FRIENDLY ATHEISM- Jersey Flight

Friendly atheism as an ideology of theism by which to morally strike the courageous man who will not conform.  The friendly atheist puts himself in such a position as to claim that the bold man (who is also an honest man) is defective. In every case it would seem that the judgement against him is moral, but the question is whether or not the claims of theism warrant respect?

In the sense that atheism is a critique of theism it is also a kind of revolution against theism. Perhaps we should take the advice of those who have won revolutions. 

"...we always have to think over carefully all those things we do not fully understand. We must analyze what the enemy wants us to do and why they want us to do it. Then we must do the opposite." Che Guevara, Talks to Young People, pg. 76

In this case what does the enemy want us to do? Do they not demand the "right" of respect? I submit to you this is precisely because it gives them the advantage. The theist would have you work within his paradigm; for he knows that if he can control the presuppositions, which come before the subject, then he has already won the exchange. That is to say, he wants you to assume with him (as all friendly atheists do) that his topic is worthy of respect. 

So we are to pretend that the playing field is equal, but is this really the case? 

The commercial atheists tell us the problem is one of reason, but we have struck down this stupidity: the real problem is Authority! And unless the polemicist attacks this vital center he will make no progress in the blight of this war. 

Once again we are told that we must pretend that the claims of theism are something they are not, which ironically enough, is the bold advice of moral men.

Very seldom does an indoctrinated man recover from his indoctrination simply because a polemicist shows good manners. Nonsense! There must be a blow to the vital center. The indoctrinated man must feel as though he has come into contact with a cataclysmic event in the realm of his ideas... after such an exchange he should feel lucky to be alive; only then is the infrastructure in place that can alter his course.  Radical revolution requires radical confrontation.

We are not talking about a lack of intelligence. We are not talking about an angry confrontation, or superficial reactionaries; and we are surely not prescribing the same thing for all practitioners. Undoubtedly tact has its place.

I direct my prose to those that sit at the top of this superstitious pyramid; to those who hold the keys of Authority above the lowly masses. They must be chopped down; one must strike an intellectual blow that robs them of the image of their Authority. The public must see it; the men who reference them must see it. One must speak in such a way that this Authority, this moth-eaten, disingenuous, moral piety, loses the force of its power. The free thinker must show that he is immune, and thereby blaze a trail for others to follow. For we have found a way beyond the assertions of these men, and the people who need it most must see it.

Friendly atheism, in the worse sense, is a form of cowardice, in the best sense, it is a form of confusion; a misunderstanding of the psychology that keeps the disciple locked in place; of the Authority that made him a disciple in the first place!

"I am a friendly man, and therefore do I presume to condescend... go along with me while I play my disingenuous game."

But my dear friends the earth is not flat and we know it! 

Surely men of superstition did not get that way because of reason--- they got that way because of Authority! He that refuses to attack this Authority is a fool... but we can say more; does such a man or woman really care? Perhaps this approach, of equal opposites, is actually directed at the affirmation of the ego; it's all about retaining a specific social image; proving to oneself that one is superior. And yet this project is antithetical to life. There is no choice, at some point we must eventually drop the hammer.

What progress has this method really made? All the progress that comes by way of deconversion comes through shattering the image of Authority. It is not so much that a disciple discerns that his belief is refuted, as much as he discerns a vital loss of Authority. "The power of the statue was only a myth." Hence, if such a man does not tear it down at least he no longer worships it. In the best case he is done with all statue worship!

[But what if the friendly atheist has merely driven the theist to another statue? For he did not attack the foundation of Authority, and therefore, left the psychology of Authority intact. It is reasonable to believe that such a man or woman will still be susceptible to the illegitimate structures of Authority. How dare our commercial friends call this liberation!]         

The bold man; the courageous man (and we are not talking about undisciplined idiots who merely spout insults from their lips) is made the enemy of his own cause. The moralist, feeling his way to be superior, lambasts the direct man as being morally defective for exercising his directness. And yet this same moral man (a man who claims to be locked in an ideological war) never stops to ask himself the desire of his enemy. He never stops to consider the shallow nature of his own methodology. The friendly atheist and the theist are united in the cause of their moralism, but this is not a game the friendly atheist can win; for theism is the king of moral Authority.  

By agreeing to the rules of the game (which amounts to respect for theism) the friendly atheist, from the very outset, affirms the presuppositions of the supernaturalist. He will attempt to manipulate men out of their theism by the sheer power of his polite kindness. [Facetiously]: Everyone knows that a complaint of offense is proof that one has done something wrong. "Though shalt not offend!" And yet this moralism gets worse: "though shalt not offend the advocates of stupidity by speaking the truth!" 

But we have something better: the only thing that can make true progress in the diffusion of theism is to attack the Authority of theism, as Authority is the central agent of theism! He that fails to make contact, at this vital level, fails to deconstruct the machine of theism. Even the theist knows this, which is the same reason he rejects the method of the friendly atheist. And what does this say; the theist will not join in the methodological stupidity of the friendly atheist! But if he can get the friendly atheist to submit to this "mutual contract" of equality among friends... there will be no detection of his own violation. It matters not, either way the cordial method of theism wins. It wins by being polite, and it wins by getting the friendly atheist to submit to the presupposition of equal legitimacy.      

But can the friendly atheist comprehend this? By god even theism refutes his stupid method. The friendly atheist has been duped. By leaving the Authority of theism intact, all the friendly atheist does is make a statement about himself. But showing himself to be a "moral man" he equally shows himself to be a fool. Here the objective is not to win, not to destroy the illegitimate banners of theism, but merely to conduct oneself with the utmost moral integrity. And if the friendly atheist has done this then it simply doesn't matter if he should win or lose; for he has proven to himself and the world that he is a good, polite person. We might call this The Etiquette Argument for Atheism.     

The theist does not believe it is right for the skeptic to assault his Authority. But why does he believe this? Why does he value his Authority... no my friends, this is not the question, the question is why the skeptic would affirm the legitimacy of this belief? Are all beliefs equal? Are all claims worthy of respect? 

Mock the stupidity of the stupid, first so you do not partake in their stupidity, and secondly, to help rid them of it. 

"I believe Porter because he is a man of authority; because he has so often demonstrated his authority by asserting his authority. Therefore, when Porter tells me that (P) is true, I believe it because he said it. To expose and attack the false authority of Porter therefore, is to destroy my belief."    

I know the great evangelist wants to claim that this method only reinforces errant belief, but we are not talking about this prescription for all men, we are talking about those who hold the levers of Authority. It would seem that all stupidity, on some level, presupposes Authority; our aim is simply to attack (which means discredit) the claim of Authority.

To discredit something means that it must first have authority; and do you not see my friends, that this is the subtle maneuver of theism? It demands this Authority without warrant; it assumes the right and justification of respect, as though it were the default obligation of every human being. But what is this assumption based on? 

Shatter the empty script of theism by discrediting its assumption of Authority! This, and not polite manners, is what it means to dispose of theism.

In war one must go for the kill.