Pseudo-scientific blindness of atheistic clarity

 

"What do atheists believe?
You don't have to believe in anything to be an atheist. Not to believe in any god is the only necessary condition. Beyond that, an atheist can believe in anything." /What is atheism?/ - https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-atheism/what-is-atheism/

The simplest reason why someone might not believe in a god is that they see no convincing reason or evidence to believe.

Such critics assume that Christians and other theists have a special burden to prove that God exists. Atheists can always sit back and assess what the theist comes up with. And if nothing comes up, or if it is not strong enough evidence for their minds, they usually think they have adequately justified their rejection of God.

Notice the difference between not having sufficient reason and not seeing any convincing reason or evidence to believe. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Moreover, seeing or not seeing reason is in a sense personality dependent. Someone may claim that they were blinded by the sun, that is why they did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk, which may be a legitimate plea, or it may be a deliberate evasion to avoid personal responsibility.

The believers' seeing /conception/ if it were completely unfounded,, would be without any rational justification, which is not valid. In contrast, the arguments and justifications published by the most highly educated persons are exposed to the general public, and if there were no rationality behind them, their arguments to justify God would have long since failed in the face of objections to deny God.

This indicates that it is not necessarily rational arguments or evidence that are decisive in this matter, but rather factors involving subjective reasons that are inherent in human nature and character.

Otherwise, why should an atheist provide evidence beyond what believers already have? It's not the lack of evidence that makes an atheist an atheist, it's the attitude towards the evidence available.Perhaps they have not found it so far because they are not worthy to find it, because they do not want to find it, but they want to reject it. Their attitude weighs much more than the evidence they treat according to their attitude.

Their unworthiness is illustrated by the following situation:

An atheist walks into a room where every object that exists has a purpose and a function. Only the existence of the atheist has none. So what is he doing in the room? Get out of it! The smallest object with a purpose has more value than him!

"People cannot tolerate the belief that the Universe and life are meaningless. In fact, that is what science tells us. Meaningless in the sense that there is no externally determined purpose or point in the Universe. As atheists, this is obviously true for us. We determine our own meaning and purpose." /Jerry Coyne Jerry Coyne Professor of Biology, (2012), "The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate," Speech to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./

The atheist uses reason to prove the meaninglessness of his own existence by asserting the meaninglessness of the universe. With such a view, it is no wonder that he sees no convincing reason or evidence to believe.

It then states that there are insufficient grounds. This is so subjective that you might as well claim the opposite. But he doesn't, because what he wants to claim is exactly the opposite. The objective distinction is fundamentally affected by whether one wants to get in into a house or out of a house.

The reasons for atheism are not in the reasons that are made public, because they are only pretexts. The real motive is that the atheist wants to live without God! Belief in or denial of God cannot be separated from the fact that the atheist's freedom depends on this choice. "I am content with the choice to be an atheist because I feel more intelligent and free because no one is guiding my choices." So motivated by a subjective desire for freedom, but with hard moral parameters.

ATHEIST PROOF TEST
As far as showing proof is concerned, the atheist should go into a room so that no one can see that he is inside and prove to those outside the room who cannot see that he exists. Proving the existence of God is the same as proving his existence in the room. If you cannot give evidence of yourself, though you are certainly inside, you cannot give evidence of God, though he is invisible but exists. So the absence of evidence is insufficient in both cases. But if you have evidence of yourself, you have evidence of God, the two are connected!

It is forbidden for an atheist to do anything that God does not do to prove himself. For example, he cannot shout out from the room, "Hello, I'm in the room," because God doesn't shout loudly to mankind from above, "Hello, people, I'm up here in the sky invisible, can you hear my voice? God does not prove himself in that way.

The atheist should not call anyone on the phone, because God does not call anyone. Don't bang on the door, because God doesn't bang on any door. Even if the atheist sticks a blank piece of paper under the door, it is not proof of it, because the wind blew in through the open window and it slipped out under the door. Don't put a photo under the door, because God doesn't show a photo of himself. So you cannot do anything that God does not do. Don't forget that for a moment. He is in the room, but you have to find the non-false proof of your own existence.

He says: "I think, therefore I am. That's good enough for me." But the atheist has to prove to outsiders that he is in the room, even though they can't see him. He doesn't have to prove it to himself, he has to prove it to others.

In the same way, atheists ask believers to prove that God exists. If we say God thinks, therefore he exists, then big laugh at him with a smirk of becoming, satanic grin. So that is not a good answer, that thinking is sufficient proof. That a person is thinking inside the room is not proof to outsiders that he is inside the room.

Go ahead, then, let the atheist produce the proof of its existence! If you don't know, then it obviously doesn't exist. And what is a non-existent man babbling about denying the existence of God? His clucking is like the clucking of a coffee pot that is being steam-dissolved by inertia.

He who can prove himself knows God, because the same means are available to prove God as are available to prove man. To deny God is to deny himself, not to do so is to prove his own primitiveness, for he denies half the data and information that can be considered in order to shove his own existence into the shop window. Already here, the immorality of atheism is exposed, in that it leans absolutely towards itself.

Why does the dwarf rule out the existence of the giant? Because it is the easiest way to take his place. Then, when the giant appears, the dwarf's breath also appears on the window pane of the exit, bidding farewell to the shadow world.

The biggest obstacle an atheist can throw in God's way is himself! How does the atheist measure primitiveness? With himself. Anyone who performs above that cannot be an atheist. How much intelligence is required for atheism? The other way round. Even the little that is there must be taken away.

This claim is justified because it is not a rational argument, but an excuse dipped in the sauce of subjective philosophy specific to the individual, and aimed specifically at expressing his own desire for freedom. A single atheist statement is a faithful reflection of the perception of almost all atheists. It says:

"God worked a miracle" seems an unpretentious, primitive and lazy solution. I really reject the notion that anyone who uses such a solution is trying to impose moral obligations on me, on everyone.”

So what he is really rejecting is the rejection of a moral bond that touches every aspect of life. As stated in the statement quoted earlier, which can be safely posted in large letters on the front of the pantheon of atheism:

- "I am happy with the decision to be an atheist because I feel smarter and freer because no one is controlling my choices."

As the philosopher John-Paul Sartre said, "Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist." And who is it who trades this desire for freedom for the bonds of moral control? Certainly not the atheist!

Why does the atheist deny the existence of God? So that he may not have to deny the legitimacy of his own sovereign conception of life, and so that he may use it where and when he pleases, as his own individual interests may require. While this abuse of free will is, according to him, a perfectly legitimate conception of life, since he himself determines the extent of the difference between the two.

Man's greatest achievement against God is his voluntarily chosen atheism, by which he at the same time creates glorious criteria for his own idolatry. The essence of atheistic sovereignty is to say yes to oneself, with the inevitable consequence of saying no to the God who wishes to influence one.

Can everything in the universe be satisfactorily explained without God?

Why does a system have meaningful components if the whole makes no sense? The same unintelligent destructive force that produces various natural disasters cannot build the biological wonders of life reflecting incredible intelligence in complete contradiction, because to claim so is to question the human intelligence that claims it!

If a poem, a short story or a novel, or the grammatical rules themselves, do not follow from the letters themselves as parts that build them, or if a functioning car does not follow from the parts that build it, and a complex living cell does not follow from the inanimate components that build it, then in particular the complex coordinated functioning of the 40 trillion or so cells that build the human body does not follow from the parts that build it.

If the hands of a wall clock are purposefully moving /set to move/ in a purposefully defined /painted/ time scale, then the clock itself cannot be a completely purposeless existence, nor can living beings, especially humans. In the clock you see the maker, not in man, but the greater volume justifies faith in the existence of the Creator Who created man for a purpose.

The atheist's rejection of the purposefulness of Being shows that he has lost the thread to follow this line of thought, yet the freely chosen lifestyle to which he has tied himself is the thickness of a ship's rope.

He steps on the brake just when the believer steps on the gas, and steps on the gas just when the believer steps on the brake. What is in opposition here is logical reasoning versus a lifestyle of choice. And because he deliberately chooses the latter, he cannot be forced into logical thinking, because his logic unfolds in self-righteousness. Can one extract coal from a quarry? It's about as likely as coaxing an arctic fox out of a field mouse hole.

In the universe, it is not the existence of simple material structures that is interesting, but their organisation, which is non-physical at the moment when the level of organisation surpasses the property of matter. The complexity of the universe indicates that the material parts have undergone a mental polishing that matter, in order to polish itself, cannot do by itself.

- We live in a universe of irreducible complexity. There are nine million known species of life on Earth, at least 500 billion planets in the Milky Way, and an estimated trillion galaxies containing 10 24 stars and 10 78 atoms in the visible Universe. The extraordinary complexity of the observed Universe is abundantly clear at every scale from quarks to the accelerating Universe.

Above the material quality of the letter is the moment when it is organised into meaningful words and sentences, or when it is acted upon by an external, intelligent spiritual force. In a simple correspondence, invisible spirits communicate with each other, and neither paper nor letters can make or correct grammatical mistakes.

Therefore, if the message /information/ is not the message of the letter but of the user, then the universe is not the message of the parts that make it up, but of the user, since the level of organisation far exceeds the quality of the matter it contains.

When you say that everything in the universe can be satisfactorily explained without God, you are also saying that everything in science and literature can be satisfactorily explained without the people who formulate the information. This is an unintelligent claim based on dilettante credulity.

Anyone who dares to do so should use the laws of natural physics and chemistry to describe the entire course of a chess world championship final, but take the chess players out of the possible movers, only the pieces move. Why do they move the way they do? Is there intelligence in their movements and where does it come from? From what natural law, chemical or physical force? Why is it not reasonable to put an intelligent mover behind them?

What is the reason for the properties of water, why is it the way it is? /e.g. it becomes light when it freezes, which benefits aquatic life./ Why a conductor's baton in the air shows the intelligent form of movement it does, science has no skill, nor is it its competence.

The conductor controls the overall performance of the orchestra using a system of hand gestures. The role of the baton is primarily to clarify and magnify the hand movements, the indication of which determines the tempo and rhythm of a group of instruments, the basic character, the metre./The metre is a measure of time, tempo or beat; the rhythm of the music./ As a simple curiosity seeker, we will not understand exactly the meaning of every single conductor's twitch and grimace. It is not necessary, it is enough that the person who is to carry out the instructions takes the cue. If all goes well, the end result will sound beautiful.

Even a serious chess match cannot be deduced from a shuffle of pieces moving according to unintelligent forces, compared to which the intelligent events in the universe are incomparably superior. Einstein said:

"In the laws of nature such a high order of intelligence is revealed that the rationality of human thinking and ordering is a pale reflection in comparison!" /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild. - Published by C. Seeling, Zürich-Stuttgart-Wien 1953. 21.1/

The laws of the game of chess reveal a high level of intelligence. Yes or no? Can science show by its mere tools, without any intellectual capacity, that a chess piece moves intelligently on the chessboard? No. To the instrument /which has no intelligence behind it/ all movement is unintelligent. It doesn't care if the plane is falling upside down towards the sea, or if it is on its prescribed path.

Your throat doesn't know the difference between disinfectant sodium hypochlorite and foaming beer, you swallow both. But the mind can tell the difference through the perceptual system. How then can science show the intelligent intervention of God when science itself, its measuring instruments, has no sense?! Besides, the fact that the results of scientific investigations are determined by who in the background is funding the scientific endeavour should not be underestimated. And what is the dominant paradigm? Is it the truth? More likely, the scientific and social interest, determined by those in power.

Science does not want to answer how the universe came into being, but why God did not create it. Its attitude makes any hindsight completely incorrect, that are used to prove their point!!!!

Is this sentence correct then? "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God." And what evidence is there that the thinking is intelligent that is unwilling to see that what is interesting in the universe is not the existence of simple material structures, but their organization, which is not physical in nature at the moment when the level of organization surpasses the property of matter. To reiterate: the complexity of the universe indicates that the material parts have undergone a mental polishing that the material parts have undergone a mental polishing that matter cannot do by itself.

As such, the scientific instrument can show the grinding on a piece of wood, but not the intelligence that is the intelligent background grinding of the grinding to produce the shape of a human head. Science does not deduce, the scientist deduces, and the fact is that his deduction is an absolute scientist and a vision-dependent deduction.

To infer God is a complete betrayal of the spirit of atheism. An atheist, serious in his credulity, would not dare to do this, while his seriousness is in his credulity, he does not seriously believe what he wants to reject. Then whether the object of his rejection can be seriously doubted is another matter.

Where there is intelligence there is a conscious mind, where there is a conscious mind there is a person. And in the universe, there is intelligence on an amazing scale, there is conscious mind, there is God! If the structure of the universe did not contain intelligence, not only would it not exist, it would not have come into existence at all!

"The laws of nature show the existence of a spirit far superior to that of man, and to which we must feel humbled by our humble powers." /Phyllis to Wright, 24 January 1936. Transled from the original German: Max Jammer,  Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Princeton, 1999, 92-93./

The more complex something is, the more intelligence you need to use to create it. And that the universe is saturated with intelligence on a scale incomprehensible by human standards is unnecessary to prove, it can stand without it. [Whether the incompleteness of the conception of spiritual existence also stands is another question. Atheism undertakes to decide this, and according to the extent of its own intelligence.]

If there were no intelligence in the universe, there would be no way to investigate and decipher what is comprehensible and classifiable to the human mind, which is the main characteristic of science.

So understanding comes from understandability, and the more intelligence one puts into the process of understandability, the more intelligence there must be in what one wants to conquer. And this he does by intelligence. He puts intelligence into the fathoming of events that reflect intelligence.

It is only a step from that to the acceptance by faith of the owner of intelligence /God/, which puts the intelligent thinking people in the class of believers. In the other class are people without faith who have traded the intelligence found in the universe for chance. They got here by accident, which they make no secret of, that there are meaningless, purposeless mechanical processes behind their existence.

According to atheism, man is nothing more than matter in motion, "tormented atoms in a mud". "You and I are like ants or rats, or even pieces of broccoli, in the grand scheme of things... our species has no value... we are no different from a piece of broccoli in the cosmic sense." /Dan Barker: Quoted from his debate with Paul Monata, July 10, 2006, posted on the radio program "The Infidel Guy/

Graham Lawton, managing editor of New Scientist magazine, says: "Your life may seem like a big deal to you, but it's actually a random splash of matter and energy in a carefree and impersonal universe." /Graham Lawton (2016), “What is the Meaning of Life?” New Scientist, 231[3089]:33, September 3, emp. added./

To make this statement, the author has used intelligence. If the atheists are forced to use intelligence against what they want to refute, then since their own intelligence is evidence of their existence, what they are fighting against is evidence of the existence of the other side, i.e. God, which intelligence has much greater visible results than the atheist's assertion. There is no such thing as having to use intelligence against something that does not have a shred of intelligence, if it does, then the materialists are insane for stating their position!

Why is the scientific position justified in claiming an "intelligent" author behind the atheist's written or spoken text of information? Because chemistry and physics by their very nature do not know the rules of grammar, nor intelligent communication processes.

Therefore, whoever uses intelligence against God is in fact proving God, because to scientifically prove the denial of God, he must use the same degree of intelligence that is there /with God/ that he wants to deny, understand or conquer. Atheism settles this with a wave of the hand: I don't believe, therefore there is none. [I don't believe the pot is hot - then paramedics take him to the burn ward emergency room.]

The triumph of reason is the recognition of intelligence behind complexity, but science has replaced intelligence with chance.

Atheism is a primitive form of rejection of God, which attributes its own self-righteousness to spirit, its own, but is willing to attribute the laws that coordinate the universe to anything but spirit.

If the atheist did not fine-tune what he was saying according to the rules of grammar, it would be impossible to understand what he was saying. He is saying that the fine-tuned universe does not exist. In contrast, he says of his own proposition that it exists and is fine-tuned. The little is fine tuned, the much is not. Typical atheist bias.

"If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse!" /Bernard Carr cosmologist/ - If you don't want atheism, you'd better have a bunch of letters ready to traipse around on their own.

Behind intelligent phenomena there is always a spirituality, a mind, a person, according to its degree, as is proved by the spirit of the atheist who uses intelligence against God in his speech /or writing/. As long as the atheist keeps his disbelief to himself, there is no problem, but as he articulates it, he provides evidence of the level of intelligence behind his own expression. Then what level of intelligence is contained in the statement "I don't believe in god" compared to what is manifest in the universe is hard to say, I mean the intelligence that denies it. They are not even related to each other. What the atheist does not believe is a reflection of his own freely chosen ignorance.

What is the height of amateurism? When one's genius hides one's own amateurism from one's eyes. In this sense, the genius of atheists is unquestionable, and it is not even appropriate for a sane thinker to question it.

To prove to an atheist not required the existence of God, but to point out the unconcealed aversion within him, is to explain the atheist's lack of belief in God. 

The pseudo-humanist ethic of atheism

"Most atheists subscribe to a humanist ethic based on compassion and a desire to alleviate suffering, which may explain why atheists are more supportive of climate change, refugees and the right to die." (Phil Zuckerman: The New Congress has a humanist congressman and a religiously unaffiliated senator - but why is it so hard for outspoken atheists to vote? - https://theconversation.com/new-congress-has-a-humanist-rep-and-a-religiously-unaffiliated-senator-but-why-is-it-so-hard-for-outright-atheists-to-get-voted-in-192997

This is a propaganda text in defence of atheism! Even the greatest atheist's hymn of morality is destroyed by the petty atheist car thief, who by his act refutes the falsehood of atheist beliefs that are presented as authentic. It happens thousands of times a day.

The world is rampant with crime, internet scammers, thieves, robbers, murderers, gun, drug, etc. abusers, family killers, traffic thugs, nature abusers and many other falsehoods.

These people are all atheists who have no respect for God or man, but act in their own self-interest. Then what kind of humanist ethics are you talking about?

No serious religion encourages its members to commit evil, so those who commit them, even if they claim to be religious, deny the most elementary teachings of their religion, so they are actually atheists or pseudo-Christians. False Christians are also atheists because they act ungodly, they are not obedient!

"Hypocrites, Isaiah truly prophesied of you, saying, This people draw near to me with their mouths, and honour me with their lips; and his heart is far from me." (Matthew 15:7-8)

"They profess to know God, but deny him by their works, because they are an abomination and an unbeliever, and unworthy of every good work." (Titus 1:16, King J.)

Advocates of atheism present themselves in a completely different light than they actually are. Ordinary atheism is arbitrary law-making for any kind of injustice! Atheism is an arbitrary violation of the cohesive moral order of society, insofar as there are as many atheists as there are the right to indulge in self-imposed promiscuity.

The greatest ingratitude of atheism is that it selfishly loves life in itself, but not the one from whom we received life. He despises, rejects, kills. He says he doesn't exist.

- Don't threaten an atheist with "go to hell" because they don't believe it. It's like threatening an adult that Santa won't bring her presents for Christmas. -

It doesn't matter how the atheist reacts to the arguments put forward against him, that's the point. to face them, that's a legal basis for your judgment. It's like a warning at a railway crossing, if you don't heed it, the railway company can't be blamed if the train hits an atheist who's pushing his chest out.

What awaits them is well illustrated in the following video:

Terrifying moment: train collides with fireworks spectators in India, killing more than 50 people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zofb2YlYbuU

Atheists also delight in their god-denying fireworks, but they will catch the runaway train from the side, and then they will no longer be banging out anti-god rhetoric in the belief that they are existentially protected by science. Because they are not protected. Their self-indulgent self-indulgence is nothing but the destructive, self-blinding darkness of their own light.

Shooting at carved God dolls in an amusement park might seem like fun, but the real God is waiting for them at the exit.

Ezekiel 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked [man], thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezekiel 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour an

Romans 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

2Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

o o o o o o o o o o o

"The atheist does not want to burn the Bible, but only tries to point to the shelf in the library where even the Bible would be better off, and that is the mythology shelf. We believe that its symbolism should be enjoyed literarily, not as literal or inferred or revealed truths..." - https://ateizmus.hu/index.php/blog/kreacionizmus-vallasoknak-art-nemcsak-jozan-esznek

The Bible is high and incomprehensible to an atheist, who rummages through it to find something he can twist, to stumble over it. He regards it as mythology, with the spirituality he obviously possesses, which makes him incapable of reading his own judgement out of it.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (King J.)