Are Atheists Rational?

Notice that the title of this article is not “Is Atheism Rational”.  One of the things that all the new atheists claim is that they are “free thinkers”, rational, logical, science and evidenced-based in having chosen atheism.  Is this true?  In fact is light years away from the truth.

Here are some facts about atheism and it’s inescapable logical implications and conclusions.

In atheism, you have no choice but to believe yourself an electrochemically animated “bag of meat” or a bag of chemicals. National Academy of Sciences, Anthony Cashmore claims that we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals.

“Materialism—the belief that nothing exists except matter, if true, means there is no place for any explanation of people and the ‘choices’ they make other than chemistry—the interactions of genes and the environment, and the random behaviour of matter.”

Chemicals

Cashmore thus claims that the concept of human responsibility is also invalid. According to him, the evolutionary process gave rise only to the illusion of responsibility. Indeed, he maintains,

“neither religious beliefs, nor a belief in free will, comply with the laws of the physical world.”*  –  The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(10):4499-4504, 2010;  http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf html Antony Cashmore is Robert I. Williams Prof essor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Prof. Will. Provine  said,

“There is no way that the evolutionary process … can produce a being that is truly free to make choices.”

So is evolution compatible with free will? Nope.  So is morality compatible with no free will? Nope. Cashmore wrote,

“The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.”

And he says that freely, of his own volition? Apparently not. Not without glaring self-contradiction. But that’s atheism’s only possibility – as bags of chemicals or meat.   Atheism is an idea that doesn’t even matter and has never done anything good in the whole history of the world, but has caused irreparable damage and mass death.

Now here is the fatal flaw in all this atheist nonsense. Rationality depends upon free will.  Rationality means being capable of understanding and choosing between conceptual alternatives. The No Free Will claim, if true, negates that possibility completely and finally. How can you choose what idea is correct and which is not, if you are not free to choose it? Stunningly obvious.

Atheist scientist Peter Atkins says,

“Free will is merely the ability to decide, and the ability to decide is nothing other than the organised interplay of shifts of atoms.”  – Atkins, Peter, The Creation, W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd, Oxford, 1981

I wonder if Atkins thinks that he freely choose to believe that and say that? Not according to himself. His DNA did it.

Atheist Nobel laureate Francis Crick wrote,

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”  (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

The late William Provine also stated,

” Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

So much for anyone being a free thinker and thinking for themselves.  Atheism’s super star TV evangelists shot that false idea to hell.  All this clearly implies that as bags of meat, no one ever really selects their beliefs, their own concepts based upon logical evaluation, critical thinking and personal choice. Under atheism, therefore, since free will is an illusion of the brain and we are nothing but sacks of meat, real rationality cannot even exist. Bags of meat cannot reason or rationally come to conclusions. Atheism means that you are nothing but a biological automaton, a robot, a computer that deludes itself into thinking itself rational and free while being nothing but a clump of conglomerated matter with integrated circuits giving the illusion of real volition.

No other conclusion is even possible, if atheism is true.  Atheists sometimes counter this by claiming that we have tested our brains and proved that our faculties of reason are in correspondence with reality. This too is a gross error and lack of intellectual depth. You cannot test your brain using your brain. Nor can you test all brains using brains. There is simply no way to really know that what the human mind is doing is truly related to reality.  We fall into The Matrix scenario. How do we know that we’re not all bags of flesh hooked up to machines with our brains being pumped full of illusions of a reality? We don’t. Not under atheism.

Moreover, only in deism or theism can we assume that the mind is rational, based upon it’s being made by a super intellect, as Sir Fred Hoyle called it.

Again, we are left with a serious vital choice to make. God or stupidity.

Atheism is a debilitating religious position with no foundations in logic or rational thinking – rationality cannot even exist in atheism. Another thing atheists fail to see. Meat can never be rational. Rationality itself is metaphysical, not physical.  Atoms moving in any form cannot be rational. Sad really. Just freaking sad.

