Friday, May 18, 2012

Atheist Propagdna at work:Answering Ex Christain Net on "who is Arrogant?"

 An article by WizenedSage (Galen Rose) On Ex Christian net ~"Who is Arrogant?" from
5/13/12

 This article struck me because it employs every bad atheist cliche and it's a like a step by step playbook of the atheist ideology. It shows ever bad move philosophically, third rate logic, ridicule bad mouthing, the atheist template. It's a text book example of the athist ideology and the kind of propaganda it foments. The proper classification for this text is "propaganda." Its unimaginative, makes nothing but unsupported assertions an evokes every stereotype I've talked about.
It appears to be fashionable these days to call atheists arrogant. Over and over we read how Dawkins is arrogant, Hitchens perhaps even more so, and Sam Harris is clearly just a “know-it-all” with an attitude problem. In fact, if you read the postings on this site for a bit, you will “learn” that we un-famous atheists are arrogant, too.



My first question would be why is this person writing about which side is more arrogant? Dawkins and Harris are clearly arrogant becuase they think they don't have to know theology to call it stupid. They think they are so right they don't have to concern themselves with little details like logic or truth. I've certainly quoted enough atheists form Message boards, no one really doubts the arrogance there. Why is this such a challenging issue for this perosn? I suggest it's because WS knows that the major edifice upon which the atheist ideology rests is bravado and being snide and arrogant and belittling religious people. Now he (?) turns to the assertion that "they are  picking on us because we are unpopular. This is something atheist dred wth horror. They really believe in appeal to popularity and they can't get over the fact that they are so unpopular.



Now, if expressing an unpopular opinion means that one is arrogant, then we have no defense. But, let’s look at a typical dictionary definition of the word: “Arrogant; having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited; overbearingly proud.”
 No expressing an unpopular opinion doesn't make you arrogant. Being a jerk and thinking you know it all even about things you don't even study makes you arrogant.


That part about “having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability,” catches my eye. Isn’t it Christians who claim they are god’s “saved?” Talk about “one’s own importance!” Isn’t it Christians who claim they KNOW which is the real god and what he wants from us? Mightn’t that be an exaggerated opinion of one’s abilities? I certainly wouldn’t claim the ability to identify a real god, with any certainty. So who is the arrogant one, here?



Of course this is a famous old saw of atheism. The attack on religoius people as arrogant becasue they dare to believe in salvation. If you don't down in the pit and wollow with the pigs then you are arrogant. the person who wants to be right with God must be mean and ei l and think they are better. That is so typical of poor self esteem. I've already published articles on studies showing that atheists have low self esteem and those who have negative God images first had negative self images. The person with low self esteem sees the desire to hold oneself in a positive light as arrogant. So the atheists is sensitive about arrogance and sees in the Christian belief and faith in the security of salvation because they have no such  security.

While the Christian claims he KNOWS with certainty that Bible-god is the one true god, I humbly submit that different people have claimed thousands of different gods to be the one true god, we know for certain that thousands of those were false gods, and so I have no confidence that I could do any better spotting the real god than those people did. Do you not see the difference here? The very fact that men have followed thousands of false gods convinces me that we humans are hopeless when it comes to identifying which gods are real and which are false.
Here's another thing they wont allow anyone to wonder, to investigate or to come to their own conclusions. Just the fact that Chrsitians have their own beliefs and don't accept uncritically the atheist template is grounds for reducible. Ahteists believe there's only one form of knowledge, empirical science (as long as it agrees with the atheist template, when it doesn't it's not science). So there's on form of thought that is permissible that is along the lines of the template.


But the Christian brushes all that aside, because he knows. And how does he know? Because people told him so, or he feels it, or both. The Bible tells him which is the real god, though how the Christian can tell the Bible is the real “holy” book and not one of the others, like the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc., he seems unable to explain. But, generally this doesn’t trouble him because he feels the presence of the one true god within himself. How he knows which god it is that he feels must remain a mystery.


