John Loftus on the Debuncting Christianity Blog
lauds a "new Atheist" radical who reveals a real Draconian agenda for
dealing with Christianity. Now I don't believe that this represents even
the majority of new atheism. I don't believe that all of atheism is a
conspiracy or that all atheists are full of hate or any such thing.
There is a hate group segment of their community, and this is surely it.
That they are getting more brazen I think is a sign that they are more
desperate.
This is the title of the post by Loftus
I have written a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.
To
read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag
below. In this last one I want to highlight how much of a crusader he
is, a radical, and how much I like it. He is dead serious. We know this
from his radical remedies for the present faith virus pandemic.
In his final chapter titled "Containment Protocols" we see this clearly. He utilizes the theme of Darrel Ray's book, God Virus, The: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, very effectively for this.
Since religious faith is a mind virus that can infect others in our
society, then in order to help get rid of it we must get serious about
containing it as we try to eradicate it.
"Containment?" That has a pretty ominous ring to it. One question up
front if you have to create atheists that means they aer not atheists
already right? So they are advocating manipulation and doing the same
kinds of things they accuse Christians of doing. What makes them any
better? Well we Chrsitians don't talk about containing any group of
people. What does that mean? let's see....
By the way, "mind virus?" Is that a technical term? What psychiatry text
book did he get that term from? Is it an actual germ. It's funny when I
have argued that atheist use the concept of "meme" to accuse their
opponents of being diseased they deny that it's that kind of model.
Loftus:
His remedies are radical, but important and needed.
Loftus plays the fascist card. It's need, we must set up the camps hu?
1) Use the word "faith" only in a religious context. He is calling for a
change in how we use language. This is something David Eller has
advocated as well as myself in our books. Boghossian: "It matters what
words we use. Certain words trap us into a make-believe picture of
life--one that is false and misleading" (p. 211). We should not say we
have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, or other such things, where
the overwhelming probabilities lead us to know without much doubt at
all. You can see a list of these words in a 2009 talk I gave for the
annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, right here.
I don't actually hear the term "faith" used that much in a religious
context. Why is that any different than using "theoretical" for
imaginary scenarios like possible worlds and multiverses?
2) Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims. He argues we should
deploy the models of the civil rights and the women's rights movements.
Basically it should be politically incorrect to argue something based
on faith. He aptly quotes Sam Harris here: "People who harbor strong
convictions without evidence belong at the margins of society."
Here we see a truly sick mind coming into focus. Martin Luther King was a
minister of Christ. By this guy's stadnards he was insane and had a
mind virus. But of course he doesn't dare say that. He has the audacity
and mendacity to try link atheist poison with civil rights, and belief
in love and truth (Christian belief) to "racism." That is such a lie!
When did we try to make atheists sit at the back of the bus? We never
passed Jim Crow laws to keep atheists in the role of second class
citizens. We never lynched atheists. That they want to do these things
to us is ironic becuase I've always said their term "xian" is their
version of the N word. They are as filled with hate for Christians as
white racists were for black people. This proves it. At least this
segment of the atheist community.
3) Parrhesia: Speaking truth in the face of danger. We should not sit at
the back of the segregated bus, so to speak. "Be honest. Be direct. Be
blunt. Be unapologetic....Don't tone it down or talk baby
talk....Instead, tell people exactly what you think and why you think
it. Take a punch and give a punch. Speak truth in the place of danger be
a part of Team Parrhesia" (p. 214).
By that frank admission they put themselves at the back of the bus. No one tried to force them there.
4) Stay informed. He even recommends reading faith peddlers like Alvin
Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Boghossian is so radical he recommends
against buying their books new, but rather getting them second hand, so
they don't profit from us in any way.
Faith peddelers like the greatest living metaphysician who was given
the mantle of Charles Hartshorne and is a recognized expert in modal
logic. This guy doesn't know what modal logic is.
5) Contribute. Do what you can. Use whatever talents you have in this
cause. "Be active. Get involved. Volunteer. Vote." Contribute
financially as well, to good atheist/skeptical organizations who are
making a difference.
6) Experiment and publicize. "Develop your own strategies to fight the
faith virus." Then publicize them in the appropriate medium, like books,
magazines, podcasts, videos, documentaries, plays, editorials, songs,
art works and so on.
7) Form academic-community partnerships. These partnerships take many
forms. Partner with like-minded people to be more effective.
Is he trying to say they should keep Christians out of higher education?
8) Treat faith as a public health crisis. Two words: "contain" and
"eradicate." We must do this with ethical and Constitutional concerns in
mind, he says. Rather, "interventions need to be designed that counter
the spread" of the virus. Our "containment strategy should promote the
'value' of believing on the basis of evidence."
Now we see the goal in sight. This is where it's heading. Not merely
contain as said but also elminated. "eradicated?" In what way? Does he
mean just convince people with logic? But apprently they are growing
desperate because we don't buy their logic so it's clear they mean
something else.
9) Financially cripple purveyors of false epistemologies, especially
religious institutions. Take away their tax exempt status. Hell yeah!
While Boghossian isn't hopeful that can be done in America anytime soon,
"Ultimately, the tax-exempt status of religious organizations must be
removed."
Financially crippling is a pretty serious thing. He's really dreaming
big if he thinks they are going to wield he power to change the tax code
against belief in God. The 3% freinge group (in fact only a segment of
that) is going to wrest the tax code from 80% of the population? In fact
90% believe in God.
10) Create skeptical (atheist) children. He makes no apologies for this
bold suggestion, saying, "It may seem odd: raising a child so she
doesn't hold preposterous metaphysical beliefs. Strange indeed, but also
vital." What he means is that "it is important to develop within our
children the "attitudinal disposition to be skeptical."
They so contorting about what they allow to go on inside other people's
minds. Irony of Ironies, O IR_ON_Y! the so called "free thinkers" not so
free are they? They actually think they have the right to decide what
you can believe and what your child is permitted to believe. They want
to determine matters of philosophy and questions about reality and
construct your right to think about reality. You would think these
intellectually superior all knowing self appointed intellectuals would
know something about history.
This is the kicker!
11) Finally, remove the religious exemption for delusion from the
'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (DSM). He says,
"There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and
perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits
classifying religious delusions as mental illness." For the reasons why
he makes this statement you'll have to read them yourselves. At the very
least, faith should be listed as a cognitive bias everywhere cognitive
biases are listed.
He is actually saying that he wants belief in God to classified as an
actual mental illness! It's not enough to just put of society agaisnt
belief we have to close off the possibility of anyone wondering about it
ever again by saying it's insane. That's so stupid! So narrow minded.
That's far more narrow minded than racist garbage or anything a mad dog
cone head ever thought of short of lynching. Why? Because it closes off
all possibility of ever thinking for oneself again. All they have to do
is declair anything you think as pre condition for belief. "People who
want lower taxes tended to believe in God." So wanting lower taxes is a
sign that yu might be wondering if there could be a God, which would
mean yu are insane. In fact anyone who votes against the atheist
candidate has to be thinking about belief in God so voting against their
agenda is s a sure sign of mental illness.
Not understanding what forces of fascism and control are being unleashed
here is just stupidity. Do we stop with Christianity or all beilef? Or
what pantheism? Is that a danger becuase it might lead to theism? The
slipper slope potential is enormous. Who they hell do they think they
are? What would give them the right to determine what people can wonder
about? What could possibly give the arrogance to think they are so
certain of their nonsense that is deserves to be enshrined as the
definition of sanity?
