Archive for the ‘ Religion ’ Category

Hitler Can’t Help You

or why Christian apologetic arguments that use Hitler as an example are self refuting and circular.

I’ve written about this before here  and here  but I think this video does a better job of showing how the argument of biblical morality is circular and dangerous.

Enjoy.  Please feel free to comment whether you think this is correct or not. The circular biblical morality discussion needs to be out in the open more often.

 

The Soul Of Humanity: Spiritual Belief For Non-Believers

Where oh where are thou, soul of humanity?

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/165/5/f/sew_closed_my_soul_by_destinyblue-d53i95b.jpg

Over the ages mankind has cried out into the darkness looking for the soul of his kind. They have sought it under every rock which can be identified, each human searching under them in succession like bees in an arboritum.

The soul of humanity is not to be found in a search. It will not be found at all. All that can be called the soul of humanity will be cast upon you like a robe you did not intend to wear when you seek not to find the soul but to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, protect the weak and befriend the lonely. In doing these things you’ll find that the robe will not come off no matter how you try because you’ll have found your humanity, your human dignity, your soul by giving it to others.

We may at times call this the law of reciprocity, or the golden rule among other things. What you cannot do is cheat it, any attempt to do so harms only you. Likewise, any attempt to keep this law helps you in amplified ways just as feeding the poor slakes a hunger inside your mind that you might not have ever know about till you gave your winter stores to a stranger.

There is no soul or spirituality except what hits you in the face when you’re trying to give yours away to others.

The Psychological Make Up Of An Atheist

There is mounting evidence of the growth in western societies of three mind-sets:

narcissism, materialism and atheism

There is no attempt to show evidence for this otherwise empty claim. More’s the pity. I’d like to see it. One might argue that new atheists is evidence, the me generation is evidence and so on but it would have been nice to see a bit more background information on this claim. I think they are way off on the narcissism claim but we’ll get to that in a bit. The right question to ask is how this ‘growth’ in atheism accounts for Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Frank Sinatra and the billions of non-believers that came before them. That something has become easier to see does not mean it was not always there.

It seems to me that materialism and atheism are twin sides of the same coin, essentially an “I-It” rather than “I-Thou” existentialism according to Martin Buber.  I have wondered for some time what causes someone to become a militant-proselytising materialist atheist. After all the implication of their dogma, if true, of is nihilism, depression. No reason, no free-will. Why exist at all. As one atheist puts it – we would simply be the scum on the side of the universe. If that is what they truly believe – then why-oh-why do they want (I ask myself) to convert all others to their cause. It seems to me that Dennet, Dawkins et al have a NEED to convert. What is the psychological well-spring of their neediness?

One might be forgiven for the ‘twin sides of a coin’ metaphor if there was some reasoning to support it. As it is we are left to guess why. The author’s wonderment might be okay as a statement up to the point where they conclude that atheism has dogma and it explicitly implies negative things which are not true except of, perhaps, a very small subset of atheists. They build this into a kind of straw man. The author makes no attempt to understand what they frame as dogma nor explain it. The entire attempt is aimed at a straw man argument and negative toned argument.

I had wondered, looking at Dawkins life, whether it was a kind of Oedipus complex. Kill your father. Even Freud speculated as to that as the need behind atheism. However having read about the epidemic of narcissism I think that this instead  is the link or cause for materialist-atheism. I am told that narcissistic behaviour stems from a lack of love, or sense of love during childhood. This leads to an in-turning – deriving love from one-self – and denying the need for or existence of love elsewhere. Is it not possible, even probable then, that this mind-state would need to make itself the centre of all and deny that love elsewhere exists? Aggressively. In order to preserve it’s centred universe.

Now there is a piece of work. Freud also speculated that sexual arousal was a smell oriented response. Hypotheses are good except without evidence. Evidence seems to be a weak point for this author. The Mayo Clinic does not include atheism as part of the symptoms of Narcissistic personality disorder. In fact they define it rather differently. This looks like another straw man. We can’t say who told them the definition they are using. All we can do is say that it conflicts with some of the best information available and that their conclusion is completely off base, wrong, and perhaps childish.

