Joxua: Yes, you are correct on both accounts, I did spend a good deal of time observing the behavior of anti theist trolls. In my opinion they are trying to expand the authority of science in order to get it to do things it was never meant to do. They are turning it into a religion. They are taking something that was designed to serve humanity and they are trying to elect it pope and thought police.
Lynn: How are they trying to make science to things it can’t?
Joxua: Well, science deals with epistemology, what we know and how we go about knowing it. Science doesn’t make moral judgements and it doesn’t reason and it doesn’t choose policy or show us the correct course of action, by definition it can’t, science is not a person or an intelligence, it is a technique, a tool. Anti theists are trying to make science the only authority and the only voice, the try to use it as a weapon to shut people up and police what they are allowed to think and talk about. There is a whole internal dialogue going on within anti theists, they perceive themselves as champions of science or martyrs of religion as the case may be and they think that they are expanding their own authority as they pay homage to science.
Lynn: Yes! That is what I am talking about! That is exactly what I have observed, you describe it so much better than I could.
Joxua: Thank you, I would say as many as 50% of them are teenage boys raised by a single mother to be hostile to masculine authority which is how they perceive god an external, patriarchal, authority. They rebel against reason, wisdom, and relationship. The are going through an individuation process but unfortunately it is perverted because instead of separating as a child from parental authority they are only revolting against masculine authority and refusing to grow up and become responsible individuals. Online they misrepresent their age acting as if they are older than they are and trying to sound like they possess a mastery of topics they don’t actually possess, that they are the intellectual peers of adults. They copy arguments they don’t understand but that sound good and winsome to them, but they can’t extrapolate or interpolate, and science is the explanatory art so they are not doing science. When people participate with the premise that they are knowledgeable and mature this feeds their ego and incentivize the aberrant behavior, which is a conquest of the ego.
Lynn: I have noticed the exact same thing with anti theists, so many of them turn out to be 12 years old, arrogant, snarky, cynical, little douche bags. They are nasty and hateful. Adults would know not to act like they do. Could you tell me what your opinion of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?
Joxua: Christopher Hitchens was mentored by Noam Chomsky before he set out to establish his own reputation. Chomsky said of him, “He doesn’t take himself seriously so there is no reason anyone else should.” Christopher Hitchens is a likable enough fellow with whom I would disagree a lot over a few beers if we ever had the chance to converse. He wrote a book I rather like called RIGHTS OF MAN which i would recommend to anyone and i suspect the reason it is not more popular amongst his readers is that in it he offers many excellent points that marginalize the validity of the vitriol cultivated by miso-theists. It shows many good arguments in favor of the necessity of the existence of god and marks the transition of Thomas Paine from an atheist to a deist as he was almost killed in France during the revolution and he blamed the element of atheism in France, he wanted the American revolution to be more intelligent and less emotional and more controlled so he became a deist.
Richard Dawkins on the other hand i feel is committing an unforgivable evil in trying to corrupt the function of science and portray himself as a victim of religion and a sacrifice for science. Dawkins is seeking his own immortality to be permanently associated with science and buried next to Darwin and Galileo in the hallowed ground of the scientific sepulcher. He is an evangelizer and a propagandist of science. He is trying to convince people who have no claim to science because of their inability to grasp it to switch their allegiance to science as though paying lip service to it can protect them from being wrong in the future or that it will somehow increase the quality of their lives. If you observe the behavior of these people online you would think that they are getting indulgences from science for being advocates of it in good standing, they don’t have to admit when they realize they are wrong which is a scientific process, because science can protect them from being wrong, when they are demonstrably and definitively wrong.
Lynn: Did you read Richard Dawkins’ book?
Joxua: Yes, I read THE GOD DELUSION, you have to realize that he is communicating strategically and he is forcing a frame, by naming the book what he did he is insinuating that religious people are clinically insane.
He is using the psychological definition of the term delusion. He is using leading arguments to start a polemic war against all religiosity.
From the perspective of American judgments, Richard Dawkins is one of the smartest men in the world, which is so far from true it is not even funny, if he was smarter he would realize that he is wrong and that what he is trying to do is ill-advised and egotistical and comes from his emotional damage. There are at least 10 french philosophers that would destroy him in a debate as would Chomsky even though he is not an adversary of Dawkins. I even heard one British philosophy professor say that whether god exists or not is not a question for science to answer but philosophy, and she is correct, science was not created to comment on whether god exists or not, religious language comes from a different psychological perspective than does science. Science deals with what can be known about the outside world and religious terms are designed for describing an internal world a subjective world.
Furthermore, Dawkins while not being able to say things as a scientist that would be unscientific invites his cult followers his disciples of scientism to make those logical fallacies that he doesn’t have to courage to voice himself. He uses the Scarlett letter as the symbol for Atheists when in fact he is a god hater and not an atheist. The symbol conflates his brand of atheist as a victim of religiosity while persecuting religiosity. Hester Prynne was knocked up by the priest and because of the prejudices of the religious concealed the source of her shame for his benefit to protect his authority. Dawkins invites his apostles to make associations that he himself cannot make himself, to make illogical irrational beliefs and associations between the situation of a fictional character and the “true atheists”. Not only is this a tacit emotional appeal it is conflationary, both of which are unscientific and come from a morbid emotional state that is concealed in order to make Dawkins appear to be unbiased and mentally stable. If anyone is behaving like Hester Prinn it is the church of Dawkins that is concealing the logical sins that Dawkins is making. They are in a way carrying his cross for him. One does not become more scientific by making irrational logical errors for the sake of science, that doesn’t make any sense to a logical person.
His arguments are won not through Socratic dialogue and the establishment of superior reason or sapiential authority, his arguments are won from his own perspective by framing the argument from the beginning and the false categories into which he separates things. In reducing his own argument he essentially says that agnosticism is not a legitimate position because it is fence sitting and a refusing to decide and the agnostic must choose between believing in god and being against god. Atheism is anti theism without morality or balls, so true atheism is anti theism and miso-theism. Deism is cowardly theism that is more vague and less courageous in asserting its delusional beliefs so from his perspective deism is actually theism.
The hidden subject in the way Richard Dawkins frames his argument is that he takes the smartest scientists and the best science, which from his perspective is synonymous with science and argues against the dumbest of fundamentalists and in defeating their arguments and literal interpretation of the bible he hopes to once and for all time to prove that all religious people are insane and all people that do obeisance to the scientific authority are sane and correct and superior. Dawkins doesn’t demonstrate the least ability to detect his own bullshit.
Lynn: Wow, I am blown away, you manage to bring such crystal clarity to matters that seem to have such obvious conclusions. I am at a loss for words. One should check out ANTITHEIST LOGICAL FALLACIES.page on Facebook. Thank you for your valuable time.