Atheism and deception

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the Western World, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.[1][2] Concerning atheism and deception, prior to Charles Darwin publishing his evolutionist work On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[3] On the other hand, there is also evidence that Charles Darwin was an agnostic (see: Religious views of Charles Darwin).

Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a deceitful ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory.[4]

German scientist Ernst Haeckel was a very influential proponent of the evolutionary position and Haeckel was an advocate of atheism.[5] Ernst Haeckel attempted to portray himself as an ethical proponent of atheism, however, history shows he was a deceitful individual who committed a serious act of deception.[5][6][7] [8][9] The March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."[5]

Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[6]

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".[6]

Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's embryos in a NY Times article.[9] It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community - namely though a high-profile NY Times article.[9] See also: Evolutionary indoctrination

In addition, many of the ideas that Haeckel supported had a number of negative social effects.

Atheistic indoctrination and education

See also: Atheistic indoctrination and education and Rebuttals to atheist arguments

Jewish columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation."[10] Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages."[10] In 2013, an study found that academia was less likely to hire evangelical Christians due to discriminatory attitudes.[11]

Dinesh D'Souza has pointed out that atheists have focused considerable efforts on the public schools in order to indoctrinate young people into atheistic beliefs.[12]

Historically, as far as public education and other measures, although government sponsored atheistic indoctrination can have an effect on society, government attempts at atheistic indoctrination has not shown itself to be effective in eliminating theism in religious societies. For example, in Soviet Russia, despite great efforts as far as atheistic indoctrination by the Soviet government, the indoctrination efforts failed to eliminate religious belief in Russia (See also: Soviet atheism).[13][14]

After the French Revolution, France has predominantly been a secular nation with a very secular educational system.[15][16] Yet, in April 2010, the British academic and agnostic Eric Kauffmann declared that "the rate of secularisation has flattened to zero in most of Protestant Europe and France."[17] In 2012, French scholars indicated that evangelical Christianity was the fastest growing religion in France.[18] Much of France's growth of evangelical Christianity has been due to religious immigrants. In 2011, a paper was published entitled The End of Secularization in Europe?: A Socio-Demographic Perspective which indicated that immigrant populations tend to retain their religiosity.[19]

For more information please see: Atheistic indoctrination and education

Atheism and historical revisionism

Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg
Nikolai Yezhov walking with Joseph Stalin in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet Union censors.[20]

Atheists commonly engage in historical revisionism (see: Atheism and historical revisionism).

Historically and presently, most atheists lean politically left (See: Atheism and politics).

Theodore Beale wrote about secular leftists:

Regardless of whether it is...Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, or the vast and corpulent mass of feminists, the Left has an observable tendency to shun debate. They assert many different reasons for doing so, but the truth is always revealed by their seemingly contradictory willingness to debate the incompetent and the overmatched....

One of the things that has been interesting to observe over time is the way that the heated attacks on me, both in public and via email, have all but disappeared even though my overall readership has never been larger. Why is this? My theory is this is because most of my critics, be they atheists, feminists, evolutionists, or free traders, have learned they simply cannot win in a direct confrontation. They can't openly criticize my ideas because they have learned, much to their surprise, that they cannot adequately defend their own.

As Aristotle pointed out more than two thousand years ago, even at the rhetorical level, the side more closely approximates the truth will tend to win out, because it is easier to argue when your arguments are based on truth rather than falsehood. Events will always ultimately prove the arguments of the global warmers, the godless, the female supremacists, the socialists, the Keynesians, and the monetarists to be false because their ideas are false. This is why a good memory is one of the most lethal weapons against them and why it is so easy to win debates against them, as given enough time, they are going to contradict themselves.

Why? Because they have no choice. Being false, their positions have to be dynamic, which means they can never hope for any significant degree of consistency. This is why ex post facto revision and double-talk are the hallmarks of the Left, and is why the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions.[21]

See also:

Modern Proponents of Atheism: Use of Deception and Violence

Historically, there certainly has been cases where the evolutionary community was found to have engaged in fraud, been duped by hoaxes, and engaged in rampant speculation. In addition, the continued use of deceitfulness has continued by modern evolutionists. In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[22] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[23] However, the scientific literature certainly contains material which illustrates the deceitfulness of stating there is "overwhelming evidence" to support the evolutionary position. For example, in January 2000 scientist Simon Conway Morris declared:

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)[24]

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy.[25]

For more information please see: Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity.

Various ruses of Richard Dawkins concerning his alleged refusal to debate creationists

See also: Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists and Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists

Richard Dawkins publicly flip-flops as far as labeling himself an atheist or an agnostic (see: Richard Dawkins and agnosticism). Dawkins has a number of ruses concerning his alleged refusal to debate creationists. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."[26] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: Creation vs. evolution debates). [27]

Atheistic Communism and violence

In addition, atheistic communist countries have used violent means to suppress theism.

James Randi and deception

The Daily Grail declared about the atheist James Randi:

Just a few months later, the previously Teflon-coated James 'The Amazing' Randi was caught at the center of his own scandal when his partner of more than two decades, Jose Alvarez, was caught and pleaded guilty to identity theft, after overstaying his visa in the 1980s. Though many felt sympathy for both Randi and his partner's dilemma, there were also questions over how much Randi knew or was involved in the crime - a not-particularly-good look for the much celebrated champion of truth and honesty.

Randi's credibility devolved further earlier this year when Will Storr's book The Heretics brought Randi's Social Darwinist-like philosophies into the spotlight, as well as Randi's own confession that he sometimes lies to win his arguments.[28]

According to The Daily Telegraph:

Following a burst of publicity for [Dr.} Rupert Sheldrake, Randi told a journalist, “We at JREF have tested these claims. They fail.” But when I met Sheldrake, at his Hampstead home, he made a serious charge. “Randi’s a liar and a cheat,” he said. “When I asked him for the data, he had to admit he hadn’t done any tests.”

According to Sheldrake, his direct requests for data were twice ignored. After appealing to others at the JREF, Randi eventually wrote back, explaining that he couldn’t supply the data because it got washed away in a flood and that the dogs he tested are now in Mexico and their owner was “tragically killed last year in a dreadful accident.”

Unusually for Randi, he was polite. “I over-stated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained,” he wrote. “It was rash and improper of me to do so. I apologise sincerely.”

But, publicly, Randi then attacked Sheldrake. Of his own failure to provide the data he wrote, “A search of our site would have supplied [Sheldrake] with all the details he could possibly wish. Alternately, I could have supplied them, if only he had issued a request. That’s what we do at the JREF.”

In 2011, I travelled to Las Vegas to Randi’s annual fan convention, The Amaz!ng Meeting, to ask him about several of these claims of dishonesty. He countered most either with denials or appeals to the fact that the events happened a long time ago. When it came to Sheldrake he said, “What specific experiments are you referring to?”

“The ones you told Dog World magazine you’d done,” I said. “In New York. The owner was killed, the dogs are in Mexico and you lost the files in a flood.”

“That was one of the hurricane floods,” he nodded

So what prompted these tests?

“I must admit to you that I don’t recall having said that these tests were even done. But I’m willing to see the evidence for it.”

I handed him the emails Sheldrake provided.

“Oh,” he said.

Pressed about his treatment of Sheldrake, he insisted he didn’t lie because when he made the offer to send the data it hadn’t yet been destroyed by Hurricane Wilma. It was only after our meeting I realised Wilma took place four years before he stated that the data was available. But before we parted, I told him my research painted a picture of a clever man who is often right, but who has a certain element to his personality which leads him to overstate.

“Oh I agree,” he said.

“And sometimes lie. Get carried away.”

“Oh I agree. No question of that. I don’t know whether the lies are conscious lies all the time,” he said. “But there can be untruths.”[29]

Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support

There is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support.

Folly and fruit of atheistic evolutionary deception

Currently, the are a number of untenable "theories" of evolution and the evolutionary community currently is in disarray and lacking any real consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred.

Atheism and satanic deception

See also: Atheism and satanic deception

Gustave Doré's depiction of Satan from John Milton's Paradise Lost.

Creation Ministries International in their article on atheism declares:

Another reason for rejecting God (choosing atheism), is a willing acceptance of satanic deception.

The angel Lucifer (“luminous one”) fell and became Satan (“adversary”) due to his desire to supplant God. This was Lucifer’s single-minded obsession.

He not only rejected God by attempting to supplant Him, but he urged humans to do likewise. Satan urged Eve to choose against God for her own self-fulfilment:

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:1-5 ESV).

The tactic is clear: firstly, question God’s statements, then, contradict God’s statements and, finally, urge rebellion in seeking equality with God.

This manifests in atheists as

1. Questioning whether there is a God to make statements in the first place, so God did not say anything.

2. Contradicting the statements said to have been spoken by God.

3. Seeking equality with God by replacing God with the self.

This satanic deception appeals strongly to atheists as it bolsters two of their desired delusions: 1) absolute autonomy—being free to do as they please, and 2) the lack of ultimate accountability—there are no eternal consequences for doing as they please.[30]

In a 2008 interview, Dinesh D'Souza declared:

Look at Satan's reason for rebelling against God. It's not that he doesn't recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It's just that he doesn't want to play by anybody else's rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan's motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as Christopher Hitchens.[31]

Promulgation of Atheism and Some Historical Consequences of Atheism

The Apostle John records Jesus making an allusion to the devil and declaring that he is a thief that comes to rob, kill, and destroy.[32] Jesus also declares the children of the devil want to carry out their father's wishes and that the devil was a liar and a murderer.[33] As far as the methods used to promulgate atheism, as noted earlier, there is a history of using deception. In addition, atheistic communist countries have used violent means to suppress theism (see: Atheism and Mass Murder).

Charles Baudelaire - atheism and satanic deception

See also: Atheism Quotes

Charles Baudelaire expressed a common belief concerning atheism and satanic deception in his short story The Generous Gambler written in 1864:

He complained in no way of the evil reputation under which he lived, indeed, all over the world, and he assured me that he himself was of all living beings the most interested in the destruction of Superstition, and he avowed to me that he had been afraid, relatively as to his proper power, once only, and that was on the day when he had heard a preacher, more subtle than the rest of the human herd, cry in his pulpit: "My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!

Atheists attempting to falsely inflate their numbers via the nones

See also: Nones

The atheist Georgetown University professor Jacques Berlinerblau likens the strength of the American atheist movement to a "gimpy little zebra".[34]

Although some American atheists like to claim the "nones" or "no religion" on religious surveys as one of their own, fewer than 15% of the "nones" consider themselves atheists.[35] Specifically, according to Pew Research in 2017, 72% of the "Nones" believe in God, a higher power, or spiritual force.[36]

The atheist Georgetown University professor Jacques Berlinerblau declared concerning American atheists attempting to falsely inflate their numbers:

American atheist movements, though fancying themselves a lion, are more like the gimpy little zebra crossing the river full of crocs. In terms of both political gains and popular appeal, nonbelievers in the United States have little to show. They are encircled by cunning, swarming [religious] Revivalist adversaries who know how to play the atheist card. The gimpy zebra remark was a little goofing on this over-the-top chest-thumping that emerges from Movement Atheists. They wildly overestimate their numbers. They tend to overestimate the efficacy of their activism. They underestimate how disciplined and organized their adversaries in the religious right are, too. They fail to recognize that mocking religious people in public is entirely inimical to the goals they wish to achieve."[34]

See also:

See also


  1. Dr. Don Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32 December 1997.
  2. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.,F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 1, Facts and Bias
  3. Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?
  4. 5.0 5.1 5.2
  5. 6.0 6.1 6.2 Wakefield, Gerard (2002). Another Evolution Fraud Exposed. Investigating Genesis. Retrieved on 2015-08-31.
  7. of Evolution
  8. 9.0 9.1 9.2
  9. 10.0 10.1 How atheism is being sold in America
  10. Suspicions Confirmed: Academia Shutting Out Conservative Professors
  11. The atheist indoctrination project
  12. Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed
  13. Hamblin & Peterson: Hamblin and Peterson: Anti-theists can't erase Christianity, By William Hamblin and Daniel Peterson, For the Deseret News Published: Sunday, Aug. 26 2012
  14. The deep roots of French secularism, BBC News online by Henri Astier. September 1, 2004
  15. Mélina, Gazsi. The values of the French school system. France-Diplomatie. Retrieved on 2015-08-31.
  16. Shall the religious inherit the earth?, by Eric P Kaufmann, April 6, 2010
  17. In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord, Christian Science Monitor, By Robert Marquand, Staff writer July 12, 2012
  18. Religious immigrants will alter the religious landscape of Europe
  19. The Commissar Vanishes
  20. [ distaste for debate], Vox Popoli, October 10, 2012 by Theodore Beale (Vox Day).
  23. Jonathan Sarfati,Ph.D., F.M. Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
  26. Is This the Week that Organized Skepticism Imploded?
  27. James Randi: debunking the king of the debunkers, The Telegraph
  29. The Apologist, An Interview with Dinesh D'Souza, Author of What's So Great About Christianity by Marcia Segelstein
  30. John 10:10
  31. John 8:44
  32. 34.0 34.1 Professor Jacques Berlinerblau tells atheists: Stop whining!, Christian Century, Sep 14, 2012 by Kimberly Winston
  33. Meet the 'Nones:' Spiritual but not religious, The Press Democrat, Jan 3, 2013 by Corinna Nicolaou. Archived at The Wayback Machine.
  34. Key findings about Americans' belief in God. Pew Research Center (April 25, 2018). “In recent years, the share of American adults who do not affiliate with a religious group has risen dramatically. In spite of this trend, the overwhelming majority of Americans, including a majority of the religiously unaffiliated – those who describe themselves, religiously, as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” – say they believe in God or a higher power, according a new Pew Research Center survey conducted in December of 2017....Finally, among those who describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated – also known as “nones” – 72% say they believe in a higher power of some kind.”