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

 

brain-on-atheism

Advertisements

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”.

newton-bible and atheism

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 EverestAnts 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.

micro to macro evolution

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.

berlinski-evolution

 

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

There is no God and I am his prophet

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

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

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

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

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

This is atheism:

this-is-atheism

brain-on-atheism

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

facepalm-3

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.

Continue reading