| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"exaltedsuffering" |
| Date: |
17 Sep 2003 03:17:32 AM |
| Object: |
A first premise in a case against atheism |
On the Urgency of Pantheism
If I decided to assign the word "God" to the entire universe or to
Nature, I could of course do that as an individual. However, if I
sought out a discussion with others, my view would not be incompatible
with what most people refer to as Atheism or Materialism. For example,
if I joined a debate between an atheist and a popular theist, my
arguments would correspond with the atheist and not the theist.
George H. Smith takes a similar stance ...
But the pantheist (or any alleged theist who wishes to describe his
god solely in naturalistic terms) is open to the charge of reducing
his god to triviality. If god is taken to be synonymous with nature or
some aspect of the natural universe, we may then ask why the term
"god" is used at all. It is superfluous and highly misleading. The
label of "god" serves no function (except, perhaps, to create
confusion), and one must suspect that the naturalistic theist is
simply an atheist who would rather avoid this designation."
~ Atheism: The Case Against God
I agree with Smith that if I were to take a particular object or the
entire Universe and assign it to the word, "God" that that would have
no useful function and could perhaps suggest that I am only trying to
avoid being designated an atheist.
And I agree that if we do assign the word to a material object we may
then ask why the term "god" is used at all. (I might name my cat
"god" and then claim a real god and with evidence, but of what value
would that be? Would a bigger cat matter? More cats? What then would
any addition, even all of the universe, matter?)
I disagree however that assigning the word "god" to an aspect of
nature (a legitimate and self-advantageous perspective on nature) is
superfluous or necessarily misleading. I also disagree that it
necessarily serves no function.
Herd Expediency
The following constitutes only the first of a few reasons why
assigning the word "God" to an aspect of reality is neither
superfluous nor without function. (Note that I appeal to a
"perspective" and not a material object.) I admit that this argument
is vulnerable to popular condemnation and the popular assignment of
"Evil" – but for brevity's sake I will have to deal with its
"immorality" later.
When an animal uses the air-vibration "God" to herd other animals,
then what we really have is not a logical or theological "system" but
a natural phenomenon, which the scientist ought best to reduce to
behavioral terms: herd behavior. If we are not aware that we operate
on an "animal level" ... that is, if we don't accept ourselves as
complex machines, then we will tend to believe in magic and will be
led by others who either believe in magic or exploit our gullibility
for their own gratification -- and not for our edification or that of
humankind.
Smith's rational view begs the question of human machinery. If we
shut our ears to the popular message and open our eyes to the
mechanical reality, we will observe human behavior in response to the
stimulus "God." And it looks somethinglike this ...
* The word "God" in the hands of the most popular preachers today is
little more than a cattle prod of guilt and fear, and often sends the
herd stampeding over advanced civilization.
*The word "God" is often a conduit for aggression. It is how we
permit ourselves to kill or dominate with a good conscience.
*The word "God" is often an attempt to snuff out that weak but still
flickering candle we call science.
In short, the word "God" is more often than not a threat to the
progress of the Homo sapiens and advanced civilization.
Additionally, the average theist only wants the air-vibration "God."
If I use the word, "God," in any way which binds the true believer to
his herd, he is perfectly satisfied. If I memorized a Bible passage
but in reciting it substituted the word "Allah" for that of "God" then
I can be fairly confident that a fundamental Christian would not only
object but would be offended. Under a discipline observation, we see
that the impetus to their objection is rarely logical but usually
behavioral: there is a threat of herd dispersion and a herd-binding
reaction. The actual assignment of the air-vibration is of little, if
any, importance. What matters is whether or not it binds or disperses
the true believer's own herd, whether Christian or Hindu.
From a mechanist's view, I could stand in a crowd, and declare "I
believe in God" and the group will divide into two or more herds --
and it will rarely occur to even the atheist that his atheism is a
herd movement, a counter-herd movement. I could stand in the same
crowd in the very next moment and declare "Go bulldogs!" and again we
will divide ourselves (and if not amongst each other, then still
against an imagined group in another university -- it is still a
herd-binding event dependent upon the "outside threat").
The arguments themselves being superior or inferior is irrelevant to
this particular point. The machinery supporting mental concepts are
as in inexable in holding to the truth as their are when we hold to a
falsehood. The concepts themselves are secondary and dependent. "The
absence for evidence to believe" is one thing as a private conclusion.
It is quite another when it wants to stand in the midst of idiots
with its folded , to preach and shock. However accurate, neither the
private the conclusion nor the battle for alpha status are exempt from
mechanical determination, and thus, neither can be unmotivated. Truth
itself may be said to be disineterested, but in reality it is in only
our best intest to hold to this mental concept as a guardrail against
our impulses. We are very interested, not to mention motivated to
hold to Disinterested Conclusions.
This is only one argument against Smith's assertion that the word
"God" -- when assigned to an "aspect of reality" -- is superfluous and
without function. It is not superfluous in that it is indispensable
that I use the appropriate stimulus to achieve a response advantageous
to civilization. If I were to preserve science from the onslaught of
a majority government made up of fundamental Christians (a herd
movement larger than my own), I could "split the herd" between
extremists and moderates by making responsible use of the word "God"
and assigning it to a legitimate aspect upon reality -- making the
assignment in fact more genuine than popular theists could ever
achieve. However, by declaring and brandishing my "Atheism," I become
"the enemy" -- and as it goes with human behavior, it is precisely the
outside threat which binds herds together. (Every astute politician
knows this.) Consequently, my outspoken atheism makes zfundamental
Christianity stronger. My fierce opposition only decreases the chance
of a true believer's ever seeing through the fraud of the magical
view.
A central issue is whether or not the masses ought to be led by those
who hold to reason or by those who believe in magic. If by those who
hold to reason, then how can the rational teacher reach the believers
in magic if the first thing he does is disappoint and humiliate his
students? Declaring atheism defiantly may only be (but not necessarily
in all cases) an action more on a herd level than it is of a thinking,
rational being – assuming that a "rational being" is someone who
accepts that any event (and a thought is an event) can be reduced to
mechanical terms, and that any human strategy must survive the
requirement that it also be behaviorally efficient.
The air-vibration "God" is not then without function in that its use
is indispensable toward the survival and promotion of advanced
civilization, including the survival and promotion of the scientist's
own herd.
The survival of a minority view that is nonetheless correct is only
one argument against Smith's assertion.
http://thecaseagainstatheism.blogspot.com
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: A first premise in a case against atheism |
17 Sep 2003 05:56:25 PM |
|
|
(exaltedsuffering) wrote in
news:f7a8a831.0309170017.779580a2@posting.google.com:
Subject: A first premise in a case against atheism
There is no case against atheism. No matter what you say or how you phrase
it, I will continue to lack belief in any god, anytime, anywhere.
You will simply have to get over it and move on.
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"And the knowledge that they fear
Is a weapon to be used against them."
--Rush, "The Weapon"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roshard Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: A first premise in a case against atheism |
17 Sep 2003 09:32:25 PM |
|
|
(exaltedsuffering) wrote in message news:<f7a8a831.0309170017.779580a2@posting.google.com>...
On the Urgency of Pantheism
If I decided to assign the word "God" to the entire universe or to
Nature, I could of course do that as an individual. However, if I
sought out a discussion with others, my view would not be incompatible
with what most people refer to as Atheism or Materialism. For example,
if I joined a debate between an atheist and a popular theist, my
arguments would correspond with the atheist and not the theist.
George H. Smith takes a similar stance ...
But the pantheist (or any alleged theist who wishes to describe his
god solely in naturalistic terms) is open to the charge of reducing
his god to triviality. If god is taken to be synonymous with nature or
some aspect of the natural universe, we may then ask why the term
"god" is used at all. It is superfluous and highly misleading. The
label of "god" serves no function (except, perhaps, to create
confusion), and one must suspect that the naturalistic theist is
simply an atheist who would rather avoid this designation."
~ Atheism: The Case Against God > > I agree with Smith that if I were to take a particular object or the
entire Universe and assign it to the word, "God" that that would have
no useful function and could perhaps suggest that I am only trying to
avoid being designated an atheist.
Okay. So Smith said that theists can assign the word "god" to
anything and it doesn't mean much as a result and you agree with him.
I agree with him too. What's your point?
I disagree however that assigning the word "god" to an aspect of
nature (a legitimate and self-advantageous perspective on nature) is
superfluous or necessarily misleading. I also disagree that it
necessarily serves no function. Then why don't you take that up with George H. Smith then instead of posting this junk on this discussion group? He created the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" not us. If you think this is going convert atheists then your not doing a very good job.
When an animal uses the air-vibration "God" to herd other animals,
then what we really have is not a logical or theological "system" but
a natural phenomenon, which the scientist ought best to reduce to
behavioral terms: herd behavior. If we are not aware that we operate
on an "animal level" ... that is, if we don't accept ourselves as
complex machines, then we will tend to believe in magic and will be
led by others who either believe in magic or exploit our gullibility
for their own gratification -- and not for our edification or that of
humankind.
Yes and it is also why I'm a atheist. I'm not a sheep and I don't
need a sheep herder. That's the christian's and other theist's job.
Visit My Website:
http://www.geocities.com/freedomwarrior5000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: A first premise in a case against atheism |
17 Sep 2003 04:04:51 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, exaltedsuffering poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
....
This is only one argument against Smith's assertion that the word
"God" -- when assigned to an "aspect of reality" -- is superfluous and
without function. It is not superfluous in that it is indispensable
that I use the appropriate stimulus to achieve a response advantageous
to civilization. If I were to preserve science from the onslaught of
a majority government made up of fundamental Christians (a herd
movement larger than my own), I could "split the herd" between
extremists and moderates by making responsible use of the word "God"
and assigning it to a legitimate aspect upon reality -- making the
assignment in fact more genuine than popular theists could ever
achieve. However, by declaring and brandishing my "Atheism," I become
"the enemy" -- and as it goes with human behavior, it is precisely the
outside threat which binds herds together. (Every astute politician
knows this.) Consequently, my outspoken atheism makes zfundamental
Christianity stronger. My fierce opposition only decreases the chance
of a true believer's ever seeing through the fraud of the magical
view.
This is twaddle. How does joining the herd weaken the herd? If there
were some validity to this idea then one could argue that the
fundamentalist can strengthen his position by adopting the view that
opposes his own.
The fact is: there is no need to "split the herd". It is already split
into tens of thousands of religions and sects. Adding one more sect to
the list is not going to create a major schism. Furthermore,
fundamentalism is basically only a nuisance factor, although sometimes a
significant one. Virulent memes, like virulent genes, are ultimately
self-limiting because they are destructive.
The suggestion that the atheist should "mak[e] responsible use of the
word 'God'" is transparent nonsense, as is this attempt to recruit.
....
Regards,
Josef
A man always has two reasons for doing anything - a good reason and the
real reason.
-- J. P. Morgan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: A first premise in a case against atheism |
17 Sep 2003 07:15:59 PM |
|
|
In article <f7a8a831.0309170017.779580a2@posting.google.com>,
(exaltedsuffering) wrote:
On the Urgency of Pantheism
Yeah, boy! Pantheism's got everything we need!
Get it?
EVERYthing!
It's a JOKE, son!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: A first premise in a case against atheism |
18 Sep 2003 10:49:17 PM |
|
|
On 17 Sep 2003 01:17:32 -0700,
(exaltedsuffering) wrote:
Herd Expediency
The following constitutes only the first of a few reasons why
assigning the word "God" to an aspect of reality is neither
superfluous nor without function.
OTOH, it is, as Nietzsche would put it, both stupid and evil.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: A first premise in a case against atheism |
17 Sep 2003 01:58:24 PM |
|
|
On 17 Sep 2003, (exaltedsuffering) screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:f7a8a831.0309170017.779580a2@posting.google.com:
<snip misguided polititheistic ramblings>
I don't understand how you expect this to convince anyone. You're
arguing that we should believe in God because the god-concept is useful
for controlling the sheep. While I don't disagree (there's sufficient
evidence throughout history to fully bear out your statement), I fail to
understand how that's worth consideration unless I have a desire to hold
coercive power over my fellow beings. You completely disregard the
possibility that one might be an atheist out of a desire to understand
what is true, and weigh the wisdom or foolishness of a given belief by
how much power it gives over the masses. By your logic, democracy is an
evil system because it doesn't give the democrat power over the masses.
Do you think an understanding of the world is worthless? Would you keep
mankind in the stone age because it's easier to keep ignorant, poor,
and/or superstitious people contained in a compliant herd than it is for
educated, wealthy, and/or rational people?
You refer to it as the "Urgency of Pantheism". You admit that pantheism
is redundant, confusing, and unnecessary in a philosophical sense, yet
argue that it is urgent because it provides an effective way to unite
mankind into a single, easily controlled herd... Are you laboring under
the delusion that all mankind must necessarily see absolute control of
the rest of mankind as the greatest good and ultimate goal?
Not to mention that I hardly see the benefit to yourself in convincing
others of this, since if mankind is to be controlled, someone must do
the controlling and all others are controlled and should not be aware of
the methods of the controller, if they are to remain compliant.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "exaltedsuffering" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you laboring under the delusion that ... |
08 Oct 2003 04:37:45 AM |
|
|
Are you laboring under the delusion that all mankind must necessarily
see absolute control of the rest of mankind as the greatest good and
ultimate goal?
If I were laboring under a delusion I would be the wrong person to
ask.
Where did I assert that "all mankind must necessarily see absolute
control of the rest of mankind as the greatest good and ultimate
goal"...? Weakening herds was clearly the object of the proposed
behavioral strategy.
I did not suggest that "control of the rest of mankind" was the goal;
on the contrary, I suggested that such control was the danger.
Not to mention that I hardly see the benefit to yourself in
convincing others of this, since if mankind is to be controlled,
someone must do the controlling and all others are controlled and
should not be aware of the methods of the controller, if they are to
remain compliant.
I did not say that mankind "is to be controlled" but that mankind is
currently being controlled by idiots with petty agendas, and a large
part of this is "authorized" in the "name of God."
Matt Berry
Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions
must constantly rearrange themselves. The search for truth begins
with fearless questions. The answers arrive accordingly.
http://www.thecaseagainstatheism.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you laboring under the delusion that ... |
08 Oct 2003 09:05:25 AM |
|
|
On 08 Oct 2003, (exaltedsuffering) screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:f7a8a831.0310080137.5bb9aba4@posting.google.com:
Are you laboring under the delusion that all mankind must necessarily
see absolute control of the rest of mankind as the greatest good and
ultimate goal?
If I were laboring under a delusion I would be the wrong person to
ask.
Where did I assert that "all mankind must necessarily see absolute
control of the rest of mankind as the greatest good and ultimate
goal"...? Weakening herds was clearly the object of the proposed
behavioral strategy.
"Weakening" the divided herds of various religions is what you mean, and
what your post clearly implied. Rereading your post, I can't see how
you're not suggesting that we accept pantheism (something we see as
irrational) with the ultimate goal of uniting mankind into a single herd
under the control of a single religion (pantheism).
I did not suggest that "control of the rest of mankind" was the goal;
on the contrary, I suggested that such control was the danger.
No you didn't. You suggested that separate "herds" were the danger.
Your "case against atheism" didn't address logical arguments or rational
considerations, but the idea that atheism contributes to separating
mankind into herds, and thus must be discarded in favor of something
that will unite all mankind under the control of a central pantheistic
philosophy. It's just a more universal form of control.
If you were truly suggesting that control is the danger, you wouldn't be
arguing against atheism. Atheists, in general, form their opinions
based on their own rational thought, and thus are probably the group of
people under the least control, either external or internal control, in
the world.
Not to mention that I hardly see the benefit to yourself in
convincing others of this, since if mankind is to be controlled,
someone must do the controlling and all others are controlled and
should not be aware of the methods of the controller, if they are to
remain compliant.
I did not say that mankind "is to be controlled" but that mankind is
currently being controlled by idiots with petty agendas, and a large
part of this is "authorized" in the "name of God."
Yes, and you proposed that mankind be controlled by intelligentsia with
what they imagine to be a high and lofty agenda (never mind that this
agenda involves deliberately deceiving mankind). You propose that this
be "authorized" in the name of "what's best for mankind", without
consulting mankind on the question, and by deceiving mankind
deliberately.
Matt Berry
Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions
must constantly rearrange themselves. The search for truth begins
with fearless questions. The answers arrive accordingly.
http://www.thecaseagainstatheism.blogspot.com/
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "exaltedsuffering" |
|
| Title: Re: I disregarded the possibility |
08 Oct 2003 04:49:39 AM |
|
|
You completely disregard the possibility that one might be an atheist
out of a desire to understand what is true, and weigh the wisdom or
foolishness of a given belief by how much power it gives over the
masses.
