I am constantly amused by others that say that being an atheist is more than what it actually is: a non-belief in god(s).
If you happen to agree with that statement, I think you’ll be rightly indignant by this post. I’m really not sure what this blogger is trying to say here other than what we’ve seen before from The Social Justice League that any atheist that does not hold to their specific ideals of atheism is simply non-human.
First of all, the blogger uses the verb imply quite a bit. I’m not quite sure he understands what “imply” actually means. Of course, anytime anyone uses the dictionary to confront the Social Justice League is often roundly criticized for using the actual meaning of a word instead of what they wish it to mean.
Let’s start with this sentence:
In truth, atheism absolutely does have implications beyond mere absence of belief in supernatural father figures. A world without gods to take responsibility for everything is a world where we ourselves are responsible.
No, no, atheism has no implications beyond the non-belief in god(s). There are no moral considerations. Yes, we are all responsible for our moral compass but that applies to all humans, not just atheists.
He then separates atheism into two different forms: god-slayer and truth-seeker. Again, words mean something. Slay means to “kill violently”. Well, atheists aren’t trying to kill any god, that would mean that atheists believe there was a god, which is clearly not the case.
Of course the truth-seeker is the one that seems to utilize reason in coming to atheism:
They’ve taken an honest look at the facts and found religion wanting. The truth-seeker rejects the idea of gods, not out of spite or any anti-social motivations, but because the evidence is not consistent with any of the theistic religions being true. It’s a question of right versus wrong, and theism just isn’t right.
That’s a peculiar thing to say. I think that all atheists came to their non-belief by examining the facts and finding that there weren’t any to support a belief in any god(s).
Then, of course, the god-slayer seems to be less of a person of reason. In fact, it appears that the god-slayer have no compass whatsoever.
He says rather bluntly, is that the god-slayer(dictionary atheist) cares less about right versus wrong, and more about winning versus losing. To the god-slayer, it’s all about dominance, and power; and for such, the appeal of atheism is not so much that it’s right, but more that it provides the tools with which to destroy the beliefs and credibility of others.
I have absolutely no idea what he’s talking about here. This is one of the most nonsensical statements I have ever read from a so-called “atheist”. It actually sounds more like something a fundamentalist theist would say.
But he’s not through with you god-slayers! Not by half:
…they (the god-slayers) actually prefer the image of the amoral, self-seeking atheist because it fits better into their preferred narrative of the atheist as a dangerous and unpredictable outlaw that nobody dares to mess with.
I wonder how it is that he comes to such an outrageous conclusion? Again, using words I don’t believe he understands (amoral, self-seeking, outlaw). This just seems to be a rant and has no basis in fact.
The entire post is nothing more than a rant against those that refuse to accept the Social Justice Leagues own definition of atheism.
He goes on, and on, and on, for a couple of interminable paragraphs letting everyone know that the god-slayers are small, angry, whatever. It’s just too much for anyone with more than a first grade education to take.
Then comes the coup de gras:
“Elevator-gate”, “GamerGate”, and a host of other major and minor scandals and abuses, are all manifestations of the eons-long conflict between the truth-seekers and the god-slayers, and they’re only becoming more prominent now because of the rise—and successes—of the truth-seekers.
Oh, that hurts!(not). This really shows what the entire piece (rant) is about. The Social Justice League are the ones that are really angry; they’re angry that most atheists reject their “brand” and their attempts to demonize those atheists that will not come into the fold.
The final sentence tells us all what The Social Justice League think of the 99% that reject their religion:
The god-seeker side is ultimately self-defeating. And the sooner the better, too.
They just want us to go away. They want to control the dialogue. they, and only they speak for atheism.
No. No you don’t.