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.

Advertisements

Darwinian discrimination at it’s worst

Here’s yet more examples of the idiocy of darwinian fundamentalist nerds.

As can be found here : “Robert Pennock is being paid by UCSD’s Council of Provosts and the Division of Biological Sciences to speak against intelligent design in a lecture that is free and open to the public in UCSD’s RIMAC Arena (which holds about 5000 people). Of course, these groups are all taxpayer-supported. Not only is this free event open to anyone, but TritonLink, the UCSD student website, on its main home-page, reports that Professor Pennock’s lecture is mandatory attendance for all freshmen: “All first-quarter freshmen are required to attend the event, which is open to the public”

Mandatory indoctrination. Good move huh? These people seem to have no end of the ridiculous, “hunt the witch” tactics they use to debunk contrary scienitific thought.

And to show there is no end of this glaring stupidity and censorship from these educated fools: Evoultion fundamentalist and bio text book author Larry Moran says,

Flunk the IDiots

Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute reported that University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture. Apparently, the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism.

Salvador Cordova has picked up on this at Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent in an article titled “Darwinian indoctrination required at UCSD? Or will the other side be heard someday?”. He notes that 40% of the freshman class reject Darwinism.

I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it’s hopeless to expect that a single lecture—even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock—will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.

SOURCE: sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/flunk-idiots.html

Worse still from this Moron : “Until you IDiots learn something about science you don’t deserve to take up space at a decent university. However, there’s still hope for you. There’s nothing in your comment to suggest that you’ve even reached the age of adulthood. Maybe you’ll get educated before you graduate from kindergarten. “

Here we are once again with the out-dated, easily falsified, BS that says ID scientists know nothing of science. Pure moronic drachenfutter. This guy should be thrown out on his butt and given a one way ticket to Baghdad.

Sore losers to say the best of these “scientists”, if one may abuse the term.

Hopefully none of them will be smart enough to figure out that these repressive actions will bring their own downfall. This kind of publicy funded brain washing and ill behavior, historically speaking, always tends to bring the opposite of the effect hoped for. So far, not only are none of them smart enough but they just keep making it worse!

Anyway,

Welcome to the Union of Soviet Socialist America

PS – Since I first wrote this article a lot has happened to confirm it’s truth.

I suppose one of the main widely publicized events is the denial of tenure at Iowa State to Guilmero Gonzalez – a highly respected astrophysicist with numerous peer-reviewed articles and awards. Denial based on prejudice entirely on Guillmero’s ID penchant – as can be seen on many articles across the web.
Evangelical atheist Hector Avalos started a smear campaign against him because he supports Intelligent Design theory. Avalos is an atheist and professor at ISU (head of the religious studies department… go figure) without the intellect to compete with the likes of Gonzalez.

More…

The Michael Reiss case in Britain.

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.

Objective moral foundations in atheism don’t exist

This is not to say that atheists have no moral values. Most do. Sometimes very good ones too. But they are borrowed values. Values usually taken from Judeo/Christian roots, or from simple conscience or some assumed value in collective cultural agreements.

The question is not, however, whether atheists have morals. The question is what is the foundation of those morals. Upon what grounds of logic or reason have these morals been founded?

In the end, they have none. At least, nothing objective. Nothing truly, solidly or binding. And of course they have, in their own heads, no one to whom they are ultimately accountable.

There are a great many atheists who attempt to find grounds for their moral values without reference to any absolute Moral Law. This is normal. They want to have moral values but, not believing in God or absolutes, they are forced to find their grounds in something else. Invariably this something ends up being untenable and sometimes very illogical.

Some invent “objective” values based on materialist evaluations of the material consequences of actions. Others become relativists who, of course, can’t really practice what they claim to believe.

Relativism is self-contradictory by nature.

In my experience in debating moral foundations with atheists I’ve found that people who persist in attempting to demonstrate that there are no objective moral values, invariably dig in further to proving there are.

Obviously these types of people believe they are objectively “right”. But then , if what they say is true, they cannot be “right” or “wrong” about anything if what they state is true!

Relativism cuts its own throat.

They will often try to debunk objective moral values by pointing, as usual, at religions and the differences between them as being being immense. They tend to completely ignore the universality of morals and the universality of belief in a higher authority throughout all ages and in all peoples tribes and nations. Instead, they will focus on generally insignificant details in differences between one religion’s set of morals and anothers. Almost always centering attention on the outward workings of the underlying principles instead of the underlying principles themselves.
They will say something like the following I heard recently, “And where it [religion based morality] differs, all claims to objective morality vanish, because the claims are dependent upon a subjective opinion as to which deity is correct.

Bad logic of course. This assumes that every specific religions deity is fundamentally different and opposite to every other. Another falsehood. They are in fact very similar in all fundamentals.
Moral values – their very existence – can easily lead us to conclude there must of necessity be some over-governing power to moral law. Atheists, of course, must deny this or become theists.
One of them said to me, “Like it or not, consensus response to material consequences is the way societies decide right from wrong.

Frankly this is very off the mark. The way humans judge of morality is not according to material consequence but according to reason and then every consequence, material of other. But material consequence alone can never be the rule of judgment. It also requires some objective rule of evaluation for determining what consequences or more important than others.

