March 19, 2012

None of the great mono-theistic religions are compatible with the NWO, so the NWO wants them to destroy each other.

Britannia Radio

From 7 billion
None of the great mono-theistic religions are compatible with the NWO, so the NWO wants them to destroy each other.
That is the purpose of promoting conflict between them.
After that, the NWO Religion based on Bioethics/Evolutionism can take Primacy
The most dangerous religious fundamentalists IMO are the militant atheists notably Richard Dawkins (residing in Oxford I believe).
The "Scientist" (Post-Normal of course) is the new "Priesthood" of the NWO. I mean that literally.
Here's the line of argument that is being used:
First they promote conflict so Judaism-Christianity-Islam will destroy each other. (they are doing a pretty good job aren't they?)
Then they argue that "religion per se" is the problem.
Types like Dawkins don't understand religion in the first place, and don't properly acknowledge their own religiosity.
Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival
The Conversation Continues

Sam Harris is one of the Grand Idiots of Science mentioned in link above:

Here's some of his proselytizing:

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

Sam Harris - The End of Faith (Part 1-8)

At Links Below, Briggs dissects Harris's claims

Did you know that "regions" of your brain light up when you think about Santa Claus or God? And that these "regions" are thought to be "associated" with various behaviors like excess emotion, schizophrenia, and other, gentler forms of nuttiness?

It's all true. Scientists regularly stick people's heads inside machines, ask the people to think of this or that, and then watch as the machines show "regions" of the brain glowing orange. The scientists then employ statistical methods guaranteed to generate over-confidence, but which allow the scientists to write papers which contain broad, even bracing, claims about all of humanity and of how everybody's brain functions.

This sort of thing is all the rage, so much so that hardly a week passes without new headlines about what secrets the Whitecoat Brigade have uncovered in the brain (this week: Study shows how scientists can now `read your mind').

It is therefore of great interest to us to examine this phenomena and see what it means. I have chosen one paper which I believe is representative of the worst excesses of the field. My goal is to show you that the conclusion, as stated by the authors, and one the authors believe they have proved, is actually far from proved, is in fact scarcely more likely to be true given the experiment than it was before the experiment, and that what was actually proved was how likely scientist's are to find in their data their own preconceptions.

Warning: I mean this critique to be exhaustive, at least in major theme, so while I run the risk of exhausting your patience, my excuse is that the length of this piece is necessary to do a full job (it will be spread across Parts, and not all on one day). I especially want to hear from those who support the paper's position, and who claim that the criticisms I advance are not as damning as I believe they are.

fMRIs and God

The paper is "The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief," published in PLoS One by Sam Harris and others in association with UCLA's Staglin Center for Cognitive Neuroscience.

Can fMRI Predict Who Believes In Santa Claus? Or God? Part II

Can fMRI Predict Who Believes In Santa Claus? Or God? Part III

Can fMRI Predict Who Believes In Santa Claus? Or God? Part IV

Can fMRI Predict Who Believes In Santa Claus? Or God? Part VI

WRAP UP: Can fMRI Predict Who Believes In Santa Claus? Or God? Part VII

Scanning Dead Salmon in fMRI Machine Highlights Risk of Red Herrings

Bluntly, I don't think Harris work is much more advanced than the sort of bias confirmation such as below from an earlier Darwinist:

T.H Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog )

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still [67] less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.
But whatever the position of stable equilibrium into which the laws of social gravitation may bring the negro, all responsibility for the result will henceforward lie between nature and him. The white man may wash his hands of it, and the Caucasian conscience be void of reproach for evermore. And this, if we look to the bottom of the matter, is the real justification for the abolition policy.
The doctrine of equal natural rights may be an illogical delusion; emancipation may convert the slave from a well-fed animal into a pauperised man; mankind may even have to do without cotton-shirts; but all these evils must be faced if the moral law, that no human being can arbitrarily dominate over another without grievous damage to his own nature, be, as many think, as readily demonstrable by experiment as any physical truth. If this be true, no slavery can [68] be abolished without a double emancipation, and the master will benefit by freedom more than the freed-man.

