BTWN Hangout: “I used to be an atheist”

pasta1I recently had the privilege of participating in a Bible Thumping Wingnut Google hangout. There were a variety of topics, but our overarching theme was the knowledge men have of God, apologetic methodology, my recent articles on that topic, and atheism. Larry Herzog gave his testimony about how God saved him from atheism.

We spent the last 30 minutes of the time going Mystery Science Theater on an atheist talk by The Thinking Atheist.

“I used to be an atheist” [You tube version] 

12 Atheist Statements

From the Hip&Thigh Archives

possumpicSo. In order to prevent folks from thinking Christian doctrine is only believed by hicks and I cannot offer good answers to those statements in my last post, see HERE, I will respond to each of them in turn. The original comments will be in Blue Bold.

To believe your bible in any translation(or original manuscripts) is inerrant & god breathed, here is what you must believe.

#1.A snake can talk remember the snake was cursed to crawl on it’s belly & eat dust.
#2.A donkey can talk.

#9.You have to believe god made the sun stand still when it already stands still or believe god stopped the rotation of the earth which anyone should know would be a disaster in many ways for earth.

#10.You have to believe Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt which is unbelievable.

I took those statements out of sequence because they specifically deal with miraculous interventions and extraordinary acts of providence by God.

Biblio-skeptics tend to ignore the fact that the Bible presupposes the existence of God who has directly intervened in human history past. Because the writers of the Bible treat their writing as a historical record of God’s divine dealings with humanity, particularly God’s redeemed people, I would only expect to read about extraordinary acts of God.

In fact, if the Bible claimed to be a book recording the revelation of the divine, Sovereign Creator, yet contained no record of miraculous works by that Creator in order to establish His divinity, then wouldn’t it raise suspicion in the minds of its critics? Yet, my antagonist would just as easily hammer that point as a means of mockery.

The Bible claims to be a supernatural book with its source being from the mind of our Creator. I expect it to tell of supernatural events. Why is that hard to believe unless you are unwilling to submit to the Creator who produced those supernatural events?

Looking at each point in turn.

#1 – First off, the Bible says it was a serpent. The text is unclear as to what sort of animal that was. The idea of a snake is from the modern day and my antagonist is reading the concept of a modern day python back onto the text. Second, the serpent was satanically controlled. Third, it was cursed AFTER it talked, not before. And fourth, this was an unique, one time event never to be repeated.

#2 – Similar points apply with Balaam’s donkey as with the snake. The Angel of the LORD (who I believe to be Jesus appearing preincarnate) was present when the donkey talked, even giving it the ability to rebuke Balaam.

#9 – Again, similar points apply as with #1 and #2. This was a one time event of extraordinary providence. If our Creator can create His world, He certainly can protect it from disaster when He reveals Himself in a miraculous, cosmological display, so as to deliver His people and bring a crushing blow against their enemies.

#10 – Again, similar points apply here as with the previous three. There were supernatural events that took place in the historical past which show forth God’s character as revealed in judgment, wrath, and even mercy.

Additionally, the description being recorded here may be a metaphorical description explaining how Lot’s wife was merely destroyed in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah because she tarried behind Lot. The text is not clear how far behind she may had been. Because she refused to take seriously the warnings of judgment delivered by the angels, she was overcome in the cities’ destruction.

#3.That man was so stupid back then that he actually thought he could build a tower to heaven.

Nothing in the text suggests they were building a physical tower that was intended to go into heaven, as in allowing people to ascend into the atmosphere and beyond. The text says the people acted as one in rebellion to what God had commanded when he told humanity after the flood to spread over the earth.

Instead, they worked together to build a great city with a tower with its top in the heavens. Basically a grand skyscraper probably constructed for the worship of false gods. There is nothing stupid about this given the fact the similar relics of ancient societies still exist today like the pyramids and ziggurats.

#4.You have to believe against any logical thinking that all those animals,incl,snakes & all different kinds of insects and enough food to feed all of them(different kinds of food)for almost one year would fit on an ark that size,which is impossible.
#5.You have to believe there was food for them to eat when they came off the ark even though the whole earth was supposedly covered in water.

noahsarkThe subject of the ark’s dynamics and physical feasibility to accomplish what it did according to the biblical record of Genesis 6-8 is vast. There have been countless studies done and papers/books written demonstrating that the ark could carry all the animal kinds (not the entire species we see today), as well as enough food to feed them for a year. The statement is made from a position of scholarly ignorance by a person who is a Christian bigot.

Answers in Genesis also lists a plethora of articles detailing the physical reality of Noah’s global flood and the feasibility of the ark. Of course, the skeptic automatically dismisses anything AiG says, because they claim they are biased, stupid, or whatever. That’s how an atheist shores up his ignorance, by automatically poisoning anything his critics and opponents write. So much for free thinking and doing your homework and all.

#6.You have to believe in a flat earth because these supposedly inspired by god people said so back then.

Nothing in the biblical record suggest the earth is flat. No one claimed as much or believed it. That is anti-biblical urban myth.

#7.You have to believe the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old despite overwhelming proof it is much,much older,even if not 4.5 billion years old.

And what exactly is that overwhelming proof? The variety of radioactive dating methods are wildly inconsistent with each other when tested on just one sample. Moreover, dating methods are subject to speculative interpretations, interpretations that are driven by particular presuppositions.

Again, AiG has a list of technical articles dealing with the issue, but remember, most skeptics refuse to interact with the data and information, but instead choose to attack ad hominem straw men versions of their critics whom they do not respect.

