Ideological Atheism Will Fall Pt.2

Now to why atheism, as an ideology, will fall.

(1) It’s narrow minded.

I have read many atheists comments over the past 5 years, and there are some very narrow world-views coming from this mindset.

Atheists do not know that a Catholic bishop secured the right for them in America to have the right to ‘no belief system’ (ie: John Hughes). But what will atheism give to religion. Well according to many atheists, nothing, it needs to dropped from human history.

(2) It’s unreasonable.

There seems to be no 2 ways with this ‘new atheism’, religion is bad and of no use to the discourse in this country (or countries). This is the premise they actually start with and defend it like the mason-dixon line. This type of reason wants war, not compromise.

(3) It’s lacks compassion (and sometimes ethics)

Most new atheists determine most everything by something they define as ‘factual’ (ie: stats or some take on history or scientific reasoning). But if this is the reasoning to be used, is it really empathetic to human conditions and needs?

What’s so good about statistics anyways? What if by statistical vote the country wanted to allow the poorest people in the country to die so they could save space for the population that matters (ie: to avoid over-crowding on this planet). Over population is not good, but there is no good solution of how to answer that one outside of un-ethical procedures. Statistics also has no concern for the human condition, it’s numbers and they can be read in a variety of ways and also may be mis-represented.

(4) It can be hateful

New atheism does have some attachements to it that seem outright absurd. They hate religion, and if you are attached to one, you just made their list of ‘idiots’, ‘dumb*sses’, ‘ignorant’…basically someone that can be dehumanized on some level as compared to their enlightnement. I have seen this before in countries that outlawed religion, many people were massacred before that country realized how stupid an idea that is.

(5) Thinks scienctific reasoning is the ‘saviour’

I have found science lacking in it’s ability to address moral needs probably because that’s of no concern to science (as admitted by almost any atheist). So how can it ever be reasoned that science will somehow provide the guidelines for a better ‘humanity’? There seems to be some kind of smokescreen happening here to make up for atheism’s lack of a ‘moral code’ within it’s ideology.

In fact tildeb just quoted to me biology as a moral guideline. But this is as absurd as saying astronomy will provide a moral guideline. They are sciences and are not concerned with guidlines for human behavior, only to define scientific reasoning to human processes or human knowlegde, No science really says anything about human solutions to problems or the implementation of the findings of science – as true as they are.

(6) Plays with the facts

Like any other ideology with some mission to accomplish new atheism has this small problem, they play with the facts in their subjective reasoning on history, statistics, and even science. Ever meet a atheist who could admit they were wrong when debating someone that was ‘religious’? Ever meet some religious that could admit they were wrong in a debate with an ‘atheist’? Truth is, most new atheists cannot afford to be wrong since they have an agenda to keep moving and alive. If this means a mis-representation of history or some statistical figure, so be it.

I cannot imagine living in a society where science was used as some moral code, it would be purely ‘subjective’ nonsense.

If science is not an ideology, which it may not be, then why the concern with the replacement of religion, which is an ideology, with something else? That argument in and of itself reveals the truth behind much atheism I have read; it’s an ideology and proposes philosophical positions or at least tries to partner with philosophical positions in defense of it’s own basic belief in ‘a-theism’.