Charlie Kirk: Atheism is a Psyop by Satan
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/06/14
There is no such thing as an atheist. I think atheism is a psyop put forward by the Satan, literally, which is that everybody has a god they worship. And that is why you go through the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, but, first of all, ‘You have no other gods before me, have no idols.’ So let’s think about that. No other gods before me. You might think, “Oh, what an outdated commandment.’ Doesn’t matter. Everybody has something you worship… And so, what are you worshiping? You might be worshiping the god of self, the god of narcissism, the god of pleasure, the god of TikTok likes, the god of follows, the god of the bank account, the god of environmentalism, the god of wokeism, the god of COVID fanaticism, the god of ‘you must get your booster.’ There is something that you prioritize above all. And what that thing is, is what you call god, and so, what we have done is we removed the idea of the biblical God, a God that loves you and a God that judges you and a God that tells you how to live with all these counterfeit pagan gods. And we see what’s happened to the West and the West was committing sin because of it.
Charlie Kirk, Founder, Turning Point USA in “Atheism is from the Enemy?”
The word “atheism” is polysemous — it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Atheism and Agnosticism” (March 22, 2022)
Some public personalities, I do not want to know about, but I have to read about them and watch some of their material for some internal perverse reason. I listen and read a lot more of the productions of people who I disagree with than who I agree with, often.
As I was doing some daily skimming looking for some topics to write and such, I came across the ramblings of a young man named Charlie Kirk. I was vaguely aware of the relative prominence of Kirk through media presentations.
However, I hadn’t come across succinct wrongness in a while. So, I felt struck by this man and others. It’s true: Atheism is polysemous. Positions in a perspective on the world amount to a matrix or even a meta-matrix of propositions constituting an orientation on the world.
Many of these change too. My sense of atheism constitutes the above, though in a North American context. The North American perspective amounts to the Abrahamic God in general terms and the God of the Bible in particular terms.
Which is to say, the current version of the not-so dead but dying God: The God who loves, judges, and represents The Good, The Just, and The Righteous. The Creator and Eternal Ruler who lives sovereign over all in Heaven and in physical reality, a generator and a sustainer.
The God of the Bible continues to lose social cache and believers across North America. As this happens, with a wimper, we see the development of more obnoxious representatives for Him. I dare say: Charlie Kirk is one of those.
What is Mr. Kirk claiming here?
By the definitional standards of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, naturally, atheists exist. Even by biblical standards tied to it, they’d term them by the epithet “fool,” as in an individuals claiming, in their heart, “There is no God.”
Yet, if we take “a god” to mean something someone worships, then anything is a potential god, as in an “idol,” in relation to the individual worshiper, where worship means reverence or adoration for something. An idol, in Kirk’s typified simplistic view of life, theology, and God, becomes a god, thus the tie-in to ‘thou shalt have no other gods before me’ or idols.
Which begs the question, why not simply use the term idol? Because he’s an advertiser, essentially, needs to use terms more social media friendly, punchy. So, the real meaning for Kirk becomes:
No other idols before me. You might think, “Oh, what an outdated commandment.” Doesn’t matter. Everybody has something you worship… And so, what are you worshiping? You might be worshiping the idol of self, the idol of narcissism, the idol of pleasure, the idol of TikTok likes, the idol of follows, the idol of the bank account, the idol of environmentalism, the idol of wokeism, the idol of COVID fanaticism, the idol of ‘you must get your booster.’ There is something that you prioritize above all.
When he references pagan, this merely represents an underhanded means by which to represent individuals who do not believe in the God of the Bible as pagan. In a sense, Kirk would see, by inferential implication, the gods of Hinduism and the God of Islam, as idols and as pagan.
Which breaks down to non-Christian, again, in his simplistic view of “life, theology, and God,” his black-and-white narrative should insult the intelligence of his followers. Either Christian or pagan, or either God of the Bible or idol, it’s that simple.
He’s equating every single individual who devotes themselves to something, which becomes the default mode in this method of argumentation, to an idolizer if not the God of the Bible.
Furthermore, by the definitional standards of Kirk’s blustering minute, he might insult the definition of both atheism and theism in its illiterate minute. If everything is potentially worshipped, and if everyone worships something as a god or an idol, as in their “god,” then everyone becomes a theist of some form.
If this term “theism” exists without antithesis, atheism becomes moot. As far as I know, Kirk may be the only ignoramus who I have come across who, in fact, believes this. Atheism and theism seem defined on one another as something and nothing are defined upon one another. It’s a birelational/bidirectional coupling: If one is asserted, then the other is implied.
Kirk not only misses the boat in definitional standards, but Kirk misses the point. When individuals culturally speaking talk about God, they tend to reference the God of the Bible and imply all gods, or even simply mean all gods or all of the gods they’ve considered.
Let’s see some other other online content from the moderns. What shall we do with the ‘psyop for the Devil’ bit? For the most part, Kirk will embarrass moderate Christians, give laughter to freethinkers, and further diminish the ranks of Christianity in North America.
His bluster will in the long-term have the paradoxiform effect of arguing, in effects, against Christianity. He’d be both a pagan and an anti-Christian in this sense.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 