On the Atheism Display at the Mesa County Public Library

Last week I finally got around to running down to the Mesa County Public Library (MCPL) and checking out the much-discussed display on atheism. What a disappointment. Both "sides" were totally unimpressive from an intellectual point of view.

Interestingly, the MCPL did manage to give the atheists the better location next to the descending hand railing and landing halfway down the stairs. The poor theists were relegated to the upper wall just to the east of the landing and 20 feet above the basement floor, which makes reading the theists postings impossible without a telephoto lens or a 20 foot ladder.

The postings seemed to be on separate sheets of paper larger than 8.5" x 11", perhaps as large as 11" x 14". Some posters were allowed several pieces of paper, others only one.

Anyway, since both sides of this tempest in a teapot seemed equally deficient in the subjects of philosophy, theology, individualism, and economics, and since it is impossible to read most of the postings anyway, I decided to write an essay which would combine sarcasm with logic and factual documentation to illuminate both the laughable ignorance of the atheists' display and the pathetic silliness of the theists' attempt to turn the atheists' stupidity and illogic into a so-called "controversy". I decided the best way to get the widest exposure for this essay was to advertise it in the local papers so interested persons could see if my product lived up to my "with half my brain tied behind my back" and "having more fun than a human being ought to be allowed to have" bravado.

I get a great deal of pleasure out of pricking holes in balloons of pomposity, which is exactly what the atheists display amounted to. Ignorant pomposity versus ignorant desperation, that was my initial impression of the combined displays. So my strategy was to have a bit of fun at the expense of both sides, which in turn, I hoped, might prompt any intellectually serious individuals on both sides to bring their discussion to this website, where at least everything said will be FAR more legible to interested persons.

I absolutely LOVE talking about this stuff, because it is so personal to my own life's pilgrimage. I was born to now-deceased evangelical Christian missionaries, was temporarily steered toward agnosticism by my college experiences, did a TON more of research after college, surpassed my professors, and came full circle back to Christianity after having spent time with several shrinks, most of whom were intellectually clueless, along the way. Unlike the posters at the MCPL, per Socrates example, I am living an examined life, which makes it rewarding to try to help others do the same.

I've given the matter considerable thought, and I still can't make up my mind as to which "side", theists or atheists, will require the most patience to tough their way through the cognitive dissonance they will experience while reading this essay, because both sides seem to think they know so much that they obviously don't.

In considering the use of language as an instrument for expressing thought, and not for concealing or preventing thought, I love the way George Orwell put it in his 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language." I will paraphrase Orwell: "Atheists, socialists, and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what God is, how can you struggle against atheism? Since you don't know what Freedom is, how can you struggle against tyranny? Since you don't know what self-ownership is, how can you struggle against slavery? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin, where it belongs." 

Let's begin to reclaim honest language in the theism versus atheism "controversy" by exposing the myth that atheism is not a religion. We do that by pointing out that words such as "religion", "secular", "supernatural", "deity", "god", etc., due to their lack of specificity, are intellectual frauds, useful only for sophistry and political manipulation. (Don't freak out, theists, Yahweh/Allah doesn't call himself "God", that's YOUR word.) The proof is in three parts: if 1) a = c, and 2) b = c, then 3) a = b. In other words, because "world view" = how you believe the universe around us in fact actually functions, then, since 1) "theism/religion" = "world view", and 2) "atheism/secularism" = "world view", then 3) "atheism" = "religion". Since it is an unarguable fact "atheism" and "religion" are both "world views", the fraudulent and obfuscatory nature of words such as "religion", "secular", "supernatural", "deity", etc., is made crystal clear by the way they make discussion of any meaningful specifics, such as the clever stealing of the "other guy's" labor (money) difficult to impossible.

Once one understands the logical validity or invalidity of words, the stupidity of one of the atheists' most misleading statements, as translated by substituting the honest words "world view" for the fraudulent word "religion", becomes obvious: "Atheists believe that society flourishes when people are free from [world-view]-inspired guilt and fear." Another, even more obvious, stupidity: "Atheists imagine a world without [world views]." Ya gotta love it! Isn't this "more fun than a human being ought to be allowed to have?!"

