“If animals aren’t suffering, somebody isn’t working hard enough in the business of gene survival.”
Richard Dawkins

When Oh When Will The Evidence Appear?

“Faith is the great cope out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and to evaluate evidence.”

Richard Dawkins

“Live Science” says of Darwinian evolution, it can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.”

And yet there is not one iota of observable evidence of one “kind” of animal changing or evolving into another “kind” of animal. There is lots of evidence for adaptation within a kind (micro evolution) but zero evidence of evolution of one kind of species developing into a new kind, as described in “Live Science.”

It is only the atheist presupposition, the unsupported and anti scientific presupposition that takes adaptation (micro evolution) and forces upon us a conclusion of macro evolution.

The scientific method is based upon observation, testing and verification. It allows us to draw conclusions that don't have to accepted by faith. Evolution simply cannot be observed, tested or verified.

“We see nothing of these slow changes in progress.”

Charles Darwin.

In other words we have to accept the conclusion of evolution by faith. Much like believing that matter has always existed even though science and Big Bang cosmology says otherwise.

Of course atheists say, they must say, they have no choice BUT to say that there are “missing links out there. We just haven't found them yet.” Much as they say that they believe that an explanation that this is a material universe only will some day be found. Till then they believe it on blind faith. It's exactly like those atheist leaders who will grudgingly admit that it's impossible to make even one grain of sand out of nothing (let alone a whole universe). Yet they then say, unless you have “millions and billions of years. Then somehow the obviously impossible becomes possible.

When you can think of any observable, testable, verifiable (science) evidence for Darwinian evolution, i.e. a change of one kind into another kind, then you can believe in evolution based on something other than blind faith.

Where Is Your Heart?

Jesus is quoted by Matthew, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

To put it another way, 'Show me where you spend your discretionary money and time, and I'll tell you what you consider most valuable.' Is it the distraction of sports? Clothes? Vehicles and recreational vehicles? How about mood altering chemicals? Vacations? Tools? Investments? 

The context of what Jesus was talking about is our human desire for more wealth than we need. “You cannot serve both God and money.” He could have added, 'Though most of you will spend your life trying.' When we are young, most of our money goes to acquiring “things.” As people age they start storing up money for when they retire. This, even though Jesus said, “How can it be of any benefit for anyone if s/he gains the whole world, yet loses h/her soul?” 

Well, there is no benefit to accumulating wealth, but that doesn't keep people from trying.

“The world’s 85 richest individuals now own as much as the poorest half of the 7 billion global population (that's 3.5 billion people), according to a report released by Oxfam on Monday. One per cent of the world's families now own 46% of the world's wealth.”

I doubt that any of those people would stumble across this blog, but we regular people are no different. Any person within reach of a key-board is richer than most people in the world. And we want more! As Buddha is reported to have said, “No matter how much you have, a time will come when you will say, “this is not enough.”

Herbert Marcuse has said, “People have been seduced into a comfortable, attractive, tasteful, fully enjoyable, form of slavery. This is the worst kind of slavery.”

We are slaves to ease of living. We work feverishly to pay for things we don't need. We honestly believe that security can be found in storing up “treasures” for ourselves here on earth, where they inevitably deteriorate into junk. And by we, I am now talking about Christians. Or at least those of us who call ourselves Christians. So far is the behaviour of Christians from the teaching of Jesus the Christ that Pope Francis said today, "I ask you to ensure humanity is served by wealth, and not ruled by it." 

It can't go on. It won't go on.

Jesus came to bring a Kingdom of generosity, and fairness, and decency among humans. He expects us, as His followers, to end discrimination and present to the world a mighty river of mercy. We are to care for the poor, not blame them for their fate. We are to care for orphans, not kill them before, or in some cases (see atheist Peter Singer) even after they're are born. “Any foetus is less human than an adult pig.” atheist Richard Dawkins

We are so terribly far from where we need to be, and God promises that there is going to be hell to pay because of our negligence and greed and our pure unadulterated self-love.

And for what? What exactly does an accumulation of wealth bring us? Not what we expect it to bring; that's for sure.

“Most people pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry right past it.” Kierkegaard 

“Faith is the great cope out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and to evaluate evidence.”

