Atheism, violence and human rights

Victor Reppert: Atheism, violence and human rights

Here is the final words of a comment on a Debunking Christianity thread:

I long for the day when you people are put into camps and made sterile, so you cannot spread your destructive hate and child abuse any longer.

There you have it. I argued at some length on this site a couple of years back that the logical conclusions of some of Richard Dawkins' ideas about child abuse lead logically to violence against Christians and the forcible denial of fundamental human rights to Christians by the government. I pointed out that even if Dawkins hadn't drawn out those conclusions from his own arguments, some of his followers would eventually do so. People tried to argue that, no, it really doesn't have to come to this, and he was just talking about Christians who frighten their children with hell to get them to be obedient.

Well, I was right. I hope Loftus will post a response saying that he does NOT approve this message. In the meantime, you have to start rethinking the argument that RELIGION leads to violence.

Generally, Dawkins does the thinking for vast numbers of self-identifying atheists, including prominent ones (this is why I sometimes refer to him as "the Pope of Atheism") -- but, regarding this meme, one might well say that Dawkins was the follower, rather than the leader.

I've had this wish, sans the "child abuse" rationalization, "jokingly" tossed in my virtual face years before Dawkins infamously equated a Christian upbringing with child abuse.

The desire to make Christians "go away" is strong within the "reality-based community." If they had the power to make us "go away," they would; if they ever think they have the power to make us "go away," they will use it.

Dawkins merely supplied the rationale to justify (in their own minds) a desire they already had.


AND, by the way, the quote-of-the-day "definition" of faith which leads off the thread in which Mr Reppert encountered that expression of the deepest longing of so many God-deniers is for shit:

Faith is a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition in spite of evidence that the belief is incorrect. Faith is clearly NOT a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition that is SUPPORTED by the evidence, because if that belief was supported by the evidence, it ipso facto does NOT REQUIRE Faith. [See on Faith]

... and John Loftus, who posted that quote, *knows* that it, and he, are misrepresenting what faith is.

This "definition" of faith is both tendentiously false ... and a case of atheistic "projection."

Prosecution or persecution?

Michael Coren: Prosecution or persecution?

...
Whether political, religious or criminal, what appears to be happening in many parts of Europe and North America is that rather than being guardians of the people the police are taking on the role of agents of the state. Instead of protecting citizens against crime they are enforcing state policy against citizens. That’s deeply worrying in theory and even more troubling in practise.

The Western, democratic notion of an apolitical police force is beginning to evaporate as the police concern themselves with “hate crimes”, “bias” and even plain political correctness. What David Chen did was not obviously political but it did question the authority and competence of authority and the police and did show an ordinary person applying the law and common sense. That, it seems, is now the worst crime of all.

The particular incident of which Mr Coren writes happened (is happening) in Canada, but this sort of thing happens frequently in the US, also -- police departments are *just* bureaucracies with guns, and bureaucracies exist first and foremost to advance the interests of the bureaucrats.

'Call Me Senator'

“Call Me Senator” (watch the video, you'll love it)

The Question Is

It seems to me, Gentle Reader, that the proper question is: "Are there *any* real atheists?" That is why I almost always put the word atheist in single-quotes, or write "so-called atheists" or "self-identifying atheists," when referring to specific (or generic) God-deniers. And, similarly with respect to 'agnostics.'

Victor Reppert links to this page, commenting:

There are no ex-atheists

I guess this is the atheist equivalent of the Fifth Point of Calvinism: There are no ex-atheists. People who claim to be atheists but became Christians [] were never REAL atheists in the first place.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.- I John 2:19.

Now, no one is a Christian by birth (interestingly, some 'atheists' like to claim that everyone is born an atheist ... being a Christian, I would say that that is *almost* correct, the truth being that everyone is born in a state of enmity to God). Even if there were a person now living whose every ancestor going back 1800 or 1900 years had been a Christian, that person will not be, and cannot be, a Christian by virtue of his birth or ancestry. Everyone who has ever been, or will ever be, a Christian must decide to believe that the claims of Christianity, and the reasoning advanced in support of those claims, are true and sound, respectively.

To put it into the form of an aphorism: "God has no grandchildren."

Now, the truth-claims of Christianity are not changing. The evidence advanced for those truth-claims, the evidence upon which one will reason whether to embrace or reject its truth-claims, is mostly not changing (by which I mean that such things as miracles at Lourdes are really superfluous). And, the rules of logic, the rules by which we judge an act of reasoning to be valid or invalid, are not changing.

AND, truth does not change to un-truth, nor un-truth to truth. Thus, if the truth-claims of Christianity are true, they are always true, now and forever.

And so, if a person examines the truth-claims of Christianity, and the evidence advanced in support of these truth-claims, and decides to become a Christian, but later renounces this decision, then EITHER:

1) his initial decision was based on some error; meaning that, either:
1a) the evidence advanced/presented to him did not really support the decision he made;
1b) his reasoning on that evidence was logically invalid in some way;
OR:
2) his subsequent decision to renounce the prior decision was logically invalid.

