Stupid Is, As Stupid Does

Listen up kids. Our lesson today is how Atheists are guilty of hate crimes under the guise of free speech. Let's open our lesson books by Googling, "Hitler portrayed Jews as Stupid". And let's see what the tooth fairy brings us,

The Jewish Symbol with a "Verboten" symbol over it, duly noted!

Hate Crimes II
hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/hate2.html
... The Nazi's started by portraying the Jews as stupid and inferior people with their

Nazi Propagandawww.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005274
... Nazi films portrayed Jews as "subhuman" creatures infiltrating Aryan society.

The Daily Conservativethedailyconservative.tumblr.com/
... To achieve this, Adolf Hitler portrayed Jews as non-humans. “

How was the Portrayal of the Jewish people in Germany before the ...
wiki.answers.com › ... › History › War and Military History › World War 2
They didn't do anything to Hitler or Germany. Hitler wanted to have a perfect race with blonde hair, blue eyes and white. He thought Jews stupid and weren't ...

Nicotine Nazis
davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html
... Jews were portrayed as weak willed, diseased, stupid and inferior. School children

And this atheist rabble really embodies everything civilized society would deem a reflection of "intellectual superiority"? Only the kind of rabble a fuhrer can love! Put a brownshirt on it and its good to go!

*scoffs*

Now, tell me dear children, what does any of that have to do with "Science" or "Intellect"? Or for that matter, the betterment of society?
Absolutely nothing. Because Atheism is not scientific reasoning, has nothing to do with intelligence or science, nor does a "lack of evidence" made to serve as "evidence," demonstrate a rational line of logic.

I guess that serves as the #1,265th reason I can not believe in Atheism.

And the #1,266th reason I can't believe in Atheism:

"...the Shrill, Shank and Swill Committee on Scientific Affairs membership is comprised of nearly almost all Atheists..."

Atheists make a lame attempt here at trying to imply that a belief in God equates to a reduced intellect? If that's so, I suppose Atheists are as brilliant as the common swine and yard-bird, because pigs don't believe in God either.

I guess one can deduce, "Atheism is for the birds!"

Perhaps at last, we can gain some TRUE insight into the level of intellect it requires to become an atheist.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man,
and from man to pig,
and from pig to man again;
but already it was impossible to say which was which."
- Animal Farm, George Orwell

How very very "intellectual," indeed!

Depends entirely on personal bias and how one picks their scientists.

In the movie on her life, at the end Temple Grandin expresses how when she works with cattle, they're living animals, "individuals," and she can feel "God" -- (See 1:21 of 6:23).

She's definately one of the best scientists that's out there today. The cattle industry changed because of her innovative ideas, which were grounded on scientific observation and psychology, and a lot of genius.

Darwin was sooooo grandiose? It's one thing to suggest we descended from animals, another to read their minds!! She reads cows minds. She knows how they think.

TEMPLE GRANDIN:
"I became aware of just how precious life was. I thought about death, and I felt close to God."

So Atheists, go ahead and pick and choose your scientists, and so will I.

It all depends what you think is a great achievement, and what you disregard as non-important. I think she's one of the great scientists of our modern day.

Of course, atheists are going to continue cherrypicking shrill, loud-mouth atheists as their favorite examples because they're not at all that interested in science itself. They cherrypick bits and pieces, to wage a war against religion, and take great pains to ignore all the good people in science who make albeit less-trumpeted, yet the most important contributions, while retaining a belief in a greater power that is a source for their moral guidance.

On the bright side for atheists, the cattle Temple Grandin works with are atheists. I suppose that's the level of intellect necessary to be an atheist... base instinct and following primordial impulses.

We can easily continue on with great contributors to civilization, who believed in a higher power and the value of certain precepts found in most religion,

"I believe God is managing affairs and that He doesn't need any advice from me. With God in charge, I believe everything will work out for the best in the end. So what is there to worry about."
― Henry Ford

==================================================

WRIGHT BROTHERS... INVENTORS OF THE AIR PLANE... CHRISTIANS.

===================================================

Benjamin Franklin
"The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

Below are two more quotes from Franklin that express his understanding of God:

"My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [Revolution] to any superiority.If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!"
-In a letter to William Strahan, August 19, 1784

"I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler."
-On the impact of Independence on generations of Americans during the Constitutional Convention

BAIRD, JOHN LOGIE
John Logie Baird (1888-1946) was a Scottish inventor and engineer who was a pioneer in the development of mechanical television. In 1924, Baird televised objects in outline. In 1925, he televised human faces. In 1926, Baird was the first person to televise pictures of objects in motion. In 1930, Baird made the first public broadcast of a TV show, from his studio to the London Coliseum Cinema; the screen consisted of a 6-ft by 3-ft array of 2,100 tiny flashlamp bulbs. Baird developed a color television in 1928, and a stereo television in 1946. Baird's mechanical television was usurped by electronic television, which he also worked on.
(His father was a preacher.)

The game of basketball was invented by James Naismith (1861-1939). Naismith was a Canadian physical education instructor who invented the game in 1891 so that his students could participate in sports during the winter. In his original game, which he developed while at the Springfield, Massachusetts YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association), Naismith used a soccer ball which was thrown into peach baskets (with the basket bottoms intact). The first public basketball game was in Springfield, MA, USA, on March 11, 1892. Basketball was first played at the Olympics in Berlin Germany in 1936 (America won the gold medal, and Naismith was there).

Just going through some on the top 20 inventions of the 20th Century... most appear to be Christians or at least, believing in a higher power and the validity of religious faith, etc.

Here is one example of a non-believer who is also, a scientist:

Bill Gates: "In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Bill-Gates-pledges-58-billion-fortune-charity...
Jun 20, 2008 - Microsoft founder Bill Gates has pledged to give all of his £58 billion fortune to charity - rather than leaving it for his children.

And Bill Gates, dear friends, like Scientist and Cattle-handler Temple Grandin, is on the AUTISM SPECTRUM. It would be my conclusion, that due to the bullying and immense suffering and challenges people with Autism often face, that they have learned through hardship what injury feels like and out of empathy do not wish others, to suffer. It is more likely their Autism is to credit for not only their intelligence and success as scientists, but being kinder, gentler, altruistic human beings toward their fellow man, and beast.

In the cases of both Bill Gates and Temple Grandin, you can thank Autism; not Atheism, that the planet has been enriched with two of the kindest, intelligent and generous, human beings.

I suppose Atheists wish to turn back time on civilization, and regress back to the days when we labeled entire groups of people, "Stupid" and "Inferior".

Atheists will try to make the argument fallacy that atheists are "smarter" than others. Reminds me of an old stereotype against black people, resurfacing its ugly head. Fearmongering... appealing to people's ego, just like Adolf Hitler did to drum up support from unhappy people who were failing in life. Why, in the Third Reich if you were Aryan, you were part of the "Master Race".. and of course he had his war on Christianity needless to add.

WHO IS NOT "SMART" ENOUGH?? WHO IS "STUPID"? Bigotry by any other name is bigotry. A little more tolerance, and a lot less prejudice will vastly improve your religion, Mr. and Miss Atheist. Stereotyping whole groups of people, is not only revealing of one's ignorant views but it shows one's blatant stupidity.
"Stupid" is as stupid does.

Prejudice In To Kill A Mockingbird, Discrimination
customessaymeister.com/customessays/.../13828.htm
... Women the early 1900's weren't allowed to vote or be in a jury. They said women couldn't be in a jury because they were considered to be too ... Women were thought not to be smart enough or strong enough to do some of the jobs men did.

NOT SMART ENOUGH?? Propaganda... the Nazis won votes that way, too.

Fearmongering and appealing to egotism. Here's "Intelligence" -- that no matter what Atheists might say, to attempt planting doubts in my mind, all the more determined I am to stand by my beliefs and not be moved!

Christians and Muslims and Hindus are perfectly capable of handling any of the jobs / scientific profession an atheist does.

Earlier comments remind me of a Klan rally, and some freak in a robe spouting off rhetoric about how his "skin" makes him superior. Atheists, like klansmen, have this need for false reassurance they're somehow superior, because their entire life has been a failure. They're failures, so naturally, they hook up with others who are equal failures. Atheists attack God and Theists, and Klansmen attack Jews and Blacks. So, a person's skin color makes them superior? Does it?! and Atheist religion is like the Nazi religion in that way, like Atheism makes the failure feel more important about his amoral and meaningless existence -- like the brownshirts? He or she needs reassurance, and other atheists are there vomiting up the propaganda -- the false reassurance "Yes Mr. Atheist, you are greater and grander than other human beings!" Arguments which suggest "more atheists are scientists" is a joke. There's more Christians than there are atheists, so who is doing the 100,000's of jobs across America that require the everyday application of science? Back to that Klan rally: Most of the people standing in the crowd are criminal degenerates, drunks, and all around rabble and want to believe all those deluded lies which reassure them they're somehow "magically superior" to other human beings.

Don't tell me that Atheism makes anyone smarter. Atheism is a useless philosophy. It has not made the world better for anyone. Genes determine intelligence and education from non-philosophical sources is the only medium to make people truly smarter, where they might become of actual use to society.
Atheism does make people bigots and hypocrites though.

Like Atheists, some other people in history felt this group or that group of people, weren't "smart enough".

SPOTLIGHT: Tuskegee Airmen spent time in Rantoul | Deseret News
deseretnews.com/.../SPOTLIGHT-Tuskegee-Airmen-spent-time...
Feb 2, 2012 – ... it also had to fight prejudice from leaders who thought African-Americans weren't smart enough to handle mechanical tasks needed to keep ...

25 years since Al Campanis Shocked Baseball - Edge of Sports
edgeofsports.com/2012-04-16-719/index.html
Apr 16, 2012 – Is there still that much prejudice in baseball today? ... point by arguing that the reason there weren't more African American catchers, pitchers, ... hiding this ugly prejudice for years-that black aren't smart enough to be managers or ... it back a little bit” and Frank Robinson said that “there is racism in baseball.“

The Bigotry of Atheism is the #1 reason, I can not and will never, believe in Atheism.

I believe in The Religion of Love.

The World NEEDS more people with Autism, not atheism‏

Nazis, like atheists and communists, often speak of comradery and "love" of their brothers, but all I ever saw come from any of these groups was hatred and bigotry. You can not squeeze blood out of a turnip, and you cannot drain "love" from beliefs that are founded on hatred.

Why aren't more atheists doing great things for their fellow man?
Why haven't atheists discovered the cure for the common cold? Why aren't atheists spending more time finding a cure for cancer instead of attacking people who have a religious belief? Atheists only care about destroying other people's faith, and some spend their days, 24/7 obsessing over other people's faith, and like a sickness in their mind, attacking people of faith.

If any atheistic non-believer do good toward their fellow man, its coming from somewhere else, not their atheism.

Bill Gates: "In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Bill-Gates-pledges-58-billion-fortune-charity...
Jun 20, 2008 - Microsoft founder Bill Gates has pledged to give all of his £58 billion fortune to charity - rather than leaving it for his children.

And Bill Gates, dear friends, like Scientist and Cattle-handler Temple Grandin, is on the AUTISM SPECTRUM. It would be my conclusion, that due to the bullying and immense suffering, discrimination and challenges people with Autism often face, that they have learned through hardship what injury feels like and out of empathy do not wish others, to suffer. It is more likely their Autism is to credit for not only their intelligence and success as scientists, but being kinder, gentler, altruistic human beings toward their fellow man, and beast.

In the cases of both Bill Gates and Temple Grandin, you can thank Autism; not Atheism, that the planet has been enriched with two of the kindest, intelligent and generous, human beings.

"What moron said 'There's no atheists in foxholes'?!"
"'Not I,' clucked the little red hen."

Stromatolites

I will post this for posterity to clear up any confusion readers may have had with this article.

Atheists have tunnel vision. Atheists think things can only photosynthesize from the sun's light.

Photosynthesis Found Where the Sun Don't Shine | LiveScience
livescience.com
Jun 22, 2005 – Instead of sunlight, the deep-sea microbes use geothermal radiation. "This shows that photosynthesis is something that is not limited only to the ...

Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean
www.asu.edu/feature/includes/summer05/readmore/photosyn.html
Jun 21, 2005 – They published their discovery in an article titled “An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep sea hydrothermal vent,” in the ...

Photosynthesis At Deep-sea Vents
www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p08.htm
Photosynthesis At Deep-Sea Vents. The surprisingly rich populations of lifeforms that prosper around the hydrothermal vents have been thought to be utterly ...

Scientists admit there were organisms, but they left no fossils. We do know organisms can photosynthesize around hydrothermal vents; black smokers, hot springs. Stromatolites were "photosynthesizing" as far back as 3.5 billion years ago when the earth was still a cauldron of smoke and volcanic activity (which would have blocked out the sun, if it were nuclear-fusion-active, anyway.)

That's right folks, at that point in the earth's history, its highly unlikely that sunlight would've penetrated the Earth's non-existant atmosphere, for the thick black clouds (as in, "what made the dinosaurs go extinct -- lack of sunlight" which lead to a mass extinction of plants -- which started a domino effect that lead to mass extinction of most species on earth) -- meteor activity and volcanic activity was billowing forth at that time in natural history and -- with all those thick black clouds and steam... well, somehow, still, stromatolites existed.

Atheists can't figure out where the light came from, for stromatolites to photosynthesize? Of course we understand this takes a PhD in Genius to figure out.

And what were they photosynthesizing from? Hydrothermal vents, just as they did 2 billion years ago. But for any atheist who might presume, "An organism like that couldn't exist because it's not been discovered" -- Atheist logic is flawed by that same line of reasoning. God supposedly doesn't exist because they've not found "empirical evidence," which I've covered here (and backfire it does!) It is a fact: Just because species did not leave fossils, does not mean the species never existed. Good scientists tell us so.

Also, it needs to be noted... Genesis did not use the term "plant" at all. In the King James version, it distinguishes the organisms as "herbs". Latter verses in time after man is created, Genesis then specifies "plants". Clear distinctions are drawn between herbs and plants.

~>I'm not judging your argument in this post just want to point out that your argument depends on four things,
knowing when the sun ignited,

Fossil record tells us this. As in Cambrian Explosion.

~>knowing when the oceans formed,

Geothermal heat/radiation.

NOTE: It seems as if most Atheists don't know how to distinguish between the
1) sun "forming" as a gargantuous gas ball with tremendous gravitational pull that shaped the planets, vs.
2) the nuclear fusion equation, which came later, which is irrelevant to your question.

The sun's heat was not necessary. The Earth produces massive geothermal heat, which lead to the rise of ocean water. See,

Formation of the Ocean
The current theory holds that after the Sun formed, there was a very large disk of dust and gas orbiting it. In this disk were all the elements that we see today, which were themselves formed in the furnaces of other stars. Anyway, it lumps together because of gravity and eventually pulls itself into balls, which then eventually become planets. Water was also present in this disk, and continued to be delivered to Earth in the form of comets after our planet had solidified. It's present mostly on the surface because when the planet was first formed, it was molten rock and very volcanically active. The water inside the planet was thus ejected as steam, but held in the atmosphere by Earth's gravity.
-Wes
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_ocean_form

~>knowing when the first reproducing organisms arose,

Fossil record tells us this. Although, its believed life possibly arose even earlier but any traces of fossil activity was probably consumed by volcanic eruption. The eldest life traces are 3.8 bya (carbon ball in rock), and earliest fossil dates to about 3.5 billion years ago.

~>knowing when the first photosynthetic organisms arose.

The fossil record tells us this, although most is currently speculation and theory that some of the earliest were photosynthetic. Scientists aren't absolutely certain about anything 3.5 billion years ago but presume it was photosynthetic and finding photosynthetic organisms around deep sea hydrothermal vents almost clinches that life arose in such environments and so photosynthetic organisms probably did exist long ago in these conditions, photosynthesizing from geo-thermal radiation.

A couple visuals for Atheists and Creationists to "see the light".

This fact was picked up off the web. I wish people would pay closer attention to what they are reading:

Science Fact: "The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."

The sun had formed, but it had not began the nuclear fusion at its core. The planets were formed as well. Cosmic debris like comets and meteors were rampant and plummeting into the surfaces of the planets and the sun, also, sucked in by gravity. There were all forms of gas, cosmic matter in transit around the sun, including water which earth's own geothermal heat would turn into steam, later forming our ocean. The planets were shaped by the massive gravitational force of this gargantuous gas ball that was destined to become our neighboring star, the sun. It was not the "Sun" as we know it today because the nuclear fusion at the core had not began, but this massive proto-sun was formed at the same time as the planets.

Two Very Different Things

1. Today's Sun heat energy is generated from gravity creating nuclear fusion at the core.
2. The Earth of past, present and future geo-thermal heat energy is generated at the core from gravity causing friction.

Nuclear Fusion and Friction both cause heat and light, but are two very different things.

Early Sun

The sun as we know it today, did NOT exist when the planets were forming. It was a cold gas ball, similar to the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. If Jupiter had more mass, the gravitational force could cause Jupiter to become our solar system's "second sun".

People steadily confuse,
1) The sun "formed" as a gas ball, -vs-
2) The sun "formed" as a nuclear-heatball.

In the case of the sun, What you mean by "Formed" can have two meanings, and both are two very different things.

Communist Requires Party Members to Be Atheist

China’s official Xinhua News Agency reports that a senior Chinese Communist Party official has reminded the increasingly religious ranks of the Party what they’re required to believe. From China party official warns members over religion (AP)
“Religious practice among Chinese Communist Party members is increasing and threatens its unity and national leadership, a top party official said in remarks reported Monday.
“Party members are required to be atheists and must not believe in religion or engage in religious practice, said Zhu Weiqun, a member of the party’s Central Committee [...]
“”Voices have appeared within the party calling for an end to the ban on religion, arguing in favor of the benefits of religion for party members and even claiming the ban on religion for party members is unconstitutional,” Zhu said.” In fact, our party’s principled stance regarding forbidding members from believing in religion has not changed one iota,” he said.”
Chinese Communist Party getting too religious, senior Party official reminds members to believe what they’re told

Like under Lenin's regime, with all the censorship, that's "Atheist Freethought Today"! A new and brighter utopian society...

Several such articles confirming Atheism is mandatory to be accepted as a card carrying member of the Communist Party. So why all the false accusations that communist atrocities somehow can be blamed on Christians? when Christians, Jews, Muslims, et cetera are the victims of this Atheist zealot evil?

According to the Atheist, the Communist worships the state, so therefore, he or she is not an atheist. Perhaps it was a good Catholic to blame for the following scene in The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution

Let's blame the Catholics.

or, this scene from Spain

I suppose we can lie and claim it was a Muslim.

or, this scene,

Or perhaps these Christian are worshiping in spite of ruthless Atheist tyranny.

The latter sounds much more reasonable, and historically accurate. All the lies in the world will not excuse what Atheism has done to destroy humanity over the past century.

When Atheist Logic Backfires and Fails

Referring to Two Past Posts

Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now? and,

Richard Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible
Atheist:

dazco01
You're saying that it's impossible to find evidence that God exists.
Thank you.

That's what the Bible states in the prophet's words:
Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."
Atheist:

dazco01
It seems you are using the lack of evidence for God...as evidence for God.
I think in order to have an intelligent discussion about God's existence, both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order to confirm God's existence. The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

But is that not how Atheist's produce "evidence".. by pointing to lack of evidence?

Reiterating on Atheist Logic: "...It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence I think in order to have an intelligent discussion... both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order... The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

Atheists fail to provide any evidence for Atheism themselves, except "lack of evidence". Lack of evidence is what they base their entire belief system on! It is a presumption that God does not exist, not empirical evidence. Scientists do not have direct evidence for black holes, yet they testify to the effect black holes have on surrounding stars. However, black holes are accepted as fact in modern physics. Even further, Theists aren't so foolish as to claim they have empirical evidence for God, and admit their creed is based solely on faith whilst Atheists claim they have "evidence" and demand "Evidence".

Yet, actually, Atheists base their creed on the sole basis of thier Lack of Evidence.

Mr. Atheist, I am not speaking in a different language. I have spoken in YOUR LANGUAGE when I say:

Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

Atheist: It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence.

How is it then, that it fails the logic of Atheism? Since lack of evidence is the sole foundation of the Atheist belief, perhaps for the Biblical authors, it was the foundation of their belief in God, and a profound evidence.

Lack of Evidence, is precisely what Atheists need to support their entire belief system. They have no evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they say they conclusively believe... there is no God. Ah, no evidence = belief. Then why their demands for evidence from Theists?

"With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.
Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.
I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.
Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF."

Scientific theories exist, without direct evidence... proof, they say? Yet Atheists have no problem accepting these theories on faith. And even still, there is no direct PROOF, for the non-existence of God.
This particular Atheist never had the viable "Proof" God does not exist. Lack of evidence, is not "proof". Forensic investigations are not done that way. Investigators develop a theory and seek evidence. Scientific theories are formulated in the same manner. Theories are formed after which, evidence is sought. It is my belief, that Atheists do not genuinely seek evidence. It was the belief of Biblical writers, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God. The "Burden of Proof" argument fallacy does not fall on myself or theists. Afterall, who needs evidence. Lack of evidence is "evidence"!

John is driving in his car with Lucy. John tells Lucy, "Look over there," and points toward an area among the distant trees. "A murder took place over there just a few years back" Lucy is curious. Lucy wants to know more. After several days, Lucy drives back to the spot just as she remembers John pointing it out to her. Lucy anxiously expects to see "evidence". There should be a body or some other evidence that indicates "murder," shouldn't there? But there is no body, no blood, there's nothing. There is no "evidence" for a murder anywhere in the location. Perhaps John just lied, and made up the whole entire story. Lucy gets angry at John and accuses him of lying, since afterall, shouldn't his claim that "a murder took place in said spot," be accompanied with evidence? Lucy is too lazy to question police, or browse old newspapers. Lucy does not continue her search for more answers. Lucy closes her mind and feels the "lack of evidence" is enough "evidence" to satisfy her mind, make up her conclusions, that no murder ever took place and John, is a liar. From that point on, she will not accept old newspaper reports, testimonies from witnesses, living relatives of the murder victims, books on the murder or any claim that contradicts her "Truth" on the matter. Afterall, hadn't Lucy went to that location and saw with her own two eyes, there was no body? No blood. No evidence. What more "Proof" does anyone need?

Lucy is a genius. Lucy thinks like an Atheist!!

Likewise, such "lack of evidence" adequately explains why some other people might form a belief in God based on that same line of logic. Hey, afterall, if its good enough for Atheists to form a whole belief system based entirely on lack of evidence, then why isn't it good enough for Theists? Afterall, according to the Atheist belief system "lack of evidence," is "evidence".

And for those of you who've erroneously believed you are atheists, but can mentally embrace the fact that you have no solid evidence to base your opinion on, which was formed in the total absence of evidence, A.K.A. "proof" to establish your non-belief in God on, that makes you an Agnostic and in my opinion, that raises the bar for one to be viewed as slightly more intelligent. There are many things in the cosmos that remain unknown... for an intelligent, scientific-minded person says of those things they know not, "I don't know."

Actually, atheists would argue using a similar story,

But the problem is dear...

but inserting a creationist who visits the Olduvai Gorge at the spot where the bones of "Lucy" the Australopithicine

I am not a "creationist."

were discovered, and since the creationist doesn't spot the fossils there any longer,

and therefore this point you tried to make is totally moot.

and doesn't consult the science journals, disbelieves in any fossil evidence for evolution.

Creationism and God, do not equate. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

And the example still stands. Just as primitive man does not disprove God, you can't prove God by it either. You can prove evolution, but you can not prove or disprove God using the fossil record. The record stands on its own merit.

And, while the good Lord was allowing things to evolve, and tinkering with DNA, I'm sure he'd already considered this long before you came on the fossil record:

"Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God.

Three reasons I can't believe in Atheism

Atheists lost belief because of errors in Theism and Creationism, so they say. Right? They cherrypick the weakest, most mythical watered-down arguments and then say

"Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc are wrong." Then, proceed at their attempts to sell their religion, Atheism. That's what I call flawed logic. Think that Atheism doesn't have its own share of errors to explain?

Well, I listened to the Atheists' arguments and came away realizing they have some sweeping to do around their own back doorstep before criticizing their neighbor's clutter. They have some beams to pluck from their own eyes before criticizing the splinter in mine.

The "facts" of Atheism didn't add up and still don't add up. Science is leaving Atheism in the dust. Facts often won't add up with a philosophy if you're cherrypicking the most ignorant of apologists; for instance, Kent Hovind and ilk. Kent Hovind hardly qualifies to represent my views or the views of most educated Christians. He's a circus performer, not a scientist. I took a look at many of Atheism's errors, and concluded "This, pseudo-philosophy Atheism, can't be true". Afterall, if there are any scientific errors then their philosophy is a false teaching. Right?

But perhaps some of us have accepted that we don't need religion, or patent truths and not fearing to stand alone and take comfort in the fact, "I may never know. And, in the cosmic scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Life will go on and the sun will rise tomorrow and that's fine by me."

The religions of Atheism and Theism need "Absolute Truths(TM)" and that headrush of standing on "the winning side". Being a part of something bigger than one's self but of course never having to do the actual work that's required. But in my studies, Atheism is in as much error, if not more so, than Theism. At least Theism's creed is based on FAITH which requires no evidence. But Atheism boasts to be based on EVIDENCE, and I have not seen "Evidence". Atheists have failed to produce "Proof."

Find one error and then throw it all in the philosophical waste basket, and seek out some new world view in the search for "Truth(TM)." That's discomforting to Atheists and Theists alike. Not knowing what "The Truth(TM)" is and not knowing where to go next, or who to call one's "brethren"? I suppose we can ignore new evidence, and live in a state of denial, or we can simply accept that a view is not for everyone, especially when Atheism's facts aren't available. Afterall, don't Atheists tell us they don't accept anything on faith? They need proof? Also, I will post the following proof I need to dismiss Atheism as a false doctrine.

BIG ERROR #ONE
Using Polydactyly as an example of evolution.

Meet "Jacob" the Polydactyl Cat with Six Toes.
Atheistic Darwinists claim anomalies of this nature are "random genetic mutations" plotting new body designs. Actually, it's nothing "new." (see PubMed).
Since this has been going on for several 100 Million years, then why has evolution failed to produce the tens of thousands of species with six digits we should've seen long before now? This is not evidence for a "Random Mutation." It's more like a genetic throwback to the past. For the atheist argument, See Polydactylity) which is not evolution, but an abnormality which spawns from Junk DNA.

See "An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097908

University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. The fossil record of early tetrapods has been increased recently by new finds from the Devonian period and mid-late Early Carboniferous period. Despite this, understanding of tetrapod evolution has been hampered by a 20-million-year gap ('Romer's Gap') that covers the crucial, early period when many key features of terrestrial tetrapods were acquired. Here I describe the only articulated skeleton of a tetrapod, Pederpes, yet found from the Tournaisian epoch (354-344 million years ago (Myr)). The new taxon includes a pes with five robust digits, but a very small, possibly supernumerary digit preserved on the manus suggests the presence of polydactyly. Polydactylous early tetrapods may have survived beyond the end of the Devonian and pentadactyly cannot be assumed for the pes. However, the pes has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms. Pederpes is the earliest-known tetrapod to show the beginnings of terrestrial locomotion and was at least functionally pentadactyl. With its later American sister-genus, Whatcheeria, it represents the next most primitive tetrapod clade after those of the Late Devonian, bridging the temporal, morphological and phylogenetic gaps that have hitherto separated Late Devonian and mid-Carboniferous tetrapod faunas.
PMID: 12097908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Looks like six toes to me, and apparently this has been going on a very, very long time and is renders no "proof(TM)" for Atheism.

Atheists were converted to Atheism, using weak anti-creationist arguments and patent non-scientifically thought-out so-called darwinist counter-arguments. But Science, is not done that way. The exception makes the rule and there is always some thing, some fact, some new twist and new piece of evidence that throws a monkey wrench into "Absolute Truth(TM)" and doesn't afford adherents of the atheist religion the luxury of kicking off their shoes and laying back on their comfort couch of the "patent one and only truth(TM)". This discipline is called SCIENCE. Not religion.

SCIENCE keeps pushing forward for more answers and in a perpetual state of flux saying, "I don't know." Whilst Religions like Atheism set on their laurels, falsely reassured in thier "Absolute Truth(TM)" thus, inevitably failing to grow in knowledge and intellect.

Atheism is a religion for the feeble minded. "My cat has six toes, therefore it proves why I refuse to believe in God." Comparing apples and oranges?? I suppose I could also rationalize since my cat has six toes, that God has blessed my cat by making it special enough to be featured on my blog post? But perhaps the more sane rationale is, God has nothing to do with it one way or the other, these maladies turn up in nature by happen-stance, because junk DNA has stuck around since the dawn of complex organisms. Atheists make a fallacy error, by making any comparisons between God and flawed arguments of creationists, or for that matter, anything in the empirical world. God is not of the "empirical realm" and thus, you can not expect empirical evidence for a spiritual God.
This fact stands alone: God has not been disproven by science, because science deals only in the empirical.

BIG ERROR #TWO
Scientific misinformation.

BIG ERROR #THREE
From an Atheist's criticism of creationism,

"When the creationist smoke screen finally dissipates, the debate hall falling silent at last, the young-earth advocate finds himself back on square one. He is looking at stars many millions of light-years away, stars putting out light which takes many millions of years to reach us! Attempts to speed up the velocity of light or to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

But Science is not restrained by Dave Matson's "Glass Half Empty," Atheism. Those physicists wouldn't be trying to break the speed of light, if they didn't feel it CAN be done. Perhaps, they have a bit o' faith in the so-called "impossible". That is to say,

"Last week’s bombshell physics news--those superluminal neutrinos that CERN’s OPERA experiment clocked moving faster than the speed of light--are already getting the rigorous vetting that OPERA’s researchers were hoping for......Which means, they say, that in all likelihood these neutrinos never achieved superluminal speeds. The anomaly is an error in the data or measurement of the speed, or some other brand of misunderstanding or miscalculation.Which makes a certain amount of sense, writes Steve Nerlich over at Universe Today over the weekend. Neutrinos do move very fast, straight through the Earth (neutrinos don’t interact much with normal matter), relying on GPS time-stamping and other methods of man-made measurement that are very precise but certainly not infallible to determine time and distance traveled. And it’s not like these neutrinos were clocked doubling the speed of light or something like that--the difference is 60 nanoseconds. That’s another way of saying that the neutrinos in question are thought to have traveled at 1.0025 times the speed of light. That’s certainly a small enough margin to be explained away by some kind of measurement error.Still, the jury remains out on this one, and we certainly don’t want to dismiss a perfectly good game-changing science story just because it seems hard to reconcile with the status quo. After all, if OPERA’s result turns out to be confirmed it is going to completely reorient physics as we know them. More on this as it develops.

"Attempts,,,,to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

First black hole for light created on Earth - physics
newscientist.com
An electromagnetic black hole has been built in a lab – and may one day be adapted to generate limitless solar energy even on a cloudy day.

Scientists Make Desktop Black Hole | Wired Science | Wired.com
wired.com ~ desktop-black-hole/
Oct 14, 2009 – Two Chinese scientists have successfully made an artificial black hole. Since you’re still reading this, it’s safe to say that Earth hasn’t been sucked into its vortex. That’s because a black hole doesn’t technically require a massive, highly concentrated gravitational field that prevents light from escaping, as postulated by Albert Einstein. It just needs to capture light — or, to be more precise, electromagnetic radiation, of which visually perceived light is one form.
Together, the patterns completely absorbed microwave radiation coming from any direction, and converted their energy to heat. Like a near-black hole designed earlier this year and made from photon-absorbing carbon nanotubes, the material could be used in solar energy panels.

ATHEISM, STRIKES OUT! Atheists say it can't be done. Couldn't happen. But it has... can... does... it will.
There we have scientists, stepping out on a limb, experimenting with what Einstein deemed impossible... perhaps "Faith" in things "not seen, (believed possible) and hoped for"... perhaps science isn't that different from the theist creed, afterall. Faith. If science only dealt with "facts" and established evidence (as Atheism falsely claims to do) and never pushed its limits, why, what progress would there be in that? But Atheism has never produced evidence. It claims to "demand proof" ... boasts to "have evidence" ... yet not even as much as one shred of evidence has ever been produced to support the philosophical view of Atheism in the empirical world. Theists on the other hand will at least confess their creed is entirely a matter of Faith, not evidence.

And, just because. Here's a bonus reason I can not believe in Atheism.

BIG ERROR #FOUR
One of my favorite orators, Robert G. Ingersoll whom yes, was an Agnostic, but often mistaken as an Atheist. Ingersoll's ceaseless wit and intellect, to which he confesses on many occasions he "does not know," in comparison to Atheists who naturally presume to know everything,

Words are the shadows of all that has been; they are the mirrors of all that is. The ghosts also enlightened our fathers in astronomy and geology. According to them the world was made out of nothing, and a little more nothing having been taken than was used in the construction of the world, the stars were made out of the scraps that were left over...
Ghosts

The real question is: In the light of science, in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth century, is this book true? The gentleman who wrote it begins by telling us that God made the universe out of nothing. That I cannot conceive; it may be so, but I cannot conceive it. Nothing, regarded in the light of raw material, is to my mind, a decided and disastrous failure, I cannot imagine of nothing being made into something, any more than I can of something being changed back into nothing. I cannot conceive of force aside from matter, because force to be force must be active, and unless there is matter there is nothing for force to act upon, and consequently it cannot be active. So I simply say I cannot comprehend it. I cannot believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest opinion.
Mistakes of Moses

But Atheists can conceive of "Nothing". They look up. They look down. They look around themselves, and see no God. Therefore, God can not exist. They only know what they see with their own two eyes. Anything else beyond the five senses, can not exist. Genius!

I read in a book that the Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man, that he took some nothing and made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden; but he noticed that he got lonesome (laughter); he wandered around as if he was waiting for a train (laughter); there was nothing to interest him; no news, no papers, no politics; no policy, and as the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no chance for reconciliation (hearty laughter and prolonged applause); not even for civil service reform (Continued laughter) Well, he would wander about this garden in this condition until finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him a companion; and having used up all the nothing...
Liberty of Man, Woman and Child

Back of that time there must have been an eternity, during which there had existed nothing-absolutely nothing-except this supposed God, according to this theory, this God spent an eternity, so to speak, in an infinite vacuum and in perfect idleness.
Admitting that a god did create the universe, then the question arises, of what did he create it? It certainly was not made of nothing. Nothing, considered in the light of raw material, is a most decided failure. It follows, then, that a God must have made the universe out of himself, He being the only existence. The universe is material, and if it was made of God, the God must have been material. With this very thought in his mind, Anaximander of Miletus said: "Creation is the decomposition of the infinite."
It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to the sun only for the fact that it is attracted by other worlds, those worlds must be attracted worlds still beyond them, and so on, without end. This proves the material universe to be infinite. If an infinite universe has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god is left?
Gods

Created from Nothing? Atheists look around themselves for evidence, and see empty space, therefore, "Nothing" is there. Many notes of the audience mockingly laughing, however, Ingersoll lived before the time of Einstein, long before the time Quantum Mechanics entered into the equation and left behind even Einstein. Simple minded Atheists still look to the night-sky, and see the vastness of the Cosmos and presume "Nothing" is there, as Atheists often wonder, "What a terrible waste of space," they see "nothing" so of course, no God either. It's "empty space," and "nothing" is there. And, speaking of that vast "nothing," Some thing is there. It was there, all along. It is invisible, but consumes most of the cosmos.

"It is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe."
science.nasa.gov/astrophysics ~ what-is-dark-energy/

I would like for an atheist to produce an empirical sample of this dark energy. Afterall, how can anyone believe in something they can't see with their eyes, or hear with their ears? It must be experienced with the five senses, or it can not exist. Right? I demand "evidence".

Modern physics responds:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO [7.6.06]
A Talk with Lawrence Krauss
edge.org ~ krauss06.2_index.html
"But in cosmology what we're having now is this cockamamie universe. We've discovered a tremendous amount. We've discovered the universe is flat, which most of us theorists thought we knew in advance, because it's the only beautiful universe. But why is it flat? It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands. This was an amazing discovery in 1998 or so.
"It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands...we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space..."
But what you couldn't understand was how to cancel a number to a hundred and twenty decimal places and leave something finite left over. You can't take two numbers that are very large and expect them to almost exactly cancel leaving something that's 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that's what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.
We knew the answer. There was a symmetry and the number had to be exactly zero. Well, what have we discovered? There appears to be this energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem. When we look out at the universe, if this dark energy is something that isn't quite an energy of empty space but its just something that's pretending to be that, we might measure that it's changing over time.
Then we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space. And many people have hoped they'd see that is because then you wouldn't need quantum gravity, which is a theory we don't yet have, to understand this apparent dark energy. Indeed, one of the biggest failures of string theory's many failures, I think, is it never successfully addressed this cosmological constant problem. You'd think if you had a theory of quantum gravity, it would explain precisely what the energy of empty space should be. And we don't have any other theory that addresses that problem either! But if this thing really isn't vacuum energy, then it's something else, then you might be able to find out what it is, and learn and do physics without having to understand quantum gravity."

Some thing is there. I don't have to see it. I don't have to taste or smell it. I don't have to touch it, or even hear it. That's because I have faith in science, to just believe them when they say, "It exists".

Fruit Trees Before Sunlight

Recently whilst surfing the web, I stumbled across this gem.

Prototaxites, A Fossil Fruiting Fungi, 'Tree'

Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

Wild Edible Fungi: A Global Overview Of Their Use And Importance ...
Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=9251051577...
E. R. Boa - 2004 - Nature - 147 pages
The impact of harvesting wild edible fungi is frequently raised and a recent review provides a helpful summary of key issues that are explored in further detail below (Pilz and Molina, 2002).

Collecting wild edible fungi is often compared with picking fruit from a tree. Removing all the fruit does not affect future harvests unless the tree is damaged, but might have an impact on regeneration. This appears to be true for wild edible fungi but with some reservations: removing unopened fruiting bodies prevents dispersal of spores. In some areas of Italy regulations prevent the collection of first flush of some edible species (Zambonelli, 2002, personal communication: Truffles, and collecting porcini in Italy). (This makes practical sense too, since the early fruiting bodies are often damaged by insects.) Some collectors spread parts of the mushroom cap to encourage dispersal of spores.

A study in Switzerland showed that harvesting all the fruiting bodies of 15 species of macrofungi over a ten-year period had no significant effect on production (Egli, Ayer and Chatelain, 1990). If soils are compacted or leaf litter layers are disturbed, this can affect production. Indiscriminate digging for truffles, for example, is harmful. Crude raking to reveal young and immature matsutake damages the mycelium present in the upper layers of the soil. (The young fruiting bodies can be sold for a higher price.) This can be avoided by first identifying potential areas of matsutake, then using your hand to locate the tell-tale bumps while generally looking for signs of emerging fruit bodies (Arora, 1999).

Most species of edible fungi are picked without causing any damage since their fruiting bodies and edible parts are all above ground. The search for truffles (Tuber spp.) is often undertaken by trained dogs (Plate 4) (Hall et al., 1998a). The traditional use of pigs is now banned in Italy because they are difficult to control and sometimes eat the truffles. Truffle dogs are not used in China and random digging used to locate fruiting bodies will affect future production.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5489e/y5489e07.htm

...Collecting wild edible fungi is often compared with picking fruit from a tree...

I had a good

with it.
I shared the excerpt with a good friend who's an Agnostic and told them:

But the problem is, you can't deny the evidence. Scientists discovered a fossilized "fruiting fungi" and they called it a "tree"!!! For 100+ years...

I can only imagine those creationist faces

who have denied evolution based on supposed lack of "trees" in the fossil record. The arrogance! Their theological leadership, who presume to be intermediators for God and presumed themselves qualified also to speak for Science! far from the experts they claim to be to dare speak on what paleontology teaches. These DENIERS of science.

Or, the expression on any anti-theist atheist face

these people who set themselves up as gods, to dictate the only acceptable version of genesis, are those that reak of the most absurd interpretations. Young Earth Creationism(TM) is of course, as we all know, the only doctrine taught in Sunday School. Never mind that there are at least 7 mainstream interpretations, never mind that one of them was evolution... and because theologians misconstrued their facts about science, with wreckless abandon dismissed evolution out of hand, rejecting it due to "lack of trees before sunlight." Atheists of course, in all their hours of petty squabbling with creationists would never think to correct those theologians and creationists on this matter of scientific fact.

Well there you have it. How can anyone be right, when everyone was wrong?

See "They Said It Couldn't Be Done, But Here It Is"!!

"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991

This Statement Is Hereby Officially Board-Certified Approved

AMG editors failed to properly read Genesis 1:11 before attempting an exegesis of the passages in discussion, as it never even mentions the word "creation". Their second error was to assume there were no "fruit-bearing trees" that could aptly fit the timeline of the fossil record. Creationists have some serious apologizing to do to one, Mr. Charles Darwin.

And On The Sixth Day God Created Dragons ... and Unicorns too.

Much of my time with this blog has been spent giving Atheistic Darwinists (if they deserve the title) due criticism for their lack of accuracy, or open-mindedness... but I'll dedicate a moment to my dislike of fundamentalist creationists and "why" I clearly dislike them.

A LITERAL GENESIS

One of the creatures found in the garden, is no less than a multi-headed dragon.

and the mythological unicorn.

This famous 16th Century painting shows God as having made all creatures nearly simultaneously. The events in Genesis are shown in sequence from left to right.

*Doh* considering 99% of species that ever lived on the planet have went extinct, that was quite a feat! They didn't even survive 6000 years on earth, how young earthers figure time. In my opinion, the god envisioned of the young earth creationist is a feeble-minded creator.

For an enlarged image, click genesis_creation_large.jpg (517 KB)

Darwin lived during a time where ignorance and magical fairy tales dominated popular opinion.

The trade-off?

Science... knowledge... advancement... enlightenment... progress. For this, the poor scientist was ostracised, publickly ridiculed and degraded.

Clips of "humor" circulated in Darwin's Day.

darwin_bergh.jpg (88 k)

descent_of_man.jpg (133 k)

man_fossil_ichthyosauri.jpg (115 k)

As an ex-fundamentalist, ex-creationist... I have no respect for fundamentalist creationists. My problem with Athiests spawns from this fact, most were once fundamentalists themselves, and deconverted. Once deconverted, they searched for no substantial knowledge and still remain as ignorant as when they were bible thumpers and believed in fairy tales.

Rude bouts of blaspheme hardly qualifies one for ThD credentials in the field of Thinkology.

The Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now?

"All who maintain that the Sun is immovable, and that it is the Earth which moves, sufficiently show that the Scriptural and Scientific Account of Natural Things seldom agree."
- Matthew Tindal (A Deist, writing in 1730)

The Bible says the Sun moves. Right?

Well, Atheists seem to think the sun is "fixed" in its position but they're wrong. The stars move. Starting with black holes,

Hundreds Of Rogue Black Holes May Roam The Milky Way
http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429120851.htm

Apr 29, 2009 – It sounds like the plot of a sci-fi movie: Rogue black holes roaming our galaxy, threatening to swallow anything that gets too close.

Curious About Astronomy: How do stars move in the Galaxy?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=378

Oct 18, 2005 – The stars move on orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. ... We can dectect radial motion by looking at the wavelength shifts it creates in the ...

lol.

Yahssir, the exception makes the rule.

Nothing's so simple as those patent "absolute truths" (TM) of Atheism and Theism. The exception makes the rule.

"The second answer is that in a more general sense that stars do move. The simple fact is that due to gravity every object in space moves. The reason that things seem stationary is because of relative motion and frame of reference. Relative motion means that celestial object tend to move at the same speeds. We only notice them moving if their relative velocity is different from ours. Stars move due to being in their own unique orbits around the center of the galaxy. In real time speed the move very quickly but because every other star moves at around the same speed we never notice how quickly we move. The other fact is that as fast as stars move the distance the cover is even bigger. What is fast to us on Earth is a snail’s pace in the larger universe.
In the end we see that the answer to the question “Do stars move?” depends on the frame of reference and our understanding of motion in the wider universe. So when you next time you look up at the night sky know that the stars are moving but not in the way most people think."
~ http://universetoday.com/85730/do-stars-move/

Don't believe Atheists would make such a non-scientific claim?

A creationist asks: "Atheists, how did they earth get here? Why does the sun come up and down? Why do the tides go in and out?"
An Atheist answers:

A singularity and gravity.

The sun doesn't move, the Earth does.

Tides happen because of the gravitational pull from the moon.

Anything else I can explain for you?

Why does the universe need a creator, but your God doesn't?

What? *drum roll please* A non-scientific answer from an Atheist... well there you have it folks. Atheism is a false religion that can not be trusted for science!

Question2011-5-30 14:26:49 PST
Atheists: Why does the sun follow a predictable path around the galaxy?
Answer
Like most of the stars in our galaxy (milky way) our sun is in an orbital path round the centre. Just as the earth moves round the sun. It is due to the balance of forces in the speed that the sun is moving the pull of gravity from the black hole at the centre of our universe. This will go on until something alters which could be the sun running out of fuel (about 5 billion years) or the andromeda galaxy crashes into our galaxy which will happen in a few billion years. This may well disturb our orbit but I doubt if it will bother us.

Ah - What? Are you that thick?
The sun doesn't move, genius, everything else does. Its "path" is nothing more than illusion to us. The sun is the heaviest thing in our solar systerm, thus is the thing that we all go around. It sits still.
Actually pick up a book.

HOLY **** YOU'RE RIGHT!!!
MUST BE JESUS!!!11
CHECKMATE!!!!!1111!!

the sun does not move, we move around it

Turtles all the way down...
lol

Well, there it is! "Atheist Science".

Here's one of the funnier examples

When Atheists Attack (Each Other)
May 1, 2011 – What's the problem with the sun standing still for 24 hours?! You don't see a problem?
How about Jesus giving wrong information about the mustard seed?
How about God "repenting"?
How about God having to "come down" to see what's going on so he would know?
How about God making a rainbow to remind himself never to flood the earth again?
[...]
That's because I can't even get a grown up answer on that one verse, let alone others! Even if it were one lonely verse, every word is supposed to be true, right? So, if the sun doesn't move, how could it "stand still" for 24 hours? Is your God a geocentrist too?

Obviously, Mr. Atheist knows the Bible speaks of a movable sun, and is fired up about it. He believes the Sun stands still.

Atheists will swear that the sun is fixed in its position, because they're so fixated themselves on whether the earth moves or not, and what biblical writers might've said in regard to geocentric beliefs. Sort of like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel... and a lack of interest in actual science to boot. If the biblical writers said the sun moves, well you know, they had a point afterall!!! LOL.

Occasionally, you might actually bump into an Atheist that seems to have a working knowledge of science, and I do note what seems to be (at least at the moment) a more mellow tone to their discussion:

It's very clear to me that this reaction only made me turn away from religion more. I was the sort of kid who, while not being overly badly behaved, constantly questioned everything. The fact that I was being told that I couldn't question this...thing people spent a lot of their lives doing, made me intrigued. What sort of power did this religion hold for people? Why was it intrinsically wrong to even begin to think that some of it might be wrong?

A problem I had at the time (which still plagues me to this day) is that I could not, and still can't, accept anything at face value.

'The earth goes around the sun. The sun doesn't move,' a teacher once told the class in a science lesson. My hand went up.

'Mr H., my book says that the sun moves too. It's got an orbit. Isn't that right?'

I remember the look of mildly amused exasperation on his face. 'Yes, Jodie, that's right. But for now, let's pretend, for the sake of these exams that you're sitting in a few months, and for the rest of the class, that the sun doesn't move. Okay?'

'But...'

'Jodie.'

'Yes, Mr H.....'

That was my issue with religion. Even though my teachers grew exasperated with my questions about the accuracy of their teaching, they never told me that I couldn't ask my questions - just to wait. With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.

Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.

I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.

People often question this assertion. 'You have faith that your family loves you. You have faith that if you are hungry, and you eat something, you'll feel better. You have faith in modern medicine to at least attempt to help you if you're injured or sick.'

No, I don't.

Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF.

The proof that I have for my family loving me is the fact that despite my oftentimes very difficult behaviour, they still continue to give their support, talk to me, provide me with shelter and love. The proof that I have that if I eat food, I'll feel less hungry is the empty bag of crisps I stuck in the bin an hour ago. The proof that I have for the workings of modern medicine is obvious in the thousands of people who are currently better off (or better, still alive) because of the tireless work of people in the NHS and other medical systems around the world.
http://interjection.livejournal.com/9804.html

Interesting indeed. Amazing. There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".

However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people.

rofl...that's so funny. Atheists claiming the sun doesn't move.

ROFL... They're atheists. They're suppose to have "absolute truth" because doesn't atheism = "science"??

Then how can atheist writers be wrong?

How?

It's a religion, not a scientific field of knowledge.

That's how they're wrong. Often. And about a lot of things. No better than those people who wrote the Bible.

"...Atheists never said they were inspired by the author of the cosmos to..."

Oh atheists do claim they're inspired by the author of "Cosmos" and other Scientific Programming, and make a lot of false claims that don't hold water. When put to a simple trick question, the truth spills forth. They're not really that intelligent. They lack the "abstract" thinking required to "think outside the box".

A matter of IQ.

Repeating myself for posterity:
"...There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People, as a whole, tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".
However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people."

And if you're fair about it, you'll accept that, because its the truth.

"...write about it, and that only one book contains the true inspiration of what atheism is all about."

Atheists don't need a book. They just need a daily regimen of blaspheme to keep their "intellectual" faculties in check. Astronomy & Chemistry & Physics... are not Atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with Science. Not one scientific field has proven or disproven anything about God.

Atheism is completely useless in the realm of science.

Perhaps Paranormal investigators... I hear that's some kind of voodoo "scientific study" which has produced no significant results. Perhaps they're taking applications to deal with things that don't apply to the empirical world. Perhaps some Atheists can become gainfully employed among paranormal investigators or other pseudo-scientific fields of knowledge. Yet, Atheism has no bearing on Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Botany, Paleontology, Archaeology, etc etc etc... and all we call Legitimate science.

Carl Sagan of Cosmos fame was an agnostic.

Nobody disputes Sagan's knowledge on science. Does that mean his Agnosticism or Atheism brought humanity one inch closer to knowing yea or nay about God? No, his Agnosticism was his own personal belief, not a scientific discovery. Obviously, from the getgo of saying he was Agnostic proves he had zero knowledge of God... at least he didn't confuse his personal opinions about God with his science, in the series Cosmos. I doubt PBS would've aired the program had it spent 99% of the episodes railing against people of faith, and 1% about science, and flawed science, like most Atheists tend to do.
True scientists, know the difference.
Charles Darwin was the smartest of all... he never breathed a word of his true opinion, and generations after he's dead in the ground still battle over whether he was Atheist or believed in God. Does it matter?!? Why is it, his science is overshadowed by the stupidity of Atheists and Theists?? Again, science is dismissed because Atheists' bad attitude, no love for the science, and Theistic ignorance.

I emphasize, DOES IT MATTER whether Darwin was Christian or Atheist? If he were one or the other, would it somehow invalidate his scientific research, theories, conclusions? Would it make his theory any less appealing or appalling if he were Christian or Atheist?

I don't care to know. I do know with certainty, he was a scientist. That's all that matters. Atheism or Theist aspect of his "Science" is irrelevant. If Darwin had felt the matter were pertinent to his scientific theories, he'd surely thought to share his little secret. But he didn't. Because religion (atheism and theism) are philosophical issues and have nothing to do with science.

And in so far as heated discussions between theists and atheists go, also don't forget to visit places on the web where Catholics are tearing at Protestants and vice versa, or where Fundamentalists are tearing at Charismatics/Pentecostals and vice versa, or where Christians are tearing at each other's interpretations of Genesis or Revelation.

CHRISTIANS FIRING CHRISTIANS
"Hardly a month goes by without me hearing directly or indirectly of a professor [at an academic Christian institution] who was precipitously dismissed or forced to resign with little warning and without given an appropriate and fair venue (i.e., consistent with Christian morality) for adjudicating grievances. The situation is reaching epidemic proportions." Moreover, “No major doctrine [had been] called into question [by the fired prof.], no denial of any item of historic Christian faith, no moral lapse, no criticism of teaching effectiveness, just a charge of having stepped out of the party line on any one of a number of matters undifferentiated as to importance.”

Atheists and Theists can't live together, and can't live without each other, because all they want to do is fight like rabble over pointless squabbles that will never be resolved beyond one's own personal opinion. Put the science in the waste bucket, and proceed to attacking somebody's philosophical views which seems rather pea-brained in my opinion.

grass... yes... grass

I saw on the stats where somebody out there was scouring this page, and probably an ANTI-THEIST trying to seek out a theist they can attack... and on that page, I knew I had visualized some strange, "grasslike" extinct organism... green = photosynthetic.

I came to the realization, later, relying on fossil evidence that is, after I'd already made the page, and it was too late, that it should be photosynthetic BACTERIA and non-photosynthetic fungi organisms... i.e., ancestors of mushrooms.

But I got to thinking... wait.

That's an extinct ecosystem. Right?

When do the evolutionary lines blur and cross over from "proto-plant" to animal organism anyway, i.e., Euglena and Volvox. Consider the sponge, namely, the glass sponge.

A Glass Sponge

Evolutionary theorists will confess themselves, how its theorized there were life, and then nature destroys it all, and it evolves from scratch, all over again.

So anything's possible, including these weirdo things I quickly threw together, to symoblize soft-body organisms -- and photosynthesizing around hydrothermal vents, before the Cambrian.

Look at my pic and think "Common Ancestor to Sponge" -- and "Euglena and Volvox" -- photosynthesizing near some hydrothermal vent during the past 1.5 billion-500 million years ago.

You know what. There could have been an organism just like that in the picture. ANYTHING was possible. Just because there's no fossil evidence, doesn't mean it didn't exist. So the paleo-botanists caution.

Yes, green, and like a glass sponge, but not a sponge, some kind of volvox-like ancestor -- like in the photo, before animal life learned to form complex multi-cellular organisms.

Volvox and Volvox with daughter colonies

britannica.com/.../topic/... /protozoan/... /Evolution-and-paleonto... Protists were a dominant form of life on Earth 1.5 billion years ago. While protozoans ...

PROTOZOA
cladocera.de/protozoa/protozoa.html
Oct 8, 2004 – The taxonomy of protozoa is a difficult task. Protozoa are thought to be the origin for the evolution of all multi-cellular organisms to which belong ...

My religion? I dislike Atheists and Creationists in equal measure.

My distaste how they'll make "any argument" no matter how absurd to defend their pitiful religions reviles my deepest senses. So, in my "religious view" -- ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and almost anything can be proven, at least hypothetically with science.

They're ALL wrong.

Some Afterthoughts... The Next Day

Propaganda Techniques - Library library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is ...

BTW..if you say "Bible" or even hint at any belief... or your reader has you stereotyped (like atheists often do to me -- they presume everything I discuss, is out of interest in the Bible, when the truth is 9/10 of the time, I'm more interested in natural world science), but atheists rush in with 1001 "scientific" reasons why this or that "couldn't" have ever happened. Typical for Atheists, and their "Glass Half Empty" "everything is death and cataclysm" attitude rooted in nihilism and anarchy.

But the problem here is: it COULD have happened. That's no lie. About the primitive life forms on early earth... and how there could have been some early organisms that _looked just like_ those green stalks in my image -- preceding sponges, and something that spawned from protists, drawing light energy from hydrothermal vents. Well, there COULD HAVE BEEN.

When scientists find a trace evidence on a rock they believe came from outer space... they go off in a tangent about how life could exist on other planets, and here's the "proof" they say... they go off on a tangent about how the rock came from Mars (though they have no actual evidence) -- they don't know where the rock even came from! They begin theorizing and hypothesizing... as long as it sounds atheistic -- any theory is fine, with atheists.

So, what has God got to do with Science? Nothing. Atheists say it themselves that the Bible is not a scientific text, then why all the attacks on the Bible using "Science"? Somebody hasn't convinced themselves fully.

The Bible has nothing to do with science. I accept that, most people know its not a "scientific text". Then WHY the "science" used to attack the Bible? I know why. Because Atheists have a religion, and mindlessly, like a hive, seek to convert and assimilate others into their religion. That's what's chaffing my hide with Atheists, really bad. They can't see the forest for the trees, and their hypocrisy is double-edged. They sure preach it, but they don't practice what they preach.

Recently, for simply mis-spelling a word, an atheist barks, "Creationists tend to misspell..." alluding to the misconception that I'm a Creationist, and "only" creationists are "ignorant" to misspell things. Um, excuse me, I've seen my Agnostic and Atheist friends misspell words. I've seen leading scientists misspell a couple words in personal emails, it hardly reflects on their competance or expertees.

It's not like common banter on the web qualifies as "professional papers for publication," I've found misspellings in all sorts of stuff... especially Atheists.

Misspelled words do not tell anything about whether a person is right or wrong about what they believe. Something so miniscule, and an atheist is grabbing at straws for their pitiful strawman argument.

I am not a "Creationist".

Because of their ignorant (uneducated) atheist hatemongering, I politely resigned from that news group. They're wrong about everything. I'll leave science, to the scientists... and has anyone taken notes yet, that they (scientists) are never discussing religion. Did you notice? Darwin also avoided religion, because he was interested in science.

Only the religious always bring religion into their discussions on science... and Atheists are the worst for that bad habit. Wonder why that is... because ATHEISM IS A FORM OF RELIGION... PHILOSOPHY... in other words, bull****, and has nothing to do with actual God (that's personal, and individual) -- and nothing to do with actual science.

What do God and Science have in common? Very little is even known about the cosmos or the elusive God, because God is personal, and its difficult if not impossible to prove "personal truths". Both are mysterious things, and the more you think you know something about either, some new unexpected twist and turn arises that changes all the rules. God is left best to God, to explain. Science is best left to Scientists to explain, and I wish both Creationists and Atheists would butt out of Science and God. Because they're mostly ignorant on both.

I know some Atheists, so obsessed with Atheism, like a mental illness... their entire life goes to pot, and they can only obsess over Atheism. Perhaps Atheism is a form of mental illness? That's the kind of people I'm talking about!! They don't have what I call "A Life"... should I reword that, as "Alife"??

Here's some additional truth: Even if the whole world converted to Athiesm, they'd still find something to whine about. They still wouldn't be happy... because religion/the bible/faith in other people's lives, is not the real source of their misery. Happiness is a state of mind, and comes from within. It's something deeper inside their shallow souls. And the same holds true, for people who become obsessive with religion, there's a deeper problem that's not being addressed. All of them are seeking some kind of inner-happiness, however unfortunately ironic their search for inner-happiness often manifests itself in HATING people who don't believe as they do. Misery loves company indeed.

Atheism will NOT bring the world happiness. I'm through with Athiest whining and the manic depressive hallucinations that everyone who doesn't think just like they do are "mentally ill," "uneducated," "ignorant" and all the ad hominems Athiests can vomit up, to violently intimidate and convert people to their religion. If it were Jehovah Witnesses, I could just avoid answering the door, but on the web Atheists tend to prostelytize with profane vandalism in comment threads and vicious personal insults. I'm not saying Theists don't do the same. HA HA HA .. they do!!! and that's why I say there's no real difference between Atheists and A-Theists.

I'm talking about rude hateful, nasty people -- who go out of their way on the web to spam up youtube with senseless blaspheme and hatemongering against people of faith -- IMAGINARY PEOPLE in their delusions -- they're not actually talking to anyone in particular... they hate indiscriminately.

And who are those phantoms in their head they're lashing at?

I'm not exactly talking about the "affable" professional Agnostic or Atheist who exercise critical reasoning and intelligent dialogue whilst examining scriptures in the Bible, I speak of mindless haters.. but there are mentally disturbed people, out there, that haven't any real knowledge, and think irrationally -- one such person tried recently to tell me they "don't believe in anything." It was surely their attempt to sound "intellectual," but far from it. Their Atheism has warped their reasoning skills.

Can you really believe that? They "don't believe in anything."

Just try to imagine that.
When I asked them if they "believed the sun will rise tomorrow?" Atheism has enabled them to "rationalize anything" in their insanity, to a point they're of an irrational mind. That is, they have became insane. They had their explanation, how they "don't believe" the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I see it for what it is. Whether an Atheist who rationalizes away all belief, or the Theist believing God commanded them to drown their children in the bathtub.

Of course they believe the sun will rise, unless they're mentally deranged and delusional.

Can anyone say,... Religion!!!

Ever known religion to enable people to rationalize and justify any off the wall, strange, unusual; irrational behavior no matter how wretchedly insane it appears to outsiders?

Atheists & Theists are just alike.

BTW, God and Science have a lot to do with another, I'm sure. But that's a matter of my opinion. Some mile long mathematic equation... that's out of my league. If God would explain, the elementary things would be far beyond anything in the scientific world's comprehension, their knowledge is of the most elementary kind, and they admit that. Even Einstein wanted to know "God's mathematics". At least Einstein conceived of a God that would understand great matters of science and mathematics, not tricks to pull rabbits out of magic hats in six days. I'm sure if God appeared in a form perceivable by humans, and spoke on the matter of Physics and laws of the Quantum realm, that even the greatest scientific mind would have trouble comprehending. So there's no need for me even attempting to explain something I know absolutely nothing about that's unexplainable, even for modern science. What?! I confess "I don't know." Well, that's probably because of my predisposition toward having a scientific mind. I'm humble enough to say "I don't know" -- a luxury that religion doesn't afford Atheists and Theists with their Patent Truths. The God Question & many Scientific mysteries will never be solved. So why waste time battling over it? Life is too full of wonderful things. Life is too short to waste it on bickering over things we have no control over. Doesn't mean that science should give up trying to fully explain quantum mechanics or that anyone should stop their curiosity about the nature of God.

Theists, (the Creationist kind) try to murder science, whilst Atheists try to murder God. They are simply idiotically like-minded with narrow minds; hatred, destruction and ignorance.

If educated and reason-minded Christian men of science like Louis Agassiz found it plausible to embrace the concept of a supernatural entity at work in nature, then the possibility is good enough for me.

Science Fact: "The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."
The entire commentary (link).
The Earth is not Young, but the Sun's nuclear reaction, is... based on fossil evidence, a wee 500 million years old.

Astronomers Discover Coldest Star Ever [VIDEO]

But what about Stromatolites and photosynthesis 3.5 billion years ago?

That's covered here in full.

Had there been any sunlight, it would have never reached the surface of the Earth, anyway.

I profess my innocense of the crime of Bibliolatry, however, I am scathed with certain Atheists who've somehow came to the conclusion their deconversion (which soon lead to blasphemous attacks on people of faith and anti-religious tyrades) supposedly equal a one size fits all, "patent truth"(TM), or even worse, a "scientific truth." Only the religious minded are under the delusion they advance their creeds by deception and claims to possess a monopoly on "absolute truths". Not unlike their counterparts Theistic Fundamentalists, who also believe they monopolize some sacred "Truth of Truths"(TM)... yet in my years acquainting both extremes, not much appears to be about an actual search for greater truths, understanding or knowledge. Rather, hatred and bigotry tend to be the motivating factor behind their many senseless squabbles.

Straight from Scripture Commentary:

See the King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 for yet another reprint of this century-old LIE. This EVIL lie has been told and retold by theologians, biblical scholars, preachers and priests to paralyze brains of the religious, so that they may continue unabated generating billions in tithes and donations from the faithful, never again to question the dishonest anti-Darwinist rhetoric, so the church can continue fighting to stamp out truth and enlightenment. These men within the hallowed halls of the establishment of organized religion, just as those priests, the murderers of Jesus, are the enemies of God because "God" can only be found on the side of what is proven to be TRUTH. And I present the truth here vs. their evil lies that have deceived millions.

Prototaxites, A Fossil Fruiting Fungi, 'Tree'
Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God for revealing the truth about the fossil record. Still waiting on evangelicals to address this fossil discovery and begin owning up to their wretched LIES and DAMNED LIES for over a century... if it looks, waddles and quacks like a tree... its probably a tree.
"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991

Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short) and (Long). See, Prototaxites, Fossilized "Fruiting Fungi," 'Tree'.

Also see Evolution of the Earliest Plant Organisms, specifically the "Fruiting Fungi" which fits an identical description,
1. Has fruit with "seed" (spores) inside itself, and
2. Can survive without sunlight (exactly as described in Genesis). Such organisms would have certainly existed during the Vendian/Precambrian.
3. For a long time, scientists presumed or presume a giant "mystery fungi" was a tree, a conifer, to be precise... and some have now described it as one of the "Fruiting Fungi".

Also, see "Fruit Trees Before Sunlight".

I Challenge All with this Thousand Dollar Question:
Please engage brain and point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in this text of Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Still Waiting...

When you Atheists or Fundamentalist Xtian Darwin-haters can squeeze "creation" or "design" out of any of those verses which imply natural selection, let me know.

And yes Atheists... please spare your sermon. Don't preach to the choir. I know all too well what you believe.

Just because people become familiarized with Atheism, hardly means they are so blown away... so mesmerized with "The Truth"(TM) and taken in by a few persuasive argument fallacies that they automatically deconvert and lose faith. That they didn't accept your religion, hardly constitutes a lack of understanding. Perhaps it's just that Atheism is that unappealing. *The Shock* *The Awe* -- how could everyone not see things your way? They're just in denial. (Sound familiar?) Every religious adherent is *in shock* and *in awe* when others do not want to buy into their brand of religion and they fail to convince potential converts. Just as my views might not interest you, well, perhaps I am fully understanding your views and yet, Atheism still remains just that unappealing. Mainly because of the hateful attitudes and blatant lies that often accompany "The Truth"(TM). Any religion that has that extent of negativity in it can't be good for anyone's emotional well-being. Meanwhile, I fully understand why most people will not subscribe to my views. Foremost, it requires a minimal amount of knowledge of several scientific fields of study and secondly, reasoning that requires "thinking outside the box". Lastly, I'm not proposing to have any "One and Only Truth(TM)". Just presenting scientific facts whilst challenging long-held cherished falsehoods as well as faith in people to exercise critical reasoning and make up their own minds, and whatever conclusion people may arrive at is fine with me.

Documentary from "The Soviet Story,"

Jim Jones was a Communist

The religious establishment and their twisted evil twin, anti-religion baiters said it couldn't be done, yet...

TREES INDEED!

Vegetation, Herbs and Trees Before Sunlight.
Oh well, I guess that dashes arguments of Atheists and Science-Hating fundamentalists to little itsy bitsy pieces.
(and more found here)

Karl Marx Created Adolf Hitler
Darwin's theory did not create Hitler as some have accused, nor did Hitler's Socialism have anything to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity. Besides Eugenics programme in early American history and over 27 states which had sterilization laws on the books before the time of Nazi Germany, Hitler derived his version of Communist ideologue, "National Socialism" directly from the Socialism of Karl Marx, advocate of the most malevolent version of toxic Atheism, and author of The Communist Manifesto which lead to the bloody death toll of at least 100 million in the 20th Century alone and the killing continues ...
See Anti-Communism

For more information on Communism, and the ghastly death tolls:

The Black Book of Communism

Harvard University Press Communist regimes around the globe are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement. It takes a brick of a book to provide the crushing scope of this murderous ideology, that killed tens of millions in the 20th Century and that will continue to kill.

And while we're on the subject, let's set the record straight about Jim Jones, another evil, toxic atheist and Marxist-Leninist.
"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."
- Jim Jones, founder of the murderous "People's Temple," a disgusting Atheist and Marxist degenerate camouflaged under the guise of being "A man of God".
Carried out to the instruction as Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, founder of the USSR, stated a necessity to infiltrate the Church, because the religious will '"swallow anything" if it is wrapped in religious terms.'

Hitler, Messiah, Anti-Christ
Like Atheist Stalin, Hitler wages a war against people of all religion.
(See Commentary Link.)

Communists murdered 100 Million over the past century.

Communist party members are Atheists.

And no, sorry, but Joseph Stalin was not a Christian because he attended seminary once and Christianity did not turn him into a butcher. George Bernard Shaw was no Christian either when he openly supported Hitler and mass genocide by gassing.

“I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Atheists know this doesn't look good when they attempt to convert people to Atheism, and people are aware of the death tolls under Communist regimes so Atheists will do mental cartwheels to conveniently deny history or come up with some other lame twisted argument fallacy to explain away the atrocities committed by Atheists, such as, "Communists worship the state," I suppose therefore they're not Atheists?? Hogwash! Enough of the silly grammar school semantics!! That's not what the Communist Party is saying, Atheists!! To become a member of the ~~Atheist State Religion~~, ooops, I mean Communist Party, you must be a sworn Atheist. No exceptions!

Darwin was never the problem. ATHEISM was the problem!? No wonder Christians rejected Darwin's theory after people like George Bernard Shaw and Karl Marx latched on to it like the parasites they were!

I believe in the religion of Love which the Prophet Jesus Christ taught.
So, Atheists! Looks like that agenda to convert the world to your religion of atheism has alas backfired. Your hate propaganda has turned people off. People as a whole are still as spiritual as ever, if not more so. Oh, don't delude yourself, people understand very very well what you believe, and I know all too well what you believe with your religion of hate. Whatever side you're on, I'm not there!!!

My favorite Atheist, Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, whose wonderful song "Jeremy" brought attention to the anguish of kids who deal with school bullies vs. my least favorite

Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn "Who Needs Fred Phelps?" Manson? guilty of regularly bullying and abusing his employees, both physically and mentally. THE VIDEOS ARE DISTURBING. Just "boys being boys"? or more age old ignorance that leads to a society of bullies. Most people have heard about the evil antics, but remain oblivious to the level of inappropriate bullying and ruthless violence even band members apparently have grown weary of.

Saving the best for last.

Sorry 'tis not Atheist that I can tell, but it is Alice in Chains. My favorite band of all time, brazenly questioning religious dogma and rhetoric.

And not to forget my commentary on the meaning of Soundgarden: Black Hole Sun A must read... or at least, a must-listen!

This blog was published quite a good number of years ago. I have came to a very different conclusion about Genesis ... as well as Evolution:
"Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy".

Genesis in the Ancient World
"One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."

"All things are possible until they are proved impossible and even the impossible may only be so, as of now."
-Pearl S. Buck

ag·nos·tic
noun
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Atheism is a personal and philosophical non-belief in God's existence. Since an individual can not use any established scientific method to determine the existence or non-existence of God, this confirms "Atheism" is not Science. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, using scientific methods or science itself. Therefore, Atheism, as a belief, is not founded in Science.

Worthy Quotes By Atheists

With Commentary Follow-Up: WHY Atheism Is IRRELATED To Science

"The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry. Just as dimwitted, yet ten times more arrogant about their omniscience. [...] so let's continue having both sides yelling at each other and making fun of each other, and I'm sure everything will turn out for the better."
— UncleMejija (Yes, an Atheist... with a working brain)

For more on this issue, see "Theism and Atheism = Mental Illness."

Paul preaches about the "Unknown God," which translates to "Agnostic" (as depicted by Gebhard Fugel.)
< Greek ágnōst (os), variant of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known ( a- a-6+ gnōtós known, adj. derivative from base of gignṓskein to know) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869.
n.
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic ). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism. (Source)