I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models. Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded. People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win. So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns. When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.
The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples. What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt. Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.
So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them. So what does this mean for the near future? Society is about to get a divorce? No, much much worse. The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust. And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science. And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet. If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (https://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly. I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.
Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric. What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist. He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science. What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion. He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good. And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields. What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.
This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t. Socrates was accused of being an atheist. So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful? Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government. There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is. Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego. He wants to be worshiped. He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.
When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.
“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism
And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail. Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent. You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights. They are amoral systems. Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new. What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.
Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists. It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it. Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right? If you survive or succeed you are the fittest. Evolution works!
But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.