The great theist philosopher – and ex-atheist – C.S. Lewis wrote,

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -another words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”.
“If he is honest, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true.”
-C.S. Lewis

Simple and absolutely logical. And with that, there goes the ballgame for atheists. If they remain atheists, they cannot remain logically consistent with themselves if they claim they are free thinkers or free anything else, nor truly rational beings. They are obliged to consider themselves bio-automatons with no more self-determination than a hamburger.

brain-on-atheism

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

Which Infers a Stable Universe, Atheism or Theism?

In my last article I discussed the “God of the gaps” accusation levied against creationists and IDists.  A “refutation” that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.

I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use “gap” arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.

Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things “scientific”.

Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence:

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 counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard University

Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really? Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. The irony is striking. Now if there are no absolutes then it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains.  Science itself becomes relative, volatile and unreliable. Nothing is certain under atheism’s obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself. This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.


However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have? None, assuming this God is wise and good.

Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the “fine tuning” constants were to be altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?

In theism, we infer, through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos,  that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation of all morality.

Worse, Lewontin’s statement is in fact simply wrong, since we already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call “science” and it works.

Now to prove how asinine some atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the “expert” atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin’s inane statement upside down:

“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60

Can you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true?

Thank God it isn’t!

Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?

“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle”
-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.

Thank God for that too.

God of the Gaps?

Well here we go ladies and gents.  Yet another piece of Darwinian/atheist bad thinking must be exposed for what it really is.

Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit that their position – it’s not merely a “lack” of a position, as they foolishly pretend to themselves these days – is devoid of intelligence and in fact annihilates intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.

In atheism all rationality is the end product of completely non rational processes and of course is an “accident”.  Under atheism, rationality is just electrochemical movement in the brain – 3 lbs of meat.  As Francis Crick himself said,

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”  -(p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

Atheism says that your rationality, your logic, your reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.  Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid than this one and has been obliged to give an account for his own life, including his denial of the Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be true or false?”.

Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical conclusions and implications of their position, into their all too often stubborn minds.

In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (no, these are not the same).

Often when theists or even deists point out to Darwinists that their theory cannot account for the intricacies and functional complexities and semantic structures found in every living thing, they will tell you that you’re committing a logical fallacy.  Specifically they claim this type of statement is a “God of the gaps argument”.  This simply means that, because you can’t explain how something occurred, you simply invoke God as the answer.  God fills in the gap where the knowledge of how is missing.

God is used to explain what evolutionism can’t explain.  This is of course a form of “argument from ignorance”.  And believe me, Darwinians everywhere are quick to parrot their fave priests that have told them this, over and over and over.  Here I would love to start a nice discussion of how virtually every amateur and professional Darwinist in the world is little more than a parrot. They are always parroting what they were told in school, in their temples (universities), on their fave web sites, in books etc. Of course, everyone does this to some degree, citing authorities, but the atheist Darwinian crowd does little else.

They do not seem to think well or for themselves, so having been forced into the standard Darwinian mantra through the public education system, they simply parrot what they were told by their priests and gurus.  So, they have indoctrination and “counseling” from their priests to know what to believe.

So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.

First of all, arguments of the pattern:

“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc. on this.

People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all.  What they really do is argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish this”,  They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must have done it”.

That is simply and categorically false.

They are saying that 1) there is no evidence at all that evolution did this, but 2) there is great evidence that Darwinian evolution cannot do this, and there is irrefutable evidence that only intelligent agents can produce algorithmic, prescriptive information that is found everywhere in biological systems.  Therefore, the best explanation is not evolution but intelligent origin.

Very few creationists or IDists will simply say,  “God did it and that’s it that’s all, no need for further research”.  In recent years, I’ve never heard any of them say anything even remotely like that.  So, when misinformed and disingenuous Darwinian fanatics claim that this is what they’re saying, they are lying, or, incapable of thinking straight, seriously not listening, or all of the above.

In my personal experience it is always been the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.

Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical sophistication and algorithmic information cannot arise by chance no matter how much time is allotted.  The probability of such machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small that it may as well be considered impossible.  It is in fact, statistically impossible by any known random or stochastic process including mutations, plus selection.

