Monday, September 21, 2009

More Orwellian Atheist Use of Language

Photobucket




I have noted the Orwellian nature of atheist language. For atheists reading this, Orwell (George Orwell) was a great writer who specialized political language. One of his greatest achievements was to write an essay which one of the best ever written on the use of language in political ideology: "Politics and the English Language," written in 146. In that great work he reminds us that:

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.


Never was this so true than in dealing with atheists. In the way atheist are beginning to use speech we can see all tricks Orwell talked about. Of course most of these internet atheists have not read Animal Farm or 1984 so they have no idea. But in their use of certain words they disguise totalitarian leanings one would never suspect. The totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union refereed to their political dissidents as "mentally ill" and kept putting in mental institutions becuase they felt rejecting the worker's paradise must surely be a form of mental illness.

I've already written about how the atheists use term "delusion." They actually don't use it to mean mental illness. They use the term to merely mean "a wrong idea." But in using a term that everyone knows means a false construct which results from mental illness they are actually calling religious people mentally ill without having to admit that they are doing it. It's like if they said religious people are stupid. The religious person objects but they said "it's a special form of the word that doesn't mean really not bright," bu then they keep saying it. We would get the idea. It's like insulting people who plausible deniable. why use a special term such as this just to mean "this is idea is wrong?" obviously it's mean Otto carry a connotation. Now consider the dangers of labeling as mentally ill any hone who happens to disagree with your point of view. Atheism as a whole is become more totalitarian all the time and they can't see it because they are so addicted to the charge they get from feeling superior.

Here's the latest example of the Orwellian tendencies. They Dawkies use the term "cult" in relation to all religious belief and groups. Of course they have no knowledge of the true sociological meaning of the term. They think all cults are imposing their will upon brain washed lackies whose live they take over and ruin. An example is the posting by a CARM Dawkie named "Toast"



The title of the therad:" a few questions about cults" so he's just equating religion with cults.

If no one ever told you about your god you would still believe?

if so, would your belief mirror the one you have been indoctrinated into?

if you still would believe even if know one told you these things to
believe would you not just be making things up?


He's trying to say that because you can't come to the same conclusions you do as a Christain on your own with no Bible and no church to guide you then it must be a cult because it's others imposing their will.


another post by Toast:

sorry but everything...a religion is a cult



This is also the same tendency. Everything the other guys value we disvalue so every term they use we must re-think impose our own terms. We can't allow them to name their own things, such as "chruch" we must name them and stick them whit the connotations of our own interpretation. So thus Churches become cults. The irony meter is gong to blaring in a moment.

The really alarming tendency is the almost blatant admittion that ideas which don't stack up the atheist ideology are "dangerous" and must be controlled. This statement was made on CARM sept 21 2009 by "Mountaineer Elf.







Because some ideas can be dangerous. Not all ideas deserve to be heard if they are dangerous.

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.



The context he's speaking of is an argument for the existence of God. The idea that a new concept or some concept that he doesn't agree with is "usurping scinece" is quite alarming. What's worse is he's not content for scinece to stay in its own domain it must conquer all and control all reality. Science when is arguemnts for God usurping scinece? That can only be the case if he thinks that science proper domain is dictating to use that we can't believe in God. It's even worse that equates science with reality. His view is so totalizing that it must control all, there can be nothing in existence that is not controlled by his view point.

In defending this other atheoids literally said "O he didn't mean it that way and you know it." How do we know it? How could he mean it in any other way? In what way could God arguments userp scinece and reality without the idea that science is all reality?

Here's the Orwellian rub. In animal farm the Pigs control the farm. There's a revolution the animals have overthrown the farmer and changed the name of the Farm to "animal farm" they are in charge. The pigs are the leaders, they keep putting up posters with slogans telling the other animals what it's all about. But they keep changing the messages until they come around to mean the exact opposite of what they did at first This is the way totalitarians use language, according to Orwell.

(for a synopsis of the book go here)

Atheist used to call themselves "free thinkers." They wanted us to believe that they were just sticking for the rights of us all to think anything we think and believe anything we believe. Now they begin to define believing things that contradict their ideology ad "delusion" and "usurping reality." When I pointed this out Mountaineer Elf redefined the nature of free thinking:


then:

True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.


This is so Orwellian everyone need to see this. He's narrowed the definitive of free thinking to the point where it includes his ideology and nothing more. So free thinkers are people who agree with me. Scientists. The true free thinkers agree with me and nothing more.

But wait he's not done. It get's worse. he goes one better:



The rest of your anti-free thought rant snipped - not worth responding to insults. If you want a discussion, I'm more than willing to discuss. If you want to hurl insults, I can just go back to the Evolution/ID forum and have Creationists assume that I'm stupid for not buying into talking snakes, magic trees, and global floods.



now he defines opposing his form of totalitarianism is "anti-free thinking." This is just like the communists. If you are dissident you are mentally ill and sanity is defined as obeying the state. If you point out that he's against free thought hen you are anti-free thought because free thought has now been reduced to nothing more than agreement with him. To disagree with him is opposes free thought. So the person who thinks we should all have the right to think for ourselves is now anti-free thought and one who thinks we have to control everything that is not in agreement with the ideology is now the free thinker! Black and just become white, as Orwell said. That is exactly what Orwell said political language does. read it again:



"Political Language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.."