#8.You have to believe all those heavenly bodies out there that they are still finding were created in one literal day(morning & evening)that is despite the fact that even now they are finding suns,stars just now begining [sic] to form.

Usually the person who makes statements invoking the authority of modern day evolutionary cosmology are generally ignorant of the problems inherent to modern day evolutionary cosmology. He is also blissfully unaware of the in-fighting that exists between various proponents of various theories and models that are dreamed up to help explain away those problems.

For example, note the contradiction in his original statement. In #7 he speaks about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. The so-called billions of light years (a “light year” being a measure of distance, not time, by the way) are considered one of the reasons we believe in an old universe. However, in #8, it is suggested one solar day is way too short a time for suns and stars to form, especially now that we are finding stars just now beginning to form. OK, how exactly would we see their light if they are just now beginning to form?

Discover magazine did an article on the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope that are 2 to 4 billion light years from earth, but began forming just 1 billion light years ago according to the telescope observations. In the March 2006 issue, a thoughtful reader wrote a letter to the editor expressing curiosity as to how we could even see their light? He writes,

“If the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope are 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth but started forming less than 1 billion years ago, how can they be observed at all?”

In other words, it should have taken the light from those 1-billion-year-old galaxies 2 to 4 billion years to reach us. The editors at Discover responded thus:

Your question cuts right to one of the trickiest problems in cosmology: how to refer to the timing of events when there are many different ways to describe them. The conventional solution is to describe everything from the way we perceive it. In this case, that means that when we say that the galaxies started forming less than a billion years ago, we mean that the galaxies AS WE SEE THEM TODAY appear to have started forming less than a billion years ago. Put another way, when their light started heading toward Earth 2 billion to 4 billion years ago, these objects were less than a billion years old. That convention may seem confusing, but the alternatives are even more puzzling. For instance, it would be more comprehensive to say that these galaxies, located 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth, appear to have begun forming less than 3 billion to 5 billion years ago, and then their light spent 2 billion to 4 billion years traveling toward us. More comprehensive, yes, but even harder to follow!

In other words, its a mystery that doesn’t fit into the prescribe view of evolutionary cosmologists.

#11.You have to believe Lot had intercourse with 2 of his daughters on 2 different nights and knew it not.

That comment is strange. The text clearly states he was drunk out of his mind and unaware of what happened. Why is that hard to believe? Such things happen in Las Vegas all the time between total strangers.

#12.You have to believe Jesus was concieved [sic] without human intercourse this despite the fact that at least 20 other dying & resurrecting savior sun gods had this claimed of them long,long before the supposed time of Jesus,you claim them a myth but the same tale about Jesus true.

That comment is a woefully ignorant exaggeration of historical fact. In all of my private email interchanges with my antagonist, he always returned to cut-and-pasted articles from non-scholarly, atheistic websites that try desperately to tie Jesus to some ancient myth.

Mithra is the favorite these days. J.P. Holding of Tektonics has done some extensive research debunking these claims, even interacting with the world’s literary experts on these various myths who also deny the connection between the alleged myth and the historical Jesus.

However, just like he rejects AiG out of hand, my antagonist also rejects J.P. Holding because, a) “J.P.” still goes by the alias he gave himself for security reasons when he worked with hardcore criminals in the state penitentiary where he was employed, and b) he was too mean and direct with my emailer when he was hassling him. Once again, such self-imposed blindness only reveals a heart angry at the God of scripture and who truly doesn’t care for the truth.

So there you have it. I responded to each one of his charges and none of them disprove the inerrancy of the Bible. All we have are baseless charges just like they were asked decades ago, but have once again been proven wrong.

Thank You Mr. Atheist for Your Loving Concern

from the Hip&Thigh archives

 

Found in my in-box,

To: fred@fredsbibletalk.com
From: *****
Subject: RE: [QUAR][Barracuda] Bible inerrant

 

Fred,

I accidently [sic] ran into your internet site and read your article about an inerrant Bible.

I won’t go into the area of screwed up translations.I will copy and paste some of your statements and comment on them.

Paste from your site: Anything He does will be untainted with error, and because He has breathed out scripture, the scripture is then tied to His purity and holiness and can correctly said to be inerrant. 

From me>>To believe your bible in any translation(or original manuscripts) is inerrant & god breathed, here is what you must believe.

#1.A snake can talk(remember the snake was cursed to crawl on it’s belly & eat dust.

#2.A donkey can talk.

#3.That man was so stupid back then that he actually thought he could build a tower to heaven.

#4.You have to believe against any logical thinking that all those animals,incl,snakes & all different kinds of insects and enough food to feed all of them(different kinds of food)for almost one year would fit on an ark that size,which is impossible.

#5.You have to believe there was food for them to eat when they came off the ark even though the whole earth was supposedly covered in water.

#6.You have to believe in a flat earth because these supposedly inspired by god people said so back then.

#7.You have to believe the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old despite overwhelming proof it is much,much older,even if not 4.5 billion years old.

#8.You have to believe all those heavenly bodies out there that they are still finding were created in one literal day(morning & evening)that is despite the fact that even now they are finding suns,stars just now beginning to form.

#9.You have to believe god made the sun stand still when it already stands still or believe god stopped the rotation of the earth which anyone should know would be a disaster in many ways for earth.

#10.You have to believe Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt which is unbelievable.

#11.You have to believe Lot had intercourse with 2 of his daughters on 2 different nights and knew it not.

#12.You have to believe Jesus was concieved [sic] without human intercourse this despite the fact that at least 20 other dying & resurrecting savior sun gods had this claimed of them long,long before the supposed time of Jesus,you claim them a myth but the same tale about Jesus true.

I could go on about the impossibilities you claim to be inerrant in your bible.The names of authors of the whole Bible is unknown the names claimed to be the writters was guessed at by Hebrews(O.T.) and Christians(N.T.)no one ZERO knows who wrote one word in the bible.Only a brainwashed,mind controlled christian could ever believe the Bible inerrant,it’s to obvious that it is not for any thinking person.

Greetings ____,

I want you to know how much I appreciated your email. I was touched by the fact you took the time to express to me your concerns in writing. I am a rather obscure and unknown internet presence with a small time blog that maybe gets 250 visits a day, half of which are people looking for joint pain medication. I am no where in the league of a Steve Hays, or the guys at Creation Ministries Internationalor even that pseudonymous J.P Holding. In the grand scheme of things, I am a guppy in a big, big pond of much larger, more significant fish.

Yet you thought enough of me, someone who is a total stranger to you, to offer your help with straighten me out. Most atheists are not even as considerate as you, but instead lace their correspondence with rude, insulting remarks and scurrilous comments.

You far exceed the hacks from the Rational Response Squad. That is what I particularly like about your email. It contained none of the snarky arrogance common place among atheists. You even took the time to list some examples where you believe I have intellectually derailed.

First off, I must confess my overall dismay. Your email really shook me up. I mean, in the entire 2,000 years of church history since apologists have been answering critics with their polemics, I don’t believe I have read any biblio-skeptic offer the examples you provide here. You must be praised for originality and freshness with your criticisms. And certainly I haven’t read a Christian book attempting to answer them.

Take some of the Bible verses you pointed out.

You mean to tell me what I learned in 3rd grade Sunday school class,via a felt board, that the Tower of Babel was just a large temple and the expression “whose top reached to the heavens” a way of saying it was used for unifying humanity around a false religion, is truly mistaken? You mean to tell me it was a mythical story describing a structure designed to take men into heaven itself? Say, like a giant space elevator or something? Yes, I guess I can see how that is a bit silly and anti-science.

spaceelevator
Oh, and to think I just presupposed the fact that since God is God, then miraculous, one time events like a talking snake, or a talking donkey, or Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt (assuming the expression is not a way of saying she died in the judgment of sulfur and brimstone) could be expected to happen. Gosh, I had no idea I was suppose to look at all reality only through material naturalistic uniformitarianism as a philosophical filter. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Then, I also am gladdened your email was devoid of any phony, educated condescending huff and puff. Many atheists I have encountered in the past carry on with their criticisms about the reliability of the biblical text as if they have genuinely studied history and textual criticism, but in reality, they are ignorantly repeating 3rd, maybe 4th hand sources as they type away in their mother’s basement.

But you are different. You seem to draw from a deep well of information and personal experience when you point out any belief in the inerrancy of Scripture has zero evidence and no thinking person would adhere to such a belief.

Golly, I have only been studying the Bible for more than 20 years, a good half of that time at a seminary. I learned just two years of Greek and a year and a half of Hebrew. You must have really studied those languages a lot. How long have you been a student of textual critical principles?

I’m guessing now, since reading your email, that I have wasted my time heavily immersing myself in the critical studies of many of the brilliant textual scholars the world has known. Men like Constantine Von Tischendorf, Johann Bengel, Robert Dick Wilson, E.J. Young, D.A. Carson and Daniel Wallace, a man who actually handles and documents the original texts often under consideration when we speak of inerrancy.

In fact, my church put on a conference attended by 5,000 plus men just on the subject of how the Bible is inerrant. Those guys all claim the historical documents are overwhelmingly trustworthy and reliable and provide for us an almost 100 percent accuracy when it comes to the veracity of the biblical text.

I reckon the same goes for biblical creationism. You really left me scratching my head, because I don’t believe I have read any one who has ever addressed the star light problems you raised in your email.

At any rate, you have really caused me to take a step back. I now have to return to evaluating what I have learned thanks to your thoughtful exposure of these non-thinking and brainwashed dolts.

So thank you for your loving concern. I am in your service, for you have saved me much embarrassment.

Fred

Proofs for the Non-Existence of God

argumentswonBack in October 2005, the first year I began my blogging adventure, I stumbled upon a list of so-called proofs for the existence of God. Oddly, the list had been created by an atheist group, and they had posted it as a means to mock Christianity.

Hundreds of Proofs for the Existence of God

A Christian blog, maintained by a handful of amateur BIOLA trained apologists, linked to the list. While shaking their heads and sighing heavily, they lamented how the “proofs” represented the sorrowful decline in reasonable Christian apologetics. The horrible arguments of those “proofs” demonstrates how church youth groups haven’t been taught apologetics correctly and are the prime reason why high school grads are leaving for college and becoming screeching You Tube atheists. They are also the reason why there is a need for amateur BIOLA trained apologists to lead youth apologetic seminars at your church.

The “proofs” are arranged as various sets of syllogisms with the conclusion always stating, “Therefore, God exists.” For example:

Cosmological Argument
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

As I was looking over them, two things came to mind. First, they are helpful in noting how poorly Christians can at times argue for their faith. Yet, on the other hand, they reveal how illogical atheists become when arguing for their alleged non-faith.

