The Evidence

If "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses," Science is the Opiate of the Intellectual Classes.

Do you really believe you're an Evolving Ape, or that God will Take Your Call? It's time to end this destructive conflict. It is the root cause of all of humanity's holy wars, holocausts, jihads, violent atheistic revolutions, and the radicalization of liberal vs. conservative politics.

Topics for Discussion

Challenge to Academia

All that is necessary for ignorance to produce violence, is for intellectuals to do nothing.

Scientists and Theologians: you have indoctrinated all world leaders into opposing sides of your ideological power struggle; some have nuclear weapons designed by science. Humanity needs you to swallow your pride, and resolve this extremely dangerous “intellectual” Jihad.

Over the years, many atheists and theologians have viewed this website, and I have sent my book to professors in some of the top universities asking them to criticize the construct. To date I have not received any contrary evidence to its findings.

My research has convinced me that I have discovered the truth on the origins, purpose and future of humanity. I realize the magnitude of that statement. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected. I welcome any contrary evidence you can send me, and Historical Realists International. offers a reward to anyone who can disprove this historic discovery. If you cannot refute my findings, you are honor-bound to open a discussion.

I post this challenge to intellectuals, liberal or conservative, review the website, and send us a critique! All rebuttals will be posted on this link!

Something is Terribly Wrong in Academia
If not knowing the truth is now considered a sign of intellectualism, what is ignorance? Scientists and Theologians have been telling each other they’re wrong for two hundred years; yet, these violent concepts are rarely questioned or debated by intellectuals. It is shameful to send the young men and women of the military to be killed and maimed in horrendous wars, while refusing to resolve the intellectual conflicts that instigate this violence: Liberal vs. Conservative, Science vs. Religion, God vs. no-God, Left vs. Right.

Intellectuals who live in glass houses, love Tolerance.
Are freedom of speech and religion designed to create tolerance of institutionalized ignorance, or to stimulate a vigorous intellectual confrontation, for the purpose of revealing the Truth? Intellectuals have not produced a new idea on human existence since Darwin – two hundred years!

Historians and Archeologists: the atheists and theologians have usurped your position. Understanding my discovery will end their mindless jihad, and restore your professions to their proper place in academia. To contact me, Click Here.

It is time to face The Awful Truth; science and religion have had two thousand years to solve the “Mystery” of Human Existence. THEY FAILED!

The Awful Truth is available in our Bookstore.

University Students: the violence instigated by science and theology is escalating and threatens your future. It is beginning to invade campus life. Please contact your professors and ask them to accept this challenge.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. I post the challenge on 05/17/07. Send your rebuttals on this link, Email the Realists. They will be posted below.

It is a tragic indication of the state of Academia that thousands of intellectuals have viewed this site, and read The Awful Truth; yet, only three have responded to the challenge. Before leaving the site, I suggest you read some of the numerous Positive Reviews posted  on the website.

Negative Critiques to Date:3

From: Josef
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:09 AM
Subject: review challenge

I agree that much of the worlds conflict has been caused by religion, however more war has been caused by the greed of man. In many cases religion was merely used as a guise.

That is a chicken and egg scenario; most religions are both wealthy and violent. I am also curious as to why you did not mention the horrendous violence inflicted on humanity by atheism? We should expect money to cause greed and war; we should not expect the intellectual concepts of atheism and theology to produce the same outcome.

I am also curious as to why you call these gods “supernatural beings”. If they were just many eons in advance of us technologically, it would appear to us as if they were gods.

They called themselves gods. I did not give them that name. If they were ‘eons ahead of us technologically,” surely they would know their own identity. Technology cannot give a man dominion over nature, or the power to part the Red Sea, heal the sick, walk on water, and raise the dead.

Perhaps it is time to take the ancients at their word?

From: fox
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:17 PM
Subject: A few comments on “The Awful Truth”
Dear Mr. Conway,

Since you seem to believe that writing bluntly is a good thing (rejecting the advice of your sister to tone things down a bit), I hope you don’t mind if I state an honest opinion. On the positive side, your book brings up many issues and definitely would help expand someone’s thinking.

Thank You. As to the “tone” of my writing: we shrink from candid debate at our own peril!

I made this discovery in 1983, and spent decades genuflecting at the Ivory Tower of Academia. I warned the intellectuals that if they continued to ignore the violence of atheism and theology; their state of denial would bring a disaster. They blew me off!

On 9/11, I realized it was time to take-off the gloves.

Atheism and theology are not intellectual disciplines: they’re cults! Members of cults do not respond to concepts that challenge their paradigm: they stonewall, and disparage the intelligence or credentials of the “intruder.”

We have a choice; confront the atheists and theologians, or hope that the military can contain the violence of their followers. The proliferation of nuclear technology makes this task urgent. We must end the conflict between Ideological Science and religion, and solve the “mystery” of human existence – post haste.

I compare my confrontation with academia to that of Galileo and the dark age priests. To the scientists and theologians, I say – BRING IT, Intellectually!

The problem is, you start out with an assertion that cannot be proven, and that you don’t even attempt to prove except by circumstantial evidence – that the gods departed in A.D. 70. I kept waiting in vain for you to expand upon that, offering something from the historical record to show what might have happened to cause the gods to pack up and leave, but you never did. Instead, your book became more and more strident, and dare I say, condescending to the reader.

By the end of the book I felt as though I’d been preached at and talked down to, as if we were children in need of a morality lesson. The book also struck me as needlessly repetitive.

A peek at a nude breast will not degrade a child; however, society’s lack of civility can be linked to academia teaching children they are nothing more than apes, and indoctrinating them with an “amoral” ideology.

If you think you are an ape, you will behave like an animal!

Amoral ideology is personal; and thus, incompatible with the very concept of society, which requires universal agreement. It is also the cause of the rampant: sexual disease, drug abuse, mental illness, suicide, and violence on campus!

The theological concept of forgiveness of “Sin” is equally destructive. The combined effects of these atheistic and theological tenets on western culture are obvious.

Academia’s failure to solve the mystery of human existence is the root cause of our immorality and ideological terrorism. An ignorant man; is a dangerous man.

Biblical history was not recorded for the ancient Jews; they had the law and the prophets. The Bible is a poorly translated history of the interactions between the God of Abraham and the ancient Israelites. It has no injunctions for life in the modern world.

The history of ancient Israel has much to teach us, and those who judge themselves by its moral teachings will do well; however, it should not be used to form religions.

As I read the last half of your book, I thought that you reminded me a lot of Paul (assuming he even existed – have you seen the article at

The thing is that Paul was supposedly a reformed Pharisee, yet his post-conversion writings still smacked of the same legalism and black/white thinking for which the Pharisees were known. You were brought up Catholic, and in many ways you’ve obviously repudiated your early Catholic teachings, yet it is very obvious to me (as a non-Catholic) that they still have a very great hold on you, given your views on morality.

The Apostle Paul is wrongly disparaged by those who seek to oppose the repression of Christianity. These ideologues will even go so far as to disparage the very concept of morality, simply because Paul had definite ideas on the subject.

When Paul’s role in history is fully understood, he will be recognized as one of the greatest men ever to walk this planet, and morals will stand.

The real problem is that any time you try to define morality, you can either try to have it decided by consensus (which doesn’t work well because everyone has a different idea of where the lines should be drawn) or you can impose it by some external force (a god, a dictator, a book of religious teachings, etc.). In the latter situation, only those who believe in that deity or holy writ, or agree to submit to the whims of the dictator without question or resistance, will feel bound by the morality defined thereby. You seem to want it both ways – you would invalidate religion, but still expect people to live by some unspecified moral standard (or maybe the Christian standard of morality, but why?).

“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” It is not all that complicated. We already had that law imprinted on our hearts; the Messiah merely articulated that reality. We all know when we harm another human.

There actually are answers to this apparent dilemma, but I can’t enumerate them all in a short e-mail (which I don’t know if you’ll even read). However, bear in mind that “the law of love” was supposed to be higher the even the laws given to Moses. I would strongly suggest you read the testimonies of people who’ve had near-death experiences (there are both web sites and books devoted to this subject). You probably won’t like what you read there (especially since what they have to say is often very much at odds with Catholicism) but it does offer, at the very least, the key to why we should treat our fellow humans with love and respect even if religion as we know it disappears entirely. Here are a couple of pages you may find interesting:

The reason I find these web sites so interesting is because people submit their stories voluntarily and are not paid or compensated in any way (at least not to the best of my knowledge), so I tend to trust that they are telling the truth, at least as they perceive it.

Is the account of the resurrection of Messiah a “Near Death Experience?” Do you like what you read there?

I agree that these phenomena should be carefully studied.

In any event, though I doubt you will take my advice if you would not listen to your sister, I would agree with those who would say that you could improve your writing style. You have much to say that is good and thought-provoking, but if readers are so offended by your tone that they mentally shut you down, your efforts will not accomplish nearly as much as they otherwise might. My particular objection, in case it isn’t crystal clear, is to the amount of moralizing you do after tearing down the reasons for adhering to the basis of morality you seem to value highly (the Bible). I agree with a lot of what you have to say (and particularly your criticisms of modern science and religion) but there are ways to put your points across that would be more palatable to the reader (less repetition would certainly help).

I revere the Bible as history, and use the moral strictures contained therein to judge myself – not others.

If you are referring to my harsh criticism of academia, that is an intellectual judgment. I do not question their intent; nevertheless, the fall-out from the conflict between atheism and theology has horrendous moral consequences.

