Why Atheism Is So Deadly to the Individual and to Society

Atheism is so deadly to the individual because it strands him in time and head space.

Atheism is so deadly to society because an atheist society is composed by people who are stranded in time and head space.

Credit for the particular philosophical malady affecting atheists goes to none other than good Friar William of Ockham (born around 1280 Anno Domini in Ockham, England). He was a Catholic priest and heretic who is famous in modern times as the author of “Ockham’s Razor.”

guillermo-de-ockham

Friar William Ockham’s teachings were so radical that he was finally forced to go on the lam to escape Catholic Church Inquisitors. He is thought to have died in Munich, Germany circa 1349 Anno Domini.

Were he alive today, Friar William of Ockham might be known as a “constructivist.” That is, what we learn does not come from developing an understanding of objective reality, but from what we conceptually construct about our own experiences in our own minds.

In other words, reality and what we think we know is whatever we define it to be. What’s wrong with this picture?

alfred-e-headroomThe constructed individual has his own personal Max Headroom for a mind, a non-stop, chattering of unadulterated bias.

Just think of it!

The constructed individual hasn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell of escaping a destiny guided by pure stupidity.  For stupidity is the natural state of man. Unlike all other creatures, man has to be taught everything. How can a creature whose natural state is stupidity, teach himself anything?

Further, stupidity, always at odds with objective reality, makes happiness impossible.

Just think of it!

These particular teachings of Friar William of Ockham are the accepted doctrine in today’s educational, political and media establishments. Ironically, our entire, nearly Godless, Western society sits on the shoulders of a Medieval Catholic heretic priest.

In the classroom, students are left to find their own way which leaves them sitting ducks for indoctrination.

In politics, The People, bereft of any understanding of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” are left intellectually disarmed. For they have nothing but their own personal bias to aid them in making sense of relentless, emotionally violent and confusing political campaigns.

And the media, far from informing the public and fostering human nature, becomes a vicious, remorseless tool of totalitarian statecraft.

In conclusion, we can reason out that atheism is deadly to the individual.

This is because the atheism provides the intellect with no objective foundation upon which to stand. It is therefore necessary for the individual to construct his own version of reality within his own solitary mind.

This leaves the human being in his natural state of stupidity. For all he knows is what little he was able to construct in his own mind, or what was fed to him by those who “taught” him. This  also means that personal bias is left to run amok since the power to think rationally was never developed.

More disturbing still is that the institutions fundamental to civil society, education, political and media, are all dedicated to the mass production of stupid people.

It is long past time to throw atheism and the teachings of Friar William of Ockham  onto the ash heap of history.

 

 

 

48 responses to “Why Atheism Is So Deadly to the Individual and to Society”

  1. I especially like this thought:

    —This is because the atheism provides the intellect with no objective foundation upon which to stand. It is therefore necessary for the individual to construct his own version reality within his own solitary mind.—

    In other words, a hallucination……….

    And for what it’s worth, there really is no such thing as an atheist. It’s not that he CANNOT see; it’s purely he WILL NOT see. The facts are life are obvious, but he SAYS in his heart: ‘there is no God…………..’

    By the way Silence, have you ever known a wise atheist?????????

    Liked by 1 person

    1. ColorStorm – I take issue with two things you wrote. Actually I take issue with everything you wrote but I will address two thing.

      “And for what it’s worth, there really is no such thing as an atheist”.

      This is simply wrong and a very ignorant statement. The condescending thought that you know more about me and what I think is exactly what makes people like you dangerous to civil society.

      “It’s not that he CANNOT see; it’s purely he WILL NOT see”.

      Again you assume to know more about people you have never met then they know about themselves. This is INCREDIBLY egotistical.

      What I perceive from your comments is that you have never taken the time to see if from an atheist point of view because you’re not interested in knowing the atheist point of view and thats ok. If you don’t want to take the time to educate yourself on the topic of atheism that is ok but I would suggest that if you don’t educate yourself on the topic then you might want to avoid preaching about something you know nothing about. It’s not ok to tell others what they think or what they should think. That makes you oppressive.

