I began noticing the atheist use of "reality" a couple of years ago. It began with the observation about the fortress of facts. That's the atheist manipulation tactic of trying to assert that all facts are on their side and science gives them a great mountain of facts and that therefore we have no facts on the believing side. Then they got sites like "God is imaginary" making arguments to the effect hat "if you can't see it then it can't be real." I saw an argument like on CARM just the other day.
Now I see they have started referring t themselves as "the reality based community." The radical blog "Atheist Revolution" writes that they should not trust Huff post, of all thing, which is nothing but shameless propaganda for atheism. But they must represent the other faction in atheism plus split becuase these guys dont' like them. Notice their use of "reality based community."
What I would like to convince you of today is that not all of these media sources are equally valuable and that one should be actively avoided. In particular, I'd like to persuade you that no member of the reality-based community should promote The Huffington Post (HuffPo) by sharing links to it on websites, blogs, or social media. The next time you are tempted to tweet a link to HuffPo, I hope you'll think twice.
I first wrote about this in July of 2010, noting that HuffPo is no friend to the reality-based community. Of course, I was not writing anything new. This problem had been known for some time, especially among science bloggers. What I sought to do was spread the word among atheists as much as I could. I explained that HuffPo is notorious for promoting woo, pseudoscience, and assorted quackery. I joined PZ Myers (Pharyngula) in calling on the reality-based community to stop promoting them. A few months later, I followed up with another post providing additional evidence of why HuffPo is so bad for the reality-based community.[link]
Incredibly silly thing to say given that Huff post cranks out shameless atheist propaganda everyday. Be that as it may he uses that phrase 'reality based community" twice, once in each paragraph. he uses it all down the page too. Chrsitians don't have reality. Chrsitians are all about making stuff up. we just spend all our time in fantasy land. This is another case of how atheist wont let you be honest. you have to accept their view of reality or not your cooking in all burners. Of course their view means covering up aspects of the reality that speak of God or that experiences of God must alway always be denied.
How's this for reality? I have 200 empirical studies in peer reviewed academic journals, done by psychologists, which show that religious experience makes your life dramatically better,it's really good for you, religious experience people are less likely to have mental illness than are atheists or unbelievers, are less depressed and better able to cope with life. For five years atheists on carm have refused to read a single study though I talk about them incessantly. They don't have to read one they just know they are no good. They argued that the respondents in the studies could be lying about thier experiences. I challenged to lie their way to validating a source (Hunderhill's mysticism) having not read it just based upon what they think mystics would say. Not one of them was able to lie his way to validating because anytime you had any factor you make the probability of guessing the answer that much less probable. There are 32 factors to answer on the M scale so that's 32 chances where they have to guess rightly. But these reality experts can't see how stupid it is to think that pesants from Iran who don't read English could lie their way to validating W.T. Stace's philosophical work about mysticism. That's some grasp on reality these people have.
How about the study that I talked about last week where the guy supposedly proved that religious thinking is magical thinking? Turns out that to get there he had to use four bait and switches, such as asserting with no proof that religious thinning is based upon intuitive thinking. The study they based their findings upon was done fora different purpose so he was extrapolating from a data base that didn't apply, and I opposed it with a mountain of other research showing that intuitive thinking works well in many venues.
Never mind that stuff, that's just the details. We are into reality where we just assert there's no God with no reason or justification then mock and ridicule everything that fails to back up that premise. That's reality in their minds.
Why is Huff post so bad? let's count the reasons. First he gives a link to a page that nothing to do with it. http://www.redstateprogressive.com/
Red state progressive Political energy and policy to think about the mitigating conditions, the defendant is not charged, the Red state progressive Political energy and policy regretted his actions, and guaranteed to not repeat them. According to this decision, the Red state progressive Political energy and policy immediately recognized after consultation with a Red state progressive Political energy and policy.you see anything about Huff post there? The link was in this sentence:As good as their political content is, HuffPo is notorious for promoting quackery. got me. that's some grasp on reality.
Looking further for the phrase we find on Wikipedia
Reality-based community is an informal term in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community" was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than on faith, assumption, or ideology. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.Based upon observation and not on faith I wonder what community uses that line? "Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing." But it's not an ideology. It just calls it's a "reality based community" and manipulates language to label things that they don't support as "not reality" and things they believe in as 'reality" but it's not an ideology.
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."2 Suskind, Ron (2004-10-17). "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush". The New York Times Magazine. ISSN 0028-7822. Retrieved 2007-05-22.
The phrase has more of a political tone to it and a politics with which I agree. There's an excellent political blog with that name. We must be careful not to assume that anyone using that phrase is only referring to atheist ideology and to a larger fact based political outlook. At the same time it's obvious certain aspects of the atheist movement adopted it as well.