Anti-theism: Raising the False Idol of the Scientism Cult in America


    By Jason Charles on 11/23/2015 (8 years 245 days ago) Atheism/Secularism

    Priests of the New Age

    There is a new priest class emerging in our world, and like all priests of false religion they demand dogmatic allegiance to their version of creation, they put forth their own modes of liturgy, vernacular and lingo and of course are overtly caustic to anyone with contrary views to the point of ridicule and public disdain.

    Judging by their own words these men have a cavalier attitude towards history, especially ancient history, reasoning themselves to be far superior in intelligence and deed than men that have gone before us. They believe themselves to be highly accredited and exceptional because they have successfully navigated the halls of higher learning and constantly appeal to their own authority or degrees. They believe themselves to have access to technological marvels that most people can never have access to which gives them exclusive insight into the hidden nature of the universe. They believe themselves to be in a positions of power and have been given authority to shape and engineer the future of humanity. They feel their insight into the nature of creation gives them the ability to dictate into the hearts of man as to how and what they should think in terms of spiritual belief. They believe that their knowledge extends billions of years into the past. Finally they believe that they know without question that there is NO God behind any aspect of creation and regularly make statements affirming this belief in public forums.

    The men who regularly make statements along these lines are professed atheists, but ironically given their own words are suffering from a god-complex of infinite degree. They call themselves scientists but in reality they're priests of a new religion. A religion designed to rid mankind of any concept of God and morality and replace it with a technological system that aims to re-tool, overhaul and engineer everything from the human genome, to the earth itself. A religion called scientism.

    The names of these men are well known, are publicly celebrated, they write volumes of books, are seen on television shows, and given preferential treatment in every medium.

    In a effort to establish the above statements here are a few quotes from well known names within the scientism cult.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson  "Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it?... If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on."

    "I remain unconvinced by any claims anyone has ever made about the existence or the power of a divine force operating in the universe."

    Christopher Hitchens  "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody had the smallest idea what was going on"

    "By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restating the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs. What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate? What kind of designer or creator is so cruel and indifferent? And—most of all—what kind of designer or creator only chooses to “reveal” himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions?"

    Bill Nye "Science is the key to our future, and if you don't believe in science, then you're holding everybody back. And it's fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don't believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don't believe in science, that's a recipe for disaster."

    Richard Dawkins  "So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse  is: I don't believe you. I don't believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?  Mock them! Ridicule them! In public! Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be  substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be  ridiculed with contempt."

    Stephen Fry "It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"


    These are just a few of the inflammatory statements made. For further references read their books. All have written volumes on the subject of the superiority of science over faith based perspectives. The disdain they have for anyone promoting a worldview that includes the creation of the universe by a infinitely powerfully being is met with scorn, ridicule, and a swath of Logical Fallacy type arguments they feel aid in their banishment of God from the psyche and heart of the people. Fallacy arguments like Ad Hominem, Moving the Goal Post, Strawman arguments, etc are in standard use, and devastatingly effective with the novice truth seekers who fall for such intellectually dishonest "proofs" against God. These people who fall prey to the arguments put forth by Dawkins, Hitchens and deGrasse all go on to be very militant in their Atheism. They truly believe the future would be better off without the neolithic thinking of religious men. This is why you are constantly seeing articles about Atheist groups suing any type of religious displays in public, their rabid hate comes from the fact they follow a priest class of scientism fundamentalists that demand total allegiance. Just Google these words for a full rendering of their crusade against religion "Atheists Group Sues."


    The Worship of Authority

    Out of all the "Logical Fallacy", false debate tactics that people use to argue and advance their agendas, one of the most deceptive is what is called an "Appeal to Authority."

    An Appeal to Authority can be defined as a debate tactic that seeks to leverage the authority or credentials of a well known figure or figures in-order to gain an advantage in a debate or argument.

    The structure of the fallacy looks like this:

                    Smith says X is true
                    Smith is an expert
                    So X must be true

    Just because an expert says something is true, does not mean that they're in fact 100% correct. In fact it is impossible to be 100% correct because of a variety different variables that may or may not impact the final conclusion of any experiment or statement. Influencing factors that can lead to false conclusions  can be funding constraints, research grants, cognitive biases, insufficient time, unknown variables, faulty data, bad experimental controls, flawed instruments, etc. Experts are not perfect, nor do they have perfect knowledge. The vast majority of researchers, scientists and engineers try their best to provide factual information. But if they are honest with themselves and have no ulterior motive they will concede that no matter what they do they can make mistakes in their reasoning or findings due to any of the above undermining factors listed. You rarely come across honest researchers and scientist who will say what they find in nature is thoroughly incomprehensible and hardly understood by anyone, much less can attribute an origin or first cause to the processes they are attempting to observe.

     One such scientist who will readily admit this short-coming is Professor James M. Tour.  He is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world and asked the question to the entire scientific community, wondering if if anyone understands how we get macroevolution.  A few quotes from his very intelligently laid out and honest article go as following,

    "…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me."


    "Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.


    I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

    What we have to note in the above quotations, is A) his honesty in not being able to explain where the life process originates from and B) the bravery required to speak out and acknowledge that he doesn't understand it, also the fact that everyone he has ever spoken to in private doesn't either, and that they are also afraid to acknowledge this publicly fearing the contempt of their peers and more.

    This hidden truth and fear of reprisals embedded inside the scientific community is the hallmark of a cult. The high priests can laud their system as being fluid, dynamic, open minded and constantly in change, eagerly receptive of new ideas but that is patently false. The scientism system is as dogmatic as any cult.


    Breaking the Illusion

    These specialists are all trained through the auspices of their formal education to conform and harmonize towards traditionally accepted worldviews and ways of thinking. They are then given calibrated tools, languages and models that also conform to the accepted worldview and agree among themselves.

    Really all scientific disciplines can be reduced down to nothing more than a guild of glorified label makers. They are simply observing complex systems, with infinite degrees of overlaying, intelligently organized super structures on both the micro and macro scales and giving everything they see labels. They label and label filling volumes of books and papers with all of their new found labels. This is that, and that is this. This does that, and that causes this as if any of their labels or names gives rise to true understanding of the system and how it came to be. They simply don't know how any of it came to be, but if they label everything it provides the illusion to the common people that they are highly trained and knowledgeable experts. This is the secret nobody wants to say within the scientific community. They know this to be true like Dr. Tour, but the system empowers them. They are looked upon as being smarter, they are supposedly paid more, they are on the cutting edge of technology, etc. They derive so much perceived power from the system that they become apologists to the point of cult like adoration and following.

    There is no way given the nature and complexity of our universe anyone with an ounce of credibility can make emphatic statements like, "there is no God", but they ALL do it don't they, why is that? Because the community they belong to requires it, even demands this belief or else. Plain and simple. So when people like those above ridicule people with a religious/creation based worldview, they themselves are engaged in the same hypocrisy of cult like following within their respective religion of scientism. In fact, where scientific circles get extremely dogmatic is in the area of deep time and macro evolution. There simply is no room for any other theory or hypothesis that doesn't establish the deep time billions of years timeframe of the universe simply because that is a requirement for evolution to happen. Anything that speaks of creation in shorter time frames is adamantly opposed, and anything that can be twisted to fit into the model of deep time no matter how preposterous get's promoted. Cosmology is a prime example of this flawed approach to the scientific system. The computer generated, mathematical models used to predict the supposed inflation of the universe are filled with all sorts of wide eyed none substantiated claims of dark matter, dark energy, CMB, and Gravitational superstructures that twist space-time. There is no evidence for any of it, but the more bombastic of claims giving rise to billions of years the more money your department receives from the government and scientific endowments like the Carnegie foundation.

    Bill Nye, the Scientism guy stated during a debate in 2014 with Creationist Ken Ham when answering the question, "What, if anything, would ever change your mind"

    Where he stated, "We would need just one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another, we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but are not. We would need evidence that rock layers could somehow form in just 4000 years as opposed to just the extraordinary amount, we would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons."

    In attempt to show that there already is evidence showing that each one of his points he requested have been overturned, I have listed out a few  findings that show exactly what Bill Nye was asking for.

    1) "We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another"

    We have evidence in the form of Polystrate fossils, trees and fossils that run through multiple layers of rock that supposedly are millions of years apart. Though evolutionists and creationists make attempts to debunk one another over the methodology of how these fossils occur, the fact is they do occur and would indicate that there is serious errors in the way the geological column depicts epochs of time.

    2) "We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but are not"

    Hubble's law is based off the observation of a objects redshift in space, and uses the formula v = H0D to determine the speed of galaxies moving away from one another. The problem is the Law is based on faulty information and was debunked by Halton Arp who was able to use Quasars to show that redshift does not correlate to speed and distance of galaxies. He found volumes of data to back up his finding which you can learn about in this video here. The entire standard model of the Big Bang falls apart under the weight of his evidence, as a result he was fired from his position at the Carnegie Institute one of the biggest pushers of the deep time theory of creation. We also have the VSL or the Variable Speed of Light to look into. Light may not be a constant and it has been shown that light can be stopped in time, possibly sped up (VSL), or even its speed manipulated. So light as a measure of time is not assured and not a good ruler of measurement.

    3) "We would need evidence that rock layers could somehow form in just 4000 years as opposed to just the extraordinary amount, we would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons"

    For a full take down of Bill Nye and his scientism as related to this debate with Ken Ham please read this article cited partially in the below quotes.

    "Assumptions and Evolution

    Nye claimed that we can know with certainty the age of the Universe based on the present. The problem with that argument for the naturalist is that since no one was there at the beginning to observe what happened or when it happened, no naturalist can actually know, as Nye claimed. Instead, assumptions have to be made by the naturalist in order to try to surmise what may have happened—namely that conditions today were also present in the past (i.e., uniformitarianism). That is quite a presumptuous assumption to be sure. Creationists argue that assumptions such as uniformitarianism and those of radiometric dating techniques are faulty and disprove the validity of those techniques (e.g., Miller, 2013a; Morris, 2011, pp. 48-71). In response, Nye said:

    When people make assumptions based on radiometric dating; when they make assumptions about the expanding Universe; when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media; they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.

    First, we find it ironic that Nye so strongly supports evolutionary assumptions, arguing that they are valid because they are based on “previous experience.” Nobody has ever observed macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter, and yet these absurd notions are assumed under the evolutionary model. In the debate, Nye even verbally admitted that the evolutionary model has no explanation for how consciousness could come from matter. He said, “Don’t know. This is a great mystery.” In truth, of course he cannot know, because the evidence from nature says that it cannot happen naturally."


    In Conclusion

    The devil is masterful at providing institutions that breed, prideful adherents to vain philosophies and ideologies. The scientific institution is no different. Yes, utilizing existing natural laws and techniques to channel natural phenomena we can harness a variety of technologies, but everything that engineers utilize to build the wonderful gadgets and machines we surround ourselves with are made possible by an existing set of laws and the human intellect. An intellect that cannot create said forces, but can only observe and harness them. Where scientism goes wrong is it believes because it can manipulate and control existing forces it can also fully understand the origin and design of them. This is false, the complexity of the created universe has yet to reveal itself fully to the scientist, the best they can do is talk about them, and utilize them to better our lives as a blessing. But the goal of scientism is to destroy God, and with God morality, and with morality ethics, because the desire to understand has turned into the desire to control. Technology produced from the labs and research facilities are often time more destructive than beneficial, and therein lies the reason as to why God simply must be eradicated from the scientific mind. To bend nature, to enslave through technology, and place a priority on the development of military applications takes a disdain for ethics and moral responsibility. So it is little wonder we see adherents of the scientism worldview try to steam roll opposition with appeals to authority, ridicule, and outright slander. This is a religion with cult like followers and cult like objectives.

    Support Wake the Church through our Newsletter sign-up and also support other creation ministries. Atheism and the spirit of antichrist must be met head on, it must be shown to be the false light that it is. So many people mainly kids of the internet generation have fallen prey to its lure and promises of power. The attempt to bring humanity into a new Dark Ages of Godlessness is upon us. Though the priests speak differently, have different tools, and lingo the spirit behind it the same as any pagan cult of ancient times. It is murderous and dangerous to those who love God, they truly see you, a Christian as opposition to their vision for our species. They believe that religion needs to be eradicated to make that vision a reality. So they will work to purge our schools, court houses and government buildings of anything of a historic religious nature, but demand that their fairy tale of evolution be included in every science book though it can't be proven as true. The hypocritical nature of scientism is dangerous without question. Especially now days, because they have the backing of the elite and government which has gone totally rouge in it's purge of God from our country.

    Paul talks about Satan coming with all power, signs and lying wonders, could this be the spirit of atheism, scientism and the technological marvels that men have come to idolize? I certainly think so.

    Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11

    Article Views: 7539

    Wake the Church

    EMAIL: contact us here
    MAIL: PO Box 10548 Kalispell, MT 59904

    Wake the Church is NOT a 501c3 non-profit organization,
    Donations are NOT tax-deductible.

    Christ Alone Movie Directed by Jason Charles


    Everything your pastor is afraid to preach

    Topics include: Natural Law | 2nd Amendment | Un-Just Wars | 501c3 Institutionalized Churches | Eugenics | Transhumanism | Bohemian Grove | RFID | New World Order | GMO | Vaccines | Agenda 21 and More...


    You Too Can Be Saved

    Salvation is submission to the authority of our Creator God. To be saved simply call upon the name of Jesus. Ask Him to lead, guide and direct you to a full knowledge of who He is, and who you are in Him.

    "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

    "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." - Romans 10:13