Friday, August 15, 2014

The problems with Atheism

[8-26-14: I should have mentioned before that the above video is a Polytheists reaction to an Atheist (Richard Dawkins). A point of view which I haven't seen a lot of; from YouTuber OtherGonzo.]

You may have seen them, perhaps on YouTube. Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, the late George Carlin, "the Amazing Atheist," and others. They seem to have it all figured out, “religion is the problem with the world.” They have an answer for everything. “Christianity is immoral,” “Mother Theresa did more harm than good," etc.; they’ve obviously done a lot of thinking. Denouncing all religion as make-believe, they proclaim that they are “of science,” and that it’s time for mankind to let go of all fairy tales and progress as a species into the future... into "the age of reason." But is it really all just that simple?

First off, if the powers-that-be wanted to put the screw to them, they could be marginalized overnight. Therefore they certainly have some degree of system approval. In other words, they are politically-correct. That fact doesn’t intrinsically ruin their argument, but it should at least diminish the smugness of a Sam Harris… who really gets a kick out’ve himself as he bucks the system with his brand of wit, humor, and intellect. In reality, he or Bill Maher are not “bucking the system.” Atheism, if not popular, is system approved… and becoming more so all the time. Because of this approval, they are on the rise. Without this approval, they would be just another small faint marginalized voice trying to be heard, no matter how right or wrong they may be.

Atheists often declare that they are “of science.” What science? That’s like someone saying that they are “of religion,” “of politics,” or “of economics.” Because I have not yet heard them clarify this point, I must assume that they are “of mainstream Western science.” The “science” that—upon discovering fossils, ruins, and artifacts which cannot be placed into their established doctrines—hides them away in secret warehouses so nobody can see them. Hidden away by ego-driven careerists so they don’t have to admit that they were wrong all along. At least closed-minded religious zealots don’t hide evidence as a matter of policy!

Is an archeological dig all that different from a crime scene? In both, evidence must be carefully gathered and sifted through to find the truth. The one big difference is that in a crime scene, someone can be arrested and indicted for being caught hiding evidence! In mainstream Western science, however, this practice is considered okay. On top of this undefined “of science” logic problem for Atheists, they do ignore evidence as we will see. In this regard, Sam Harris has a lot in common with John Hagee.

Atheists seem to judge all religions or spiritual traditions upon the “Abrahamic standard.” In other words, they’re angry at Christians and Muslims, and they help mask over it by attacking every religion or spiritual tradition in the world. Abrahamic religions are not Earth-based—not “of the world”--and don’t share the scientific compatibility that most Earth-based spiritual traditions do. When Matt Dillahunty wants to express his anger for his father for cutting off all ties with him for not being a Christian… part of that expression is to attack Buddhists. Isn’t there just something inherently wrong about that? To me, that’s even worse than what his father did to him!

If these people are “of science,” why do they punish (belittle, mock, humiliate, etc.) ancient spiritual traditions which are highly compatible with “scientific progress?” In fact, these traditions have helped advance it over the ages. Isn’t there something illogical—dare I say evil--about attacking someone who is part of the apparent dynamic that you proclaim to be a proponent of? “Atheism” is often not only a word for people who are “not Theist,” but it can be a cold, blunt, and bloodless way of viewing the world... or science… because the real truth is that we most often don’t know the secrets of the universe!

Matt Dillahunty seems to generally be a nicer person than John Hagee, who I just saw on TV the other day standing on top of a building in Jerusalem proclaiming that the Chinese army will be invading Israel from the east in a couple of years in the Battle of Armageddon, etc., etc. However, even Hagee doesn’t resort to the foul-mouthed displays which Dillahunty conducts when he’s frustrated with someone who disagrees with him. Just for the record, Chuck Missler and Michael Newdow are two examples of a Christian and Atheist who are very reasonable. Also, just for the record, the YouTube Atheist "Cult of Dusty" makes some good arguments; however, he would be much more effective if every other word out've his mouth wasn't a four-letter word. Clearly the positive trend of using "alternative f-words" instead of THE F-word hasn't reached him yet.

Another problem is that for some peoples around the world, their religion or spiritual tradition IS their culture! I know, that’s a gray area sometimes, but many times they are of a benevolent and folk-based nature. What is “the culture” of Atheists? Ever hear of “Atheist music?” I know, that can also be a gray area, and perhaps we can all at least agree that Atheism is not “a culture.” Still, that brings up another problem… a non-culture attacking a culture? Even with Christianity and Islam aside, the non-culture of Atheism attacking people who actually have a culture… doesn’t that strike you as something based in jealousy? If not, why don’t they only focus on those who actually condemn them? Perhaps if they actually had "a culture" of their own, they might not have so much time on their hands to attack others so much? How can a non-culture have get-togethers? A non-demograhic demographic?

As I have stated in other posts, the true purpose of the coming Christian vs. Atheist conflict in our society, is to prevent the scientific study of Metaphysics. There is a Mount Everest of proof of a Metaphysical world! It can be measured, recorded, and tied to clear patterns using scientific method. Personally, I am infinitely more impressed with the American Society for Psychical Research than I am for the Freedom from Religion Foundation. In reality, one conducts non-biased research of Metaphysical science; and the other has an absolute vested interest in opposing any study of this most important science… even though they claim to be “of science.” How can anyone be “of science” if they’re opposing the mere study of a particular branch of science for political purposes? That's intellectual dishonesty as well. Matt Dillahunty likes to say to Christians, “the burden of proof is on you,” yet why don’t Atheists actually look at the huge amount of metaphysical evidence rather than giggle at Christian mythology? No evidence!? Where have you been!!??

Most spiritual traditions don’t operate anything like “organized religion,” yet Atheists treat them the same as the massive Christian or Muslim movements around the world. I would have much more respect for any folk-tradition—dare I say true-diversity—than I do for monocultural organizations like the Atheistic Universal Life Church, which opposes true-diversity. Atheists, like many Christians and Muslims, oppose any true-diversity.

A few well-known scientists have given their name to Atheism in recent years. However, virtually none of those individuals ever actually invented anything. They are what I would consider people who have great memorizational ability, but not truly great minds. They’re the types of people who literally hide away archeology in storage rooms because it doesn’t fit their established model of the world… and then call that “science.” Religion is not “the problem with the world.” The cause and effect from the symbiotic-relationship between closed-minded religion and closed-minded science is really the problem.

Metaphysical science should be studied without any prejudice—from Deist, Theist, or Atheist—in all scientific, corporate, and academic institutions. Consciously or unconsciously, “organized religion vs. Atheism” is the Hegelian dialect construct which is blocking the advancement of the human species.


8-26-14 ADDITION - Recently I left a comment in response to an Atheist to a Christopher Hitchens video which I wanted to add here:

Perhaps a welcome "slant" to counterbalance the slant that we get the other 99.7% of the time. A "slant" nevertheless. He said a few things which were not true. He stated at the end that "all religions" placed shame upon sexuality. Stunningly, wildly, breathtakingly untrue. Abrahamic religion has spent the last two thousand years stamping out every earth and fertility based native spiritual tradition.... and now as an added bonus for centuries of mass murder and genocide, the victims are expected to be judged by Abrahamic principles? "Abrahamic religion vs. Atheism" is a Hegelian dialectic by which both sides play as "thesis" against "antithesis." They're not opposites, but opposames... both at war with free thought.. and opposing even the mere study of metaphysical science while at the same time falsely claiming to embrace science. Atheism is not free thought! A true free thinker is a complex thinker who continuously listens to all evidence and continuously integrates new knowledge from all sources without prejudice. Atheists have a vested interest (aka "DOGMA") to silencing anything to do with metaphysics. That is absolutely NOT free-thought.


No comments:

Post a Comment