So why are fast breeding Muslims encouraged to emigrate to the West?
We had stabilised our own population levels from the 1960's onwards.
From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite
> >

Lets go through some stuff step by step

I BTW don't think this is the only evidence trail that can lead one to the appropriate conclusion,

just one that I find the most clear and easiest to follow.

Lets start here:

Churchill' Finest Hour Speech

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Julian Huxley 1941

Possibly it was Julian Huxley who best summed up the confidence with which so many British academics who lived during the first half of this century viewed the future, when he wrote (1941, p. 22):

Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of religion of the future, or whatever complex of sentiments may in future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range.

"Eugenics and Society" (The Galton Lecture given to the Eugenics Society), by Julian S. Huxley, Eugenics Review (vol 28:1)
Eugenics and Society* By Julian S. Huxley, M.A., D.Sc. The Future of Eugenics

Eugenics, Dean Inge writes in one of his essays, is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties. In this I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range

Ok.. are you with me so far ?

At the same time that Churchill rightly denounced The Germans/Nazi's, his own "perverted scientists" were extolling the same ideology that lead to the holocaust that we all should rightly abhor.
And saying the the "New World Religion" should be based on Eugenics.

Far from absorbing the lesson post WWII, The Eugenicists on the winning side were undeterred in further advancing their agenda. But they had a perception problem. They solved it by promoting the pretty near universal myth that Eugenics was some uniquely German issue, seemingly absolving themselves. Then they rebranded themselves as "environmentalists"

Julian Huxley was a lifelong believer in his ideology. some links below:


To better understand UNESCO, consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following:

"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture."

From its inception UNESCO has been openly hostile to American values, our Constitution, and our western culture. Why in the world should we send tax dollars to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans?
But there's more. Mr. Huxley goes on to state that perhaps eugenics, the so-called science of creating better people through genetic manipulation, is not so bad after all:

"Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years…politically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

This is the reality of UNESCO, the agency your tax dollars will once again fund. How much more hostility will the American people accept before we realize that the UN represents a very real threat to our freedom, our sovereignty, and our way of life?

Introduction to Eugenics

A Religion...
Galton's suggestion that eugenics should function as a religion was echoed by George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel and others. *4 A pungent assertion of the religious character of eugenics comes from Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of UNESCO and a member of the American Eugenics Society: "We must face the fact that now, in this year of grace, the great majority of human beings are substandard: they are undernourished, or ill, or condemned to a ceaseless struggle for bare existence; they are imprisoned in ignorance or superstition. " We must see to it that life is no longer a hell paved with unrealised opportunity. " In this light, the highest and most sacred duty of man is seen as the proper utilisation of the untapped resources of human beings."
Huxley continued, "I find myself inevitably driven to use the language of religion. For the fact is that all this does add up to something in the nature of a religion: perhaps one might call it Evolutionary Humanism. The word 'religion' is often used restrictively to mean belief in gods; but I am not using it in this sense ... I am using it in a broader sense, to denote an overall relation between man and his destiny, and one involving his deepest feelings, including his sense of what is sacred. In this broad sense, evolutionary humanism, it seems to me, is capable of becoming the germ of a new religion, not necessarily supplanting existing religions but supplementing them." *5
The Population Council, one of the new eugenics organisations that emerged after World War II, no longer spoke of eugenics as a religion, but launched "studies relating to the social, ethical and moral dimensions" of population studies, recognising that these questions involved matters "of a cultural, moral and spiritual nature." *6 The new field of bioethics is a response to issues raised by eugenics. *7 Bioethics is based on situation ethics, which was developed largely by Joseph Fletcher, a member of the American Eugenics Society. In 1973, Daniel Callahan, A prominent Catholic dissenter and a member of the American Eugenics Society, outlined the new field in the first issue of Hastings Center Studies. *8

'Evolutionary Studies' edited by M. Keynes and G. Ainsworth, Macmillan, pp 256, Pounds sterling 35

JULIAN HUXLEY was born in 1887 and he died in 1975. From the end of the First World War through to the early 1960s, he enjoyed a formidable reputation as an evolutionary biologist, a science writer and broadcaster, and as something of a political activist. His creed was humanism, while his medium was the Eugenics Society and, for a time, UNESCO.
With incredible energy, he helped to found the World Wildlife Fund, IUCN, the Ecological Society and the Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour. He received numerous awards and other honours for his services to science and to society. For example, he gained prizes for popularising science, for writing
English verse, and for contributions to planned parenthood, conservation and evolutionary biology

Note the Ideology of the Founder of the World Wildlife Fund, Ecological Society, And the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. These are not some warm fuzzy organizations as commonly perceived, but an extension of the anti-human ideology of the founders.

