Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Atheism » Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?

Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Why do positive, active, strong militant atheists or weak atheists/agnostics promote naturalism with such fervour and time spending?

The best an agnostic or weak atheist could do is stay silent and just keep his unbelief for himself. Why make a fuss over an idea that has no sense for you? There are untold multitudes who have no interest in waging war on beliefs that mean nothing to them. Atheism has nothing positive to contribute to anyone. It does not improve the lives in any way. It has no doctrine nor provides a guide for moral improvement. In many cases, it is a declaration of ignorance. Why many urges to proclaim to others what they do not believe is beyond me...

If the atheist's last answer to origins is: " I don't know" - why do they engage theists, to eagerly express their freely chosen ignorance and emptiness and void of life - meaning? Do they think they will convince theists somehow, that ignorance is bliss? Do they think, ignorance exercises some kind of positive force or influence or attraction to someone's life? - and for that reason, we shall know it? Not only that but as it seems, they believe theists base their views on gaps in understanding, despite the fact, that over and over it is demonstrated to them, that this is not the case ?! I cannot imagine of a more senseless endeavour, than weak atheists that have nothing else to offer and to do, then engage theists, to do nothing else than express their ignorance. Its as if a homeless, jobless begging hungry vagrant sits on the corner on a street, and sees a successful happy fulfilled person passing by, and trying to convince that person that his state of affairs is attractive and better than anyone else's one..... Go figure.

Atheists commonly confess ignorance and base it on the claim that there is no evidence of God. The consequence of such a position is:

the lack of
objective moral values
meaning of life
lack of recognition of the real intrinsic value of human beings
what really matters in life ( to love God, and your next )
inner peace

and become a playball of their own

lacks values
certainty of anything
lack of goals in life
bad decisions
lack of direction in life
the consequences are:
Increase of crimes
destructuration of families
telling lies

false doctrines and various isms which undermine the value of life, like

Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism, and the ultimate fate and consequence is to die and be judged upon their own sins and mistakes and paying for their sins and rejection of God in Hell forever and ever.

Atheism is cancer no matter how you try and sugar coat it. The only manifestation of atheism in state power is totalitarianism. No exceptions. For two centuries-- from 1789-- every atheist philosophy that has risen to power has brought hell to earth among the people under its boot. Atheist 'secular humanism' has one salient characteristic-- it never survives the rise of atheism. What begins with an edited Jefferson always ends with a pockmarked Caligula. Atheism in power has always been totalitarian.

Atheist rank the highest in 4 stats, suicide, depression, medication intake and school shootings. If that is not FAIL, I do not know what is...

According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the TOP TEN nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the BOTTOM TEN nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Atheist are a small minority world wide, so the fact that they even make the charts on suicide rate just goes to show you how crazy it is. Japan has always been an atheist country, wealthy and prosperous as well. Yet, they have always ranked either #1 or #2 on Earth for highest suicide rates. Last year in Japan, more than 25,000 people took their own lives. That's 70 every day.

Do you want me to list every single mass school shooter and post there religious beliefs, I mean “lack thereof” because I can. Religious Affiliation, Atheism and Suicide According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

We Christians are often called out and accused of trying to convert non-believers or adherents of other faith systems to Christianity, force them into something they don't want, and not respect them. They do however not understand, that we have a command by the Lord Jesus Christ:  to spread the clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles of the Gospel (Good News) with love and kindness,  and make disciples. To preach the gospel is one thing. A true religion/worldview is spread by using evidence and logical arguments, discussion and fair debates, allowing people to make up their minds and exercise their free choice to accept or reject the beliefs.

Usually, when debating atheists, i do not start with apologetics, with the attempt to defend my christian faith. I start demonstrating why theism makes more sense than atheism. Why intelligent design tops explanatory power compared to philsophical naturalism. When this step has been clarified, i go ahead with a cumulative argument, that leads to the Christian faith.

We are not asked to interfere in the decision making of the receiver of our message. We are called to make the gospel of Gods grace, love, justice,  forgiveness and eternal life known. If someone by deliberate decision wants to become a Christian, then we are called to instruct the new convert in his new faith. The Christian has good reasons to confess his faith, first, to obey the Lords command, and secondly, to give others the opportunity to find salvation and eternal life.

What makes people reject God is not the ( lack of ) scientific evidence, but sin. They love darkness more than the light.

In many places, atheists express actively their non-belief in God. They most commonly criticize the bible as a book of fables and magic, not trustworthy. But why is that? First of all, the rationale for this thinking is logically fallacious.  The bible is false, therefore, (strong) atheism is true. That is an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.  The illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. The proponents of strong atheism/naturalism, however, must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive reason and the evidence-based case using positive evidence that results in good justifications to infer naturalism or strong atheism. What the debater must present, is a positive case for strong atheism by reference to the evidence that favors an atheistic interpretation of reality. But why do so many actively pursue this endeavor with the fervor of a believer, to express their unbelief? What do active strong militant atheists try to achieve? Check and see any description of a Facebook group of atheism, what the goal of the group is, and you will not find a clear confession and delineation of goals. Question: Why are you not an A-UfOlogist ? or A-spiritist? Why do so many spend so much energy, time, dedication to express what they do NOT believe?

What is the goal of the active atheist? The outcome of atheism is that there are no real binding moral values and duties. There can't be, if God does not exist.  Do whatever pleases you and what you want becomes the compass of actions. Get rid of God, and you do not need to fear God, nor that there will be judgment day, nor eternal punishment, nor hell. This seems to me to be the deepest desire of atheists. Get rid of God. He shall not exist. But why proselytize and try to convince others of this perspective and view of reality? Do atheists by doing this try to convince themselves that their worldview must be true? The more they repeat it, the more they believe it them self, and the more comfort they get?  It seems to me, that is one of the view possible reasons. But is it really? Can our existence without God existing be comfortable? I think, it can't, but it will lead, if thought all through, to desperation and nihilism.  

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, for example, believed that we have no choice but to build our lives upon “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” Only by recognizing that the world really is a terrible place can we successfully come to terms with life. Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.Frankly speaking, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement.  If the atheist’s worldview is correct, then we are nothing but the result of accidental chemical processes and our thoughts are merely chemical reactions that take place in our brain. Therefore, nothing you ever do, or say, or even believe matters. In the end, we all go back to “star dust.” So, why argue? Why waste your time talking to someone about the truth or falsehood of something when it doesn’t matter in the end?   On what basis does human life have value? As Francis Schaeffer wrote: Modern man resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap, because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God.  It’s impossible to live consistently and happily within the framework of such a worldview. If you live consistently, you will not be happy; if you live happily, it is only because you are not consistent.  But as a theist, i believe i was created in God's image,  and therefore i am of great value.

Atheists use commonly two weights and two measures: They self-declare themselves ( not rarely ) as skeptics, free- THINKERS, on the rational side, and the "owners" of logic, but most often they endorse a passive position in regards to atheism, and a hypercritical one in regard of theism, and in special in regard to the Bible. Rather than scrutinizing both worldviews - theism, and atheism, they neglect to analyze the consistency of strong atheism ( most probably there is no God) but put a BIG eye to find holes in the views of theists. They remain skeptical of God and certain that most probably there is no God.They also hide by arguing that they do not defend any positive claim, namely that most probably there are no Gods, but all they do is doubt of the claims of theists ( and think, that way they can avoid the burden of proof ). If that was so, what an empty and senseless endeavor - are they also actively spending time in various FB groups and other places, promoting their disbelief in ET's, UFO's, FSM's, ghosts, a flat earth, a square moon etc. ? they are not true skeptics and honest seekers of the truth of origins, but fakers that only delude themselves, and the active ones try to drag others down to their ignorance in an attempt to find relief of their doubts.

Atheists constantly ask for empirical proofs of Gods existence. They say: No one has ever produced any verifiable evidence for any god. All the religions make that claim for their specific god. Well, I want some proof, hard verifiable proof.

Have you already heard that demand? I hear it constantly. Then you begin with Jesus, with the fulfilled prophecies, with design in nature, with the Kalaam, fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity of living beings, the origin of life and so on.....

When you already did spend a deal of time, and no progress was made, you ask:  What evidence are you looking for? usually, the atheist has no answer, because he never thought about that question. He does not know how to recognize Gods signature in nature. But that also demonstrates that he had never a real intention to find God. Usually, most atheists we encounter, just want to confirm what they already believe, and are not open or interested to encounter Jesus.

They see no benefit in their lives to believe in God, want to keep living autonomously from him and diminish the fear that HE eventually does exist and might punish and condemn them for their sins. So they are grateful when they find a not so well instructed theist, where they can bash his faith in old debunked fairy tale books written by sheepherders, and so on. When they find a theist which refutes their lame excuses with qualification, they get angry, and name-calling begins.

But when they demand verifiable evidence, they mean that they want a theophany, where God does magic in front of them, or an appearance on the Sky, where he hand-waves: Hi friend, I am heeere !!  

An atheist in most cases has no idea how Gods existence would be proven. Another escape is: " God knows what it takes to convince me of his existence".

But usually, what is meant, even if not expressed is: They want some sensory input, they want to sense God.

Socrates said: Say, that I may see you!

Spoken words say who you are. Jesus said:

For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words, you will be condemned.”

Words say who you are.

Words say who God is. Information is the key. A meme which is quite insulting says: " I need people to prove God to me because I cannot think for myself."

Well, the truth is, God speaks to us through his word, because that is the right and best method of revelation. Spoken words, Information. Of course, if an atheist rejects Gods revelation through his spoken word outhand and a priori, then the problem is not the lack of Gods revelation. But his incredulity and misotheism.  

Gods message was revealed to humankind through history that he made with Israel in the Old Testament, during an increasing taking off the veil, a gradual revelation of his nature through HIS interaction with Israel, which had its epitome when God made his appearance in Christ, and the curtain of the holy of the holy of the second temple was torn in two from top to bottom. That meant, men now had direct spiritual access to the throne of God through the holy spirit and prayer - no priest intermediate required.

The age of grace makes it possible to man through the holy spirit to come into the close presence of God, into the intimate union and spiritual interaction. God has made it possible. Now it depends on us, to develop this relationship. Gods word exhorts us to exert our faith, and the more we do, the more we will experience God in our lives.

As the Bible says: There is no justification for unbelief. God could have remained hidden and not revealed his identity - but he did. He has revealed his power in his creation, so: no excuse. The claim that there is no evidence of HIM is lame, inexcusable, willfully ignorant, and unless the unbeliever repents, Gods response will be just and in time.

Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?  Quote-10

Last edited by Admin on Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:00 am; edited 27 times in total


The Practical Impossibility of Atheism

The point is this: If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.

Value of Life

Turn now to the problem of value. Here is where the most blatant inconsistencies occur. First of all, atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of love and brotherhood. Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and the ethics of human love and brotherhood. The view that there are no values is logically incompatible with affirming the values of love and brotherhood. Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent. For though he was an atheist, he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom. Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views “incredible.” “I do not know the solution,” he confessed.6

The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist. As Dostoyevsky said, “All things are permitted.” But man cannot live this way. So he makes a leap of faith and affirms values anyway. And when he does so, he reveals the inadequacy of a world without God.

The horror of a world devoid of value was brought home to me with new intensity several years ago as I watched a BBC television documentary called The Gathering. It concerned the reunion of survivors of the Holocaust in Jerusalem, where they rediscovered lost friendships and shared their experiences. One former prisoner, a nurse, told of how she was made the gynecologist at Auschwitz. She observed that pregnant women were grouped together by the soldiers under the direction of Dr. Josef Mengele and housed in the same barracks. Some time passed, and she noted that she no longer saw any of these women. She made inquiries. “Where are the pregnant women who were housed in that barracks?” “Haven’t you heard?” came the reply. “Dr. Mengele used them for vivisection.”

Another woman told of how Mengele had bound up her breasts so that she could not suckle her infant. The doctor wanted to learn how long an infant could survive without nourishment. Desperately this poor woman tried to keep her baby alive by giving it pieces of bread soaked in coffee, but to no avail. Each day the baby lost weight, a fact that was eagerly monitored by Dr. Mengele. A nurse then came secretly to this woman and told her, “I have arranged a way for you to get out of here, but you cannot take your baby with you. I have brought a morphine injection that you can give to your child to end its life.” When the woman protested, the nurse was insistent: “Look, your baby is going to die anyway. At least save yourself.” And so this mother felt compelled to take the life of her own baby. Dr. Mengele was furious when he learned of it because he had lost his experimental specimen, and he searched among the dead to find the baby’s discarded corpse so that he could have one last weighing.

My heart was torn by these stories. One rabbi who survived the camp summed it up well when he said that at Auschwitz it was as though there existed a world in which all the Ten Commandments were reversed. Mankind had never seen such a hell.

And yet, if God does not exist, then in a sense, our world is Auschwitz: There is no right and wrong; all things are permitted.

But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view. Nietzsche himself, who proclaimed the necessity of living beyond good and evil, broke with his mentor Richard Wagner precisely over the issue of the composer’s anti-Semitism and strident German nationalism. Similarly, Sartre, writing in the aftermath of the Second World War, condemned anti-Semitism, declaring that a doctrine that leads to mass extermination is not merely an opinion or matter of personal taste of equal value with its opposite. In his important essay “Existentialism Is a Humanism,” Sartre struggles vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely preestablished values and his urgent desire to affirm the value of human
persons. Like Russell, he could not live with the implications of his own denial of ethical absolutes.

Neither can the so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins. For although he says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, he is an unabashed moralist. He vigorously condemns such actions as the harassment and abuse of homosexuals, religious indoctrination of children, the Incan practice of human sacrifice, and prizing cultural diversity over the interests of Amish children. He even goes so far as to offer his own amended Ten Commandments for guiding moral behavior, all the while marvelously oblivious to the contradiction with his ethical subjectivism.

Indeed, one will probably never find an atheist who lives consistently with his system. For a universe without moral accountability and devoid of value is unimaginably terrible.

Purpose of Life

Finally, let’s look at the problem of purpose in life. The only way most people who deny purpose in life live happily is either by making up some purpose—which amounts to self-delusion, as we saw with Sartre—or by not carrying their view to its logical conclusions. The temptation to invest one’s own petty plans and projects with objective significance and thereby to find some purpose to one’s life is almost irresistible.

For example, the outspoken atheist and Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg, at the close of his much-acclaimed book The First Three Minutes, writes,

It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that somehow we were built in from the beginning.… It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.
But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself. Men and women are not content to comfort themselves with tales of gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily affairs of life; they also build telescopes and satellites and accelerators, and sit at their desks for endless hours working out the meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.

There’s something strange about Weinberg’s moving description of the human predicament: Tragedy is not a neutral term. It expresses an evaluation of a situation. Weinberg evidently sees a life devoted to scientific pursuits as truly meaningful, and therefore it’s tragic that such a noble pursuit should be extinguished. But why, given atheism, should the pursuit of science be any different from slouching about doing nothing? Since there is no objective purpose to human life, none of our pursuits has any objective significance, however important and dear they may seem to us subjectively. They’re no more significant than shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

If the atheist’s worldview is correct, then we are nothing but the result of accidental chemical processes and our thoughts are merely chemical reactions that take place in our brain. Therefore, nothing you ever do, or say, or even believe, matters. In the end, we all go back to “star dust.” So, why argue? Why waste your time talking to someone about the truth or falsehood of something when it doesn’t matter in the end?

Last edited by Admin on Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:43 pm; edited 3 times in total


Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?  Dfdfdf10

Non-believers ask believers for proof about their claims ALL THE TIME. Yet, when it comes to matters of why they seek a debate with believers, they insist that their own claims are unquestionable, that we must accept their word and take what they have to say on faith. That's  a double standard.

Are most non-believers really genuinely looking  for God  ? If so, what standard have they set that would meet their requirement to acknowledge his existence ? If they have not set the bars, how can they know when the evidence is enough that points to God as the best explanation of origins ?  Are they really highly motivated in seeking for the truth where ever it may lead, even if that means it leads  to God ?! C.S. Lewis once said (paraphrased) that a non-believer is looking as hard for God as a thief is looking for a police station, meaning that he isn't: it's against his own moral interests to find God.

If you seek HIM like a starving man seeks for bread or a thirsting man seeks for water, then the Bible is filled to the brim with promises that you will find Him. Or more correctly, that He will find you.
"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Luke 11:10


the quote from atheist/author Thomas Nagel comes to mind on these issues...because I contend the real issue is one of the heart/will. Good thinkers like Grasso put forward arguments to suggest a first cause/deity is crucial for eneregy/matter to start, then for intelligent life to start. Humans are a proud species...we like to go it alone...and the thought of acknowledging, net alone loving/worshiping a deity is abhorant to many, hence the blinkers. Anyway, Nagel let the cat out of the secularist's bag when he said, "“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.”

5Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?  Empty Weak atheism on Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:08 am


Weak atheism

Craig : I think it is very popular on the lay level because it exonerates the unbeliever from having to give any defense of his viewpoint. For him atheism is just a psychological state and therefore it is neither true nor false. It is not a view. It's a description of one's psychology. Therefore the person who claims to be an atheist in this psychological sense makes no assertion and has nothing to prove because he doesn't make any claim. Philosophically a belief is just a certain type of mental state which means you accept a certain proposition as true. So it is absurd to claim that you have no beliefs. That is itself a belief – the belief that I have no beliefs. Think, for example, of babies who would have a lack of belief in God because they don't understand or have never heard the claim that God exists. But he thinks after you've heard the claim “God exists” then you have to have some sort of belief state regarding it. You are going to believe it or not believe it.

The atheist is one who believes that God does not exist. The theist believes that God exists. It is only the agnostic who fails to have a settled belief about those propositions


If the atheist's last answer to origins is: " I don't know" - why do they engage theists, to eagerly express their freely chosen ignorance and emptiness and void of life - meaning? Do they think they will convince theists somehow, that ignorance is bliss? Do they think, ignorance exercises some kind of positive force or influence or attraction to someone's life? - and for that reason, we shall know it? Not only that but as it seems, they believe theists base their views on gaps in understanding, despite the fact, that over and over it is demonstrated to them, that this is not the case ?! I cannot imagine of a more senseless endeavour, than weak atheists that have nothing else to offer and to do, then engage theists, to do nothing else than express their ignorance. Its as if a homeless, jobless begging hungry vagrant sits on the corner on a street, and sees a successful happy fulfilled person passing by, and trying to convince that person that his state of affairs is attractive and better than anyone else's one..... Go figure.


Despite the common attacks from the atheist camp, we need to learn, to be more gracious, that we respond their insults by either remain quiet, or leave the debate when it fits, without lower the level, and show them that we adopt a spirit of love ( and as such, be morally superior to them ). But we need to demonstrate also strength and courage, being bold and fearless, secure and convinced of what we believe, and that we adopt reason and logic in our thinking. And that strength comes from showing them that we can both: believe in the supernatural, and miracles, but at the same time well understand the natural world and its inner workings, as far as science permits. And show, that the natural world points, yeah, breaths, even screams out in all its levels and dimensions, from the extreme precision and fine-tuning of the atoms and its forces to the formidable engineering in the molecular world and the sophisticated language employed in DNA, to the colorful beauty of nature, to the whole universe and its extreme tuning: design !!

They might not understand the language of the natural world, and what it transmits to us because their mind is darkened by their will to deny God. But God does, when he wills so and draws the unbeliever to him, and when the atheist's eyes are open, he suddenly sees differently. His blinkers fall off. Our worldview grows and takes form by putting the pieces of information together, bit by bit. One information here, another there. When an atheist finally permits the truth to reach him, his intellectual cognitive dissonance is removed, and an aha moment is the starting point to get things straight. That's when intellectual satisfaction comes to his mind and his heart. That's when his soul begins to breathe, and God begins to shine in his heart, and the warmth of his love to give him peace.

John 1:3 Through him ( Christ) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Psalm 19:1-4“ The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

Nehemiah 9:6 "You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 66:2 "For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?  22tx3o10


" A wise man makes his own research to elaborate a valid epistemological framework, that leads him to the best and most accurate answers, and highest probability of origins. A wilful ignorant chooses to make others think for him, and follows blindly public opinion and what scientists say ".

In biology, almost everything has purpose. The few things, like vestigial organs, which scientists thought - were not useful for the organism -they find out by more advanced investigation, they were wrong. When biologists find a molecule, organelle, protein, compartment, metabolite, organ, or whatever, they will always ask: What purpose does that have - and they will almost always find a reason for given part to be. Natural selection would have to select for components of a complex system that would be useful in the completion of a much larger system, and for that reason have foresight.....

This is the contrast to geology, chemistry etc. where specific purpose inserted in a system does not exist. That's teleology. That is a big problem for naturalism. Natural, unguided events are not purpose driven. There is no intention, no goal by natural selection, drift, gene flow or whatever. That is also why secular science papers struggle to avoid the term that indicates intention but often borrows and uses it, in an unjustified manner.

" X has the appearance of design, but wasn't ".
Its really not easy to cancel God out in biology, but, since no supernatural explanations are permitted, God must be avoided, and so a vocabulary, that implies creation.
When will secular philosophers of science finally " get it", and ask and bring a proposal of change into a new debate, a new moment of science, for a new framework, stop to use the flawed constraint of philosophical naturalism, dating back to Darwins time, and exclude a priori creation as a possible explanation of origins? How long will they have to bang their heads on the wall, because the evidence does not point to the direction they want, namely natural events producing complexity? They can insist as much as they want in a flawed scientific framework based on naturalism, it will not change the facts....


I see it over and over: Atheists are throughout defeated in their reasoning that our existence can be explained without a creator. But once all arguments are exhausted, and they find themselves in a situation, where they cannot sustain what they tried to justify, rationally, they need to face the brute fact that God exists. And this situation demands that they make a decision. That is where will kicks in. C.S.Lewis brought it straight to the point, when he wrote, that atheists look for God, like a thief for the police station. A honest agnostic seeker, after his journey, and evaluating all evidence, has to come without doubt to the conclusion that Theism is the best ansswer after a critical analysis of the evidence that surrounds us. That brought Anthony Flew to abandone his views, and endorse deism. The quest of God IS one that demands us rationally to search him. An irrational worldview can only perpetuate based on blind faith, which unfortunately all to often is the case. But a worldview , to be true, must withstand rational , philosophic, and scientific scrutiny.

Many atheists however become misotheists, or indifferent alltogether towards questions of origins, and God. We are often acused of making baseless claims, when we point out why atheists are atheists. I agree, everyone has its personal reasons and motivations. But a general picture can be outlined. An atheist, which cannot sustain his views rationally, rejects God because of will. He does not WANT ( will ) God in his life. He thinks, life without God is better. He has the ( false ) perception and imagination that life without God will provide more freedom. And that it is not worth to obey a higher entity, whatever his laws are. Another reason is: Statistically it is proven, that most people define their position in regards of religion when they are young. Older people are accostumed into a certain lifestyle, and see no necessity of change.

In the end, the big issue is spiritual. Surrender to God is a spiritual event and transition, that is provoked by the change and moving of the "heart" ( or your inner being ), moving from a spiritual dead life, to a spiritual awakening, where God begins to dwell, interact, and live in the life of a believer.

I also think, God in his wisdom, wanted it so: It would not be just, if people of higher intelligence would have an advantage over people with less IQ/education/instruction. So God made our position to HIM a quest of our heart, a moral decision. So there is equality. Even people with a certain mental deficiency can find and worship God, and become his children.

What a blessing experience of all those, which have had the courage to be persuaded by Gods love and grace !!

If you have not experienced to be born again spiritually, here a small road map:

How you can get Saved!


I think the problem with stupid people is that they are so stupid that they have no idea how stupid they are you see ? If you're very very stupid how can you possibly realize that you're very very stupid you'd have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are. there's a wonderful bit of research by brothers called Dunning & Kruger. I'm proud to say who's pointed out that in order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place which means there's just every funny that if you're absolutely no good at something at all then you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you're absolutely no good at it and this explains not just Hollywood but almost the entirety of Fox News


If you are an atheist, why do you try to convert theists to your views?

What is your goal ? Do you want to try to convince me that your view is correct ? Can there be a legitimate interest of you in educating people about sechular humanism, atheism, agnosticism, and freethought? If so, why and how? Do you claim: I want to promote reason and skepticism? I think both goals are legitimate. If we are equipped with the ability of rational thought, we should use it to make sense of the world we live in. But what does that have to do with atheism? If the goal is not to simply tear down some religious dogma, but instead, to get me or someone else to think reasonably, rationally, logically, and critically about beliefs more generally, then the question is: Did you do that towards naturalism, before engaging me? Do you have good, convincing arguments that lead to naturalism, and top theism? Before you try to convert me, have you scrutinized your own position, and up to what point it withstands scrutiny and rational examination?

Are you just looking to “win” an argument or vent your negative feelings and emotions about religion and faith? If so, that might be the wrong hobby, and not lead to anything worth of time spending. Are you looking to convert me or others to atheism? The chances of achieving that goal are slim to none. Not only are you unlikely to succeed, but there isn’t any value in it since atheism as a worldview offers nothing. There are no ought to be's, nor any advice of moral improvement, or to improve life quality in any sense. It actually removes any values, be it spiritual, moral, or in regards to proposing any kind of deeper meaning of life.

Is it of planting a seed of doubt? to get me to begin questioning some facet of my faith? If so, what makes you believe I have not scrutinized my belief system already, and my worldview is consolidated and fix? As an intellectually fulfilled theist, and in particular, Christian, I am absolutely convinced of my beliefs and take on the attitude that I and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ cannot be mistaken. Many of us experienced Gods direct intervention in our lives. How would you EVER think that you could convince me that my experiences were somehow fake?

You might be able to point out some issues where satisfying answers are demanding, like the quest of evil and theodicy problem. Or question, how a snake and donkey could talk, a virgin give birth, and all other miracles described in the Bible. I have done these considerations too, and they will not lead to rejection, since far more are the key issues, where I find satisfying answers, rather than not. If you think that faith or religion is a crutch, did you also consider, that this idea might be a misconception, and that faith in God is far more than that?

There can only be meaning, values, morality, rational thought, logic, and intellectual satisfaction through faith in the living God, which made us with the purpose to know him and his goodness. Another thing to consider: If I want to get rid of my faith, my religion, the God i believe in right now, I can toss it aside by myself. I don't need you.

Now: If you genuinely believe the God I believe in, is possibly the true God, and want to know more, or remove some doubts, or educate yourself, I will be more than happy to answer your questions.

Depending on what the answer will be, I think you will save a lot of time of fruitless debates with ignorant "I don't knowers" which have not the slightest interest to change their minds.


By Timothy Fox
Nowadays it’s cool to redefine words that have had longtime, common sense definitions. For example, nothing no longer means “not anything” or, literally, “no thing.” Thanks to Lawrence Krauss, nothing now means empty space or the quantum vacuum or something or other. So nothing is no longer nothing but instead it is something small or empty or insignificant. Tolerance used to mean to agree to disagree or that we can hold different beliefs and still be friends. Now it means that you agree with largely leftist, liberal beliefs. If you don’t, you’re intolerant.
The same has happened with the definition of atheism. It has always been clear: the belief that God does not exist. But now it has been redefined to mean “the lack of belief in God.” At a glance it doesn’t seem that significant of a change, but the difference is huge.
“Old” atheism was a statement about the world, that there is no God out there somewhere. It is an objective claim about reality that is either true or false. Such a claim requires reasons and evidence to support. The person who states God does not exist has just as much of a burden of proof as the person who says God exists.
But “new” atheism moves God into our minds. His existence is merely a belief that some people have and others don’t. “New” atheism is a subjective statement that cannot be externally tested since an atheist internally lacks a belief in God. He makes no claims about reality, only himself. Therefore, it is the theist’s responsibility to somehow cause the atheist to gain the belief in God, not the atheist’s burden to explain his lack of belief.
Now, if you think this is silly, so do I. But it’s becoming more common. So how do we respond to this redefinition of atheism? Simple. We don’t. Who cares about someone’s definition of atheism or their subjective set of beliefs? If labels and definitions prevent a meaningful conversation, avoid them.
Instead, focus on reality. Is there a God really, objectively out there or not? And if someone says he lacks belief in God, tell him you don’t care about his mental state. You care about reality. Does God exist or not?

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum