Atheism Analysis, Part II

 

 

 

The logical analysis of anything includes testing of various tenets to locate any possible weaknesses in the logic. For Atheism, this testing has been done and is in the preceding Chapter.

 

With the testing done, one can proceed with the questions that are generated by the outcome.  Some of the following points were obvious even before testing the logic.

 

 

3.1 Is Atheism a Religion?

 

3.1.1 Is Atheism Legally a Religion? (Apparently So).

 

KAUFMAN v MCCAUGHTRY  (News item)

“(The Seventh) federal court has ruled that prison officials in Wisconsin violated the rights of an inmate who sought to form an Atheist discussion group because they failed to treat Atheism as a religion.”

 

“James Kaufman filed suit while incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution after submitting an official document titled "Request for New Religious Practices." He asked permission to form an inmate group "to stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought, and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices, (and to) educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices."

 

“The Court noted that the group was "interested in humanism, Atheism and free speaking," and that Mr. Kaufman included a list of Atheist groups and literature.

 

“Prison officials turned down the application, however, concluding that Kaufman's request was not motivated by "religious" beliefs as specified in a section of the Wisconsin penal code.

 

“The [Seventh US Circuit] Court of Appeals, however, ruled last week [Oct ’05] that the prison violated Kaufman's civil rights by not considering Atheism as a religion and protected form of religious expression.”

 

This decision was predicated on several previous Federal Court decisions that declared Atheism legally to be considered a religion.  Here are some excerpts from the decision, which reference a few previous decisions that also discerned Atheism to be a religion:

 

 

 

U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District Circuit Court,

Chief Judge: Crabb

Circuit Judges: Bauer, Wood, Williams

Kaufman v. McCaughtry

Document 04-1914; Aug 19,2005.

 

 

Excerpts:

 

“The Supreme Court has said that a

religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct

from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by

philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wiscon-

sin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972). A religion need

not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being

(or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins,

367 U.S. 488, 495 & n.11 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d

197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring);

Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per

curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v.

Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum,

352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003).”

 

“Without venturing too far into the realm of the

philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a

person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ulti-

mate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that

filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those

beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch.

Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal

citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United

States, 398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970); United States v. Seeger,

380 U.S. 163, 184-88 (1965). We have already indicated that

atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a

religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934

(7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a posi-

tion on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).

Id. at 52-53. In keeping with this idea, the Court has

adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-

theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus,

in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state

cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all

religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid

those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as

against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

 

 

“Id. At 495. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular

Humanism” as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n.11.”

 

 

 

3.1.2  Is Atheism Really a Religion?

 

“Stephen Jay Gould launched a direct attack on religion thereby exposing the true religious nature of Darwinism. After quoting Psalm 8 "Thou has made him a little lower than the angels...thou madest him to have dominion...thou has put all things under his feet." Gould went on to state, "Darwin removed this keystone of false comfort more than a century ago, but many people still believe that they cannot navigate this vale of tears without such a crutch." Ending the article, Gould admonished his readers, "Let us praise this evolutionary nexus, a far more stately mansion for the human soul than any pretty or parochial comfort ever conjured by our swollen neurology to obscure the source of our physical being, or to deny the natural substrate for our separate and complementary spiritual quest."

Regarding Gould’s article in “Science”, 6-25-’99;

“High Priest of Evolution Reveals his Religion”  Gary L. Achtemeier, Ph.D. (emphasis added).

 

 

What exactly constitutes “being a religion”?  the internet has dozens, maybe hundreds of conflicting definitions for religion.  Here is a fairly inclusive composite definition.

 

Religion is a complete worldview composed of some or all of the following elements that were discussed earlier in the Worldview section:

 

            1. Cognition of essence of reality, and levels (Godelian) of reality:        

                        a.  Natural essence (First Principles of existence and truth)

                        b.  Intuitive essence (First level of validation)

                        c.  Spiritual essence (Second level of validation).

 

            2. Stories concerning the essences:

                        a.  Origin Story

1.      Origin of the cosmos

2.      Origin of life

3.      Origin of man

b.  Purpose of Life Story

c.  Value of Life Story

d.  “Becoming” Story

e.   Afterlife / Beyond life Story

 

            3. Statements of Belief

a.      Statement of Faith (Non-negotiable)

b.      Statement of Ethos

c.      Statement of Heresy

d.      Statement of The Sacrosanct

e.      Statement of Evangelism

f.        Statement of Evil

g.      Statement of Apostacy

 

            4. Hierarchy

                        a.  High Priests

                        b.  Teachers, evangelizers

                        c.  Becomers

 

            5. Sacred Legacies

                        a. Texts, documents, unquestionable absolute truths.

 

The Atheist Worldview

Unlike, say, Buddhism, Atheism has almost all of these features.  Let’s expand each worldview component to see how Atheism fits:

 

1. Cognition of reality, and levels (Godelian) of reality: 

a.      Natural essence (First Principles of existence and truth)

 

Atheism is first and foremost Naturalist and Materialist.  For now, we will assume that the Atheist accepts the First Principles of existence and truth.

 

b.      Intuitive essence (First level of validation)

 

By accepting the First Principles of existence and truth, by default the Atheist affirms the existence of intuition, which is the means for validation of the innate truth of the First Principles.  This will produce stress for the Atheist, who might deny the concept of intuition, but who will exercise intuition by accepting the materialism of the First Principles. This produces a violation of the second First Principle: a paradox, within which the Atheist lives.

 

c.      Spiritual essence (Second level of validation)

 

Atheism will specifically deny any spiritual essence.  This denial becomes part of the Atheist Statement of Faith, coming up.

 

2. Stories concerning the essences:

                        a.  Origin Story

i.   Origin of the cosmos

ii.  Origin of life

iii  Origin of man

Evolution is the Origin Story of Atheism.  It is the Atheist’s ABSOLUTE Truth, unassailable, unquestionable cant; dogma.  It is manipulated into forms for explaining not only the cosmos, life, and human origins, but also the origin of morality, and anything else that had an origin.

 

b.      Purpose of Life Story

Life is a random accident according to the absolutist dogma of Evolution.  Atheism therefore sees absolutely no purpose to life beyond the perpetuation of one’s own genes, as natural selection occurs.  So the sole purpose of life is genetic self perpetuation. Denial of this sole purpose leads to other paradoxes.

 

c.      Value of Life Story

Again, life being a random accident according to absolutist Evolution cant, life has no value; there are no values in a randomly assembled world.  The evolutionist claim of evolved morality is not accepted by many Atheists.  Some claim that human value is in procreation; others claim that value is found only in the ability to produce.  So life, by itself, has no inherent value, and eugenics can (and has) become a “legitimate” topic.

 

d.      “Becoming” Story

The evolution of life to produce the evolutionist is the “becoming” story.  There is nothing else to become, once one has naturally materialized, so to speak.  However, “becoming” an Atheist is seen as total liberation from annoying moral restrictions, and restrictions of any kind including western, rational, non-contradictory thought.  There is a thought that humans will evolve into something higher-ordered, becoming a race of  super-humans.  However there is absolutely no sign of such a genetic lineage so far.

 

e.      Afterlife Story

With nothing else to become, once the spark of life has gone there is nothing left but the material fodder for worms (M.M.O’Hair).

 

2.      Statements of Belief

a.      Statement of Faith (Non-negotiable)

The dogma of Evolution is taken on 100% faith as follows; faith that there is no other possible position; faith that “science” will find all the answers; faith in the [irrational] connections drawn between supposed “ancestors”; faith in the supremacy of the mind of man.

 

A Faith Statement might be as follows:

I have complete, non-negotiable FAITH in the following tenets:

·        Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.

·        Faith that the appearances of design are false.

·        Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.

·        Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence.

·        Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).

·        Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, with no actual purpose beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine).  Even so, it is the supreme intelligence in the universe.

·        Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable.

·        Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.

·        Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).

·        Faith that empiricism is the one and only true path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment.

·        Faith in Evolution, which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth. See         “Heresy”, below.

·        Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.

·        Faith that after death there are only worms.

 

b.      Statement of Ethos

Anyone familiar with Jeffry Dahmer, Madelyn Murray O’Hair, or Peter Singer will realize that the ethical code of Atheism is “Any Code I Desire” (A.C.I.D.)  In fact any code that benefits me, right now, at this very moment.  The code is total Narcissism.

 

c.      Statement of Heresy

The fight for the minds of school children is in fact a battle to eliminate heresy from the religious world of Atheism by means of governmentally-enforced installation of the Sacred Text of absolutist Darwinism into the schools.  Referral to a second Godellian level of validation (spirituality) is heresy to the Atheist, who will take it as a serious affront to the Atheist Faith.  So the exclusive installation of the sacred Precepts of absolutist Darwinism into the minds of children is imperative.

 

d.      Statement of the Sacrosanct

Naturalism, and Materialism are sacred Beliefs.  Empiricism and Forensics are the Sacred Rituals.  Absolutist Evolution is Sacred Truth, unquestionable and therefore sacred dogma.

 

 

e.      Statement of Evangelism

Evangelism is highly organized and fatly funded; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have been government funded to the tune of millions.  Evangelism is done primarily by threat, just as is Wahabi Islam; it is a form of domestic terrorism.  A heretic is threatened with financial ruin by litigation by the fattened Atheist Evangelists.  However, indoctrination is already state-imposed in many public school systems.  The next generation is under constant evangelistic siege.

 

f.        Statement of Evil

As with any cult, evil is seen everywhere in the form of other religious faiths.  In a stunning twist of logic, the purveyors of the ethical code that protects the Atheist (Christianity, the Bible and the Ten Commandments) are deemed evil.  And any attack on the Sacred Precepts of Absolutist Darwinism are evil.  The credo is that  “science is not to be corrupted by the inroads of ’religion’ in the classroom”.  So the denial of the next Godel level and the internal Type 2 (b) paradox are institutionalized.

 

4. Hierarchy

a.      High Priests

The celebrity scientists and philosophers clearly are the high priests of Atheism: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking,  Stephen J. Gould,  Bertrand Russell, Theodore Dobzhansky, Carl Sagan, celebrities all.   In politics, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao.  In the media, pick a channel; in Hollywood, pick a movie star; in the U.S. Senate, pick a Kennedy or a Clinton.

 

b.      Teachers, evangelizers

The tool of Evolution, plus the duality of modern secularism has made most school teachers into evangelists for Atheism.  The media of all types is also secularly dualist, and promotes not only Evolution, but all forms of corrupted thought that contributes to secularization.

 

c.      Becomers

Every young person on the way to college is a potential “becomer” for the Atheist evangelist to victimize.  In fact, the inroads into lower schools made by Planned Parenthood operatives has made even first graders into to potential candidates to victimize.

 

5. Sacred Legacies

a.      Texts, documents, unquestionable absolute truths.

The theory of Evolution, being the only hope for the Atheist, is the holiest of absolute, unquestionable truths.  In fact, by way of contradiction and paradox, the completely relativistic universe of the Atheist is interrupted by one Holy, Absolute, Unquestionable, Unassailable Truth: Evolution. 

 

Without Evolution, the Atheist has no logic at all because everything else in the Atheist world is relative; only Evolution is Absolute Truth.  With Evolution, the Atheist need only deny a few details here and there, such as in Darwin’s Dodge, and Darwin’s Horrid Doubt, along with the other Darwinian falsifications (Coming up in the Chapter on Evolution).  Then all the rest of life is free of all restrictions.

 

So Atheism satisfies the criteria for religion-hood.  In fact it’s a better fit than some other religions, such as Buddhism.  Atheism is the religion of self, of narcissism.

 

Supremacy of the Mind

When Atheism concludes that there is no deity, it presupposes that the human mind is capable of knowing all that a deity might know, all that a deity could do, all that a deity would see.  This automatically places the Atheist mind in an exalted place, as the source of all truth.

 

            “My mind is supreme”.

As the source of all truth, the Atheist mind becomes an object of awe and worship, and the situation becomes that of pagan self-worship.  The Atheist might argue (and did in Kaufman v. McCaughtry) that, no, Atheism is the anti-religion.  This merely summons the next question: Is an anti-religion a religion? 

Aside from the affirmative legal arguments, consider this: Is disorder (entropy) a form of order?  Is a null-set a set?  Is zero a number? So is believing in “nothing” the same as believing in “something”?  Is it the “something” that makes it a religion, or is it the belief?  If it is the belief, is belief in “nothing” a religion?

 

The Atheist Faith

Belief in nothing is a belief without proof, a leap of faith.  And because self-validation is an act of Godellian illogic, Atheism is a blind leap into illogic…the very definition of “religion” that Atheist’s love!

The answer is clearly “yes”, Atheism is, in fact, a religion. And it develops its own sets of rules to govern it.  One such set is Secular Humanism, also legally declared a religion.  Other rabid Atheist groups have their own sets of rules.  So Atheism, the “anti-religion”, despite flimsy denials, is a religion. It is auto-pagan (self worship)…Narcissism.

1.2  How Do Atheists Determine Morality?

 

“Some say there is no objective morality. When told that a certain individual believed that morality is a sham, Samuel Johnson responded, ‘Why sir, if he really believes there is no distinction between virtue and vice, let us count our spoons before he leaves’."

 

Atheists bristle at the suggestion that a-theism equates to a-morality.  Yet the “Paradox of the Honest Atheist” (Chapter 2) clearly illustrates the paradoxical dilemma that the Atheist position produces with respect to morality.

Because the Atheist mind is the “source of all truth”, morality is determined by each individual Atheist mind.  So there will be as many moralities as there are Atheists… creating a chaotic amalgam of contradictions (Godel Type 2 (b) Paradoxes) under a single banner.

Or perhaps the Atheist co-opts an existing morality, while rejecting the source of that morality.  This would be an intellectually compromising position. Yet I co-opted the Judeo-Christian ethic myself, as did many others also, ignoring the intellectual dishonesty such a position entails.  This is a common state of existence for many Atheists: ignore the contradictions and live inside the paradox.

Chapman Cohen [(1868-1954) third president of the National Secular Society, Britain's largest Atheist organization]  wrote in “Morality Without God”:

 “The moral feeling creates the moral law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God; it has nothing to do with a future life. Its sphere of application and operation is in this world; its authority is derived from the common sense of mankind and is born of the necessities of corporate life.”

And,

“Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere, nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works up again what already exists. That is the path of all evolution.”

So according to Cohen, the moral feeling came first, then evolved into rules.  But just as Darwin refused to address First Life and the origin of the mind, so Cohen does not address the origin of the “moral feeling”, which might be called conscience (See also, The problem of Metaphysics, and Appendix F).  And Cohen’s model does not refute that separate populations might develop antithetical codes for their “morality”.  His model simply states that for evolutionary success, people learned to get along by doing mutually compatible things.  Or at least not getting bashed.

But is the concept of “If you touch my wife, I’ll bash you!” really a moral precept?  From the offender’s view point there are two possible points of perception: 

(a)   I shouldn’t touch his wife because he will hurt me;

(b)   I shouldn’t touch his wife because it is wrong. 

The first is entirely pragmatic, and could be circumvented when the wife is alone.  The second is conscience based, and works under all conditions.  Is it likely that (a) will evolve into (b)?  No, because evolutionary theory demands the perpetuation of one’s own genetics over all other activities. Perception (a) is the only possible result of the theory of evolution.  The concept of “wrongness” could not have evolved, under the definition of survival of the fittest.  Just as the existence of selflessness falsifies Darwinian evolution, so it falsifies Cohen’s evolutionary theory of morality,  “Evolving Morality” is seen to be another evolutionary crutch for propping up Atheism.

But the most damage to Cohen’s “Evolving Morality” is done by asking who benefits from ethics and morality.  It is not the fittest, the strongest. And it is not enough to say that the entire group benefits, because the benefit is not equally realized. It is the weakest, the least fit who benefit the most and are protected from the stronger and more fit.  This is directly counter to Darwinist evolution.

Q:  How many Darwinists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A:  None, they know that given enough time, one will evolve by itself by random assembly.

 

The Fittest as an Ethic?

The single moral premise that appears universal to Atheists might be “survival of the fittest”, the main conclusion of the Darwinists.  As a moral premise, this suggests that anything that advances the race/species is acceptable.  More simply put, “anything that benefits me is acceptable”, which would equate to amorality.

 

This is compounded by the statements and beliefs of Atheists such as Aldous Huxley, Julian Huxley, Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro, etc, that Atheism is the freedom from all moral constraint.  In fact “freedom from all constraint” is a main attraction factor in accepting Atheism.  So morality  (or amorality) is a prickly subject indeed for the Atheist, who might subconsciously realize the disingenuous nature of claiming to be moral.

 

Behaving Like an Atheist?

If an Atheist is behaving like an Atheist, how is he behaving?  Like a Christian? Like a Buddhist? Hindu?  Can a person legitimately claim both Atheism and the morality of, say, Judeo-Christianity?  Shouldn’t an Atheist behave exactly as if there is no deity?   Refer to “The Perfect Atheist”, in a chapter coming up.

 

3.3 What Are the Logical Truths of Atheism?

Atheism is based on just one premise:  “There is no deity.” (1)

Note that this is not a positive declaration of the existence of something.  It is the declaration of the absence of something.  It is a rejection, a cutting loose, a release from, existing precepts.  It does not involve embracing a precept; it involves rejection of undesired precepts.  Thus it declares, not a new truth, but the rejection of existing truth.  It produces, not substance, but a void.  So one might be justified in declaring that the Logical Truth of Atheism is a void.  Actually the void is filled with self, where the mind, source of all truth, is supreme.

“But, IF there is no deity, THEN there is…? “ 

This is the problem for Atheists.  Because the answer to this query is: “only my mind”.  “My mind” recognizes only empirical and forensic findings of the here-and-now.  So the Atheist logic locks out any intuition or spirituality, not by rational thought, but by definition.  (By way of paradox, it also wipes out the concept of “mind”, since a mind cannot be proven to exist empirically or forensically, so the Atheist’s supreme mind, by it’s own process of denial, cannot exist!).

“We are all serving a life-sentence in the dungeon of self.”
Cyril Connolly [Atheist], The Unquiet Grave, pt. 2 (1944; rev. 1951), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations

 (1) This premise is a subset of “My mind has determined that there is no deity”, which is a remote subset of “My supreme mind which is deity material itself has determined conclusively and beyond doubt that there is no deity beyond itself”.

 

3.4 What are the Emotional Attractions of Atheism?

Atheism appeals on many levels.  The illusion of self-determinism, of superiority of mind (and caste), and of self-directed morals is totally compatible with the desire for the freedom to pursue whatever materialism, lust, indulgence or vanity one wishes.  For Hitler it was the pursuit of the Master Race.  For Hefner, sex and money.  For the ACLU it is the capture of the next generation of children, on the road to communism.  For Aldous and Julian Huxley it was sexual liberation.  For Dahmer it was sexual perversion and cannibalism.  For many I think it is the release from all moral authority.  

There are no restrictions whatsoever imposed by Atheism. The idea that Atheism is benign just doesn’t wash.

3.5 Are there any Logical Disconnects in Atheism?

Atheism, by its very nature, generates dozens of paradoxes that fall directly out of relativism, as shown in Chapter 2.

As seen in the “Paradox of the Ethical Atheist” (Chapter 2), it is logically paradoxical (a direct violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction) to think of an Atheist as honest, ethical, or having intellectual integrity, due to the Atheist’s rejection of consistent, non-relativistic benchmarks with which to measure such claims. 

The Atheist is also caught in a Cause / Effect logical contradiction.  (See the Paradox of the Non-Contingent Effect in Chapter 2).

There are numerous ancillary paradoxes that generate off the basic premise of Atheism. 

Possibly the most egregious of the logical errors are those posed by the one crutch of Atheism that is currently being declared dogma: Evolution.  If it were not for the fact that Atheists sorely need Darwinist Evolution to be true, evolutionary theory would have been thoroughly drummed out of the scientific arena a century ago.  But Evolution is now being declared as unassailable, unquestionable doctrine, and those who question it are to be punished.  Not unlike the Dark Ages in reverse. This is entirely due to the need to protect a religious worldview and the pretense that science is supporting it. 

In fact, it is indeed religious doctrine, and the religion is Atheism.

Again refer to Chapter 2 and the appendix for a number of paradoxes generated by both Atheism and Evolution.

 

3.6 Who Are Some Famous Atheists?  Aside from those already mentioned, and those in the Appendices, here are a few notables (emphases added):

 

3.6.1 Anthony Flew, Philosopher. 

Flew has been the Big Dog of Atheism ever since he wrote the “Atheist manifesto” in 1950.  He challenged non-Atheists to “prove it” (essentially). However, in 2004 he renounced Atheism due to the inability of rational thought to account for the information content in DNA, which he called “the integrated complexity of the biological world”.  He concluded that pre-existing intelligence had to be considered.  “I had to follow the Evidence, no matter where it took me.”  (Flew, interview with Lee Strobel, radio broadcast). 

 

Flew’s announcement was not greeted by robust debate; he was roundly condemned as senile and incompetent by the faithful believers in Atheism.  He has been, in effect, excommunicated from Atheism.

 

3.6.2 Albert Einstein, Theoretical Scientist.  

Einstein famously included a “cosmic fudge factor” in order to make his equations work right for a static universe.   When Hubble showed Einstein the red shift, Einstein had two conflicting reactions.  First, his original equations had been correct.  Second, his religion was incorrect.  The universe did in fact have a beginning, and therefore, a pre-existing causing being.  Einstein left Atheism to become a Deist.  He stated that his goal was “to know the mind of God”.

 

3.6.3 Jeffrey Dahmer, Homosexual rapist/murderer/cannibal. 

In a televised prime time interview Dahmer said that the evolution concept of “from slime, back to slime” convinced him that there existed no moral reasons not to engage in any activity, no matter what that activity entailed, since there was no real moral code and no afterlife accountability.  Dahmer repented and died a Christian in prison.

 

3.6.4 Madelyn Murray O’Hair, Founder, American Atheists. 

O’Hair was to Atheism as Carl Sagan was to cosmology.  She gave it visibility to the public.  She was an avowed communist, and “enjoyed hate”.  She was responsible for the elimination of prayer from public schools, and became known as “America’s most hated woman”.

“O’Hair enjoyed hating "stupid people," and she wrote of her passion for contempt: ‘What's the matter with hating? It's treated as a leper among the emotions. Why in the hell should we go on exuding sweetness and light? There is no God. There's no heaven. There's no hell. There are no angels. When you die, you go in the ground, the worms eat you.’"

“Unfortunately for O'Hair, on Mother's Day 1980, her oldest son William came flouncing out of the closet. He revealed to the world not only that he believed in God, but that he himself was a diehard, evangelical, salary tithing, gospel singing bible-thumping Christian Baptist. He felt that when he stood there with his mother on the Supreme Court steps, he was being used as a prop in his mother's boring crusade. O'Hair disowned him immediately. ‘One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times. He is beyond human forgiveness.’"

“Madalyn Murray O'Hair clashed not only with religious believers but with many atheists. She expelled members of American Atheists who did not conform to her ideas of how atheists should behave. In a 1982 address she criticized a wide variety of atheists as being unacceptable, seemingly all except those whom the psychologist Abraham Maslow might have characterized as engaged in self-actualization.”   From Crimemagazine.com

She founded American Atheists, and was murdered by one of her staff, an ex-con named Waters.  She reportedly was not mourned by her staff.

3.6.5 Peter Singer, Ethicist, Princeton

“Persons are beings that feel, reason, have self-awareness, and look forward to a future. Thus, fetuses and some very impaired human beings are not persons in his view and have a lesser moral status than, say, adult gorillas and chimpanzees.”

 

Singer evangelizes for animal rights, Darwinism, and infanticide, not to mention eugenics (killing) for the disabled.  He maintains that every penny of income over $30,000 should be given to the poor, or else we are guilty of murder.  Humans only have value if they produce value.

He recently extolled the practice of sex with animals: “We’re all great apes, after all”.

He opines that abortion must be as moral after the fetus travels the birth canal as it is before, because the act of birth does not add value to the fetus.  He recommends infanticide up to 28 days after the birth for defective children.  (Notice any similarity to Nazism’s eugenics?)

When the “Supremacy of my Mind” is the prevalent ethic, insanely extreme mindsets are to be expected.  Singer is at the forefront of illogical insanity.  He is not producing value, and by his own standard is valueless.

However, Singer unwittingly demonstrates the highly religious nature of Atheism, by making dogmatic statements concerning “guilt”, “value”, and  “morality”, none of which derive from the “survival of the fittest” evolutionary theory of Atheism, nor from empirical science.

 

3.6.6 Roger Nash Baldwin, Founder of ACLU

"ACLU founder: 'Communism is the goal,'" by Joseph Farah, reveal(s) the group's shocking roots. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, who zealously sought to recreate America in the Soviet image, once said: "I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."  Whistleblower Magazine

Baldwin, an avowed communist sympathizer and admirer of Stalin, was determined to control the minds of children.  The ACLU has consistently fought for the right to child pornography, installation of Evolutionary theory into schools, removal of Christianity and God from schools,  the right to polygamy, the rights of pedophiles, the abolition of marriage, and at every turn, to eliminate Judeo-Christian morality.

3.6.7 Alfred C. Kinsey, Sex “Researcher”, Author of the Kinsey Report.

Kinsey wrote the book that precipitated the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s.  His “research” included group sex with his staff and their wives, including filming, as well as child sex.  Kinsey became bi-sexual, and had sex with the staff males.  He determinedly set out to show that his proclivities were normal.  The effect on the secular social behavior of the USA was undoubtedly far beyond his expectations.  His “data” are still used today despite the claims of statistical and methodological errors.  One of the main benefactors is the homosexual community, when homosexuality was de-listed as an illness or aberration due to Kinsey’s report, which portrayed sexual behavior as a “normal continuum” between hetero- and homosexuality.

 

 3.6.8 Richard Dawkins, Oxford University, British Intellectual.

Dawkins, reputedly Britain’s number one intellectual, is a counterpart to Stephen J. Gould, American Evolutionist.  He is a defiant defender of Darwinism, a radical attacker of religion, an ardent supporter of secularism and author of Atheist articles.  He should be listed as a “high priest” for the Atheist religion.  For more on Dawkins’ worldview, see the interview with Bill Moyers, in the Appendix.

 

3.6.9 Bertrand Russell, British Philosopher and Mathematician.

Russell is well known for many things, one of which is his 1927 paper entitled “Why I Am Not A Christian”.  In it he outlines what he sees as fallacies and wrong-doings that falsify Christianity and religion in general.  For an analysis of his logic, see Appendix E, “Why I Am Not A Christian”.

 

3.7 What Are The Benefits to Being An Atheist?

In my life the benefits of embracing Atheism were everywhere.  First, I was no longer restrained by any religious morality boundaries.  I was free to consider my own judgment to be the last word.  I elevated my mind, in my mind, to be among the “intellectual elite”, who also had rejected any signs of a higher force.  And it was really easy.  REALLY easy.  All it takes to be an Atheist is to declare that it is so…and bazambo…all these things are yours.

 

The best part is that it requires no defense, because Atheism is the result of attacking other positions.  By that I mean that the Atheist position is one of arms folded, skeptical scowl, saying, “prove it”.  But never having to prove one’s own position!  The illusion of self-infallibility becomes pervasive.

 

Atheism is REALLY EASY!  In fact it is just child’s play compared to the truth of full reality.

 

“Atheism is not a man’s philosophy.”  C.S. Lewis [former Atheist], Mere Christianity

 

 

3.8 What Are The Consequences of Being An Atheist?

Every Atheist is free to use his own mind to determine “truth”.  So there will be as many “truths” as there are Atheists.  This produces an environment that is very unstable.  Atheism, by its very nature, is saddled with variable “truths”.   Moreover, the Atheist accepts by default all the violations of rational thought that accompany the “nothing” philosophy, so living by contradiction becomes habitual.  This lack of rigor in thinking can profoundly affect the quality of life.

 

An Atheist in a relativist environment is not bound by any specific code.  Such an individual might find that relationships with those of the same general mindset are shallow and trivial, without a moral spine.  People with no moral code can’t be expected to be reliable, or loyal, much less to share your particular construct for a moral code.

 

And it is fair to point to those who follow their own truth into the depths of addictions, such as did Jeffrey Dahmer.  Without absolute truth and integrity, the central structure of one’s self collapses and dissipates.  Atheism provides the convenience of variable truths but the consequence is slow internal erosion as meaningful direction and purpose evaporates. The void that remains cannot be filled by the mind; the void is real.

 

When spirituality is denied, indulgence in materialism is used to try to fill the hole that remains.  The pursuit of material goods and position to the exclusion of spirituality is an ever escalating, ever losing proposition, where the need for satisfaction always requires “more”. 

 

Using a borrowed ethic, say Judeo-Christian, but denying it’s spiritual roots leads to more relativism in the long run.

 

Spiritual atrophy occurs when spirituality is denied and not nourished.  A relativist life can lead to loss of integrity, conscience, ethics, and hope.  Purposelessness can lead to physical death through suicide, as witnessed by the huge increase in teenage suicides in this age of secular relativism and hollow core narcisissm.

 

Atheism is a void filled only with a vapor of narcissism, that of the supremacy of “My Mind”.  The void can and has produced fascist racism, to the point of extermination of the lesser race.  Denial of this is just denial of rational thought.

 

Individual attempts at relativist moral codes (such as secular humanism) can’t fill the void left by the lack of an absolute code.  Why?  Because individual relativist theories are subject to attack by those with competing relativist theories (as witnessed by the life and times of Madelyn Murray O’Hair).  Being non-absolute (relativist), they will never serve more than a niche, and by definition can’t serve all relativists.

 

If Atheists truly believe the evolutionary theory, they would engage in “survival of the fittest” behavior.  The reality of Atheistic relativism is that ethics and morality don’t count. (See “The Perfect Atheist” Chapter to come).  Usurping other ethics than this is intellectually dishonest.  And so is denial that this is so.

 

IHistory is full of Atheist consequences: Chairman Mao, Stalin, Hitler were all secular humanists, influenced by “fantasy-philosophers” (as one critic termed them), such as Nietzsche.  And all believed solely in their supreme minds to guide their conduct.

 

“Sooner or later, false thinking brings wrong conduct.”
 Julian Huxley (source unknown)

 

“Without family, without church, without ethical (nonrelativist) schools,

self-will replaces conscience; All behavior is OK; right becomes ‘constitutional right’.  It is self-will, narcissism.”

Charles Colson, “Suppression of Conscience”.

 

3.9  Is Atheism Empirically Correct?

Significantly, Atheism is no more substantiated empirically than Judeo-Christianity.  For example, empiricism still has the same limits as ever, and it can’t deal with subjects outside its limited realm of observation (See Section 1 for the definitions and limitations of the sciences).  So replicating a “no-deity” experiment is not in the cards, any more than replicating a “deity” experiment.

 

It appears to me that most Atheists remain within the comfort zone of empiricism, choosing the faith that the empirical limits will change enough to reveal all fundamental truths.  This faith is a blanket used to conceal the known, permanent limitations of empiricism.  It is, in fact, a leap of faith, without substantiation, because (another logical limitation) empiricism can’t prove itself to be the only source of truth, or even a complete source of truth.  Empiricism is in fact a narrow source of information, self-limited to physical phenomena.  Even when the famed “unifying theory of everything” is found, it will not be useful for, say, building a dog.  Or seeing the mind.  Or preventing hate.  Or returning life to a long deceased loved one.  Empiricism can have no legitimate position on Atheism.  As a worldview, empiricism has no meat.  Empiricism is a process, useful for specific, defined problems.  It is no more than that.

 

 

 

3.10  Is Atheism Forensically Correct?

Again, Atheism is not substantiated forensically.  Never has an archaeologist declared that the “coveted absence-of-god proof has been found”.

 

Forensics can have no legitimate position on Atheism.

 

In fact, Atheists choose to specifically ignore the subjects that cause them trouble, forensically.  Darwin and his subsequent minions all claim that evolution addresses only natural selection of existing life (1)  …and does not address the origin of life itself!  This preposterous position is an Ad Ignorantium fallacy used to try to defend evolutionary theory, and demonstrates the forensic feebleness of Darwinism, which was acknowledged by Darwin himself.

 

If the consequence of a proposition is false, the proposition is also false.

To claim, as Darwinists do, that “all life comes from other life”, and then deny that same claim to the troublesome First Life, is intellectually dishonest.

(1)   Also specifically excluded from all discussion is the source of the mind (see Paradox section in the Appendix), and apparently, any intelligent input to the bio-system.

 

3.11 Is Atheism Logically Correct?  Falsifiable?

The logic of Atheism is feeble: “If I can’t see it, it does not exist.”  Even modern theoretical science denies this logic, for example in String Theory, where some eleven dimensions in proximate coexistence are mathematically predicted.  And the rational plausibility of certain intuited transcendental existences (such as the mind, for example) renders the logic of Atheism false.  See also the Paradox of the Blind Man in the Sunset, Appendix.

 

And the idea of a creating being for the Universe, denied by Atheism, is logically proven by using the First Principles.  Even Einstein admitted that a universe with an obvious beginning had to have a pre-existing causing being outside and beyond itself. Denial of the First Principles puts Atheism in conflict with all western logic. The Bertrand Russell “who made God” falsification no longer holds water now that the beginning of time is known to be the Big Bang, eliminating any meaning for “antecedent” causes.  And Hawking’s math purporting universal self-encapsulation is seen to exist purely as an attempt to eliminate the “need” for a pre-Big Bang causing being, and not based on any evidence or reason for being true.  The creating being has never successfully been denied or falsified.

 

Another common objection to religion made by Atheists and Scientific Naturalists is that religion is not falsifiable.  (Actually it is, per Anthony Flew). (1)   But is Atheism itself falsifiable?  Atheism would be falsified if any of the following observations were found to be true (true in the classical sense: correspond correctly to reality):

 

1. Logical proof of a pre-existing, necessary, causing being with intelligence. Several (34 at last count) proofs are found in the appendix, along with several counter-arguments.

2. Logical proof that Atheism produces a non-reducible necessary paradox.   

(See the Paradox of the Non-Contingent Effect, in the appendix).

3. Physical proof of very high intelligence content of a contingent effect.

(See the Probabilities of DNA, and Anthony Flew, in the appendix).

 

So Atheism, which is falsifiable, is logically and physically falsified.

 

(1)     First guy says “Easter is cancelled!”  Second guy: “Why?”  First guy: “They found the body…”  (OK it’s a joke. But it would be a falsification.)

 

3.12 Are the Support Theories For Atheism Correct?

The Atheist’s best friend, Darwinist Evolutionary Theory, has been falsified, over and over.  Refer to the chapter on “Evolution”.

 

The “falsification of religion” challenge by Flew has been falsified itself…by Flew, himself.  This was actually more of a mind-game challenge to Christianity than an actual theory in support of Atheism.  But it was definitely a crutch, and was hailed by Atheists, desperate to falsify Christianity.

 

Materialism and Naturalism are logically falsified by associated  paradoxes. Other support theories for Atheism would be……?   Let’s hear them, and see if they are falsifiable!