Friday, June 6, 2025
The Tide Has Finally Turned Against Scientific Atheism
On a recent podcast episode, Joe Rogan and his guest Cody Tucker found themselves in a discussion that was clearly skeptical of the atheistic consensus among prominent thinkers of the past few generations.
That atheistic consensus generally states that the following is true. There was obviously once a Great Nothingness that suddenly became our universe and the existence of everything within it -- and all of this happened for no reason whatsoever.
Rogan asks a question that every person has likely asked themselves countless times, “wouldn’t it be crazy if there wasn’t something at some point in time? That seems even crazier than [to think] there has always been something.”
He's not wrong.
To believe that nothing suddenly became everything for no reason whatsoever is an act of pure faith based upon no observable data. What’s more, the proclamation itself an act of heresy for scientific atheists.
The First Law of Thermodynamics insists that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And yet, the idea that energy was once created from nothing is presumed by the scientific consensus to have occurred with a singular event called The Big Bang.
Simply put, this is the description of a miracle. Not only should it have not happened, but it scientifically cannot have happened at all. And yet the belief that this one event occurred is the foundation of countless atheists’ faith.
Far from being disinterested in what you think about all of this, revered intellectuals and atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris insist that the world must agree with them. It is not enough that they believe that the miracle occurred, and that it occurred for no reason at all. They need you to alsobelieve it.
And they’ve had incredible advantages in their mission to convert the masses toward their faith. As the government increasingly monopolized classrooms across the Western world over the past century, religious explanations for the universe’s existence became forbidden in formative education and replaced with the forced consumption of scientific atheism’s answers to the great question about existence.
Given these advantages, one might forgive them for thinking that the trajectory toward atheism of the past century would never reverse, and that the consensus would never be challenged. But there stands Joe Rogan, openly mocking the religion of scientific atheism while proclaiming that the Resurrection of Christ is a far more plausible suggestion. Rogan says:
It’s funny, because people would be incredulous about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but yet they’re convinced that the entire universe was smaller than the head of a pin, and for no reason that anybody has adequately explained to me [that makes sense], instantaneously became [blast sound] everything? Mm-kay. I’m sticking with Jesus on that one.
What Rogan expresses here is less an expression of belief in Christianity than it is an expression of doubt about the foundational belief of scientific atheists.
As David Berlinski writes in his excellent 2009 book, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions: “Curiously enough, while Western science is saturated in faith, Western scientists remain incapable of seeing that faith itself, whether religious or scientific, is inherently vulnerable to doubt.”
Richard Dawkins has openly mocked Christians by suggesting that the idea of God is as plausible as a “flying spaghetti monster.” What he likely never considered is that the notion that nothing became everything for no reason whatsoever is, at the very least, equally unplausible.
Academia, of course, has its own clergy which serves as a shield to protect the consensus belief that the universe exists for no reason whatsoever from any intellectual doubts or scrutiny. But the clergy of academia doesn’t shape the culture, however much they might wish that they did.
Joe Rogan is not a pioneer in mocking the scientific atheists’ intellectual house of cards. The first moment I can remember for this cultural shift against the pretentions of atheists like Richard Dawkins points to Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park.
In an interview with Jake Tapper that is very hard to find, but linked here, both creators express a belief in God.
Trey Parker, who identifies as the more religious of the duo, expresses his doubts about Christianity. But “out of all the ridiculous religion stories,” he says the silliest is the scientific consensus that “yeah, there’s this big giant universe and it’s expanding, and it’s all gonna collapse on itself, and we’re all just here, just ‘cause. Just ‘cause. That to me is the most ridiculous explanation ever.”
As Matt Stone later relates in a separate interview, their resistance to the central beliefs of atheism prompted Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame, who is an avowed atheist) to write an email to them expressing shock that they weren’t firmly on the atheists’ team. So, as is their custom, they produced a two-part show called “Go, God, Go!” to mercilessly mock militant atheists and their many ridiculous claims, and to thoroughly skewer Richard Dawkins, who Matt Stone calls the “smartest dumbest person in the world.”
