I found something to be fascinating, and the evidence is worth consideration.
An author named Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. over at SolvingLight.com has a compelling theory as to the Greek mythology and the possible meanings behind the story.
At the moment, I am reading his book called Sowing Atheism (PDF Available) and so far he certainly makes a convincing case which is obvious to everyone that does not adhere to the religious dogma of an Atheist.
From Sowing Atheism:
Science is the systematic, unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos, the formulation of the truths found thereby into general laws, and their application for humanitarian, political, and economic purposes. (emphasis added)
He continued with what we here at DA chant often:
The “unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos” is, in effect, the search for truth. Our attitude towards science should ever be one of inquiry. A scientist’s task is to ascertain what a thing does mean. He or she must not presume to dictate what it must mean. Such a predisposition demonstrates bias. A scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.
Sound familiar?
I liked how PapaG pointed out the description of science, by quoting another Johnson:
“... the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
and not,
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
There is one point that I need to make though. He distinguishes a term called evo-atheist (evolutionist-atheist), and references to them at times in the book, but to me that is a mere redundancy.
Atheists, naturalists, defend it to the death, no matter what the evidence shows. (With small exceptions) Maybe that is what Johnson means with the term. Although, I have often met critics of evolution that are not necessarily Christian. David Berlinski, and others here, comes to mind for that category. Minor point though.
Is it Greek Mythology and/or Greek Legend?
Are the characters in “Greek mythology,” actually the same historical figures that are described in the Torah?
Artists often depicted Nereus, the "Wet One," on vases with the bottom half of a fish and/or holding a fish, signifying that this fish-man had brought humanity through the raging waters of the Flood. Is this Nereus actually Noah as Johnson provides the case for? If it is, it opens up a great deal of understanding of the past.
Johnson's blog allows us to peek into his book and discusses more about his thesis's interesting claims.
I have yet to read his book "The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble", but if his claims about Greek mythology are anything like his claims about atheism, then he is indeed on to something. I encourage everyone to, at the very least, consider his thesis in reflection, and pick up a copy of his book, and stay tuned to a post about his book(s).
In the environment, where entrepreneurship is almost a bad word for this current administration, life is speaking to you to find your true passion. Jobs Commencement Speech given at Stanford in 2005 is good advice about life, hints of spiritual matters about the connecting the dots and keeping the faith, but also mirrors our style of thoughts and philosophy about homeschooling our children.
That quiet inner voice steering us (God) will guide us to our purpose in life, not what we or others believe we should do, but what is our destiny in our future actually is. Trust that voice, that certainty of direction, and you will find your calling. Yes, you are called to your life's direction.
My advice to Jobs would be twofold: It is not your heart that you should follow because our hearts are deceitfully wicked.(Jeremiah 17:9) Follow that quiet, deeper, inner voice which is what I refer to as your soul of certainty. Your heart will tell you what you may want (desire), but your soul will tell you what you need to do to feel whole as a person. Also, Jobs needs to explore that spiritual side more. His fruit tells me his is not a Christian, because he was uncertain what that "calling" was, yet he kept faithful to it. Maybe someday he will know God with that same faith. Don't "stay foolish" for too long Jobs. (Psalm 14:1, Mark 8:36)
Who said Creationism is not science? If science is something that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable then Creationism is far more science then Evolution.
Based on the idea that both genes and non-gene DNA were produced by a Creator, rather than the laws of physics, creation scientist John Woodmorappe predicted in 2003 that pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells.
Science is now showing that to be accurate... (Read more at ICR)
Once again AIG has produced a very helpful list for people. All of the evolutionists might want to go and check the list out before discussing things here. It just makes thing easier for all of us and it will allow a better flow of the discussion.
Way to go, Answers in Genesis, you did well again. Brilliant work indeed. I suggest to everyone who hasn't, to get a subscription to their award winning magazine "Answers"
Science has yet to falsify its genuineness which is indeed falsifiable. They are baffled as to how the image got there, the negative image at that. Paint or ink has been ruled out.
So there you have it, empirical evidence that shows a supernatural event that baffles science. The Shroud of Turin.
