Sincere beliefs with openness to an opposing view is the Godly way to be an atheist. If I counter reductive materialism or any other contrary (to my beliefs), view?
Far as poss.; kindness, and grace, must proceed, and measure my truth-claims?
Jesus managed both, tell It as is, and show his best, and love-towards.
In principle, he turned up the heat and language; relative to religious proclaimers' misconstrued God-bashing. Amp'ing up their view full of trickery and deceit, exposed and put-all, off/God.
The exclusive use of fire and brimstone talk was directed toward those who purported to speak on his behalf.
2020's UK, it's a new religion that isn't waved about, as such. Yet, it's the PLC/Govt., established Religion. For instance, the 2020' Lockdown and steal the world's accumulated material wealth? To kill and continue killing through evasive and experimental 'medicine'(?); And, destroy the Gospel and reign of God; invading the earth through our genuine freedom to bring this about.
The response: We Don't And Won't Know/ What Will Be... etc., etc.
First two cop-outs; All will be, will be... theology and practice/ God is unknowable, all mystery, "who are we...", and one person, to presume... blah, blah, blah.
For the mid-decades in the twentieth century, the Church cried, "Secular Humanism".
The Russia the Beast, storyline. Porn, abortion, sexual orientation, and/or choices, female leaders, the main concerns on the home front. Something happened in the 90s... and thereon:
'Post-Modern Pantheism' had a 'revival'.
Evangelical Churches lost their crowds, the new Christian Way for the 'leavers' was 'PMP' ('Post-Modern, Pantheism'). The new home was post-... Evangelical, but not full-on Liberal Christianity. Pick 'n mix of theologies.
The difficult discernment is about levels and explanations within a ball-park of reasonable sense? The balance and room to maintain intigrity with Scriptures; Tradition; and Reason.
What is 'PMP'?
What's the purpose of going through the litany of oddities? Serious official explanations are never offered. In fact, provides ongoing chances to up the intrigue. Better if wanting to cover-up would on some issues, say nothing, but the opportunity will be for more wind ye up.
In other words, display some ineffective lying. Along with a certain intentional profile and authorities/media's cool detachment from questions.
To reveal, confuse and "let's move on". The power and purpose in the revelations. Push it but don't blow the sting. Well, part and part. Depends on the receiver. Dual strategy.
For those who see scammy flags, it's about reinforcing. For the lost in the idolised naivety, it's satisfaction and settled.
The Nice bloodless lorry and a pile of mannequins event was a supreme example. Eventual CCTV non-disclosure and the need to extend the farce to outrageous proportions. Could proper lie and pretend. Nope... sow those suspicions.
I watched Curtis’s “Century of the Self” and “Power of Nightmares” – both impressively crafted but I began to notice in the second one a tendency to reassure. This was the one where he tried to equate the US neoconservative movement with Islamic fundamentalism and to cast both as ways of dealing with “modernity”. (I suppose the least you can say about these earlier films is that Curtis was still implicitly assuming that there was some sense you could make of the world). But in PoN, Curtis ended by portraying the neocons as buffoons who had been rumbled.
All very comforting. In retrospect it seems to me that the neocons were, at the time, simply the latest bunch of “fall guys” to take the rap when (not if) their whole project failed. (The representatives of power must always fail from the point of view of the general public since these representatives serve the rulers, not the public.)
So, the neocons come out as clowns and we all go back to sleep.
But then I heard about a new Curtis docu called “The Trap” in which he has a go at R D Laing amongst others and it struck me as odd that he should cover the same ground in time but never overlap – or so it seemed to me. In any case I had a feeling of increasingly obvious superficiality. And when he tells us, “A profound shift in our understanding has occurred”, what he is actually saying is that our understanding has effectively died.
But once again we have an ironic case of the joke about the sadistic parent who tells his kids that the ice cream van only plays its merry tune to tell you they’ve ran out of ice cream. Every “critical” programme on the mainstream media is like that van. No MSM programme can be critical of the MSM. These “critical” programmes ARE the MSM.
What is 'PMP'? and, the Off-Guardian,Blockbuster, sometime soon/later.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES MOON LANDING SKEPTIC
APRIL 1, 2019
Having not heard Russell Brand for ages, played one clip. The interviewer asks about inner-Hollywood. Light-hearted banter. Geoff Lloyd (Absolute Radio) slips in, “ruling parties of the world of illuminati… telling banks and governments what to do… is it like 'Eyes Wide Shut' in that world?”
“No, it isn't mate, I don't think so...” says Russell.
Know-so surely? Of course/not. One thing a sober Russell would not like is lying. Half-truths galore but not full-on porkies. Denial of the most threatening, physical enemy in our midst?
We know Richard Dawkins for his provocative claims. After examining both simple and complex life, Oxford’s former Professor for Public Understanding of Science reaches this conclusion: the universe has “precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”
Because he’s an atheist, it’s no surprise Dawkins thinks the universe is without ultimate meaning. As a biologist, he points to randomness, suffering, and evolutionary dead ends to support his view. As an observer of history, he points to harm religious people and institutions sometimes cause.
But does science require us to reject God? Or consider life meaningless?
Atheism lives in the hearts and minds of men and women around the world and that is their right. Reductive materialism as an explanation of reality is on the other hand completely dead and atheism is in my opinion little more than a set of religious beliefs founded upon the incorrect and arrogant assumptions of reductive materialism.
It is funny that all the canards that atheists toss at religious people about primitivism, backwardness, simple mindedness and belief in fairy tales can all be aimed fairly and squarely upon the atheist, it is just the truth, as upsetting as it may be to certain people’s core beliefs.