For example, as physicist Steven Weinberg argued in 2007, “with or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
This is a central conviction of the scientific atheists’ faith that “Go, God, Go!” tackles head-on. The episode is a Buck Rogers parody set in the year 2546, and a world in which everyone is an atheist and “dedicated to rationality and science.” But this world without religion is anything but a peaceful Utopia – it is, more realistically, comprised of three denominations of atheism, each at war with the others over their belief in insufficient answers to “the great question.”
Realistically, this would be the only logical possibility. For what makes humanity good, after all? Dawkins seems to even recognize this problem, saying that perhaps he is “a Pollyanna to believe that people will remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God.”
In his book, David Berlinski relates a story about a Hasidic Jew who had dug his own grave, and afterward told his Nazi executioners that “God is watching what you are doing.” Berlinski continues:
What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe… was that God was watching what they were doing.
And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either.
That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.
For his part, Richard Dawkins seems to have come around to the truth in that observation. He recently proclaimed that he is a “cultural Christian.” He says that he “feels at home in the Christian ethos,” and that replacing Christianity with “any alternative religion” would be “truly dreadful.”
Even though he doesn’t believe that God is observing or policing him, he clearly recognizes the cultural value of others believing that they are being observed and policed by God.
It is a very good thing, therefore, that the presumed superiority of atheists’ beliefs is increasingly the subject of ridicule by the paragons of culture like Joe Rogan. And we have intellectuals like David Berlinski and cultural icons like Matt Stone and Trey Parker to thank, as they have been setting off explosives in the foundations of scientific atheism for decades.
And though it may surprise many to hear, Christianity appears to be making a huge comeback in America, with young people leading this trend. Though I would have never imagined typing the following words just a few years ago – even Richard Dawkins might also agree that this is a very good thing.
The Hour Was Now: Eisenhower, the Supreme Gamble, and the Note in His Pocket
“If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.” — General Dwight D. Eisenhower, undelivered statement, June 5, 1944
The message was never broadcast. Never printed. Never heard. And yet it remains one of the most remarkable documents of World War II—a plain slip of paper, scribbled in pencil, misdated “July 5,” and folded into a shirt pocket by a man shouldering the weight of freedom’s gamble.
Had D-Day failed—had the beaches been bloodbaths without a breakthrough—General Dwight D. Eisenhower was prepared to take full responsibility.
Not with a press conference or a military tribunal. But with a handwritten note accepting all blame. Not naming subordinates. Not mentioning the enemy. Not even attempting an explanation.
He wrote, “The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.”
That was the kind of man Eisenhower was.
Born in Texas, raised in Abilene, Kansas, with a manner as unassuming as the plains that shaped him, Eisenhower was not the most obvious military commander in an age of brash tacticians and battlefield showmen. His pre-war career, by many accounts, was unremarkable.
He had never commanded troops in battle. He spent much of his time as a staff officer—drafting plans, supervising training, and writing reports that bore the names of others. Promotions came slowly. But behind the scenes, he was absorbing everything—men, method, machinery, and morale.
And yet, by June 1944, he stood at the helm of the largest seaborne invasion in human history—nearly 160,000 troops, thousands of ships, and more than 11,000 aircraft ready to hurl the full force of the free world across Hitler’s Atlantic wall.
He did not blink.
There is a certain fog of war that touches everything within its reach. In victory—and with the passage of time and now generations—the line of sight begins to crystallize. But clarity can be deceptive. We often miss what was obscured in the moment.
Eighty-one years on, it is easy to forget just how precarious it all was. One bad decision—one shift in weather, one error in judgment—and the free world might have faltered.
That burden, in full, fell to Eisenhower.
Ike’s genius was not in dramatic field movements or thunderous oratory. It was in orchestration.
He held together an alliance that strained at every seam—British doubt, French suspicion, American impatience, and a chorus of generals with differing agendas, stratagems, and personalities that often started but rarely ended in agreement.
Montgomery wanted more troops—and headlines. Patton wanted more risk—but more than anything, he wanted to be the tip of the spear. Churchill, ever cautious about casualties and continental commitments, wanted assurance. Stalin—relentless in his demands and ruthless in his aims, but for the moment an ally—wanted action.
