Wednesday, October 16, 2013

The Expanding Mission of Atheist Watch

I had seen this comment before (July 16,2012) about Atheist watch, comment Section on Danerous Idea blog where atheists were lambasting Reppert (Victor) for linking to AW and being interesting in the mission of following the hate group.



Victor Reppert said...

I linked to the blog because I think that it makes a point that I agree with in general and have made here, namely, that, under the leadership of people like Dawkins and Myers, have indulged a willingness to engage in hateful rhetoric.

 They get hung on the most petty issue:

Jeffery Jay Lowder said... Victor -- I just looked at the site. Despite its stated purpose (to "sound the alarm against" the bullying of hateful rhetoric from atheists), the scope of the site seems to go beyond that. For example, right now, the latest post is "Prayer Studies and the Echo Chamber." I didn't read anything in that blog post which alleges anything to do with hateful rhetoric by atheists. Rather, this post seems to be a run-of-the-mill response to certain atheist critiques of claims about the power of prayer. I found several other examples of articles on the site which appear to have zero to do with hateful rhetoric, but seem to be standard critiques of certain atheistic arguments.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just want to point how extremely selective the author appears to be--based on my 3 minutes of skimming the site--in terms of interacting with atheist arguments. My impression is that he spends most or all of his time interacting with the weakest arguments for atheism, but spends little or none of his time interacting with the strong arguments for atheism.
 He's criticizing me for not spewing over the hateful statements when in facts other criticize me for doing just that. Which do the want? The fact is my concept of what Atheist Watch is and what it's about has changed a lot in the few years I've been doing it. The mission has expanded from "keeping tabs on hate group atheism" to understanding atheism as a full fleedged ideology and charting the course of its true Regieme.

The step away form the old mission was in finding the psychological nature of the hate group mentality. This I did through various studies by Leslie Francis and others. This was a two part issue that can be found on the stand alone pages "best of AW." I identified and surmised by instinct, what I latter confirmed with studies. The atheist need to mock and ridicule religious belief is about their own hatred of themselves and their own rejections. Those who maintain a negative image of God are merely extending their hatred of God as an outgrowth of their self hatred. It's like "why did you make me the way I am? I hate myself, why would you make me this way? You must be bad yourself to do this."

 Those who mock and ridicule Chrsitians and who thrive in insulting religious people are in need of a ego boost that they get from the "bully rush:" the feelings  of power and importance that come from pushing others around.

Once having realized this I then began seeking to understand the ideological nature of their views. I had already began writing about the atheist propaganda machine, which I discovered form following Richard Carrier's connections in his attempt to build a new Jesus Seminar type group. One key boost to my view was the discovery of a site on my side bar, "militant atheism exposed." Even though it's a fundamentalist site they brought out some very interesting facts about the atheist propaganda machine, their legal victories which require a lot of money, and things of this nature. I had spotted for years on message boards they way they all say the the same things. I never thought it would be an organized effort do socialize them into that I thought it was just the natural result of studying the same things.

Some extraneous tid bits filled in gaps. such the world wide nature of the bill boards and the bus signs, the anti-Christmas campaign. I love Christmas anyone who messes with Christmas in in deep trouble with me. It's obvious those all tie in as money eaters and require organization. It's obvious they are drawing upon mutual support. All of that calls for organization. I began to look for connections and saw that they had a world wide propaganda machine that incorporates books publishes, magazine publishers, major legal talent, world wide organizing. In fact I had to retrain myself so as not to sound like a conspiracy. I began joking with myself about finding imprints of drawings of Thrushes on atheist books.

 All of this came together over a couple of years. I got tried of bathing in animosity and acrimony and wanted to get away from digging up negative stuff all the time. A year ago I made a decision to put up best of AW because I was finding so much good stuff I didn't want to just be lost amide the thousand other post. I have almost more posts on AW then I do on Metacrock's Blog. This blog has been been going about four years and Metacrock's blog since 2005. For a long time I would post here every day. The theory then was there are no studies of hate group atheism. I ask some hate group watch groups to cover atheism they refused. They said "when you find burned atomic symbols on your yard we'll care."

