Annual Anti-Atheism Rant

All of creation is nothing but random collisions of particles according to atheism. It can be nothing else without a mind at the bottom of the well. Life itself, animation, consciousness, the facade of intelligence, good and evil--all nothing but random collisions. There's a reason why nearly 65% of all scientists believe in a god or at least a higher power. They've actually bothered to think things through to the logical conclusion. Most atheists don't appear to have even begun to think about the ramifications of such a belief system as atheism. Do they not see how ridiculous it sounds saying that they don't believe in god and yet they think people can be "good?" There can be no goodness in the deterministic worldview. Atheists have no business ever calling anything good or bad, ugly or beautiful, right or wrong. If you're an atheist, you should never call the police if someone robs you or beats you or harms you in any way, because those things are just fine in the world of atheism where things just "are" and nothing has any meaning, let alone that of good and evil. Atheism is an ideology for people who do not wish to think. Rather than read Attenborough, you might try reading a more heady paper on the subject such as Chris Langon's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe which carries out David Bohm's work in quantum potential and merges it with consciousness as the binding agent that unifies the forces of the universe.

Surely you all know the universe is still expanding, right? That same rapid expansion that caused the explosive force (particles banging into particles) at the beginning of the universe is still happening and will go on happening forever. Billions of photons alone pass through your body every second. And every time you take a step across the room, you take on an entirely new body, replacing every particle in it. Actually, you don't need to take any steps. The Earth turning on its axis will take the steps for you. So, not only are you taking on new particles constantly and losing the old ones, the new ones somehow know your age and will keep degrading instead of keeping you looking and feeling new. Wouldn't you expect a brand new set of particles to be fresh and young? How is it they take on the characteristics of older degraded particles when they begin to make up your body? How do they keep such exact shapes? Why does your nose always look like a nose (and the exact same nose) if your particles are always changing? Atoms are made up of mostly empty space. Your body is mostly made up of empty space. Electronic force fields keep all matter together, but how do those forces know to keep such an exact shape as every single person's nose and ears or every blade of grass? If the particles in your brain keep changing and being replaced from second to second, how are you able to reason and retain memories and trains of thought?

Science has never been able to answer the tough questions. It doesn't even try. It just gives names to various phenomena and moves on. Giving something a name does not explain it. Saying animals have instincts does not explain them. How can a Monarch butterfly fly to Mexico every winter to the exact same tree it's grandfather was born in when the young butterfly had never been there before and had never even known its grandfather? Calling such phenomena an "instinct" is an extreme oversimplification, but this is more often than not what science does. Many people like to think the world is somehow this amazing self made machine that just does all this incredible stuff by mere chance from those random collisions of particles when the fact is that it runs much more like a staggeringly elaborate program with very little left to chance. At the same time, there are things that do seem to go wrong from time to time that make little sense to any of us. Why do dumb animals feel pain? It doesn't seem fair. Why do major asteroids hit the Earth every 50 to 100 million years and wipe out most of the life forms? Yes, it's baffling. But that doesn't somehow nullify the fact that the majority of the time, this elaborate program of sorts works amazingly well and not at all like something left to chance. It works so well that the ancient Jews referred to it as the Book of Life, as though life itself were a written script. I don't think they were correct, but I can certainly understand the logic behind the analogy.

No one can say for sure that any person or religion has exactly the right notion of God. I think some, particularly Christianity and Hinduism, are closest to the facts of the matter. But whatever God is happens to be just as beyond our understanding as the mechanisms behind the forces of the universe. That's my opinion anyway. But as Socrates said, "I know nothing."

In Response to Thoughtlessness (or—The Atheist Mind)

(This is a repost from another blog I have.)

The following is an excerpt taken from the transcripts of a lecture given by the famous philosopher, Mr. Billy Brightish, at the equally famous policy institute, WHATTHINKUM U, in the great Southwestern village of Albuquirky. The extract actually comes from the question/answer portion at the end of the talk (but before the widely reported police intervention) when one particular young man (and aren't they always young) came to the mic to challenge Mr. Brightish. The lecture presented an analytical breakdown of the spurious inferences and irrational suppositions of the atheist mind presented in its varied art forms today with a particular emphasis on television and film.

"You in the pink muscle-shirt and sandals. What is your question?"

Q: Sir, I'd like to know what gives you the right to criticize writing in film, television, or anywhere else? It's interesting to me when people who don't work in a particular field criticize the craftsmanship of an artist.

A: Hmm...(pause). I fail to see anything at all interesting in it. I don't make cars, but, like most people, I can easily tell you everything that's wrong with mine. I'm not a barber, but, I know perfectly well when my hair is cut right or when it's uneven; when it's been left too long or cut too short. You don't seem to know this, but I actually am an author. It wouldn't matter, however, if I was not. I would still be a conversationalist. I have thoughts and theories. I'm a philosopher. I'm a metaphysician. I'm a logician. I'm a dreamer. I am every man. And like most men, I know poor dialog when I hear it or see it. I know poor logic, poor sentence structure, whining, cliché's, theoretical impracticalities, a priori arguments, baseless conjecturing, opinions established on mere sentiment along with the vulgar sophistry that is so much a part of the atheistic mindset in the world of art.

Picasso used a fair amount of symbolism in his work. Unfortunately, his paintings and sculptures seldom said anything when reconstructed. Even a poor logician like Freud would agree that sometimes a nude is just a nude and a beggar just a beggar. Unless a work of art tells a story, it fails as art, but may please as mere esthetic. I find over and over that atheist artists either fail to say anything useful, or they say something worse than useless, and that is an untruth.

Let us consider the recent web series The Confession. You may think important questions are asked in the show. I say that the queries are childlike and the responses inconsiderate. Our doltish gunman played by Kiefer Sutherland posed a surmisal a few episodes back that came wrapped in the kind of irreality this series will be known for (if it's to be known for anything at all) when he suggested, no—declared—that there were more murders done in the name of religion that anything else. Even during the crusades Christians only killed 100,000, a drop in the bucket compared to atheists. Atheists have killed more people during the past hundred years than all the religions of the world combined during the past two thousand. Mao killed 70 million; Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev killed 66.7 million; Brezhnev 900,000; Mussolini 300,000; Pol Pot 1,700,000 for starters.

Q: People do not kill in the name of atheism. If an atheist communist kills a large number of people, he did not kill them because he was an atheist but because of ideologies.

A: What's in a name? How about if I say they kill in the spirit of atheism? What all those mass murderers had in common was atheism and Social Darwinism. Genocide is the logical outcome of Social Darwinism carried out to its conclusion. I've yet to see a genocidal Social Darwinist who was not an atheist. Some might argue that Hitler was one, but I would counter with the fact that he would claim to be a Pagan to one group of people and a Christian to another group down the road. It seems fairly obvious to me that he didn't really believe in anything but his own selfish desires.

Q: But atheism is not a belief. It doesn't tell you what is right or wrong, it doesn't have a moral conduct, and it doesn't tell you how to live your life. It is ONLY a rejection of a specific belief.

A: I disagree. It is no mere a negation. The only people it isn't a belief for are those who have never heard of it, nor of concepts of God. That might entail a few tribesmen in a remote village who have had no contact with the rest of the world. A person like that can be an atheist without knowing it. It's doubtful, however, that this would include anyone anywhere since every single known language in the history of the world has a word for God. At any rate, for anyone who has heard of a God concept, atheism is of course a choice, and you cannot make a choice without forming an opinion, which in this case is what you mean when you say belief.

Further, atheism is the worship of self. Its code of conduct is selfishness. And this is why every single known genocidal Social Darwinist has been an atheist. Both ideologies are completely egocentric.

You also cannot be an atheist without being an adherent of naturalism, empiricism, and humanism among other cockamamie beliefs. Atheism is an entire belief system. Naturalism, incidentally, makes no room for free will. And of course, since free will is obvious to all mankind, atheism is foolishness. Or do you really think that the reason people all over the world stop at a red light is because the random particles of the universe just happened to make them all do this?

Q: "It is an absolute failure of logic at best to suggest atheism kills people."

A: Atheism is a worship of self interest at the expense of all others. It's a philosophy that says, "Do what thou wilt." It's a philosophy that says, "Nothing matters." It's a philosophy that says, "There are no consequences for my actions." Atheism is nothing short of a recipe for murder and insanity.

Q: "I suggest you have an irrational hatred of atheism."

A: This is the way a child argues. He lies. He calls dislike—hate. He calls the rational—irrational. And it's exactly what I expect from an atheist. Atheism is the most childish and thoughtless of all metaphysical suggestions. It abhors science, and it abhors reason. Therefore it must lie to make even an artificial point.

Q: "Claiming atheists kill more people than anyone else is equivilant to...."

A: I gave a verifiable list of genocidal events carried out by atheists that amounted to nearly 100-million murders in the last hundred years alone. If there is a similar verifiable list of anywhere near that amount in a hundred year period pertaining to a religious person or group, I've never come across it, and you haven't offered one. Is there any chance you'll say something truthful at some point?

Q: "Social Darwinism is directly contrary to evolution"

A: Hogwash. Evolution is about natural selection in conjunction with survival of the fittest, part of which is the fighting to the death of organisms and animals. A Cuckoo Bird pushes eggs from other birds such as Warblers, out of their nests, and places her own eggs in it. After the chick hatches, it will push any remaining eggs and/or hatched Warbler chicks out of the nest and then spend its remaining days, before fledgling, imitating the call of Warbler chicks so that the Warbler parent will feed it. This kind of killing is a part of Darwinism. This is exactly what Social Darwinists do.

Q: How'd you like me to kill....

End of extract.