That is, EITHER his initial decision to become a Christian was logically invalid (which still doesn't tell us anything about the logical validity of Christianity itself), meaning that he didn't really understand the decision he made, OR his subsequent decision to renounce Christianity was logically invalid.

And, the above doesn't begin to address that persons have "converted" to Christianity for many reasons other than a rational examination of its claims and evidence; for instance, social convenience.

And so, this New Testament verse Mr Reppert quotes is saying something very different from the (increasingly common) atheistic claim or argument that anyone who self-identifies as an atheist and later converts to Christianity was never an atheist in the first place.

The "reasoning" of 'atheists' on this seems to be something like this:

1) There are no, nor can be any, real evidence(s) nor rational argument(s) to support the belief that God is;
1a) therefore, atheism (God-denial) is ipso facto rational;
1b) therefore, Christianity and Judaism are are ipso facto irrational;
2) Rational persons do not embrace irrational beliefs;
2a) therefore, 'atheists' (God-deniers) are ipso facto rational persons;
2b) therefore, Christians and Jews are ipso facto irrational persons;
3) Therefore, anyone who previously denied that God is, but now embraces Christianity (or Judaism) is not a rational person;
3a) therefore, he never was a rational person;
3b) therefore, he never was really an atheist in the first place.

Now, as to my initial question: "Are there *any* real atheists?"

Just as one can't *really* be a Christian (no matter what one calls oneself) while denying the divinity of Jesus, the Christ, so too, one cannot *really* be an atheist (no matter what one calls oneself) while denying the propositions which *must* be true if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If one calls oneself a Christian, or advocates that Christianity is true, yet denies the divinity of Christ, then either one does not *understand* what one is claiming/advocating, or one is a liar. If one calls oneself an atheist, or advocates God-denial, yet denies the logical consequences of atheism, then either one does not *understand* what one is claiming/advocating, or one is a liar.

Friedrich Nietzsche might have been a real atheist (for a *real* atheist is simultaneously a nihilist). Bertrand Russell was just a poseur.

Of living famous so-called atheists, Daniel Dennett, and Paul and Patricia Churchland seem to come closest to being real atheists ... and all three are still just poseurs. And Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of living God-deniers? He's just a fool and a liar (there is a redundancy in that statement); he's a mere poseur -- who *knows* he's a mere poseur -- who doesn't even come close to being a real atheist.

The three I mentioned come close to being real atheists because they understand and acknowledge certain unwelcome truths (*) which logically follow from the denial, and therefore *must* be true if the denial is true, that we are creations of the transcendent God. For instance, acknowledging (some of) the inescapable logical entailments of atheism, they assert such things as:
1) consciousness in "an illusion;"
2) there is no self;
3) there is no free-will (**);
(they are fond of denigrating the concepts 'consciousness' and 'self' and 'free-will' as "folk psychology," by which they mean something like "the erroneous-and-unscientific beliefs-about-themselves-and-about-their-natures of ignorant-and-prescientific persons").

BUT, they are poseurs because they don't really believe these things they acknowledge and assert; certainly, they do not believe these things to be true of themselves ... but they also don't believe them to be true of you and me (so, they are not solipsists). For instance, they try to convince you (whom they assert doesn't even exist) that you do not exist -- the mere attempt to convince you of anything is the acknowledgement that you exist, that you are a self, that you are a reasoning self, that you are a self who may freely embrace or reject the claim being advanced.

Now, it is true that their attempts to convince you that you are an illusion are built mostly on bluster and attempted intimidation (Just LOOK at my credentials!) and hand-waving (among other things, the "folk psychology" trope); it is true that there is precious little reason in their argumentation (and, given the content and the target, how can it be otherwise?). But nonetheless, the fact remains: they're still trying to convince you to believe the false things they want you to believe about reality and about yourself. They have no choice, really:
1) since you *are* a self, a reasoning being, if they want you to believe that you are not a self, nor a reasoning being, they *must* somehow convince you to believe it;
2) since what they want you to believe is false, and anti-rational, they *must* resort to anti-rational argumentation: assertion, bluster, intimidation, equivocation, burden-shifting, and so forth.


(*) That is, these propositions are unwelcome to most self-identifying atheists and agnostics -- most of those folk will do any number and sort of logical contortion to avoid even noticing these propositions, much less admitting that they are truth-claims which logically follow from God-denial.

(**) Almost every discussion of, or reference to, "free-will" is mis-stated: it is not that we *have* something called "free-will;" rather, it is that we *are* free-wills.

Appreciating the absurd

"An appreciation of the absurd requires some recognition that the absurd is, well, absurd and not the whole story. Once existence itself is absurd, it just isn’t funny anymore." -- Laura Wood ('The Thinking Housewife')

The thing about dishonesty

The thing about dishonesty (and what I have in mind specifically is intellectual dishonesty) is that it cannot be segregated to one little aspect of one's life; it is the nature of dishonesty to spread and take over all it touches.

