“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”. – Psalm 14-:1
A majority of Americans believe the main tenents of Christianity to be true, not merely myth or one of many belief systems. Unfortunately, there has been a concentrated effort to promote an evolution-based secular humanism as established state ‘religion.’ According to the religion of secular humanism, naturalism and skepticism are the gospel; and moral relativism represents a pliable replacement to the Ten Commandments.
I say let them have their own churches and immediately cease implementing their godless worldview as the law of the land. Historically, Judeo-Christian values and principles were acknowledged and respected as THE essential component of a well-ordered civil society. As we have removed this vital component, our republic continues to fragment.
The realities of our current day came to mind as I read Ravi Zacharias’ excellent Christian apologetic Has Christianity Failed You? I’d like to take a moment to focus on an excerpt from the book that I feel brilliantly summarizes the absurdity of the purely naturalistic worldview espoused by Atheists.
On pages 77-78 of Chapter 3, titled “Points of Tension”, Zacharias eloquently outlines the implausibility of the Atheist’s case against God. Only willful ignorance against knowable, experiential realities can account for the rigid adherence to such a narrow and irrational worldview.
First Ravi asserts:
…what is left to believe if we dispense with God and the miracle of life itself? We argue for the existence of things and continue to believe they exist, even though mathematically impossible. We default to the belief that ultimate cause is something physical, even though no physical entity, however sanctioned, explains its own existence.
Ravi is one hundred percent correct, of course. How can we have a creation without a creator? How can we have evolution without an origin? When relying solely on naturalistic methods and understandings, we are confined to certain explanatory limits. The most daunting barrier to a purely naturalistic worldview is the fact that nothing exists in the physical realm without being organically produced somehow. The atheist’s house of cards falls at it’s very foundation. In the case of naturalistic theories, the origin (as well as many other crucial aspects of their natural/existential explanations) can never be accounted for, thus making the exclusion of the unnatural, or supernatural, irrational. Why embrace mathematical impossibilities and disregard evidence that runs contrary to naturalism? Such intellectual dishonesty is highly deceptive and irresponsible.
Next, Ravi explains:
We hunger for love and meaning, even though we believe they are constructs of the mind and of culture and conditioning. We believe that only the empirical world is true, yet we posit this belief in the metaphysical terms. We believe that matter has produced mind but that the mind transcends matter. We believe that everything that comes into being must have a cause, yet we believe the universe is causeless. We assume intelligence behind intelligibility – except for the universe. We believe in humanity’s ability to totally transcend the mind and are forced to concede that we are subject to an unbreakable determinism.” We deny the absoluteness of good and evil, yet we fill our prisons with relativists who have believed this-often highly educated and successful citizens.
Here again, Ravi exposes a fatal flaw of the atheists’ narrowly naturalistic view of humanity and it’s surroundings. For the atheist, man’s propensity to seek ‘love’ and ‘fulfillment’ are arbitrarily acquired emotional constructs. The atheist must advocate something along these lines: that man’s natural desire for comfort, companionship, and self-worth are mere instincts that have evolved as man has undergone a certain level of civilization and sophistication through the centuries. But this flies in the face of our ability to think and theorize in the first place. Man’s capacity to reason is often ignored or excluded from the realm of objective inquiry. As a result, some of the most essential questions of all fall prey to a biased and ideological type of circular reasoning.
The naturalist relies on the ‘god of nature’ to produce a perfect blending of elements, materials, and conditions required to generate and sustain life over time. While morality and individual rights are altered, extended, and rewritten based on the whims and demands of these ‘material beings.’ The most ironic part of the atheistic perspective is ‘humanity’ putting ‘faith’ in his own unexplained, relativistic capacity to establish meaningful societal constructs in a world that is ultimately meaningless. Inconceivably, this ‘humanity’ is believed to be a ‘by-product’ of the blind evolution and progression of mindless organisms.
Where is our self-worth in all this? Considering our whole existence is essentially deemed an accident.
Ravi concludes his analysis of the inconsistent naturalist by proposing an important question to the reader. Which belief system endorses a ‘god of the gaps’ mentality as a central part of their belief system and overall worldview? Objective seekers need to thoughtfully consider this question and consider the intellectual (and more importantly, the existential) ramifications of their choice.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” – Psalm 19:1
Photo credit: reuvenim (Creative Commons)
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
All of the atheists I’ve known are cognitively, spiritually, and morally disabled. All of the communists I’ve known are atheists. Not all atheists are communists, but that suicidal ideology is their natural inclination. The communists who say they are Christians are liars playing the Sojourner-Gamaliel/liberation theology/social justice/humanist/Christ-was-a-communist scam. Consequently, discussing God with atheists is like discussing the color green with those blind from birth. Just as the blind should not drive school buses, atheists should not drive governments. Not surprisingly, even atheists survive better under Christian-led governments than under atheist-led governments.
The very small atheist minority does not have the right to inflict their disabilities on our vast, fully functioning majority. There are sound reasons why atheists are discriminated against and have extinction level birthrates worldwide. Turn your other cheek to fellow Christians, but never to atheists. As a rule: Atheists destroy, and Christians build.
From: http://elect.ErnestHuberForCongress.com/
That is why we have the separation of church and state bit in the Constitution. Because you people think you should be able to tell everyone else how to live their lives against their will. The other half of the world is getting really sick of you people trying to shove your false morality down our throats. Most of you don’t even live what you preach.
Perhaps you could point out where Separation of Church and state is mandated in the U.S. Constitution.
Read the The First Amendment and Article VI. Jefferson has also explained this in a letter, which is currently held by the library of congress. You can read his letter and agree or ignore it if you don’t have any interest in being skeptical of your personal views: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Danbury_Baptists_-_January_1,_1802
I don’t care what Jefferson wrote or that’s it’s in the library of CONgress, the poster stated “That is why we have the separation of church and state bit in the Constitution.”
I’m waiting for it to be shown to me, in the text of the Constitution, a specific requirement for separation of Church and State.
First amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I see no words there which require a separation of Church and State. It does prohibit CONgress from making laws establishing a National Religion, just as it prevents others from abridging the free exercise or Religion for those who do worship.
Article VI: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I see no words there which require a separation of Church and State.
I do see an exclusion for having “religious tests”, but nothing which states there is a requirement to separate Church and State.
People can (and do) interpret things anyway they want to, because we’ve been trained to do so by today’s politicians and attorneys. However, they didn’t write in legalese back then. They wrote in plain ole American English that ever common man could understand. They are specific on almost everything, yet there is nothing, ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution specifically requiring a separation of Church and State. It’s simply NOT there.
The first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the “Blessings” of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Who, or what did they expect to “bless” their new liberty, way back there in the 1700s?
And what about the use of the word “ordain”?
Definition of ORDAIN
transitive verb
1: to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority
2 a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : enact
b: destine, foreordain
To reformed druid….When has anyone said that you could not practice your non belief in God or practice Atheism in this country. You are free to worship or not worship as you please.
Ernest Huber, Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Sweden rank as some of the most democratic, free, healthiest, and even charitable countries in the world. They also happen to contain some of the largest percentages of non-believers. If atheism is in fact a “disability” and if there really were “sound reasons” that atheists are discriminated against like you claim, then we would not expect to see such unprecedented flourishing in these highly godless countries.
There is simply no excuse for your ignorant, deeply bigoted comments against atheists.
Properly defined the spirit (you) has no mass, no wavelength, no energy, and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate, i.e. the spirit is not a thing, it is the creator of things. By this definition we view immortality and the universe. Pragmatically the spirit needs a playground.
Atheist’s inversion to materialism produces a ‘belief’ the universe created them. Between these two viewpoints, disallowing absolutes, are gradients of ‘heaven and hell.’ Pragmatically it’s whatever YOU create. Worry not the Atheist, for he is hoeing a frantic road back to “native state.”…Semper Fi
Genesis 1:26 ~ “And God said, Let “us” make man in “our” image, after “our” likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Who are “us” and “our”? It doesn’t read And God said “I” will make man in “my” image and after “my” likeness, in any translation of the Bible I’ve read.
Any answers? Before you go off on me I’m Southern Baptist and believe in the one true God, (not the pagan allah).
Perhaps this quote can help: “[Religion] is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.” ~Joseph Campbell
VeeDub…the phrase “and God said” answers your question. If you are a Southern Baptist and believe in the one and only true God, you should know this.
I understand this is what God “said”, my question is why would God refer to Himself in the plural?
Since those who wrote the Bible didn’t actually hear God say this, when it was written, are we sure they were writing the words of the God I believe in, or were they of the opinion (as did most early Religions) that there was more than one God?
Gen3:22 Then the LORD God said, “The man has become like one of “us”, since he knows good and evil. He must not reach out and take the fruit from the tree of life and eat. Then he would live forever.”
“How can we have a creation without a creator?” Your question is poorly worded because using the term “creation” implies a “creator”. The better question is “What caused this universe to exist?” To which the answer is “We have theories and are working on that.” Not knowing the answer may not be satisfying to you which is why always insert “god did it”. You can either be skeptical of what you think is true and challenge your beliefs or you can not. Try rattling your faith in the supernatural – it might be good for you.
Are you asserting that everything came from nothing? If there is no “creator”, then what matter created the “big bang”? Knowing that the first law of thermodynamics says, you can’t create or destroy matter or energy. So if there was matter or energy that went bang, where did it come from?
Isn’t it also true that the “big bang” theory doesn’t address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it? That being a scientific given, then it logically follows that something or someone created the matter that created everything that exists today. So what could create the matter or energy? If there is no what, then one must ask who!
Unless we just say it’s magic!
Like I said, we have theories but do not know. We many never know, and that’s ok. The point being is that any theories proposed in general that cannot be disproved by careful experimentation should not be believed seriously. Your theory that a creator invoked the universe is subject to the same question you asked me: Where did the creator come from? If you postulate this creator has the property of eternal existence “outside” this universe, how can that be tested and verified by others? I do assert it currently cannot be tested therefor should not be seriously considered. I’m not even going to entertain your other logical fallacies.
I made no assertion that there was a creator! I merely posed questions, such as my first question as to who is “us” and “our”. Your response indicates that you have your mind set and are not open to having your personal beilefs questioned.
“I’m Southern Baptist and believe in the one true God” and “If there is no what, then one must ask who!” If that’s not an assertion of a creator, then my understating of the English language is really out of calibration.
You also mention the one true god and assert that alla is not it and pagan. I’m curious how you can disprove the claim that alla is actually not the one true god.
Your replies seem disingenuous VeeDub. Although you claim to be “just asking questions” I think a reasonable person can infer that you are trying to guide the answers in a certain direction, especially given your previous stated beliefs. Further, your line of questions are very common among those trying to argue for a God as first cause.
Unfortunately, even questions can be used irresponsibly and misleadingly. For example “Is the author of this article a Nazi? Maybe he is, maybe he’s not. If he’s not a Nazi, then is he a serial killer? It’s certainly possible.” These questions are misleading and it would be dishonest to simply say “I was just asking questions! I didn’t assert anything.”
I would argue that questions like “what, or who, made the universe?” are just as misleading.
Second, I believe you are jumping to conclusions in calling electrovista close minded, just because he responded to a reasonable interpretation of your questions. To me, it looks like electrovista headed off your questions, showing that they were moving in the wrong direction, and your response was to avoid responsibility for your leading questions by saying you were “just asking questions.”
Yes I’m a Southern Baptist, and Yes I believe in the one true God. HOWEVER, that is a statement of my personal BELIEF.
It is not an ASSERTION of fact that there is a God!
And isn’t asking “who” or “what” a fair question when seeking answers to the origin of all things?
No statement I’ve made attempts to imply that there absolutely is a God. Thus I can question things such as “us”, “our” “who” and “what. If I were to state for a fact that there is a God, then I would not have such questions.
The difference is that I’m open minded enough to seek answers to questions. Your’s seems closed to anything but your personal beliefs.
Simple enough!
An agnostic Southern Baptist. That’s interesting. I’m curious what I have said that makes think I’m closed-minded? Please quote from anything I have typed.
You can think what you wish common senses, matters not to me. I am a Christian. But unlike most, I neither endorse nor condemn ANY Religion or lack of. I am certain, however, that much of my lifestyle is not one which most people would refer to as a “good Christian” or “Holy Roller” if you will.
I don’t know for certain there is a God, but I choose believe there is one. Neither do I rule out the Big Bang or extraterrestrial beings. I do find it hard (not impossible) to believe the human body evolved from pond scum.
I don’t know that everything was created by God, so I can’t say for certain it was.
I don’t know that everything came from some unknown matter and blew up into what exists today, so I can’t say for certain it was.
My questions are posed to push those who hold to one certain “theory” to explain to me how they can be certain of their stance on the issue of God and/or the “Big Bang”.
Electrovista wrote; “point being is that any theories proposed in general that cannot be disproved by careful experimentation should not be believed seriously.”
We all know there is absolutely no way to prove the existence of God by experimentation. We all know the “theory” of evolution is still just a theory.
We all know the “theory” of the Big Bang is still just a theory.
We all know the “theory” of Earth being seeded by “aliens” is still just a theory.
I’m just open to ALL possibilities at the exclusion of none, while asking those who seem dead set on one conclusion to help me understand how they are able to exclude all other choices factually.
VeeDub. Thanks for the clarification. I maintain that electrovista correctly read your questions as a challenge, and answered them reasonably.
You said:
“My questions are posed to push those who hold to one certain “theory” to explain to me how they can be certain of their stance on the issue of God and/or the “Big Bang”.”
Where did electrovista indicate certainty on the issue? You’re assuming too much I think. One not need to be absolutely certain that something is true to believe it, or even to try to convince others of the fact. For example, an unsolved murder could have been committed by a leprechaun or bigfoot. These are possible. And yet it would be reasonable for one to believe that the murder was committed by a human. It would be irrational to even pursue the bigfoot or leprechaun possibilities, because they are so unlikely.
That makes comments like yours: “I’m just open to ALL possibilities to the exclusion of none” potentially absurd. There are many, many possibilities that are a total waste of time to even consider, unless some specific evidence came up to support them. Such is the case with a murderous bigfoot, and such is the case with God as first cause.
Your error seems to be in representing all possibilities as equally likely. Yes the big bang is possible. Yes, God as creator is possible. But only one is supported by the best empirical and mathematical evidence available from a variety of fields, from astronomy to physics. To even compare the two is absurd. An open mind follows the evidence where it leads, and sets aside hypotheses with no support, refusing to artificially hold out for totally unsupported hypotheses.
Electrovista: The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- “the” and ʾilāh “deity, god” to al-lāh meaning “the [sole] deity, God”
The name was previously used by pagan Meccans as a reference to a creator deity, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[12][13] The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) differ among religious traditions. In pre-Islamic Arabia amongst pagan Arabs, Allah was not considered the sole divinity, having associates and companions, sons and daughters–a concept that was deleted under the process of Islamization.
I don’t know any claims as brazen as the God of the Bible…..I believe it all fits
You may believe it does. But do you know?
First I would like to discuss this quote – ” Historically, Judeo-Christian values and principles were acknowledged and respected as THE essential component of a well-ordered civil society. As we have removed this vital component, our republic continues to fragment.” I would ask for any evidence that this is true. The western democracies where a god-centered religion is paying less and less a role in society the level of wealth is increasing, the rate of crime is going down, the freedom of all is increasing. In what way is our republic fragmenting? I would argue that as a science-based (as opposed to god-based) approach to problems becomes the norm the better off our republic is.
I’m curious as to where the author came to the conclusion that atheists are trying to establish secular humanism as the established religion. Conveniently, he cites no examples. Second, I am wondering why he thinks moral relativism is part of the secular humanist doctrine. Sounds like a straw man to me. My experience with secular humanists is that they do have what they consider moral absolutes, and I have never seen an example of an attempt to establish secular humanism as the state religion.
It also seems very strange to me how the author first claims that everything physical must be produced somehow, then claims the supernatural is a good explanation for the production of the physical. Unfortunately, this just pushes the problem back one step. What evidence does he have that the supernatural can be self causing? None, I would wager.
The supernatural remains another unsolved link in this chain. Should we then posit a super-supernatural realm, and claim supernaturalists are embracing “mathematically impossibilities” to avoid the super-supernatural realm? Of course not, but that’s the road the author is walking down. He just artificially stops the questioning when he gets the answer he likes: God.
It is only by bare assertion, not by evidence or reason, that one can claim that God or anything supernatural is self caused, needing no further cause. This is simply bad thinking, and weak, misleading argumentation.
The whole problem with Atheism is that atheists have no faith. The Bible tells us that “without faith, it is impossible to please God”.
Perhaps, but there is no evidence that the bible contains anything but the knowledge and belief of 6th-1st century BCE people. We have learned a lot since then. Perhaps your quote is not worth much as a truth statement.
Donald
You can call me dangerous, superstitious, passe’, what you wish
You can take my freedom, education, pride, love & honor
Cuz I’m through with the war you’re fightin’
Body and soul dividin’
Arrogance of enlightenment
With no fear of God almighty
Idle minds wait for signs out of line
You can keep your solutions, propaganda, justice, paranoia
Desire unable to satisfy you
Happiness will deny
With no fear of God almighty
Idle minds wait for signs out of line
Eye dull minds wait for signs end of the line
Truth Source Theory (TST) = For a statement of fact/truth (claim of fact/truth) to be true, there must be a source of that fact/truth.
The fundamental question inre the TST is this …
Q: Who/What is the source of the fact claimed to be true/the truth?
A: _____ (?)
Ex: Because of the fact that humans were not present when, according to the Bible, Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3, the universe was created by a god named God (Hebrew: Yahweh) in the first six days of Creation Week prior to the creation of humans, then the only source of info inre the fact/truth that the universe was created by God can only be God himself/herself/itself.
The fact/truth that the only source of info inre the creation of the universe by God could have been God himself/herself/itself raises a set of questions …
Q: Does God exist?
A: Yes: ___ (?); No: ___ (?)
Q: How does anyone know God exists?
A: _____ (?)
Q: When did God tell humans the story of creation?
A: _____ (?)
Q: How did God communicate with humans?
A: _____ (?)
Q: To whom among humans did God communicate?
A: _____ (?)
Q: How do we know that God communicated with humans?
A: _____ (?)
The TST also requires so-called ‘holy books’ that are supposed to be the ‘official’ source of truth from the gods/God be completely free of errors including contradictions (doublets — two or more stories inre the same people/objects/events which conflict inre the specific details inre the people/objects/events and therefore contradict each other and prompt the question/wonderment inre which story is true/the truth or whether both/all stories are false), parallels (similarities inre people/objects/events reported in pre-existing holy books from other pre-existing religions), and historical and scientific inaccuracies (claims of facts known to be false as proven by historical records and physical evidence discovered by scientists).
The Judeo-Christian Bible is not a reliable source of info inre the gods/God because it contains contradictions, parallels and historical and scientific inaccuracies.
Apologists have tried to ‘prove’ that in the Bible the contradictions are not contradictions and the parallels are not parallels and the historical and scientific inaccuracies are not inaccuracies but the fact/truth is that the apologists’ claims/’proofs’ have not been logical/rational/based upon historical or physical evidence and therefore have not been accepted as valid/true by logical/rational people.
The TST questions can be summarized in this simple question to anyone making a claim of fact/truth …
Q: How do you know what you claim is the truth is the truth? (How do you know what you claim is true is true?)
A: _____ (?)
In his/her/its answer the individual must state the source of proof of the truth.
No proof = No truth!
No Truth Source = No Truth!