On Atheism (3)

The asymmetry of atheism
1/ The first thread was around the idea that atheists have a natural animosity to figurative speech. It seems they generally detest metaphors & any indirect way of approaching the Truth. In this Thread we have an explicit confirmation.

2/ Atheists’ antipathy for any indirect way to explore the Truth is reflected on how they use terms like “evidence”. “Show me evidence for God” is supposed to be a new argument that took humanity 3000 years to develop? And what consists evidence? A digital photo of His Throne?

3/ Hypothesis: Atheism = literalism = detest of indirect & figurative thinking. To fight against religious literalism (can’t get metaphors) → atheists develop anti-religious literalism (still can’t get metaphors). They fight fire with fire.

4/ Yuval Noah Harari just confirmed the hypothesis. Harari (atheist): “As historian I kind of developed a HORROR for METAPHORS because they have been solidified & reified”.

5/ N. Portman: why do you think LITERALISM is more helpful for you? Yuval Noah Harari (atheist): being able to observe reality as it is, to tell the difference between what is REAL and what is just stories, fictions & METAPHORS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ledJBbRfH8g&feature=youtu.be&t=815

6/ That’s why it is easy for a dogmatic atheist to debate a religious fundamentalist, since they both use the same rigid definitions (e.g. faith = blind faith) & read the Bible the same way: literalism. Ironically, it’s exactly what the Bible condemns (pharisaism).

7/ The dogmatic examples that Harari mentions belong to what Christian theologians consider idolatry. Idolatry: taking abstract notions (e.g. God) & reify them into solid materials. Those who need material representation can’t “believe” or “see” Truth in the abstract.

8/ For example, who considers a cast of Priests as a literal “representatives of God” or “representatives of religion”? Two types of people: atheists & religious dogmatics. Jesus had no problem separating the material manifestation of a doctrine (Priests) with the doctrine (God).

9/ Atheist literature is in a state of sin, not as alternative view of reality but as a distortion that:
– lacks consistency (symmetry)
– lacks self-reflection (symmetry)
Dogmatic/atheist literalism is always ASYMMETRICAL, tailored against *others*.

10/ Harari, total hypocrite, admits he sells books by telling stories that “change reality”, since humans need stories. He has a “horror for metaphors”, but makes a living by selling BS speculations and metaphors on undocumented human prehistory (assumptions with zero facts).

11/ Harari also claims we have to create new stories & metaphors to promote awareness for issues like… climate change. And it’s exactly what the Pope, in 2019, is also trying to do. With all-knowing Cardinals trying to educate the pleb with the Truth.

12/ Hypocrisy = Asymmetry
While the theologically-inclined are organically open to discuss “conspiracy theories” about possible antichrists (puppet masters) of this earth, atheists ridicule this tendency as being nonfactual, religious, conservative, conspiracist.

13/ Asymmetry 1: Until it’s time for atheists to promote their own crazy conspiracy theories on how religion controlled everything in the past and it’s still the #1 problem we have to tackle (you know the story) while atheism brings the best out of people.

14/ Asymmetry 2: in 2019, Harari still believes the #1 threat comes from “religious thinking” and not, let’s say, the crazy liberals. The teachings of Jesus are represented by what institution exactly? The Parliament? The banks? The Universities? By Who?
By -virtually- nobody.

15/ Asymmetry 3: atheists typically read history by listing examples of religious dogmatism. Typically they compare actions of ILLITERATE believers w/ a LITERATE secular atheists. They almost NEVER compare actions by people from same socio-economic background. ( cont >>)

16 / So, they don’t compare peasants w/ peasants. They don’t compare educated w/ educated, rulers w/ rulers etc. e.g.: Byzantium introduced 1st Christian Emperor (religious “dogmatism” etc.) But in Rome, we have 1st LGBT activist Emperor to compare with, his name was Nero.

17/ When it comes to notions, atheists compare [modern] scientists w/ [ancient] peasants, not w/ scientists & logicians.
➤The notion of δημιουργoς (Creator) was examined by Plato / Aristotle centuries before the gospels
➤The concepts of physics & soul have same origin: Thales


Source

On Atheism (2)

There is a profound childish simplicity in atheistic book titles, and I don’t think it’s just marketing. Looks like a mindset with innate lack of literary wealth. They seem repelled by figures of speech & metaphors. They seem contained in a safe set of buzzwords & platitudes.

Let’s compare with some religious Christian material that come up in Amazon #1 page The Armor of God (metaphor) The Language of God (metaphor) Let there be light (metaphor) Their eyes were watching God (metaphor) … Not all, but a whole lot of christian literature is like this.

This was inspired by another atheist scholar I just discovered: P. Boghossian. Being curious of his ideas, I found out his most influential work is: Socratic pedagogy, Critical Thinking, Moral Reasoning…. he could add Reason, Enlightenment…. Same platitudes, same buzzwords.

Francis Bacon (founder of modern scientific method) noticed that atheism is a byproduct of “little philosophy”. Maybe it’s more than that: a serious literacy/linguistics challenge. An incapacity to detect ANY indirect type of Truth in ANY figurative (indirect) type of speech.

For those who still don’t get it. Let’s use an another example: @nntaleb published an excellent book, “SKIN IN THE GAME”. A figurative title consolidates a background in probability & statistics. He didn’t name it “Enlightened Reason & Science of Risks in Humanism” (Pinker-like).

Of course, there is one notable exception, which I find distasteful. Atheists often try to appropriate strong religious symbolism. “The better ANGELS of our nature”, “the FOUR HORSEMEN of atheism” etc. As low as feminists trying to appropriate James Bond.

Now, let’s do an atheistic book title generator Poison (Hitchens), Delusion (Dawkins), Lying (Harris) or simply… Bad (Offit) + God or Faith or Religion Add some Science / Reason / Enlightenment. Extra points: Moral, Critical, free will Super extra: Cosmic, Universe, Humanism


Source

On Atheism

The atheist community proved to be the most toxic proponent of BLIND TRUST & UNCRITICAL ACCEPTANCE OF AUTHORITY in the name of science. There is not a single mental trap atheist soldiers didn’t fall into giving a hint why atheism contributed nothing to our civilisation.

Dawkins, the famous atheist biologist, is maybe the most important impediment that slows down research in biology, by waging a war against systems biology, playing w/ political & media powerhouse dominating national-level textbooks & curriculums. It’s the disgrace of science.

When atheists talk about history, they make communists look like Saints. They criticise Christianity as synonym of “astrology” that “slows down science” while Byzantines where the FIRST civilisation that BANNED astrology & BANNED theology from higher education (pandidakterion).

Tim O’Neill, an atheist himself, does an amazing job exposing the ignorance & stupidity populated by the major atheist celebrities. We’re not talking about a couple of mistakes here or there, but their core understanding of history, totally BS.

Atheists now use their toxic platform to construct “scientific” arguments against Brexit and Trump. So… apparently… “facts” and “science” show that Trump supporters are idiots, victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Stephen Fry voiced over a lecture supporting, among other things, the “scientific fact” that immigration decreases the crime rate (!). Bypassing that LEGAL immigration is NOT the same as ILLEGAL, tribalism & pedophilia are among the imported elements.

This reminds me of another peak of Fry’s ignorance, claiming he would prefer the “greek version” of God. With obviously no clue that the Jews didn’t believe in the afterlife judgement… it was the Greeks that did! (From Homer to Apology of Plato). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

And this also reminds me of another documentary made by Fry on the issue of depression, promoting the scientific usage of LITHIUM. Of f***ing lithium! Cause that’s what *scientists* told him. Nothing about curcumine, nothing on saffron, nothing on caffein/l-theanine or exercise.

Note: the idea of PRISON, instead of death penalty, was a Christian institution of Canon Law of the middle ages. The Higher Court (Parlement de Paris) created La Tournelle (1436) judging criminal law WITHOUT clergymen. Why? To reinstitute death sentence!

That’s why Montesquieu, although critical of Catholic institution, declared in the “Spirit of the Laws” (1748) that Christian religion overall inspires humanity in western laws. This level of humanity, historically, is NOT found in atheistic & rationalistic regimes.


Comments
By using the idea that pedophilia is imported, you are influencing readers in thinking that “these foreign people” are inherently (gut reaction). But the sin you criticize is unfortunately universal, isn’t it?
Everything that I write has a context. All great ancient philosophers lived as immigrants. I’m not going around randomly accusing immigrants. But let’s not pretend a huge problem doesn’t exist. Official child-adult marriages is an “immigrated” problem.


It can be an “immigrated” problem in some polities such as Sweden. But it’s not in the USA where it is legal in most states. I will agree to say that it can be, but it’s not “always” a problem enabled by lax atheists. It’s not foolish to say Christian Americans are at fault too
Just for clarification, in this thread I’m not against all atheists (I praised one in particular). I’m against western atheist intellectuals (aka atheistic scholarship). It is unique. It is unparalleled. Haven’t found any other domain filled – almost exclusively – with ignorance.

In other words, a christian / muslim / jewish author may advocate their religion, spirituality, culture, and it can be a golden treasure. Or trash. But I’ve never seen an atheist writing on atheism, without butchering history, logic, or science (not always in that order).

Source