Historical Roots and Islamofascism

The moderate Muslims – assuming there are some – continue to assure the West that Islamofascism is not based on Islam but is a perverted form of it – a cult—based on radical ideologies more akin to Bolshevism and the Nazi Socialists than Islam. This cult like figure known as Osama bin Laden has created a fantasy world that rejects all of modernity, a reactionary who clearly wants to be the Caliph of a seventh century realm. In reality Osama bin Laden is much closer in outlook to the Unabomber than he is to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim head of state. His fantasy world is wrapped up in the trappings of Islam and his goals are to overthrow all secular governments – including Muslim ones – and to install an all powerful Caliphate over the entire world or what is left of it after they destroy Christendom. However, while Osama bin Laden is living in a fantasy world much of the Islamic world isn’t far behind. They intend to stamp out the only democratic government – Israel, that has a sound economy and a non-authoritarian government. To date their success in this unrealistic endeavor has been rather pathetic. The history of the Islamic World shows that it is not only trapped in its tribal culture but that their internecine battles have made them impotent relative to Israel and centuries behind everybody else. It is this lack of unity, their tribal culture, and their irrational behavior toward Jews and Israel that has left the Islamic World in poverty and squalor – enter the Ottomans—just as anti-Semitic but much more successful.

The Ottoman Empire ruled the Islamic World for four hundred years and during that time there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, and in fact there was no real improvement in medicine, hygiene, or public health, instead there was a long slow and inexorable decline. The Ottomans were ruthless conquerors of the Islamic Empire created by Saladin, and they crushed any opposition. They liked the quiet life and they maintained it. They did not subscribe to capitalism, socialism, Marxism, representative government, or any of the trendy western political philosophies. They avoided all of these intellectual fads of the West but once the Ottoman Empire fell and was partitioned up by the Western Powers in 1917 the carnage began. The first blunder of the West and the one that continues even today is that the Muslims are desperate for a western style democracy but nothing could be further from the truth. The Ottomans unlike the western powers never allowed anyone to think that they would provide freedom of any kind or any kind of wealth instead they kept everyone in line with ruthless efficiency. They did this by maintaining strict control over the religious leaders and any rabble rouser was either eliminated or exiled. A historical lesson ignored by their successors who should never have allowed Ayatollah Khomeini or al Sadr or any of these radical Islamic clergy into any Islamic country. Of course this is outright oppression and dictatorship, which makes the liberals in the west very queasy but authoritarian governments seem to be the only ones that are successful today just as they have been in the past. It is the misguided policies and philosophies of the West that have laid the groundwork for the Islamofascists that plague us today. And yes the radical Muslim clergy is a problem but not the only problem – enter Yasser Arafat – a man more accurately described the destroyer of Arabic cause or gang leader. Awarding this man the Nobel Peace Prize was a travesty but representative of the ability of the West to ignore facts in favor of their wishful thinking.

Perhaps the first thing to remember is that until 1947 Palestinians were Jews, not Arabs. When the state of Israel was established the Jews became Israeli’s and the Arabs ceased being Arabs and became Palestinians except for those who remained Arabs – it is all very confusing. The New Palestinians became “refugees” and have remained in self-inflicted limbo ever since. These refugees formed the power base for Yasser Arafat who led the Palestinians for forty years and led them into one disaster after another with flags flying and drums beating. The only person to gain from his leadership was Arafat himself and everyone else suffered. He initially described the PLO as a Marxist Socialist Revolutionary movement which gave him support from the USSR, but that was never his true leanings. He actually was a member of the semi—secret Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920”s and has been dedicated to the extermination of the Jews ever since. The Muslim Brotherhood supported Hitler and have practiced assassination and disinformation ever since in their drive to eradicate Jews.

Most of the Arab leaders hated Arafat and distrusted him – which is saying a great deal in a society not noted for its truthfulness. Arafat was a poor administrator and even worse organizer and was generally viewed by his “allies” as little more than a gang leader who was a master of the shakedown – an art he practiced with great result on America, the Saudi’s, and Gulf States. The fact is that Arafat was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the failure by any Arab leader to support him and his causes opened them to political unrest stirred up by Arafat or worse their assassination by his Fatah thugs. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that when the USSR imploded and their secret files became available photographs were discovered that had been taken by the Romanian Secret Police. These photos – taken at different times – showed that Arafat was a homosexual who cavorted with his body guards. This information has been available since the Reagan Administration but no one ever used that information to leverage Arafat. Considering the attitude of the Arabs and Islam in general, this would have been a substantial lever, but blackmail is such a dirty word.

Arafat seemed to be a compulsive liar and he certainly was corrupt. Much – if not most – of the aid money flowing into his hands was siphoned off into Swiss Bank Accounts. Much of this money was then used for arms which killed thousands of Israeli’s as well as maintaining his “bride of convenience” in Parisian splendor. Even though he demanded and got concessions from just about everyone it was never enough. He was in the terror business and it was a business he liked. The reality is that he led the Palestinians into one defeat after another and has left the Palestinians worse off. After billions of dollars have been sent to the Palestinians they lack an economy, have dismal medical facilities, have no schools other than the ridiculous Madrassa’s, they have no electric generation capability, and in general there is rampant unemployment and unhappiness in an area maintained by armed gangs. The more Arafat and his Fatah gang attacked the Israeli’s the stronger they got, the weaker the PLO got and the more discredited thier cause became, ultimately resulting in the Hama’s coup. Arafat was a murderer and a disaster for the Arabs and Palestinians.

The current policy of the West is doomed to failure as it always has been because the Western States are convinced that the Islamic States are desperate for Western democracy. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have described Iraq and Syria as “failed states” without regard to the historical facts. While it is true both of these countries could not be described as bastions of liberty, they were stable and yes it is true that both Saddam and Assad have murdered thousands of their citizens in their determination to maintain power, have the western powers done any better? Are things more or less stable? Does democracy work or not? Unfortunately, the bet is that once West leaves Iraq another general will arise and overthrow the government and things will go back to what they were.

Political Rant 2008 Q 1

Well the 2008 Presidential Campaign is now in full swing with the media fawning all over the Democratic candidates because they know that the current fascist, homophobic and Islamophobic administration is about to come to an end as the American public comes to its senses and finally elects the socialist government that will put America back in synch with our European Allies. Of course in the spirit of fairness the ever left leaning media have anointed that laughable hayseed Pastor Huckabee as the shoo-in candidate of the Republicans. This support of course is quite calculated because the Democratic Party and their sycophantic media pundits are convinced that the Pastor could never be elected by the American electorate because even those denizens of “flyover land” could not possibly be dumb enough to vote for such a yahoo, especially when they are presented with truly great alternatives who will put America on the right track – that is bring the country into the conformance with the UN and the socialist European Community. It isn’t certain that this strategy by the media of supporting a rightwing loser in order to guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party will succeed, especially when the Democratic candidates are given a critical review.

The candidates being put forward are truly a wonder and the wonder is how the public can see any of them as a reasonable choice. Depending on your point of view, the front runner is Hillary Clinton – whose credentials are truly amazing—amazing for their lack of substance. It is true she spent eight years in the white house but by that standard the White House Butler is more qualified because he has spent even more time there, this is known as the “Jeeves Effect”. Hillary Clinton view herself as Co-President and attempted to share the power of the President, which was displayed in her universal healthcare program which flopped. She did run for Senator but her experience as a Senator has been minimal and she can not point to any major legislation or success during her tenure. She is widely viewed as the best and most qualified person to run the country, but this conclusion seems to be based exclusively on her gender because she has never had any diplomatic experience, any military command, or actually managed anything including a business. Somehow the Democratic Party views this almost total lack of experience as inconsequential, but perhaps she is an expert in parliamentary procedures.

The other front runner is Barrack Hussein Obama, who has even fewer qualifications than Hillary Clinton who has almost none. The actual facts surrounding Barrack Obama are carefully glossed over or denied altogether. He is NOT a Muslim but both his father and step-father are not only Muslim they are radical Muslims. So for Obama not to have been influenced by these men he must repudiate them altogether, something that has not been done. He is a Christian, and well he might be but the Christian Church he belongs to is all black, focused on black issues (presumably while still enjoying tax exemptions) and a supporter of Louis Farrakhan a noted bigot and anti-Semite. These things must be placed into perspective when considering Obama’s statement that he will withdraw (surrender is the better word) from Iraq. His position on Israel is either vague or non-existent but like most of the left we can assume he is for peace, which always translates into more concessions by Israel and more justifications for the murderous attacks by the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, these things can be ignored and the focus should be on his qualifications. He has never been in the military, he has no diplomatic experience, he has less than one term as a Senator, he has never managed a business or had to turn a profit, he has no administrative experience in government, and he cannot point to any activity in his past that would qualify him to manage a cookie drive must less the country. So the primary reason to vote for Obama is that he is black. He is also given to demagogic speech laced with vague statements like “we will change the world”. He never explains how he intends to change the world, what he intends to change, or how he intends to change it. A few specifics in his rhetoric would help.

This brings us to former Senator John Edwards. To accept that John Edwards is a simple lawyer who has made a fortune defending the poor and downtrodden is to believe that the famous sailor Edward Teach – aka Blackbeard – made his fortune in shipping. There is nothing quite so satisfying as dipping into the pockets of large corporations while protecting the unfortunate and banking some very handsome fees. But here we have another leading candidate who has no experience outside of the courtroom. He has no diplomatic, administrative, or military background. He has been a Senator so he is as qualified as the other two leading candidates, which is to say, unqualified.

The Democratic Party has truly lost its way and should be renamed the “People’s Socialist Party” because they no longer believe in capitalism or a capitalist America. These are indeed harsh words but these candidates are the ones who are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan which is tantamount to surrendering to the very forces that have attacked America and American interests for more than 30 years. This is the party that has eliminated free speech through their dedication to multi—culturalism and political correctness. Conservative voices are routinely drowned out across college campuses through protests and intimidation reminiscent of the Nazi Brown Shirts and any challenge to the politically correct viewpoint on marriage, abortion, or evolution is not tolerated. This is the party that is dedicated to social engineering through government control and this has already been accomplished through legislation against smoking and efforts at gun control, trans-fats, and fat people. This new Democratic Party is pushing universal – and government controlled – healthcare, while denying they are in favor of socialism or that this is a socialist program.

The candidates for the Democratic Party are advocating change but are saying what changes they are advocating or how they intend to implement them. They should have nominated Joe Lieberman or Governor Richardson, but these men have nothing to recommend them except experience and electability.

Middle East Policies

Recently we were treated to one of the most idiotic speeches by President Bush that he has delivered in his presidency and that is going some. Once again he mounted his horse and promised to bring “democracy” to the Middle East as if these people were longing for a representative government and the freedoms enjoyed in the West. The fact that he actually delivered this speech rests entirely on his shoulders but ultimately it is the fault of the State Department. The State Department has been monopolized by the East Coast intelligentsia practically since its inception and in sprite of the highly vaunted quality of education delivered by the Ivy League their alumni have never been strong on history – especially history of the Middle East. It’s as if the Ottoman Empire never existed.

Virtually all of the current Islamic States were ruled by the Ottomans for 400 years. During this period there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, or steady improvement in medicine, hygiene, public health, or education. But the Ottomans maintained peace and order during this entire time because the Ottomans would not tolerate any challenge to their authority and the punishments they inflicted on any challenger were draconian. Then the Ottomans – thanks to the bumbling of Winston Churchill – sided with the Kaiser and their empire was dismantled by the French and British. It has never known a peaceful moment since then. The Western Democracies have never understood nor even attempted to understand the people or their motivations in the Middle East. Instead the drive has been to westernize them and to create freely elected democratic governments that were independent of the Mosque. This policy has consistently failed with the only exception being Turkey but that was reformed from within by Kemal Attaturk and was not accomplished by the Western Powers. This failed policy of westernization continues today as is evidenced by President Bush’s speech and the American Foreign Policy relative to Iraq.

The British and French and now the Americans arrogantly assume that because the Islamic States are consistently mired in poverty, ignorance, and squalor they are desperate to become westernized. Well when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled Iraq was a constitutional monarchy until 1958 when the Army overthrew the monarchy in a very bloody coup. Prior to this coup the “democratic” government conducted genocide against the Assyrians and the Jews. The Shiites were suppressed as well. The brutality of this regime rivaled that of Saddam Hussein and it was all done under a democratic government, but not one where all were created equal or given equal protection under the law. All of this is on the historical record – a record our State Department and all of those Alumni from all of those fancy colleges seem to have neglected to read. The liberal media as well as all of those well meaning politicians had assumed that the Iraqi’s were longing for a democratic government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, and an elected parliament. What they neglected to consider was what happened when the British introduced those democratic institutions in 1920, which was exactly what happened after the Bush Administration re-introduced them in 2005. What happened then is what is happening now – civil war, massacres, and an unreliable military that merrily participates in the internecine warfare. This is the background that permeates the Middle East and it is against this background that President Bush calls for the installation of democratically elected western style governments. The fallacy of this policy is obvious or should be obvious and certainly the various Sheiks, Emirs, Monarchs, and Presidents for Life know that this is not in their best interest.

Governments throughout the Middle East are dictatorships, monarchies, or some similar absolutist government and all of them are driven by Islam no matter how secular they may appear. While Iran and Egypt are ancient countries the rest are artificial creations of the west. The separation of church and state so common in the west is unheard of in the world of Islam where governments are subservient to the religious leaders and no where is this more apparent than in Iran and Iraq today. The time has long past for America and the Western powers to cease their insistence that the Middle East adopt western values and conduct themselves and their affairs along western lines. There is no history of democratic governments or even processes in these countries and those governments that are stable are authoritarian.

This is not a call for America to establish a military government similar to what was done in Japan in 1945. It is too late for that but this constant drumbeat for the creation of freely elected governments must cease. The more America, the western media, and the liberal establishment press for this unrealistic objective the more idiotic we seem and the harder it is for our friends in the area – and there are some – to take us seriously. Our foreign policy needs to be revamped to accept the reality that many of these countries were better off under the absolute authority of the Ottomans. It should seem apparent to any educated westerner that the Islamic countries have no desire to become westernized or democracies. They were happy in the seventh century and they were happy under the Ottomans, but the west wanted their oil and in order to get it they felt it was necessary to modernize the Middle East. This modernization has been resisted by Islam for 500 years and is resisting now, unfortunately Pandora’s Box was opened with the fall of the Ottomans and now we are left with result and no solution in sight.

Astrology Science or Pseudo-Science

Frankly I don’t know if Astrology is “science” or a “pseudo-science” but I do know from personal observation that psychic capabilities are real and that what passes for astral influence may be nothing more than a manifestation of psychic ability by the Astrologer. . (I am not an astrologer so I speak from limited knowledge here). Today Astrology is largely regarded as a pseudo-science and ignored as a topic of scientific investigation by scientists on the basis that it has not survived any test using the scientific method. But this has been true of psychic phenomena as well and there are many skeptics who maintain that it is hogwash, even in the face of demonstrated cases.

The crux of the argument against Astrology seems to rest on the lack of evidence of any known mechanism that would present a causal relationship between celestial bodies and events on Earth. Of course the operative phrase here is “known mechanism” because it is quite possible that – don’t laugh now – that we don’t know everything about the universe or the mechanisms that drive it. After all scientists are already struggling to explain what “dark matter” and “dark energy” are although they are pretty sure that these are not evidence of any divine influence. At a more mundane level there is still some gaps in our understanding of gravity, magnetism, and light. So it would seem that it is possible that there are some energy flows that are yet unknown.

A well known French skeptic (Gauguelins) conducted a critical analysis and discovered a statistical correlation between athletes and the position of Mars in their natal charts. This was described as the “Mars Effect”. In follow up studies the Mars Effect was not demonstrated but these results were disputed because the sample included people of mediocre athletic ability rather than athletes of recognized ability. Gauguelins also found statistical correlations between the position of Jupiter with actors and Saturn for scientists. Although Gauguelins findings were later demonstrated by the Belgian Committee PARA, but these were later rejected on a technical basis regarding how the position of Mars was determined and the controversy rages on. Skeptics maintain that the accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than chance and that people tend to emphasize the positive “hits” while ignoring the “misses”.

The skeptical view is fully understandable but it seems to me that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle seems to apply here, because Astrology like all other predictive techniques only show the “potential” for something to occur and do not describe the absolute. In the case of Natal Astrology the position of Mars cannot be taken in a standalone fashion but it must be evaluated in relation to all of the other planets. In astrology each planet has specific influence but must be viewed in relation to all others. However, any horoscope only presents the situation at that time but the future is always uncertain so accuracy can never be 100%. The Natal Horoscope is slightly different because it describes the individual’s personality, character traits, and potentials but contrary to the skeptics it does not provide a “cast in stone” view of the individual. Because these variables exist the scientific community dismisses Astrology because it fails to meet the scientific expectation of repeatability and verification. But the reality is that the future is not fixed and destiny does not exist because each of us is granted free will so our decisions – both great and small – determine our future and our condition.

The result of all of this is the dismissal of Astrology by the scientific community as “pseudo-science” because it cannot and never will meet the rigors of the scientific method, because of its innate variability. Therefore, Astrology rightfully cannot be described as a “science” similar to Astronomy or Astrophysics but then it should not be dismissed as fakery either. Therefore, I view Astrology as a “meta-science” similar to “metaphysics” because metaphysics investigates reality that transcends traditional science and explores the intangible and the realms outside of physical science – just as Astrology does. Science cannot demonstrate or prove precisely how the universe came to be or why. Science cannot prove many aspects of science so dismissing Astrology because it cannot be proven doesn’t mean it has no validity, it just moves it into the realm of meta-science.

Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality, why the world exists, and does the world exist outside of our mind. In effect metaphysics deals with God, the inner person, and the purpose of it all. So it isn’t much of a stretch to think that Astrology, which deals with the inner person, life potential, and purpose, is all that different from metaphysics.

Islam Today

The drum beat of multi-culturalism continues unabated throughout the liberal world. We are told that we should honor all cultures and they are all morally equivalent. Hence the native headhunter who wears a discreet loin cloth is equivalent to any Wall Street banker because they are both hunters one of men and the other of men’s money. This lunacy is extrapolated to all cultures including even those whose very foundation is based on hatred of all who differ and the sworn destruction of those they oppose and their societies. Of course this refers to Islam and the constant stream of excuses and assurances that not all Muslims are like the Islamofascists and there are good ones – who can best be described as the silent minority. Without doubt there are exceptions – there always are – but the silence of the Islamic community relative to the murder and destruction being wrought by Muslims worldwide is thunderous. Of particular interest is the internecine warfare going on between the Shi’ia Muslims and the Sunni’s. This is equivalent to the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s with the US Military playing the part of the Federal Agents. True to form the guilt and blame lies not on the irrationality of the Muslims but is laid on the US and the US Military.

This internecine warfare has been going on since the death of Mohammed and is really nothing more nor less than a battle over the successor to the Caliphate – a battle that has lasted over a thousand years and one that shows no signs of abating. In fact this ongoing battle is encouraged by the Saudi’s – the keepers of the Holy Places of Islam. A close look at the situation reveals some very interesting – and speculative – motives. First until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 Arabia was really not a country and it was inhabited by various Bedouin Tribes who can best be described as nomadic goat herders. When the Ottoman Empire was carved up by those ever helpful British and French governments, SAUDI-Arabia was created with the House of Saud put in charge. The discovery of oil changed everything and the goat herders were separated into the Royal Family and everybody else. Things have gradually improved but Arabia continues to be an absolute Monarchy governed by Shar’ia Law which can only be described as draconian. Under Shar’ia women have few rights and true Muslims are sworn to the destruction of all unbelievers. Thus this commandment was the driving force behind the massacre of Hindu’s by the Muslims when India became independent and the genocide carried out by the Muslims in Armenia, and Bosnia. This commandment to kill all unbelievers continues to justify the murder and destruction being carried out by Muslims worldwide even today. Ironically it is also the justification for the blood feud between the Shi’ia and the Sunni’s.

It seems the enlightened and ever faithful Saudi’s provide capital for the construction of Mosques and textbooks to be used to teach Muslim children. Of course the multi-culturists in the West would never think to look at these textbooks to see what the Saudi’s are teaching – that’s too bad because the Saudi’s talk out of both sides of their mouth. According to the official Saudi (religious) teachings, it was the Jews who were behind those who became the Shia. It was the Jews who conspired to divide Islam and to plant Jewish thoughts into the minds of Muslims and these apostate Muslims became the Shia. This is used by the Saudi’s today to justify their continuing subjugation of the Shiites who have few rights in Saudi Arabia and cannot be represented in Saudi Courts because they are considered Jews -- so much for the Saudi view of human rights and cultural diversity.

But the Saudi’s are really the driving force behind Muslim extremism and the root of the Islamofascists whom they publicly repudiate on one side and quietly support on the other. We wonder why the Islamic community is so silent regarding the murder and mayhem being conducted in their name – look no further than the Saudi’s. In the textbooks being provided by the Saudi’s to Muslim children in America we find the following quote “The unbelievers, idolaters, and others like them must be hated and despised. We must stay away from them and create barriers between them and us.” So while the simple minded westerners continue to preach multi-culturalism and love of all, the Muslims are teaching isolationism and hate. The unbelievers and idolaters they are sworn to destroy consists of everyone except Sunni Muslims – and this means YOU.

But the hypocrisy of the Saudi’s and the Islamic states goes even deeper. First, despite vast sums of revenue and huge tracts of unoccupied land, the Saudi’s will not accept any Palestinian as a citizen. Instead they contribute money to train and arm suicide bombers and reward the families of suicide bombers. Lebanon has actually passed legislation that prohibits any Palestinian from working full time, purchasing land, or becoming a professional. These are Muslims but no Muslim nation will accept them so they deliberately remain marginalized as refugees and a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East as a government policy of the Muslim states. The Muslims seem to thrive on lies, libels, and ignorance and blame everyone but themselves for their poverty, misery,and lack of success. They blame the Jews for their plight rather than themselves and the rigidity of Islam.

To this day there are many Arab politicians, journalists, and “intellectuals” who tell their audiences, which are largely illiterate Arabs that Jews are Nazi’s because they siphon the blood of non-Jewish children for their religious observances. Incredible as it may sound this ridiculous libel has been stated publicly by the Syrian Defense Minister. The Arab Lawyers Union has circulated posters showing a vampire toothed Israeli Soldier with Nazi Flags standing guard over a boarded up Palestinian Office, where the boards formed a swastika. There are many of these types of things being circulated by Muslims, the same Muslims who rioted all over the world because of a cartoon showing Mohammed as a bomber - a double standard that is tolerated by the politically correct media, politicians, and multi-culturalists.

Islam today is firmly anchored in the sixth century and continues its tribal orientation. It is an exclusively male society where masculinity is demonstrated through the obligatory moustache and domination of women. They suppress their women and exercise such control over them that they are little more than sex slaves. Islam today has no room for equal rights for women or freedom of religion, speech, or the press. Islam today is a petrified religion that must either change or fracture and increasingly it appears it will never change because change requires enlightenment and reformation, neither of which can happen as long as they fail to accept responsibility for their plight.

Do Atheists Fear God?

It seems that in all of the discussions regarding religion and atheism the focus has been on the defense of God and why do otherwise rational people believe in a supreme being. When challenged the atheists simply state that they are intelligent people who believe in science and would believe in God once His existence was verified by science. But what is not explored is why do these atheists go to such lengths in attacking those who believe in God? Why are they so determined to stamp out God? If God is only a figment of man’s imagination then what possible harm can come to an atheist if others persist in this “God Delusion” as stated by Richard Dawkins? Is it possible that these atheists really fear God and are compelled to erase Him because they are afraid that they – like most of mankind – cannot meet the standard of conduct established by God?

The belief in a supreme being seems to have always been inherent in man because there is evidence that even Neanderthals had some recognition of life after death and of course the Ancient Egyptian’s entire society seems to have been centered on the afterlife. But while the majority of ancient men believed in a supreme power, not all did and in fact history shows us that the atheists have always been with us. We find in the writings of Greece that Epicurus stated his goal was to “get rid of the gods, the immortal soul, and man’s longing for immortality.” This would appear to be the precise goal of atheists today. But Lucretius opposes the gods because “ the burdens they impose in the form of duty and responsibility are too heavy”. But Epicurus goes further and states that the gods seek to enforce “their” rules on man which creates anxiety in men because they threaten to punish us both in this life and in the next. So the obvious conclusion is that these early atheists simply chose to deny the existence of divine power because of their fear of that power. If the gods didn’t exist then they would not have to worry about their conduct but were free to do as they pleased. When you examine the writings of the current crop of atheists this seems to be their motivation as well.

The philosopher Thomas Nagel perhaps best describes the atheist’s point of view when he confessed that he had a fear of religion itself. He stated that “I want atheism to be true. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God – I don’t want there to be a God – I don’t want the universe to be like that.” ‘But perhaps the real motivation for atheists is the exhilaration that they feel once they are free from the encumbrance of God. Karen Armstrong in her book “A History of God” sums up this feeling of freedom that atheists enjoy in her statement:

It is wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules.

But not all atheists see the denial of God as liberating and exhilarating; for example Karl Marx described religion as the “opiate of the people” meaning that religion was the drug they used to numb themselves from the misery they found in their lives. The French atheist Michael Onfray speaking in a similar vein said “God is a fiction invented by men so as not to confront the reality of their condition”. But some are just cynical about God and James Haught sees religion as a vehicle where the religious leaders reap personal benefit when he wrote “... churches and holy men reap earnings and exalted status from the supernaturalism they administer to their followers”.

It should be noted that all of these denials of God start with what appears to be two premises; the existence of God must be proven by science, and; God and religion are simply wishful thinking invented by men to avoid accepting the futility of their existence. This is an interesting point because these same atheists accept many scientific theories without proof, so they have a double standard when it comes to God, therefore, this argument of theirs can simply be ignored because the existence of God is as self-evident as many of their unproven theories. So the crux of their opposition seems to be God, the soul, and life after death is simply the wishful thinking of the gullible who are afraid of death. This is a very interesting point but if man’s wish fulfillment caused him to invent heaven then why would he invent Hell? If man invented God then why is God such a terrifying force with such strict standards? Even the gods of the ancients were terrifying and vengeful so if man invented them why didn’t he invent gods that were more friendly and less demanding?

This raises the question of what benefits do atheists gain from not just denying the existence of God but from their determination to stamp out any belief in a supreme being. Superficially it appears that the atheists are Darwinian converts who wish to convert the religious to Darwinism. The similarity to this motivation to missionaries attempting to convert ignorant natives seems to be lost on them – except for the ignorant natives’ part. The reality is that Darwinism is really just a primitive form of religion similar in nature to the primitive religions of ancient man. In effect Darwinism is the law of the jungle, the world of tooth and claw, a religion that assigns man no purpose other than the animal objective of reproduction and survival. Even the Darwinists admit that Darwinism can be summed up in the phrase “survival of the fittest”. So this new religion of Darwinism draws a very negative picture of mans existence and purpose, similar to other religions but without any promise of redemption, forgiveness, or a “do over”. The fact is that atheism is a dismal ideology and any benefit to be reaped from it appears to be the ability to act without fear of retribution.

This lack of fear of retribution may be the major, if not the only, benefit of atheism. In a world without God, man is free to do as he chooses and this is liberating and exhilarating to the atheist. They are free from the constraints of religion and in their eyes they are free to practice virtue, charity, and brotherhood. Of course any priest or pastor could tell these liberated atheists that these are the central themes of Christianity. So it appears that the only benefits to be gained from atheism are those offered by religion. Perhaps they need remedial Sunday School.

God Versus Dawkins v2

In a search of the various atheist sites I was unable to find any proof or demonstration that God does not exist. It seems that the atheists among us are driven by a rock hard belief that God does not exist and a faith in themselves and science that certainly meets if not exceeds the faith of those who do believe in God. What is interesting is how these alleged scientists not only fail to prove their allegation that God does not exist they simply branch off into completely irrelevant points and arguments. For example we have the following quote from the High Priest of the Darwinian faith – Richard Dawkins:

"Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe."Richard Dawkins

This is a rather typical refutation of God as mounted by the Atheists. Here we have Dawkins equating God to Fortune Tellers, Psychic Phenomena, and other paranormal actions. He cites the well known iconoclast James Randi as an authority while simply ignoring the various experiments and tests of paranormal abilities that illustrate that there is some validity to these claims but no solid proof that the results are the result of some paranormal ability. Hence the conclusion is that any belief in God is akin to a belief in ghosts and thus unfounded and fake. It should be noted that Dawkins takes the position that God doesn’t exist and His existence cannot be proven through any rigorous scientific process and is equated to other paranormal phenomena which is also false, if not down right fake. When this same rigor is applied to Darwinism Dawkins – like his fellow practitioners – simply fall back on adaptation and their faith that science will eventually be able to explain these anomalies. They demand that others prove God exists while not demanding that same level of proof for Darwinism.

As an example Dawkins ties evolution to DNA as we see in this quote taken from an interivew:

I think that something very special happens in the universe, when a self-replicating entity, which DNA is -- DNA is probably not the only one, but DNA is the self-replicating entity that we know. When that comes into existence, then there is a whole new game that starts. Before that, you had just physics; you have molecules bumping around, forming new molecules according to the ordinary laws of chemistry. Once, by those ordinary laws of chemistry, a molecule springs into existence which is self-replicating, then immediately you have the possibility for Darwinism, for natural selection to occur.

This actually represents the core belief to the atheists and that is that following the Big Bang the Universe was filled with protons, electrons, and neutrons that sort of randomly collided with each other and formed things like hydrogen, oxygen, and other more complex molecules until eventually – through random chance – they formed a “self-replicating” molecule. Of course he doesn’t call James Randi to verify this claim because it cannot be duplicated under laboratory conditions. In fact this claim falls into the same realm as all of those monkeys hammering away on typewriters until they reproduce all of the works of Shakespeare. The probabilities here probably favor the monkeys.

But when challenged, Dawkins – resorts to that age old response – the ad hominem attack which we see in this quote from the same interview:

"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution. Now there are plenty of sane, educated, religious people: there are professors of theology, and there are bishops ... and so obviously they all believe in evolution or they wouldn't have gotten where they have because they would be too stupid or too ignorant. So, it is a fact that there are evolutionists who are religious and there are religious people who are evolutionists"

His statement of fact of course is really just his opinion and not an opinion shared by very many people including scientists, which he kindly acknowledges. However, he arrogantly concludes that these people must believe in Evolution because they could not have risen to their positions in life without believing in it. The flaw here is that Dawkins cannot separate his blind faith in Evolution from his blind faith that there is no God – He cannot or does not separate adaptation from Evolution but uses demonstrated adaptation as evidence that God is not involved in creation without actually offering any proof that Evolution is responsible for speciation outside of chance. He does acknowledge that there are people who believe in God as well as Evolution, but he is not one of them because he has faith in science and rejects the mere idea of a God. In fact he believes that any person capable of thought and education cannot logically reject evolution (which he confuses with adaptation) or believe in God without being an ignoramus.

But in a breathtaking display of egotism, arrogance,and overweening self-confidence, Dawkins basically says that he is RIGHT and anyone who disagrees with him is WRONG. This is a vivid example of the open-mindedness one observes in academia today.