Ten Questions for Atheists

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Here’s my thought: You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience. In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life.

Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record? When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1

He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record. “Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.2 It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation.

The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.3 Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.4

4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road. You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective. In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another.

In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.5

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound. Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.6

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes? Probably not. But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder? In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10450 power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?7

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.” In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions. Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one. When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable. Why? If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture? If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions? Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.8 Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16). In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters. But… The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5).

The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity. To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences. What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science? Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought: I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction. I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time. And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250

2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61

3. Ibid, p57

4. Ibid p56

5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015

6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015

7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)

8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015

There is No Referee

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 The Liberal disposition towards God is similar to a football player who’s on the field, playing the game, but doesn’t believe in a Referee. There are no penalties, only plays. The idea is to move the ball down the field and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from putting points on the board. That is not only his goal, it is his right and with that sense of entitlement comes the authority to define the standard by which his conduct on the field is measured.

Should someone challenge his approach, because he’s unwilling to acknowledge the Reality of a “higher authority,” he sees it as a situation where he’s being compelled to adjust his perspective according to only the traditions and preferences of those on the other team and he will look at them and demand to know why he has to play by their rules and refer to them as judgmental and fascists.

There is no Referee.

This is why any conversation pertaining to morality or politics or the cultural in general is destined to fall short of anything influential because until he’s willing to acknowledge the Reality of God, he is his own bottom line. And his philosophical apparatus will interpret anything that comes across as critical of his behavior as not only a negative appraisal of his performance, but an attack on his dominion over all that constitutes the difference between right and wrong.

There is no Referee.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints.

Oftentimes the debate that happens between Democrats and Republicans ceases to be about policy as much as it becomes an argument about morality. The moment it becomes a moral issue, it is therefore a spiritual topic in light of what God specifies in Scripture. But if there is no Referee, than the only Standard by which moral conduct is defined and measured is whatever best promotes the humanistic agenda lurking behind the behavior being discussed. And what applies to one team may or may not apply to the other and what may be an infraction today may not even resonate as a headline tomorrow.

On the surface, the argument that defends the idea that there is no Referee can sound compelling in the way it suggests that to assert a Biblical position is to violate the separation of church and state and force a person to adopt a particular religious disposition that may or may not coincide with their personal convictions.

But the idea that there is no Referee is a religious disposition in that it establishes man as his own deity. It’s not just a question of what the Liberal doesn’t believe about God as much as it’s what they assert as an acceptable replacement for the Role that God plays in, not only determining the difference between right and wrong, but the origin of the universe, the question of life after death as well as the purpose for one’s existence. The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints. And to strip our nation of it’s Christian foundation by insisting that any reference to a religious framework is to violate the separation of church and state is revealed as a sinister absurdity once it becomes apparent that the atheist’s perspective on the human experience is just as much of a “religion” as much as Christianity and in that regard they are the very thing they claim to despise.

Yet, hypocrisy is only recognized as such when there’s a concrete Truth in place to flag when a person is being hypocritical. But that’s not something that concerns a Liberal because…

…there is no Referee.

How Did This Happen?

/0 Comments/in /by

I’m writing this believing that some will have a hard time understanding how Trump won the election…

You’re scratching your head, wondering how Trump was able to win the election given his felonies, his lack of morality, and all his obvious flaws.

There are people out there that have likened him to Hitler, his supporters have been branded as Nazi’s. The MAGA movement is racist, ignorant, rebellious, vulgar, cruel, hateful…

So, how did this happen?

To understand the outcome of the election, you have to be able to pass a simple vocabulary test. To prepare, let’s walk through a couple of terms…

Rule of Law – the best way to process this is to imagine a corrupt lawyer. It’s not about what’s right or fair, it’s what can be manipulated into something that has the appearance of “justice.”

Threat to Democracy – it is a “threat,” but not to Democracy in the context of a representative government. Rather, it’s a threat to those who occupy a position of authority who are determined to serve themselves as opposed to serving others.

Division – Liberals can’t “disagree” intelligently because their ideas don’t work. So, they position themselves as victims of an intolerant society and in so doing can insulate themselves from any real evaluation. Reason being is that you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled “cruel and hateful.” This is how they’re able to push their agenda without it having any real practical or logical merit.

With that as their backdrop, any kind of resistance can be labeled as something sinister and even immoral. “Division” is a part of that strategy in that it categorizes anyone who would point out the nonsensical aspects of their platform as being “divisive.”

Felony – this depends on the person being charged. If it’s a Democrat, a felony is the legal term used by those who are engaged in a witch hunt because a Democrat is never guilty as much as they’re just being harassed.

If it’s a Republican, they don’t even have to be guilty, the crime doesn’t have to be specified and the jury doesn’t need to be unanimous. It’s a word that’s been emptied of all its legitimacy in order to use it as a label to undermine the integrity of whoever is speaking so whatever they’re saying is dismissed as flawed because of it coming from a supposedly criminal perspective.

Constitutional – it depends on the context. On one hand, it’s a legal outcome that is in line with a Liberal’s preferences. Otherwise, it’s a flawed ruling based on an antiquated standard authored by a collection of slave owners.

Insurrection – an appropriate response to a questionable decision infiltrated by any one of a number of FBI informants and corrupted law enforcement officials that intentionally instigate and encourage unlawful behavior. The result being a scripted collection of snapshots and sound bites that can be used to characterize the entire effort as criminal.

Truth – irrelevant term used by an individual who wants to infringe on the right of another to think for themselves. It’s the self-absorbed idea that there is an Absolute that can be used as a benchmark to gauge the accuracy and / or the morality of a particular subject.

This is why when you try to point out the fallacies of a Liberal’s argument by citing evidence or common sense, they will simply change the definition of what constitutes evidence or bend the rules of logical thinking because “truth” doesn’t exist as a bottom line that persists independently of a person’s feelings. A Liberal maintains themselves as their own absolute so, at any given moment, they can create an entirely new system of morals and standards to match their preferred assessment of the situation so, while they may be “different” or “damaged” or unfairly dismissed, they’re never wrong.

Now, with those definitions, we can proceed with an answer to your question, as far as how Donald Trump won the election…

Donald Trump’s victory was not the result of a sinister plot or an uneducated group of voters. It was because enough people were able to see through the “vocabulary” of a political philosophy that translates to policies that, more often than not, make a bad situation worse.

Thank You, President Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Much of this is a reprint of an article written by Howie Carr and featured in the Boston Herald. I added some things of my own at the bottom of the list.

Christ said you will know a tree by its fruit. Whether it’s Trump or someone who thinks like him, I look forward to an administration that has this kind of record…

  1. Thank you for the tax cuts for the middle class.
  2. Thank you for destroying genocidal ISIS, which your predecessor called “the junior varsity.”
  3. Thanks for shutting off the endless flow of illegal immigrants at the southern border, and the unending supply of MS-13 gangbangers, among other criminals, as well as the welfare-dependent illiterate indigents who were so destabilizing American society before you became president.
  4. Thank you for calling out the endless hypocrisy of the media — what you so aptly described as “Very Fake News.”
  5. Thank you for promoting economic policies that led to the lowest unemployment rates ever for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and women, among others.
  6. Thank you for doing more to promote peace in the Middle East than all of your predecessors combined.
  7. Thank you for calling out and exposing the feckless RINOs of your own party like Willard Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, et al.
  8. Thanks for finally standing up to Red China and its predatory trade practices.
  9. Thanks for calling out Fox News Channel for its duplicitous descent into terminal wokeness. T
  10. Thank you for Operation Warp Speed, an amazing achievement for which you will never receive the appropriate credit.
  11. Thanks for pardoning all the persecuted victims of the Russian collusion hoax, among them Gen. Michael Flynn and Roger Stone.
  12. Thank you for eliminating Obamacare’s “individual mandate,” which fined individuals for not buying health insurance they didn’t want or couldn’t afford.
  13. Thank you for taking more questions from (almost always hostile) reporters than all of the last three or four presidents combined.
  14. Thanks for getting the U.S. out of such foreign policy disasters as the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as ending the fiasco for American workers that was NAFTA.
  15. Thanks for such a booming economy that seven million people got off the food-stamp rolls.
  16. Thanks for all those tweets that drove the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) crazy.
  17. Thank you for not turning the IRS into an instrument of persecution against your political foes, the way your predecessor did.
  18. Thanks for not surveilling reporters a la the Obama administration.
  19. Thanks for ending state oppression against people of faith like the Little Sisters of the Poor.
  20. Thank you for trying to defund “sanctuary cities” where illegals run amok.
  21. Thanks for the three new justices on the Supreme Court — think how much worse Hillary’s picks would have been, and maybe someday they’ll grow the spines they so obviously lacked last month in Texas v. Pennsylvania.
  22. Thank you for defanging North Korea and Little Rocket Man.
  23. Thanks for opening up more of our North Atlantic waters for New England commercial fishermen and lobstermen.
  24. Thanks for defending both the First and Second Amendments, and for railing against Section 230, which the billionaire fascists of Silicon Valley are abusing to shut down free speech.
  25. Thank you for appointing U.S. attorneys who actually wanted to put real criminals in prison, without fear or favor.
  26. Thank you for the travel ban, which has largely halted the flow of terrorists like the Tsarnaevs, who had been welcomed into the U.S. and put on welfare by previous administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.
  27. Thanks for the balance in my 401(k).
  28. Thanks for the lowest gasoline prices in decades.
  29. Thanks for the largest number of Americans with gainful employment since the government started keeping records.
  30. Thank you for ordering the elimination of two of the most bloodthirsty terrorists on earth, al-Baghdadi and Gen. Soleimani.
  31. Thank you for being bold enough to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
  32. Thank you for enacting legislation that prevented violations of religious freedom in the context of Heath Care.
  33. Thank you for eliminating support of global abortion funding (known as the Mexico City Policy).

Thank you, Mr President.