Monday, March 10, 2014

The Cult of Gnu loses an ally

As shown on Shadow to Light, Eric MacDonald has decided to part ways with the Gnus. An excerpt:
There seems to be a belief that theology must simply be delusional, because there is no objective supernatural existent corresponding to the word ‘god’ — or at least that no “slam-dunk” arguments can be produced for such an existent. Consequently, it has become fairly normative to believe that religion has to do with “confected” entities, and religious thought itself not only delusional but even pathological. (Boghossian — in his book on making atheists — repeats the accusation that faith is pathological in his book so often that one is reminded of the George Orwell’s 1984, or the common practice in the Soviet Union of placing dissidents in psychiatric hospitals. There is a deeply threatening aspect to the belief that those whose ideas you oppose are somehow mentally ill, or victims of pathological ways of thinking in need of a cure.)
It's worth a read, since most of what MacDonald points out is just... so, so damn obvious.

21 comments:

lotharlorraine said...

Hello Crude.

I am going to write (one day) a fictional dialog between a progressive Christian and a consistent militant atheists .

These people really deserve to be ridiculed for they are self-righetous hateful bigots.

Water into Whine said...

But militant atheists have been ridiculing bigots for the last half-century. You're just like them.

Acatus Bensley said...

^^^^ are you serious

lotharlorraine said...

They have also been ridiculing and insulting lots of nice people.

It is okay to use ridicule against such kinds of hateful folks.

Acatus Bensley said...

More like violence. Violence isn't the answer.... it's the question. Yes is the answer.

Acatus Bensley said...

You know I really wish nonbelievers would stop pretending there's any intellectual justification for atheism and just admit that their disbelief is rooted in convenience. It's blatantly obvious that the majority became atheist because religions didn't condone what they wanted it to or it condemned what they didn't want it to. Hell even a scientist will admit that the only reason they disbelieve is because they want their own personalized set of morals or they have a problem with the idea that someone has more power than they do. There's an entire book written on the phenomenon. Also the reason most people don't trust modern scientist is because their literally not interested in actual science, but just trying to play God. I wonder if all this shenanigans played a part in this guy renouncing his position as one of those idiots. Another thing, I am genuinely fascinated when they claim that religion will disappear altogether in the coming decades. Do these pricks really believe that society will adopt their ideology? They exaggerate how millenials are dropping religion while completely obvious to the fact that these are the most weak minded, immoral, easily manipulated group their is. All they're proving is that they go for easy targets.

Crude said...

I think people, particularly self-described liberals/progressives, find it extraordinarily difficult to imagine a future where theirs is anything but the universally dominant viewpoint. The very possibility that, say... people a hundred/thousand years from now may regard gay marriage as a moment of societal decay that was thankfully gotten past, can make some of them absolutely melt down.

It's common. Remember, communism is the way of the future, nazis shall have a thousand year reich, etc, etc.

Acatus Bensley said...

It's funny because a good thorough analysis of our country and it's legislation show that the only thing keeping this country alive is the Republicans and religiosity. All of the cities controlled by Democrats and moral relativism are crumbling. Detroit and California. I haven't looked into New York. States that are far right seem to be the only place for sane people. Democrats always grab too much power, piss off the wrong people(the majority), and try to tell people what's best for them. I am very surprised that there have been no outbreaks of violence. Especially regarding private property. I mean telling people what they can do with their business or at school sounds like a good way to earn some death threats. If I were asked to remove my cross I'd probably do something drastic.

Crude said...

Acatus,

I'd be pretty reluctant to try and draw the lines starkly across party membership on that front. I'm more sympathetic to what passes for GOP culture than Democratic, but I think the GOP is far from perfect on that score.

Acatus Bensley said...

I also wonder if Christians are aware that liberals don't want anyone to believe in God nor do they actually want you to follow the rules of your religion. They literally just want people to subscribe to atheism and some sort communistic or socialistic ideology. They don't want to compromise.

Acatus Bensley said...

I may be extremely hyperbolic, but you can't seem to talk to a nonbeliever without them basically saying the state religion is irreligion. Secularism is the way to go. Also your employees determine your company policies. No laws derived from religion. All that nonsense.

Crude said...

It's fine - I tend to split hairs.

lotharlorraine said...

"I think people, particularly self-described liberals/progressives, find it extraordinarily difficult to imagine a future where theirs is anything but the universally dominant viewpoint. "

Could we not say the same thing about conservatives?

It seems to be a widespread human tendency to want our cherished ideas to win the ideological war.

It is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the discussion takes place in a spirit of mutual respect.


Cheers from the cold Lancashire where my blood is slowly freezing.

Acatus Bensley said...

No conservatives don't. We expect this country to operate according strictly to the Constitution and respect private enterprise. I don't think care how many gays commit suicide you can fire or hire anyone for any reasons. I don't think care if nobody in your neighborhood likes you and that dislike is related to religion. You can't make people like you by passing laws that interfere with freedom of speech or freedom of religion. You can't turn this country into some secular shitland of moral relativism where popular opinion affects legislation.

The original Mr. X said...

"Could we not say the same thing about conservatives?

It seems to be a widespread human tendency to want our cherished ideas to win the ideological war."


There's a difference between wanting your ideas to win out, though, and being unable to imagine your ideas not winning out. For what it's worth, my experience is that progressives are far more likely to say things like "You lot are on the wrong side of history" or "People in one hundred years time will think of you as we thing of segregationists" than conservatives are.

Acatus Bensley said...

Excuse the typos. ^^^^ this guy gets it

Crude said...

Lothar,

Could we not say the same thing about conservatives?

It seems to be a widespread human tendency to want our cherished ideas to win the ideological war.


It's not really an issue of 'wanting our ideas to win the ideological war' but 'believing that our success is not only inevitable, but that it will be a permanent success thereafter and for all time'. The only time conservatives ever come close to typically believing that is usually predicated on the second coming of Christ.

In general, conservatives seem acutely aware that even beliefs like 'infanticide is wrong' are not necessarily permanent, culturally.

Frank Keefe said...

Acatus you are right..Peter Hitchens in a Oxford University debate said much the same thing to the attending atheists in the audience among them Richard Dawkins...Ive never seen so much shifting of atheistic bums on seats when Peter was in full flow.

The Deuce said...

It's part of conservatism acknowledge that humans are fallen, and hence that utopia is impossible and cycles of social and moral decay inevitable. The only vindication we expect (at least those of us who are Christian) is at the Last Judgement. Our morality is based on Natural Law, or on God (or both), and we believe that moral law is objectively true and remains valid regardless of how unpopular it is within any given society at any given time.

Leftists, on the other hand, are collectivists. Their sense of what's right and wrong and true and false is based on the current "consensus" (aka "the Narrative") of their tribe's current opinions on the matter. They can't appeal to Natural Law, nor to God's will, to support their moral preferences (such as, say, the equality of gay sex and the moral necessity of same-sex marriage), so the only basis they have for thinking their moral preferences any more valid or objective than their favorite flavor of ice cream is the underlying notion that their tribe's opinions represent some Grand Destiny for the human race; that they are the Vanguard of History towards some kind of Inevitable Progress.

That's why, as Crude puts it, "The very possibility that, say... people a hundred/thousand years from now may regard gay marriage as a moment of societal decay that was thankfully gotten past, can make some of them absolutely melt down." That's been my experience too. If you can cause a leftist to experience doubt about their tribe's moral or factual authority, to seriously contemplate the notion that they will not be vindicated, but that their vaunted notions of "progress" are nothing more than the provincial preferences of a provincial tribe of provincial people who's opinions reflect nothing more than their time and place, and that they will die out and be forgotten or looked back on as nothing more than sad temporary delusion, the leftist will quite often melt down into a panicked rage.

If their tribe's notion of "progress" doesn't actually represent progress, then it has no objective validity whatsoever, and their entire worldview, their place in the world, their very *reason for existing* is shaken to its core and reduced to nothing. For them, to seriously consider such a thing is to experience existential horror. It's similar experience, I'd imagine, to a faithful Christian seriously coming to believe, against their will, that there is no God, that eliminative materialism is true and life is utterly without meaning or purpose, etc.

The Deuce said...

To give a concrete example, look at how James McGrath argues about same-sex "marriage". His only real form of argument is to show pictures of segregation and the like, and then say, "See that? In the future, everyone will look at you the same way you look at racists now. Now don't you feel embarrassed to be outside my tribe?"

But what if that doesn't happen? What if people of the future think James McGrath and his friends were deluded fools? What if people of the future don't even look at racists the way we look at racists here in North America on March 17, 2014? Then what of McGrath's "morality"?

If McGrath is wrong about the future, he has no basis on which to condemn "homophobia" or even racism now. His opinions on the matter are then, by his own premises, nothing but the irrelevant and embarrassing make-believe of a silly man that are a waste of time for others to give any consideration to whatsoever.

Acatus Bensley said...

What I like about discussing homosexuality and behavior is how uninformed the leftist are. They can't even prove it's natural. They have this phrase that basically states that homosexuality is exhibited in many species therefore it's natural. Human sexuality isn't like animal sexuality and people know this. But this statement gets them right where I want them. My reply is animals have been known to be racist, incestuous, cannibalistic, and suicidal. Are those things natural as well? MELTDOWN!!!!!! Surely the scientific liberals would be aware that animals are very capable of doing things they weren't biologically intended to do. Second point is that sex is for procreation. Sex for pleasure isn't necessarily natural. Nutjob: Nuh uh animals have sex for pleasure too. Actually it's very atypical for an animal to engage in sexual intercourse primarily for sexual pleasure. In fact animals have been known to do things that humans would label sexual, but were actually just animals establishing dominance or being social. After hearing this information they basically just ask how homosexuality affects you. Ironically they want to introduce courses into the highschool curriculum to teach your children that homosexuality is natural and a very common occurrence. They also want you to put your belief in a God and religion second to this dogma in order to comfort the lowest common denominator. The real question is how doesn't homosexuality affect me.