In a discussion of war ANTZILLA claimed that most atheists feel that "it's wrong to go to war based on holy books of any kind."
Back when I was an Atheist, I probably would agree.
Ant asked: "How is it that you changed your morals? Now that you believe in the [B]ible, why has it became acceptable to you, for people to go to war based on a holy book (as long as it is your book)"
I used the example of the civil war about slavery to highlight what is right in the eyes of God, and what is worth fighting for. It was completely justified. Now, there might be some atheists out there that say it was not justified, but they probably would not want to admit to that publicly.
Also, a great deal has changed since I was born again. I used to think a lot of things were just fine and now I do not. I thought strong drinks were fine, in fact I loved to, literally, gargle tequila. My all time favorite drink was a double Chivas on the rocks. Its been many, many years since I have touched either and I don't miss them at all. I used to love what I called "fornication Fridays" but have turned away from those days long ago and not just because I am married now. I have been changed and I cannot explain it fully. It certainly was not because I wanted to. I loved sin, now I don't.
I just read a great article called "Killing the Canaanites" by Clay Jones in the CRI Journal so this is fresh in my mind. Was killing the Canaanites justified? Yes. Completely. We would be hard pressed not to deliver a verdict of capital punishment on them even in these days. Capital punishment is completely justified and I encourage it as a solution against evil. The Canaanites were a very wicked bunch. From what I read they were rampant incestuous, adulterous, idolatrous, child sacrificing people. Not only did they encourage homosexuality, but bestiality! They deserved to die. Sodom and Gomorrah had a justified fate. It was not divine genocide, it was capital punishment. I cannot see it any other way these days. In the past I would say it was harsh and decry the actions as genocide but it would be only to justify my own sinfulness.
God hates sin, as an Atheist I did not. My authority reference has dramatically changed for the better. Thank the Lord.
OK time to put our differences aside, for the moment, and band together for this one.
On the heals of my last post, I just found out that yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the unconstitutional COICA Internet censorship bill that we call the "Blacklist Bill". Are you kidding me!!???!!
I am a huge fan of Quinn Norton who said in an recent magazine article, "What the hell? This is America, we simply don't do this sort of thing. We've always been willing to take a little extra chaos because we don't want even a little Stalin. It's our tradeoff.
Now we're going to trash the First Amendment over Thepiratebay.org? I was hoping that if we had to lose our most sacred right, it could be over something a little more substantial then trying to make sure some coked-up Hollywierd fat cats don't feel insecure about torrents of Transformers 2"
The very next day Ron Paul set things on fire with logic and reason. I love Ron Paul so much. Why didn't you vote for him? Shame on all of us for not electing him in as our President.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Enough is indeed enough!
Update:
Adam just proved a good point, aside from the foul language.
Funny (read sad) that the new X-Ray scanners discover American Citizens do not have spines
I keep thinking about the last post and the devastating story of evil. What makes a man want to be so evil? Why would a man harm others with purpose and malice that is unwarranted? Then just last night I read, to no coincidence, something from Bahnsen that brought things back to this same point I was contemplating.
First, in the last post I quoted Patty who said "Also, if more people truly knew and believed in Christ and lived for him, think of how much less evil would be in the world."
She has a great point with that. If men feared God more there would be a lot less evil. Period. I don't mean those that pose as Christians either. Yes, we all know evil exists, but that is only because of weak cowardice people out there that want to honor evil instead of God. It started with Adam. If he only kept the promises he made with God, we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Rufus asked me "Dan, what is the most evil thing that has happened in your life?"
At first, because of Eve, I was thinking that maybe it was women...har har. But women are the single greatest thing that happened to us. A world with just a bunch of dudes? Yuck!
I thought it might have been that excited 16 year old that just got his license and was proudly driving home on our block when he ran over me and broke my leg. I was 8 years old, I ran into the street playing tag with my friends and I hit his door and slid right under the car. He didn't mean to do it, and neither did I. It kept me away from team sports though. Who knows, I could be on steroids playing for the majors these days otherwise. Plus, because of that, I took up swimming instead. I got real good and became a rescue swimmer and subsequently a life guard. I cannot justify that as evil.
I thought maybe it was being raised an Atheist that was evil. But, I could not justify it to be so because it is what helped me explore God and indirectly prepared me to become a Christian.
These are the last days to send in your ballots, if you are absentee voting like we are. Do some research to solidify who and what you will be voting for, here is a quick snapshot that's appropriate.
In the spirit of Financial Friday I thought some charts would be interesting to reveal our concurrence of the issues. I saw a poll that was interesting and just re-posted the charts here for mere convenience purposes. These charts are interesting to see how people feel about our current plight.
What I found really interesting is the tyrannical agenda of a "certain group" revealed in the chart named "The Federal Government operates best when one political party controls both the Congress and the White House." This is the same group that is more employed by the government then the other groups and feels that the Federal deficit is not that big of an issue. Murdering of a country is consistent with murdering of babies after all.
I have been teaching my kids for a while now, their whole life even, and I cannot tell you how rewarding and fun it is to see the spark in my own children as they learn and explore about life.
I know deep down I am doing the right thing even though I hear all the naysayers, like many atheists here, speak of my inability to teach. Its just wrong and baseless. I believe they are trying to knock down some of the complete confidence I have in my decision to do so. I know with certainty that it is, and was, the right decision based on the fruit that I am witnessing. I am enjoying watching everyone collaborate on such an intimate level with various subjects and I can see how effective it is.
Since marijuana is up for vote on California's ballot this election to legalize it for everyone, I thought I would rant about it for a moment. I have had many conversations about this subject, and some of these rants are taken from some of them.
The logic being used by drug addicts and advocates are evidence for their drug use. It skews their thinking quite a bit.
Lets examine some of the reasons why people want it legalized.
1. Some say "Hey it's natural, God made it"
My response is, there is nothing "natural" about drying, inhaling and smoking on purpose. That is man made event. In a forest fire, animals run away from such events.
Also, God gave us many examples of things we are not allowed to touch. The tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden as a prime example. God made pigs also, but called them unclean and the Jews were not to eat Pork either, or shellfish for that manner. Just because it is on the earth doesn't mean we can partake in it. There are many poisonous plants and frogs out there that if we eat them we die within minutes, but they are here on earth though, so the logic doesn't stand.
The conversation has turned into the problem of evil because I mentioned the claim:
Godhasamorally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.
Which is not sufficient for the Atheists here. Let's readdress it since this is no light matter for any of us. Especially for the tortured children out there, that may even be being tortured by their own parents.
Bahnsen alerted me to an interesting conversation between two brothers and the following rang so true in the sentiments of many Atheists that I know.
As Dostoevsky said best "a beast can never be so cruel as a man"
In continuation of the conversation of Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism we see how ineffective Evidentialism is to the atheist, explained by Dr. Bahnsen.
In a past lecture, Dr. Greg Bahnsen said: "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."
David Smart pointed out to us and posted about The Arrogance of Atheism on a familiar day to me.
In one of his posts that I was reading, he stated the case in the following manner:
"When it comes to Christian apologetics, there are basically two camps: on the one hand is evidentialism, and presuppositionalism on the other. Please notice that neither of these two systems deny the Atheist his presuppositions and epistemological criteria! (To charge either with the arrogance I speak of requires ignoring the facts.) The evidentialists tend to argue from the same epistemic axioms and criteria as the Atheist, starting from this common ground toward defeating the Atheist’s metaphysical presuppositions (to their peril, as they forget that ontology grounds epistemology). And the presuppositionalists actually enjoy granting the Atheist his presuppositions and epistemic criteria because it’s the very means by which they achieve their end, the self-stultifying death of any non-Christian world view (q.v. the TAG). When a Christian employs either apologetic approach when confronting Atheism, he is not guilty of the same arrogance which so many Atheists are because he does allow the inverse—especially presuppositionalists, who purposefully allow the inverse.
>> Rather than say "revelation" more loudly and slowly, you could try giving us some specifics of this revelation so that we can distinguish it from you blowing smoke.
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind (collective natural and special revelation) so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
>> I want to know your revelation so I can argue against that.
Question: Isn't it rather unrealistic, and perhaps self centered, for God to condemn a bunch of Atheists, who don't believe in him, when He hasn't given them any convincing reason to believe in Him?
The brilliance of Razi Zacharias' answer was obvious.
“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
I thought this was fitting to the current climate of primaries "that has defined the 2010 midterm elections."
If you haven't read the Defence of Fort McHenry (The Stars and Stripes Forever) Here is the poem in its entirety:
1 O! say can you see, by the dawn's early light, 2 What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming, 3 Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight, 4 O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming? 5 And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, 6 Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there -- 7 O! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave 8 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?
9 On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep, 10 Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, 11 What is that which the breeze o'er the towering steep, 12 As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? 13 Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, 14 In full glory reflected now shines on the stream -- 15 'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave 16 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
17 And where is that band who so vauntingly swore 18 That the havock of war and the battle's confusion 19 A home and a country should leave us no more? 20 Their blood has wash'd out their foul foot-steps' pollution, 21 No refuge could save the hireling and slave, 22 From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave; 23 And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave 24 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
25 O! thus be it ever when freemen shall stand 26 Between their lov'd home, and the war's desolation, 27 Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land 28 Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! 29 Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, 30 And this be our motto -- "In God is our trust!" 31 And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave 32 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
The followup video speaks volumes also. I will remain hopeful.
Within the constitutions there were terms like "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...". God was referenced for, not just a few states, but EVERY SINGLE STATE in the union.
Recently I was in a debate with two professing Christians who feels that any sinning is evidence of not being a Christian at all. They read Romans 6 but use a taxi-cab fallacy, and depart when they reach their destination. But they ignore Romans 7:13-25 and we sin because we are in the flesh.
I found it to be a difficult conversation because we have spoken of false converts in the past. I certainly don't feel that just because you sin that you are not saved. So I guess this post is to clarify things.
Maybe some of these Atheists felt the burden to be perfect and ran away discouraged. Christians aren't perfect, just perfected. Not better, just better off.
Morality keeps you from jail, blood of Jesus Christ keeps you from Hell.
There is a distinguishing difference between,
Justification which is an instantaneous declaration from God of our legal standing before God that was entirely God's work that is fully accomplished now through Jesus Christ. (Romans 3:24,26-28, Romans 8:11, Philippians 3:9, 1 Corinthians 6:11.) KJV, of course.
and,
Sanctification which is more of a internal condition that is a process through life where man cooperates with God that is yet to be fully accomplished.
It is a process by which God patiently, lovingly, and sovereignty convicts us of our sins, that we might turn from them, and be used of God.
Dr. Jerry F. Smith said: "If we were sinless, we wouldn't be taught of sanctification in God's Word (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4; John 17:17; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 6:12; 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:2).
From these verses, we can see that God knows we will sin. And has given us His Word to sanctify us. Sanctification is a process: As the believer walks in the Word of God and repents and confesses his sins, he will become a more and more sanctified vessel unto honor. However, we will never reach sinless perfection (experimentally) until heaven, though we are seen through the blood of Christ by God as perfect in Him (positionally) - 2 Cor 5:21, et.al. God knows that we will sin, which is why He gave us the Words found in First John (above)"
Slick said "The more sanctified we are, the more we care for others, the more we sacrifice for others, the more humble we are in our hearts, the more at peace we are with our lives, and the more we are like Christ in our character."
Claiming immediate Sanctification, without Justification, is an awful thought. That would devastate all of us since none of us would know if we are indeed saved until we die sinless. We are saved through Christ and strive to become perfect in Christ. Its not a light switch. Free choices are not eliminated in Justification.
Because of the work of Christ, and our connection to Him by faith, we have the right standing before God, and are declared blameless in God's sight. This is great comfort to the believer, because it means we will not have to face the wrath of God on the day of judgment. We are secure in Christ, and safe in Him.
Albertus Pieters in his book, Divine Lord and Savior, tells of a believer who was not well-educated, but who had a deep assurance of his salvation. Everyone called him, “Old Pete.” One day, while talking with Dr. Pieters, he said, “If God should take me to the very mouth of Hell, and say to me, 'In you go, Pete; here’s where you belong,' I would say to Him, 'That’s true, Lord, I do belong there. But if you make me go to Hell, Your dear Son, Jesus Christ, must go with me! He and I are now one, and we cannot be separated anymore.'"
Amen!
(click for clearer picture)
UPDATE: If the "body of Christ" is already sinless through the Holy Spirit then there is NO NEED FOR CHRIST, but only the Holy Spirit. Get it? We are JUSTIFIED in Christ. He PAID the price for our sinning, in full.
The professing Christians (two of them) have since blocked all communication as to not allow the truth to be heard and in my opinion they are no different then Michael Moore and his manipulation of truth, and facts, to make his viewpoint be heard. Shame on you both for running from the truth. They attempt to cause stumbling blocks for believers in their teachings and for that they should be ashamed. (1 Corinthians 8:13, 1 Peter 2:8, Romans 14, 1 Timothy 4:12, Romans 14:12, 1 Corinthians 8:9)
Only when they are trying to transform it dishonestly into a catch-all category. Any definition that tries to portray infants, who cannot possibly make a decision on the matter, as atheists is dishonest. In all fairness, anyone trying to portray infants as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu is equally dishonest. An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods.
Atheists will still slip up and say, for example that their belief could be wrong. And seriously, what would be your response if Christians started redefining "Christian" to mean "someone who lacks a belief that the Bible is fiction"?
A youtuber said "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Buddhism and Jediism fall under the atheist category."
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.