      ~AW

      Like

      1. Thank you Aw for highlighting my observation:

        “It’s not that he CANNOT see; it’s purely he WILL NOT see”.

        It stands. It is correct. It is true. Truth is like this, it agitates the proud. Don’t be so foolish to cling to that which is absurd.

        It’s like watching the rain fall from heaven, and then say: ‘nothing special here…………’

        Oh yeah, it is special, and God is not far from us. We foolishly create our own distance. Atheism so called is the poison of common sense, dismissed in a New York minute by logic and any child of three who knows that it takes a Designer to make his toy wagon…………..

        “It’s not that he CANNOT see; it’s purely he WILL NOT see”.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Well that was a bit incoherent. You strike me as someone that has found shelter in your ignorance. I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean, you know enough to make you happy and you don’t want to know any more than that and like I said in my previous post. That’s ok. I will leave you to it.

          Like

      2. Well, an atheist’s point of view, from my experience, has been varied and oftentimes incoherent. Yet, the general sense seems to be a dogmatic trust in empiricism. That about correct in your case?

        Like

        1. Speaking for me, I have reviewed christianity and parts of it left me with many questions, parts I see as not possible and parts left me horrified. In the end I found nothing to believe in.

          Like

          1. So you base your judgment on your ability to comprehend something? Not very empirical but certainly very human.

            Like

            1. I didn’t say I did not comprehend anything. I said it left me with many questions. For example, Genesis 5:5 “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died”. I comprehend what is being said here but I question how anyone can think it true.

              Like

            2. Sorry, I was unclear. Basically, I was referring to the common errors Augustine discusses in De Doctrina Christiania. I assumed you read it since you said you studied Christianity. One such error were those who, in his words, despised Scripture because they did not comprehend it. In terms of technology, we would call this a user error.

              In an epistemological sense, you are accepting that your comprehension, whatever its size or complexity, can be correct as a common notion. Now, this is ok if you aren’t an empirical skeptic and you accept that you do not need to prove that comprehension is trustworthy. Otherwise, you would have to prove, empirically, why your comprehension is not only trustworthy but trustworthy enough to make a universal judgment i.e. existence is in a state of a theos or that there is no God, specifically the Christian one.

              Now, from what I can deduce from your replies, you measuring the validity and the truth of Christianity on how well it measures up to your own canon if you will of metaphysical propositions. Hence, your question about how Adam can live to be 900 years old approaches the text from a point of view that was not only unknown to the human author, but unknown to the immediate audience.

              You seem to me to be a rational, well read person. So as such a person who would know that ancient historians were not overly concerned with empirical fact–as I am sure you noticed from Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus and others–as their modern colleagues but with an overarching narrative of philosophy and culture.

              Tacitus, as I am sure you noticed, when taken critically with a modern eye, looks more like an angry old man’s rant of Facebook than a factual account of what happened. That is because Tacitus was writing not solely to record the history of the Roman emperors, but as a polemic against what he perceived as the Early Roman Empire’s departure from the republicanism and morality of their Roman roots. Tacitus, it can be said, was writing less about Romans and more on Roman-ness.

              We can see the Bible in much the same way. The figures are historical and are found in other contemporary cultures. Their lifespans are dubious but not entirely impossible. The main point of the life spans was to highlight man’s decline and need for God in the Hebraic religion. Long life was valued in that culture and so those who lived a long time in the stories were those who were virtuous. The earthly life granted to the just is a foretaste of the everlasting life promised in Christ.

              As a personal note, cold reading a translation of an ancient text without any context is always a bad idea, whether it is Tacitus or Genesis.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Thanks for taking the time to provide such a well thought out response. I do have a couple questions for you so that I understand fully what you are saying.

              You said “Their lifespans are dubious but not entirely impossible” in reference to the bible stating that Adam lived to be 930 years old. Are you suggesting that it is possible that Adam (a human) lived to be 930 years old?

