Of Invisible Pink Unicorns

How many times have I encountered the atheist standard argument about not believing in invisible pink unicorns and thus not believing in God either?  Variations on the theme are leprechauns, Santa Claus, ice cream factories on some other planet and the truly inane flying spaghetti monster (FSM) and  such.  Have you met up with one of these arguments against theism or deism?  I see it all the time.

These are nothing more than popular variations of B. Russell’s famous “Tea Pot” argument. This argument is only famous because Russell was famous.  For, it has no real validity.  Russell argued that he could assert that there was a tea pot floating in space somewhere,  so small that no telescope could detect it.  And given this assertion, no one would be required to believe in the tea pot, because there is no real evidence, just assertion.  The tea pot cannot be proved not to exist.

Typical of the logical positivists.  Logical positivism – a misnomer because there was never anything either logical or positive about it – a philosophical system now bankrupt, now defunct and lying in ruins because it was void of reason but full of bare assertions and hot air.  Sounds like the whole of atheism doesn’t it.

The argument is devised to show that if a thing can’t be proved or disproved to exist, then the burden of proof belongs to asserting its existence.  Therefore since – according to atheists – God can neither be proved nor disproved to exist, the theists, who assert his existence, must prove it.  Since the atheist assumes the existence of God cannot be proved he believes himself to be thinking logically and the theist to be unreasonable or even irrational.  We see this type of position posited everywhere across cyberspace as though it were some fatal blow to theism.  It isn’t.  Not even close.

The tea pot in space argument is flawed.  Curiously, atheists never figure this out and still flaunt it over and over again, ad nauseum.  I was once challenged to produce a refutation, and the challenge was stated in terms indicating that the challenger believed the argument irrefutable – even though its been refuted many times.

What they’re really doing is trying – as always – to squirm their way out of having any burden of proof of their own in asserting the non existence of God.  Whenever atheists do this, it’s mere escapism and denial.  For, to pretend they have no burden of proof is tantamount to saying they have no position, that – once again – atheism were a mere involuntary state of “lack of belief”.   This has been refuted here, here and here as well as many other places across the web.

Now for the IPU argument itself.

As Dinesh D’Souza has aptly pointed out, there are no books called “Unicorns Are Not Great”, or “The Unicorn Delusion”. Nor are there any books around called “The Flying Spaghetti Monster Delusion”, the FSM being yet another example of just how dumb atheists have become in their never ceasing efforts to show themselves inapt in reason and logic. They never see it though.

So how does one dismiss the invisible pink unicorn argument, specifically?  I respond with Rich Deem’s simple refutation:

Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term “invisible pink unicorn” is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don’t know who invented the term “invisible pink unicorns,” but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

You can read the whole argument here.

So as you see, the IPU “argument” is so deeply stupid it doesn’t even qualify as an real argument.  Now, given just how easily the IPU argument is shown to be just plain dumb, unscientific and unthinking, you would think atheists would get smart and try to find something that could at least qualify as reasonable.  Do they? Well no, not really.

Russell’s tea pot argument is just as easily refuted.  Several refutations can be proposed and William L. Craig has given a few.

But just for fun consider:  tea pots are uniquely human artifacts.  Therefore, the only possible way there could be a tea pot floating around the moon, sun etc. would be that some humanly fabricated tea pot escaped from some also humanly fabricated space ship, or, that some crazy person on earth sent one into space on a launch platform capable of sending its payload right out of earth’s magnetic field.

Is that possible? Of course something like that could be done.  So, there may very well be a tea pot orbiting Earth for all we know.  But do we have any historical records from NASA, the Russians or whoever, of a tea pot having escaped from some space mission? Well gee, I don’t think so.  But this isn’t really the point.

The point being that such arguments generally commit two logical fallacies, i.e. a fallacy of equivocation and a category error.

Again, the same reasoning applies to FSM’s or anything else the ill-thinking atheist may dream up to escape the wholly logical God inference.

Now,  back to the more important reasons to dismiss all such “tea pot” arguments.  They are category errors. They are fallacies of equivocation when used as comparisons to the inference of the existence of a supreme being logic.  Comparing the belief  in a tea pot orbiting a planet, to the logical inference based belief in the existence of a first and sufficient cause for the existence of the universe, is utterly hilarious.  If only it weren’t so seriously posited by unthinking atheists – obviously trying to escape their own burden of proof.

Moreover, if they have no burden of proof it could only be if atheism were not a metaphysical position at all, but a mere involuntary state of mind.  But the fact that they are everywhere stating their position and fervently arguing for it shows that they do indeed hold the “no god” stance as a metaphysical position, a chosen belief – not a bare lack thereof!

Atheists prove their religious devotion to their world view, their metaphysics, by writing so many books, debating everywhere and by infesting web forums ever trying to refute the existence of God – and never ever succeeding! Religious fervor is the only appropriate label to put on such behavior. Yet,  all while they’ll still vehemently deny it.  Denial of reality is atheism’s most glaring trait.

Atheists admit they cannot prove that there is no God.  So what does that imply? Just this, that atheism is a position that can only be held by blind faith.  Since no proof of their position exists, blind faith in that position is the only thing left.

Curiously the atheist always accuses the theist of this very thing! The theist however knows that all things can used as a starting point towards the First Cause inference and yet nothing at all can be used to the contrary!

A supreme being’s existence is logically inferred by the very existence of the universe itself.  How so?  Well, we know the universe is not eternal – it has an age.  This is not hard.  We also know it doesn’t oscillate eternally – Fred Hoyle’s hopeful hypothesis – that he was forced to abandon due to the evidence against it.

This of course implies that something made it, and that whatever made it necessarily exists apart from it.

We know too that it cannot have created itself.  Something creating itself from from nothing?  The very idea is preposterous – except to blind atheism’s terrible reasoning.  You see – “nothing” doesn’t exist.  Nothing, as non-existence, cannot be said to have properties, energy, matter, law.  So the more recent nonsense arguments of “quantum fluctuations” in some speculative void, are still “fluctuations of nothing” – i.e.  more logical absurdity.

So where do all these glaring anomaly’s leave the poor atheist? In a logic void.  Atheism, as C.S Lewis so aptly states, “turns out to be too simple.  If the universe has no meaning we should never have discovered it has no meaning”.  Thus the arguments (tea pots, IPUs, FSMs etc.) that the new atheist is so proud of verbalizing turn out to be lame-brained nonsense as soon as the light of reason and logic is applied to them properly.

The atheist is thus left in a philosophical no mans land because taking his arguments to their logical conclusions always leads to absurdity, or else a kind of metaphysical free-for-all, in which nothing can be proved.  But if nothing can be proved, then we have no reason to believe in ourselves.

No invisible pink unicorns

The Secular Humanist Conspiracy

Don’t you just love a good conspiracy theory?  I do.  They can be so much fun, even instructive and eye opening.  Some of course are so far off the wall that they give a bad name to the rest.   Some are so-so credible but lack any convincing evidence. Others ring so truly that they are downright scary.

Well, one that fits the last category has got to be the one I call here simply the “secular humanist conspiracy”.  For, if ever there was a true conspiracy of the kind that grabs the attention of the public, this should have been it.  But it wasn’t and it still isn’t.  It’s a conspiracy that was put into action many decades ago and is still in “all out cultural war” phase.

One must not confuse secular humanism with humanitarianism.  The two could not be farther apart.

The most amazing thing about this conspiracy is how well it has been dissimulated, brushed under the carpet,  yet not so secretly implemented.  Yet the evidence of it is everywhere.  The evidence of it isn’t even hard to find.  The secular humanist high priests worked simply and rather brilliantly in conceiving it and putting it into action.  Most of them were not even surreptitious when speaking publicly about their plans.

They met with such little opposition probably because either no one paid much attention or, those who should have and could opposed them didn’t because of their own ignorance and/or apathy.

So, where is the evidence of such a conspiracy that has led to the downfall of American society in general?

Secular Humanist Charles F. Potter wrote,

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?” (Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)

The term secular humanism was first known to have been used in the 1930′s.  In 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day, William Temple, warned that the “Christian tradition… was in danger of being undermined by a Secular Humanism which hoped to retain Christian values without Christian faith.” – “Free Church ministers in Anglican pulpits. Dr Temple’s call: the South India Scheme.” The Guardian, 26 May 1943, p.6

John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America’s current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto.  Called “The Father of Modern Education” John Dewey was a Communist, atheist and a signer of the Humanist Manifesto and of course one of the great secular humanist conspirators.  Dewey stated clearly enough,

“You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Isn’t it amazing how liberty and freedom of thought and speech disappear under the reign of secular humanism?! No matter how much they insist they’re all for freedom – theirs that is, not yours.

Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, stated, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”   Darwinian evolution is the certainly secular humanists origins myth.  Believed largely for metaphysical reasons and not scientific ones.  These religious fanatics like to pretend these days, contrary to their forefathers, that secular humanism isn’t a religion, but clearly it is as the quotes here easily demonstrate.

One of the most famous humanists, Paul Kurtz often called “the father of secular humanism”,  founded of the “Council for Secular Humanism” and of the “International Academy of Humanism, USA”, wrote in the preface to the Humanist Manifesto 2000:

“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” 

Kurtz’ books call for the establishment of humanist churches.  Not a religion?

Yet, in his farewell address to the new nation of the United States of America (September 19, 1796), George Washington declared,

“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Make no mistake, secular humanism is founded upon atheism, otherwise known as metaphysical naturalism – a religion, a very old religion.

The term secularism was coined in 1851 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.”  Once a staunch Owenite, Holyoake was strongly influenced by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism and of modern sociology. Comte believed human history would progress in a ‘law of three stages’ from a ‘theological’ phase, to the ‘metaphysical’, toward a fully rational ‘positivist’ society. In later life, Comte had attempted to introduce a ‘religion of humanity’ in light of growing anti-religious sentiment and social malaise in revolutionary France. This ‘religion’ would necessarily fulfill the functional, cohesive role that supernatural religion once served. Whilst Comte’s religious movement was unsuccessful, the positivist philosophy of science itself played a major role in the proliferation of secular organizations in the 19th century. – (from wikipedia … verifiable)

Robert Muller (former assistant to the secretary general of the UN):

 ”Within 15 years we will have a proper government and administration of planet earth and of humanity. Why? Because the current troubles, injustices, wastes and colossal duplications of national expenditures – especially on armaments and the military – will force us to. It is inevitable. The salvation of this planet and survival of the human species depend on it. No one can for long go against evolution. Nation-states must adapt or they will disintegrate, even the biggest ones.” (http://goodmorningworld.org/blog/2006/01/gmw-852-robet-muller-happiest-person.html).

Humanist John J. Dunphy wrote:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being.
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level — preschool day care center or large state university.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. – A Religion For A New Age, The Humanist magazine, January-February 1983

Tell me again how this isn’t a religion in the public education system! Darwinism is its origins myth.

These are the highly influential persons whom, with billion dollar aid from other famous humanists, pushed this “hidden agenda” into the public schools. Yet they are also the ones who are always claiming the infamous Establishment Clause when faced with any threat to the Darwinist agenda in public schools! All of this is rather amazing in itself, but the mass media – virtually all controlled by secular humanists -  have just sort of neglected to tell the public of these things! They are conspirators themselves for the most part and have not so curiously failed to report on any of this, either as it was being planned or while it was being implemented and to this day the liberal media bias and insistence on sweeping all such inferences under the rug is as clear as a warning bell.