Eisenhower gave them unity.
By sheer will and balance, he united the Western Allies into a single force—British divisions, American battalions, Canadian armor, Free French brigades, and resistance networks, all united by a single banner: freedom.
He soothed egos without surrendering ground. He absorbed political pressure without compromising military clarity. And when it came time to choose the day—when tides and moonlight and cloud cover all collided in a narrow 24-hour window of fate—he made the call.
The hour was now. That was the feeling in the room—the moment of decision had come, and there would be no turning back.
On the night of June 5, he walked the flight line of the 101st Airborne, shaking hands with paratroopers who would jump into the dark and likely never walk again. He asked their names. They joked about their gear. Patted shoulders and posed for a photo that would become a legend. These were not staged moments. He knew what he was asking—and what it might cost.
But they could see it in his face—the weight, the gravity, the burden of command. Men started to pipe up, trying to cut the tension: “Quit worrying, General. We’ll take care of this thing for you.”
Years later, Eisenhower admitted he might have had tears in his eyes as he walked away. “Well, I don’t know about that,” he told Walter Cronkite with a faint smile, “but it could’ve been possible.”
And then he added what only a man who had borne it could say: “The hours before a major battle is joined are the most terrible time for a senior commander. You know the losses are going to be bad. And goodness knows, those fellas meant a lot to me.”
They were the vanguard of victory, and the burden to go or to wait fell to him—and him alone.
Eisenhower also knew what the enemy expected. For months, the Germans had been watching the wrong man. In a feat of military deception worthy of Shakespeare and Sun Tzu, the Allies had crafted Operation Fortitude—a two-pronged campaign of illusion.
Fortitude South conjured the ghost of an invasion force: the First U.S. Army Group, a fictitious formation that had begun as an administrative shell under General Omar Bradley—then, quite plausibly, grown to full strength under the command of General George S. Patton. With inflatable tanks, scripted radio traffic, and headquarters near Dover, this phantom army appeared ready to strike at Calais.
Meanwhile, Fortitude North hinted at a second blow aimed at Norway. The Germans believed it all. And so they held back their strongest units—waiting for an attack that would never come.
And Hitler bought it.
The real invasion came across the Normandy beaches: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. Some landings were light. Others were infernos. At Omaha, entire companies were cut down before they reached the shingle. The sea ran red; the air was thick with sand and steel. But they pushed forward—over bluffs, through hedgerows, into history.
That morning, Eisenhower received reports that suggested catastrophe. He kept his calm amid chaos. Chain-smoking, scanning maps, resisting premature triumph or despair. When the tide turned and beachheads were secured, he didn’t celebrate. He ordered the next phase.
There was no time for indulgence.
Because Eisenhower knew what followed. D-Day was not the end. It was the breach—a crack in the fortress of tyranny, made possible by those who leaped, climbed, crawled, and bled. And at the center of it all was a man prepared to shoulder the blame—one reason he was so well suited to carry the burden of victory.
Years later, on the windswept cliffs above Omaha Beach, Eisenhower stood beside Walter Cronkite and reflected on the events of D-Day. He humbly deflected credit, emphasizing that it was the bravery and initiative of the American G.I.s that secured victory.
But he left out the indispensable truth: they did it—because he led them.
That was all, and it was enough.
Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC
Kilmar Abrego Garcia back in US to face charges of helping traffic 'thousands' of migrants
He faces two counts of illegally transporting migrants within the U.S.
By Katherine Faulders, James Hill, and Alexander Mallin for ABC News June 6, 2025, 2:30 PM
Mistakenly deported Salvadoran native Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been brought back to the United States where he will face criminal charges for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants within the U.S.
More than two months after the Trump administration admitted it mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia from Maryland to his native El Salvador, a federal grand jury has indicted him for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants within the United States.
A two-count indictment, which was filed under seal in federal court in Tennessee last month and unsealed Friday, alleges Abrego Garcia, 29, participated in a yearslong conspiracy to haul undocumented migrants from Texas to the interior of the country.
The alleged conspiracy spanned nearly a decade and involved the domestic transport of thousands of noncitizens from Mexico and Central America, including some children, in exchange for thousands of dollars, according to the indictment.
Abrego-Garica is alleged to have participated in more than 100 such trips, according to the indictment. Among those allegedly transported were members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, sources familiar with the investigation said.
Abrego-Garcia is the only member of the alleged conspiracy charged in the indictment. [video and more at:]
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mistakenly-deported-kilmar-abrego-garcia-back-us-face/story?id=121333122
Eighty-Twenty
Mohammed Sabry Soliman, armed with an improvised flamethrower and Molotov cocktails, attacked a group of peaceful Jews in Boulder, Colo., who were remembering the hostages taken from Israel by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023. At least one of Soliman's victims was a Holocaust survivor.
Soliman and his family had come to the United States on a tourist visa from Egypt in August of 2022 during the Biden administration. One month later, Soliman applied for asylum, listing his wife and children as dependents. His tourist visa expired in February of 2023 and in March of that year, the Biden administration gave Soliman a work permit that expired in March of this year.
Soliman claims he had planned the attack for about a year. He yelled about freeing Palestine as he tried to murder the Jews. Authorities arrested Soliman, and the Trump administration proceeded to process his family for deportation.
On June 3, two days after Mr. Soliman's terror attack, USA Today ran a profile of his daughter. "Habiba Soliman wanted to be a doctor. Then, her father firebombed Jewish marchers in Boulder," ran the headline of the piece authored by Michael Loria. It provided sympathetic coverage to Mr. Soliman's daughter. It turns out her father had waited until after her high school graduation to carry out his attack. "She moved to the United States with a dream of studying medicine. She had stepped off her high school graduation stage in May," Loria wrote.
Mr. Loria never mentioned the family's immigration status or overstayed work permit. Mr. Loria had previously worked for "Report for America." The website Influence Watch documents that, "The GroundTruth Project (formerly the GroundTruth Initiative) is a 501(c)(3) left-of-center media and journalism nonprofit organization that covers local news. GroundTruth is the fiscal sponsor of Report for America, a group created in 2018 to insert left-leaning journalists into news organizations across the United States in order to fill 'a coverage gap' in local news reporting."
USA Today had to update Mr. Loria's piece after mass outrage over never even addressing the immigration status of the family, and added reporter Michael Collins to the piece. "Mohamed Soliman, an Egyptian immigrant who overstayed his visa, had moved to the U.S. from Kuwait. The immigration status of Habiba Soliman and her siblings is unclear," the paper helpfully added before diving back into the sob story of the daughter.
USA Today has thus far not profiled any of Mr. Soliman's victims, including the elderly Holocaust survivor.
ABC News, the same day USA Today ran its story, headlined a piece, "Colorado attack comes amid record incidents of antisemitic and Islamophobic hate crimes." The news outlet had to go back to 2023 to reference two attacks on Muslims. In one of the two attacks, Vermont prosecutors claimed they did not have enough evidence to prosecute Jason Eaton, who shot and wounded three Palestinian American men in Vermont, for a hate crime for specifically targeting the men as Palestinians.
ABC News only had to go back a week from Soliman's attack in Colorado to find another attack on Jews -- the murder of two Israeli Embassy employees in Washington, D.C., last week. A few months ago, a man burned down the Pennsylvania Governor's Mansion in an effort to kill the Commonwealth's Jewish Governor and his family. But going back to 2023, ABC News could go with a "both sides do it" story to downplay violence against Jews. NBC News captured the big takeaway of the Colorado attack with a piece headlined, "Lone wolf attacks on Jewish Americans in Boulder and D.C. highlight the difficulties in securing public spaces."
Now, a former President Joe Biden appointed federal judge has decided President Donald Trump cannot deport Mr. Soliman's family, though they do appear to be here illegally. This issue is an eight-twenty issue. Americans do not want terrorists, their families or illegal alien criminals here generally. But the Democrats, the press and progressive judges have sided with the terrorists and criminals. They should not be surprised if Americans keep rejecting them for Trump. Likewise, the progressive judges are undermining their branch of government and providing Mr. Trump ammunition to cross the Rubicon and simply ignore the judges.
