Home » Atheism, Darwinism » Coffee!! Darwinism and popular culture: Materialist atheists as victims?

Coffee!! Darwinism and popular culture: Materialist atheists as victims?

Have a look at this story, going the rounds, and act with reasonable caution on its claims:

This grief about atheists being disliked or feared is the first stage in a program, very active just now in the United States, from which we, here in Canada, are now emerging into the light.

But some nations may still be descending further into the abyss. I name no names. You know who you are.

You an American? Why does this matter to you? Please listen: The US government has just put in “hate crime” legislation, explicitly enabling people who kvetch about hate.

That is why atheists need to portray themselves as victims of wrongdoing, even if no wrongdoing ever really occurred. Or else, it didn’t really matter. Studies like this help the atheists build a “victim” case. It would certainly help them protect Darwinism.

Can’t think of anything else that would protect Darwinism right now, actually.

Why do I say Canada is emerging from this? Traditional free Canadians of all stripes finally won a round when we got a government pooh-bah to acknowledge that outrages against citizens actually contravene our Constitution.

Wow! An outrage perpetrated by the government against a citizen contravenes our Constitution? So … we have a Constitution? Well yes, we do, … and it actually turns out to be higher class paper than the stuff we relegate to the john.

I had almost forgotten. I helped draft our Constitution in 1981. But no one minds that kind of thing any more. Unless … could there now be hope?

Can I now stop shouting abuse and hanging up the phone when some idiot from a political party calls, soliciting my vote, despite the continuing shameless abuse of civil rights, currently supported by all Canadian political parties? They just want to milk us for a good lifestyle for themselves. But we can’t afford it any more. Many people’s lives have been ruined by the amazing rulings of social engineers empowered via the “human rights” system.

Our recent well-publicized Canadian “hate crime” complainers often happen to be Islamic fascists as well as atheists, but the difference doesn’t matter much.

Islamic fascists and atheists totally agree on one really important thing: You do not have freedom of thought, conscience, and belief. Canada was vulnerable because we have great principles but we do not have a “First Amendment” (= “Congress shall make no law”) so any number of local social workers were totally delighted to police the lives of their fellow citizens. Powering down the social workers has been exceedingly difficult.

The Canadian public never really adapted. Hence the growing revolt across the country, as these social engineers spread ever more widely into anything from who should serve at the altar at a Catholic church to whether a surgeon must be forced to operate, against his own judgement regarding his skills.

What either Islamic fascists or atheists believe is just boilerplate, because they agree on the one most important thing: Freedom of thought, conscience, and belief are an illusion. Government should run your life and tell you what to believe, for your own good.

Oh wait. Lights are going on all across northern North America.

Hey, it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

27 Responses to Coffee!! Darwinism and popular culture: Materialist atheists as victims?

  1. “I helped draft our Constitution in 1981.”

    Really? Wow! That’s something to brag to the grand kids about eh? :)

  2. 2

    I’ve never understood the rationality behind hate crimes legislation. All it seems to be saying is that certain motivations for crime should be the deciding factor in the severity of the punishment. In Canada, it seems that demonstrating motivation without actually committing a crime, is also a hate crime.

    Well our laws have always considered the severity of the crime in determining the severity of the punishment – except in relation to malice aforethought vs. crimes of passion. The only reason for this distinction is that crimes of passion are sometimes unintentional, so this factor should always be considered.

    So back to hate crime legislation – Why add another level to what is already effective? Because certain special interest groups want it that way? That’s all? But this has no bearing on the severity of the actual crime. It’s really a form of revenge, and it’s a sham. What happens if once a person has already served the determined severity of punishment for a hate crime, then we find new evidence that it wasn’t really a hate crime after all. He said “I’m feeling gay today,” then shot the guy. Then what? Is that really fair? Well, the punishment regardless in this case is probably fair, but there are other crimes where this isn’t the case.

    I think we should stick with what already works. Sure, some really bad criminals will be let off earlier, but there are prices to be paid for freedom. If free speech leads to hate speech, and hate speech leads to hate crime, I am really interjecting a double standard – people are free to say what they want unless there’s a crime involved, then they’ll get time for their thoughts.

    Some might say “Yeah, but they acted on those thoughts.” Well, so did any other criminal, who didn’t use hate speech. Frankly, I think all crime should be seen as some form of hate. Really now, are there love crimes? “Darling, I really love you, and I think you are the greatest, but BANG!”

    If hate crimes are illegal, then hate speech should also be illegal, but we know where that leads – can you show me how to get to Canada?

