The Zombie ‘Spirituality’ Of Atheism

The Los Angeles Times ran an interview with one of the atheists who demonstrates himself to be the sort of true fool as only one who denies the reality of God can be.

This guy’s particular hook is that you can be an atheist and “spiritual” too.

Then we see what atheist “spirituality” looks like:

Was it the drug Ecstasy that opened up spirituality for you?

It definitely was. I wouldn’t call that the true experience of self-transcendence that is the focus of the book, but it was profoundly liberating. It convinced me it was possible to have a much better life and be a much better person, and some action was required to figure out how to be more that way more of the time. It’s certainly something you can’t recommend without serious caveats.

Okay, let’s recap.  Any form of “spirituality” that does NOT rely on the sort of drugs that men slip into women’s drinks to make them easy to rape is the “esoteric dunghill of religion.”

This fool Sam Harris teaches that the only path for an atheist to become “spiritual” is to ignore the “serious caveats” that are the obvious results of shutting reality off with drugs.

You need to get the joke that is atheism here: THESE are the people who mock Christians for not living in the real world!!!

There’s nothing new under the sun, the Bible declares, and it sure nailed it with atheists: they’ve been offering this “version” of reality for some time.  In the 1960s it was Timothy Leary with his “Turn on, tune in, drop out” approach.  And so today it is the secular humanist left that is championing the destruction of America through legalized drugs and the drug addiction that will come with it.  Because how in the hell else can these perverted, degenerate people have any chance at being “spiritual” otherwise???

Atheism is parasitic.  It cannot exist unless it has some superior worldview to emulate even as it mocks the very thing that it is emulating.

One example is the first rise of atheism as carried out in a vicious orgy of violence a.k.a. The French Revolution.  One of the leaders of that atheism descent into hell was stabbed to death in his bath by a woman hoping to end the endless beheadings.  And Marat’s death was celebrated in a painting as follows:

At the height of the Reign of Terror in 1793, David painted a memorial to his great friend, the murdered publisher, Jean Marat. As in his Death of Socrates, David substitutes the iconography (symbolic forms) of Christian art for more contemporary issues

So the very people who most denied Christ were reduced to trying to depict their hero as the very Christ they mocked and hated and denied.  Because at their cores they are hypocrites and liars and have neither shame, nor honor, nor decency, nor virtue, nor integrity of any kind.

That’s all atheism can do: cynically and perversely exploit the genuineness of the very thing it mocks and denies in order to have any pseudo-legitimacy whatsoever.

There is no atheist art.  There is no atheist music.  There is no atheist culture.  There is no atheist morality.  There can be no law based on atheism.  And there very definitely isn’t any atheist “spirituality.”  All they have is an obscene, grotesque mockery.

Augustine wrote, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”

The great scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal said, “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus.”

Atheists implicitly accept this God-shaped vacuum in every human heart, this restlessness, that God installed until we find our rest in Him.  But they propose to fill their voids with drugs instead of with the Spirit of the God who made them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “The Zombie ‘Spirituality’ Of Atheism”

  1. Craig Says:

    Brother I’m and atheist and i agree with you on your right-wing views but can you stop with the judgmental nonsense when it comes to non believers? This is one of the huge reasons why non-religious folk tend to lean on the left (which i admit to some degree is hypocritical). Also drugs is a broad term, there is nothing wrong with altering ones mind as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, considering pharmaceutical drugs do more damage than street ones do on average. Also you’ve said that you wouldn’t employ a theocracy but your writing some times gives me the another impression. Once again keep up the good work, but remember not all atheist are mindless zombies, some of us actually have logical and moral principle without needs for tenants. Don’t do what liberals do and divide people into even more groups. Appreciate it!

    P.S. Sam harris is fool

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Craig,

    I actually appreciate your comment and particularly your tone.