I do disregard that possibility, as I have also disregarded an
infinite number of other possibilities, positive and negative. I
confess that I sometimes disregard comments irrelevant to my line of
reasoning. So if you mean by "disregard" that an atheist's "desire to
understand" has nothing to do with my post, then I agree ... but in
agreeing we are also begging the question of the relevancy of your
charge. The motives of the genuine atheist in seeking out or holding
to reason are irrelevant to the use of a herd stimulus in a herd
strategy. The atheist's motives and his reasoning belong to a
different discipline than that of political expediency.
And in fact, atheism itself "completely disregards the possibility
that one might be an atheist out of a desire to understand what is
true" -- such is irrelevant to the premises and conclusion of atheism.
Atheism is the result of a lack of sufficient evidence to support
the definition of a supernatural God. Any motives I might have in
reaching this conclusion are irrelevant to its tenability. The "desire
to understand what is true" is a worthy motive toward a life
well-lived; it is not however subsumed within the argument of atheism.
2 + 2 = 4 and this is true regardless of any motive I might have to
reason it through, to claim it, or even a motive to deliberately
misunderstand its actual basis. (One can claim something that is true
and valid, and still fail to understand it.) Nonetheless our motives
for seeking tenability are irrelevant to the argument's tenability.
It is a noble effort to desire wisdom. Such a desire would tend toward
an affirmation of "an aspect of the natural universe," which would
then require a name with which to distinguish itself: if it involved
an exalted human sensation consequent of a unique human perspective,
what would we name it? If certain air-vibrations existed as stimuli
aiding this honest sensation, and if such could not be removed from
the equation, why would those air-vibrations need to change, and not
the human perspective of them? ...
... and weigh the wisdom or foolishness of a given belief by how much
power it gives over the masses.
If a given false belief has more power over the masses than another
false belief, then it poses a greater danger ... and thus, its degree
of power would be considered in a strategy to neutralize its potential
harm. To some extent this does "weigh the wisdom and foolishness of a
given belief," and as such it would be included in the debate. Such a
"weighing" however would not be the object of the task. It would be
more accurate to say that the object is to weigh the wisdom or
foolishness of our current STRATEGIES ... and even weigh the
consequences of failing to put together a strategy consistent with
what we know about animal behavior.
Do you think an understanding of the world is worthless?
This is another misrepresentation. What in my text suggests that
understanding the world is worthless? The entire strategy exists as a
tribute to the unrelenting power of material universe and the
usefulness of the mechanical view in the promotion of individual
thinkers.
Would you keep mankind in the stone age because it's easier to keep
ignorant, poor, and/or superstitious people contained in a compliant
herd than it is for educated, wealthy, and/or rational people?
Please demonstrate how I have asserted this.
Matt Berry
~ Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions
must constantly rearrange themselves. The search for truth begins
with fearless questions. The answers arrive accordingly.
http://www.thecaseagainstatheism.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: I disregarded the possibility |
08 Oct 2003 09:18:50 AM |
|
|
On 08 Oct 2003, (exaltedsuffering) screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:f7a8a831.0310080149.11865afb@posting.google.com:
You completely disregard the possibility that one might be an atheist
out of a desire to understand what is true, and weigh the wisdom or
foolishness of a given belief by how much power it gives over the
masses.
I do disregard that possibility, as I have also disregarded an
infinite number of other possibilities, positive and negative. I
confess that I sometimes disregard comments irrelevant to my line of
reasoning. So if you mean by "disregard" that an atheist's "desire to
understand" has nothing to do with my post, then I agree ... but in
agreeing we are also begging the question of the relevancy of your
charge. The motives of the genuine atheist in seeking out or holding
to reason are irrelevant to the use of a herd stimulus in a herd
strategy. The atheist's motives and his reasoning belong to a
different discipline than that of political expediency.
Your doctrine of "political expediency" and how you might best use lies
and half-truths and deceptive worldviews to mold the masses into the
form you'd like them to be in is, at best, something you should hide as
an embarassing secret.
Your conciliating words about having respect for a desire for wisdom
betray a desire to placate me, to say, yes, yes, we understand you and
respect you. All you have to do is fall right into line and you'll find
all the respect you want. You are patronizing me, playing down my
objections, hoping that I will find you reasonable and be as easily
deceived as the masses you are targeting.
Even those you look to for sympathy for your goals you merely see as
pawns. Useful, but still pawns. Any deceitful worldview and political
"expedient" needs its fanatics, those who believe it with all their
hearts and think they are doing nothing but good. These fanatics must
be intelligent enough to be convincing, but foolish enough to believe
what they are fed. A true believer is always more convincing than a
deceitful plotter, and thus the true believers provide a front for the
plotters. In this way the worldview can spread almost innocently --
true believers to true believers. All that is necessary is a first
spark -- which is how I believe you see yourself -- to start the
reaction.
You may even think yourself a believer, but are nevertheless hungry for
power and willing to lie blatantly to gain that power.
And in fact, atheism itself "completely disregards the possibility
that one might be an atheist out of a desire to understand what is
true" -- such is irrelevant to the premises and conclusion of atheism.
Atheism is the result of a lack of sufficient evidence to support
the definition of a supernatural God. Any motives I might have in
reaching this conclusion are irrelevant to its tenability. The "desire
to understand what is true" is a worthy motive toward a life
well-lived; it is not however subsumed within the argument of atheism.
2 + 2 = 4 and this is true regardless of any motive I might have to
reason it through, to claim it, or even a motive to deliberately
misunderstand its actual basis. (One can claim something that is true
and valid, and still fail to understand it.) Nonetheless our motives
for seeking tenability are irrelevant to the argument's tenability.
It is a noble effort to desire wisdom. Such a desire would tend toward
an affirmation of "an aspect of the natural universe," which would
then require a name with which to distinguish itself: if it involved
an exalted human sensation consequent of a unique human perspective,
what would we name it? If certain air-vibrations existed as stimuli
aiding this honest sensation, and if such could not be removed from
the equation, why would those air-vibrations need to change, and not
the human perspective of them? ...
... and weigh the wisdom or foolishness of a given belief by how much
power it gives over the masses.
If a given false belief has more power over the masses than another
false belief, then it poses a greater danger ... and thus, its degree
of power would be considered in a strategy to neutralize its potential
harm. To some extent this does "weigh the wisdom and foolishness of a
given belief," and as such it would be included in the debate. Such a
"weighing" however would not be the object of the task. It would be
more accurate to say that the object is to weigh the wisdom or
foolishness of our current STRATEGIES ... and even weigh the
consequences of failing to put together a strategy consistent with
what we know about animal behavior.
That is, to control to mindless animal masses.
Do you think an understanding of the world is worthless?
This is another misrepresentation. What in my text suggests that
understanding the world is worthless? The entire strategy exists as a
tribute to the unrelenting power of material universe and the
usefulness of the mechanical view in the promotion of individual
thinkers.
More conciliating platitudes. Who do you think you are fooling?
Would you keep mankind in the stone age because it's easier to keep
ignorant, poor, and/or superstitious people contained in a compliant
herd than it is for educated, wealthy, and/or rational people?
Please demonstrate how I have asserted this.
You haven't; however, it could easily be argued that to keep mankind in
the stone age would advance your goals, and so I ask, if you agreed with
that analysis, would you do it?
Here's a case against atheism for you: GO ***** YOURSELF.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew" |
|
| Title: Re: I disregarded the possibility |
08 Oct 2003 05:35:49 AM |
|
|
it easy to keep the wealthy in a heard ignorant etc it was we have a middle
class. to do the thinking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: A first premise in a case against atheism |
17 Sep 2003 01:08:04 PM |
|
|
at news:f7a8a831.0309170017.779580a2@posting.google.com
exaltedsuffering@yahoo.com (exaltedsuffering) wrote in
news:f7a8a831.0309170017.779580a2@posting.google.com:
On the Urgency of Pantheism
<snip>
http://thecaseagainstatheism.blogspot.com
Let summarize:
- people are sheeps that need to be herded.
- There are more then one herds.
- the biggest herd is xtianity (in the us)
- within the xtianity there are control mechanism to influence people in a
good way.
- It is better that there is only one herd, the biggest herd
=> xtianity is good => atheism is bad => god exists.
Well i do not agree.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
