{"id":706,"date":"2017-08-08T09:36:26","date_gmt":"2017-08-08T07:36:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/?p=706"},"modified":"2017-08-08T09:36:26","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T07:36:26","slug":"atheist-fundamentalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/atheist-fundamentalism\/","title":{"rendered":"Atheist Fundamentalism?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Atheist Fundamentalism?<\/a><\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
An Atheist Asserts \u201cReligious Privilege\u201d<\/a> as a counter-attack. James Croft, a leader in training at the Ethical Society of St. Louis, writes about it at Chris Stedman’s site, and we’ll look at his claims.
\nIt is not enough to merely be non-religious any more. You must declare your opposition to and offense taken by religious existence itself, not to mention your Victimization<\/i> by religion. Religious existence is characterized by religious privilege<\/i>, \u201cprivilege\u201d being the new microagression<\/i> which is visible only to those with highly specialized sensory apparati, those new privilege detector organs recently acquired by evolution in the Messiah Class.
\nHere Croft gives the defining situation:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2019I don\u2019t believe in God,\u2019 he said looking up from the menu. Was he challenging me because he knows I\u2019m a Christian minister, I wondered?\u2026 Was he intentionally being aggressive?\u201d
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cConsider how intolerant this reaction is; how immediate, how judgmental. The mere words \u201cI don\u2019t believe in God\u201d are a potential aggression. This is a reaction of someone with religious privilege, unused to having her assumptions about the world challenged. If your response to hearing someone say \u201cI don\u2019t believe in God\u201d is to consider it an attack on your own beliefs, the problem is with you\u2014not with any \u201cfundamentalist atheism.\u201d Imagine if I took every expression that someone is a Christian as a potential affront to me. How ridiculous would that seem? Yet atheists put up with this reaction all the time.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s hard not to laugh in the face of this Atheist (and his apologist). The blurting of Atheism out of the blue, for no contextual reason borne of conversation, obviously was meant for other than information transfer. But what was it meant to accomplish? Any rational person<\/i> would wonder. But not this Atheist, of course. For him, the incongruity of this out of place declaration bears no examination; in fact, the examination which it does produce in the Christian is decried as irrational. Only in the inverted logic of Atheism could this possibly be the case.
\nAnd contrary to what he claims, Atheists do indeed take any profession of faith as a personal attack on themselves; it produces the „gastric distress” claims used in court by the American Atheists. Faith belongs in the basement. Massive Atheist organizations exist specifically to drive religion out of their sight. They are cultural bullies.
\nThe nouveau classist-chic privilege „microaggression” charge is similar to the charge that<\/p>\n

\u201cyou\u2019re too stupid to know how stupid you are, but I\u2019m smart and I will tell you how stupid you are; believe me, you are stupid\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the case of the three-class Messiahs, microaggression is visible only to themselves, as is your perpetual guilt:<\/p>\n

\u201cyou\u2019re too biased by privilege and stupid to know how biased by privilege and stupid you are, but I am smart and unbiased by privilege, so I will tell you how biased by privilege and stupid you are\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2013 hence, microaggression, invisible except to Messiahs and their pet Victims.
\nHowever, the main thrust of the article is that Atheists cannot be fundamentalists because they have no principles at all, no fundamentals and no principles about which to be fundamental.
\nThat is false, but just to this extent. Atheists are pretty much in agreement that religion of all types is wrong, evil, and that Atheists are put upon by the existence of religion. There undoubtedly are some who do not care about religion one way or another, but those people are not out making claims about how abused they are by religion all over the web. Everyone who goes onto the web as an Atheist is highly likely to adhere to the above fundamentals (and more, but that\u2019s for a different time).
\nFree Thinking means thinking anarchically without constraints by religion. If hatred of religion did not exist, there would be no reason to claim Free Thinking. The same applies to the religion of Humanism, which started from the premise of religious hatred, and elitist desire to eradicate all religion by taking over all institutions (as always, read the Humanist Manifesto I).
\nBut back to Croft and his claims regarding the persecution of Atheists:
\nThat the charge of \u201catheist fundamentalism\u201d is frequently a fig leaf for distaste of atheism in general is clear in the way the term is used by enormously powerful religious individuals to push their own agendas. The Archbishop of Wales, for instance, once decried \u201catheistic fundamentalism\u201d for, among other things, wanting public hospitals to not assume all of their clients are Christian, and wanting public schools to respect the religious diversity of their students. To the archbishop, the desire of atheists to be equal is \u201catheist fundamentalism.\u201d
\nThis is false, at its core. What Atheists want is not \u201cdiversity respect\u201d in any sense: they do not respect diversity. What they demand is pure Atheism in schools and hospitals, not tolerance of diversity.
\nThis nefarious use of the term reveals the charge of \u201catheist fundamentalism\u201d for what it sometimes is: A weapon to marginalize critique of religion and the religious, and to maintain a status quo in which religious viewpoints, practices, and communities are privileged over nonreligious ones.
\nAnd of course it is not \u201ccritique of religion\u201d which is the issue. It is the Atheist raw attacks on religion by attempting to drive religion underground as they Athei-ize all of culture, education and government. Croft is deliberately misrepresenting Atheist actions as benign critiques, abstract discussions regarding religions and the religious: Atheist actions are anything but benign; their attacks are anything but mere „critiques”, as Croft’s use of the weaponized „privilege” demonstrates.
\nCroft is certainly correct in his claim that there are no binding moral<\/i> principles to Atheism, if that is indeed his claim. That includes lying in defense of a false picture of Atheism, concealing that which Atheism becomes as it metastasizes into Leftist, totalitarian, elitist three-class Messiahism, and its attack on western civil culture in general.
\nIt is this which one sees when one sees an Atheist, and for good reason. They are both Messiahs and Victims, and religion is the Oppressor Class.
\nCroft tries to calm the dialog with the following:<\/p>\n

\u201cI understand the desire of some religious people to hit back against what seems to them\u2014and what sometimes really is\u2014unreasonable and unfair criticism of their faith tradition. I understand too the desire of many atheists to improve the quality of discourse within our own community, so that we become more thoughtful, precise, and kind in our critiques of religion. But the term \u201catheist fundamentalism\u201d is always inaccurate and often harmful. We should find clearer terms.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, to be more specific, accurate and descriptive, I suggest the term \u201cAtheist fundamentalism\u201d be replaced with \u201cAtheist Three-Class Messiahism\u201d. That should clear up their position.<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Atheist Fundamentalism? An Atheist Asserts \u201cReligious Privilege\u201d as a counter-attack. James Croft, a leader in training at the Ethical Society of St. Louis, writes about it at Chris Stedman’s site, and we’ll look at his claims. It is not enough… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_sitemap_exclude":false,"_sitemap_priority":"","_sitemap_frequency":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1056],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-teksty-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/706","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}