The Little Dweeb School of Atheism

By Chris Ralph

In recent years, a branch of pop culture atheism has arisen which I call the “Little Dweeb” school. It is a follow on development out of the once popular “new atheists”, and like them is more of a pop culture phenomenon than something truly rooted in science or philosophy. This style of atheism does not bring anything new to the table as far as thought or principals, but is more of a new form or mode. Of course not all atheists fit this mold, but a very significant number do – especially of the many young men so enthusiastically enamored of the idea that there is no God. The absence of God does seem an odd idea to generate great quantities of enthusiasm, but has become a rallying point for many. One might ask what specific features characterize the “Little Dweeb” atheist. To further examine this, let us first look at what a dweeb is. The dictionary tells us a dweeb is a person regarded as socially dull, unsophisticated, foolish, inept, and awkward.

The vast majority of this class of atheist are young males who consider themselves far more intellectual and sophisticated than they actually are. They tend to make a number of claims that they simply cannot back up with evidence. Even claims that are not extraordinary in any way, they cannot demonstrate any support to them. When discussing with them things they say they know well, it will be commonly be discovered that they know little or nothing about these topics which they claim to comprehend accurately.
Many will claim to have carefully examined the religions of the world and found none of them to be true. However, if brought into a discussion of that nature of various world religions, they will be found to know little or nothing about them. Their knowledge level is that of someone who read two paragraphs an atheistic book which stated that all religions are primitive, superstitious and wrong.

They engage in rhetorical games such as the claim that they do not have a firm belief that God does not exist, they merely have a lack of faith that God exists. Well, a door knob also has a “lack of faith”, so they are claiming that on the extremely important question of the existence of a God, they are of one and the same mind as a door knob? They redefine words to strengthen their rhetorical positions – an example being that they redefine the word “faith” to mean an irrational belief that is held without any evidence or support. This is not what faith means. The simple consulting of a dictionary shoots down large parts of their rhetorical games. There are only so many versions of these rhetorical games that are typically employed and after one has heard them all several times, they become easily recognizable and very boring.

They will often use insults and arrogant condescension to avoid rather than engage in genuine discussion of the topic of God’s existence. They sometimes claim to be seeking answers, but when engaged, give all appearance of having no interest in any type of honest, meaningful discussion, only verbal jousting and insults. It is common that to justify their views, they will twist and revise the facts of history and other truthful, known conditions.

Believers who speak with them observing the normal bounds of polite conversation (and expect that they will also abide by those same respectful societal limitations) will be sorely disappointed. It is not unusual that where the believer brings reasonable arguments in support of God to bear upon these atheists, they will react poorly. In fact it’s not unusual that they may even threaten violence against the believer or his family.

They claim to be dedicated to science and express a belief that science has already or will eventually answer all questions of how all things came to exist – and prove that it was only through natural processes. They will say that they are very interested in science, that science produces the only valid truth. They hold science in such high esteem that in many ways they worship science in a matter akin to a religion, almost as if it were their god. However when engaged in a more detailed discussion about the specifics of science topics, you find they only grasp the most basic levels of introductory high school science. They would know more if they watched NOVA a couple times a month. The fact is that they have no great interest in learning about science, but have only an interest in using it as some type of excuse for their atheistic stance.

They hold the simplest form of a philosophical belief – a materialistic stance that only those things which can be seen, touched, measured or otherwise detected by equipment exist. At the same time they consider this simplest of viewpoints to be something very sophisticated and deep. This primitive and unsophisticated concept of reality is crucial to their world view. So admitting it or not, they will often take a nihilistic philosophical stance on truth, good, morals and knowledge. Morals are held to be nothing more than mere personal opinions, not something that is objective or true.
For those of you who have had discussions with young male atheists, you will find that a large percentage of them fit easily into the Little Dweeb mold. The bulk of the cry bully internet atheists trying to make a name for themselves belong to this “Little Dweeb” school.

One will wonder, if they are not terribly interested in science, and wield their atheism as a dodge or a hustle to put down others, why do they bother to adopt their atheistic stance? It’s not a result of any deep study of science or religion, no matter what they claim. The reason is clearly not the culmination of a long study and search for answers. What then is the point of it? I think a number of items of evidence point to the fact that the bottom line is an issue of morals. The Little Dweebs desire an excuse to do whatever they want whenever they want – to have full moral freedom to act as they will. As God has the authority as creator to establish absolute morals, the absence of God gives them latitude to establish whatever personal morals they wish.

Remembering that this is mostly a group of young men, one can guess that the main class of morals being objected to is any limitation on sex. Perhaps most of the Little Dweebs would prefer an actual female companion, but being inept at attracting any female, many settle for porn as a substitute. While most give no evidence of any notable knowledge of science, history or religion, I am convinced that if a porn IQ test were something that existed, they would score quite high.

The sex related morality hypothesis also explains some other important observations, one being the reason why the vast majority of the Little Dweebs are young males. It also explains the virulent objections of Little Dweeb atheists to Christianity. Many atheists with a more mature viewpoint, care not at all what others believe. They adopt a more libertarian view that so long as they are not forced to participate, all should be free to determine their own individual choices. However, for the Little Dweeb atheists in the matter of morals, if some people live a moral life and speak freely of it, this brings up guilt in those who choose atheism mostly to be free of objective morals. This is true even where the guilt is subconscious and the Little Dweebs themselves are not fully aware of it. It is in essence the Cain and Abel effect. Those who follow a moral path are intrinsically hated by those who seek to be free of objective religious morals and to live instead under their own subjective personal morals.

The Little Dweeb Atheists are a fad, and as such will pass in time. In the mean time, it’s worthwhile to be aware of what they are all about. The movement may morph into another form, but for now, it’s worthwhile to know how to speak with them. If you encounter them, it’s not really worth a lot of steam to get involved. Your time and effort would be better spent elsewhere in most cases. A true searcher is another story and it is well worth the time to engage them. While many Little Dweebs will claim they are searching, the truth is that the majority are not. Instead, their stance is a rock hard commitment of faith in atheism. They have not come to their stance as a result of any deep reasoning, so it’s unlikely that any level of sincere reasoning will bring them out of it.

Although most discussions with Little Dweebs will be utterly fruitless, sometimes the best and most honest discussions with them come not from discussions directly about God, but about morals instead. Since morals are the source of their problem with God, this line of discussion makes good sense. Try reasoning along a line going on from something like this: “If morals are nothing more than personal opinions, cultural conditioning or the result of genetic coding, why do we call men like Hitler evil? There is little doubt that Hitler believed his own actions were the correct thing to do, so do if there is no such thing as immoral behavior then you must agree with and support the rights of Hitler, Stalin, Radovan Karadžić and others to commit genocide. Are you a genocide supporter?” Even most who seek utter freedom from morals will admit in the end that evil exists. This line of thought just might allow you to move on to an honest discussion of the truth of good and evil in real and objective terms. Perhaps the discussion will eventually come around to the ultimate source of good and truth, the Lord God.

 

God Tells Us How to Define Him

By: Jennifer J. Lokken

“How often we hear this sort of thing: ‘I like to think of God as a great Architect(or Mathematician or Artist).’ ‘I don’t think of God as a Judge; I like to think of [sic]him simply as a father.’ We know from experience how often remarks of this kind serve as the prelude to a denial of something that the Bible tells us about God. It needs to be said with the greatest possible emphasis that, THOSE WHO HOLD THEMSELVES FREE TO THINK OF GOD AS THEY LIKE ARE BREAKING THE SECOND COMMANDMENT” ~ J.I. Packer, “Knowing God” ~

For the record the Second Commandment is as follows:
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” ~ Exodus 20:4-6 ~

I honestly don’t care what anyone thinks God is or isn’t, my job as Christian is to know who God says He is, believe what He says He is and reject anything that is not of Him.

Quite often we Christians we mistake Lucifer as Christ, by that, I mean we want to tell God who He is and by so doing make ourselves god, a god that you define is by definition an idol. We have so many idols to cast out and we don’t know it because we call them god.

I personally know far too many Christians whose entire faith is rooted in this clear violation of the Second Commandment. They justify their faith by what and who they think God is. This is a huge and systemic issue, especially in the Evangelicals community, where there is little emphasis on sound doctrine, church history, or basic theology, where the sole doctrine seems to be rooted in, “All I have to do is a say a prayer asking Jesus in my heart and I am good to go.” Any talk or expectations of spiritual growth and or sanctification, is met with opposition and accusations of Legalism.

I am reminded of the verses Romans 1:21-23:

“because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like [h]corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.”

These people clearly know God or at least claim too, when it says that they turned the truth of God into corruptible things of man, that is what happens when we define who we think God is. Note the creatures that we turn Him into, a beast of burden to provide our needs and wants and creepy thing to gotten rid of when we get the parts of God that make us uncomfortable. Sadly, it is those areas of God that make us the most uncomfortable is where we need Him the most.

Think about how much of our Christian faith is focused on ourselves. Our songs of worship in our modern age are more like demands of God to be at beck and call, turning Him into a beast of burden. Instead of what it should be, a time to think of God, His glory, His Holiness, His grace and acknowledge our lacking, and in our lacking in pure gratitude for His sufficiency in all areas, we praise His name(I say praise, because in corporate setting, proper worship is not always appropriate, because once you realize who you are in the light of who God is, the only worship that is possible is to prostrate yourself in His presence.)

It should be noted that the most sound way to get know yourself and who you are, isn’t hours of introspection, but to truly get to know who God is, then you will know who and what you are not.

~ #TheRationalRedhead ~

Rant About Atheist Dogma

I restate that the Intelligence who both created and sustains the universe is real and necessary.

God necessarily exists outside of our universe of energy, time, space and matter. Those qualities are contingent and rely on outside forces to bring them into existence. The Big Bang occurred 13-14 billion years ago. That is when all four of those phenomenas came into being. Nevertheless there was God who is without beginning or end because He exists outside of time.

Finite beings trapped inside the laws of physics cannot truly comprehend how there actually was the divine intellect (actualized existence) prior to the existence of the infinite universe.
An analogy might be to use the Digital Universe Theory, which states that the universe is a digital simulation. In this case, God is both the programmer and architecture of the hardware of the simulation.

Some Atheists claim that if something is not provable by their ‘god’ Empirical science, it cannot exist. When this assertion is made or someone rejects the idea of free will, God, or any other ‘intangible’ or ‘abstract, they must necessarily reject all such concepts.
The laws of mathematics, physics, gravity and all other natural laws are used to measure or calculate, but are themselves unmeasurable. Why do the atheists not reject these things? Would that be inconvenient to their ’cause’? The concept of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ belongs solely to religion. The West was built by the Judeo-Christian concepts of charity, cooperation, selflessness and the belief that the whole of reality reflects The Creator.

Believing that studying nature will guide the observer to God, Christianity was the spearhead of science. The dedication of the monks and nuns preserved knowledge and learning through the thousand-plus years between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. With very few exceptions (beginning in the 19th Century) every scientist of note was and is religious. They are also mostly Christian.

Atheists condemn all religion, everywhere and for all time, by citing the abhorrent behaviors of only a few people who claimed to be religious, yet acted in direct contradiction to the values and teachings of their faith. At the same time, they hold all atheists innocent of the verifiable, catastrophic slaughters of 200 million-plus by people who loudly, proudly claimed their atheism.

Rather they cite the religious education from the people’s youth. Somehow the atheists of today can repudiate their religious upbringing and be ‘true atheists’ while the atheists responsible for mass slaughter were unable to do so. It may be that no one screamed ‘Atheism” as they loosed the bullet or blade that killed, the ideology that demanded and justified the dehumanization and industrial -scale slaughter REQUIRED Atheism because the absence of God and religious morality.

Despite their claims to the contrary, Good without God is fallacious. The abolition of God must necessarily abolish all laws based upon God’s decrees. Just as Catholicism built the foundation and culture of Western Science, it built it’s Civilization and culture. That includes each and every law and cultural expectations. Atheist cultures have produces no uplifting or entrancingly beautiful art, music, poems or prose.

Atheism demands absolute obedience to the ideology of itself and anything built upon it. Art of any type demands freedom. Humans feel repressed and angry under totalitarianism, because we were built for more. We were built for Theism and God; the ubiquitousness of theism throughout the world proves it. Few were Christian to begin with. but Christianity (non-violently for the most part) peacefully conquered the pagan world with the message of God’s forgiveness and love.

Great Debate Community: Dishonest Bullies & Cowards

There is no web site on the Internet where you will get more bad information on science and history than Steve McRae’s utterly laughable and 98% vile “Great Debate Community.”

For some time we on the Red Pill Religion team had tried to engage the bizarre little hate cult that is “The Great Debate Community” constructively.

The shadowy little clique surrounding The Great Debate Community sent quite a few disingenuous, slimy people, men and women alike, to come and try to convince us that there is no organized, malevolent movement calling itself capital A Atheism. To tell us there is  no cult religion called capital S Skepticism—even though every single one of them was very obviously part of an organized movement and clique sent to propagandize and recruit.

Or, as in the case of the utterly vile “Godless Engineer” John Gleason and his hateful partner Kaitlyn Chloe, to simply bully and abuse people, and even target their children for harassment. While lying about science and history.

Some friends of Red Pill Religion, not official team members, tried for a while to get us into friendly relationships with some of the people there, but it was not to be. Even the people who pretended to be “nice” like Shannon Q, Kyle Curtis, and a few others all eventually turned out to be hateful lying bigots just trying to bring people into the capital A Atheist fold–by which I mean the creepy anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Pagan, anti-Zoroastrian, hate cult they’re all part of.

They’re very much like Scientologists.

BTW, if you ever want proof that these people are a cult? Even if you’re an atheist or agnostic? Go in there for a week and start saying you think OK, maybe it’s rational think there’s a God. You’ve looked at the evidence and you don’t find it convincing but you can see why an intelligent person might. See how they treat you: like you’ve picked up an infectious disease and mind-virus, or became an idiot, or a traitor. That is how you’ll be treated. Especially if you also say things like, “come on, we should be friends with religious people.”(See *)

You will be treated like a Jehovah’s Witness who has begun to question the Watchtower Society. I guarantee you.

Yesterday I found that our friend Derek, the Gay Atheist Anrchist, got banned from Great Debate Community, while others like our friend White Injun get routinely muted, bullied, and abused just trying to make a polite point. I’ve been in the Great Debate Community’s chat server for a few months but am leaving today as a result of this ongoing behavior of bullying and bigotry and intellectual dishonesty.

While there are obviously a few decent, if confused and deluded, people hanging at the Great Debate Community, it’s mostly a pit of filthy bigots no better than NeoNazis or Communists. Filthy bigots who routinely, and in many cases knowingly and intentionally, strawman and misrepresent religion and religious people with phony science, fake spun history, idiotic armchair psychoanalysis, and encouraging an intolerant, condescending,  superior, elitist, bullying attitude towards religious people.

They think they are The Thought Police, who will tell everybody else what is rational or acceptable to believe.

When I think of the Great Debate Community, I think of a swirling nest of bigoted snakes. The loudest most obnoxious ones are actually the more honest ones; they’re open about their hate and revel in being bullies. The really devious, poisonous snakes among them pretend to be nice, and even like they want to be your friend.

(Here’s a hint: you do not need a “friend” who treats you like you’re mentally ill or a simpleton.)

I’ve left the Great Debate Community’s Server. Their “Great Debate” is a fraud in every way. The Great Debate Community CONTINUALLY repeats demonstrable lies about religion, misrepresents human history, lies about and misrepresents contemporary science, and teaches its members and followers to treat religious people as if they are inferior subhuman and defective.

Which is all the rest of the capital-A Atheist movement has ever done, whether it’s with low-level Internet pseudoscientists like PZ Myers, or filthy con men with “mainstream” respectability like Penn Jillette or Sam Harris.

Those of us who think there’s a God and that supernatural forces are real get treated like we are a threat, like we are stupid, and like we need to be psychoanalyzed by these pompous elitists. It makes fans of the Great Debate Community and the rest of the creepy, bigoted Atheist Movement unbelievably nasty, condescending, ignorant douchebags. If you’re a fan of the Great Debate Community and wonder why you seem to have few if any friends, consider the possibility that it’s because hanging out there makes you unpleasant and nasty.

Because Capital A, Identitarian, Movement Atheists  and “Skeptics” who hang out all day with others Atheists talking about how bad religion is, and how irrational the rest of humanity is, are really hateful nasty people. They’re unpleasant to be around most of the time, have you noticed?

What you might also notice is that the longer you hang out with them, the more nasty cynical and unlikeable you become, too.

Also please notice, over time they all tend to turn on and savage each other. Like Lord of the Flies.

Anti-Theists are irrefutably the biggest haters and biggest bullies and biggest terrorists on the Internet. Those of you who are friends with them are being “tolerant” of hateful abusive bullies who go after people’s children like John Gleason and his hateful abusive partner Kailtyn Chloe. These people routinely lie about science, routinely lie about history, and routinely abuse and bully religious people, either for fun or for profit.

Up to and including intentionally and knowingly quoting their critics out of context. Or talking only to the dumbest religious people. Or psychoanalyzing people who disagree with them. And acting like anyone who disagrees with Atheism must be mentally ill or defective somehow. (Nobody is better at that very Nazi-like pretend-psychoanalysis than “nice” and “polite” pseudointellectual bigot Steve McRae, BTW.)

I left Capital-A Atheism, creepy fake capital S “Skepticism,” because I realized it was a bizarre intolerant thought-control cult. Great Debate Community has PROVEN to me that that is all it EVER has been, and probably all it ever can be.

If anyone over at “The Great Debate Community” ever wants to STOP being a hateful bigoted dishonest manipulative bully, if you want to STOP being someone who only PRETENDS to be nice, and you want to be a decent human being and just be FRIENDS with religious people, UNDERSTAND and get along with spiritual people, stop on by Red Pill Religion. But otherwise, I will repeat what I said in my public videos:

I apologize for excessive cuss words and excessive loud voice in the past videos and will try to do better. But I believe I had every right to be angry, and that others have just as much right to be angry. And I have no apologies at all for rightly identifying hateful bigoted bullies and cultists who pretend they aren’t in a cult, and who pretend they have no ideology. And I have no apologies at all for publicly identifying and condemning the bullying behavior, the pseudoscience, or the pseudohistory.

And I will continue to note that these are filthy people who went after my child.

I don’t care if any of them likes me or likes this project. I don’t like any of them. At all. They’re awful, horrible people, no better than abusive bigots like Matt Dillahunty or Kyle Kulinski. Or that two-faced con artist Penn Jillette.

Goodbye Great Debate Community. For a couple of years everybody told me I was too mean to you, that I should try to be friendly. I tried. We tried. But there’s no point. When you’re dealing with intolerant mind-control cult like Scientology or Steve McRae’s “The Great Debate” community, you can’t expect honest dialogue or reasonable debate. They’re a cult that simply pretends to want to explore ideas.

Red Pill Religion will continue to run its efforts to alert the public to the identitarian, bullying, thought-control cult that is Capital-A Atheism, and phony Capital S “Skepticism,” until we see the movement reform itself or cease to exist. Whether these bullies call themselves “Free Thinkers,” “Liberalists,” or “Skeptics,” they need to reform, or they need to be shunned by decent people everywhere.

Red Pill Religion will otherwise continue to welcome and have dialogue with friendly atheists, agnostics, deists, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, Pagans, Zoroastrians, Muslims, and anyone else who wants to have honest conversations and even spirited debates. The only people we don’t put up with are haters and bullies, pseudoscientists and pseudohistorians, such as the ones who currently swirl like flies around The Great Debate Community.

*Update*: We got a complaint because there are a lot of theists hanging around specifically at the Great Debate Community who don’t get taken out. Point taken. Religious people who are new and don’t know much often get treated OK there for a while. But anyone who’s a regular who’s actually smart enough to challenge them on their endless use of pseudoscience and pseudohistory, or who challenges their casual every day bigotry toward religious people, or correctly notes the base fraud that there is any “Great Debate Between Science And Religion,” will be marginalized, muted, ejected, insulted, smeared, and faced with other silencing tactics.

I do not believe the people running The Great Debate Community will do anything to fix any of this. They were offered a hand of friendship, private conversations to clear up misunderstandings. They refused.

Max Kolbe of Michigan, also known as Dean Esmay (but his friends still call him Max) starred in Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill Movie. He is former publisher of Dean’s World, contributor to The Moderate Voice, former Managing Editor of A Voice for Men, and a general rabble-rouser.

Why do we focus on Harms against Women?

By: Patanjali

Why do we focus on Harms against Women? Violence Against Women and related phenomena? Rape of Women – by Men? Here are some explanations:

A. Missing White Woman Syndrome:

“Missing white woman syndrome is a phrase used by social scientists[1] [2][3] and media commentators to describe the extensive media coverage, especially in television, of missing person cases involving young, white, upper-middle-class women or girls.[4] The phenomenon is defined as the media’s undue focus on upper-middle-class white women who disappear, with the disproportionate degree of coverage they receive being compared to cases of missing women of other ethnicities and social classes, or with missing males of all social classes and ethnicities.[5][6]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

B. “The Women Are Wonderful Effect”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect

The idea pretty clear in the wikipedia page. But the implications are deep. For example, for every crime done by women there is a good reason for it. For any harm women do we must understand and empathize with them. For any punishment meted to women, it should be less than for men. For any harm done by women, it is given less coverage than when done by men.

In detail, here are examples:

1. Women pedophiles are given less harsh treatment.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/18/double-standard-seen-when-boys-sexually-abused-by-women/3615947/

2. Women get lighter prison sentences. You may recall in Texas Karla Faye Tucker was executed by Bush. Everyone recoiled in horror because it was a woman. Gasp!!!
http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

3. Violence against women vs violence against men. The former is an atrocity (TM) and the latter is trivial.

4. Rape! Nothing bad should ever happen to women. Especially to white women! But other humans??? Fuck em.

High Prevalence of Sexual Victimization Detected Among Men; Similar to Prevalence Found Among Women in Many Cases

5. Rape Culture!!! College is a haven for Rape Culture (TM). Because Patriachy! Yet most teen gang rapists are girls.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131007-sexual-violence-rape-teenagers-sociology/

6. Protect our girls!!! And our boys?? Who gives a shit? Stop sidelining the real issues!!!
http://time.com/37337/nearly-half-of-young-men-say-theyve-had-unwanted-sex/

7. Domestic violence against women is bad! Especially when it happens to celebrities! But the reality? Who cares when the feelings of white women are at stake??
http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20971-partner-abuse-state-of-knowledge-project-the-gold-standard-of-domestic-violence-information

Now it would be simple to say, aha! This must be The Matriachy (TM) instead of The Patriarchy (LLC). But that would be being as dumb as Feminists. No. This all arose from civilization. And civilization arose from evolution. But the hypocrisies have become astoundingly apparent. Thankfully for our sons the Feminist house of cards is crumbling before us like the name implies. Basic data and questions instead of the all important feelings of straight white women.

Free Will vs Determinism: Does our Autonomy Supersede God’s Sovereignty?

By: Jennifer J. Lokken

In regards to, the issue with Sam Harris, the fact is we are actually not autonomous creatures, which is where most who are Free Will absolutist are wrong.

We are social creatures, as we have a biological drive to create more of us, to create associations beyond that of individual families, other social organizations are evidence of our need and drive to create a something beyond ourselves.