              You go on to say “The main point of the life spans was to highlight man’s decline and need for God in the Hebraic religion” Are you suggesting this was intended as a metaphor?

              Thank you again for your response and its polite demeanor. This is rare these days.

              ~AW

              Like

            4. I see nothing so far that outright disproves it entirely. I doubt it is factual, but I don’t exclude the possibility of it being so.

              More tropological and anagogical than metaphorical, but you get the idea.

              A sound maxim is to understand that you can doubt it is factual, but you cannot doubt it is true.

              For example, I saw an interview with a Gaelic literary historian talking about some legend of two lovers. The interviewer asked if it was a true story. The historian replied something to the effect “Yes. We don’t know if it happened or not, but its a true story.”

              Chesterton said once, “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they say that dragons exist, but that dragons can be beaten.”

              The epistemological question you are left with, I hope, is not whether the Bible or Christianity is true or not, but that apt question from Pontius Pilate: what is truth? If you come to the answering of that question, you may have a better idea of what the Biblical authors were trying to say.

              Like

            5. I am curious, why do you “doubt it to be factual”?

              Can you tell me what about the bibles statement “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” leads you be believe this is to be taken figurative?

              You say “A sound maxim is to understand that you can doubt it is factual, but you cannot doubt it is true” but factual and true are synonymous. Can you distinguish your intended difference between the two words.

              ~AW

              Like

            6. Well, I have not seen where a person has lived for 900 years, but I am not so full of myself to believe that, just because I have never seen it, doesn’t mean it is factual. The ancients did not know that they breathed oxygen and, depending on who you talked to, was all manner of things from air, to water, to aether, and so on.

              Well, from my understanding of Hebraic numeralogical symbolism, I can deduce a lot from it. For example, 900 is 3 times 300. Three symbolizes perfection while 300 is symbolic of the priestly blessing conducted by Judaism and a name for God: El Shaddi or “God Almighty.” The remaining 30 is easy since it is 3 times 10 and 10 is symbolic of another name of God: Adonai or Lord or in some cases father. But that is reading far into the text.

              One of the interesting things about the Bible is that, neither in the Jewish or Early Christian traditions, were you supposed to cold read it. The rabbis and and apostles would teach it to you much like the teaching of the arts in pagan societies. Indeed, the catechetical schools of Antioch and Alexandria were modeled around these pagan schools to the former’s demise.

              Factual and true are not synonymous. Godwin’s Law has never been proven factually, but it still holds as true. I like Avicenna Ibn Sina’s definition, partially because it is more confusing than Kant’s in language but makes more sense logically: “the property of the being of each thing which has been established in it.” Putting it simply, fact is what our cognition has determined to be correct while Truth is and remains. In other words, our cognition of an object, material or immaterial, can be factual insofar as it fulfills the criteria we place on our sense experience, but Truth is what is despite our senses which are known to deceive and be deceived.

              For example, experiments were done on the reliability of the sense of hearing. While blindfolded, subjects generally could not determine the source and the subject of the sound i.e. they could not determine what was making the sound and how. Now, their perception of a ball bouncing can be determined factual since their hearing has determined that a ball bouncing made the sound they perceived. They can, however, be ignorant of the truth which is that it was actually the beating of a certain drum.

              Thus, our judgments of things are only truthful when they conform to what actually is rather than merely what we have perceived. As you can tell, I have read too much Descartes.

              Like

            7. Also, if I were rude and told you the same things, could I really claim I was speaking with some Divine character? You can read all the books on Christianity in the world but they are nothing of a good example of it in practice.

              Like

  2. Storm,

    The atheists I have known are exceptional citizens but they are dumb as door nails when it comes to understanding what is outside their own heads.

    And I have not met one who will not go absolutely bonkers and turn on you violently like the pigs Jesus talked about, if in conversation, you get too close to the disconnect between their chattering Max Headroom hallucinations and the real world.

    Like

    1. SOM – You need to get out more.

      ~AW

      Like

  3. I ran into constructivism when our school system tried to junk “traditional” math in favor of the latest fad. So I wrote several posts related to it.