If you haven't, watch it on the History Channel Sunday, Jul 18, 4/3c to see the science behind the shroud, especially the scanner part where to verify the image authenticity he takes a regular desktop scanner and scans the Bust to reproduce the exact image on the shroud thus testing, replicating, and verifying his findings.
Now before the claim of the shroud being "proven" fake:
Something was discovered, and the original scientists agree with, that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point.
This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.
Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.
The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.
The recanting of the claim the shroud was a fake is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.
The Shroud of Turin is the real deal. Science has shows that evidence.
So, no more claim by Atheists that there is no evidence of supernatural events, please.
UPDATE: In reflection and after reading something written from AIG:
Like the Rich Man (Luke 16:31), we have God's Word. Anyone not prepared to believe God's Word won't be persuaded even if a dead person came to warn them.
Matthew 28 explains that the chief priests had money given to the soldiers so they would report the body of Jesus was stolen instead. Jesus had obviously risen from the dead, and they refused to believe!
Noah's Ark was a sign to the pre-flood world that God judges sin and that in His grace He provides a way to escape from judgment. All through scripture, God gave the Israelites sign after sign and they rejected His Word.
So no matter what evidence appears it will be rejected by the Atheists, just like the many people did throughout the Bible. God save them all.
Speaking of the atheist religion, and to revisit an older post, I was making the analogy that Atheists are identical to Satanists on another blog.
In the discussion about Atheists praying, (I know, right?) someone said in a flippant manner, "Because the theists will mock you if you allow them to own prayer — right after they tell you you’re a Satanist or some such nonsense."
So I chimed in with my comeback that received an unexpected response. I did get quite the chuckle, or evil laughter you pick, to the comment.
The professing Atheist said to me, hopefully in jest:
"I never thought I’d say it, but thanks, Dan. I don’t believe in a Satan, but you make Satanism sound so interesting, life-affirming and intelligent that I’m going to go research Satanism now. I want to learn how accurate your description is!
Have you ever considered becoming a Satanic evangelist?"
That sure makes me glad I started this blog, you know, to help the ranks of Satan's army. Ah good times. God will be so proud of me, as a proud Father watching his kid grow up. I can't wait to meet Him. Is there a revolver in the house?
Joking aside, I think we all know that I had nothing to do with it. If a person was that powerful to take souls that easily, then there would be no such a thing as a Christian. Jesus would be a liar (John 10:28-30), and mankind would be doomed. Thank the Lord that is not the case.
The discussion, or what I said, went something like this:
">>Because the theists will mock you if you allow them to own prayer — right after they tell you you’re a Satanist or some such nonsense.
Now, don’t get all mad at us because we point out the fact that both atheists and satanists (LaVeyan Satanism) worship the same god, “self”. LaVeyan Satanists consider themselves “their own god.” (They are atheistic.)
Atheists and many Satanists worship the same god, the god of "self".
The essence of Satanism is more of living by your own standards. Satanism promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism. It shuns stupidity and conformity. Sound familiar?
There are also a few other minuscule branches of Satanism such as Luciferianism. (Luciferians, not Satanists) They worship the pre-Christian god of Lucifer.
For the most part no one can tell the difference if you two are in a room describing your beliefs. Sad."
So is it, as one Satanist described, "Satanism is just atheism dressed up for entertainment"? Is this really the worldview that you want to label yourself with, or at the very least be identified with?
Now go to your leader, he is picking out a special place for you in that moment of eternity.
Its not too late though. I will remain hopeful, skeptical, but hopeful.
BTW, Is Al Pacino an Atheist? He sure plays a good one in The Devil’s Advocate.
I read a blog post that spelled it out pretty well, enough to re post it. Kevin Childs is a DJ at The Rock (Rockc3.com) and he did a post discussing how Atheists belong to a religion.
We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidentiary to their presuppositions. Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.
Childs makes the case:
Atheism is a religion.
Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.) A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:
They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubts about some specifics, but we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there, because God revealed Himself to all of us. Romans 1:18-23
And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.
Evolutionists say it is a fact that all of biology just happened to arise by accident, and they harshly criticize those who do not agree. But with amazing consistency their criticism is hypocritical—it applies to evolutionary thinking. Consider this recent paper about creationist movements:
In summary, while creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life, and the claim that science must acknowledge special creation or dire consequences for society will follow.