The question of our autonomy, is what is the source of this bigger thing that determines what gives us our meaning. The two worldveiws that determine how we view this, there is heteronomously, which is the secular in nature and the root of the establishing of governments and states and nations. The other is theonomously or authority of God Himself, which must not supersede the heteronomous system in order for the governance of that system to be moral instead of nothing but the raw pursuit of power of the the individual, but to seek justice.

Justice was most aptly defined by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.”

In the theological aspect of things, the free Will vs Determinism argument is put in the terms of Free Will(“Arminianism is Pelagian, denying original sin and total depravity – No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity”) vs God’s sovereignty(“Calvinism: the Protestant theological system of John Calvin and his successors, which develops Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone and emphasizes the grace of God and the doctrine of predestination.”

Of these two doctrines, the truth is that our free will can only operate in the parameters of God’s Sovereignty, because the creation can supersede that of it’s creator, put differently, the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

So, in a sense both you and Harris are right, in so far as, in the battle of ideas, of Free Will vs Determinism, the truth is, your Free Will has been Pre-Determined. Because we cannot go beyond God’s Sovereignty without leaving the physical reality and we would lose all capability to comprehend and reason apart from God.

This is why Atheist must borrow their morality and Ethics from a Christian worldview, they actually are incapable of creating their own. They try to get around this by using Utilitarian approach to ethics and morality, but that is nothing more than heteronomously being ruled by the majority and history is repleat with examples of how bad it is to let the majority decide much of anything. Or they claim that ethnics and morality are autonomously defined, but that is not the case because then claim appeals to authority to put deal with those who don’t fall in line with the ethics established by the majority.

I could go on and on explain how it even if you think morals are relevant, which is what happens if morals get to be established autonomously, but the fact that there are any morals and ethics at all are proof of an absolute moral law giver. But that will have to be another post, for another day.

~ #TheRationalRedhead ~

The Rational Male: alpha kings, beta slaves & female hypergamists

While looking at various Youtube videos on the MGTOW lifestyle, I accidentally ran into 21 Studios, a men’s self-improvement channel, featuring numerous and rather entertaining lectures on masculinity, self-esteem and dating. Speakers included Rollo Tomassi, author of “The Rational Male“, a book that intrigued me because of the enthusiastic feedback of its readers, ranging from men who were considering suicide after a failed relationship to concerned mothers seeking sound dating advice for their sons.

Women as hypergamous “relationship hoppers”

Rollo Tomassi’s book, “The Rational Male” is based on the premise that women are naturally ‘hypergamous’ creatures, i.e.  unfaithful relationship hoppers, constantly looking for another man who better meets their material and sexual requirements. According to Rollo Tomassi, women’s libido increases when competing with other attractive females for the  same exceptional male. Likewise, their sexual appetite and attractiveness decreases, when they feel secure in a long-term relationship. In order to assure men of a regular sex life, Rollo Tomassi recommends that they artificially place their partners in an atmosphere of competition with other women. Tomassi not only recommends this in the dating stage, where men are advised to maintain several non-exclusive relationships, which can be shifted around according to their sexual needs ( “turning plates”). He also encourages men to continue maintaining a spirit of competition for their wives after a long-term relationship is established.  The purpose is to maintain women in a subtle atmosphere of uncertainty, so they will keep investing into their relationship, by staying attractive and providing their man with regular sex.

Beta male behavior is detrimental to the female libido

Tomassi’s view on women is rather one-dimensional. He seems to have little use for them, except as interchangeable providers of sexual pleasure and offspring. He also warns his readers against ‘One-itis’ the idea that there is a special soulmate out there for everyone. According to Tomassi, there is no such thing as a unique soulmate. Soulmates are a female construct, aimed at making men compliant to their imperative, i.e. being the devoted, caring ‘Beta male’ or ‘nice guy’ who sacrifices everything for his love interest. A lot of Beta males try to be a woman’s ‘best friend’, because they mistakenly believe that this would make them sexually appealing to her. Unfortunately, these ‘Beta males’, according to Tomassi, are not rewarded for their efforts. On the contrary. Because they place their woman in a secure position, Beta males unintentionally kill their partner’s libido, eventually losing her to that dark, mysterious stranger,  who will satisfy her competitive, hypergamous nature. This explains why women often leave perfectly good providers to have affairs with their sexy personal trainer or that mysterious player who turns out to be a total jerk.

Men need to ‘unlearn’ beta male behavior to cope with hypergamous femininity

So what are men to do? According to Tomassi, Beta males or ‘nice guys’ need to ‘unlearn’ their feminized behavior to become what women really want: the independent, self-assured, elusive and completely unapologetic ‘alpha male’. The ‘Alpha male’ is the ‘Beta male’s’ opposite in terms of following women’s imperative. For the ‘Alpha’, women’s preferences are not a priority: there is only his way or the highway. He’s the top dog, the ambitious leader, the rogue, the man who does not need to explain himself to attract women in droves. The alpha male is neither good nor evil. He can be a top executive or a gang leader, an artist or golden boy, a rough biker or that sexy pool boy. Ultimately, it’s not his social status that really counts, but his attitude of mystery and independence. Women are always revolving around him, so when one of them leaves, there is always another to replace her. Alpha males do not get dumped like the wretched Betas. And if they do, it never brings them the same devastation. The alpha male is very much like the hypergamous female: always looking for the best option for themselves, putting their egos at the very top of their priorities.

Where I agree with Rollo Tomassi

1. Submissive ultra-Beta males are not sexy

While most women want husbands,  who are their best friends, supportive partners and tender lovers, they also want their men to command respect both within the family and society.  This has everything to do with the role of men as providers and protectors. To find out whether a man is a good protector, women ‘shit test’ his loyalty and strength. Why? Because a man, who is unable to stand up to his woman,  is going to have an even harder time dealing with the many other challenges of life (both professional and personal). The last thing women want is another problem child to worry about. They want a strong protector to stand beside them and to raise children with, not a push over or a liability.

2.  Myth of the soulmate

Under the influence of the media and the ‘female’ imperative according to Tomassi, a lot of people believe in the myth that there is a special Soulmate out there for everyone, also known as ‘The One’. Nothing is further from the truth. Actually, there are numerous compatible partners out there for each and every one of us. A separation does not mean that your life is over and that you’ll never find a suitable partner again.

3. Myth of women as ‘perfect snowflakes’

A lot of men tend to have unrealistically high expectations of women and relationships, often to their detriment. It goes without saying that women are fallible human beings, not morally superior angels or goddesses. Putting women on a pedestal is not conducive to a healthy, balanced relationship and will almost certainly lead to disappointment and heartbreak for men.

4.  Don’t reveal all your secrets and vulnerabilities right away

No one is perfect and people do make mistakes. However, it is a bad idea to reveal all your ‘dirty secrets’ during the early relationship, especially if they are not representative of your personality. Don’t reveal your past partner count or other embarrassing details you’d rather not share on a date. A certain level of mystery does contribute to your sex appeal. It’s a myth that ‘being yourself’ will help you score with women. Also, you’re not necessarily misrepresenting yourself if you put your best foot forward.

5. Never shack up or buy a home with a woman who is not your wife 

Tomassi’s reasoning behind this is that cohabitation not only makes it impossible for men to see other women (i.e. no opportunity to ‘shift plates’), but also decreases a woman’s libido due to the lack of competition. I agree with him that unmarried cohabitation is an inferior arrangement, compared to real marriage. In many cases, it is a band-aid against loneliness and sexual starvation, a trap which prevents men and women from achieving their genuine professional and personal goals.

Points where I don’t agree with Rollo Tomassi

1. All women, without exception, are potential hypergamists + Women are incapable of the same type of love as men

Although studies indicate that women tend to ‘marry up’ (the original meaning of the word hypergamy), in order to secure material well-being for themselves and their children, constantly ‘shopping around’ for wealthier and more exciting men seems like a very stressful activity for them to engage in. I have no doubt that there are women who will use any opportunity for instant gratification, especially in our current consumerist culture. However, constantly changing her affective and social environment is not conducive to a woman’s procreational and emotional need for stability. Also, cultural and religious norms do tend to civilize women’s  basic instinctual drives, very much like they do for men.

Finally, although Tomassi writes that men and women have a different definition and perception of love, he does not manage to explain this claim in a convincing way. Do men really love for love’s sake, while women’s love is conditional and based on their hypergamic nature?  I doubt there is any serious evidence to back this theory.

2. Maintaining competition stimulates the female libido

Competition can be exciting, but too much of it can be experienced as a threat. While a subtle atmosphere of insecurity and sexual competition, may force a woman to invest more into her (sexual) relationship, this could also backfire and actually encourage her to broaden her options, just in case hubby runs off with a ‘slimmer, younger model’. That brings me to the following question: isn’t the male quest for ever more beautiful women indicative of a masculine version of hypergamy? What does this say about men’s capacity to ‘love for love’s sake’? To answer these questions, is to know the answer.

3. If a woman won’t have sex with a man after three dates, he should stop seeing her

Because Tomassi believes that all women, regardless of their self-declared principles, will have sex when placed under the right circumstances,  he encourages men to stop seeing women who delay the sexual part of their relationship. Why wait for any woman, since they’ll all agree to have a one night stand with the first alpha male jerk who gets them into the right mood? In Tomassi’s eyes, all women are sluts and if they are not, it’s merely due to a lack of opportunity or sex appeal. This seems like a very cynical, not to say misogynistic  (and I don’t use this word lightly) opinion of women. This is very similar to the claim that all men would be sex fiends and rapists, if they were given the opportunity. Such generalizations tend to be very damaging to gender relations.

Conclusion: 

In his book ‘The Rational Male’, Rollo Tomassi paints a very bleak picture of women, men and their sexuality. Humans are slaves to their most basic instincts in a hedonistic and basically loveless world. If men feel the need to leash the hypergamous, sociopathic ‘nature’ of women, doesn’t that make them loveless sociopaths in the same process? An alternative solution may be the use of sex bots: female androids with bionic vaginas. For Mr. Tomassi and his fans, this may actually be the most sanitary and painless route away from the hell of “hypergamy”.

Religion, Facts and Science, No Conflict Here

Are science and religion really at odds with each other? According to a Pew Research Center 2014 telephone survey, a majority of the public says science and religion often conflict, with nearly six-in-ten adults (59%) expressing this view in newly released findings from a Pew Research Center survey. The share of the public saying science and religion are often in conflict is up modestly from 55% in 2009, when Pew Research conducted a similar survey on religion and science. In addition, some atheists, like Jerry Coyne, have been loudly and publicly insisting that a battle between religion and science exists. Coyne resists any accommodation between religious and non-religious scientists to defend Darwinism. He doesn’t want to see them joining forces against the creationist common enemy in case that legitimises religion. In order for his position to make sense, he needs to show that there is some sort of existential conflict between religion and science.

Nevertheless, the people’s sense that this conflict exists between religion and science seems to have less to do with their own religious beliefs than it does with their perceptions of other people’s beliefs. Less than one third of Americans polled in the new survey (30%) say their personal religious beliefs conflict with science, while fully two-thirds (68%) say there is no conflict between their own beliefs and science.

Atheists seem to endlessly trot out the trope of the incompatible relationship between science and Christian religion. For example, public atheists like Jerry Coyne have been loudly and publicly insisting that a battle between religion and science exists. Coyne resists any accommodation between religious and non-religious scientists to defend Darwinism. He doesn’t want to see them joining forces against the creationist common enemy in case that legitimises religion. In order for his position to make sense, he needs to show that there is some sort of existential conflict between religion and science.

Let us repeat: Jerry Coyne doesn’t want Christians helping defend Evolution. He considers them an enemy even if they agree with him.

This is only possible through reinforcing a mistaken notions mutual antagonism, inherent conflict, and aggressive warfare created by John Wiliam Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Their books painted history as an endless conflict between the rationality of science (earnestly searching for truth) opposed by the ignorance of religion (stubbornly trying to block scientific progress), with science fighting valiantly and continually emerging victorious. It is by design that those two books; (‘A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom’, by Andrew White, and ‘History of the Conflict between Religion and Science’, by John Draper) are available for free downloading at Infidels.org and PositiveAtheism.org, respectively. It is undoubtedly also by design that those two sites do not provide links to any of the many scholarly sources offering devastating criticisms of the works of White and Draper.

The fictional portrayal of history by Draper and White is dramatic, with heroes and villains clearly defined, and therefore appealing for many people. Their colorful stories of “science vs. religion” mainly center on ‘flat earth’ and the Galileo controversy are useful for anti-Christian (and anti-religious via broad-brush tactics) rhetoric, and has exerted a powerful influence on popular views about the interactions between science and religion. However, the stories portrayed by Draper and White are rejected by modern historians as highly over-simplified and inaccurate in their description of what really happened.
For instance, people today accept the notion that, in the time of Columbus, educated Christians believed the earth was flat. However, the truth is the reverse. This wrong idea is due to a fascinating abuse of history that began around 1830 when two writers (a creative novelist inventing a colorful story about Columbus, and an atheist scholar trying to make Christians look foolish) collaborated to invent a false story about “belief in a flat earth”. The story was later popularized by Draper’s book. ‘The Myth of Flat-Earth Belief.’

The same fallacious misinformation portrays the Galileo affair consistently and simplistically as a battle between science and Christianity (all religion by extension); a notable episode in the long warfare of science and theology. The narrative ignores that the conflict was located as much within the church (between opposing theologies of biblical interpretation) and within science (between alternative cosmologies both inside and outside the Church) as between “science and the church.”

The fact of the matter is this popular historical canard has everything going for it except objectivity, rationality, and impartiality. For example, Galileo was never “imprisoned.” He was merely temporarily confined to a villa in Florence for violating an agreement he had made with the Pope. He was never asked to “recant his scientific assertions that the Earth revolves around the Sun.” The Church had already accepted the feasibility of Copernicus’ heliocentric cosmology. The pope who was sideways with Galileo was a Copernicus fan, as were the majority of the Catholic scientists at the time.

The issue between Galileo and the Pope was not whether it was acceptable to assert that the earth revolved around the sun. The issue was the assertion (which Copernicus never made but Galileo did) that there was sufficient scientific evidence to prove it, which, at the time, there wasn’t. Therefore, Galileo was not in trouble because of ‘his’ science, he was in trouble due to breach of trust (with someone who just so happened to be the Pope).

Atheist/Anti-theist activists seem to be fully invested in the belief that they (Atheist/Anti-Theist) are considerably smarter and more capable than religious people. It may have appeared that they had the proof they wanted in the study “Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds” by Kathleen H. Corriveaua, Eva E. Chenb and Paul L. Harris. The study was originally published in Cognitive Science (2014) 1–30; 1551-6709 online DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12138.

The abstract describes the research as two studies of 5- and 6-year-old children who were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children’s upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation.

Some articles published in the popular press in the wake of this study’s release seem almost jubilant. Huffington Post writer Shadee Ashtari states that, “In both studies, [children exposed to religion] were less likely to judge the characters in the fantastical stories as pretend, and in line with this equivocation, they made more appeals to reality and fewer appeals to impossibility than did secular children,” the study concluded.

While that paragraph is accurate, she carries it further than the study does by stating “Refuting previous hypotheses claiming that children are “born believers,” the authors suggest that “religious teaching, especially exposure to miracle stories, leads children to a more generic receptivity toward the impossible, that is, a more wide-ranging acceptance that the impossible can happen in defiance of ordinary causal relations.”

Examples of the stories were cited at http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/echochambers:
Three Joseph stories

Religious: “This is Joseph. Joseph was sent to a mean king in a land far away. However, God sent Joseph many dreams warning about terrible storms, and Joseph used those dreams to tell the king how to protect his kingdom from the storms. The king was so amazed by Joseph and they became friends.”

Fantastical: “This is Joseph. Joseph was sent to a mean king in a land far away where there were terrible storms. Joseph used his magical powers to see into the future, and told the king how to protect his kingdom from the storms. The king was so amazed by Joseph and they became friends.”

Realistic: This is Joseph. Joseph was sent to a mean king in a land far away where there were terrible storms. The king realised that Joseph was very good at looking at clouds and predicting when there would be rain. The king was so amazed by Joseph and they became friends.”

Joseph Stern of Slate.com begins by telling the readers, “In the United States, conventional wisdom holds that you should raise your child to be religious. Taking the kids to church is the default; leaving them home requires justification. Push parents to explain why they should pass on their religion—apart from a principled urge to keep the faith—and they’re likely to tell you studies prove that kids do better with religion than without it.” This is followed by a paragraph informing us that several studies do seem to corroborate the assertion that kids raised with religious beliefs are psychologically healthier than kids raised without it. The gap is small but real. Some researchers link religious affiliation and regular church attendance with a mild boost in children’s mental health. There is also belief that those same children have better self-control and react better to discipline.

However, he later ties religion to damage caused by arguments over religion, while ignoring that the damage is caused by discord between their parents, just like arguments over money, mental health, etc., and attempts to question the causality of the difference. He cites John Bartkowksi, a professor of sociology at University of Texas at San Antonio, who wonders whether church attendance really leads to good behavior—or whether it might be the other way around. “It may be that kids who are already well-behaved are the only ones who can get into religious communities. It may be that kids who are already well-behaved are the only ones who can get into religious communities” These statements presumes that self-control leads to attendance at religious services, rather than the other way around.

Any regular attendant to church, temple or family mosque will readily attest that this presumption is patently false. Small children are sources of disruption and noise in virtually any worship service. Small children bore easily and quickly, their tolerance for religious ceremonies is low. They learn discipline/self-control from their parents modeling, teaching and enforcing discipline when and where it is appropriate.

To his credit, even after tying religion to ‘fantastical’ miracle stories and speculating that these stories confuse the minds of 3-6 year olds, Stern does cover the weaknesses of the researchers’ argument. Citing Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale. Bloom called the paper, “a cool study by a sharp research team,” but notes that most kids, religious or secular, are pretty good at distinguishing fantasy from reality.” Bloom told the writer that “…children only look incompetent when dealing with the stories of clever psychologists.”

Bloom states that all children are exposed to seemingly incredible things that also happen to be true on a daily basis. Though the Slate article lists only evolution and plate tectonics as items that can force them to re-evaluate their perceptions of reality, there are innumerable others. Even familiar things such as television, CD/DVDs, airplanes and so on cause dramatic shifts in, or expansion of perception of, reality. Though death is quite mundane and accepted in society; a child struggles with the fact that a familiar person or a pet is gone forever shakes their world profoundly.

In the end, though, Bloom states, “The problem with certain religious beliefs isn’t that they are incredible (science is also incredible) and isn’t that they ruin children’s ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. It’s that they are false.”
This writer questions Bloom’s declarative presumption that religious stories are false. He has made a global, sweeping statement with no basis in fact; no research or studies have been cited. He would not presume to make any such far-reaching statement about human psychological research with no research finding, what makes religion so different?

On the other side of the debate, EchoChambers cites individuals who see the findings from this study as positive. The following citations are either lifted directly or paraphrased from the article.

“This study proves a benefit of religion, not a detriment, because research shows how imaginative and fictional thinking, fantasy play aid in the cognitive development of children,” Eliyahu Federman said in USA Today. “Raising children with fantastical religious tales is not bad after all.” “Those claiming that belief in religious stories harms children should be interpreting research and science correctly,” he says, adding,”Not only is there benefit in allowing children to think imaginatively without forcing them into the mindset of perceived reality, but according to at least one study, raising children with religion also increases self-esteem, lowers anxiety, risk of suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and dangerous sexual behavior.”

“Are we really going to say that kids who are taught to believe the Bible is true are somehow developmentally delayed because they’re more likely, at age 5 or 6, to believe fantastical things?” Jenny Erikson for the Stir asked. “Flip side to this equation could be that secular kids are taught to lose their sense of wonder and imagination at an earlier age than their Bible-believing friends.”

Prosblogion’s Helen De Cruz says that while there may be some truth to the results, what the study really shows is that the religious children know their Bible stories. “The Bible characters are presented to them as historical, so of course they would be more likely to judge them as historical than children who didn’t hear about these characters,” she writes.
She says the subject deserves further study before drawing conclusions. For instance, would children exposed to scientific study at a young age be more inclined to believe pseudoscientific claims? Would Christian children be more likely to believe miracle narratives from other religions?

A serious study of the global scientific community provides further evidence that the perceived conflict between science and religion is an illusion. Elaine Howard Ecklund founding director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S. They also traveled to these regions to conduct in-depth interviews with 609 scientists, the largest worldwide survey and interview study ever conducted of the intersection between faith and science.

The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.
“More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious,” Ecklund said. “And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).”

The researchers found that the scientists surveyed were generally less religious than a given general population. Two exceptions to this general trend were in Hong Kong and Taiwan where: 39% of scientists identified as religious versus 20% in the general population, and 54% of scientists identified as religious versus 44 percent of the general population, respectively.

Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. only 32% of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. This number was only 29 percent in the US. In addition, 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other

“Science is a global endeavor,” Ecklund said. “And as long as science is global, then we need to recognize that the borders between science and religion are more permeable than most people think.”

Albert Einstein’s religious views were more akin to Thomas Jefferson’s deism than traditional Judaism. Nevertheless, he certainly saw no conflict between science and religion. In his essay, Religion and Science, he clearly states; “Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.”

Later in the same essay, Einstein adds, “A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value.”…“Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.”

The only conflict Einstein sees between science and religion is when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion.”

In summary, it appears that Einstein believed that science was the realm that provided the tools that enabled humanity to do things. (To many Christians, the main goal of science is to understand natural processes, thereby increasing our understanding what God has created and our understanding of God through His creation.)

To Einstein (and most theists) the realm of religion and sacred texts provided us with the wisdom to decide whether we should or should not do that thing. He understood that the Bible, Torah or most other sacred texts, for that matter, are not written to be interpreted as literal history. They were written as moral and theological lessons for people of that time and culture. Historic accuracy, as we interpret it (exact dates, times, events, etc.) is sacrificed in favor of bringing the reader closer to God and His will. No Orthodox Jew or Christian believes that Genesis, or any other book of the Bible for that matter, is a literal, accurate account of history. Even though some of the books are historic accounts (stories of Saul and David, the Babylonian captivity, etc.) the authors were more concerned with communicating God’s lessons than anything else.

Sources:
• http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/science-and-religion/
• Relationships between Science and Religion:Conflict & Warfare, Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/
education/science/conflict.htm
• When Science and Christianity Meet, Lindberg, David, 2003)
• No, The Catholic Church Didn’t Punish Galileo for Heliocentrism, Martin Cothran | April 26, 2017,
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/no-catholic-church-didnt-punish-galileo-heliocentrism
• Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds, Corriveaua, Chenb and Harris,
Cognitive Science (2014) 1–30. ISSN: 0364-0213 print / 1551-6709 online, DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12138.
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction _n_5607009.html
• http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/is_religion_good_for_children_secular_children_
can_distinguish_between_magic.html
• http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149
• https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html
• Science and Religion, Albert Einstein, 1939, 1942
• http://qideas.org/articles/christianity-and-science-in-historical-perspective/
• http://jameshannam.com/articles.htm

Atheism and Theism, A Grounding of Ethics

According to the standard dictionary, Ethic (singular) is defined as: The branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
Ethics (plural) is defined as follows: Moral principles that govern a person or groups’ behavior or the conducting of an activity. Ethics as a subject is the study of what actions we should take, which ones are commendable, which ones we should disapprove of and how we should live our lives.
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience
The origin of the word begins in late Middle English (denoting ethics or moral philosophy; also used attributively): from Old French éthique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ( hē) ēthikē (tekhnē ) ‘(the science of) morals,’ based on ēthos.

Atheists claim that their “lack of belief” has no ethical ramifications, but they are wrong. Without a grounding in the absolute (as Deists and all religious understand it) there is no possibility of morality outside of subjectivism.
Virtue ethics is a philosophy primarily based on the understanding of Aristotle, who learned from Socrates, a student of Plato. Because virtue ethics is a quest to understand and live a life of moral character, theists such as Christians, Jews, Muslims and Deists will likely agree in broad strokes, or at least find it a compelling way to understand ethics. As a character-based approach to morality, virtue ethics assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges.

To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker. White and Arp suggest that Utilitarian Ethics would endorse killing the Joker because taking this one life would save multitudes (Do whatever does the most good/the ends justify the means). Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill (following the fixed rules of morality trumps the results of (in)action). Virtue ethics instead manifests as the character of the person, Batman does not kill because he does not want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives.

In this way, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being by giving us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical dilemmas. The important part of determining the correct actions are the qualities you have as a person. A person who acts with ‘goodness’ (acting with wisdom/forethought, justice, courage and self-mastery) is acting ethically. By the same token, someone performing bad actions (acting foolishly, unfairly, cowardly, greedily or with vicious intent) is acting unethically according to virtue ethics’ principles. Virtue Ethics guides a person to take a much longer view that the immediate, or even lifetime gains or losses any action will cause a person. By looking at the virtue, rather than the advantage, a person considers their own, personal telos, or destination of their life’s journey.

For many (both past and present), life is a journey with no destination. The ancient Greeks described history as an endless cycle of events, perpetually moving but never arriving. Like them, secular humanity drifts anchorless through life, experiencing and responding to each circumstance as it appears on the horizon but never really getting anywhere.

For the theist, however, every event-past, present, and future-moves toward a final goal. The Creator God that brought the universe into existence, and maintains it in existence, causes all things to work together to accomplish His purpose. To explain this concept, the New Testament uses the Greek telos, meaning “end, goal, result, completion or fulfillment.” To each of the Abrahamic Faiths, that destination is ultimately either paradise or perdition. However, all religions offer the promise of some form of afterlife, even if it is as a higher or lower ‘station’ to be reborn in that is awarded according to the objective truth of one’s life’s deeds.

In many respects, to accomplish one’s telos is to live in accordance with the purpose for which you were made. This coincides with Aristotle’s definition for an entity that performs well or excellently by fulfilling its proper (i.e., essential) function. Aristotle saw a universal teleology or purposiveness in which everything in the universe was goal-directed and striving to actualize its essence. For him, an object actualizes its distinctive essence when it achieves an identity of formal and final causation. Man, as a rational being with free will, should strive for his own perfection.

By achieving his fulfillment and all-around development he would attain happiness or fulfillment (Eudaimonia). It follows therefore, that in ethics a man should choose actions that are properly ordered with respect to human affairs; a project through which people aspire to happiness through the cultivation of virtues. Aristotle taught that people acquire virtues (i.e., good habits) through practice and that a set of concrete virtues could lead a person toward his natural excellence and happiness. Morally good habits promote stable and predictable behavior and foster coordination in an imperfect world. Habits are born from natural dispositions created through the repetition of actions. If these habits are morally good, they serve to underpin virtues.

Because the shortcomings of Utilitarianism have become apparent and the concept of referring to an absolute standard of right and wrong is politically incorrect, many have searched for another system of morality. One such system is Quasi-Utilitarianism, created by Iain King, CBE. Iain is an expert on military history, and has given lectures on war to packed university theatres across Britain. He has worked in ten conflicts around the world, and in 2013 became one of the youngest people ever to be honored with the title ‘Commander of the British Empire’, for his frontline roles in Libya, Afghanistan and Kosovo. He has written acclaimed non-fiction books on modern conflict and philosophy and fiction in the techno-thriller genre.
Iain’s philosophy book, “How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time,” lays out his quasi-utilitarianism philosophy. After laying out that both Intuitive and Utilitarian Ethics are flawed and untenable in all situations, Iain claims that rethinking ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from scratch makes us wonder what ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actually refer to. This must be done to find what consequences and motives separate ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in ‘meta-ethics’, which means ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ ethics. Different philosophers have come to different conclusions on meta-ethics. Some say ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are absolute qualities in the world perhaps as real as numbers; others say they are little more than personal tastes, or expressions of ‘boo’ and ‘hurray’ in response to what we witness.

Iain states that ‘How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time’ sets out four routes for establishing a basis for right and wrong, which also answer ‘What should we do?’ All four routes converge on the same conclusion – the Help Principle: (1) Route One: Reconstructing Utilitarianism, which means reconsidering the common argument for ‘do whatever has the best consequences’ (utilitarianism). Route Two: ‘Correcting’ John Rawls’ approach by adapting the method of denying self-interest to establish a basis for right and wrong (from ‘A Theory of Justice’, 1971). Route Three: The Argument from Evolution: Evolution has instilled moral instincts in us. Because evolution; a chain of our ancestors adapted to their environments, which were arbitrary, this means the genes, and the moral instincts that go with them, which have survived to now are arbitrary too. Route Four: The ‘Sherlock Holmes’ method states that there may or may not be something of value, or meaning in life. If there is meaning, it makes sense to seek it; and if there isn’t any meaning in life it doesn’t matter what we do, since there is nothing of value to be lost.

To define the Help Principle, Iain King says it is necessary to consider the consequences of our actions independently of when we make our decisions because right and wrong should not depend on ‘when’. The hypothetical impact of choices must be applied to the past as well as the future. This is important for promises etc. The Help Principle is reciprocal to be applied to people only as much as they would apply it themselves. When group members don’t reciprocate help they receive, the Help Principle generates: ‘Choose whichever option brings about the greatest all-time direct benefit’ (close to Utilitarianism, but excluding person-to-person wants and including hypothetical impact on the past happiness). For the Help Principle to serve as a practical guide to action, it needs to adapt to the real world. Problems of incomplete information, uncertainty, complexity, inertia, and the impact of previous commitments mean we can rarely make perfect calculations. Iain states that coping with the inevitable uncertainty, complexity etc. of the real world, we must adopt conventions such as social norms, ‘rules of thumb’, traditions of expected behavior and some institutions.

This move reflects a now-common desire to ground ethics without God or religion. The secular/atheist activists/influences in our current culture demand that any/all religious influences be eradicated from the public square. The demand to expunge religion seems to come even if the religious influence has no effect on the culture at large.
Secular rejection of religious basis for ethics may start with the rejection of Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal offers a pragmatic reason offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God: even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely. The basis Pascal offers for believing is that the reward for believing/punishment for not believing is substantial in the event God does exist; while the negatives are miniscule if God does not exist. Therefore, it is universally advantageous to believe that God exists.

Pascal’s argument has many objections, including intellectualist objections that one cannot believe something by simply deciding to do so. While true, this objection has perhaps less weight that at first glance. No one can do anything simply by virtue of deciding to. Aristotle, acknowledged doing the right thing is not always so simple, even though few people deliberately choose to develop vicious habits in sharp disagreement with Socrates’s belief that knowing what is right always results in doing it. The great enemy of moral conduct, on Aristotle’s view, is precisely the failure to behave well even on those occasions when one’s deliberation has resulted in clear knowledge of what is right. One cannot get to work or school simply by deciding to. Any/every decision must be followed up with actions and behavior that support and reinforce the decision.

Moral/Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable truths. Many modern atheists/materialists claim that moral or ethical statements are made true or false by the attitudes opinion, personal preference feelings and/or conventions of the person speaking. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.

An Ethical Subjectivist could argue that the statement “Stalin was evil” expresses a strong dislike for the sorts of things that Stalin did, but it does not follow that it is true (or false) that Stalin was in fact evil. Another person who disagrees with the statement on purely moral grounds (while in agreement with all non-evaluative facts about Stalin) is not making an intellectual error, but simply has a different attitude.

