“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…”

– Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

The definition of a fanatical atheist is a very narrow one. If you’re a professional atheist and you believe that the denigration and ridicule of the religious will “bring them to their senses,” you are fanatical. The pointless and caustic approach of such fanatics in the mainstream media has already backfired. Once moderate Christians feel their faith threatened so they wittingly or unwittingly give money to right-wing extremists who promise to protect their way of life. Christians tithe, atheists don’t, and this adds up… the most conservative estimate at 83 billion dollars a year.

"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source..." - Albert Einstein, an agnostic

The Science Pope- How We Become What We Hate Most in Others Dept.
“The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer….
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…”
– Albert Einstein, an agnostic

IndoctriNation

The notion we were founded as a Christian nation; a theocracy, is a reaction, not an action. There is also a manifest indoctrination coming from both sides.

Some humble thoughts on why religious donations can be dangerous:

“Moderate” and all-inclusive churches may actually give money to political parties you fiercely oppose. Since you know which party is identified with Christianity, you know this money may keep these people in power to “protect” your faith. This is why transparency in how the collections are spent is so critically important. When you don’t know where your tithing goes, you will never know if it is being abused, and if there is no transparency, you can rest assured it probably is. It would be nice, for a change, to see how much goes to overhead, and how much goes to charity. If a church has a website, that should be posted on the website. If a church spends 5 cents of my dollar on feeding the poor, the rest on three or four people employed by the church, I may as well give that dollar to a homeless shelter or the next homeless person I see.

Why do so many people claim the right to God’s checkbook, anyway? See someone in need ? Give to God directly by giving your your tithing to him. See how that affects him, and how it makes you feel.

Some humble thoughts on fanatical atheists and scientific conformity:

Frederick-the-Great

Common wisdom? “Ridicule is more deadly than all the arguments in the world.” Frederick the Great. Then again, this isn’t always the case and easily disproven in the case of religion.

We first need to define what a fanatical atheist is. It is a narrow definition:

  • If you make money from advocating and promulgating atheism through books, radio and television, you are a professional atheist.
  • If you are a professional atheist and believe that the denigration and offensive stereotyping of the religious will bring indoctrinated people to their senses, you are a fanatical atheist, and a bigot asshole to boot.

There is a very strong, tactically palsied movement by fanatical atheists today to crush religion, particularly Christianity. The way this movement is led, unfortunately, is as a militant movement that demeans and ridicules people of faith. The common wisdom is that once an idea is sufficiently mocked and ridiculed, then that is the moment the idea dies. For the proponents of this common wisdom, please do tell! how has this worked out for you? It’s only been tried for thousands of years, but maybe you just need a few more days.

How does this work out in real life when you attempt to convince billions of people, and tens of millions of fellow citizens, that their religion is a joke? that they are a joke? that they’re stupid and worthless? How has it worked out, when we know mankind has always been hardwired to worship in one way or another, if not God, or gods, then mere men (witness North Korea) or fanatical atheist leaders themselves? Do people pray to the latter? of course not. But they do follow everything they say on blind faith they so often belittle. Celebrity worship is a very real worship. Just as faith in religion can govern every aspect of someone’s life, celebrity worship can do the same. This is why advertisers pay big money for celebrity endorsements: people wear what their celebrity heroes wear, they will emulate them the way the religious try to emulate Mohammad or Jesus.

I’m embarrassed to be on the same page as Richard Dawkins. In fact, I’m embarrassed to be in the same book. It is a horrible feeling to know you’re now associated, however distantly, to a mindset that doesn’t just dislike religion but people.

Don’t believe me? Here’s proof: how many times have you seen someone over the water cooler parroting something he heard on Bill Maher’s show? Usually it’s some tired ass “new rules” bullshit he’s just been indoctrinated with so thoroughly it’s been running through his head all day, because if this is wit to him, it is also wisdom. Now compare this with people who come to the same water cooler quoting their ministers. But who gives money every week, and will never flinch from war over his faith? Why in the world did fanatical atheists come to the conclusion it was a good idea to provoke a sleeping giant that vastly outnumbers them, and has an inexhaustible political and military war chest? It doesn’t matter if most of the time the “new rules” are something I wholeheartedly agree with, albeit they are virtually always bland, unoriginal and I only catch them briefly when channel surfing.

I’m embarrassed to be on the same page as Richard Dawkins

Lacking faith in religion doesn’t make me smarter or better than someone who believes in it, especially if I lack character as well. Why toot my horn? So fucking what? I don’t believe in religion (that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in a creator or universal consciousness behind the matrix of this universe). So not being religious, is that supposed to make me better than you? I’m embarrassed to be on the same page as Richard Dawkins. In fact, I’m embarrassed to be in the same book. It is a horrible feeling to know you’re now associated, however distantly, to a mindset that doesn’t just dislike religion but people. If you ever studied history, even just a little bit, you quickly realize that the only thing misanthropes have contributed to humanity is suffering and conflict.

unfriend_courtney2

w2

When humans actually did co-exist with dinosaurs.

Check out the video from The Creation Museum below, and you will see what I mean about beating up on little children. Not only does founder Ken Ham believe “we cannot depend on our reasoning ability alone” to convince skeptics of claims that dinosaurs lived alongside biblical characters, e.g. Noah, he claims that the final nail in the coffin of evolution is the Bible.That is the final proof you need, he said, somehow unaware that a vast majority of skeptics don’t even believe in the Bible.

Truth is, you can’t depend on reasoning ability when you have absolutely none. If Ham must convince skeptics of anything at all it would start with the medical profession, and it would be that he is sane. Unfortunately, the Bible can’t help him there. Regardless, if this is your opponent in a serious debate, it is beyond an unfair fight. If one uses this man to represent the vast majority of Christians, that person is reduced to bigotry and delusion, and any claim to a moral and intellectual high ground becomes very solid evidence of an extremest mentality he criticized the creationist for.

What matters is one’s personal belief is capable of evolution and correction, and never intrudes upon the rights of others. Besides, I don’t know any Christian that takes creationism seriously, but most I do know believe their faith is under attack by the mainstream media. As a result, they turn away from the one medium that could inform them, and they simply watch religious or right-wing shows which are now perceived as “fair and balanced.” Both sides are now polarized, intolerant, and deeply engaged in indoctrination and propaganda. As we’ll see later, there will be a new generation of creationists to deal with in the future in profoundly greater numbers. In hundreds of schools vouchers are now being used to teach creationism alongside evolution. They were provoked into this reaction. Fanatical atheists truly believed that the people they insulted and continuously ridiculed would continue watching their channels. They truly believed they would not appeal to conservative “news” shows where they could escape the constant mockery of their faith and identity, and that they would not be politically indoctrinated. As a result, how could they ever get the idea that they would watch, let alone trust the mainstream media when they pointed out the absurdity of the claims that President Obama was a Muslim, and a Kenyan?

A war on religion is just that– a war– and it offers only conflict as a resolution, a conflict neither side could ever hope to win without enmity or unspeakable horror.

As an agnostic I have a disbelief in an anthropomorphic God that created the universe yet has the worst of human weaknesses: jealousy, anger, and hate. Still, if we use the scientific method in a laboratory setting, we can easily prove intelligence can take a pile of wood (matter) and make a chair, but if you leave that same pile of wood in the lab chance won’t make it build itself. The former is proven fact and self-evident, the other is a cock-eyed hypothesis and would take billions of years to prove if true. Because of this, it has failed. This isn’t a cop-out. Both sides believe matter has always existed. So maybe, just maybe there is something other than chance behind the order and harmony of the universe. Is this logic absurd? Is this a delusion? You tell me. This intelligence, or consciousness, call it what you will, is the non-religious and unknown “God” that Albert Einstein believed in.

Though one of his most famous quotes is “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” he still believed religion was childish superstition. Regarding his visit to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, February 3, 1923:

“Where dull-witted clansmen of our tribe were praying aloud, their faces turned to the wall, their bodies swaying to and fro. A pathetic sight of men with a past but without a future.”

However, he had quite a few words to say about the same atheists who use him to support them:

einstein_god_bad_argument_atheist_pantheist_spinoza“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.”

The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214

“What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

“The fanatical atheists,” he wrote in a letter, “are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ — cannot hear the music of the spheres….”

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…”

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

– Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Weirder still, a science open-minded enough to accept the existence of a multiverse, of an infinity of universes and an infinite number of people exactly like us living in parallel worlds, a belief they exist in the eleven dimensions of string theory; this is accepted as plausible but the idea that the order, harmony and the incredible complexity of the universe could be attributed to something other than chance is heresy and ignorance. This intolerance and  irrationality is so disturbing on its face because it has become clear that their rational argument has been reduced to an emotional one.

einstein_1934_top

For belief in a universal consciousness that affected all matter, Einstein would have been banned at TED. Literally.

The great minds that gave us quantum mechanics and string theory, that helped us understand the subatomic world aren’t fools, but there is an unsettling atheist conformity no better than the conformity scientists exhibited when the Popes controlled their lives. Recently, at two TEDx talks this year, an anonymous panel of scientists banned two speeches by speakers who believed in a universal consciousness that affected all matter: Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hanhock.

The treatment of Sheldrake is inexplicable, because what he spoke of was basically the same as Einstein’s concept of “God.”  Sheldrake spoke of a cosmic consciousness and “morphic resonance” which expanded on Einstein’s concept of the harmony in universe and the belief it wasn’t the product of chance. Sheldrake’s book, “The Science Delusion” wasn’t an attack on science so much as a tongue-in-cheek take on Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion.” It was an appeal to end an irrational scientific conformity and to question 10 very questionable dogmas. He said that the attempt to prove all matter has no consciousness has now come to include the idea that we have no consciousness, that as Richard Dawkins put it, “we’re lumbering robots” with programmed brains.

“Give us one miracle,” he quotes a friend regarding mainstream science and the Big Bang, “and we’ll figure out the rest.” One miracle, of course, is one too many in regards to religion and it should be one too many for science as well.

What happened to Hanhock isn’t surprising. He was discussing his road to a universal consciousness through hallucinogenic drugs. He was completely inoffensive. What was extremely offensive was to have a science nanny there. Here’s the most offensive part:

science_pope

The Science Pope has officially decreed that all scientific journals and prestigious bodies must abide by his perception of reality, or face censure and ostracism.

“All talks on the TEDx Talks channel represent the opinion of the speaker, not of TED or TEDx, but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.”

This same panel would have literally banned Einstein, because he basically held the same belief as Sheldrake!

If Sheldrake was talking about and advocating eugenics, I could understand. That’s an actual pseudoscience that brought on genocide, forced sterilization in America, the Holocaust, and it’s extremely dangerous to provide it a legitimate platform. Sheldrake wasn’t advocating a pseudoscience because a hypothesis is not a pseudoscience. If you can’t tell the difference you have no right to call yourself a scientist, or literate. It was completely unwarranted and repugnant censorship,  they were now self-styled, anonymous Popes of science. Judge for yourself. Do you need to be protected from this?

«- Previous | 1 2 3 | View All | Next -»

Related Post

CC BY 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.