Dire consequences for society? This is precisely the sort of rhetoric used by evolutionists. Skepticism is routinely characterized as anti-science. Diseases will flourish and crops will fall prey to insects without evolution to guide our science. Indeed, the very premise of this paper is that evolution skepticism must be countered. It is a hazard which seeks to return the world to centuries past.
And the fundamental essence of evolution has remained unchanged for centuries. Passages from Lucretius read like modern evolutionary writings. And more recently, the urgings of Enlightenment thinkers laid the groundwork for Darwin and can be found throughout the post-Darwin literature. The essence is the rejection of miraculous divine intervention for a variety of religious and metaphysical reasons. They are repeated ad nauseam today as though they are scientific findings, but they are no different than the evolutionary genre from ... Read more
In keeping with our discussion of morality from the last post. I just found out that our friend Mariano over at "Atheism is Dead", that is now True Freethinker, debated with an Atheist named Michael Sizer. A smart discussion that may be interesting to you. Grab a cold lemon-aid, and also in my case a dictionary, and enjoy a good conversation.
I thought it was misleading to say that, because the anterior cingulate cortex shows activity, morality must comes from the brain. An indicator of brain activity is merely that. An indicator, not origins. One can make the case that we see, breath, and hear with our brain also, using that analogy. That to me, would be a lazy explanation. The real question is what is the origins of morality, Mariano does a fine job of addressing that question.
I especially 'loved' the, quite clinical Hamilton's rule reasoning, actually the subsequent explanation, as to self sacrifice. That is what is the problem here and, for me, is what centered the debate. Science, clinical and passionless, doesn't suffice. Well played Mariano.
Morality: Natural or Supernatural? I think the answer is clear.
If you are watching this in Youtube. Resist clicking on the little soccer ball in the bottom right corner when you hear something that you do not agree with. You might miss something important.
Apparently, The Institute for Creation Research, who funded the R.A.T.E project, received a punishing gut punch in the school yard that left everyone wincing.
The Institute for Creation Research's graduate school, which is based in California, has been offering master's degrees since 1981 accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.
Recently they packed up and moved away from Beverly, Hills that is, to Texas to sweat in upper 90% humidity daily. Unfortunately that decision backfired because they were denied to offer masters degrees.
The hurdle that ICR needed to get over is The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, unfortunately they received a pit bull equivalent of pressure from the yelping hyena atheists of the scientific world to not approve ICR's application to allow the Institute to offer master's degrees in science education in Texas. Apparently, this was the Atheists Alamo. Of course, like most educational institutes in the U.S., those S.A.C.S. of cowardice, caved in to the atheistic pressure and gave a denial to ICR.
It is completely understandable, since other universities all over the planet can certainly offer Master's degrees all day long as long as it is secular, science fiction, and not Creationism.
As an example, Cornell University, a highly accredited university in the atheist friendly state of New York has their Physics department loaded with science fiction teachings.
Wha, wha? Don't worry little birds, I'll feed you.
Cornell University's Physics department has 140 articles on Multiverses. That's right, the fictional postulation of multiple universes (oxymoron?) is being taught, and promoted, in our schools to "explain away" the precession of this finely tuned universe. Currently the most popular of the physics explanations called "string theory" predicts a large number of possible universes.
Multiverses is not science at all because no testable predictions can be made. Its not testable, repeatable, and verifiable. The real kick in the rear is that is what is claimed, by atheists, about Intelligent Design! Are you kidding me? Certainly not a Creator, no way!
Richard Dawkins even maintains that an alien designer or designers are more plausible than a supernatural designer because there is a known mechanism to produce them. He calls it the "crane of natural selection". Creator? Never!
So, I think we all understand why this happened. A Creator cannot, and will not, be entertained in any way, in a university setting as a hypothesis, or theory, or anything else academically because that would bring an entire accountability factor to the table.
Something that cannot be tolerated. Much like an Ostrage does when frightened, the atheists are scared of that privately funded outcome.
Please allow the showing of "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record." We were going to take our children to see it. Why would you discriminate like this? We will be blogging about this and maybe take action since this is a clear violation of the freedom of speech and equal protection. I cannot believe you would allow a small group censor you like this. Is this still America?
Are you afraid of truth? Are you afraid of a perspective other then your own? Are your viewpoints that unstable that a little movie could derail your presuppositions or worldview? What are you afraid of?
Please reconsider, Dan
Today I found out that:
California Science Center to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Settle Open Records Lawsuit by Intelligent Design Group
The California Science Center (CSC) has agreed to settle a lawsuit with the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute and release records that it previously sought to conceal regarding its cancellation of the screening of a pro-intelligent design film last year.
"After months of stonewalling by the Science Center, this is a huge victory for the public’s right to know what their government is doing, especially when the government engages in illegal censorship and viewpoint discrimination," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
The Science Center continues to "deny any and all liability relating to the claims," according to the settlement agreement. However, it agreed to pay Discovery Institute’s legal fees and to surrender more than a thousand pages of documents it had been withholding since they were requested under the California Public Records Act last year.
In light of BP Oil being a complete failure with the top brass CEO, Tony Hayward, (future PR expert) cruising around on his Yacht on the oil free ocean, I suppose taking advantage of some much deserved down time this weekend, I wanted to point out the counter for the current evolutionary spin on oil.
What may be spewing into the Gulf currently is called Abiotic Oil
This information on the heals of finding out that BP is in bed with Russia, who is now the top oil producer.
Wasn't it a Russian Professor that wanted to split the US up anyway? I digress.
The claim that Oil is a 'fossil fuel' may not be the case at all. The postulation that oil is actually rotting dinosaurs (reason for lost transitional fossils? How convenient!) and plant matter, magically transforming over millions/billions of years into oil is erroneous.
In chemistry, organic means chemical compounds with carbon in them. In a more general sense, organic refers to living things. Just because a certain material is referred to as organic does not mean it is or ever was alive.
t.me/EARTH20GENESIS/4868
Maybe, presupposing evolution resulted in this "fossil" fuel mistake? Do you now see the dangers of placing evolution as the paradigm instead of letting the evidence speak for itself?
Supporting Evidence for Abiotic Oil, briefly, is that Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet, where organic matter is no longer found. Wells pumped dry are later replenished. Gives a whole new meaning to "Gulf Oil" now. Plus, this research apparently shows that it does not take an excessively long time, millions of years, to produce oil. More evidence of a young earth? Also, the volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models.
"Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought." (Physics World)
NASA is noticing this might be the case on Titus also. According to SpaceRef.com "The origin of methane in Titan's atmosphere is a mystery because it gets broken down by sunlight and particle radiation from space in the upper atmosphere. If surface lakes and pools were the only source, all of Titan's methane would be lost by this mechanism in less than a hundred million years, a short time for a moon that's been around since the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago."
"Abiotic oil is created by intense pressures on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur. The sort of pressures required to create oil are natural as one gets down a certain depth under the heavy crust and in the upper layers of the mantle. In some ways oil is the natural lubrication system for the crust and the upper layers of the mantle as it shifts and orbits the planet's core." (SDAI-Tech1)
Now the myth of peak oil and energy crisis is upon us, I am sure there are those that believe it as the gospel truth, but like the evolution paradigm, I just don't buy it.
Well, we can thank BP for helping us get multicolored rain, you know, for the children.
Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. (Hedges)
If we reexamine this paradigm that everything must be a slow process, that takes millions/billions of years, maybe we would get more accurate results from the data. Oh secularists, when will you ever learn? Darwin is not god. God is.
UPDATE: Coincidence or Judgment? Spill is Obama's fault.
Update Deux:
Science
confirms what we said years ago. Fossil fuel does not come from fossils
after all. Silly evolutionary paradigm that muddies the water again.
I commented on another post and I thought I would just add it here to make another point.
In short, Josh believes that self-deprecating mentality leads to arrogance.
I responded by asking if he has any evidence of that bare assertion at all.
He did bring up an excellent subject that I would like to drive home though. I will go on tangents but I will get to point soon.
There is a movement that is called the "self esteem movement" (just Google it) and it is riddled throughout our school systems and secular teachings.
Like teachers writing on the chalk board in school “Nil Carborundum Bastardii” (Don’t let the bastards grind you down), it is very detrimental to one self but not the way that you think.
As an example, I don't know if you have ever watched American Idol. You see these kids "writing off" and cussing at Simon who honestly told them they are horrible, which was the truth. They get all huffy and go back to their moms who say "it's OK baby, you are the best" and they storm off cussing profanity to the camera and Simon.
It was Scott Peterson's mom Jackie who raised him in a way to let him think that he could do no wrong and you obviously see how destructive that was. She was very open about it also. Jackie Peterson held Scott up as her 'golden boy' that could do no wrong. She didn't show love towards the boy. If he did something wrong she covered it up for him instead of reprimanding him. She raised him to have "high self esteem"
Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:17-18 tells us how to treat people. It takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. Coddling someone, like Jackie did, is not love at all. I believe God holds us accountable to our actions as it states in Ezekiel 3:20.
Most people don't realize this but bullies, most often, have very high self esteem. They are viewed as "cool kids" and destroy many lives in their growth.
"In contrast to a fairly common assumption among psychologists and psychiatrists, we have found no indicators that the aggressive bullies are anxious and insecure under a tough surface" (source)
"From early on, the bully can do whatever he wants without clear consequences and discipline." (source)
Kids need discipline and guidance in truth. Not some inflated self esteem that goes unchecked.
I am sure you have heard the term inflated ego. Swollen heads are what makes people fall hard after they have been popped by life's challenges. To be humble is a very good thing and it will keep you grounded in life, so know thyself (Proverbs 27:1, James 4:10, 1 Peter 5:6), and stay on the ground.
Recently, I just read a good article by Dr. Chad Meister that spoke about atheists quest for objective morality.
In his article Dr. Meister used the example of turning on a light switch. One could know that flipping the switch makes the lights go on and have absolutely no understanding as to why the switch goes on, or justification for how it really does so.
There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.
Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)."
Here is the real question: What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions? Explain all of mankind's intuitive sense of right and wrong.
Remember what Ted Bundy said?
"Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself–what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself–that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring–the strength of character–to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited." --Ted Bundy, cited in Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 1999), 31-32.
The question to atheists is simply:
On what moral grounds can you provide a response to Bundy?
If right and wrong are provincial, cultural inventions, as a few of you postulate, then it would always be wrong for someone within that culture to speak out against them. If culture defines right and wrong, then who are you to challenge it? To speak out against something that is culturally acceptable, like slavery, would be morally wrong. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, or even Jesus would have been wrong.
The article didn't mention this but some atheists believe that what is moral is what minimizes suffering of others. So if society determines that molesting children is merely a $20 fine to lessen the 'suffering,' and possible retaliation towards the individual being imprisoned, would it be wrong? Are all societal laws right? Why did our Founding Fathers feel that it would be wrong to have a Democratic society?
At the very least, we are thankful that most atheists agree that moral relativism is doomed. Even Sam Harris recognizes the inherent dangers, and speaks against, moral relativism in his book "The End of Faith" but curiously he doesn't tell us what his moral theory is.
Now, most of the atheists here that I talk to use the morality 'just is' explanation instead of the 'selfish gene' that Richard Dawkins uses, something is good because our genes tell us it is. Morality, on this view, is something most of us believe in, follow, and practice, even though it doesn't exist in reality; its just an illusion foisted on us via evolution so that we don't kill ourselves off as a species. There is no objective right and wrong on these views though.
As we established, being moral and having a reasonable foundation or justification for being moral are two very different issues. Back to the example, we can "function well in society flipping light switches and never even entertaining the idea that electricity is involved in the process of causing the lights to turn on"
If asked what for a justification for the lights going on when the switch is flipped, is the answer simply, "they just do"? This is no answer at all.
The fact is, flow of an electric charge (among other factors) grounds our explanation for the lights going on. This is what give us "an ontological basis for being 'light-switching flippers.' The same applies to morality and God."
One may be able to deny God's existence and still live a moral life,(flipping switches) but there would be no fundamental basis, no objective moral grounding, for such a life. Plus, there would be no answer for Bundy.
Meister puts the atheist's problem concisely:
1. If moral notions such as good and evil exist objectively, then there must be an objective foundation for their existence.
2. Atheism offers no objective basis for the existence of moral notions such as good and evil.
3. Therefore, for the atheist, moral notions such as good and evil must not objectively exist.
"On their worldview, we are merely evolved brutes whose very existence is derived from the naturalistic laws of evolution, including random mutation and survival of the fittest in which the strong survive and the weak die off (and sometimes the strong kill off the weak in their struggle for survival) We are simply byproducts of a "nature red in tooth and claw" to quote Tennyson. Is it any wonder that the atheistic regimes of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Pol Pot-- devoid as they were of any significant Christian influence-- were responsible for the mass murder of over 100 million people in their quest for dominance, more lives destroyed then in all of the religious wars in the history of the human race? These regimes were not discordant with an atheistic basis of morality; they were consistent with it."
"Christian morality, rooted as it is in transcendent, personal, omni-benevolent God, has truly been good for this world. Heaven help us if an atheistic morality, rooted in evolutionary theory or otherwise, should ever become the guiding moral force on a global scale."
But Meister, keep in mind according to the Bible, global atheistic morality will happen very soon.
We have an explanation as to the why the absoluteness of truth exist. Our Christian worldview does indeed "account" for absolute truth and morality, atheism cannot and does not, so logically atheism is illogical.
James Morey asked many questions in a previous conversation. They are all important questions, if someone is honestly seeking answers. We have seen in the past that many are not seeking answers, but seek an argument. There is a difference. While we all love to banter here I thought it would be fitting to answer these questions as a post.
First, James here is a kind man. He questions the morality of hell and Christianity. I believe at one time he claimed "I'm effectively a Buddhist/Taoist."
I am sure its safe to say that his driving force is compassion, moderation, and humility towards others. Unlike Atheists, Buddhists may have some assemblance of moral accountability. To who is another subject to discuss.
Dan,
So you would say, rather that without God there is no basis for morality, without God there would be no morality, period. So all secular or differently religious ethical systems that lead to goodness are ultimately God's doing.
...and is it fair to say that you believe it is simply impossible to be good without God, regardless of whether or not a person believes in the existence of a god?
Would it follow that the ultimate human good, in your mind, is acceptance of Jesus as god/savior, as that is what, all else excepted, "saves" you? You've written that religions that focus on works are "false," and that grace is the sole reason for salvation.
So it ultimately comes down to whether or not a person believes in Jesus as savior or not, other goodness (Godliness, to you) excepted.
...if I understand you correctly. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is you believe so I don't ask questions of you that aren't germane to your beliefs.
Morey,
Yes, I am claiming that without God there is no good. Now, does it matter if you believe it or not? Not at all. Gravity still exists even if I don't believe in it. So, even if you have a professing atheist, they will still have morality because we have consciences that was given to us by God. Your religion may call it alaya-vijnana although I don't fully understand the term.
>>So it ultimately comes down to whether or not a person believes in Jesus as savior or not, other goodness (Godliness, to you) excepted.
Not at all!! I believed in Jesus for years as a false convert. (James 2:19) The difference is what God says that He will do to save us. Like a gift given to us we have to open it to receive it. First, we must first repent (turn away) from sinning, simply as an understanding how wretched and broken and corrupt that we really are compared to a perfect and loving God. Second, we have to trust Jesus that He did do what He did in sacrifice to save us and trust Him with our lives and our Salvation. If you do that, at that moment and for eternity, you are saved by Christ and you will spend eternity in Heaven. Fight it, deny it, and reject it then there is no other avenue but Hell.
>> I'm avoiding it because theism makes close to zero sense to me and because theistic religions in general strike me as profoundly unfair should they happen to be true.
Ray says that its a legal transaction. You have violated the law (God's Law) and Jesus has paid your fine in full.
Its not just a belief, its an understanding of ourselves and a release of ourselves to Him. Because we are separate from God in sin.
