Creationist Wisdom #169: Your Willful Ignorance

We amaze ourselves by continuing with our “Creationist Wisdom” series of posts. When we posted #167: The Final Climax we said that it was the ultimate, and we wouldn’t be able to go on. Yet here we are with another.

Like that “ultimate” post, this one is also inspired by an article — or column, or whatever it is — that we find at the website of Canada Free Press. That site styles itself as “a conservative free press.” We’ve seen them described as the Canadian equivalent of WorldNetDaily, but we’re starting to think that’s very unfair to WND.

The title of what we found at Canada Free Press is Atheism 101: Trickle-Down Poison. The author’s name is Jim O’Neil, and at the end of his rant there’s a link to this Author Profile. Okay, let’s dig right in. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Atheism is an intellectually shallow, morally stunted, and socially regressive blight on humanity. Its deleterious effects upon society can be seen all around us — from the self-serving arrogance of political elites, to the rampant greed and corruption in banking/business, to America’s blatant moral decay.

The author’s big concern is obviously with atheism, which we’ve never cared to promote, but like so many creationists he equates atheism with every evil on earth, including reason and science — especially evolution. To see what we mean, he says:

We live in an atheistic or secular society, one that worships at the altar of scientific positivism/secular humanism. Those are code words for a type of Godless barbarism dressed in the costume of sophistication and intellectual hubris.

See? He lumps it all together. Let’s read on:

Winston Churchill once said of Islam that “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” I beg to differ — as a regressive, debilitating, socially destructive force, atheism has no peer (although granted, it’s a close contest).

Atheism is even worse than Islam! That’s an extreme indictment from a man like Jim O’Neil. Now then, to plow through what is a very long article, we’ll have skim a bit and pluck out a few choice sentences from various paragraphs:

I should mention up front that I don’t dislike atheists per se — only their despicable philosophy, such as it is.

[…]

Atheism and anti-Christian teachings/attitudes has been vigorously promoted by the Far Left since at least as far back as the French Revolution …

[…]

One side of the debate is correct, and the other side is insanely deluded.

[…]

For our purposes here, I’ll simply define God as an intelligent power behind creation. Atheists deny the existence of such a God, and from their denial spring a variety of absurd, puerile, and socially harmful concepts.

Okay, now we get to the creationism:

Atheists are fond of ridiculing the story of Creation as recounted in the Book of Genesis, preferring their own oh-so-brilliant version which runs something like this:

[O’Neill’s restatement of the “atheists” creation tale:] “Yea, in the beginning there was Nothing, and Nothing begat nothing — not even darkness. Nothing be praised! Then lo, for no reason Nothing became All That Is; yea Stuff happened to happen. Then behold, the pointless fumblings of the Hand of Chance (praised be Its name) breathed Life unto Itself. Lo, and Dead Stuff begat Live Monkeys! And it came to pass that the monkeys begat humans, such as Bill Maher. Thanks for Nothing!”

That’s an accurate description of your belief, isn’t it, dear reader? We continue:

[S]cholars in the field of Intelligent Design (ID) have made admirable advances on the materialist’s home turf. The circumstantial scientific evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer is now quite impressive.

Yes, quite impressive. And the author’s next paragraph is a powerful criticism of evolution:

It doesn’t make any difference to atheists. They steadfastly refuse to hear the truth, and remain like little kids with fingers stuck in their ears, chanting “La, La, La, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” It would be laughable, if the results of such willful ignorance were not often so tragic — and make no mistake, the social results of widespread atheism are no laughing matter.

Evolution is willful ignorance! Ah, here comes the obligatory Hitler stuff:

Atheists often point to the “bloody history” of religion, while conveniently ignoring their own much more violent and bloody past — and they’ve managed to pull off their staggering blood-bath in much less time then say, Christianity, whose body-count compared to atheism’s is admittedly amateurish. From Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, to Lenin, to Stalin, to Hitler, to Mao, to Pol Pot… atheism and its adherents have cut a bloody swath through history that leaves other doctrines in the dust — and in such a relatively short time too!

Hey, we must give the author credit — tossing in Robespierre shows some originality.

We’re only about one-quarter of the way into the author’s essay and he’s just getting started. We can’t excerpt much more, so you’ll have to click over to Canada Free Press to read it all. Wait — here’s another sampling, in which the author blames the political leftists for perverting science:

The Far Left turned on science a few decades ago, because it was getting uncomfortably close to looking into things that didn’t jive with the atheistic world-view.

Yes! Science was on the verge of proving creationism, so the leftists had to abandon it. He says:

There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about spirituality — in fact it can assimilate science quite easily. Spirituality is much more open and inclusive than the limited framework of science, which has no methodology for dealing with life’s most vital concerns, such as values, morals, and meaning. Spirituality has no axe to grind with science.

We assume it’s those on the right — the author’s version of the right — who have remained true to science. But in his final paragraph he also attacks right-wing science (what he calls “materialistic atheism”) too:

To “conservative” atheists I say “get with the program people.” You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem, and if you believe in the Godless nihilism of materialistic atheism then you are definitely part of the problem. I’m not saying that you need to be born again — simply conceding that there just may be a God, and you aren’t it, would be a good start.

Perhaps heaven is equipped with a public-address system, and those who have been righteous enough to get there will be rewarded by broadcasts of rants like this every day — maybe every hour. What could be finer? So click over to Canada Free Press for a hint of what awaits you in paradise.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #169: Your Willful Ignorance

  1. [S]cholars [sic in the field of Intelligent Design (ID) have made admirable advances on the materialist’s home turf.

    Uh, no. Not that “materialism” is at issue, evidence is. And they steadfastly insist that they don’t have to provide any sort of “evidence” beyond “it looks designed” (to them and their fellow religionists), and the conflation of codes and the sorts of abstraction that actually do come from minds with the fallacious “conclusion” that the DNA code thus points to intelligence. Oh yes, I almost forgot because it’s so ridiculous, the bleat that complexity points to design, rather than, say, actual evidence of rationality pointing to design, as in our machines.

    The circumstantial scientific evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer is now quite impressive.

    To those with no reasonable standards for evidence. As in, they haven’t moved beyond the nonsense espoused by YECs in the past, save that they have newer examples of their fallacious reasoning.

    They steadfastly refuse to hear the truth, and remain like little kids with fingers stuck in their ears, chanting “La, La, La, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

    Mm, yeah, I suppose that’s why you can get answers to questions from a good many “evolutionists,” while we almost never can get an answer from the IDiots, and when we do it’s merely a restatement of the pseudoscience that they’ve always espoused.

    Why isn’t Luskin responding to what we say, rather than flogging the tired dog of accusation of misrepresentation simply because we describe ID as it is, rather than in the glowing ideals that the IDiots claim? IOW, why aren’t IDiots engaging arguments, rather than merely sniping with the ad hominem attacks that they have always relied upon in lieu of producing the required evidence?

  2. Nitrogen bubbles lodged in his brain.

  3. [S]cholars in the field of Intelligent Design (ID) have made admirable advances on the materialist’s home turf. The circumstantial scientific evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer is now quite impressive.

    Absolutely exact. Because we all know that pointing the finger and blurting „Goddidit!” is the very definition of scientific research and circumstantial evidence (whatever that‘s supposed to mean).

    They steadfastly refuse to hear the truth, and remain like little kids with fingers stuck in their ears, chanting “La, La, La, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

    Oh, the irony!

  4. I feel like I’ve just had Vogon poetry read to me. I need to immerse my head in a tub of ice cold water to slow down the randomly firing neurons… or something.

  5. retiredsciguy

    Why, oh why do these ultra-religionists hold to the idea that total, blind faith in and of itself is the highest virtue that man can attain?

    Why do they willfully refuse to see what can plainly be seen, if they would but open their eyes?

    God only knows.

  6. I’m hoping a second enlightenment will push all this into the myth/history sections of barnes and noble.

  7. Nicely spotted there MrC….now that Robspierre has been tossed gaily into the right wing/creationist echo chamber I wonder how long he will sit there without now being batted about by the rest of the Creonuts in future debates.

    Worth keeping an eye on eh?

    Also thanks for the wiki link….seems our Napolianesque little psycho s***bag Robspierre wasnt actually an atheist….hes listed as a Deist who came up with The Cult Of The Supreme Being (……and a Creationist).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

    Still….that wont stop the echo chamber screaming out he was an atheist pre Darwinite.

    whats that saying? In war truth is always the first casualty?

  8. I think this guy texted this article and his autocorrect feature changed “religious” to “atheist” and “right” to “left”. He really needs to turn autocorrect off.

    And SC, there will never be an “ultimate” for this series as the truly willfully ignorant will always top themselves.

  9. It was as if I saw every wrong creationist, ID, and right wing philosophy in synopsis. No real flow, just a whole lot of disjointed shotgun blast sentences.

    Yeah, Irony…”lalalala I can’t hear you”.

  10. The circumstantial scientific evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer is now quite impressive.

    In over 2,000 years, design proponents have yet to give an answer as to why only circumstantial evidence is seen. Design proponents are the Pons and Fleishman of theology, forever avoiding the question of why their “signal” is always just at the limit of detection, even while the limit of detection changes over time.

  11. It has been interesting to see the evolution of creationism and ID, even over the last ten years. I particularly enjoy using the “Arguments we think creationists should not use”. Nothing like creationists fighting creationists.

  12. Why the hell is it that MENSA members can be some of the stupidest people ever?

    I qualify for membership but if people like this and Teddy Beale are the best known faces, I won’t have anything to do with it.