US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Globalization
The Hopelessness and irrelevance of Modern Atheism
15 Oct 2006
Atheists don’t really bother me, at least not for the obvious reason, i.e. they claim there is no God. I personally believe in a God of my own understanding, but I don’t expect others to share my views on the matter, nor do I care if they do.
The Hopelessness and irrelevance of Modern Atheism

By Curt Maynard


Atheists don’t really bother me, at least not for the obvious reason, i.e. they claim there is no God. I personally believe in a God of my own understanding, but I don’t expect others to share my views on the matter, nor do I care if they do. What I do find interesting with most [not all] atheists however is that they tend to embrace the Utopian ideal, which is an unlikely religious view of its own, the idea that we can all live together in peace and harmony if we’d just “learn to share,” or “empathize” with our fellow man. In the absence of a supreme Deity, I have a great deal of trouble understanding how so many atheists can so easily toss aside millions of years of evolution, and the entire discipline of biology, not to mention the lesser disciplines of anthropology, archeology and history and conclude that it’s meaningless and that we, a biological entity, can somehow rise above our own nature.

I know someone that espouses atheism, but advocates affirmative action, multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity. Whenever I ask him to show me a single historical example, where any group had “benefited,” [the key word] by assisting their competitors in such a way that the playing field is equalized, he generally ignores me, and drones on about the alleged benefits of equality and how a belief in God actually perpetuates inequality. He seems to believe, despite being unable to prove, that evolution itself is a non-Zero sum game in which a symbiotic relationship can be established between all those willing to embrace such an idea and play by the rules. He’ll cite the works of John Nash [of A Beautiful Mind fame] as allegedly proving through a model known as “game theory” that all games can be played in such a way that everybody wins. Pointing out to him that John Nash was a schizophrenic doesn’t seem to have any effect whatsoever on my associate’s opinion of the inevitability of a zero sum game in most situations or John Nash himself – hmmm.

Chess is a “Zero Sum” game, sure there can be the occasional draw, but inevitably someone is going to win, and in chess, winner takes all. Another way of looking at my friend’s ignorance and inability to comprehend the obvious is to imagine that there are two groups – use a pie chart it’ll help - one group has 75% of the pie and the other has 25%. If these two groups engage in a “theoretical game,” in which the group with 25% eventually captures 30% of the pie, there is no way in heaven or hell that the group that initially had 75% can now have more than 70%, which means that they lost 5% of the pie, thus they were the victims of a “Zero Sum” game – they lost, they didn’t win, nor did they maintain their former position. Some theorists have developed models that imply a “non-Zero Sum” solution in which everyone can benefit if the pie itself expands in perpetuity. This idea goes right back to “Utopianism,” because nothing lasts forever, especially anything of value, i.e. something relatively scarce.

One alleged believer in the ever expanding economy fantasy is former President Bill Clinton who was quoted in an interview as saying:

The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win-win solutions instead of win-lose solutions.... Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well - so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other.

As mentioned above, there really is no such thing as a non-Zero Sum solution to any competitive challenge, to believe so is to believe in fairies. Bill Clinton knows better, or at least should know better anyway; I personally assume he’s just lying; something he’s quite proficient at, he’d have you believe that he cares about the little guy, but in actuality, Clinton is simply prepping the stage, and/or setting up the chess board, for a major league elitist “Zero Sum” victory.

Go back to the pie chart – and consider again the idea that in a two player game, the player that wins must take away something from the player that loses. The entire New World Order or Global Economy [same thing] is being presented to us as if it were a “non Zero Sum” solution to the global economy – when America exported its entire industrial infrastructure as it did in the 1980s to the third world it was simply going to “win” in the service sector. Today we see all of those “service jobs,” being exported [outsourced] to India, Mexico and China. Trust me when I say, we aren’t going to win with this strategy, we’re straight up losing our share of the pie, and at the same time, the American people are scurrying around and rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is no wonder that it was a schizophrenic that made such a name for him self in this farce, the powers that created him in the first place can always plead that he was “insane,” and they were fooled, should it all fall apart before the final check mate. “Game Theory,” itself is what I like to refer to a “Jewish Science,” very few people understand it, which by the way doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s “too difficult,” for a mere mortal to comprehend, it could simply mean that the theory itself is entirely fraudulent. Consider for a moment Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, or Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The fact of the matter is, Freud’s theories have been so completely discredited, he hasn’t a shred of credibility left, nobody with any integrity in the field of psychology today would dare cite anything associated with Freud in a scientific journal, but don’t expect the media to tell you that though, nope, it was the Jewish media that created Freud in the first place. To give you an idea of the incredible ignorance of “Jewish science,” and more importantly, its adherents, consider Dr. Mortimer Ostow, a Jewish Freudian disciple who bamboozled the world for a decade with his bilge called research on the origins of anti-Semitism. The Cleveland Jewish News recently noted in an obituary of sorts the following:

“In the 1980s, Ostow led a group of psychologists in a study that examined the causes of anti-Semitism. Reviewing the case histories of patients, the group found that negative feelings toward Jews could be traced to early childhood, The New York Times reported. They suggested that troubles in toilet training or an Oedipal rivalry, in which a son's negative feelings toward his father could be projected onto Jews, could be the cause. Ostow also wrote a 1996 book, “Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of anti-Semitism.”

Now if you can swallow that dear reader, you truly are a fool. What the good doctor is saying; is that “potty training” relates directly to the development of anti-Semitic views. It’s just that simple – there isn’t anything else to it – Dr. Mortimer Ostow was able to get these moronic views published because he could, like Freud and Einstein before him, rely on the Zionist media to force this garbage down the throats of the Gentile world.

In the case of Albert Einstein, Time magazine’s person of the century, he stole most of his theories from other scientists and then published them as his own. He couldn’t have done this without the complicity of his co-religionists in the media; they helped him grab the spotlight and suppressed the outrage and accusations of his knowing peers. I’m not a mathematician and don’t pretend to be, but I can understand the simplicity of a dwindling share of a pie chart, and I do know that Albert Einstein is unquestionably a plagiarist, just as sure as was Martin Luther King. Richard J. Moody, the author of “Albert Einstein, Plagiarist of the Century?” opined:

As to the question of Einstein's plagiarism---this should settle the issue once and for all. We have two choices: 1) Einstein, the dolt in grade school and high school, the mediocre college student who evinced not one shred of genius in his early life, suddenly, after working for the patent office a few years, displays a level of unimaginable genius in the span of one year. That's alternative number one. Alternative number 2) Einstein stole every idea that wasn't nailed down making him the greatest plagiarist of all times. Occam's razor folks, the simplest explanation is the best!

Back to my acquaintance the atheist. In many respects his atheism is based upon the same flawed logic as those that once embrace the “profundity” of Freud’s theories. These are the same people that today accept unconditionally the so-called benefits Americans are allegedly going to receive by way of the global economy. My friend simply wants to believe in the biological impossibility of an evolutionary non-Zero Sum game and thus “he believes,” allowing his emotions, rather than intellect, to dictate his views, in just the same way a fanatical adherent to some religions doctrine might – my friend is dishonest, and worse, cowardly, because he should know better, after all, he supposedly rejects subjective emotionalism in favor of scientific objectivity. He wants to believe that a symbiotic relationship can be had in all human relations, despite the evidence that millions of years of conquest and/or parasitism have provided for anyone that cares enough to gather the evidence and analyze it carefully, one is either on top, somewhere in the middle, or at the bottom, there is no other conclusion.

Some religious people could if they so chose, reject the above, after all some of their views are based upon altruism and faith rather than history and/or scientific evidence. A religious person could hope for a future in which “everyone could get along,” whereas an atheist doesn’t really have that luxury, their views must be based upon biology and evolution, but yet so many of them these days, embrace fantasy.

Neither religious history or biology provides any evidence that all men can live together in harmony. One must understand that to give up certain privileges one might enjoy today in the hope of a more symbiotic future with one’s fellow man tomorrow is an example of how modern Europeans have pissed away the future of their own progeny, the very epitome of all evolutionary concern, the childless atheist, or the atheist that cripples his children’s future with his foolish notions today is a fool indeed.

Once again, it isn’t my acquaintances atheism that bothers me, it’s his inherent dishonesty and unwillingness to fully embrace what his beliefs demand, that is the acceptance of what biology dictates, procreate and protect and empower one’s progeny. To do otherwise is to embrace Jewish science and fantasy itself.
See also:
http://pcapostate.blogspot.com/2006/10/hopelessness-and-irrelevance-of-modern.html

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.