DeGrasse Tyson pushes Matrix-like theory of reality, still mocks Christians

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Your friendly neighborhood blogger is always perusing the internet for science-related news. Given that fact, it did not go unnoticed that two stories pushing the idea that reality is all an illusion gained widespread media attention over the past month.

The first piece came when Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it was “very likely” humans are living in a simulation. The second story involved Princeton University scientists who think free will may just be a trick the brain plays to rewrite history. None of this would be very fascinating if it weren’t for the fact that Morepheus DeGrasse Tyson and his atheist followers take pot shots at Christians on a regular basis.

Extreme Tech reported April 22:

“At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, recently held at New York’s Hayden Planetarium, scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? It’s an older question that you might imagine, and if we interpret it a bit more broadly then it’s really one of the oldest questions imaginable: How do we know that reality is reality? And, if our universe were a big, elaborate lie, could we ever devise some test to prove that fact? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we [‘very likely’] live in a computer simulation.”

The U.K. Independent reported Sunday:

Free will might be an illusion created by our brains, scientists might have proved.

Humans are convinced that they make conscious choices as they live their lives. But instead it may be that the brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made.

The idea was tested out by tricking subjects into believing that they had made a choice before the consequences of that choice could actually be seen. In the test, people were made to believe that they had taken a decision using free will – even though that was impossible. …

In one of the studies undertaken by Adam Bear and Paul Bloom, of Princeton University, the test subjects were shown five white circles on a computer monitor. They were told to choose one of the circles before one of them lit up red.

The participants were then asked to describe whether they’d picked the correct circle, another one, or if they hadn’t had time to actually pick one.

Statistically, people should have picked the right circle about one out of every five times. But they reported getting it right much more than 20 per cent of the time, going over 30 per cent if the circle turned red very quickly.

The scientists suggest that the findings show that the test subjects’ minds were swapping around the order of events, so that it appeared that they had chosen the right circle – even if they hadn’t actually had time to do so.

Is it more likely scientists “proved” free will is an illusion, or that they reestablished people are capable of lying?

Is it more likely scientists “proved” free will is an illusion, or that they reestablished the human brain is a beautiful box of paradoxes?

The human brain is incredibly sturdy, yet fragile. It is awe-inspiring in its complexity, yet ultimately a sponge-like mass of neurons, blood vessels, and tissue. It can turn science fiction into reality, yet it often falls for “tricks” played by researchers in white lab coats. The list goes on and on.


Imagine what the world would look like if billions of people simultaneously listened to Morepheus DeGrasse Tyson and researchers at the University of Free Will Is Just an Illusion. Tyson likes to lump “crazy” Christianity in with Scientology, but my guess is that he would soon yearn for a world solely populated by “cracker”-eating Catholics if 7 billion people concluded a.) they were living in a glorified video game, and b.) they did not need to take responsibility for their actions.

Regardless, men of faith should smile. DeGrasse Tyson’s acknowledgment that humans “very likely” have a Creator will prompt some of his supporters down a spiritual path in the years ahead.

Atheists mock science-loving Catholics from afar because ego massages feel better than ego checks

HubbleThe “Atheists 10 Commandments” recently made news with the release of “Atheist Heart, Humanist Mind,” by John Figdor and Lex Bayer. Yours truly pointed out how ridiculous it is to have nine “commandments” that are all superseded by “There is no one right way to live.” As a result, a slew of atheists deemed me a “fundie.” Two of my quotes generated rounds of ego-massaging among the congregants of “Fundies say the Darndest Things.”

Sadly, the majority of people over FSTDT seem to mistake sarcasm and personal attacks for intellect:

“While there is no one right way to live, there are certainly many wrong ways, such as being an adult with imaginary friends.”

“The self-loathing of the religious zealot is the same self-loathing that drives the heroin addict to the needle and the alcoholic to the bottle. It blunts the pain, but does nothing to resolve the underlying issues that cause that pain, the feelngs [sic] of worthlessness and despair, as revealed here.”

“Yet another person who’s good only because he’s scared of God. People like that scare me.”

It’s easier to laugh and joke about “being an adult with imaginary friends” than it is to have a mature conversation on the body, mind and spirit. It is also easier to mock science-loving Catholics from afar than it is to venture from the safe confines of the digital hive.  The modern atheist seems to think that science strengthens the case against God, and avoiding discussions with guys like me allows them to continue such a delusion.

Author Eric Metaxas wrote for The Wall Street Journal Dec. 25:

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. …

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Men of faith look at the mind-bending odds against the possibility of life — any kind of life — in the universe, we conclude that our existence is a miracle attributable to God, and the response by online atheists is to liken us to a “self-loathing … heroin addict.” Which group is acting like an adult and which group is acting like a petulant child who is lashing out at his father?

Men of faith readily admit they fear eternal separation from God, and online atheists make the strange leap in logic that we view Him as some sort of cosmic Communist police state overseer. Which group is acting like an adult and which group is acting like a recalcitrant child who is upset that he will one day be held accountable for his actions?

The online atheists’ inclination to view anyone who believes in God as a backwoods hick with a sixth-grade home-school education is bizarre — but I welcome it. Their decision to cloister themselves in little online echo chambers is to the man of faith’s advantage. Keep likening law-abiding, well-adjusted, and productive members of society to heroin addicts, my atheist friends — each outlandish caricature you create only makes open-minded individuals more likely to ignore your future overtures.

The Atheist 10 Commandments are here — even though ‘There is no one right way to live’

A humanist chaplain at Stanford University and his co-writer on “Atheist Heart, Humanist Mind” have crowd-sourced the 10 Commandments — for atheists. The result is a philosophically-convoluted mess.

CNN reported Dec. 20 that John Figdor and Lex Bayer gleaned the Atheist 10 Commandments from 2,800 submissions from 18 countries and 27 U.S. states.

The “commandments” are:

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control of their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

If “there is no one right way to live,” then why should anyone “be willing to alter” their beliefs? If there is “no one right way to live,” then why do we have “a responsibility to consider others”? If there is “no right way to live,” then why should a man consider the perspective of others? If there is “no right way to live,” then it can not be wrong if one man decides that his “right way to live” includes controlling the bodies of those around him.

This is the conundrum atheists face: if we are all just cosmic accidents and God does not exist, then no man has the moral authority to tell another man how to live. If we are all just sentient space dust with no soul, then there really are no objective truths — right and wrong are relative — and there is no valid argument against those whose sole existence is based on taking advantage of their fellow man.

Even the authors seem to realize this. They told CNN about the inspiration for writing their book:

“A lot of atheists’ books are about whether to believe in God or not,” he said. “We wanted to consider: OK, so you don’t believe in God, what’s next? And that’s actually a much harder question.”

“What’s next?” is a very hard question, indeed. Perhaps the reason why so many atheist books concentrate on “whether to believe in God or not” instead of “What’s next?” is because it leads to “There is no one right way to live.”

On another level, it is incredibly telling that with limited real estate, atheists would use one of their “ten commandments” to emphasize the importance of not believing in a non-existent god. Try as he might, the atheist can not escape God. Perhaps for their next book, Messrs. Figdor and Bayer could write “Atheist Heart, Humanist Mind: We Can’t Escape God No Matter How Hard We Try.”

Related: Atheists mock science-loving Catholics from afar because ego massages feel better than ego checks

Atheists attack easy targets to distract you from men like Hubert Van Zeller

A recent YouTube video that went viral shows a woman who claims Monster Energy Drinks are the work of the devil. Atheists and their allies in the media ran with it. An atheist friend of mine even passed it along with the message, “One of your people.”

I love my friend on many levels, but like most atheists these days he tends to reflexively go after the low-hanging fruit while ignoring the works of serious Christians.

The reason why many websites are keen to find the Christian equivalent of 9/11 Truthers or the next Westboro Baptist Church is because the mind that can be convinced early on that men and women of faith are all intellectually bankrupt kooks is the mind that is much more likely to avoid picking up books by C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and Hubert Van Zeller.

To an atheist, men like Mr. Zeller are terrifying. Picking almost any random page out of Mr. Zeller’s “Suffering: The Cross of Christ and Its Meaning For You,” gives insight as to why Christians — particularly intelligent Christians — come across as frightening to unbelievers:

“A man is discouraged either because he looks back at the past and sees a sequence of misfortunes that has shaped for him a mold of failure, or because he looks into the the future and can see no security, happiness, or prospects of success. His experience of life has given him these findings, so he feels, understandably, that life is insupportable.

But if he knew more of Christ, he would know that he had misinterpreted his experience, and that life is not at all insupportable. He would neither shy away from the thought of the past, nor stand dismayed by the thought of the future. The immediate present would not daunt him either: he would know that it could be related, together with the failures that have been and the horrors that are in store, to the Passion.

That is not to say that deliverance from disillusion, discouragement, and despair can be effected by a mere trick of the mind — the knack of referring our desolations  automatically to God — but that, in the gradual and painful conversion of the soul from self-centeredness to God-centeredness, there will be a growing tendency toward confidence. No longer brought low by the sight of so much evil in ourselves, in others, and in the world, we rise by the slow deepening of detachment to the sight of a possible good in ourselves, in others, and in the world. The vision extends to a probable good, and then to a certain good. Together with this widening horizon, which reveals the positive where before only the negative was expected, goes the knowledge that the only good is God’s good, and that it exists on earth — as those who receive the Word made flesh exist on earth — not of the will of man, but of God,” (57-58).

A man who believes in God is confident. He sees pain and suffering as a path to overcoming pain and suffering. There is nothing that the world can throw at him — nothing — that will deter him from steadily marching towards his objective. He finds strength in weakness. He is calm. He sees God everywhere and in everything — grace can come from even the most unexpected of places.

Put another way:

“The man of faith has reserves; he surrenders to nothing but the will of God. His desire is united to the desire that was in the mind of Christ when He fell on the road to Calvary. His failure is Christ’s failure; the waste of his talents is the waste of Christ’s. There is no question here of desperation, panic, self-pity, rebellion; no talk of accident or bad luck,” (25).

Put yourself in the shoes of an atheist Huffington Post editor, whose deepest desire is to have 400 million Americans dependent on an ever-expansive federal government. If you wanted the civilian population to dutifully bow to 535 bureaucratic overlords in Washington, D.C., would you want them watching Christian conspiracy theorists who see the devil in caffeinated beverages, or reading the works of men who believe “When I am weak, then I am strong”?

If you want to see just how powerful you really are, then I highly suggest reading “Suffering, The Cross of Christ and Its Meaning For You.” If you want to put yourself on a moral pedestal while denying the existence of God, then stick to The Huffington Post.

Judge Mark Martin: Founding Fathers wanted an Islamic Police State

What do you do when a judge tries to reinvent the First Amendment as an edict out of an Iranian mullah’s totalitarian handbook? You expose him. If you haven’t acted accordingly with Judge Mark Martin, do so today. If he’ll tie himself into logical knots to allow atheists to be choked out by inflamed Muslims, what would stop him from doing the same to you?

I normally don’t do much for Halloween, but I might have to reconsider and get dolled up as Zombie Mohammad in light of the recent Pennsylvania court case that determined we no longer have First Amendment rights. Here’s the abridged version: Ernie Perce, an atheist, marches in a parade as zombie Mohammad. An Islamic guy flips out and “allegedly” chokes him along the course (watch the video and decide for yourself). The cops get involved. The case is brought to court, and Judge Mark Martin, a Muslim convert, throws it out because the Founding Fathers apparently wanted an Islamic Police State. He states:

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’ …

And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.

Note to Judge (or was that Imam?) Martin: The Constitution doesn’t give us rights—it merely articulates the inalienable rights granted to us by The Creator. Disingenuous men like you wish our rights came from old pieces of paper so you could burn them and replace them with something else—perhaps Koranic verses that could never be burned, lest Afghan civilians—and eventually Americans—go bonkers and kill people?

Are we in the Twilight Zone? Is Judge Mark Martin taking hallucinogenic drugs, reading the Koran, and then driving into work each morning? The idea that the Founding Fathers were not in favor of “provoking” language is absurd. In fact, one could make the case that provoking totalitarian turds and their advocates at home and abroad is necessary and proper! I’d like to ironically say, “God bless atheist Ernie Perce for “provoking” Judge Mark Martin to show his true colors! Perce’s parade persuaded the enemies of liberty to show themselves, through their actions and words.

Here now, is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Got that, Judge? No one gets to implement Sharia Law in the United States. If an Army of Zombie Mohammed Atheists want to parade down the street they can do so, and have every right not to have their life or their liberty threatened by uncorked kooks. Citizens and judges who want to turn Pennsylvania into global skid marks like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran (and every other Islamic police state that executes its critics) need to be exposed for patriotic Americans to see.

What relevance did this judge’s lecture on Islamic culture have to do with the case? Nothing. Who cares if a guy walks down the street trashing someone else’s “essence”? What the heck does that even mean? If someone walked down the street with a sign that literally read: “I hate Douglas Ernst’s Essence and damn that bastard to hell,” would that give me the right to choke him out on the street? Of course not. We’re on a very dangerous path when the rule of law rests in the hands of judges like Mark Martin. The future is not bright when Pentagon officials are going to Virginia mosques to apologize for Koran burnings in Afghanistan (the same Korans taken from terrorists using them to scribble personal “Death to America” journal entries before getting shut eye).

Why are news organizations spiking this story in favor of the latest segment on Rick Santorum’s sweater vest collection? It’s a mad world.

Ricky Gervais Gives Liberal Hollywood the Ringmaster It Deserves: A Mean, Bitter Comedic Coward.

What's that smell, Ricky? It's the stench left behind by your stale jokes. PS: God didn't make you an atheist. You have free will. The same free will you exercise when you choose not to tell jokes that offend Muslims. And the same free will you use to choose to be a mean person.

Liberal Hollywood has demonstrated once again that there is only one sacred cow that can’t be skewered – Liberal Hollywood. Comedian Ricky Gervais, no doubt busy penning 2011’s Wall Street Journal Christmas-atheist op-ed, found time in his schedule to helm the Golden Globes.

It was the second straight year hosting for Gervais, who came off atypically tame at last year’s awards. He was anything but this year, with a blistering monologue that left a smoldering crater where the floor of the Beverly Hilton had been. He limbered up with some Charlie Sheen jokes—easy enough—then laid into dubious movie nominee The Tourist (stopping to apologize, “I haven’t even seen the Tourist! Who has?”) and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association itself. (The foreign press, he said, contrary to rumors did not nominate the film just to hang out with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp. “They also accepted bribes.”)

Gervais’ act included jabs at sexual orientation of certain Scientologists, exposing Hollywood’s version of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Actors who overcame drug addiction were fair game, which is odd considering the only other time Hollywood questions addiction is when it’s rooted in a conservative radio host’s chronic back pain.  Even Ashton Kutcher, fresh off his Krav Maga combat training for the apocalypse, wasn’t spared. Needless to say, the stars were not happy:

Toward the end of the Globe ceremony, presenters Tom Hanks and Tim Allen got in on the Gervais bashing.

“We can recall when Ricky Gervais was a slightly chubby and very kind comedian,” Hanks said.

“Neither of which he is now,” Allen added quickly.

Some of us remember a time when Tom Hanks was a funny comedian, too. Then he became America’s (liberal) Historian and he lost his sense of humor. In fact, it was replaced with the same kind of rhetoric liberal media outlets used to imply Sarah Palin was responsible for the actions of a madman!

TOM HANKS [posing as a producer while on MSNBC]: We can go back to the Italian FOX Network.

I want to show that again because I’ll add the translation. I think the problem with the Tea Party members is that right now, they’re not going to get along. We have to all be – I tell you right now, you know, you put that on the Internet like that, I’m going to kill you. That’s not the right story. You can’t do that to Ann Coulter. She’s a pretty woman.

I suppose Tom Hanks considers himself a “kind” comedian – the type that makes jokes about Tea Party members killing television producers. I’d tell Ricky to look over his shoulder, but we all know he only picks targets that won’t fire back. Tom Hanks will retire to his mansion and grumble until campaign season kicks off, and Christians around the globe are too busy to care because they’re busy running for their lives.(Gervias closed out the  Golden Globes with, “I’d like to thank God—for making me an atheist.”)

Hollywood and Ricky Gervais are perfect for one another, a symbiotic relationship of prickly narcissists who need an uber-narcissist like Gervais to shock them into rare moments of self-reflection.

What Ricky and Tom need a lesson in is God-given free will.  It’s the same free will that Gervais exercised as he made the conscious decision not to offend fatwa-issuing radical Muslims. It’s also what Tom Hanks used when he decided to make Tea Party murder jokes not so long ago.

If the outer limits of Gervais’s artistic courage only extends to distasteful Robert Downey Jr. rehab jokes, he’s not a genius. He’s just a mean. Likewise, if Liberal Hollywood’s empathy and outrage only extends to members of its inner circle, it’s fitting that Gervais should play ringmaster for them at the Golden Globes.

Galatians 6:7-8: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Barack Obama Wishes Sentient Water Molecule, Christopher Hitchens, a Happy Easter.

President Obama used his weekly radio address to wish all of us a Happy Easter. He even had a little message for our atheist friends:

“While we worship in different ways,” the president said, “we also remember the shared spirit of humanity that inhabits us all — Jews and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, believers and nonbelievers alike.”

While I don’t fault the President for reaching out to atheists—he is the President of all Americans—I wonder if non-believers would have put up a stink if he had not thrown them a bone (or if he had, and it happened to be a rib…) After all, I would think that

I'm Christopher Hitchens, sentient water the shower! That's insane!

someone who essentially believes everything cosmically fell into place so we, the sentient water-molecules of the universe, could exist for a brief moment in time before once again becoming part of the Big Wave, shouldn’t really get bent out of shape if they’re ignored. I mean, after all, when they’re gone they’re gone, right? That’s it. No coming back and no spirit left behind to worry about, correct? So why should they get angry? Well, they do. But at least it makes for great debate. Although, if you’re not up for a debates then I highly suggest reading Dinesh D’Souza’s fabulous book What’s So Great About Christianity this Easter (notice that’s not a question).

[Stephen Hawking states]: “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it even reached its present size. So the odds against us being here are, well, astronomical.” And yet we are here. Who is responsible for this? (What’s So Great About Christianity, 131.)

If you’re unsure, I suggest reading D’Souza’s book. And Christopher Hitchens, if you’re right, I’ll see you in the oceans…