This past Monday, as I was walking home past the scorched house of a murdered girl and her mourning grandmother, eight Jehovah’s Witnesses were scouring the side streets for people to give their periodicals to. I was reading Confessions of A Would-Be Wanker by Andy Nowicki when a well-dressed woman asked me if I would “like something additional to read?”
I thanked the lady and took her literature, which included the June 1 2015 issue of The Watchtower, which is their well-illustrated and well-researched appeal to postmodern people to embrace their version of Christianity. I read the pamphlet as I walked along, right in the crease of the book where Andy, the catholic apologist and sci-fi writer, had been writing on the same subject, and in a much loftier vein.
The first 7 pages of the pamphlet are devoted to this article, which begins with How Science Affects Your Life, continuous with a comparisons of bible passages and proven scientific facts which support one another, and then goes onto make the case that science has its limitations. The authors quote a number of scientists—even atheist Carl Sagan—as to the limits of our knowledge and our blooming ignorance as knowledge expands. The authors are at their best in pointing out that atheists make their arguments against Christianity on two primary foundations:
1. Medieval scientific assertions adopted by primitive Christian Churches in their quest to rectify science and God, which have now been disproven by better science, and are now treated as religious falsehoods rather than out-of-date science
2. Literal readings of the ancient allegorical scriptures and gospels that entirely miss the metaphorical point of the text
I am not a Christina—or even a religious person. But, as it comes increasingly obvious to me that atheism has blossomed into a religion of sorts—complete with abundant fervor, sainted martyrs and multitudinous relics—I cannot help but see traditional religions as an ally of the mind, against the ever-encroaching One God of Materialism, who seems to me less tolerant than even the thuggish Hebrew war god, and as grasping as any Satan imagined by John of Patmos. The value of allegorical literature has never been greater than now, as we sit on the edge of a censorship abyss.
Many have asked me when I expect to be censored.
I do not know. But I know one thing. When I turned this computer on—of which I understand almost nothing—it informed me that some far vaster mind was downloading new commands into it. Can I expect one day to wake and begin writing, only to find out that certain words, sentences and phrases will not be accepted by my own writing device?
Will it not then be left to us to communicate in allegory in written form and begin speaking face to face again, as a means of sharing these word-masked thoughts?
And, if so, will some future materialistic atheist point to our allegorical conversation, had openly at the point of a gun, and decry it as not bearing up under scrutiny because we described the collective mind behind the hand that held the gun as a zombie, or even an ork?
James, the mind that is geared to learning, that is endlessly curious, cannot cease from contemplating and comparing. Ronan Chantry. The Ferguson Rifle. this may be the biggest problem with religions, lack of contemplating. Inviticus Maneo Thank you James. Ishmael.
The Ferguson Rifle was my third favorite L'Amour book!
James, invictus maneo need to spell better!
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advance of science.”-Werner Von Braun
“Why will you not admit that the universe is conscience intelligence since conscience intelligences are born from it?”- Cicero, 106-45 B.C.
"You believe that there is one God? You do well to believe; even the demons believe—and tremble!"- James 2:19 (NIV)
There is no God and the atheists hate Him. Who would have thought that atheism would become a militant proselytizing religion? Right along with Global Warmism (excuse me, Climate Change). Quit believing in that invisible sky god and start doing what The Woman tells you! It is just like the man said, there is no such thing as "no religion"; rather there is organized religion and un-organized religion. Everyone believes in something that cannot be proven, that they take as an article of faith. The Leftists certainly believe in many things that are not true and have never worked. Typically the problem Atheists have with God is he doesn't act the way they imagine an all good and all powerful deity should act. He does not set his priorities in accordance with their wishes. He presides over an unjust world. He allows good people to suffer and bad people to prosper. “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Mathew 5:45 NIV). He denies them their happy ending. To add insult to injury he keeps enlisting unskilled labor to do his work for him. In short, the atheists anthropomorphize God and expect him to run their world the way they believe a benevolent just and all powerful human autocrat would. Therefore, God cannot possibly exist in their minds. Anyway, in that light, James I do not believe you need fear official censorship. You do not act the way people imagine either an anarchist or a white nationalist should act; therefore, you cannot possibly exist in reality. The Woman will likely overlook you and allow you to keep writing for as long as you have something to write.
Whew, I feel safer now. Although, to be overlooked is not the first of a writer's ambitions!
Thanks for the great quotes, Jeremy.
The thing that really clinched for me the fact that Atheism is a religion that has gone about as far from Darwin's thesis as David Koresh had from Galilee, was reading Darwin's own rebuttal of his theory in the self same book, The Origin of Species.
Good point James. Darwin himself never said that his theory of evolution refuted the existence of the Creator. Yet that is exactly is what the Atheists/ Secular Humanists/ Leftists all insist on inferring from his thesis. Of course, such groups have a need to not believe in a deity AND to convince others not to believe. Darwin’s theory seems to suit their purpose. Although in my mind “Darwinism” doesn’t really work as a philosophy. Darwin’s thesis is a scientific theory that purports to explain why certain forms of plant and animal life exist in the present day, while other forms died out completely many centuries ago leaving behind only fossil evidence of their existence. It is NOT an explanation of the nature and meaning of human existence. What is the metaphysical cosmology of Darwinism? What are the morals and ethics? Darwin’s ideas of “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” are merely observations of conditions in the natural world. There are no values of right or wrong associated with them anymore than there is with the existence of gravity. What must one do to be an authentic and moral Darwinist then? It would seem that the highest priority for a Darwinist would be to ensure the survival of his/her own species (and /or subspecies) and the propagation of his/her individual genes. That is to say that individual would procreate, make babies, as much as he or she could, and see to it that those babies survive to sexual maturity in order to procreate themselves. And so on through succeeding generations. That is the single most important method by which a species adapts to and eventually dominates its environment.
Therefore it would seem that the archetypal Darwinist is someone like Jay Williams, a man who fathered 34 children with 17 different women: contactmusic.com/oprah-winfrey/news/own-cancels-reality-series-man-34-children-17-different-women_4766064. Mr. Williams has definitely done his part to ensure the continued existence of his subspecies and the propagation of his individual genes throughout out his tribe (half the town will be related to each other in just 15 years. LOL!). Mr. Williams’ offspring will also be so perfectly adapted to the environment they will live in (i.e. the welfare state ghetto), such that his progeny will likely remain unchanged for eons, just like the crocodile, shark and snapping turtle.
I suspect many of the people who claim to be Darwinists are probably more correctly described as “existentialists”. They have the “existential attitude": “a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world”. In general, existentialists believe that the universe is a cold, uncaring place, not guided by an all-loving and all-powerful intelligence. Therefore, each individual, not society or any religion, is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and in living it in a passionate, sincere and “authentic” manner. But fear not former Darwinists, existentialists, such as Nietzsche, believe that the weak should be allowed to perish too. I know it really wears on a person to have to be nice all the time to people you really can’t stand and just get in your way. Which is why all that goody, goody Christian charity BS just doesn’t sell very well (Besides the fact that the church people always insist you give up your favorite vices, don’t they?). Of course, once we have completely marginalized Christianity in our society, we can all stop any pretense of being nice to the people who piss us off.
In those moments when I pin the label of Darwinist on myself, it is—in my cracked mind—I nod to Darwin's deistic view. In his case against his own theory [I think it went to 20 pages] he never abandoned the idea or ideal of God, and that really stuck with me more than the nuts and bolts of slave-making ants and such.
And thank you, Jeremy, for treating us to the hypothalamic accomplishments of Jay Williams!
James, since you successfully reproduced and then moved your offspring to an environment where they were able to survive and thrive, I would say that you have done your Darwinist tithing. You are a congregant in good standing in the Church of Darwin. If white people were a bait fish like the Snail Darter they’d be declared a threatened species, if not an endangered one. So you would also be hailed as an ecco-warrior for doing your part to save the North American White Person from extinction. It is possible to be more than one thing. Philosophies crossover just as popular music does. Taylor Swift is recognized as both a Pop and a Country-Western recording artist. Likewise, the philosopher Nietzsche is recognized today as both a nihilist and an existentialist; although he never identified with either philosophy and in fact died years before the term “existentialism” was coined. James whatever else we are it appears that we are “neo-reactionaries”, as Bill has pointed out. Are we now leaders in a new movement?...Wow! I guess that means we need a manifesto or something. I’ll research the subject further and get back with you.