Julian Huxley
"The Coming New Religion of Humanism."


But though I believe that gods and God in any meaningful non-Pickwickian sense are destined to disappear, the stuff of divinity out of which they have grown and developed remains, and will provide much of the raw material from which any new religions will be fashioned. This religious raw material consists in those aspects of nature and elements in experience which are usually described as divine. The term divine did not originally imply the existence of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interpret man's experiences of this quality in phenomena.

The New Divinity
By Julian Huxley

I believe that an equally drastic reorganization of our pattern of religious thought is now becoming necessary, from a god-centered to an evolutionary-centered pattern
Today the god hypothesis has ceased to be scientifically tenable, has lost its explanatory value and is becoming an intellectual and moral burden to our thought. It no longer convinces or comforts, and its abandonment often brings a deep sence of relief. Many people assert that this abandonment of the god hypothesis means the abandonment of all religion and all moral sanctions. This is simply not true. But it does mean, once our relief at jettisoning an outdated piece of ideological furniture is over, that we must construct some thing to take its place.
Though gods and God in any meaningful sence seem destined to disappear, the stuff of divinity out of which they have grown and developed remains. This religious raw material consists of those aspects of nature and those experiences which are usually described as divine. Let me remind my readers that the term divine did not originally imply the existence of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interprete man's experiences of this quality.
Some events and some phenomena of outer nature transcend ordinary explanation and ordinary experience. They inspire awe and seem mysterious, explicable only in terms of something beyond or above ordinary nature.

Religion Without Revelation (Julian Huxley )

Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975)

He saw Humanism as a replacement 'religion', and as such represented an important strand in post-war humanist thought. In a speech given to a conference in 1965 he spoke of the need for "a religiously and socially effective system of humanism." And in his book Religion Without Revelation, he wrote:

"What the sciences discover about the natural world and about the origins, nature and destiny of man is the truth for religion. There is no other kind of valid knowledge. This natural knowledge, organized and applied to human fulfilment, is the basis of the new and permanent religion." The book ends with the concept of "transhumanism"– "man remaining man, but transcending himself by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature".

Crispin Tickell

Huxley family tree (partial)

Welcome to the website of Sir Crispin Tickell. This website has been created as an archive of his many writings - essays, book reviews, articles, lectures and speeches, on subjects ranging from climate change to global governance.
We are now delighted to have on this website the full text of Climatic Change and World Affairs, one of the first books to highlight the dangers of human-induced global climate change. The book was first published in 1977, and republished in a revised and extended second edition in 1986. Both editions are to our knowledge out-of-print.

Climatic Change & World Affairs

This website now contains the entire text of Climate Change and World Affairs, first published in 1977, revised 1986. This seminal book did much to arouse interest in the then little-known problem of 'global warming' in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Nigel Lawson: Global warming has turned into religion

Lawson was Chancellor when Crispin Tickell, then British Ambassador to the UN, convinced Prime Minister Thatcher that man-made global warming was a problem. Despite Tickell lacking any scientific background (he read history at university) Mrs Thatcher took the population campaigner's views seriously enough to make a landmark speech on global warming. This led to the foundation of a branch of the Met Office, the Hadley Centre at Exeter, to study the issue. It remains one of the three leading climate institutes.

Crispin Tickell (Belief)
Now you come from an Anglo-Irish family. Your great, great grandfather was T H Huxley - Aldous Huxley was in your background too. Now this is a legacy of seriously thoughtful, intellectual address, isn't it?
Well T H Huxley was in many respects one of my heroes. Aldous was as well. In fact I think if anybody had any influence on me during my adolescence, it was Aldous Huxley
Well while you were leading this high profile life, you were also already concerned with the planet, and your book 'Climatic Change and World Affairs' was published in 1977, and really was seminal in both I think perhaps shaping up everything you've done since, and also in shaping up the political responses to climate change both in Britain, Europe, America and the United Nations. So where did this book come from?

Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority

Aldous Huxley 1962 U.C. Berkeley Speech on "The Ultimate Revolution

Religion and the Environment
Lecture delivered to "The Earth our destiny" conference, Portsmouth Cathedral, 2002-11-30

Environment is the stuff of religion, and religion is the stuff of the environment. Their relationship once went without saying. Yet we live at a time when they are being prised apart
This may be enough for some people. It was not enough for T. H. Huxley's grandson Julian, who embarked on a search for religion without revelation, or E. O. Wilson who has since developed the concepts of scientific materialism and the evolutionary epic as substitutes for religion. Others have made similar efforts in the same direction. But none has reached anywhere near the human core. Some people may not believe in God, but most people want to believe in something.
The present collectivity of life on earth cannot be distinguished from the present collectivity of its physical surroundings. The animate and the inanimate shade into each other. This is the environment. As I have suggested, it was - and in some cases still is - the stuff of religion. But it has also been the stuff of science. James Hutton, the geologist, recognized it as long ago as 1785. T. H. Huxley did likewise in 1877. Almost a century later James Lovelock developed ideas on the same subject which, on the advice of the novelist William Golding, he called Gaia. In a paper written with Lynn Margulis in 1974, he wrote
"Gaia theory is about the evolution of a tightly coupled system whose constituents are the biota and their natural environment, which comprises the atmosphere, the oceans and the surface rocks".

Priests in lab coats

Philosopher Michael Ruse is an ardent evolutionist who thinks creationism is claptrap. So why is he accusing atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins of being as religious as born-again Bible thumpers?

How evolution became a religion Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics

"Dr Ruse," Mr. Gish said, "the trouble with you evolutionists is that you just don't play fair. You want to stop us religious people from teaching our views in schools. But you evolutionists are just as religious in your way. Christianity tells us where we came from, where we're going, and what we should do on the way. I defy you to show any difference with evolution. It tells you where you came from, where you are going, and what you should do on the way. You evolutionists have your God, and his name is Charles Darwin.
At the time I rather pooh-poohed what Mr. Gish said, but I found myself thinking about his words on the flight back home. And I have been thinking about them ever since. Indeed, they have guided much of my research for the past twenty years. Heretical though it may be to say this -- and many of my scientist friends would be only too happy to chain me to the stake and to light the faggots piled around -- I now think the Creationists like Mr.Gish are absolutely right in their complaint.
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

An interview with Michael Ruse

In the 20th century we have people like Julian Huxley and, today, Edward O. Wilson, who I would say treat evolution as a secular religion. Not just this—they were/are professional scientists—but at least in part they are secular humanists with evolution at the center of their theology. It gives a world picture, it gives moral directives, and so forth.
Then we have Christians like Dobzhansky and Teilhard de Chardin, for whom evolution is part and parcel of their Christianity—today we have someone like Jack Haught, the theologian at Georgetown University.
Dawkins is an interesting case. If being deeply interested in and committed to these various issues counts as religious—as well as having strong moral feelings (especially about the wickedness of existing religion)—then I would say he is religious. He reminds me a bit of Calvin. More than this, he clearly thinks that his Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity, so it does have theological implications. On the other hand, he does not want to tie in the course of nature with morality—as did Julian Huxley and as does Ed Wilson—so I would be hesitant to call him a secular humanist or whatever, as I would them.,content.true,css.print/bookshelf.aspx

Double-Dealing in Darwin

Are intellectuals allowing dogma in science but not in religion?
A "cowardly flabbiness of the intellect afflicts otherwise rational people" when it comes to confronting the faults of religion. Thus noted Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University zoologist and passionate advocate of evolutionary theory, berating the rest of us for failing to realize that not only can one be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist," but that the "universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Dawkins has spoken of a conversion experience when he realized the power of Darwinism. His conversion experience, his total devotion to Darwinism, his insistence that evolution answers all questions and other views of creation answer none, sounds an awful lot like ... a religion.
Such is certainly the suspicion of the noted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, who has labeled Dawkins and certain other current evolutionists "Darwinian Fundamentalists," likening the fanaticism of their cause to the Biblical literalists who opposed the teaching of evolution and who precipitated the Scopes' "monkey trial" in 1925. Of course, Gould has his own axes to grind, from his own Darwin-amending theory of "punctuated equilibria" -- evolution by leaps and bounds -- to his notion that science and religion occupy different domains and thus logically cannot come into conflict. But perhaps, for all that, he has a point.
The history of evolutionary thought shows that it has long been more than just a scientific hypothesis. For Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather, it was an upward march through the animal kingdom, leading to humankind: a progressive vision, endorsing and justifying the British success in the Industrial Revolution, and rivaling the then-prevalent Christian Providentialism. Far from needing God's grace, Erasmus Darwin believed, the forward arrow of evolution proved that humans can go it alone. It wasn't just that natural selection theory had to be proven; theology had to be disproven, too.
Similar views were held by "Darwin's bulldog," the late 19th century biologist and science-popularizer Thomas Huxley. Seeking a secular alternative to the Anglican establishment that he and others saw as opposing the social reforms required by mid-Victorian Britain, Huxley actively promoted evolution as the new religion for the new age. In a deliberate echo of Biblical language, he implored us to sit down before facts as a little child, and be guided by our senses. He was known in the contemporary press as "Pope Huxley."
Today, likewise, we see that evolutionism has its priests and devotees. Entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University tells us that the "evolutionary epic is mythology," depending on laws that are "believed but can never be definitively proved," taking us "backward through time to the beginning of the universe." Wilson knows that any good religion must have its moral dimension, and so he urges us to promote biodiversity, to amend our original sin of despoiling the earth. There is an apocalyptic ring to Wilson's writings, and in true dispensationalist style, he warns that there is but a short time before all collapses into an ecological Armageddon. Repent! The time is near!
Am I arguing that natural selection theory, and Darwinism specifically, is merely a secular answer to religion? Certainly not. Most of the work done by most evolutionary biologists most of the time is as stolidly scientific and as powerful as you could wish. Am I arguing that making a religion out of science is necessarily bad? Certainly not. If Wilson finds it spiritually helpful to think of his science as he does, and if this worldview leads him to campaign for the preservation of the rainforests, who could object to that?
I am saying that when I hear people with spiritual views accused by scientists of "cowardly flabbiness of the intellect," I suspect that there is more at stake than factual disagreement. In that context, when evangelicals complain that it is unfair if a secular religion (evolution) is allowed into classrooms but competing theological views are not, I start to feel sympathy. Not for creationism, which is pernicious nonsense, but for stacking the deck against religious thought, by allowing dogma in science but not in theology. If creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other.

Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival
The Conversation Continues

Criticism of Beyond Belief by RP Bird
It deeply annoys me when the Big Guns of science spout off about protecting science. Likethe rest of us have our thumbs up our asses? I'm one of the thousands of Kansans who wrote to the state board of education complaining about the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design. I'm always short of money, but I gave a little to SEA when they started up operations. I've written letters to my state representatives and my congressmen on the subject of science and keeping religious ideas out of science education.
So imagine my dismay when I read the NY Times account of the La Jolla meeting.
Remember just before the Iraq war, when Middle Eastern experts warned Bush and the rest of us that invading Iraq would be confirmation of the worst fantasies of the jihadist movement? Congratulations, you've just done for science what Bush did for the USA in the Middle East. I can already hear the Christian Right: "We told you, they're out to get us!"
Not only that, but you and others want to hurt the cause of science by adopting the methods of the Right? Are you nuts? If you adopt the methods of a religion, you make science into a religion.
Also, what's with this "loyalty oath" everyone at the conference had to spout before being heard? No one will listen to them unless they declare the aren't religious? Isn't that what the Christian Right does?
You of all people should know that the best defense of science is to do science and teach what you have learned. The crap at La Jolla only alienates your allies and gives aid to your enemies.
Lastly, please inform Steven Weinberg that he should read a history book. Religion has been the source of great suffering in world history, but the three greatest killers of all time were atheists. Please recall that Mao was never a Catholic, Stalin rejected the priesthood, and Hitler had not one religious bone in his body. Their combined body count is toward the top, around 40 to 70 million people. That beats the Inquisition by a mile.
You can look up my essay on this subject under rpbird on A copy is appended to the end of this email. Congratulations, you are now a member of an organization I just invented, called The Grand Idiots of Science.

DailyKos Essay: Weinberg, Dawkins, Tyson, Porco, Sloan, and Harris – Idiots of
Science on Parade
This is about the idiocy and the idiots at the La Jolla meeting, "Beyond Belief: Science,
Religion, Reason and Survival." The idiots of science were in attendance: Steven Weinberg, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carolyn Porco, Richard P. Sloan, and Sam Harris. I thought some of them were intelligent, until now.
Science is the best hammer in humanity's toolkit. It is the most useful tool we have.
Because a few religious extremists have irritated the grand idiots of science, they propose to set up science as a religion. This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. It's like a guy who has mice in his house. Instead of setting a few traps for them, he blows up the house.
We're going to ruin the best tool humanity has because a few religious fundamentalists got up our noses? Even I can see that there are thousands of religions and only one science.You screw up science, you screw it up for good. Leave science alone. Science sees the universe as it really is. That's important.
We may be too late to save it. The idiots of science have already established a loyalty oath. It was working at the conference. For anyone to be heard, they had to preface every remark with "I don't have a flicker of religious faith," or "I'm not a religious person." This is the flip side to the religious right, not rationality.
I am a progressive. Progressivism is the union of rationality and morality, applied to politics. My progressive nature is repelled by the likes of Dawkins, Weinberg, Porco, Sloan, and Harris - just as I am repelled by Pat Robertson. There is the assumption in the comments by Dawkins and his buddies that they are morally better than the religious right because they are scientists. Oh, really? Many of the Nazi scientists working in the death camps thought the same. Some of them did real science, with demonstrable results. They had to drown and freeze to death hundreds of men to get their results. Science is a tool. A hammer can build a house for poor people to live in, or it can be used to club them to death. There is no morality in the universe. Does the giant black hole at the heart of our galaxy hesitate before eating a planet full of life? There is no morality in nature. Does the owl justify the death of a mouse? Evolution is not powered by right and wrong. The only place you'll find morality is in the human brain. I believe in hell, but hell is only for us.
There are many popes and ministers and religious people in hell right now. We are warned that many who think they will go to heaven will burn, and many who are judged by others to be bound for hell will enter heaven. There are atheists in heaven. It must drive them nuts as they sit on the right hand of the Father. To quote from a recent movie: "Your actions echo in eternity." Actions speak louder than words. Actions speak louder than faith. Religious faith does not protect against error. Belief in science does not protect against error. I believe there are many scientists who are in heaven, and a few cooking in hell.
To adopt the tools of religion is to become a religion. By the way, hasn't this already been tried? Didn't it lead to the monstrous error of "the Great Chain of Being"? Didn't it lead to the oppression of black people and others because it was "demonstrably true" that white people were superior? Before every truth we have from science, there was a mistake that had to be proven wrong. Science can correct itself because it isn't a religion. The DNA of black people and white people is almost identical. There is no genetic predisposition of one race above another. If inner city kids could get out of poverty by studying math, we'd be asking ourselves why black people have a predisposition for excellence in mathematics.
For most of us trapped in the human condition, in a world and a universe at most indifferent to our existence, we crave a connection to something larger than ourselves.
Science as it exists now is a tool. It cannot give us that connection. For that we seek out religion. There is a choice for everyone. Can I be a Taoist? Can I be a Christian? Can I be a Dervish? Can I be a Buddhist? Religion is not a tool, it is not a way to know the universe. It is a way to know ourselves, to order our lives with morality and faith. The religious right is in error if they think their beliefs inform them about the physical universe. The grand idiots of science are in error if they think they can turn a beautiful tool for viewing the universe into a way into the human soul. Both corrupt what they love by trying to turn it into something it cannot be.
Please note the names of the idiots of science. If you run into them on the street, be sure to explain how their attempt to "save" science could destroy science.

