So asks someone who was steered to my blog during the Randi series. "Hate" isn't the right word. There are some atheists who I downright revere, Richard Lewontin, Joseph Weizenbaum (who I will be drawing on for a series of posts), my dear old Latin teacher who I fully expect was surprised when he was welcomed into eternal life after years of goading me with Russell era atheist bromides. So, I don't hate atheists. I even learn some worth while things from them. Even after the past ten years of being exposed to the tsunami of atheist hate talk and some of the most self-regarding, arrogant and dishonest ignorance from a single, self-identified group in recent history, I don't regard atheists as being, uniformly, a group of total assholes. Though so many of them turn out to be, in the end.
What I do hate is the psychotic ideology of materialism that is prepared to destroy the only redeeming features of humanity, the only good things about us, on behalf of a pretty stupid belief, out of their personal preferences and theophobia. If I didn't fully believe that the history of the 20th century ran a series of massive experiments in materialistic atheism in various societies around the world, proving its uniformly homicidal and ecocidal results I'd probably have never never bothered to continue writing about it. When I wrote my first piece about atheism seven years ago, I thought of it solely in terms of political stupidity, of a tiny fraction, allegedly of the left, insisting on insulting and alienating an enormous percentage of the voting population. It was in researching that issue, in facing the history of atheist governance, of the coercive atheist domination of the political left in the West, and other issues that I've come to the conclusion that it is, most typically, destructive of a real left that is a real alternative to what is generally considered to be the right.
I don't think a real left can exist on the basis of materialism. I don't think anything but a non-materialistic view of life can produce the alternative to a view of people in terms of economic utility and exploitation. And even that is no guarantee. Resisting selfishness and its temptations into depravity is hard enough when you believe moral obligations are real and will have real consequences. A society where an insufficient number of people really believe that is guaranteed be a depraved society. I'll bet you everything I could possibly ever own on that point. The past two weeks of listening to the genteel, soft handed, big thinkers of "Moving Naturalism Forward" has reinforced my belief in that point.
Since the theme of my writing is in how the left can regain the strength and commitment required for it to gain power, to improve real lives and sustain life on the planet, I don't have any alternative but to oppose the materialist, atheist pseudo-left that has been bringing the left down since the 18th century.
I will not go into the irony of being called out as a hater by a fan of James Randi, the cult figure of one of the most hate drenched websites online. Well, not other than to say that.
Update: I just noticed I mistyped. Joseph Weinberg is a friend, who doesn't happen to be an atheist. Joseph Weizenbaum is who I intend to crib.
I just dropped more of a comment than was warranted (my bad) in response to a rather offhand comment about there being no right and wrong in nature, just what "works" and what "doesn't."
ReplyDeleteWhich, I pointed out, misconstrues what "right" and "wrong" are in ethics, and also assumes that, somehow, human beings and human ethics are therefore not "natural."
Which is a very odd perception, indeed; especially if you deny the possibility of the "supernatural" (or metaphysical, to use a more acceptable term. I was just trying to stay in the chain of "natural" there.)
Which is not to say we must jump to metaphysical (or even supernatural) conclusions, but I thought it funny how easily simple arguments undercut themselves by excluding some things either from universal application ("everything is 'natural,' except what isn't, but then it's still 'natural,' it just doesn't apply to/contradict the sweeping generalization I'm making.").
Rigor in thought ain't what it used to be....
Listening to Coyne, Carroll, et al, rigor mortis has replaced it.
DeleteOh this is delicious, Sparky.
ReplyDeleteYou've devoted approximately eight gazillion words in the last week or so to make a point that comes down to "Unless you concede the possibility that Uri Geller can bend spoons and John Edwards talked to dead people on television then you're a moral monster enabling the Fascists to take over."
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you all the days of your life.
Seriously, Sparky -- were you beaten up by a Materialist when you were a kid? Because if not, this obsession of yours is really out of control.
ReplyDeleteGet help. I mean it.
I guess you must have taken it personally when I pointed to self-regarding, arrogant and dishonest ignorance, Sims. Or was it what I said at the end of that paragraph?
ReplyDeleteSo you don't concede the possibility of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
ReplyDeleteI'm ashamed of you, Sparky. I thought you were more intellectually consistent and rigorous.
Sim's wit is an expired glimmer,
ReplyDeleteHot? Ha! it never reached simmer.
The Simels gag brand,
It's marginal, bland*,
It starts dim and grows ever dimmer.
*Ossia: It's all second hand.
So you don't concede the possibility of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Wow.
ReplyDeleteKeep digging the hole, Sparky.....
Why don't you go troll Eschaton as Sebs again tonight, Sims. You're more likely to get attention that way.
ReplyDeleteAnswer the question, Sparky -- do you concede the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or not?
ReplyDeleteYou should go read what I posted about existence yesterday, you'll find your answer there.
ReplyDeleteSee you in about three weeks.
A yes or no to the question would be fine, Sparky.
ReplyDeleteKeep evading the issue, though, if that's how you roll.
Let me rephrase -- do you concede the possibility of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
ReplyDeleteIf not, why not?
Surely you have the courage to answer....
As I said, you'd find your answer in yesterday's post if you had the ability to read it, which you don't.
ReplyDeleteYou're not just a crackpot, Sparky, you're a cowardly crackpot.
ReplyDeleteYes or no. Flying Spaghetti Monster -- possible or not.
You don't read my posts. You'd find the answer already if you had.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'd find a preposterous and frankly embarrassing pseudo-intellectual evasion.
ReplyDeleteYes or no, Sparky -- Flying Spaghetti Monster possible or not.
"Only, as Eddington pointed out the variable rigor with which people make definitive statements about things existing depends on context"
ReplyDeleteWhat's the context in which you deny the possibility of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You would find my response to your question. Of course you'd have to understand it so I might as well have posted it in !Xóõ.
ReplyDeleteEarth to Sparky: The only reason you refuse to answer my yes or no question is because you're unwilling to admit that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as plausible as whatever deity you, personally, believe in.
ReplyDeleteAnd everybody in the cosmos who is reading this -- admittedly, just the two of us -- knows that.
:-)
How long have you believed you were the Earth, Sims?
ReplyDeleteKeep trying, eventually you'll find the passage that contains the answer to your question by sheer chance. It might be in the passage from "The Concept of Existence" so you should tax your limited attention to read that too. Though I doubt you'll recognize it when you do.
Here's another clue, Sparky:
ReplyDeleteNobody who's as humorless as you can possibly have anything meaningful to say about anything.
Get help. Seriously.
DeleteI'll bet anyone who read my limerick on this thread would find it funnier than anything you've said. Not to mention the others I've written on you, here, as yourself and at Eschaton as your sockpuppets. If you'd only trolled here as "Lubyanka" I could revive some of those.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if anyone else there has figured out that you are "Sebs". Sims.
Yeah, sure thing, Sparky.
ReplyDeleteYes or no -- Flying Spaghetti Monster or not.
The division is a question of classification, not of belief. If you tell me your own answer, I shall not learn anything new about the nature or properties of an overdraft; but I shall learn something about your usage of the term "exists" - what category of things you intend it to cover.
ReplyDeleteDeep, Sparky.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting as to whether or not you concede the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And if you don't -- you're a fascist enabler, obviously.
Obviously, I answered you both before you asked the question and after.
ReplyDeleteNope, you didn't at all....
ReplyDeleteYep, I did. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lame joke cooked up by a known person. It is mostly proof that atheism has a really debilitating effect on the comedy of atheists, something that George Carlin proved long ago by turning from a modestly successful funny man into a bigoted drug addled atheist scold.
DeleteYep, I did. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lame joke cooked up by a known person. It is mostly proof that atheism has a really debilitating effect on the comedy of atheists, something that George Carlin proved long ago by turning from a modestly successful funny man into a bigoted drug addled atheist scold.
Delete