Why atheist = dunciehead : A simple explanation


“The fool had  said in his heart ; there  is  no  God”

…….Psalm 14:1…….

Great book  that it  is  the  Bible  is  once  again spot  on.

Only  a  fool, read  dunciehead, will  claim  that  there  is  no  God  and  to  add  nonsense  on nonsense  will  go  on to claim  that  he or  she  is  a rational  person.

University trained  Brains (UTBs)  who  are indoctrinated  into left  wing  ideology  and  devoid  of  the  capacity  for  critical  thought may not  be  able  to follow  the  following  simple  arguments. Others  will so here goes :

If  human beings are  made only  of  matter i.e  are  entirely  physical  we cannot  have  free  will.  

This  is  so  because  like  all  matter  all that we are  and  all  that  we  do will  be  completely  determined  by  the  laws  of  physics.  This  is  inescapable.  All matter is  subject  to  the  laws of  physics

If  we  are  fully  determined  by  the  laws  of  physics then   consciousness  or  one’s  concept  that  one  exists  will  be  an epiphenomenon produced  by  our  thoughts and  our  thoughts  will  in turn be  produced  by  the  chemical  reactions  in our  brains. These  chemical  reactions  are  determined  solely  by  the  laws of  physics.  

To  repeat :  if  we  are wholly material  we  cannot have free  will  or  volition  of  thought i.e  originate  our  thoughts.  Instead, “we”   (the perception  that  we  exist)  will  be  epiphenomena; i.e our  concept  that  we  exist  will   an effect  produced  by  our  thoughts – the  product  of  our  thoughts .

In this  scenario  our  thoughts, produced  by  the  laws  of  physics,  come  first  and  then produce  the  concept  of  consciousness  and  that  we  exist  as  sentient beings.

The  above  is  a  fundamentally  different  concept from what is  presently  held  and  assumed  i.e  that  we  exist as  sentient  beings  and  produce  our thoughts by a  deliberate  process  which  we  guide.  

Without free  will  and  volition of  thought  it  is impossible  for  us to claim  the  ability  to  reason . As usual atheism  the  ultimate  nonsense is  unable  to produce  coherent arguments.

Somebody needs  to show  Richard  Dawkins –  the  high priest  of  nonsense –  the  above

xxxxxx  E N D S xxxxxx


Interview: Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith
Updated March 27, 201211:00 AM ET
Published March 26, 20123:39 PM ET


Last Thursday, I spoke with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in a recorded interview at the NPR studios in Washington, D.C. That meeting was suggested by the American arm of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, in the wake of a post I wrote here at 13.7 last month.

In my original post, I questioned whether Dawkins was the best choice to be headline speaker at the March 24 Reason Rally in Washington, given that one of its goals was to change negative stereotypes about atheists.

Dawkins arrived at the interview not having read my post, which I found odd given that the Foundation had sought our meeting based on my writing. But we went on to have a cordial 23-minute conversation that I hope you will listen to in its entirety.

Among the highlights for me, Dawkins reiterated his well-known stance that evidence-based thinking is the only “respect-worthy” approach to the world. Unapologetic about his willingness to label as “ridiculous” beliefs rooted in faith rather than evidence, he came across as utterly confident in his ability to suss out courageous versus self-deluded ways of thinking.

In insisting that he does not insult people who believe in God, only their beliefs, Dawkins tries for a distinction I find problematic.

On his blog last year, Dawkins called a person named Minor Vidal a “fool” for his expression of thanks to God after surviving a deadly plane crash. (To be fair, Dawkins called “billions” of other people fools, too, in the same post.)


‘Woodstock For Atheists’: A Moment For Nonbelievers March 23, 2012
‘Religion For Atheists’: God, What Is He Good For? March 13, 2012
Dawkins told me that if he insulted any person, he regrets it. But this example shows how hard it is, in practice rather than theory, to aim harsh language only at a person’s belief, and not at the person.

Another example comes from Saturday’s rally. There, Dawkins noted his incredulity when meeting people who believe a Communion wafer turns into the body of Christ during the Eucharist. He then urged his followers to “mock” and “ridicule” that. (He says this 13 minutes into the video, though it’s best to watch the whole thing.) His exact words after describing the Catholic ritual, were “Mock them. Ridicule them.” So by “them” did he intend to refer to Catholic beliefs, not Catholic people? In context, it doesn’t seem so to me.

How much does that distinction matter? When it comes to religion, does demeaning a person’s belief not also demean the person?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s