If then the rise of narcissism and materialism/atheism are linked – which is the cause and which the effect? Perhaps neither – and both are a product of some other factor.

Nobody has said they are linked and the author fails to show that they are. In fact, minor research shows this entire post to be a straw man. What this says about the author is up for grabs but I’d be willing to bet that this person is dishonest.

Worth considering.
As a post-script – in reading around for this blog I found this from the militant atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett.

“I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs. It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms, is false or incoherent, but that, given the way that dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up“.

A more complete context of Dennett’s quote is:

Dr. Dennett sets the stage by introducing the means by which he intends to “demystify” the notion of consciousness.  His first move is to reject Cartesian Dualism as a matter of principle.  It will strike some readers odd that, save for a couple of humorous comic strips and a handful of vague comments regarding the, all too cliché, problem of interaction, he seems entirely uncompelled to provide rigorous argumentation against the Cartesian view.  Most, however, will be sympathetic to the fact that it is far more economical in a lengthy work of philosophy to simply pronounce, ex cathedra, the death of an opposing point of view.  Such an approach, I might point out, makes the task of promoting one’s own view far easier.  To be fair, though, it must be conceded that Dr. Dennett makes several strong assertions about why we should ignore dualistic theories of the mind.  He declares that dualism is both unscientific and mysterious.  As he states:

[The] fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, its most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why in this book I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs.  It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms, is false or incoherent, but that, given the way dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up (37).

Rather than wallow in mystery (and, really, who wants to wallow?), Dr. Dennett proposes a more sensible way—materialism.  But not just any form of materialism, a materialism that faces the problem of consciousness realistically; without ignoring the key features of conscious mental states which render them so difficult to account for.  The bulk of his book, therefore, is spent attempting to provide a broad materialistic framework by which we might account for all of the features of consciousness.

As we see below, the author is conflating arguments to their own advantage, and unfairly so. Again, I would wager this author is dishonest. The context of the quote makes it very clear what the giving up is about. This author simply quote mines a famous philosopher to confuse matters toward their own favor. This is dishonest.

Giving up? On what? The possibility of God, a reason for existence. Why would that a problem to be avoided or considered? Is the language not that of a narcissist – if you don’t agree with me you must be “wallowing in mystery”.

How depressing that a “philosopher” starts with a dogma of denial and then seeks to justify that with logic. Dogma isn’t philosophy. It’s dogma.

This author has failed to define or explore atheism, narcissism, or the consequences of either. Despite that the author wants the reader to believe that they have done so and that their straw man allows them to rightfully denigrate atheism. It is dishonesty at best. The truth is that atheism is not a world view for if it is then not believing in tooth fairies or santa claus would be world views and that would put the author in the admirable spot of holding three world views at the same time, talented indeed.

I speak for myself as an atheist I do not need a reason for existence, experiencing life is enough.  What dogma I have is not related to atheism and is pointed more squarely at wilful ignorance and dishonesty. As a nihilist (a malady they forgot to mention) I do not see any objective purpose to life or any part of it, rather I find meaning in what I want to find it, how I want to find it, and when I want to find it. This does not make me narcissistic, it makes me responsible for my own life. Any theist knows that their god will hold them responsible for their lives but they cannot appreciate that I hold me responsible for my life. Likewise, I hold the author responsible for theirs, a seemingly dishonest life.

 

God Helped Me Find My Car Keys

I was thinking about this tonight and something twitched in me. I thought about what this might mean. Someone helped me find my car keys, as in some human, means that I was weak and unable to remember where I put them. I was at fault. I was failing at life. I needed help to do what normal people do every day. I was failing to be normal. So when a believer claims that their god helped them do something normal….

What they are saying is that they were unable to be normal, that they were failing at being normal and needed help. Further, and most astoundingly, they claim it a miracle that their ‘god’ helped them to be normal.Think about that for a minute. Go on, I mean it.

 

Yes, believers are saying that they need help to be normal and better than that they are claiming a miracle for it. It does not matter whether it was finding the car keys or that their sports team won, the point is they are claiming the need for help to be normal and declaring it a miracle. Every thinking person who hears such flotsam should rightfully shove these claimants into the mud and explain exactly how ignorant they are. There is no excuse for it. To think that an unexplained god gave them the power to be normal for a minute is the ultimate admission of ignorance. Whenever you hear this kind of stuff please explain to the claimant how utterly ignorant they are. It would be doing all of us a favor, including the claimant.

 

There Is No Explanation For God

… or my recent absence. Now some might be wont to say I’ve equated myself with god but let me assure you that I have a much higher opinion of myself. For a start I’ve never claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. Nor have I ever claimed to love everyone. Perhaps gods are like me and just don’t want to talk about it but in any case I can be coerced to explain my absence… primarily because I can prove I exist. Before your philosophy senses start twitching, just stop. I’m as real as anything that questions the reality of a god and more real than the hopes of a championship ring for some sports clubs.

If there is a god and it was not absent this would be a pretty stupid post but it is not a stupid post for one simple reason: not one theist can demonstrate that their god exists.

 

 

Even the most famous of theological apologists cannot demonstrate that their god exists. There is a natural conclusion that can be drawn from this simple fact: Theists are delusional and any influence that they have on society is detrimental. Perhaps their charity or other seemingly benign activities might be seen as neutral if not positive but the net effect of their influence remains negative because it teaches superstition and fear… at least in the case of monotheism. (my favorite targets)

Some of you might still want to ask why I’ve been gone lately or even demand it. Odd that we only expect such of entities we believe are real. Why don’t believers demand to know why their god has not been present? Shouldn’t their prayers end with questions like “why can’t you heal amputees?” or similar? Perhaps I expect too much but when I hear that I’m bound for hell I always loudly opine that the speaker isn’t going to heaven. Think about that for a second or two.

Do You Think Atheists Today Are Angry?

Well, if you want to get pissed off then listen to MMO excoriate lazy atheists way back in 1971

All I have to say is that this is an inspirational speech. Listen to it several times. Fact check her speech. Then try to figure out how to dust off your broken pride and put it back in your chest.

At Least They’re Fucking Thinking

There is much yet to be said for the sound of religion dying.  I doubt that anyone expected it to die with a whimper but what exactly is the sound of religious belief in its death throes?

It might actually sound like this summary I found:

What I mean by all the that is this: the intuition I’ve had for a long time, and grows stronger with every atheist I listen to, is that atheists have different goals than everybody else. One might be tempted to say that they seek truth, while believers seek comfort. I suggest this is false. What atheists seek is technical utility: they want information that allows us to predict the movement of stars, build a better mousetrap, solve equations. Their science helps them achieve this. But the actual truth of things may go well beyond this, and may even, at points, contradict this. And it may be that there are more important things than curing polio or building a rocket to Mars, such as morality, purpose, and the sense of the transcendent.

Redefine everything so that your magic belief seems okay. Define atheists as no better than yourself – atheism is a religion. Here we see a claim that wanting to know the truth is simply a utilitarian thing, not important for real questions. Then there is the thought put forward that maybe there is more to life than this, maybe there is stuff that contradicts utilitarian science and because the atheist doesn’t embrace the possibility they are lost or worse, wilfully stupid.

Well, for the theists who think this way there is some bad news. There is also a possibility that they worship the satan they fear so much. A possibility that we live in a simulation, a possibility that the god they choose is the wrong one… there are many possibilities and without evidence (pesky science) there is no way to know if any of them are true. They assume they know which one is true but HOW do they know? Damn, there is that science thing again, but they don’t like science. They would much rather play roulette with their guesses than to know the truth.

 

The good news is that at least more of them are starting to think about the problems that their religious belief poses. It’s a good sign.

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 654 other followers

%d bloggers like this: