God and Politics?

Every time there are elections we see a lot of talk on the Internet and between people on things like who should one vote for, which political party is the best, which candidate has the best competence, and among religious folks, how the believer ought to view polictics in general, is God interested in politics, can use the scriptures to better decide which party to vote for?  etc ..

These discussions and debates are often very passionate on all sides. There are many people who say that we should not mix religion and politics including God and politics. It’s an age old adage.  So we hear a lot about the issue of mixing religion and politics. We hear about it a lot in the United States regarding their Constitution and the famous Establishment Clause, “Congress shall make no law Respecting an establishment of religion “with” … or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof ” Because of these perpetual quarrels and abuses of these terms and ideas on the issues, we hear that the church should not “interfere” in the state.

To clarify the issue I must say at the outset that there is a difference between “God and State” and “Religion and State”. Religion is the human expression of beliefs in God or not, metaphysical beliefs. The government must therefore not impose a specific religion on the nation since the people must have the right to choose freely. It is at this level that the words of Christ, “My kingdom is not of this world.” applies .

However, we must not make the mistake of saying, based on this saying, that Christ is not interested in human governments. On the contrary, the Old Testament very clearly declares his interest in the way that nations act. He is called King of the Nations. Even in the Apocalypse of John, the book of Revelation, we see the role of nations in the new earth ruled by Christ and his servants.

Assuming that those who read this article understand the subject fairly well, I will try to clarify some important points.

The Bible is the compass of the world, and not only the Christian. It is the revelation of God to humanity, not just Jews and Christians, to show us the way to God and the way of righteousness, justice and mercy in life. So it’s back to the Scriptures to find the correct views.  What does the Bible say about the subject? Does the Bible speak of it?  We do not want only human, subjective opinions versus another opinion, but we want to see if the word of God is clear on the subject.

I will start with a quote from a highly relevant key text for all that concerns God and human governments.

At one time I may threaten to tear up, break down, and destroy a nation or a kingdom.  But suppose the nation that I threatened turns away from doing wrong. Then I will change my plans about the disaster I planned to do to it.
At another time I may promise to build and plant a nation or a kingdom.  But suppose that nation does what I consider evil and doesn’t obey me. Then I will change my plans about the good that I promised to do to it.
  – Jer 18: 7-10

In it God reveals very briefly the principle by which he governs the nations on earth. The whole principle is closely related to their obedience or disobedience to the moral law. The very fact that God intervenes in the affairs of men already gives us an important clue to the question of God and the State. God is not absent from the state, he is not indifferent to the state and considers the human affairs constantly.

So right there we may not pretend that God and state should be kept separate, as if one had nothing to do with the other. The reality is that it is actually impossible to separate them completely!  Indeed, although we could believe that government should not establish a single religion as the religion of the state, imposed on all, one can not say that a government can be separated from God and views of religion either.

In the Old Testament, for example, God arranged to place a person of his choice as the head of a Nation and over and over again.  For example, Joseph was chosen by God to come to rule Egypt.  We see the many judges he raised up and established.  We see the he choose Saul to be the first king of Israel, followed by David etc. In the story of Esther we find God very involved in the fate of the Jews in a pagan nation. We see how God used Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem through the governor. God is seen to interfer in the Gentile (non Jewish) nations also.  For example with Cyrus that he predetermined many years before his birth, to become the king of Persia (Iran). We also see Daniel and his position of influence and governance in Babylon.

The list is long. One can even say with certainty that the Old Testament is the history of moral and political relations between God and nations, especially Israel but many others also. We read in Deut. 32: 7.8

Remember the days of old, consider the years of generation to generation: ask thy father, and he will declare to you, your elders, and they will tell thee.   When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the son of Adam, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the son of Israel.

We see throughout the Bible that God wants to be respected and served by nations and their leaders. In Psalm 2 we read,

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and for thy possession the ends of the earth;
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; like a potter’s vessel thou shalt parts.
And now, O kings, be wise; you rulers of the earth, receive instruction:
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling; …

In Psalm 9 we read,

Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, all the nations that forget God;

King David recognized God’s authority when he said, “you have made me head of the nations;” God is interested, not only in politics. but who will be leader of a nation. And is it any wonder? Seeing that God’s purposes on earth for the well being of humanity are always at stake in politics?

Even stronger language is used by Isaiah when he said, concerning the Messiah (Christ), “and the government shall be upon his shoulder;

In short, to say that we must respect separation of state and religion and especially with God is simply a very wrong idea! We cannot separate the them.  It is in fact impossible,  because God intervenes in the affairs of men and more than anything else in politics!

Psa 10:28 says,

“For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he dominates among the nations.”

The nations belong to him. He is not an idle, uninterested bystander.  A normal family man is interested in and has daily involvement with his family and it is his duty. It is also so with God, indeed it is the duty of God to govern nations.

The prophet Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar

“This order is fixed by the watchers, and the decision is by the word of the holy ones: so that the living may be certain that the Most High is ruler over the kingdom of men, and gives it to any man at his pleasure, lifting up over it the lowest of men.
… your kingdom will be safe for you after it is clear to you that the heavens are ruling.
For this cause, O King, let my suggestion be pleasing to you, and let your sins be covered by righteousness and your evil-doing by mercy to the poor, so that the time of your well-being may be longer.” – Dan 4:17…

The interpretation Daniel gave Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was fulfilled and when the time of prophecy was completed seen said,

“… At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored him who lives forever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;” – Dan 4:35

King David said,

“The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: He who rules over men righteously, who rules in the fear of God is like the morning light when the sun shines And a morning without clouds; Shining after rain out of the earth the green. “- 2 Samuel 23

God cares passionately about human affairs and therefore to claim that we should not mix politics and religion, or more specifically God and politics, is a major mistake. It is therefore important that people probe their conscience and the scriptures and biblical principles in any decision dealing with politics, political parties and their leaders. We can not pretend that the politics is religiously neutral.  It most definitely is NOT!  Politics determines the governance of a nation and must necessarily touch its morality, its behavior and thus its fate.  It is therefore important that the people get informed as much as possible on the ideology of a political party, ideology of its leaders and their goals in government.

This means that the people must try to choose as leaders, chiefs and the party with the objectives, principles and moral ideology close as possible to those things in the Bible. The religious person, most precisely the Jew and the Christian, has a moral obligation to get informed, to follow biblical principles and not party loyalty or political leanings and not to just vote as usual or act with irresponsible complacency towards political choices and involvement.

It is therefore very ignorant of scripture and just plain foolish to talk of elections, politics and government without God and religion.

Now, does that mean we can take politics into the church to make sermons? I do not think so. Not to discuss who should vote or to present the parties and candidates involved. No more than a few words on the nature of the thing and the Christian duty to carefully examine the morals, goals etc. each party to make an informed choice by the Bible and by his conscience before God.

KaijuChrist

Advertisements

Atheists. Do they Exist? Are they rational Humans?

Why are all so many of the “new atheists” such ignorant, irrational folks? I’m still waiting for a rational explanation of this strange inexplicably phenomenon that is the so-called new atheism. Is it what Dawkins would call a meme? Perhaps I’ll make a best seller out of it.  Maybe I’ll call it “The Dawkins Meme”. How’s that?

Atheism is the blind man’s claim that color doesn’t exist because he can’t see it, taste it, feel it or prove it empirically!
Atheism – the belief that nothing created everything for no reason – i.e. the belief that nothing is actually something (Hawking, Krauss, Stenger…)
Atheism – a failed materialist philosophy too often posing as scientific reality
Atheism – the belief that humans are nothing but bags of chemicals (Cashmore, Crick)
Atheism – the conviction that nothing beyond matter exists. 

Yet, information is neither matter nor energy and thus metaphysical. It is impossible, under the atheists’ own dictates, to prove that nothing beyond matter exists. So how can they claim this as being true? It is excluded, a priori, based on purely religious (metaphysical, philosophical) grounds. This, in any other domain, would be called blind faith in nothing.

So hey, lets give all the criminals a big break, because under atheist “logic” you’re “nothing but a pack of neurons” (Crick), with no free will (Harris), no foundations for ethics (Provine), no guilt nor merit (Darwin, Blackburn) and even rape is just an “evolutionary adaptation” (Thornhill & Palmer) … “Morality is an illusion” (Ruse & Wilson) … Insert another long list of more atheist claims here … In the strange worldview of constant self-contradiction that is atheism, rationality itself does not exist as more than an illusion. You can’t have the self being an illusion (Harris, Hood) without rationality also being an illusion. Strange that these people can’t even figure that out. But not surprising.

Think of it. Isn’t that a fine world view folks!  Come on now everybody! Atheism for sale, its free! Come get your atheism! “I, Dr. Snake-oil-Philosophy will give it away free” (see Dawkins), ie. nobody would pay for it if they really understood it.

There is no God and I am his prophet

There is no God and I am his prophet

In atheism there is no valid purpose for living, life is nothing but neurons following along paths of flesh and blood, directed by the laws of physics and chemistry. So in reality, there is no “you”. “You”, or “self”, is the vivid illusion created by electrochemical reactions in your 2.5 lbs of meat. See Harris and Hood on that amazing bit of intellectual black hole mentality.

The last time I was attempting to reason with one of these self-proclaimed “non-persons”, I had to ask them who I was debating really? A flesh and blood robot? An automaton? An AI algorithm? Amazingly enough the response was still the same – there is no self.  Self is a biologically induced genetic illusion and of course no free will exists. So then I asked them if no free will exists, what is the point of debate since debate assumes the existence of free will on both sides, to make intelligent choices, not imitation choices coerced by one’s genetic makeup.  Otherwise no one can change their mind on anything, and yet the people declaring this baloney themselves automatically assume free will all while denying it. They assume you can freely change your mind by reasoning through their self-defeating reasonings. All while telling you that they didn’t even do the reasoning but their biological makeup did. They don’t even write their own books according to this weird belief.

Ergo, few are as confused as the modern atheists.  And yes, that is standard atheist dogma, and its so easy to prove it is, since virtually ALL the new atheist gurus, priests and TV evangelists say so in no uncertain terms.  In other words, if “religion is the opiate of the people”, then atheism is the opiate of the immoral, irrational soul.

Atheists are the inventors of the inane “invisible friends” theology, and the even more asinine “flying spaghetti monster”.   Atheists are usually the unthinking folks that believe nothing created everything, and astoundingly, they think this is “scientific”.

I am perpetually astounded at the lack of critical thinking and ignorance of the “new atheist” web forum debaters. Could they possibly get any more irrational or self-contradicting than they are? Its hard to believe they could but boy, many of them still try harder. One atheist, swallowing Lawrence Krauss’ “A Universe from Nothing” nonsense  actually told me that the universe doesn’t exist because the sum of its energy = zero. I kid you not!!

This is atheism:

this-is-atheism

brain-on-atheism

This rant was necessary to vent some of the deep disbelief and frustration in my attempts at reasoning with the unreasonable, irrational new atheist disciples I encounter.  A triple face-palm is required here as well.

facepalm-3

The Religion of Atheism

How many times per day do atheists, worldwide, deny that atheism is a religion?  My guess is millions. Why? Because wherever there is debate on the existence of God vs atheism, you are absolutely guaranteed that sooner or later in the discussion, the word religion will be brought in and the atheists present will be eschewing all religion.

But then some deist or theist will tell them that atheism itself is a religion, having all the telltale signs.  At that point the atheists will get angry, act insulted, and arrogantly state that atheism isn’t a religion and that if atheism is a religion, then not playing tennis is a sport – or some such similar analogy (which they parrot from the priests of atheism). They radically deny that atheism is a religion because they despise religion per se and cannot endure to have their own beliefs called religion. It’s psychotic for some of them.

Continue reading

The New Atheism’s Prime Idiocy

Some of you may not even believe an increasingly popular atheist claim going around these days, that “nothing created everything”.  Supposedly smart people like Hawking, Krauss etc. are all now claiming that the universe could create itself out of nothing.

They all try the same little magicians trick of making something disappear, when we all know its hiding under the table, up their sleeve or simply by smoke and mirrors.  What is it that they all desperately try to make disappear? Well gee, it ain’t hard? Something, that’s all.

And what magicians technique do they all use to do this with?  Some form of quantum physics. Always.  Why? Because its the only way you can fool the public.  You have to use tricks that the average Joe doesn’t know much about.  Then you have to present this trick in public with adequate levels of hand waving and slanted logic, in just enough doses to fool the gullible.

Thankfully, thank God, the average Joe off the street still doesn’t buy the trick as being “real magic”.

So how is this done basically, in layman’s language?  Its really easy.  All you have to do is lie. All you have to do is present a lie as truth and say it quickly enough, all while subtly redefining a term here or there.  If you do it right, a whole slew of gullible people will believe the lie.  In the case before us, all you have to do is redefine the meaning of the word “nothing”, so that it actually means something, but something so abstract and unclear that a lot of people don’t see the obvious differences.

One such trick, used by Lawrence Krauss, and now all of his mislead disciples, none of whom seem bright enough to discern wherein the magic lies, is equating the mathematical abstract we call ZERO, with true physics nothingness -i.e. the absence of everything, of anything at all in the material sense.

This is one of their favorite tricks.  And you know, the worst and possibly saddest thing about hits is that even they can’t see wherein the magic lies, beyond reality, in their little tricks!   Still the trick is obvious.

Zero isn’t nothing.  Zero is an abstract number – a mere symbol- we use to describe an exact equilibrium or physics nothing, but in this context stating that because the sum of energy in the universe equals nothing the physical nothing is not the valid meaning of zero! In this context it means equilibrium.

Now these people love to use this number as both meanings at once, (bait and switch tactic) whereas, in truth, it cannot be used with the same meaning simultaneously!  The two meanings or definitions of zero here are mutually exclusive.  An equilibrium between two forces, for example, is NOT nothing!  Yet we still use the mathematical symbol Zero or 0 – the form doesn’t matter at all – to represent this equilibrium.

Its like claiming that because the books balance,, there is no money in the account. Not very bright.

This is not hard!

Let me give a very simple example that really does fit, in an analogical way, quite exactly to the New Atheist claims that nothing created everything.

Lets use an example form the world of accounting as per financial things.  We all know what it means when we say, “the books balance”, right?  Balanced accounting ledgers simply mean that the actives are exactly equal to the passives.  Now in the actual books, how is this written? Why with a zero, ie the graphical representation of zero as “0”.

So here’s where we can easily spot the tricky atheist maneuver that so easily blinds most atheists, and people looking for answers that don’t really understand what’s being discussed – and even many that should but don’t and many that do but pretend not to!

Question: when the books are balanced, does this mean there’s no money in the account?
Answer: Of course not.
Can you imagine the chaos in the whole world of finance and accounting if zero and nothing could change meaning to some “scientist’s” interpretation of the symbol, changing it whenever he pleased!? I’m not exaggerating here, not at all.

On a recent “discussion” that I had with a very devoted disciple of atheist priest Krauss, a fellow who claimed to be well educated in this area of physics told me, rather adamantly (as atheist always do),  that nothing can indeed create everything because the sum of the energy in the universe equals nothing.

Of course he was then referring to this Zero being both equivalent to a real “nothingness” AND the mathematical abstraction “ZERO” both at the same time. You remember I just pointed out that this doesn’t work – except when the abstraction Zero is indeed used to represent a real absolute nothingness.

This may seem like quibbling over a definition, but the difference is nevertheless fundamental.

So, I asked this poor fellow if he understood that if this “zero” in his sense, meant that the universe does not exist.  To my own astonishment, even with all these years of being used to atheist nonsense, he replied, yes.  So obviously I was forced to ask him if that means the universe is nothing, i.e. it doesn’t really exist.  And again to my continued astonishment he relied with a resounding, YES.   Then I had to rephrase the whole thing, just to be sure,  into a “So you’re telling me that the universe doesn’t exist?”. Though I couldn’t believe he’d really understood my question, or he surely was just joking, he still said, Yes.

So there was I, an innocent theist, facing a very intelligent atheist, who was seriously telling me, without any qualms at all, that neither he nor I nor anything else really existed!

I’m pretty sure that if you search out this, for lack of a better term, mind-blowing, conversation between an intelligent human being, and someone that doesn’t exist, you’ll be able to find it over there on that most prestigious of all scientific discussion sites, youtube.

I’m sure you’ll be strongly tempted, perhaps by the devil, to post a resounding, ROTFLMAO, as I was; and sadly I couldn’t help but to succumb, forgive me oh Lord, to such a temptation.

The books balance, my friends, therefore all that money in the account created itself, from ‘nothing’.  A child as old as the one in the picture would be giving a nice face palm for such pitiful bull crap at this New Atheist desperate move to get rid of God – no matter how stupid it makes them look.

5791829929_4f55d2168e

St. Darwin’s Death or A Theory In Ruins

The Darwinian propaganda juggernaut is a lot like a T-Rex: huge, stupid, vicious and utterly intolerant of dissension.  But it’s slowing down.

Its engine is broken down to the point that it can no longer provide the force necessary to keep its velocity.  The engine runs on gas (hot air) and the hot air is the only thing keeping the machine from completely falling apart.


In my last article I talked about the implications of finding the abstract concept of zero  and the decimal point encoded in the genome. Those implications, by themselves, dismantle at least 90% of the Darwinian juggernaut -making it slowly devolve into a rusty old truck ready for the scrap heap of scientific blunders where it belongs.

Discoveries such as shCherback’s ruin Darwinian hopes for a badly needed religious revival of the metaphysical materialist underpinning of the whole schema.  Yes, Darwinism is a religion. It’s called Metaphysical Naturalism -a very old religion to boot. This is the religion of the atheists, or materialists if you will.  It origins myth is Darwinism (the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism).  Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted,

“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” – Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

The drivers of this rusting old  junk heap of a machine are still at the wheel but they’re finding it harder and harder to steer, harder and harder to keep it on its course and harder to keep it moving.

Here’s a short list of reasons why Darwinism, like its master St. Charles, the prophet of materialism, is dead already:

*Genetic entropy

-shows that neutral and harmful mutations are far more numerous than beneficial ones and that therefore
-shows that genomes are devolving not evolving
-the mechanism that leads to mutational meltdown cannot be the same mechanism by which ~10 million life forms arose n earth
-all by itself Gentropy (new word if you please) should have eliminated Darwinism as a viable theory

*Information theory

-Nature has no mind and abstractions only exist in minds
-Information itself is metaphysical, not matter or energy as atheist Darwinism hold
-Specifically, encoded prescriptive or algorithmic information cannot arise by any natural means since codes are universally symbolic sign systems. Sign systems are universally abstract & arbitrary requiring a conceiver. Abstractions do not and cannot exist in nature as nature has no mind or ability to conceptualize.
-Since codes cannot arise by any stochastic process this means DNA was designed, as shCherbak stated, it must be artificial.  This too, all by itself and for obvious reasons, reduces Darwinism to dust & ashes

*Statistical mechanics

-By this I refer to probability & statistics applied to genomes and their structures
-The vast quantity of well structured, functional machines working in genomes -with purpose- requires instructions for the assembly of their component parts, DNA/RNA contain these instructions
-The parts of any compound components requiring precise assembly, must be precisely shaped, sized, fitted and implemented with materials capable of resisting environmental pressures such as sheer, compression, friction etc. inherent in any machine. To assume that blind unguided nature somehow stumbled up so many of such objects of the right shape, materials, properties and sizes by mutation, and that they accidentally happen to work together, is insanely ludicrous and defies everything we know of the laws of probability & mechanical engineering;
-Functional, useful, compound nano machines and the instructions necessary to assemble them cannot be symbolically encoded  by any random mutational process;  symbols do not exist in nature, they are conceptually determined (mind); no more than computer programs can write themselves by juggling millions of bits for all eternity could ever create an operating system
-Genomes are far far greater, and strictly regulated, than any human designed OS is and probably ever will be
-The combinatorial dependencies created by biological nano machines are a statisticians nightmare.  They are humongous in number, and this also rules out any chance of random mutations + selection creating any of these machines, their assembly instructions and the assembly machinery itself. Machine parts must be in correct position, size, shape, etc. with each other or you end up with a literal combinatorial “explosion” of the machine itself in the cell. Combinatorial explosions are exponential. This complicates things for Darwinian theory infinitely, to the point of no return.

*Inter cooperating nano machines

-Biological machines cannot ‘know’ what to do, where to go etc. yet are assembled for and function for clear precise purposes in genomes
-Hundreds if not thousands of such machines exist in the genomes of any complex species
-If the Darwinian mechanism of mutations + selection could create such machines we should see useless ones scattered everywhere in genomes; but we don’t. We always find perfectly functional machines and clear purpose
-The Darwinians respond to such facts with their usual mere denial. Denial of these being “real” machines -its just a metaphor they claim. But it is no analogy. As Yockey proved that the genetic is is mathematically identical to human devised codes and languages, this applies to biological nano machines as well. They are real machines as much as any automobile motor or space shuttle are real machines.

*The fossil record

-The fossil record is sorely lacking in genuine intermediate forms; such forms should number in the billions given the number of species and their vast differences from the so-called “last universal common ancestor”. Yet there are none that can be proved.
-Biological explosions such as the Cambrian or Avalonian reveal species showing up complete, fully adapted suddenly (in geochrono terms) with no know ancestors
-A very curious thing that Darwinists never seem to grasp is that when they claim something found in the fossil record is an ancestor or a link to some other newer species, they are already assuming the validity of Darwinism. In other words, in order to claim anything is an ancestor of any other thing, one has to assume Darwinism is true beforehand. This is not only a logical fallacy but a lack of thinking on their part
-In Darwinism every living and every dead thing is an intermediate. So why bother shouting so loudly, “Hey we have found an intermediate!”. Really? Well seeing that everything is, by default, an intermediate, the only response is, “So? Who cares? Everything and everyone is an intermediate. Everything is in transition from being to becoming”.
-Another fundamental problem with pretending anything is a link to something else, is that no fossil ever comes with its pedigree inscribed in it. Such pedigrees are only and always assigned by the Darwinian discoverer of the fossil. Based on what? It’s always based on his assumption that the theory is true. Hardly scientific. Thus, imagination is the closest thing to the reality of alleged intermediate forms.

“Fossils can tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.” — Colin Patterson, paleontologist, 1978

*Laboratory experiments

Lenski‘s experiments, if they reveal anything, tell us that you can only get E.coli out E.coli
-These experiments have produced over 50K generations of E.coli; this is equivalent to approximately 1 million years of human generations. But there’s a very serious flaw in this whole thing.  Consider: In the corresponding time it has taken humanity’s alleged last common ancestor to evolve into homo sapiens from some primitive primate, which is allegedly about 2.3 million years, E.coli has done nothing but trivial adaptation to one unique environmental stress. And that with information loss!

Think about that in reference to Darwinist devised time lines. Humans supposedly came about 2.3 million years ago? Wow, in all that time E.coli are still E.coli, but homo sapiens is endowed with such a vast number of traits, not found in its alleged ancestors that one is at a complete loss to explain how such vast changes could have all happened in such a ridiculously short geological time.  We’re talking millions of uninterrupted beneficial mutations to get from some ape-like ancestor to full fledged human. In just a bit less time than that, poor E. coli has managed only a couple of trivial mutations!

The real question here is, “Why do Darwinists continue to believe their own sorry hypothesis, when faced with such salient anomalies?  Well, the only real, honest answer to that is, “by faith”. Blind faith to boot. For, the very experiments designed to show us all Darwinian evolution in action, have shown us all almost nothing worth noting, very trivial evolutionary change.

Such gratuitous credulity is hardly based on the results of these experiments, or any others. Its based rather on religion, Metaphysical Naturalism, i.e. good old self contradictory atheism. Or, if you please, on wishful thinking.

Much more could be written here, but suffice it to say that neo Darwinism should have been buried years ago. However, seeing as how metaphysics underlies its whole raison d’être and that devout Darwinian adepts refuse to abandon it, it’s not surprising that this debunked theory still lingers on.  They won’t leave the materialist religion they rely on for their personal sense of psychological security in their worldview. Thus, we have seen no funeral.

What we are seeing today is a veritable “scientific community” version of “Weekend at Bernies”, where the cadaver is propped up and made to appear alive. This is exactly current Darwinism, the new corpse. Propped up by hype, propaganda and lots of story telling (should I mention “threatenings and slaughter”?) to divert the public attention away from Bernie’s true condition.

weekend-at-darwins3

Of course, all this was very frustrating and confusing for Paulie, the mob hit man who, falling for the ruse, was still trying to kill poor dead Bernie.

The Secular Humanist Conspiracy

Don’t you just love a good conspiracy theory?  I do.  They can be so much fun, even instructive and eye opening.  Some of course are so far off the wall that they give a bad name to the rest.   Some are so-so credible but lack any convincing evidence. Others ring so truly that they are downright scary.

Well, one that fits the last category has got to be the one I call here simply the “secular humanist conspiracy”.  For, if ever there was a true conspiracy of the kind that grabs the attention of the public, this should have been it.  But it wasn’t and it still isn’t.  It’s a conspiracy that was put into action many decades ago and is still in “all out cultural war” phase.

One must not confuse secular humanism with humanitarianism.  The two could not be farther apart.

The most amazing thing about this conspiracy is how well it has been dissimulated, brushed under the carpet,  yet not so secretly implemented.  Yet the evidence of it is everywhere.  The evidence of it isn’t even hard to find.  The secular humanist high priests worked simply and rather brilliantly in conceiving it and putting it into action.  Most of them were not even surreptitious when speaking publicly about their plans.

They met with such little opposition probably because either no one paid much attention or, those who should have and could opposed them didn’t because of their own ignorance and/or apathy.

So, where is the evidence of such a conspiracy that has led to the downfall of American society in general?

Secular Humanist Charles F. Potter wrote,

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?” (Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)

The term secular humanism was first known to have been used in the 1930’s.  In 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day, William Temple, warned that the “Christian tradition… was in danger of being undermined by a Secular Humanism which hoped to retain Christian values without Christian faith.” – “Free Church ministers in Anglican pulpits. Dr Temple’s call: the South India Scheme.” The Guardian, 26 May 1943, p.6

John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America’s current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto.  Called “The Father of Modern Education” John Dewey was a Communist, atheist and a signer of the Humanist Manifesto and of course one of the great secular humanist conspirators.  Dewey stated clearly enough,

“You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Isn’t it amazing how liberty and freedom of thought and speech disappear under the reign of secular humanism?! No matter how much they insist they’re all for freedom – theirs that is, not yours.

Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, stated, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”   Darwinian evolution is the certainly secular humanists origins myth.  Believed largely for metaphysical reasons and not scientific ones.  These religious fanatics like to pretend these days, contrary to their forefathers, that secular humanism isn’t a religion, but clearly it is as the quotes here easily demonstrate.

One of the most famous humanists, Paul Kurtz often called “the father of secular humanism”,  founded of the “Council for Secular Humanism” and of the “International Academy of Humanism, USA”, wrote in the preface to the Humanist Manifesto 2000:

Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” 

Kurtz’ books call for the establishment of humanist churches.  Not a religion?

Yet, in his farewell address to the new nation of the United States of America (September 19, 1796), George Washington declared,

“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Make no mistake, secular humanism is founded upon atheism, otherwise known as metaphysical naturalism – a religion, a very old religion.

The term secularism was coined in 1851 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.”  Once a staunch Owenite, Holyoake was strongly influenced by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism and of modern sociology. Comte believed human history would progress in a ‘law of three stages’ from a ‘theological’ phase, to the ‘metaphysical’, toward a fully rational ‘positivist’ society. In later life, Comte had attempted to introduce a ‘religion of humanity’ in light of growing anti-religious sentiment and social malaise in revolutionary France. This ‘religion’ would necessarily fulfill the functional, cohesive role that supernatural religion once served. Whilst Comte’s religious movement was unsuccessful, the positivist philosophy of science itself played a major role in the proliferation of secular organizations in the 19th century. – (from wikipedia … verifiable)

Robert Muller (former assistant to the secretary general of the UN):

 “Within 15 years we will have a proper government and administration of planet earth and of humanity. Why? Because the current troubles, injustices, wastes and colossal duplications of national expenditures – especially on armaments and the military – will force us to. It is inevitable. The salvation of this planet and survival of the human species depend on it. No one can for long go against evolution. Nation-states must adapt or they will disintegrate, even the biggest ones.” (http://goodmorningworld.org/blog/2006/01/gmw-852-robet-muller-happiest-person.html).

Humanist John J. Dunphy wrote:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being.
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level — preschool day care center or large state university.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. – A Religion For A New Age, The Humanist magazine, January-February 1983

Tell me again how this isn’t a religion in the public education system! Darwinism is its origins myth.

These are the highly influential persons whom, with billion dollar aid from other famous humanists, pushed this “hidden agenda” into the public schools. Yet they are also the ones who are always claiming the infamous Establishment Clause when faced with any threat to the Darwinist agenda in public schools! All of this is rather amazing in itself, but the mass media – virtually all controlled by secular humanists –  have just sort of neglected to tell the public of these things! They are conspirators themselves for the most part and have not so curiously failed to report on any of this, either as it was being planned or while it was being implemented and to this day the liberal media bias and insistence on sweeping all such inferences under the rug is as clear as a warning bell.

Secular humanists love to speak of personal freedom, self-fulfillment, the good of humanity etc.  But as soon as you start digging deeper, all is defined according to their own terms, no one else’s definitions are allowed in the door!Indeed, it turns out that the religion of secular humanism is all about selfishness and population control of the mass by the self-styled “elite” of society.  They want to form a society guided only according to their own religious dogma of atheism, scientism and elitism.  The roots of secular humanism are selfishness and atheism, even though they deny the former.  Of course they deny it!

Humanism is nothing more than a modern push to create a new tower of Babel, trying to reach heaven, a new religion in defiance of God where self is the only god.   It is an attempt to return to Eden, to paradise on earth, but by all the wrong means.  Means that can never work as all the world witnessed with the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia etc.  The end of purely secular governments, based on atheism is nothing but human suffering, misery, mass murders, torture and “killing fields”!

Look at this revealing, and rather disgusting, quote by secular humanist geneticist Richard Lewontin,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

And this one beats ’em all:
“Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.” – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

How’s that for inane drone “thinking” and overt dishonesty!?

The lovely but poisoned apple of humanism

Evolution News and Views editor, Anika Smith, wrote a column in the SPU Falcon newspaper titled “Beware of ‘Darwin Day'”.  In describing some of the more humorous elements of Darwin Day celebrations (carols, Darwin look-alike contests and even an incredible, edible tree of life) Smith notes the holiday’s familiar trappings.

“If you’re wondering what a secular humanist does to commemorate such an occasion, it turns out that these particular humanists stand on street corners and hand out leaflets about evolution in an attempt to reach passers-by.

 In Victoria, B.C., a philosophy of religion professor organized a Darwin Day celebration for his students where they decked the halls with humanist style. Participants decorated an evolution tree, exchanged Darwin cards and even sang evolution carols.

 If this sounds familiar to you, that’s because it was designed that way. This celebration, like so many others, was styled as a “light-hearted satire” of Christmas. Had the celebration taken place in a culture with a different religious history, such as Turkey, it might look something more like the Feast of Sacrifice.”

Not a religion huh?  Got any more clueless claims, humanists?

Now, let’s look at some of those who signed the Humanist Manifesto III I highlighted a few :

Khoren Arisian
Senior Leader, NY Society for Ethical Culture

Bill Baird
Reproductive rights pioneer

Frank Berger
Pharmacologist, developer of anti-anxiety drugs

Lester R. Brown
Founder and president, Earth Policy Institute

August E. Brunsman IV
Executive director, Secular Student Alliance

Rob Buitenweg
Vice president, International Humanist and Ethical Union

Vern Bullough
Sexologist and former copresident of the International Humanist and Ethical Union

David Bumbaugh
Professor, Meadville Lombard Theological School

Matt Cherry
Executive director, Institute for Humanist Studies

Joseph Chuman
Visiting professor of religion, Columbia University, and leader, Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County, New Jersey

Curt Collier
leader, Riverdale-Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture, New York

Fred Cook
Retired executive committee member, International Humanist and Ethical Union

Carlton Coon
Former US Ambassador to Nepal

Richard Dawkins (what a surprise huh)
Charles Simonyi professor, University of Oxford

Arthur Dobrin
Professor of humanities, Hofstra University and leader emeritus Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, New York

Margaret Downey
President, Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia

Riane Eisler
President, Center for Partnership Studies

Albert Ellis
Creator of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and founder of the Alber Ellis Institute

Edward L. Ericson
Leader emeritus, Ethical Culture

Antony Flew
Philosopher

Arun Gandhi
Cofounder, M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

Kendyl Gibbons
President, Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association

Sol Gordon
Sexologist

Pervez Hoodbhoy
Professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Fran P. Hosken
Editor, Women’s International Network News

Joan Johnson Lewis
President, National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union

Edwin Kagin
Founder and director, Camp Quest

Beth Lamont
AHA NGO representative to the United Nations

Gerald A. Larue
Professor emeritus of biblical history and archaeology, University of Southern California

Ellen McBride
Immediate past president, American Ethical Union

Henry Morgentaler
Abortion rights pioneer

Stephen Mumford
President, Center for Research on Population and Security

William Murry
President and dean, Meadville-Lombard Theological School

Indumati Parikh
President, Center for the Study of Social Change, India

Katha Pollitt
Columnist, the Nation

Eugenie Scott
Executive director, National Center for Science Education

Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine

James R. Simpson
Professor of international agricultural economics, Ryukoku University, Japan

Matthew Ies. Spetter
Associate professor in social psychology at the Peace Studies Institute of Manhattan College, NY

Oliver Stone
Academy award-winning filmmaker

John Swomley
Professor emeritus of social ethics, St. Paul School of Theology

Carl Thitchener
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York

Maureen Thitchener
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York

Kurt Vonnegut
Novelist

Edward O. Wilson
Professor, Harvard University,

Of course I excluded a lot of other names.  Notice how many scientists, so-called “ministers” or “theologians” and wealthy and influential persons are on the list in organizations related to “ethics”, education and religion!

None dare call it conspiracy. Of course, there are no conspiracies in America! None… no no no… and anyone who says there is, is a paranoid nut case.   Ya right…

So how did they succeed in bringing the religion of humanism into the whole of public departments – education, justice et al.?  Quietly, stealthily, insidiously at first, now quite openly.  They believe they are invincible, just as did Nimrod and his slaves, right before the confusion of languages was put on the builders of Babel.

The humanists simply placed all the most dedicated of their dupes in key positions of power in the education departments of the nation and then started bad-mouthing Christianity and religion, calling for the infamous “separation of church and state” all while pretending religious neutrality! All while constantly reiterating (good pedagogy) the post modernist refrains that only science can tell us the truth, the religion is passé and that it must not be allowed in the classroom.   This all while implanting their own religion in the classrooms!

No conspiracy here?
If you believe this was not a long planned and keenly executed conspiracy, I have a few big beautiful bridges to sell you… cheap, as well as some huge land lots on Mars that you can leave to your posterity when humans will be living there.

Virtually every public school in America was taken over by these people and most of America (and Europe as well) has swallowed all these lies and accepted all this.

Winston Churchill commented,

“If you will not fight for the right when you can win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

This is what is going to happen, and much sooner than we think, if we don’t get off our lazy asses and stand up and protest with righteous indignation -and plenty of proof of what we state.  We must be able to present viable solutions to remedy the catastrophic consequences that secular humanism and its goons have wreaked on the morals of society already. Consequences that already display the taking of incalculable numbers of lives and wrought irreparable damage.

It’s time to oust this intruder, this liar, the secular dogmatist & manipulator from the whole social system of the West.

Who Designed the Designer?

In debate circles and discussion forums on atheism vs. theism or deism; Darwinism vs Intelligent Design (ID) all across the world today we hear that ID is stuck with a serious problem.  According to the opponents of ID such as the late Christopher Hitchens (who was one the worst reasoners by the way on this subject) the ID, uh hum, stopper goes like this,

“…the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator.” – God is not Great, page 71.

Hitchens goes on to say that this question has never been answered by those in the design camp and he implies that it is a serious objection to ID.  This is a very strange statement, and an incredibly presumptuous one at that. It is of course equal to the old argument, “Who made God?”.

The 1st error here is that the question is based on the assumption of infinite regression of Gods creating Gods, Designers designing Designers. But infinite regressions in logic are logical absurdities, since all infinite regression propositions are such.

The most curious thing however is the stupidity inherent in such bold assertions as Hitchens made, and so many of his fans following. Truly the so-called New Atheists can’t hold a candle to the old ones, who tended at least to be much smarter and somewhat less smart-ass.  On the one hand the assertion seems to be based on the logical absurdity of infinite regressions, and on the other it foolishly demands an answer to a logical absurdity. Then it claims that not being able to answer a logical absurdity is somehow important in the challenge of the “who designed the designer” rebuttal.

Besides being a nonsense question, if one assumes an infinite regression of designers,  it is indeed unanswerable, as are all logically absurd questions.  A simple example of a nonsense question is “Is the color green square or round?”; or “Can God create a rock so big he can’t lift it?” – which questions generally come from the minds of children not yet trained in reasoning, logic and critical thinking, not from highly educated fools like Hitchens et al.

But here is another answer to the question at hand, supposing we are not implying an infinite regression: Who cares!?

Why should anyone care if the designer himself were designed? Once you’ve gotten to the designer of the thing you’re examining, it doesn’t matter! That becomes a second and separate inquiry altogether.

Consider the following:

If I’m trying to figure out who designed the car across the street, I may be able to get to the correct answer by a simple search – checking the logo on the front or back of the car. Now, once I’ve determined who that designer is, why should I look any further?  Suppose I discover it was made by Honda.  Why should I inquire as to who designed the designer, i.e. who created Honda?  The question may indeed interest me but once I’ve gotten to the cars’ maker, that is sufficient, all by itself, to be able to postulate that the car was indeed manufactured by a specific designer.

Now, here’s the real issue; in ID I’m not even looking to know who the designer is! The whole purpose of ID is not to determine the designer of life, but to determine that it was indeed designed rather than self-assembled by some other non rational process.

Do I really need to know who the designer is to determine that it was indeed designed or whether it came to be by a chance series of events by some other process?  The answer is no.  No more than claiming that when determining that some structure was designed or not, I can’t logically postulate design until I know exactly who designed it. This puts the cart before the horse. Obviously I cannot postulate a designer until I’ve adequately determined design. Can you even imagine what the state of archaeology would be if archeologist were not allowed to claim that some ancient structure was designed and built, rather than a mere natural occurrence!? Yet archeologists are always proclaiming the discovery of some artificial artifact, all while having no idea who made it! The death of archeology would be the result.

Design must be determined first. This is not hard.  Otherwise postulating the identity of the designer is absurd and futile.  Moreover once design is determined, with reasonable certainty, the question, “Who did it?”, is an entirely separate research issue.

Atheists always fail to see this distinction and thus fail to come up with more intelligent questions. Why? Because their minds are on hold in strict materialism. For them it has to be 100% natural, no intelligence allowed, no goals, no purpose, no guidance allowed. So as soon as a design inference is made, they are forced by their metaphysicsnot evidence, not science – either to deny design or change their metaphysics, their religion of materialism.

After denial, they come up with the intellectually void and irrelevant rebuttal, “Who designed the designer”!

Conclusion

1. Intelligent Design proponents may or may not care one whit who the designer is. The most important thing to understand is that the question of identity is irrelevant until design has been adequately supported by the evidence.

This of course assumes that design detection is scientifically possible.  Is it? Of course it is!

Design detection is practiced every day in other fields such as forensic anthropology, arson investigations, genetic manipulation determining and many other fields.  No one questions the ability to determine intelligent design in those areas. Only in biology! Only there do we find such vehement, apoplectic fits being had by opponents.  This fact alone should get any honest enquirer thinking that something is gravely wrong in Darwinian fundamentalism.

Have atheists never heard of the NAZCA lines? Stone Henge? Or hundreds of other things I could mention that were clearly designed by some intelligence, but that nobody has a clue WHO they were?  Are there known designers to these artifacts? If atheists know who the designers were they should enlighten us, the world would like to know. Wait a second! They don’t know?! Then, following their own specious reasoning, we should stop claiming these things were designed!  Ludicrous, to say the least.

The fact is that they don’t know who the designers are for these artifacts and yet I am sure none of them would deny that they are designed. Do they know how they were designed? The answer again is no. Does that mean they were not designed? Again, ludicrous and spurious logic to say the least.

So again how is it legitimate for atheists to say that that such artifacts are designed, and yet deny the same exact principle in biology? Double standard much? There is not enough data to make any determination of the identity of the designer(s). When and if we can identify the designer of organic life on this planet we might have some data to work with in determining the origin of that agency.

2. But it gets worse for them.  Suppose I have indeed discovered the designer’s identity. The question, “Who designed the designer?”, is still irrelevant because, hey I’ve found the designer and I need not go further back.

Why should I? Only if I have evidence that the designer was also designed and so on … back infinitely again, and back to logical absurdities again, since it is impossible to determine an infinite regressions’ beginning, since by definition there is none.

The Temple of Atheist  Logic