    Here was my favorite. => https://citizentom.com/2008/06/22/what-is-mathematical-proof-does-2-2-4/

    Here are the other two.
    => https://citizentom.com/2008/05/14/pwc-school-board-report-%e2%80%93-highlights-from-the-meeting-on-may-7-2008/
    => https://citizentom.com/2008/05/18/what-is-constructivism/

    Constructivism does not bother me because of any association with Atheism. I had not considered that angle. I think what bothers me about the idea is that understanding requires a focus on the real world, not what is going on in our heads. What is important is how closely our thoughts model reality, not how efficiently ingest whatever garbage we are taught.

    I suppose, however, the prideful would prefer constructivism, the teacher because it makes education more about the teacher, not what is taught, and the student because it puts the focus on their uniqueness, not their understanding of reality.

    Because it requires more effort to learn than it does to be unique, what passes for the constructivist method can make those seeking esteem over genuine knowledge happier that a more straightforward educational approach.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But none of these things came from William of Ockham! He advocated conceptualism as opposed to formalism whereat the metaphysical universals were not invisible, floating forms existing outside of people, but as metaphysical universals “existing” inside the mind. You and Silence are look for Jean Piaget. What you describe has more in common with Protogoras than Ockham’s anti-Platonism.

      Like

      1. If silenceofmind wants to debate that matter with you, that is his call. While you are at it, please let the educational establishment know that they are abusing the term. Would not surprise me at all.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Stephen,

        It is hard for modern people to understand the stranglehold that Catholic Christianity had on the hearts and minds of the people of Medieval Europe.

        Friar William of Ockham was an intellectual pioneer who was centuries ahead of his time.

        Like

        1. “It is hard for modern people to understand the stranglehold that Catholic Christianity had on the hearts and minds of the people of Medieval Europe.”

          Suuuure. You need to stop reading so much Gibbon and Zinn.

          “Friar William of Ockham was an intellectual pioneer who was centuries ahead of his time.” He basically just parroted some pre-Socratics and copied Duns Scotus. Upon reflection, it is now obvious that you haven’t read those either.

          Like

  4. I have a comment in moderation.

    Like

  5. “The constructed individual has his own personal Max Headroom for a mind, a non-stop, chattering of unadulterated bias.” Yes and yes! That is exactly what’s going on in the Western World today. Great post!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This leaves the human being in his natural state of stupidity.

    Ignorance, maybe, but not likely stupidity.
    .
    Stupidity as a quality is what happens when people, for one reason or another, are unable to exercise critical thought and build a worldview based upon (among other things) unsubstantiated belief in the supposed reality of the supernatural.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Here, let me do some light work for Silence. The word for today is ‘hallucinate.’

      The post here in general speaks to this, and yes, it is not ignorance to think that bones crawled around and decided to make a body know as human, complete with circuitry and blood; this is absolute stupidity to use a brain given by the Creator of that brain, and then dismiss Him from everything He owns.

      You cannot pick up a grain of sand without borrowed real estate. But the essence of the brain dead as described in this wonderful dictionary, includes the godless mind which cannot tell Genesis from Revolution…………

      Like

      1. And with almost no help on my part, aside from the prompt from my comment, you have, yet again, demonstrated the point of my comment more eloquently that and multi faceted treatise.

        Like

        1. I can’t stand these perpetual compliments.

          While I’m here, He whose understanding is infinite………….was said to have a devil, and the greatest theologian of all times, the illustrious pastor, teacher, prophet, evangelist, and of course the apostle Paul……..was said to be a madman.

          Your song of godlessness has long run out of notes, while you foolishly ignore and deny the Giver of life, as well as the Chief Musician.

          So yeah, your peashooter of a gripe is irrelevant and demolished by common sense and the word of God. But tkx for playing, would you like to try Sports for 200?

          Like

          1. Unfortunately for you, every note on your scale is flat, and the mythical song you sing will be perpetually out of tune.

            In the animal kingdom only one thing beats the stupidity of believing a talking donkey and that is affording credulity to a prattling lion.

            Like

            1. I’m leave you in the hands of the award winning SoM, who can take care of my light work. You actually think your bitchin can find a blemish in God or His word…….one would think you would run out of hot air already.

              Like

            2. Bitchin’?
              Good grief, Pussycat, your petulant, pithy, pronouncements, are as devoid of substance as the nitrous oxide you emit during your frequent bouts of flatulence.

              Like

            3. How pathetic. God warship forsooth. Where does this hostile attitude towards Christians come from. Hard to fathom is it. You do understand that atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of anything supernatural. It’s not a substitute for anything. Faith, on the other hand, is the belief in things with insufficient or no evidence. Don’t bore me with your tottery “got a personal relationship with” blah, blah, blah. That’s your personal psychosis and you wantonly share it with the rest of the sheep, no flock, no Christianity.
              I would like to spend my limited time pondering our natural world without the relentless efforts by the faithful to create a reality based on a fiction that are all holy books. They are all demonstrably in error.
              I sometimes think Christians haven’t read the entire book or choose to ignore the books horrific passages. All sorts of mental gymnastics are employed to justify the worship of a seriously disturbed character. Hay Buddy, that’s a fine looking son you got. How bout you kill him to prove how much you believe in me, aka your loving god.
              Here’s the killer diller. Failure to accept what is clearly impossible, morally reprehensible and blatant retelling of myths from older cultures will result in my ghastly torment for eternity.
              The fact that you have no problem with this concept causes me to conclude that your God, if real, plus all your cult members are ethically challenged and moral hypocrites.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. @nqtionope

              You explain atheism this way:

              —You do understand that atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of anything supernatural———

              May as well stop right here since you are ignorant of your own religion.

              Your own life is supernatural for God’s sake. Atheism is the religion of fools.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. What a typical Christian jerk. You have no defense for one of the most obscene books of fiction ever written. You could be the first to prove the existence of your special friend. Be famous, Nobel prize, big money but no the poor creature is as small as your imagination. Resides in your imagination. As for atheism, “to say that atheism is a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position” Bill Mahar. Christianity is a primitive construct of a death cult. “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins.

              Like

            6. Yeah, -ofhope,

              Your famous quote by Dawkins and Maher are perfect examples that both know nothing of the Creator, His word, and His perfect character.

              Tkx though for playing, would you like to try Sports for 200?

              Dawkins is a dunce, and Maher a comedian. good stuff there.

              Like

            7. Nation,

              Clearly you have never read the Bible.

              The Bible Hallucination Station is three doors down, then hang a left and keep walking.

              You can’t miss it.

              Like

            8. Ouch. How cutting, punitive, retaliatory, vindictive, unforgivingly Christian of you.

              Like

            9. I took the stroll you suggested and discovered the the god of the Christian Bible does exist, sorta. Unfortunately the word atheism engenders a learned, visceral reaction from theists. Atheism is perceived to be a threat to a belief system based on faith. Certainty their motivated by evil. Why else would they give a rip. On the other hand the theist’s paradigm, by necessity, includes a supernatural realm where ill-defined constructs have agency to interact with their corporal selves. The preferred justification for all theistic beliefs is this agency. It’s the netherworld where there is a perceived “personal” relationship to be had with one or more of said constructs. This is the theist’s magic bullet, their get out of jail free card, their carte blanche to obfuscate on any doctrinal challenge. Any challenge to, or questioning of, religious beliefs is orchestrated by an evil agent who employs trickery to challenge religious teaching and causes adherents to question what and why they believe. The prescribed antidote is entrenchment into that netherworld of faith where cognitive dissonance meets emotional connections to plausible belief reinforcements and logic suppression. To put it another way; it takes just a little imagination and the will to filter their reasoning brains to reinforce their conformational biases. Have a nice walk on me.

              Like

        2. Nation,

          Gosh, now you have me feeling really, really, really guilty.

          Like

      2. ColorStorm – The more I ready your posts the less credibility you have.

        ~AW

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Ark,

      As yourself for proof, man’s natural state is stupidity.

      A person may know lots of things, but unless he is trained, he will remain stupid.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Wrong straight out the blocks.

        Many people learn from experience or through watching and may even teach themselves, Many are fortunate to possess this type of independent character; one that is prepared to take the knocks and strive to learn, whatever it may be.
        Some require more guidance, and a lot depends on environment, peers, culture etc.

        Your churlish attempt at em>ad hominum is somewhat pathetic, which is more a reflection of your own stupidity than anything else.
        But keep going …. certainly don’t stop on my account, for goodness sake. By comparison, your methodology has a habit of making ”stupid” people look rather clever.

        Like

        1. Ark,

          If we were not naturally stupid, we wouldn’t have to learn anything.

          And I give you mankind’s unending history of war and social unrest as proof of man’s innate stupidity.

          Also, the atheist position is that people who believe in religion are stupid.

          Yet at the foundation of every civilization in human history is religion.

          So by the very standards of the atheist worldview, mankind is naturally stupid.

          Can you give me an, “AMEN!”?

          Like

          1. If we were not naturally stupid, we wouldn’t have to learn anything.

            I previously explained the difference between human ignorance and rank stupidity.
            You are now bordering on exemplifying the latter, SoM.

            And I give you mankind’s unending history of war and social unrest as proof of man’s innate stupidity.

            Here I am more inclined to b more sympathetic with your position, but even here,social conditioning on the virtues of certain aspects of killing one’s fellow man have been heralded down the ages.; very often utilizing some religious text or another as justification.
            Your own holy book has some really choice examples of god-inspired genocide, rape and wanton brutality.
            Or do those who believe in your god get a free pass for committing such heinous acts? Or are they, as you say, simply stupid?

            Also, the atheist position is that people who believe in religion are stupid.

            Young children who have suffered years of religious indoctrination are not stupid. Neither adults.
            However, while it is difficult and grossly unfair to level charges of stupidity against a child, it is a lot easier and more reasonable to level a charge of Willful Ignorance against an adult for such beliefs.

            As your post so eloquently illustrates.

            Like

            1. Good stuff. This way more fun than dungeon and dragons 🐉

              Like

  7. 1. William of Ockham was never declared a heretic. He was excommunicated for leaving Avignon without leave from his superior.

    2. The “teaching” that was so “radical” was his thoughts on Apostolic poverty and how that related to the ongoing Western Schism.

    3. Ockham’s reduction of ontology needs to be examined in the context of the ongoing Scholastic debates of the time concerning metaphysics. To say he was a constructivist is to fundamentally misunderstand his reasoning. When you consider that his peers believe that there are literally these things called forms floating around that give substances shape, his argument that the form of chair is merely the concept of chair makes much more sense and actually isn’t the stooge you were looking for in your rant about atheism.

    4. If you are looking for the father of modern subjectivism, you may have to look to John Locke et alia instead.

    Like

    1. Stephen,

      You haven’t the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

      But thanks for dropping by.

      Like

      1. Says the person who clearly hasn’t read Peter Lombard’s “Sentences” or the Medieval conversation on epistemology that was occurring at the time. The fact that you failed to recognize the tension in the works of his you obviously did not read between the formal arguments popular in Thomism and the conceptual arguments he presents is palpable.

        Ockham argued that the things his opponents said were real–in the sense that they could be perceived in some way, like the Platonists–only existed inside the mind. He DIDN’T argue that these concepts depended solely on each individual as you try to argue with, tellingly enough, no textual evidence to support it.

        Ockham was also rehabilitated by Innocent VI. If you are going to pretend to be a philosopher, you could try harder.

        Like

  8. Hey,

    Check out this post I wrote:
    https://frozenwisdom.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/i-dont-want-to-believe-in-one-idea/

    If you like it, please share it.
    If you really like it then follow the blog.

    Like

Leave a comment