Here we see the attempt of the atheist to evoke divide and condor. There are other religious groups than Christianity (of cousre atheism is no against them it's only a hate Christian God club). They continually try to use teh fact of other faiths as a wedge to drive doubt into the faith. How do you know those other guys aren't the true ones? Of course they have no real answer themselves. If you give them an answer they baulk because they don't care about facts they just assert on that any difference a prori invigilates Christianity. They also wont allow Chrsitians to know anything. I'm sure WizenedSage (o there's o arrogance there is there!??) would assert that I never read the Bhagavd Gita. While I would assert that WS has not read it. I have. I read it in high school the year I became an atheist myself. If the onlyk reilgion in the world was Hinduism and there were atheists rebelling agains tit they would call the Bhagavad Gita a pile of made up crap. yet they expect Christians to fear it. To be beaten by it and to laps into mistimed daze at the question "How do you know this is not true" while they themselves have no trouble assessing it as a Bull shit.

'
  Fort the record I think the Gita is very interesting and has some great features, I like it. I don't fear it and I don't worry that it might be true faith. Having interesting features don't make it the true faith.

Now we come to the real hatred of William Lane Craig this one fo the atheist cardinal rules. Thou shalt bad mouth Craig.


William Lane Craig speaks of the “self-verification” of the Holy Ghost within himself being sufficient proof of god for him, and most Christians would buy this. Call me a nit picker, but I have a problem with anyone claiming they can feel the truth. I have first-hand experience on this issue which convinces me that these people are just fooling themselves. I once felt the presence of a god, and constantly “conversed” with this god inside my head. I no longer feel that presence. Obviously, god either exists or he doesn’t, and my feelings have never been able to prove it either way because my feelings have been on both sides of the issue. In other words, my feelings failed to prove anything. Now, who is the arrogant one? Is it Craig, who claims he can feel truth, or me, who has no confidence in his feelings as a test of truth? It seems that old adage applies here: Faith means never having to say you’re wrong.


No small wonder that this foolish person can no longer feel the presence of God. what a fool1 to know God and feel the presence of God which the greatest thing then give it up for what? third rate arguments and bad logic. bad mouthing apologists he's never read.  I have to doubt that this person had a very stong sense of God's presnce. William James says that mystical experience is on a continuum at the shallow end is very tenuous feelings. This is end this person was in exclusively. No one who went into the deep end would use as justification for giving it up such shallow regurgitation of mindless pablum. There's nothing profound here. He doubts the feelings wow! original. amazing. Of cousre he is totally unread when it comes to the sources that undersign religious experience. I have 200 studies that up the profound effects. For a quick summary of what these tell us and the God arguemnts I make from them see here, and here.


Many Christians are so arrogantly certain that they have the truth that they have no interest in studying further. Many will deny evolution, although they obviously have never read anything on evolution that wasn’t written by creationists.

This is just more badmouthing. Atheist have to believe that Christians don't study. who has the 200 stuies? them or me? who went to the trouble to research them? I did. not them not the atheist they are content to lave the thinking at the surface and assert that experiences don't mean anything. I'm the one who did the research and forged ahead and found the empirical basis for God arguments.


Also, home schooling is apparently on the rise in America today. Why? Because many Christian parents don’t want their children exposed to unapproved information. Christian parents and preachers seem to be insisting that what people “knew” 2,000 years ago is more important than anything man has learned since. Most Christian congregations encourage their members to avoid marrying outside the faith, and some even frown on members even mingling with non-Christians. There is a pattern here. It appears that Christians are so sure they have the truth that they often actively avoid gaining further information. It seems to me that if one truly wants to find the truth, the real truth, then he should follow the path containing the MOST information. Isn’t this obvious?
Then the author throws in a bit of irrelevant bombast about home schooling of all things. Obviously WS was from a fundie background and has been traumatized by fudies. It's mostly fundies that home school. My concept is neighborhood schooling. I would have them in homes the city would pay for real teachers and group kids by their neighborhood have small classes of 10 or so. but who cares? what does this have to do Christians being arrogant? He's gonna find a way to make it look arrogant.



