Today, I will put aside the religious belief system of environmentalism and its apocalyptic Global Warming/Climate Change dance and deal with the religion of atheism.

Already I hear, “It’s not a religion!”

Okay, what defines what a religion is?  But before I go any further, let’s strip away the trapping, the vestments, the buildings, the apologetics, and the numerous texts and so on.

I ‘googled’ religion and took the first definition:

 Definitions of religion on the Web:

• a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

We have two parts here joined by an ‘or,’ and it’s the ‘or’ which makes this interesting.  Why?  Well, let’s take the first segment:

 a strong belief in a supernatural power

The first segment deals with supernatural power which anyone can define as God, Providence (George Washington’s favorite name) and a plethora of other names.

But the second segment, the part after the ‘or’ is:

powers that control human destiny;

Control human destiny?  Hum . . .

Atheists don’t believe in God, but Atheism has been ‘married’ to Darwin, natural selection, genetics and ultimately, evolution.  Look at all the texts which have come out in support of atheism, and evolution is mentioned in these books as supporting evidence.

Evolution controls the destiny of the human species, and evolution is the power (look back at the definition), the truth and the light of atheism.  By definition, atheism is a religion. 

What brought this posting about is an article by Dinesh D'Souza, “The atheists who came in from the cold.”  Not only does atheism have leaders Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, and followers, there are apostates, too.  Philosopher Anthony Flew, “has been, for the past half-century, the world's leading advocate of atheism. His works such as Theology and Falsification and The Presumption of Atheism were considered classics of theist thought. No one has so relentlessly espoused the atheist cause, and no one has been more anthologized and eulogized by the atheist community.”

But, he’s joined the other side:  “Now, in his early eighties, Flew has rejected atheism and said he believes that God exists. He does not espouse the Christian God, but calls himself a Deist.”

The assault on Anthony Flew has begun.  The New York Times “selected Mark Oppenheimer of Yale, who visited Flew in England and wrote a long article in the November 4, 2007 New York Times Magazine suggesting that Flew converted because he is, well, senile.”

He is  . . . senile.  Question of the week is:  What are the atheists going to do when the apostates are younger?  Burn them at the stake?

Posted by: at 12:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 7 kb.

The myths from and about the ‘Sixties’ are alive and well, being reinforced by the Media, Sixties relics, provocateurs and wanna-bes infesting educational institutions and the political arena. 

A couple of years ago I heard someone of the “Sixties” generation, say, “We were special.” 

As if everyone else isn’t. 

The straightforward retort to that “We were special,” statement is “Boy, you’ve got gall.”  But at the time, I was too stunned by the arrogant stupidity of it to say anything, and I was in a college setting which was not the best place to nuke such a vacuous comment.

We have to understand what that person is reveling in, well, a mythical time.  Myth in the sense that the ‘Sixties’ generation has been taken credit for changes they had nothing to do with.  The college revolutions, or rather the revolts by uneducated teenagers and early twenty-somethings occurred around 1969.   And by then, first civil rights legislation was passed in 1964, by a bunch of Old White Men, I must add.  The ‘Pill’ was available in 1960, and there’s more.  All you have to do is read The Death of the Grown-Up by Diana West.  She puts forth a collection of ideas and thoughts which will leave you nodding your head. 

The adults of the Greatest Generation surrendered to the college adolescents, and went so far as to join them, becoming children themselves.  One line from Diana West’s book about the destructive activities occurring on the 60’s campuses goes like this, “Authority and reason would give way to novelty and feelings” (60). 

Sounds familiar and contemporary, doesn’t it?  Think Global Warming.  Reason has been abandoned for feelings.  No matter how the facts debunking the hysteria pile up.   

But we have to face the fact that to understand the ‘Sixties,’ people need to know and understand what was going on--and when it was going on.  And I suspect that is occurring, little by little.  It must be, because of the fact that the West book has been published. 

The day will come when the ‘Sixties’ will be stripped bare. Then people will be stunned by what didn’t happen, because all there was was a bunch of college students who should’ve been kicked in the backside, and told to get back in the classroom or “Get a job.” 

Posted by: at 09:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 5 kb.

Sometimes you need a change . . . as long as the change doesn’t hurt anyone, of course.

So, here I am at mee.nu. 

Posted by: at 09:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.