I think, I have decoded a deep and well-hidden delusion of the right-wing mind.

[DetlefK]

- The Portland Stabber (I don't care about his name) loves the 1st Amendment so much, he's willing to kill for it. "Free Speech or Die!"
- The Republican Party is willing to accept everything and anything in politics as long as it furthers the conservative agenda.
- How dare the Liberals be intolerant to intolerant people.
- Atheism is a religion and atheists worship the human himself.
- White genocide! Feminazis! Zionists control the US deep-state and want to install the New World Order to turn us all into slaves of globalism! (Whatever that means...)



To these people, the purpose of a doctrine/dogma is to be followed, to be worshipped.

Paul Krugman said something similar in his column: Republicans want to further the conservative doctrine and don't care about results, Democrats want results and don't care about doctrine. But his example is just one of many.



- The Portland Stabber thinks that the purpose of the 1st Amendment is that any individual can say whatever he wants. That's wrong. The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to guarantee a free and fair society for all people, not just the individual in question.
Free speech is not free for the sake of being free.
That's why there are limitations to what you are allowed to say. The 1st Amendment serves the community, not the individual.

- Conservatives love to complain that the Liberals preach tolerance and then dare to be intolerant of intolerant people. They think that Liberals want to spread tolerance for the sake of spreading tolerance. Nooooooooooooo. That's not what is going on. Liberals are trying to spread tolerance because it would make life better for all of us. Tolerance has a purpose.
Being tolerant is not a goal unto itself. It's a road to a better society.

- Some believers cannot drop the fallacy that atheism simply is another religion. It has teachings, so it must be a religion! They are not worshipping God, they are worshipping the human! ... No. The purpose of atheism is not to be a world-view that must be followed. The purpose of atheism is to create a better society by getting rid of the problems that are rooted in religion.
Atheists do not worship something else besides God. They do not worship anything at all. This deep connection of blind trust that a believer has to his religious teachings, that does not exist in atheism. There is no trust, no belief, in atheism. There is only doubt and insecurity.

- And for the last example: The wannabe-heroes. They are unremarkable in real life. Boring. But they want to be someone special. So they split the world into "Good" and "Evil" and then fight for this "Good" thing. Whatever it may be. It doesn't matter.
That's the allure of believing in conspiracy-theories:
If the conspiracy-theory is wrong, then you are an insignificant nobody.
But if it's true, then you are a hero fighting the forces of "Evil".





The big delusion of the right-wing mind is their desperate desire to worship and serve a higher power.
They worship the 1st Amendment and don't care about the results.
They worship the conservative doctrine and don't care about results.
They worship a specific culture and specific set of morals and don't care about the results.
They imagine fighting "white genocide", because it gives their sad and empty lives a purpose.
They imagine fighting "Feminazis", because it gives their sad and empty lives a purpose.
They imagine that dark powers are scheming to deceive them, because it gives their sad and empty lives a purpose.

The whole concept of NOT serving a higher power is unthinkable. THEY NEED THIS.

[Orrex]

1. Regarding "atheism as religion"

That sentiment is, sadly, not confined to Conservatives. I have seen it expressed here on DU many, many times.

As for "tolerating intolerance," when confronted by that old chestnut, I generally respond by pointing out that nothing can be required to include its incompatible opposite. Of course, the drooling idiot fuckheads who voted for Trump can't quite grasp that subtlety, but it's still true.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. The whole "Atheism (and Evolution) as religion" myth

ultimately helps fundies get their "foot in the door" (so to speak) to promote their views in public schools- all in the name of "equal time". I'm not sure if the fundies really believe that Atheism is a "religion" (it isn't. that's sort of the point, right?) but, as stated, it's a useful foil for them to get access they might not otherwise get. Remember how "Intelligent Design" used to be a big thing awhile back?

[Orrex]

9. Entirely correct

Ditto for their fondness for dismissing the teaching of evolution as "evolutionism" or "Darwinism." They need it to be seen as a religion because they need to create a false equivalence

It's almost as if their brains can't handle the pursuit of knowledge if it isn't based in the study of a book about their beloved father figure.

[forgotmylogin]

2. It darkly amuses me that TPS thinks "free speech" is "slicing people's throats"

and some people will silently nod in agreement.

[Moostache]

3. I disagree on "well hidden", but support much of your meaning...

Atheism is 100% NOT a religion, a desperate canard of the religious mind for sure. The default position is non-acceptance. If you tell me that you have a pet unicorn in your garage, my default position is not "anti-unicorn", it is lack of belief in your claim. If you provide proof of your claim in the form of an actual living, breathing unicorn, then my position would have to change to address the change in facts.

Same thing for religions of any stripe. By default, I reject all claims of divinity for an equal lack of merit in reality. I don't dispute people's "feelings" or "relationship" with their imaginary friends, but I do not accept their claims of objective proof of these things because there literally is NONE. If that changes, if real, demonstrable and confirmed proof were to become available, my position is moved from the default non-acceptance to acceptance based on the facts. Which, by the way, STILL would not confirm the doctrines of 99% of the "faithful", but that is a different story altogether...

[NightWatcher]

4. Actually they're just mean bigots.

You put way more thought into them than they ever put into anything.

[MedusaX]

5. "...only doubt and insecurity." is a fallacy upon which the non-athiest bases their argument against

atheism.
It is actually the atheist's confidence and security, in the absence of belief in a deity, which the non-athiest cannot fathom.
Hence, those who derive their confidence and sense of security from their belief in a deity will try to evaluate atheism using a theistic construct, which by doctrinal design equates the absence of belief in a deity with the existence of doubt and insecurity.



The earliest rulers realized that the power to control their subjects was most effective when exercised through the establishment of an intangible community "deity" ...
to be worshipped and appeased by the people in return for perceived rewards.

How one is instructed to Demonstrate devotion to a deity
by Building a pyramid
or
by destroying the lives of those that dare oppose your beliefs
changes over time and is defined by the ruling power.

[DetlefK]

6. You say that as if doubt were something bad.

[haele]

7. Doubt and curiosity are the first steps to exploration and discovery.

Doubt certainly is not a bad thing to experience. Doubt means that there is something that needs to be tested, that there are risks to be considered. That there is the potential for becoming better - or worse.

If one has certainty, then one does not have to consider anything else about the subject. One doesn't have to change when one is "certain". Certainty is a very comfortable and desired state for people who are fearful or are shallow (to whom thinking is really hard...)..

Haele