Richard Dawkins

Absolutely bizarre coming from a man who believes, on blind faith and contrary to all scientific evidence that matter can create itself. He also believes that inanimate and inorganic chemicals "evolved" into life. Now that, like all of atheism, takes some faith.

Whose Laws?

It's almost mind numbing listening to atheists as they flip aside the physical, mathematical and laws of logic. They do this just as though by our discovering them, we somehow invented them – created them even.

According to atheists, simply observing gravity means it's ours.

Learn your chemistry and presto – we don't need a Creator.

The fact that without these laws there is no chemistry is of no consequence to the atheist. Trying to understand how the fine tuning of the universe could be in place at Planck time is just a useless bit of complication.

As Richard Dawkins says, “There's no point in asking “why?”.

More than that, no one seems interested in ask Whose laws science is examining. In atheist-world, whenever asking questions leads away from a natural or material answer, the question is completely avoided. 

BERTRAND RUSSELL

 Have you noticed that we tend to copy the behaviours of those we admire most? Judging by what he says and does, I'd suggest that Richard Dawkins admires Bertrand Russell.

(Although Russell is often quoted by atheists as one of their champions, he was an agnostic, by his own admission.) "He was a regular visitor at Garsington, the country estate of Lady Ottoline Morrell with whom he had a long affair.

In 1921 he divorced and married for the second time to Dora Black, with whom he set up a progressive school.

During the late 1920s and early 1930s, as his marriage to Dora broke down and as he lost faith in Beacon Hill, Russell continued to write books intended to emancipate readers from what he saw as the fetters of outmoded religious belief, restrictive marriages, repressed attitudes towards human sexuality.

In 1936 he married for the third time to Patricia Helen Spence. "

"Bertrand Russell, Biographical Notes," Mantex.com. http://www.mantex.co.uk/ou/a319/russell.htm>(6 November, 2006).

Atheists and Chronological Snobbery

“Bronze-age Camel Herders.”

Ever hear that term?

If you have, you'll have heard it in reference to atheists and their sardonic ideas about people who wrote the Bible.

Atheists actually believe that we are not only more intelligent than those who lived several thousand years ago, they think that we're more morally advanced. In my opinion, one must be totally out of touch with reality to be able to hold those beliefs.

Those among us who display chronological snobbery actually believe that newness is automatically a virtue and that oldness is a vice. These people believe that there is a “Best Before Date” on truth. They fail to notice that truth and beauty and goodness are not determined by time. They fail to notice that ideas are not inferior just because they are “old” nor are ideas valuable just because they are modern.

Richard Dawkins says, “it's a sign of historical puerility to see the writings of one century through the politically tinted glasses of another.” Yet this is exactly how Dawkins reads both the Old and New Testaments. Sadly so too do those who follow the example of their High Priest. 

Atheists and Sadness

My view of humanity is dropping like a rock. All things being equal, I've only got 10 to 15 years left on this planet and my despair over how stupid we are is peaking way too early.

Last week I saw an atheist blog where the author proudly asked, “Has any Christian ever asked why the names of the New Testament writers are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and so on?” This atheist thought that he had stumbled on a sure fire case of Bible tampering because he saw names that sounded “nothing like Middle Eastern names.”

I had to quickly click to a different blog because reading that made my sadness plummet even further. I think I felt a tear run down my cheek.

I suppose I should have returned to point out, “Did you notice that none of the other words in your Bible are in Greek either? You see, you're reading an English translation of documents originally written in Greek. Therefore you're reading names that are English derivatives of Greek names which may have also come from Hebrew or Aramaic names.”
Matthew - Levi
Mark - Markus
Luke - Lukas
John - Ioannes
Paul -  Paulus
and for what it's worth
Jesus - Yeshua

I couldn't go back. Sometimes atheist bloggers just break my heart for the condition of humanity.

Now, don't get me wrong. Christians, including me have said really stupid things as well. But as every atheist knows, we Christians are stupid. It's expected of us. Why even Richard Dawkins has stated, “Thinking is anathema to Christians.”

It's Brights who love to show off their Beautiful Minds, just like Justin Bieber likes to stroll half naked through airports to show off his beautiful body.

Oh . . . 

“When examined carefully, scientific accounts of natural processes are never really about order emerging from mere chaos, or form emerging from mere formlessness. On the contrary, they are always about the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things, although often in a secret or hidden way. When we see situations that appear haphazard, or things that appear amorphous, automatically or spontaneously “arranging themselves” into orderly patterns, what we find in every cause is that what appeared to be haphazard actually had a great deal of order built into it. What atheists Richard Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something even more remarkable than Paley's watches. Paley finds a “watch” and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley's point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves.”

physicist - Stephen Barr

atheist Dawkins loves Thomas

Often, at Easter, the account of “Doubting Thomas” is recounted. This account is the one where the disciples were hiding behind locked doors for fear that they too would end up on a Roman cross just like Jesus. As they were in the room sharing some fish and bread, Jesus appeared. Since dead people do not naturally rise from the dead, they responded with disbelief. Yet, not long before, these men had been told by some women that they, the women, had been to the tomb where Jesus had been buried, only to find it empty. What's more, the women said, they'd been told by angels that Jesus had risen from the dead – just as He's predicted.

As the account goes, Thomas wasn't there when Jesus appeared and when the guys later told Thomas what had happened he famously said, “Unless I touch the nail wounds in this hands and place my hand in the spear wound in His side, I will not believe any reports that Jesus has risen from the dead.”

Richard Dawkins loves this account because he thinks that Thomas reacted the same as Dawkins would. You see, Thomas demanded, as does Dawkins, empirical evidence before belief.

Because Richard Dawkins is so incredibly dull of mind regarding all things to do with his Creator, he doesn't understand that every single one of Jesus followers required then, and still require today, empirical evidence to believe. Only atheists live with blind faith to follow their world-view. Read the Gospels. You'll see that time after time after time, all of the disciples required extra proof to believe at yet another level. My favourite example is found in the last chapter of John. “We didn't dare ask if it was Him because we knew it was.” This is after more than a month of repeatedly seeing the risen Jesus in many and varied situations, times, places and with different people.

Oh, and the main difference between Thomas and Richard Dawkins? When confronted with irrefutable evidence of the risen Jesus, Thomas admitted, “My Lord and my God.” Richard, as do all atheists, rejects and ignores the evidence before them. 

 “For, from one point of view, there is nothing controversial in describing forces or mechanisms as “blind.” Quite obviously, most are. The strong ans weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity have no eyes to see with, either physical or mental. And most mechanisms are blind – think of a watch, a car, a CD, a computer hard-disc. Moreover, they are not only blind but also unconscious; indeed, to be even more precise, they are incapable of conscious thought since they have no mind to thing with. But those mechanisms, though blind in themselves, are all the products of minds that are far from being blind; such mechanisms are intelligently designed. What is more, this holds even for mechanisms that involve and element of randomness in their operations.”

John Lennox

 Lennox provides a simple thought experiment as an illustration to point out how absurd is the connection that atheists purport to make regarding the pseudo connection between evolution and “No God.” Imagine an automobile factory in which all of the manufacturing is done by robots. Can we declare that because all of the world is accomplished by robots, no intelligence is involved in the manufacturing process? To make such a declaration, we would need to also declare that the robots, the software that guides the robots, and the factory itself were not the products of intelligence. But any reasonable person can see that this is not the case. Human intelligence was clearly involved. Richard Dawkins is clearly not intelligent enough to avoid this mistake when “refuting” the blind watchmaker, for he fails to see that the watch exists within an infinitely huge watch factory.

 

Nothing Is “Right” or “Wrong” – Except . .

I can't remember whether atheist Richard Dawkins is working on wife #3 or #4 but when, as a marriage counsellor, I hear people saying the following, it often indicates rationalizing a behaviour that is already or soon to be put in play.

Beyond that, I have rarely seen a better example of the absurd, illogical and incoherence that beholds in the minds of those who accept the world-view of atheism. Below we find Richard Dawkins saying, “Nothing is wrong.” At the very same time, in a supercilious manner so common to the man and other “strong” atheists, he relates something he considers to be very, very wrong indeed. While he's at it, Dawkins encourages people to do their “duty” to lie when confronted with behaviours that others might consider wrong. I can see how he fits into the leadership role of atheism so easily.

“I want to raise another question that interests me. Why are we so obsessed with monogamous fidelity in the first place? The underlying presumption — that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being’s body — is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification?

In one of the most disgusting stories to hit the British newspapers last year, the wife of a well-known television personality, Chris Tarrant, hired a private detective to spy on him. The detective reported evidence of adultery and Tarrant’s wife divorced him, in unusually vicious style. But what shocked me was the way public opinion sided with Tarrant’s horrible wife. Far from despising, as I do, anybody who would stoop so low as to hire a detective for such a purpose, large numbers of people, including even Mr. Tarrant himself, seemed to think she was fully justified. Far from concluding, as I would, that he was well rid of her, he was covered with contrition and his unfortunate mistress was ejected, covered with odium. The explanation of all these anomalous behaviour pattern is the ingrained assumption of the deep rightness and appropriateness of sexual jealousy. It is manifest all the way from Othello to the French “crime passionnel” law, down to the “love rat” language of tabloid newspapers.

Why should you deny your loved one the pleasure of sexual encounters with others, if he or she is that way inclined? I, for one, feel drawn to the idea that there is something noble and virtuous in rising above nature in this way. And why don’t we all admire — as I increasingly do — those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is “cheating on” whom.”

For someone who eschews the concept of right and wrong, good or bad (except of course in his twisted and bigoted mind, all religion is wrong and bad), Dawkins really does make one's head spin. I suppose once you've been a raving atheist as long as Dawkins, desultory and contradictory thoughts no longer light any internal awareness that one's thought process is embarrassing and should be kept to oneself.

Lead on O Prince. Lead on!

Atheist Brights Have It Backwards

Atheists giggle themselves silly when saying that believing in Jesus and the Christian paradigm is intellectually equivalent to believing in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. Ironically, the man who loves this side-splitting jest, Richard Dawkins, himself refuses to categorically deny that real fairies might live in his garden. This master of mythopoeia (“eyeballs evolve at the drop of a hat”) and the prime mover of the multi verse (“I'm sceptical of strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence” - priceless) truly believes that believing in Jesus the Christ is for children and not for rational adults (rationality being premised upon the laws of logic, the origin for which atheism has no explanation). 

Dawkins and his ilk have it completely backward. Much like his book (The God Delusion), Dawkins draws non sequitur conclusions from mind jangling premises.

You see, it's children who believe in Santa Claus and fairies and the Easter Bunny. And they believe at a depth that is appropriate to the topic. On the other hand it's children who abandon these beliefs when they reach the age of reason. A relationship with Jesus however, takes root and deepens into something real, meaningful and life-changing upon reaching the age of reason.

Oh sure little kids might say they believe in God, but they don't understand what they are saying. They only repeat what their parents have told them. It's when they reach the age of 25 or thereabouts, an age when humans begin to grasp the complexities of science, philosophy and religion that people who have met Jesus toss aside myths and fully embrace Jesus' offer of forgiveness. It is then that humans begin to comprehend the significance of a Creator as it relates to the existence of a material universe.

Interestingly this is also the age when atheists begin to cling most deeply to Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies. It's when atheists confirm in their own minds that inanimate and inorganic gases evolved into life. It's when atheists tell whomever will listen that matter has always existed, that an infinite regress of cause makes sense and that the laws of logic, mathematics and physics just appeared from nothing by nothing.

Dawkins, the one who has encouraged his followers to live by the slogan, “I”m a Bright and you're not,” see a belief in Santa and Jesus, to be equally foolish to consider. For those who are genetically predisposed to adopting the world-view of atheism, Dawkins' tactic seems to work.

The Gift of Faith

Atheists laugh at the credulity they imagine Christians to possess. 

Ya, atheists, 

. The same people who believe that everything material came from nothing material un caused by anything. 

 . The same people who have invented more than a dozen Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies. Eg. Multi verse>

“A tiny minority of those billions and billions of universes have their constants set in such a way as to give rise to a universe that lasts long enough to give rise to galaxies, stars, planets, chemistry and hence the process of evolution.”

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins also defines and ridicules faith as believing something in the complete absence of evidence. 

. The same people who say, "I don't know how the material universe came into being from literally nothing material without contradicting half a dozen known and accepted laws of physics, but I'm going to believe it happened that way regardless, because the alternative is not acceptable to me."

. The same people who believe that inanimate, inorganic gases evolved into life. Hmm.

While I'm one of the most sceptical people I know, the best and most precious gift I've ever been given is the gift of faith. Taking the same evidence that is before every person on the planet, the gift of faith has allowed me to agree with the conclusion that is presented in the Bible regarding this evidence. I do not however, have enough faith to believe the world-view of atheism. 

The ability to believe God's Word, to trust my Lord and my Saviour, nothing compares in value to me.

Thank you Father for the gift of faith. 

What's The Point?

Do you ever wonder about that? Is there a point to this existence? Seriously? What are we doing here? What are we supposed to accomplish? And if there is something that we're supposed to accomplish how do we figure out what it is?

I read somewhere that the apostle John, the man who wrote the Gospel of John, 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John, and Revelation, the man of whom it was said, 'He was the one who Jesus loved,' I read somewhere that as he was being carried into his last gathering of Christians (Church) he was asked, “How are we to live?” And, according to the account, John replied, “Love one another. Do this and it will be enough.” Of course John got that idea from hanging around with Messiah Jesus, Who has said to all of us who claim to follow Him, “Love others as I have loved you.”

Sounds like a good idea - right? Here's the catch. Jesus loves His enemies. He came to pay the penalty for our sins while we were/are still His enemy. And then He said, “Even pagans can love those who love them. but I say, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who persecute you.”

Well, I'm coming up to completing 63 years on this earth, 32 of those years trying to learn what that means to be a follower of Jesus. And as near as I can figure out, Jesus has asked us to do the impossible. It is simply not possible to love others as Jesus loved us – not I must add – without Jesus pouring His love into us first.

In order to love others as Jesus loves us, we must be enthralled with, and staggered by the character of our Redeemer, our Lord and our Saviour. Our love for Jesus must be such that everything we think, do, and say is motivated by this love for Christ. The peace and security from being in that kind of a relationship with one's Creator must be the core of what drives us. In order to love others as Jesus loves us, we must be regularly humbled by the grace of our Creator. Our hard and evil hearts need to be softened every day by spending quality time with Jesus. That is the only way that we as humans who are corrupt to the core can have developed within us a heart of tenderness, patience, forgiveness,and mercy.

When we love others as Jesus loves us, we do not love out of an inner need to please or to be accepted. Instead this other love is a natural consequence of an inner love for and from our Saviour. For how can we encourage others to forgive when forgiveness is not part of our own life? How can we encourage others to live lives of integrity if our own life is filled to the brim with inner contradictions? In order to be able to love others as Jesus loves us, we have no choice but to meditate on the presence and promises, and daily care that Jesus provides for us. As James 1:17 says, “ALL good things and EVERY perfect gift is from above. Coming down to us from the Creator of the universe in whom there is no shifting or changing like shadows.”

So difficult is the command of Jesus to love others as He loves us that both Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens recognized and admitted that it is impossible. Their choice of course is to reject the concept wholesale. We as followers of Jesus don't have that choice.

It is only Jesus' love that is working in us that can protect us against all the other potential idols of this world that vie for our attention and devotion. It is only when we worship our risen Lord that we will be able to guard ourselves against self-esteem and self-glory that is destroying not only humanity but the planet itself. Only a person who is marinaded in Jesus' love who can be turned into a humble giver of grace. Only deep gratitude for a suffering Saviour can make a person willing to suffer for one's enemy. Only a person who has “found contentment in any situation,” that can absorb hatred with no loss to self. It is only when we've been broken by the reality of our forgiveness that we can give grace and mercy to those to whom God has called us to serve. It's only when “my hope is built on nothing less,” that we become free from building the foundation of our identity on the sand of worldly value.

What's the point of this existence? The point is to glorify our Creator by loving others as Jesus loves us – sacrificially, eternally, unconditionally.

It is only when we experience, on a daily basis, the love of Jesus, the peace of His forgiveness and the hope of new character that we become passionate for others to experience the same rescue.

How Can A Loving God . . .

Have you noticed how people start the question, “How can a loving God,” and then they fill in the blank with the latest tragedy or loss or pain that they've experienced?

Been there.

Done that.