Secular humanists love to speak of personal freedom, self-fulfillment, the good of humanity etc.  But as soon as you start digging deeper, all is defined according to their own terms, no one else’s definitions are allowed in the door!Indeed, it turns out that the religion of secular humanism is all about selfishness and population control of the mass by the self-styled “elite” of society.  They want to form a society guided only according to their own religious dogma of atheism, scientism and elitism.  The roots of secular humanism are selfishness and atheism, even though they deny the former.  Of course they deny it!

Humanism is nothing more than a modern push to create a new tower of Babel, trying to reach heaven, a new religion in defiance of God where self is the only god.   It is an attempt to return to Eden, to paradise on earth, but by all the wrong means.  Means that can never work as all the world witnessed with the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia etc.  The end of purely secular governments, based on atheism is nothing but human suffering, misery, mass murders, torture and “killing fields”!

Look at this revealing, and rather disgusting, quote by secular humanist geneticist Richard Lewontin,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

And this one beats ‘em all:
“Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.” – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

How’s that for inane drone “thinking” and overt dishonesty!?

The lovely but poisoned apple of humanism

Evolution News and Views editor, Anika Smith, wrote a column in the SPU Falcon newspaper titled “Beware of ‘Darwin Day’”.  In describing some of the more humorous elements of Darwin Day celebrations (carols, Darwin look-alike contests and even an incredible, edible tree of life) Smith notes the holiday’s familiar trappings.

“If you’re wondering what a secular humanist does to commemorate such an occasion, it turns out that these particular humanists stand on street corners and hand out leaflets about evolution in an attempt to reach passers-by.

 In Victoria, B.C., a philosophy of religion professor organized a Darwin Day celebration for his students where they decked the halls with humanist style. Participants decorated an evolution tree, exchanged Darwin cards and even sang evolution carols.

 If this sounds familiar to you, that’s because it was designed that way. This celebration, like so many others, was styled as a “light-hearted satire” of Christmas. Had the celebration taken place in a culture with a different religious history, such as Turkey, it might look something more like the Feast of Sacrifice.”

Not a religion huh?  Got any more clueless claims, humanists?

Now, let’s look at some of those who signed the Humanist Manifesto III I highlighted a few :

Khoren Arisian
Senior Leader, NY Society for Ethical Culture

Bill Baird
Reproductive rights pioneer

Frank Berger
Pharmacologist, developer of anti-anxiety drugs

Lester R. Brown
Founder and president, Earth Policy Institute

August E. Brunsman IV
Executive director, Secular Student Alliance

Rob Buitenweg
Vice president, International Humanist and Ethical Union

Vern Bullough
Sexologist and former copresident of the International Humanist and Ethical Union

David Bumbaugh
Professor, Meadville Lombard Theological School

Matt Cherry
Executive director, Institute for Humanist Studies

Joseph Chuman
Visiting professor of religion, Columbia University, and leader, Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County, New Jersey

Curt Collier
leader, Riverdale-Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture, New York

Fred Cook
Retired executive committee member, International Humanist and Ethical Union

Carlton Coon
Former US Ambassador to Nepal

Richard Dawkins (what a surprise huh)
Charles Simonyi professor, University of Oxford

Arthur Dobrin
Professor of humanities, Hofstra University and leader emeritus Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, New York

Margaret Downey
President, Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia

Riane Eisler
President, Center for Partnership Studies

Albert Ellis
Creator of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and founder of the Alber Ellis Institute

Edward L. Ericson
Leader emeritus, Ethical Culture

Antony Flew
Philosopher

Arun Gandhi
Cofounder, M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

Kendyl Gibbons
President, Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association

Sol Gordon
Sexologist

Pervez Hoodbhoy
Professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Fran P. Hosken
Editor, Women’s International Network News

Joan Johnson Lewis
President, National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union

Edwin Kagin
Founder and director, Camp Quest

Beth Lamont
AHA NGO representative to the United Nations

Gerald A. Larue
Professor emeritus of biblical history and archaeology, University of Southern California

Ellen McBride
Immediate past president, American Ethical Union

Henry Morgentaler
Abortion rights pioneer

Stephen Mumford
President, Center for Research on Population and Security

William Murry
President and dean, Meadville-Lombard Theological School

Indumati Parikh
President, Center for the Study of Social Change, India

Katha Pollitt
Columnist, the Nation

Eugenie Scott
Executive director, National Center for Science Education

Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine

James R. Simpson
Professor of international agricultural economics, Ryukoku University, Japan

Matthew Ies. Spetter
Associate professor in social psychology at the Peace Studies Institute of Manhattan College, NY

Oliver Stone
Academy award-winning filmmaker

John Swomley
Professor emeritus of social ethics, St. Paul School of Theology

Carl Thitchener
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York

Maureen Thitchener
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York

Kurt Vonnegut
Novelist

Edward O. Wilson
Professor, Harvard University,
…

Of course I excluded a lot of other names.  Notice how many scientists, so-called “ministers” or “theologians” and wealthy and influential persons are on the list in organizations related to “ethics”, education and religion!

None dare call it conspiracy. Of course, there are no conspiracies in America! None… no no no… and anyone who says there is, is a paranoid nut case.   Ya right…

So how did they succeed in bringing the religion of humanism into the whole of public departments – education, justice et al.?  Quietly, stealthily, insidiously at first, now quite openly.  They believe they are invincible, just as did Nimrod and his slaves, right before the confusion of languages was put on the builders of Babel.

The humanists simply placed all the most dedicated of their dupes in key positions of power in the education departments of the nation and then started bad-mouthing Christianity and religion, calling for the infamous “separation of church and state” all while pretending religious neutrality! All while constantly reiterating (good pedagogy) the post modernist refrains that only science can tell us the truth, the religion is passé and that it must not be allowed in the classroom.   This all while implanting their own religion in the classrooms!

No conspiracy here?
If you believe this was not a long planned and keenly executed conspiracy, I have a few big beautiful bridges to sell you… cheap, as well as some huge land lots on Mars that you can leave to your posterity when humans will be living there.

Virtually every public school in America was taken over by these people and most of America (and Europe as well) has swallowed all these lies and accepted all this.

Winston Churchill commented,

“If you will not fight for the right when you can win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

This is what is going to happen, and much sooner than we think, if we don’t get off our lazy asses and stand up and protest with righteous indignation -and plenty of proof of what we state.  We must be able to present viable solutions to remedy the catastrophic consequences that secular humanism and its goons have wreaked on the morals of society already. Consequences that already display the taking of incalculable numbers of lives and wrought irreparable damage.

It’s time to oust this intruder, this liar, the secular dogmatist & manipulator from the whole social system of the West.

More Atheist Folly

Fanatical atheists infest the halls of Internet forumdom, spewing forth anti-religion, antichrist and anti-rationality in their never ceasing goal to proselytize.

Call one of these ignorant, and usually uneducated preachers what they really are and you’ll get blasted by many vehement accusations of breaking some moral principle of “niceness”.

Of course, according to atheist uh hum “logic”, objective morality doesn’t exist, seeing there is no “ultimate foundations for ethics” and morality is “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”

Hey, we can thank evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson for that bit of ill tasting codswallop.

But here’s the thing: why should anyone care when atheists point fingers at theists for calling them vidiots¹ , hypocrites, or whatever, when it’s true?

They contradict themselves by such accusations and never see the contradiction.  If you point it out to them what do they do? Well they resort to pretending your comment is a strawman!  Apparently they don’t know what a strawman is.  They don’t know that following the laws of logic, it’s been shown many times by many philosophers that atheism necessarily leads to the conclusion that no objective values exist and relativism is all that remains.

Atheism is ‘lack of belief’? Sequel

I’ve been told over and over again, and in the most passionate if often vehement fashion, that atheism is not a religion but simply the absence of belief.   I wrote an article refuting this claim here.  In debates with atheists on the subject I am always being assured that newborns are essentially atheists because they are born without any beliefs.  I’m told that atheism, being lack of belief, means that newly born babes qualify as atheists.  Of course that is ridiculous and in fact rather anserine.

Today, I came across this article on the web entitled Children as young as four to be educated in atheism.

My, but my atheist antagonists ought to be embarrassed at this!

Surely even the most ignorant and incompetent atheist can see that there can be no need to educate young children into atheism if atheism is truly their inborn lack of belief! They are born atheists, according to them!

Isn’t it amazing how atheists contradict themselves at every turn? If newborns are already atheists why in the world would they need indoctrination in atheism? Surely just being left alone would suffice to leave them atheists. Ah, but the atheist will claim they will be inundated with theistic or deistic ideas during their lives so we must protect that innate atheism! Really? Why?

Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism (remember the more than 100 million killings under atheist regimes in the 20th century alone).

If, by atheist reasoning, the universe really created  itself out of nothing (the atheists only origins option), and if the universe consequently really has no meaning, no purpose, no good and no evil, why should anyone care what anyone else believes anyway? Why are atheists so adamantly evangelistic on making sure all remain, as they allege, “atheists from birth”.

Obviously they feel they need more.  Should theists now start using PANIC HEADLINES of the atheist genre?

“Atheists, now they’re coming for  your children!“

- to mimic the Times article on Dawkins’ latest drivel on which I commented here.

Of course, this kind of headline would be entirely justified in this case, if only because they want to preach their inane religion in public schools (as though they don’t already under the guise of science). These people are fanatically against teaching any kind of religion in schools and even having any kind of religious symbol displayed in any public place, yet here they come! They now want indoctrinate kids in schools into their religion, all while claiming kids are naturally atheistic!!

Now here I will quote Dr Michael V. Antony, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. Dr. Antony addressed this “lack of belief” argument thus (my bold):

It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. Evidence is not needed for ‘non-positions’.

While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use.  So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats.

Yet none of that really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence. As we saw, evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc. Therefore evidentialism says, with respect to the proposition God exists, that any attitude toward it will be rational or justified if and only if it fits one’s evidence. Now it is true that if one had no position whatever regarding the proposition God exists (perhaps because one has never entertained the thought), no evidence would be required for that non-position. But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help.

Mere absence of belief is not a position.  Atheism is, it is a chosen position.  Atheism, as denial of reality, is a form of insanity, therefore it is doubtful we will ever cease having to deal with atheist nonsense.  Will we ever see the end of this blatant insanity?

Quotes on atheism

Here’s a short collection of quotes on atheists and atheism I’ve garnered over the years. Some are profound insights, some are just the obvious and others are rather humorous. Enjoy.

“The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp.”
-O’Hair M.M., “Agnostics”

“Atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man…..”
-Sir Francis Bacon

“Atheism is the death of hope, the suicide of the soul…..”
-Anonymous

“An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can’t see…..”
-O.A. Battista, Power to Influence People c.1959

“Atheism is a theoretical formulation of the discouraged life…”
-Harry Emerson Fosdick

“There are no atheists in the foxholes of Bataan…”
General D. MacArthur: Sermons on Bataan, March 1942

“If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.”
-Alvin Plantinga

“Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys…”
-James M. Gillis

“Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power…..” – Plato

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding…..”
-Plato

“No one ever dies an atheist…..”
-Plato

“The religion of the atheist has a God-shaped blank at it’s heart…..”
-H.G. Wells

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..”
-Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

“Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misapprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark,will sing or whistle to keep their courage….”
-Alexander Pope

“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
-Francis Bacon

“There was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God.”
-Francis Bacon

“In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners.”
-Jonathon Miller

“It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.”
-Mohandas Gandhi

“A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere–’Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,’ as Herbert says, ‘fine nets and stratagems.’ God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.”
-C.S. Lewis

“We find the most terrible form of atheism, not in the militant and passionate struggle against the idea of God himself, but in the practical atheism of everyday living, in indifference and torpor. We often encounter these forms of atheism among those who are formally Christians.”
-Nicolai A. Berdyaev

“Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.”
-Tom Stoppard

“If atheism spread, it would become a religion as intolerable as the ancient ones.”
-Gustave le Bon

“You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you.”
-Napoleon Bonaparte

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”
-G.K. Chesterton

“Atheism is a disease of the mind caused by eating underdone philosophy.”
-Austin O’Malley, Keystones of Thought

“If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. [So] you must wager. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.”
-Blaise Pascal (this is know as Pascal’s Wager)

“If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence.”
-George MacDonald

“Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter.”
-William Murray

“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.”
-Vox Day

“A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually results in a belief in anything.” -unknown

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers–including even his power to revolt…It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower.”
-C.S. Lewis

“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge”
-Ravi Zacharias

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
-C.S. Lewis

“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job.”
- J.B. Phillips

“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol.”
-Deitrich Bonhoeffer

“A god who would stoop so low as to prove his existence to satisfy a human’s disbelief or demand for proof, would be no god at all”
- Me

“What can be more foolish than to think that all this rare fabric of heaven and earth could come by chance, when all the skill of art is not able to make an oyster? To see rare effects, and no cause ; a motion, without a mover ; a circle, without a centre ; a time, without an eternity ; a second, without a first : these are things so against philosophy and natural reason, that he must be a beast in understanding who can believe in them. The thing formed, says that nothing formed it ; and that which is made is, while that which made it is not, This folly is infinite.”
-Jeremy Taylor

“Shouldn’t atheist have an equal obligation to explain pleasure in a world of randomness. Where does pleasure come from?”
-G.K. Chesterton

“Understanding God is not attained by calling into session all arguments for and against Him, in order to debate whether He is a reality or a figment of the mind. God cannot be sensed as a second thought, as an explanation of the origin of the universe. He is either the first and the last, or just another concept.”
-Abraham Joshua Heschel

“God will not take shelter behind a jugglery of logic or metaphysics. He is neither a schoolman nor theologian, but our Father in Heaven.”
-George MacDonald

“Without God man has no reference point to define himself. 20th century philosophy manifests the chaos of man seeking to understand himself as a creature with dignity while having no reference point for that dignity.”
-R. C. Sproul

“God is dead” – F. Neitzche
“Neitzche is dead” – God

“Unbelief in God is idolatry”
-Me

“An “impersonal God”– well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads — better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap — best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps, approaching an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband — that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (“Man’s search for God!”) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?
-C. S. Lewis

“I believe in God as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
-C. S. Lewis

“From the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing God or self for the centre is opened to it.”
- C.S. Lewis

“As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
-C. S. Lewis

“Fervid atheism is usually a screen for repressed religion.”
-WILHELM STEKEL

“The atheist has no hope.”
-J. F. Clarke

“Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.” – Chesterton, Gilbert K.

“Forth from his dark and lonely hiding-place, (Portentous sight!) the owlet Atheism, sailing on obscene wings athwart the noon, drops his blue-fringed lids, and holds them close, and hooting at the glorious sun in Heaven, cries out, Where is it?”
-Coleridge, Samuel Taylor

“He must pull out his own eyes, and see no creature, before he can say, he sees no God; He must be no man, and quench his reasonable soul, before he can say to himself, there is no God.”
-John Donne

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.”
- Dostoevski, Fyodor

“Here lies an Atheist: All Dressed Up and No Place to Go.”
-Epitaph

“An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident.”
-Thompson, Francis

“I wanted to be an atheist, but I gave it up. They have no holidays.”
– Henry Youngman

“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159- 60

“The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike…Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish.”
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”
“Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe.”
“A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid…”
-CS Lewis

“Who made God? Doesn’t matter.  We are not responsible to a hypothetical maker of God but to our maker – God.”
-Walter Martin

“It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan. “
-Calvin Coolidge, speech, Jul. 25, 1924

La nature a des perfections pour montrer qu’elle est l’image de Dieu, et des défauts pour montrer qu’elle n’en est que l’image. Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image. (Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662)

“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist…. Nor…are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior”
-Sartre(1961, p. 485).

“You have to assume the law of noncontradiction in order to disprove it.”
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned”
-Metaphysics I.

“Scepticism, ironically, draws its life’s blood from claims to have a good deal of knowledge. For example, your friends claim to know, ‘Since every possible option has not been explored, nothing can be said for certain.’ That statement is itself a claim to knowledge!”
-William L. Craig

“…I find that there is no such thing as “reasonable non belief.” The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn’t deserve the adjective “reasonable”
-JP Holding, in his essay rebutting a work of atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder

The three stooges of neoatheism: Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris

Atheism, Darwinism and denial of reality

Richard Dawkins wrote in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”,

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Dawkins. What a poser!

The argument needs to be restated more honestly like, “It looks designed, but my metaphysics says it can’t be ’cause there is no designer. Therefore, chance and necessity, evolution must have done it”.

This kind of argumentation is everywhere to be found in the atheistic Darwinian literature.

So what do they do to sound “scientific” while actually promoting mere foolishness? Easy. They invent another just-so story style argument.  They accuse the non materialists of “arguing from ignorance” or arguing from incredulity.  But, accusing an opponent of a logical fallacy is not an argument in itself. So that gives no advance to them at all in supporting the stories with evidence.

This tactic usually sounds something like this, “We don’t really have a clue how this could possibly happen and certainly no god is needed therefore here’s a story… perhaps this and perhaps that and um, if you don’t swallow the story I just made up well you’re just being ignorant and incredulous”.  Then they will cite some evolutionary study that shows some minor piece of adaptation and claim its a major proof.

So is the non materialist really arguing from ignorance or incredulity? Of course not. Whether he realizes it or not he is in fact arguing from physics and more precisely from statistical mechanics.  See my short article here.

Back to Dawkins’ statement, a quick and simple analysis:

• It’s pure metaphysical presumption. Dawkins assumes there is no designer and then, without any thought of actually proving it, makes a bold but empty declaration, a bare unfounded assertion.
• If anything object or system with a function looks like it was designed for a purpose, why should one assume it was not? That isn’t science, that is metaphysics [religion] and in Dawkins’ case, wishful thinking. And it’s bad science at that.
• Why is something that has a function that accomplishes a distinct AND useful result not to be assumed to have a purpose and therefore a design? There is no valid reason.  Indeed, neither do we ever see any offered!

Thus we see that Dawkins, while a master story teller, is a very poor logician or thinker. So what does he, and his many disciples, do when confronted with the facts of this? Well they all begin the “shake a rubber chicken” dance, while blindfolded, chanting, “I see no proof of God!”.

It gets worse believe it or not! From no less than DNA discovery Nobel laureate Francis Crick:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” – Francis Crick

Gee, I wonder why biologists must keep this in mind! Isn’t it obvious that he would never have said this if the design was not so conspicuous that it intrinsically contradicts the biologist’s Darwinian indoctrination?  If anything is clear then that much is clear.

This is exactly the same “do not go where the evidence leads if it doesn’t support materialism” mentality of Dawkins and his “designoids”.

Indeed, why on earth invent “designoids” if the appearance of design is not so overwhelming?  Yet overwhelming as it may be, it cannot be real design because the metaphysics of these men requires it!  Their religion requires denial of it, else they must convert to something other than materialism; and heaven forbid the poor souls from that!! My goodness, it would ruin their entire false sense of security in atheism. It would also ruin their careers as professional atheist evangelists.

That’s the real vain religion for ya. That’s blind faith.

Hume was not an atheist

David Hume,  the 18th century Scottish philosopher, historian etc., is often thought of and quoted from as though he were an atheist, whereas he was in fact a proponent of Intelligent Design and a deist.

Here are some quotes from his writings that demonstrate this:

“Wherever I see Order, I infer from Experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance. And the same Principle which leads me into this Inference, when I contemplate a Building, regular and beautiful in its whole Frame and Structure; the same Principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect, from the infinite Art and Contrivance which is display’d in the whole Fabrick of the Universe.” (Hume, A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh).

“The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent Author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion.” (Hume 1956, 21).

“Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author.” (Hume, The Natural History of Religion (1757)

“The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind.” (Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).

I rest my case.

Is Atheism Mere Lack of Belief?

I receive a common claim from atheists on debate forums.

When they are told that they are as religious as theists or when they are told that atheism is itself a king of religion, they inevitably respond with the canned answer, “No atheism is not a religion or philosophy. It is simply lack of belief. You obviously don’t understand atheism!”

This is of course a learned and automatic response as opposed to a critically thought out one. Atheists have learned this answer from other atheists who of course learned it from some others on and so on, off of web forums, youtube, younameit, etc.

The most astounding thing about this canned answer is that it isn’t even logically viable.
Babies have no logically definable belief in God, yet they are by no means atheists.
On the contrary, Dr Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind says that children have “a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.”
See here

Of course atheists now seek to discredit him – what else can they do? Nothing as usual.

Worse still is when the blind non-thinking atheist throws up this “You don’t understand atheism” folderol.
I mean please, seriously, what’s not to understand? It isn’t hard, it isn’t anywhere near scientific or complicated. So that part of the answer is purely rhetorical codswallop.

Is atheism mere lack of belief? Of course not. It is “lack of belief in god or gods” but it is more than that and the additional pieces are crucial.

Young children, for example, are not atheists.  My cat is not an atheist yet lacks belief. Rocks lack belief but are not atheists.
Of course then we’re talking about a personal mind and free will here – free will is something which the smarter atheists do not even believe in of course but I’ll pass on that for now.  So sure we can barely use cats or rocks to refute the argument by themselves.

Here is the problem with the lack of belief response:
It is not a mere lack of belief.  It is a positive choice not to believe.

The difference is enormous and fundamental.

A positive choice not to believe in a God is NOT a mere – as though passive – lack or absence of belief. It is indeed a choice to refuse to accept whatever evidence for the existence of a supreme being is presented and in most cases – at least 99% of the ones I encounter – to accept that there even is any such evidence! Pretty amazing when you then hear these same people claiming they are “open minded”, “logical”, “reasonable” etc.!

Atheism is indeed a metaphysical, philosophical vacuum.  It is a pretense to knowing there is no God. Merely saying, “I don’t know if there is a god or not but I don’t believe in any” is not really atheism.  Not knowing is agnosticism’s territory – smarter than atheism but little better.

Nevertheless, when an atheist claims he is being rational in claiming there is no God, or doesn’t believe in any god, he is following a self-imposed willful blindness to rationality itself, rather than the openness he claims.
There is nothing rational in atheism for rationality itself cannot be a logical conclusion of atheism.
As CS Lewis pointed out,

“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.“
and “Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe.”

Under atheism, all life is a mere accident of a mindless, non rational, purposeless universe. How does any non rational process create mind and rationality?  To pre-empt the typical responses to this problem – such as that we have observations that confirm the reliability of our minds – I add, no you cannot test the reliability of the human mind by using the human mind. A fatal and salient contradiction occurs in the attempt!

Atheism’s pretended “lack of belief” is a mis-definition of itself. And why should that surprise anyone that see through such blatant nonsense? The atheist cannot see any evidence for a supreme being in the universe because no matter what evidence is produced it is a priori denied.

One must choose to be an atheist in spite of all evidence for the existence of God and not at all because of the imagined absence of any evidence. And of course, anyone who pretends to know there is no God is either a certifiable fool or incredibly doltish for if we hear anything from atheists it is that we asked for the evidence or foundations of atheism they themselves tell us there is no possibility of proving the non existence of God! So here they admit to believing there is no God by faith!! Amazing.

Atheism is far more than mere lack of belief.  Indeed, it is a chosen adherence to a specific metaphysical position, a conscious decision, in favor of a refusal to accept any and all evidence whatsoever that there indeed could be a supreme mind underlying all creation.
That is simply logically unsupportable – even by the atheist’s own pretended criterion of reason.

They themselves know that they cannot know there is no God and can never bring anything even close to proof, but are still so sure of it that they call themselves atheists! Then they go all around the web and the world screaming out insults, complaints, obscenities and boorish but gratuitous affirmations that there is no God and no evidence exists!

Like putting on an opaque blindfold and and saying, “I see no evidence for any God”.
If they would only remove their own fabricated-for-the purpose blindfolds they would at last how ridiculous they look to everyone else that is looking in wonder at the obvious design in all creation. Design that must,a priori, be denied and explained away through volumes of scientific sounding sophism.

Worse still is the fact that refuting certain evidence for God’s existence doesn’t bring any evidence that there really is no God!
The atheist’s position is thus illogical and vain and requires far more blind faith than any deist or theist position ever has, does or ever will require!

Atheism is inviable and is clearly more than a mere absence of belief. It must be chosen in spite of all evidence for God and thus for teleology.

It is a humongous web of interwoven self-deceptions based in denial of realities and positions that are testable under logic and/or observation. One such observation is the origin of the prescribed, specified, programmed for a purpose, information dwelling in every living cell – DNA/RNA.

Atheism: Nothing producing everything, for no reason with no purpose is a nonsensical piece of fairy-tale-like tripe.
No wonder atheists have always been the minority in the world and thankfully still are.

*Note: I just now (14-08-2010) found an article on this same subject by noted Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig here which I encourage you read.  In this response Dr. Craig states,

For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.”  Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does.

This is precisely what I am saying here.
Check out the sequel to this article here.

Atheist society unveiled

Based partly on the article called Hellish Holland :
http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_FebMar/Hellish_Holland.htm

Here are a few excerpts :

“… its morals are the most corrupt in the whole world. Liberalism, the freedom to do whatever you want without regard to morality, is considered as a god, unrestrained by Catholicism or even natural law. If one tries to teach morality, he is labelled a fascist, because he is “imposing his own will upon all other free wills in the country.” When you respond that objective morality comes from God, they answer that this God is only “between your ears,” that “your god” is your choice and you “cannot impose Him on anyone else.”

“Holland’s Minister of Public Health, Mrs. Borst, recently spoke about a handicapped child who was killed after being born. (By the way, “borstis a Dutch word for “breast,” but in the minister’s case, she seems to have no heart beating in hers.) She said that, according to penal law, it is murder, but the Officer of Justice will not prosecute in this case because the mortal injection was given by the doctor after consultation with the parents. In any case, she declared this child had little chance of “achieving an acceptable level of value of human life.”

“My American readers will find very interesting the comment written me by one of their own:

This is exactly why America (morally speaking) is not as degenerated as Europe. As a people, we are not logical: we are sentimental. We cling to Christian morality not out of conviction, but out of very vague notions, some of which are good and some just feel-good sentimental. This is good in that it slows our fall into immorality, but it also makes it difficult for us to think correctly when given correct principles; we cling to our errors just as illogically as we cling to truth.“

“Liberalism has penetrated so deeply into Holland that, without inciting total chaos, its people have free access to all things-drugs, sex, and Satanism, etc. Few police patrol the streets because the Dutch believe too many police constitutes a fascist or “rightist” state. The result is that people are attacked, wounded, and killed in the streets without motive. Most crimes are committed by immigrants. The police arrive two hours later. “What’s the use?” they say, “If we arrest these criminals, the judge will set them free the next day because it is considered ‘racist’ to punish poor strangers.”

In one celebrated case, a man was keeping a house thief at bay with a samurai sword until police arrived. The police set the thief free because he was “a poor boy.” But the homeowner was incarcerated because he was “traumatizing the poor boy with a sword.”

 

Sounds like a great place to live and have a family huh? It ought to for the atheist at least!

Atheism, as I explain here, has no foundations for moral values except illusionary ones adopted for survival and convenience sake. There are no objective values in atheism inspite of the delusions atheists adopt to pretend there are.

The priest continues his witness :

“But hospitals in Holland are no longer places of healing. They are fearsome places where euthanasia is practiced nearly automatically. Doctors have invented a new kind of euthanasia called “mortification” where food and water are denied patients making them die of hunger and thirst, that is, they are starved to death. A 1997 report revealed that 55% of nursing home patients are dying from this lack of care called “mortification.”

Then he gives an example he knew of personally:

“…The woman was lying in the bed unable to move her hands because she was paralyzed. On the table was a cup of water. I gave her a drink and she drank voraciously. It was clear-she was dying from hunger and thirst. Nobody was there to feed her; this was the so-called mortification. And indeed, some days later, she died. I could do absolutely nothing to stop it because the entire social and political system has been organized this way. The only thing I could have done was put the woman in the trunk of a car and drive off to a normal country, but this was a crazy thought. There was nothing I could do but pray.

When I was in Holland, I was aware of three cases amongst our faithful caring for an ill family member because they did not want to give them over to these criminal medical facilities. Two men were each taking care of their mothers, and an elderly woman was taking care of her sister in the most difficult situation you can imagine. The woman ruined her back permanently; she will have terrible pains for the rest of her life because she damaged her back carrying her sister. Though he tended to his mother for years, one man was called a sadist by the nurses because he refused “mortification” for her. The other man was questioned for hours by ten doctors because he refused “mortification” for his mother.”

