Why Atheism Is Irrelated to Science


Today, I thought I'd scout out some comments on the web to see if I were alone in my observations + "getting it". Were there any others out there, bright enough, intellectual enough, who notice the elementary school emotional level antics of atheists... not much better than wee little thuggies in the school restroom, waiting for somebody to walk in to bully them.

Just post on a forum, and watch the thuggies pour out in droves, sporting their "highly evolved intellectualism" ... keyboard warriors. These little toughies must be confronted one on one, not in groups, to successfully expose just how inferior their working knowledge of science really is. High and mighty toughies. Oh, they are atheists, therefore they boast to have their little badge of intellectual superiority, just like the scarecrow received his ThD of Thinkology... and yet, the scarecrow is by far more intelligent and scientific in his reasoning than most atheists I've acquainted!

I clicked through on a funny little thread, and ironically, it was an Atheist who (not an Agnostic, nor a Deist or Theist) stepped up to the plate to state things as they truly are, so let's read on :

UncleMejija said: I'm an atheist who ignores religious people almost completely, and so I have the clear sight to see the anger and overreaction most atheists harbor toward religious folks. The militancy of atheists is what's most disturbing. Let religious people relicize in peace.
dunre646 said: you mean the ones that ask questions and give science lessons?
UncleMejija, Mar 26, 2012: The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry. Just as dimwitted, yet ten times more arrogant about their omniscience.

You have got to love the way he used that word, "Omniscience" with Atheism!

Here is an excerpt from Atheist, serial killer, mass-murderer Ted Bundy.

TED BUNDY : "... the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal,..."

Oh the gasps and awe of his enlightened "intellectualism"...

You can read the entire quote at this link.

He sounds oh so enlightened, does he not? Such ostentatious verbiage,

"Philosophers are wonderful people. The less they understand of a thing, the more words they make over it ... As Spiller remarks, they possess the most extraordinary talent for bringing the simplest things into the most boundless confusion, and they water and plaster over the simplest ideas and opinions with such a mass of high-sounding, apparently learned, but in reality empty and unintelligible words and phrases, that a rational man loses his senses over it.
-- LUDWIG BUCHNER, Force and Matter, p. 257.

But what Atheists and even Theists are failing to understand, is that Atheism, as was Ted Bundy's Atheism, was based on PHILOSOPHY. It was not based on the EMPIRICAL MATERIAL REALM. Science deals with empirical facts. Atheism is merely worthless, baseless philosophy.

I was involved personally in such a discussion with one of these Atheists some months ago. The atheist, attempting to make their self sound to be intellectual, claimed that they did "not believe in anything". They literally argued, they had no beliefs.

What an interesting claim! I asked them, "So you believe in nothing? Does that include not believing the sun will rise tomorrow?"

They concluded, to their own chagrin, "No" they did not "believe the sun will rise tomorrow."

Another, former atheist who just happened to be reading confirmed the way the reply was written and how he perceived the comment, was absurd, ridiculous... one who claims they do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow, has taken their argument to extremes, and out of the realm of rational thinking... needless to add, out of the realm of empirical science.

Precisely and why?

Because Atheism is PHILOSOPHY. Atheism is not Science.

I have consumed about forty years of my pilgrimage in two or three corners of the world, seeking the philosopher's stone called truth. I have consulted all the adepts of antiquity, Epicurus and Augustine, Plato and Malebranche, and I still remain in ignorance. In all the crucibles of philosophers,there are perhaps two or three ounces of gold, but all the rest is caput moyuum, insipid mire, from which nothing can he extracted.

It cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what body of definite truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid,:have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences.
-- BERTRAND RUSSELL, The Problems of Philosophy, p. 239

I am not concerned with philosophy as such, since it seems to me to lead to no agreed and substantial results.
- JOSEPH McCABE, Life and Morals in Ancient Greece and Rome, p 36.

I consulted hundreds of students of mine, asking for their frank opinion. I accosted my colleagues, -scientists and philosophers. I went about the town, gathering information. One truth has been found, as a result: that we, professional philosophers, neither study nor teach problems of real worth and significance to our contemporaries. The ideas, or concepts to be more precise, we are concerned with are largely dead or empty.
-- PROF. RALPH B. WINN, College of The City of New York.

Yet many Atheists continue on unabated in the delusion, that this philosophical pseudo-intellectual drivel, Atheism, is somehow a form of Science. Atheism as science is a farce, only equivalent to their counterparts, "creation scientists".

Further in the thread, another atheist comments. (I'm sure they believed they were providing a witty, thought-provoking comment, however, I found the information quite old-news, boring and lacking in substance:

planes crashed into buildings by religious militants: 2
planes crashed into buildings by atheist militants: 0

To which, let me remind others of a few facts:

Number of women slaughtered by one Atheist butcher, Ted Bundy, 30+ something. (Bundy confessed to 30 murders but authorities believe the true number of victims totaled over 100.)
Number of women slaughtered by creepy, twisted chauvenist pigs who claim to believe in God, but don't really believe that strongly because they've never had a prayer answered, never feared "God" while they were on their killing spree, so they seldom or never pray anyway, never bother going to church but called "xtian" anyway by those who don't know any better... (for instance, bring in the fake preacher, Jim Jones, a sworn Atheist and card carrying member of the Communist Party). Or perhaps some of those con-artists who falsely claim to "get jesus" after conviction hoping that a facade of religiosity will lend them a little credibility and a "get out of jail free card"... 100's....

Number of mass graves dug by Atheist Militants throughout Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere in the former USSR to bury 10,000's in a fell swoop (Communists) : dozens.
Number of gas chambers constructed by Atheist Militants (Communists): dozens.
Massive Manmade Famines to liquidate millions and organized by Atheists: Dozens. (See the Ukrainian Holodomor and Atheist Josef Stalin).

Another person, farther on in the thread states:

"Both sides have their angry zealous militant segments. Personally I just try to avoid talking debating religion in real life"
To which the Atheist with the working brain, states:
"To an extent I agree, they have a lot of noisemakers on their side as well. And 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."

Another concludes,

"...I hope you people aren't like this off the internet. Picking fights about religion and trying to undermine those around you, because if you are then LOL @ you. Life is too short to be worrying about who is right and who is wrong."

So, I wondered if I were the only person on the internet that sees the IRONY, of how atheists boast, brag, spewing hubris of their "great enlightened minds" yet, when it comes right down to it; delivering the goods, the best they can do is blather a few juvenile simpleton insults.

But again, back to topic:

BUNDY : "... the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal,"

Ted Bundy's Atheist mind was filled with Philosophical ramblings. What did Voltaire and other great thinkers in history say of Philosophy?? They concluded Philosophy has benefited fields of science, the humanities and otherwise, nothing! They fill books with rambling thoughts, and explain a lot of nothing substantial.

This is quite similar to an dispute that spawned between myself and another Atheist who argued, using philosophy not that much unlike Bundy's that based on such "value judgments" there was "nothing wrong with speeding," Yes, I suppose if you lived in a gravity-free environment in space without a risk of crashing into space junk or rogue meteorites, speeding would be indifferent. But such a hypothetical situation is only possible in the realm of Philosophy, not true Science. If you live in a world without trees, potholes, speed limits, police equipped with radar and tickets, then hypothetically, speeding might be considered perfectly moral.

However, the SCIENTIFIC MIND, takes a survey of REALITY, his own surroundings, empirical reality... and calculates how much it can get away with, without having one's lifestyle cramped.

COMMON SENSE tells me, if I speed, I might get away with it, one time. I might get away with it two times. And I might even slip by, without getting busted three times. But I'm less likely to get away with it the fourth, fifth and sixth time. Science and Mathematical Probability tell me, that it is not a matter of "If" I will get caught, but a matter of "When". Applying the Scientific Method, my hypothesis stands like this: "If I choose to speed, I might get caught and ticketed for several hundred dollars... my insurance policy rates will possibly skyrocket... in the REAL WORLD... the final outcome, such as in the event of a crash and killing somebody, may be far, far worse." But Atheists do not reason from empirical science, their "value judgment" is based in the PHILOSOPHICAL REALM, just like RELIGION. It seems REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES never apply to their value judgments. Such as not believing the sun will rise tomorrow? Believing it is perfectly fine to mass-murder? Believing it is perfectly moral to speed; drinking and driving?

So, all their meaningless rambling... what does one say to all of it?

"Philosophers are wonderful people. The less they understand of a thing, the more words they make over it ... As Spiller remarks, they possess the most extraordinary talent for bringing the simplest things into the most boundless confusion, and they water and plaster over the simplest ideas and opinions with such a mass of high-sounding, apparently learned, but in reality empty and unintelligible words and phrases, that a rational man loses his senses over it.
-- LUDWIG BUCHNER, Force and Matter, p. 257.

Never cease amazement with how the human mind can justify and rationalize the most absurd and illogical of beliefs. Atheists scoff at creationists, for their refusal to embrace empirical fossil evidence and how the creationists delude themselves into denying what they can see with their own eyes; fossil layers that speak to gradual evolutionary progressions over millions of years. Yet, Atheists themselves are hypocrites because in their "highly enlightened state of philosophy" they refuse to acknowledge scientific facts and natural laws that establishes the FACT that the sun shall rise tomorrow, indeed. Or, for another Atheist, their philosophy enables them to rationalize why it is perfectly moral to drink and speed. Bundy's atheism helped him "think freely" and rationalize in his own mind why it was perfectly moral to murder.

Most of us have enough sense to know, if we kill somebody we will be arrested, and we will go to jail, we just might be executed.

So, Mr. Theodore Bundy sought the answer to this burning question:

"...I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited....I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human..."
Jan 24, 1989 - Ted Bundy, the notorious serial killer, died today in the electric chair after a night of weeping and praying, just as the sun rose over the north... (L.A. Times)

Ah, the mysteries of the Universe! Perhaps Ted Bundy at long last "figured it out" for himself using his "highly intellectual mind" as he was having his psychotic self escorted to the electric chair. It is reported he was weeping and praying the night before his execution. And why? Because he did not want HIS RIGHTS, molested. Ted Bundy wanted people to respect HIS rights, his person, but he chose not to play the game by society's rules. Got to follow society's rules. Scientists follow rules. Science is filled with laws. That's simply how society works.

LAWS AND RULES. Constitutes but one further evidence against Atheism. The philosophy of Atheism is not founded on Science (empirical evidence, substantiated facts). Some atheists make a diligent attempt to sound pseudo-intellectual, yet much rambling does not constitute SCIENCE. Science seeks to define set and predetermined natural laws rather than outright defiance of such laws. Or, as the case with some Atheists, the outright disregard and trade off of law in lieu of one's personal philosophy, in an attempt insane attempt to redefine reality itself --in spite of law and social norms. Atheists do not seem to like laws. Atheist philosophies often tend to minimize the importance of law, minimize the inappropriateness when breaking laws or, simple rejection of law, empirical facts, etc, altogether.


1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

WAS TED BUNDY A SCIENTIST? Perhaps any kind of "genius," by any stretch of the imagination?

All of Bundy's "Philosophical" nonsense was his downfall. He was in short supply of common sense and the same is true and quite typical of many Atheists.

Another example of illogical reasoning which Atheists have mocked and scoffed, was the mentally disturbed person who took a leap of faith into a lion den and presupposed God would protect him. He was protected by the Zoo's security only. How was this insanity in reasoning and judgment any worse than Atheist philosophy which suggests, it is moral to mass-murder (Ted Bundy), it is moral to drink and drive, it is perfectly "scientific" to deny all established empirical scientific facts, and shamefully profess, "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow". How are these absurd, insane conclusions about the empirical world intellectually superior compared to the absurdities pointed out in any other religion?

In light of Bundy's atheist philosophical ramblings, it becomes so apparent... these atheist philosophies are no where based in SCIENCE; that is, using "Empirical Evidence" to prove a thing in reality. Real world facts and figures are discarded in lieu of whimsical fantasies and philosophical delusion.

As I said, I asked an Atheist who made the absurd claim they did not believe anything. I asked, "You don't believe in anything? Well then, do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?!"
They replied, "No".

The "Sun" and its patterns are EMPIRICAL. SCIENCE. Yes, the sun WILL INDEED (FACT) rise tomorrow. More than a simple hypothesis and greater than any "theory". It is established fact, demonstrable and repeatable. The sun SHALL rise tomorrow. This is not a matter of faith, yet the atheist was so desperate to philosophize why they "don't believe anything" they desperately deny scientifically established facts.

So, where are they deriving the notion that atheism is even remotely related to science?!

The process in which a conclusion is reached by an Atheist, is impossible to reconcile by all reasonable standards, with science, e.g., The Scientific Method. No scientific authority has proposed any reason for not believing, theorizing the sun will not rise tomorrow. Not one credible, peer reviewed document to substantiate their nonsense, not as much as a Farmer's Almanac, to support their absurd notion that "the sun will not rise tomorrow." But that's Atheism!

Will the sun rise tomorrow?
Science says "YES".
Yet, an Atheist would say, "I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow."

On that note, Atheism is unrelated to science.

And the Atheist who claims it is merely "subjective values" which dictate his choice to drink and drive, has a true problem to reconcile atheism as a "rational thinker" with his casual disregard of science and empirical facts. We know there are certain laws of physics, that dictate the faster you drive, chances dramatically increase of getting killed, killing somebody else, or at least, getting blue-lighted and ticketed.
Empirical science.
Much, much more than a mere hypothesis. It is against the laws of civilized society.
But science, the material realm, empirical facts, such as stop signs, speed limits, road laws, radar guns, are tossed out the window with increased "Atheist enlightenment." Not through Science, but through whimsical philosophical fantasies.

And Ted Bundy. Complete and casual disregard for the EMPIRICAL realm. His Atheism helped him to "evolve to such a degree in his enlightened thinking" that he no longer understood what was wrong with murder? He could not grasp the simplest concepts that even elementary school children seem to understand? That if you commit crimes that are empirically written into empirical statutes on empirical law books and those who choose to break those empirical laws will get themselves brought before an empirical judge and jury and get handed an empirical verdict and sentencing. Death penalties are an empirical fact. If he didn't understand why it was wrong to trample on the rights of others? Then why was he so upset when they escorted him to the electric chair? According to Bundy's philosophy, it's pleasurable to kill others. So he should have been having a party the day he was executed. But instead he was weeping. His Atheist logic didn't hold up to the empirical.

ATHEISM REQUIRES A TOTAL DISCARD OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and basing "value judgments" on whimsical philosophy. Discard of empirical laws. Discard of the material realm, and dwelling in a state of delusions and wishful thinking.

How is this any different from any other religion?

If Atheism were rooted in "Science" then WHY do Atheists feel such need to cast off all empirical, established facts, and replacing with philosophical wishful thinking so they might unleash their inhibitions? Such stupid decisions ultimately get made, and therefore find themselves arrested by police, ticketed, locked in prison or worse and that's all the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE I need, their belief system does not work for logical, rational, reason-minded people who prefer to make their lifestyle choices based on sound judgment.

Atheism is PHILOSOPHY, detached from all things empirical.
Therefore it is not science.

An Agnostic Responds: Atheism is a philosophy if they think they can prove what the ultimate explanation is for the cosmos, life, everything, but other kinds of atheists simply admit they don't think there's adequate proof of the Christian deity, the Biblical God, biblical inspiration, etc.
Atheism can also be a relative term, it can also mean simply that you don't believe in the god I do.
Like when Christians were called atheists for not worshipping the emperor or offering him incense.
Or when Christians called Thomas Paine an atheist, though he was a deist.
I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate, but relying on first-hand observations and experiments and drawing analogies via those to find more connections in nature. If scientists took the words and writings of Aristotle as ultimate then we'd still believe in Aristotle's hypotheses concerning how nature and gravity work, which have been shown to be wrong via experiments.

Genesis/Science: Atheism is merely a non-belief in existence of God.
WHO... what imbecile, made the extrapolation that it (atheism) is remotely representative of "Science"?
I have noted, Atheists tend to veer far off course from what is "empirical science" and into areas Science doesn't even permit debate, therefore such suppositions about the unknown are reduced to useless, worthless philosophical ramblings and nonsensical blathering.
Even the official definition of Agnostic, "...believes that nothing is known or can be known....or of anything beyond material phenomena..."
I sincerely APPRECIATE the writings that YOU DO, that are legitimately critical on issues of matter of fact about the Bible, such as Biblical error, Biblical fallacy, etc. Those topics are legitimately fair game for debate. You seem to have an innate ability to discern between 1) addressing the issue, and 2) attacking the person.
Yet far too often, Atheists are caught in discussions, outside the realm of simple "non-belief in God," and outright scathing, seething hatred of those who do not bear their philosophical views. Views which are far, far outside of the realm of science and all legitimate beliefs. Going so far as to behave as bad, or worse than any theist, as they pretend to possess an almost "psychic insight" with their great, "omniscient grasp of the cosmos" and "mystically enlightened on matters of the unknown," all of which is outside of the material realm and yet they boldly proclaim to possess "ultimate patent and packaged truth" on the spirit realm.
How odd. Only "religious" people... zealots... fanatics... do that. I have read the writings of numerous scientists, and not one of them ever claimed to have made a single discovery, for good or bad, pro or con, positive or negative on the matter of God's existence.
Do Atheists possess some insight knowledge, superior to that available to Science? I am highly skeptical when Atheists claim they have some "enlightened insight" about God, which, scientists have not been privy to. Frankly, they have merely proven to me just how ignorant they truly are.
The "conclusions" of Atheists t'was not derived by any scientific means, I can assure you of that! Yet, they call their pseudo-babbling rants, "Science" because they are simply just that ignorant and fail to even understand what science actually is.

"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."

Which is far better still than the idiot atheist, who made the public claim they "believed nothing," necessitating an outright denial of the sun's established patterns of sunrise and sunset. In contrast to those atheists who proclaim "sunrise is merely subjective," the Farmer's Almanac has sunrise and sunset, down to a science with the precise hour and minute the sun will rise and set. This science has been established, as matter of fact, dating back to the time of the Egyptians, perhaps even earlier. So, on what empirical foundation would an atheist claim, "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow." Not one credible scientific authority has made such an extraordinary, absurd claim in any scientific publication or journal. No scientist has claimed that they expect the sun or earth to shift course due to a rogue meteorite or any other cosmic force. Absurd claims are made by Atheists, without as much as a single scrap of empirical evidence to found them! Yet, how quickly they ridicule a pseudo-babbler who claims "the earth is flat". Please enlighten me just how a belief in a flat Earth is any more absurd than an Atheist who boldly proclaims "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow"?

Both claims are non-scientific and equally absurd drivel.

An Agnostic Responds: I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate, but relying on first-hand observations and experiments and drawing analogies via those to find more connections in nature. If scientists took the words and writings of Aristotle as ultimate then we'd still believe in Aristotle's hypotheses concerning how nature and gravity work, which have been shown to be wrong via experiments.

Genesis/Science: I wish to further elaborate on what you have stated above, because I know how Atheist trolls behave, and evidently, based on their behavior, also, think. In their wee, tiny minds, they read "...I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate..."
Picture Atheist, opening Bible, flips through pages with no reading comprehension involved. At best, he has memories of sunday school, 15 years ago... a couple verses he remembers, here or there, perhaps learned from a bumper sticker, however, beyond that, no real working knowledge of the Bible. Unlike a minority of Atheists such as Robert M. Price (a PhD in the New Testament).
Picture Atheist, closing Bible and tossing it.
Picture Atheist, booting computer and logging into troll youtube or another forum.
Picture Atheist, stalking theists and reading post by theist.
Picture Atheist, seeking anything in the theist's posts, that will provide half an excuse to personally attack theist and cyber-bully with a barrage of venom-filled menacing, mean-spirited bigotry.
Picture Atheist, posting lies about how "he has read the Bible," and "proven all things."
Picture Atheist arrogantly boasting his self-declared intellectual omniscience to all the world! Self declared in his religiousity, his "all knowing"-ness.
Picture Atheist cyber-bullying; ridiculing, harassing and berating others who do not share his narrow world view.
Picture Atheist chuckling in his delusion of superiority.
Picture Atheist typing insults, playing the part of a delusional keyboard warrior, how his atheism is only possible because of his great omniscient intellect. Although his true achievements in life have consisted of MAYBE completing a GED, delivering pizzas, playing Wii or XBox... and joining fellow thuggies who cyber-bully theists.

That is not science.

Anyone can criticize a book. It does not take science, to attack theists and ridicule a book. Even children in primary school don't always, 100%, like the "Curious George" Monkey Series. Not all children always like watching Sesame Street publications. Not all children want to watch Barney. Barney books will have a fair share of critics among preteens. This hardly qualifies one to say, "All critics of Barney are scientists!"

Farrell Till I suppose would have had the knowledge to approach the Bible in a truly "scientific manner" for critical analyses. Till, (B.A. English and M.A. English), who would've applied scientific principals. However, so have Norman Geisler and other experts trained in Theology. They also seem to arrive at different (subjective) conclusions. Farrell Till was educated in the English language, and made extensive studies of scripture... however, in the brief interactions I had with Till, I don't recall even him, ever making such an absurd proposition to boast providing anyone or myself with as much as one scrap of "empirical evidence" for the non-existence of God. He did tend to tear into scriptures, but that's not disproving "God's existence" through science.

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.

An Agnostic Responds: I agree, "bullying" is the opposite of being calm, rational, or scientifically minded.
Neither are bullies worth your time.

Science/Genesis: How true.

An Agnostic Responds: As for the "God" question, it gets tricky because there's a wide spectrum of different definitions that could apply to an "infinite Being," or "ultimate Being-ness," whatever the heck "God" is.
I would say that Christians, Hindus, atheists, anyone, can practice science. That's the beauty of it.
As for differences in religious or philosophical beliefs, it looks like those differences will remain, just as have remained since the days of the earliest religions and philosophies.

Genesis/Science: By the same token, when Atheists claim they don't believe in God one must wonder, "Which God?" What kind of God are they denying exists?
I'm sure its not the same one I believe exists.
Einstein's definition of "God" and Gandhi's God and the Pope's gods and mine, are all different.


Dark matter and dark energy are empirical ... well at least, theoretically.

"...At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God..."

Since dark energy and dark matter are empirical, I believe it is the "material" or matter stuff, "God" is made of.

When Atheists deny the existence of MY God they must deny the existence of matter and substance in the empirical realm, because dark matter and dark energy are part of the "God" I believe exists.

My God exists.

References & Further Reading

  • Essays of an Atheist: Futility of Philosophy by Woolsey Teller. Woolsey Teller does a radical job of slicing, dicing, and making mincemeat of philosophy.
  • Read More »

    TIL that a rooster in Basel, Switzerland was sentenced to burn at the stake

    An Agnostic wrote: "That really happened? Hilarious!"

    Genesis/Science: Not hilarious for the poor chicken.

    "TIL that a rooster in Basel, Switzerland was sentenced to burn at the stake for committing the "heinous and unnatural crime of laying an egg".
    (news.google.com): The Spokesman-Review - Sep 12, 1938

    Rooster Who Laid an Egg and Burned at Stake
    Studies on the Relation of Gonadic Structure to Plumage Characterisation in the Domestic Fowl.--III. The Laying Hen with Cock's Plumage
    F. A. E. Crew
    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character
    Vol. 101, No. 712 (Jul. 1, 1927), pp. 514-518
    Published by: The Royal Society
    Switzerland, 1471; the setting is Basle, a city of adamant religious and God-fearing folk who had it out for a rooster. Apparently any rooster that was found to lay eggs was practically “aiding and abetting” known sorcerers in the area of Basle who were known to perform Satanic rituals using combined ingredients in potions including the yolkless egg of a rooster and other classic witch lore: newt eyes and frog toes and such. In light of the purportedly evil and black market magic potion crafting, the rooster was tried before a Swiss judge and found guilty if laying an egg that was defiant to nature. As a sentence, this rooster was burned at the stake because it was believed to possess an evil soul akin to the likes of Satan. The kicker argument that won the case for the prosecutor was that while the animal may have involuntarily laid an egg, in the gospel Matthew, there is mention of the Devil possessing animals. At the point this was mentioned, the cock’s doom was sealed and it was expediently burned at the stake.
    List O’ Ten True Cases of Animals Brought To Court

    Here's an excerpt from Sex-Change Chicken: Gertie the Hen Becomes Bertie the Cockerel (Under the right circumstances, a hen can actually transform herself into a rooster).

    "Sex reversals do, in fact, occur—although not very frequently," states a 2000 report published by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. "To date, however, spontaneous sex reversal from male to female has not been reported."

    That's because the mechanics of this biological phenomenon seem to work in only one direction. Normally, female chickens have just one functional ovary, on their left side. Although two sex organs are present during the embryonic stages of all birds, once a chicken's female genes kick in, it typically develops only the left ovary. The right gonad, which has yet to be defined as an ovary, testes, or both (called an ovotestis), typically remains dormant.

    Certain medical conditions—such as an ovarian cyst, tumor or diseased adrenal gland—can cause a chicken's left ovary to regress. In the absence of a functional left ovary, the dormant right sex organ may begin to grow, according to Mike Hulet, an associate professor at Penn State University's department of poultry science.

    "If the activated right gonad is an ovotestis or testes, it will begin secreting androgens," Hulet told Life's Little Mysteries. Androgens are the class of hormones that are largely responsible for male characteristics and are normally secreted by the testes. "The production of androgen would cause the hen to undergo behavioral changes and make it act more like a rooster."

    The hen does not completely change into a rooster, however. This transition is limited to making the bird phenotypically male, meaning that although the hen will develop physical characteristics that will make her look male, she will remain genetically female. So while the hen will no longer lay eggs, she won't be fathering any offspring, either.

    Who Said Hens Can't Crow?

    "She lays eggs."

    Additional Links

    1. ODDITIES: Info On Raising Chickens, Ducks, Geese, & Other Poultry.
    2. Crowing Hen Youtube
    3. Scurry the Crowning Hen
    4. Confused Crowing Hen
    5. Hen Crowing
    6. Sumatran Hen Crowing like a Rooster
    7. Who Said Hens Can't Crow?
    Read More »

    Oh Hell Thee Satan Ye All Powerless and... Dickless one!


    Yes, in this case, I pulled out the big kahuna, "Dickless". I will wait for the little man with red horns to come calling. Let's see just how powerful he really is.

    The xtian theory with the satan myth is, he's so filled with arrogance, with ego, that he tried to exalt his throne above God's (of course we know that only happened with Zeus and the Titans in Greek mythology) but let's test this theory, all the same.

    Ted Bundy the Atheist vs. Satan Worshippers.

    Jesus! I get so sick of these stupid documentaries that make it sound like satan worshippers are any more evil / dangerous than murderers that have no religion. Geraldo anyone??

    Just heard end of one episode on a boy who killed his parents, and beheaded his father's dead corpse to use the head in a ritual.

    #1 The cop said he became "more religious" after the satanic killing took place in his home town, and admitted that he learned of satan through his own faith.

    You know what's really ironic?
    The Xtians are responsible for this foolish myth of Jesus being lead to a high mountain and the Persian god, the Adversary appears to Jesus, and says he will give him all that he sees with his eyes if Jesus will just swear his allegiance to him. Jesus refuses. Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey Satan, everyone you make a deal with, ends up in jail bro.. no way!"

    Because that's all I've ever seen. They all go to prison. Except if you're George Bush at the Bohemian Grove performing mock sacrifices to Molech, a Canaanite deity. The myth in the Bible of Satan trying to lure Jesus into a bum deal... it lies, it makes false promises to credulous believers that if they make a deal with the devil they can have fame, fortune, worldly glory... and never bother to correct it, that "Satan does not have all power."

    "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
    (Matthew 28:18). The "devil" (aka evil xtian idolators) spread the lie that satan is all-powerful. Yet these same idolatrous fools are amazed when some gullible kid starts worshiping satan.... its all part of the idolatrous con job xtian belief system, but everyone who is stupid enough to follow this path end up broke and destroyed (when the truth is, they're already broken people and that's why they turn in desperation to satanic worship), and they end up in prison.

    The "sacrifices to satan" where is this learned? only what Xtian theology has taught them in regard to what satan wants of them! The source for knowledge of satan worship comes directly from the Bible, and out of the mouths of preachers, priests and false prophets.

    The boy who was just on I.D. Channel got 40 something years and put in prison. What Xtian lied to the child, assuring him that he could ever have "power" bestowed from Satan?
    Satan lies? No. The Bible lies on this matter. It never corrects itself. Stupid idol worshipers!

    BTW, he was raised as a Catholic and served as a choir boy until his freshman year in high school. Ah yes... and let me mention... the superstition-laden xtian freaks... they came out in droves soon after... out of the woodwork proclaiming, they've "....sensed something very evil in town." If its not their wild imagination working overtime, then perhaps they really are "sensing something evil" because God is just that pissed off they don't actually read their Bible more critically and exercise their god-given rational thinking abilities they were born with, but never bothered to use them while blindly consuming religious mythology and idolatry.

    I am free!!! I don't believe in the bogus mythology of Satan.

    I don't live with the bondage that xtians do, laying down in fear of satan and his minions. I do fear my fellow man... the living, because they're so damned ignorant.

    So goes Geraldo and other sensational headline tabloids, "...Oh, he was "sooooo evil... pure evil... soul-less" as if they could telepathically transmit some insight into their own from the mind of a sociopath? Yes, "he was pure evil" they said of one of the idiots they profiled on this show. And, I'm left asking myself, "How did they conclude that?" Perhaps evidence, after the fact??? They overdo the "I looked in his eyes, and there was nothing there."

    B.S. They need to get a grip. Superstition is working overtime on THEIR mind and playing TRICKS on THEIR eyes! You cannot look into somebody's eyes while you're awake and learn a thing!!!! This is a FACT: There are cold-blooded killers and they can look you straight in the eye and lie, and people never suspect a thing... just as George Bush lied to the whole country about WMD's and they never suspected a thing.

    Stupid conservative religious right wing!

    So exaggerated is satan's power... as if a satan worshiper were really ever so much more evil than any other who was deemed criminally insane............Ted Bundy was not religious at all. I suppose that makes him pale in comparison with "The Human Vampire" or this or that pathetic occult murderer???

    "Satan" is pretty damn wimpy with all the facts taken into consideration.

    And what about Jeffrey Dahmer? He wasn't sacrificing his kill to Satan, he was keeping all the prey for himself. There were no "ritualistic sacrifice" in Jeffrey Dahmer's case. Dahmer figured his victims were better in his own belly, than offered up to the whimsical spirit world. Later, he confessed he was Atheist. So, where's Satan?!?! And was it Satan who sikked Christopher J. Scarver on Dahmer behind bars? If it was, then the Bible fails to ring true, because Satan vs. Satan, and the kingdom falls.

    Satan was no where to be found in Ted Bundy's vocabulary. Ha! Can you imagine that? .... when Ted Bundy was butchering all his victims, Satan was out of the loop and didn't rush in to get his piece of the action, claim for himself the fame and glory of Ted Bundy's blood-lust.... surely Satan's arrogance couldn't resist the temptation, like with (later retroactive confession) satan worshiping, schizophrenic Son of Sam.

    That Satan B.S. is way overcooked.

    Satan worshipers? All powerful? Nada. I've seen pathetic misfits, desperate to have a little fun in this drab life, selling their pitiful souls for hope of tasting a better life... because Xtians are GUILTY OF TEACHING THE HOGWASH IN THE FIRST PLACE, this ridiculous belief that "satan can give you power"... Why, according to scripture, no, Satan cannot. Ye Christian Art LIARS! (Matthew 28:18-19 (King James Version). So says scripture! Xtians can blame themselves for satanic worshipers who murder -- after all, who exposed them to this foolish mockery of an idolatry in the first place?! and its often xtians who are so hateful and mean-spirited to make this life so super crappy for others, that any young person would be so damnably desperate enough to want to turn to "satan"... and those individuals, reared in the xtian faith, turn in DESPERATION to satanic occult worship... all because they have no true friends, no control over their life and in a last ditch effort to gain some relief from the loneliness, isolation and pain in the world xtians created for them, they turn to the only world they've had shoved down their throats since birth... the spirit world where they presume they can have some power.... A BIG FAT LIE OF LIES!

    And if its "Satan," the power behind these murderous misfits... then WHY THE HELL CAN'T ALL POWERFUL "Satan" mastermind a huge slaughter like another Ted Bundy or Dahmer, or is "satan" just that damned dickless and pathetic? And yes, I emphasize "dickless" for the record.

    But Satan's many faithful believers, those "good christian people" superstitious as they are would not dare utter such a blaspheme against their precious dragon-snake deity, in their polytheistic religious hysteria belief system... for fear the devil might come calling on them!

    Why? Because to challenge that red, snake-dragon shape-shifting pointy tail MYTH OF MYTHS, the Persian "Adversary"... the Babylonian dragon Tiamat, "satan"... satan is liable to have his arrogant ego bruised and seek to destroy you. I fear nothing from the myth. It lost its power when I discarded "satan" and quit believing in the nonsense.

    No xtian would have dared made such great utterances as I have. Satan would strike them dead! What a belief system... to live in the shadow of fear. But I do not fear satan, because satan is an impotent myth... as worthless as any idol carved in wood or stone, and from whence the myth arose. Wood and stone.

    I dare utter such things because I do believe in God and I do not believe God, a loving God, would allow evil to befall me for uttering ... Truth.

    The filthy xtian idolatry of satan saps glory away from God.

    Read More »
    by title by author

    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]

    Early Earth

    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.

    Early Earth

    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:

    Trees Before Sunlight
    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.

    Trees and Plants Before Sunlight
    Documentary from "The Soviet Story,"
    Jim Jones was a Communist
    Eddie Vedder
    Stage Name Marilyn Manson
    Alice in Chains

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


    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
    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!