Atheism

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm pretty sure that Atheism have been discussed before. People who's an atheist are logical and intelligent people who's use science and knowledge throughout the world. I knew an atheist back when I was on Youtube, he told me the reason of his non-beliefs and explains the evolution of the Darwin theory. I respect his non-beliefs and I told him I'm a Taoist. He didn't have a didn't have any problem for me believing a religion at all. So overall atheists are nice people.

[petrus4]

In my mind, Atheism comes in two varieties. One, the old kind, was a private, individual thing, and was held by people who, because of lack of mystical experience or whatever reason, simply didn't think that God existed.

The latter variety is a form of deeply insidious fundamentalism. I refer to adherents of this as the Dawkins Collective. This is a belief system with a lot of extremely negative characteristics.

a} It discourages people from thinking for themselves, by attempting to mandate that only those with credentials from academia are permitted to think critically about anything; the rest of us are meant to unquestioningly accept their word for everything. It similarly uses ideas like the "reputable source" fallacy as a means of discouraging people from investigating ideas which might be detrimental to mainstream thinking.

b} It promotes a view of reality which I regard as deliberately false, malevolent, and disempowering. Said view incorporates Cartesian materialism, and the idea that the current period represents the first time that humanity has ever had the current level of technological advancement, with a linear view of time that is reinforced by Darwinian evolutionary theory. This is in opposition with the Hermetic and Hindu view which states that time is cyclic, and that advanced technology has previously been obtained and possessed by earlier civilisations.

c} It is intent on actively destroying other religions and philosophies, and establishing itself as the only ideology which exists on Earth. It attempts to gain credibility for this, by claiming that it is the only ideology which is reflective of reality. Its' adherents are hellbent on forcing Darwinism down the throats of every man, woman, and child in existence. Dawkins class Atheists want planetary monoculture to exactly the same degree as fundamentalist Islam; their only real difference is how they go about it. Claims of endorsing plurality are used merely as a recruiting tool; to entice new footsoldiers into the army. Said claims are completely dishonest, however.

d} Because of the academic appeal to authority fallacy described above, it is opposed to genuine empiricism. Amateurism is condemned, and laypeople are not intended to conduct their own experiments or research, but instead to rely exclusively on the words of "authorities," or "experts." This is a direct subversion of the fundamental point of real science.

e} It is non-objective, in the sense that it encourages the emotive worship of a pantheon of heroes; mainly including Dawkins, Darwin, and the scientific popularist Carl Sagan. Adherents will generally falsely deny this when confronted about it. As a corrolary of this, it also promotes positive emotional (i.e., non-rational) bias towards a highly distorted misconception of science itself; which includes the assumption that any institutionally performed research is somehow sacrosanct, and that the corruption of scientists is somehow impossible.

f} It has allied itself with Utopian, Frankfurt school cultural Marxism and the political/economic Left; and Darwinism and the linear, single timeline view of history are used as a means of reinforcing and justifying progressivism. This, in turn, promotes the concept of oppressive tolerance, and conditions all those who are exposed to it, to become emotionally and psychologically incapable of tolerating being disagreed with. To an extent I have become contaminated with this sort of ironclad mental rigidity myself, as a result of my exposure to Reddit.

In short, I consider the older form of Atheism to be genuine, and the newer form of be a sick, twisted caracature of the old. It claims to be adamantly promotional of science, when in reality it is anti-scientific.

[Bartmanhomer]

It's sounds like you've a positive and negative experience with atheist at the same time Petrus.

[petrus4]

Originally Posted by Bartmanhomer

It's sounds like you've a positive and negative experience with atheist at the same time Petrus.

That's true. There are decent Atheists out there, Bartman; but as with all human groups, they seem to be a minority. The Dawkins Collective is to Aquarius as Catholicism was to Pisces. Non-Pauline Christianity is the legitimate form of that religion; Catholicism was the Illuminati hijacking of it. Non-Dawkins pantheism is the legitimate form of Aquarian spirituality; Dawkins class Atheism is the Illuminati hijacking of it.

Spirituality assumes a different form or current within each astrological great Age. The cabal use the Hegelian dialectic; the minority follow the thesis, or the legitimate form, while the majority follow the antithesis, or the false form.

Catholicism was likewise a Piscean disguise for the Illuminati's initiative towards world government, which really began with the Roman Empire in Aries. The United Nations is the Aquarian disguise for it; and the UN allows the cabal to move substantially closer to what they really want, than either the Vatican or the Roman Empire did.

[The Troll]

Atheism is PROFOUNDLY stupid. Actively denying the existence of a higher power just strikes me as moronic, given the orderly, intricate universe (and bodies) we live in.

[DrumWolf]

Originally Posted by The Troll

Atheism is PROFOUNDLY stupid. Actively denying the existence of a higher power just strikes me as moronic, given the orderly, intricate universe (and bodies) we live in.

What if Nature (i.e. the Universe) is that higher power?

[The Troll]

Originally Posted by DrumWolf

What if Nature (i.e. the Universe) is that higher power?

Nature is an abstract concept.

[feranaja]

Originally Posted by DrumWolf

What if Nature (i.e. the Universe) is that higher power?

Yes.

[The Troll]

Not to seem stupid, but could someone DEFINE "nature" in this context please?

[DrumWolf]

The physical Universe and the forces operating within it.