Atheism is stupid

Atheism/evolutionism is the essence of liberalism/socialism

Not in my universe.

What does nonbelief in the existence of God have to do with socialism, i.e., the economic and political theory of collective or government ownership and control of the distribution of wealth and goods?

What does a theory about the origin of life have to do liberalism, which has evolved (well, maybe there's the connection) from a noble concept to demogoguery, control of the masses through lies and deceit, divisiveness, class warfare, economic predation, and suppression of free speech?

I'm sure you don't want public schools to tell your children there is no God or that Christianity is evil. If so, you have the same basic objection that the California atheist has to the indoctrination of his child in public school. He doesn't want your religion forced on his child, just as you don't want his forced on your child. Therefore, public schools should stay silent on the issue.

Your home, your church, your internet site, your letters to the editor and congressmen, or even the street corner are appropriate places for expressing your religious ideas. You have that free speech right that cannot be abridged. You can pray at a public school on your own or with a group of others -- just don't get the school to sponsor it because that steps over the line to the government indoctrination of children (something practiced by Hitler and the Communists).

The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists and atheists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God hates IDIOTS, too!

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:

The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!

Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?




|                    . .                     , ,
|                 ____)/                     \(____
|        _,--''''',-'/(                       )\`-.`````--._
|     ,-'       ,'  |  \       _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.
|   ,'         /    |   `._   /\\   //\   _,'   |     \        `.
|  |          |      `.    `-( ,\\_//  )-'    .'       |         |
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\  ____`\o'_`o/'____  /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
| |/'        \'        `\(      \(_)/      )/'        `/        `\|
| `                      `       V V       '                      '

Splifford the bat says: Always remember:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.

First, you are either wrong or you are lying when you claim that atheism is socialism. Socialism is a stupid way to run an economy, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities.

Second, I can't decipher anything else from your comment. Are you arguing that the majority does rule in the US, or that the majority should rule, or anything like that?

LOL!! Do you have too many pearls? ;-D

Some useful references:

Major Scientific Problems with Evolution

EvolUSham dot Com

Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution

The All-Time, Ultimate Evolution Quote

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."

Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist

Social Darwinism, Naziism, Communism, Darwinism Roots etc.

Creation and Intelligent Design Links

Evolutionist Censorship Etc.

Catastrophism

Big Bang, Electric Sun, Plasma Physics and Cosmology Etc.

Finding Cities in all the Wrong Places

Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.

Intelligent Versions of Biogenesis etc.

Talk.origins/Sci.Bio.Evolution Realities

While Buddhists tend not to worship deities, not all Buddhists lack belief in deities. Some forms of Buddhism hold belief in the existence of deities -- however those gods are not relevant to the ultimate goal of nirvanna.

God hates IDIOTS, too!

That'd be cool, eh? But apparently he loves them since there are some many of them ;^D

Ever wonder why the evos like to talk about the little freak-show items like the archaeopteryx and platypus the way they do? Basically, it's because so little is known about those things that they can talk about them all day long and not look or sound anywhere near as STUPID as they do when talking about ordinary things like flying birds (which I have explained) or modern man. In the case of modern man, there is not only zero evidence of our evolving, there is provably nothing on the planet we could have conceivably evolved FROM. Neanderthal DNA has been shown to be "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee" thus eliminating him altogether as a plausible ancestor of ours, and all other hominids are much further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. You'd need some other hominid closer to us both in time and morphology, and the works and remains of such a thing would be all over the place if he had ever existed; they aren't, and he didn't.

Logically, you only have to think about it a little bit to realize how stupid it really is.

You are starting out with apes ten million years ago, in a world of fang and claw with 1000+ lb. carnivores running amok all over the place, and trying to evolve your way towards a more refined creature in modern man. Like:

HEY! Ya know, I'll betcha if I put on these lace sleeves and this powdered wig, them dire-wolves an sabertooth cats'll start to show me a little bitta RESPECT!!!"

What's wrong with that?

The problem gets worse when you try to imagine known human behavorial constants interacting with the requirements of having the extremely rare to imaginary beneficial mutation always prevail:

Let's start from about ten million years back and assume we have our ape ancestor, and two platonic ideals towards which this ape ancestor (call him "Oop") can evolve: One is a sort of a composite of Mozart, Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, i.e. your archetypal dead white man, and the other platonic ideal, or evolutionary target, is going to be a sort of an "apier" ape, fuzzier, smellier, meaner, bigger Johnson, smaller brain, chews tobacco, drinks, gambles, gets into knife fights...

Further, let's be generous and assume that for every one chance mutation which is beneficial and leads towards the gentleman, you only have 1000 adverse mutations which lead towards the other guy. None of these mutations are going to be instantly fatal or anything like that at all; Darwinism posits change by insensible degree, hence all of these 1000 guys are fully functional.

The assumption which is being made is that these 1000 guys (with the bad mutation) are going to get together and decide something like:

"Hey, you know, the more I look at this thing, we're really messed-up, so what we need to do is to all get on our motorcycles and pack all our ole-ladies over to Dr. Jeckyll over there (the guy with the beneficial mutation), and try to arrange for the next generation of our kids to be in better genetic shape than we are..."

Now, it would be amazing enough if that were ever to happen once; Darwinism, however, requires that this happen EVERY GENERATION from Oop to us. What could possibly be stupider than that?

... sometimes if you invalidate a postulate it leads you down a whole road to new mathmatics, such as non-euclidian geometry. It turns out that if you invalidate Euclid's fifth(or was it fourth?) postulate that any two points determine only one line, and make the postulate read that two points detemine an infinite number of lines, you get a whole new field of gemetry leading to solutions to formerly insoluble problems. It also turns out that some of the resulting equations turn up in such unlikely places as quantum phsyics and fluid dynamics.

Would like to hear more about this. Physicist, would you comment/can you confirm?

I always ask an atheist if he or she believes in truth, goodness, or love, power, wisdom, intelligence, knowledge, sound, nature, law.....They always say "yes."

Truth requires no gods, it is a binary descriptor -- either any given proposition is true or it is false.
Goodness is a relative term, and as such it does not have an absolute existence, but only an existence in the minds of those who perceive it.
Love is an emotion. Emotions are a result of chemical reactions within the brain as a response to a given stimulus and as such love exists.
Power has multiple definitions. In physics power has a specific definition and application, though it is overall a concept rather than a tangible object. When referring to "power" as a controlling influence, that again becomes relative, though so long as the influence exists the "power" exists at least in some form.
Wisdom, intelligence and knowledge are descriptors for various mental attributes. Wisdom relates to a person's ability to "reason" and that can actually be relative based upon the person's environment and upbringing. Knowledge is a collection of information in the brain and it is not a relative term. Intelligence is also not a relative term, it relates to a person's ability to gain knowledge through experience.
Sound is a result of the vibration of molecules in a solid, liquid or gas.
Nature has multiple definitions. In science nature refers to the entirety of the natural universe and it is an absolute definition.
Law is an abstract concept, either a code created by humans to define a standard of conduct or a set of rules derived through observation to explain and predict natural phenomenon (see the explanation for "nature" above).

I don't see how a supernatural entity enters into the meaning of any of the above.

Uh, this article and resulting discussion is about atheism. Atheism is not evolution and evolution is not atheism.

I'm sure you don't want public schools to tell your children there is no God or that Christianity is evil. If so, you have the same basic objection that the California atheist has to the indoctrination of his child in public school. He doesn't want your religion forced on his child, just as you don't want his forced on your child. Therefore, public schools should stay silent on the issue.

The nation was founded on the premise that there is a Creator, with no attendant requirement that there be belief in any specific doctrine or dogma. The State is not permitted represent or promote any particular sect, doctrine or dogma, which is not at all equivalent to the fundamental premise that there is a Creator. If that premise is denied or overridden or finally declared unlawful, it will tear this nation apart because it is fundamental. The rights and the concerns of the vast majority are far superior to the ultrasensitivities of the few who are already exempt from reciting the Pledge. I do believe that the very unity of the nation is at stake. In God We Trust, as our currency declares. From Many, One.

You know something else an atheist's gonna believe in??

. It also turns out that some of the resulting equations turn up in such unlikely places as quantum phsyics and fluid dynamics.

I not a QM physicist, and even if I played one on TV, noone would watch that stuff, but I do know a thing or two about fluid mechanics.

All laws relating to fluid dynamics that I know of derive from the 1st and 2nd LOTs and Newton's 2nd LOM (redundancy intentional), neither of which require any strange new geometrical idealogy, AFAIK.

I would be interested in hearing more about this, specifically with regards to fluid mechanics.

Thanks!

I shouldn't have skimmed over the article the first time. I missed these gems:
If the earth was one degree more off its axis, we would have no seasons.

The earth's axial tilt varies between three degress year-round. While a large change in the earth's tilt would have catastrophic effect, the change required is significantly more than "one degree".

. If there were no Himalayan mountains, there could be no agriculture.

Unfortunately I can't find anything regarding this claim (as in, I can't find anything to refute or to substantiate it).

If we were just a bit more close to the sun, life would be untenable.

What is meant by "a bit"? The earth's distance from the sun fluctuates significantly (about two million miles) during its orbit (hint: the earth's orbit is an ellipse, not a circle). Further, the "life zone" for life on an earth-like planet is actually within the range of Venus and Mars -- true, you would limit the kinds of life possible at the extreme edges, but life would still be possible (it only does not exist on the other two planets because of their hostile atmosphere).

If there was a bit more nitrogen in the air, say bye bye.

Unfortunately, I can't find any information (for or against) this claim either. I'm wondering if this and the Himalaya claims were actually presented by reputable scientists or just made up to "prove" a point because they sounded promising...

An atheist could respond to the question of life's origins with "I don't know", or they could propose some other explanation that involves neither evolution or gods. Or they might say something in a foreign language that amounts to "I don't know" because they don't speak English...or they might not understand you if you asked in English and they didn't understand the language so you wouldn't get a meaningful answer.

Evolution is not atheism.

...The State is not permitted [to] represent...

The whole problem with both sides, i.e., the believer and the atheist, is that they think that science will somehow prove their views, but this is not true.

Thank you. Your analysis is a breath of fresh air in between those who rely on supernatural invervention to give their lives meaning and the others whose cynical arrogance is unmerited.

Can all your crap about biological and genetic complexity necessitating intelligent design. It sounds nice, but means nothing. Instead of trying to prove that we exist- therefore God exists, try finding actual evidence that would convince me. Good luck.

Only in himself- he [Hitler] cited evolutionism as the justification for the eradication of the Jews, the Polish, the Rom (gypsies), etc. He was NOT a Christian.

Hitler was evil and crazy and would cite whatever suited him at the moment. He sometimes cited social Darwinist-type arguments in favor of eliminating "subhuman races," but on other occasions, to other audiences, he cited Christianity in support of his antisemitism. In Mein Kampf, he said, "by fighting against those who murdered our Savior, I am doing the Lord's work." [Not an exact quote, but pretty close IIRC.]

Hitler's rantings don't discredit Christianity or Darwinism.