This is another post about the silliness (and foolish wickedness) called 'Game;' though, it's more indirectly about that. What this post is directly about is illustrating for Gentle Reader how the conscious disinclination to reason correctly and rigorously about the things we *want* to believe to be true must inevitably lead us into outright lying about things which anyone see are otherwise.

The blogger who goes by 'Aunt Haley' posted something earlier today which sounds very reasonable ... until one knows that back-story. Here is that post:

I’m tired of reading comments where posters are calling each other names like idiot, sweetheart, moron, bitch, or any of that ilk.

From now on, I’m just going to start deleting comments with name-calling insults. It’s ridiculous that grown men can’t get through a discussion without puerile mudslinging. If you want to play the neener-neener game and call each other names, take it off the blog.

Here is what I said to her in response:

Will you now?

Aren’t you at all curious as to what’s going on in your own mind?

What I mean is this — these … what was the phrase, again? … “grown men” … have been directing that sort of thing at me for days, and you only just now, after I have mildly (but effectively, and humorously) turned a couple of the intended insults back upon their owners, appear to disapprove of their behavior. AND then, to make matters worse (from my point of view), you “even-handedly” seek to lump my mild (and humorous!), and much delayed, responses in with their provocations.

Really: would you *ever* have written this post had I not finally turned some of those provocations back upon their owners? To be more blunt, had I not, with a few simple-and-non-obscene words, turned what was intended to be a group-effort mockery of me into unanswerable ridicule of the original poster, would you have said *anything* at all?

Partly, I wrote this because I am *very* well acquainted with this sort of dishonest "even-handedness."

Even one of her fellow 'Game' proponents (*) appears to get the point I was making about "even-handedness:" "It’s a well-known fact of the schoolyard that it’s the reprisal punch that gets punished."

(*) Yes, I know he has claimed in a comment on this this blog that he is not an advocate of it (even as he was defending it), but his behavior when with the gang says otherwise.


Here is Haley's dishonest response to what I said to her about her "even-handedness:"

Ilion, when you post nine replies in a row and start sounding emotionally hysterical, which you did the other day, I have little compunction about nipping that kind of behavior in the bud when it starts to cross over into schoolyard insults.

Cool down and write like a grown-up, and others will treat you like a grown-up.

Don't you just love passive-aggression? I know I do!

And, lastly, here is the back-story -- in which (unless she's the sort of person who is going to delete the evidence, now that I've written this post) anyone can see that she has seriously misrepresented both me and her gang of fellow adherents of 'Game.'

Should one choose to wade through all the comments in that last thread, one will not find me initiating "schoolyard insults" -- though, one will find me eventually responding to some of the "schoolyard insults" that had been directed my way ... and really, my responses were several grades above "schoolyard." I'd almost take insult at having my insults characterized as "schoolyard insults," except that I've already conclued that Miss Haley suffers a severe lack of discernment.

Goodness! As far as I can tell she cannot even see what is "off" about this odd statement someone made on her blog not too long ago: "Ultimately, if I were seeking advice, I would look for empirically based observations given by someone with a discerning spirit of wisdom. Like Citizen Renegade."

Nor will one find me "sounding emotionally hysterical" -- but one *will* see some of Miss Haley's fellow 'Game' proponents "sounding emotionally hysterical" (apparently because I'm presenting them arguments to establish its falsehood and/or lack of worth); and one will see a 'Game' proponent (whom I do not hesitate to judge as a quite wicked man, and whom I suspect was a bully when he was chronologically young enough for the schoolyard) seeking to goad me into "sounding emotionally hysterical" (as though he could!) and one will see that person repeatedly waving his hands to dismiss what I'd been saying as "sounding emotionally hysterical."

Shesh! Can't she even come up with her own false tropes?


Edit: In response to Miss Haley's dishonest characterization of the interaction between me and her fellow advocates of 'Game,' I said to her: " You’re dishonest, aren’t you?" (and, if you know/understand me, you realize that that was me being "nice" or non-blunt).

And her response was: " I’m not, and your further comments are going in moderation for the time being." (My point here is not that denies being dishonest.)

There are reasons, Gentle Reader, that men sometimes refer to some women as 'bitches.' And this sort of passive-aggressive dishonesty is a prime example.

If You Give A Donkey a Cookie

iOwnThe World: If You Give A Democrat a Cookie

Anatomy of an Ambush

John Ray: Anatomy of an Ambush -- only muddle-headed fools would *ever* believe anything the Arabs say about the Jews. Or what they say about us.

10:10 -- See the real mindset of 'environmentalists'

HotAir: Video: The dumbest, most self-defeating ad campaign ever

The video is truly disgusting, on many levels; as Ed Morrissey puts it: "... this appalling video that shows global-warming enforcers imagining the world they’d like to create, but beware that it includes some disturbing — and disturbed — images."

(h/t Matteo and Bob Parks)

The 'one-stitch facelift'

As a matter of general interest -- MailOnline: The 'one-stitch facelift' claims to be the ultimate quick fix for turkey necks, but does it work?