Saturday, September 26, 2009

The Atheist Meme

As every atheist with a computer knows, Dawkins has introduced to the literary and philosophical world two extremely popular metaphors. The first is the selfish-gene and the second is the meme. Keep in mind however that:

. Just as Dawkins has stated that the universe doesn’t really have design, it only appears that way -

. Just as Dawkins says that he is suspicious of anyone who holds strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence, while he does exactly that -

. Just as Dawkins says that “science” operates independently of a cultural milieu, while he operates within a bizarre cultural milieu that allows only a very narrow band of evidence that doesn’t contradict what atheists want to believe -

. Just as Dawkins says that religious people are irrationally immersed in mystery, and then tells us how science leads one to “profound and sublime mysteries,” so too does he attempt to present to us something that only appears to be real, the meme.

A meme (Greek mimesis = imitation) is an idea or concept (information) that is spread from person to person within a community. We acquire these memes by copying those around us. Modern atheists (Greta Christina is a good example) apparently believe that these are not metaphors but valid scientific entities. If you allow yourself to ignore the fact that there is no proof that such a thing exists, then according to Dawkins, you can see how the meme is the perfect explanation of how religion, particularly Christianity spreads. However, if the goal of the Christian meme, as Dawkins says, is to get people to believe that God will punish all doubters, it makes one wonder - “What is the goal of the atheist meme?”

I wonder if it ever gives Richard Dawkins pause for thought that atheists are so incredibly gullible. Does he purse his lips in consternation that his atheist followers are so unsophisticated in their thinking that they are willing to take his metaphors and adopt them as scientific statements of reality? This, even after Dawkins has actually abandoned the meme concept as the foolishness that it is. Believing, perhaps mistakenly, that one day the common atheist will catch on that a meme is nothing but a misleading concept invented by him to trash religion, Dawkins now posits that religion might have arisen because of some mutation in some part of the brain or that it’s a virus. No one can accuse him of running out of book ideas.

Clinton (Richard’s real name) tells us that God-thoughts are virus-like and that Christianity is as onerous for people of the world as smallpox. I would suggest that if anything resembles a virus, it’s atheism which spreads among the open-minded (Hebrew root means empty-headed) because they have no resistence or immunity to outrageous ideas.

Of course if the religion virus is a thought worth entertaining, then we could also say that atheism might have arisen because of some virus or mutation in the brain, for we all know that atheism did not arise because of any concrete evidence. Atheism or, if you like, the atheist meme pre dates anything that modern atheists call evidence. And, since atheism works against natural selection causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes (out of three marriages Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year, calling the atheist meme and it’s phenotype hosts mutations makes a lot more sense from a scientific point of view.

Perhaps atheists would find it much more productive to explore how they and their lives are being manipulated by the atheist meme. Maybe they should take a careful look at the atheist meme, which finds its origins in a savage and malevolent evil whose only intent is the destruction of God’s creation.

12 comments:

David said...

Dawkins can be mean spirited. I agree. I'm not sure he understands the importance of faith to those who truly have it.

But his approach - one which you appear to accept - is that our beliefs should be consistent with the evidence and should be logical. Your critique of him seems to be that he, himself, doesn't do logic or evidence well and is, therefore a hypocrite.

The debate has advanced when everyone agrees on the ground rules.

Makarios said...

I think that Dawkins "uses" logic when it suits his cause and when it doesn't he just presses forward regardless. For example: On the one hand Dawkins says that life exists on a billion planets, while On the other hand, he says that he is sceptical of strongly held belief in the absence of evidence. It's like he's saying, We'll why let facts get in the way - say it anyhow and how the gullible believe what I'm saying because the end justifies the means.

Gorth Satana said...

How about some references?
You've been wrong (or opening lying) several times, in the last four days I've been reading your blog.
It would be good to be able to check up on what you say.
And it's amazing how much hate you have for atheists. Your hate seems to know no bounds. I hope you don't have access to guns.

"for we all know that atheism did not arise because of any concrete evidence"
Atheism is just lack of belief in the gods. Many atheists say they've not seen any evidence of gods and therefore lack a belief in them. I'm not an atheist and I understand this, when will you?

Makarios said...

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say you want references. I will give you this.

Richard Dawkins wrote in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale":
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing-is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

His Lordship said...

Gorth, he's Canadian, he doesn't have access to guns the same way we do in the USA.

Mak, calling atheists names isn't going to convince any of them that your deity is real.

I don't care what Richard Dawkins said, or what he believes or doesn't believe in. I think you're just intimidated because he sold millions of copies of his book, and there's only 4 of us who read your blog.

Where is your God? What does he look like? How often have you seen him? Where is the undeniable proof of his existence? Are you up to the challenge? Can you find me some evidence? Don't give me some quote. Tell me where the evidence is. I will believe in your deity when he appears before me.

The Universe exists, yes. Life is complex and beautiful, yes. That doesn't mean that YOUR God created all that.

Why is your Hebrew God any more real than Oden or Zeus? I think Oden was much more of a bad ass than Jesus. He hung himself from a tree, impaled himself with his own spear, and resurrected himself 9 days later with the gift of foresight. Now that's a bad ass. Not some desert town carpenter who only stayed dead for 3 days. Pfft!

The Jews will tell you that they are the chosen people, and that you are just a Gentile and will never go to heaven. What if they are right? Have you thought about that Mak? Why don't the Jews believe in your Christ? The Muslims say that Jesus was just a prophet, NOT the son of God, and NOT God himself. What if they are right? Shouldn't you get down on your knees and pray five times a day towards Mecca?

What makes YOUR religion so much truer than any of the other ones? Are a billion Hindus wrong?

Worldwide, Christianity is a fringe phenomenon. And atheism is on the rise.

Makarios said...

"calling atheists names isn't going to convince any of them that your deity is real."

Have I called atheists names? Trouble is, even if I have, I'm not sure that I care. I suppose I should, huh?
==========

"I think you're just intimidated"

No, I'm intimidated because he and Dennett and Hitchen and Harris want to see my children taken from me and indoctrinated with the atheist beief system. I don't think that it will happen to me but to my children or grandchildren? It's coming. Atheists have done it before and the only thing from keeping it from happening again is the lack of power.
===============
As to your questions about God, I don't believe you have any interest at all in the answers.
==============

"I will believe in your deity when he appears before me."

Indeed you will.

Flute said...

Hey Mak, just checking in to see how you're doing and if you're still as hatefilled as you were.

(reads posts)

Oh.

"I'm not sure that I care."

Well, see ya. I visit again sometime.

His Lordship said...

"I will believe in your deity when he appears before me."

Indeed you will.


Bring him on. I went to the hardware store today and I've got a hammer and some nails ready.

As to your questions about God, I don't believe you have any interest at all in the answers.

Maybe those questions simply don't have answers? Maybe?

Rabhimself said...

Mak, neither Hitchens or Dennet want to 'indoctrinate' your children with the atheist 'belief'.

Like so many others, including myself, i think it is disgusting that billions of children worldwide are truly indoctrinated with a specific religious belief that has no evidence to support it.

I think all children should be raised secular, and if they decide in the absence of pressure that they believe in a certain god then so be it.

Look at it this way Mak, Santa Claus is a harmless piece of fun to excite children abou christmas and excite their imagination.

But at some point, theire level of critical thinking begins to break down the idea of santa claus, and ultimately adults will then confess.

The very same thing will happen with an equally magical god, but instead of telling the to make their own mind up, they are batted back while stll young and impressionable and the belief settles in.

Do you honestly think in the absence of your indoctrination, your wife's, your ministers etc, that all of your children would become christians?

Makarios said...

"Mak, neither Hitchens or Dennet want to 'indoctrinate' your children with the atheist 'belief'."

As Richard Dawkins reaches, “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the small-pox virus but harder to eradicate.”

Dawkins again, “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”

“Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children.”
Hitchens writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”

The atheist answer? Inculcate all children with atheist beliefs.
“Children are not the property of parents.” Richard Dawkins, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? Should [Christian parents] be free to impose their beliefs on their children?”

Again, the atheist answer is to impose (teach) atheist beliefs upon not just their children but upon everyone’s children.
“Atheists know best what children need to learn.” Daniel Dennett suggests that atheists become the defenders of the world’s children, “Parents don’t literally own their children . . . [Christian parents] ought to be held accountable by outsiders (read atheists, perhaps Dennett himself) for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.”

“Christian parents have no right to teach their children about Jesus.” Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, “ [Christian] Parents, have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever way they choose . . . to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma . . . or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.”

Hugo said...

Quick note...

There is no such thing as ''atheist beliefs''...

You confuse the fact that many people who do not believe in a god often share some common beliefs, like believing that the Earth travels around the Sun... just to state the obvious.

Plus, by saying ''atheist beliefs'', it shows the misconception that you probably have that not believing in a god equals believing the claim ''there is no god'', which is false.

It is perfectly fine to say: I don't believe your claim that God exists, AND, I don't believe your claim that God does not exists.

Hugo said...

Forgot to click "email follow-up"... done...

Anybody knows if we can add ourselves to the follow-up notifications after sending a comment?