    There are atheists and there are atheists, just as there are homosexuals and there are homosexuals (which isn’t to say atheists are homosexuals). In the case of homosexuals, there are militant homosexuals who are out to indoctrinate culture and literally create a moral sewer. And they are depraved and they are vile. But there are also homosexuals who are just trying to live their lives and would never dream try to persuade another person that theirs is a “gay” lifestyle. I’ve talked to quite a few such. I sympathize with them. And in the same manner there are your Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris atheists who are out to radically transform culture and create the sort of “officially state atheist regime” that has been responsible for well over 100 million murders of said regimes’ own peoples during peacetime. These people are wicked and have to be confronted. But then there are atheists who are just trying to live their lives and would never try to persuade somebody not to believe in God.

    Now, you say something I would like to deal with before I discuss anything else:

    Also you’ve said that you wouldn’t employ a theocracy but your writing some times gives me the another impression.

    I submit that theocracies are a bad thing, with the sole exception being the ONE that God ordained in the Old Testament world with Israel. Our founding fathers were wise to ordain freedom of religion, which means that a man can believe in God, the gods, or no God or gods. I further submit that the Bible supports this.

    The Old Testament declares in the voice of God Himself:

    “Come, let us reason together,” says the LORD — Isaiah 1:18

    The New Testament is crystal clear in passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:20

    Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

    No one should be forced to believe in any God. Because God HIMSELF doesn’t force us to believe in Him.

    But, having said that, there is a crystal clear link between morality and religion. If you think otherwise, tell me precisely what the moral foundation of atheism is, or what the moral tenants of atheism are, such that one could be morally disqualified from being an atheist. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Chairman Mao all explicitly expressed their atheism; what disqualifies them as atheists? And the answer is nothing.

    My point is simply this: morality and religion are inextricable. And you cannot have one without the other, unless your “morality” is Darwinian morality by which the strong should crush the weak and the weak should perish and make room for the strong rather than contaminate the gene pool.

    The founding fathers were even more overwhelmingly clear on the link between morality and religion than they were on religious freedom.

    And so my view of “theocracy” comes down to this: we NEED to embrace religion as a nation. People should be ENCOURAGED to be religious and embrace religion. We should have laws that one the one hand do not force you to believe in a certain religion, but on the other to force you to live as though you believed in God and valued the dignity and freedom of other human beings created in God’s image.

    There are foundational moral tenants – the 10 Commandments express them – that are pretty much common to ALL religious worldviews.

    Yes, people OUGHT to be forced to live according to laws that have their foundation in religion. They don’t have to believe in religion, but that in no way means that society ought to degrade its morality and pervert its laws to reflect the fact that people should not be forced to believe a certain way.

    You don’t have to be baptized. You don’t have to go to a particular church or any church at all. You don’t have to believe according to any particular denomination’s teaching. BUT there clearly seems to be a sort of “civil religion” that the founding fathers adhered to by which you live and act in certain ways that don’t force you to be “religious” but force you to live as though you were.

    It comes down to this, Craig. Either every man does that which is right in his own eyes – which is anarchy and chaos – or we have a society of laws. But if we have laws, what are those laws based on? Why should I follow them? What is your anthropology such that every man be compelled to follow law or follow society? Who is to say that one thing is right and another thing is wrong? Who are YOU to impose your morality on me? Are we sheep or cattle that must follow the herd? What about those who don’t want to follow the herd?

    You might say, “Well, I prefer a Stalinist regime in which a dictator representing the power of the Human State exalts itself and forces us to act however the State wants me to. OR you have a society whose laws are grounded in and foundational to the existence of God who created us and holds us accountable to His laws. And our laws reflect His law.

    History CLEARLY shows that these are our only two choices, ultimately. Because EVERY SINGLE STATE ATHEIST REGIME HAS BEEN MURDEROUS AND TYRANICAL EVERY SINGLE TIME FROM THE FRENCH REVOLUTION TO MODERN NORTH KOREA. Every single one.

