Atheism / Atheist:

For those with faith, no evidence is necessary;
For those without faith, no evidence will suffice.
- St Thomas Aquinas

Psalm 14:1 - "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God."
נָבָ֣ל אָ֘מַ֤ר בְּ֭לִבֹּו אֵ֣ין אֵ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֑ים
This means: "foolish/senseless     to say     inner person/inner mind or will     nothing     nothing [yes, AGAIN]     God"
This is only HALF of the verse, but this is the only quoted part.

I see on an hourly basis: those of the Atheist religion - are "missionaries" - - - combined with "The Terminator" - they absolutely will not stop - until you are converted.  Although this is called "Demanding Personality Disorder", it sure is hypocritical!

The definition of "Religion":
Human being's relation to that which they regard as sacred, absolute, divine or worthy of special reverence. A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, philosophies or practices. A philosophy or belief in a controlling or regulating power - even if that means one's self.  Atheists are their own deity, therefore it (Atheism) is a religion.  (The Supreme Court ruled: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith.” Thus, the court concluded, atheism is equivalent to religion.

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.” The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”    ”Oh, I don’t know,” said the atheist. “How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?” as he smiled smugly. “OK,” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?” The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.” To which the little girl replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don’t know crap?”
(Many more Atheist jokes below...)

My own question to Atheists: "for those who don't believe in things you can't see - like air, water, Infrared light, viruses, radiation, and love.
Richard Dawkins' right-hand man ... found God:
https://youtu.be/p_AYA_kEr2E

Top Scientist explains what convinced him of Christianity
https://youtu.be/HsenWCbgXvc?t=62

Oxford Mathematician shreds Atheism Apart for 10 Minutes Straight
https://youtu.be/8ygeSYtlIVw

My favourite challenge for Atheists:  Since "Theism is far, FAR greater than Atheism", the oweness is ON YOU to prove this:
Prove - mathematically and scientifically - that God does not exist.

Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience.
- John Guerrero

The ever-popular fippant questions:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
A: “As many as want to”. Also, Annals of Improbable Research, a humoristic magazine, calculates that the answer is 8.6766×1049 angels. Today, the question “How many angels can fit on the head of a needle?” means pursuing something that has no value.
And the original author Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - stated "needle", not "pin".

The other popular moronic question is: "If God can do anythingt, can he make a rock so big - that he can't pick up?"
This is one of the classic “challenges” to the idea of the Christian God that atheists and agnostics throw out there.  It is really a rather unsophisticated challenge, but for those who do not have a nuanced understanding of theology (which is most believers) it can throw them for a loop!

The entire argument is based on a false premise.  Unfortunately, the majority of believers will buy into the false premise, and therefore paint themselves into an unnecessary corner.
Here is the argument:
Premise:  The Christian God is sovereign and omnipotent, which means that he can do anything.
Claim:  God cannot create a rock so big that he cannot move it.
Conclusion:  Therefore the Christian God is not real.

The problem with this argument is that, although the claim is correct, the premise is not correct.  In fact it is not even close to correct. There are a lot of things that God cannot do, by his very nature.  For example, God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18).  God cannot commit an unloving act.   God cannot act unjustly.  God cannot do an unholy thing.

God is much more consistent in himself than we are.  One could even claim (probably an exaggeration) that there are more things humans can do than God can do because we are inconsistent and we can do things which violate our beliefs. We can do one thing one day and then a completely contradictory thing the next. God never acts this way.  We can lie.  God cannot.  We can treat other people with hatred. God cannot.  We can be unjust. God cannot.

The conclusion is that "God cannot do anything which violates God's nature".
Also, I ask Atheists: "Prove love."  They can't, nor can anyone.


Going forward...
This illogical question is representative of the type of proposed paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can’t pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big that He can’t pick it up, then He isn’t omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.

Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information. Therefore, its conclusion is inaccurate.  What the above “paradox” lacks is vital information concerning God’s nature.  His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature.  It is part of His nature.  God has a nature, and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

This is a classic fallacy by which some non-believers think they can checkmate Christians—or other believers in God—into conceding that belief in God is absurd by placing them in a Catch-22 situation, i.e., one in which there is no apparent escape, because you’re darned if you do, and darned if you don’t.  Gotcha! And thus the alleged absurdity in believing that God can really exist.  However, this alleged sound argument is actually a fallacy, because it involves reasoning to a conclusion without the evidence to support that conclusion. It’s an example of sophistry, in which specious reasoning is used, i.e., reason which has the allure or attraction of truth but which is shown to be deficient upon closer examination.



Biomimicry: Engineers "secretly" steal from God’s design [nature], and make machines (planes - from birds; stealth bomber - from the paragon falcon, bats, owls). The B2 bomber, velcro, aircraft...

- - - -
Although you all THINK your symbol is "secret", we are LONG "on to" you.
Atheist "secret" symbol  Atheist "secret" symbol

Why aren't you all PROUD and make it very public and "on the table"??  Are you ... CHICKEN??  or maybe "egg" ... ha ha
I have heard SEVERAL Atheists tout "You wanna know how to end all wars?  OUTLAW RELIGION!!"   1) they are WRONG, and     2) that would include THEIR religion of Atheism!!

Atheism IS a religion.  And Atheists need PROOF - in order to buy ("believe") anything.  OK, let's go with that...
However, I will concede defeat - to you "high-IQ Atheists" - IF you can tell me ...
1) that particle that made the "big bang" - where did  _that_  come from.
2) since like charges repel, what holds the protons together in the nucleus of every atom (above H, since that only has 1 proton).
3) why don't the planets and atoms stop spinning - after these billions of years?
4) the size of Pluto (6.4 billion cubic km;  2377 km [1477 mi] across, and 5.9 billion km [3.6 billion mi] away from the sun, and a mass of 1.3x1022 kg) with it's 5 moons - and Uranus (6.4 billion cubic km;  24,764 km [15,388 mi] across, and 4.5 billion km [2.8 billion mi] away from the sun, and a mass of 102x1024 kg) with it's 16 moons - - how does the gravity of the sun keep all planets to the sun??   This doesn't include Jupiter, Saturn, or us.
5) every salt water aquarium needs CONSTANT chemical checks - from a small, 40-liter aquarium  -  to a HUGE one like Seaworld.  Yet the oceans self-regulate ... there is no Staff or chemists, yet they are always at the perfect pH - even with constant fresh water rain, sewer drain like in Malibu and Atlantic City ... and even oil spills.
6) how did the EXACT need for a biome - with plants (their waste product is Oxygen, and they require Carbon Dioxide) - intertwining with animals (their waste product is Oxygen, and they require Carbon Dioxide).  Also, HOW could it have evolved - when each NEEDS the other, so there was never a time when "there were only plants".  Yes, volcanoes gave HORRENDOUS Carbon Dioxide ... but they also gave off immediate death gases and fallout: ash.
7)  Atheists always say that "You all believe that everything came from Adam and Eve - what a JOKE!!", yet they can't critically think that THEIR theory - which is only ONE THEORY: evolution -
  a)  can't be re-created (as science demands any theory be able to be)
  b)  has the premise that "life came from nothing".  Now THAT is a miracle!!  Also, no lab has ever been able to make life from non-life (chemicals)
  c)  speaking of being able to re-create it, there is NO RECORD - ever - of anything evolving.  Cats birth cats, and fish birth fish, but there has never been ONE INSTANCE - of a worm or fish or cat - becoming a dog or whale or giraffe.
  d)  Mutation: Bacteria mutate all the time, but they are STILL BACTERIA - they haven’t EVOLVED to another organism.
7) why are you Atheists so defensive, and get "all worked up" - wanting to convince everyone to be  YOUR religion - Atheism?   You all are worse than MISSIONARIES!!

Please, show your work
:-)


Is this the same "science" that KNEW the world is flat?  That "knew" we are headed to an ICE AGE (back in 1970s).  I know - I lived then, and we heard it all the time on media.  That SAME "SCIENCE" - now says we are WARMING.  Well, they THINK it is.
See far more below, but Atheists have "The Dunning-Kruger Effect", as well as "Impostor syndrome".  Or the word *I* made: Supranarcissmania (meaning more than/above   thinking you are "all that"  madness/beside yourself)

For those MANY write-ins with "you don't need a degrree to know 'stuff' [paraphased] - I am capable of [critical thinking]!" - I say to you: You have to get surgery - do you want the one with the [MD / PhD] DEGREE .... or the one who "capable of critical thinking - doesn't NEED a degree!!"??


"Blilliant" Atheist asks a question about God:
https://youtu.be/uOUDSiZl2A8

A talk with Grok - bout the existence of God:
https://youtu.be/ga7m14CAymo




What Atheists neglected was the need to be critical of atheism, and like the later and arguably greater atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, grapple with the negative implications of atheism, such as the existential crisis precipitated by the decline of religious belief and the logical implications of atheism such as nihilism and subjective morality.

Modern atheists, in my experience, seem to shy away from such honesty and intellectual self-awareness as well.

1. How atheists avoid being self-critical
One of my criticisms of many atheists is that they fail to think through the implications of atheism, showing an entire lack of intellectual curiosity or rigor in evaluating such a belief. They usually take one of two tactics.


1.1 Hiding in Personal Atheism
The first dodge is to retreat to a reductionist personal atheism. That is, they claim that their atheism is “merely a lack of faith in God.” Such a claim about their subjective mental state means that they are not making an objective claim about the existence of God, just their personal lack of belief. And since they are not making an objective claim, they don’t have to defend or be critical of it.

To a certain extent, they are really just proclaiming agnosticism with respect to the objective existence of God, and rightly claiming that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. But their mistake, even with such a conservative claim, is that they then use this reductionist definition to avoid examining the logical implications of such a belief or reality. “My definition means just that, there are no other implications.”


1.2 Hiding in the Burden of Proof
Some of the bolder atheists will profess philosophical atheism,1 claiming that it is objectively true that God does not exist. However, they will often claim that since they are claiming a negative, they have no burden of proof – only the theist who is making the positive claim has such a burden. I have argued otherwise in Does Atheism Carry a Burden of Proof?

More importantly, though, is that such atheists fail to be intellectually critical of atheism as an idea. Like the personal atheists, they may claim a simplistic, limited “mere lack of belief” stance, or rely on the “no required burden of proof argument.”

Even though they claim that this is an objective truth, they often don’t seem to have considered that such an assumption has clear logical implications, and these need to be evaluated for their verity using such typical methods as logic, pragmatics, and integration with other systems of science and knowledge, including the physical and biological sciences, anthropology and psychology, philosophy of law, justice and government, and morals and ethics.

To propose that their important assumption is true while not trying to integrate it with the other knowledge atheists have is an intellectual failure. And in this abstention, they fail to demonstrate the rigor and responsibility expected of those who make such philosophical claims.


2. The Potential Negative Implications of Atheism
The following are the nearly certain logical and historical implications of atheism. Thinking atheists can argue these, but to ignore them is a mistake.


2.1 Lack of Cosmic Justice
The denial of an ultimate divine judge or an afterlife where justice is served could be seen as removing any guarantee of cosmic justice or accountability for immoral actions in this life. Atheists may confess that this is “just reality,” but such a view leads away from acts of forgiveness based on the belief in ultimate justice, and certainly supports the view that we ought to take justice into our own hands, and that we have no consequences for doing evil if not caught.

This does not mean that atheism is untrue, but it is a logical viewpoint resulting from atheism, which could count against it if we are evaluating atheism using pragmatic outcomes.


2.2 Reduction of Human Value
Without a divine source of a hierarchy of value, philosophical atheism may reduce the inherent value and dignity of human life, treating it as merely a product of random natural processes. In addition, we have witnessed that atheistic Darwinism had led logically to eugenics and racism, considering black Africans as more ape-like (and so less-evolved and perhaps not even fully human).

Atheists may argue that this is an abuse of Darwinism, but atheism’s materialistic and subjective morality has no way to really argue for either human rights, nor the value of humans over animals or plants. By comparison, Christianity’s basic unit of value is the free individual, and this led to the Lockean presumption that a limited government needed a long list of protected individual rights that required protection from the society and government.


2.3 Erosion of Hope and Inspiration
Certainly, the lack of a foundation for meaning (above) is a risk under atheism, a foundation which theism provides. Along with the loss of meaning, atheism removes the perspective that faith and hope provide for great works of service: the recompense for doing good motivates great works of sacrifice beyond what one might pursue if they believed that no reward for privations was coming. Again, this does not disprove atheism, but it is one of the logical impacts of such a belief.


2.4 Undermining of Social Cohesion
Certain religious traditions and belief systems have historically played a role in providing shared values, traditions, and social cohesion. Atheism struggles to provide any kind of community, though it has been attempted through secular churches and social organizations. But a lack of any well-developed system of values and practices may not develop a strong cohesion or attendance.


2.5 Loss of Objective Meaning and Purpose
Theists and Christian philosophers who have examined the human condition have concluded, among other things, that the highest happiness and contentment that humans can have is in experiencing and becoming good, that is, virtuous. And because God is the ultimate good, the ultimate happiness is to experience God and become like Him. The following quotes capture this reality:

--  True happiness flows from the possession of wisdom and virtue and not from the possession of external goods. (Aristotle,  Politics)

--  Happiness is the reward of virtue. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 5, Art.


3) One’s virtue is all that one truly has, because it is not imperiled by the vicissitudes of fortune. (Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy)

--  The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. (Westminster Catechism)

--  The highest good of the mind is the knowledge of God, and the highest virtue of the mind is to know God. (Benedict De Spinoza, Ethics)

Atheism not only removes this ultimate source of happiness, it may be removing any objective source of meaning, and purpose becomes purely subjective, leading to potential existential crises or nihilism. Philosophical atheism may struggle to provide an objective basis for inherent meaning or purpose in the universe.

2.6 Moral Relativism Inexorably Leading to Autocracy
Objective morals must be grounded in a referent outside of human opinion – an authority that has the right and power to command duties and consequences. This grounding is typically called moral ontology. Atheism removes this referent, and fails to establish a new one, though attempts have been done to ground morals in desirism or Kantian ethics, but they all boil down to epistemology, not ontology. In the end, the most logical outcome of atheism is subjective moralism.

This is probably one of the most dangerous, if not heinous realities of atheism that has predictable and destructive results. In both logic and history, there is a nearly inevitable progression from national atheism (as opposed to individual atheism) to autocracy which goes like this:

1. Moral Relativism: If philosophical atheism leads to a rejection of objective moral truths or divine moral edicts, it could foster a form of moral relativism where moral values and principles are seen as purely subjective and culturally relative.

2. Subjectivism in Ethics: With moral relativism, ethical frameworks become based on individual or communal preferences, desires, and subjective assessments of well-being or utility.

3. Utilitarianism and Consequentialism: In the absence of objective moral foundations, ethical theories like utilitarianism and consequentialism, which focus on maximizing aggregate happiness or well-being for the greatest number, typically gain prominence. They appear to be both qualitatively and quantitatively correct. But they begin the drift away from individual rights.

4. State-Defined Morality: If ethical principles are seen as subjective and based on maximizing utility, and God is removed as any kind of moral authority, the state or governing authority typically claims the power to define and enforce a unified moral code based on its interpretation of what constitutes the “greater good” or maximizes utility for society.

5. Concentration of Power: With the state determining and enforcing a utilitarian moral code, and with no other declaration of individual rights or limitations on state power (typical under atheist “republics”), power becomes concentrated in the hands of those who control the definition of “well-being” and “utility.” This often leads to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms in the name of maximizing the “greater good” as defined by the state.

6. Authoritarianism: In all known historical cases, this concentration of power and state-defined morality in atheist regimes paves the way for authoritarianism that justifies oppressive policies, human rights violations, or even atrocities under the guise of maximizing utility or serving the “greater good” as they define it.

This pattern has happened under every single nation that uses atheism as one of its pillars – in China alone, atheistic communism killed over 100 million of it’s own citizens. This progression is not inevitable, but it is predictable and logical.  And from observation, seems close to inevitable.

However, many philosophical atheists and secular ethicists have developed frameworks for objective moral reasoning and individual rights without relying on religious or divine sources. But the potential dangers of moral relativism and the importance of establishing well-reasoned, objective moral foundations that safeguard individual autonomy and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of the state or any authority claiming to define morality solely based on subjective utility calculations are real historical and current dangers.


Conclusion
The assumption of atheism has genuine, logical implications and dangers that have manifested clearly in history, including the lowering of human value, eugenics, racism (though those are based not only on subjective moralism and the reduction of the human value intrinsic to atheism, but on Darwinism), and the inevitable slide to autocracy and justification of cruelty.

Atheists have attempted to ameliorate these weaknesses by tying their wagons to humanism, but atheism’s subjective moralism makes such an association incongruent and ill-fitting. Atheism has to borrow its ethics from Christianity to survive. The Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer observed that secularist atheists must essentially borrow their morals and ethics, since their stance does not produce any, and may be counter to sound ethics and morals.


https://www.wholereason.com/2024/05/the-negative-implications-of-atheism.html




There are hundreds of varieties of unbelief. How do you know yours is the right one?
If no God, why would anything objectively matter?


Moral and Ethical Perspectives

Dealing with Life and Death

Science and Rationality



Positive atheism
Also known as strong atheism and hard atheism - asserts that no deities whatsoever exist. Most believe who subscribe to positive atheism will say gods do not exist.

Negative atheism
Also known as weak atheism and soft atheism) is defined as a person who does not believe in any deities but they have a lack of positive believe, meaning they do not believe strongly in either existence or nonexistence of a god.

http://atheistblogger.com/differences-negative-and-positive-atheism/




Can atheism be considered a religion?
As mentioned in the starting sentence above, a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith.” Thus, the court concluded, atheism is equivalent to religion for purposes of the First Amendment and Kaufman should have been given the right to meet to discuss atheism …
NOTE: Omnism is the recognition and respect of all religions and their gods or lack thereof.  Those who hold this belief are called omnists, sometimes written as "omniest".  Many omnists say that all religions contain truths, but that no one religion offers all that is truth.

The Moment Ben Shapiro Realized Neil deGrasse Tyson was a Fake
https://youtu.be/ory0E5cM_kE
Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a scientist - he is a  propaganda mouthpiece .  A Scientist argues - against science!  Tyson is the kind of man Paul wrote about in Romans. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”  I call it "intellectual conceit".


- - - -  6 Miracles that Atheists believe in - - - - -

6 Miracles that Atheists believe in
By Cliffe Knechtle

1)  Existence comes from non-existence
(what was before the big bang?)
Atheists believe something came from nothing - by accident.

2)  Order comes from chaos
https://christianevidence.org/2014/05/30/finding_order_out_of_chaos/
https://pastorjamesmiller.com/2013/07/10/the-miracle-of-atheism/

3)  Life comes from non-life
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/abiogenesis/
LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)

4)  The personal comes from the non-personal
Let’s talk this rock - into never letting itself be thrown an life.

5)  Reason comes from non-reason
Let’s talk this rock - into WHY it should never let itself be thrown an life, and reason all of life’ philosophy.  Or as *I* say:  Let’s ROCK!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason

6)  Morality comes from matter.
This proton will tell us that we are not to steal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion


Conclusion: Atheists have miracles, but do not have a miracle worker.
In Atheism, you don’t get “immaterial” …. although ink on a restaurant menu IS immaterial, and you derive “material” to order the lunch.
https://youtu.be/0evxzJedtGc

See more miracles on the bottom...


Atheists are more "missionaries" than anyone else .... they have a "Need" to convert everyone to Atheism (their religion).  And it's HILARIOUS - to see Atheists play the "Moral" card .... when they don't believe in morals.



Does the Supreme Court consider atheism a religion?
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky.
https://newhopeeugene.com/talk-about-god/is-atheism-a-recognized-religion.html

https://swisscows.com/web?query=atheism%20is%20a%20religion

OK, so you don't buy these mindsets - *YOU* are right; the Supreme Court is wrong.  I get it.  How about a SATANIC web site - are you good with that?
https://www.exposingsatanism.org/atheism-is-a-religion/

Here are a couple of others - of over 3,000:
https://www.thebanner.org/columns/2019/01/is-atheism-a-religion

https://christianityculture.com/why-atheism-is-a-religion/

https://reason.com/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion/

https://tacticalinvestor.com/atheism-is-a-religion-too/

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion


Now, before I get to these other sources, remember:  I realize that this “argument” has gone on for 6,000 years, and it *will* go on for another 6 billion years.  It will *never* have an outcome, however - it’s ironic that the very side (Leftist) that wants “unity”, tolerance, and “no more hate speech” - is the very side that causes this divide, intolerance, and hate speech against anything “God”, religion, or “being straight”.

When your side overcomes *that* (it never will!), _then_ come talk to me!  And remember: Atheists are not only *far* more “zealous” than religions, you all want to spread your “religion” (Atheism) - far more than any religion.  So, YOU are the  “extremists”, as well as “the Missionaries”.  You all know it, and we know it.  That’s what makes it funny, on top or “irony”.

The debate between an Atheist and Dr. Frank Turek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ehkLXgnbWQ

An Atheist epoter poves his Atheism
Full movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiU84-ooGAU

Atheist creed  Atheism bus banner   Atheist license


And let's not forget the Climate Change Religion, Gender Religion,  Trans Religion, Woke Religion, Tony Robbins' foul-language religion, the Vaccine religion. And last, but NOT LEAST...




"The Universe" IS a religion!
You have heard before: "The Universe will set it right".  HOW does mostly hydrogen and dust particles - make things right on Earth, 6 billion light years away.  And remember, there are 10 trillion km in each light year, and the average car - if driven highway speed, non-stop (24 hours per day, not even stopping for fuel - which is of course impossible!) - goes 2,400 km per day ... 876,000 km per year.  So ... DUST and hydrogen 100 trillion times that distance away - will set things straight here?   That same hydrogen and dust can't even do that - RIGHT HERE!!!

As stated above, the definition of "Religion": human being's relation to that which they regard as sacred, absolute, divine or worthy of special reverence. A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs or practices. A philosophy or belief in a controlling or regulating power - even if that means one's self.  Atheists are their own deity, therefore it is a religion.

So, ALL "Snowflakes", homosexuals, Atheists - are RELIGIOUS, and their god is THEMSELVES.  They worship skin colour, sexual deviance from the norm, and Satan. But all are too stupid to see this.

I've heard "Hell" described as "the lake of fire", and as "a dark, lonely place - with weeping, screaming and crunching teeth".  Whatever it is, it will not be fun - it will be utter never-ending torment.  I have heard many a Biker (and "death metal" heads) say "When I get to Hell, I'm gonna get the baddest [blankety-blank] Biker gang, and we'll ride all over [blankety] - with the biggest [blankety] guns and get [blankety]  drunk!!"
  1. They clearly believe in an after life. (This makes them religious.)
  2. Also, Atheism is a religion.  Just as the rise of the new ‘Woke’ Religion is not just a miserable coincidence.
    https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2022/07/31/the-rise-of-the-new-woke-religion-is-not-just-a-miserable-coincidence/
  3. There will not be any motorcycles, gasoline, guns or rock music in She'ol (literally: "Underworld", "The Grave", or "Hell"). You can "wish"it, and "dream" about it, but there are no roads or engines in molten lava, or the cold arctic - wherever hell may be.
  4. There will be nobody else - except Demons - constantly tormenting you - constant intense pain and frustration. Nobody hears your screams, and it will last for trillions of trillions of years. Sound cool? [NOT]  See just below, but simply believe ON Yeshua (Jesus) and live for him (God), and you will go to Heaven.
But, if you reject it ... is that really what you want - just to say "I ain't gonna do any of that stupid [blankety-blank]   Jesus  baddest [blankety-blank] " - to impress your "friends"?  Hint: if they really were /are friends, they would have great civil debates.

All I can say is: You'll regret it.  Get "saved" now.  Just look to heaven, and say "I'm sorry for my imperfections - please forgive me, and take my life - I belong to you, God."
You will be forgiven, and the Holy Spirit will immediately become your conscience. Find a Church, and go and you will make new friends - [behold] all things will become new.

This is called "The Gospel" (means "good news") - Yeshua ("Jesus") lived a perfect life, and voluntarily died a horrific, painful (beyond imagination) - so you [everyone] can be saved. This gift is for you [and everyone who accepts it], so go and tell people about it - so they can have the same experience.  God wants everyone to be with him eternally, but - like you before - they reject, and God doesn't force anyone to love or obey him - it's by choice.  This is what you do when you love.  It's like your child  -  you so badly want them to go the right way, but when they don't, you can't make them - you just hope so badly that they do well.  Now you get it.     :-)


NOTE:
Religion: a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, world views, texts (scrolls), sanctified places, prophecies, ethics.

I'm fine with Atheism.  I just wish those against religions would respect others, and let them believe - what they *want* to believe - no matter how "stupid" that may seem to them.
1)  we all have (or *should* have) a choice.
2) I have noticed that Atheists are
   a)  the most zealoted people [with their religion!)
   b) "forcing" their religion - on the very others that they (the Atheists) want to _stop_ spreading their religions.
   c)  you all try to recruit - worse than Missionaries.

Atheists don't realize that the US Supreme court recognizes Agnostic and Atheist as a *religion* .    4)  although I always bet people 5 billion (or more) - nobody has replied yet.  (They check it out, and are heartbroken (angered) to find it is indeed the case.  I don't bet lots of $$ unless I know I'm right.  Do people think I'm *stupid* ???

5) Those 500+ people [Disciples and Apostles, as well as *Centurions* !!!]  -  who wrote (risking their life - you were not allowed to write these things in Roman times!) about seeing these "miracles" (things which cannot be explained), and they all went to painful deaths - being given the choice to "say you made it up, and we will let you go!!"  - but they not only did not, they exclaimed again:  "We attest to whet we say we have seen, and we have written. Do what you will!!"  I highly suggest that you watch the movie "The Case For Christ".  It is about a *die-hard* Atheist Journalist - the best Chicago Journalist - with the most to risk - if he didn't prove Atheism.  As a true story, you should go to the Church where he now Pastors, and confront him directly.  He welcomes it, and is "always at the ready" - since *he* _knows exactly how you feel_ .  If you don't watch it, the joke is on _you_ .  If you *do* watch it, then we respect you.
5:20
Although I'll respect anyone's religion / Atheism (which *is* a religion), remember that   1) many of the things in The Bible are miracles - which, by definition, are things that are not per the natural world.   2) remember that:  if someone came up to you in 1960 .... with an iPhone - 100% of people would dismiss it as "of the Devil".   Like they did with when you had an epileptic seizure - it was SCIENCE FACT that you had the Devil inside you.   3) the translations are really wrong.  I use the Lexicon [web link], but many other translations take the words - and their substitutes aren't even CLOSE.  As with "CSI" - as science and computing develops and newer forensics evolve, we are able to easily explain things:  such as The Flood.  Remember - it wasn't that long ago that we didn't even know about plate tectonics.   Let me guess: it was "of the Devil" at one time.

5) The Bible was not written *by* God.  It (the ORIGINAL) was *inspired* , and written by humans.

6) Lastly: although I don't care about what Atheists think, and I certainly don't want to convince them in any way, I will echo what *they* said:  How many miracles would it take - for you to see  _why_  the Apostles and Disciples went to painful, tragic deaths - defending what they saw, and after being given an "out"  ("just admit it didn't happen, and you will be released!") - - they chose death.   They saw *something* , and it changed their lives completely.



The “Science”…


—  Is this the same science that *knew* that the Earth is flat?
—  Is this the same science that *knew* that the sun revolved around the earth?
—  Is this the same science that said smoking cigarettes is *good*  for you in the early 1930’s?
—  Is this the same science that made an atom bomb, then dropped it on civilians (2x) - after promising they would never do that. Burying radioactive waste in Nevada, shipping our old batteries and garbage to poverty countries and dumping it.
—  Is this the same science that *knew* that acid raid would destroy Earth by 1980? (the problem magically went away!)
—  Is this the same science that states the Apollo moon landing didn’t need a computer - although the Armed forces say fighter planes (that go much closer and slower than the moon ranger) “could not fly without computers”?  (But you *can* go 17 times faster and 30,000 times farther - without one.)
—  In the 70’s, science _knew_ that we are heading for an ice age.  Conveniently, they didn’t give any time tables (hint:  we are always in the Milankovitch Cycles:
—  In 1980, the ozone layer would make radiation give everyone cancer - everyone would be dead by 1995. (the problem magically went away!)
—  In the mid 80’s, we had the same science was _fact_ that we are headed to global _warming_ (opposite of an ice age only 10 years of “fact’ earlier.)
—  In the 90’s, it became “climate change”  (we don’t know which way the temp is going, but we have lots of evidence, and it’s changing - one way or the other, we don’t know - but it’s very conclusive!).
—  Science fact, 1990: Coconut oil does NOT help with ANYTHING! FACT: it lowers LDL cholesterol.  The Yew tree is a worthless  *weed* …. wait, it’s a medical marvel!
—  The same “fact” that told us we cannot be Islamophobic (telling us how we should think and feel) - after 3 successful attacks - causing billions in property damage and thousands of deaths.  But you _can_ hate Christians - they bombed 2 abortion clinics (no lives lost) …. as a matter of fact, Atheism is *good* !!  (telling us how we should think and feel)   These were 3 of 7,700  world-wide attacks by Islam.  Yet “they aren’t *all* like that, and they are a loving and kind religion.  (And cigarettes are *good* for you!)
—  Science *fact*, 2005: (by “Rev” Al Gore) The ice caps will melt, and we will _all_ be under 3 stories of water by 2016.  All beachfront property will be 4 stories underwater.  (2021: Bill Gates, Al Gore, and Obama - all said this, and all 3 bought 40 million beachfront mansions.)
—  2016 - hate,, intolerance, and phobias are *bad* …. but you _must_ hate Trump, be intolerant of Trump, and be Trump-phobic.
—  Science FACT 2019:
  * We will _not_ be affected by this Corona thing.
  * Well, it will effect us, but no more than 2 weeks.
  * Well, it will be more than 2 weeks, but a vaccine has already being engineered.
  * We have a vaccine - in only 3 weeks (world record) - everybody _must_ take it (against the Amish religion, and most religions on earth - but against the US Constitution, and the Nuremberg Code (supersedes all countries' Laws)
  * It's _only one shot_ .
  * Well, you need a booster, and that's _all_ .
  * Well, you need another booster, and that's _all_ .
  * Well, you need another booster, and that's _all_ .
  * Well, you need another booster, and that's _all_ .
  * Shot 6 is coming soon.  But that will be _all_ .
  * If you take this vaccine, you _will not_ get Corona!  Scientifically guaranteed!!
—  Other "known facts" of science over the years:
Eggs are GOOD for you
Eggs are BAD for you
Eggs are GOOD for you
Eggs are BAD for you
The YOLKS are bad
(the debate continues!)

Fluoride (#9) is GOOD for you  (and yes, America spells it with a "u" - like British!)
Fluoride is BAD for you.

Chlorine (#17) is GOOD for you.
Chlorine is BAD for you.
NOTE: both FL and CL are on row #17, which is the "Halogens" row (poison!)  What others are in row 17?  Bromine, Iodine Astatine.


—  Is this the same science that now says we don’t know what a woman is?  That men can have children.  That preschool children can change genders at will.  Heck - I’m a parent and *I* can’t figure out how to change genders … I want my _husband_ to birth the rest of our children!!  And those _same people_   don’t    believe in the virgin birth of Yeshua [Jesus]) - "it's scientifically impossible".
—  Is this the same science that Fauchi used - to flip-flop 4x on every stance he made - based on “science” ?
—  Is this the same science that dictates that although prices have doubled, inflation is 3.1%  (NOTE: 7% is normal). And we have invoked the “inflation bill” to help with the inflation (that we "don’t have").
—  Is this the same science that dictates that we have no additional crime, yet we are invoking the crime bill to handle the increased crime problem. (that we "don’t have").
—  Is this the same science that says “if we all drive EVs, we will have no pollution.”   (Yet how do those cars get their charging from???  The power station - burning fossil fuels, and the batteries from child slave labor.)
—  Is this the same science that said in the 80’s: using paper is bad for the environment - we should use plastic.  In 2022: the same science that says using plastic is bad for the environment - we should use paper.
—  Is this the same logic that forgave 300 billion (more) in Student loans. Hey - the Taxpayers owe this to these people making $125,000 per year.  Total 10.2 trillion in 2 years - this is great math - we have spent in 2 years - more than all Presidents combined over 220 years - this shows spending talent, and breaking Law shows greatness - rivaling Vlad The Impaler and Emperor Nero.  If we try only a little more, we can become a poverty country.  We just need to spend a little more.  As soon as Biden returns from his vacation (he has set a record - after 2 yeas: the most vacationed President combined.), we can use science t oracle the issues: like giving black people more money, and then giving black people more money, and then giving black people more money, and then giving black people more money, and then giving black people more money, and then giving black people more money, and then giving black people more money, and then giving black people more money, and then apologizing to them that we didn’t give them all mansions, Ferraris, and more white girls. Biden is working on that now: giving black people more money.

So, if you expect me to *believe* any more of your “science”, As Thomas Dolby would say: “She _blinded _ me with Science!”  I will politely turn you down, and tell *you* - that you are over-packed with horse manure.  May I call you “Biff”??  Or I will quote the 70’s Country song:  “Take this science and _shove it_ !”



ERRORS IN SCIENCE - yes, there are HUNDREDS of books - by PhDs - about the ERRORS and INCONSISTANCIES in science:
(if Corona wasn't enough to make "science" a JOKE ...)


Here's a story for you: Physics couldn't contain itself - so it exploded. All of the mass in the universe - the mountains, all of the planets, the billions of stars and galaxies - were all in a particle the size of a pinhead. No pun intended, but it would take a pin-head to believe _that_ !. Oh, and we Atheists don't know where _that_ particle came from. Then, everything started evolving - how it had the DNA to reproduce, we have no idea, but we know it just did. Algae changed it's DNA to be plankton, then to fish, then to reptiles .... which destroyed themselves. Yeah, that sounds sooooo much more believable, don't you think, Proofofpain? And then we add in that protons - of like charges - repel each other, but we're gonna buy - that they somehow stay together in every atom.

Oh, that's _far_ more believable. Oh, you leptons - are  _endless_  entertainment.




Dean Burnett discusses many other weird properties of the brain in his book "The Idiot Brain”

Inconsistencies in science
https://swisscows.com/en/web?query=inconsistencies+with+science

it’s Only Wrong When YOU Do it
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/nov/17/its-only-wrong-when-you-do-it-the-psychology-of-hypocrisy

How the Laws of Physics Lie
N. Cartwright

On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules
N. Bohr

Truth and Other Enigmas
Michael Dummett

Tracking Dummett's Anti-Realist
Bryson Brown

Representing and Intervening
Hacking

Inquiry
Stalnaker

The Scientific Image
van Fraassen



20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-of-the-greatest-blunders-in-science-in-the-last-20-years

Inconsistency in Science
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-0085-6

The Inconsistency of Science
https://mariannetalbot.co.uk/2016/01/26/the-inconsistency-of-science/

Science and Partial Truth: A Unitary Approach to Models and Scientific Reasoning
https://doi.org/10.1093/019515651X.001.0001

The agreement problem
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1093/bjps/54.3.439

The logic of pragmatic truth
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004304228785

On Paraconsistency
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470996751.ch40

Doubt Truth to be a Liar
https://doi.org/10.1093/0199263280.001.0001

Is science inconsistent?
https://blog.oup.com/2013/12/is-science-inconsistent/


List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

10. A weird form of life
A report in 2010 claimed that a weird form of life incorporates arsenic in place of phosphorus in biological molecules. This one sounded rather suspicious, but the evidence, at first glance, looked pretty good. Not so good at second glance, though. And arsenic-based life never made it into the textbooks.

9. A weird form of water
In the 1960s, Soviet scientists contended that they had produced a new form of water. Ordinary water flushed through narrow tubes became denser and thicker, boiled at higher than normal temperatures and froze at much lower temperatures than usual. It seemed that the water molecules must have been coagulating in some way to produce “polywater.” By the end of the 1960s chemists around the world had begun vigorously pursuing polywater experiments. Soon those experiments showed that polywater’s properties came about from the presence of impurities in ordinary water.

8. Neutrinos, faster than light
Neutrinos are weird little flyweight subatomic particles that zip through space faster than Usain Bolt on PEDs. But not as fast as scientists claimed in 2011, when they timed how long it took neutrinos to fly from the CERN atom smasher near Geneva to a detector in Italy. Initial reports found that the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds sooner than a beam of light would. Faster-than-light neutrinos grabbed some headlines, evoked disbelief from most physicists and induced Einstein to turn over in his grave. But sanity was restored in 2012, when the research team realized that a loose electrical cable knocked the experiment’s clocks out of sync, explaining the error.

7. Gravitational waves from the early universe
All space is pervaded by microwave radiation, the leftover glow from the Big Bang that kicked the universe into action 13.8 billion years ago. A popular theory explaining details of the early universe —  called inflation — predicts the presence of blips in the microwave radiation caused by primordial gravitational waves from the earliest epochs of the universe.

In 2014, scientists reported finding precisely the signal expected, simultaneously verifying the existence of gravitational waves predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity and providing strong evidence favoring inflation. Suspiciously, though, the reported signal was much stronger than expected for most versions of inflation theory. Sure enough, the team’s analysis had not properly accounted for dust in space that skewed the data. Primordial gravitational waves remain undiscovered, though their more recent cousins, produced in cataclysmic events like black hole collisions, have been repeatedly detected in recent years.

6. A one-galaxy universe
In the early 20th century, astronomers vigorously disagreed on the distance from Earth of fuzzy cloudlike blobs shaped something like whirlpools (called spiral nebulae). Most astronomers believed the spiral nebulae resided within the Milky Way galaxy, at the time believed to comprise the entire universe. But a few experts insisted that the spirals were much more distant, themselves entire galaxies like the Milky Way, or “island universes.” Supposed evidence against the island universe idea came from measurements of internal motion in the spirals. It would be impossible to detect such motion if the spirals were actually way far away. But by 1924, Edwin Hubble established with certainty that at least sone of the spiral nebulae were in fact island universes, at vast distances from the Milky Way. Those measurements of internal motion were difficult to make — and they just turned out to be wrong.

5. A supernova’s superfast pulsar
Astronomers rejoiced in 1987 when a supernova appeared in the Large Magellanic Cloud, the closest such stellar explosion to Earth in centuries. Subsequent observations sought a signal from a pulsar, a spinning neutron star that should reside in the middle of the debris from some types of supernova explosions. But the possible pulsar remained hidden until January 1989, when a rapidly repeating radio signal indicated the presence of a superspinner left over from the supernova. It emitted radio beeps nearly 2,000 times a second — much faster than anybody expected (or could explain). But after one night of steady pulsing, the pulsar disappeared. Theorists raced to devise clever theories to explain the bizarre pulsar and what happened to it. Then in early 1990, telescope operators rotated a TV camera (used for guiding the telescope) back into service, and the signal showed up again — around a different supernova remnant. So the supposed signal was actually a quirk in the guide camera’s electronics — not a message from space.

4. A planet orbiting a pulsar
In 1991, astronomers reported the best case yet for the existence of a planet around a star other than the sun. In this case, the “star” was a pulsar, a spinning neutron star about 10,000 light-years from Earth. Variations in the timing of the pulsar’s radio pulses suggested the presence of a companion planet, orbiting its parent pulsar every six months. Soon, though, the astronomers realized that they had used an imprecise value for the pulsar’s position in the sky in such a way that the signal anomaly resulted not from a planet, but from the Earth’s motion around the sun.

3. Age of Earth
In the 1700s, French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffonestimated an Earth age of about 75,000 years, while acknowledging it might be much older. And geologists of the 19th century believe it to be older still — hundreds of millions of years or more — in order to account for the observation of layer after layer of Earth’s buried history. After 1860, Charles Darwin’s new theory of evolution also implied a very old Earth, to provide time for the diversity of species to evolve. But a supposedly definite ruling against such an old Earth came from a physicist who calculated how long it would take an originally molten planet to cool. He applied an age limit of about 100 million years, and later suggested that the actual age might even be much less than that. His calculations were in error, however — not because he was bad at math, but because he didn’t know about radioactivity.

Radioactive decay of elements in the Earth added a lot of heat into the mix, prolonging the cooling time. Eventually estimates of the Earth’s age based on rates of radioactive decay (especially in meteorites that formed around the same time as the Earth) provided the correct current age estimate of 4.5 billion years or so.

2. Age of the universe
When astronomers first discovered that the universe was expanding, at the end of the 1920s, it was natural to ask how long it had been expanding. By measuring the current expansion rate and extrapolating backward, they found that the universe must be less than 2 billion years old. Yet radioactivity measurements had already established the Earth to be much older, and it was very doubtful (as in impossibly ridiculous) that the universe could be younger than the Earth. Those early calculations of the universe’s expansion, however, had been based on distance measurements relying on Cepheid variable stars.

Astronomers calculated the Cepheids’ distances based on how rapidly their brightness fluctuated, which in turn depended on their intrinsic brightness. Comparing intrinsic brightness to apparent brightness provided a Cepheid’s distance, just as you can gauge the distance of a lightbulb if you know its wattage (oh yes, and what kind of lightbulb it is). It turned out, though, that just like lightbulbs, there is more than one kind of Cepheid variable, contaminating the expansion rate calculations. Nowadays converging methods give an age of the universe of 13.8 billion years, making the Earth a relative newcomer to the cosmos.

In one of the biggest and most familiar incorrect scientific beliefs, astronomers long believed that the Earth was the center of the cosmos.

1. Earth in the middle
OK, we’re going to name and blame Aristotle for this one. He wasn’t the first to say that the Earth occupies the center of the universe, but he was the most dogmatic about it, and believed he had established it to be incontrovertibly true — by using logic. He insisted that the Earth must be in the middle because earth (the element) always sought to move toward its “natural place,” the center of the cosmos. Even though Aristotle invented formal logic, he apparently did not notice a certain amount of circularity in his argument. It took a while, but in 1543 Copernicus made a strong case for Aristotle being mistaken. And then in 1610 Galileo’s observation that Venus went through a full set of phases sealed the case for a sun-centered solar system.

Now, it would be nice if there were a lesson in this list of errors that might help scientists do better in the future. But the whole history of science shows that such errors are actually unavoidable. There is a lesson, though, based on what the mistakes on this list have in common: They’re all on a list of errors now known to be errors.




More "miracles" that Atheists believe in:

Five Atheist miracles
by Don Batten


1 - Origin of the universe
Materialists (Atheists) once tried to believe that the universe was eternal, to erase the question of where it came from. The famous British Atheist Bertrand Russell, for example, took this position. However, this is not tenable. The progress of scientific knowledge about thermodynamics, for example, means that virtually everyone has been forced to acknowledge that the universe had a beginning, somewhere, sometime—the big bang idea acknowledges this (ideas like the multiverse only put the beginning more remotely, but do not get rid of the pesky problem).

The big bang attempts to explain the beginning of the universe. However, what did it begin from and what caused it to begin? Ultimately, it could not have come from a matter/energy source, the same sort of stuff as our universe, because that matter/energy should also be subject to the same physical laws, and therefore decay, and it would have had a beginning too, just further back in time.

So, it had to come from? Nothing! Nothing became everything with no cause whatsoever. Magic!
    “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.”
So proclaimed the front cover of Discover magazine, April 2002.

Physicist Lawrence Krauss, one of the loud ‘new Atheists’, has tried to explain how everything came from nothing; he even wrote a book about it. However, his ‘nothing’ is a ‘quantum vacuum’, which is not actually nothing. Indeed, a matter/energy quantum something has exactly the same problem as eternal universes; it cannot have persisted for eternity in the past, so all their theorizing only applies after the universe (something) exists.6 Back to square one!

Materialists have no explanation for the origin of the universe, beyond ‘it happened because we are here!’ Magic: just like the rabbit out of the hat, but with the universe, a rather humongous ‘rabbit’! ‘Stuff happens!’
Materialists have no explanation for the origin of the universe, beyond ‘it happened because we are here!’

There are other aspects of the big bang, the ‘mainstream’ model of the universe’s origin, that are also miraculous. The ‘standard model’ has a period of very rapid expansion called ‘inflation’ (which Alan Guth, mentioned above, invented). There is no known cause for the initiation of this supposed expansion, no known cause for it to stop and no physical mechanism for the extremely rapid expansion (many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light). However, these three associated miracles must have happened or the big bang does not work because of the ‘horizon problem’. More magic!




2 - Origin of stars
According to the big bang, the ‘only game in town’ to explain the origin of stars, there had to have been two phases of star formation. Phase 1 involved the formation of hydrogen/helium stars (which are called Population III stars7). Here is the first problem: how do you get gases formed in a rapidly expanding primordial universe to coalesce together to form a critical mass so that there is sufficient gravitational attraction to attract more gas to grow a star? Gases don’t tend to come together; they disperse, especially where there is a huge amount of energy (heat).8 Hey presto! Cosmologists invented ‘dark matter’, which is invisible undetectable ‘stuff’ that just happens to generate a lot of gravitational attraction just where it is needed. More magic!

However, we have countless stars—like the sun—that are not just hydrogen and helium, but contain the heavier elements. Phase 2 supposedly comes in here. Exploding stars (supernovas) from phase 1 produced sufficient pressure to force hydrogen and helium together to make new stars that made all the heavier elements (which astronomers call ‘metals’), including the elements of which we are made. These stars are called Population I and II stars.

Now here is another problem: how do exploding stars, with matter flying at great speed in all directions, cause stars made of all those new elements to form? There has to be a coming together of the elements, not a flying apart. Pieces hitting one another would bounce off rather than coalesce. Most hypotheses involve multiple supernovas from phase 1 in close proximity, such that sufficient material collided together to form enough of a proto-star with sufficient gravity to overcome the tendency to fly apart and attract more matter and so grow a normal star. However, supernovas are not common events, especially multiple ones at the same time in close proximity. Thus, this scenario requires a huge number of very improbable events to account for the vast numbers of the heavier stars.

This is more magic; miracles without a miracle worker.
https://asktheatheist.com/?p=3084

The greatest trick the Devil ever played - was convincing the world he wasn't real.




3 - Origin of life
Astrobiologist Professor Paul Davies said,
    “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”

Not only must the DNA code be explained (how can a coded information storage system come about without intelligent design?), but the incredible machinery that reads the information and creates the components of life from that information has to be explained as well.

Former hard-nosed English Atheist philosopher Antony Flew abandoned Atheism/materialism because of the growing evidence for such design in living things. He said,
    “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

This research,
    “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved”.

That is, only an incredibly intelligent designer could account for the information systems in living things.

Well-known American Atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel said,
    “What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story [of cosmic evolution] has a nonnegligible probability of being true. There are two questions. First, given what is known about the chemical basis of biology and genetics, what is the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms should have come into existence spontaneously on the early earth, solely through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry?”13 (See later for discussion of his second question.)

The scientific knowledge of life grows daily, and as it does the prospects of a naturalistic (materialistic/atheistic) explanation for its origin recede into the distance. The origin of life is another miracle. ‘Stuff happens’? More magic.

The origin of life demands a super-intelligent cause.




4 - Origin of the diversity of life (Design? What design?)
The origin of life is only the beginning of the problem for the materialist. Along with other atheistic biologists, Richard Dawkins has spent his life trying to deny that living things exhibit supernatural design. In the book that ‘put him on the map’, he wrote,

    “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

… how do you get gases formed in a rapidly expanding primordial universe to coalesce together?

The diversity of life is a huge problem. How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth, ranging from earwigs to elephants, from mites to mango trees? For almost a hundred years, mutations and natural selection, the mechanisms of ‘neo-Darwinism’, or ‘the modern synthesis’, have been said to explain this diversity of life. However, with our modern knowledge of living things, this has proved useless as an explanation.

In July 2008, 16 high profile evolutionists met, by invitation, in Altenburg, Austria. They had come because they realized that mutations and natural selection did not explain the diversity of life, and they had come together to discuss this crisis in evolutionary biology. The only consensus was that there is a major problem, a crisis.

Thomas Nagel (continuing from the earlier quote) put it this way:
    “The second question is about the sources of variation in the evolutionary process that was set in motion once life began: In the available geological time since the first life forms appeared on earth, what is the likelihood that, as a result of physical accident, a sequence of viable genetic mutations should have occurred that was sufficient to permit natural selection to produce the organisms that actually exist?”

Think of the supposed origin of humans from a chimp-like ape in six million evolutionary years. Modern comparison of the genomes shows such large differences (of at least 20%) that this is just not feasible, even with highly unrealistic assumptions in favour of evolution.18 Actually, it was not even feasible when the difference was incorrectly trumpeted to be about 1%.

Materialists have no sufficient explanation (cause) for the diversity of life. There is a mind-boggling plethora of miracles here, not just one. Every basic type of life form is a miracle.




5 - Origin of mind and morality
The origin of mind and morality from energy and atoms has long been a problem for the materialist. It is a major theme of philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos, already referred to.

A fig tree produces figs, not apples. That seems obvious. Likewise, physics and chemistry produce physical and chemical outcomes. However, mind and morality are not just matters of physics and chemistry. Sure, creatures that are physical and chemical have mind and morality, but how did such non-material things arise from the material? This is a serious problem for materialism, and the Atheist Nagel candidly admits it, to the extreme annoyance of his atheistic colleagues.

The famous (and reluctant) convert from Atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis, put it well when he wrote,
    “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

The origin of life is only the beginning of the problem for the materialist.

The Atheist has no sufficient cause to explain the existence of mind and morality. Magic happens!

Why do apparently intelligent people resort to believing in magic—uncaused events—at so many points? By not believing in God they have put themselves into an irrational philosophical corner. Romans 1:21 in the Bible says that when people deny that the Creator-God exists, they end up with ‘futile thinking’. We have discussed plenty of that in this article. Richard Lewontin admitted that (leaving God out of the picture), “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … ” (he confuses ‘science’ with materialism).



An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
When a person claims that order, beauty, organization, life, etc. - come from something that has no beginning or purpose, s/he is saying that s/he believes in miracles.

1) Curtain goes up, complete chaos. Curtain goes down.
2) Curtain goes up, a beautiful world full of life appeared. Curtain goes down.
How is the play called? "The atheistic magical and miracolous act of Nature's appearance ".

Spreading the Red Sea
When we read these passages in the past we considered them inexplicable from a natural point of view. But a few years ago scientists experimented a new application to the discovery of water dipolarity. They discovered that by applying a strong magnetic field to a volume of water, it was possible to divide that volume into two parts, leaving a completely dry space in the center.

So it turned out that what seemed like a miracle with no possible physical explanation a few years ago, the division of the waters, turned out to be a display of superior power, sufficient energy that was used to separate water based on knowledge that at that time no human possessed.

When you hear an atheist say that this was a miracle, tell him to update his physical knowledge of water dipolarity. How many more things do atheists call "miracles" because of their lack of knowledge?



Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and company, like to portray those of us who believe in a supernatural Creator as irrational, unscientific, unintelligent, ignorant, or even ‘needing help’ (Dawkins). The entertainment industry often reinforces these perceptions by portraying ‘religious’ people (Christians particularly, and especially church leaders) as buffoons or hillbillies

Reality runs against these perceptions. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science. Surveys have consistently shown that people with a strong adherence to the Bible’s authority are the least likely to be superstitious, in contrast to the average de facto Atheist.

There is much more to say. Atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes—the universe, life, mind, and morality. However, do they have a rational, logical basis for this belief?

They actually believe in miracles without any reasonable cause for the miracles. That is, they believe in magic, or the occurrence of things without a sufficient cause. What we commonly call ‘magic’ is actually illusion. For example, a rabbit does not just appear from an empty hat; there has to be a logical physical explanation; a sufficient cause. Illusion needs an illusionist. Stuff does not happen without something to cause it to happen. Even young children understand this law of causation. Magic, where things ‘just happen’, is the stuff of fairytales—there is no such thing.3

Here are five major examples of materialists believing in magic (and there are more), or miraculous events without any sufficient explanation or cause for those events.

Materialists (Atheists) once tried to believe that the universe was eternal, to erase the question of where it came from. The famous British Atheist Bertrand Russell, for example, took this position.


Finally:


Proof


Atheists need "poof".  Well' they can't pove that they love a family member, or that they actually DO "feel fine".  A person can't even PROVE that they ae hungry.
I often ask Atheists to PROVE - mathematically - that they exist.   :-)


“I played the flute for you, and you didn't dance; I sang a dirge, and you did not weep.”
Matthew 11:17

Atheists will give you 2 or 3 "good reasons", you you had BETTER be convinced.  But you could send them 100 ceasons, and they willreject them all.  Yes, it's the atheist way.  It's called "confirmation bias", and also, "hypocrisy".  And ... [drumroll] "The Dunning Krueger Effect".

Atheists will cite "It’s a false equivalence to say 'making our own purpose' is the same as 'making ourselves deities’.”  Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.  Atheists argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.  How CONVENIENT!

Those above were summations of decades of PhD conclusions.  As usual, you missionaries refute any and all conclusions from your opposition, and you want *your* religion substantiated in 1 sentence.   This isn't our first rodeo with your religion, and you have been doing this for thousands of years.  It's like talking to a homeless drunk - they think they are right, and that you are wrong - always ... you can show them gravity does exist, but they will refute it.  Slurring ambiguance and ambivalence like a blubbering child.  One has to "know" when to "walk away'.  They translate that as "conceding", but you know it's simply a waste of time to stay.  But you leave, since you are simply "spinning your wheels", and there will never be an agreeable conclusion.   Ever.

Atheists expect "beyond genius" philosophies to come from God, yet they claim order and intelligence - comes from nothing .... yet, after 6-10 billion years, THEY don't have anything genius to say, nor even AI can come up with it.   Ivy League University Professors [nor Students] can't even define what a woman is!   Yet, they can't even see that dichotomy.  It's ENDLESS entertainment.

Atheism debate link (Kent Hovind)
https://youtu.be/uOUDSiZl2A8?t=14

NOTE:  There are now MANY videos of AI - debating this .... those videos go on for 20 minutes - to over 2 hours .... and the same result.  So, if supercomputers can't figure it out ... yet you want us to listen to YOU???   That is pretty narcissistic of each of you!
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ai+debates+atheist+vs+believer

Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jordan+peterson+vs+atheist

Oxford Mathematician (John Lennox) destroys Atheism in less than 15 minutes
https://youtu.be/RY8uDhaLJnk
https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0
NOTE: He does not attack atheists or atheism - but rather gives a solid basis for his faith as a scientist.

Atheism debates:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ai+debates+atheist+vs+believer

Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jordan+peterson+vs+atheist


Atheists will cite "It’s a false equivalence to say 'making our own purpose' is the same as 'making ourselves deities’.”
Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.  Atheists argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.  How CONVENIENT!

The juvenile circular reasoning as "If God can do anything, can God make a rock so big - he can't pick it up?" This is the #1 Atheist question. I always ask them "Is _that_ the best you can do? How about "While the 3 argument types: ontological, cosmological, and teleological - are regarded as the main classical types of arguments for the existence of God, some philosophers have used moral grounds to argue that God must/must not exist. Now, explain "love" mathematically. Show your work."
(no, it doesn't make sense, but it's soooo much fun to see them think about it, then discount it. It's like saying "If A = trauma, and B is less than relative to exposure, then why is thrust equal to Bernoulli?" Yes, I love doing things like that to intellectuals. And yes, I'm kinda mean sometimes. But I have to hide my grin/chuckles.)


For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.
-  St. Thomas Aquinas

"No amount of evidence will ever convince an idiot."
-  Mark Twain

“It is better to have questions that cant be answered, rather than answers that cant be questioned.”
-  Richard P. Feynman

“Never associate with idiots on their own level, because, being an intelligent man, you’ll try to deal with them on their level - and on their level they’ll beat you every time.”
-  Jean Cocteau, a French writer
Revised to: “Never wrestle with a pig…  you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
-  George Bernard Shaw


And ... the best for last...


“Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative”
-  G.K. Chesterton

Under the leadership of militant atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, a new wave of radical atheism is pounding the streets. But look carefully because their writings are full of self-contradictory arguments. One thing that is especially striking is how (in a strange way) these atheist indirectly validate belief with the intensity of their unbelief.

In “Uncomfortable Unbelief,” Wilfred M. McClay suggested that, “Unbelief would be untenable without the moral and metaphysical capital created and banked by the belief it displaced.”

He asked, “Can there be unbelief without religion, or without a religious point of view that is being negated? After all, our understanding of ourselves as secular is undergirded by a powerful conviction that ‘we have come to be that way through overcoming and rising out of earlier modes of belief.’”

“In other words, we have liberated ourselves. Will not God and theism therefore remain a necessary reference point? It may be possible to imagine a society in which the idea of God would not even have been a discarded image, never having been on offer at all. But such a society would clearly be very different from the one we actually inhabit, or any we are likely to experience in the foreseeable future. Part of the passion animating the new atheists is their sense of themselves as ‘having overcome’ the foolish and destructive irrationalities of the past. Without that sense, their passion—and perhaps the cogency of their project itself—recedes.”

Another really strange and inherently self-contradictory emphasis can be found in Christopher Hitchens’ book, “god is not Great” (as in books from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins). These authors are full of moral appraisals (often using the most fundamentalistic tones) and readers are somehow obliged to see things through their moral grids. I continuously felt the urge to ask why these atheists so strongly believed that their moral conclusions are superior. Although they typically avoid this question by changing the subject, thoughtful readers will not be tricked.

While vehemently denying God (especially the Christian version), they write as if an absolute standard of goodness and duty exists — one they have special access to and we are obliged to accept on their word (unless we wish to remain irrational idiots). They want to tell us that such a standard is possible without God, but they don’t offer a well-reasoned explanation for how this could be. They just impose it on us with repeated tones of moral superiority.

At this point the question, “Who are you to impose your morality on me?” becomes fair game. How is your opinion superior to another? On what basis am I obliged to yield to your rules? Isn’t it fair after all to suggest that without God all moral conclusions are merely subjective human opinions without any binding authority beyond what people or cultures attribute to them?


Why is peace better than war, or love better than hate? If I claim one to be superior to the other, does that make it better? If I get enough people to agree with me, does this make it true for all people? Are moral issues settled by what increases happiness or decreases suffering? If so, whose happiness? Is there a right view of human flourishing? If so, whose view? (And, why am I even asking these kinds of questions?)

Reading these authors, I continually found myself asking, “Says whom?” Although they don’t seem to get it, their statements about right and wrong are simply alternative choices without moral superiority. If they were logically consistent, they would encourage their readers to suppress all notions of moral superiority—something they are clearly unwilling to do.

These men assume a moral framework that implies higher understandings of morality and humanity — a strange thing for an atheist to assert! But even more fascinating is how consistently (and illogically) they borrow assumptions from theism to argue against it. They love to reject things in the Bible considered by them to be inhumane and then expect us to assume some basis for their moral conclusions without providing it for us. Worse yet, they use biblical categories of morality to reject the Bible.

It would be far more consistent for them to admit that evil is merely an illusion made up by humans. For there to be objective evil, there must also be some objective standard of right and wrong. But if the physical universe is all there is (as they firmly believe), there can be no such standard.

How could arrangements of matter and energy make judgments about good and evil true? So, there are no real evils, just violations of human customs or conventions. But are they ready to think of murderers as merely having bad manners? Of course not!

These atheists (and their disciples) must also (if they do not wish to be self-contradictory) admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals or the material world in general. Consistent with their views, humans are simply the result of blind chance operating on some primordial ooze, and differing from animals by only a few genes. Here is where the beauty and wonders of human achievement, along with the moral dignity we ascribe to human beings (acts of benevolence and heroism) cannot fit with the claim that we are no different from animals.

The conclusion that humans are creatures uniquely made in the image of the benevolent and righteous God offers a better version of reality.  And the Bible that these people reject speaks openly of both evil and benevolence. One does not need to upgrade her view of the world when reading scripture. No rose colored glasses needed. The Christian Scriptures offers a larger and more satisfying frame of reference for understanding the complexities of the world. It reveals a world God prescribed (the goodness and innocence of Eden); one he permitted (the violence and rebellion of Cain), and a world he will providentially make new (the new heavens and earth).

Steve Cornell

https://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/atheists-contradict-themselves/




Demanding Personality Disorder:


Imagine a person who’s never satisfied with “good enough.” They’re the perfectionists, the micromanagers, the ones who always seem to find something to criticize. That’s the essence of a demanding personality. These folks are like human pressure cookers, constantly simmering with expectations and ready to blow if things don’t go their way.

First up, let’s talk about childhood. You know how they say the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree? Well, in the case of demanding personalities, sometimes the apple gets catapulted across the orchard by overly critical or perfectionistic parents. Growing up in an environment where nothing was ever good enough can lead to a lifetime of impossibly high standards.

But wait, there’s more! Insecurity and fear of failure often play starring roles in the demanding personality show. It’s like they’re constantly trying to prove their worth by being the best at everything and expecting the same from others. It’s exhausting just thinking about it, isn’t it?

Anxiety and stress are also frequent guests at this party. Imagine feeling like the world might end if everything isn’t just so. That’s the kind of pressure many demanding personalities put on themselves and, unfortunately, on those around them.

Now, let’s sprinkle in a dash of narcissism. Some demanding personalities have a touch of “I’m the center of the universe” syndrome. They might believe that their way is always the right way, and everyone else should just fall in line. It’s like they’re the directors of a movie where everyone else is just an extra.

Last but not least, we’ve got obsessive-compulsive traits. No, we’re not talking about liking your desk tidy (although that might be part of it). We’re talking about a deep-seated need for order and control that can manifest in some pretty intense ways.

It’s important to note that having a forceful personality doesn’t automatically mean someone has all these psychological factors at play. People are complex, and there’s usually more than one reason behind demanding behavior.



1) They command authority
2) They lack empathy
3) They’re disrespectful




Atheist jokes:


What is an atheist's favorite movie?
Coincidence on 34th Street

My atheist boyfriend treats me like a literal goddess.
He acts like I don't exist.

A Crossfitter, a Vegan and an Atheist walk into a bar....
I only know because they told *everybody* within 2 minutes of walking in.

Did you hear about the insomniac atheist dyslexic?
He stayed-up all night .... pondering the existence ... of a Dog.

An atheist comes into a mall
And there is no parking spot, so he says "God, if you give me parking spot, I will convert myself and become Christian".
2 minutes later he says "Nevermind I found one"

I’m an atheist and have dyslexia
I don’t believe in a Dog

On the atheist tombstone:
All dressed up and no place to go.

Did you know the guy who invented autocorrect is an atheist?
He's going to he'll

Here’s a simple way of converting an atheist to a theist.
Just give them a little space.

I'm a dyslexic atheist..
So I sold my soul to Santa

What do a glass of water and an Atheist have in common?
Jesus can make them both wine.

What do you call a Cuban Atheist?
Infidel Castro.

Thank god I'm an atheist
Oh, wait...

My atheist friend failed algebra class because he couldn’t calculate exponents
He doesn’t believe in a higher power.

An atheist's response to witnessing the second coming of Christ.
"Well, I'll be damned."

I heard the atheists are trying to get tax exempt status now
They are a non-prophet organization

As an atheist, I hate waking up
It's always an ungodly hour.