www.robert-j-firth.com London. New York, Gibraltar, Miami, USA Caribex Books REAL WAR A division of Robert-j-Firth.com 9173 Old Pine Road, Boca Raton, Fl, USA

References to historical events and real people or places are used fictitiously. Resemblance to actual events or persons living and dead are entirely coincidental. Copyright © 2014 by Robert J. Firth. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. For information, address Caribex books Subsidiary Rights Department 1973 Old Pine Road, Boca Raton Fl, USA 33428. Caribex Books/ Robert-j-firth.com paperback edition October 2014 Caribex Books/ Robert-j-firth.com are trademarks™ Caribex Books/ Robert-j-firth Speakers Bureau can bring the author to your live event. Contact us at; http://www.robert-j-firth.com/connect.htm or call us at 561 852 3989 Interior and cover/ jacket design by: Alyona; www.alyonas-world.com Manufactured in the United States of America ISBN 078-1-936634-10-1

Chapter 1 Pt 2

Extending human life expectancy is not a new story.

When our genes were Created, a mere few thousand years ago, it was not particularly in the interests of the human species to live past a child-rearing age as resources such as food were always in short supply. Human life expectancy years in the dark ages was about 37. Today it is now pushing 80, and we have been adding about three months each year for the past several decades. This is due mostly to advances in medical procedures and pharmacology and does not address the bodies overall aging process. The science of life extension is about to go into high gear. Until recently, health and medicine was a hit or miss affair. We would discover interventions such as beneficial drugs, but many also had undesirable side effects. We did not have the means to design truly life-prolonging interventions on the cellular level. But that is changing. The breakthrough in stem-cell biology, recently reported, offers just one example of the progress. With the completion of the human genome project in 2003 and the advent of techniques such as RNA interference, which can turn off the genes that promote disease and ageing, medicine, has transformed itself into an ‘information technology.’ It is now subject to what I call the “law of accelerating returns” – a doubling of capability (for the same cost) each year. For example, the amount of genetic data collected has doubled every year since 1990, and the cost has come down from $10 per base pair to a fraction of a penny. As a result, technologies to literally reprogram human “software” (ie the genes) that underlie human biology, will , in future years, be a thousand times more powerful than they are today and a million times more powerful two decades later. According to models, we will be adding more than a year every year to our remaining life expectancy in only 15 years from now. That will be a tipping point in life extension. Rather than the sands of time running out with passing time, they will be ATHEISTS 11 running in. The further out in time we go, the more advances we will be able to take advantage of. Within a couple of decades, we will all have “nanobots” in our blood stream, (basically small robots the size of blood cells), that will keep us healthy on the cellular and molecular level. There are already dozens of successful experiments with a first generation of such devices in animals. One scientist cured type I diabetes in rats with a blood cell-sized device. Scientists at MIT have microscopic devices that can scout out cancer cells in the bloodstream and destroy them. These devices will be a billion times more powerful than they are today in 25 years, and will continue the accelerating path to radical life extension. The prospect of dramatically reducing human morality troubles some observers, as they worry about issues such as overpopulation and depletion of natural resources. Indeed, if we considered a world that had radical life extension but no other changes, it would surely lead to unsustainable stresses. But, these same technologies will dramatically change the resource equation as well. In a world where humans live several hundred or more years, many things will have to change. Those seeking the true meaning of life will have to do a lot more thinking and indeed, they will have a great deal more time to allot to this worthy pursuit. One major change will have to be the churches argument of holding out the promise of everlasting life -‘if only you will only repent, live the good life (as we tell you) and, by the by, drop a few coins in the ole collection plate.’ This argument will fall on deaf ears along with many other once persuasive ecclesiastical admonishments. When such a treatment becomes available, the role of the church will most certainly and necessarily change. Perhaps, it will sustain and find itself relative by providing spiritual ATHEISTS 12 guidance, which without a doubt, anyone living 400 + years is going to really need. I suggest that you give the moral consequences of a 400 year human life span considerable thought. For example, who would be injected with these remarkable, miraculous ‘doctorbots?’ Would it be only those who could pay $100,000.00 for the privilege? Would they have to undergo a rigorous selection process to determine that they were indeed worthy in addition to having the money? Would we (as the administrators) want to carefully educate the candidates for life extension to be sure they understood the consequences? Would we want to include some kind of sterilization component in those selected? We already know that the wealthier one is the fewer children one is likely to want or have. If one lived almost forever, why on earth would one even want or need children? Would the candidates be able to live in proximity with others who are all gong to die in a few short years? Perhaps the long lived humans would have to live separate lives someplace where “normal humans would not be found? Should the treatment just be made available to all? Whether we think such a ‘doctorbot’ is a good thing for humanity or not, it‘s coming! Science in that respect is unstoppable. (Remember the last time humans tried to play God with the genome, it ended with Noah’s Flood, Ed). I don’t think any of us wanted the nuclear bomb but, there you are…

As the Chinese say, may you live in interesting times! Some people (the majority, in fact, who are simply too dimwitted to be bothered) answer that there is no point in even trying to find the true meaning of life because the question is ‘just too deep.’ This viewpoint holds that humankind will never be able to discover the answer(s), so the question itself becomes meaningless. Other sad folk deem the question of what life’s true purpose is as meaningless because they view ATHEISTS 13 life as an only existence with no deep meaning attached to it.

Of course, it has to be mentioned, that probably way more then half the world’s population lead such shockingly barren lives that their driving mental processes are directed solely toward finding enough food to sustain life. These billions, like birds, spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week seeking sustenance. They, except for the need to procreate, have never, ever, had any other kind of thoughts. Until one visits Africa, India and other hugely overpopulated places teeming with billions of human scavengers, one can have no real appreciation for the above. The appalling conditions are simply impossible to imagine! The logical positivist view of philosophy, also called ‘logical empiricism,’ involves both empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism holds that knowledge can be gained through observational evidence. Rationalism stresses that empiricism alone is not enough to provide complete knowledge, so verification is needed. The logical positivist approach to the verification of something considered to be meaningful is that something must be able to be logically or cognitively determined to be true. Since the logical positivist verifiability criterion cannot prove the answer to the question what is the true meaning of life, the positivists tend to view that question as meaningless. Of course, they also can not (and won’t even try) to answer the timeless human questions of -what happens after death or, indeed, if God exists? This view has been criticized by philosophers such as Sir Karl Popper, (1902–1994) an Austro-British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics who is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Karl thought falsifying criterion should be used to test true statements rather than relying on verifiability criterion alone. ATHEISTS 14 Karl obviously needed a few aspirin after trying to think this through! “There is no meaning to why we are here.” Of course, who else could say this but our old friend Friedrich Nietzsche? His view was that nihilism voids human existence of having meaning. Nihilism is named for the word ‘nihil,’ which is Latin for ‘nothing.’ Nietzsche considered Christianity’s concern with the afterlife stronger than its occupation with life on Earth, so (ergo) (therefore) he considered the meaning of life empty. The French philosopher and scientist Rene Descartes, asserted that life may not even be real, but rather may only be a dream. (Good grief, wake me up when it’s over!) Rene questions even he reality of our physical bodies. Some people hold the view that the true meaning of why humankind is here is the result of either accident or coincidence. Descartes came up with an eloquent semantic proof (a syllogism, if you will) for the existence of himself and therefore of God. He simply said, “Cogito ergo sum.” Meaning, I am, therefore he must be! Even just a few of the many answers to the questions about the true meaning of human existence can get us thinking up even more interesting questions. For example, we can think of how our answers might change depending on our current view of destiny. Is it our destiny to simply die and be put into a stinking hole to feed the worms? Is life predestined when we are born and do we let it happen somehow? Or, (my preference, of course,) do we in fact choose our destiny (choosing to follow Christ Ed)and grow from our experiences? By the way, listen carefully now, one way, maybe the best and only way, to grow in our search for meaning is to be open to the perspectives and viewpoints of others. Such thinking can only bring us all closer together. Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the dim view that theism is somehow too dangerous, destructive ATHEISTS 15 and incomprehensible. One example of this is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian in which the late and brilliant Christopher Hitchens wrote: “I’m not even an atheist so much as I am an anti-theist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.” Of course, a few months ago, Chris died and found out the truth. I wonder what he would have said to all of us, were that indeed possible, if he learned that he was, in fact, wrong and that after all God did indeed exist?

The Chambers Dictionary defines anti-theism in three different ways: “doctrine antagonistic to theism; ‘denial’ of the existence of a God; opposition to God.” To be clear, “opposition to God” is not in most meanings a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes that being in the manner of maltheism. For various reasons, he adopts the position that it would be bad/immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens’ usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in a deity, but also opposition to God’s existence. The second is synonymous with strong atheism. The third and first, on the other hand, need not be atheistic at all. I will say here that Hitchens, if nothing else, had the fortitude to state his convictions for all to hear. For many of us, that simply is an imprudent thing to do, even if we do question at times God’s existence or his ability to effect the lives of humankind. What if he does exist? We all only will know this for sure after we die, when, of course, if we lived our lives as atheists, it’s a little too late. Or is it? Would God forgive the life-long atheist? Would he look at him and say, “look here old fellow, I know its difficult to believe in me but, there you are, some have the brains to see me and some don’t. I won’t hold it against you for being a stupid idiot, come on in and sit by the fire and tell me what you ATHEISTS 16 think now!” Well, of course, I don’t have that answer and neither do you – Christ does – Earlier definitions of antitheism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is “an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God,” and that of Robert Flint (1877), a Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh. Flint’s Baird Lecture for 1877 was entitled Anti-Theistic Theories. He used it as a very general umbrella term for all opposition to his own form of theism, which he defined as the “belief that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created.” He wrote: “In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Antitheism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism.” But, short of atheism, there are anti-theistic theories. Poly-theism is not atheism for it does not deny that there is a Deity; but, it is anti-theistic since it denies that there is only one. Pantheism is not atheism, for it admits that there is a God; but, it is anti-theism for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possession of such attributes as wisdom, holiness and love. Every theory which refuses to ascribe to God an attribute which is essential to a worthy conception of ‘His’ character is anti-theistic. Only those theories which refuse to acknowledge that there is any evidence even for the existence of a God are atheistic.ATHEISTS 17 However, Flint also acknowledges that anti-theism is typically understood differently from how he defines it. In particular, he notes that the word has been used as a sub-category of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven, rather than as the more general term that Flint prefers. He rejects nontheistic as an alternative, “not merely because of its hybrid origin and character, but also because it is far too comprehensive. Theories of physical and mental science are non-theistic, even when in no degree, directly or indirectly, antagonistic to theism.” Opposition to God is frequently referred to as dystheism (which means “belief in a deity that is not benevolent”) or misotheism (strictly speaking, this means “hatred of God”). Examples of belief systems founded on the principle of opposition to God include Satanism and maltheism. It’s our opinion that those who subscribe in a serious way to these convoluted and manifestly evil beliefs are, if God exists, plainly and simply put doomed! Another use of the term antitheism was coined by Christopher New in a thought experiment published in 1993. In this article, he imagines what arguments for the existence of an evil God would look like: “Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the Supreme Being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil. Of course, the devil himself well fits the characteristics of the perfectly evil god. In fact, many believe that it (He) was the fallen angel, precursor to all evil (the devil himself) cast by God from Heaven to make his kingdom on earth, who whispered into Mohammed’s ear out in the barren desert. One must admit, that over the last 1500 years, despite the most devout protestations of its billion ardent believers, all Islam has ATHEISTS 18 managed to create (deliver) is a most perfect ‘hell on earth.’ Interesting? There is an un-original and growing number of self-appointed ‘nerds’ who believe that Atheist views are, all at once, something novel, interesting and, most importantly, based on the less scientific sciences such as Climatology and Astronomy. These self-admitted fools seemingly fail to grasp that their science is not really a counterpoint to a discussion of a God or relevant to any serious criticism of religion. Furthermore, they envision everyone standing across from them as slack-jawed Jesus freaks, back-woods, bible-thumping, stump-jumping, jackasses, playing fiddles, banjos and snakes while talking in tongues. If this were, in fact, the case, I’d not be writing this book, would I? These pathetic idiots are often encouraged in their demented and limited views by someone who has an advanced degree of some kind using their “unassailable” and “oh so perfect” logic based on what, the scientific method? Christopher Hitchens anti-theism aside, he only could offer just his opinion. No matter how learned and how intelligent one is, and Chris was both, no one on this earth can say with any authority that God does or does not exist. The belief system of the committed ant-theist is, if indeed, they are capable of more then ‘superficial inquiry, which most are not, based on their perception of and mis-understanding of man’s law and the sciences coalesced within a rather unspectacular mind, which can be successfully likened to the inside of a vacuum cleaner bag…a vast desert of dust particles blocking their vision, such that these sad empty souls will not and indeed, cannot see the marvelous wonders of life and the universe. How infinitely sad! Most, in fact deny even that they have a soul, which of course, is the beginning of any serious inquiry into the realm of faith, humanity and comprehension.ATHEISTS 19 Let us pause for a moment and go back to the “self appointed nerd” part. Since the word ‘nerd’ is now ‘cool,’ you can’t really call yourself one without appearing like one needing a group name to identify with. And, why are you a nerd? Because you play video games, write Python, watch (maybe even read) science fiction and fantasy movies and subscribe to pathetic and empty beliefs held in consensus by your peers? Good grief, how vacuous! Many individuals professing no belief in God are and can be perceived as ‘tedious.’ The first time I met a group of them I had been invited to an “occupy” party. They were indeed weird. Besides being atheists, what are your other hobbies, beating up old people, breaking windows and telling 5 year olds that Santa Claus is a bullshit story? You’re one brave warrior. Of course, few of them have jobs and most live with their parents. All were playing with their I pads and I phones all night. All were “twitter” fanatics and all seem overtly nervous, hyper and unsettled- actually unhappy lost souls. None of them had ever attended Sunday school or church and none had ever read the bible. None had any conception of what the church taught so, in denying God, they actually had no idea what the hell they were talking about. Further, their collective beliefs, verbal traditions (arguments and terms) sound a lot like some kind of religion– which presumably forms the ironic raison d’être for their opposition to a belief in our Creator. “I’m an atheist” is their “Allah Akbar.” We all need traditions and rituals to keep us feeling like there’s some continuity and safety in things. However, coming from a group that seems to hate this kind of group-think it’s a little confusing. Like most movements of this type, agnosticism and atheism ironically follow an identifiable Judeo-Christian ATHEISTS 20 format: They utter phrases like “things used to be better until ‘these people’ came along. Now we must work collectively to spread the word and get back to this purer time. All these religious fanatics are ruining everything. This is similar to what the communists taught in their most determined nihilistic destruction of the Russian social order, claiming that until they had destroyed everything, nothing new or better was possible. This kind of talk is exactly what the pathetic and empty “BLM and Antifa movement” is all about! Ultimately, my biggest problem is with the above, like professional faggots and blacks, making it their life’s work to proselytize their bizarre, naive and empty beliefs and practices. One more important thing to note is that Atheists, for some reason, don’t seem too interested in pointing out that extremist Muslims do a lot of bad shit without much reproach from the moderate members of their religion. (if indeed there any) In fact, they rarely mention Islam at all. There’s plenty of reason for the animosity and outright hostility between the atheist and religious communities. In the early days, before legal secularization became rampant in America, many well educated and prescient theists were sincerely confused about why atheists would be upset or angry at ‘believers’ in a modern society. They disliked the way atheists were and are dismissive towards religious beliefs and see this “intolerant” and “disrespectful,” Many in the religious groups are, of course, equally dismissive towards atheists. Dismissing religious beliefs is surely a form of intolerance but dismissing and being bigoted towards the secular community doesn’t help bring the two groups together. Of course, some professional atheists do attack Christianity at every opportunity, even sicing the ACLU, Crazed lib media, SPLC, BLM and Antifa on them for the ‘crime’ of wearing a cross on public property. ATHEISTS 21 Wesley Pruden, an editor and chief for The Washington Times, writes in an editorial for the newspaper: The jobs don’t pay a lot, and you take most of your pay in self-esteem, but somebody is always trying out for village idiot or village atheist. Often they’re one and the same. So, is Wesley Pruden attempting to demonstrate his superiority over atheists by insisting that the “village atheist” and “village idiot” are “often” the same person? Probably! If Pruden were to say that the “village thief” and “village black person” were “often” the same person, do you suppose this would be treated as an expression of racist beliefs? Atheists are organizing. They have their registered lobbyist now on Capitol Hill, (not Madalyn Murray O’Hair, she’s thankfully dead, but they would have liked to her) and they plan revival meetings (parties) all the time. That should be a fun party! Maybe Ralph (kill the kid) Northam will attend? The atheists reckon they don’t have much time. Prof. Dawkins, who isn’t sure whether God exists or not, stopped calling himself an atheist and now labels himself as an ‘official agnostic.’ Dawkins warns that America, with its law, literature and customs rooted in Judeo-Christian religion, may be slipping into nothing less than a new religious ‘Dark Age where guys like Torquemada (with his palace of pain) may set up a new inquisition to weed out the unbelievers and heretics.

To be continued.

AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK FOR SALE

Thank you Robert!

Gibber! Gibber!

Chugley