively that Atheists are free to make up any reality they wish, and attempt to live in it. Atheists can make up any morality they wish, and attempt to force the rest of us to live in it. Atheists can deny all rational arguments showing that Atheism cannot prove its own premises, all the while claiming ownership of truth and evidence. Thus it is that Atheists lose any claim to rationality and therefore any claim to sanity. And that this is easily documented and shown to be the case.
It seems like I should finish reading the article, but I have no desire to intrude into her personal faux reality any further than I have to.
Note 1: It is well documented that Atheists are largely males who attained their "wisdom" during adolescence, never outgrew the simplistic arguments, and never attained full maturity (rampant misogyny being a case-in-point, as is the concept that ridicule is an effective argument).
H.T. Anshuman Reddy
2 comments:
...Suddenly, we were "boys" or "girls," "blacks" or "whites." We were "Americans" and "Russians." We were "Christians" or "Jews." And those over THERE were not like us over HERE. Again, this is extremely ugly and is at the root of all kinds of prejudice and bigotry that go on day in and day out. These are, in reality, false separations."
Wrong!The roots of racism has nothing to do with religion,at least in christianity it doesn't.
Racism is the belief that there are superior group(s) based on their skin color and physical features - and inferior groups because they lack similar features,physical characteristics and skin color.
Christianity deals with beliefs(intangible) not race(tangible).
The former can be easily altered,the latter is fixed for life.
"et us think back to when we were children. ... We did not see race, gender, ethnicity or religion."
B.S. I am an American living in Asia. Back when my daughter was two years old and I would take her out in public, she would see other Americans and ask me, "Are they your friends?" She could clearly see the racial similarities.
I don't know whether by "gender" the writer means "sex" (confusion between the toe seems endemic in modern society), but of course by 20 months or so my daughter was well aware of the differences between boys and girls, and she would gravitate more readily toward fellow female toddlers.
What this writer seems to want to do is promote the tabula rasa as some sort of societal ideal, rather than simply the starting point of education. At issue here, of course, is the very question of abstraction, which involves by definition the recognition of patterns.
I guess abstraction is racist, or something.
Post a Comment