world history, design, and theism/atheism…//Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

It can be very helpful to study the eonic effect and model to consider the issue of design in nature: one must engage in the study without theological prejudice. The data of world history shows the astonishing reality: the emergence of monotheism shows design in history, but the same in true of atheistic religions like religion: the deep reality is beyond simplistic theism which is a secondary product of inadequate human understanding. It is clear that the original vision of the Israelites was entirely wary of popular theism in their early, but soon lost, insistence on pointing to IHVH without using the term ‘god’. But the Jehovah confusion soon overtook everything and we have since been stuck with the pop theism with its disordered metaphysical confusions ad infinitum. Confusion over design simply shows the immature limits of current science, and, no doubt, the inability to assess teleology, once a curse overcome with the rise of Newtonian physics, but then its banishment an obstacle to the question of biology, as indeed a school of so-called teleolmechanists pointed out at the dawn of biology in the period of the real first scientist of evolution, Lamarck, whose views however inchoate were the real starting point, before the endless confusion of Darwinian took hold.

As a secular student of evolution and the ‘design’ issue I am repeatedly astonished at the rote endorsement of Darwinism in the press, in academic and finally biology fields. It is also…

Source: Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

so what, so can secular humanism…//Religious Trauma Syndrome: Former Christian explains how organized religion can lead to mental health problems 

I am not a christian, take atheism/theism in stride, and think that Christianity fading away is inevitable in the long term. But the condition of secular humanists, a flock tended by the new priesthood of by-the-hour psychologists, et al. is hardly an advance beyond the simple exit from religion. It is hard to grasp the depth of shallowness and cunning in the therapy racket, and the ‘theory’ claiming science of ‘psychology’. I once faked a lab result in a Skinner psychology college course in behaviorism that required electric shocks given to a rat in a ‘skinner box’. I have felt alive ever since and will NEVER trust psychologists again. Anti-science. There is no science of psychology and the real science of physics has my admiration.
The delusive character of Christianity undermined what often was a more intelligent psychology than anything the secular humanist can muster, in its strange superstitions of scientism, behaviorism, darwinism, psychology as a credentialed hustle. Does man have a soul? Does man have a will? What about ghosts? Is there a canon of ethics of any value in a humanism so contracted it can’t handle a figure like Kant who actually saved modernity from Old Testament pseudo-ethics.
The secular humanist is in danger of being swamped by clever psychopaths slowly but surely taking over culture, in politics mostly a fait accompli, where lying is considered the norm, even taken to extravagant extremes, parodied now in the super-idiot Trump. Secular humanists are victims of the rank scientism of the kind that vitiated marxism with a fantastical failure to grasp the nature of man. Part of the problem is the effect of Darwinism, which is a pseudo-science that has indoctrinated the whole of the army of Richard Dawkins idiots preaching social Darwinism in disguise without realizing what they are doing. It is worth studying the degration of the human in the Roman empire, slowly degrading from the era of the Athenian world. That fate is coming in some new form to the secular humanist in a culture losing even its semblance of democracy. Sadly, the marxist world trying to resolve these evils produced something worse. But they at least saw one aspect: here capitalism has added to the confusion in the rote conditioning taken up by governments et al to create a secular cripple.

I could go on and on, but it is worth remembering that Chistianity came into existence to rescue a population that had created the Roman games, what to say of the extremes of slavery. It has no second coming but it does deserve historical study, granting that the endgame of current religion in the US is descending into a mysterious form of evil, next to the zionist psychopathy.
Let me say that articles like this at Alternet have my support, don’t get me wrong. But Christians knew what hell was, then botched the whole myth.
Perhaps the modern case will be shocked the whole game all over again. Perhaps the myth of Faust can help. But Goethe changed the ending from Marlowe, so the warning has turned into a pat on the back. Now our modern Faust expects Goethe’s redemption. Best of luck.

Source: Religious Trauma Syndrome: Former Christian explains how organized religion can lead to mental health problems – Alternet.org

figures like Dawkins have made distrust of science inevitable…//The real story of atheism in science

The field of atheism has been muddled by the new atheists who seem to go out of their way to discredit their own atheism. And figures like Richard Dawkins are a disaster as they connect atheism with the pseudso-science of Darwinian natural selection. Dawkins has placed the key science of evolution in a false position and handed a gift to the religious right.
The question of ‘god’ and design is not so simplistic as it made out to be. From theism to atheism, thence to some intelligent perspective that can really stand as science or else confess what Kant long ago made clear: the undecidable aspect of ‘metaphysical’ proposition. After the idiocy and mendacious propaganda of Dawkins, the public is left with alternative than to mistrust science.

Source: The real story of atheism in science – Alternet.org

An ‘atheist’ christianity…?

Samkya_ancient_modern2ax(1)

One of the ironies of the history of religious monotheism is that it ‘could have been’ an atheist religion, or, rather, ‘atheist’, in quotation marks, and thus have truly helped the ‘spiritual evolution’ (another dangerous term, replace at once?) of man. The only problem with monotheism is its gibberish concepts of god. The problem starts with the Israelites, whose conceptions of Yahweh were too primitive to sustain a genuine monotheism. The prophets sensed the problem,  and we have direct but now muddled evidence in the injunction to use the glyph ‘IHVH’ instead of the pop theistic Jehovah, but the crystallized culture of the jews ended up self-enclosed in a cult, a ‘cargo cult’ as la the view in Decoding World History.
Consider our cited text: Samkhya, Ancient and Modern: the history of early Christianity is very obscure and the doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most confusing pieces of religious theological idiocy ever, but smoking-gun evidence in fact that early Christianity was directly influenced by the Indic (atheist) Samkhya which shows the real meaning of ‘trinitarian’ spiritual concepts. We don’t have the evidence anymore, but the suspicion is that someone early on saw the mess of god concepts and tried via the trinity doctrines to create a sensible kind of ‘yogic’ wrapper for vulgar monotheism but that this, in turn, degenerated into the pop theism that is the curse of monotheism.
Note that, without endorsing Islam, that it also saw the problems with monotheism and specifically the hopeless degeneration of prayer: its remedy via a dignified formal type of prayer beyond the childish idiocy of the christian version is another hint that early Christianity slipped into the degraded superstition ‘god, gimme this, god, gimme that’ blasphemous prayer so visible in later eras. We see in sufism some sort of effort to in turn repair the confusion, in vain, one would think: a gnostic brand, with a better view, but then overlaid on the exoteric cult gibberish.
There is only one ‘solution’ to the theological entropy: ‘atheism’ in quotation marks (atheism as such is another confusion of theism!). Christianity could function far better if it simply ditched its pop theism which is a menace to psychological well being.

A new critique of selectionist darwinism

I find this book useful but those in the various camps, secular or religious, still take the issue to be theism versus atheism and that is not the case. I praised this book but in reality that’s because I use the critical part but disregard the authors neo-theism, which spoils his argument. Finding design in nature or evolution has nothing to do with ‘god’. The term ‘god’ is so abused it has no meaning anymore. And this author has no sense of Kant and his critiques. Refuting natural selection provokes a metaphysical question mark, but is not evidence of the existence of god. It just means nature is more complex than we thought. How could evolution not show design? It is remarkable but also generates the question, so what?

This is a superb book despite my inability to follow through on an atheist’s passage into theistic considerations. But he faces all the problems with Darwin, gives an invaluable history and a…

Source: But what of the ‘eonic effect’:…/Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Darwinism at the end of science?…//The academic and scientific orgs enforcing darwinism are a bunch of filthy criminals

There is something malignant about Darwinism, and almost sad. This author of the essay is academically conditioned and cannot escape the false paradigm, even as cynical Darwinists and idiotic ones enforce this dogma. The effort in this essay is simply down the drain, and the many who know better will say nothing. The amount of false research and commentary is almost staggering. The confusion runs deep and one of the strangest outcomes of the Darwin world is the way it fools highly intelligent people, further reinforcing the dogma. Nerds with enlarged IQ’s are by and large totally fooled by the dogma and contribute to the intimidation.
Sometime soon the world is going to wake up and find that not just Trump, but science is filled with lies. And the promotion of social darwinist ideology and its sly justification for political/economic violence. The theory borders on the criminal.

My comment: The issue isn’t really atheism, one way or the other. It is the theory of natural selection. Beyond any theological issue, that theory is false and Darwinism collapses. Some think…

Source: Evolution and atheism: discussion at academia.edu – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 Operational atheism : were the original Christians ‘atheists’?

Update: it is bit too provocative to call early Christians ‘atheists’, obviously, but the Doctrine of the Trinity, in its preposterous grandeur shows that some former pagans had trouble grasping the one god idea, but the legacy of Judaism rushed into the void. Sometimes pagans actually considered Christians to be ‘atheos’, etc… The quotes around atheists is important.

The issue of theism and atheism is hide-bound in the Christian/Islamic brands. And even there the history is distorted. Operational atheism is a term that can be used by those who are neither theist or atheist but none the less reject the historical ‘theism’ of monotheism, These belief systems are so fragile beyond ‘faith’ dogma that they fall apart and discredit theism. But there is no reason one can’t develop or recast the ideas in some new form. But all such efforts tend to be thrown into the same bucket.

We can adopt another approach and our essay on Samkhya/ancient/modern is an example, sort of…
We know little about the beliefs of early Christians outside of the Judaic monotheism.
Strangely the doctrine of the Trinity shows some early Christians either as ‘atheists’ in some sense as they consider the Indic Samkhya and its triadic cosmology.
Completely lost to us now, but the Chruch Fathers and their milieu must have been confronted over and over with many different brands. Samkhya as a atheist path suddenly
appears in a Christian form, and this confounds our sense of the history of early Christianity.
The demand for faith was completely destructive of any chance of really understanding anything.
Samkya_ancient_modern2ax(1)

My comment: The issue isn’t really atheism, one way or the other. It is the theory of natural selection. Beyond any theological issue, that theory is false and Darwinism collapses. Some think…

Source: Evolution and atheism: discussion at academia.edu – 1848+: The End(s) of History