An ‘atheist’ christianity…?


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 – 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.

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 – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 Has Darwinism destroyed trust in science?

The publication of Decoding World History triggered unexpectedly the sudden new strong interest in Descent of Man Revisited (2012) which is getting many downloads every day, several thousand in the last few months, the secular Darwin critic, the nightmare of the Darwinians who expect a regime of propaganda can’t be broken from outside, even as the ID group finds a huge audience, but mostly religious creationists. Decoding is doing well, about ten new readers a day, plus those who simply follow the website, numbering in the tens of thousands, which over time is a lot, given the zero advertising budget, cancel culture times 3: biologists, Judeo-Christians, Marxists, etc…These works are still at the point they can be ignored but times are changing and at some point soon the public will start wondering how the whole science community could have been so wrong for so long. Here figures like Dawkins with their fanatic atheism think the theory of natural selection will be a theology slayer. But that tactic doesn’t work anymore despite the fact that ID has made inroads to the Christian Right. The ID group at sites like Uncommon Descent does good work, up to the point that theology enters. They tried at one point to push back against their own tendencies but it mars what is often better science than anything in the secular Darwin camp who are more or less muzzled house dogs.
This seems to spook biologists who think that enforcing Darwinism will defend against the religious. The opposite has happened. And now even secularists use such sites disregarding the theological mice that scamper across the site.
We have suggested using the term ‘design (in nature)’ without the predicate ‘intelligent’ since the claim that a certain level we find ‘mind’ in nature suffers a lack of real proof. The ID champion Dembski promotes something called the ‘design inference’ but it seems unclear. Design in nature seems indeed ‘intelligent’, sometimes, but there is a ‘feeling about something’ and then there is real proof. But they may be right. Spinoza, Hegel, after all believed in intelligent design, considered to be in the secular sphere.  Ditto for ol’ Isaac Newton, no less. So the ID group might be right, but then they have undermined their own stance: the ID factor is inside nature. So what sort of somewho designs animal forms inside nature. The ID group stranded themselves inside nature though some might claim they can extend the argument to a supernatural divinity. Nope.
A key resource here is Kant whose so-called antinomies are a challenge to theists and atheists both. Furthermore, if you find design nature you cannot include the saga of the Old Testament and combine that with science.
The ID group is attacked but they have performed a service in critiquing Darwin even as they unwittingly sabotage their own biblical theology. To find (intelligent) design in nature is thus a new brand beyond theism, a sort of crypto paganism, Scandal. Three cheers for the Gaian earth goddess.

To see a discussion of design in nature one can recommend Decoding World History and/or Descent of Man Revisited. Decoding WH especially highlights the factor of design in history, ‘intelligent’ in quotation marks, it seems, but without the idea of ‘god in history’ which was a fallacy from the start. The remarkable account in the Old Testament of the emergence of monotheism is really a kind of ‘cargo cult’ discovering the eonic effect.
Strangely the Israelites warned against using the term Yahweh, instead enjoined IHVH. What the original vision was is lost to us.
To see the point here note that in terms of the eonic effect atheist Buddhism emerges in exact synchrony with theistic Israelitism. So we are left with a mystery, what factor in nature stands beyond theism and atheism?
The Darwinist biologists have forced the issue: you can’t trust that science isn’t just propaganda. But as we have noted many times the term science applies to the hard sciences, and ‘evolutionary theory’ is the cutoff: The type of the hard sciences doesn’t apply, as far as we know.
So now we know: scientists indulge in propaganda, conceal it using the science of propaganda, and get a pat on the back from capitalist, nice job, survival of the fittest, competition, hey guys, its science.

Source: Descent of Man Revisited World History: The Hidden Clue to Human Evolution  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The ‘yahweh’ cargo cult of the Israelites…//The eonic effect: a design argument that needs ‘atheism’?…//Stephen Meyer: The Evidence “Cries Out” for God, Not the Other Way Around | Evolution News – Darwiniana

We put ‘atheism’ in quotation marks because it tends to suffer the incoherence of that which it negates. None of the above, is about all we are left with, although negating god ideas remains a roughly ‘operationally relevant strategy applied to any given ‘god’ idea almost always a semantic mess of pottage.

The design argument is open to any number of useful naturalistic interpretations, but the idea tends to outstrip its moorings as we consider teleological issues, which again are possible concepts inside nature. The teleological arguments for the existence of god are really the same as design arguments. But here again there is no way to use this to prove anything about ‘god’.

I recommend a look at the eonic effect, which has an ingenious perception of the birth of Israelite monotheism as a ‘cargo’ cult of the eonic effect.
Look at Archaic Greece in the Axial interval: it shows a host of creative advances clustered in a short period, while in parallel we see the Israelite invention of monotheism. We can see that these are different instances of the same ‘eonic effect’. And the interpretation as ‘god’ in history fails, although the Israelites created a religion around the idea.
You see the hopeless confusion of the whole question of ‘god in history’.

Design thinkers who wish to see design as a theistic proof are stuck here: the eonic effect works by showing that a non-theistic interpretation shows design in history. The idea of an external god there doesn’t work.

The ID group has so terrified Darwinists that they have battened down the hatches around fake science to ‘disprove’ the issue of design. Richard Dawkins with chattering teeth has pronounced natural selection the answer to design. But the issue of design never works as a proof for the existence of god, for a simple reason that the god idea is incoherent. And figures like Kant long ago exposed such logic. The problem appears step one with the term ‘intelligent’. Can we predicate design as ‘intelligent’ to conclude the existence of god? Can we call ‘god’ intelligent. Think carefully the idea is a trap.Consider the absurdities latent in our terminologies with a slightly different example: If Gautama was enlightened isn’t an omnipotent ‘god’ enlightened? If buddhas then pass beyond existence, does god then pass beyond existence? The idea creates hopeless confusion and shows how only a primitive theism can ascribe personhood and consciousness to ‘god’. The same would be true of ‘intelligent’, no doubt. When we mix different and distinct terminologies the results are garbage in garbage…In fact we no language or concepts to even discuss the question beyond the idiot level of Christian theology. And design arguments at that level fail at the start. But design in nature is a perfectly good concept and can be considered without theological implications. It suddenly becomes, if not fully coherent, then at least a question for science to explore.

Source: The eonic effect: a design argument that needs ‘atheism’?…//Stephen Meyer: The Evidence “Cries Out” for God, Not the Other Way Around | Evolution News – Darwiniana

 Socialism can’t become a Dawkins cult

Marxism was one of the first versions of secular humanism and remains a classic in its own right, but at this point it is likely to get kidnapped by the social darwinist ideology of the new atheists, darwinian fundamentalists and the proponents of reductionist scientism.
In reality the path to socialism don’t require any opinion or new dogmas on such subjects, although it might be nice is socialist could show some intelligence in the realm of philosophical history, and some sense of the illusions of darwinism. The socialist left however has no real business legislating atheism even if a critique of religions is or is not relevant.
But a shallow secular humanism or the new atheism are likely fatal to a socialist future which must do such questions with considerable dialectical subtety, or not at all if too busy moving along the vein of socialist transformation.

Source: Challenging religion…then secular humanist darwinism…le plus ca change//Gregory Paul on the rise of nonbelief in the U.S.: it’s happening faster than you think « Why Evolution Is True – Darwiniana

are the new atheists confusing the issue?…//Here are 8 simple ways right-wing evangelicals are driving Americans to atheism
We have suggested that the passing of christianity and judaism is part of a larger movement that began with the Reformation and the whole transformation of the early modern. The Reformation is a tricky phenomenon because its surface transformation of christian belief belied a deeper passage to a post-christian future. We can see the phenomenon in antiquity as the religions of the sumerian/egyptian/indic greater antiquity experienced novel entries and the passing of the religions of an earlier era.
We can see this now accelerating process entering a terminal phase in the modern case.
We should note that while the ‘New Atheist’ movement may be a significant factor it is not the basic determinant: the dogmatic atheism of that group is in many ways confusing people. The passage beyond christianity is about an historical religion coming to an end and that has no intrinsic connection to the ‘god’ question. To see this look at the buddhist legacy where the same ‘secular’ transformation is beginning to occur (in the mutated version that has passed into the west), this is an atheist religion. Its passing will not produce ‘theism’ in its disillusioned ex-followers, in the curious symmetry/mirror image of the secularization of theistic and atheistic religions.
The new atheists are confusing the issue with a new gestating fanaticism: but the question of atheism is indeterminate. And we can see how the richard dawkins era has created almost a new religion based on his extreme darwinian fundamentalism. This cult has come to dominate secular opinion with a tissue of pseudo-science. So we should be less arrogant about the coming collapse of christianity: we will soon contend with a new ‘scientfic’ priesthood enforcing evolutionary dogmas from darwinian true believers. Dawkins attempts to use a false attack on design arguments to prove there is no god, a new popery of belief… (there can ‘religion’ after christianity and real science after darwinian pseudo-science)…

We will have to struggle against the now wide-ranging domination of this cult and its stranglehold on secular opinion: le plus ca change…

The design argument should be considered on its own merits, extricated from the religious propaganda of the ID groups.  The sense of design is inescapable and is not ground for theistic obsessions, cf. the now nearly ancient discussion of Kant. To challenge the use of the design argument by religionists is essential, but the attempt to use natural selection theory to promote atheism by the dawkins cults is still another pitfall.

If the Catholic Bishops, their Evangelical Protestant allies, and other Right-wing fundamentalists had the sole objective of decimating religious belief, they couldn’t be doing a better job of it. Testimonials at sites like show that people leave religion for a number of reasons, …

Source: Here are 8 simple ways right-wing evangelicals are driving Americans to atheism –