The first time I read the God Delusion, I knew it was wrong on a number of points, but recently Richard Dawkins said some things that mad me interested in the book again and I bought a copy and started rereading it. I didn’t realize the first time what a truly manipulative and strategic communicator he really was. The reason this is important to me is that some of you know that I am a psycholinguist that looks for psychopathic patterns in communication and psychopaths are manipulative, strategic communicators.
One of Richards favorite tactics is to quote somebody else and agree with them instead of saying something himself, or he will invite somebody to make a logical fallacy that he himself doesn’t actually assert, or he will ask a question instead of making an assertion that could be falsified, he edits his consideration set to prove himself correct and he doesn’t include information that weakens his arguments. I will point out a couple of examples of these behaviors in his rants.
When the police are interrogating someone they look for the story to change, this is very important, how the story changes and what the story changes to because it can reveal intent to conceal or mislead. Every time the story changes it is important. When I first read the book Richard quotes a female friend of his as saying that she was sexually molested and it was “icky” but it did no long term damage and he agreed with her, then recently he said:
In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.
Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”
He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
So we see that he was concealing his real narrative. This is a strategy that he uses repeatedly to avoid taking responsibility for what he is saying. Here is another instance where he is quoting Douglas Adams:
If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’ you say, ‘I respect that’.
Who hear is expressing contempt for Orthodox Judaism? Is it Richard or Douglas? Who do I falsify? Does Richard agree with Douglas? If not why does he include the quote? In the next paragraph he he attacks Quakers, who started in England by rebelling against the Atheistic sexual debauchery and had to leave the country to get away from them. Now I don’t know about you, but I have never had an Chassidic Jew tell me that I wasn’t allowed to move a light switch on Saturday. Who is arguing for the authority to force Orthodox Jews to use the lights on Saturday? Not only are they mocking one of the first revolutions in civil rights, the original Holy Day, the first weekend that guaranteed that you were not allowed to work your slaves to death, and that you wouldn’t have to compete against people working 7 days a week and you had one day to yourself in which to relax and roger your wife, but it is also a post modernist movement for people that are tired of the rigors, deuchery, and psychopathic hypocrisy of modern life.
Oh, yeah, I will just leave this here….
“the right to be Christian seems in this case to mean the right to poke your nose into other people’s private lives’.”
EINSTEIN IS CONFUSING
“confuse” or enlighten? “deism is watered down theism“. Now what is so telling is that one moment he is saying that Deism is Theism and then he says he is not trying to debate Einstein’s god, but Einstein was a deist… Not only that, he doesn’t explain Einstein’s god because if he did some people would say, “Well, that is actually pretty interesting, I think I might be a deist too” and then they wouldn’t be as easily hypnotized by his propaganda that they must from now on harass and bully religious people. Richard Dawkins is not an authority on deism and he defines it falsely. I should know, I am a deist, Einstein and myself have the same god.
This is truly bizarre, he quotes Adolf Hitler verbatim but he doesn’t give credit to Hitler for the quote.
Now why is it that knowledge has to be fought? That is what is so strange about this quote, not only does it tell me he is most likely quoting Hitler, it tells me that he is manipulating people. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, unfortunately most Americans are not smart enough to detect what is for me the powerful stench of horse shit. He can easily befuddle the minds of people with a little bit of knowledge and turn them against the people of faith, just like somebody else I know, hmmm….
One of his communication strategies is to borrow authority from other cool people to make his ideas seem more hip. He uses the Beatles song to support his claim that without religion there would be no violence because there would be no clicks or groups of people that disagree with one another and fight each other. Not only is this assertion unproven, that a world without religion would be a peaceful world, but he ignores the fact that state enforced atheism has always failed, and has always been associated with violence and human rights atrocities. Furthermore, he ignores the fact of the first two primary influences of the Beatles music. Not to mention he is smart enough to know that children are not born as blank slates, that is why Noam Chomsky is famous, he falsified the Behaviorists who thought that children were blank slates. On top of that, if lets say we got rid of Islam would the thought tools, Abeed, Harem, and Taqiyya disappear? Would people no longer think in those terms? Or should we eradicate their language as well, like the Catholics who indoctrinated people into their own language?
Yukteswar Giri (also written yuktesvara, Sri Yukteswar) (Bengali: শ্রী যুক্তেশ্বর গিরী) (10 May 1855 – 9 March 1936) is the monastic name of Priya Nath Karar (Bengali: প্রিয়নাথ কাঁড়ার), the guru of Satyananda Giri and Paramahansa Yogananda. Yukteswar was an educator, astronomer, a Jyotisha (Vedic astrologer), a yogi, and a scholar of the Bhagavad Gitaand the Bible. He was a disciple of Lahiri Mahasaya of Varanasi and a member of the Giri branch of the swami order. Yogananda considered Yukteswar as Jnanavatar, or “Incarnation of Wisdom”.
Aleister Crowley (/ˈkroʊli/; born Edward Alexander Crowley; 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an Englishoccultist, ceremonial magician, poet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer. He was responsible for founding the religion and philosophy of Thelema, in which role he identified himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into theAeon of Horus in the early 20th century.
And then Richard contradicts himself again by creating another clique or group of people that is adversarial with everybody else…
“Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to ‘come out,’ thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can’t be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.”
Now what I find so interesting about the behavior of Atheists is that Atheism was not an organization, it was the absence of the presence of the belief in god, as such their behavior was not informed by Atheism and not organized. Now it is becoming organized and informed. But Atheists while attacking other groups ignore the bad stuff that their people say and do, just like a religion, while insisting that their bad behavior doesn’t characterize Atheism, at the same time atheists cannot be falsified by any praxis of Atheism, since they are still insisting that it is not an organization when in fact it is. Atheism is becoming a religion. What they are forgetting is that the highest form of their good is the absence of the presence of a form of good… If you want to talk about Delusional…
He just won’t give up on defending pedophilia. Notice the change in narrative, the first time he spoke it happened to a woman, then it happened to him, and it was “putting hands in my shorts” and then he mentioned it again and this time it was, “putting hands in clothes” he is using vague tautologies in order to make the whole matter look more harmless, and he is using an exaggerated comparison set in order to herd people towards the answer he wants in order to make it look more reasonable than it is.
I have spent a lot of time studying how psychopaths like Hitler rise to power, how they communicate harmlessness, and how they pass your threat filter, and then they get behind you and get you doing their dirty work. In the book click!, they say the fastest way to get a group of people to have a sense of unity is by instilling in them a shared sense of suffering, they need to feel victimized, persecuted. And then he uses his scientific authority to get them to attack his enemies, while he stays at home and “mildly” Frotteurises your children, but as my stand up comedy alter ego says:
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.
Another one bites the dust.
Funny that an atheist would be arguing for psychology….“study of the soul“
The word psychology literally means, “study of the soul“ (ψυχή, psukhē, meaning “breath”, “spirit”, or “soul”; and -λογος -logos, translated as “study of” or “research”). The Latin word psychologia was first used by the Croatian humanist and Latinist Marko Marulić in his book, Psichiologia de ratione animae humanae in the late 15th century or early 16th century. The earliest known reference to the word psychology in English was by Steven Blankaart in 1694 in The Physical Dictionary which refers to “Anatomy, which treats of the Body, and Psychology, which treats of the Soul.”
I am going to demonstrate that not only is it impossible to get rid of religion, it is stupid to try. People that try to eradicate religion either know what they are doing is wrong and impossible and are therefore doing it consciously and with evil intent, or they are too stupid to detect their own horse shit.
BELIEF AS A TOOL
Dawkinites and Hitchenites frame religion as some external structure of authority forcing its values on others from a superior position. What though if my religion is my own religion? What if I am the high priest of my own religion? What if I us belief pragmatically as a tool t manipulate myself? Impossible you say? Well let me explain how validity works, if I can show you one instance where your argument fails it is not valid, you have to retract it and correct it and resubmit it. Are you ready? Brace yourself…
BAM! Belief as a tool, your argument is invalid.
GOD AS AN EMPTY SET
Now Dawkinites and Hitchenites like to argue that the God of the bible is a man, they use a theistic perspective on god to force a false sense of victory, as though by defeating the fundamentalist christian perspective on religion they can defeat the concept of god forever. The religions were very seldom created by theists though, and since the bible is originally a Jewish book written in allegory I think they get the last say on how it actually should be interpreted. Their approach isn’t any more valid than if I wanted to falsify the Western educational system and I only polled kindergartners and then bias mined to prove my perspective correct that the Western educational system only taught morons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)
I am a deist, and because of the way that antitheists and misotheists approach the debate, conflating me with fundies, they presuppose my arguments and positions as though the god of science has given them psychic powers. They put words in my mouth, defeat their assumptions and preemptively declare victory and do their little end zone dance. I call this being delusional about people. You can’t defeat my arguments by not understanding them or by misunderstanding them. I believe the god is the faculty of reason in man. Antitheists try to prove me wrong by demonstrating that they don’t have the faculty of reason in themselves. Instead of communicating analytically through socratic dialogue, they communicate strategically, bias mining, conversation dropping, red herring, fallacy stacking, sarcasm, cynicism, ridicule, demonstrating themselves masters of every vice that man has and none of the virtues.
You see in the bible that the use of the word “god” is constantly used for forces and nature and virtue, victory, and will, and even the universe. God is used for those forces we don’t understand.
Now I am a psycholinguist and an analytical philosopher, which is to say I study language. Science is great for discussing the external world, what can be verified, and reproduced, but some of us also have an active inner life. We have experiences that are not shared, and not verifiable, and not reproducible. Does this mean that we should ignore those thoughts and feelings? What if we are poets or artists? Can we no longer write fiction? Should we burn all of the fantasy and science fiction books? Concerning any subject matter that isn’t about reality? Or would we be robbing ourselves of creative ability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism
Now one of my favorite philosophical concepts is that of Epistemological anarchism, the history of science tells us that we don’t know what the correct answer is going to be, many discoveries have been accidental. So when we edit our consideration set to only include sources of inspiration which have been correct in the past we are not necessarily putting ourselves any closer to solving the problem. We don’t know where our inspiration will come from and we are robbing ourselves of creativity in problem solving. Even the anthropic principle was correct once, wasn’t it? (when Fred Hoyle discovered the process that creates carbon) The fact of the matter is that if you know where the answer is, you know what the answer is. But what if nobody knows the answer? Antitheists feel very sciency about themselves but they are not scientists, they are cheerleaders of science. Their knowledge is received knowledge. They presuppose that everything is already known and they can go look up the answer or ask a teacher.
In the absence of the presence of a scientific language how are we supposed to describe how we think the universe works? Humans do not spring from the forehead of Zeus fully formed and in armor reciting formulas. Human beings universally anthropomorphize. Noam Chomsky said in an interview, before we start trying to change the fact that humans naturally presuppose some form of god, maybe we should figure out why evolution made us so that we do that. Evidence of Big foot might not exist in the physical world, but big foot might have a subtle existence in the mind of the person that believes he exists. Without a person being able to explain the way they think the universe works there is really no way to educate them or help them change, is there?
Maybe Einstein’s research on light and the universe should be discarded because he imagined himself delusionally riding across the universe on a beam of light.
WHAT ARE RELIGIOUS PROCESSES
If religious processes are bad, Dawkinites and Hitchenites need to be clear about what are religious processes and not use them. Proselytizing, evangelizing, converting, appeals to emotion, making a martyr of oneself, ex cathedra assertions, are these not religious processes? If they are so bad why are “scientific” people using them? Or is it OK for scientific people to use them because they have a reprieve from the flying spaghetti monster? You are turning science into the religion of Scientism. This is obvious because of how many antitheists and misotheists go uncorrected by people in their own community that should know better. That is why I have so much respect for Neil de Grasse Tyson, because he calls everybody on their shit regardless of what camp they are in, or their reputation, science doesn’t sell indulgences.
PSYCHOPATHS AND STRUCTURES OF AUTHORITY
Religion is not the cause of evil in the world anymore than emotion is. You would sooner eradicate emotion than religion. Until people know how to recognize psychopaths and prevent their social climbing through structures of authority you will never prevent evil from occurring in the world. Psychopaths are attracted to structures of Authority so that they can abuse the power the accumulate there in. Creating another structure of authority isn’t the answer. You have to have to ability to recognize psychopaths, confront their behavior, and prevent them from doing their will. There is no such thing as an incorruptible structure of authority….
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
- Ex Cathedra Assertions by Dawkinites and Hitchenites (atheistfallacies.wordpress.com)
- All About Jewish Philosophy and Religion (judaism.answers.com)
- why it is bad to misrepresent your opponent when you are ignorant about her ways! (maasaiboys.wordpress.com)
- What’s the Deal With Antitheists and Misotheists? a Talk With Joxua Mourningstar (atheistfallacies.wordpress.com)
- Star Trek, Science and Religion (optimalhumanmodulation.com)
- Science and Religion…a Contradiction? (apocalypticbluesblog.wordpress.com)
- Non-delusion by Joxua Mourningstar (atheistfallacies.wordpress.com)
- Anarchistic Epistemology – Jade (talonsphilosophy.wordpress.com)
- The Wise Agnostic -Katherine (talonsphilosophy.wordpress.com)