Richard Dawkins Renounces Darwinism As Religion

Atheist evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins spoke to a packed auditorium at Manhattan's Ethical Culture Society Saturday night about his best-selling book, The God Delusion , admitting in a Q&A that followed being "guilty" of viewing Darwinism as a kind of religion and vowing to "reform" (no one was allowed to tape Dawkins' confession, however, with organizers of the event threatening to march offenders around the corner to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).

The UN Quietly Wages War on Religion

Calgarian Hermina Dykxhoorn, president of the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, has seen the UN executive at work. Over the last decade, she has been a pro-family lobbyist at UN conferences in Beijing, Istanbul, Rome and other venues.

"At the 1996 Istanbul Conference, the director general of the World Health Organization (then Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima) told a press conference that `the three great monotheistic religions are not compatible with the New World Order'," Dykxhoorn, a Christian Reformed Protestant, recalled. "I heard him say it. And when you're a member of one of those monotheistic religions, it's rather chilling."

But the UN Secretariat isn't opposed to all religion, she said. "They don't mind Hindus and Buddhists, because they've got more flexible moral codes. And they love the Bahai's because Bahai's are big on world government. But they don't like Orthodox Judaism, Christianity or Islam—any religion with an absolute moral code is an obstacle to them."

UN executives appear to be particularly tolerant of "Gaia" or "earth religion," ancient paganism in a new guise. Dykxhoorn has seen Gaia religion material distributed in UN offices, and spokesmen for the London- based Gaia Foundation hold their press conferences in normally off-limits UN press rooms. "Gaia is the ancient Greek name for the Earth Goddess," says the Gaia Foundation's Web site. "This Goddess, in common with female deities of other early religions, was at once gentle, feminine and nurturing, but also ruthlessly cruel to any that failed to live in harmony with the planet."

Dykxhoorn said, "They're against the three great mono-theisms, because those religions stress the sanctity of life and the sanctity of the family."

The great monotheisms believe they have received nature—particularly human nature—from a personal God outside creation, who has set rules within which they must work out their salvation.

Note that NONE of the three great mono-theistic religions are compatible with the NWO.
The reason is simple. In the Judeo-Christian tradition the big obstacle is that commandment about "not killin"

You won't find any prohibition like that in the Earth Charter which is intended to be the New World Religion. Earth Charter is based on so called Bio-Ethics

Rebutting Rockefeller

Steven Rockefeller was chairman of the Earth Charter International Drafting Committee. He is also a professor emeritus of religion at Middlebury College in Vermont and chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Rockefeller: "The Earth Charter is the product of a worldwide, cross-cultural, interfaith dialogue on common goals and shared values that has been conducted as a civil society initiative."

Response: The global campaign for the Charter is not a grass-roots, bottom-up effort, but a closely controlled, top-down operation masquerading as "dialogue." The Charter was cobbled together under the leadership of Dr. Rockefeller, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev (representing Green Cross International), Earth Summit I Secretary-General Maurice Strong (representing the Earth Council), and representatives from the government of the Netherlands.
Maurice Strong opened Earth Summit I with a "Declaration of the Sacred Earth," accompanied by "indigenous" animist Earth worship ceremonies â€" standard practice at UN convocations. The Charter says protecting Earth is our "sacred trust."

Dr. Rockefeller is a leading advocate of the radical "biocentrism," under which, he says, "the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and ecosystems" against "human oppression." Biocentrists believe that humans are no more important than other life forms or natural objects. Of course, rocks, trees, and ecosystems speak in words only understood by enlightened souls like Rockefeller and company, who have assigned themselves the noble task of defending these "rights of nature."

The New World Religion
by William F. Jasper
Presented to the world as a mystical revelation, the UN Earth Charter is actually a diabolical blueprint for global government.
My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a "Sermon on the Mount," that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond.

Maurice Strong on "A People's Earth Charter"
Maurice Strong
Chairman of the Earth Council and Co-Chair of the Earth Charter Commission
March 5, 1998

But, let us be very clear, the UN action is not going to be the only goal. The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and the commitments of people everywhere. And, that is where the political influence, where the long-term results of the Earth Charter will really come

So why are fast breeding Muslims encouraged to emigrate to the West?

> We had stabilised our own population levels from the 1960's onwards.

No comments: