Read Part 4 Here
Get full paperback version here
Part 5
Chapter 4
The Mental Disorder
}{
mental illness
n. Any of various conditions characterized by
impairment of an individual's normal cognitive,
emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused
by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or
other factors, such as infection or head trauma.
Also called emotional illness, mental disease,
mental disorder. - dictionary.com
Indoctrination not Education
Read Part 4 Here
Modern atheism, or the philosophy of naturalism, makes one single bold claim with multiple sub-claims. It says that it sees no evidence that any god exists anywhere. Therefore the modern atheist lives the kind of life which corresponds with that belief... or do they? For the most part, modern "educated" atheists were indoctrinated into the atheist mindset in a college or university setting. They cling to authority figures who give them a license to embrace the negativity they feel toward divine judgment and intervention. At that age there are many conflicts going on in both the body and mind. These conflicts can often be linked with a moral structure ingrained from their parents or church. Once away from the shackles of home they are left with nothing more than whatever mechanisms they were given by their parents to fend off the onset of the atheist mental disorder brought on by narcissistic professors of biology and psychology with god complexes.They really do become gods to these kids. They read flowery sentences penned by such “luminaries” as Friedrich Nietzsche and Alan Watts. They say things in biology classes that should only be said in fairy tales. These are the breeding grounds for the prophesied falling away. Their schooling is doing them great harm and is getting in the way of a real education. Logic is the only certain defense against the atheism mental disorder. Logic, or at least the foundational laws of logic, is transcendental. They do not occur naturally, have no natural origin and therefore cannot be explained without borrowing from the theist's worldview. Ironic, isn't it? That's why no atheist has ever won a debate concerned with defending atheism. As soon as the atheist forms his or her first sentence the debate is over. The atheist must use logic to make sentences and by using logic the person must abandon atheism and borrow from the theist. It would be no different than if a person walked into Wal-Mart, shopped for a while; maybe bought some new pocket protectors, left the store and proceeded to tell everyone that there's no such store as Wal-Mart. Would you not immediately question the person's mental stability? Of course you would. Who wouldn't? Many people have tried to argue for a natural cause or origin for logic. Let's examine the previously mentioned laws of logic. From about.com:
“In informal logic, people use three basic, logicalThe above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference. So there we have it. Is there anything in those laws which could ever be considered subjective? No. Those laws of logic are universally applicable. They don't care about public opinion or how we feel about them. Logic is applied in courts of law all over the planet to people in positions of having to accept the legal outcomes based on the use of logic. Are they constructs of the human mind? Impossible! Logic has exactly no concern for the ability of any mind to construct or even to comprehend it. It simply doesn't care about the human ability. It is transcendental and neutral and static. Any judge will tell you this and many people have been incarcerated based on logic they themselves do not understand.
principles which are regarded as the four basic
"laws of logic" or "laws of thought": 1. The law of
identity: p is p at the same time and in the same
respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush,
and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.
2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive
proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q")
cannot be both true and false at the same time and
in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and
not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition
"It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction,
and must be false.
Note: technically, the above example stated fully
should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this
location and at this time." This additional phrase
encompasses the crucial factors of "at
the same time" and "in the same respect," but in
natural language it isn't common to state them
explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it
is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not
they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.
3. The law of the excluded middle: in any
proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one
that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A
more informal and common way of stating this is to
simply say that either a proposition is true or its
negation must be true - thus, either p is true or notp must be true.
For example, the disjunctive proposition "Either it
is raining or it is not raining" must be true. Also, if it
is true that it is raining, then the proposition "Either
it is raining, or I own a car" must also be true. It
really doesn't matter what the second phrase is.
Logic: for the Win!
Read Part 4 Here
Did logic evolve with apes? Is it an evolutionary trait? That suggestion is laughable since there is exactly no proof of pan-genus biological evolution (given that most people reading this know the difference between a genus and a species) but let's allow for it for the sake of this discussion. If logic is an evolutionary trait then why, again, does it apply universally to everyone and everything? We humans are the highest evolved creatures on earth according to evolutionary biologists. Why is it not universally understood then? No, even if evolution was true, logic has not evolved since it is separate from nature. It is an a priori to comprehend and figure it out. It is transcendental and therefore easily destroys the atheist worldview. Either the atheist abandons the use of logic or abandons the atheist worldview. It is impossible to use both.
Another atheist-destroying transcendental reality is the concept of "good". I'm not talking about the subjective concept of morality. Any cannibalistic tribe in any third-world country is evidence of that. I mean it is entirely possible for someone who has been taught that eating his enemy will give him his enemy's power to feel morally obligated to do that very thing and feel poorly if he happens to be unable due to stomach flu or something. The reality of good is transcendental and evidence for this is when modern cultures enter such an environment where religious, ritualistic cannibalism is practiced and express to them that it is not "good". In some African cultures it is acceptable practice for a grown man to rape a young virgin child to cure aids. Who are you to tell him it's wrong? "Well", you might say, "it violates the child". Yes but who are you to say it's not “good“? You have now placed yourself in the position of being able to look at what's happening from the outside and apply a transcendental concept to a situation by saying it's not “good“. Whenever you make that judgment you are declaring an objective, transcendental truth and you have destroyed the atheist worldview.
Delusion:In the interest of staying away from personal opinion we will attempt to use dictionary definitions with respect to such serious issues as mental illness. The more time I spend with the atheist community the more easily the delusion is detected. They go to enormous lengths to show a natural origin for “logic” and “good” objective transcendental realities which is a clear sign of a person with “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact” as per our dictionary definition for “delusion”. It is the clearest symptom any expert should require. There are many less clear but equally troubling signs. Modern atheists are clearly intelligent people. Their ability to use transcendental logic to figure things out scientifically has provided them with a tool for enabling the delusion while all along fooling those in the general population into thinking there’s nothing wrong with them. Take science for example. Now, I’m a big fan of science. The word “science” comes from the Latin word “scientia” which means, quite literally, “knowledge”. Scientific method is basically taking this knowledge (science) and using it to predict the future. The more we as a society know, the more separated people become from each other in the knowledge department. People spend the first three decades of their lives getting the knowledge it takes to become a doctor, for example. That person has moved into a high knowledge classification group. Most people cannot claim to have that kind of knowledge which places the person on a proverbial pedestal as well as a very real one. They are placed in a position of social trust. They know things that most people don’t. So, when a construction worker gets hurt or sick they go to the ones with the knowledge required to make them well. It’s a public trust. This is what makes the atheism delusion particularly heinous. People with this public trust are quite often engaged in guinea-pig ideology using the public trust (and billions of tax payer dollars) to promote their personal beliefs and win the public over by using their bully pulpit as a stage to preach the atheist worldview. It’s all part of the mental disorder; the rebellious mindset of atheism. One of the doctrines of atheism is the philosophy of naturalism but one of that doctrine’s sub doctrines is the
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to
reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid
delusion.
theory of “evolution”.
Biological Systems are Trapped in Decay and not Progression
Read Part 4 Here
Now, evolution means nothing more or less than change over time. That’s all it means. Modern atheism has the theory of evolution as its creation story. They make some very audacious and bold claims concerning the whole “change over time” theory that, quite honestly, much more resembles a religious tenet than science (knowledge). There is no longer any question in this researcher’s mind that it is all part of the delusion brought on by the mental illness; a disorder that is obvious without any medical degree like the mother who diagnosed the child with an obvious cold. Since science means knowledge it is observable. We observe mutations within the various “kinds” or genuses but we also observe something else scientific. We observe that even though all of the various species can mutate laterally and regressively within the kinds they are continuously confined to that kind. This is what is observed scientifically. Coincidentally this was also predicted by the Bible.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bringAs an atheist it is no wonder the fight is raging to disprove the observable science by saying things like “well, over billions of years these lateral and regressive mutations can result in a progressive one”. Wrong. That has never been observed and is not science. It is something else altogether I like to call “wishful thinking”.
forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit
tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is inHow Atheism Ruins Everything
itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass,
and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree
yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and
every living creature that moveth, which the waters
brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.
Genesis 1:24 ¶And God said, Let the earth bring
forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:
and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth
after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every
thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
Let’s use Richard Dawkins as our example again. He is a “biologist”. He so embraces pan-genus evolution as his creation story that he refuses to debate creationists any longer. He, in his own words, says that we (creationists) are no different than holocaust deniers when we deny his creation story. He has fully embraced a delusion. Don’t forget that creationists do not deny inner-species mutations and adaptations and so on but we also embrace the real science which has shown and continues to show the gametic isolation factors which limit each species to its genus or “kind”. Guess what! If you spend enough time examining the writings of people like Richard Dawkins you find that every once in a while reality will creep out of him which reveals that the delusion is not totally cemented in his life. While ninety nine percent of his writings and lectures show a complete devotion to his brand of evolution he lets certain things slip out which validate the opposing position (mine) and which show that no matter how you spin it there’s no denying the truth no matter how hard one tries. The truth ultimately wins the day. Consider how a man who defends the atheistic doctrine of naturalism for a living could write or say such things as these:
“Yet the living results of natural selectionSo, Mr. Dawkins is “impressed” with what he sees as “design” and “planning” in the evidence. He has actually seen it and yet he then goes on to say that it must be the process of evolution tricking everyone with an “illusion”. It’s really no different than pointing out to someone that not everyone is against them and their paranoia is unfounded. They may say that yes, while the evidence looks that way, it’s only an illusion put out by those who are out to get me. Dawkins says that even though the evidence points to a designer, that’s just an illusion put out by the evidence and we are supposed to simply ignore what the evidence is actually telling us. It wouldn't be fair to use just one example of this so let’s move on to Dawkins’ own website where he has a page devoted to quotes from him and others. Here’s one which also shows reality slipping through the outer shell of the delusion bubble. Remember that this is a standalone quote from his own website.
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, they impress us with the illusion of design and planning”
Richard Dawkins from chapter 2 of “The BlindHow Atheism Ruins Everything
Watchmaker”.
"Flowers and elephants are 'for' the same thing as
everything else in the living kingdoms, for
spreading Duplicate Me programs written in DNA
language. Flowers are for spreading copies of
instructions for making more flowers. Elephants are
for spreading copies of instructions for making
more elephants." -Richard Dawkins from Climbing Mount Improbable
In case you missed the delicious irony there he, in that quote from his own website, actually disproves the theory of pangenus evolution by natural selection. The delusion does not permit him to see it. The warden of his mind, Satan, has Dawkins so blinded that he is literally incapable of admitting that he is wrong and he is forced by the blindness to promote the delusion. I suppose he can hardly be blamed. He is quite intelligent after all and he longs for an explanation to what he sees around him. Since he has had the “God did it” explanation removed from the table he is forced to reach other, less scientific conclusions. Please allow me to explain how Dawkins shot himself in the foot with the quote. Now, this book is not intended to be a biology primer but I suppose I should bring everyone up to speed on what Dr. Dawkins believes and teaches versus what creationism and intelligent design proponents believe and teach. Evolution by natural selection is a term given to a process by which all living organisms move forward by mutating into more or less complex organisms. This process began, according to people like Dawkins, with a single cell billions of years ago and has progressed to what we observe all around us. This is the modern theory of evolution. And yet the quote we just showed you from his own website says the exact opposite. Dawkins himself admits that elephants produce "duplicate" copies of themselves by passing on "instructions". Go ahead and read his quote again and conflate that with the first quote. Do you see the picture this paints? Dawkins knows the truth and every once in a while it slips out. His prison warden won't allow him to break free from the delusion so he continues to promote the lie. Perhaps he's allowing tiny bits of truth to come out in the hope that it will be enough to give him a reason to break out. Perhaps his subconscious mind is attempting to hack away at the prison bars until some day he can cry out to God.
An Ironic Delusion
Read Part 4 Here
In the meantime as we look at his quote about flowers and elephants we see that the theory of evolution is destroyed by it because evolution is not interested in making "duplicate copies" but rather, through natural selection, improving and adding information progressively. Since this is not happening we can safely conclude that the "God did it" hypothesis is correct. According to Dr. Dawkins, elephants make elephants and flowers make flowers. Monkeys still make monkeys and all of the evidence points to that continuing as it always has. Gametic, reproductive evidence points to intelligent design. Here's a third and final quote from Dawkins in which he actually admits to the possibility of an intelligent designer. Dawkins sat down with Ben Stein for an interview in the movie "Expelled". Here is a portion of that transcript.
“Ben STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that
Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer
to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian
evolution.
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the
following way. It could be that at some earlier time,
somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved,
probably by some kind of Darwinian means,
probably to a very high level of technology, and
designed a form of life that they seeded onto
perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility,
and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s
possible that you might find evidence for that if you
look at the details of biochemistry, molecular
biology, you might find a signature of some sort of
designer.
And that Designer could well be a higher
intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But
that higher intelligence would itself have had to
have come about by some explicable or ultimately
explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped
into existence spontaneously. That's the point.”
Does anyone else see the religious dogma poking its ugly head up? He readily admitted to Stein that intelligent design is possible but there's no way it was God. It had to be aliens. And even though we have exactly zero evidence for any alien life anywhere in the universe he would not dare entertain the "God" possibility in spite of the overwhelming evidence in favor of transcendental realities. We'll examine that overwhelming evidence in the next chapter.
Aliens did it!
Read Part 4 Here
When faced with explaining the evidence for intelligent design which, according to the first quote from Dawkins, "overwhelmingly impresses" him, he resorts to supporting the ridiculous theory of directed panspermia (aliens did it) over the much more scientific and plausible "God did it" response which explains quite nicely why Dawkins is impressed with the design. Like any good design there must be a designer. Here the delusion is made evident. Dawkins, like all of his other atheist prison friends, sees the evidence for God and uses transcendental tools like logic and yet denies they even exist.
This illness is spreading. It's like a fungus growing on the collective minds of humanity on a planetary scale. It began as a seed planted in the Garden of Eden and is now finding a comfortable climate in modern academia. It's a pandemic predicted by a text that is thousands of years old. It is powerful evidence that we are living in the very last days.
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.
They are corrupt, they have done abominable
works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1
Get full paperback version here
=====================================================
In The Magic Man in the Sky, Carl Gallups has given us an exciting insight into the many unanswered questions of evolution theory and, based on biblical truths – both prophecies and promises, the possibilities of other worlds and realities denied by evolutionists. With his open and frank approach, supported by extensive research and information from learned professionals in their respective fields, Carl challenges believers and unbelievers to take a serious look at the subjects discussed in this book. Ultimately, Carl invites every reader to seriously consider the gravity and consequences of accepting or rejecting the truth presented. In this hour of all-but-universal darkness, a bright ray of hope and confidence shines forth from the truths of this book. In a time when lives are marked by a growing hunger for spiritual realities, Carl Gallups reveals the truth that real science and Holy Scripture are inseparably linked to verify that behind all creation there is an intelligent designer who created all that exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment