Atheism 101: Trickle-Down Poison

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
—Psalms 14:1 NKJV

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards
the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
—George Washington: First President of the United States

Atheism is an intellectually shallow, morally stunted, and socially regressive blight on humanity. Its deleterious effects upon society can be seen all around us—from the self-serving arrogance of political elites, to the rampant greed and corruption in banking/business, to America’s blatant moral decay.

We live in an atheistic or secular society, one that worships at the altar of scientific positivism/secular humanism.  Those are code words for a type of Godless barbarism dressed in the costume of sophistication and intellectual hubris.

Winston Churchill once said of Islam that “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”  I beg to differ—as a regressive, debilitating, socially destructive force, atheism has no peer (although granted, it’s a close contest).   (Link)

I should mention up front that I don’t dislike atheists per se—only their despicable philosophy, such as it is.  I have friends that are atheists, and I treat them with the same respect and courtesy as I would anyone with a serious disease.  (Perhaps “we the people” should start focusing more on the “disease,” and not so much the “symptoms”).

Atheism and anti-Christian teachings/attitudes has been vigorously promoted by the Far Left since at least as far back as the French Revolution, and the history of its advance is an interesting one, but I’ll leave that for another time.  For now I’ll concentrate on why atheism is such a vile doctrine, and why it must be fought at every turn if humanity is to survive and thrive.  (I’ll address the subset of “conservative,” or right-wing, atheists later in the article).  (Link)

Dinesh D’Souza has pointed out that atheistic pundits are no longer content with being tolerated; they want to prove that their view of reality is the correct one, once and for all.  I concur—bring it on.  One side of the debate is correct, and the other side is insanely deluded.  It’s obviously important to see which side is on the side of truth.

To say that atheism denies the existence of God doesn’t tell us much, unless we define what we mean by the label “God.”  I would be happy to discuss the concept/reality of God, but the focus of this article is atheism not God, so I’ll employ a simple yet usable definition for now.  I’ll have to leave questions such as whether God is a white-bearded guy sitting on a cloud, or as Paul said, a reality “in which we live, and move, and have our being,” and other ontological/theological concerns for another time.

For our purposes here, I’ll simply define God as an intelligent power behind creation.  Atheists deny the existence of such a God, and from their denial spring a variety of absurd, puerile, and socially harmful concepts.
Because many of atheism’s adherents in the intelligentsia are under the mistaken impression that atheism is intellectually superior to a belief in God, it is perhaps best to start any discussion of atheism by drawing attention to its paucity of intellectual weight or validity.  Atheism is, at the end of the day, nothing but a house of cards—a negative, nihilistic, ego-inflating, life-denying doctrine that is based on nothing but ignorance, faulty intellectualism, and egocentric hubris.

Atheists are fond of ridiculing the story of Creation as recounted in the Book of Genesis

Atheists are fond of ridiculing the story of Creation as recounted in the Book of Genesis, preferring their own oh-so-brilliant version which runs something like this:

“Yea, in the beginning there was Nothing, and Nothing begat nothing—not even darkness.  Nothing be praised!  Then lo, for no reason Nothing became All That Is; yea Stuff happened to happen.  Then behold, the pointless fumblings of the Hand of Chance (praised be Its name) breathed Life unto Itself.  Lo, and Dead Stuff begat Live Monkeys!  And it came to pass that the monkeys begat humans, such as Bill Maher.  Thanks for Nothing!”

Verily I say to you this is bulls—t, but atheists buy into such nonsense.  (There is, I might point out, a vast difference between metaphorically depicted ineffable wisdom, and spurious, self-serving claptrap).  The atheist’s Creation myth has all of the warped absurdity of one of Kipling’s “Just So” stories, with none of the charm.      (Link)

Those who have pursued spiritual growth earnestly, know that truth mostly resides in consciousness and experience, and seldom in words and the intellect.  Nonetheless scholars in the field of Intelligent Design (ID) have made admirable advances on the materialist’s home turf.  The circumstantial scientific evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer is now quite impressive.  (I should mention that the scientists involved in ID are adamant about separating their research from theology). (Link)

It doesn’t make any difference to atheists.  They steadfastly refuse to hear the truth, and remain like little kids with fingers stuck in their ears, chanting “La, La, La, I can’t hear you!” It would be laughable, if the results of such willful ignorance were not often so tragic—and make no mistake, the social results of widespread atheism are no laughing matter. (Link)

Atheists often point to the “bloody history” of religion, while conveniently ignoring their own much more violent and bloody past