Expanding that premise, the atheists, contrary to Voltaire's admonition — "define your terms if you want to argue with me" — conveniently define very few, if any, of their terms with any useful intellectually honest specificity, the words, "supernatural" and "deity", for instance. Logic defines truth as existence/reality. Things either exist and are real, or they don't exist and are unreal. Things which exist are called "natural." If God exists, he is real, and, therefore, natural. If God doesn't exist, then he is unreal, and, therefore merely imaginary. There is no such REAL, existing thing as "supernatural." There is no such thing as "superexistence" or "super-reality."

On page 222 of "The Road Less Traveled" (ISBN 0-671-24086-2 [cloth]  ISBN 0-671-25067-1 [pbk]), Christian psychiatrist, M. Scott Peck, M.D., wrote a profoundly insightful and moving paragraph:

“There is clearly a lot of dirty bath water surrounding the reality of God. Holy wars. Inquisitions. Animal sacrifice. Human sacrifice. Superstition. Dogmatism. Ignorance. Hypocrisy. Self-righteousness. Rigidity. Cruelty. Book-burning. Witch-burning.  Inhibition. Fear. Conformity. Morbid guilt. Insanity. The list is almost endless. But is all this what God  has done to humans or what humans have done to God? It is abundantly evident that belief in God is often destructively dogmatic. Is the problem, then, that humans tend to believe in God, or is the problem that humans tend to be dogmatic (aka coercive — JRW)? Anyone who has known a died [sic]-in-the wool atheist will know that such an individual can be as dogmatic about unbelief as any believer can be about belief. Is it belief in God we need to get rid of, or is it dogmatism (aka coercion — JRW)?”

In his magnificent book "The Divine Conspiracy:  Rediscovering Our Hidden Life In God", (ISBN 0-06-069333-9 [cloth]  ISBN 0-06-069332-0 [pbk]),  Professor Dallas Willard wrote that “Jesus is not just nice, he’s brilliant.” Jesus knew the statist (1Sa 8:1-20) ecclesiastical establishment of his day had become so blinded by the gravitational effects of corruption inherent in Power over others that there remained no chance that the Jewish prelates (aka “scribes and Pharisees”) could lead the people closer to God and self-fulfillment. There should be no real conflict between Jew and Christian. Jesus was a Jew, supremely educated in God’s law of the Torah, and in Judaic culture and traditions. To borrow from the syntax of TV anchor Jody Dean: “the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day merely did what today’s secular and ecclesiastical politicians — indeed any of us — would have done, and still do. They protected their perceived ‘status/place,’ their sense of safety and security, and the satisfaction of their own ‘rightness.’” No, "the Jews" did not kill Jesus. Jewish ecclesiastical politicians manipulated the local "law enforcement" (aka coercion/ violence) arm of the Roman Empire (state) into murdering Jesus for daring to take an effective standing against the evil they represented and served. Big difference. Life and death difference (De 30:19).

Willard begins Conspiracy with a parable I absolutely love:

"Recently a pilot was practicing high-speed maneuvers in a jet fighter.  She turned the controls for what she thought was a steep ascent—and flew straight into the ground.  She was unaware that she had been flying upside down.”

I am unable to improve on Willard’s comment about his parable:  “This is a parable of human existence in our times — not exactly that everyone is crashing, though there is enough of that — but most of us as individuals, and world society as a whole, live at high-speed, of often with no clue to whether we are flying upside down or right-side up.  Indeed, we are haunted by a strong suspicion that there may be no difference — or at least that it is unknown or irrelevant.”

Most atheists, agnostics, and plain ordinary "de-churched" people have been turned off by the sickening hypocrisy that self-evidently exists in government (26 USC 501(c)(3)) churches. To them, ideas like "God" or "Jesus" are like a cross to a vampire. They think going to church means they will lose their individual freedom and autonomy. Reality is the exact opposite of the atheists' world view. Per Professor Willard's parable, without realizing it, they are flying their airplanes upside down.

But don't get cocky, nominal government (26 USC 501(c)(3)) "Christians," you are flying your airplanes upside down too! The proof follows. Just be patient and keep reading.

