posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:26 PM
Seems like Atheists don't know themselves too well. The mere fact that they continue calling themselves Atheists is enough to tell you that they're
not really too familiar with their own leaders positions and thoughts on the matter. I say this, because those men and women in academia who are the
go-to people for info/ammo for Atheists to use, openly admit that they are in fact "Agnostics". There is no such thing as an intellectually or
philosophically fit "Atheist". If you call yourself an Atheist, you are essentially saying that you can prove there is no God. Well, your leaders
don't even say that, because they know it is ridiculous. God cannot be disproven.
No, the reason for the "Atheist" is that we have a very under-informed populace now, which, in its hubris and lack of understanding of the very
concept of God, thinks of God as cruel and deserving of hate. Many times it is also because the witnesses for the various faiths they encounter are
terrible witnesses and horrible examples for their faiths. The detestation of religion because of poor witnesses is understandable, but not
intellectually acceptable. All you get from the stance of Atheists then, which I have mapped out, is an emotional rejection of faith that focuses on
small snippets of information that can be tooled with through word-play and further bolstered by the terrible example of some witnesses. And that's
all Atheism is. People don't like to be told what to do, or that there is room for improvement, or that the sun does not revolve around them, or that
if there is a God that God is not Santa and he doesn't have to give you what you request when you request it and the way it was requested. So, it is
emotionally natural for them to reject the idea of God...for a while. Until they age and understand the world and their mortality more, they might not
really want to throw some facts into their current considerations.
Here's the truth. There are only two options. Either existence was created by God, or it appeared randomly - which is asinine as it supposes the
existence of randomness out of nothingness. Even then, if there was a big-bang that occurred randomly, it would have been under the direction of God.
How do I know? I know this for two reasons (at least). 1). I use the genetic algorithm (forced evolution used by programmers to get a solution) a lot.
The number of generations needed and the population needed to come up with a solution to satisfy just 1 survivability factor is extremely large. The
likelihood that just one simple survivability factor will be satisfied by a correct, evolutionarily-provided solution, in time to survive current
conditions in their environment and in time to mate with a similarly improved member of their population and produce offspring with their winning
traits, is extremely close to 0. Of course, this happens slowly over time, in small ways, and not for immediate survivability but for an enhanced
existence within their population and environment, with what is called 'Micro-evolution'. The large-scale evolution required to create or to begin
creating a new organ or appendage for the purpose of adaptation has never been witnessed, and is not shown in the fossil record. This should be
expected, because Macro-evolution is much less likely than micro-evolution. No mathematician who has played around with the numbers from our computer
models and with the requirements of biology (like me, a B.S. in Computer Science, B.S. in Mathematics with an emphasis on BioMath), would ever say
that Macro-Evolution is responsible for our existence....or the existence of anything. Micro-evolution will not bring about a slow macro-evolution
either....I mean, it may happen, but it would not have happened so frequently to have created all the variations between species on earth, and
especially not in the amount of time scientists tell us organisms had - the age of the world (or the universe). It is possible that the earth has had
serious mutation-inspiring events, such as gamma-ray bursts or exposure to dna-altering toxins, and that could seriously speed up the mutations, but
it will not help much in terms of survivability. Most mutations simply destroy or make life more difficult. Also, these events would have to happen
pretty frequently, and it would be expected that we would be able tell whether these events occurred from the geological, ice, and fossil records. We
do not see any trace of these types of events or mutations in our records (again, as Math tells us), so it is ridiculous to state that Macro-evolution
is what created us. Couple that with order out of chaos, and chaos out of nothingness, and you have one big ball of crazy.