I find that most of the atheists I know are hungry for information. A great many are science enthusiasts and are well read in world history. Tellingly, many atheists are also surprisingly conversant in theology. Now who are the arrogant ones? Are those who are constantly seeking more information and revising their opinions really the arrogant ones? That was a rhetorical question – no answer necessary.
o yea they are so hungry for information tehy screen all source of knowledge that don't support their views. They know so much about science but only the science they can use. they bad mouth my 200 studies and have said all manor of stupid things against them. the one they have not done (apart from reading one) is to actually make a valid methodological attack. This becuase the scinece worshipers are lousy scientists. A lot of science types are actually ghettoized by their own fields they don't know much about things outside their fails. most atheist are really controlled by others in their tinging.they are brain washed to think knowledge is a narrow line of only empirical scientific facts that agree with them.


let me be clear I am not a creationist! I 'm not talking about that. They don't like social scinece because that often backs up the value of religion. They don't like anthropology for the same reason. Science gives a bunch of disconnected facts about the psychical world. It's easy to hear that without having one's world view challenged especially if that world view is materialist. It's easy to imagine on has a great fortress of facts backing up one's few just in terms of evolution, which they mistaken take to be a refutation of God.


So, Christians are convinced they have the truth because they have been told this (by the Bible, preachers, parents, etc.), or they feel it, or both, while atheists suspect there is no god. Now, I don’t know of any atheists who think they can prove there is no god. They merely believe that gods are extremely unlikely, like dragons are unlikely, and so they don’t believe in them.
Having beliefs is what makes for arrogance, and they want to pretend "we don't have beliefs we have facts." That's just the propagandist aspect of the fortress of facts. The truth is scinece doesn't prove things. (see Karl Popper).



For myself, I don’t believe in gods because I know I cannot trust my feelings to identify the truth, and I don’t know why I should be able to tell a real god when I see one, any more than those millions throughout history who have worshipped thousands of false gods. Did I say, “when I see one?” Yes, and I meant to say that, for that is exactly the problem, you see. All gods are invisible. How convenient.
What can be made of the fear of personal feelings? Most atheists have this few of them are so forthcoming about it. It's like saying "I am a sinner help me  I can't trust myself." This is one of the first steps in being brain washed. When people are brain wahsed they are made to feel that they can't trust thesmelves or their own judgement so they must rely on the leader or the group to tell them what to think. This si very rue of atheist. The most amazingly huge joke is the world world is attaching the label of "free thinker" so the atheist slaves. They are s free in their thinking as moonies. This fear of feelings works by a dichotomy of psychology. They cut the human experience in half and say "the feeling part is wrong and bad and can't be trusted, but the intellectual pat is good." the reason is because they are pumping them up with false bravado by giving them a bully rush form mocking and ridiculing the opponents. they feel big, improtant, and powerful so they confuse that with feeling wise and and smart and learned. In reality this is more of an emotional response than is the feelings of God's presence. The sensitive nature of feelings presence is not emotion. It's sensitivity to a form of cognition not well understood. The feeling of being somebody because we can bully others is an emotion feeling, not a learning or intellectual feeling it invovles no intellectuality.




Atheists actually scoff at intellectuality because it often invovles more than must empirical science. They can't accept anything else as knowledge. To them literature, art, philosophy is just 'making stuff up."



In the last paragraph WS asserts that he is not arrgoant. If you are not arrogant what else woudl you ay but:


It is because I am NOT arrogant that I make this proposal. It is because I recognize that I cannot prove whether there is or isn’t a god. Think about it: why in hell should we humans suffer, generation after generation, for our gullibility - simply because some god can’t or won’t prove that he exists such that we can all agree on it? 

 This is the essence of arrogance. This person is pretending that He/she is somehow in possession of enough learning to understand a connection between belief in God and human suffering no one else sees. I don't see any reason why belief in God makes people suffer. I don't see how not believing would elevate suffering. It didn't wore the people under the rule of Mao or Pol Pot. The phrase "why the hell should we humans suffer...simply because some God wont prove that he exits." How does this follow? People suffer becuase they prove God exits? Or is it because they believe in God? How would God making himself known beyond a doubt make people stop suffering? The implication is that it's due gullibility. I don't really know how that works. I don't understand why the almost universal belief that God is proved (most people believe) doesn't stop it if God's discourse of himself would.

 then he whines which I think is  a sure sign of arrogance:

This is a lousy, unfair deal, and we should simply refuse it. And what kind of perverse, arrogant god would fault us for refusing to beat each other up over gods any longer, while he refuses to prove decisively that he exists?
 What is a lousy deal? What would refusing to believe in God do to stop suffering? or will it teach god a lesson? so the God isn't there can be blackmailed into stopping the pain if we refuse to believe? Could atheists really be that convoluted? How does God fault us for  refusing to beat each other up? It seems t me it's the opposite. God doesn't want to beat each other up, and says so. So how are we suffering for that? Why imagine God is faulting us for it?

