Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Last Days of Outmoded Atheism

Atheism is over because it depends upon the assumptions of modernism. Atheists believe in truth. They believe that religion is false because there is no God, and that means it is not true and therefore false. But we are now in the postmodern era where there is no truth. That is both good and bad for Christianity but it si really bad for atheism.

Good for Christianity because in the Postmodern community all ideas are equal. Christianity is just another idea, it is not special and it's not true, but it can't be rejected for the reasons that atheists reject it. its' can't be called stupid or untrue or contrary to the facts because all of these conditions are subject to the relative nature of the social construct. All constructs are equal, none are sanctioned and all receive equal acceptance.

Atheism can't accept a place in the spectrum alongside other ideas because it has to destroy religion. It has to be base itself upon the outmoded concept that one idea is true and its contrary is false. Now Christianity believe this too. As I say, it's both good and bad for Christianity. But Christianity can survive in a version that liberalizes itself enough to be part of the mix. It has its' special qualities that others don't have and that's its appeal but it can also allow others to have their views. Atheism can't allow any idea but one, hate religion. Atheism depends upon the myth of a golden progress into the shining Godless future where science has prevailed and destroyed religion, leaving it behind as a failed adaptation. That myth is over. That myth is the myth of modernism and has been left behind in the dust.

Of course fundamentalism will have to go. That may be on the rise now the new atheist fundamentalists are an attempt to join the ranks of the postmodern fundies, but it wont succeed because it's major myth is oppossed to the paradigm of the world today. Atheism has to destroy religion, it has to disevolve it, it has to undermine it or it can't exist. The existence of atheism as anything other just a lack of belief, which is far from all it is, is predicated upon hatred of religion and the need to demonstrate one's supiriority over religious people. This is not an age for that. This is the age of tolerance, diversity, of equality among all ideas. The Irelish gave up their passion for a nationalistic Northern Ireland because they realized they would rather go shopping than blow things up. A liberalized Christianity can fit into the diversified mixture of a postmodern social construct, but atheism can't by its nature and its definition.

Atheism has several contradictions at the heart of its major myth and those have caused the ground under it to be stripped already. Atheism is groundless and pointless and predicated upon contradictions:

(1) The God pod is the result of scientific empirical data. The reason for rejecting evolution as a blind factor in producing the god pod is that it requires innate ideas. Innate ideas are part of the past, they come from a basically spiritual domain. But the atheist has to support innate ideas, which contradict atheism at its core concepts, in order to argue that the God pod is just a blind product of evolution. Thus atheism can't assault one of the major arguments for God nor can it access one of its major weapons without shooting itself in the foot.

(2) Atheism as a modern materialistic school was founded upon cause and effect as the means to explain the natural world. God was kicked out of his own creation based upon this concept. Now atheists abandon it in order to escape the Cosmological argument; saying that QM particals prove that the universe doesn't need a cause. Thus they cut the ground out from under themselves.


(3) One of atheism's most amusing self inflicted wounds is the way it clings to it's myth of progress. It is the evolutionary turn of events bringing us out of the dark night of supersition breaking off the chains of religion and freeing us for a bright future as number crunching Dhaleks and cybremen. But the same logic upon which atheists have predicated their victory now threatens to destroy their position. Just as they pretend that religion is metaphysics and metaphysics is outmoded and done away, so their view is based upon a former paradigm which has shifted with the shifting sands of history. Atheism is metaphysics as is science. By the same logic they use,they have to go. We can never get away form metaphysics. That is just a given and is required to have coherent thought. There is a reason why Zen mediation is silent. The only way to escape metaphysics is to shut up and stop talking and stop thinking and just be. Atheists are too fond of venting their spleens against religion to ever shut up!


(4) We know God will not go away because of the God pod. We all have it, although for some it's not well developed. As long as we have it, the majority will probably believe in some notion of God or other. There is no lack of a Godpod, I mean there is no pod for the lack of a God. Atheism, groundless and pointless will recieed into the distance after it get's through making it's death ratttle.

8 comments:

Hayduke said...

What a load of dung beetle carcasses! Do you really believe this stuff or is it stream of unconciousness?

"Atheism is over?" Ummm... atheism is non-belief in a central god. I do not believe in a central god, atheism, therefore is not over. QED

Atheists do not "beleive that religion is false." Atheists simply do not believe.

Atheism does not "have to destroy religion." Why make up things and them attempt to destroy them?

Atheism, to begin with, doesn't "do" anything. Atheism is merely the lack of belief. However, even atheists do not "have to destroy" religion, as religion is its own destroyer. Atheists merely view the world as devoid of a supernatural supreme being. Full stop.

1) What in the world is a god pod? This paragraph makes no sense.

2) Atheism is not "a modern materialistic school." Atheism is simply the lack of belief of a supernatural supreme being. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics, cause and effect and any kind of particles.

3) Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with progress. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a mythiclogical supreme being. The rest of this paragraph is inane blathering, making no sense whatsoever.

4) What the hell is a god pod?

J.L. Hinman said...

What a load of dung beetle carcasses! Do you really believe this stuff or is it stream of unconciousness?

>>>typical, the atheist is outraged by another view point.

"Atheism is over?" Ummm... atheism is non-belief in a central god. I do not believe in a central god, atheism, therefore is not over. QED


You have been brain washed. Look up the word in the dictionary. I was an atheits back before rhe inernet, that kind of talk is a tactic started byt he secular web. When I was an atheist I did not have the internet to tell me what to think. I went to Madyline Murry O'airhead meetings to be told wht to think and in those days none of the brainwashed "freethinkers" ever said atheism is just lack of belief. They always admitted it's a posative assertion of no God an it comes complete with an ideology.







Atheists do not "beleive that religion is false." Atheists simply do not believe.

that's bull shit. Your statement is an a priori contradiction; if you believe there's no God then by defition you believe religion is false. Your statment is just typical atheist incrediulity spouting nonsense.

Even if I did lose faith and began to believe there was no God I would never be an atheist.

Atheism does not "have to destroy religion." Why make up things and them attempt to destroy them?

Dawkings and Harris say they want an atheist movment that destorys religion. read them. Obviously you have not.

Atheism, to begin with, doesn't "do" anything. Atheism is merely the lack of belief. However, even atheists do not "have to destroy" religion, as religion is its own destroyer. Atheists merely view the world as devoid of a supernatural supreme being. Full stop.

As I say that is bull shit and atheists back in the 70s never said that. that was not the defition they used Its' a ploy invented by sec webbers.

1) What in the world is a god pod? This paragraph makes no sense.

typical, the athist blowhard thinks anythihng of which he has no kowledge "makes no sense." Consquenently he thinks anything an intelligent person says "makes no sense" becasue atheist know dman little about anything.



2) Atheism is not "a modern materialistic school." Atheism is simply the lack of belief of a supernatural supreme being. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics, cause and effect and any kind of particles.

there's the proof NO to know that maodern atheism began as a materlistic movement and atheists used to alway espouse materilasim is just typical of the srot of cultural illiteracy with which today's know nothing atheists find themselves afflicted.


3) Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with progress. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a mythiclogical supreme being. The rest of this paragraph is inane blathering, making no sense whatsoever.

you are tuely ignornat.

4) What the hell is a god pod?

God part of the brain, obviously you dumb ass!

8:59 PM

Hayduke said...

Interesting mode of speach for an alledged religious person...

You put forward the assumption that atheism is a movement, which, in fact, it is not. The only thng that unites atheists is a nonbelief in a god. There is no atheist movement.

I am an atheist, as I have been for forty years, long before computers and the internet. My parents were quiescently religious, but I never caught the bug. I was always puzzled why they went to church and did the hymns and prayers, then went out and did whatever they wanted for the rest of the week.

I've never had a belief in a god, so I never "lost" that belief. I was not taught to be an atheist.

I don't care what you believe; that's up to you.

I do care, however, that you falsely attribute things to me that I do not feel or believe. You assume that all atheists are the same and move from teh same motives. I am not Richard Dawkins or any other author. I am myself. My lack of belief is my own and no one else's.

J.L. Hinman said...

I know there are intellegient atheists. I even know a couple. they can't all be like the one's on message boards.

J.L. Hinman said...

I guess I owe you an apology. I realize that not all atheists are teh same. I don't know you and you are probably a good guy. I have many friends who are atheists. I hope eventually you wil be on eo them. I was antry when I wrote that. Please read the things I'v esai again and take seriously the fact that I do find a large segment of atheists to be vicious, hypocritical and snide. I know these have their Christian counterparts. Please forgive me for assuming you were of this ilk. I should be giving you a chance and assuming the best.

Anonymous said...

"Atheism depends upon the myth of a golden progress into the shining Godless future where science has prevailed and destroyed religion, leaving it behind as a failed adaptation."

Uh, no.....atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less.

J.L. Hinman said...

Read between the lines. That's a slogan and a party line. Learn to see more deeply, don't just stck with the surface.

CrypticLife said...

Please proofread. It is difficult to understand some of your points due to misspelled words, grammatical errors, and typos. Even "intelligent men" should try to write clearly.

The existence of a "god pod" is speculative, and it's actual operation, function, and origin is pure guesswork.

The argument from causality needs a lot of work, particularly since it cuts both ways. The Cosmological argument, even if it were true, makes an unfounded leap from 'the universe must have a cause' to 'the cause must be a deity'.

I'm not sure why you're saying atheism demands we do away with metaphysics. Please clarify.

Your final argument fails to explain why atheism exists now. Why is it that it currently exists if this "god pod" dooms it? Had the god pod not have had enough time to operate?

Keep in mind also that your reliance on the god pod assumes that there is no perception of something that isn't true. However, this is demonstrably false; when you view trompe l'oiel paintings you perceive depth that does not exist in reality. Before you protest that depth exists in reality, even though not in the paintings, keep in mind the earlier admonition that we know nothing of the functionality or operation of a hypothetical "god pod".

Oh, and you moderate comments. How charming...