This DSM "Bible" of psychiatry has said that S/M is not mental illness and has removed it from that definition.
on Wiki
In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association responded by modifying the denotative criteria defining “sadism” and “masochism” in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM IV); thus, consensual sadomasochistic behavior no longer is
considered a sexual disorder. Furthermore, in the textual revision of
the DSM-IV TR (2000), sadomasochistic behavior is a sexual and mental
disorder if the patient “has acted on these urges with a non-consenting
person” and if “the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty”.[9][10] Elsewhere, in 1995, Denmark became the first country to delete “sadomasochism” from its medical disorders system of classification.[11]
This clown is actually saying that S/m is more normal and healthy than
belief in God? "The "Janus Report on Sexual Behavior," one of the
premiere academic
surveys of sex practices, found in 1993 that 14 percent of men and 11
percent of women have had some sexual experience with sadomasochism." (
ABC News).
While 90% of Americans believe in God. That's an appeal to popularity
but it does mean its too common to be thought of as a mental probelm.
This guy has no data he has no backing form any psychiatric
organization. Clinicians are more likely now to say that religious
experience is good for you. The Allman study showed that half the
clinicians have religious experience themselves and more than that say
it helps their patients get better.
This lunatic is willing to alter the work of psychiatric authority just
becuase he loses arguments about philosophy to theists! That should be
the definition of mentally ill!
Dawkins says:
As an urgently needed counter to this tried-and-true tradition of religious evangelism, A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it.
On CARM the idiot Deist who has been quoted here many times, chimes in to say he's "100%" in agreement.
I agree 100% with his position. If anyone has read my posts here, they
will see that I don't beat around the bush or "play nice" with the
Christians. They think they should get a pass, and this thinking is
furthered by society doing exactly that. Danny of America talks about
scoffers and scoffing as if that's a bad thing. His intent is to
stigmatize non believers and ward off attacks on foolish beliefs by
saying anyone who would challenge warped beliefs are scoffers.
For Danny and others, who want to use the word scoffer, have at it. I'm
proud to wear that title, and I wear it with honor. I will no more
discuss a resurrection as if it actually happened than I would a claim
that Jesus is orbiting the Halle Bopp comet. IO refuse to give the
Christians an inch on their contentions that homosexuality is a choice,
and will continue to scoff at their ignorance on this topic. I will not
give them the latitude of trying to contend that Jesus abolished OT law,
when it clearly says he did NOT.
We should not continue to let them get away with their chicanery, double
speak, obfuscation and crazy claims. They are ruinous to society. Let
them have God. Let them win that argument, but never, ever, ever let
them contend a man rose from the dead while zombies rose from their
graves, and that a personal God will do stuff for them cause they
believe, and non believers go to hell. These are crazy time thoughts
that dumb down humans, and are unhealthy for society. The reason they
have been able to get away with it for long is that society didn't scoff
them.
Not let them "get away with it?" With what? Having their own ideas?
Thinking for themselves? These guys said I was such a lunatic for
saying that atheism was a movement. they aer talking about eradicating
belief (or is it the believers too?) and controlling what people are
allowed to believe, but I was just peranoid think they have a movement!
Deist is so tired losing arguments he's ready to try to fascism to force
people to see things his way. He's so sure he's right he thinks he has
the right to suspend free thought, but when we are so sure we are right
that makes us insane.
What's more inane is this guy calls himself "Deist" he claims to believe
in God in some sense, but then he says supports "100%" making belief in
God a definition of mentally ill.
I don't think there is any immediate danger. I don't think these guys
could get a majority of people to follow them to a free breakfast. They
aer a tiny minority it's much more likely that society is in danger from
the religoius right lunatics who have the ear of the public and make up
a sizable faction. In fact I wish we could lock that group in a room,
see who comes out.Yet the Church should be aware of what these guys are
doing. After all if they were so secrative about having a movement what
is this guy not telling us about his plans?
This represents another stage in Atheists shutting down dialogue. They
will create hostilities and close off the ability to have a dialogue and
then blame theists for not being forthcoming or able to support their
position. The best thing we can do now to counter this stuff is to keep
dialogue going.