    So for the record, I adhere to the “civil religion” view, which does NOT force you to believe in God or believe in certain state-defined theological precepts, but DOES demand and impose laws that are based upon the belief in a Supreme Deity.

    And I hope you would affirm that. It sounds like its certainly possible, given what you wrote.

    That is to say, be an atheist, but don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness. Be an atheist, but don’t pervert the marriage that in every single culture throughout human history to this perverse generation was an ordination by God or by the gods as a union between husband and wife.

    As a Christian, I would argue with you until I am blue in the face about your need to believe in God and to in particular believe in what Jesus Christ did on the cross on your behalf by taking away your sins and giving you access to the Father if you would but accept Him. But I would NEVER try to force you to do so and penalize you for not doing so.

    Now, let me move on to the drug thing.

    I would argue that mind-altering drugs are a bad thing. You are literally making yourself stupid when you use mind-altering substances, for instance. You are literally sabotaging your ability to think and reason clearly. You are literally poisoning your brain: cocaine destroys synapses. That is a fact. Alcohol kills brain cells. That is a fact. There is an established link between marijuana and schizophrenia.

    Our legalization of marijuana is so fatal to our culture and society it is beyond unreal. It will ultimately have devastating consequences down the road. That said, I wasn’t writing about legal issues and I certainly wasn’t stating that everybody who is caught using drugs ought to be locked up for life.

    That wasn’t my point regarding the “Zombie Spirituality” article. My point was very simple and very specific: atheists such as Sam Harris are ostensibly presenting themselves as the clear thinking ones who are living in the real world when they are the ones – by their own open acknowledgment – using mind-altering chemicals that distort the very reality they claim they are representing.

    That is my point. And it is simply true. Anybody who would try to argue that when I bow my head in prayer I am less connected to reality than when Sam Harris pops and ecstasy drug and starts hearing colors is just deranged and becomes one of my cases in point. You’ve got to be nuts to believe that.

    And I in particular am mocking the notion of “atheist spirituality” particularly through the use of drugs. What drugs create is an illusion based on compromised and deteriorated mental states, not “reality” and not “spirituality.”

    That was my project.

    Anyway, for the record, when I go after “atheists” realize that I am going after a specific group of atheists who are out there trying to indoctrinate and impose their worldview. I am attacking and mocking those who attack and mock.

    And I hold the same attitude toward homosexuals that I hold with atheists and drug users. The people who are living their lives quietly in the privacy of their own homes, etc. – whether it’s two men doing it or an atheist doing it or a drug user doing it – are not my problem. I don’t hate you. I’m not out to get you. It’s when people begin to try to transform and I submit warp culture that it becomes my problem.

    Anyway, thank you for your comment. There are plenty of people I would be all-too happy if they quit reading my blog and went away. You are not one of those people because I agree with you that you AREN’T a “mindless zombie.” I do hope you continue reading and I thank you for doing so.

    Michael

  3. Craig Says:

    Thanks for the reply and i understand what you mean about adhering to values and principle which is something a lot of atheist dont have because they dont use legitimate philosophy, instead turn a lack of belief into something with tenants and becomes an obsession.

    Now i understand what youre talking about, not the fact that people partake in things in private but because of this leftist obsession with getting people to accept things that they dont have too. One of my biggest gripes is about gay marriage, not even the fact that they want to get married but when civil unions were up for the taking, they resisted and in narcissistic intention of having the title of marriage JUST BECAUSE. See as an atheist even i can recognize when society held christian values, you didnt have all of this nonsense like woman thinking being a smut was liberating. Of course there still were whore houses and hypocrites but not on this level (look at the american black family unit also).

    As an American black male ive been a leftist (gross), and now i feel as if it is my lifes mission to find like minded people and spread the truth which is why i love this blog because thats what you do even if we dont agree to the tee.

    Keep up this great blog and show these liberal fools the light.

  4. Archibald Snatcher Says:

    there isn’t supposed to be any atheist art.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: