An Atheist Response to John O

The papers of John O. (hereafter JO) are numerous on this site. I take time once in awhile to read some of them. They are not all clear but there is a passion there for expressing his views. And happily, this is a place to do that for any and all who care to. I care to at this point.

JO has two papers on the subject of Atheism. One is just simply "Atheism" and the other, "Religion=Atheism" If you have not read these, then I suggest you do read at least the first so the points I make will be sensible as I will only make partial quotes. The reader can then check out the context as needed. Quotes from JO are italicized.

As a high-profile atheist on some of these sites, I am immediately drawn to any title with the word 'atheist' in it. I've read both of the papers above and have carefully analyzed the first one for this brief critique.

Awhile back, one of the subscribers to the PT Forum asked me for some guidance on how to get to the meat of an argument--how to spot errors and misdirection. In short, the person wanted to know how to think critically about someone's discourse. This paper is one man's attempt at the craft. The ability to do it takes a few years of, well, critical thinking. I have some of those years gained while in recovery from my 25 years in the cult. I couldn't write a book on the subject but for my level of experience, education, and interest, I don't think I do too badly.

Now, to be fair, JO does say that his paper reflects his own opinions. And, to be equally fair, my critique carries the same disclosure. We are exchanging sharply-divided opinions concerning rationalism and mysticism.

Before we get into this, I think it is relevant to note that JO recently posted a reply on the "Enlyghtenment" [sic] subject in the PT Forum. He was responding to some praise of one of his papers. In that response he invited us to critique his writings. He wrote in part:

I actually WANT folks to do their own research as well. PROVE ALL
THINGS. Me included. BELIEVE NO ONE UNTIL YOU P-R-O-V-E
THEM. [His emphasis. Post #4]

The quote from the Bible is better translated in the RSV, "test." Anyways, I can appreciate JO's forthright suggestion as I have done it. Many on the forum have been effusive in praise of JO's ideas and careful to avoid the public criticizing JO now invites.

He further wrote:

I'll accept that as his own admirably honest criticism of his views from time to time. But who of us could say otherwise? It is the human condition. That is why one should avail him or herself of the articles on the web concerning critical thinking. We certainly were not educated at all on the matter in the cult and certainly not in the public school system which desires unquestioning future voters to be produced.

I won't try to cover all points as JO brings in some subjects that are mighty weighty like Communism, Marxism, and Dialectical Materialism. Whole libraries have been written on these subjects. The main point he wants you to know is that they have to do with the dreaded scourge of atheism.

First off, I have to say that I searched for an SPS (specific purpose statement) nearly in vain. It seems he wants to bash atheists by playing on the usual Christian propaganda that atheists cannot be moral beings.

JO writes of two men who lived between the years of 1560 to 1650. These men were thinkers of their time and had some influence on western thought. One was a philosopher and the other a theologian. Arminius and Descartes were their names. They had interest in the god concept as did most thinkers of the time.
They both believed in a god and immortality. Nothing strange there.

Since both believed on God and immortality, this led to the conclusion that if we cannot have a perception of these two things, then there is no reason to be moral.

JO didn't actually quote the men but, that aside, it is a completely questionable conclusion as it is too inclusive. Many thinkers down through history up to today have no belief in these two questionable premises and live completely moral lives. I am one of them. (Now, I am not attempting to define morality. That is a huge study in itself. I am speaking of commonly-accepted morality in this Western culture).

Now we come to what I guess will have to pass for the SPS.

If we want to take that further [and he does], then the logical derivitive would be if [A big word--my emphasis] there's no 'God' (or whatever you view It)and there's no immortality, then we can all live as we choose, with the result that there will equally be total chaos on the planet. The end result of this thinking will lead to the total destruction of mankind and all life...

Well, this is quite a conclusion to draw from two questionable premises and a logical derivitive that ain't.

Look, the two thinkers arrived at an assumed conclusion. Then JO starts with that conclusion that has been challenged by later thinkers. He then adds two great big if's about the existence of a god and immortality. So, if you give him that much rope JO will lead you to the destruction of the planet. Chaos, even. Oh, my, what will we ever do? This, my friends, is a simple scare tactic that the cults use to great effect. We've been there, done that. Now I wonder where JO learned this? What does he want you to be afraid of? Atheism. Oooooohhh, the bogeyman will get ya. Watch out! Here comes that wascally old atheist, Jim Baldwin.

Therefore, if [another if] we completely throw out the idea of any moral imperitive (or God) and dismiss the idea of immortality, then from the historical perspective we will never have any stimulus to grow or progress, as there's nothing beyond this life. Like Paul said, "If we have hope only in this life, then we're all men most miserable."

Another questionable premise from a proven errant book. Actually, man has been progressing as more and more religious shackles are cast off. Let's face it, happily, religion is losing ground. And what should we care about what a religious fanatic like Paul has to say? At best he was a mental captive of Old Testament thought. At worst he was a master manipulator of the unquestioning, the weak-minded, and the fearful.

Then JO tries to make a distinction between the agnostic and the atheist. Strictly, an atheist does not have theistic belief. So, if your are without a belief in a god or gods--and the agnostic is such--your are an atheist. It's simple. There is no difference. JO needs to read a book on the subject. His confusion is typical of people who haven't studied the topic. I meet them all the time. The are familiar only with the self-serving WCG booklets, sermon propaganda, or hand-me-down parrotings from other uninformed people.

In any piece of writing that deals with belief/no belief in relation to the gods, one would hope for a clear statement what the author believes. Right? Well, here it is.

I believe in God (however you view Him), but not in "a" God.

Jo leaves us dangling. He doesn't explain himself right at the point he should if he cares anything about informing his readers. We are left to fill in the blanks with whatever stuff we can scrounge up. You figure it out, I can't is his implication. One man's god is as good as another's.

JO then bashes the atheist.

...the problem appears to lie...in the area where man totally rejected any higher power and calls the shots himself, and deliberately damages anyone in the path.

This uncaring attitude isn't restricted to atheists only. Many theists have also run over their fellow man. Western European history is replete with the sufferings Christians have inflicted on one another and the so-called pagans of other shores.

While many who call themselves atheists do conduct themselves in a moral manner, unfortunately many don't.

And how is that any different in the theistic community? He avoids that subject as it wouldn't advance his argument. See, JO wants you to see the dreaded atheist as a threat. The rest of his attack is on the bad old atheist and nothing is said of the bad old theist.

Then he leaps to the phrase, "immoral atheistic philosophy." There is no such thing except in the minds of the haters of freethought. He is responding to Chistian propaganda. He cannot point to a document called the "immoral atheistic philosophy". The focus is on "immoral" and "atheistic." He wants that planted firmly in the minds of his readers without questioning.

He made a BIG mistake in equating Communist and Nazi systems of government as "admittedly atheistic." He was writing without knowledge that Communism is a political philosophy, not theological. And the Nazis were Christians. Hitler lived and died a Roman Catholic. He was never excommunicated. His speeches were sprinkled with Christian language.
I have a Nazi belt buckle in my collection of odd things. Over the swastika is the phrase "Gott mit Uns"--God is with us. Do a google search if you want some more on the subject. It is quite interesting. Pity JO didn't do the research before parroting the propaganda.

Then he makes a great leap of tortured logic. He writes that since some cults and churches practice the same abusive tactics as some totalitarian regimes, and since some of those regimes may be atheistic, the abusive cult should be considered atheistic. Let's see--are the Mormons atheists? The JWs? The Christian Scientists? Did you learn to be an atheist in the WCG? Was Herb an atheist? Not if the rejection of belief in a god means anything. These groups are cults and pay excessive homage to gods in order to control their people. The stretch to call them atheists is ludicrous. And JO's thinking is drawn from an easily challenged premise.

...wise people have always looked to nature to answer the question of whether there's a higher power or not.

Yeah, that's right. There were fire gods, storm gods, sun gods, rain gods, whatever. What man didn't understand he assigned a god to be responsible for it. That doesn't prove that any gods exist. They don't derive any reality by being attached to that which exists. But the attempt still goes on even today.

Also, here JO makes an ad populum plea. This is an appeal to the crowd. It is considered a logical fallacy. He is connecting "wise people" with belief in a higher power. That is his unproven point. The implication is that anyone who does not believe in a "higher power" is not a wise person. And who wants to be so classed?

Then the poster boy for the Deist movement, Tom Paine, is appealed to as if he had any more wisdom than the pagans on the god matter. Deism appeals to the creation as proof of a god. That has been discredited by some modern philosophers who critically think about such matters.

JO tries next to further frighten any from rejecting the gods because

...man reverts to his animalistic behaviour and will eventually destroy himself.

More of the installation of fear teaching we have already seen.

...the planet and its people are going to continue their predictable downslide to annihilation.

More over-the-top fear mongering. Watch out! The sky will fall!

Then JO speaks of Man with his god

...allowing the moral energy of the Highest Source to inspire and direct his actions.

I've done some readings into the wacky and unfulfilling world of so-called New Age thought. The words JO uses are right out of the Encyclopedia of Mystical and Paranoramal Experience. It's all about Eastern mysticism mixed with Native American mumblings. I've got a friend who pays a channeler to deliver messages from some beings in the 7th dimension and 25,000 years in the future. My friend (a former WCGer) speaks just like JO does. To use words like "Higher Power", "Highest Source", "Infinite", "Creative Intelligence", "It", "Divine Mind", "Originating Thought" with the capital letters as JO does, doesn't make them anymore real than the figments called Hercules, Jupiter, Ra, Thor, Dagon, or Yahweh. They are all the creations of puny men wanting control over others or simply some one or thing to blame all the problems on. Make-believe gods or indefinable entities with no names as JO calls them are very convenient creations. And so Wal-Mart cheap!

If, [another if] as we've discussed, there is that Creative Intelligence behind all matter, then we don't have to worship It. We simply synchronize ourselves with It, and align ourselves to Its principles. It'll do the rest.

