In over eight years of higher education, a thread I was able to see emerging was the “new atheist”/atheist trend. Part of the reason for that was embarking on a philosophy degree at a state university, so that kind of mindset was to be expected. In the last week, atheism has come up in several discussions and I think warrants another analysis. To most people, movements and ideologies are fluid, arising organically, based on whoever has the best argument and presentation. Academia is a neutral entity, fostering genuine dialogue between competing ideas, and over time, the best ideas prevail, and the older ideas fade into the dustbin of history. Public education and higher academia thus facilitates the development of the individual into a mature, rational thinking citizen able to offer informed opinions on all matters scientific, religious and political. The system-indoctrinated atheist rationalist becomes the ubermensch in his mind, able to critique, build, fix and destroy all reality at his own whim. All his thoughts and opinions are de facto genius, simply by virtue of having been through the system and mastering its version of some singular field like biology.
Interactions with any of the unenlightened that still believe in childish notions like God, angels and devils requires a pseudo-psychological characterization of the theist as trapped in some form of neurosis or pathological problem. On the contrary – none of this is true or accurate. In reality, atheism is irrational and utterly philosophical nonsense. The atheist position is one of unenlightened closed mindedness to the extent that any propositions that don’t fit into the materialist presuppositions are considered rank heresy. In fact, the more one watches the modus operandi of the so-called new atheists and the “Skeptic Magazine” crowd like Shermer, the more evident it is that their enlightened skepticism operates like a systematic orthodoxy, replete with its saints (mischaracterized views of Galileo, Newton, Darwin, etc.), dogmas like Darwinism(s), modern prophets and evangelists like Dennett and Dawkins, and a a communal “spirit” they all possess of bad hygiene, crappy beards, and faggy fedoras.
When Nietzsche mocked the “pale-faced atheist” evangelists of his day, he was once again prophetic. At least their Enlightenment forebears and philosophes had some culture and were interesting. These creatures are cloned in the pseudo-educational academic factory. But lest I be accused of the ad hominem attacks they so often level my way, I thought it would be useful to offer up several of their own modern myths to be slain on the altar of truth with the ritual athame of my keyboard. After a brief analysis of those myths, I would like to offer a few vindications of my own analyses that have proven correct, demonstrating that for all the ad hominem attacks, none of their petty tricks and sophistry can stop what is actually and objectively true. Normally these kinds of responses aren’t worth doing, but a few run ins of late with several self-titled, enlightened “atheists” has sparked my sick enjoyment of debate and disarming of opponents.