It is time to face The Awful Truth; academia has failed to solve the mystery of human existence. There is no nice way to say that the conflict between atheistic science and religion is the root cause of all of the holy wars, holocausts, jihads, and violent atheistic revolutions of history. If two thousand years of violent conflict didn’t convince the scientist and theologians that they have a problem, I assure you, they will not be persuaded, they must be confronted.

And one other thing – if, in history or mythology there is any explanation as to why the gods may have departed in A.D. 70, I’m sure that people would love to hear that. The other question you leave dangling is, if Jesus was only intended to be the messiah to the Jews, then who was supposed to be the god (small “g”) or messiah to the rest of us? I personally have a different take on that (for one thing I believe that reincarnation is a strong possibility, something that even many early Christians apparently believed, though I do not believe in interspecies reincarnation – in other words I believe that humans can only come back as humans, though possibly on a planet other than Earth). But you seem to take the Bible pretty literally, except that you don’t agree with much modern interpretation (especially with regard to the timing of prophetic events), and that leaves a lot of other dangling questions for which you offer no answers.

There is no such thing as “mythology.” Myth is not logic; it’s fiction.

Humans are the preeminent beings of the earth in the modern world. We must be good stewards of the planet and our subjects, the animal kingdom etc.

“Belief / Believe” are very dangerous words. I suggest you look them up in a dictionary for the precise definition.

There is much more empirical evidence on the way – stay tuned.

The purpose of God’s interaction with the ancient Israelites, was to choose a Kingdom (government) of God to rule in the after life. It consisted of one hundred and forty-four thousand individuals. Twelve thousand chosen from each of the twelve tribes. That task was completed in AD70. At that point, the battle of Armageddon destroyed the satanic forces who ruled the ancient world, and humans inherited their place as rulers of the earth. See Ps. 37:11, Mat. 5:5. The pagan gods did not “depart,” they were destroyed by the second coming of Messiah.

As the descendants of Adam and Eve complete our journey through this Valley of the Shadow of Death, we will enter the after life and be judged by that government for one thousand years. Those who pass the test will receive eternal life. 

For since by man came death, by man came also resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Messiah shall all be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:21-22, see also Rom. 5:12-21.

The commission of the Messiah was limited to the ancient Israelites; however, the overall purpose of his coming was to restore all of the descendants of Adam and Eve to life after death. There is only one Messiah.

Having said all that, thank you for at least trying to look “outside the boxes” of religion and science. As you might imagine, I don’t think either offers complete truth, but there is some truth in each. Unfortunately there are also lies and deceptions that result in misery and death, which I think is the point you were trying to make.


I agree. It is my position that if we study the ancient texts as history, they will reveal the truth that will liberate us from our fear based intellectual beliefs, and give us inner and universal peace. Achieving that goal will require a sea-change in academia.
Let Us Begin!
Thank you for the critique.

From: KingOfAllFools
Subject: reviews

I noticed that your site does not have a link for readers to send reviews of their own. I find that interesting, considering you ( I can only assume it was the real author of this book in chat ) asked me to go ahead and make a review. I read your site and book, you may remember me, I am a geologist. Your emperical evidence section was quite amusing. Your conclusions are some of the worst psuedo-scientific tripe. You site not one fact that can be supported scientifically, only by you making the assumption that “gods must have done it.”

I imagine that readers are not allowed to make reviews because your site would be replete with unfavorable reviews. I did note that your UCI review was audio only. I figured that I would not be satisfied with this review, as you were touting it in chat. This audio could simply be you and your gardener for all anyone knows.

I wonder why you call everyone involved in science and atheist, not all are. You seem to have some major issues. Also, I noticed that your “criticisms answered” section was entirely YOUR words…not those of others. Are you in the practice of self criticizing?

Oh well, you asked for me to review your book and site, and here it is…from 1 to 10, 10 being best…I gave it a 2. 2 mainly because the grammar and spelling were on a high level. You research and study of ancient cultures was less than worthy of print.

J. J…. Geologist

Author’s note: I posted this “review,” even though it is mostly a personal attack, because it does have one criticism of the actual work.

My position that gods created the sophisticated civilizations of the ancient world is based on thousands of years of history. Those chronologies, from every continent of the globe, were written by meticulous scribes and historians who were on the scene.

They clearly state that they were interacting with supernatural forces called “gods.” The artifacts and ruins support their claim.

I was excited by the “2” the “reviewer” gave for spelling and grammar, until I realized his review had two spelling errors, and several grammatical mistakes. See “emperical evidence” and “psuedo-scientific.”

I suppose we should not rate a geologist on his spelling and grammar; notwithstanding, a review should be based on the merits, and more than merely personal attack. As to my “gardener” being on the UCI interview, he is male and barely speaks English. The moderator is female and has wonderful diction.

Return to Top