    So now atheists want to get in on the act? I assume that they are also Darwinists. One problem with that – they will have to show that the hate speech igniting the hate crime was intentional, and not the result of unplanned and undirected natural processes. :)

  3. 3

    added to #1 – …..and not the result of unplanned and undirected natural processes, which might be counterproductive.

  4. Please listen: The US government has just put in “hate crime” legislation, explicitly enabling people who kvetch about hate.

    I don’t understand what this sentence is trying to say. The government has “put in” legislation? Does that mean that something was passed by Congress, or signed into law, or sent to a committee, or what? I think that as long as you’re dropping links in your posts, you might consider linking to the fact you’re citing rather than a generic google search for “America hate crime.”

  5. Cannuckian Yankee:

    1. Re “hate crimes”: It is merely an exercise in thought control and social engineering. It has no valid purpose.

    Look, if a perp is banging down my front door to steal stuff to sell for drugs, I WANT the police to come and drag him away. That’s why we have laws here and why I pay taxes.

    I feel bad about his problems, but they are not my problems, and I have family responsibilities – and he can get help if he really wants it.

    2. You want to get to Canada?

    Have a valid passport from somewhere.

    Check out our government’s Web site on immigration, and comply with whatever they tell you. (Unlike many countries, we DO accept new immigrants.)

    Land immigrant at Toronto International Airport.

    Don’t have any forbidden substances in your luggage.

    When speaking to anyone who wishes to converse with you, don’t rant about “Islamic revolution” or anything else that would just turn most people here right off immediately.

    We are not into revolutions. We never joined the American Revolution; that is why we are a constitutional monarchy to this day.

    Actually, don’t rant at all. Just keep saying you want to better your life by working hard. That’s the sort of language we understand.

    (Personally, I rarely bother with luggage; I just bring everything I need on my back, and if they take it away from me, well, it’s gone.)

    So now what? You land immigrant in Canada, what you going to do now?

    Hint: Just beyond the expensive limousine services, Toronto Transit bus stops connect you to the subway – and most decent hotels. Way better price.

    Lord knows, you do NOT need to stay in Toronto. Too many people do. You get better prices for most things out of town.

  6. PS: Re US “hate crimes” – I understand it was added to some vet benefits appropriation bill.

    You can be sure it was added to some bill.

  7. PS: Re US “hate crimes” – I understand it was added to some vet benefits appropriation bill.

    You can be sure it was added to some bill.

    You understand what was “added to som bill?” Has the bill been passed? Will it be passed? What does this mysterious hate crimes law do? I checked volokh.com, perhaps the best site for legal commentary on such topics, and found nothing recent about a hate crime bill.

  8. 8

    That is why atheists need to portray themselves as victims of wrongdoing

    That’s quite funny, because, considering the historical track record of atheists, the public has far more to fear from atheists than the other way around.

    Besides, atheists have been spewing hate for too long to reckon. Here’s Robert Blatchford from 1904. Here is Ernst Haeckel circa 1905. Here is The Socialist Party of Great Britain circa 1911.

  9. Can you please explain why atheists believe freedom of thought, conscience and belief are an illusion?

    As an atheist and a journalism student, I recognize that those are ideas our civilization is founded upon. Why am I the exception to the rule and what’s the evidence?

  10. It confuses me that even the author of this post hasn’t responded to my query.

    It’s a simple question. Where is the connection between no belief in a God, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief?

    And even to connect that to political philosophy on the role of government in beliefs. It’s completely false. You have no evidence to support these claims.

  11. I’m with IRQ Conflict on this one. I think I mentioned in one of my first comments here that I got to live in Toronto for a year and enjoyed it very much. Please tell us what part you played in the drafting of the Constitution! Even if it was small, I’d like to hear it.

  12. Ms Hand: I think Mrs O’Leary may be referring to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show
    I’m sure she will correct me if I am mistaken.

  13. Ms Hand: I think Mrs O’Leary may be referring to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

    Mr. Hand, please. I think you’re probably right. Looking at the summary, though, it appears that the law doesn’t add any protection for religious beliefs (or the lack thereof); it extends the existing hate-crimes law, which already includes those categories, with new protected categories. Maybe she meant the funding initiative?

  14. Feebish at 11, I was summoned to Ottawa (our seat of government) in 1981, to testify about our new Constitution.

    The government paid my plane fare.

    I do not know what use they made of my information.

  15. O’Leary,

    I’d like you to expand on your notion. I’ll ask it again, how do you connect atheism with believing freedom of thought, conscience and belief is an illusion?

    I think there’s been ample time to go back into your records to see how you made the connection.

  16. the napkin,

    Did we meet briefly when I threw you in the washing machine after a family party?

    Re freedom of thought, conscience, and belief, why ask me?

    Why not ask the four horsemen of the proposed atheist apocalypse?

  17. Why don’t I just ask you so you can give me a straight answer to a simple question?

    That website didn’t answer the question… at all.

  18. Okay,

    So when do you edit your post saying you have no connection between atheism and those beliefs?

    I thought your were a journalist? Don’t journalists admit their mistakes and make them right.

    Here, I’ll even write it up for you.

    “I have no logical connection between not believing in God and believing freedom of thought, belief and conscience are illusions. Therefore I retract those statements making such unfounded claims.”

    Don’t forget, “I’m sorry.”

  19. the_napkin,

    The correlation between atheism and no freedom of thought, belief, and conscience hinge on the assumption of materialism that atheists hold to. If you have no independent thought process from the material in your brain, IOW, if your thoughts are composed of the movements of your brain in a closed system of particle physics, which has unalterable laws, you cannot have freedom in the above categories. Denyse’s characterization is right, and it’s a position that has been held before by other journalists, G. K. Chesterton comes to mind.

  20. Clive,

    A) I didn’t ask you. I asked the author of the post to respond to the criticism.

    B) How do the thought processes in my brain restrict the freedom of expressing the thought processes of other’s brains as being illusions?

    If anything, you’ve only supported my point. By recognizing that we are a product of our brain, I accept that is the case for others. Therefore, they have the right to express themselves.

    So no, her characterization is not right.

    I believe in the freedom of thought, conscience and belief for all peope. I am an atheist. Are you telling me it is impossible to be both?

  21. the_napkin,

    Of course you’re going to say that materialism can produce freedom of thought, conscience, and belief, because you have all three and believe yourself to be nothing but atomic movement. The question is not settled, as you think it is, that you’re strictly materially composed, and we can imagine what the conditions would be “if” we were strictly made of material, and nothing else existed. And there has been a lot written about this. I personally think it impossible, yes, for materialism to produce anything we should call “true thoughts”, for there exists nothing but the movement of atoms, which will have speed and weight and velocity, but that’s all, nothing more, nothing we should call truth; you can never get an ought from an is, and all you have is an “is”, which logically cannot produce an ought, no matter what state the “is” is in.

  22. Okay,

    So since the brain is made up of atoms and those atoms interact and form cells etc, where does that conclude that my thoughts aren’t “real.” Whatever happened to I think therefore I am? I know my thoughts are real, because I’m having them.

    Similarly, a blue whale is made up of atoms. Does that mean it isn’t “real”?

    See, you really didn’t answer the question. Sure you can delve into metaphysics by telling me what I think is real actually isn’t. But in the real world, the one where all people, even atheists , have the ability to think and judge their world for themselves, your explanation falls flat.

    I think in the exact same way as you do. (Unless since I don’t believe in God, I haven’t been given the same faculties as you, which I doubt). I accept that you have the freedom to express the atoms in your brain in different ways than mine.

    PS: I’m interested in knowing what you “real” thoughts are made up of.

  23. the_napkin,

    I think in the exact same way as you do. (Unless since I don’t believe in God, I haven’t been given the same faculties as you, which I doubt). I accept that you have the freedom to express the atoms in your brain in different ways than mine.

    How do “I” have any “freedom” to express the atoms that are not themselves controlled and a result of the atoms? It seems like you are assuming that some atoms have control over others.

  24. the_napkin,

    When you can provide an answer to the is/ought distinction, for how “is” produces “oughts” by material movements, I will entertain your questions.

  25. Clive,

    Maybe do some research into neuroscience. I don’t have the full explanation but it’s something about electrical charges and interaction between cells. Those interactions make memories. I act in the real world based on those memories.

    I mean, you could totally reject the whole field of neuroscience that says we are a product of the atoms in our brains, but that wouldn’t make much sense would it.

    It doesn’t even matter how it works. Because you think, and I think, and my grandma thinks. Just because I can’t explain every detail of how we think, doesn’t mean I’m not thinking.

  26. So please, enlighten me on the forces that make your thoughts real and mine not real.

  27. 27

    (Off topic)Denyse,

    “2. You want to get to Canada?

    Have a valid passport from somewhere.”

    Thanks,

    Actually I was a landed immigrant to Canada shortly after I was born (in Germany) to Canadian parents.

    I have a Canadian passport as well.

    Might use it for Whistler – or maybe after the big “O” games there when the crowds are down. :)

    Toronto? I passed through there in the 90s and spent a couple of nights (In Etobikoke – when it wasn’t a part of the city). Also went to Ottawa and Montreal. My younger bro lives in Mississauga.

Leave a Reply