Someone else over at "To The Ends" put it nicely this way "This way back to God is not just a legal transaction, but results in an inner spiritual awakening described as a "new birth" or being "born from above" (John 3:3). This is a personal, spiritual transformation in which inner emptiness and death is replaced by new life, and "all things have become new" (2 Cor. 5:17) The key to accepting this new life is accepting Jesus himself, accepting his resurrection and his claims to be God, and then submitting yourself to his absolute authority as God over your life." You cannot reason out of Christianity if Jesus Christ is Lord of your reasoning.
On Religions
Moshe over at carm.org said to me in the past, "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation...
A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.
...We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to Gtod thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by [Jesus Christ]. The false religions make themselves clean."
In reference to Hell
>>because you clearly believe that this (Hell) is all not only fair, but just and merciful. Or unfair, but not to us. We're the recipients of your God's unfairness to himself...which I'm trying to make sense of.
Yes its fair. Is it fair to punish the violator of a law? Should the punishment fit the crime? If you see in the newspaper a man getting a small $20.00 fine for an infraction you would assume that the infraction was petty or small. When you find out the fine was for raping and murdering 10 woman in cold blood you would be outraged, as we all would be.
Why is that? Sin is always directly against God. GotQuestions.org puts it this way, "God is an eternal and infinite Being (Psalm 90:2). As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment. God’s holy, perfect, and infinite character has been offended by our sin. Although to our finite minds our sin is limited in time, to God—who is outside of time—the sin He hates goes on and on. Our sin is eternally before Him and must be eternally punished in order to satisfy His holy justice."
I believe a sinner, without being forgiven of sins, cannot be in the presence of God because he/she would burst into flames (Genesis 32:30). God is perfect so we must be perfect to be in His presence. Without the mediator we would perish (1 Timothy 2:5). Look what happened to Saul (now Paul) he was blinded by God's holy presence of light.
The rich man is a good example of someone that understands the gravity of sinning against God and going to Hell. God loves us (John 3:16) and wants us to be saved from Hell (2 Peter 3:9).
Dr. Stephen Meyer did an interview recently that was quite interesting to me. He discusses some of the evidence for ID as we have been talking about here recently so I thought y'all would enjoy some of the points. I enjoyed how he scientifically broke things down to understand the data presented. Anyway, here it is in its entirety to listen to or download for future reference. It may not be up for long so you might want to download it.
I was able to get this from Diane Eble, the one that held the interview. To order the Seminar go to True U Tour. Enjoy.
Part 1
Part 2
Update: Thanks to Rufus we found out that Stephen Meyer was on Praise the Lord recently along with many others, including Ray. Told you there is a God.
Follow this link and check out the program from May 20.
Thursday May 20, 2010 Paul Crouch, Jr. hosts "Creation, Evolution and God In Science Night" with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Eric Hovind, Sean McDowell, Greg Koukl, Ray Comfort, Dr. Hugh Ross, Doug Phillips in Costa Mesa, CA. Archives
I was in a conversation, or battle, with this professing Christan named Wilson over at Triablogue and I thought it would be a good post because of the subject and points that was made about alcohol. This guy that I was talking to is not the point here, even though his ego needed a check, the point was what was said about the consumption of Alcohol.
My points were these:
Is getting drunk a sin? Yes! (1 Corinthians 6:10)
Keep in mind that the blood of Christ is "new wine."
Because of all the parasites in the water back then it was safer to squeeze grapes for drinks but that is called 'new wine' and do you know what new wine is? Grape juice.
Jesus turned water into grape juice. Remember the verses about putting new wine into old skins...(Luke 5:33-39)
Personally, I try to do all things that glorify God and I cannot see drinking hard liquor as glorifying God.
Is tobacco a sin? Probably, if you put it before your kids health, it may be. If you place it before your own health, and lose a leg like my Father In-Law, it may be. Is hoarding, if it causes your kids to be unhealthy or unsafe? Sure. Not being considerate of others can be evil. If you will not give it up for anything or anyone, that you covet it more then God Himself, then sure, it is a sin.
When the Lord spoke about it as favorable in Isaiah 65:8 "Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all." (my emphasis)
Also, a wine press does not create wine, AT ALL!!! A wine press (referenced throughout the Bible) makes grape juice.
Fermenting grapes makes the wine and is called many things because of it. Other terms fermented wine is referenced in the Bible as: Wine, Strong drink, Vinegar of wine, Vinegar of strong drink, Liquor of grapes, Dried grapes, The kernels, The husk.
This was not a conversation about Kashrut but look what it says in Numbers 6:3-5 "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. "
To avoid Fermented grapes "until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy,"
To be Holy is to separate yourself from fermented grapes!!
To be a drunkard is a sin and you are anything but a Christian if you are one. (1 Corinthians 6:10)
Does that mean that whoever drinks a glass of wine is going to hell? Of course not, but if you are an alcoholic and you are tempting yourself with wine that leads to other things then you may be sinning.
Look at Hosea 9:2 and Proverbs 3:10 Do you see that the Bible makes a distinction between wine and new wine to let us know the difference between fermented wine and grape juice? Jesus taught that new wine was not put into old bottles because they couldn’t expand with the pressure. (Matthew 9:17) Right?
Because the fermentation process, yeast acts on the sugar in the grapes to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide which builds pressure. According to the Bible, new wine is, therefore, not fermented. Also, the Lord's Supper was grape juice, evidenced because when Jesus spoke of the "fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29) He was speaking of new wine. He didn't even use the term wine, but fruit.
Logic also says that the fermentation of wine is the result of adding yeast, a leavening agent, to the grape juice to make alcohol. Correct?
At the supper of unleavened bread, do you think the Lord would offer a drink made with yeast?
There is no way He would logically do that. Grape Juice is new wine.
I received, in an email, an invitation to review a new eBook called "Signature of Controversy". I was going to read it before posting it but I see Brian has posted it, so I might as well also.
Wem quoted Strombringer's profile:"I define manhood simply: men should be tough, fair, and courageous, never petty, never looking for a fight, but never backing down from one, either." — John Wayne
I love that quote! You get, at the very least, 10 points for that one.
Like a good snowball fight, flinging poo can be entertaining, but it distracts from the issue we are discussing. In an academic debate, no one can do it better then Aykroyd and Curtin, they are extremely entertaining so don't even try to top them.
Ask yourself if the points made were valid and strong arguments. Do we even care what the points were after that hysterical banter?
Why are we here? I am here to Debunk Atheists, but I also believe we are here for something else. Do you know what that is? Do you know why we are here?
Reynold said: >>Oh yeah, Dan. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the "false claims" on that site I gave earlier are actually "false".
Well the Bible, my authority, claims something entirely different so I am going with that. I don't claim to know all things and I cannot explain half of the finding but you must admit, in intellectual honesty, that the data we have available to us can be interpreted into two different worldviews. That is why we are able to have thriving organizations like the Creation Museum, AIG, IRC, Bio-Complexity, ISCID, Origins.org, People of the likes of Pvblivs, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design Network, Access Research Network and a plethora of others, flourishing and continuing to make headway in science, even if they have to go it alone without the governments backing them, like the secular scientists have.
IF, big IF, you all were doing your jobs correctly, evolution would have shut us all up years ago. We are still waiting.
Where is the smoking gun?
Really? After all these years you cannot even come close to really showing evidence for evolution that shuts us all down and closes our doors? Are you ALL really that inept?
Evolutionists "interpret" it as sedimentary layers slowly laid down over a period of millions of years while simultaneously preventing the decay of rotting flesh or plants in some miraculous way to form a fossil.
Creationists see a rapid burial through some event that just so happens to be pointed out in a myriad of nationslegends, archeological finds (Ahora Covenant Inscription), and books of antiquity (Ogygian deluge, Plato in his Laws, Book III), including the Bible. We only have to go into our back yard to see leaves that decay in a few short days.
Let me know and I will make you a fossil in my backyard with a little concrete.
O'rly? Is that your smoking gun? I can go on and on but you get the point. There is zero evidence that knocks us on the ground to the point we cannot get up. Archeology and Science are both showing strong evidence for the Biblical claims daily. We are no going anywhere, but you are. We have patience.
I found something to be fascinating, and the evidence is worth consideration.
.
