The Atheist Agora

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Senator Eric Schmitt, Republican of Missouri, was very explicit in a speech before the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, where he lamented that a “few lines in a poem on the Statue of Liberty and five words about equality in the Declaration of Independence” led to unfettered immigration and multiculturalism.

“We Americans,” he said, “are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith.”

This is false by any meaningful measure. The U.S. population today is descended from many migrations. To list a few – Irish Catholics, German Lutherans, Italian Catholics, Jews, African slaves, Chinese laborers, Mexicans, Scandinavians, Middle Easterners, atheists, and countless others.

The Pilgrims were a tiny group who arrived in 1620 — fewer than 200 people — while millions of others came later for economic or political reasons, not religious evangelism. To call modern Americans “descendants of Christian pilgrims” is another attempt to erase most the nation’s ancestry.

They were not on some divine mission. It was a conquest that led to colonization. It was not a “new world” to the Indigenous peoples. “Baptizing a new world” is a euphemism for cultural and physical domination. Christianity  was spread through coercion and violence as it was almost everywhere it trespassed. It was not some noble faith-based expansion.

The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. The Founders explicitly rejected that idea. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others were either deists or secularists who deliberately separated religion from governance. The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) states outright: “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Blaming “a few lines in a poem” (Emma Lazarus’ The New Colossus) and the Declaration’s “all men are created equal” for multiculturalism is absurd. Those ideals represent the best parts of the American experiment — inclusion and equality — not its downfall. Schmitt’s framing implies that diversity is a deviation from America’s essence, when it’s central to its identity.

Schmitt’s underlying agenda with this kind of rhetoric is dog-whistle nationalism. It masks a desire for Christian ethnonationalism under the banner of “heritage.” It’s an attempt to claim exclusive ownership of American identity for white Christians while ignoring the secular Constitution and the pluralism that defines the country. It’s revisionist mythmaking. The U.S. was inspired by Enlightenment reason, not built to “baptize” anyone. Schmitt’s statement rewrites history to re-center Christian dominance that the Constitution deliberately avoided.

Tim Walz, on MSNBC in July 2024 said: “These guys are just weird. … They’re running for He-Man Women-Haters’ Club or something. That’s what they go at.” A July 2024 article in Politico described how the word “weird” began to replace more serious labels, like “threat to democracy”, when applied to Trump and Vance’s campaign and positions. The word “weird” became part of the campaign-messaging arsenal, used to frame certain MAGA-aligned leaders and their positions as outside of normal bounds, rather than simply wrong or dangerous.

I have always enjoyed the works of Hunter S. Thompson. He once said: “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” I immediately thought of him when Tim Walz used the term. In his book the  ‘Great Shark Hunt’ you can see the moment where he stopped pretending the system could be saved and started documenting the madness instead. He saw politics as theater of the grotesque long before cable news turned it into a circus. His mix of honesty and lunacy still feels more real than 90% of what passes for journalism today. “The people who run America today are determined to force-feed us all the old-time religion in a sugar-coated capsule called Patriotism.” America is on a bender and only the professionals of chaos are left standing. But after yesterday’s elections maybe reason is on the rebound. Like Thompson said….“Freedom is something that dies unless it’s used.”

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The idea of America; self-determination, free inquiry, equality before the law, is extraordinary. The execution of it has always been messy, compromised, and full of contradictions. Please don’t see my criticism as anti-American. I hope it is seen as pro-Enlightenment. I have no tribal attachment, and I can separate the myth from the machinery. The tea has gone cold and there are no roses left to smell. But the same skeptical energy that built America is the energy that can save it.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Garden of Earthly Delights.

You might think the ideals of America would be sacrosanct with the young and educated. Alas a smack what they aint got they lack. Globalize the intifada! Free Palestine.

But hey Dems did ok and Trump’s support was not a hamburger helper. So maybe the train will stay on the tracks.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Jake,

Yeah, the train will stay on the tracks, but for what itenerary?

First, there’s Tucker Carlson platforming Antisemitic, Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Totalitarian Nick Fuentes, then Megyn Kelly plus Kevin Roberts platforming Tucker Carlson all on the Right.

Then there’s Zohran Mamdani and Bernie Sanders and The Squad and all their fellow Democratic Socialists all on the Left.

Between these two crews of engineers and conductors, trains are the last thing to be riding on!

‘Weird, Scary, and Insanely Stupid’: Social Media Stunned by Anti-Israel Dem Socialist Demand Sheet for Mamdani

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Editing out unnecessary title

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Jake,

Oh, and the influence of both the Lunatic Left and Rancid Right are growing beyond their respective corners! Again, it’s bad times for supporters of The Enlightenment!

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The Enlightenment was about freeing thought from authority, be that authority religious, royal, or dogmatic. Now the new authorities are hashtags and outrage algorithms. The problem is not just ideological, it’s epistemic. Both the ‘Lunatic Left and Rancid Right’ have abandoned Enlightenment principles like reason, evidence, and open debate in favor of moral certainty and emotional tribalism. Social Media has weaponized tribal stupidity.

I am sick of hearing those on the Left treat how they feel as objective truth while the Right sanctifies ignorance as authenticity. But what really pisses me off is that those of us who still value skepticism, reason and empiricism are seen as heretics by both camps. As Orwell said: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

The ‘culture war’ is over. It’s now a war on reason itself. To again quote Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” and Bertrand Russell: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

[jakelafortParticipant]

Really well said Reg in a departure from lots of other really well said.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Thanks Jake, I was mostly thinking about Ireland when I wrote that :-).

[jakelafortParticipant]

Words and thoughts we invent. Words and thoughts of the president. Is he real? Can we know? Just a robot, Joe Blow?

Tea with thee is glee. Tea for free without me. Tee off. Check your balls. Cough! Cough! Easy mister that hurts. He squirts and ejaculates as the bot conflates concepts, confuses dates, misstates facts sprays unhealthy snacks. Even so he is adored. In MAGA world they implored to kiss the president America restored.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Please don’t see my criticism as anti-American. I hope it is seen as pro-Enlightenment. I have no tribal attachment, and I can separate the myth from the machinery.

Oh, oh, you talking to us? I don’t think so, and it makes me suspicious, as does much of your other recent writings of thoughtful quality, that you’re writing for a blog, or a published newsletter for citizen skeptics, or perhaps even for a book? (Hey AZ, no, I don’t have inside information on this. It’s just a lucky guess if I’m right, or if it encourages Reg.)

Seriously, your writings are great and insightful.

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Then there’s Zohran Mamdani and Bernie Sanders and The Squad and all their fellow Democratic Socialists all on the Left.

As long as Americans are burdened with a largely self-serving, corruptible one or two-party system, I’m sticking to my somewhat socialistic opinion that we still (and will always) absolutely need to improve health care availability, at least close to the high level of some of the other mostly-democratic countries in the world. In my opinion, once a health care system works asap and relatively well, it would be easier to slowly replace its government oversight requirements with chunks at-a-time of free enterprise involvement, for as long each chunk can keep pure profit-seeking from corrupting its mandated services.

What country in the world has been able to do this? We could surely examine a system where it is already working! Not to mention, in a system that also needs progressive medical research and development. Perhaps you [Enco] could start a topic on how to design, implement, and maintain such a libertarian-based system? We are desperate right now, while systemic destruction just for the sake of destruction are all the rage amongst red [Trump-GOP/MAGA] powers, and billionaire and trillionaire wannabees. (I’m not criticizing libertarian idealism, I’m seriously interested in how it could go viral and work.)

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

PopeBeanie,

You ask a great question about how to get a better health care system.

It will take many steps and the best I can say in one post is that none of it will be accomplished by anyone who thinks demonic attacks in the bed at night are an actual thing (Carson,) or anyone who thinks skull calipers and cyanide bariatric chambers are universal diagnostic tools (Fuentes,) or anyone who thinks anything good in life can be without cost (Sanders and Mamdani) or anyone who spouts gibberish about magnets and thinks himself incapable of error about anything (Trump.)

Both inflation eating purchasing power and tariffs jacking up the costs of everything also keeps any working health care from being within reach as well. Trump and Biden both piled these on and the agendas of Democratic Socialists would require even more inflation and taxation.

So it’s a mix of both bad thinking and bad ways and means that keeps us from having better health care. It’s going to take a culling of both to get things better.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Appreciate it, PopeBeanie….I just rhyme what the evidence taught.
Gift of the gab, not the gift of God……
Critical thinking’s my creed, skepticism my sport.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I am still thinking about what the ideas of the Enlightenment……..

The Lillian Hellman Fallacy and the Galileo Gambit.

There’s a predictable pattern in modern argument, especially online, where someone with a weak or poorly supported claim begins by presenting themselves as a courageous dissenter—someone who “refuses to cut their conscience to fit this year’s fashions.” This is the Lillian Hellman Fallacy: the idea that unpopularity is a mark of truth. The fallacy flatters the speaker, deflects scrutiny, and puts moral weight where evidence should be. It’s a rhetorical shortcut for people who want credit for bravery instead of accuracy or who use it as a shield instead of an argument.

“In 1979 … novelist Mary McCarthy said of Hellman … ‘every word she writes is a lie, including “and” and “the.”’” It wasn’t polite, diplomatic, or tribal. It was a surgical strike on her credibility.

On Social Media today, “this year’s fashion” has mutated into a rhetorical tactic. If you present yourself as a courageous outsider, you no longer need to justify your position. You can declare yourself right by virtue of being unfashionable. The keyboard warrior’s ‘bravery’ becomes a shortcut for validity, and it turns dissent into a performance for ‘likes’. It shifts the burden of proof so instead of defending the claim, the speaker defends their courage. Once “courage” becomes the centerpiece, the evidence fades into the background. Being right takes work. Being dramatic is cheap.

And it has a cousin that appears just as reliably: the contrarian who, when pushed, invokes Galileo or Giordano Bruno. This is the moment the debate enters its own version of Godwin’s Law. Just as any argument that reaches the Hitler comparison has effectively collapsed, so too any argument that resorts to self-comparison with persecuted scientific martyrs is signalling its intellectual bankruptcy.

The logic behind the Galileo Gambit is laughably simple: “They laughed at Galileo; they laugh at me; therefore, I am right.” But people forget the other half of the pattern: they also laughed at countless cranks, frauds, and pseudo-scientists, and those people were wrong. Galileo wasn’t right because he was persecuted; he was persecuted, in part, because he was right  and could demonstrate it. The evidence carried the argument, not the romance of dissent. Bruno, too, wasn’t burned for his brilliance but for theological defiance that had nothing to do with scientific method. Invoking these men as badges of personal superiority is not just historically illiterate, it’s an admission that one has no argument stronger than emotional theater.

These fallacies flourish on social media because they are tailor-made for platforms that reward identity-signalling over reasoning. Declaring oneself heterodox sounds brave, and comparing oneself to great thinkers sounds even braver, but it’s all empty calories. Once someone reaches the stage of casting themselves as a lone genius battling a closed-minded establishment, they have abandoned the substance of the discussion. It becomes impossible to test claims or weigh evidence, because every challenge is reinterpreted as persecution. At that point, the conversation is no longer about truth; it’s about protecting someone’s self-image.

Real dissent doesn’t need these crutches. If you have evidence, you present it. If your idea is sound, it will survive direct examination. And if the only defense you can muster is that “they laughed at Galileo,” then congratulations for you have just proven the critics right.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

The Galileo Gambit is like the inverse of the Appeal to Popularity Fallacy. Both are based on the false notion that truth depends on numbers of adherants.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Yes, I guess it is more of a cognitive bias than a logical fallacy.

[Author]

Posts