The self professed “activists” from The Rational Response Squad (RRS) are rearing their atheist anti-Christians support group’s head again. This time they are attempting to perform a feat that has been tried time and time again but has, as of yet, and thank YHVH, eluded fruition.
What do they seek to establish?:
…to unite all atheists under one banner for the first time in internet history. A creative campaign is coming in 2012 to promote the actions of “Atheism United.”
But is the issue really to “unite all atheists under one banner” or do so “for the first time in internet history.” These could be different goals and the actual goal is a bit difficult to discern. On the surface, it appears that the “Atheism United” crusade is not about commonality of views but about a website with various links on it, as they note:
…the most extensive list of external links for atheism on the internet without discretion. The site will
universally accept you and your brand of atheism without prejudice.
In fact, to “unite all atheists under one banner” would be a rather impossible goal and not because atheists are freethinkers or skeptics. Indeed, generally speaking atheists are not true freethinkers because they hermetically seal their thought processes within a box of materialism and they are not skeptics but cynics.
However, as incoherently as ever, they claim:
Sure, we’ve talked about the issues that are important to us but we have not tried to unite under a set of principles that we believe in. That’s about to change.
So, it is not just about come one atheist, come all atheists “you and your brand of atheism without prejudice” since they are putting forth “a set of principles”—and dogmatheistically so, who has bequeathed upon them such authority?
Yet, they also state:
RRS has united people around what we don’t believe in.
This incoherence is based on the notion of atheism as lack of beliefs which is a group-think way of attempting to deny YHVH’s existence but abscond from having to prove it.
But, is it a “set of principles that we believe in” or “what we don’t believe in.” If a guess had to be offered one would have to borrow atheist alogic and answer this either or question with, “Yes, no, maybe so.” Perhaps their unifying motto is that they believe that they do not believe—see Daniel Dennett – Belief in Belief
They further note:
The Rational Response Squad has been accused of being too strident or aggresive with our tactics. In that time we’ve consistently stated that we support other atheists right to be passive or less aggressive than us. This message wasn’t always accepted as a persuasive argument fo acceptance of RRS methods by those who play passive. Because of this some of us thought it would be nice to lead by example.
Some may recall that the RSS where responsible for the media hogging campaign whereby they got their adherents to video tape themselves denying the Holy Spirit, etc., in other to prove that they were without feat of committing the “unpardonable sin.” They were very, very successful in proving their lack of knowledge about that subject as well.
One key player in the RRS is Brian Sapient who, for one is so removed from modern scientific knowledge that just a couple of years ago he stated:
…the components of our world today, our universe, have always existed.
For the details on this issue, see: The First Commandment of Thermodynamics
To the issue of atheism’s sects, when you consider the history of atheism and even something as seemingly benign as atheism symbols – atheist symbols you will note both, various attempts at forming a great gathering under one straw roof as well as constant atheist infighting.
For instance, the Rational Response Squad states:
…the RRS will get help create a project that supports adversaries of “new atheism”…
Apparently, this refers to those atheists who detest the deleterious tactics of the “New Atheists.”
Internet Infidels‘ Jeffery Jay Lowder wrote,
…the “atheist” movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of “atheism.”
EvilBible.com‘s author refers to as the “few morons” who are “so damn stupid” for defining atheism as mere “lack of” belief in God.
Sam Harris argues that there should be no such word as “atheism” but American Atheists counter-argue that they have fought long and hard for the acceptance of atheism and thus, the term should not be gotten rid of. Keep in mind that Sam Harris is the atheist Buddhist mystic who does not like the labels “atheist,” “Buddhist” or “mystic.”
Moreover, American Atheists’ webmaster wrote:
Atheists are NOT “secular humanists”, “freethinkers”, “rationalists” or “ethical culturalists”…Often, people who are Atheists find it useful to masquerade behind such labels.
Yet, Dan Barker’s The Freedom From Religion Foundation disagrees,
Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.
You may recall a pervious article wherein it was noted that Christopher Hitchens had a very hard time even defining his own atheism—see Disambiguating Atheism
Francois Tremblay, whose self-description includes, “working on atheist apologetics” (pro-atheist apologetics, that is) wrote the following in Herding Cats – Why Atheism Will Lose:
…atheism is doomed to failure…It is condemned to be a minority viewpoint, forever disconnected from societal and moral trends…atheists, are nothing like a coherent or concerted group. Organizations like American Atheists serve a role of broadcasting information more than anything else, because there cannot be concerted action when nobody agrees on what to…Most atheists disagree strongly on whenever atheism should be propagated, or promoted, and on the matter of doing so…there’s at least an image problem…the Golden Age of atheism is behind us…atheism will, and must, lose.
Of course, his point is to bring about a new ear with a new atheism but at this point, he makes some good points.
The article Atheist Factions notes:
Jacques Rousseau wrote in the Daily Maverick: “Elevatorgate…has resulted in three weeks of infighting in the secular community. Some might observe that we indulge in these squabbles fairly frequently.”
An ex-atheist wrote: “As an Atheist for 40 years, I noticed that there is not just a wide variety of Atheist positions, but there exists an actual battle between certain Atheist factions.”
Prior to the Elevatorgate incident, Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see also: Atheism and women).
Perhaps the question ought to be: is the Old World Order coming back—again? Or perhaps, a New World Disorder?
Firstly, the world order is the old one encouraged by that old serpent, the devil, who encouraged Eve to “be like God.” Of course, atheism is, ultimately, about self-deification in whatever form it may take. Get God out of the picture, make yourself the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality, and you are well on your way towards declaring, “I shall have no other gods besides myself.” Indeed, satan has not had a new idea in millennia and the real tragedy is that he has not had to since we keep falling for the same old thing.
Secondly, considering that the 20th century was the most secular and the bloodiest in human history, we may wonder about the new world disorder that may be coming right back around. The issue is not that atheism necessarily leads to the murder to millions, tens of millions, actually hundreds of millions. The issue is that atheism is a mad blank canvas upon which an individual may paint whatever picture they please—utterly unrestrained.
It is no coincidence that the 20th century was the most secular and the bloodiest in human history. It was the bloodiest because it was the most secular. The tens of millions murdered by atheist regimes were not killed during war time as one regime fought another to survive as the fittest in the struggle for life. Rather, they were murdered by their own atheist leaders as a direct result of their worldview—the masses were “useless eaters.”
Vox Day’s calculations (The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, p. 241: are as noteworthy as they are the cause of chill bumps (the Southern way of saying goose bumps):
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things?
If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.
Indeed, the Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars.
The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD.
From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars (and half of those were involved Islam and see Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism).
So, will the Rational Response Squad lead to regime change? Not bloody likely, they are much, much, much more likely to get media attention, play the, “We just want a voice and to encourage rationalism” and then they will fizz away into cyberspace’s nether regions until such time as they concoct some outrageous attention getting stunt or another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.