I've wondered how God, how a God of love (that's an important point) can sit and observe tragedy both in the lives of others and in my own life without intervening.

If you're an atheist, simply asking the above question is good enough to keep you from thinking any deeper. Like Richard Dawkins has said, “There's no point in asking questions of why, only questions of how.” That's because questions of why imply meaning and purpose and atheists most certainly don't want to go there. Simply throwing out the challenge is enough to keep atheists skimming the surface of life.  Yet the use of evil to bring about good, versus a passive observing of evil is how God works.

For example Jeremiah 29:10,11 – "This is what the Lord says: “You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised. For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for peace and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.”

God sat back and watched His chosen people be led away into captivity / slavery in Babylon. This was no safety-net slavery commanded by God and common to Hebrew society. Instead they were led away with hooks placed through their lower jaws. It was an experience so horrible and filled the captives with such rage that in one place the Psalmist fantasies about utterly destroying his captors and in doing so dashing Babylonian babyies heads against the rocks.

Notice how, from God's perspective (the only one that really counts) the terror and loss and pain does not happen in isolation. It is part of God's plan to bring good out of the horror.

No doubt, God allowing satan (notice how atheists never blame satan?) to wreak havoc in our lives is a difficult issue. Although, it's no more difficult than an atheist explaining the evolutionary purpose of pointless suffering. After all, we're no less barbaric today than humanity was in Babylonian times. Still and all, asking, “How could a loving God . . .?” is a good question.

An even better question, I think, is to ask the atheist, “So what do you think God should have done differently in order to prevent us from doing violence and harm to one another?

What should God have done differently so that He wouldn't have to sit back and watch us destroy this jewel of a planet?

What should God have done differently so that He wouldn't have to sit back and watch us allow 25,000 children to needlessly die – every single day?

What could God have done differently so that He wouldn't have had to sit back and watch us torture to death His own perfectly innocent Son?

What do you think? When God was creating this universe, what should He have done differently?

If you were God, how would you have set things up?

gods r us

Atheists accuse humans of creating gods in our own image. Assuming they're correct, we see that this is nowhere more true than in the atheist community itself.

“[The Christian God is] “Arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

We are usually repelled by the characteristics we think we see in others that we dimly recognize in ourselves. This is Richard Dawkins' perspective of Creator God.

In reality:

Creator God reveals Himself to us.

Through the Bible He describes Himself.

Through Creation we can intuit some of His attributes.

Through Jesus the Christ, Creator God displays His character in as clear a manner as is possible.

- He displays power over nature

- He displays power over sickness

- He displays power over death

- He displays power over sin

- He displays love and mercy and patience and forgiveness

If you want to know what your Creator is like, learn about Jesus who said, “If you have seen Me, you have seen Creator God,” and “I and Creator God are one and the same.”

All of this goes over the heads of atheists. The laziest of the bunch just say, “Jesus never existed,” and believe, they really believe that they've solved their issue of accountability before God.

Atheists do in fact invent god's in their own image. The gods that atheists invent are always virtually powerless, impotent and incapable of love. They are in fact gods that are unworthy of our worship.

Thankfully at this time of year we celebrate the arrival on earth of our Lord, our Saviour, our Creator. He came not to condemn us but to show us the way Home.

Don't be such a fool that you turn away from the offer of an eternity.

Merry Christmas

God Bless

Happy Holy Days

Ladies and Gentlemen - Richard Dawkins!

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and  you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Richard Dawkins 

If you disagree with Richard Dawkins on this point. If, when someone harms you, you think that what they've done is “wrong,” then you have good reason to also believe that atheism itself is a bogus world-view. For on atheism, what that person has done, at most, is flout social convention. 

"If there are objective values, they make the existence of God more probable than it would have been without them. Thus there exists a defensible argument from morality for the existence of God."

philosopher J.L.Mackie 

The Comedic Style of Atheists

“Atheism is a belief-system the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.”

Isn't that funny? I'm sure you've heard this and lines similar to it before. 

On a more sombre note, atheists believe that joke to be true. If it was true (it isn't) it would make it nearly impossible to explain why atheists:

. Have radio shows where the host and h/her guests talk about not collecting stamps.

. They write books by the hundreds and blogs by the thousands about not collecting stamps.