So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely against applying to their own theory. How many times have I read that “probabilities do not apply to living, reproductive organisms”? Too many!

Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore God id it” at all; on the contrary!  They are saying, “the laws of probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless, unguided process to create this kind of integrated, specified functionality.

That is a very different thing from a mere gap argument.  So in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented knowledge!  Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of biological machinery. That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all.  It is a solid scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even less odds, the obvious answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how much time you allot.

Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal. Notice that Darwinists have never, not even once, provided a viable mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living things.  This means that the only way they can claim that any living thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture – most of the time just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have. Just-so stories fill the Darwinian literature.

For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye? They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!

If you’ve seen the perfectly naive, childishly simplistic explanations given by Darwinists for the origins of sight and eyes you know what I’m talking about it.  Even the scenarios given by so-called professional scientists.  There simply are no viable, serious Darwinian pathways for vision and eyes.  None.  Not even remotely close.

Their explanation is always the same – an imaginary pathway – less than 100 steps (rotfl) – that they think may have, could have, must have etc., been the real evolutionary one. So how about evidence for such naive suppositions – they’re always ridiculously naive – on how something may have happened by evolution? Nope. Don’t need any real empirical evidence.

Really? Why not?

Because they simply invoke evolution of the gaps. They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use slightly different terms but the answer is always the same in meaning – evolution did it.

In other words, Darwinists are the worst offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments!  They never have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but the very, very trivial!  So, without a grain of empirical evidence that really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing” intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and pompous dismissal of any other theory, “evolution did it!”

“Proof?”

“We don’t need proof!! We know evolution did it!”

“How do you know this, without proof?”

“Because no God exists!”

Yes, many of them really do say this in such terms.  Meaning that their real reason for supporting neo Darwiniism is religious, not scientific! There you have it.  The cat is out of the bag.  The whole system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words. The religion of atheism.

Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being naive and demonstrating a profound ignorance. Just to help you out:


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 counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
– Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard U.

And just look at this quote:
‘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.

Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is.  And say what?! Scientists lie!? Oh my, who would have thought?!
So, neo Darwinists are, for the most part, in fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very old heathen religion.
Religion? Yes. Therefore it should be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism in public schools.  So why isn’t it?

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

Another Foolish Atheist Claim

The list of foolish -often very stupid- claims made by atheists is long indeed.  A great many of the claims made by the so-called “New Atheists” from Dawkins to Harris to Dennet to… you-name-em, and the claims based on those claims fall into that category.

This is rather astounding. Why? Because a large part of of the population in the West and in Europe have bought into this. What kind of average IQ rating can we give people,  in spite of how blatantly obvious the endless self-contradictions are, that cannot see these contradictions?

I my own view, that average IQ goes down by several points every time one of these “new atheist” priests opens his mouth to speak or writes another book.  Truly, these people, blind leaders of the blind, could reduce the average IQ of the entire world population by several points every year they continue to promote the bunk they perpetually try to pass off as “fact”, “reason”, “logic”, “true” etc,,

These people just don’t get it or else they really are wicked – deliberately speaking what they know is nonsense.

The often ludicrous propositions they think are so weighty against the existence of a God, a supreme, supernatural being are just bad logic, blind faith in nothing and among the worst of the dumb ideas devised since the beginning of the 20th century.

To illustrate this I’ll quote a recent comment I felt sadly obliged to confront on a blog.  Of course anyone that reads my articles here knows how harsh I can be to the adamant atheists.  Let me explain this just a little here.  I’ve been debating atheists and atheism for many long years -over 30- on and off the web for a about 20 years now.

About 99% of every single debate I’ve either had myself, or watched some other poor theists attempting to reason with atheists in, has been little more than an insult fest.  Most of them almost devoid of any sign of honest reasoning in atheism.  As soon as the atheist is faced with the glaring problems of logic and reason in his untenable position, the discussion is over; the insult session begins.  And in this it doesn’t matter how much proof, evidence, logic, fact or reason one brings against atheism’s multitude of errors, the theist receives a slew of often vulgar, nasty, four-lettered superlatives and accusations of stupidity etc. from the atheist crowd.

Ok so are you ready?  I hope so.

If you’re not an atheist you will no doubt see the foolishness of such comments immediately.  If you’re unfortunate enough to be an atheist you will almost certainly not see a thing.

Here’s the original comment :

“That’s simply because it’s based on observation and rational thought. It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.
Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).”

And here are my comments -with all my usual angst against atheism and its all too often willfully blind and willfully ignorant victims.  I’ve modified the format and presentation order, and also added some comments in square brackets to make it a bit clearer :

He stated,  “That’s simply because it’s based on observation …”

My response:

Tell us, oh rational one, what observation are you referring to exactly?
Which observation is it that proves there is no God or even no supernatural?
None whatsoever & you know it well too; therefore you’re doubly guilty -of both willful stupidity and fraud.

He said, “…and rational thought”

My response:

What rational thought are you pretending here?
Where is the rational thought that proves atheism?
Atheism denies the very reality of rationality itself by relegating all thought to mere materialism.

“If naturalism [atheism] were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.” [C.S Lewis]
Simple.

Atheism according to atheists [American Atheists web site],

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, … there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be”

My response:

My, such a slew of glaring self contradictions in such a small paragraph is amazing!
They claim that “nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter”

Can they prove this? Using their own feeble methodologies [methodological naturalism]?
No, of course not, and they themselves say so!!

If, by default [and using your own method], you cannot posit [or detect] any supernatural existence then how on earth could you ever possibly “know” that there is no such thing!?
A child could see through such blatant stupidity, but not the well potty-trained atheist!

A wiser man (ex-atheist) wrote,

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”

This undoes the self contradicting atheist statement on thought, in one single simple phrase.

He adds,

“If he is honest,… the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” … In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true”

You are nothing but a pack of neurons“, said atheist Francis Crick.

So tell us, why should anyone give a crap about what your neurons are doing?  Under atheism you’re just a slab of animated meat.   Rationality cannot be defined as meat.   The sooner you finally use your brain to figure out that, if atheism is true, then you really are nothing but animated meat, the sooner you might get free from the abject intellectual poverty of atheism.

The atheist said,  “It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.

My response:

Atheism isn’t even consistent with itself! Wake up and smell the oxymorons.
Atheism IS denial of reality.
He then said, “Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).

My response:

You were raised on humanism and you swallowed its ubiquitous lies and propaganda. You’re bound in the snares of its multitudinous idiocies, all while thinking yourself to be “free” and a “thinker”.
Packs of neurons can neither be free nor thinkers.

Atheism rational?!
You, like all atheists, are exactly like the man born blind that denies the existence of light and color because he himself cannot see it, and then you claim this is “rational”!

Think on that and maybe you’ll start really thinking for the 1st time in your life.

Ok, so there you have my initial admittedly angry response.

The greatest contradiction in atheism is this pretension that you can have rationality in an atheist universe.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is itself irrational.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter.  Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has no consciousness and no will. You may as well assign an IQ to a rock, intelligence to a piece of meat, as to believe rationality exist by accidents in matter.

Rationality itself is purely conceptual. It relies completely on the absolute laws of logic to even exist. Which do not exist in atheism.

I’m always amazed, astounded and confounded when I hear atheists smugly bragging of reason, logic, rationality etc. within a world view, a philosophy that itself, by default, by its own tenets, denies even the possibility that these things can even exist as anything real. Rationality, under atheism, is nothing but a material pack of neurons. It’s nothing but animated meat, chemical reactions, electrochemical activity in meat.  It can never be more because according to atheism, that’s all that exists.

Yet the average atheist never can’t seem to figure this simple fact out.  Crick did, so did many others, but they always end up denying the necessary logical implications and consequences of their ideas.

Therefore, all while claiming to be perfectly logical, the atheist must deny major facets of logic, in order to keep his position “consistent” with itself.  Yet, the very act of denying these vital aspects of reason and logic, the atheist automatically, whether hes sees it or not, has denied his own foundations for atheism. It’s the ultimate intellectual self-destruct.