Request for Comments (rfc) 1001



Download 6,6 Mb.
Page1/21
Date conversion18.06.2017
Size6,6 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   21

Request for Comments (RFC) 1001:

Note: there is nothing ‘secret’ in this document, but the language and tone might necessarily be offensive to some adherents. Please distribute wisely.

On The Means and Methods of Mass Deconversion A



A technical RFC containing a step outline for treatment and screenplay

A presentation to the General Federalist Constitutional Law Society (GFCLS)

by Cyrus “Kir” Komrik

Warning: like all of my documents this document has been timestamped by a notary public. Anyone working to aid the spread of atheism may use and distribute this document without restriction; provided credit is noted to Cyrus Komrik

Introduction



If in the last one thousand years of history there could be found any error so great, any turn of events so sad, any accretion of power so evil as to threaten the very future of humanity itself, it is the creation of the factories of ignorance and superstition, those wretched tools of mass control, the hidden bane of humanity, the spectre of religion; this cancer our own ilk created so long ago. Ignorance and superstition are two sides of a counterfeit coin minted through history in the halls of religious institutions whose melting is a clear and present moral necessity. By any sustainable means necessary I here commit my life, my time, my intellect, my energy and my passion to liberating the greatest number of my brothers and sisters from this horror, to becoming a missionary for the unvarnished truth, for the abused when alone and cold to bring them heat, for the exploited when calling for liberation to lend them a sword, for the oppressed of every brand and kind to shine the light of truth over them, and to tender to all humanity the true justice which their hearts could only imagine and by which all their fears are assuaged. The Age is Mine.

Dedication



California’s alright … somebody check my brain ~ Alice In Chains

Table of Contents

RFC Version 0.4


  1. About Division of Labor

  2. Approaching attorneys, judges and civil servants: a Functional Progam

  3. The Atheist Morality Problem

  4. The Methods of Mass Deconversion

  5. Operational Aspects of Deconversion – A Step Outline

  6. The Means of Mass Deconversion

Appendix

  1. About Division of Labor

First, we need to announce some assumptions this author is making. I assume the reader is mathematically literate. But I am not assuming any advanced knowledge of the same, or any other discipline. I also assume the reader is an unqualified atheist and I do not recommend expending effort to train anyone who is not. Anyone attempting these methods, I advise based on several generations of family experience in doing deconversions of Shia adherents in Iran, should be twelve years of age or older and that he or she retains full legal capacity. No other conditions should need observance. If anyone wishes to obtain Seeking YHWH: An Explicated English Version of Abrahamic Primary Sources, also (edited and compiled) by this author, you may receive a free copy on request. This document is referenced heavily herein and is a corpus of primary source material for the Abrahamic religions; Judaic (Tanakh and related materials), Christian (Canonical, extra Canonical and related materials) and Islam (the Holy Quran, hadiths of both Sunni and Shia sects and related materials).

One of the recurring themes that has come up for me in this research of deconversion has been the truly remarkable breadth of expertise needed to do this well. It is truly an inter-disciplinary, cross trade venture which begs of some comment.

As the discussion ramps up I will refer to public relations and the need for experts in that field to take over the job now being attempted by persons in academia. To their credit, academics have stepped forward into this vacuum and tried to fill it. And that is largely due to the fact that atheists in other professions have not been nearly as willing to come out publicly as atheists. And in fairness to them, academia is a far less hostile environment than the public relations, marketing, legal, civil service and political “market verticals”. The livelihood of anyone in the role of, say, a judge would be seriously jeopardized by a revelation that they are atheist, especially where judges are elected in places such as the Bible belt in the United States (a region of relatively high adherence rates in the United States). In all public facing roles this is true and that is the ironic problem we face. It is precisely experts in public facing roles that are desperately needed right now. It is easy to pile on and criticize but given the noble effort academics have made it is not in order or productive. The point I will make is that we have an impasse that we need to breach.

I am developing methods on the fly based on the personal experience of my family and my own research. Many wish to scientifically debate various aspects herein, and they are free to do so. But I know from experience what works and I do not feel it would be productive use of my time to engage in such debates. Having said that, this is an RFC and constructive comments are definitely needed. The work is clearly incomplete and certainly imperfect in many respects. Anything the reader can offer is welcomed. I have come to believe (though my experience is more limited than most – I am a recent graduate in my profession) that this must begin in the legal profession. Legal professionals, most of whom I can aver are in fact silent atheists but who in many cases attend religious services weekly, are the ones needed to provide a favorable environment for those in public relations to begin the “war” of persuasion. In the “high touch” world of marketing and public relations money talks in a big way, but I believe the philanthropic demands can be met in any case. The problem is one of perception. In public relations perception and image is everything. Any discomfort or alienation felt by a client, even of the slightest kind, is managed obsessively in a high touch and very serious manner. But these are the real soldiers needed for this job.



So, it would be worthwhile to also point out that there is some overlap in the legal profession and public relations, and I think that is the proximate starting point for mass deconversion. There the talent, experience, education and general knowledge for Machiavellian antics presents vividly within a demographic where silent atheists come in significant proportion. Therefore, I’d submit that this is the specific career role to target with all other project types rescinded. I’ll discuss ways that others who are not in the legal profession can do this in the section on Mass Deconversion. I will also discriminate between the two strategies of one-on-one deconversion versus audience-based deconversion in terms of when and where to apply each.



  1. Approaching attorneys, judges and civil servants: a Functional Progam

The first step of any functional program to “proselytize” atheism should be proximately within the legal profession that specializes in matters pertaining to public relations. The methods for that are generally the same as for any situation that is purely one-on-one. The exact method applied within the profession is detailed in the section on Mass Deconversion. The reader should be careful to note that the steps shown below are based on academic research as to what constitutes the most favorable conditions for deconversion as well as personal knowledge of what works. Some of the steps may be morally unacceptable or even morally reprehensible but were included here to show the full breadth of conditions favorable to deconversion (the reader should understand that this is a universal program to be used globally – and that what constitutes acceptable practice in various locales will differ).



  1. The Atheist Morality Problem

This is the result of my own desire to try to better understand the process of mass deconversion and in what ways that can be improved. When I did this I found what looked to me like a gaping hole in the process; an intellectual liability that needed to be closed. It is a tangent. I don’t like tangents. But that is where we are. This liability has to do with what most people call “morals”. Regardless of its real importance to atheism, it is extremely important to adherents around the globe, independent of their theological beliefs or whims. For this reason, it appears to me that any rigorous program of reasonable and comprehensive means and methods for deconversion must address this problem; that is, we need a durable and sound “moral system” for application to atheism in order that we may counter the charge (and fact?) that atheism is devoid of it. It is my contention that no large scale deconversion effort is going to be effective without solving this problem.

And it is indeed a problem because, some have argued, atheism is intrinsically devoid of morality and it is not clear to me that anyone as yet has shown convincingly that atheism can be “moral”. And that is the salient point that needs to be made at the outset: it makes no difference, as a practical matter for deconversion, whether or not David Hume has destroyed any chance of morality for atheism, but rather, what matters is that we do not have a convincing argument that Hume’s logical dilemma can be overcome. There has been, in my view, a tendency to completely fail to comprehend the significance of the term “convincing” as just used previously. In fact, I would contend that for atheism to gain any significant ground globally the atheist “movement” must mature beyond this narrow womb in which it is dominated by scientists and Science. And that wouldn’t be hard to do in principle because I suspect from my own experience there are in fact more atheists outside science than within. I believe when this occurs it will represent a “break out” point where mass deconversion will rapidly accelerate. That is the hill I want to climb. But of those who are publicly open about their atheist beliefs, almost all are scientists. This must change for us to see any real deconversion progress.

Despite these appearances, I note for completeness that although religions exact a claim to objective morality, they do in fact face the same problem. Religious morality cannot be objective if it is based on the pronouncements of a god, since the god itself is not objective. This follows from the fact that one cannot arbitrarily restrict definitions of subjectivity to the homo sapiens sapiens. The proper restriction is determined by the nature of the thing, thought, and therefore subjectivity is correctly constrained to any entity capable of thought. Any entity to which the property of subjectivity can be assigned necessarily thinks. Having said that, this doesn’t remove the need for atheists engaged in deconversion to provide an objective morality for atheists, as explained supra.

I value the genius and good work of scientists and mean no ill will in saying these things. My point is that scientists need to retire the stage and go back to Science. They need to let the experts pick up the torch in matters of deconversion and public relations generally. To their defense, much of their involvement in this has been out of necessity since the “experts” have to this point refused to come “out” and offer their skills and talents for the cause. This also needs to change. I am saddened and disappointed by the seemingly ubiquitously disastrous public relations embarrassments some are unintentionally but routinely producing daily. And I believe this is due to the fact that professionals in this field are underrepresented.



Not surprisingly some people with a highly specialized profession outside public relations exhibit an understanding of it that is crude to the extreme and, as received by the general public, it is
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   21


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page