Re: The Atheist-In-Name-Only
2. Today's atheist is an AINO
3. The AINO Creed is an incoherent manifesto
I was curious where you were going to go with the idea of the AINO. I do not think I agree it is the appropriate use of the convention. I think the ‘new atheist’ / ‘AINO’ rhetorical techniques you highlight are a part of something much larger. I don’t think it’s just about God, I think this indivisible from a larger ideology/agenda.
For one, this fuzzy identifying in opposition rather than set of ideas is taking off across the board with the same inevitable results: unholy alliances. Whether its anti-fascists, anti-trump, anti-abortion, anti-AGW, atheist, asocial, asexual the result are always the same. An identity without a loose boundary function and the creation of subcultural taboos, heretics, others etc resistant to challenge by way of the “it the null hypothesis’ argument. You may also see how this cuts both ways. I think there is much validity to argument that ‘atheistic identity’ was created not as a recruitment tool but a smear. Once those labeled and isolated as atheistic rebelled and embraced their shaming title, the insidious forces of the psyche rather weaponized the ambiguity by way of the Luciferic. The net result is we see a loose group of individuals of variety motives united around rebellion. In and of itself that might be benign except for the larger agenda at play.
See much of the same sources of the “anti-X” rhetoric and the default position arguments very much do so with another rhetoric tool of intellectualization paradox(zeno paradox) for the purposes of making their point. They argue didn’t you know up is down? After all in Australia….this work similarly blurring context and content so that their definitions can takes hold. I am by no way saying that is atheistic. It is a rhetoric technique often used when seeking to groom victims.
The real question then is why all the tricks? The objective of simply ‘removing God’ is absurd on the face as anyone who reflects at all on the matter could see absent the terminology of God, the practical process and underlying realities remain(God => Tao). That would literally just evolve the language as we’ve seen done many times in the past. You indeed see lots of different types of atheistic styles from the reflective Harris/Carriers to the more accusatory Dawkins\Hitchens. It certainly doesn’t require an internal transformation or being convinced. It is not organized at that level. (It naive though to think the absence of something is the same as neutral/default)
No, there is a clear larger agenda at play and it takes aim at reform not rebellion. The rebellion is a means to ends and like most participates in any rebellion, most players are but game-pieces of larger forces. When we have a trans-human (systemic) agenda generally the best way to frame it is in terms of power. Who then gains power by these mechanisms and the answer are the priests. No, I don’t mean actual priests (although they are included). I mean the archetype. With the democratization of information the priestly class was stripped of their authority. No longer was a priest needed to interface with God. We saw the kings would prop them up fall and they too are fighting back and returning at an ever growing rate. They(those forged in the image) want power and they will reinvent themselves to get it. It doesn’t require you to be an atheist to fall victim, but no longer is that a defense against their new church.
Divided and isolated. Confused as to source of truth. In rebellion so long you crave a return to order. This is all apart of it. What opposes the priest is the prophet. The prophets and the priest are cut of the same cloth. The choice is ours. The collective macro expression of the war which rages within each of our psyche.