Then his cohorts carry it a step further and if you dissent from this truth regeime of the atheists then you are a danger to humanity:


May brick


So Metacrock would be happy for children to be taught that HIV is spread through vaccines and that condoms offer no protection?


You can't get more Orwellian than this. This is exactly right out of 1984 where the state has the right to imposes that dissents must must accept their view of reality even by forcing them to admit something such as 2 + 2 = 5. In forcing them to accept something categorically and fundamentally believe to be totally wrong they are eliminating their ability to ever think independently. That is exactly what's happened to many of these atheists and what they are trying to do to religious people.

In brow beating, intimidating, by mocking and ridiculing people they force them to de-convert and in so doing they force them to alter their most based and cherished beliefs and the fundamental understanding they have of who they are and what reality is. there is nothing more hinus one can do to another person. that is on a par with murder and If thought like they do I should start calling them murderers.

I'm sure they will come back and say they can't force anyone to deconvert against their will, that doesn't stop them from trying and it means they are shutting down reason and thought in discourse, they shut down reasoned discussion and reduce the whole situation to a political escapade. Perhaps this means they are not quite as bad as I think, but only becuase they aren't successful enough in what they are trying to do.

3 comments:

Rex said...

Again, wow!

I have actually read both works that you refer to more than once each. I think that you should refer your readers to the original works and not the Cliff's Notes. That way, they can see for themselves, that all of your statements in this entry apply far more accurately to religion's language and fear of change and revisionist history generation than to the non believers'.

I think in terms of describing religion, words like delusion and cult and brain washing are appropriate.

I didn't always think that way, but the more observation I do about the religious "scientific method" (oxymoron alert!) of reading from a musty text, proclaiming it as the only truth and yelling it louder and louder has convinced me completely that people like these are truly beyond reason.

The only thing for the non believers to do now is organize and bide our time until we are a political force that carries more voter weight than any of the religious cults, and then systematically remove their influence from an enlightened peaceful secular society. That is not to say that you can't keep your delusions, or that you can't continue to indoctrinate your children, but those irrational functions will be taking place only in your homes and churches, and not in our legal system, or schools or public life.

Get ready for that reality, because it is coming.

This will be my last response to your illiterate inanity. When I subscribed to this blog, it was with the idea of opening my eyes to the other side's perspective. I was hoping to gain some new insights into the opposition's viewpoints, and I was hoping to learn some things that I thought were missing from a steady stream of atheist writings and rants. Ultimately though, the non believing rants actually do a better job of illuminating opposing arguments than anything I have seen here. I guess I will continue to gather my information about this debate that way.

I don't expect to see this comment anywhere on your blog, because the one thing that I have learned from observing this debate, is that the people who have very fragile beliefs prefer to suppress an opposing viewpoint rather than discussing it.

Good luck in your efforts to sway people's hearts and minds, with your fire and brimstone and fear peddling, and remember, while your side is praying for traction in the debate, we will actually be working constructively for the secular side. We'll see who is successful.

Atheist Maximus Rex

J.L. Hinman said...

I have actually read both works that you refer to more than once each. I think that you should refer your readers to the original works and not the Cliff's Notes. That way, they can see for themselves,

good idea. I was unable to find an online text. I could have linked a Amazon book ad but they can find a book ad themselves.


that all of your statements in this entry apply far more accurately to religion's language and fear of change and revisionist history generation than to the non believers'.

That's a supercilious comment. You have no data to prove that religious people are afraid of change. You have no proof of religoius people doing this. I think they might in some cases, and all those who care about freedom of the human spirit should band together. but of course you don't care about that. you are trying to protest the ideology and you don't give a rat's ass about freedom, much less truth.




I think in terms of describing religion, words like delusion and cult and brain washing are appropriate.



Of course you do. Because you are a brain washed lackie, you are basically illiterate. The one and only thing you understand or care about is the previous little ideology "I am supiror because I love scinece and religious people are scum an dI"m better than they are." it makes you feel so good because you need to be able to put people down to put yourself up.

Normal unsick people can feel good about themselves without that. Atheists have put others down to put themselves up.


I didn't always think that way, but the more observation I do about the religious "scientific method" (oxymoron alert!) of reading from a musty text, proclaiming it as the only truth and yelling it louder and louder has convinced me completely that people like these are truly beyond reason.

but taht's basically because you are an idiot. you can't answer the arguments made to defend it and you don't care about truth anyway because it makes you feel good to put it down. But your one and only motive is to feel bigger than the persno you step on.

you hate the bible even though you know nothing about it because it makes you feel important to hate it. It's been bad mouthed by fools and ignorant little little illiterate shit holes so many times that you just built up this sense of glee from bad mouthing it.

J.L. Hinman said...

the things you say prove that you obviously are not capable of thinking. you don't care about freedom or truth all you care is about is the rush you get from pretending that you are superior to religious people.

you don't know shit about the bible.