. They hold summer camps for their kids to teach them the skills of not collecting stamps.

. Atheists spent years (literally) holding conventions and meet-ups trying to come to a consensus on whether they are people who do not believe in collecting stamps or whether they are just not stamp collectors.

. They hold conventions and invite special speakers to describe how they became so zealous about not collecting stamps.

. They organize support groups for former stamp collectors.

. They write blogs describing their personal journey toward a life that entails not collecting any stamps at all. Not even at Stamp Collector's special celebratory times of the year.

. At those special times of the year, non stamp collectors protest loudly and do whatever they can to try to dampen the enthusiasm of those who enjoy collecting stamps. The joy of Stamp Collectors really seems to bother the non collectors.

. Despite all this, these non collectors will tell you that they never even think about stamp collecting. It's hard to tell if that's supposed to be one of their jokes or more likely, it's one of the many lies they tell themselves to support their "non hobby." 

. They evangelize almost non stop to get stamp collectors to stop doing that.

. They talk about how stamp collecting should be eradicated because it poisons everything.

. They work themselves into a frenzy, call lawyers and file lawsuits whenever they think the government is supporting people who collect stamps.

. They claim that not collecting stamps makes them better individuals than those who do collect stamps.

. They claim they are more intelligent than those who collect stamps.

. They compile arguments for why not collecting stamps is the best and most rational way to live.

.They develop points of dogma and codify behaviours to which others who don't collect stamps should adhere.

. They fight with each and call each other names about how best to not collect stamps.

. They put up billboards telling who ever will listen how irrational it is to collect stamps and that collecting stamps makes a person violent and dangerous. They call the Postmaster General names.

. They agonize over the presence of racism, sexism and misogyny that seems ubiquitous in characters of those who don't collect stamps.

. They revere their leaders and quote what their leaders say about not collecting stamps.

. They take particular delight in mocking and ridiculing those who do collect stamps.

The funniest part that I've heard lately is an atheist saying that not believing in gods can't be considered irrational, illogical or incoherent because having a material universe bring itself into existence makes perfect sense - to atheists. A material universe bringing itself into existence from literally nothing is a core implication of atheism, since a core implication of atheism is that there exists nothing outside of nature, and to this belief atheists must adhere. 

This even though there is not one shred of evidence that material things can just pop into existence from nothing without a cause.

This even though there is not one shred of evidence that a multi verse exists.

Yet, to atheists, to believe something without one shred of evidence is not considered irrational, illogical or incoherent.

Atheists say they live by standards such as, "I always ask:

Is it true

How do I know if it's true.

If it can't be proven to be true, I don't believe it."

Well, don't YOU believe that lie because that is not how they live. They would like it to be true. They would like YOU to believe that's how they live. But it's not. 

Atheists are fond of saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's true.

. Claiming that there is no evidence for Creator God is indeed an extraordinary claim.

. Claiming that inanimate and inorganic material evolved into life is indeed an extraordinary claim.

. Claiming that everything material came from nothing material without any cause is indeed an extraordinary claim.

After spending years trying to decide, “Should we say we don't believe in God,” OR “Should we say we're non believers in God,” atheists chose the latter. And here's why. To say they know that God doesn't exist requires evidence. To simply not believe in God doesn't require evidence. Like the Mormon Church did with blacks, the Church of Atheism did with itself. They simply changed their doctrinal stance to present a more acceptable public persona. 

Now, atheists are quick to admit that you can't prove a negative (in this case, God doesn't exist) but they certainly believe this negative that can't be proven. Without any supporting evidence, they simply claim materialism. 

"When New Atheism was loosed upon the world, birthed by writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, the Center for Inquiry was plunged into a crisis. But Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens were not especially interested in humanism (or tolerance, or kindness) and as a “new generation” of ungentlemanly soldiers they were not especially interested, either, in doing business with religion, at any level. CFI moved from being a beacon of sophisticated speculation about religion and secular values to becoming a support group for angry anti-religionists and college faddists. An organization that used its stable of worthies to fund worthy projects had chosen instead to become a celebrity booking agency for sideshow atheism. If atheism once had an ugly face (think Madalyn Murray O’Hair) this was its reincarnation."

Atheist R. Joseph Hoffmann – friend of the late Paul Kurtz