The Bible calls God the great I AM (Ex 3:14).  French philosopher Rene Descartes is credited with first saying the famous words “Cogito Ergo Sum”  or “I think, therefore I am.”  So, for the sake of the argument, let’s say God is the Great I AM, and the individual human is the little I AM.  From that point, it is reasonable to extrapolate a workable atheistic definition of God to be all that is good, truthful, loving, kind, generous, merciful, ingenious, industrious, courageous, and noble about mankind collectively as a species.  Equally reasonable is a workable atheistic definition of Satan to be all that is evil, untruthful, hateful, mean, greedy, merciless, stupid, lazy, cowardly, and dishonorable about mankind collectively as a species.  So instead of the atheists’ simplistic and erroneous vision of God as some kind of weird, white-bearded, Nixonian, “I-am-not-a- crook”, finger-wagging, fun-spoiling, life-ruining, freedom-threatening, moralistic, autocratic leprechaun which they can categorically reject out of hand, I suggest for my atheist friends, we partly define God as: the Spirit of collective humanity. That partial definition shouldn’t be too offensive to theists because the Bible says we humans are created in God’s image (Ge 1:26, 27, Ge 9:6).

The Bible also says God is the Spirit of Truth (Joh 4:24, Joh 14:17, 2 Co 3:17).  As noted previously, reality defines truth as existence.  Truth is not something humans speak. Words — supposedly precise “units of measurement” for thinking up and sharing ideas — are what humans speak. Truth = existence/reality, past, present, and future. So, without offending the atheists too much, we should also be able to define God as the Spirit of existence. For the purpose of helping atheists connect the “God” dots in this essay, I like the definition: God = the (Great I AM Spirit of) collective human desire for existence (life), significance (to be loved), self-ownership/self- determination (freedom), self-realization/fulfillment (purpose), and contentment (happiness and prosperity).  The parenthesized "Great I AM Spirit of" phrase is for is for the benefit of ignorant Taghut (Islamic word meaning “against the Divine will”) statist theists (an oxymoron, aka "Sunday," nominal, consumer-client, Ro-13:1- Tit-3:1- Heb-13:17- 1-Pe-2:13, 14-2-Pe-2:10- kingship-of-man, statist Christians, as anathematically opposed to, and contrasted with, Jesus Christ himself and other 1-Sa 8:5-20- Jg 8:22-23- Ps 118:8-9- Ps-146:3- Jer 17:5- Mt-17:24-27-Acts 5:29- Ga-5:1,14,18- 1 Thes-5:21, 2-Tim-3:5- kingship-of-God, anti-statist REAL Christians).

(A brief aside at this point. The atheists display made clever use of a number of cherry-picked quotes which indicated that America's Founders disapproved of interdenominational squabbling over petty doctrinal differences. The obvious implication was that the Founders were less than gungho for God. That implication is so absolutely wrong that it appears to be a deliberate lie, or, at best, such grossly negligent research as to remove all intellectual credibility from the display and constitute a huge embarrassment. The most cursory research shows that many of the most important Founders were in fact deists, if not perhaps the so-called  "born again evangelical Christians" so misunderstood and reviled by the more ignorant members of the so-called "society" of atheists. It was not for nothing that many of history's greatest scientists and philosophers were also deists. Lastly, to give the local atheists' pathetic and manipulative list of "famous" (WooWoo!) atheists the ridicule it deserves, who, in their right mind, gives a fat fig about what such as Lance Armstrong thinks about anything other than bicycle riding? I mean, give me a break!)

To paraphrase the syntax of famous deist, Thomas Paine, in "The Age of Reason": "Jesus  knew that if a man were impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with a logic-based belief in a God, a fixed point of moral reference, an absolute moral order to the universe, his moral life and behavior would be regulated by the force and power of this belief, he would stand in awe of God and of himself (a creation/child of God), and would not do those things which could not be concealed from either.  Jesus also understood that to give this belief/faith the full and fair opportunity of life-governing, life-changing force, it is necessary that the belief/faith acts alone in an atmosphere of free will/freedom/truth completely void of all external coercion." Obviously, that excludes the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting human pecking order struggle best known by the popular, if deceptive, euphemism, statist "government," but also ingeniously dealt with by J.R.R. Tolkien's famous metaphor of the One Ring (of political Power/coercion) in his Lord of the Rings trilogy.

