One Thing Atheists and Christians Can Agree On

One Thing Atheists and Christians Can Agree On

 

No doubt many have run into an atheist who is adamant about the non-existence of God (usually, in a more specific sense, the Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible). Whether it is all religions or just Christianity in general, they tend to reject what they believe is blind faith and fairy tales. Of course, they are entitled to their opinion. And there is no small shortage of satirical and philosophical rhetoric that some of them use to “refute” the existence of God. But, if you pay attention to the arguments they use to defame, blaspheme, and misalign God, there is one thing that Christians can agree with them on – the god they believe doesn’t exist really doesn’t.

A Strawman Argument is a logical fallacy that someone sets up as a misrepresentation, exaggeration, or complete fabrication of someone else’s position in order to make their own argument seem more reasonable. In this case, many atheists misrepresent their understanding of God/gods and portray them in such a way as to make their own argument seem reasonable, logical, and justified. But, in doing so, they not only set up a strawman, but they commit the most common and widely violated of all sins – idolatry. How? Well, it’s simple.

Anytime you hear an atheist speak, you will usually hear them mock God’s love in contrast to His justice (hell). Or misrepresent His “inability” to answer prayer. Or maybe you might hear how they don’t agree with Him creating intelligent human beings, yet require them to use “faith” to trust in Him (as if faith is absolutely blind). These are just a few of the many. But even if there is an answer to every misrepresentation they have about God, the most important thing is to reveal that although they don’t believe in God, they have inevitably made one up in their own mind! They have set up a divine strawman by which they can reason against over and over so that they can justify their suppression of the truth (Rom 1:8). So even though atheists may suppress the knowledge of God, and know that the true God of the Bible exists, in order for them to ease their conscience and justify their sin, they must create an image of god that suits themselves. A god that that they can deny, vilify, and reject by the approval of their own thoughts and imaginations. Most of their arguments do not work if they don’t do this. Whether you set up a idol to worship to go to war with, it is still idolatry.

Hopefully this strikes you as a much different approach then just providing scientific evidence for God’s existence. This is a mixed approach between revealing their sin and pressupostionally showing them another reason how and why they reject God. Next time you hear a false representation of God, you should disarm the atheist by telling them something like this, “Boy, I’m glad that the god that you are talking about doesn’t exist, because if he did, I would be an atheist too.” Because when you really get down to the nitty-gritty, what atheists do is exchange the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:25) just like everyone else who does not know Him. And since eternal life is defined by knowing Christ intimately (John 17:3), other than the fact that the typical atheist is just suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, we must engage them by showing them that they are just like every other religion in the world (yes, atheism is a religion) that believes in false gods. Except theirs is just a deified punching bag that they can throw philosophical blows at in order to make themselves feel superior, more intelligent, and morally justified in their sin.

While other world religions offer sacrifice to their gods in order to appease them, atheists repeatedly sacrifice their false representation of God on the altar of reason, logic, and scientific method (systems of thinking our Lord Jesus Christ gave them) in order to appease themselves.  But hey, at least now when we speak to atheists, Christians can agree that the god they are talking about truly doesn’t exist. Because once they are introduced to the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, and are regenerated by His Spirit, they will no longer speak defiantly, but devotedly; no longer with a heart of war, but of worship.

Let’s pray for the atheists that we witness to and bring the light of the gospel to them.

Below is an quick example on dealing with these kinds of atheists in conversation.

-Until we go home

 

Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 9.02.52 AM

Disclaimer: DefCon does not support Peter Kreeft. Only the quote used in the link window.

Why God Won’t Go Away

Why God Won’t Go Away by Alister McGrath

a reviewwhy-god-wont-go-away-sm

 In his book, Why God Won’t Go Away, Alister McGrath acquaints his reader with “new atheism”, a term apparently coined in 2006. He identifies four well-known atheists (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) with this philosophy, telling us how it got started, what’s new about it, what characterizes it, and how we as Christians should respond to it. As we read through this book, we find that there’s about as much “new” in new atheism as there is in new age – it’s an age-old false view of creation that unrighteous men use to suppress the knowledge of Truth that our Creator has put into His creation (Romans 1:18). The common element in this view, advocated by these high profile professing atheists, is a condescending attitude toward Christianity. Much ink has been spilled by these men trying to dissuade people from believing in the One Who created all things and people. Books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith, as if there could be a human that could live on this earth without having faith in something – even if only that the chair would hold up when sat upon. These men tend to lump all professed religions together in an effort to “prove” God cannot exist because He is full of contradictions. No matter that the Word of God reveals that man creates and worships and serves all sorts of false gods and calls some of by the name of the one true God.

Hitchens admits he is not merely unconvinced of God’s existence, but that he is more an anti-theist than an atheist. McGrath quotes a humanist chaplain from Harvard, who defines anti-theism this way: “While atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god.” People whose focus is on tearing down their enemies tend to lose all sense of perspective and end up redefining who they are by their irrational inability to allow Christians to believe what they want to.

Chapter 3 is a provoking look at a history full of violence committed by professing Christians, which gives a high road of condescension to the anti-atheists. Ah, but we also get a look at the history of bloodshed at the hands of atheists – this proving what Christians know to be biblical truth: all men are capable of hideous acts. The Lord God of Heaven restrains sinful men so that very few are as bad as they might be and His Spirit leads the redeemed to desire holiness rather than the sinful desires of the flesh.

Next up, the enlightenment is still going strong, as our anti-atheists worship at the altar of human wisdom. We learn here why it is hopeless to try and argue an anti-atheist into the kingdom of God – it’s hopeless to try and argue anyone into the Kingdom of God. Men are born again, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. We should not be tempted to argue with lost people over facts related to the gospel – they are at war with God and He alone can give a man with a heart of stone understanding and love for Him. The intellect of the anti-atheists blinds them to the Truth, and only the Author of Truth can give him sight.

Where McGrath departs from his call as a gospel minister is in the last chapter. He heralds Mother Teresa and declares his desire to emulate her. This woman is held up by many as a model Christian, but she made it clear many times that she did not even try to convert anyone to Christ; she thought God would be pleased and save as many as tried to be good Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever false religion one was following. This is not the model for any Christian. McGrath talks around the gospel and then states that he “cannot pursue this matter further here.” He does, however, make note that “Christian beliefs, like those of the New Atheism or any other worldview, ultimately lie beyond final rational proof.” Amen! And this is why worldly wisdom is foolishness and why we must trust God and be unashamed of His gospel and willing to be thought of as fools for Christ because we will not retreat from His Word. This book would have ended much better if McGrath would have spent three pages explaining the biblical answer to the anti-atheists – those enemies of God have no other place to go if they want truthful answers to their questions.

“Evolution vs. God” by Ray Comfort

Evolution_vs._God You may have heard the rumblings on the internet that atheists are aghast at Ray Comfort’s newest film, Evolution vs. God. Their weeping and gnashing of teeth comes with good reason for Ray kicks out the legs of their worldview with one simple question, “Can you show me evidence for Darwinian evolution that I do not have to accept by faith?” This film takes professing evolutionary experts and their students to task by causing them to admit that the evolutionary theory is not provable by operational science. It demonstrates that evolutionary theory, at its heart, is really nothing more than a concerted effort to cause man to reject the knowledge of God that he already has so that he may pursue the sinful desires of his flesh. I highly encourage DefCon readers to take the time to watch this film, then go to www.evolutionvsgod.com and help support getting this film into the hands of university students across the country.

This is how good God is!

The video you are about to see is Todd Friel of Wretched Radio speaking to a group of atheist students, among others, at a college. It is part of a video titled “Wretched Worldview: Atheism – A Christian Response.” Todd gives a wonderful picture of the gospel in this video as he pleads with the atheists in the auditorium to repent and trust in Jesus Christ. I ask you to watch this and observe how we as Christians can compassionately and lovingly share the gospel with anyone.

Wretched with Todd Friel

View original post

Giving Themselves Away

At the end of the story, after the student defeats his professor in the debate, it is revealed that the student is Albert Einstein. In actuality, there was probably no such debate, and this certainly isn’t a true story about Albert Einstein.

While it is an interesting tale, I don’t think this is the best answer Christians can offer to the problem of evil.

The objection the professor presented is sometimes known as Epicurean paradox.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God

To answer the objection above by saying that evil doesn’t really exist rubs me the wrong way. To look in the face of someone who has suffered something terrible and tell them it wasn’t evil—only a lack of good—is something I couldn’t do.

Rather, I would agree with the angry atheist presenting this paradox that evil truly exists. (Note that he didn’t merely state that he dislikes acts such as rape and murder, or that a majority of society dislikes those things, but that there really is evil.)

Next, I would point out that evil cannot exist in his worldview. The existence of evil can only be accounted for if there are moral absolutes—and moral absolutes can only be established by God. If, as an atheist would say, we are merely evolved apes, there shouldn’t be any moral absolutes. Therefore, evil wouldn’t exist if there were no God.

When the atheist presents this objection, he is revealing that he can’t be consistent with his worldview. If he were consistent, all the atheist has to go on is personal taste. But in admitting a firm belief in evil, he is acknowledging that he knows moral absolutes exist and there is a God. He is giving himself away.

Atheists claim the existence of evil all the time. One young lady I spoke with said Christians are evil. I explained to her that in order for evil to exist that God had to have established moral absolutes. She said she believes morality is relative, and each of us can establish our own morality. I think she was being consistent with her atheism at this point. I specifically asked her if it was a sin for someone to violate her moral code, and she said it wasn’t. Mere moments later, she said that the Bible has been translated. (I assume she didn’t mean translated from Greek to English, but some  type of malicious tampering with the manuscripts.) I asked her if it was a sin to “translate” the Bible. At that point she made it abundantly clear she was no longer interested in talking to me.

Ultimately, the solution to the Epicurean paradox is that God has an adequate, moral reason for allowing evil. He may not reveal His reasoning for a specific situation, but ultimately it is for His glory.

Atheist hypocrisy (Part 2)

I frequently hear anti-theists lament the hypocrisy they see in the lives of professing Christians, oftentimes citing such hypocrisies as part of their reason for rejecting Christianity. But there is a glaring hypocrisy that frequently comes from the anti-theist camp that seems to escape their own notice. Although this hypocrisy is abundantly present in many of the anti-theist rants against Christianity, I have yet to see anyone bring attention to it. So allow me to point it out.

Anti-theists spend an inordinate amount of time devoted to expressing a hatred toward, and the mocking of a God they claim doesn’t exist (chew on the rationality of that for a while). They also spend a lot of time mocking Christians who actually live according to the principles set forth in Scripture; those Christians who strive to follow the commands of Christ.

So many times when an atheist sees a Christian being obedient to the commands of Christ (i.e. practice what they preach), they get mocked as “fuddy duddies,” “prudes,” and “fundies” by pretentious anti-theists.

Now the hypocrisy comes:

As soon as some anti-theists observe legitimate (or perceived) hypocrisy in the lives of pseudo-Christians, they wail that this somehow not only “proves” that God doesn’t exist, but that the behavior of these professing Christians justifies these anti-theists’ continued willful enmity toward God and Christianity.

“You Christians are hypocrites; you don’t practice what you preach, and that’ just another reason why I reject the existence of your God.”

So which is it, dear atheist? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t on the one hand accuse Christians of hypocrisy for not practicing what they preach, and then, on the other hand, mock them when they do.

To be consistent, if the professing Christian not practicing what the Bible teaches is one reason to reject Christianity, then wouldn’t the Christian practicing what the Bible teaches be one reason to embrace Christianity?

So I ask you this day, which would you rather see, Christians following their Lord’s commands, or those shallow, Sunday-only Christians who claim to follow Christ but who live just like you?

Choose this day who you’ll mock . . . then remain consistent.

See: Atheist Hypocrisy (Part 1) here.

Quotes (924)

After Hitler was defeated, war crime trials were held in Nuremberg to judge the guilt of Hitler’s henchmen. But a dispute arose as to what laws should be used to try the accused, after all, Hitler’s cronies argued, quite plausibly, that they had not broken any laws; their actions were carried out within the protection of their own legal system. They could not be accused of murder because personhood had been redefined to exclude Jews and other undesirables. These men were simply following the laws handed down by the courts of their day. As Eichmann protested before his execution, “I was simply following the laws of war and my flag!” . . . Moral relativists who believe that laws are nothing more than the result of social conditioning, subject to the whim of leaders and nations, would have to agree with Goering, Hitler’s designated successor, when at Nuremberg he insisted, “This court has no jurisdiction over me, I am a German!” By what laws then, should the Nazis be tried? And what would [be] the basis of such laws? . . . If all laws are relative, and each country has its own idea of what laws they should enact, there is no universal standard by which laws can be judged. . . . Several years ago a group of pro-life protesters who picketed an abortion clinic were sued for slander for calling abortionists murderers. The abortionists argued, just as Hitler’s emissaries had done, that they could not be murderers because they were not breaking any laws! The experience of Nuremberg and the silent holocaust in our abortion clinics bear eloquent witness to the fact that when a state is accountable to no one except itself, it simply assumes whatever is legal is moral. The law is simply whatever the courts or a dictator say it is. Show me your laws and I will show you your God.

– Erwin Lutzer

Atheist hypocrisy (Part 1)

I often hear the lament from anti-theists about Christian hypocrisy as the impetus behind their rejection of God, but rarely is atheist hypocrisy ever mentioned. So let’s look at two glaring hypocrisies of atheism, part one today, and part two coming soon.

________________________________

I recall a time a few years ago when I posted a gospel tract on the community bulletin board of a local coffee shop.

Shortly thereafter, as I sat sipping my hot beverage, a woman in her thirties entered the shop and made her way over to the bulletin board. Upon seeing the tract, she quickly removed it and promptly found a table where she sat and thumbed through the little booklet. Her behavior led me to speculate that she was familiar with what she held in her hands, and I watched from a distance. 

Then this woman took out a pen and began to write on the tract (both the front and rear covers). This greatly piqued my interest of course, and I continued to observe.

A short while later another woman entered the establishment and approached the table where the first woman sat. The second woman greeted the first and the first woman gleefully showed the second woman the cover of the tract. The second woman gave a smirk while the first had a grin ear to ear. She then promptly returned the tract to the bulletin board.

My party and I left at the same time as the two women did but my curiosity got the best of me so I returned to the bulletin board inside the business and retrieved the tract. And there I read what the woman in all her giddy-like-a-school-girl excitement had written on the tract.

On the front:

“There is no God!”

On the back:

“Shame on God!”

There you have it . . . classic anti-theist hypocrisy: “Shame on the very thing I believe doesn’t exist.”

How can someone say on one hand, “There is no God!” then on the other hand say, “Shame on God!”? That is either blatant hypocrisy or a mild case of schizophrenia.

You can’t claim that someone or something doesn’t exist, then offer an opinion on that someone or something. Let me offer an example.

If I said that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, but then warned you that you should be careful while swimming in Loch Ness because the Monster might get you, would you not be justified in questioning the truthfulness of my original claim that Nessie doesn’t exist?

So I came to the realization that most self-proclaimed atheists aren’t atheists because they disbelieve the existence of God, but it’s simply because they hate Him. They don’t want to be limited or prohibited in their lifestyle choices, nor be confronted with their sin, so they self-inflict a seared conscience upon themselves.

I would prefer if these professing atheists would be upfront and honest about their beliefs and come to terms with the fact that they simply hate God and His laws, instead of hiding behind a pretentious facade of pseudo-intellectualism in their declaration that the very thing they hate does not exist.

A little honesty and candor is all I’m seeking. Is that too much to ask for?


The Death of Christopher Hitchens

Renown speaker, author and self avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens died at age 62 yesterday. Mr. Hitchens was perhaps most well-known for his atheism and consistent attacks against religion, primarily Christianity. He was previously diagnosed with esophageal cancer and underwent medical treatment, including chemotherapy, to treat the disease. Ultimately he succumbed to pneumonia as a complication of the cancer and died. Prior to his death, many Christians prayed for Mr. Hitchens, for his healing and for God to save his soul. Mr. Hitchens found this to be interesting, but assured the public that any stories of his deathbed conversion would be fabricated.

The question that stands before us today of course, is where is Christopher Hitchens today. According to Mr. Hitchens, he simply ceased to exist, nothing more. But for the Christian, we know that we exist for eternity once this mortal body ceases functioning. There are only two possibilities as to where, Heaven or Hell. As Mr. Hitchens was created by God, and was bound to God’s laws, as we all are, he can only be in one of those two places. At first, it may seem quite easy to figure it out. He denied God, spoke vehemently against the Christian faith, and was often hateful and vitriolic in his speech regarding it. Considering that he made the statement there would be no deathbed conversion, it would be a simple thing to declare God sent him to hell. However, the truth is, we simply do not, and cannot know.

It is clear that Mr. Hitchens made a career of hating the very idea of God. But it is also clear that he was a common sinner just like the rest of us. He had a conscience, he was aware of right and wrong. He, like the rest of us, committed acts that were in violation of that conscience. We know that our consciences are God’s laws written upon our hearts. When we violate our conscience, we are violating God’s laws. Additionally, Mr. Hitchens debated with many Christians, he had heard the gospel presentation many times. There is little question that by the time of his death, Mr. Hitchens knew what God required of him. It is that time just prior to his death that we cannot know about. Is it at least possible, that as he faced those last moments, knowing death was coming that he considered those sins he committed, that he contemplated the gospel he had denied so many times, that he just might have repented and trusted Christ. If we are intellectually honest, we must say that it is possible. And since we cannot know, we hope that is what happened. We hope that we will find Mr. Hitchens in Heaven one day, for we do not wish the wrath of God on any man.

But we must also be honest say that he may not have repented. It is entirely possible that Mr. Hitchens held on to his rejection of God all the way into death. If so, Mr. Hitchens now stands before God in judgment for his sins. And not just for his atheism. As said before, our consciences are merely God’s law written on our hearts. When any man or woman breaks those laws, through lying, stealing, coveting, lusting, or blaspheming, they have sinned against a holy and righteous God. It is not just because he was an atheist that Mr. Hitchens may have stood condemned, it is because, as we all are, he was a sinner against the God who created him. And if that indeed is what occurred, even we Christians must mourn his death, for we do not wish Hell on any man. But we also rejoice that God is glorified, because His justice is perfect.

So what does that mean for the Christian? First, let us not run around proclaiming we know where Christopher Hitchens is, only God knows that. Let us share with people the truth, that if he repented and trusted Christ (which is our hope), he is in Heaven. But if he remained in his sins, he was condemned (as we all deserve). Let us not rejoice that another atheist voice is silent, that presents us as unkind and unloving. But let us not ignore that what he taught was blasphemous. As we engage in coversation with others on this, let us remember that, whatever Mr. Hitchens fate was, all of us face the same date with death. All of us will one day die and stand before the Lord. Let that motivate us to share the gospel with everyone we meet. Let his death stand as a reminder that our lives are but a vapor, our next breath is not guaranteed. Thus, it is imperative that we share the gospel, the good news that Jesus Christ died for sinners, and that salvation is available through Him alone. Christians, let us be about our Father’s business of proclaiming this good news.

“Daddy, I Don’t Think God is Real!”

I had what was perhaps the most interesting theological conversation I’ve ever had last night, and it was with my seven year old son. It started with overhearing him tell his younger brother that they had to be “normal” by obeying us parents and to quit “acting up.” When I asked what he meant by “normal” my son explained that being obedient was normal, disobedience was not. I told him that, while we were teaching he and his brother to be obedient, to do so all day every day was not possible. In fact, what is normal is to be disobedient. That was why we spend time teaching them about Jesus Christ. That only by submitting to Him, in repentance and faith, would God make us a new creation that desires to obey Him. That was when the conversation got interesting. My seven year old son looked at me and said, “I don’t know if I believe in God, I think He’s made up.”

Like many parents would understandably feel at that point, there was a moment of panic that set in. “I have a seven year old atheist!!” ran through my mind. But what followed was a series of questions from my wife and I that patiently and lovingly asked why he felt that way and trying to explain, biblically why we could believe God was real and why we could trust his promises. In the end, this conversation only lasted about fifteen minutes and, while we could see his young mind was still trying to process what we said, we could tell he was really considering it. It was perhaps my proudest moment as a father. Not because I skillfully answered his questions, trust me, I’m not that smart. But because my son, at seven years old was wrestling with the hard questions of faith and was seeking genuine answers. He wasn’t just blindly accepting what mom and dad said, he wanted real life explanations that made sense. And it was the blessing of God to allow my wife and I to be the ones to explain it to him.

Now there is a very real reason why I have relayed this touching family moment. It was only a few months ago that I had picked my kids up in Sunday School one day. As I entered the class, I overheard the teachers leading the children through a “sinner’s prayer” and welcoming them to the Christian family. While this post is not intended to decry Sunday Schools in general, I remember the sense of genuine concern I had over this. Christians are not made because someone lead another in a prayer or had them sign a card. People become Christians because they have been humbled by the understanding of their wretched sinfulness and, in repentance and faith, turn to the only possible means of salvation, Jesus Christ. While a later conversation with the Sunday School teacher addressed this issue, I could not help but think of it again last night.

In our current evangelical culture, my kids would have been declared saved and no one would have ever been allowed to question that. Never mind we are repeatedly called in Scripture to examine ourselves and see if we are in the faith. Never mind the parable of the sowers which describes what false converts look like. None of those things are considered, only that they said the sinners prayer. Yet, last night in my son, I saw the doubts and questions often used by many to deny the existence of God. While this is not proof of a definitive lack of salvation, neither should it ignored as a possible indication he has not yet been made new. In most churches and Sunday Schools today, these serious and reasonable questions go unanswered. Many times, churches erroneously assume young kids simply can’t understand these big concepts. They teach them Bible stories and figure that is enough. But even well meaning churches, who teach solid biblical truths, only have a couple hours per week to teach the answers these kids desperately need. A couple hours against a full week of secular humanist onslaught is often simply not enough.

So what is the answer? In a word, us. We parents are the ones God has assigned over our children. He has given the responsibility and the authority to raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It our duty, not our option, to be the primary source of biblical instruction in their lives. It is we, not school, not friends, and certainly not television, that should be forming the worldview that they will one day live by. And that worldview should be grounded solely in the good news of the gospel. That means we, as parents, must be prepared to answer some of the hardest questions we will ever encounter. That means we need to know our Bibles. That means we need to understand at least a basic level of apologetics. It means we have to understand the difference between the unbiblical concepts of evolution and the Bible’s teaching on Creation. It means we cannot be lazy. It means we have to work hard. It means giving up our time and our pursuits so that we can train up our children to love the Lord and commit their lives to Him.

Some may see this as an overwhelming task. They may think, “I’m just not smart enough,” or “I’m not equipped to teach like that.” If you have children, God has equipped you to teach. The Bible never attempts to persuade us that teaching our kids might be a good idea. It commands us to. And if you have commanded, you have been equipped. If you don’t feel intellectually capable, change it. The resources out there to provide Christians with this ability are numerous. Ministries such as Answers in Genesis and CARM exist for the express purpose of providing apologetics training. Numerous sound biblical preachers such as John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, and Voddie Baucham have websites and audio messages that can assist you as you study the bible. But the single most important things you can do are pray, read your bible and spend time with your kids talking about the things of God.

Truly we parents have no greater ministry than the training up of our children to fear and love the Lord. This is not anyone else’s responsibility, it is ours. Let us not abdicate it to anyone or anything else. Oh, and the second proudest moment of being a parent happened to me this morning. My son came up to me and said, “Now I know God exists, because if he didn’t I wouldn’t be here.” Excuse me, I think I have some grit in my eyes I need to wipe away, because I can’t explain these tears any other way.

Debate: Walter Martin vs Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

w-martino-hair

Here’s the hard-to-find debate between the great Christian apologist, Walter Martin, and the infamous anti-theist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. 

DefCon makes this classic debate from 1968, entitled Walter Martin vs Madalyn Murray O’Hair, available to you as an MP3 download.  

You are sure to enjoy this.

Anti-theists all aflutter over a street sign.

No one can trample on the memories of fallen firefighters and spit in the face of their families quite like the anti-theists.

Now, I know that not all atheists are angry and walk around with a chip on their shoulder (some are actually pleasant to be around), but here is a classic example of why atheists have still not found broad acceptance among the populace.

Below are some morsels from a FoxNews article (found here) about what has anti-theists in a tizzy . . . this week:

A group of New York City atheists is demanding that the city remove a street sign honoring seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks because they say the sign violates the separation of church and state.

The street, “Seven in Heaven Way,” was officially dedicated last weekend in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served. The ceremony was attended by dozens of firefighters, city leaders and widows of the fallen men.

“There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. “It’s really insulting to us.”

Never mind that your words and actions are insulting to everyone else.

Bronstein then shares this revelation:

“We’ve concluded as atheists there is no heaven and there’s no hell.”

Then Bronstein shows his sensitivity regarding the matter:

He was nonplussed over how his opposition to the street sign might be perceived – especially since the sign is honoring fallen heroes. “It’s irrelevant who it’s for,” Bronstein said. “We think this is a very bad thing.”

Of course we’ll never be told how it’s “a very bad thing.” 

Then the president of the American Atheists makes this statement:

David Silverman, president of American Atheists, agreed calling on the city to remove the sign. “It implies that heaven actually exists,” Silverman told Fox News Radio.

See, in Silverman’s world it’s ok to claim Heaven doesn’t exist but don’t you dare suggest otherwise.

“People died in 9/11, but they were all people who died, not just Christians. Heaven is a specifically Christian place. For the city to come up and say all those heroes are in heaven now, it’s not appropriate.”

I agree with this last sentence from Silverman, but for different reasons.

Now it’s time to muddy the waters:

“All memorials for fallen heroes should celebrate the diversity of our country and should be secular in nature. These heroes might have been Jews, they might have been atheists, I don’t know, but either way it’s wrong for the city to say they’re in heaven. It’s preachy.”

Don’t you think it would be important to find out if one of the seven firefighters was an atheist before taking up this cause? Not knowing reveals that you are driven by your agenda and facts don’t really matter.

Perhaps the seven firefighters comprised several beliefs. Maybe one was a Christian, one a Jew, one a Roman Catholic, one a Muslim, one a Mormon, one a Jehovah’s Witness, and one a Seventh-day Adventist. All of these believe in a Heaven. So if none of the seven were an atheist, then this whole argument is moot.

And believing the seven firefighters are in Heaven is “preachy” but declaring that there is no Heaven is not?

Also, how does one “celebrate the diversity of our country” and at the same same time “be secular in nature?” That’s called doublespeak.

And then there’s this interesting fact:

City leaders seemed dumbfounded by the atheists’ outrage because no one complained about the sign as it was going through a public approval process. “It’s unfortunate that they didn’t raise this as an issue while it was undergoing its public review either at the community board level or when it came before the City Council on their public agenda,” said Craig Hammerman, the district manager for Brooklyn Community Board 6.

Hammerman told Fox News Radio that the community was “solidly behind this proposal. Not a single person stood up to speak out against it. I think it’s a little late in the process for someone to be bringing this up now.”

That’s because they wanted the sign to be approved so they could protest it on a grander scale and get the publicity they so desperately seek. There would have been much less press if they protested the matter during the city council meetings.

“The patriotic and right thing to do is to obey our own law and to realize that we are a diverse nation, a melting pot full of different views,” Silverman added.

We’re a melting pot but don’t you dare reflect the religious part of that melting pot, because if the majority of religious views conflict with the minority of anti-religious views, by golly, it’s time to knock the pot over. So much for diversity, huh?

But the city has no intention of removing the sign. If that’s the case, Bronstein said he may consider a lawsuit.

Good for the city! What’s one more threat of a lawsuit? Muslims use threats of terrorism, anti-theists use threats of litigation. They’re both designed to cause terror in an attempt to destroy an enemy. I hope NYC stands up to these anti-theist threats as they do to the Islamic threats.

Bottom line, is it’s just a street sign. It’s not going to cause anyone to become a Christian nor is it going to alter the course our nation is currently on. In the grand scheme of things this sign is much to do about nothing and the anti-theists know it. They’re just using it to reach for another 15 minutes of fame.

The families of those seven firefighters are ok with the memorial, as well as the overwhelming majority of the city; the only ones with objections are a small band of anti-theists who seem to exist only to be a nuisance to others.

I’m still waiting for these atheists to muster up the courage to cackle and threaten lawsuits over the Islamic festival held every year in Dearborn, Michigan.

While I’m waiting, I think I’ll protest the signs in my city that are “anti-Christian.” Signs like First Street, Thurston Way, and Riverview Lane.

Morality without God?

The following article is from World Magazine:

Confirmation of biblical wisdom came earlier this fall from an unlikely source: an Ivy League savant who says it’s wrong to depend on the Bible.

The prestigious Oxford University Press sent me the new book Morality Without God by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a Dartmouth professor. (I’m going to quote him a lot, so I’ll use his initials.) WSA begins by complaining that his students quote to him Dostoevsky’s favorite line, “If God is dead, everything is permitted.” WSA then argues that we don’t need God: We all should simply agree not to harm others—cause death, pain, or disability—unless there is “adequate reason.”

Wondering if WSA is one of those exceedingly rare secular professors with the courage to be pro-life, I emailed him to ask. He responded that there is no “simple solution to this complex problem . . . the moral problem of abortion cannot be solved by citing religious texts or religious leaders.”

Hmm . . . How can it be solved? WSA wrote, “What matters is the present and future harm to the fetus and others. This does not solve the problem, but it tells us where to focus our discussions. I hope this helps.”

Hmm . . . It helps only if WSA can tell us how to compare “harm to the fetus” (death) to other harms, so I emailed him again. He responded, “The bottom line is that I think some moral problems are insoluble. . . . They are just too difficult for us to figure out. . . . The answer, ‘I do not know,’ should become common.”

Read the entire article here.

Quotes (794)

Stephen Charnock If you take away God, you take away conscience, and thereby all measures and rules of good and evil. And how can any law be made when the measure and standard of them are removed? All good laws are founded upon the dictates of conscience and reason, upon common sentiments in human nature, which spring from a sense of God; so that as the foundation is demolished, the whole superstructure must tumble down. A man then could be a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, and could not in a strict sense be considered an offender. The worst actions could not be evil, if a man were a god to himself, a law to himself.

– Stephen Charnock

1628 – 1680

Evolutionists: Spreading Ignorance and Superstition for 150 Years

dunceAccording to evolutionary theory, a vestigial organ is an organ that evolved to serve our ancestors, but as evolution marched on, it became useless and now serves little or no purpose. Of course to a creationist, who believes animals and humans were designed by God about 6,000 years ago, that is absurd.

One of the most famous examples of a vestigial organ, given in many science textbooks, is the appendix. About 1 in 20 people have had an appendix removed in necessary surgery. Most of them go on to live long lives. But does that mean that the appendix is completely useless? No. If my left arm were removed, I could live a long, happy life, but that wouldn’t mean my arm was vestigial.

It turns out that the appendix serves a purpose in the immune system. Creationists have been telling us this for some time , but it seems the secular scientific community has recently decided to leak this information. All of those enlightened geniuses who love to cite the vestigial appendix as a favorite piece of evidence now stand side-by-side with “backward-thinking” Christians.

How many people have been deceived by atheistic science, which is not science at all?

The life and death of Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

In spite of this documentary attempting to paint Atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair in a favorable light, you can’t help but see the irony of her life in the oddity surrounding her death.

In this documentary the true O’Hair is revealed including a domestic incident which resulted in her battery on police officers which led to her running from the law. Also included is O’Hair’s desire to defect to Russia during the height of the Cold War, but even the Godless Soviet Union wouldn’t take her so she did the next best thing . . . she helped bring Communism to America.

However, in spite of her life being devoted to mocking God and hating Christians, it was her death that was the events surrounding her death that I found most interesting. Scoffers are a dime a dozen, but O’Hair’s demise was anything but normal.

As with any documentary dealing with God-mockers, viewer discretion is advised.

Part One:

Part Two:

Language Warning: Uncensored profanity at 9:47

Part Three:

Part Four:

Part Five:

Also check out the famous Walter Martin vs Madalyn Murray O’Hair debate on this post.

Ray Comfort is Dead On In His Newsletter

Living Waters sends out a weekly e-mail newsletter, and in today’s newsletter Ray Comfort gets to the root of a few issues I’ve been thinking about lately.

  • If two people who both live by the philosophy of “looking out for number one” happen to cross paths, won’t there be an inevitable conflict between them?
  • Evolution teaches that we’re animals that happen to be more highly evolved than others. Animals don’t care about right and wrong. If someone lived their life as if evolution is true, is there really any moral restraints on them?

People who believe those things are commonplace, and we’re seeing the consequences more and more. Ray cuts to the chase with this:

There have been about a dozen mass-shootings in the United States in recent months, and secular experts are still trying to piece together the profiles and common denominators of these murderers. However, every one of them had one thing in common. They all lacked a fear of God. If someone fears God they won’t lie to you, steal from you, or commit adultery with your spouse. They won’t even lust after them. They won’t hate you, harbor anger or be bitter towards you, and they certainly won’t kill you. “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.” (Proverbs 16:6, itallics added)

One of the major reasons this nation lacks the fear of God is that it’s rarely preached from the modern pulpit. Think of what Nathan did with David. He put the fear of God in him by saying “You are the man! Why have you despised the Commandment of the Lord?” (see 2 Samuel 12:7-9). Without such a reproof David would have simply remained an unrepentant man who made an unfortunate choice in life. But the reproof revealed that he was a criminal who had despised the moral Law, and that God’s wrath hovered over him for his terrible transgression.

We need to be Nathans to this nation and faithfully preach the Word, in season and out of season. We must “reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all patience and doctrine,” and the well-spring of our words must be love for sinners. We cannot let fear stop us from showing them that they have despised the Law, and that they have personally sinned against God, as Paul did in Romans 2:20-24.

In another portion of the newsletter, Living Waters reveals Hollywood’s humanist bias. The producers of Alfie left out inconvenient portions in their remake of the 1966 movie. If we’re just animals looking out for our own best interest, what’s to stop someone from murdering an unborn child? If the law is the only thing protecting human life, no one should sleep too easily. Laws can be changed.