They might have a point. maybe blowing off steam on the net works as a safety value. Although it's not true that there have been no atheist attacks on chruches. There was one a couple of years ago in Dallas and an attack the other day of spray painting but I have not yet learned if it's connected to atheism. The point is the hate group aspect seems to be in a holding pattern. It may be transiting into action but if so its doing it very slowly.

I decided a year ago to put up more intellectual content and less of the usual "O look at the idiots on carm." My reason for doing that was not only to bare my soul as to the acrimony I felt from dealing with them but also because there are no studies of them. So I felt I have to document by lots of anecdotal examples.

Now the mission has changed. It's about demonstrating the contributed nature of the truth regime and the development of the ideology as it unfolds. Just the idea that they have an ideology, while practically admitted in a sense is still met with interruptions of anger at times and with incredulity always. They used to pride themselves on never admitting they had a movement. When the big split in Atheist + came down the pike every article on both sides began talking about 'the movement." It got to be pretty silly when they would say "It's not a movement" I would quote about 10 guys talking about "the movement."


They still refuse to admit it's an ideology. I'm betting that will be forced upon them too. Once you are a movement you have an ideology. A movement without an ideology is like a car without gas. So I will cahnge the mast head and yes. athiest watch is about more than just how some atheiests are hateful.

Read the rest of those comments on dangerous idea. they very telling.


12 comments:

JBsptfn said...

That's interesting that Lowder's impression was that you only interact with the weakest arguments for atheism. He probably never checked out your DOXA or Religious A Priori sites.

And, according to him, what are those stronger arguments? Are they even out there, or is that just more propaganda from him and his buddies at the sec web?

Metacrock said...

Well you know JB for a long time I didn't do anything on AW but show atheists saying stupid hateful things. I used to not bother to point out answers to their argument because I felt like that was beyond the scope.

It was this real emotional atheists who used to make comments all the itme. I can't remember his name it may have been Larry. He was real upset over everything.

He started saying "you never answers anything." That's when I decided to start always giving an answer to their arguments even if was just in passing. That's probably the period that Lowder saw before I began including higher level argument type pieces.

JBsptfn said...

I looked at Jeff's comment again, and he said that they go out of their way to answer the best arguments against Atheism, and Victor, the dangerous idea guy, said that what the Sec Outpost does is way better than what any other Atheist site does.

I also have seen other Atheists complain about how some Christians ignore the better atheists, and focus on people like Dawkins and Coyne.

However, I think it's because the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Those ones are a lot more prominent than Lowder and his bunch.

Metacrock said...

Everything I've seen from the Secular outpost is stupid. I talk about Dawkins becuase I post on carm so much. I'm guess I'm in an atheist Ghetto.

JBsptfn said...

Speaking of Dawkins, the person who runs the blog Evolution By Design (which is a good blog, by the way), did an entry on Dawkins and his debate with Dr. Lennox:

http://createdevolution.blogspot.com/

Metacrock said...

who did those guys say are the best?

JBsptfn said...

As far as the best atheists are concerned, I don't think really anyone in particular. They just seemed a little annoyed that most Christians go after people like Dawkins.

Metacrock said...

I had a list of the best according to someone. I think Dennett was on it and a bunch of guys I've never heard of. I think Lowder is good.

JBsptfn said...

Someone called Dennett a "national treasure" on this one article (I think it was on Opposing Views, but I am not sure).

I think it had to do with Dennett saying that he would prove naturalism. I posted the link on Moi's site, but it is down again, so I can't find it.

Metacrock said...

That's going a bit far. Yellow Stone is a national treasure. I don't Dennett compares with Yellowstone.

I sure don't think he proved naturalism. He lost the debate with Plantigna. I think he even knew what Planti was saying.

JBsptfn said...

It wasn't in the article, but it was a commenter who responded to Daniel's article that called him that.

I shared that with Moi on his blog, and he couldn't believe that. Moi had a few entries that criticized Dennett, including one about how Dennett didn't deserve his doctorate or something.

Metacrock said...

I wouldn't do that far but I don't think he's that great.