In choosing death by torture, Jesus (a real live person in history) took and defeated the worst the secular and ecclesiastical politicians (aka vipers, white-washed selpuchres, the One Ring of Power, the Dark Side of The Force, etc.) were able to dish out, and conclusively proved that humans are capable of free-will-based INDIVIDUAL self-government under the kingship of God — in direct anathematical contrast to coercion-based statism under the kingship of man — and His design for the universe and His love-thy-neighbor-as-theyself rules (laws) governing human behavior. We are all redeemed (from ignorance), we can all have salvation (enlightenment), if we will but acknowledge and accept Jesus' incredibly selfless and ingenious gift.  All we have to do is see the wisdom of, and obey, Christ’s Golden Rule teachings that we serve God’s interests in our fellow man.  (Of course God’s Great-I-AM interests in others are not necessarily the same as the others’ little-I-AM interests in themselves, especially when it comes to the subjects of economics, self-ownership, and the so-called "division of labor!")

Part of Jesus' intellectual gift to the world can be better understood by paraphrasing the 1887 words of Princeton Professor A.A. Hodge: "The state is the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen." (See, e.g, "A Biblical Defense of Anarcho-Capitalism" and "Jesus Is An Anarchist".) Obviously Jesus knew, and taught, that the state is the greatest enemy of individual freedom and individual sovereignty, as those precious principles are represented by a self-owning, self-determining, self-governing INDIVIDUAL-God (Spirit of Truth/Existence/Reality) who created us in his image as self-owning, self-determining, self-governing INDIVIDUAL-souls, each possessing inherent free will and an inherent survival-need for individual self-ownership, self-determination, and self-governance.

As both Jesus and his follower J.R.R. Tolkien knew — Tolkien demonstrated it with his ingenious metaphor of the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One Ring (of political Power) —  the so-called "government" paradigm can't possibly work to the long-run benefit of humankind. I will explain why I believe that.

I believe humans have three main problems. The first I call “the Infinity Glitch.” We can’t comprehend infinity. The same brain that can’t accept the ideas of no beginning and no end, once it has put a neat white picket fence around the universe, is the first in line to want to know what’s on the other side of the fence that supposedly now marks the end of the universe. The Infinity Glitch can drive the human mind crazy if we let it. I like to believe that’s what happened to Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a truly bright mind — but not bright enough to keep from driving itself crazy. Based on such as his "God is dead" statement, some atheists mistakenly (I believe) like to think Nietzche was one of them, but I prefer to think he was still searching for truth/reality.

Humans' second problem is the inherent unworkability of the "mind-of-A-controlling- the- body-of-B" paradigm, which I call the "Government Glitch." The reality-based definition of the word is: “Government” = person or group A coercing (via a “legal” monopoly on violence and terrorism) person or group B to obey the will of A on pain of loss of life, liberty, and property. "501(c)(3) Church" = political pecking order organized to brainwash individuals into believing the lies that the theivery and murder perpetrated by "government" is the "will of God."  The reason “government” does not, indeed cannot, work is because when the mind of A is allowed to control the body (physical labor) of B, there is no end to the wants, demands, and expectations of A’s mind. If “in Power,” A’s wants, demands, and expectations are not restricted by the reality-based physical limitations of A’s body to produce all those wants, demands, and expectations for itself. If not “in Power,” then A’s wants, demands, and expectations are restricted by the reality-based physical limitations of A’s body to produce all those wants, demands, and expectations for itself. This fact is why self-sufficiency is vastly preferable to interdependency as both a virtue and a political theory. It is also the reason why, in the long run, no economy can function unless it is composed of willing buyers and willing sellers in a free market.

The third problem is economics-based. I call it the "Producer-Consumer Glitch." The way to identify and define a liar is if he disagrees with this absolute self-evident fact and statement: every single one of us, as an individual, wants to get paid as much as possible for his own labor and products, while simultaneously paying as little as possible (cheap is good, free is better) for the labor and products of “the other guy.” For some reason, we perceive the physical effort (aka “work”) required in the material plane to provide food, clothing and shelter for our robes of flesh (aka “bodies”) as pain to be avoided if possible.

In his recent book, “Constitutional Chaos,” Judge Andrew P. Napolitano said, "Natural Law theory teaches that the law extends from human nature, which is created by God. Thus, the Natural Law theory states that because all human beings desire freedom from artificial restraint and because all human beings desire to be free, our freedoms stem from our nature — from our very humanity — and ultimately from God. St. Thomas Aquinas, the principal modern interpreter of Natural Law, directly contends that because God is perfectly free and humans are created in His image and likeness, our freedoms come from God. The Founders held this same basic view."

Contrary to the atheists' non-sequiturian implications, America's Founders understood that, due to the conflict-burdened, dual-sided (good/evil) nature of the human free-will psyche, universal recognition of a fixed point of moral reference which transcends the collective delegated powers of human government is necessary if human society is to entertain a realistic hope of happiness and prosperity for all. Even François-Marie Arouet (aka "Voltaire") — another famous deist who, unlike many   atheists, was in the habit of defining his terms — spoke to the effect that, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." Where the atheists completely miss the boat is when they're so eager for feel-good-about-yourself reenforcement of their upside-down-airplane thinking that they rush to the misconception that deists such as Voltaire, the Founders, and many other historically famous church critics were critical of basic Intelligent Design (ID) theory (aka "religion") itself — as contrasted with the only other possible option, the Random Conglomeration of Molecules (RCOM) theory — when in fact they were merely criticizing the intellectual dishonesty, deception, hypocrisy and tyranny of organized 26-USC-501(C)(3)-type government-approved churches and religions, just as Jesus did with the scribes and Pharisees in his day.

The logical reason Judge Napolitano's opinion of the Founders' beliefs is historically accurate is because, due to his expertise in human law, he instinctively understands that God's moral laws (abbreviated as the Golden Rule) are free-will based, never punish the innocent, and protect all individuals equally, separately and simultaneously. That paradigm is anathematical to, and impossible for, human law, which is coercion-based, frequently punishes the innocent, and, as Hegel's dialectic points out, inevitably always pits ("balances") the legal rights and interests of two individuals against each other, i.e. the privacy of the mother (thesis) vs. the life of the unborn child (antithesis), and enables lawyers — no offense intended to my lawyer friends — to rob society of huge amounts of money by pretending to reconcile (synthesis) moral opposites in so-called "courts" under the so-called "rule of law".

Atheists worry that such ideas as "God", "Jesus", "Christ", "religion", etc. constitute an ideological danger to their individual freedom. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The real issue is not the ideological "theism" versus "atheism". The real freedom issue is about using coercion-based "government" (pecking order) Power to steal one another's labor. It's about slavery versus anti-slavery (freedom). It's about statism versus anti-statism. Statist atheists fail to see that there is no meaningful difference between them and statist theists. Both theists and atheists alike can be tyrant minded.

The theist tyrant-minded statist says, “God has ordained the existence of the State, and God wants that I should be king, that you should obey me, that all you have belongs to me, and that I have the absolute divine right of kings to take at whim whatever I want that belongs to you.”

The atheist tyrant-minded statist says, “Life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’ without the State, there is no god, therefore there is no moral or ethical code for human behavior which transcends the collective human (the herd) opinion or power, therefore the law is whatever I say it is, therefore I have the absolute divine right of kings to take at whim whatever I want that belongs to you.”

Although the "left" pretends otherwise, both “right” and “leftstatists sincerely believe they have the absolute God-given divine right of kings to take at whim whatever they want that belongs to you, albeit with different talking points and slogans. This is true because, historically speaking, only every two hundred to five hundred years do the frightened huddled masses summon the courage to use self-defensive violence to overthrow the manipulative tyrants who enslave their minds. When they do, it’s called “revolution,” and because, as Jefferson said, men tend to suffer evils while those evils are sufferable, it is extremely rare.

The “Divine Right of Kings” is a political theory, both “secular” and “religious,” of absolutism. It asserts that a monarch derives his right to rule from the will of God, and not from any temporal authority, including the will of his subjects, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. The theist version of the doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the King or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God. The atheist version of the doctrine implies that any attempt to eliminate the State or to restrict its powers runs contrary to the will of “the people.” As can be easily seen, the “theist/religious” version and the “atheist/secular” version are identical. Ergo, the concept of “separation of church and state,” which, contrary to “leftist” propaganda is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, is a blatant spiritual and intellectual fraud. The “church” and the “state” are both “political” entities, complete with the same deception-based “politicalshamanism and rituals.

There is no such real, material, corporeal thing as “government” or “the State.” Both “government” and “state” are nothing more or less than ancient consciously strategic deception-based euphemisms for the dominant members (aka “leaders”) of the suicidally stupid, inherently evil, inevitably corrupting, seemingly never-ending human pecking order struggle. Per the above Anarcho-Christian quote from Princeton Professor, A.A. Hodge, I believe the deception-based euphemisms, “government” and “state” were specifically designed as engines to allow clever amoral elitist (pro-defacto-aristocracy) parasitic individuals to steal the labor and products of simple salt-of-the-earth individuals by means of a collectivist redistributionist system of institutionalized and “culturized” deception so complex and subtle that the working class proletarian, plebian hoi polloi, indeed, even most of the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie are not motivated to put forth the intellectual effort to fully understand it. All that most people know, "left" and "right" alike, "religious" and "secular" alike, is that they sense something is radically wrong (there is a huge disturbance in the Force), and that 75% of the people despise the dinosaur "establishment" media, politicians, and the legal profession culture.

As previously noted, there are only two ideological possibilities for explaining human existence, 1) Intelligent Design (ID), and 2) random conglomeration of molecules (RCOM). Atheists, by definition, are RCOMers. Contrary to atheists' intellectually dishonest implications and wannabe-clever political spin, all theists, including most of the Founders and many, probably most, of history's greatest scientists are, by definition, IDers. So the real issue of individual freedom is not about the petty irrelevant doctrinal differences of the various denominations of government "churches," as the atheists pretend. It's economics-based.

"Govern" = "Control". Human's were created (or evolved, if you prefer, it makes no logically useful difference) as individual souls with inherent individual minds, inherent individual free will, and an inherent survival need for freedom and autonomy. That's why socialism is impossible: it is directly contrary to the essense of human spiritual and intellectual existence. The mind-of-A-controls-the-body-of-B paradigm is both unnatural and unsustainable.

If the human individual wishes to retain his Creator-endowed (or evolved, if you prefer, it makes no difference) individual sovereignty, self-ownership, self-determination, and self-control, he has no choice but to resort to a code of human behavior which protects the individual by protecting all individuals separately, equally, and simultaneously, an impossibility for coercion-based groupthink human law. To protect the individual from the overwhelming collective coercive power of the mindless herd, which is constantly manipulated by professional deceivers known by the euphemism "government" (aka the state), the only possible ethical code MUST be based on something higher and more powerful than the herd, or it will succumb to the corrupt anti-individual "higher power" of the herd. Unfortunately for RCOMer individuals such as atheists, there is nothing more powerful than the herd, so, contrary to their mistaken upside-down-airplane philosophy, they are at the mercy of the mindless herd and whatever abilities they think they have to charm and manipulate the herd.

In happy contrast to the RCOMers, the IDers can put their faith, trust, and confidence in an ethical code for human behavior which transcends, in both Power and authority, the coercion-based power of the herd: "God's" free-will-based "Law", as codified by the Two Great Commandments and the better known Ten Commandments. Let me repeat the most important sentence of this essay: God's moral laws (abbreviated as the Golden Rule) are free-will based, never punish the innocent, and protect all individuals equally, separately and simultaneously. That paradigm is anathematical to, and impossible for, human law, which is coercion-based, frequently punishes the innocent, and, as Hegel's dialectic points out, inevitably always pits ("balances") the legal rights and interests of two individuals against each other, i.e. the privacy of the mother (thesis) vs. the life of the unborn child (antithesis), and enables lawyers — no offense intended to my lawyer friends — to rob society of huge amounts of money by pretending to reconcile (synthesis) moral opposites in so-called "courts" under the so-called "rule of law".

If, as the IDers do, you choose to believe you are a child of an Almighty Creator who has designed free-will based rules for human behavior which gravitate toward the fulfillment of the collective human desire for existence (life), significance (to be loved), self-ownership/self- determination (freedom), self-realization/fulfillment (purpose), and contentment (happiness and prosperity), your individual sovereignty and self-ownership are protected by a power infinitely greater than that of collective humanity. If, as the RCOMers do, you choose to NOT believe you are a child of an Almighty Creator, your individual sovereignty and self-ownership are completely defenseless against the coercion-based power of the human herd, as manipulated by the professional liars, thieves, and slave masters  known by such deceptive euphemisms as "king", "government", the "state", "politician", "leader", "lawyer",  etc. Although no RCOMer could possibly understand it, that is what the brilliant Jesus, at the very least, accomplished with his voluntary death by torture on the cross: he proved beyond question that the power of the individual mind is greater than the collective brute force of the mindless herd. The force/spirit behind ID, which Jesus referred to as "The Father", and which had been viewed by monotheistic Jewish culture and tradition back to Abraham, as Yahweh, the Almighty Creator, gave Jesus the inner strength, clarity of mind, and "Christian" (ID) hope (faith) to endure the savage barbarism the mindless herd inflicted upon him. The moment any RCOMer does comprehend what Jesus and his gospel of Truth/Existence/Reality were really all about, even from a purely intellectual point of view, s/he converts into an IDer.

So, dear atheists, and nominal Christians alike, in the words of Isaiah, "Come now, let us reason together." Let's penetrate through all the noise and blather, let's "get real", and cut to the chase. The bottom line is this: neither IDers nor RCOMers can prove diddley squat to the other. No human yet fully understands the origins of the universe and human life. No human yet knows how to make so much as a grain of sand or blade of grass out of nothingness. No human yet fully comprehends infinity. By definition, humans cannot comprehend what lies beyond the power of their mind to comprehend. Accordingly, I have no interest in the opinion of the sort of manipulative moron who would list Lance Armstrong as some kind of paragon of intellectual and philosophical genius for me to follow. Precisely because, unlike most of the local atheist posters, I have read what many of history's great prophets and philosophers have had to say, I scoff at that. I ridicule that. Precisely because I have read the Apostles' accounts of what the brilliant Jesus of Nazareth, history's most powerful and courageous anti-statist, had to say, I reject RCOM dogma categorically.

To have REAL Christian faith (hope), it is not necessary to do all the reading I have done. But it does give you the advantage of having herded all the various rhetorical chickens and cats into a corner from which they can not escape, and pin them there with pure logic.

For any readers who have never heard of it, I refer you to what is known as "Pascal's Wager" or "Pascal's Gambit." French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, argued that it is better to believe that God (ID) exists than to not believe (RCOM), because the expected value of believing (if factored as infinite) is greater than the expected value of not believing. In Pascal's opinioin, it is inexcusable to not investigate this issue. To quote Pascal, "Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and touches them so dearly." I agree 100% with Pascal on that point.

Quoting Wikipedia's article on Pascal:

"Pascal begins with the premise that the existence or non-existence of God is not provable by human reason, since the essence of God is "infinitely incomprehensible". Since reason cannot decide the question, one must "wager", either by guessing or making a leap of faith. Agnosticism on this point is not possible, in Pascal's view, for we are already "embarked", effectively living out our choice."

"We only have two things to stake, our "reason" or "knowledge", and our "will" or "happiness". Since reason cannot decide the issue, and both options are equally unfounded in reason, we should decide it according to our happiness. This is accomplished by weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists. Pascal considers that there is "equal risk of loss and gain", a coin toss, since human reason is powerless to address the question of God's existence. He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed."

"Pascal recognizes that the wagerer is risking something, namely his life on earth, by devoting it to one cause or another, but here he uses probabilistic analysis to show that it would be a wise wager, at the even odds he assumes, even if one were to gain only three lives at the risk of losing one. Considering that everyone is forced to wager and the potential gain is actually infinite life, it would be acting "stupidly" not to wager that God exists."

Pascal's Wager in a nutshell:

When you live as though God exists, there are two possibilities:

1) If God exists, you win big. The various statist "religious" (aka "world view") denominations, except for atheism (RCOMism) differ on the specific details of your loss, but they all agree there is a loss. 2) If God does not exist, you gain nothing, you lose nothing.

When you live as though God does not exist, there are two possibilities:

1) If God exists, you lose big. 2) If God does not exist, you gain nothing, you lose nothing.

Of course there are arguments against the logic of Pascal's reality-based wager. But all of those arguments are purely philosophical. NONE of those lame form-over-substance arguments addressed the every day political and economic realities of individual sovereignty and self-ownership.

With Pascal's Wager, I have the moral, spiritual, and intellectual Power to claim my natural God-given (Creator-endowed) right of self-ownership, self-determination, and self-governance. I get to own my mind, my body, my labor, and the produce of my labor. No other individual or collection of individuals has any moral, spiritual, or intellectual Power with which to make any just and fair claims upon my mind, body, labor, or property. I am free to do with them as I wish, not as the herd and its professional liars and thieves, wish.

Believing I am a self-owning child of an infinite God, in whose moral, spiritual and intellectual image I was created (ID) gives me hope and makes me happier than I would be with the opposite decision (RCOM). It gives me infinite Power and authority to claim the freedom of true reality-based self-ownership. Therefore, I make a fully informed decision to make a free-will-based, life-or-death choice to choose the stupendous Christian hope (faith) and Power of spiritual life after physical death, over the hopelessness and despair of nothingness after physical death.

Because of my logic-and-reality-based Christian hope (faith), I don't have to despair and drive myself crazy as the brilliantly gifted Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche did. I also don't have to respect any pathetic dinks, such as the current crop of presidential candidates, who are so personality disordered and intellectually incompetent that they honestly believe they are "serving" my best interests by trying to use the fear-based terrorism of "government" coercion and deception (a form of coercion) to run my life for me.

Surely one thing all reasonable people, theists and atheists alike, can agree on is that the human mind has the capacity to acquire information. Collectively speaking, we can take advantage of the binary-math wonders of computer technology to gather information, organize it, and store it for instant access, retrieval, dissemination, learning, and teaching.

So, to conclude this 6,000 word essay, humor me for just a second and let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that ID and RCOM are both mere figments of the human imagination, mere fairy tales.

One fairy tale, Intelligent Design (ID), has a happy ending, hope and freedom. The other fairy tale, random conglomeration of molecules (RCOM), does not have a happy ending, only a desperate intellectually dishonest denial of the unhappiness and bondage of nihilism. Can any of you statist atheists out there give me a good, logical, reality-based, individual- freedom- based reason why I should not choose the fairy tale with a happy ending? I didn't think so. Can any of you nominal Ro-13:1- Tit-3:1- Heb-13:17- 1-Pe-2:13, 14-2-Pe-2:10 statist Christians out there give me a good, logical, reality-based, individual- freedom- based reason why I should place my hope and trust in the statist kingship of man (the herd) in preference over the 1-Sa 8:5-20- Jg 8:22-23- Ps 118:8-9- Ps-146:3- Jer 17:5- Mt-17:24-27-Acts 5:29- Ga-5:1,14,18- 1 Thes-5:21, 2-Tim-3:5 anti-statist kingship of God (the individual)? I didn't think so. Accordingly, for politics-based, economics-based, and individual- freedom- based self-ownership reasons, I consciously make a fully-informed decision to choose the fairy tale with the happy ending, because it makes my life happier and more care-free to do so.

Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages, this concludes our little lecture on the philosophy of world views (aka "religion"). There is no charge. Jesus' mind-boggling spiritual and intellectual freedom-based gift was entirely free to us. All any human mind has to do is accept it and claim as your own — then start LIVING it because you choose to believe that's the way the empirically observable moral order of the cause-and-effect universe around us actually functions.

Thank you for staying to the end. :-)

Atheist Symbols numbered 1 160 pixels.jpg99.64 KB