Now one thing that has always both bothered me and amused me is this – atheists will often invade Internet debate forums on the subject and squeal and whine like little pigs, profanities and insults included, trying to tell you that there are no objective values. And the funny thing about this is that they are all objectively sure! They claim there are no absolutes and they are at once absolutely sure!

Do they think they’re doing some objective “good” in the universe by attending forums and debates to denounce objective morals, absolute values and/or God? Of course they do otherwise why do they bother?!

But how strange is this since, according to their own dogma, they really cannot because they also claim that there is no fundamental right or wrong! No fundamental truth or moral standard external to man. Thus what possible real “good” can debating the matter accomplish? None. All views are relative and the universe has no meaning. (Of course they all believe their own life has some inherent meaning which they invent out nothingness for themselves regardless of the universe being meaningless)
So what’s the point? It’s all useless in the end, in their view, and all views will perish in short time.

So their very presence is indication enough that they do indeed perceive a real objective absolute “truth” to exist. Otherwise they would know they are wasting time trying to objectively prove there is none.

And worse is that, like I said before, they focus on external details – (usually minor; polygamy, sanctions, how women are treated amongst various religions and etc.) – in the actual out-workings of law, to find their arguments against objectivity.

But even in this they must assume an underlying rule over-riding all. Thus any persistence in focusing on outward details is clearly a wrong approach.

Why don’t they focus on child rape? Find me a religion that has approved of this besides satanism or its cousins! There is none and never has been – except of course certain atheistic or demon sex cults who believe there are no objective morals and so they need not answer to anyone – like the NAMBLA member who was so insulted in a TV interview when the host asked him about the moral legitimacy of men in “love” (ie sexual) relations with very young boys.

Atheists assume underlying values which they are use to argue against objective values! Very strange indeed.

One said to me, “It is the human response to results that is the basis of what we consider ‘right’ and ‘wrong’“.

But again, Reason is what brings the moral considerations, not human response to material consequences. And upon what basis would the mere human response be sufficient for establishing an objective rule? Is this the way they live every day? I don’t think so, nor could they – they’d end up in the cell block of the asylum.

The atheist claims that we are the results of billions of unlikely concurrent, conjunctive
accidents – random mutations + selection. (Darwinism is it’s science.) So where do they get off inventing objective morals for themselves, or any morals at all? Or, where can they find a solid rule of moral action since they themselves are nothing like “solid” or meaningful? It never adds up.

We are, in the materialist view, without soul, spirit, heart (let all the artists in the world weep). Without free will (see Dawkins or Provine). Without anything but bio-chem processes in our brains and nervous systems that dictate what we are and even what we believe (Dawkins’ memes), yet they boldly state the contrary — when it serves their own purpose of course.

Again I was told, “All such claims [to a real objective morality] are comprehensively dismantled by studying the basis for any specific set of claims, the irreconcilable contradictions between competing claims, and the fluidity of claims over time. Every religion has its own ‘objective’ morality, and they are, to significant extents, mutually exclusive. “

First, their own proofs of being objectively right, are thus dismantled by the same rule of logic!
But no, their moral values are nothing like significantly different. Rather significantly similar!!

Thankfully there are virtually no “irreconcilable contradictions” nor is there any significant “fluidity over time”. All the most basic, fundamental Moral values remain unchanged over millennia.

It’s rather surprising they can’t see how obvious this is.

CS Lewis gives a quick list of fundamental values amongst very different religions through the ages in his book, “The Abolition of Man” now on-line here :

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm#1

and the comparative list is here : http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm

a few short quotes :
“I have not slain men” – ancient Egyptian – confession of a righteous soul – book of the dead

“in Nastrond I saw murderers” – Old Norse – Volospa 38,39 (nastrond=hell)
“do no murder” – Hebrew -exodus 20

“Slander not” – ancient Babylonian – Hymn to Samas
“do not bring a false witness against your neighbour” – Hebrew exodus 20
“utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded” – Hindu
“never do to others what you would not like them to do to you” – ancient Chinese – Analects of Confucius

“speak kindness…show good will” – Hymn to Samas
“men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good” – roman Cicero De Off.
“man is mans delight” – Old Norse Havamal 47
“what good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?” – roman Juvenal15, 140

“love your wife studiously. gladden her heart all your life” – ancient Egyptian – ere
“has he appraoched his neighbour’s wife?” – babylonian – List of Sins
“you shall not commit adultery” – Hebrew
“In Nastrond I saw beguilers of others’ wives” – Old Norse Volospa

“take no vengeance though they do you wrong” – Old Norse Sigdrifumal, 22
“do not avenge yourselves” – christian Paul

“I have not stolen” – Egyptian – confessions… ibid.
“do not steal” – Hebrew
“to wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed” – Babylonian List of Sins
It simply isn’t true that there are so many contradictions in the base principles of morality. There is always and universally an underlying belief in justice, goodness, mercy, truth, faithfulness, loyalty, kindness, patience, love, humility, candor, honesty, fair play, benevolence…..

No exceptions outside of satanism and it’s relatives. And even the “values” of satanism prove atheists wrong!

In summary, the atheist ought to re-think his life. Perhaps : “Oh God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.” would be an adequate prayer for him.

You don’t have a soul, you ARE a soul, you have a body.