Search This Blog

Friday, May 13, 2011

Atheism? The Devil's Delusion! America? Still the land of the free and the home of the brave.

If you don't know by now, Christians give more money to charity than atheists.  Also, Secular Humanism is a religion and it has taken over our nation as our official state religion.   Read these two posts carefully and think on what I have just said.  Atheists are bringing rack and ruin upon this nation by ruining the economy and savaging the society that was built on the Judeo-Christian ethic and hard work and bold bravery.  

I think a man with a hat sang a real good song about freedom and sacrifice and righting a wrong 
He'll open us up and he'll put us away but first Atheism Analyzed has something to say:

Two posts from Atheism Analyzed:

Friday, May 6, 2011

Humanism is Benign… Right?

Well, read what the manifestos actually say:

Humanist Manifesto I, 1933:

Statements of socialism and totalitarian control of society:

”ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.


THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
Humanist Manifesto II: The socialism of Manifesto I is now concealed in more dense hyperbole for the following reasons:
”It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.”
Well, the ideas of "siezing control of all institutions" and "social and mental hygiene" didn’t work out so well when the real world actually did it in the 1930's and 40's, so the Manifesto needed a little cosmetic work; hence Manifesto II.

Read the Manifestos if you haven’t already, all three of them. Read between the lines in the latter ones, for the abstruse and veiled references which were blatant in Manifesto I. For example, in Manifesto II:
”TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.
Yes, economic well-being for all individuals and groups; the common good: democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

The absurdness of a democratized economy should be apparent: the voting majority decides on what products everyone gets? In a free economy every real demand gets serviced. Which is better? More to the point, what does this TENTH article actually mean? One suspects that the democracy part actually refers to socialization and government ownership: the Peoples Economy. The references to seizure made clear in Manifesto I are now stealth references.

Then there is this in the ELEVENTH:
”We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts - the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts - for all who are neglected or ignored by society.”
As if no one else cares about these people and only the elites care. Here’s the truth, at least in my community. The elites don’t care one whit about those categories of people. It is the religious community that runs programs and cares for them, performing outside the extremely limited governmental programs. These are ministries taken on by individuals who care, and they are not Atheo-Humanists. In fact, try to find an Atheo-Humanist organization actually on the ground at any disaster. [note 1]

And this one, the TWELFTH;
”TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity.”

This is one of the reasons for the next Manifesto, number III. Cultural pluralism is a fused disaster awaiting a spark. Witness the Islamic movement hoping to take over Europe and Britain merely by population size. Pluralism and diversity are not on the Islamic agenda.


It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide - through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.



The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.
The Humanist Manifesto III is a wimpy shadow of the former Humanist positions, having replaced the dictates with “beliefs” and statements of morals according to Humanists. Here is the key phrasing:
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Yes, working not for oneself, for one’s own welfare, for one’s own family, but working for society. In return one gets his inequities reduced and a lot of stuff redistributed in his direction, unless he has too much stuff, then it is adios stuff. If this is not communism, then what is it?

Now let’s back up to this:
” Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”
Life’s fulfillment is for YOU GUYS to do all this stuff, while we reduce your inequities and redistribute your stuff. Read this paragraph again, and then kindly explain to me how this teleological revelation was received by the elites who are letting us in on their wisdom. We should service the humane ideals of “inequitiy reduction” and stuff “redistribution”, and then we will be fulfilled?

There is no categorical distance between the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III. The only difference is that the original sharpness of focus has fogged somewhat, by excess verbiage in Manifesto II, and by over-simplicity and the use of joyous terms of liberationism objectives in Manifesto III.

The “Notable Signers” of Manifesto III include one (1) actual producer, a pharacologist; the remainder are academics, activists, writers, entertainers, and Unitarians. Except for that one (1) producer, not one produces a single product for satisfying the issue of ”whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life.”

Humanism is the self-righteous elitist religion, to be applied to the common man: the herd. It originally even called itself the Humanist religion, and it has been declared a religion in the U.S. Federal Courts. It is the religion of self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving prototyrants.

[note 1]: One Atheist organization has recently tried to deliver stuff to disaster victims expressly because of this criticism - not because they actually care.


Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Atheist Charitable Giving

There is an idea floating around that Atheists are more generous and caring than Christians because of some verses removed from the context of the Bible. Oddly this is one of those ideas that can be fact checked, but seems not to have been. Here are some facts regarding Atheist charitable giving vs Christian charitable giving.

”One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.

One of the outcomes of this profile - and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults - is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.”
Barna Group Poll.

To recap, Christians give 2:1 more money to charity, not counting church donations, than Atheists give to charity. Three times as many Atheists, per capita, give nothing at all.

Even some Atheists admit to the problem. These Atheists have set up an Atheist foundation to encourage giving by Atheists:

“A new foundation in Georgia is urging atheists and secularists to donate more to charity in order to show that their generosity equals that of churchgoers — even if their checkbooks haven't shown it thus far

''The nonreligious are generous and compassionate, but our giving lags behind the religious," said Dale McGowan, executive director of Foundation Beyond Belief. "It's time for those of us who are otherwise engaged on Sunday mornings to have our own easy and regular means of giving."

The recently formed foundation seeks to "focus, encourage and demonstrate the generosity and compassion of atheists and humanists" and also provide "a comprehensive education and support program" for nonbelieving parents, according to its Web site.

The foundation has good reason to be concerned — a 2000 survey by the charitable giving group Independent Sector showed that 87.5 percent of all charitable contributions come from religious donors.”
K. Haus,
This Atheist charitable foundation has collected $6,500 from 250 individuals, a whopping $26 average.


Now you can call me what you want, but when Uncle Sam called my name I said, "Yes, Sir!"  Men in my family from Henry Lee of Revolutionary War fame to my son Robert, a highly decorated military veteran of Afghanistan now come home have put on the uniform, taken up the rifle and marched into service in both war and peace.   Yes I am proud of my brave ancestors and proud of my brave son and by God I am proud of every man and woman who give years of their lives in service to the United States of America - One nation, under God, indivisible - some have given blood and pieces of their bodies and some their lives.  God bless all of you who serve!   I have to include police officers and any other servicemen who are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect others.  Border Patrol.  Firemen.  It isn't just military who stand on walls while we sleep and go into places when everyone else is running out.  If you happen across a police officer, maybe you should tell him you appreciate his being willing to serve?  Next time you see a soldier, shake his hand and thank him. 

My Dad didn't teach me about Jesus when I was a boy and later I understood that my parents had been hurt by a pastor and decided to blame God for the whole thing.   It is human to offend and it is human to be offended.   It does take more to take the blame than to take offense and it takes more to forgive than it does to hold a grudge.   Now my Mom will actually talk about God and support the concept of creation and the sovereignty of the Savior with me but for years, nothing.    They decided to let me find my own way. 

When Dad had a heart attack and was laying on a hospital bed I flew out to see him and I plainly asked him if he knew Jesus as Savior and my Dad promised me that he did.  He had me look at his wallet and he showed me his "picture of Jesus" that he had always carried.  He told me he had that picture with him since Korea.   Now I know why we didn't go to church but I still wondered why my Dad didn't tell me about Jesus Christ.  He was depending on Jesus when he was taking that hill in Korea and defending it from the Commies.  Ah, Dad, can you imagine that there are now Commies in government here?   Glad you don't know it because you left this Earth long ago and you are with Jesus now.   Did it surprise you that Jesus didn't look like Eric Clapton?

I did eventually get "saved" and one of the first men I talked to about believing in God was a WWII veteran.  He looked at me and said, "Son, there are no atheists in foxholes."   Yes, he did!  Cliched as it might sound.  Over the years I have found that there is more faith among those who are willing to sacrifice for others and that the people who love God are more willing to give from their hearts and from their wallets. 

Maybe the primary reason that Darwinists resist the steadily building mountain of evidence against their belief system is that they just want to have a philosophically sound reason to be selfish?  Some of them have been honest enough to actually say it.   Darwinism is just an excuse to be completely self-centered and entirely immoral.  Julian Huxley actually admitted it. 

 ““[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.””

Is Richard Dawkins actually an "...intellectually satisfied atheist?"    

David Berlinski would say that such a thing is not logically possible!

About The Book

The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

(Paperback edition, Basic Books, September 2009)

“Berlinski’s book is everything desirable: it is idiomatic, profound, brilliantly polemical, amusing, and of course vastly learned. I congratulate him.” —William F. Buckley Jr.

Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.

“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:
  • Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
  • Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
  • Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
  • Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
  • Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
  • Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
  • Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
  • Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
  • Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.
Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be—indeed must be—the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves. >


I hope to have a great time discussing many things when I get to spend time with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati later this summer.   I'd love to have a long dinner with Jonathan Sarfati and David Berlinski and for once in my life do more listening than talking as they discussed science and religion.   Either of them would make poor Richard Dawkins look like the uncertain priest of propaganda that he is in any debate or prolonged discussion on either science or philosophy.  I do hope Dr. Berlinski finds faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ, because one day the Creator is going to finish the job of being the Judge.

Toby Keith

Toby Keith wrote a song, I will end with his tune but if I could add one verse it would go like this:

Here on Earth justice is not always done but when God settles up we'll all acknowledge the Son
So choose your side wisely and choose your side well
because the side that is wrong is gonna wind up in Hell!
Yeah, wind up in Hell!

"Justice is the one thing you should always find
You got to saddle up your boys
You got to draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles we'll sing a victory tune
We'll all meet back at the local saloon
We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces
Singing whiskey for my men, beer for my horses"