The atheist website provides a good illustration of what I mean. Linking from the parody “proofs” is an article entitled Why Atheism? that actually attempts to debunk the classic theological arguments. The author lists the tools he uses when critiquing theological arguments: logic and verifiable evidence. Yet he seems to be oblivious to the fact that any evidence must be interpreted and interpretations require faith commitments a person brings to the evidence. He is just switching one faith for another faith.

Always on the look out for blog fodder, when I discovered the list I wanted to attempt a re-write of all of them and post my own list of “300 plus proof for the non-existence of God.”  However, as I glanced over them, the arguments quickly became simplistic as well as repetitive and it even got a little nasty at places.

Instead of the entire list, I posted the first 20 or so and then some of my favorites. I remembered the post recently when I was doing some clean up of my blog and so I thought I would freshen it up a bit and repost if for a newer generation of readers. First, I note the original argument as it appears in the list, and then I followed up with my response-re-write highlighted in blue.

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) Reason and God cannot exist together.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) Who says something must have a cause?
(2) I say the universe didn’t have a specific cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has no cause.
(4) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I have never experienced X, X must not exist.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can’t conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection has to be existence.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is neither necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn’t it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. You call that complex?
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn’t that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn’t that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) There doesn’t need to be a God to have made them so beautiful; besides beauty is relative.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn’t have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NON-MIRACLES
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and she wasn’t cured from her cancer, despite the horrible treatments.
(4) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known Atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.


MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known Christian, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a church going, preacher loving, Bible-thumping, tongue-speaking, holy roller.
(2) That all changed when I became an atheist.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can’t be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be
uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EVOLUTION
(1) If evolution is true, then creationism is false, and therefore God doesn’t exist.
(2) Evolution must be true, since I hate God and don’t care to represent the creationist viewpoint accurately; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we’re all going to die.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we’re all going to die.
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage taken out of context from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage taken out of context from NT]
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there’s really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it’s too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE (AKA, The Bill Nye Explanation)
(1) Look, there’s really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Christians — it’s too complicated for you to understand. God doesn’t exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don’t pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you’re obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you’ll just ask him into your life. “For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth.” John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don’t pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you’re obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God exist. I’ve never felt him in my heart, and I bet you can’t feel him either, I’ve asked him into my life dozens of times and nothing happened. “For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth?” John 3:16. Bah, nonsense!
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I hate God.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire? (or AK-47 for those in North Korea and China)
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God doesn’t exist.
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Hundreds and hundreds of people don’t believe in God, and some of them are intellectuals.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Order from Chaos!
(2) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues against the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) If there was a God, he would have prevented it all.
(4) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that’s because they don’t want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM IMPERFECTION
(1) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards, even though they live life as if there are.

(2) If there are no absolute moral standards, even though reality says otherwise, then God can’t exist.
(3) Therefore, atheists who don’t believe in God are absolutely sure there are no absolute moral standards, except that God doesn’t exist.
(4) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks “stumper” question.]
(2) [Atheist answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question.]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question.]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Atheist asks “stumper” question.]
(2) [Christian answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Atheist makes grandiloquent “truth” claim about how he perceives reality.]
(5) [Christian points out Atheist’s unproven presupposition for such a claim.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Atheist misconstrues a handful of biblical passages.]
(8) [Christian points out Atheist’s error.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Christian, you never answer my questions.
(11) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM BRUTE FORCE
(1) [Christian tears Darwin Fish off car, breaks it in thirds, sticks it to driver’s side window.]
(2) Therefore, the theory of evolution is wrong.
(3) Therefore, creationism is right.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

(1) [Atheist tears “truth” fish eating “Darwin” fish sticker off car (along with the “support our troops” ribbon) and threatens Christian with profanity.]
(2) Christian grabs his children and runs for his life.
(3) Therefore, Creationism is wrong.
(4) Therefore, evolution is right.
(5) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM APOLOGETICS WEBPAGES
(1) I was surfing the Net and came across this really cool webpage of apologetics.
(2) Their arguments were stunning. I couldn’t refute them.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

(1) I was surfing the Net and came across this really cool webpage of atheistic arguments.
(2) Their arguments were above my head and I couldn’t refute them.
(3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (II)
(1) Answers in Genesis copied the full text of an article from Scientific American.
(2) Scientific American sent one email to Answers in Genesis saying that they don’t necessarily want their articles distributed for free in [sic] the internet by just anyone.
(3) See? Scientific American persecutes Christians!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (II)
(1) Answers in Genesis copied the full text of an article from Scientific American
(2) Scientific American sent one email to Answers in Genesis saying they don’t necessarily want their articles distributed for free on the internet by just anyone.
(3) Answers in Genesis points out that Scientific American is woefully ignorant of copyright and fair use laws and tells them to go educate themselves.
(4) See? Answers in Genesis are dishonest hypocrites
(5) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM THIS WONDERFUL HISTORIAN
(1) There’s this wonderful historian!
(2) His academic credentials are NEVER doubted by like-minded Christians!
(3) Now, this historian has proved conclusively, to his own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of like-minded Christians, that the Bible must be totally true.
(4) Therefore, both the Old Testament and the New Testament have been proven true.
(5) I hear the skeptic ask: If this is historically true, why do so many historians doubt the reliability of the Bible?
(6) The answer is, there is a conspiracy among the unfaithful to prevent this proof of Christianity being known.
(7) Naturally, the conspiracy must include powerful people like President Bush, or it could not succeed.
(8) Doubt not, O unbeliever, only have FAITH!
(9) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THIS WONDERFUL HISTORIAN
(1) There’s this wonderful historian!
(2) His academic credentials are NEVER doubted by atheists everywhere!
(3) Now, this historian has proved conclusively, to his own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of atheists, that the Bible must be totally false.
(4) Therefore, both the Old Testament and the New Testament have been proven false.
(5) I hear Christians ask: If this atheist historian is correct, why do so many other historians believe the reliability of the Bible?
(6) The answer is, there is a bias among the faithful to prevent his research against the Bible from being known.
(7) Naturally, that bias must include powerful people, or it would succeed.
(8) Put away your bias, O believer, stop with your blind FAITH!
(9) Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Echo Zoe Interview

I recently had the wonderful privilege of being interviewed once again by Andy Olson of Echo Zoe radio. The last time I visited with Andy, we discussed King James Onlyism. This time around, we discussed my articles I recently remastered and reposted interacting with Chaz Bufe, the blues guitar playing, anarchist atheist.

Check it out: 20 Ways to Answer the Fool

 

Suicide Solution

I wrote this up several years ago when Earth Day was becoming a social media phenomenon. Still relevant and timely.

molech

A group calling itself the Optimum Population Trust claims humanity is having way too many babies.

All the extra children are badly ruining the carbon offset of our planet and hence having an impact upon global warming.

The math is simple: More babies = higher CO2 levels = higher global temperatures = more displaced polar bears floating around on itty-bitty icebergs.

The solution to this problem offered by the OPT is for people to stop having babies. If you must have a baby, maybe one is okay; possibly two, but certainly not three.

My family, by the way, has already broken the quota.

The fine folks of the Sea Shepherd Society also believe humanity has become a disease of sorts upon mother earth. Like a raging flesh eating staph infection or an Ebola outbreak, the presence of all these people is causing the earth to break out into a fever.

I must say I believe this is a disturbing ideology, but I see such suicidal tendencies as a logical conclusion to radical, secular humanism. When a worldview places the material world in higher value over human life so that one is willing to deprive him or herself of the blessing of children, and their own existence, nihilistic atheism has reached its end game. The final step is to ask for volunteers to sacrifice themselves for the earth by committing mass euthanasia. If none are prepared to come forward, and this environmental death cult were to have governmental power, they could always extinguish any extra children by force.

I didn’t know environmentalists were so down on kids.

Soylent Green is People!

In truth, an environmentally friendly, child-free world is becoming a reality. This suicidal humanism has already taken firm root in the hearts and minds of Europeans and is slowly doing the job suggested by the Optimum Population Trust. In a society totally abandoned to cradle-to-grave welfare, living carefree lives, working no more than 28 hours a week, attending nude beaches during that paid, month long, mandatory vacation, having children around can really cramp your style.

Couples are having no more than one child as it is. If the trend continues, Western Europe will have bred itself out within 40 to 50 years. That mindset is growing here in the good old U.S. of A. as well, particularly in the finger waging from our university elite. So, Americans are slowly coming up from behind and closing in our European kin.

I believe the environmental global warming scare is the secular atheists pagan religion.

The physical earth is the god worshiped. It is a god that can be proven, because it is a tangible object men can physically witness and test.

Evolution is the religion used to explain this god, how it birthed life and takes care of its creatures. Occasionally, the god acts displeased and displays its fury against the sinful creatures by means of storms, floods, and famine.

However, specific, often self-appointed holy men or prophets, say for example Al Gore, claim to have special knowledge about how the god has been sinned against. The only thing that will appease the god is a sacrifice of some sort. In this case, the appeasement is a radical change in our standard and way of living, including the sacrifice of a the third child if necessary.

But this god is capricious and fickle and certainly unpredictable when it comes to issues of morality. Why should I even obey it in the manner the Optimum evangelists preach? If suicide is the only viable solution to appease this god, I think I will enjoy the love and laughter of my extra kids and take my chances.

Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [12]

bigbroDoes Christianity model authoritarian organizations?

I continue once again considering the list of 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity compiled by blues guitar playing, Christ-hating anarchist, Chaz Bufe.

Thankfully, he provides us another short point that will require a short response:

14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization. Christianity is perhaps the ultimate top-down enterprise. In its simplest form, it consists of God on top, its “servants,” the clergy, next down, and the great unwashed masses at the bottom, with those above issuing, in turn, thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots backed by the threat of eternal damnation. But a great many Christian sects go far beyond this, having several layers of management and bureaucracy. Catholicism is perhaps the most extreme example of this with its laity, monks, nuns, priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes, all giving and taking orders in an almost military manner. This type of organization cannot but accustom those in its sway—especially those who have been indoctrinated and attending its ceremonies since birth—into accepting hierarchical, authoritarian organization as the natural, if not the only, form of organization. Those who find such organization natural will see nothing wrong with hierarchical, authoritarian organization in other forms, be they corporations, with their multiple layers of brown-nosing management, or governments, with their judges, legislators, presidents, and politburos. The indoctrination by example that Christianity provides in the area of organization is almost surely a powerful influence against social change toward freer, more egalitarian forms of organization.

If ever there was a more amazing example of the kettle-painting-pot cliche’! Chaz is a self-professed anarchist, so I can understand why he would have problems with any authority, let alone Christianity. Yet once again Chaz’s main illustration of Christian authority gone wild is Roman Catholicism and Catholicism does not represent the whole of biblical Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.

To a degree, Chaz raises a reasonable complaint about organized religion, Christianity specifically. It certainly is true that various sects of Christianity have had their problems with authoritarian abuse. Many independent fundamental style churches whether Baptist or Pentecostal, can be governed like a local HOA board of directors who implement some of the most odious zero tolerance policies imaginable. Ridiculously strict pastors and deacons will wield an iron rod of preference issues in the guise of “godliness” over a congregation of cowering members. They unlawfully lord over the people they are meant to shepherd.

However, in spite of those problems, biblical Christianity affirms the importance of authority structures within a church and soundly condemns the abuse of authority by leaders over a congregation. Human error does not negate the truthfulness of Christianity.

When Scripture is followed as the Lord intends it to be followed, abusive authority figures will stay checked. Of course, that is not to say members may need to be firmly disciplined, but firm discipline submitted to biblically led leadership is ordained of the Lord (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5).

As an anarchist, Chaz doesn’t care a bit for any boss, or president, or leader telling him what to do with his life. But, what sort of society does Chaz the anarchist have to offer in the place of bosses and leaders? I suggest Chaz’s anarchism would be just as authoritarian and abusive as the Christianity he decries.

True anarchy desires a world where everyone is living in tribal style communities with no centralized government, working and sharing together in free thinking cooperation, friendship, and absolutely no religion. Perhaps that is the kind of anarchist utopia Chaz has in mind. People gardening, weaving baskets, gathering fruit, sewing clothes, treating each other with self-respect, living eco-friendly lives, no one being made to attend church, and of course, engaging in all the free sex a person can humanly imagine with reckless abandon and impunity. You know, the type of society that in a Star Trek universe is effortlessly assimilated by the Borg without a fight.

If only historical anarchist movements could be that benign.

The historic reality, contrary to Chaz’s visions of what anarchy should be, has been horrific and blood filled. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so does human government. For when one government is overthrown, another one most certainly will fill its place. In many cases, much worse than the first, and even if the rebel rousers express good intentions to refrain from being cruel authoritarians to each other. Orwell’s Animal Farm comes to mind, here.

A present day example of real anarchy is the country of Somalia where it was the only known world state without a centralized government between 1991 and 2006. The country was a disaster in which the poor and helpless were brutalized by those individuals who were able to gain power by means of force and violence.

Though Chaz has Pollyannish visions of living in a hobbiton style community where everyone shares equally in the collective good with no one bossing anyone else around, hierarchical authority structures have a necessary function in society. For one, authority structures make sure everything operates correctly. Such things as ease of commerce, basic emergency care, and defense. It also enforces the rules upon the members of society. Authority is designed to protect the citizenry. Does incompetence and abuse often arise within the authority structure? Certainly. But a society is much better off to find a corrective for the authority structure rather than live completely without it as Chaz envisions.

Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [11]

windmillDoes Christianity Depreciate the Natural World?

 Allow me to continue once again examining the anti-theistic claims of Chaz Bufe, the blues guitar playing anarchist.

Remember, Chaz has compiled a list of 20 reasons why Christianity must be abandoned. However, as I have been noting over the course of my series, it really is a list of Chaz’s woefully misinformed and twisted view of Christianity. Let me highlight the salient points he raises,

13. Christianity depreciates the natural world. …The Christian belief in the unimportance of happiness and well-being in this world is well illustrated by a statement by St. Alphonsus:

“It would be a great advantage to suffer during all our lives all the torments of the martyrs in exchange for one moment of heaven. Sufferings in this world are a sign that God loves us and intends to save us.”

This focus on the afterlife often leads to a distinct lack of concern for the natural world, and sometimes to outright anti-ecological attitudes. Ronald Reagan’s fundamentalist Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, went so far as to actively encourage the strip mining and clear cutting of the American West, reasoning that ecological damage didn’t matter because the “rapture” was at hand.

James Watt? Does Chaz realize how antiquated his little booklet is if he is invoking James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Regan? Granted, Chaz’s own list may be old itself. Maybe he wrote his list up back in the late 80s or something; but James Watt would had been relevant to Chaz’s argument about unsympathetic Christian environmental mismanagement IN 1981! And for the record, I disagree with Chaz’s assessment of Watt, but I digress.

At any rate, the charge put forth is that because Christians are taught by their church leaders to value eternal things above all else, they neglect the present world where they currently live.

I will readily admit there is some truth to that accusation. Christianity doesn’t value the physical world in the same way Chaz, or any garden variety atheist probably does. The key reason is because Chaz and his atheist friends have imposed upon themselves a limited perspective of human existence. Atheism is a fundamentally here-and-now worldview because the atheist has chosen to reject and suppress the reality of eternity. Thus, atheistic secularists live only for the moment, indulging in all the pleasures they can heap upon themselves. Oh sure, there are probably some altruistic atheists out there, but they are far and few between. Who has time to waste helping orphans when this life is all you get?

Christians recognize our world is disposable. God designed it to yield its resources to men. Additionally, a spiritual person realizes his life is short. A lifetime, even if a person lives to be 80 years old or more, is temporal in light of eternity. So it is true Christians who have been awakened to spiritual truth and reality value eternity more so than the secular atheist. That doesn’t mean Christians should be careless and wasteful of the resources our God created on the earth, or that they shouldn’t pursue conservation. It is just that our mindset is not only on the here and now.

Yet, I imagine Chaz would insist that we all embrace the non-sense junk science of the modern-day environmental global warming climate change movement. Seeing that he so readily draws our attention to James Watt from the 80s, has Chaz forgotten how the same people who are presently arguing for radical social and economic change that will bankrupt the economies of the nations in order to combat global warming anthropogenic climate change used almost the same argumentation back in the 70s to promote radical social and economic change to combat global freezing? I remember that atmosphere of hysteria when I was a kid in grade school.

In order to build their case for a global ice age, the scientific magisterium argued that man-made particle emissions from vehicles would collect in the atmosphere to block out the sun and significantly cool the earth. The media even appealed to similar “scientific” research as their current day counter parts.  So called “experts” drew the same conclusions that the global ice age would conveniently happen some hundred or so years in the future, far beyond any of their lives, so as not to be held accountable if they were wrong.

As much as Chaz wishes to charge Christians with messing up the environment with their lack of sympathy for earthly things, modern day environmentalist are much more unsympathetic to the plain folk their kooky ideas, supported by governmental regulations and legislation, will harm, especially the poor. The simple-minded, bureaucratic, nanny-state officials willingly pass restrictive laws prohibiting personal freedoms and raising taxes on regular folks. In an ironic twist, a professed “free thinking,” law-hating anarchist like Chaz promotes their socio-political view point that in turn is outright detrimental to his beliefs advocated on his website.

But more importantly, unlike the Christian’s lack of concern about his world, the environmental legislation being promoted by radical, watermelon environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) and willing passed by stupid politicians from state to state, has real world significance and is unwittingly cruel to regular people. For example, where I live in California, the state representatives wish to pass a massive tax (what they redefine as a “fee”) on mini-vans, SUVs, and other large, multi-passenger vehicles. The idea behind this “fee” is that multi-passenger vehicles give off more carbon emissions than smaller vehicles, plus the excessive “fee” is an incentive to invest in hybrid model cars.

Essentially, the “fee” proposed by the California state legislature is a tax upon bigger families, but will also impact disabled persons who need such large vehicles for wheel chair access, construction workers and farmers who use them to carry their tools and equipment they need for their jobs, and ironically, those people who use larger vehicles to carpool (wow, a tax on carpooling!). It is the working class at risk here; the very group Chaz’s communist values are meant to protect.

Oh, but there is more. Environmental laws even impact the mundane areas of life that will in turn increase the cost of living for everyone, especially in the area of health care.

I’ll give you an example from my own personal experience. I am asthmatic. My condition is generally caused by allergies. Thankfully, modern medicine in the form of inhalers help me, along with millions of other asthma suffers, to control the condition so I can function in life. You know, run around, be active out doors, play with the kids. The simple things we all take for granted.

Initially, my asthma medication was relatively inexpensive, maybe around 10-15 bucks, and that is even without health care. But, my asthma inhaler apparently has a negative effect upon the environment. That is because the compressed gas that pushes the medication out of the little bottle into my lungs doesn’t meet environmental standards designed to off set global warming climate change.

Think a moment: A gas I breathe into my body and doesn’t get released into the atmosphere.

Thus, in order to comply with the new regulations being imposed, the companies that make the inhalers had to come up with a new means to release the medication from the bottle. As a result, the cost of the new inhalers tripled. Thus, a poor person will be forced to go without medication because of Chaz’s “sympathetic” view of the natural world.

Now, I am sure Chaz will argue that poor man’s plight is the very reason we need universal, across the board, government paid health coverage. But why should my visit to my doctor have to turn into a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles or any other bloated governmental bureaucratic office? The quantity of health care may be there, but not the quality certainly won’t. I don’t want to wait four months to get a CT scan. And all because to safe guard the environment based upon emotional, highly unscientific, chicken little-style, misinformation about man-made global warming climate change! Who’s being unsympathetic here?

Christians may depreciate the natural world, but at least we are not defending it at the expense of the livelihood of human beings based upon a child-like naivete in unworkable utopian principles based upon sham “science.”

Sam Harris, The Poser “Neuroscientist”

Probably one of the better, heart warming stories on the internet this week:

Neuroscientist Sam Harris

Sam Harris, militant anti-theist and self-appointed spokesperson for new atheists everywhere, is a hack. And a pothead to boot.

From the conclusion of the article,

1. Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
2. Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
3. Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
4. He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
5. He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
6. His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
7. Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.

Thus, Sam Harris is as much of a “neuroscientist” as Gail Riplinger is a textual critic. Keep this link in your apologetics drawer the next time some crank atheist cites Harris as an “expert.”

Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [10]

Does Christianity have a narrow view of morality and ignore real evils while accepting imaginary ones?

I return once again to examining the ramblings of Chaz Bufe, atheist, anarchist, Communist philosopher, and week-end blues guitar player.

He wrote up a tract entitled 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity. I have taken it upon myself to consider each one of his reasons in turn so as to determine if it is a legitimate reason or not. So far what I have discovered is a man who is bitter against the Roman Catholic Church and has self-inflicted blindness to the severe problems of his own chosen worldview of atheistic anarchy.

Points 11 and 12 are short and contain similar complaints, so I will consider each one in turn.

11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality. Christianity not only reduces, for all practical purposes, the question of morality to that of sexual behavior, but by listing its prohibitions, it encourages an “everything not prohibited is permitted” mentality. So, for instance, medieval inquisitors tortured their victims, while at the same time they went to lengths to avoid spilling the blood of those they tortured—though they thought nothing of burning them alive. Another very relevant example is that until the latter part of the 19th century Christians engaged in the slave trade, and Christian preachers defended it, citing biblical passages, from the pulpit. Today, with the exception of a relatively few liberal churchgoers, Christians ignore the very real evils plaguing our society—poverty; homelessness; hunger; militarism; a grossly unfair distribution of wealth and income; ecological despoliation exacerbated by corporate greed; overpopulation; sexism; racism; homophobia; freedom-denying, invasive drug laws; an inadequate educational system; etc., etc.—unless they’re actively working to worsen those evils in the name of Christian morality or “family values.”

and

12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils. Organized Christianity is a skillful apologist for the status quo and all the evils that go along with it. It diverts attention from real problems by focusing attention on sexual issues, and when confronted with social evils such as poverty glibly dismisses them with platitudes such as, “The poor ye have always with you.” When confronted with the problems of militarism and war, most Christians shrug and say, “That’s human nature. It’s always been that way, and it always will.” One suspects that 200 years ago their forebears would have said exactly the same thing about slavery.

As I have noted in previous entries, Chaz has what some would call “issues” with Roman Catholicism. It has impacted his psyche so much that his perspective on Christianity remains quagmired in the 15th century. Even though the Inquisition hasn’t operated for a few hundred years, Chaz still maintains a jaundiced view of reality concerning the historic Christian faith, and of course shuts his eyes to the actions taken by leaders of modern secular societies, motivated by atheistic anarchist philosophy, who “force” their views of the world upon the populace by “special” means.

Chaz’s complaint this time is that Christian morality is narrow and legalistic, and as a result, Christians have a warped sense of right and wrong. Christians focus on imaginary evils, as Chaz claims under number 12, while ignoring real evil like sexism.

Some quick thoughts in response:

First. I find his comment against Christians under number 12 to be fantastic. Chaz writes, When confronted with the problems of militarism and war, most Christians shrug and say, “That’s human nature. It’s always been that way, and it always will.”

Wait a second. I thought Chaz affirmed biological evolution? Isn’t it human nature – yea, the very Darwinian explanation about human life – that we are to fight to survive? According to Chaz’s world view of Darwinianism, how else could humanity even emerge from our primordial ancestors to be what we are today unless we took aggressive attitudes to stand and fight against those other life-forms that threatened to wipe us out? Pacifism and anti-war slogans are insufficient means to bring about evolution on Chaz’s anarchist planet.

Moreover, Chaz is an atheist. Why is he concerned with the moral right and wrong? I hate to beat the proverbial dead horse, because I’ve mentioned this a few times before, but if the world sprung into existence by random processes and all biological life, including human, is a product of unpredictable naturalism, why should Chaz even care about right and wrong? Who is it that declares what is right and wrong according to Chaz? Individuals? Societies? Cultures? Who has set the morals from which Chaz, sitting upon his anarchist high horse, can pass judgment upon us goofball Christians? I thought Chaz was attempting to argue against restricted, narrow, and legalistic morality? Yet here he is wanting everyone else to conform to HIS perspective on morality. What a phony hypocrite.

Take for instance his complaining about homelessness and those suffering in poverty. As a materialistic atheist, why should Chaz care about such individuals? For all he knows their condition is brought upon them due to natural selection. Perhaps those individuals are mentally weak, what the old eugenists termed, “feable-minded,” and their poverty and homelessness is the means by which evolution selects them out of the population so as to strengthen it? How could Chaz know one way or the other?

That is not to say Chaz is an immoral person, or atheists in general are unethical. The difficulty is with the justification of his chosen perspective on life. Sure, Chaz the atheist can live in moral uprightness toward his fellow man, but his world view of atheism, built upon the tooth and claw of Darwinian evolution, provides no sound reason as to why he should, and it certainly doesn’t provide him with a gavel to use against the behavior of those people with whom he disagrees.

Second. It is a fact of historical note that Christians theists are the ones who addressed those societal ills Chaz lists way before atheists ever did. The Salvation Army tackled homelessness, as did George Mueller when he started his orphanage. Many Christians both in the north and the south addressed slavery before the Civil War began, and it was the steady activism of evangelical Christians in England led by William Wilberforce who eventually got the slave trade abolished.

Most of the other so-called societal problems Chaz claims Christians ignore are not really genuine social problems, but matters of personal, philosophical opinion. Over-population, ecological despoliation brought on by corporate greed, sexism, and homophobia, are extremely exaggerated as products of hysterical liberals, if not entirely fictional to begin with.

Ironically, as Chaz complains how Christians ignore serious evils in the world because of their narrow morality, in reality, it is those folks who agree with Chaz’s socialist perspective on society who are the most intolerant and narrow. They are the ones who insist upon special sensitivity training of those who do not think the same way as they do on a given position. Anyone who disagrees with their views are labeled a bigot and is made to take diversity training so as to get into line. Think about the militant gays demanding everyone applaud their sodomy or else have their businesses shut down and assigned to reeducation camp.

I will say now that if Chaz and his ilk were in power, their flowers and freedom for all mantra would swiftly end as they forced everyone to fall into line under their anarchist way of thinking. He may say he is broad-minded now and all about “free-thinking,” but as soon as he was in power, Chaz would become even more narrow than those Christians he condemns.