This article is typical of the atheist template. It asserts a lot of things as religious beliefs that most religious people don't' believe. It tries to blame religion for everything. It displays jealousy and arrogance and pride and hatred masked as a quai thoughtful lip service to love of learning.






14 comments:

RealitysSnitch said...

"It's a text book example of the athist ideology and the kind of propaganda it foments. The proper classification for this text is "propaganda." Its unimaginative, makes nothing but unsupported assertions an evokes every stereotype I've talked about" -Metacrock

Know why athiest logic is so inimaginative? because its based on fact. Facts can not change. In fact, facts must be proven and until that happens we call them theories. We admit we don't know, we are the free thinkers.

Metacrock said...

Meta:"It's a text book example of the athist ideology and the kind of propaganda it foments. The proper classification for this text is "propaganda." Its unimaginative, makes nothing but unsupported assertions an evokes every stereotype I've talked about" -Metacrock

Know why athiest logic is so inimaginative? because its based on fact.

NO it's no. (1) logic isn ot based upon fact. that's why there are rules of logic.

(2) atheists don't have facts tehy have propaganda.

(3) science does not prove. scinece is not a pile of facts so atheists don't have a big pile of fact they have self selected "cherry picking."


"Facts can not change."

Propagandist sound bites can be taken as fact when in reality they are actually lies. this is the atheist native language. the lie.


In fact, facts must be proven and until that happens we call them theories. We admit we don't know, we are the free thinkers.

atheists are brain washed slave thinkers. read the blog.

tjc said...

Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc. But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them. It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith. And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

Metacrock said...

I don't want to turn this blog into a battleground over evolution becuase it just means endless posting and rancker and bitterness by two sides that refuse to listen to each other.

I am an evolutionist the thing you say indite you don't undersatnd it.
do this favor for me Ok? take all next week and pretend you believe in evolution and ask yourself If I belie vein evolution how can I still be a Christian?

to if you can't figure it out remember I'm a Christian and I have no problem with evolution. If you can't see how that's possible ask me.

tjc said...

These concepts, or total world views, dictate the form and activities of any society.

These ideas are usually initiated and enforced from "the top down" - either from a religious (or) political class. This can be found to be true at almost any point in history.

Russian and Chinese communism and extremist fundamentalism are other examples. In almost all cases, some conceptual framework is accepted as truth, people are forced to accept it, and many people suffer and die. For an idea, for a concept, for a theory - which all almost never has anything to do with any verifiable reality outside of the minds of certain individuals with money and power who create, propagate, assert and enforce these ideas, concepts and theories.”
This does not justify them as sound logic any more than if I were to assert that I didn't believe that the earth was round---On the contrary we have seen the evidence that suggests otherwise and know that an argument against that conclusion is nothing more than fatuous semantics.

Really, when atheists harp on religion as the "so-called" root of our problems, they fail to realize an important aspect of our own human existence---that of our own innate fallibility, that despite the fact that we have the capacity to choose whether or not we will act a certain way, many people take advantage of that ability to perpetrate acts of violence and hatred upon others. These acts are not condoned in the original manuscripts that comprise the Christian Bible and in fact, it is the teachings of Christ that were determined necessary by God to correct the many wrong ideas people back then had about life in the first place.
An example of this was the description of how Jesus treated the homeless and leprous individuals in the first century, a time when the old Jewish laws forbade any interaction with persons of that detriment and even further required them to remain at a distance from people without the disease. Jesus is described as humbly approaching such individuals.

Therefore, it is not justifiable to assert that Christianity as a whole is to blame.

tjc said...

Our history is riddled with so much political corruption and strife that its easy to see how much of a failure human ruler-ship has proven to be. Yet despite these misgivings, the majority of people in this world do share a common expectation of good.

For example, the fact that one should treat their parents with respect, that one should provide for their families, and that acts such as killing and rape are wrong and should not be committed...

But why do most people feel that way?

Has not our mere tacit approval of pushing aside a moral way of life been the exact reason why people suffer such consequences when they do happen?!

Think about it...When we were young, we may have been told by our parents that its important to look both ways when crossing a road, less we suffer a consequence of getting hit by a vehicle, yet when it comes to keeping our conscious disciplined in order to promote a joyful way of life...most succumb to the pervasive nature of doing what feels good at the moment but which may have unforeseen consequences later on.

A classic example of this would be the overindulgent use of alcohol, which if left unchecked can lead to a horrible disease that not only results in a rapid deterioration of the brain, but also robs us of the joy of living a more balanced life by simply consuming it in moderation.

It is our "perception" of things that plays a key role here, for it can undoubtedly mean the difference between us living a long and healthy life and one in which we suffer bad consequences due to our lack of discernment.

tjc said...

Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that atheist ideology is any less culpable in perpetrating evil upon the masses---It really is no different than the attitudes and animosity forced upon the African people throughout our American history.

If you want to get to the root of the problems that plague humanity in general, than good morals and principles have to be considered, otherwise we may as well continue to deteriorate under the guise of this oligarchical system, a system that ultimately seeks to control our lives by means far more invasive than one could ever imagine a life lived under Jesus Christ's ruler-ship would ever be.

Read the original manuscripts that make up the Holy writings and you will find it impossible to attribute tyranny with how Christ demonstrated himself to be and how he taught others to be.

World history proves that Jesus existed and left a marked influence on an ancient Jewish system, which ultimately cared more about selfish and vain pursuits as well as keeping quelled the common people---rather than to find common ground and learn something valuable from this historical figure, whom merely sought to bring about humility and equality to life back then...

We stand to learn much good from these teachings, if only we would apply them to our lives correctly and without hypocrisy...

tjc said...

In response to "I don't want to turn this blog into a battleground over evolution...," by Metarock, I certainly welcome a discussion on the topic as I intend to provide my analogical reasoning behind why I do not believe evolution.

This discussion does not have to be a battleground just because you say so...it would be far more appropriate on the part of both sides to present their reasons for their beliefs with an open mind, rather than to perpetuate animosity by continuing the common stereo-types which already surround this particular subject.

Really, it’s as if you are trying to say that the general public doesn't deserve to hear both sides state their case. Furthermore, it is aptly appropriate to discuss this matter within the context of this forum in as much as it certainly correlates with many atheists sentiments on the matter and can just as easily be considered a part of the propaganda being promoted on that side of the fence...

Metacrock said...

Tic you repeated the same post four times. Your other posts were repeated too the other day. I don't know what you are doing it but somehow you are repeating the same posts.

Metacrock said...

Our history is riddled with so much political corruption and strife that its easy to see how much of a failure human ruler-ship has proven to be. Yet despite these misgivings, the majority of people in this world do share a common expectation of good.

For example, the fact that one should treat their parents with respect, that one should provide for their families, and that acts such as killing and rape are wrong and should not be committed...

But why do most people feel that way?

Has not our mere tacit approval of pushing aside a moral way of life been the exact reason why people suffer such consequences when they do happen?!

Basis for the classic moral argument.

Metacrock said...

"Know why athiest logic is so inimaginative? because its based on fact. Facts can not change. In fact, facts must be proven and until that happens we call them theories. We admit we don't know, we are the free thinkers."

Atheists are no more free thinkers than communists were. Atheist are brain washed ideologues.

All ideologies claim they are based upon facts. the truth is all such systems are self selected, they exclude gobs of facts becuase they exclude anything that counts against their view. No ideological view point can be proved. you don't prove world views.

Atheism is a totalitarian truth regime. "truth regime" is postmodernisese for "ideology."

Metacrock said...

BTW that statement "our view is facts" is what I call "the fortress of facts." I've done several pieces disproving the atheist fortress of facts.

tjc said...

MetaRock thank for candidly pointing out my mistake of posting the same thread more than once I think that I just was not aware of the fact that any post automatically gets submitted once written and one has signed in.

I was initially thrown off by the fact that once I clicked the "Publish Your Comment" button, the page flashed and the comment box was then empty. Therefore I thought I had to retype my comment because I was "now" signed in, never realizing that it was already submitted once I entered my info.

Its definitely a lot different than some of the other forums I'm used to, but now I realize how to avoid this problem in the future.

Thank you...

Metacrock said...

No problem buddy. btw it's MetaCrock, it's a self deprecating name.