An atheist is very often a curious character for he removes all possibility of a subjective ideal, in that he worships only the objective and apparent, and an ideal is just too wishy washy for him to waste any time on. Is it any wonder then that clothes, cars, buildings, and art conceived by the atheist are so often very dull and pointless, as if they had no purpose at all except to be. The atheist must do something because he is afraid of doing and being nothing, which is the ultimate goal of his life, oblivion is what awaits us all he proudly proclaims. Much of what he is and produces merits it. It is a man overly concerned with his own sanity from fear of going insane. Of course what that sanity could be he cannot truly know, because he only knows and studies what is not sane, so everything that is not his current definition of insanity is precisely what he should do.

That the atheist, or the honest one, cannot have an ideal is easy enough to prove. The atheist proclaims he only believes that for which there is objective evidence, since he cannot believe in an ideal because, objectively, it has no objective existence, cannot be measured in a lab, cannot be photographed by an electron microscope, then it cannot be ‘believed’ in. He may accept an ideal, or even follow one, but then he is hard pressed to escape his gross hypocrisy, for if you can create and follow an ideal, and it is good, then what’s the harm in creating and following an ideal that is God.

Of course the atheist doesn’t have to do any of this at all, only he has become trapped by his short sighted refutations of theism, just because there isn’t a personal God, or even a “god” per se in any sense has nothing to do with the supposed ‘objective’ evidence against it, but from its complete silliness. Everything that we know and understand about the world and universe suggests that the idea of a personal God moving every rock, and hearing every prayer is utter nonsense. Mostly because it’s just impractical.

Of course there is no ‘objective’ evidence against the existence of god, that would be silly as well. As it turns out, there is none for god, and none for much of anything. It of course depends a bit on how you define ‘objective’, and here is how I see it: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

Considering that most atheists who have dropped out of religion do it based on their feelings of their respective church’s ideas on heaven and hell, the former being torment by tedium and the latter torment by tormentiness, then we are hard pressed to take them at their word. Many atheists, rightly so, seem positively relieved when they consider that the burden of heaven and hell isn’t necessary to bear.

Now it occurs to me that a very common argument by very smart atheists, ones who have deeply thought about the problems of creation, is that the universe is mathematics, and that ultimately perhaps mathematics holds the key to prove that something can come from nothing, i.e. integers from a null set. Of course it rarely dawns on them that mathematics does very little without a mathematician.

Then we come to this idea that intelligent design must necessarily be lazy thinking, but how hypocritical, for the average atheist, even the scientist, when faced with almost any problem just says: Well, it started small, and got bigger over millions of year, and voila. Atheism, especially darwinist atheism, is the most lazy form of thinking, for it assumes that the statement “it’s evolution dummy” is some magical formula and can explain everything. You can hardly read any book, on any topic, which doesn’t conspicuously base whatever nonsense programme it is trying to sell on the copiously detailed account of how it all started with cavemen and went from there.

I was thumbing through Robert Greene’s Mastery, and what did I find but a rather detailed eyewitness account of the evolutionary development of the brain which was used, unnecessarily in my opinion, to justify his observations about how people practice skills and become masters. It was of course complete poppy cock, if he had ever bothered to read the actual scientific works of various scientists analyzing digs where they find a few chipped rocks and a pile of bones and somehow feel they can talk about the emotional states of early hominids and how they may have named their children, he would have done what any sensible person should do, and chuck the whole mess out as the puerile fantasies of intellectually sheltered scientist.

Today the atheist doesn’t have to present any real evidence, he can show a few bone fragments, some evidence that there was a fire and a few people eating around it, then can jump to waxing philosophical about the society and psychology of this prehistoric diner’s club. Evidence has become a magical thing, it’s mere physical presence is enough to quiet any dissent. But did not the church do the same thing? This is nothing more than holy relics. Hell, even the church has bones!

It is not that there is a physical magical substance, like mana, called evidence. It is only evidence when it actually relates to the theory being postulated. I am sorry, but 3/4 of a jaw and a couple of gnawed bones isn’t evidence of much at all.