Atheists often point to the “bloody history” of religion, while conveniently ignoring their own much more violent and bloody past—and they’ve managed to pull off their staggering blood-bath in much less time then say, Christianity, whose body-count compared to atheism’s is admittedly amateurish.  From Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, to Lenin, to Stalin, to Hitler, to Mao, to Pol Pot… atheism and its adherents have cut a bloody swath through history that leaves other doctrines in the dust—and in such a relatively short time too!  I’ll admit it’s impressive, in its own sick way.  (Link) (Link)

Atheism is a symptom of a stunted, immature spirituality, and is a “naïve, childish concept” dressed in grown-up clothing.  The intelligentsia who flaunt the chic cache of atheism are in truth merely cases of arrested development, coupled with a narcissistic myopia. (Link)

What might be called “classic” atheism stems from the teachings of the ancient Greek, Epicurus (341-270 BC).  Like any good atheist, he started from a predetermined position, and then went out in search of “evidence” to support it, as opposed to arriving at his conclusions via an unbiased search for truth.

In Epicurus’s case, the position that he started out from, was that the universe was strictly materialistic, with no divine purpose behind it, or influence upon it.  He then searched for “data” to support his presupposition.  Modern atheism is essentially a tweaked variation of Epicurus’ teachings. (Link)

Given that this is a relatively short article I don’t have the luxury of delving into Epicurus’ teachings in any depth, but by discussing a few of his concepts I hope to at least give the reader unfamiliar with Epicurean teachings some idea of what they are.  For a more in-depth analysis of Epicureanism (and its modern-day counterparts such as Darwinism), I recommend Benjamin Wiker’s book “Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists.”  (Link)

Two of the main supports for the Epicurean (atheist) world-view, are atomism, and an eternal universe

Two of the main supports for the Epicurean (atheist) world-view, are atomism (“borrowed” from Democritus ), and an eternal universe.  It’s worth noting that neither of these two major supports for Epicureanism/atheism were empirically verifiable by the “science” of his day.  Therefore both of Epicurus’ “proofs” were fallacies of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) variety.

Epicurus described atoms as featureless, sterile, meaningless bits of matter.  Epicurus knew that a sense of wonder about the universe might lead his followers astray.  That is, they might start to believe in divinity and God knows what.  As the Bible points out “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (“fear” in this case meaning a sense of great awe).

Epicurus nipped any sense of awe in the bud, by claiming that any apparent complexity and design in Nature was, at its root, merely the result of the chance arrangement of meaningless, pugnaciously un-divine atoms.  His followers could then say “Oh, is that all.”  Today we have a society filled with people saying “Oh, is that all.”  This, despite the fact that we know today that atoms as Epicurus described them do not exist.

As Fritjof Capra observed in “The Tao of Physics,” “Gradually, physicists began to realise [sic] that nature, at the atomic level, does not appear as a mechanical universe composed of fundamental building blocks, but rather as a network of relations, and that, ultimately, there are no parts at all in this interconnected web.”

Indeed, it turns out that atoms are mostly space, containing swirling sub-atomic particle/patterns of data-energy.  So mathematically elegant, precise, and complex are these bundles of data-energy we call atoms, that one could be excused for thinking that they were designed.  They are most emphatically NOT teeny dead BBs of matter.      (Link)

(A brief aside:  In any discussion of spirituality, or its antithesis atheism, it’s worth recalling that words are merely metaphors.  For example, if I tell you “I poured a glass of water on a rose.”  You cannot hold the “glass,” drink the “water,” or smell the “rose” because, quite obviously, words are not the things that they describe.  Words are no more or less than a type of code for an ineffable reality.  Typically “we see through a glass, darkly” because of the veiling effect of layer upon layer of words.  Whereas spirituality attempts to dissolve these verbal/mental veils, atheism uses them to obfuscate the divine).

Epicurus’ description of atoms as “teeny dead BBs” is absurd.  So what about his other main support for atheism—eternity?  I should start by giving a brief description of why the concept of eternity is important to Epicurus’ atheism.

On the face of it, the idea that inert, mindless bits of matter (atoms as envisioned by Epicurus) should by chance, arrange themselves into the undeniably complex universe we experience, seems a laughably jejune concept.  But give those atoms eternity and infinity to bump around in, and anything is possible—so claim atheists.

This is a variant of the Monkey Theorem, which in essence states that a monkey hitting a keyboard for a long enough amount of time will eventually type a given set of books, such as the works of Shakespeare. Research done with the help of computers has shown that the chances of such an outcome actually happening are slim to none.  Take away eternity, and the odds of a monkey typing Shakespeare (or the universe arranging itself as it is by chance) drop to zero, or so close as to make no difference.

Many people believe that it was primarily Christians who opposed the Big Bang theory, because it disagreed with the Bible’s Creation story, but that is simply not true.  In fact it was a Christian, the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, who came up with the theory, (with the Pope’s enthusiastic support).  Wikipedia observes that today “the [Big Bang] theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation [for the creation of the universe] supported by scientific evidence and observations.”

It was primarily atheists who passionately opposed Lemaître’s theory.  They opposed it because it demolished the crucial atheistic crutches of eternity and infinity.  If the universe had a beginning (even if billions of years ago), and was not infinite but was indeed still expanding, then the time and space needed for the Monkey Theorem to be at all viable just wasn’t there. (Link)

For centuries atheists used science as their stalking horse

For centuries atheists used science as their stalking horse, especially once the theories of Darwinian evolution came on the scene.  But in the 20th century science “turned” on them via such discoveries as the Big Bang and quantum physics, and in the end pulled the rug out from under atheism, so to speak.  So the Far Left attacked science.

And it’s not just science that the Far Left attacked, but logic and reason itself.  The ultimate atheistic position is anti-science, anti-logic, and anti-reason—all of which fits in nicely with their anti-life nihilism.  Atheist’s pursuit of truth extends only so far as it serves to further atheism’s rationalizations, justifications, and excuses.

Any excuse that will serve as a crutch for their lame doctrine will do.  When science, logic, and reason failed to support atheism, it was to be expected that the egocentric self-interest at the core of atheism would lash out—and so it has, and so it does, and so it will. (Link)

(A brief aside: Before diving [briefly!] into the murky depths of relativism, I should mention that all too many scientists remain atheists not because scientific research proves the nonexistence of God, but because of their blind faith in the religion of secularism.  Their dogged adherence to secularism is nothing but a stubborn insistence on clinging to outdated paradigms of the past—propaganda foisted onto science by atheists over the centuries).

The Far Left turned on science a few decades ago, because it was getting uncomfortably close to looking into things that didn’t jive with the atheistic world-view.  So the Far Left word-meisters got to work at deconstructing science.  The resulting gobbledygook was famously “outed” by Sokal’s Hoax, which high-lighted the fact that the atheistic Left will tend to accept any sort of garbage thrown their way, if you toss in the right buzz-words, and phrase it in impressive sounding (if nonsensical) academic jargon. (Link)

Moral pluralism is a cultural sickness on a par with, and often connected to, atheism.  As Stefan Jetchick observes “It is ‘moral pluralism’ that is at the heart of chronic hunger, environmental destruction, and third world debt, because ‘moral pluralism’ only begets moral indifference.”  Relativism—yeah, there’s the ticket.  (Link)

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”  When Lewis Carroll penned those words for “Through the Looking-Glass” he was making fun of the absurdity of such thinking, but relativists look up to this type of insane “reasoning” as a guiding star.    (Link)

In essence relativism says “It’s true because I say so—so there.”  Au contraire mon frère, if the convoluted linguistic knot of relativism was based on reason it might be true, but “as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”    (Link)

In the more refined language of Dr. David R. Hawkins: “The appeal of relativism…is to imbalance and excess rather than to truth, wisdom, or caution.  …To the prideful, narcissistic (“sensitive”) ego, responsibility is “uncomfortable,” as are certain facts of reality that impinge on social image.  Thus, to protect itself, the ego welcomes the concept of [relativism] to dispense with unwanted realities.  …A serious downside to the pseudo-intellectualism of relativism is that it is a trap for academia, which confused intellectualism with erudition or intelligence.”  (Link)

Relativism is a sort of Nietzschesque anti-reason reasoning

Relativism is a sort of Nietzschesque anti-reason reasoning.  The website “Atheism Analyzed” does an admirable job of showing just how lame some of the various relativistic/atheistic doctrines are.  For example, Bertrand Russell’s dictum “We must require evidence for a thing if it is to be believed” (from his atheistic essay “Why I am Not A Christian”)  is shown to be thoroughly faulty logic. (Link)

Russell’s dictum is “commonly used as a law for materialism.”  Yet as “Atheism Analyzed” points out, Russell’s statement is self-refuting—logically speaking it’s rubbish.  Does the fact that we don’t (can’t) have empirical “evidence” for love, truth, and faith mean that they are figments of our imaginations?  That is, does the fact that we can’t weigh and measure them mean they don’t exist ?  Does the lack of “evidence” for awareness mean we aren’t aware?

Russell’s looking for the wrong thing, with the wrong motives, in the wrong place, with the wrong tools.  He reminds me of the proverbial fish swimming in the ocean derisively demanding, “Show me the water!”  If you add the extra fillip that the fish is also made of water, then his statement’s foolishness is especially evident.

There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about spirituality—in fact it can assimilate science quite easily.  Spirituality is much more open and inclusive than the limited framework of science, which has no methodology for dealing with life’s most vital concerns, such as values, morals, and meaning.  Spirituality has no axe to grind with science.

In David Bodanis’ book “E = mc2” he explains that the “E” stands for energy, the equals sign means “is the same as,” and the mc2 refers to what we label “matter.”  In essence Einstein’s famous equation is a way of saying that energy is matter, and matter is energy.  Matter is simply a sort of congealed energy—which is why matter has such an explosive effect when its bound energy is quickly released.      (Link)

As Bodanis points out, if you were to abruptly release the pent-up energy in a common pencil, the resultant blast would destroy a city block.  We use matter that is already unstable, such as plutonium or uranium, to make atomic bombs, but in truth any matter could theoretically be used.  Also noteworthy are the “new” forms of energy such as zero-point energy, and dark energy, which research suggests fill “empty” space.  Is energy everywhere?      (Link)

The First Law of Thermodynamics states: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form.  (Without using words, try to “describe” what energy really is—“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power”).  Is it not a valid scientific pursuit to inquire into any possible connections between the Designer of Intelligent Design, and indestructible energy?

Such things as the scientific field of ecology, and the Butterfly Effect point toward the unity of everything—a universe made of one interconnected reality, one energy, in all its various shapes and forms.  Is this not similar to a God who is everything, or the One?  Perhaps God is not energy, but that which created energy—or both; creator and creation?  I’m just asking in an open-minded way—as science should properly be doing, as opposed to its current one-sided gathering of “excuses” for atheism.

Is it not possible that, aided by divine wisdom, the mystics of old intuited truths only now being discovered by science?”  Of course it is possible, even probable, as the new scientific field of consciousness research implies.  It is only the arrogant clenching onto of the provincial doctrine of anthropocentric atheism that prevents the obvious from shining forth.  (Link)

The various Christian sects and their followers, for all their faults and foibles, are largely pointed in the right direction—toward truth and life, (“I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”).  Atheism, which aggressively celebrates egocentricity, leads society inexorably towards destruction, nihilism, and death.  Why would anyone in their right mind ever choose atheism/relativism of their own free will?  (Link)

Oh I forgot, there is no such thing as free will in a Godless universe.  Nor, say atheist pundits, are there such things as love, compassion, integrity, hope—in fact any emotion, or virtue (or vice).  Atheism posits that these are all just the result of randomly created biological processes which produce the ILLUSION of compassion, gratitude, hope, et al.

As Francis Crick, (atheist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA), wrote in “The Astonishing Hypothesis,” “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules”

Atheism mandates the belief that we are all just valueless, meaningless, emotionless, automatons adrift in a valueless, meaningless universe

Atheism mandates the belief that we are all just valueless, meaningless, emotionless, automatons adrift in a valueless, meaningless universe.  Trust me, this is not the philosophy you want driving the people in charge of businesses, banks, and a bloated government bureaucracy .  Ready for some sex and soma, Bernard—or shall we join Winston in Room 101?    (Link)

Do most atheists even care about the full implications of atheism?  Not hardly. Atheists are for the most part simply interested in protecting their self-serving life-style, and marching in lock-step with others who share in their smug delusion.  Atheism means win, win, win all around for the ego—only society and culture lose.  As Dr. Hawkins succinctly puts it, “In truth, we exist and survive , not because of the ego, but in spite of it.”    (Link) and (Link)

The secularization/de-Christianization of America started in earnest with the infiltration of Harvard by Far Left aficionados of Keynesian economics in the early part of the last century (the homosexual Keynes and his cohorts were against Christianity for the obvious reason that the Bible condemns their life-style—at least it did in those days).      (Link)

American academic atheism received a further surge with an influx of professors from the “Frankfurt School” in the 1930s.—and so the atheistic/anti-Christian message was passed down to generation after generation of students, and then passed on to “we the people” through a thousand-and-one subtle, and not so subtle, innuendos, hints, and nudges—coupled with constant “lawfare” waged by the ACLU and their ilk.  You could call it “trickle-down poison.”  The next, and last, major “surge” occurred in the 1960s.  (I don’t generally urge readers to click on the links I provide, but in this case I will).  (Link) (Link)

No professional area (except possibly law) has been more complicit in the subtle spreading of atheistic/anti-Christian attitudes than the mass media.  To take one of countless examples, the way that the media covered Jim Jones and the Jonestown tragedy is a classic case in point.  (Link)

The “reverend”Jim Jones was nobody’s idea of a devout Christian.  He was a rabid Far Left ideologue who preached Marxism, sent church donations to communist Russia, and led his congregation in singing the Russian Soviet anthem, as they all committed suicide under gun point by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.  In addition, some of Jones’ followers killed several people connected with a fact-finding mission to Jonestown—including Congressman Leo Ryan.  (The recent shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona notwithstanding, Ryan remains the only member of Congress “killed in action”).

Far Left insanity all the way—and nary a peep from our stalwart media “watchdogs” about any of it.  Instead they spread the lie that Jones was exclusively a religious nut; a Christian religious nut.  How many other lies do you think “we the people” have been spoon fed by the various media venues (magazines, newspapers, TV, movies, et al.)?    (Link) (Link)

Given our country’s Judeo/Christian roots, and the deplorable state of our culture, perhaps now would be a good point to retrench, and then move forward with Christian values—and I don’t mean any of the various watered-down and perverted Far Left versions of faux “Christianity,” with their talk of social justice, collective salvation, and moral relativism.    (Link)

Perhaps now would be an opportune time to reinvigorate, rethink, and at the same time rediscover, Christianity.  To have a sort of “spring cleaning.”  God, the “Ancient of Days,” is after all also the “Wonder Child”—ever new, fresh, and bursting with inspiration and power.  The word “God” is more of a verb than a noun, and God is forever now.

Although Jesus certainly promoted doing good for others—no other religion’s spiritual avatar changed their environment, “the way things are,” like Him—His main emphasis was on changing oneself.

He told the Power Elites of His day (“blind guides who strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel”), that they should stop focusing on what’s outside of themselves, and start focusing on, and improving, what’s on the inside.  In addition, as Paul wrote, “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”  Atheists know nothing of the Spirit, hence the vast burden of laws and regulations Progressives have imposed on “we the people.”

Atheists, who have no stable internal moral compass, always tend toward wanting to fix what they perceive as being wrong with YOU, and because their own spirits are stunted and atrophied because of their lack of working on their inner selves, they generally have scant comprehension of personal integrity, and therefore believe that they must regulate everything (and everyone) from the outside.  (Link)

I’ve become convinced that the Far Left, and even moderate liberals to a lesser extent, suffer from a mental pathology—one of the symptoms being projection/transference—where they project onto those that they disagree with the very qualities that they themselves possess, such as intolerance, elitism, and arrogance (or its marginally less annoying cousin—smugness).  (Link)

No doubt some are also simply using transference as a ploy to take attention off of their own behavior.  In any event, attributing to others their own faults is an irritating (at times extremely so) and widespread trait among the left-wing.  It ties in with the atheistic credo of protecting the ego (and its positionalities) at all costs.

Because atheism’s bedrock foundation is senseless, amoral nihilism, the best they can do for a code of conduct is to ape Christian ethics and morals in order to cloak their barbaric core with a semblance of civility.  Atheism cares only about atheism.  When history doesn’t suit atheists, they rewrite history.  When logic fails them they deconstruct logic.  When science fails them they ridicule science.  When reason itself fails them, they savage reason.    (Link)

Atheists attempt to destroy anything and everything that gets in their way, and at the end of the day stand revealed as the deluded slaves of ego that they are.  I for one am way past being sick and tired of their willful destruction of America’s morality, ethics, and honor.  They can go live in whatever benighted, vile, Godforsaken country they want, but leave America alone!  Enough already!  (Link)

In any event, I trust that those of you with open minds will hopefully see the truth in what I’ve written.  Those whose minds have been sealed shut by atheism generally need a catastrophic occurrence in their personal lives for them to leave the comfortable, if stagnant, confines of their egoic prison, and so see the light.

To “conservative” atheists I say “get with the program people.”  You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem, and if you believe in the Godless nihilism of materialistic atheism then you are definitely part of the problem.  I’m not saying that you need to be born again—simply conceding that there just may be a God, and you aren’t it, would be a good start.

Laus Deo.

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two.  A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.”  The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.

Images added by Gulag Bound

Speak Your Mind