What Kind of World would Convince us that Atheism is True?

“What kind of world would convince you that there is no God?”

This is a question posed a while back by atheist Jerry Coyne and one that pops up once in a while in debates on theism vs atheism.

And the answer is very simple.

No world at all.
Indeed, no worlds at all, no universe at all – nothing.

That’s the only rational answer. If literally nothing existed then there would be no one to posit either theism or atheism or anything at all and atheism would be true by default since absolute nothing would also mean no God. However, as soon as you have something, atheism becomes untenable. It can never explain the existence of anything and thus it is too weak a proposition to have any use or credibility.

“Nothingness” is atheism in a nutshell. Atheism is the intellectual black hole of the universe.

Nothing made everything in atheism. Some of them try to pretend that atheism does not really make such a preposterous claim. And yet, they will point to Lawrence Krauss who wrote the book, A Universe from Nothing!  And then they will claim that nothing doesn’t really mean nothing. Um, what?! Say again?

To escape the stupidity of his claims Krauss tries to redefine nothing to mean something. In fact, militant atheists like that are always seeking escape tactics like this to hide the insanity of what they’re saying.  But even in their curious definitions of “nothing” their foolish arguments fail miserably. Since they have defined nothing as something, they still must explain how that something that they call nothing (I’m not making this up) came to exist.  Of course. They cannot do any such thing.

Thankfully the hard sciences and math tell us that the energetic potential of nothing is always nothing. This is the most obvious thing in the ‘world’. Indeed, and using atheist “logic”, we could think that 10^1000 x 0 does not equal 0 but some humongous positive number.

Why is there something rather than nothing is something that blind atheism can never explain. Atheism has its own god. The great god Nothing. It is their posited creator and to their creator they think they are going when they die.

You’ve probably heard the ancient proverb that “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”.  Well, in the inverse, atheism is the beginning of insanity.  Why? Because it is nothing but denial of reality and wishful thinking. And all the laughable and ill-reasoned, junk philosophy of a Coyne or a Dawkins will never change that.

As Voltaire stated, “The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Philosophical Dictionary

 

Atheism is True?

I came across a Facebook page called “Atheism is true”, today. I couldn’t believe it. Even knowing how clueless most modern atheists are I could barely believe that anyone could possibly be that stupid.

The phrase, “atheism is true” is, in fact, a claim to knowledge of a universal negative.
All knowledge claims carry an intrinsic burden of proof. And,

“in truth-directed enquiries, the burden of proof is on all of us alike”
– Putting the Burden of Proof in its Place: When are Differential Allocations Legitimate ? Tim Dare and Justine Kingsbury, Academia.edu

So, pray tell, where oh where is the proof that Atheism is true? Saying “atheism is true” is semantically identical to saying “it is true that there is no God”.
Proof, please? Oops.
Proof of atheism is always AWOL.  And that since the beginning of time.

Ergo – “atheism is true” has to be one of the dumbest claims ever – even by today’s woefully low standards for dumb. It is literally blind faith, the proverbial leap into the dark, the deep dark abyss of human stupidity, the belief without evidence that ignorant atheists wrongly think real faith is. (Real faith is based on good evidence)

And the profile pic is just as clueless.
It’s a photo of the cosmonaut who famously said, “I see no god up here“?
Seriously?
Did anyone expect him to? Nope. Certainly no Xian. (X = the Greel letter chi, not the English x, and the chi was used by early Christians as a symbol of Christ, because the first letter in his Greek title is the chi – X)

The man who did more than any other to put man on the moon, Werner von Braun stated,

“…as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all… My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?”

“When astronaut Frank Borman returned from his unforgettable Christmas, 1968, flight around the moon with Apollo 8, he was told that a Soviet Cosmonaut recently returned from a space flight had commented that he had seen neither God nor angels on his flight. Had Borman seen God? the reporter inquired. Frank Borman replied, “No, I did not see Him either, but I saw His evidence.”
– Dr. Wernher von Braun

It’s tragic that so many atheists are too blind and too narcissistic to grasp anything greater than themselves and often too lazy to think beyond first-degree inferences. Tragically, atheists are usually their own little gods. And also, all too often, either terrible logicians or just dishonest people – even lying to their own selves. This is one reason why we say that “it’s just 99% of all atheists that give such a bad reputation to the rest”.

Consensus Science?

I often have Darwinians tell me something like that “98% of all scientists believe in evolution” (the neo Darwinian or the modern synthesis). They think that this is somehow convincing and ought to settle the issue. It doesn’t. Not even remotely close. Indeed, these same people tell me whenever I quote from some scientist, including those in their own camp, that I’m using a fallacy known as “argument from authority” and then they dismiss the quoted statement as though it is meaningless.

What to do? Well, I am forever obliged to remind them that their own claim that “98% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution” is itself an appeal to authority. The blindness (or hypocrisy) is almost comical.  I ask them what authority they themselves are specifically appealing to in claiming that evolution, i.e. neo-Darwinism, has been “as proved as gravity”, as they love to parrot robotically. Invariably they have no good answer.

Occasionally I get a link to say, the Berkley U. page on evolution for laymen or the equivalent. That’s it. Nothing more substantial, specific or genuinely useful. Just the usual empty assertions, just-so stories, terrible logic and baseless leaps of faith Darwinists are so famous for. The reason for this is because almost none of them even know what to point to! Oh, but they are still adamantly sure that proof exists somewhere in science land!

I have noticed over the years that most Darwinian scientists believe that somewhere, some other scientist has proof of the theory. They never have any of their own so they imagine that it must exist in some other scientists’ lab somewhere. Here’s another clue for you all, it doesn’t.

Even the PhDs send me to some peer-reviewed article inevitably demonstrating some trivial, microevolutionary experiment. I have to constantly remind these folks that pointing me to a molehill does not lead me to deduce Mount Everest.  Ants building ant hills does not justify extrapolation to ants being the constructors of Everest and certainly not the architects of Mount Rushmore, no matter how many gazillions of years you like to add.

There is no leap of sane logic that can take one from say, antibiotic resistance, to “all ~8 million life forms on earth arose from some hypothetical, unobservable LUCA over billions of unobservable years”. If you didn’t recognize that, it is the Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps. Still the most common argument (fallacy) given us by Darwinists everywhere. We must take the leap of blind faith into the deep dark abyss of their fervid imaginations, jumping from the anthill to Everest, to accept the theory.

In decades of discussion and debate they have never given me anything better than trivial examples of microevolution – which all too often isn’t evolution at all but built-in, pre-programmed adaptation mechanisms coded in the species’ DNA – in their futile attempts to prove macroevolution. Macroevolution means major change crossing taxonomic Family boundaries. And don’t be fooled by their recent “moving the goal posts” redefinition of macro as meaning everything above the species level.  If that were true then more than 90% of all evolution is macroevolution and the distinction between macro and micro is virtually useless. Creationists do not even dispute microevolution!

And of course, they did this redefinition because there is not a grain of evidence for any such macroevolution ever occurring. Hence – redefine macro so that it squeezes in – make the data fit the theory rather than accept that the theory does not fit the data.

Note: I received an objection from a Darwinist on this post. Of course, he did not read it correctly since his objection was basically, “lol macroevolution is the same thing as micro over time”. My reaction was, as usual, being disgusted at how these people don’t even read fully and then push the same old baloney with the ubiquitous LOL included, to pretend to themselves that they “gotcha”.

Well, this is just so wrong. The ignorance these people display is stunning. Worse, he added a lame article by poor thinking, disgruntled atheist fanatic Jerry Coyne which is supposed to prove that micro and macro are the same thing, macro being extended micro. These guys have no clue. Coyne’s article is full of really bad logic. It’s like they cannot keep up with the science and perpetually revert to defunct, early Darwinian beliefs that have long since been disproved. One such belief is the myth that macroevolution is just an extrapolation of micro. I addressed this issue here.  So I’ll repeat some of it.

In short, even in 1940 Goldschmidt wrote, “Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations”.

Much more recently, the late evolutionary biology prof, William Provine, an avowed atheist and evolutionist stated,  that “[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:

1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . .
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
8. Definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life..”
– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point # 7 . Provine was correct. We cannot pretend that macro is simply an extension of micro without a scientific warrant – and there is none. Indeed, the evidence tells us it cannot work that way. The genome contains so many restraining factors, error detection & correction mechanisms and poly-constrained data that it always was and still is utter folly to pretend you can just make such gratuitous extrapolations. You can’t.

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

“A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large-scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution
cannot be solved conclusively.” (Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24)

Do you know why evolutionists persist in claiming that micro extends into macro? Because they take it as an article of faith, since no evidence exists for it.

Pointing us to any given article, allegedly proving evolution, is itself an argument from authority. They appeal to their own chosen authority, they appeal to consensus – when it fits their prejudice – all while never even noticing that they are being wonderfully fallacious in their logic and doing what they accuse others of doing.

Worse, arguing from authority is NOT always a fallacy at all! Else the judicial courts would have abandoned doing it centuries ago. Lawyers are constantly making appeals to authority in virtually ever criminal case! The authority of the medical examiner, the forensics labs, the specialized scientist or professional. Appeal to authority is only fallacious when all you have is the word of some “expert” no matter the lack of empirical evidence.

It’s too bad PhDs in biology are not obligatorily required to follow some basic logical analysis and critical thinking courses. It could save us all a lot of wasted time, forever having to explain it to them.

“Historically, *the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled*. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”
“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
– Michael Crichton, PhD Harvard, postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies

I wish evolutionists would finally wake up to their own spurious and irrational arguments. Science has NOTHING to do with consensus. “Consensus science” is an oxymoron.

 

Who Invented the Macro vs Micro Evolution Terms?

Many times when discussing evolution with avid neo Darwinists online, I encounter the claim that “there’s no such thing as micro vs macro, they’re both the same, and it was dishonest creationists who invented the false distinction”. This is so common that I feel obliged to comment on it.

The reality is this:

“Yuri Filipchenko (Russian: Юрий Филипченко; sometimes spelled Philipchenko) (1882 — 1930) was a Russian entomologist who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as the mentor of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky”
– wikipedia

So there you have it. Macroevolution and microevolution are two terms coined by a Darwinian evolutionist.

Filipchenko was a Darwinist. Not a creationist. So this bogus claim by fervent Darwinians is just tragically ironic, hypocritical and based on their own willful ignorance. The worst is that the last time this false claim was handed to me I was the one treated as dishonest and worse for drawing the opponents’ attention to the fact that micro does not equal macro and macro is not extended micro. The real problem is all these deeply ignorant Darwinists running around parroting each other without ever bothering to verify their claims. I see this kind of mindless recitation of the Darwinian fundaementalist balony catechism constantly. They often act like mindless robots. Every time they stumble upon some statement from some equally clueless Darwinist site, they run with ball, going to the wrong end of the field and they inevitably score against themselves when better informed people catch them in their incompetence.

It is a sign of indoctrination, of brainwashing, when people do this automatic, verbatim, and thoughtless repetition of ubiquitous catch phrases and buzzwords. Indeed, as one physics professor confessed,

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”
– Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

So he has no problem brainwashing his students?  Seriously? What is wrong with that person? I bet it’s hard to pronounce.

The following depicts how this really works.

Darwinists typically use a bait and switch tactic when attempting to convince people of their pet theory.  While using the word evolution as meaning changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, they will then switch to the major changes above the taxonomic Family level.  The unwary audience thus sees macro in their minds while the actual laboratory evidence that is seen is ever and always only small, trivial variation.  The two different terms exist because there is indeed a distinction, else why bother? What use would such distinctions be if there really were no distinction in reality?

Here I quote the late WllliamProvine,  Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, stated that

“[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:“1. natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. MACROEVOLUTION WAS A SIMPLE EXTENSION OF MICROEVOLUTION.
8. definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of dobzhansky and mayr.
9. speciation was understood in principle.
10. evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.”
– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point 7, which I emphasized with bold, capitalized text. Darwinists would do well to note every point there. No, my Darwinian friends, macro evolution is not a mere extension of microevolution.  Provine is not alone. Today dishonest Darwinists, attempting to perform one of their standard moves – moving the goalposts – have changed the definition of macroevolution so that it is in fact merely microevolution, occurring at the species level. By very definition, macroevolution cannot be mere species level evolution. Macro requires major changes, the creation of new taxonomic familes, not mere variation and adaptation. As Provine noted, the definition species isn’t even clear and speciation is not even fully understood!

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations” (GOLDSCHMIDT 1940).

“Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

“A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively.”
– Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24

Notice the dates on some of these statements. This is not new. So the question arises, “Why do so many Darwinists still persist in insisting that macro = extended micro?” And the answers to that are of a religious nature and due to gratuitous propaganda – read outright lying – spread by many in the Darwinian camp. Here is the standard taxonomy classification chart example.

Species is at the bottom! So how can these dishonest Darwinists claim that macroevolution occurs AT or above the species level? It’s ludicrous, because under that definition, micro and macro are occurring as exactly the same thing! No distinction. Even the logic is horrible.

As science philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” ~ Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

Anyone who has had the displeasure of attempting to reason with staunch evolutionists knows all too well the religious zeal that characterizes the Darwinian fundamentalist today. Thus, giving credence to Ruse’s statement. A very honest and open comment indeed from an atheist evolutionist! The worst is that even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp, they still cling tightly to their sacred creeds like the poor befuddled soul that clings to his seat on a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

Back when I was a flight instructor, I was flying an ultralight aicraft, with a student learning to fly.  On that day the lesson was stalls. Basic stalling of a fixed-wing aircraft is usually taught by means of cutting power and then pulling the back on the joy stick, thus raising the plane’s nose.  When the aircraft reaches about a 16 degree angle of attack, the wing is no longer able to create enough lift to keep the plane flying. Then the nose of the plane dips suddenly and radically downward.  It’s kind of like the sensation of falling in one of amusement park rides.  If the stall is done with lots of power on, the results are far more dramatic with a violent nose dive.

Ultralight aircraft – Eipper, MX2

Well, I was leading the student through his first stall, explaninig what I was doing and such until the nose was nicely up and the speed lowered to where the stall occurred and the nose of the plane dropped suddenly earthward.  The student was so frightened by the sudden drop and plunge towards dear mother earth (remember that this is an early ultralight aircraft where you’re basically sitting on a lawn chair, 2000 feet up, with no doors, no floor, right out in midair, strapped to a simple airframe, two wings and a small motor) that he panicked and grabbed onto one of the structural beams of the plane, holding on for dear life, with a face as white as snow.  I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit.  It seems that sometimes flight instructors have a  slight saddistic joy in seeing students turn white as ghosts – just like we did ourselves in the beginning. It kind of “smells like victory” and feels like conquest.

Back on the ground, I explained to the student that it was not a dangerous move and that clinging to structual compenent would never save him in a real fall, since he was hanging on to a part of the falling plane. It was a useless act. One of panic and not of intelligence.

Now this example is very similar to Darwinists who, even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp (not creationists), still cling tightly to their doctrine like the poor befuddled student clinging to a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

It won’t. Macro is not an extrapolation of micro. Get over it Darwinists.

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction

The book “Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction”, is available on Amazon:

Canadian site: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B073ZKGD73
USA site: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073ZKGD73

Religion is blamed for almost everything wrong in the world these days. Is that justified? Religion has a very bad name but is that deserved? Sometimes it is, but only when referring to man-made, organized religion. Otherwise, everyone is inherently religious in the sense of having a worldview, a set of beleifs about “life, the universe and everything”, a set of moral principles and ideological convictions.

Is religion, in itselfm a human folly? Did man create God in his own image?
Or are religion, faith, spirituality as natural a phenomenon as breathing?

Is it all madness based on fairy tales and myths or something intelligent based on reality and facts?
I’ve offered concrete, well researched, logic, sciecne and history based answers in this book.

It’s full of great information for theistic apologists, skeptics looking for honest answers and even atheists ready to look honestly at the facts.
The information will understand much better the logical and simple explanations that will remove the confusion. The book covers, for example,

• Why the world has been religious since the dawn of time
• The true sources of what people think about it today, often without realizing it
• A simple and universal definition of what religion is that everyone can agree on
• The unavoidable relationship between politics and religion
• Why the creation of a completely secular society is impossible
• Logical and scientific evidence of the existence of a supreme being
• Why atheism can never be a substitute for real religion
• The function of humanitarian aid which must be a main function of any valid religion
• Has God really acted in human history?
• And more !

Chapter summary:

Chapter 1
What is religion, exactly?
Definitions
Let’s be logical
A religion of love
Chapter 2
Religion and atheism
Does a universal morality exist?
Is atheism a religion?
Atheism is a belief
Atheism is concerned with the existence of God
Atheism contradicts itself
Real atheism or religion, you must choose
Chapter 3
If there is a God, Religion makes sense
Typical evidence of the existence of God
The cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
The argument based on information
Information and symbols
Genetics and algorithms
Genetics and arithmetic
Origin of life and evolution
The argument from morality
The error of relativism
Origin of the moral law
Other arguments
Evidence of the non-existence of God
Chapter 4Religion and politics? God forbid!
Wars of religion?
Is a purely secular government possible?
God and the State according to the Bible
Chapter 5
God and Religion in history: Divine interventions?
Joshua and the long day
The prayer of General Patton
Bullet-proof George Washington
The face of the Lamb
Life after death: Diane Komp , Carl Jung, Howard Storm and many others
Chapter 6
Religion and Education
Secular humanism
The hidden face of school programs
Chapter 7
Religion and Social Missions
HELLISH HOLLAND
Conclusion
ANNEXES

Check it out, in either digital or hard copy. It’s priced low to make this ifnormation available to even the lowest budget.

 

 

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

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 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.

What is Natural Selection Really?

Natural selection is the Darwinists main magic wand for the passing of life from some purely hypothetical first common ancestor, to man. By this “mechanism”, the Darwinian elite claim that all life on earth has come to be. Survival of the fittest, they used to call this.  They have attributed to natural selection all the power of a deity.

Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole “modern synthesis” framework.

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.