If you are not already shocked or enraged at this, that’s only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Atheistic Darwinism provides absolutely no grounds for putting any kind of true, ultimate value on human life. As the bio-text books state, “You are an animal…you share a common heritage with earthworms...”

So why are we so suprised and shocked when those who take that literally as the real truth act like animals? And find no scruples to killing? Atheists deny this as the outcome of their doctrines but the witness here shows that the truth is otherwise.

Not only do people lose touch with humanity through atheism’s sophisms and pernicious doctrines, but they also lose touch with real logic and clear reasoning. This will come to epidemic proportions if the course continues as is all across the world. We will see dementia of unprecedented proportions. Reason is already dying out in the Darwinist, atheist controlled public school systems. Slowly but surely. It takes decades for the effect to start manifesting itself outwardly.

This slowness is due to the fact that most people want Judeo/Christian values but not the Judeo/Christian God. So the moral values endowed upon formerly Christian societies linger on as the spread of relativist moralities grow. The wound festers long before gangrene sets in and visible evidence, like what is seen in Holland, comes to the front windows of the worlds events watchers.

Is anybody listening? Yes. A lot of groups of fighting this kind of moral insanity. But not enough.

The irony is that while these European nations have so adamantly striven to eliminate the last vestiges of God and religion from their midst, Islam has made it’s inroads and the quiet “invasion of Europe” by Islamic “conquerors” is slowly taking place before our eyes. Eurabia is just around the coner and the Europeans have so little moral fibre left in them that they are already destined to lose the battle.

God help them.

America is only a few deacades behind Holland. If the atheistic Darwinists have their will be done, it will not be as in heaven but as in hell on earth.

Better make sure you stay in good health and are ready to suffer the conseuqences of “mortification”, rape, crime without justice etc..

America is a falling nation. A declining cilture. And, as all declining cultures exhibit as they fall, the signs of decandance and the rotting of moral fibre are all there :

• the extreme emphasis on external beauty (with accompanying health and mental anamolies),
• the obsession with all things sexual,
• the turning of the justice system into farce where money rules,
• the devalorization of life where animals have better protection and more rights than humans,
• the qualifying as “art, that which is intrinsically ugly, vulgar and demeaning,
• the emphasis on superficiality,
• the degradation of the weak and disabled
• the easy access to drugs
• the rise of all forms of sexual abuse
• the treating of evil people as merely dysfunctional or “malfunctioning units” (R. Dawkins)
• …. goes on and on

Very clear these days.

WWIII is inevitable due to all this. God has always, historically speaking, arranged through war the downfall of rotting nations and decaying civilizations. We will be no exception to the rule.

“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Jer 18:7 -10

This text describes in very concise terms, God’s governmental principle in dealing with the world’s nations. It’s simple. His patience is immense but not unquenchable.

Job also speaks of these principles of government of God :

“With him are strength and wise designs; he who is guided into error, together with his guide, are in his hands; He takes away the wisdom of the wise guides, and makes judges foolish; He undoes the chains of kings, and puts his band on them;
He makes priests prisoners, overturning those in safe positions; He makes the words of responsible persons without effect, and takes away the good sense of the old; He puts shame on chiefs, and takes away the power of the strong;” – Job 12:16-21

We can see these in our modern society – judges are fools, counsel is dying, reason is under persitent fire from those who think themselves most reasonable!

Sad but true. America as well all the other nations moving towards implemented atheistic world views need a return to Judeo/Christian values WITH their foundations in God. If the foundations are removed there can be no strength in the building. It will indeed be the “house built on sand”.

God make America blessable.

The Euthyphro dilemma?

This is, and has been for centuries, considered by atheists and anti-moralists as the ultimate refutation of God. Specifically of Divine Command theory.

This dilemma basically goes as follows:

In Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

The dilemma Euthyphro faced is this: Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality? The problem stumped Euthyphro.

Russel put it this way:

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God

First, I refer interested parties to the following sites: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236
and : http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture23.htm

These 2 sites offer or some good responses to this issue and teh Moral Law of in general. I will quote from one or the other in some small measure here.

Basically, no being can make law. But no law can exist without sanctions. And no sanctions can exist without a Ruling, conscious Magistrate to adiminster them…reason it farther – the ultimate conclusions are obvious enough – God’s existence is necessary to the existence of ultimates moral values.

However, nothing is easier than defining this *dilemma* out of existence. Why? Because there is no dilemma in the 1st place!

The pretended dilemma argues what it does not understand and founds it’s argument on a falsity, an incorrect presumption – that the moral Law and God are two separate things.

So, in one phrase it may be undone – “God is the Law and the Law is God.”

God is the inspirited, incarnate, Living Law – they are one. Not independant entities.

What is said of God is exactly what may be said of the Moral Law “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature”. Every thing that one can discern of all true objective moral realities can also be said of God himself.

And of course, this is the view of the bible and Christianity. “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because *God is love*.”

Love is good willing. It is benevolence. It is seeking the highest good. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The Law is One. An indivisible unit all summed up in one word “love” – agape – disinterested, unselfish good willing. And that so describes who and what God is, that the two are inseparable, immutable, unchangeable and eternally, mutually existent – one in the other.

Thus no God = no law and no law = no God. And thus the existence of God = existence of Law vice versa. So the very existence of a real, objective Moral Law running everywhere where there are sentient, self-deteminingbeings, is evidence of the existence of God.

Just as both philosophers (check Kant on this) and theologians and simple everyday people have been saying from times immemorial.

“Do as you would be done by” is the worlds oldest, most universal command. It describes love which describes the Moral Law which describes who God is and what he is like.

As for the so-called tautologies and contradictions involved with the infamous “dilemma”, they are the very well documented territory of Darwinism and atheism as any one know if they’d really done any proper homework on the issue.