It is compatible with Moral Absolutism, (belief that an individual can be certain that at least some of their moral precepts apply in all situations), but it is also compatible with Moral Relativism (the truth of moral claims is relative to the attitudes of individuals). Moral/Ethical Subjectivism is a cognitivist theory that holds ethical sentences to be subjective, yet still the kind of thing that can be true or false, depending on whose approval is being discussed. It stands in direct contrast to Moral Realism (under which ethical statements are independent of personal attitudes).

Ethical Subjectivism seemingly provides a simple, common-sense explanation of what morality is. Though ethical views often give an internal appearance of objectivity (it feels like we are making, or attempting to make, an objective statement), all that means is people believed them to be true, due to the assertive nature of most ethical statements.
Ethical Subjectivism creates significant problems because it offers no way for people engaged in ethical debate to resolve their disagreements. Instead it requires each side to exercise tolerance by acknowledging the equally ‘factual truth’ of the perceptions asserted by opponents. This tolerance counteracts the issues ethics seeks to resolve, namely deciding ‘what is the right thing to do’. In addition, feelings and attitudes often change over time, as knowledge, experience and circumstances change. Variable foundations and non-judgementalism may serve to insulate one from criticism from their peers, but do not make a good base for ethical decisions.

Subjectivism also leads inevitably to the claim that objective morals don’t exist. The claim that our universe contains moral categories of values (good and evil) and duties (right and wrong actions) that exist independently of anyone’s opinion and apply to the actions and motivations of all persons is unacceptable to Subjectivists and Atheists alike. Whether this is because universal rules are inconvenient/restricting or imply the existence of a universal rule-giver (God) is irrelevant. Therefore, the topic at hand is a question of ontology-whether these categories actually exist, and not epistemology-how we know these categories. How we come to knowledge of morality is irrelevant to the question. The question is whether these moral categories exist in reality, not in someone’s private belief system. Neither ignorance of a given law, or claiming you are immune because you do not accept the law are admissible as a defense in court of most ‘civilized’ nations (unless you are of an artificially favored/protected population).

So the question presents us with two different types of realities; a moral universe in which objective moral categories exist, and an amoral universe that contains only subjective moral categories (where each person’s standard of right, wrong, good, and evil is defined by themselves and applies only to themselves). In order to determine which of these descriptions applies to our own universe, let’s take a look at what both of these realities might be like, and then see which most closely describes the features of our own universe.

In an Amoral Universe, where objective moral categories do not exist, no action can be called objectively evil. While one might dislike another’s action, no external standard exists by which any action can be called good or evil. In the overall scheme of things, feeding your child is no better or worse than beheading your child, and any feelings one has to the contrary are simply opinion. In this universe, moral opinions have no basis in reality; that is to say, nothing objective exists on which to base such a concept. The only basis for making such a claim here is just private interests and taste. When people say “that’s wrong!” they are saying: “That is against my interests/standards/tastes!”

In a Moral Universe, objective moral categories exist as objective features of the universe, and not of an individual human. Therefore, these categories apply to all humans, just as the law of gravity and laws of physics apply to all physical objects. The laws of morality are just as binding as natural laws on moral creatures. However, the moral categories are necessarily different from other laws of the universe in that they are prescriptive (describing how things ought to be) and not descriptive (describing how things are). Any given action can fall into one of three categories:
Moral actions – actions that conform to the objective moral standard (ex: Helping someone in need without asking for reward.)
Immoral actions – actions that violate the objective moral standard (ex: Violating another person’s rights to life, property or person.)
Amoral actions – actions which are not addressed by the objective moral standard (ex: Parking in the wrong lot without a permit (illegal, but does not violate any moral code) or buying only organic produce.)

The idea of an amoral universe is existentially self-refuting, though not logically self-refuting. There is no logical incoherence in the statement “No objective moral values and duties exist.” However, when one attempts to describe how one should live in such a universe they automatically invalidate the concept. In an amoral universe, “how one should live” is meaningless because no standard exists to describe how one should live.

Many find it is easy to claim that “Objective moral truths do not exist; I have the right to do as I please!” Yet, they are making this statement without considering that it makes a moral claim to a “right” while denying a moral reality. If you believe that others ought to allow you to live according to the dictates of your own will and your own conscience, then you are appealing to objective morality to justify what others “ought” to do.

Sources:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm

Aristotle: Ethics


http://www.telos.edu/onlinecatalog/WhatDoesTelosMean.php

Virtue Ethics


http://www.quebecoislibre.org/031122-11.htm
https://www.fantasticfiction.com/k/iain-king/
How to Make Good Decisions… a 62 Point Summary

Pascal’s Wager about God


http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethical_subjectivism.html

Do Objective Moral Truths Exist in Reality?

Sargon of Akkad and his Phony Christian Crew

By Ghost of Buckley

Sargon of Akkad is someone I’ve been a longtime subscriber of. He makes excellent content every now and again, and he is mostly consistent in how he presents his information. The main problem, of course, is his hatred of religion.

Although Sargon will give lip service to Christian groups that he deems rational (meaning those that agree with his political opinions), he is a man who sneers at religious people. Nowadays, he mostly looks down upon Muslims, who are a popular target of scorn among the right-wingers he hangs out with. While he cloaks this bigotry as concern for Jihadism and encroaching Islamism, in reality, Sargon despises Christianity almost as much. He has said more than once that fundamentalist evangelical preachers are as dangerous as ISIS and that it lauds the destruction of the Anglican Church at the hands of those he might otherwise oppose politically, the social justice warriors. And the less is said about his opinions about Catholicism, the better. Sargon also has shown derogatory attitudes towards traditional African religions and Hinduism in some of his videos.

Sargon’s opinion of religion is not intellectual in nature, but emotional. He is disgusted by the mere mention of God, recoiling like a vampire. The most extreme example of this was in his live reaction to Donald Trump’s inauguration earlier this year. In that livestream, he reacted in an extremely negative way to mere prayer. Let me repeat: he was triggered by mere prayer. This is a common atheist trope, and Sargon exemplified it wholeheartedly.

Now to the main topic of this video: the fake Christians that he hangs out with. It’s no surprise that someone as nasty towards religion as him would have some equally vile friends, one of whom I had the displeasure of meeting. Sargon’s groupies are mainly mooching off their pals’ fame. None of them are particularly insightful or interesting, and they will parrot each others’ opinions like monkeys whenever. Some are a bit more left-wing, some are a bit more right-wing, but they are all equally slimy. The best example of this was Bantu Rhino. I had the “pleasure” of being in a livestream with Bantu one afternoon. Believing it to be the perfect opportunity, I gave a challenge to Sargon, but Bantu Rhino took up the offer. The offer was this: Bantu would argue the theist position and I the atheist position. I consulted my friend, Max Kolbe, on this, and Max was excited to take my place. Little did we know how vile Bantu could be.

The terms of the debate were simple: Bantu would either pick one of five of Edward Feser’s arguments from “Five Proofs of God” and argue for it, or use the research from Dr. Jeffrey Long’s research on Near Death Experiences to argue for the supernatural. We, in turn, would agree to not strawmanning the argument and not bringing up irrelevant points. However, Bantu said that he wanted to include his own arguments. He claims that he studied philosophy of religion, and had created his own argument for God based on the fact that the Universe had God’s divine properties. We refused: use the arguments we presented or don’t play ball. We did not want him gish-galloping or rambling about incoherent nonsense. Plus, to our summation, the argument was terrible. Bantu’s response? To threaten to knock out my teeth. The resulting back and forth ended with everyone just calling off the whole deal. Apparently, when atheists have their integrity or credentials challenged, they see fit to threaten people with violence.

The lesson from this experience is this: if you meet some atheist that you don’t know that claims to have some background in science or philosophy or religion or whatever, be skeptical of him. Atheists have no problem lying about their credentials to make themselves seem more credible because they have no honor.