Yeah, right. Try to make sense out of that brain-numbing construction. Does he really believe all this mumbo-jumbo? And this is the man that thinks atheism is vacuous thinking.

The Infinite, Creative, Intelligence...

More caps. (Notice the difference between Garbage Can and garbage can. Boy those caps can really impress you. Look, if one wants to bring in vague and undefinable entities, it doesn't make them any more understandable simply by capitalization.)

...only exists to be recognized.

Okay, recognized as what? Please tell us. Alas, he doesn't. Is it any wonder why? He tells us at the end.

Next, JO makes another appeal to human vanity. This the ad populum fallacy again, the appeal to the crowd.

When it all comes down to it, the whole concept of a Higher Intelligence [more caps] (or God) Vs. atheism [no cap] boils down to plain, simple common sense.

Now, leaving the argument aside, he appeals to your personal vanity. What person here would admit to having little or no common sense? And yet, we are for the most part stray cash-cows from the Armstrong Ranch. How much common sense did we exercise in that roundup? How much did we exercise while in the corral? And furthermore, JO was one of the hired hands who made sure we were contented in our giving the cash when milking time rolled around. It's laughable to see him appeal to our "common sense." Just think back to how much we considered ourselves to be sensible in allowing ourselves to be in the "Truth." Don't kid yourselves that you are now paragons of wisdom by the mere rejection of one form of nuttiness.

Besides, "common" is not a measure of quality, but quantity. And the history of man shows very little good sense until the start of the scientific age. "Common sense" seems to mean that wise actions are likely to be widespread among men. Show me the proof. (For more on common sense, see
http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/psychology/commonsense4.htm#Assumption%20of%20Common%20Knowledge

Common sense dictates that something always is intially produced by an intelligent thought. But what about that Intelligence [another cap] and where did it come from?

It would take a library of books to deal with his implication that some god of Capitalized Words is the answer. Well, then where did that being get it? From an earlier being? And on and on back through an infinite regression of beings?

The immortality concept now gives rise to the question of where that Infinite, Creative, Intelligence [three more caps] came from.

And the immortality concept is yet unproved.

He then gives us the remaining paragraph calling forth questions I won't even attempt to write about. And he knows you won't attempt to either. Oh, yes, JO throws in a god of Divine Thought so you won't lose your way.

Then he reaches in his possibilities bag and throws in the word "continuum" learned no doubt from his being a Star Trek fan. Nothing wrong with that. I am one too. And on that famous fictional program all the problems are solved with techno-speak. "Look, Captain, if we can simply realign the vreeblefretzer to put out the same magnowhorls as the aliens, the whole thing will grumify what we now imagine and we'll get free". So they realign the thing which puts out some stuff and they miraculously are whatever. In New Age thought problems are addressed with the same mystical babble using capitalized words. It all sounds so plausible and magical. And that's the point. People want magic not the careful work of thoughtful struggle.

Back to:
>Continuum: a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or
>progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees. (Collegiate
>Dictionary, Tenth Edition).

I tried to help your understanding of the god of Capitalized Words by conveniently providing that definition. When you figure that out you'll be able to help us all.

Then JO starts to his conclusion. As if he hadn't given us enough vague thoughts and undefined concepts, he now really pours it on with the view that his god of Capitalized Words...

...cannot be viewed from anything we can conjure up in our minds.
...a different level of reality
...must be experienced
...belongs to another type of thinking way beyond what we can envision
...it's impossible to put a label on "God"

If he had just put these out in the beginning, the whole paper would have been much shorter and would have saved us time. Just what was the purpose of writing a paper about a god when it is impossible to grasp what is written? And just how does JO think about the god which it is impossible to label? You would think that with all those capitalized words he had a pretty clear picture. He even called it a "He", so JO knows the gender of his god. That's a good start. But how does JO know the gender when we cannot admittedly view the gods with "anything we can can conjure up in our minds." This is a high order of contradictory thinking.

So, the bottom line JO leaves us with is that you had better be careful of those wicked old atheists and there is a god of Capitalized Words but you're too limited in intelligence or being to understand it.

See? That wasn't so hard.

The bottom line of my analysis is that JO and those like him, mystics, have a rather intense loathing for reality and a great longing for wish-fulfillment. JO's paper is a good example of the kind of attempt at the persuasion of others. The New Age sections of the booksellers are filled with this material. It all sounds so wonderfully sophisticated and erudite but it is as unsubstantial as an air sandwich when examined under the microscope of some critical analysis.

The reader should understand that the driving force behind religion's centuries-old propaganda barrage against the atheist is to turn anyone away from being influenced by the most fearsome entity in existence--the moral atheist. For the moral atheist is a free man needing no priest, minister, rabbi, church, bible, or god to tell how to make his way through life. To the religionist this is the most despicable person imaginable--the man who trusts his own mind and rejects man's make-believe deities and those claiming to speak for those gods.

Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly
desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment
after death.

Polybius (2nd century B.C.)

Do not duplicate, copy or redistribute in any form without prior written consent.

Disclaimer