Accomodation--Should Atheists Play Mean Or Play Nice?

To be mean or to be nice. That is the question. Should atheists be civil and respectful to theists? Or should they denigrate religion for the lie that it is?

Atheism is splitting down the middle on this. We haven't seen anything like this since the Baptists split from the Calvinists over the doctrine of infant baptism. (FWIW, I am with the Baptists. Conversion should be an adult choice.)

The point of this debate has to do with winning adherents to the atheist viewpoint. The accomodationists are those who think that by playing nice and being touchy feely with the fucktards this will win their love, respect, and a change of mind. I think this mentality is misguided. Unlike most of my freethinking peers, I cut across the social grain on a variety of issues. On everyone of the issues, these same behavior patterns emerge:

-Fucktards respond overwhelmingly to the contrary ideas presented often in a very negative way.

-They attempt to neutralize the contrary idea by urging me to consider other viewpoints, to be conciliatory, and to claim that the idea is merely my opinion.

-If you continue to disagree or voice your viewpoint, they become mean, threatening, and even violent.

Now, this doesn't happen when you play mean with these people. This is what happens when you play nice. The error of the accomodationist is a belief that fucktards believe what they believe merely as a mistake in their logic. But this isn't the case at all. The reality is that theists are emotionally and psychologically wedded to a worldview that makes sense of their world. Introducing a foreign concept like evolution produces deep wounds in these people. They can't handle it. This is why they respond the way they do.

People don't change in gradual increments. Conversions are almost always instantaneous. The ideas are brewing in the mind. It isn't the truth that people are contemplating but how to live with that truth. Once their minds are settled, the change is instant. But until that point, they are the enemy.

Atheism was languishing prior to the advent of The New Atheists. Since their outspoken arrival, atheism has grown. They pushed the issue. They were not accomodating. They were brutally honest. They were also vilified and whatnot. But they were right for doing it this way. As Schopenhauer put it:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ideas create anxiety and crisis in people. This cannot be avoided. Accomodationists believe they can find a way around the upheaval, but they can't. It cannot be done. What makes people like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris so offensive is that they refuse to back down. Accomodation is capitulation to intimidation. The irony is that this accomodation only emboldens the enemy.

People who believe accomodation yields results are also the same people who believe gun control works in preventing crime. It doesn't. It only disarms law abiding citizens while leaving violent criminals to disobey the law.

The thrust behind accomodationism is a belief in keeping the moral high ground. We want to be the "good guys." This is misguided thinking. Moral positions are simply the will to power and are dishonest. This is why we end up hating our saints and loving our scoundrels. Saints champion the collective. Scoundrels champion the individual.

Accomodationism is seen as sinister subterfuge by religionists, and they are right. It is. I may be offensive, but I am also honest. I despise lying and manipulation. This is the dark truth of accomodation. It tells lies under the guise of promoting the truth. It is a Machiavellian ploy which I find utterly nauseating. Think of the sinister alien bitch from V or the slick talking piece of shit we call the President of the United States of America.

Accomodation is lying for the sake of future betrayal. Though I disagree with fundies and the like, I'm not going to pretend to be their friend when I am not. As for the liberal theotards, they are the accomodationists of the religionist crowd, and I see they are making inroads and blunting the message of The New Atheists in a way that no honest fundamentalist could do. They dilute the truth. They water it down to the point that it makes no difference. They preserve the status quo and their place in it.

I can't be an accomodationist. I have to speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may. If it pisses off people, that is too fucking bad. I've never seen the positive in a lie.

Posted in: