Similar posts

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

In 2005 Dave Mustaine, frontman of the band Megadeth, refused to perform on stage with the openly satanic Greek band, “Rotting Christ.” That's like a Jehovah's Witness refusing to share a platform with a Roman Catholic because of their corrupt religious beliefs (since both of those religious groups are of the Devil). Dave Mustaine claims to be a Christian, but he's not fooling everyone. His recent album “Th1rt3en” was finished on 31313 (March 31, 2013). The album contained 13 songs. There are 13 lit candles on the album cover. It had been 13 years since Megadeth recorded their last track, “Silent Scorn.” Dave Mustaine is serving the Devil, and is still fulfilling his lifetime contract with the Illuminati. Mustaine sold his soul to work evil. Many people think Mustaine is a true Christian, but I have yet to hear him provide testimony that evidences faith in the Gospel. Mustaine said on The Alex Jones Show that the use of the number 13 was pure coincidence. You're a fool of fools if you believe that! 13 is the number of rebellion, death, chaos and anarchy!

I've said that to mention another big phony, C.S. Lewis! A lot of Christians are misled and confused about C.S. Lewis, who was equivalent to the Rick Warren ecumenical sellout of his day. The Bible teaches that to praise the wicked is a sign of apostasy. Proverbs 28:4, “They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.” Clive Lewis praised the Catholic religion much in his later life, although he was a bit critical in his youth. Lewis changed for the worse. J.K. Rowling, the wicked woman who authored the Harry Potter series to introduce children into witchcraft, calls C.S. Lewis her favorite author. That speaks volumes against Mr. Lewis. The reason why is obvious, that is, because Lewis was the perfect shill, a compromiser, who fooled many evangelicals into following him, while at the same time Lewis was influencing them to tolerate and eventually embrace false religion.

Instead of being a soul-winner and turning many to righteousness, C.S. Lewis was famous the world over for being a religious schmuck!!! Don't take my word for it, here's an article from The Catholic Herald, praising C.S. Lewis for coming so close to being a Roman Catholic. Here's another article titled, 6 Reasons Why Mormons Love C.S. Lewis! I could show you many other articles from various religious denominations, who all loved and praised C.S. Lewis for his ecumenical apostasy. Rick Warren has taken Billy Graham's place, who took C.S. Lewis' place as the Balaam (prophet for hire) of our time. Although C.S. Lewis influenced tens-of-millions of people during his lifetime (and still today), it is plainly evident to the spiritually discerning Christian that Lewis never led even a single person to Jesus Christ.

Keith Kilgore #fundie wnd.com

(Father blames son's suicide on biology class and Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion")

A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.

"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.

"This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins," he said.

Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he'd been debating for years.

Discover how atheism and immorality are being cleverly sold to Americans in David Kupelian's controversial best seller, "The Marketing of Evil."

After Jesse's death, Keith Kilgore learned of the book assignment from two of his son's friends and a relative. He searched Jesse's room and found the book under the mattress with his son's bookmark on the last page.

A WND message seeking a comment from Dawkins or his publisher was not returned today.

cdevidal #fundie godlikeproductions.com

EvolutionVsGod.com has a free 38 minute film in which various evolutionists such as a PhD/associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA, a PhD/professor of biological sciences and anthropology at USC, a PhD/professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and PhD/associate professor of biology at Universiy of Minnesota Morris/famous blogger PZ Myers appear to be stumped by some challenging questions. It's an interesting movie and I recommend you check it out.

In observing responses to the movie, I saw lots of evolutionists mocking but I didn't see one person who answered the questions that apparently stumped the evolutionists. Accusations began to fly: The claim is that in his previous films, the evangelist had edited responses to questions to make the interviewees look bad. Thus the claim is that the stumped evolutionists in this film had simply been edited unfairly.

To which I replied, "OK, I'm sure we'll see a statement from PZ Myers soon explaining how he was misrepresented*, but what about you? Can you answer the questions?" The response often was, "What were the questions?"

Me: "I hadn't written them down so I didn't recall them. But you can see them again if you watch the movie."

Them: "No, I'm not watching that (blankety-blank)." (Which sounds dishonest, but I'll let that pass for now.)


* PZ Myers did claim he was misrepresented: [link to freethoughtblogs.com] But without substantiation. If he gave fuller answers during the interview, I'd like to see them, but he did not: [link to www.google.com (secure)]


So I promised to write down the questions from the film. And by the way, I don't pass any judgment on the quality of these questions. Maybe they're fallacious, and you can help demonstrate that. But before you answer, some simple rules to keep everyone honest.

RULES
* You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different.

* If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting.

* You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com]

* You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of.


If you don't agree with these rules, don't answer. If Darwinian macro evolution does occur in nature, these questions can be answered without resorting to cheating or underhanded rhetoric to uphold it. Right? I'm sure you'll agree these are fair rules.

Items beginning with an asterisk '*' are questions, and items beginning with an equal sign '=' are important statements which do not require an answer, but which inform the next question, so they must be read and understood.

OK, go!


= "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

= "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution: "It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales."

* Do you believe in evolution?

* Do you think it's a belief?

* When did you start to believe?

* Are you a strong believer in evolution?

= A scientific method is based on "the collection of data through observation and experimentation..." ~Science Daily

* Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example.

= "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on." ~Richard Dawkins

= "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..." ~Charles Darwin

* You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'?

* Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?

* The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith?

* If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific?

* You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

* Do you believe in intelligent design?

* How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose?

= "The coccyx vertebrae is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles..." ~Laser Spine Institute

= For years, the appendix "...was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults... Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." ~Scientific American

= My note: This link discusses erector pili/most body hair and male nipples. [link to www.livescience.com] As a married man I have found a use for male nipples. If you know what I mean. (Ahem.) And I can certainly see that the organ would likely be present on a baby in the womb before its sex is selected with hormones, as the genetalia are identical before selection. Erector pili/most body hair I'm not so certain about. It's hardly earth-shattering evidence but I would like to read more. The first thought that comes to mind is that they're useful for sweat and a slight amount of warmth.

* So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.)

* Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.)

= No professor or biology major in the film was able to give an example of a famous atheist. Ray said, "It is important to know that even though some of these men claim to believe in God, that doesn't mean they are believers in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures, or that they're genuine Christians. However, when atheists use theists or agnostics to promote their godless agenda, they're being dishonest. Then again, coming from those who claim that morality is relative to each person, convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise."

* Do you believe in moral absolutes?

* Is rape always wrong?

= PZ Myers essentially answered yes, so the evangelist stated therefore there are moral absolutes.

* So who makes the rules?

* PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules?

= "Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process." ~PZ Myers

* Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope.

* Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save?

* The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?

= "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig." ~Richard Dawkins

* If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct?

* Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist?

* An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know?

* Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there?

* How many lies have you told in your whole life?

* What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?

* So what does that make you if you've told lies?

* Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small?

* That's called theft. So what are you?

* Have you ever used God's name in vain?

= That's called blasphemy, and it's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word. One atheist said he doesn't believe in God so it's not blaspheming. Ray responded, "Well, if I don't believe in certain laws and still violate them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So we're still guilty even though we deny a law exists or even don't know about it."

* Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography?

= If you answered yes to those questions (and I don't know anyone who honestly can't answer anything but yes, myself included), to quote the evangelist, "then by your own admission you're a lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer-at-heart, and that's only four of the Ten Commandments. Just not believing in hell won't make it go away. A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge, and it's the same with God. If we die in our sins God will give us justice. The Bible says that no theif, no liar, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. So if you died in your sins but God gave you justice, because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell, and I'd hate that to happen to you."

* Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars?

= Most would say "no." Your eyes are precious to you. How much more precious is your life?

= "Now let me tell you something you know intuitively. You know that creation is proof of the Creator, God has given you that inner light. So when you look at the genius of God's creative hand, you know God exists because of creation, and the reason you choose evolution is because it gets rid of moral accountability. Evolution lets you believe that lust and theiving are just primal instincts; You're just an animal. The Bible demands moral accountability and says those things are wrong and that's why it's not acceptable to you. That's why you're not seeking after truth. Am I wrong?" ~Ray Comfort (The biology major sighed, paused, and said, "I think you're wrong.")

= "You are a unique human being, made in the image of God with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness. God gave you a conscience. It's inherent. It's shaped by society but it's inherent. You know right from wrong. You've violated His law and I don't want you to end up in hell."

= To a struggling college student: "James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can, your struggle at the moment is because of your love for sin, because of the pleasure that sin gives you and you don't want to give it up. You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold who's just fallen into the ocean. I'm saying, if you don't get rid of that belt which weighs 80 pounds it's going to take you under. Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you, it's not worth losing your life for."

= To a college professor: "You're not a beast. You're a human being created by God in His image with dignity and worth and purpose."

* Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell?

= "God became a human being 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, and He suffered and died on a cross, taking the punishment for the sin of the world. You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine. That means God can legally dismiss our case because of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. God can say, 'You're out of here' because someone paid your fine." ~Ray Comfort

= "And then what God can now do is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ, so on Judgment Day you're safe from God's wrath and His justice, because of the death and resurrection of the Savior. If you repent and trust in Him, God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes. He'll wash away your sins in an instant, and He'll grant you everlasting life. His last words on the cross were, 'It is finished.' In other words the debt has been paid. He came to take our punishment upon Himself. So because our fine was paid by another, God can legally dismiss your case." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.)

* When are you going to die?

= "God knows the exact moment of your death. It could be today, it could be tomorrow. I'm not using scare tactics, this is just straight reality. 150,000 people die every 24 hours, and they were no doubt all making plans for next week, so please think about this." ~Ray Comfort

= "I'm not talking about a religion that says you have to strive to get to heaven, I'm telling you that the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God. You cannot earn everlasting life, doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are. 'God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And then he rose from the dead and defeated death." ~Ray Comfort

= "This is how the Bible puts it: 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' So eternal life is a free gift of God, and it comes because of God's mercy not because of anything we do." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense?

= "I've been reading the Bible at home for over 40 years. There's no mistakes in it. Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes, and you can trust God's Word. Think of how you trust professors and science books that tell you you're a primate? You trust and believe that so how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?" ~Ray Comfort

* Are you going to think about this?

= "Soften your heart. Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you and it's left you without any knowledge of what was in the beginning anyway. You haven't got a clue where you come from, you don't know what you're doing here on earth and you don't know what happens after you die."

* Could you be wrong about God's existence?

= An atheist responded, "Yes, but could you be wrong about God's existence?" "No." "Well then I think you're rather closed-minded." "Well if I said to you, could you be wrong about your wife's existence you'd say, "No, I know her. Don't be ridiculous. I know her and love her. And I know the Lord and I love the Lord, and He transformed my life 41 years ago, instantly, overnight, forgave my sins and gave me new desires when I had no desires or thoughts of God for the whole 22 years before I was a Christian."

= "The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don't have imaginations." ~Gail E. Kennedy, PhD, Associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA

= "Human beings are still fish." ~PZ Myers

* Are you a talking primate?

* Are you a cousin of bananas?

= "I'm accepting that they did their science correctly." ~Biology major

= "I'm going to trust what those experts did, those experts came up with." ~Physics major

= "Darwinian evolution rests on faith. And once again, according to Richard Dawkins, 'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.' Darwinian evolution requires great faith. The knowledge of God, however, is clearly seen by all mankind. 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.' (Romans 1:20-22)" ~Ray Comfort

Note to newcomers Despite the name, this is not a Christian website. It is simply a good forum for discussion because one does not need an account to post. (You can remain anonymous.)

Jesse Kilgore #fundie worldnetdaily.com

Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'

A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.

"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.

"This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins," he said.

Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he'd been debating for years.

After Jesse's death, Keith Kilgore learned of the book assignment from two of his son's friends and a relative. He searched Jesse's room and found the book under the mattress with his son's bookmark on the last page.

A WND message seeking a comment from Dawkins or his publisher was not returned today.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Dawkins’ Mind Is Closed

In an article titled “Atheist Richard Dawkins Calls It ‘Disgraceful’ That Presidential Hopefuls Are Creationists—and Reveals Which Religion Has ‘Maximum Toxicity,’” The Blaze website reports on a Fox News TV interview with prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins.

The Blaze article stated:

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins decried the fact that some Republican presidential candidates are creationists, calling it “disgraceful” and proclaiming that evolution is a “fact” that “you can not seriously disbelieve” . . . Dawkins repeatedly waded into controversial territory throughout the exchange, with Colmes at one point asking if the biologist believes that religious people are “mentally ill.” “It’s hard to use the word ‘mentally ill’ when there are so many of them,” Dawkins responded. “If they believed what they did and they were the only one they would undoubtedly be called mentally ill.”

During the interview, Dawkins was asked “whether the atheist leader would ever change his mind about God, he said that he’s open to the idea. ‘Just show me some evidence and I’ll change,’ Dawkins said.”

Well, Dawkins has been shown overwhelming evidence by many people through books, discussions, a radio debate with my friend Dr. Andy McIntosh, and so on! In fact, God tells us that people like Richard Dawkins are without excuse (Romans 1:20). Dawkins reminds me of the Pharisees in John 9. After Jesus had healed the man blind from birth, the Pharisees questioned the man and his parents, and even with the evidence glaring at them, they refused to believe. People like Dawkins also remind me of the chief priests in John 12:10 who wanted to kill Lazarus, the man Jesus raised from the dead. Because of their hardened hearts, they refused to believe Jesus raised Lazarus and decided to try to kill Lazarus to get rid of the evidence! Yes, these are apt comparisons when you consider people like Richard Dawkins. We need to pray for him. His heart is hard and he is blind.

. . . whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

So is Dawkins truly “open” to believing in God? Well, he pretends that he is willing to listen to evidence—but the evidence from his own life clearly shows that he refuses to believe despite the evidence. He is like the scoffers in 2 Peter 3:5 who deliberately reject, or are willingly ignorant of Creation, the Flood, and the coming judgment (the very things Dawkins rejects). It is a deliberate act on their part to ignore the obvious and reject the truth!

I’m reminded of what Abraham said about the rich man who wanted to come back from the dead and warn his brothers about judgment after life:

“Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:29–31)

Dawkins has spent most of his life rejecting the writings of Moses, particularly Genesis, and trying to get as many people as he can to follow his rebellious lifestyle that leads directly to hell. Yes, we do need to pray much for him.

Lord, open Richard Dawkins’ mind, and let the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ illuminate his hardened heart!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Question #fundie examiningatheism.blogspot.ca

Logical proof that most atheists are weak-minded

Definition of weak-minded: lacking determination, emotional strength, or intellectual capacity.

Before reading the material below, please read article Low-heeled feminists vs. Richard Dawkins and atheism

Consider:

1. Most atheists are men.

2. Feminist women conquered the atheist movement (Again, please read Low-heeled feminists vs. Richard Dawkins and atheism . See the significant drop in Google queries for the terms atheist/atheism/Richard Dawkins post Elevatorgate controversy).

...

If only atheists were more like evangelical men whose wives were taught to obey them. In biblical Christianity, women cannot teach men and they cannot exercise authority over men as far as church matters. If only atheists women could not exercise authority over atheist men about atheist matters, the humiliation of the atheist movement being conquered by feminist women could have been avoided! Soon atheist, feminist women will impose the "one true definition of atheism" and make all atheist men memorize it!

Oh, atheist men! Feel the sting of atheism being conquered by feminist women.

Anonymous #fundie rapidnet.com

"Christian" Fantasy

Biblical or Oxymoron?

- The dictionary defines fable as:

"fantasy/fiction/falsehood dependent for effect on strangeness of setting (as other worlds or times) and of characters (as supernatural or unnatural beings); the setting is usually in a non-existent or unreal world, the characters are fanciful or unreal, or the conflict focuses on physical or scientific principles not yet discovered or contrary to present experience."

- Fantasy is especially dangerous for children. While most children in the 1970s knew enough truth to place divination in the forbidden realm of the occult, today's children -- who often feel more comfortable with occult games than Biblical truth -- see nothing wrong with pagan practices. Fantasy movies, like Disney's The Lion King, are good matches for the new earth-centered paradigm or world view that is transforming childrens' views of reality. While God told us to continually communicate truth to our children (Deut. 6:5-7), today's culture trains children to see reality through a global, earth-centered filter. This "new" mental framework distorts truth, stretches the meaning of familiar words, and promotes mystical "insights" that are incompatible with Christianity. Packaged with entertainment, this message usually bypasses rational resistance, desensitizes opened minds, and fuels general acceptance of pagan spirituality (Berit Kjos, "The Spirit Behind The Lion King," 1/95, The Christian Conscience, pp. 32-34).

- Most true Christians would recognize fantasy, such as the movie Star Wars, as being extremely wicked (in this case, sorcery -- "The Force" being equivalent to black magic and white witchcraft). Yet, apparently, when we call it "Christian," this somehow sanctifies what we do with our minds (imaginations), or what we allow our minds to entertain. For example, one can look in any issue of the Christian Book Distributors Fiction Catalog and find the most outrageous fantasy literature, yet it is all dubbed "Christian." The following is taken from the CBD Fiction Catalog, 9/94 premier edition:

" ... now there's no more compromising for those who love Christian fiction, because you are holding the key to your next escape-from-it-all right in the palm of your hand ... CBD's brand new Fiction Catalog? It's filled with the latest and the best refreshing, thrilling, inspiring, wholesome fiction for you and your family" (p. 2).

Wholesome? The following is a sample of that which CBD considers "wholesome." [Much of this type of writing comes from medieval mysticism, which God hates (cf. Deut. 18: 10-12).]:

(a) Millennium's Dawn, by Ed Stewart (p. 25):

"June 2001. The future never seemed brighter for Dr. Evan Rider and his new bride, Shelby, as they prepare to embark on the honeymoon of their dreams. But the dream quickly becomes a nightmare as a long-buried secret shared by three college friends erupts, engulfing the couple in a sinister plot of blackmail, terror, and betrayal."

(b) Till We Have Faces, by C. S. Lewis (p. 34):

"The unlovely Orual, eldest daughter of the King of Glome, becomes so consumed by her mingled love and jealousy of her beautiful half-sister that she makes a complaint to the gods -- and receives an answer she did not expect. This novel, possibly Lewis' best work and the one he considered his own favorite, is his compelling rework of the myth of Cupid and Psyche." [Sound like something you could want your children to read -- about "the gods"?]

(c) The Song of Albion, by Stephen Lawhead (p. 33):

"Wolves prowl the streets of Oxford. A Green Man haunts the Highlands. A breach has been opened between our world and the Celtic Otherworld and anything, anyone, may now enter [sounds similar to Poltergeist, one of the most wicked movies ever produced]. But it's Lewis Gillies, an American graduate student at Oxford, who reluctantly stumbles through. In the savagely beautiful Otherworld, Lewis finds himself caught in an epic struggle between light and darkness -- a struggle that will determine the fate of his own world. Memorably penned with vivid and poetic imagery, Lawhead's breathtaking reworking of Celtic myth will keep you reading long into the night" [no doubt, and right into the DARKNESS! -- the Celtic civilization is the culture from which we have received much of our modern day Halloween practices.]

- "Well," someone might say, "I'm not doing anything wicked, I'm just reading about wickedness." But does this align with godliness? There are four things about fantasy which must be considered:

I. It is Anti-Truth.
II. It Slips Into Reality.
III. It Does Not Fit True Godliness.
IV. A Love for God Will Oppose It.


I. Fantasy Is Anti-Truth

Isaiah 32:6 describes error against the Lord. All lies are against God (1 John 2:21; John 8:44). Satan is the father of lies. Since fantasy is not true, then it is a lie! We have been duped into thinking there is some spiritual gray realm out there in which something can be neither true nor a lie. It's just called fantasy! But fantasy is made up of lies, deceit, and unreality, all wrapped up in a pretty (or sometimes, not so pretty) package.

How about the popular 1994 Disney occult/New Age "children's animation" film, The Lion King, which some consider wholesome "fantasy." One observer wrote this about The Lion King:

"The Lion King packs a powerful New Age symbolism and philosophy. Its theme, the 'Circle of Life' is a variation on the cycles of nature: life, death and rebirth, particularly as it relates to the theory of evolution. The film presents this theme from the perspective of the nature religion, more so than Disney films of the past -- 'We are all connected in the great circle of life.' The accoutrements of shamanistic ritualism is graphically portrayed in the dedication of the baby Simba to the spirits of the earth" (Media Spotlight, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 3).

Yet, we have others who claim the name of Christ, like James Dobson's Focus on the Family, who would like to encourage you to go and see this film that is filled with abominable contents. (See the 8/15/94 Parental Guidance magazine, which is published by Focus on the Family.) FOTF claims that The Lion King has only a few slight imperfections, otherwise it is "a wholesome, brilliantly animated picture relating the importance of family and responsibility."

A "few slight imperfections"? How about the character Rafiki speaking of the eternal state of life and his connectedness with it when Simba, as an adult lion, asks the question, "You knew my father." Rafiki's answer: "Correction! I know your father." Recalling that his father had once told him that the stars are former kings who look down on the earth and guide its inhabitants, Simba looks up at the stars and cries out to his father, "You said you'd always be with me, but you aren't." Shortly thereafter his father appears to him [spiritism; cf. Deut. 18:10ff] in a cloud and reminds him of his responsibility to assume his rightful place in the circle of life. -- "Look inside yourself, Simba," he says. "You are more than what you have become."

Besides the spiritism in the film, ask yourself a question -- "Do animals talk?" Just on this fantasy alone (animals talking) it is a lie.


II. Fantasy Subtly Slips Into Reality.

It becomes very difficult to separate fantasy from reality, especially in the minds of children. There was an interesting article in The Newhall Signal (newspaper) in light of this. Noting one of the teachings of the popular fantasy games, "Death is usually seen as a temporary state with characters returning 'from beyond' to play again" (7/22/87, The Newhall Signal, "Fantasy Games Linked to Real Deaths," p. 16).

Notice a few more books in the CBD Catalog:

(a) A Skeleton in God's Closet, by Paul L. Maier (p. 25):

"Move over, Indiana Jones! In this novel, Harvard archaeologist Dr. John Weber has just discovered a shocking secret -- Jesus' bones. The evidence [an obvious denial of the resurrection] seems incontestable. When word of the discovery leaks out, pandemonium ensues and millions abandon their Christian faith. But which is the hoax -- the archaeological find or the Resurrection itself?" [How can this be edifying?]

(b) The Guardian, by Jane Hamilton (p. 25):

"A new frontier for Christian fiction! Tabris [a guardian angel] has been given a second chance. As a guardian angel, he was found guilty of committing the one unforgivable act against his human charge and against God. Yet God, with mercy and grace, has forgiven Tabris and given him one more assignment -- one more human being to protect. Why? Find out in this celestial parable that will illuminate the indefinable love God has for his creation -- you, me, even angels. " (Emphasis added.) [See the jump from fantasy to reality -- cf. Heb. 2:16 -- any angel who has ever sinned is a demon. Sinning angels are never forgiven, but doomed eternally!]

(c) Darien: The Guardian Angel of Jesus, by Roger Elwood (p. 22):

"The ultimate adventure with an unforgettable guardian angel! Of all the guardian angels in heaven, God chose only one to protect Christ during His time on earth. He chose Darien. (That's the Darien who questioned God's decision to throw Lucifer from heaven and was sent to earth to witness Lucifer's destruction of the world in the novel Angel Walk.) You can imagine that Darien has quite a tale to tell, protecting God's own son -- and he tells it with poignancy and originality. Through this angel's eyes, you'll go on a fascinating and even disturbing journey from the time of Lucifer's rebellion, to creation, to the miracles of Jesus' birth and life. If the stories of Christ's life have become just matter-of-fact Sunday school lessons to you, then here's the breath of fresh air you need!" [Notice the move from fantasy into reality? How are lies, deceit, and fantasy going to freshen one's love for the Word of God?]

This move from fantasy to reality, by definition, affects one's view of reality. Remember when Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out? People believed it! Fantasy gets people to fantasize about reality. It is a slippery slide into lies unknowingly.
III. Fantasy Does Not Fit True Godliness

What is godliness (1 Tim. 6:3; Prov. 3:5-6; 28:14)? Romans 1:18 teaches that God's wrath is against "ungodliness." And as shown above, fantasy is ungodliness. Diving into fantasy, which, by its very nature is against the Truth, is a denial of God, what He says, and the Truth of His Word. How can a lie be used for evangelism, worship, or anything else godly? By its very nature, fantasy removes the person from the Truth (reality) and moves them into a realm away from God. This ungodliness is well depicted in the CBD Fiction Catalog, where it says on page 2:

"It's been said that reading fiction is one of the best ways to 'escape' from the cares of everyday life. Since the beginning of time, great thinkers and writers (even Jesus himself) have been inspired to create allegories, parables and epics, as well as the good, old-fashioned novel itself. What a tragedy to think we have to settle for fiction that merely grabs our attention, but lacks the values and spiritual insight we could carry with us when we return to the 'real world.'" [Again, the move from fantasy to reality.]

Is this what the Lord wants us to do -- "escape" from reality? No! Fantasy is an attack on the very core of one's being as a follower of Christ! And what about the claim that Jesus' parables and the allegories in Scripture, or figurative speech, are parallel to the use of fantasy? No! The Bible's parables, allegories, and figurative speech are not about fantasy at all. They are all about Truth!


IV. A Love For God Will Oppose Fantasy

God would not have His children take refuge in unreality. A love for God is equal to a love for the Truth (John 14:6). Matthew 22:34-40 teaches to love the Lord with all your mind (imagination). What does the Lord say in Ephesians 4:25? -- Speak the Truth to one another! Do we ever stop speaking the truth and speak fantasy to one another, or write fantasy to one another? Is this how God would have us live? Notice Ephesians 4:29. What's the goal? Build each other up in the TRUTH! (not in fantasy). If a Christian is loving the Lord with all his MIND (imagination), he will be dwelling on truth, reality, His Word, and Him, NOT FAIRY TALES AND FANTASY!

Fantasy typically is filled with evil. What should be the Christian's perspective of evil (Rom. 16:19)? If we love the Lord with all our MINDS, then we will not only avoid taking any pleasure in fantasy, but we will hate it. Because fantasy is anti-reality, it is against godliness, it opens the door to deceit, and is an affront to the very core of your being as a Christian. And what is that? -- Taking refuge in God, not escaping reality (Psalm 73:25-28).


- In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 ("For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths"), the Greek word translated myths means tales, stories, or fables (untrue stories). So what about Pilgrim's Progress and other so-called Christian stories like it?

Pilgrim's Progress (by John Bunyan) is claimed by many to be a good illustration of the truth -- the truth of a Christian's pilgrimage in this life. Some would say, "The Bible uses (a) parables, (b) allegories, (c) figurative language, symbolism, etc., and (d) dreams and visions, so what's wrong with Pilgrim's Progress doing the same? A few examples follow:

(a) Parables are not fables.

Matt. 12: 33-35 (using a real idea, expressing another real idea)
Matt. 13:3-9/18-23 (real/real)
Matt. 13:24-30/13:37-43 (real/real)
Matt. 13:31-32 (real/real)
Matt. 13:33 (real/real)
Matt. 13:44 (real/real)
Matt. 13:45-46 (real/real - He does not fly out of the realm of reality)
Matt. 13:47-50 (real/real)

(b) Allegory is symbolic, not mythical -- Gal. 4:22-31 (real/real)

(c) Figurative is not mythical -- John 6:53-63 -- Jesus does not fly out of the realm of reality. In fact, He uses such explicitly (real) language that people are having a hard time understanding Him. Yet, He explains that He is speaking in a figurative way (John 6:63).

(d) Dreams and Visions are not untrue stories -- Daniel 7:1ff; 8:17 refers to truth; 8:26 ("is true"); 9:21 (writing of Truth). These are not untrue stories (fables). Ezekiel 1 &10 -- these are real creatures!

So what about Pilgrim's Progress? There are serious problems in what that book teaches. For example, Christian leaves his armor behind and eventually his sword for the rest of his journey. This does not at all square with Ephesians 6.

Of course, someone would say, "It just a story." Exactly. It is a story that is supposed to illustrate truth, and when it fails to do this, it falls short and becomes an untrue story (fable), which is not doing a good job (at times) in illustrating truth. No doubt, there are many aspects about the story that are interesting and thought-provoking, but that does not excuse the twisting of truth into a lie. Here are some more problems:

(a) Is it a myth? Yes. "But, it is a 'Christian' myth!" Is this supposed to make it okay? No, it makes it worse! That's what Paul was talking about in 2 Tim. 4:4? Pagan myths? No -- "Christian" myths! That's why it is so dangerous.

(b) Another possible danger with Pilgrim's Progress is that the Christian life could be seen through the eyes of the story rather than solely through the Word of God. Romans says to transform our minds (12:1). Only the Word of God can do that, not "Christian" fantasy. A Christian's affection should be upon God's Word and His truth, not the fables of men. This type of Christian fable can pull our affections away from the Word.

(c) Has the Word of God become so dull, dry, drab, or undesirable to us that we would even think we would need such a book as Pilgrim's Progress to spur us on in the faith?
- A few more Scriptures indicate our concern with "Christian" fantasy:

(a) 2 Peter 1:16 -- We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

(b) Titus 1:14 -- and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.

(c) 1 Timothy 1:4 -- nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work -- which is by faith.

(d) 1 Timothy 4:7 -- Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

- Considering the present distress (2 Tim. 3:1), how can fantasy, no matter how supposedly good it may be, be found profitable? We need to concentrate on reality -- the truth of the Word of God -- and leave the fantasizing to those who are perishing (especially in light of the prevailing ignorance of the Word). And, especially when Paul describes the "against the true church" as those who will "be turned aside to fables," we ought to hold fast to the truth -- the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21).
An Example from a "Christian" College

A recent FrontLine magazine (Vol. 6, No. 4) with a cover theme, "The Christian and the Arts," carried a lead article titled "The God of All Beauty." The article is very disturbing because it lists so many Scripture references [out of context/misapplied], but the author's rationalizations fail to give due consideration to Pauline Epistle truths for this Church Age and the warnings about this world/age. Two other articles in this FrontLine issue are by Donna Lynn Hess of Bob Jones University (BJU), one on fantasy and the other on selecting reading material for children.

The first article refers favorably to C.S. Lewis, a devotee and author of occult fantasy with unbiblical metaphors; yet Hess claims that this kind of fantasy is useful in helping children "develop valuable literary skills" and in developing an understanding of "similar literary elements used in Scripture." In the second article by Hess, she states: "As Christian parents, we recognize the need for choosing books in which the theme is morally sound. But it is just as important to be sure that this theme is artfully expressed"; she also says that it's okay to expose children to stories with themes "antithetical to Christian beliefs" in order to "help inoculate them against the false ideas, attitudes and behaviors these writers promote."

BJU's ShowForth video division ("The video source you can trust.") also markets three video productions of C.S. Lewis' fiction, and a documentary biography of Lewis himself. ShowForth's catalog layout (p. 7), under "Inspirational," lists C.S. Lewis as one of the "Warriors of the Word" along with C.H. Spurgeon. Considering Lewis' many theological errors, it is dangerously deceptive to place him in such august company. A pastor knowledgeable in the unbiblical teachings of Lewis wrote to BJU documenting Lewis's errors. BJU responded with an involved, articulate, but off-the-mark defense for using "fantasy" as a teaching tool.

In the articles in FrontLine, as well in articles sent out by ShowForth, Hess gives an unusually broad description to the term "fantasy," and does not give adequate consideration to the whole counsel of God. "Fantasy" should not be used, as BJU does, to describe the figures of speech and literary techniques found in God's Word. More serious study ought be made of the nature of God, the condemnation of all forms of spiritism throughout Scripture, the recurring theme of sober/sound mind (especially in the New Testament), and the disassociation in the Epistles with "fables" (myths) in presenting God's message.

In these times we live in, we believe pastors and parents must exercise extreme caution regarding the literary use of fantasy. But caution is apparently not in BJU's vocabulary concerning this matter. BJU Press has published Medallion, a popular fantasy reader for elementary age home-schoolers. There are strange similarities between Medallion and two explicitly pagan books -- one a sixth-grade reader for public schools called The Dark is Rising, and a Wiccan manual by Starhawk called The Spiral Dance. In response to a review of Medallion by Berit Kjos, BJU trivializes the similarities, and states, "It appears that what this critique requires of Medallion rules out all fantasy for the Christian. We hold that no story can mix fantasy with the supernatural facts of Scripture without dangerously trivializing Biblical truth by associating scriptural realities with a dream world." [Couldn't have stated the truth more clearly if we had tried!] Contrary to the scholarly opinion of BJU's Literature and Language departments, "Christian" fantasy parallels the occultic literature for children, using similar images, story-lines, symbols, and characters. Literary fantasy, rather than being neutral, has occultic roots. (This paragraph was excerpted and/or adapted from the 10/96, The Christian Conscience, "Pagan Story for Christian Children," pp. 40-42; see page 41 for a detailed comparison of Medallion and The Dark is Rising.)

Mark Johansen #fundie creation.com

Is evolution pseudoscience?

The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each.

1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.

In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’ [our emphasis]

We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’.

2. Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.

The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.

So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’

3. Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world.

The next is essentially the same:

4. … [or] are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory.

Evolutionists are always ready with a story to explain any observed trait of a species. Why do some birds, like peacocks and birds of paradise, have beautiful and elaborate tails? Evolutionists explain, ‘If a peacock can … find food and evade predators while dragging around a bigger and more conspicuous tail than his rivals do’ this demonstrates that he is particularly strong and capable, and thus makes a better mate. So evolution selects females that prefer males with the most elaborate tails.

But the same article also says, ‘it’s hard to figure what possible advantage these eye-catching but burdensome appendages offer … in the grim business of survival.’ If peacocks had small, streamlined tails, evolutionist would surely be explaining that an efficient tail gives an advantage in the struggle for survival (in escaping from predators, for example).

Evolution is just as good at ‘predicting’ things that never happened as it is at predicting things that actually did happen. A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing.

5. Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them.

Evolutionists are forced to admit that the fossil evidence for their theory is slim to non-existent. For example, almost all major groups of creatures appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary past. ‘Something quite bizarre happened at the end of the Precambrian Era. Rocks from that time show evidence of an astounding variety of multicelled and hard-shelled life forms that seemingly appeared all at once. Scientists have long pondered the causes of this sudden appearance of new life forms, known as the Cambrian explosion.’

So the evolutionists offer ad hoc hypotheses to explain the lack of evidence. One popular theory is ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which says that sometimes evolution happens so fast that there are too few ‘intermediate’ generations for any to have much chance of being fossilized.

We cannot see evolution happening today because it goes so slowly, and we cannot see evidence of it in the past because it happened too quickly!

6. Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends…

Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such as Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC)

7. Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances.

Evolutionists try to find animals that fit into their ‘evolutionary tree’. In the classic ‘horse story’, they arrange a group of animals with similar body shapes in order by size and say it shows the evolution of the horse. But is this actual ancestry or just a contrived arrangement? Except for the supposed ‘first horse’, which it probably isn’t, far from being an example of evolution, the fossils show the wide variation within a created kind. As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks’.

Most of the creatures that would have had to exist if evolution were true have never been found, and some creatures have been found that don’t fit in the evolutionary tree at all, like the platypus. But evolutionists seize on a few creatures that sort of look like they might be halfway between a badger and a horse, or between a reptile and a bird. These rare apparent fits ‘prove’ evolution as much as occasional good guesses by a psychic ‘prove’ that he can read your mind.

8. Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.

Some evolutionists insist that evolution has no metaphysical implications. ‘Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.’

But others make dogmatic metaphysical applications. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science website includes a whole section on ‘Science, Ethics, and Religion’, with statements like, ‘Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. … In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately.’

Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’.

9. Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.

A pro-evolution web site states, ‘Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as “spontaneous generation”. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life. … No life has ever been observed to arise from dead matter.’

But evolutionists dismiss the fact that their theory requires the violation of this well-established law of science. ‘Did [Pasteur] prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn’t, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally … ’.

The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’s possible that there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work.

10. Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate.

Evolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem: ‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”.’

So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’.

Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences—astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet so many.

Anthony Horvath #fundie christiannewswire.com

LA CROSSE, Wisc., Feb. 21, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ -- What's going on? Are all universally saved, after all? Did Richard Dawkins become a Christian? Did he… remain an atheist, and STILL go to heaven? Such questions leap to mind when presented with title of the newest short story collection released by author and Christian apologist Anthony Horvath: "Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, and Mother Teresa Go to Heaven."

Written over a span of two years, these three short stories detail what happens as each of the individuals come face to face with the reality of life after death. From Mother Teresa, who devoted her life to God but felt abandoned by Him to Antony Flew who vowed to 'follow the evidence,' to Richard Dawkins, who with Bertrand Russell said, "Not enough evidence!" these stories draw from what is known publicly to imagine what would happen in this most private of moments.

The book is currently only available on Amazon Kindle and Barnes and Noble's Nook.

Author and apologist Anthony Horvath explains his purpose, "I have found that when I read stories their impact goes beyond the ideas they present. My whole being is stirred by them. That is why I also try to use stories. Antony Flew and Mother Teresa, of course, are deceased, but Richard Dawkins is still alive. I'd be interested to find out if he agrees with me on how he'd react when finally face to face with the Truth he was wrong about all along. I think that question is something we can all ponder, since even Christians will discover that there were points we misunderstood or were mistaken about. What will our response be?"

Horvath's apologetics ministry, Athanatos Christian Ministries, is unique in its attempt to use the arts and literature to make its case for Christianity along with more traditional methods of providing argument and evidence. From its annual Christian writing contests to its annual online apologetics conference featuring a defense of the family through film (keynote Gene E. Veith, with Jason Jones of "Bella" and Dallas Jenkins of "What If", and others), ACM attempts to engage the culture and call on other Christians to do the same.

"Let's face it," Horvath says, "People are moved as much by Story as they are by Evidence. And we've got the best Story in town."

Rajkumar Richard #fundie christianapologeticsalliance.com


A god Who Admits All People to Heaven is…(God Cannot Save All People)

Very minimally, Universalism or Inclusivism asserts that God will save all people whether they believe in Christ or not. However, Universalism severely debilitates God, which I will now strive to elaborate.

For the purpose of differentiating the god of the Universalists from the living Triune God, I have named the god of the Universalists as ‘unigod.’

Who is this unigod, who supposedly saves all people? What is he worth?

Worth Nothing – A Cruel, Unjust God, Unmindful of Sins

Man, if he is to love and worship God, should be aware of God’s attributes or nature. Minimally, love and justice are significant communicable attributes. (Attributes that are perfect in God but also found in humans to a degree are ‘Communicable Attributes.’)

A god who loves all, even those who hate and abuse him, seems to be a loving God. But a careful examination of this love reveals cruelty.

Those who hate God say, “I do not want to live with God.” But if God forces those who hate HIM to be with HIM unto eternity, this certainly smacks of slavery. Holding people against their will is slavery. None accept, agree, or admire slavery. This is cruelty in its glory.

But this is apparently what unigod does to people. Unigod forces people to be with him unto eternity. So, unigod is not loving, but cruel.

Consider God’s attribute of justice. Justice is a disposition to do that which is morally right. Presence of ‘right’ requires a ‘wrong;’ this is analogous to rust requiring a metal.

Since evil is rampant in the world, common man expects the authorities to punish evil. But unigod, as an apparent ultimate authority, does not punish evil, for he allows even a horrendously evil person to enter into heaven.

We would be extremely saddened and frustrated if we are victims of injustice. An authority who fails to provide justice is unjust or evil. By allowing a horrendously evil person to inherit the greatest good (heaven), the unigod reveals his unjust and evil attributes.

Significantly, unigod, who supposedly saves all people, is unmindful of sins. Sin is an assault on the Holy God, who is the maximally great being. But unigod, by virtue of apparently forgiving unrepentant people of their sins, does not consider sins to be an assault on HIS holiness.

In other words, holiness, love and justice are not the attributes of unigod.

Unworthy of Worship

Worship is man’s response to God’s worthiness. God should be worshipped for HE alone is worthy of our worship (adoration, thanksgiving, prayers etc.). God deserves this response from all people.

From the perspective of Historic Christianity, since God so loved the world, HE gave HIS only Son, so that those who believe in the Son of God will receive eternal life (John 3: 16). Salvation of mankind (those who believe in Christ) is an outcome of God’s love for man. Since salvation is God first act (through HIS love to redeem man from his sin), the believer loves God, and worships HIM always. The living God reveals HIS worth to HIS people by HIS blessed presence, and offers hope that HE, through HIS second coming, will fulfill all HIS promises (e.g. eliminate evil forever). Thus man worships this Almighty, loving, gracious and a compassionate God.

In contrast how does unigod reveal his worthiness to his people? All that he supposedly does is to save all men (universal salvation). If this is his only or primary revelatory act of worthiness, then unigod has placed himself in a precariously quicksand situation.

Think about this. We DO NOT need to worship unigod. What do we gain or lose by not worshipping unigod? Nothing!

Will we lose our salvation if we do not worship unigod? No, we will not lose our salvation.

If those who do not worship unigod will go to heaven, then why should man waste his time and energy in worshipping this unigod, when he can indulge in carnal hedonistic lifestyle?

The depraved mind of Universalists posits salvation for everyone – all and sundry – even those who do not worship unigod. In other words, unigod, who supposedly saves all people, declares himself to be unworthy of worship.

Worthy of Abuse

If you are unaware of Richard Dawkins’ intense abuse (an act of evil) of the living God, please read the endnote.1 (Proponents of Historic Christianity believe that Prof. Richard Dawkins, the bulldog of Atheism, will not go to heaven, if he does not repent of his sins and accept Christ the Lord as his Savior. The God of Historic Christianity is a holy God and in HIM is no sin, so sin cannot coexist with God.)

Thanks to Dawkins, we can now turn the tables.

Please brace yourself for an unmitigated and an indecent assault on unigod. The unigod is an evil, corrupt, depraved, putrid, brainless blockhead; he is a nonsensical dummy, foolish idiot, insanely ignoramus dolt, a nincompoop, and a senseless monkey. Anyone can mock and thoroughly disrespect unigod.2

Despite these abuses on unigod, Universalists claim that unigod will still save me!

Unworthy of Emulation

Just as how parents are emulated by children, God should be emulated by HIS disciples.

Universalists claim that all people will be saved despite their good or horrendous nature. If their god unconditionally accepts abuses, should not the Universalists unconditionally accept abuse from others?

If the Universalists fail to accept horrendous abuses upon themselves or their families and friends, they intuitively expose their opposition to or the limitation of their own god!

Historic Christianity asserts Christlikeness in the believers of Christ (Romans 8: 29 et al.). This is not a mere fact from the realm of the spiritual, but from the realm of the physical as well. Christians are called to bear fruit and much fruit (John 15).

The contentment and joy of a parent is directly proportional to the physical and behavioral resemblance of their child. If a child resembles the goodness of the parent, the parent will be greatly joyful and contented.

But in the case of Universalism, there is no resemblance of unigod in the lives of its disciples. The children of the alleged unigod exist in reality, but when the child is to resemble the parent, the children of unigod do not resemble their god, for their god cannot be resembled.

Conclusion

Universalism is a medievally mystical belief, bordering on insanity. The alleged god who admits all people into heaven is imaginary, and resides only in the depraved minds of the Universalists.

God cannot be unholy, evil, unjust, and unmindful of sins. Only an evil and an unjust being will be unmindful of sins. Moreover, a god who accepts and agrees with abuse of any intensity is a god without perfection and holiness. A being with such deplorable attributes is not God. In fact, God, as a maximally great being, cannot possess such appalling attributes.

Even man’s intrinsic dignity and self-worth prevents him from agreeing and accepting to abuses of any form or size. So a god who is awfully comfortable with abuses to the extent of supporting and welcoming evil is an evil god that resides only in the fantasies of certain minds.

Therefore, we reasonably claim that there is no unigod, and that universalism is nothing but a grand illusion.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

The atheist and liberal evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak ... homophobic, racist, ... capriciously malevolent bully."[2] As far as Conservapedians are aware, the liberal biologist Richard Dawkins has yet to comment on all the diseases associated with homosexuality nor has he commented on the rather portly figures of many in the lesbian community! Perhaps, that is because there are so many diseases associated with homosexuality! Message to Richard Dawkins and his fans: God is good! Richard, perhaps you need to hear it again: God is good! Richard, do you think one of the many reasons why God forbids homosexuality is because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

Robert Martin #fundie onlineopinion.com.au

So what has this discussion on climate change have to do with atheism? A few things and somewhat controversially I'm going to suggest that it is a Christian worldview which gives an imperative for climate action whereas the atheist worldview leads to the opposite. There are a few reasons why..

At its heart, atheism is a selfish, short-sighted worldview. Atheism drives people to live for themselves and live for today. In John Lennon's Imagine, Lennon imagines an atheistic world where people live without heaven and instead, 'live for today'. There is precious little in an atheist worldview to consider others, nor the future. The consistent message of atheism is to maximise our lives, our potential and opportunities now because this is the only life we get and we need to fill it with as much as possible. It is atheistic thinking which is driving the modern phenomenon of 'spending the inheritance'. Why shouldn't an atheist enjoy the money they've accumulated? The future in an atheist world is very short – to the end of our life, to the detriment of the inheritance and also to the detriment of the environment. I'm not suggesting that individual atheists can't consider the future beyond their lifetimes (many key environmental supporters are atheists). I'm proposing that there is nothing in a consistent atheist worldview to drive one to consider the future.

Secondly, the atheist worldview impedes costly sacrifice – why should atheists sacrifice unnecessarily? Why force unnecessary suffering on myself? The atheist worldview wishes costless action and advocacy. This view was reinforced when I saw Richard Dawkins at the Global Atheist Convention last year. In a discussion with other prominent atheists he explained that he wasn't as virulent in his criticism of Islam as compared to Christianity because "the threat of having your head cut off is somewhat of a deterrent" and "courage is a virtue but there are limits" [Four horsemen discussion -10 mins 30 secs in]. I was disappointed with Dawkins statement that someone so passionate about his beliefs wouldn't be willing to die for them. But then again, there is nothing in an atheist worldview to sacrifice unnecessarily. Atheists believe in costless action – an atheist speaks his or her views until there is serious danger. Why should an atheist sacrifice?

Bro- Rob #fundie crisismagazine.com

Comment on an article about Richard Dawkins being "on the path to belief".

I think that is WONDERFUL news if Richard Dawkins’ soul is seeking God after all… His conversion will be a MOST profound witness to an unbelieving world!! So I say: Go Lord go! Do your wonderful work of conversion in his heart and soul! And then his mind will gradually catch up as well… As for me I always found myself somewhere in the “literalist fundamentalist” camp in general…even though I don’t agree with every detail they say…and even though I’m now Catholic not Protestant. But with regard to the plain scientific of evolutionism and also the LITERAL truth of Genesis in general….to me it’s a clearcut stonewall case, no-brainer…period. The more I studied it, the more conclusive it gets, point by point. I lamented that so many Christians, even Popes, never saw through the lies and spurious claims of Darwinism…it’s as if all mankind were HYPNOTISED by it! But No problem… No problem for me, that is – but LOTS of grief from EVERY side from those deluded by Darwinist pseudoscience…including from plenty of my fellow Christians. (Bless ‘em). How craftily the devil has sown the seeds of doubt lies and confusion in human minds! (The Protestants lost a lot of the true christian spirituality, but they sure have compensated by being better intellectuals than their Catholic peers! At least in relation to Darwinist heresies, that is!) But anyway, no matter – it is the SOUL which matters much more deeply than the rational mind in the person. It is the soul that most needs God and needs salvation. Therefore, Halleluyah for Richard Dawkins!! Come Lord Jesus, come! Holy Spirit, have your way with him! And let many stand in awe when he “comes out” as a believer! (I always have hoped and prayed for his conversion myself).

Samuel James #fundie patheos.com

[From an "article" titled "How Atheism Empowers ISIS"]

I think Gobry is absolutely correct here. Contemporary secular progressives simply do not trade in the marketplace of metaphysical ideas. Consider the state of American higher education, an institution nearly monopolized by Vulgar Marxism. Studies like philosophy, literature and religion are in decline and increasingly viewed with utilitarian contempt, while gender studies and psychology are the disciplines of choice for vast swaths of students who demand an endless supply of “trigger warnings.” Social sciences are conducive to Vulgar Marxism because they can be reduced to interpersonal tensions of race, class, and privilege, while Plato and Thomas Aquinas are too busy talking about invisible realities that bind the entire human narrative together.

Gobry’s term Vulgar Marxism reminds me of a similar term coined by philosopher Michael Novak, “vulgar relativism.” In his 1994 acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize, Novak identified vulgar relativism as “nihilism with a happy face,” and said that its noxious effect on both the mind and the heart was a symbolic red carpet for brutal oppression:

For [relativists], it is certain that there is no truth, only opinion: my opinion, your opinion. They abandon the defense of intellect. There being no purchase of intellect upon reality, nothing else is left but preference, and will is everything. They retreat to the romance of will.

But this is to give to Mussolini and Hitler, posthumously and casually, what they could not vindicate by the most willful force of arms. It is to miss the first great lesson rescued from the ashes of World War II: Those who surrender the domain of intellect make straight the road of fascism. Totalitarianism, as Mussolini defined it, is la feroce volanta . It is the will-to-power, unchecked by any regard for truth. To surrender the claims of truth upon humans is to surrender Earth to thugs.

In other words, embracing the secular atheistic worldview is in fact laying out a welcome mat for terrorists like ISIS. Of course, not all atheists are aggressively relativistic or Marxist, but it is indisputable that the overwhelming majority of such articulations come from atheistic voices. Crank atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris write glowingly about a future sans religion, which will supposedly signal the impending disappearance of violent oppressors such as ISIS. These writers conveniently ignore the fact that Europe, having spent now more than a generation as a post-Christian secular fantasy, is impotent to drive Islamic extremism from its culture. The idea that atheism disarms the forces of oppression and violence is no more credible than arming our anti-ISIS forces with water guns.

Islamic terrorism is fueled by worldview. Failure to acknowledge this basic fact stems from a latent acceptance of vulgar relativism, the idea that transcendent ideas like religion and philosophy are excuses for the racial and geopolitical stuff that’s actually REAL. Declaring religious ideas irrelevant or off-limits will continue to put the West into the vulnerable stupor that ISIS has already taken advantage of. To take ISIS seriously, we have to take its religious convictions seriously, which means taking religion per se seriously, which means, in the end, taking secular progressivism out to the trash heap.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Can Dawkins Disprove God in 5 Steps?

Can the idea of a Creator God be easily dismissed in just five steps? Well, atheist and anti-theist Richard Dawkins certainly thinks so!

He recently appeared on a Norwegian-Swedish television show called Skavlan where he quickly dismissed the idea of God by ticking off on his fingers five arguments for God.

Dawkins starts by equating God with fairies, and then says that “the onus is not upon an atheist to say why there is not something, the onus is on a theist to say why there is.” Well, Dr. Richard Dawkins, the onus will actually be on each person on judgment day when he stands before God. And no excuses will be enough when we stand before Him. In the end, every person will bow before Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord (Philippians 2:10–11). You can either do so voluntarily now or by compulsion later.

Dawkins then says that “there simply are no reasons for the existence of a God.” But, of course, this doesn’t mean there actually aren’t any reasons for God’s existence. It simply shows his anti-God bias. He then mentions a few of the common arguments used to demonstrate that there is a God.

Design Exists Because of Darwinian Natural Selection?

Dawkins begins with the argument from design. Now, Scripture is clear that everyone is without excuse for not believing in God because His creation clearly shows that He exists (Romans 1:20). But Dawkins dismisses the powerful argument from design in nature simply by saying that we should expect design because that’s what Darwinian natural selection does, “it makes them look as though they’re designed.” According to Dawkins, “Darwin has exploded once and for all the argument from design.” Dawkins recognizes that things do look designed, but says that the most likely explanation, a Designer, isn’t the case—natural selection simply does it. But what he never explains is how natural selection—a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information—is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years. How do you get from simple pond scum to highly complex people without adding massive amounts of new genetic information? You can’t!

People Hallucinate or Are Fooled?

Dawkins next dismisses personal testimony by saying that people hallucinate or are fooled with relative ease. Now, subjective personal experience does need to be weighed carefully (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21), but what I would like to ask Dawkins is the same question Bill Nye was asked during our 2014 debate: where did consciousness (which is needed for our experiences) come from? Nye was at a loss to explain this “great mystery” as he called it and Dawkins likely would be too.

Of course, God’s Word tells us exactly where consciousness (and everything else!) came from—God Himself (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). And, furthermore, in a godless world, how do you even know what truth really is when you have no objective standard for determining truth? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? As Pilate asked Jesus, without God and His Word, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). And if we are just random chemical accidents, why should we trust anything that comes from our brain anyway? If Dawkins’ worldview is true, then he can’t trust anything that comes from his brain either! It’s ultimately a self-defeating argument. We can only know what truth is because there is a God and He has ordered this world and has given us His Word.

If God Is the First Cause, Then Where Did God Come From?

Next is the argument of the first cause. This argument, in a nutshell, states that everything must have a cause, including the universe. Now, Dawkins dismisses this argument by saying that if God is the first cause, then where did God come from? Frankly, it’s a silly response. God is outside of space and time—in fact, He created these things. He didn’t have a beginning and He will have no end (Psalm 90:2). And if there was someone who created God, then it would be a bigger God, and then a bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and then a bigger-bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and so on to infinity. This is silly. If He needed to be created, He wouldn’t be God. But God doesn’t need a Creator; He is self-existent.

Darwin Explains How We Got Here Without God?

Dawkins then explains that Darwin shows how everything got here without the need for God. But Darwin was simply wrong because everything we see in observational science confirms the history of the universe from God’s Word, not Darwin’s ideas—kinds reproduce according to their kinds; we don’t see new genetic information being added to produce brand-new features; life only comes from other life, never from non-life. Life did not originate by itself; it was created by our all-wise Creator.

Pascal’s Wager a Silly Argument?

Lastly, Dawkins addresses the so-called Pascal’s wager, which says that it’s better to believe in God, live a godly life, and be wrong when you die than to reject God and die and go to hell. He says that this is a “silly argument” and that there is no way of knowing if you’ve bet on the right god or not. But I submit that only the God of the Bible makes sense of this world. God alone has left us a coherent Scripture that does not contradict itself and is historically and scientifically accurate in all it says.

But Dawkins does get one thing (sort of) right in his short video in reference to Pascal’s wager. He says that perhaps the God of the Bible would not prefer someone who “slavishly pretends to believe something.” Scripture is clear that God sees the heart, not external signs of worship or belief (1 Samuel 16:7). No one will get to heaven by “slavishly” pretending to believe in God. Salvation only comes by truly believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross to pay for our sin debt (Romans 10:9–10). That’s the good news of the gospel—salvation is a free gift to those who will put their faith in Christ.

My heart breaks for people like Dawkins who are utterly lost and who, unless they repent and believe in Christ, will face an eternity separated from God in hell. All of their seemingly clever arguments against God will amount to nothing when they stand before His judgment throne. If you are like Dawkins, or even if you believe in God but have not trusted in Christ for salvation, I encourage you to listen to the good news and believe in Christ and be saved.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Christian Believer #fundie m.christianpost.com

Professor Richard Dawkins has no credibility, either as a scientist or as an apologist. As a scientist because science has been unable to help him and as an apologist because the cause he champions and defends has left him in a wheelchair and hopelessly crippled. Whoever his "gods" are, they don't love him, they don't care about him, they have no compassion or mercy for him, and they have abandoned him. My wish for him is that he will find Jesus and find love and forgiveness.

Matthew Archbold #fundie ncregister.com

Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever, and I Can Prove It

[…]

7) Michelangelo and Bach (look 'em up kids!) were indisputably awesome Christian artists. But hey, atheists have the kid who plays Harry Potter. Do you really don't want to be a part of any group that includes the actor formerly known as Harry Potter. Or maybe you do because that's how uncool you actually are.

[…]

3) As a Christian, my wife looks at me like I'm a gift from God. Seriously, to her that's what I am. Your atheist girlfriend (should you ever get one after you move out of your stepdad's basement) will see you as a gel-haired accident in skinny jeans on a lonely rock orbiting a meaningless sun in a mistake of a universe. See the difference? It's kind of a big one.

2) Many of your college professors agree with your atheist beliefs. How's that for the uncoolest choice ever? Hey, look at you siding with all the gray-haired tweedy authoritarian types at your school. Note: If your best friend at college is the "Diversity Awareness Coordinator" you're colleging wrong. And if you think your professors are cool, I think they call that being a brown-noser. And brown-nosers are even less cool than gender studies majors.

Y'know when the whole 60's thing happened, young people would say not to trust anyone over 40. But now, you guys go off to college wanting nothing more than to adopt the beliefs of your old boring professors. What could be less cool than wanting to be like your teacher? (Except if your teacher is Tony Esolen. Then it's ok.)

1) Atheists have less children and that probably means...well you probably know what that means since you're all about SCIENCE! Once again, to sum up, you'll be miserable, have a shorter life, and quite likely less sex than your religious counterparts. And you thought atheism was cool? Reconsider and repent ye' fools. Jesus said he is the way, the truth, and the life. Left unsaid, is that He's totally cooler than Richard Dawkins!

Sean Thomas #fundie blogs.telegraph.co.uk

Are atheists mentally ill?

...

In the last few years scientists have revealed that believers, compared to non-believers, have better outcomes from breast cancer, coronary disease, mental illness, Aids, and rheumatoid arthritis. Believers even get better results from IVF. Likewise, believers also report greater levels of happiness, are less likely to commit suicide, and cope with stressful events much better. Believers also have more kids.

What’s more, these benefits are visible even if you adjust for the fact that believers are less likely to smoke, drink or take drugs. And let’s not forget that religious people are nicer. They certainly give more money to charity than atheists, who are, according to the very latest survey, the meanest of all.

So which is the smart party, here? Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench (or, if they are wrong, they go to Hell)? Or is it the believers, who live longer, happier, healthier, more generous lives, and who have more kids, and who go to their quietus with ritual dignity, expecting to be greeted by a smiling and benevolent God?

Obviously, it’s the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.

And I mean that literally: the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith: we have, as a species, evolved to believe, which is one crucial reason why believers are happier – religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans.

Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency: something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands.

Salvador #fundie atheists.org

No ashtoreth, you wouldn’t have a problem using a sacred monument as museums, social clubs, sex clubs, estacy clubs, or for any other degenirate activity because all atheist are sodomites.

In fact, a leading atheist advocate and friend of Richard Dawkins, who is embraced by the atheist/communist community world wide, Peter Singer, suggest that beastiality is a moral activity. Rememher, this is a spoke person for your so called movement.

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2001/animal-rights-activist-attack-peter-singer-over-bestiality-stance/

So there you go.

Again, that you’re not even bothered by the hypocrisy that one of the world’s bloodiest political systems, Atheism (aka Communism) would emphasize the Spanish Inquistion, (which happend no less than 500 years before), just shows where your moral compass is.

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

Atheist bullying is a problem in many public schools, where student populations are becoming increasingly atheist or non-religious and are less likely to keep their lack of faith out of school discourse. Atheist students are commonly engaging in persecution of Christian students, encouraged by the out-spoken nature of the growing number of adherents of New Atheism, such as Richard Dawkins.

In serious cases, atheist bullying has lead to Christian students being pulled out of public schools to undergo home-schooling or private tuition, as their academic life has become intolerable.

Many school shootings are thought to be related to atheist bullying. The most infamous, the Columbine shooting, was partly perpetrated by an atheist.

It is feared that the rising number of militant atheist students will lead to more frequent - and deadly - school shootings in the future.

Ken Ham #fundie blogs.answersingenesis.org

Now, not only does God’s Word explain the world as it is today, but observational science confirms it. Also, the Bible makes it clear that if we search after truth and really want to know God, He will reveal himself to us. And He will make clear the free gift of salvation that He offers to us.

"My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And> lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:1–6)

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Dawkins Is Against Indoctrination . . . Really?

Recently atheist Richard Dawkins stated, “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents.” Of course, what Dawkins means by this is that parents have been given too much of a right to teach their children their own religion. He goes on to say, “Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.” So children need to be “protected” from religion by having a “proper education” so they won’t be “indoctrinated.” But Dawkins believes that children should be taught evolutionary naturalism as fact. He wants his religion of naturalism imposed on them. So children shouldn’t be taught religion by their parents—they should be taught the religion of atheism by their teachers! All Dawkins is advocating is replacing one religion with another religion. You can’t raise or educate children “neutrally.” There is no neutrality! When you take away supposed “religion” (which usually means Christianity when Dawkins uses that word), then all you have done is replaced it with another religion—the religion secular humanism.

In an article for Time magazine, Dawkins writes, “Religious labels [on children] . . . at very least . . . negates the ideal, held dear by all decent educationists, that children should be taught to think for themselves.” So Dawkins thinks that children should be taught to think for themselves? Should children be allowed to think for themselves when crossing a road, or when jumping into a swimming pool, or when putting their hand on a hot plate on the stove? Should children be potty trained or just allowed to think for themselves?

Does Dawkins mean that children should be taught the major problems with evolution? Does this mean that children should be shown the evidence that supports the Bible’s history? Does this mean that children should learn the difference between historical and observational science? Dawkins definitely wouldn’t think so! By writing that “children should be taught to think for themselves,” what he really means is that children should be exclusively taught a religion of atheistic, evolutionary naturalism—and no other options. This is not education or teaching kids to think through issues for themselves—it’s indoctrination, but indoctrination in a false religion! So Dawkins wants to do the very thing that he says parents shouldn’t do!

Dawkins also writes, “Indoctrinating your opinions into the vulnerable minds of your children is bad enough.” So Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating children is wrong. Yet he wants to do that very thing! He just wants to make sure that children are only taught his religion! Dawkins is being utterly inconsistent.

edwitness #fundie disqus.com


(In response to this story on Christian News Network which incorrectly labels a synapsid as a mammal: https://christiannews.net/2018/12/04/discovery-of-giant-synapsid-fossil-in-poland-throws-a-wrench-in-evolutionary-expectations-for-triassic-layers/ )

edwitness:
"Note that these ancestors of mammals possesed both mammalian and reptilian characteristics and confirm evolution. These creatures were not mammals."
This is a worldview statement. Not a scientific one.
Because for those whose worldview includes a Creator, this evidence does not speak of evolution. But instead proves they have a common designer. The Creator who made all that has been made who is introduced to us in Genesis.

Richard Forrest:
Nonsense. It's a scientific one which has nothing to do with "worldview".
It's a statement made in the light of the evidence.

edwitness:
Wrong. As shown the evidence only reveals to us that the animal lived. The rest of the beliefs the evolutionist comes to are from his worldview. Not the scientific method.

Richard Forrest:
The evidence also shows that it's a synapsid and not a mammal. It also shows that it lived in the Triassic period. That is what has been established by applying to the scientific method to the evidence.
You don't get to redefine what is and what is not science because the findings of science contradict your shoddy religious dogma. That is downright dishonest.

edwitness:
What is dishonest is saying that the scientific method is whatever you need it to be to make what is not evidence for your worldview become evidence. The scientific method is observable and repeatable. Without that it's just speculation. And in your case it is speculation built on a designer-less worldview.

Richard Forrest:
I'm sure that others will see the irony here. You are asserting that saying the scientific method is whatever you need it to be is dishonest, and in the same post attempting to redefine the scientific method because it contradicts your religious dogma.
Get an education. There are numerous sources out there which explain the scientific method in detail. Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined.
You are making yourself look both ridiculous and dishonest. If you are so deluded that you think that such an exhibition will convince anyone to join your cause, I pity you.

edwitness:
"Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined."
Really? They went to the same schools and received the same degrees in science that all the evolutionists went to. They know science as well, and I would contend better, than evolutionists. In fact, most of them at one time believed in evolution. But, because the evidence was not there to support it, as all the evolution scientists I gave the quotes from admitted, they rejected the lie that is evolution for the truth that the Creator God made all that has been made. Just as the evidence supports.
The irony here is that you reject the scientific method because it does not support your worldview. While claiming that while I am appealing to the scientific method, that is for our conclusions to be both observable and repeatable, I am doing this.
Unless you can observe evolution and repeat it through testing it can not be considered scientific. Which means it is a belief system built on a worldview that rejects the notion of a designer.

Richard Forrest:
Well, as we have observed evolution - using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it - ?in action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory, it qualifies as science even by your incorrect definition.
As for creationists knowing science better than "evolutionists", if that were the case why do they lie about science - as Purdom has done in the article in referring to the Triassic synapsid as a mammal? Or do you not care if creationists lie provided they tell you what you want to hear.
Oh, and by the way: very, very few creationists have any qualifications in evolutionary biology, and the very small number who do reject the science on the basis of their religious beliefs. not the evidence.
Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence. None of the supposed evidence for a designer stands up to empirical scrutiny.

edwitness:
"Well, as we have observed evolution..."
But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution. No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen.
"Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence."
Real science is observable. Therefore evolution can not be considered Science. So it is evolution, and not science, that rejects the evidence that points to a designer. The Creator, Jesus Christ.
For example, no one doubts the monument at Mt. Rushmore is the work of an intelligent designer, yet much greater design and laws in the universe are overlooked, or disregarded, by people who believe that evolution produced everything in existence, with no intelligence or design behind it.
This makes no sense.
History tells us Gutzon Borglum was the designer of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial; the Bible tells us God is the Designer of the universe, and man was made (designed) in his image (Genesis 1:26).

Richard Forrest:
"But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution."
Well, the scientists who study the subject can refer to numerous observed instance of evolution in action. What do you know that they don't?
"No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen."
Quite so, and if it did it would utterly falsify evolutionary theory. I suggest that you educate yourself in the subject to that you don't make a fool of yourself by displaying such utter ignorance of what you are writing about.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that.
So maybe it is you that needs to research your religion so you can see just how foolish it is. And how foolish you are to believe it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that."
You are once again demonstrating only utter ignorance! Try reading Gould's account of the theory he formulated with Eldridge rather than relying on creationist sources. Oh and by the way: it's palaeontologists who work on the fossil record, not archaeologists.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research into the nature of evolution. Not that you will, because your religious beliefs are so fragile that you need to maintain ignorance.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated. If you are going to be dishonest about your own beliefs then what is the point of continuing this conversation? The goal posts are set. It is for you to show evidence for the touchdown you believe your scientists have made. And for me to show you how they have not.
My job is easy. Because all the evidence supports it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated."
Not according to Gould and Eldridge who formulated the theory. You can find their original paper on the internet. Try reading it. If you do - and I can confidently say that you won't - you'll find that the creationist sources from which you gleaned your caricature of that theory are at best ignorant, at worst lying. But of course you won't because your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.
As for research into the nature of evolution: I have carried out original research and published in scientific journals. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I know more about the subject than you do.

Igor Krichtafovitch #crackpot vixra.org

Information as the Evolution Driving Force

[…]
In contrast, a homo genus is the least accommodated to live on this planet. None of the homo habilis, homo erectus, and later inhabitants passed the survivability test. Furthermore, they all extinct. Homo sapiens, the only lone survivor, also was on the brink of extinction at least three times. Twice we barely escaped the extinction having slipped through the bottleneck of mitochondrial Eve 2 and Y-chromosome Adam 3. After evading these Scylla and Charybdis,powerful Toba super-eruption occurred about 74 thousand years ago. According to some theories, that event brought the human population to a mere 3,000-10,000 individuals. There is a growing body of literature casting a doubt on the very pillar of Darwinian theory: the natural selection by the survival of the fittest 4-8.
Should natural selection had been a real cause of the evolution of living species then fragile humans should gradually evolve into some fitter races. The natural evolution would change hairless bipedal feeble creatures into more robust primates, then to better fit mammals, and, eventually, to krill and single-celled bacteria. Some prominent scientists are not fond of and warn about “the obsession with natural selection” 9.
The irrefutable fact is that new species evolve and the evolution goes steadily in one dominant direction. The development vector does not point to the direction of highest survivability or productivity. As Richard Bird 8 put it: “Life increases in complexity in one specific sense; computational complexity.” Such statement is so obvious that it hardly can be argued against.

[…]

The evolution’s driver is not a survival of the fittest. It is an inescapable necessity of intelligence and memory storage growth.
Now our Hypothesis arrived at completion. The following postulates may summarize it:
1. Biological evolution as a natural life origin and development is a reality.
2. The evolution is a coordinated and controlled process, not a consequence of random mutations and/or survival of the fittest.
3. The evolution main development vector is a growing computational complexity of the Biosphere intelligence.
4. The intelligent matter which conducts and controls global evolution is a gigantic bio-computer combining all living organisms on Earth: the Global Mind (GM).
5. The GM is a virtual information matter (like a software) based on and running all living cells and organelles. The GM actions are initiated, powered and stimulated by random mutations.
6. Natural selection as a survival of the fittest is the definite factor in horizontal changes, i.e., within same species. The course of vertical evolutionary leaps is pushed by the growing Biosphere memory volume and organisms’ increasing complexity. Greater memory volume requires a greater number and more intellectually advanced organisms for storing and handling it. More intricate organisms require the greater computational complexity of GM in order to keep control over the Biosphere. This is an endless recursive endeavor with accelerated evolutionary dynamic.
7. New species (vertical evolutionary leap) occur when two conditions are met: a) global memory storage volume reaches its limit and b) global intelligence capacity (computational complexity) reaches critical mass capable of producing more advanced creatures.

The Hypothesis presented here does not contradict the naturalistic concept of life creation and evolution. It is not meant Darwinian concepts’ denial. It simply shows a different degree of the natural processes. The proposed concept may not be proven yet. I do not have a good evidence for the most claims and must rely on intuition.
However, as Karl Popper suggested a good theory is the one that has greater explanatory power. The Hypothesis logically resolves many puzzling problems with current state evolution theory. Some of them are listed below (I will address these issues at length in the oncoming publication):
1. Speciation, as a result of GM purposeful design.
2. Evolution development vector, as a need for better global intelligence.
3. Punctuated equilibrium, happening when two above conditions a) and b) are met.
4. Cambrian explosion, as a most pronounced case of punctuated equilibrium .
5. Mass extinctions, happening when more intelligent species should replace outdated creatures.
6. Why lab mutation long-term experiments do not result in new speciation? In these experiments “the critical mass” was not reached.
7. Why creatures fall asleep? GM has to communicated with individual living organisms in order to collect data and correct mutational errors.
8. Why is no paradise on the Earth? GM needs alert living organisms. It forces them to be active and creative.

Graeme Furlong #fundie unbelief.org

An open letter to Richard Dawkins. You are a man with brilliant intellectual achievements and a very daring and brave man as well. To write a book refuting the existence of an Intelligent Designer indicates you must have an incredible belief in the alternative. While my knowledge of history is limited, my personal experience and my acquaintance with a vast number of people from many countries, language groups and heritage, clearly indicate you have been deceived. God is.

Sweden #fundie answers.yahoo.com

With over a dozen years at some of the world's best universities, I have to admit I'm too well-educated to have ever been an atheist.

Atheism is intellectually dishonest - sorry, that's just below me.

Agnostic, yes. I was agnostic until I saw the beauty of Christ as depicted in the Bible, repented, and put my faith in Christ.

www.wayofthemasterradio.com

www.gty.org

www.desiringgod.com

www.sermonaudio.com

itsastickup #fundie arstechnica.com

here's also the religious explanation which has been missed out. Whatever your prejudices on this subject, for objectivity's sake, this one should have been included.

Pope John Paul II (died 2005) canonised as a Christian saint a carrot peeler nun (ie, very humble, low-level nun) who claimed in her diary that Jesus had told her that the universe is teeming with life. St Faustina.

The Catholic position is that there is no dogma on this matter, although the above makes it an informal teaching. But it's particularly interesting since a Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory, Lemaitre, and a Catholic monk, Mendel, is considered the father of modern genetics. (Catholicism has never had a dogma of a literal interpretation of the Bible.)

Meanwhile, the ex-atheist, near-death-experience, Arts professor, Howard Storm (now a methodist), says that he was shown by God that not only is the universe teeming with life, but also intelligent life, and that we are either the only or one of very few that rebelled against God. All other planets with intelligent life receive God's blessings without resistence. Considering God's blessings to us include death, I suppose that's not too surprising. :)

The interesting detail in Storm's testimony is why outside life isn't communicating with us (radio waves etc): there is no need as, excepting humans, intelligent beings communicate without need of material means, particularly through 'union' in which they experience each other's existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustina_Kowalska

Howard Storm, talking to some old ladies ina Church:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmY2yZU_CGk

No, it shouldn't be included. This is a scientific discussion. Religion is for theologians and philosophers. Take it there.


Lol!! You're presumably an atheist. Only an atheist prejudice would make such a claim. The question isn't purely scientific. And no reasonable scientist would exclude this possibility. An atheist scientist would, however.

And while there has been an amazing loss of faith among the young, (mostly due to successful misinformation from atheists such as Dawkins), atheism continues to be a minority belief. Most people are at most agnostic, making no atheistic presumptions. And atheism is presumptuous since there has never been a proof of no god, and plenty of evidence that that might be one, starting with the fact that there are so many people claiming to have had personal contact with a god. Which includes myself.

anne frank #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Atheism is a fad cult whose followers worship Richard Dawkins instead of God. It is most notably the only religion that is self-deluded enough to claim to be backed up by science. Its followers are even more ignorant, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim Muslims, Christians, Hindoos or Jews to be. They use science as their excuse for said dogmatism, and, unfortunately, some of them truly believe their own bullshit in this regard. Ironically, atheism is the most fundamentalist religion known to man. Atheists are hypocritical enough to think that killing 5 billion theists equates to world peace, or, more precisely that as long as people don't agree with them humans still possess the ability to hurt each other.

However, there is a key difference. People who convert to Islam or Christianity do so because they want to have a more fulfilling life, or because they had a genuine religious experience. People who become atheists do so because they got picked on in high school. Rummage through an atheist's emotional baggage and you will find a pile of leftover teenage angst, a few cases of repressed rage at mommy and daddy, and an overpowering urge to feel superior wrapped around a stupendous amount of self-loathing. Ultimately the "atheist movement" is just another Internet fad, mostly made up of attention whores, sycophants, stupid arrogant twats, bigots, assholes, and demagogues.

Sam Gerrans and Christina Wilkinson #fundie rt.com

When failure to embrace what the scientific establishment currently believes in cases where it can produce no conclusive evidence results in a witch-hunt, the cause of true science is not served.

Recently, Christina Wilkinson, of St Andrew’s Church of England school in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, came under fire for falling out of step with orthodoxy on the issue of the origins of life.

The Guardian reports that Wilkinson tweeted in response to London headteacher Tom Sherrington who urged teachers to stick to science when teaching young minds where life comes from: “Evolution is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! There’s more evidence that the Bible is true.”

[...]

Wilkinson is correct – at least in the first part of her initial statement: evolution is, objectively, a theory. It may be treated by the scientific establishment as a fact, but that does not make it one.

Theories – like thought experiments – have a place. The realm of theory is where the mind goes for an after-dinner glass of port and cigar and stretches out in a leather armchair in front of the fire and blows a few what-if-scenario smoke-rings around the sitting-room.

But scientific methods are where the evidence comes in. What such methods have in common is that conclusions are based on observation and experimentation. While exact methods vary depending on the field, the constant is: you can check; the findings are demonstrable and repeatable. This is what distinguishes law from theory.

Reputable, genuine scientists use both systems – and the world is much improved as a result.

The problem comes when those who presume to speak for science forget the distinction between theory and law, and simply attack those who have not forgotten it.

The secular priest Richard Dawkins chimed in that Wilkinson was misusing the word theory.

“Scientists call evolution a theory only in a special scientists’ sense, which is NOT the same as the layman’s ‘tentative hypothesis’,” he said.

He continued: “This is so often misunderstood that I now recommend abandoning the confusing word ‘theory’ altogether for the case of evolution. Evolution is a fact, as securely attested as any fact in science. ‘We are cousins of monkeys and kangaroos’ can be asserted with as much confidence as ‘Our planet orbits the sun’.”

I am not here interested in the rightness or otherwise of Dawkins’ assertions. My point is that theories do not cease to be theories simply because Richard Dawkins recommends that they not be seen as such. There is either empirical evidence, or there isn’t. And if there isn’t, Dawkins’ “recommendations” should not interest us if our allegiance is to science and its methods, rather than to Mr. Dawkins and his recommendations.

lightshineon #fundie gracecentered.com

[You say I like to read Richard Dawkins books. I said I read one. I plan to read another. Correspondingly, I read the Bible every singly morning. Just because you are not capable of reading Dawkins without having an existential crisis doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. I plan to be a pastor. That will probably involve some form of apologetics. Accordingly, I need to know what other people believe for the sake of conversation.]

C. look I can read anything the reprobate Dawkins puts out, if I wished to do so. The Bible tells me how to deal with unbelievers, dawkins is the devils best friend. many, many, many, young, middle and old, have their faith destroyed by this devil. Is it Hutchins also that is an atheist, destroying many's faith? If you believe Jesus is Lord, My sincere apologies, but, I want to know do you believe the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Jesus ask "Simon son of Jonas who do you say that I am?" Who do say Jesus is? The Holy Spirit did reveal Dawkins and you to me. Somehow your faith has been derailed, very badly. Do you go to a liberal college? Liberal Professors? You are only twenty, and messing up you faith is a serious thing. Did you know Jesus Loves you, saved, or unsaved? You need the voice of truth. I know the word, and I know the Holy Spirit speaks to me also. You really, really, need to find the real Jesus. Honey, Dawkins does not know any Jesus, so do not look to evil for truth, I know how to talk to you about truth, without someone like Dawkins. BTW, The Holy Spirit did reveal Dawkins to me, why do you think he did? Maybe, just maybe, Christ wants you to do a U-Turn. Think about it.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

When C.S. Lewis speaks of “faith in Christ,” he includes unsaved Catholics, Mormons, the apostate Church of England and every heathen religion. Lewis sought for “common ground” between all religions, that he could use to justify accepting everyone, regardless of their doctrinal differences. Consequently, unbelievers were given false hope, and the true Biblical Gospel that excludes all forms of self-righteousness was hidden. Lewis has much blood on his hands. Mormons love him! Catholics love him! Remember that Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light, and so are his ministers of unrighteousness (2nd Corinthians 11:13-15). Satan's primary character traits are being an accuser (Revelation 12:10), a murdering liar and thief (John 10:10), and a deceiver (Matthew 7:15).

C.S. Lewis was loved the most by Satan, because he published tons of religious literature, confusing fiction with non-fiction, further confusing an already confused world. As I've researched the writings of Lewis, I've found nothing but a bunch of eloquent religious quotes which amount to really nothing. Every hellbound Roman Catholic and Mormon believes in faith in Christ. There is nothing more dangerous spiritually to the churches than vague, obscure, wishy-washy, undefined usage of terms and teachings concerning the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Lewis attempted to present Scriptural truth under a cloak of pagan mythology in order to give it popular appeal, and in so doing confused the reader, preventing people from ever seeing the light of the Gospel.

That's why J.K. Rowling praises Lewis as her favorite writer and mentor. Miss Rowling does the same thing, confusing children's minds to discern between fact and fiction, while making sure they don't see the glorious light of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Don Batten #fundie creation.com

[Richard] Dawkins’ proselytizing ways remind me of my pimply youthful days at boarding school where those into smoking cigarettes and boozing (worse was yet to come) seemed to be really keen to get others to follow their destructive and illicit behaviour. Why did they try to coerce their fellow students into doing such things? Was it ‘safety in numbers’, that they felt a little guilty for their behaviour and would feel more secure if they could get more to join in their little rebellion?

Professor Dawkins’ obsessive campaign to try to convince others to be atheists reminds me of those days. Perhaps it is not that Dawkins really believes that there is no Creator-God, but that he wishes there were not and if he could just convince enough others to agree with him, then he will feel more secure. Has he confused his wishful thinking for reality?

Johnandrew17 #fundie youtube.com

I've had enough of listening to Dawkins feed lie after lie? to the public.

What we need in our society is not an English zealot intent on converting the United States to atheism.

Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues.

I for one will not sit back while the openly dishonest, such as Richard Dawkins, are given the platform.

David Anderson #fundie david.dw-perspective.org.uk

As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question. If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it. Others can have their own superstitious beliefs, based on who-knows-what, but I would only be convinced by empirical science. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?

Arkansas Toothpick #fundie freerepublic.com

[Richard Dawkins helps set up an atheist charity to help the people of Haiti.]

This proves that some atheists are the biggest fools alive. WHY, WHY, WHY do you care? Richard Dawkins, you just saw 200K of your competitors die? You should be celebrating! There is no reason, NONE, for an atheist to do ANYTHING to help. They have no plausible motive that is consistent with their belief system. As Chesterton said, paraphrasing, the atheist has materialism and nothing else.

Tony Miano #fundie onthebox.us

What Richard Dawkins and Dan Barker undoubtedly hope will be yet another frontal assault against religion, with Christianity in the center of their cross-hairs, will backfire on them. It will back-fire on them much the same way Richard Dawkins holding up Ray Comfort's "On the Origin of Species (special edition)" and "180" back-fired. In the end, their attempt to arrogantly rail against the before-mentioned Christian evangelism resources only served to increase interest in them.

Together, with the help of a few of their friends, Dawkins and Barker have initiated the Clergy Project.

In doing so, Dawkins, Barker, and their ilk have done Christianity a favor. And I would like to thank them for their efforts.

Before I continue, let me add that there is no sarcasm in my gratitude toward Dawkins and Barker. Again, I believe they have done Christianity a favor.

1 John 2:18-19 is helpful, here, to show us the service Dawkins and Barker have provided to the Church.
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

“Ray Comfort, who I am sure is a wonderful human being, would lose a debate, in such a horrible way ie utter embarrassment and shame, if he were to ever debate actual experts in the evolutionary and scientific fields…” Zane Grant

In other words “Ray Comfort is really nice…kind of like Gomer Pyle.” Then put me beside your biggest and best and let him rub me into the floor so that no one will ever listen to me again. But Professor Dawkins won’t let that happen, because he only likes debating elderly ministers or hijacking young ladies with no warning, as he did with Wendy Wright.

So instead of waiting for the experts to come to me I went to them and we debated eye-to-eye. These were evolutionary experts—university professors from UCLA and USC. Watch them flounder as they try and think of some scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution.

It goes without saying, but I’m not a great debater--which makes them look even worse: www.evolutionVsGod.com (1.9 million views)

BTW. Richard Dawkins tweeted about this video five times. Someone said he would have a cow when he saw it, and he did.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

According to the Bible there are only two sorts of people on this earth--"the wicked and the just." The just are those who trust in God's mercy, and the wicked are those who are still in their sins.

Of course Richard Dawkins didn’t seek God when he had a stroke. He did exactly what the Bible says we do when we are proud: "The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts" (Psalm 10:4).

Here's What Richard Dawkins Said When Asked If He Prayed After His Stroke

missions2005 #fundie teens-4-christ.org

Here are a few reason why I won't be watching and won't endorse his books or movies.

1. C.S Lewis is a heretic. I mean come on guys, the guy believes in life on other planets, he believes we're the highest of animals. All in all, this guy is heretical nut.

2. Some things that I've heard about the book disturb me. I'm not going to dwell on C.S Lewis' quotes in this post, but am going to focus on the books. Here's a quote from one of the books, small but very dangerous:

"The future of Narnia rests on your courage." (Talking to the children who play roles in the novel)

Now, the future does not rest with us. In fact, God could do anything he wanted without a single soul on this earth. If Asylan is God, then he wouldn't be saying this. God's intentions does not rest on our courage. Plain and simple.

3. Imagination is evil and wicked. You call it an imagination, God calls it evil. (Genesis 8:21) It doesn't matter if you think that a little imagination is okay, it's wicked.

Christian Voice #fundie christianvoice.org.uk

Richard Dawkins is so concerned that the atheist message is dying on its feet that he is to fund a humanist evangelistic campaign, Christian Voice has learned.

But in a twist which will have Christians in gales of laughter, the advertising campaign, which will be based on the catchy slogan 'There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life,' is to be stuck on bendy-buses.

Apparently, an atheist blogger named Jon Worth came up with the idea, but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash. Now Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Christian zeal knows little bounds, is to finance the doomed venture....Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

'I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it.'

[The Atheist Bus Campaign, which aimed to raise £5,500, reached its target within hours of launch and has raised over £100,000 in 3 days]

Michael Klein #conspiracy #sexist sciencefiles.org

Climate Hysteria is female
The Genderista (Translator's note: appears to be a personal snarlword of his for the Feminazi establishment or something) already proclaimed long ago that "climate change is male" - a claim that led us to the question whether there is an equivalency between "female professor" and "mental deficiency", if only because only fantastically-inclined Genderista manage to produce a correlation between men, which they naturally and as paragons of group-based misanthropy declare a homogenous group and a natural phenomenon which already existed before there were men on Earth.

But as many a wise (white) person from the Palentinate has said:
Thinking is a matter of luck - for some.

Our assessment that climate hysteria is female, on the other hand, is an empirically supported assessment for which there is evidence:

For one, there is no certain evidence at all that anthropogenic climate change is in the process. As long as Earth has existed, the planet's climate has been changing. Whether humans have recently contributed to climate change to a noteworthy degree is an open question which is open because the existant climate models are junk, the claim that CO2 is a climate killer is a hoax, because it is known that the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) likes to manipulate their own data and, on top of it, the bilance of climate change as of now, calculated on the basis of a general increase of Earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius, is a POSITIVE one. Yes: Climate change does not only have negative effects, it also has benefits:

“In my Climate Change Misconceived earlier essay, that explored the dissonance in public understanding of the climate change issue, I contended that based on the best available science and empirical evidence post-industrial climate change (whether it be man-made or natural) apparently has not caused exceptional or accelerating rises in sea levels, has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and has not caused accelerating global species extinctions. Similarly, whilst heat-related deaths have increased with the warming, cold-related deaths have fallen even more – so net-mortality has improved. Furthermore according to Dr. Indur Goklanky, science analyst for the US Department of the Interior, ‘Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%.’ So it has apparently been net-beneficial for agriculture. Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University (after reviewing 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends) concluded that global warming would likely be economically net-beneficial for the world up to 30C. So with only 10C of warming it certainly appears to have been economically net-beneficial to date. Against all this we have to set the effects of ocean warming and reduced alkalinity that have probably been net-harmful for marine life. Taken as a whole, the positive changes from post-industrial climate change appear to have outweighed the negative changes – and the negative changes (in particular rising sea levels) are apparently currently happening sufficiently slowly for us to adapt to them.”
That there are two sides to everything, not just good and not just bad, that is, of course, an insight which - if it is said in the wrong context - leads to being labeled a right-wing populist or a right-winger or a climate denialist. Regardless of this, common sense and Aristotle already tell us that the truth often lies in the middle, that is, in between good and evil. One exception: The Greens.

But joke aside.

He who, in the face of lacking evidence for anthropogenic climate change, in the face of up-to-now positive benefit of climate change and in the face of manipulations in the records of the IPCC, believes anthropogenic climate change to be proven, not only demonstrates himself a fundamental believer who feels beholden to the new climate-religion (because he prefers to keep distance to rationality), he also demonstrates that he wants to believe in something.

People who want to believe unconditionally and against any empirical evidence have left the ground of normal existence, so they must be classified as either dangerous or as hysterical, the latter especially if they begin to submit their everyday lives to the premise that there is anthropogenic climate change that affects their lives negatively and which, in the worst case, lets their miserable lives end prematurely.

The WHO draws the line with most diagnosis of psychological disorders where "normal everyday funvction" is no longer possible. All the fashionable addictions, from internet addiction to smartphone to gaming addiction, require for their diagnosis a negative effect on the normal proceedings of daily life, e.g. avoidance of the work place or truancy.

And now we have arrived at the FridayForFuture demonstrations, whose participants are making it explicit that they're truants. In the diction of the WHO, this means: They do no longer function normally. The normal proceedings of their lives are impaired by the delusions under which they operate or by a psychological disorder that has taken ahold of them.

In this case, by hysteria.

In the beginning of the 19th Century, hysterically was exclusively registered and diagnosed as "female hysteria". The explanations for why hysteria mostly affects women were diverse and we do not need to take interest in them as research in the beginning of the 20th Century lead to the diagnosis of "female hysteria" mostly disappearing, The "Studies on Hysteria" conducted by Siegmund Freud together with Josef Breuer in 1895 lead to hysteria being viewed as a syndrome that mostly, but not exclusively, affects women, and even to no longer speaking of "female hysteria", but of hysteria as an anxiety disorder. But this classification fell temporarilly and for various reasons out of favour. The main reason lies in the variable use that the concept of hysteria has experienced over the course of the 20th Century, a use behind which lie neurological, psychophysiological conditions and mass panic in equal measure. In short: The term had become arbitrary and had been dropped for this reason. Accordingly, R. E. Kendall wrote in an essay from the year 2001:

“Contemporary understanding of hysterical behavior has been influenced strongly by the sociological concepts of the ‘sick role’ and ‘illness behavior’ and by learning theory, and attempts to reduce both the attractions of the sick role and influences discouraging healthy behavior now have a central role in management. This conceptual model explains the distribution of hysterical behaviors in populations, including the predominance in young women, and many other clinical observations, but it fails to account either for neurological conversion symptoms or for fugues and other dissociative phenomena.”
Hysterical behaviour, that is, behaviour not appropriate for the situation, is now viewed as learned behaviour that is mostly to be found in girls and young women who try to win attention through a role as a victim they write for themselves.

On this basis, we can explain our headline:

A survey among the participants of FridaysForFuture demonstrations revealed that up to 70% of participants are female. The results is based on about 2000 interviews with participants in nine states and 13 cities. This meager result that was nonetheless financed by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (and which could also have been reached by counting) is the subject of a press release by the Technic University of Chemnitz. The press release not only demonstrates that our headline: "Climate hysteria is female" is empirically supportedk it also shows the mental confusion to which attempting to make oneself servile to the Genderista leads, for as it says in the press release:

"... reports project leader Dr. Piotz Kocyba. More surprising than the age of the domestrators is, for example, the predominance of female she-participants (Translator's note: feminine form) ..."

This can only surprise those who are not familiar with the research on hysterical behaviour, but with people who write about "female participants (Translator's note: see above), one would not really expect that anyways.

Original GermanDie Klimahysterie ist weiblich

Die Genderista hat schon vor Jahren verkündet, dass der „Klimawandel männlich“ sei – eine Behauptung, die uns veranlasst hat, die Frage zu stellen, ob es eine Äquivalenz zwischen „weiblicher Professor“ und „mentaler Beschränkung“ gibt, schon weil nur phantastisch veranlagte Genderista es schaffen, einen Zusammenhang zwischen Männern, die sie natürlich und in bester Manier der gruppenbezogenen Menschenfeindlichkeit zu einer homogenen Gruppe erklären und einem Naturphänomen, das es schon gab, als es auf der Erde noch keine Männer gab, herzustellen.

Aber, wie hat ein weis(ß)er Pfälzer gesagt: Denke iss Gliggsach – bei manchen.

Dagegen ist unsere Feststellung, dass die Klimahysterie weiblich ist, eine empirisch fundierte Feststellung, die sich belegen lässt:

So gibt es keinerlei gesicherte Befunde, die zeigen, dass sich derzeit ein von Menschen gemachter Klimawandel vollzieht. Seit es die Erde gibt, wandelt sich das Klima des Planeten. Ob Menschen seit kurzem den Klimawandel in nennenswertem Ausmaß mitbefördern, ist eine offene Frage, die deshalb offen ist, weil die vorhandenen Klimamodelle Junk sind, die Behauptung, dass CO2 ein Klimakiller-Molekül sei, ein Hoax ist, weil bekannt ist, dass das IPCC (das Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) gerne die eigenen Daten manipuliert und darüber hinaus die bisherige Bilanz des Klimawandels, berechnet auf der Grundlage von einer generellen Erhöhung der Erdtemperatur um 1 Grad Celsius eine POSITIVE ist. Ja: Klimawandel hat nicht nur Nachteile, er hat auch Vorteile:

“In my Climate Change Misconceived earlier essay, that explored the dissonance in public understanding of the climate change issue, I contended that based on the best available science and empirical evidence post-industrial climate change (whether it be man-made or natural) apparently has not caused exceptional or accelerating rises in sea levels, has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and has not caused accelerating global species extinctions. Similarly, whilst heat-related deaths have increased with the warming, cold-related deaths have fallen even more – so net-mortality has improved. Furthermore according to Dr. Indur Goklanky, science analyst for the US Department of the Interior, ‘Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%.’ So it has apparently been net-beneficial for agriculture. Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University (after reviewing 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends) concluded that global warming would likely be economically net-beneficial for the world up to 30C. So with only 10C of warming it certainly appears to have been economically net-beneficial to date. Against all this we have to set the effects of ocean warming and reduced alkalinity that have probably been net-harmful for marine life. Taken as a whole, the positive changes from post-industrial climate change appear to have outweighed the negative changes – and the negative changes (in particular rising sea levels) are apparently currently happening sufficiently slowly for us to adapt to them.”

Dass jedes Ding zwei Seiten hat, nicht nur gut und nicht nur schlecht ist, das ist natürlich eine Erkenntnis, die – wenn man sie im falschen Kontext äußert – dazu führt, dass man sich als Rechtspopulist oder Rechter oder Klimaleugner bezeichnet findet. Dessen ungeachtet sagen bereits der gesunde Menschenverstand und Aristoteles, dass die Wahrheit oft in der Mitte liegt, also zwischen gut und böse. Eine Ausnahme: Die Grünen.

Aber Spaß beiseite.

Wer angesichts nicht vorhandener Belege für einen menschengemachten Klimawandel, angesichts bislang positiver Nutzen durch den Klimawandel und angesichts von Manipulationen in den Berichten des IPCC den menschengemachten Klimawandel für bewiesen hält, der zeigt damit nicht nur, dass er ein fundamental Gläubiger ist, der sich der neuen Klima-Religion verbunden fühlt (während er von Rationalität eher Abstand nimmt), er zeigt damit auch, dass er etwas glauben will.

Menschen, die unbedingt und gegen jeden empirischen Beleg glauben wollen, haben den Boden einer normalen Existenz verlassen, so dass man sie entweder als gefährlich oder als hysterisch einordnen muss, Letzteres vor allem dann, wenn sie anfangen, ihr tägliches Leben unter die Prämisse zu stellen, dass es einen menschengemachten Klimawandel gibt, der ihr Leben negativ beeinträchtigen und sie, im schlimmsten Fall, ihr miserables Leben vorzeitig beenden lässt.

Die WHO zieht die Grenze bei den meisten Diagnosen von psychischen Störungen da, wo ein „normales Funktionieren im Alltag“ nicht mehr möglich ist. Die ganzen Mode-Süchte, von der Internet-, über die Smartphone bis zur Spielsucht, erfordern in ihrer Diagnose einen negativen Effekt auf die normalen Verrichtungen des täglichen Lebens, z.B. das Fernbleiben vom Arbeitsplatz oder das Schulschwänzen.

Damit sind wir bei den FridaysForFuture Demonstrationen, deren Teilnehmer explizit machen, dass sie die Schule schwänzen. In der Diktion der WHO bedeutet dies: Sie funktionieren nicht mehr normal. Die normalen Verrichtungen ihres Lebens werden durch eine Wahnvorstellung, unter der sie handeln oder durch eine psychische Störung, die sie im Griff hat, beeinträchtigt.

Im vorliegenden Fall durch Hysterie.

Hysterie wurde bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts ausschliesslich als „weibliche Hysterie“ erfasst und diagnostiziert. Die Erklärungen dafür, dass Hysterie in erster Linie Frauen ereilt, waren vielfältig und müssen uns hier nicht interessieren, denn die Forschung zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts hat dazu geführt, dass die Diagnose „weibliche Hysterie“ weitgehend verschwunden ist. Die 1895 von Sigmund Freud gemeinsam mit Josef Breuer veröffentlichten „Studien über Hysterie“ haben dazu geführt, Hysterie als Krankheitsbild zu betrachten, das zwar mehrheitlich, aber nicht nur Frauen befällt und darüber hinaus nicht mehr von weiblicher Hysterie, sondern von Hysterie als einer Angst-Störung zu sprechen. Auch diese Klassifikation ist zwischenzeitlich und aus vielen Gründen in Ungnade gefallen. Der Hauptgrund findet sich in der variablen Verwendung, die das Konzept „Hysterie“ im Verlauf des 20. Jahrhunderts gefunden hat, eine Verwendung, hinter der sich neurologische, psychophysiologische Bedingungen und Massenpaniken in gleicher Weise finden. Kurz: Der Begriff war beliebig geworden und wurde deshalb fallen gelassen wurde. Entsprechend schreibt R. E. Kendall in einem Beitrag aus dem Jahre 2001:

“Contemporary understanding of hysterical behavior has been influenced strongly by the sociological concepts of the ‘sick role’ and ‘illness behavior’ and by learning theory, and attempts to reduce both the attractions of the sick role and influences discouraging healthy behavior now have a central role in management. This conceptual model explains the distribution of hysterical behaviors in populations, including the predominance in young women, and many other clinical observations, but it fails to account either for neurological conversion symptoms or for fugues and other dissociative phenomena.”

Hysterisches, also den Umständen nicht angemessenes Verhalten wird nunmehr als erlerntes Verhalten betrachtet, das sich vornehmlich bei Mädchen und jungen Frauen findet, die versuchen, über eine Opferrolle, die sie sich zuschreiben, Aufmerksamkeit zu gewinnen.

Auf dieser Grundlage können wir nun unsere Überschrift erklären:

Eine Befragung unter Teilnehmern der FridaysForFuture-Demonstrationen, hat ergeben, dass bis zu 70% der Teilnehmer weiblich sind. Das Ergebnis basiert auf rund 2000 Interviews mit Teilnehmern in neun Ländern und 13 Städten. Dieses magere Ergebnis, das nichtsdestotrotz vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung finanziert wurde (und das man über Zählen ebenso hätte erhalten können), ist Gegenstand einer Pressemeldung der TU-Chemnitz. Die Pressemeldung zeigt nicht nur, warum unsere Überschrift: „Klimahysterie ist weiblich“ empirisch fundiert ist, sie zeigt auch, zu welcher geistigen Verwirrung der Versuch, sich bei der Genderista anzudienen führt, heißt es doch in der Pressemeldung:

„… berichtet Projektleiter Dr. Piotr Kocyba. Überraschender als das junge Alter der Demonstrantinnen und Demonstranten beispielsweise sei die Dominanz weiblicher Teilnehmerinnen …“.

Überraschen kann das nur, wer nicht mit der Forschung zu hysterischem Verhalten vertraut ist, aber bei Leuten, die von „weiblichen Teilnehmerinnen“ schreiben, ist das auch eher nicht zu erwarten.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

These Attacks Confirm God’s Word

The fact that people like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins and atheist groups in the USA like the ACLU, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are so consumed with fighting against biblical Christianity, actually confirms the truth of God’s Word.

In Romans 1 we read that God has given man the ability to know that He exists, so that if anyone rejects the God of the Bible, they are without excuse: “What may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19–20).

God’s Word also makes it clear that the reason even atheists use words like right and wrong and good and bad is because God has given man a conscience—God’s law written on our hearts: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law . . . show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Romans 2:14–15).

In Genesis 3:5 we read that the temptation given to Adam and Eve was that they could “be like God.” Because we succumbed to this temptation in Adam (in Adam we sinned), we want to be our own god! Our fallen nature doesn’t want to submit to the God who created us and owns us; we want to make our own rules! Romans 1 also explains that because of man’s rebellious heart, fallen unregenerate man will “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Really then, when Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and others so aggressively oppose biblical Christianity, what they are doing is this. They are covering their ears and closing their eyes and saying, “I refuse to submit to the God who created me. I refuse to acknowledge that God is the creator. I refuse to accept that I’m a sinner in need of salvation. I want to write my own rules! Therefore I must oppose anything that pricks my conscience and aggressively suppress the truth to justify my rebellion.”

I was once speaking with an atheist when he said to me, “If there is a God, then why doesn’t He come and show Himself to us?” I replied, “He did, and they nailed Him to a cross.” And of course I went on to talk about Jesus as the God-man, His death and Resurrection, and the gift of salvation that He offers.

In 2 Peter 3:5, we are told that those who scoff about God as creator, the historical Flood, and coming judgment by fire are “willingly ignorant.” This means it is a deliberate action on their part not to believe, because they don’t want to believe. They close their eyes and cover their ears, refusing to believe the truth and actively suppressing it.

So why do these who so aggressively oppose Christianity care? They care because they are desperately trying to justify their rebellion against the truth. They don’t want to admit that they are sinners in need of salvation and thus need to submit to the God who created them and owns them.

Martin and Jim #fundie creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com

Here are some clever questions to ask atheists who believe in evolution. You can ask these questions to the YouTube atheists such as Thunderf00t and AronRa, and you can just copy and paste these questions on an atheist chatboard. When they fail to come up with an explanation to these questions, always reference them to John 3:16 and the Truth about The Creation from the Genesis Account (The best selling book about our origins and science in America)! Also be sure to tell them that Jesus loves them, and spread tell them about the Gospels. The atheists will soon come into the light and the blood of Christ.

1. If Evolution is true, then why do scientists call it a theory?

2. If evolution is true, then why can’t I evolve wings when I want to?

3. Have you heard of the man prints that have been found with dinosaur tracks in Texas?

4. If the T.rex was a meat eater, then why do its teeth look as if they were created for crushing coconuts and raking leaves?

5. Why has Richard Dawkins become afraid to challenge Ray Comfort and other Christians in debates?

6. Should we stop going to church, steal, rape, go to strip bars, and do other sins if it is true that we came from monkeys?

7. Why are there still monkeys today if we came from monkeys?

8. Why can’t we see monkeys give birth to humans in the zoos?

9. Did you know that the Piltdown Man was a hoax?

10. If the birds came from dinosaurs, then why have we not seen any fossils that prove that Brontosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and T.rex flew? After all, how could the T.rex take off to the air with those tiny arms?

11. Why was Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists when he was asked a simple question?

10. How did the Grand Canyon form?

11. Have you seen a pocketwatch, a painting, an airplane, or a soda can spontaneously form by itself from a junkyard?

12. Are you aware that there are gaps in the fossil record?

13. How could a dog-like creature that was swimming all of a sudden turn into a whale?

14. If the scientific community agrees with everyone about evolution, then why are they divided? For example, many scientists claim we came from monkeys, but people like Lawrence Krauss and Carl Sagan claim we came from star stuff.

15. How can evolution be true if Ray Comfort demonstrated it to be false with a banana?

16. How did some fish all of a sudden decide to walk on land?

17. If evolution is true, then how can it explain our human emotions, gravity, angular momentum, sunsets, or other phenomena we see everyday?

18. Did you know that Communism and Nazism were inspired by evolution?

19. Why has there been no “Missing Link” found by the scientific community for human evolution, bird evolution, whale evolution, or any other evolution claim?

20. Why are there no transitional fossils found if evolution is true?

21. Why is the Coelocanth considered a living fossil and proven to not have changed over these millions of years if evolution is true?

22. How did something complex like the eye or a leaf form?

23. Did you know racism started after Darwin published his Origin of Species?

24. Why do we see no half-human half-monkeys, crocoducks, or fronkeys today if evolution is true?

25. How can we come to understand Christ if we believe in evolution?

26. Did you know that believing in evolution is responsible for racism, pornography, lies, sins, homosexuality, and other sins?

27. Does God matter if we should believe in evolution?

28. How did the planets and stars all of a sudden form by the Big Bang explosion?

29. Why should we consider rape to be wrong if we should believe in evolution?

30. If mutations for evolution are good, then why are they bad for us, such as sickle cell anemia?

31. If evolution is true, why is it not mentioned in the bible?

Ferdinand Bardamu #racist eurocanadian.ca

The White race’s intelligence and behavior has been under intense selective pressure since late medieval times. These new environmental forces significantly increased White resilience in the face of adversity. The first of these was the Black Death that ravaged Europe from 1347 to 1351. As one of the most catastrophic pandemics in world history, it killed off one-third of Europe’s population. The evidence of bioarchaeology, drawn from skeletal analysis of burial remains from “Black Death” cemeteries, reveals that far from being random, the plague was very selective in its choice of victims (DeWitte, 2014). The weak and the elderly were at increased risk of infection. Given the strong correlation between poor health and IQ, the Whites who survived were much stronger, healthier and smarter than ever before. The dearth of peasant labor led to an increase in wages, rising living standards and the invention of labor-saving devices. This greater wealth and prosperity liberated many from the common drudgery of daily life. A century after the Black Death, the Renaissance scaled even greater heights of intellectual and artistic achievement.

The 17th century colonization of North America also subjected Whites to strong selective pressure. The first Englishmen to have disembarked on American soil had survived religious persecution in England as Puritans objecting to the “Roman idolatry” of Anglican ritual; they had survived the perilous transAtlantic voyage, unaffected by typhus or scurvy. In New England, the Puritans still had to contend with disease, the harsh winters and the “merciless Indian savages” that lay hiding in the primeval forests of the eastern seaboard. If the weak and unintelligent managed to survive the voyage, they would eventually be killed off by starvation or Indian tomahawk. This pattern of eugenic selection affected all English settlers, including those motivated by purely secular and commercial interests. By the end of the colonial period, the Anglo-Saxon in the Americas had emerged as one of the finest and most evolved specimens of the White race.

The purifying effects of eugenic selection had rapidly accelerated the evolution of Homo sapiens in Europe and North America: the fittest White men had always left behind the most offspring, but after the ravages of bubonic plague and the hardships of American colonization, their broods became larger, healthier and more intelligent. White men of lesser ability, if they were lucky enough to find mates, typically left behind few descendants, with fewer still managing to survive past childhood.

A significant increase in the population of intelligent Whites inevitably led to a rising per capita rate of innovation. This peaked in 1873, during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), but declined rapidly after that (Huebner, 2005). With the new science and technology, the White man was able to raise incomes, improve public health and increase longevity across the Western world. Eugenic selection for higher IQ made it possible for the White man to develop more sophisticated military technology. This far surpassed anything that had ever been developed by the ancient Greeks and Romans or even non-Whites. By century’s end, approximately 84% of the earth’s surface was controlled by the colonial empires of Western Europe. Intellectual and creative development had scaled such heights that Europe even gave birth to a race of intellectual supermen. These were the Victorian polymaths, who numbered among their ranks the colorful Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890). He was a man who excelled at every subject that commanded his undivided attention. He was a brilliant writer, scholar, explorer, geographer, translator, diplomat and swordsman. A master linguist, he spoke an astonishing 40 languages and dialects fluently. This period of continuous White evolutionary development wasn’t to last forever. By 1914, the golden age of White intellectual and creative superiority had come to an end.

II: Western Intellectual Decline from Late 19th Century to Present

The general intelligence of the Western industrialized nations has declined since late 19th century, according to a meta-analysis of over a dozen reaction time (RT) studies. A cognitive, but not an economic or thermodynamic, limit has apparently been reached. There are now fewer individuals with the intelligence to solve complex mathematical and engineering problems, which is why the rate of innovation has significantly decreased since 1873. “Genetic g” - g-factor in the absence of gene environment interaction - has decreased by 14 IQ points over the course of a century, at least in the Anglophone nations of the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. This means a decrease of 1.23 IQ points per decade (Woodley et al., 2013). To eliminate the possibility of overinflated RT latencies because of hardware and software lags (Woods et al., 2015), the meta-analytic findings were adjusted for lag time. The result was that the Victorians were still faster (and smarter) than modern Western populations (Woodley et al., 2015).

Measures of vocabulary, relatively insensitive to environmental influence because of greater overall gsaturation and heritability rate, provided additional evidence of superior Victorian intelligence. A study tracked WORDSUM item frequencies over the course of 150 years. For this, a database that stored 5.9 million texts from the 1500s to the present was used. The most difficult and therefore the most highly g-loaded WORDSUM items exhibited sharper declines in historical usage since mid-19th century, consistent with declines in “genetic g” observed among Western populations (Woodley et al., 2015).

After decades of “massive IQ gains,” cognitive reversals were observed in Norway (Sundet et al, 2004), Denmark (Teasdale & Owen, 2008), the Netherlands (Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) and elsewhere. In one study, genes associated with educational attainment and cognitive ability had declined in frequency across birth cohorts in an Icelandic population. It was estimated that a loss of 0.3 IQ points per decade would substantially affect Iceland if allowed to continue for centuries (Kong et al., 2017). James Flynn, discoverer of the eponymous Flynn effect, has acknowledged the reversal of cognitive gains in certain Western countries, especially those of Scandinavia. At a 2017 conference hosted by the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), he admitted: “I have no doubt that there has been some deterioration of genetic quality for intelligence since late Victorian times.” Flynn has projected substantial losses of about 6 or even 7 IQ points for Scandinavia over a 30 year period. Such a reversal in intelligence would have catastrophic effects on the societies and economies of Scandinavia, now being flooded by hostile elites with Third World “migrants.”

A relevant question is: “If the post-WWII consensus acknowledges the existence of massive IQ gains over the last century, how does one explain cognitive reversal in the most industrialized nations?” This phenomenon is known as Cattell’s paradox and its solution is Woodley’s co-occurrence model. Although phenotypic intelligence has increased since WWII, genotypic intelligence has decreased. The anti-Flynn effect is really a “Jensen effect” because it has resulted in losses on psychometric g.

III: The Role of Dysgenic Selection in Western Intellectual Decline

Mass “immigration” from low-IQ regions of the globe, such as the Middle East, South Asia and Africa, have no doubt contributed to declines in the average intelligence of the West. In one recent study (Woodley et al., 2017), Third World “immigration” was associated with IQ declines in 13 different nations. High levels of Third World “immigration” are always significant predictors of Western cognitive decline; its most pronounced effects are on IQ subtest batteries with the highest g-loadings. Nevertheless, Third World “immigration” does not fully account for dysgenic selection among Western populations. Declines in genotypic intelligence occurred long before the advent of Third World “immigration,” which only partially explains the Western world’s declining IQ.

The greater fecundity of intelligent Whites, compared to the unintelligent, had always been the norm, especially since the 1400s. This changed during the Industrial Revolution; more intelligent Whites delayed having children until later in life, through a combination of abstinence and contraception, to further their educational aspirations and develop their innate potential. Medical breakthroughs significantly improved general health and nutrition, which prolonged human lifespans. This allowed less intelligent Whites to survive childhood and have significantly more children than those who were more intelligent. The rise of social welfare liberalism in the 20th century merely exacerbated this trend. As Western governments progressively taxed their wealthiest and most intelligent citizens, their wealth was unfortunately redistributed to less industrious and less intelligent members of the White race, who squandered the money as they multiplied recklessly.

More recent studies have shed further light on the negative correlation between intelligence and fertility. In one study, the higher the intelligence and socioeconomic status of adolescents, the lower their likelihood of having offspring. This dysgenic effect was more true of females than males, indicating that women become choosier the more wealth and status they accumulate (Reeve et al., 2013). Among adults, a negative correlation between intelligence and odds of parenthood was discovered; every 15 point increase in a woman’s childhood IQ would decrease a woman’s odds of parenthood by about 20% (Kanazawa, 2014). The female role in the transmission of intelligence is a substantial one because the genes for intelligence are X-chromosomal; if more intelligent women since the late Victorian period have had less children than the unintelligent, one can only expect a gradual decline in the national intelligence of Western populations.

Analysis of a large genealogical database revealed that Iceland’s national IQ had decreased over time because more intelligent Icelanders were having less children. Although IQ declines per decade were small, statistical significance is attained when viewed from an evolutionary timescale. Dysgenic fertility may potentially undermine Icelandic economy and society within a few centuries, unless it is reversed (Kong et al., 2017). Polygenic scores, which capture selection against g (such as dysgenic fertility or “immigration”), are the most significant predictors of the century-long decline in “heritable g” (Woodley et al., 2018). The “neurotoxin hypothesis,” like all environmental explanations, fails to adequately predict temporal trends in general intelligence because cognitive ability is under much stronger genetic than environmental control. The worst environmental deprivations (i.e. severe malnutrition) or the most costly and ambitious environmental interventions rarely, if ever have a lasting effect on heritable g.

Most experts in intelligence, cognitive ability and student achievement now attribute the anti-Flynn effect to dysgenic fertility, Third World “immigration” and worsening educational standards in Western countries; in contrast, they are far more unanimous among each other in attributing environmental causation to the Flynn effect, in striking agreement with Woodley’s co-occurrence model (Rindermann et al., 2016). Based on the evidence, Western intellectual decline is largely caused by a negative IQfertility gradient, with Third World “immigration” becoming an increasingly significant contributor as time goes on.

IV: The Road to “Idiocracy”

Nobel laureate William Shockley proposed a Voluntary Sterilization Bonus Plan (1972). He presented this as a “thought experiment.” This would be open to all members of the American public, regardless of “sex, race or welfare status.” For each IQ point under 100, the recipient was to be given $1000, as long as he or she was willing to undergo vasectomy or tubal ligation. This was not an original proposal, as it had been first suggested over 40 years ago by American journalist and scholar H.L. Mencken, albeit in a rather humorous context. What all of these proposals neglect, and what modern eugenicists have failed to acknowledge, is the obvious sex differential in contributions to dysgenic fertility, probably because of the natural sympathy that men typically have for the opposite sex.

The low-IQ male, unless he is among the 20% of males considered physically attractive, is permanently excluded from the sexual market. This is because of his lifelong inability to acquire the material resources that allow him to compensate for his genetic inferiority. On the other hand, the low-IQ female poses a far greater threat to the mental hygiene of Western populations, by virtue of her role as sexual selector. For the low-IQ female, there will always be large numbers of reasonably attractive males willing to satisfy her many sexual and financial needs. If the low-IQ male must be handsome or rich, the low-IQ female must only be of childbearing age if she wishes to attract a mate of fairly decent genetic quality. The Industrial Revolution brought with it substantial improvements in public health and nutrition, making it easier for low-IQ females to survive childhood, only to breed as much as possible throughout their reproductive years.

When, in 1869, Sir Francis Galton made his famous scientific prediction of declining Western intelligence based on anecdotal observation of changing Victorian demographics, what he really observed was more low-IQ females than ever before surviving childhood to satisfy their instinctive desire for maternity. This trend has continued without interruption to the present, making low-IQ females the primary driving force behind the dysgenic fertility that has resulted in declining general intelligence in Western industrialized nations. No successful eugenic policy can exist without taking this into full account. In order for Dr. Shockley’s proposal to have made any sense from an evolutionary perspective, the bonus for females should have been quadrupled or even quintupled for each IQ point under 100.

Into this volatile mixture was added feminism, a pernicious ideology that grants both unrestricted individual autonomy and reproductive choice to women who should not be allowed to breed for eugenic reasons. In recognizing that all women have the same rights, feminism reveals itself to be just as dangerous as the Third World “immigration” promoted by hostile elites. By encouraging low-IQ females to engage in promiscuity, march in “slut walks,” wear “pussy hats,” and breed prolifically - while high-IQ females delay parenthood because of their educational aspirations - feminism has merely accelerated the decline in general intelligence among Western populations, already well under way since the Industrial Revolution. As Whites get dumber, their “Western uniqueness,” including their high intelligence, creativity and ability to produce more geniuses than any other race of people, will disappear with them. This radical transformation of the underlying genetic structure of Western populations could take place within less than a 100 years. Few people recognize the fragility of Western intellectual gains because of selective pressures exerted by the Black Death in Medieval Europe and the 17th century colonization of North America. By undermining Western mental and racial hygiene, feminism threatens to return Whites to the way things were before the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic age.

Helmuth Nyborg, extrapolating from present trends and projecting them into the future, allows us to better visualize in concrete terms the post-apocalyptic scenario that awaits Western civilization (2011). He shows what happens when a racially homogeneous society like Denmark, with a population of over 5 million, is subjected to both “Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (IRDS), referring to the preservation and multiplication of the genetically disadvantaged, and “External Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (ERDS), in reference to “super-fertile” Third World “replacement migration.”

When both internal and external relaxation are combined, “Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (DRDS) is produced, a clear and unobstructed path to Western “idiocracy” in Denmark. By 2072, ethnic Danes will be reduced to 60% of the population, from a high of 97% in 1979; minority status will be reached by 2085. In 1979, Danish phenotypic IQ was 98, but by 2072, it is 93, having dropped 5 IQ points in less than a century. As national IQ decreases, Denmark will be gradually transformed into a Latin American “banana republic.” Ethnic Danes, demoralized by feminism and social welfare legislation, will have no choice but to acquiesce to the destruction of their own country. Significant damage to the economy and educational infrastructure are to be expected; a 5 point drop in Danish IQ means a 35% reduction in the nation’s GDP. Democracy will inevitably become unsustainable as average national IQ plummets below 90; it will be replaced by the authoritarian political culture and religious dogmatism found in Middle Eastern, African and Latin American societies.

Belief that “more White babies” are the answer to dysgenic fertility among Whites is just as dangerous and genocidal as the liberal belief that Third World “replacement migration” is “cultural enrichment.” Since low-IQ females leave behind more offspring than those of high IQ, more White births would reduce high-IQ females to an “endangered species.” This would intensify the “Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” already occurring in Western populations. As Whites “devolve,” they will no longer be able to maintain their own Western industrialized societies. A demographic transition of such magnitude would transform Western Europe and North America, the Occidental heartland, into a cultural and biological extension of the Third World. Since women are loyal to wealth and power, but not race, one can expect genocidal levels of miscegenation between White females of low intelligence and the non-White foreigners who have dispossessed Whites and conquered the West.

To reverse the process of dysgenic selection, the White man must do three things:

He must get rid of the hostile elite.

He must forcibly repatriate all Third World “migrants,” including their descendants. Forced “remigration” is not an unrealistic policy; mass population transfers have been successfully carried out before, i.e. deportation of Germans, 1944-50, from Eastern and Central European countries to Germany and Austria.

If selective pressures in medieval Europe and colonial America led to the steady eugenic improvement of Western populations, making it possible for them to conquer 84% of the globe’s surface, only their re-emergence will reverse the dysgenic selection that has bedeviled the White race since the mid-19th century. This can only be accomplished through a rigorous application of classical eugenic principles.

If the White race is to survive, only its strongest and most intelligent members must be prepared for the harsh Darwinian struggle that lies ahead. Wasting precious resources on mental and genetic defectives is sheer pathological altruism. Race-conscious Whites have a collective interest in raising healthy and intelligent offspring, but no such interest can exist when it comes to those who are weak and unintelligent. They are “life unworthy of life”; even they would not consent to such a truncated and meager existence if given full possession of their normal faculties. From a White nationalist perspective, to bring such children into the world is selfish and morally irresponsible; they impose unnecessary fiscal burdens on Whites and use up resources that are better invested elsewhere.

The race-conscious White man is faced with a dilemma: because of liberal elite hostility to his own ethnic genetic interests, any program of eugenic enhancement would be outlawed under the current totalitarian leftist order; at the same time, he cannot simply wait out the elite-managed decline of Western civilization. In less than a few generations, most of his race may become drooling mental defectives, if they haven’t already miscegenated themselves out of existence into the burgeoning mass of Third World “migrants” who now infest his homeland. If he must take action, he must take it now, otherwise all is lost.

Race-conscious Whites must abandon all leftist-controlled urban areas to “live off the grid.” By colonizing relatively unpopulated areas of North America and Western Europe, the White man will return to a rustic existence, filling the countryside, the mountains, the forests, the tundra with Whites only settlements, similar to the Boer-only settlement of Orania in South Africa. Living the way his ancestors did centuries ago will ensure that no Third World “immigrant” follows him into the mountains or the wilderness. Self-imposed hardship will further intensify Darwinian selective pressure on Whites, jumpstarting the process of natural eugenic enhancement, just as it did during the early colonization of the Americas. Once race-conscious Whites have become sufficiently numerous, they must embark on a program of state-sponsored eugenics. This will be used to strengthen the White population until they are able to wrest control of North America and Western Europe from the hostile elites and their army of greedy “migrants.”

The new ethnostate will be constitutionally grounded on Aristotelian political philosophy and neoDarwinian biology; it will be a meritocracy based on eugenic principles. Eugenics, the scientific ideological core of the new White nationalism, is easily reconciled with the aristocratic political science of Aristotle; both are concerned with the development and formation of the best possible citizen, one along genetic and the other along characterological lines. Aristotelian philosophy is based on a linear hierarchical conception of reality; this overlaps with the dominance hierarchies of the animal kingdom and of all human socio-political organization. Furthermore, the capacity for superior moral development is improved substantially by superior genes. In an Aristotelian political order informed by eugenic principles, the state would ensure that all citizens have both the mental and physical capacity to live the good life. Mandatory genetic screening would be one of the conditions of citizenship; those at risk of transmitting hereditary diseases or conditions, such as criminality or low IQ, would undergo compulsory eugenic sterilization. Only the best and most virtuous citizens, the biologically and intellectually superior “aristoi” or natural-born aristocrats, would be the ones allowed total freedom of action in the political sphere.

In the ethnostate, the aristoi of the White race will determine who must give birth and who must be sterilized. These men are not petty bureaucrats, but aristocrats selected on the basis of health and IQ. Their sole task is the promotion of White racial survival, whatever the cost. For those who believe eugenic sterilization is barbarous and cruel, allowing the birth of children who suffer from mental retardation or cystic fibrosis is much, much worse. For this reason, only the healthiest, high-IQ females will be allowed to breed, even being massively incentivized to do so. Encouraging the natural increase of healthy, intelligent Whites, at the expense of the low IQ and genetically unfit, is the most White nationalist thing a White man can do for his race.

Some will necessarily object: “But state-sponsored eugenics will infringe on individual rights and freedoms!” This is a common, but groundless objection. The “right to procreate” is not an absolute. In 7 utilitarian ethics, rights are never ends in themselves; they exist to maximize the happiness of the greatest number and must be tempered by social obligation. Furthermore, not all men have the capacity for individual freedom. The Greek philosopher Aristotle recognized the existence of natural slavery because of the inability of some to reason autonomously, even though they may be responsive to reasoned instruction. Whether a man is free or not must be determined by his capacity to reason (for us, his IQ).

Legislation regulating some of the most intimate areas of our lives is hardly controversial; if we allow government to enforce this legislation, ostensibly in the interest of public safety, why not allow government to decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t? If the low IQ and genetically unfit are allowed to breed recklessly, as they do now, Western civilization will eventually be reduced to smoldering ruins. Unregulated breeding is far more dangerous than any black market specializing in the sale of illicit firearms or drugs. Society would be much safer if it allowed every citizen to acquire large arsenals of weapons without special licensing, but criminalized the marriage and procreation of the low IQ and genetically unfit.

If a large minority of race-conscious Whites emigrate, seceding from the leftist totalitarian state to independently pursue their own racial interests, reversal of dysgenic fertility and Third World “immigration” may be accomplished within a few generations. As race-conscious Whites strengthen their race through genetic enhancement, the totalitarian left will get weaker, forced to increasingly rely on low-IQ Whites and “migrants” for manpower. From their bases in the Pacific Northwest or Lapland, race-conscious Whites, stronger and more intelligent than ever before, would raid globalist-occupied territory, slowly enlarging their own dominions until the reconquest of North America and Western Europe has been completed. This is not without historical precedent. Medieval Spanish Christians, reduced to a small area of their own country, seized the emirates of Mohammedan Andalusia one by one, until the last emirate of Granada had been defeated, its Moorish inhabitants expelled from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

Race-conscious Whites must live, think and breathe race, just as they did during the long and distinguished reign of Queen Victoria, when Whites were at the peak of their intellectual and artistic powers. In this age of drab multicultural uniformity, the White man’s race is his most formidable weapon, a thorn in the side of those who wish to replace him with the low IQ peasant masses of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Nothing terrifies the hostile elites more than the prospect of encountering race-conscious White men bred for superior intellect and physical strength, able to aggressively pursue their own racial interests undeterred by elite and non-White hostility.

Ledev and holocaust21 #sexist holocaust21.wordpress.com

Ldev says: I THINK its worth bearing in mind the following in regard to the age of consent and the inbred paedophilia that has occurred throughout the British Establishment- in particular with the ‘Royals”-who are the biggest organised crime mafia on the planet.. Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young,
“In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.” [2]-AND King Richard II in 1396 when aged 29 year of age married 6 year old Isabella of france…KING Edward III, aged 13, married Philippa of Hainault when she was AGED 55…. CURRENTLY- usa- 1957 a 22 year old Jerry Lee Lewis legally married his 13 year old cousin…In the state of Virginia, it is officially still legal for girls as young as 12 or 13 to be brought to a courthouse with evidence of a pregnancy and wed, a practice that has come under increased scrutiny ..In Virginia itself, according to state health statistics, more than 4,500 minors were married between 2000 and 2013, including about 220 who were 15 or younger.the minimum legal age of marriage for girls worldwide reveals that the US is one of the lowest on record, with several places – including Massachusetts – allowing girls as young as 12 to be wed with the consent of a judge.

holocaust21 says: Thanks for the information. So this shows that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL throughout the ages for older men to have sexual relationships with very young girls. Thus the case for abolishing the age of consent is a strong one.

Ldev says: clearly thats your interpretation- the point i was making is that for centuries there have been child raspists making LAWS in the usa and uk and that continues today-satanists have always been at the head of this-the only connection to feminism is the Rockefeller Foundation who began sponsoring it in th e1960’s and introduced ”intersectionality”- intersectionality is the racist and sexist notion that only black women can be oppressed and that all white people have ‘white privilege’ and therefore a white woman is never oppressed as much as a black woman…complete divide and conquer rhetoric that does as it aims to do- divide people and move the emphasis away from who is reallly doing the expolitation and oppression= the banking plutocracy and zionists who are actually satanists and who rape children because their ninth circle satanist beliefs are that it replenishes them through taking blood and sexual power from the young who have the most to give them that-DO THE RESEARCH..http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ICI/director.php

holocaust21 says: What you call “child rape” is actually normal male sexuality. It can’t be rape if it’s not forced.


Reflex #fundie atheistforums.org

Ridiculous or not, some atheists do emulate their religious brethren.

No doctrine? No dogma? No common text? No leader or worldview? We seem to be living in different worlds. It's special pleading if you don't count Darwin's Origin of Species as a common text. No leaders? What about Dawkins and his ilk? They don't count? They're the high priests of vocal atheism. To say atheism has no worldview is like a fish saying there is no water: it's so pervasive it's invisible. Society never tires of using and abusing the media as a weapon of propaganda to get its religiously anti-religion across. It teaches us that atheists are open-minded and reasonable people who believe in the scientific method and who reject superstition. They are writers, scholars and experts who never misrepresent the facts or misuse words, while religionists are retarded Neanderthals who refuse to be persuaded by the brilliance of atheistic arguments, which of course only reinforces how stupid those knuckle-dragging religious types are.

This narrative is repeated ad nauseam in our popular culture: atheists are smart, theists are stupid; atheists love science; theists hate science; atheism is clever, superstitious religion is foolish; atheism is open-minded and tolerant; religion is dogmatic and intolerant; atheism does not seek to impose its views on others; religion seeks to impose its views on others. Four legs good, two legs bad.

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of their “science” and “reason.”

Technically, one is quite correct to say atheism is not a religion, but it certainly has all the hallmarks of one.

Kriminal #fundie answers.yahoo.com

What do you think of me saying there is no such thing as atheism?
Look, there is agnostic, but not atheism.
Why you ask?

Well atheist always say " there is no proof of god, of jesus and there is no proof of a heaven or hell when you die, and you cant say there is because you haven't died"

So i say this: HAVE YOU DIED? DO YOU HAVE PROOF THERE IS NO GOD? NO AFTERLIFE? NO JESUS? NO HELL, OR HEAVEN???
HOW DO YOU KNOW?? I HAVE HAD ALOT OF EVIDENCE THERE IS, SEEN SPIRITS, ETC.

DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THERE ISN'T??

so either you believe or DONT KNOW FOR SURE!!!!

Tanya "Tanya" #fundie amazon.com

[Reviewing Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestors Tale"]

Dawkins presents an excellent and informative account of evolution in this skillfully crafted and well-written tome. However, as some recent reviewers have noted, Dawkins is operating within benighted scientific orthodoxy and is therefore completely wrong. A simple syllogism proves that existence must have been Created:

Things that exist must have been created
Existence exists
Therefore existence must have been created

Another problem with evolution is the well documented 'dinosaur problem'. If the world was based on survival of the fittest, humans (and most other animals still around today) would have been killed off by the dinosaurs several hundred years ago.

So in conclusion: an excellent book despite its wrongness.

Ray Comfort #fundie onthebox.us

"Ray, if I may ask, what training/school/ qualifications do you possess that make you a valid authority on any subject matter relating to the process of evolution? I read your biography that is posted on multiple sites, and I could not identify any formal training in evolutionary biology. Just want to know why I should trust your word, over the word of someone like Richard Dawkins. I am just curious as to what your college degree is in, and what formal training you accomplished. Thanks." Joe Smith

I'm not an expert in evolutionary biology, and have never claimed to be. That's why I took a camera to the experts at UCLA and USC and asked them for evidence of Darwinian evolution. They couldn't give any. Not a peep. Watch them flounder:www.evolutionVsGod.com (over 1.7 million views).

Richard #fundie blog.eternalvigilance.me

Moderate atheists like Richard Dawkins notoriously try to deflect responsibility for the brutality of their brothers in unbelief, saying that militant atheists are not representative of so-called secularism. I beg to differ. Atheism itself is the anathema we must face up to and face down or Europe will soon succumb to the secularist swarm.

Believe it or not, atheist apologists go so far even as to claim that Hitler was a Christian on the strength of Hitler’s own words! Do they also seriously believe that Hitler never intended to invade Poland, but unexpectedly changed his mind after promising Chamberlain “peace for our time”?

Check out this example of brazen blame-shifting from atheist apologist Michael Sherlock.

“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.” ~Adolf Hitler

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” ~Adolf Hitler

Hitler was a Christian. This undeniable fact couldn’t be made any clearer than by his own confessions.

Sherlock’s claim, that Hitler was a Christian, simply beggars belief. But it’s easily and swiftly dealt with. Hitler himself refutes the claim in his mendacious Mein Kampf manifesto. He writes that “faith is the sole foundation of a moral attitude.” Hitler had no moral attitude—as the murder of 17 million people by his Nazi regime amply attests—and therefore no faith. Also, Jesus was a Jew. (Hitler was an anti-Semite.)

"John Doe" #fundie richarddawkins.net

[Hate mail to Richard Dawkins]

From John Doe:

Dawkins, you and your atheist friends cannot win. America WILL become a Christian Republic even if we have to write a whole new constitution. Millions of us are dedicated to this righteous cause. We will suceed. And then we will invade godless countries like "Great" Britain and kill all of your heathens. First we need to take care of things at home and in the Middle East but we will get around to Europe. You Godless freaks will die but then you will roast in hell for infinite time. Goodbye you loser.

jamesms4 #fundie youtube.com

After creating post after post bashing dawkins for being 'illogical' and countless tirades in which he acts like an intellectually superior know-it-all, jamesms4 drops the 'Stalin' card when responding to a previous poster:

He clearly DID KILL in the name of Atheism. He started the godless league whose job it was to stamp out religion & promote Atheism in Russia by any means needed including killing or imprisoning. You can ignore that inconvenient fact but there it is. Your argument by special pleading & irrational double standard not withstanding.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

[A Christian college student commits suicide after reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.]

Such a waste. It's tragic to think that after reaching the correct logical conclusion to Dawkinsian moral logic, the unfortunate young man didn't see fit to shoot the pretentious Archbishop of High Church Atheism first.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming a lonely atheist nerd


1. When you are at your girlfriend's house, you cannot stop scowling at her mother's pictures of Jesus. Please see: The atheist and evolutionist helpline.

2. You own more pocket protectors than shirts.

3. You tell your girlfriend that she is merely a result of blind random natural forces and there is nothing particularly special about her. Of course, this lets her know that you are an insensitive liar and she starts crying (see: Atheism and deception and Atheism and social intelligence).

4. American atheists are significantly less likely to get married than the general population and atheism is significantly less appealing to women. When you had problems finding a wife, you refused to consider the possibility that you could be the problem and instead blamed it on womankind.

5. You spend countless hours arguing with your girlfriend on the true definition of atheism and insist you are not diluting the definition of atheism given in most encyclopedias of philosophy.

6. You fly into an uncontrollable rage when your girlfriend brings up Shockofgod's question.

7. After your last girlfriend dumped you, you reminded yourself that you still have a lot of atheist subscribers at your YouTube atheism channel and your Reddit atheist friend list is quite large. In addition, your mother no longer believes you are going to get married.

8. You try to convince every woman you meet to visit atheists' websites. You do this because you are mad at Conservapedia for pointing out that the web traffic tracking companies Alexa and Quantcast indicate that a majority of web visitors to prominent atheists' websites are males (Please see: Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women).

9. You think Richard Dawkins has machismo or try to debate Conservapedians on the true definition of the word machismo despite the definitions the Merriam Webster dictionary offers.
See Atheism and marriageability !!!

10. Your girlfriend tells you that there needs to be better communication between you two so you buy her a Star Trek USB Communicator that will allow you two to "Stay connected Starfleet style" via Skype and IM programs. You also suggest that you and your girlfriend work on Wikipedia articles together.


Attention male atheists! Nerds obviously have a significantly less likelihood of marrying. Lo and behold, as noted earlier, American atheists are significantly less likely to get married than the general population. Click HERE to read more about atheist male nerds.

ClearCase_guy #fundie freerepublic.com

It's important to realize that atheism is a religion. It is a worldview. It is a matter of faith.

The agnostic shrugs and says, "I really have no idea about this God stuff. Have a nice day."
The atheist, however, believes to the depths of his soul that God does not exist. He stakes his very existence of this "fact" and makes it central to his existence. He cannot really know one way or the other, but the important point is that he believes.

Our broken society currently treats his belief in the non-existence of God as somehow more "legitimate" than my belief in the existence of God. The schools are full of the beliefs of atheists, but cannot be associated with the beliefs of churchgoers.

The First Amendment protects him as much as it protects me -- but it does not protect him more than it protects me.

Jonathan Van Maren #fundie lifesitenews.com

Real people are being hurt by the left’s New Witch Hunt, and they don’t care

The eventful year of 2016 is over, and as the holiday season approaches and busy schedules perhaps allow a bit more time for some reading, I have an urgent recommendation for you: Get your hands on Mary Eberstadt’s short but powerful book It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies. It’s only 126 pages long—I read it in a few hours—but it lays out succinctly and with beautiful clarity what she calls the battle of the creeds, the war between the Sexual Revolution and traditionalist Christianity that has been waged with increasing sound and fury since the advent of the Pill.

When Eberstadt refers to the targeting of “Christians,” she is of course referring to traditionalist Christians—those who still hold to the two-thousand-year-old teachings on sexuality that Christians have always believed.

This is a distinction that is now necessary. The Sexual Revolution has managed to generate a contingent of religious quislings, “progressive” Christians who have more or less abolished notions of sexual sin but magnanimously want to keep a messiah around to forgive their neighbors of the sins of homophobia and judgementalism. But these Christians are a very new breed. This new “progressive” Christianity is not only less than a century old, but already shrinking—a recent report noted that it is conservative churches that are growing while liberal churches continue to empty out, putting a bit of irony in the claims of so-called progressive Christians that they are “on the right side of history.”

It is worth noting, for a moment, that if Christians with the traditionalist view of sexuality were placed on one side of a scale, and progressive Christians were plopped on the other side, the sheer lopsidedness of the scene would be rather hilarious. On one side, we have everyone from St. Paul to the great Christian martyrs, from Tolkien, Chesterton, and Lewis, to Jonathan Edwards, Augustine of Hippo, and even the liberal Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. On the other side, we have a handful of so-called progressive Christian intellectuals—and who can name any? —who have abandoned two thousand years of Christian teaching, announcing with staggering arrogance that everyone else was wrong. When the weight of history is dropped onto the scales, it lands on the traditionalist side with such force that such progressives are flung into the stratosphere.

But secular progressives and their post-Christian cronies have made such advances because the position of religion in society has been weakened so much in the first place. So-called progressive Christians are really just hybrid heretics, as they do not see themselves as abandoning Christianity, but rather attempting to reconcile our culture’s two warring creeds. To announce loud support for gay unions, the transgender agenda, abortion, and the other secular sacraments while attempting to twist into a theological pretzel that allows one to claim that such beliefs are actually an expression of “Christian love” may seem to be a solution to the problem of “picking a side,” but in reality it makes a mockery of everything Christianity has ever stood for and a fool of the one attempting this oil-and-water cocktail. This is why we often see “progressive” Christians turning on their supposed co-religionists with such fervor—they are virtue-signalling to their secular comrades, and displaying the fierce eagerness that collaborators so often do.

In Eberstadt’s view, there were two main events in recent history that weakened the standing of religion in society: The Catholic priest child abuse scandals and subsequent cover-ups, which dramatically decreased people’s trust in “organized religion,” and 9/11, which made many people feel as if religion was a dangerous and toxic set of beliefs that could, after all, inspire men to fly planes into buildings. The growing creed of secular progressivism responded with its own apostles in the form of the New Atheism movement, led by the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”—Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. What was new about this atheist movement, it turns out, is that it sounded rather familiar—the child abuse scandal gave the evangelists of New Atheism fodder for all the moral fury and righteous indignation they needed for an anti-religion crusade. The New Atheists, with no sense of irony, began a moral panic: Religion poisons everything. (One of my friends and I used to joke that Hitchens did in fact believe in objective morality, he was simply offended that it predated him.)

This segued nicely into the ongoing demonization of Christians by the sexual revolutionaries. Christians were “homophobes,” “transphobes,” “bigots,” and “haters.” Consider for a moment, Eberstadt pleads with the reader, just how repulsive and ugly it is that millions of people are being convicted by smear campaigns of being hateful without evidence—their Christian beliefs alone are the only proof necessary to prove that they have hate in their heart. Hate, when detached from what any person actually feels, simply becomes a meaningless word. Eberstadt lays out, in careful detail, the absurd but stunning parallels between the ongoing stigmatization of Christians and the witch-hunts of 1600s Massachusetts. Secular progressivism, she reiterates, is a form of religion—and it sees the Christian view of sexuality as an original sin.

In other words, it is not that secular progressives don’t believe in the Devil. It’s just that they believe he happens to be a Christian. It’s not that they don’t believe in saints and sinners, it’s that in their creed, saints and sinners have swapped places: An athlete announcing his homosexuality can get a congratulatory call from the President of the United States, while a pastor renowned for his work combatting human trafficking can be forced to withdraw from offering a prayer at that same president’s inauguration as the result of a smear campaign targeting him for his Christian position on marriage.

Some may find the word “persecution” to be too strong a word to use in describing what is going on today in the West, and Eberstadt recognizes that. She does, however, detail very carefully the type of targeting that is going on: People losing their jobs, losing their businesses, being ostracized in social settings, refused admittance to universities, and finding their right to educate their own children under attack. Secular progressives are even targeting home-schooling while insinuating that Christian parents are a danger to their own children by virtue of the beliefs they teach. This fundamental right—the right of parents to pass their beliefs on to their children—is where most Christians, even those who simply wish to be left in peace, will finally draw the line and join the culture war.

Additionally, Eberstadt lays out the horrors of real, physical persecution that are being inflicted on Christians in Iraq—and asks, pointedly, why our secular progressive leaders do not seem to care. Indeed, there seems to be a backlash against the mere suggestion that Iraqi Christians, who like the Yazidis are often targeted for persecution by both ISIS and Muslims in the refugee camps, be prioritized because they are in the greatest danger. The reason vicious persecution the world round is ignored and escapes mention, while Barack Obama uses National Prayer Breakfasts to berate Christian leaders for historic sins, Eberstadt posits, is because those being persecuted are Christian, and secular progressives have no sympathy for Christians.

In the creed of the secular progressives, everything hinges on sex. Christians can believe, without controversy, that stealing, murder (except for abortion and euthanasia), lying, and swearing are wrong. If sex enters the picture, however, suddenly everything changes. It is for this reason that secular progressives are willing to hurt thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of poor and needy men, women, and children in order to inflict damage on Christian charities that do not agree with them that two men have the right to raise a child simply because they want to. Eberstadt records one heartbroken adoption worker noting that once the Catholic foster system and adoption services were “sued out of existence,” who would take care of the children? The progressive heresy hunters, of course, would have already carried their torches and pitchforks over to the next guilty charity and begun their shrieking anew. The message to Christian charities, lauded for decades even by secular sources for their sterling work with needy children and their mission to serve the poor, is simple: Change your beliefs on sex, or we’ll shut you down. Just as we see with abortion and so many of the other secular sacraments, children can always be sacrificed in the name of sex.

It is worth noting, as Eberstadt does, that this is not a theoretical question. Real people and real children are being hurt badly by this war against Christian charities, carried out by fanatics who would rather deny people life-saving services than agree to disagree on moral beliefs. If Christians are forced out of charity, much of the charitable system will implode, especially since religious people are far more likely to give to charity than secular people are. For example, people who pray every day are 30% more likely to give to a charity than people who do not pray, people who devote time to a spiritual life are 42% more likely to give to charity than those who do not, and interestingly, “people who say that ‘beliefs don’t matter as long as you’re a good person’ are dramatically less likely to give charitably (69% to 86%) and to volunteer (32% to 51%) than people who think that beliefs do matter.” Eberstadt’s chapter detailing the attack on Christian charities, titled “Inquisitors vs. good Works,” makes her book worth reading all by itself.

Eberstadt’s conclusion is a plea for common ground. Feminists and Christians, she points out, have found themselves fighting side by side on issues like pornography, surrogacy, and the objectification of women. It is possible for us to ascribe to the other the best possible motivation, while still disagreeing in the strongest possible terms. But for this to happen, says Eberstadt, the secular progressives must shut down their witch-hunt. They have to halt their demonization of Christians, cease their storming of Christian charities, and stop their attacks on Christian education. “Is the suppression of independent thought,” she asks, “really going to be progressivism’s historical signature?”

It certainly appears that way.

EvolutionismAnti-Science Lie #fundie youtube.com

Description
Evolution is an anti-science idea which not only violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but is nowhere observable and reproducible even after "billions of years" have gone by. It cannot pass the test of scientific method. The Genesis "after their kind" principle has never been violated in all recorded human history and thus is observable and scientifically sound . Evolutionists love to hide behind the word "science" to spread evolution and other naturalistic beliefs (big bang and abiogenesis). No scientists should account for the origin of the universe by only looking within the universe any more than looking within books for their origin and computers for their origin. Intelligent designers always exist outside of their objects of design. Atheism makes as much sense as reading "The God Delusion" and concluding Richard Dawkins doesn't exist just because he can't be found in his book (his creation).

Martin Yirrell #fundie twitter.com

(=Regarding Mike Pence=)

Richard Dawkins Foundation:
Dear @VP,
Your religion is disgusting, oppressive, and anti-intellectual. It isn’t intolerant to point this out to you. Turns out, freedom of speech means we get to tell you that the religion you’re free to believe in is utter nonsense.

Martin Yirrell: And remember we all know God exists.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

10 symptoms of Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder

Symptoms of Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder include, but are not limited to:

1. Feelings of intense anger, hatred, shame and humiliation associated with having one's worldview or aspects of one's worldview publicly shown to be in error. Among COCD suffers these three feelings often spiral out of control and often reinforce each other. Western atheists who have doubts about atheism and evolution are the most frequent suffers of COCD. In addition, gullible liberals who had fervently believed that Barack Obama and the "stimulus package" would bring about "hope and change" to the United States and to the world are more likely to be afflicted with COCD.

2. You fly into a fury when atheism is associated with clowns or when it is pointed out that the Richard Dawkins and the atheist community most certainly lacks machismo. In addition, you become very irate when the subjects of atheism and obesity, atheism and mass murder, atheism and suicide and atheism and deception are raised. Of course, the bitten dog yelps the loudest.

3. Spending long periods watching or meticulously pouring over the Conservapedia recent edit summary. Individuals afflicted with COCD often review Conservapedia's recent edit summary more than many Conservapedia administrators. Individuals with Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder vigorously reject the heliocentrism and geocentrism astronomical models of the universe and argue that Conservapedia's recent changes log is the true center of the universe.

4. Begrudging conservative homeschoolers and conservative children at large to have a fun page provided for them that spoofs evolutionism.

5. Excessive preoccupation with discussing Conservapedia which often involves discussing the most trifling of details. Often this leads to having dreams about Conservapedia at night.

6. Obsessing over the total web page views of Conservapedia

7. Engaging in endless speculation concerning various administrators and editors of Conservapedia.

8. Repeated and frequent proclamations that Conservapedia's death is imminent or that it has died already (The reports of Conservapedia's imminent death or death are greatly exaggerated by liberal atheists. Liberal atheists can't bear for the world to see Conservapedia's atheism and evolution articles as they detail the many deceptions and foolishness associated with atheism).

9. Feelings of anger and resentment when the many medical maladies associated with homosexuality are pointed out through the medical literature.

10. Being upset that you have various trigger words and phrases that remind you of Conservapedia such as: machismo, autumn foliage, bunny hole, Keynesian economics, cowardice, clown, obesity, exercise science, bariatric science, kitty, nerd, summo wrestling, and Olé! Olé! Olé!.

Matthew Archbold #fundie ncregister.com

[From an article titled "Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever, and I Can Prove It: 8 Reasons Why Christianity is Cooler than Atheism".]

I've read a number of stories about how atheism is seen as "cool" by many young people, especially among college age youths. That's funny to me because I couldn't think of anything less cool than becoming an atheist. So, just in case any young people are reading, here are eight reasons that atheism is the in-coolest choice ever.

8) Religious people live longer, happier lives, according to numerous scientific studies. I know you atheist types are all about the SCIENCE even though you pretty much get all your scientific information from Huffpo articles with clickbait headlines like "Watch Bill Nye completely own a Creationist!" or "How Rolling Your Eyes is the Greatest Debate Tactic Against Christians!" (Rule of thumb: if the article you're reading contains exclamation points, it's probably not a respected scientific publication.) But I guess because you're an atheist who will live a shorter life maybe you don't have time to read actual scientific journals. I mean, something's gotta' be cut out, right?

But on top of shorter lives, studies indicate you'll be more miserable too. So while your life won't be longer, it might just feel that way.

...

3) As a Christian, my wife looks at me like I'm a gift from God. Seriously, to her that's what I am. Your atheist girlfriend (should you ever get one after you move out of your stepdad's basement) will see you as a gel-haired accident in skinny jeans on a lonely rock orbiting a meaningless sun in a mistake of a universe. See the difference? It's kind of a big one.

...

1) Atheists have less children and that probably means...well you probably know what that means since you're all about SCIENCE! Once again, to sum up, you'll be miserable, have a shorter life, and quite likely less sex than your religious counterparts. And you thought atheism was cool? Reconsider and repent ye' fools. Jesus said he is the way, the truth, and the life. Left unsaid, is that He's totally cooler than Richard Dawkins!

Alan F. Alford #fundie bibliotecapleyades.net

WHERE did we come from?
Are we the product of a Divine Creation?
Did we evolve through natural selection?
Or is there another possible answer?


Introduction

In November 1859, Charles Darwin published a most dangerous idea - that all living things had evolved through a process of natural selection. Although there was almost no mention of mankind in Darwin’s treatise, the implications were unavoidable and led to a more radical change in human self-perception than anything before it in recorded history. In one blow, Darwin had relegated us from divinely-created beings to apes - the culmination of evolution by the impersonal mechanism of natural selection.

But are the scientists right in applying the theory of evolution to the strange two-legged hominid known as ‘man’? Charles Darwin himself was strangely quiet on this point but his co-discoverer Alfred Wallace was less reluctant to express his views. Wallace himself was adamant that ‘some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of man.’

One hundred years of science have failed to prove Alfred Wallace wrong. Anthropologists have failed miserably to produce fossil evidence of man’s ‘missing link’ with the apes and there has been a growing recognition of the complexity of organs such as the human brain.

Such are the problems with the application of Darwinism to mankind that Stephen Jay Gould - America’s evolutionist laureate - has described human evolution as an ‘awesome improbability’.


In Search of the Missing Link

Speciation - the separation of one species into two different species - is defined as the point where two groups within the same species are no longer able to inter-breed. The British scientist Richard Dawkins has described the separation quite poetically as ‘the long goodbye’.

The search for the missing link between man and the apes is the search for the earliest hominid - the upright, bipedal ape who waved ‘a long goodbye’ to his four-legged friends.

I will now attempt to briefly summarize what is known about human evolution.

According to the experts, the rivers of human genes and chimpanzee genes split from a common ancestral source some time between 5 and 7 million years ago, whilst the river of gorilla genes is generally thought to have branched off slightly earlier. In order for this speciation to occur, three populations of common ape ancestors (the future gorillas, chimpanzees and hominids) had to become geographically separated and thereafter subject to genetic drift, influenced by their different environments.

The search for the missing link has turned up a number of fossil contenders, dating from around 4 million years ago, but the picture remains very incomplete and the sample size is too small to draw any statistically valid conclusions. There are, however, three contenders for the prize of the first fully bipedal hominid, all discovered in the East African Rift valley which slashes through Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

The first contender, discovered in the Afar province of Ethiopia in 1974, is named Lucy, although her more scientific name is Australopithecus Afarensis. Lucy is estimated to have lived between 3.6-3.2 million years ago. Unfortunately her skeleton was only 40 per cent complete and this has resulted in controversy regarding whether she was a true biped and whether in fact ‘she’ might even have been a ‘he’.

The second contender is Australopithecus Ramidus, a 4.4 million year old pygmy chimpanzee-like creature, discovered at Aramis in Ethiopia by Professor Timothy White in 1994. Despite a 70 per cent complete skeleton, it has again not been possible to prove categorically whether it had two or four legs.

The third contender, dated between 4.1-3.9 million years old, is the Australopithecus Anamensis, discovered at Lake Turkana in Kenya by Dr Meave Leakey in August 1995. A shinbone from Anamensis has been used to back up the claim that it walked on two feet.

The evidence of our oldest ancestors is confusing because they do not seem to be closely related to each other. Furthermore, the inexplicable lack of fossil evidence for the preceding 10 million years has made it impossible to confirm the exact separation date of these early hominids from the four-legged apes. It is also important to emphasize that many of these finds have skulls more like chimpanzees than men.

They may be the first apes that walked but, as of 4 million years ago, we are still a long way from anything that looked even remotely human.

Moving forward in time, we find evidence of several types of early man which are equally confusing. We have the 1.8 million year old appropriately named Robustus, the 2.5 million year old and more lightly built Africanus, and the 1.5 to 2 million year old Advanced Australopithecus. The latter, as the name suggests, is more man-like than the others and is sometimes referred to as ‘near-man’ or Homo habilis (‘handy man’). It is generally agreed that Homo habilis was the first truly man-like being which could walk efficiently and use very rough stone tools. The fossil evidence does not reveal whether rudimentary speech had developed at this stage.

Around 1.5 million years ago Homo erectus appeared on the scene. This hominid had a considerably larger brain-box (cranium) than its predecessors and started to design and use more sophisticated stone tools.

A wide spread of fossils indicates that Homo erectus groups left Africa and spread across China, Australasia and Europe between 1,000,000-700,000 years ago but, for unknown reasons, disappeared altogether around 300,000-200,000 years ago. There is little doubt, by a process of elimination, that this is the line from which Homo sapiens descended.

The missing link, however, remains a mystery. In 1995, The Sunday Times summarized the evolutionary evidence as follows:
The scientists themselves are confused. A series of recent discoveries has forced them to tear up the simplistic charts on which they blithely used to draw linkages... the classic family tree delineating man’s descent from the apes, familiar to us at school, has given way to the concept of genetic islands. The bridgework between them is anyone’s guess.
As to the various contenders speculated as mankind’s ancestor, The Sunday Times stated:
Their relationships to one another remain clouded in mystery and nobody has conclusively identified any of them as the early hominid that gave rise to Homo sapiens.
In summary, the evidence discovered to date is so sparse that a few more sensational finds will still leave the scientists clutching at straws.

Consequently mankind’s evolutionary history is likely to remain shrouded in mystery for the foreseeable future.


The Miracle of Man

Today, four out of ten Americans find it difficult to believe that humans are related to the apes. Why is this so? Compare yourself to a chimpanzee. Man is intelligent, naked and highly sexual - a species apart from his alleged primate relatives.

This may be an intuitive observation but it is actually supported by scientific study. In 1911, the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith listed the anatomical characteristics peculiar to each of the primate species, calling them ‘generic characters’ which set each apart from the others. His results were as follows: gorilla 75; chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116; man 312. Keith thus showed scientifically that mankind was nearly three times more distinctive than any other ape.

Another scientist to take this approach was the British zoologist Desmond Morris. In his book, The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris highlighted the amazing mystery of mankind’s ‘missing hair’:
Functionally, we are stark naked and our skin is fully exposed to the outside world. This state of affairs still has to be explained, regardless of how many tiny hairs we can count under a magnifying lens.
Desmond Morris contrasted Homo sapiens with 4,237 species of mammals, the vast majority of which were hairy or partly haired. The only non-hairy species were those which lived underground (and thus kept warm without hair), species which were aquatic (and benefited from streamlining), and armoured species such as the armadillo (where hair would clearly be superfluous). Morris commented:
The naked ape [man] stands alone, marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy or furry land-dwelling mammalian species... if the hair has to go, then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing it.
Darwinism has yet to produce a satisfactory answer as to how and why man lost his hair. Many imaginative theories have been suggested, but so far no-one has come up with a really acceptable explanation. The one conclusion that can perhaps be drawn, based on the principle of gradiented change, is that man spent a long time evolving, either in a very hot environment or in water.

Another unique feature of mankind may provide us with a clue to the loss of body hair. That feature is sexuality. The subject was covered in juicy detail by Desmond Morris, who highlighted unique human features such as extended foreplay, extended copulation and the orgasm. One particular anomaly is that the human female is always ‘in heat’, yet she can only conceive for a few days each month.

As another scientist, Jared Diamond, has pointed out, this is an evolutionary enigma that cannot be explained by natural selection:
The most hotly debated problem in the evolution of human reproduction is to explain why we nevertheless ended up with concealed ovulation, and what good all our mistimed copulations do us.
Many scientists have commented also on the anomaly of the male penis, which is by far the largest erect penis of any living primate.

The geneticist Steve Jones has noted it as a mystery which is ‘unanswered by science’, a point which is echoed by Jared Diamond:
... we descend to a glaring failure: the inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate Theory of Penis Length... astonishing as it seems, important functions of the human penis remain obscure.
Desmond Morris described man as ‘the sexiest primate alive’, but why did evolution grant us such a bountiful gift? The whole human body seems to be perfectly designed for sexual excitement and pair bonding.

Morris saw elements of this plan in the enlarged breasts of the female, the sensitive ear lobes and lips, and a vaginal angle that encouraged intimate face to face copulation. He also highlighted our abundance of scent-producing glands, our unique facial mobility and our unique ability to produce copious tears - all features which strengthened the exclusive emotional pair-bonding between male and female.

This grand design could not be imagined unless humans also lost their shaggy coat of hair and so it might seem that the mystery of the missing hair is solved. Unfortunately, it is not that simple, for evolution does not set about achieving grand designs. The Darwinists are strangely silent on what incremental steps were involved, but however it happened it should have taken a long, long time.

There are three other interesting anomalies of ‘the naked ape’ which are also worthy of note.
The first is the appalling ineptitude of the human skin to repair itself. In the context of a move to the open savanna, where bipedal man became a vulnerable target, and in the context of a gradual loss of protective hair, it seems inconceivable that the human skin should have become so fragile relative to our primate cousins.

The second anomaly is the unique lack of penis bone in the male. This is in complete contrast to other mammals, which use the penis bone to copulate at short notice. The deselection of this vital bone would have jeopardized the existence of the human species unless it took place against the background of a long and peaceful environment.

The third anomaly is our eating habits. Whereas most animals will swallow their food instantaneously, we take the luxury of six whole seconds to transport our food from mouth to stomach. This again suggests a long period of peaceful evolution.
The question which arises is where this long and peaceful evolution is supposed to have taken place, because it certainly does not fit the scenario which is presented for Homo sapiens.

Nor have Darwinists explained adequately how the major changes in human anatomy were achieved in a time frame of only 6 million years...


The Mystery of the Human Brain

The greatest mystery of Homo sapiens is its incredible brain.

During the last fifteen years, scientists have used new imaging technologies (such as positron-emission tomography) to discover more about the human brain than ever before. The full extent of the complexity of its billions of cells has thus become more and more apparent. In addition to the brain’s physical complexity, its performance knows no bounds - mathematics and art, abstract thought and conceptualization and, above all, moral conscience and self-awareness.

Whilst many of the human brain’s secrets remain shrouded in mystery, enough has been revealed for National Geographic to have boldly described it as ’the most complex object in the known universe’.

Evolutionists see the brain as nothing more than a set of algorithms, but they are forced to admit that it is so complex and unique that there is no chance of reverse engineering the evolutionary process that created it.

The eminent scientist Roger Penrose, for example, commented:
I am a strong believer in the power of natural selection. But I do not see how natural selection, in itself, can evolve algorithms which could have the kind of conscious judgments of the validity of other algorithms that we seem to have.
What does the fossil record tell us about our evolving brain capabilities? The data varies considerably and must be treated with care (since the sample sizes are limited), but the following is a rough guide.

The early hominid Afarensis had around 500cc and Habilis/Australopithecus had around 700cc. Whilst it is by no means certain that one evolved from the other, it is possible to see in these figures the evolutionary effects over two million years of the hominid’s new environment.

As we move forward in time to 1.5 million years ago, we find a sudden leap in the cranial capacity of Homo erectus to around 900-1000cc. If we assume, as most anthropologists do, that this was accompanied by an increase in intelligence, it represents a most unlikely macromutation. Alternatively, we might explain this anomaly by viewing erectus as a separate species whose ancestors have not yet been found due to the poor fossil records.

Finally, after surviving 1.2 to 1.3 million years without any apparent change, and having successfully spread out of Africa to China, Australasia and Europe, something extraordinary happened to the Homo erectus hominid. Perhaps due to climatic changes, his population began to dwindle until he eventually died out. And yet, while most Homo erectus were dying, one managed to suddenly transform itself into Homo sapiens , with a vast increase in cranial capacity from 950cc to 1450cc.

Human evolution thus appears like an hourglass, with a narrowing population of Homo erectus leading to possibly one single mutant, whose improved genes emerged into a new era of unprecedented progress. The transformation from failure to success is startling. It is widely accepted that we are the descendants of Homo erectus (who else was there to descend from?) but the sudden changeover defies all known laws of evolution. Hence Stephen Jay Gould’s comment about the ’awesome improbability of human evolution’.

Why has Homo sapiens developed intelligence and self-awareness whilst his ape cousins have spent the last 6 million years in evolutionary stagnation? Why has no other creature in the animal kingdom developed an advanced level of intelligence?

Janoklark #fundie banjohollow.wordpress.com

The reason the debate continues between atheists and creationists are that their official representatives have defined two sides of the debate which are both untenable.

Atheists maintain that material created life, and this is a reversal of basic scientific truth.

Creationists are usually Christians who are trying to prove the entirety of Christianity, and often don’t settle just to show how subtle energy patterns matter. Christians who control their desire to prove the whole lot of Christianity succeed the most, because Christianity is, as Chinese say, “a pure faith”, a guide for bhakti worship…but not a detailed science, medicine and philosophy as the Chinese, Hindu, and Tibetan traditions provide.

The most famous and skilled debater is William Lane Craig, and his technique is to show that belief in God is reasonable. The beta male Richard Dawkins refuses to debate him because obviously he’d lose. Dawkins can only argue with someone set on proving the existence of the Christian God and the truth of the entire Bible, because this is a weak position.

Issues with Fundamentalism
There are many Bibles, several additions, translations and interpretations. The Bible itself seems to be a collection of stories from the middle east and does not credit the original authors. The Bible does not deal with most fundamental issues of our day, like abortion, drug addiction, masturbation and faggotry. On other issues like circumcision, it says it is wrong, but does not make a strong or detailed enough injunction against it. On most issues of our day Buddhist and Hindu texts have clear, detailed explanations. For example there is a long Buddhist sutra on abortion, which details why it is wrong and what the penance is for doing it. Confusion in the Bible, the different versions, and the texts which it copies does not allow anyone to use it as the infallible word of God. It’s a moving target, and interpretations vary so much that, for example there are more than 250 kinds of protestantism in the United States.

The one most lacking argument

The one most lacking argument in the theism debate is not handled by Craig or anyone else, and it is the one true argument.

Most of the truths we learn in life are not learned in books or through logic alone. The average man does not decide what is true by checking if it is logically valid or not, or if there is some book written by some credentialed windbag to prove it. He simply “tries it on” and practices life with the idea that this might be true, and if it works, he believes it. This can be summed up as the practice and experience argument for God.

Here at the KBH we suggest that atheists voluntarily quit masturbation, sex and porn for two weeks, meditating on the idea that you will never have another deathspasm in your life, that you are above it, that there are no “hot women”, know that women’s butts have poop, blood and piss in them, set yourself to constructive work…i.e., “try on” the idea that you are a monk and you must accept his lifestyle. Keep a journal on how you feel, and talk to us in two weeks or more.

Try on celibacy, and you’ll know what people mean by God.

poohbear87903 #fundie answerbag.com

[This is in response to the question should Evolution and Creationism be taught in school]


If you all want some answers to that question look up Richard Howard and talk to him about it. He is my Science professor at my college and he is a Strong Believer in Jesus. talk to him and he will answer your questions. but i think if one is taught so should the other one. but since school is to narrow sighted and cant see that they dont have an EQUALITY anymore


[See, this is the kind of student that a professor who's a Strong Believer in Jesus produces]

Prof.Stuart Burgess #fundie answersingenesis.org

When a false god is called upon to solve gaps in knowledge, this is sometimes referred to as “god of the gaps.” For example, if someone did not know that ice is formed when water freezes and proposed that there was an “ice god” that occasionally causes ice to spontaneously appear, then they would be guilty of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation.
Biblical Creation Is Not a God of the Gaps

Atheists have often accused Christians of invoking God to fill in a gap in scientific knowledge. Even the great scientist Isaac Newton has been accused by atheists of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation when he said that the universe reveals evidence of design.1 But creationists like Newton do not believe in a god of gaps, but a God of absolute necessity. Newton recognized that the universe could not exist without the supernatural creative power of an almighty Creator.

Newton and most of the other founding fathers of science could see that the universe can only be fully explained with a combination of natural and supernatural explanations. Creationists only invoke God in origins when a supernatural action is necessary according to the laws of science. For example, according to the conservation of matter and energy (the first law of thermodynamics), it is impossible for a universe to come into existence without the supernatural intervention of an all-powerful being.

The Bible is scientifically correct when it states that divine supernatural power is required to create the universe (Genesis 1:1) and life (Genesis 2:7) and different kinds of creatures (Genesis 1:24). The Bible is also scientifically accurate that divine supernatural power is required to uphold all things (Colossians 1:17). Rather than being accused of superstition, the Bible should be commended for correctly identifying the areas of origins where a supernatural Creator is necessary.
Biblical Creation Is Not Anti-Science

Creationists are sometimes accused of ignoring scientific evidence and being anti-science. But belief in God in no way diminishes zeal for how life works. The great pioneer scientists of the 17th to 20th centuries were inspired by their belief in God. Likewise, modern-day scientists who are biblical creationists find their belief in a purposeful universe to be a help in their work.

Biblical creationists are always eager to learn from real scientific discoveries in every area of science. I personally have designed rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency and NASA using the latest scientific knowledge in physics and engineering. I have a patent on a special gearbox that was used on the world’s largest civilian spacecraft and have been awarded three national prizes for the development of technology for spacecraft.

The only “science” that creationists do not use is the speculative science of evolution that has nothing to do with useful operational science. Evolutionary ideas like “monkey-to-man charts” that supposedly chart human evolution are based on pure speculation and not useful to science and technology in any way.
Evolution Is Guilty of God-of-the-Gaps Explanations

Ironically, it is actually evolution that is blatantly guilty of god-of-the-gaps explanations. When secular biology books attempt to explain why creatures or plants have a certain design, the answer is almost always “evolution did it” or “natural selection did it” without any explanation as to how the design feature could evolve by chance.

This is what Dawkins has written about the origin of life:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.2

The above quote is a classic example of evolution being a god-of-the-gaps explanation. There is a total gap in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, and Dawkins invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow. But natural selection by itself cannot create anything; it can only select from things already created.

When my daughters did a two-year advanced biology course at high school in the UK, the teachers kept saying that “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” for the origin of features like fins and wings and hearts and lungs. Near the end of the course, one of my daughters challenged the teacher and said, “Miss, you keep saying ‘evolution did it,’ but you never actually explain how evolution did it.” The teacher had to confess that my daughter made a valid criticism, and the rest of class agreed.

Since evolution has no credible evidence, biology books use examples of adaptation as supposed examples of evolution. Darwin’s finches and resistant bacteria are held up as classic examples of evolution even though they are not evolution at all. These adaptations involve no new information, but simply a shuffling of existing genes.
Evolution Is Guilty of Being Anti-Science

Ironically, it is evolutionists, not creationists, who are guilty of ignoring scientific evidence.3 Over the last 70 years there have been many thousands of experiments with sophisticated equipment trying to create life in the laboratory from dead matter and energy.4 However, all of these experiments have clearly demonstrated that life cannot come about by chance. Evolutionists have a choice. Either they accept the laboratory experiments or ignore them and put faith in the god of evolution. They have chosen to ignore the evidence and exercise blind faith in chance.

Evolutionary philosophy holds back scientific progress by seeking false evolutionary explanations of origins. If you refuse to believe that a jumbo jet was designed, it will affect the way you investigate the complexity of the aircraft. If you believe that the aircraft evolved by chance, you will not have your mind open to possibilities of coordinated design. When the human genome was discovered to have far more information than expected, evolutionists immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was “junk” DNA because evolution predicts bad design not sophisticated design. However, subsequent work showed that the junk DNA was not junk at all, but highly coordinated information with important functions. That example shows how evolution holds back science.

A few years ago I spoke to a senior professor of microbiology at my university (who is an agnostic) and asked what he thought of the theory of abiogenesis—the theory that life can evolve from dead matter. He said the concept was a type of superstitious black magic. The biology professor had no religious bias and had been taught the dogma of evolution for decades, but he could still see that abiogenesis was not real science but so speculative that it could be called black magic.
The Missing Link: Yet Another Gap in Evolution’s Knowledge

When Darwin published his Origin of Species more than 150 years ago, one of the problems with his theory was that there was a missing link between man and apes. That missing link is still missing today despite extensive searches for fossil evidence of evolution all over the world. Fossil evidence shows that humans have always been strikingly different from apes. Humans walk on two legs, whereas apes walk on all four limbs. Humans have an arched foot, whereas apes have a flexible foot like a hand. Fossil evidence shows that no ape-like creature has ever had an arched foot for walking upright. As with every other aspect of evolution, the evolutionist ignores the gaps and encourages everyone to put their faith in the god of evolution.
Evolution Is Like a Magic Wand

I recently talked with another senior professor of microbiology at my university (another agnostic), and he made a surprisingly frank admission about evolution being a “god of the gaps.” He is not a creationist but like many biologists can see the serious weaknesses in the theory of evolution (although he keeps his views discreet for fear of losing his job). This microbiologist told me that evolution can be described as a “magic wand.” He said that he has noticed how even the experts say “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” without any actual explanation being given and no demonstration in the laboratory. He said that the evolutionist can explain any aspect of origins by simply waving a magic wand and saying “evolution did it.”
Paying Homage to the God of Evolution

Evolution makes no useful contribution to scientific and technological advances. However, there is an unwritten rule in the modern secular biology community that after completing a scientific study (on a topic not linked to evolution), evolution is mentioned in the write-up as being the explanation for the origin of features of design. In the same way that a religious essay is finished by paying homage to a particular god, so in modern secular biology essays are finished by paying homage to evolution. I have personally worked on biology-related projects where this is exactly what has happened. The end result is that the community blindly believes that the god of evolution must be true.
A Battle of Worldviews

Biblical creation versus evolution is not “faith versus science,” but a worldview that includes God versus a worldview that has excluded God. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it has an unjustified assumption that God was not involved in origins. It is wrong for Christians to be accused of having a hidden religious agenda because biblical creation openly declares its worldview. Ironically, it is actually evolution that hides its atheistic agenda by pretending to be just science. If Isaac Newton and the other great scientists were here today, they would be astonished and saddened at the atheistic bias in modern secular science.
Giving Credit to the Creator

In modern society, a scientist is not allowed to say “God did it” for any aspect of creation, whether it is ultimate origins or the origin of any detailed design feature. The phrase “God did it” is seen as anti-scientific. But if God is the author of creation, then He deserves acknowledgement and credit for His work. And if God is the author of creation, then scientific investigation can only be helped by recognizing God as Creator.

If you refused to believe that a jumbo jet had been designed, then that would be dishonoring to the designers. How much more dishonoring it is when secular science and the secular media refuse to acknowledge that creation has a Designer. Thankfully there are many scientists today who are prepared to acknowledge the Creator despite the risk to their jobs and careers. Such scientists can have the satisfaction of knowing they stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest scientists that ever lived such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, and Flemming. And by the way, the last three great scientists in this list knew of Darwin’s theory and rejected it—a fact that secular science has never publicized.

Churchwork #fundie biblocality.com

An atheist will accuse a Christian for what he perceives to be the evil of God of the Bible for the flood and telling Israel to annihilate tribes in Canaan, but if God is not real then these are just events of nature, so the atheist would be accusing naturalism of being evil, but this contradicts the high and mighty morals an atheists purports to have for believing in and accepting such naturalism. Otherwise, the atheist would have to admit that he is a bad person, evil to the core in which case Christianity proves its point that the atheism is evil.

If the atheist reverts back to being agnostic this also will not do, because if he rejects Christianity because of natural disasters, he is rejecting also atheism which has natural disasters. Therefore, the agnostic is not being honest, for he is claiming in one fell swoop both Christianity and atheism to be false and is not open to either of them being true which goes against agnosticism. The agnostic is lying about being agnostic. The agnostic is therefore accusing himself unwittingly of claiming nothing is true which is impossible, for obviously this universe does exist.

Since no other system fits, either atheism is true or Christianity is true. Christianity explains why these things happen and atheism finds itself in a contradiction as was explained, so we are left with no option but Jesus is God.

Rabbi Adam Jacobs #fundie huffingtonpost.com

What difference could it possibly make what one random collection of electrons does to another? He harbors some subjective notion that things ought not be done that way? Well tough darts. It boils down to his meaningless assertion vs. their equally meaningless one. Furthermore, if there is no such thing as free will, then what sense does it make to blame anyone for any action whatsoever? "I felt like it" or "I couldn't help myself" should be considered perfectly reasonable defenses to any "wrong-doing." In fact, the most sensible and logically consistent outgrowth of the atheist worldview should be permission to get for one's self whatever one's heart desires at any moment (assuming that you can get away with it). Why not have that affair? Why not take a few bucks from the Alzheimer victim's purse -- as it can not possibly have any meaning either way. Did not Richard Dawkins teach us that selfishness was built into our very genes? To live a "moral" life, the atheist must choose to live a willful illusion as the true nature of the world contains, as Dawkins suggests, "no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." It boggles the mind how anyone with this worldview even bothers to get up in the morning only to suffer through another bleak and meaningless day. Freud summed this up well when he said, "the moment a man questions the meaning and value of life he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence."

In an '07 lecture at Sewanee University, Christopher Hitchens gave an oxymoronically entitled talk called "The Moral Necessity of Atheism." In it, he argued that racism was illogical due to our common "relationship to ground worms and other creatures." An original case for equality to be sure. In as much as we're all like earthworms we really ought to treat each other well. Strange. Is not Hitchens an ardent supporter of the tenets of Neo-Darwinism that necessitates the perpetual death struggle within all species at all times? Shouldn't he in fact believe the precise opposite of what he claims? Survival of the fittest does not suggest social harmony. Furthermore, doesn't Darwinism suggest that certain groups within a given population will develop beneficial mutations, essentially making them "better" than other groups? It would seem that racism would again be a natural conclusion of this worldview -- quite unlike the theistic approach which would suggest that people have intrinsic value do to their creation in the "image of God." (Hat tip: Moshe Averick, Nonsense of a High Order) And yet, like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens is very often engaged in explaining "morality" to the world. What gives?

At the end of the day, the reason that I can agree with many of the moral assertions that these atheists make is because they are not truly outgrowths of their purported philosophies, but rather of mine. I would suspect that the great majority of the atheistic understanding of morality comes directly or indirectly from what is commonly referred to as the Judeo-Christian ethic. I have not yet found an atheist who is willing to follow his or her convictions through to their logical conclusions (outside of sociopaths like Jeffrey Dahmer who was at least honest enough to say, "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth that we all just came from the slime ... if a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?"

Through my private conversations with atheists, most of whom I would describe as very good people, I am becoming convinced that they don't really buy the party line when it comes to ethics. Like it or not, they seem to have an objective sense that certain things are "just wrong" and it's almost as if those things are built into the fabric of reality. Objective morality requires an absolute standard by which to judge it. The alternative is amorality. As Dr. Joel Marks said, "the long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality..."

brian #fundie news.aol.com

one comment.atheist have never and will never have ONE original thought. its cheap and its contrived and its a bankrupt idea. it robs death of any meaning therefore it robs life of any meaning. its basically like saying that one of the billions who have lived is right and the rest are wrong. not one atheist can answer when the universe started yet it is widely known that it had a beginning. their hero richard"sheer luck" dawkins can only say it was, you guessed, sheer luck!! that is why atheism is such a bizarre fringe thinking that lacks meaning at any level. atheism never had an original thought.

greencardink #fundie imdb.com

Atheism is a religion that contains several fanatical leaders such as David Bedford (self ascribed messiah), Richard Dawkins (Who wants to de-religionalize the world), and Sam Harris (believes in "good" torture of muslims). If you read what these nuts wroite, you can see the hypocrisy they preach and the lunacy of atheism. Its like the rise of the thid reich all over again. Atheism is a religion, it requires just as much faith to not believe in a CREATOR and believe in "other" explanations as it does to believe. To all those atheists who believe that religion in one's life hinders your intelligence, well I just have to suggest to them to research all of the scientific breakthroughs in the world by people who believe. To start with, look up the leader of the human genome project.

Thats all folks!

Michael Smit #fundie petitions.whitehouse.gov

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Illegalize atheism and fund science, not pseudoscientific atheism, so that Charleston will return to his Facebook group.
Immoral atheists (which is a redundant phrase IMO) have harassed Charleston Montgomery to the point of leaving Facebook. We can not stand for Nazism in our country. Atheism is taking over "while America sleeps" (homage to ex-President of these Christian United States John Kennedy). Atheists refuse to accept Science as it was handed to humanity by our LORD, our children are becoming dumber and believing in new agey pseudoscience like EVILution. Godlessness is on the rise. We need to place all atheists in prisons. Most atheists are already in prison but the few out there are using the internet to make their presence wide spread with their dumb memes because Richard Dawkins told them to. Please sign and pray for Charleston's return to "Science & Reason Vs. Atheism" on Facebook.

Michael G. Mickey #fundie rapturealert.blogspot.com

It's not enough to these individuals to believe (or lack to believe as the case may be) what they hold to be true and leave it at that. They want to stop you and I from believing in what WE believe as well, especially if that belief is in the God of the Bible. [...]

Best-selling atheist authors Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Michael Onfray are the sort of men leading the charge for New Atheism, blindly spreading a new and far better-packaged version of a very old lie but with a new twist. It goes something like this: "There will be no punishment for a simple act of rebellion against God because THERE IS NO GOD and you are an absolute fool to think there is one![...]

While the proponents of New Atheism would never admit it, the majority of those I've encountered are not nearly as anti-theistic as they are anti-Christian in composition. Because I find this to be the case in almost every scenario I've faced since countering the Rational Response Squad's Blasphemy Challenge on YouTube.com, it isn't hard for me to believe that these individuals, having accepted an old lie of Satan's with a new twist, will readily believe another big lie and, ultimately, begin worshipping the Antichrist (as many will) as foretold in prophecy. And why shouldn't they? They presently think just like he will in the future! [...]

In 2nd Thessalonians 2:4, we see that the Antichrist to come is going to oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God or worshipped in order to show himself to be the god of this world. While I could be completely wrong in suspecting this, I believe there is a strong likelihood that those presently practicing New Atheism are going to love him and ask, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war against him?"

John Engelman #racist amren.com

Seeing the Light, Darkly

My parents taught me not to hate blacks. I still try not to. Sometimes, certain blacks make that difficult for me. I am ambivalent about the black race. I recommend ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism. I never attended a school where blacks made up more than five percent of the student body. That gave me an unrealistically benign opinion of the black race. I supported the civil rights movement as a child, a teenager, and a young adult. Although I did not sympathize with the black riots that happened between 1964 to 1968, they did not anger me either. In retrospect, they should have.

During the riots that followed the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr in 1968, I took the wrong exit off the freeway that circles Washington, DC and ended up in Anacostia, the blackest, poorest, and most dangerous part of the city. I could smell the smoke from the stores that had been looted and burned. I could see blacks staring angrily at me. I was lost, and couldn’t find the freeway. The car I was driving was on the fritz and I was terrified. Fortunately, I found a platoon of soldiers who had been sent to quell the riot. I got good directions from the lieutenant and drove home.

But I have had good experiences with blacks as well. At Howard University, there was a black English professor I befriended. He would invite me to parties at his apartment, which I always happily attended. I was usually the only white person, and there were never any problems with that. One day I found out that Prof. Johnson was learning ancient Greek. He showed me some Greek from a Loeb Classics book, and read aloud from it, translating as he went, word for word. I asked him, “You are already fluent in French and German. Why are you learning a language as difficult as ancient Greek?” He answered, “I want to show those white boys what I can do.” If Prof. Johnson was typical of black men, there would be no racial problems.

My path towards race realism began in September of 1971, when I read an article by Professor Richard Herrnstein of Harvard in the Atlantic entitled “IQ.” In it, he made the case for cognitive differences being profound, genetic, and racial. I found the article depressing and disturbing, but convincing. The New Left organization, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), held a convention at Harvard the next spring with the expressed purpose of getting Professors Herrnstein and Arthur Jensen of Berkeley fired for their research on intelligence. This disturbed me even more than Professor Herrnstein’s article. Until then, I had seen the right as the offender against intellectual freedom with loyalty oaths, witch hunts, and black lists. Although SDS soon ceased to exist, a precedent for suppressing hereditarianism and race realism had been set. The fact that hereditarians and race realists were suppressed rather than rationally refuted inclined me to think the hereditarians and the race realists were right.

Today I live on the edge of the black ghetto in one of the most dangerous cities in the United States. Since moving here, I have been mugged six times, twice on the same night, when I was nearly murdered. Blacks did it every time. Don’t tell me to move. I can’t afford to. Two of the muggings were fairly typical: while walking home, “youths” threw me to the ground, and stole the money in my wallet before I could respond.

The third time was on the grounds of my apartment complex. The black mugger was larger, stronger, and younger than I am. This time I tried to resist, but to no avail. He kept punching me in the face yelling, “Where’s the money?” He beat me up worse than Trayvon Martin beat up George Zimmerman. I had black eyes for a week, and my left eye was bloodshot for just as long. I am fortunate I did lose my sight in that eye.

A year later, I was attacked by two blacks as I walked home from a neighborhood tavern one evening. They stole everything I had. Dazed, I walked back to the bar hoping to find help, but they had already closed and the door was locked. Then two more blacks attacked me. When they realized I had nothing left to steal, they got angry and began to beat me. Luckily, the bartender, a black woman, drove by on her way home from work and saw what was happening. She stopped her car, and put an end to the beating at the risk of her own life, then took me home.

Two Sundays later, two blacks attacked me as I walked to a drug store. By then, I had started carrying pepper foam with me for self-defense. I used it for the first time on these two attackers, but unfortunately, the stream of foam I shot at them was too thin, and they blocked it with their hands, so I was mugged all the same.

My repeated victimization at the hands of blacks caused me to start discussing the sensitive topic of race and crime. One liberal woman I spoke to about this suggested I read Tim Wise’s essay “The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science.” This was an effort to refute the American Renaissance report, “The Color of Crime.” In his essay, Mr. Wise argued that the problem of black crime is exaggerated. He did not convince me. “The Color of Crime” did convince me. I have been reading American Renaissance ever since. I know now just how much scientific evidence there is that backs up what I have learned on my own: the races are intrinsically different in the qualities necessary for civilization: intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy. Unfortunately, and as Jared Taylor has said, race is an area where the more one ignores scientific evidence, the more enlightened one is said to be.

In addition to knowledge about genetics and heredity, I have acquired some street smarts. I never needed to take any precautions when I lived with whites, or poor Vietnamese war refugees — but living near blacks requires readiness. I now have a larger canister of pepper spray with a range of nine feet. A mugger cannot block it, and I have it with me every time I leave my apartment. It has served me well. The first time I used it was when a black man asked me for money. When I took out my wallet to give him some, he grabbed for the wallet itself. I sprayed him in the face, and got home with all my possessions still on my person. On another occasion, a black man grabbed me as I walked home. I took out my pepper spray. He let me go. Most recently was when I was walking past two blacks and one told me menacingly, “Give me your money.” When I took out my pepper spray, he shouted, “He’s got pepper spray. Leave him alone!”

I have known too many blacks I liked to dislike the entire race. I have had too many experiences with black crime to have any illusions about them. You could say I have led an exciting life. I would rather watch it on television.

Dr. Scott Johnson #conspiracy contendingfortruth.com

In this teaching we will start out by first discussing many of the occult details and facts regarding both J.R. Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ books/movies and then C.S. Lewis’s ‘Narnia’ books/movies.

During the 1930's to 1940's both Tolkien and Lewis were part of an informal literary discussion group associated with the ‘University of Oxford’ & known as the “Inklings”. C. S. Lewis called Charles Williams (Fellow “Inkling”, specialist in Tarot and Kabbalah & a man whose mind was steeped in occult rituals and demonic forces) ‘his dearest friend.’ This close friendship made a large impact on Lewis and his writings. C. S. Lewis wrote of Williams poems: ‘They seem to me… for their profound wisdom, to be among the two or three most valuable books of verse produced in the century.’ Charles Williams was also a member of the ‘Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn’.

There are many that assert that both Tolkien and Lewis were closet members of the Golden Dawn. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was a amalgamation of Freemasonry (Babylonian mystery religions), Theosophy (An Satanic/occult religious philosophy combined with metaphysics, started by a high level witch named H. P. Blavatsky), Eliphas Levi’s Teachings (A high level black magic occultist), Enochian Magic (an elaborate system of advanced, Satanic, ceremonial magic), The Kabbalah (The highest level of Jewish witchcraft) and medieval grimoire (a manual of black magic for invoking spirits and demons). Regarding the Order of the Golden Dawn, among its first initiates was a coroner who allegedly performed necromantic rites, while another early member was black magician Aleister Crowley, the self styled Great Beast/666.

Part 1

followwaytruthlife #fundie youtube.com

[after being show that Ben Stein manipulated video footage in order to put words into Richard Dawkins' mouth]

So you say he edited the tape...so you don't think Dawkins is in fact, hostile to a rival doctrine? I think he is...I think he's afraid and doesn't want to share the research money with someone who doesn't come to the same conclusions as him. That's what I think. and he is hostile no editing needed.

American and Republican Pride #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[Question asking what is the "Leftist Agenda"]

Well Here It Is:
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
* Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for gun control
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
* Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
* The denial of inherent gender differences
* Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military
* Legalized same-sex marriage
* Implementation of affirmative action
* Political correctness
* Support of labor unions
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.
* A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* Abolition of the death penalty
* Environmentalism
* Disarmament treaties
* Globalism
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy
* Opposition to full private property rights
* Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).

Conservative Agenda:
* Return of prayer in school
* Prohibition of abortion
* Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses and homosexuals
* Support of laws against pornography
* Support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Weakening or canceling failed social support programs
* Generally opposed to the United Nations
* Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Support tightening of border security
* Respect for our military... past and present
* Literal interpretation of the Bible and rejection of evolutionism
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Opening foreign markets to U.S. products
* Less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments
* A strong national defense

Liberals want to destroy traditional values

Chechar #fundie #wingnut #sexist caesartort.blogspot.com

Earlier this day I wrote in a previous post: “I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. Only the feminized western males cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.”

This is a brief exchange between a typical liberal, the atheist Richard Dawkins (doctored photo, above) and a religious conservative, a smart Palestinian Muslim:

Muslim: Fix your women.

Dawkins. Fix your women! That’s not my business; that’s my women’s business.

Muslim: No, no! It is your business. When you take your women and dress them like whores in…

Dawkins: I don’t dress women! They dress themselves!

Muslim: I know but you allow it as a norm to let women on the street dressed like this. What’s wrong on with your society? What’s wrong with the…?

Dawkins could not tolerate more cognitive dissonance and in his video he simply faded out the audio of what the Muslim was trying to tell him.

Fortunately, in an Islamized Europe the Muslims will teach the feminized male how to grow their gonads again…

Ken Ham #fundie blogs.answersingenesis.org

Recently, atheist Richard Dawkins appeared in a short video titled “Mr. Deity and the Atheist.” In this very mocking video Dawkins speaks with a character playing God named “Mr. Deity,” and gives reasons why God doesn’t exist. “Mr. Deity” replies to his accusations, but his answers are even more mocking than Dawkins’ claims and are clearly attempts to make fun of God.

Dawkins tells Mr. Deity, who clearly is supposed to be representing the biblical God, “You know, it seems to me that if you really want to be useful you could do us all a favor and simply vanish.” Dawkins’ rationale for this is that, “The whole of your precious creation was made by evolution and you didn’t have to lift a finger to help it along. You’re completely redundant, not just lazy. Even if you weren’t lazy, there’d be nothing for you to do.” Dawkins claims that evolution has destroyed any need for God because we don’t need a Creator to get us here because everything can be explained naturalistically. Really, Dawkins has placed his faith in his religion of evolution and millions of years.

He adds, “And what’s more, we have science now, making you completely unnecessary.” By “science” he, of course, means evolution, which is historical science. This kind of science deals with the past and is therefore not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. Now, to prove his point that science has made God unnecessary he says, “Do you know that we just used science to do something truly amazing and quite difficult? We landed a probe on a comet.” Here he has done what so many secularists do. He’s used a bait-and-switch. He says that “science” (unobservable historical science) has made God redundant, but then he uses an example from “science” (observable, testable, repeatable operational science) to prove his point! But historical science and observational science are not the same thing!

Actually, it’s only because God exists and because His Word is true that we can even land a probe on a comet. You see, the universe is governed by laws of nature. But in a random, material universe that supposedly arose naturalistically, where do set, immaterial laws of nature come from? And what makes these laws operate the same way tomorrow as they do today? There are no real answers to these questions in an atheistic worldview. But there is a Creator, and He set the laws of nature in place at the beginning. And we can trust that these laws will work the same tomorrow as they did today because our unchanging God upholds and sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3).

Dawkins’ comments should stand as a warning to those who compromise with man’s ideas of evolution and millions of years. They are opening the door to compromising with the rest of God’s Word. After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Although I don't agree with all of his theological positions, the more I read the insightful writings of a dear saint named, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman (1921-2016), the more I love this courageous man!

Read for yourself my friend what Dr. Ruckman has to say about, what has become, one of the most dangerous institutions in American history—BOB JONES UNIVERSITY—and the incredible damage they have done to the cause of Jesus Christ! ...

“King James Onlyism” was a cliche (like “Ruckmanism”) invented by the faculty and staff of the school where I got my M.A. and Ph.D.: Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C. After placing a hidden placard on the pulpit of their chapel platform saying, “Use only the King James Version from this pulpit,” and declaring at “The World Congress of Fundamentalism” (1990) that the only English version used there would have to be the King James Version, this desperate bunch of professional deceivers decided that “King James Onlyism” was a deadly heresy that came from a “cult.”

Bob Jones Jr. and Bob Jones III (1960-1980) thought it cute to add an “ism” on both the expressions above to scare Bible-believing Christians out of their faith in the Book. Then they would be accused of “following a man” and be identified with a “cult.” Very few Christians stopped to THINK for a moment about the innovative expression, for the only substitute for “King James Onlyism” for an American would be “SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM.” I mean, a Christian is supposed to have some final authority by which he makes decisions and settles issues. If it was NOT the King James Bible, what would it be? Few American Christians stopped to think about this crucial question; and it was absolutely crucial, for it dealt with FINAL AUTHORITY which, from the dawn of recorded history (Gen. 3), has been THE ISSUE with mankind.

To cover up their devilment and their true designs, the apostates offered the Bible-believer a substitute for his Book. They offered him a pile of lost scattered pieces of paper (“original autographs”) written in a dead language that he could not understand unless he attended ($$$) a school like theirs ($$$). Thus “SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM” became his substitute for the Holy Bible—the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation. This threw the hat of final authority into the ring for “grabs,” because scholars vary from demoniac atheists and unsaved agnostics to Roman Catholic monks and Conservative “Evangelicals.” Final authority was reduced, by Bob Jones University, to opinions and preferences, with the arbitrator of conflicting opinions and preferences being the opinions and preferences of the scholars who conflicted with each other. Anarchy, Relativism, pragmatic humanism. (If you want some “isms,” there they are.)

This booklet shows you how the cult of “SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM” operates (and has operated for one hundred years) in order to destroy the Holy Bible as the final authority in YOUR life. In this book, all of the conservative scholars assume the seat of final authority, and all sit in judgment on the BOOK. This Alexandrian Cult is composed of “gods” (Gen. 3) who partook of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” so they freely question what God said (Gen. 3:1), subtract from what He said (Gen. 3:2), and add to what He said (Gen. 3:3). Their final authority is their own opinion. This shows the FRUITS and RESULTS of this type of “Funnymentalism.” At the end of the book, “Scholarship Onlyism” is applied in a real situation, and you see it in actual operation as carried out by a saved “Fundamentalist.” Its fruits are one hundred percent error, while professing to have the ability to find error in ALL translations and ALL Greek texts.

SOURCE: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, the introduction to his book, “King James Onlyism Verses Scholarship Onlyism.”

I HIGHLY encourage you, dear web reader, to read the entire 68-page book by Dr. Ruckman (.PDF format), and prepare to be angered at what Satan has done to infiltrate, corrupt and destroy America's churches through a bunch of self-styled, reprobate, cowardly, arrogant, mammon-loving, deeper-life, college professors and dried-up dead theologians, aka, the Bob Jones University, Dallas Theological Seminary, Faith Baptist Bible College And Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, and HUNDREDS of other theological preacher's cemeteries! I SAID CEMETERIES!!! These institutions have betrayed the inspired Word of God.

“God has a special rebuke, again and again and again in the Bible,
toward those people who keep their neutrality in the work of God!”
—SOURCE: Pastor Jack Hyles (1926-2001), a quote from the needful and precious MP3 sermon titled: “Where Were You In The Battle?”

And I'm going to say it, I am leery of any preacher who denies the inspiration of the King James Bible. I cannot change how I feel and what I believe. I mean, there's just something very wrong with a preacher who thinks that God only inspired the original autographs, which NO LONGER EXIST! So if only the originals were given by inspiration, then we do not have a perfect Holy Bible today! I am not talking about The Book that someone thinks could have been translated better, I am talking about God's Word!

THE REAL BATTLE (MP3 by Dr. Jack Hyles: “Bob Jones... they make light on the verbal inspiration!”)

Psalms 119:140, “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” Let me ask you an important question: “Would David have still loved God's Word with such passion had it been impure?”; not on your life! David loved God's words because they weren't just pure, they were VERY PURE!!!!!!! Folks, either we still have God's very pure words today in 2018, that He Promised to preserve unto every generation in Psalms 12:6-7 (if you have a reliable King James Bible), or we don't!!! Psalms12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” What does “them” refer to? Why, to the “pure words” in verse 6.

Now take a look at how the modern scholarship-produced perversions (100% sanctioned by Bob Jones University) all change God's promise in Psalms 12:6-7 to preserve His “very pure” words unto every generation. Here's a comparison of Psalms 12:6-7. Look how all of these new satanic Bible revisions totally butcher, change and remove God's PROMISE to preserve His Words. Instead of preserving God's “very pure” words, all the new versions change it to say that God preserves the saints instead...

King James Bible (KJB)
Psalms12:6-7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

The Common English Bible (CEB)
Psalms 12:6-7, "The LORD's promises are pure, like silver that's been refined in an oven, purified seven times over! You, LORD, will keep us, protecting us from this generation forever."

The Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Psalms 12:6-7, "The words of ADONAI are pure words, silver in a melting-pot set in the earth, refined and purified seven times over. You, ADONAI, protect us; guard us forever from this generation."

The Message Bible (MSG)
Psalm 12:6-7, "God's words are pure words, Pure silver words refined seven times In the fires of his word-kiln, Pure on earth as well as in heaven. God, keep us safe from their lies, From the wicked who stalk us with lies."

Good News Translation (GNT)
Psalm 12:6-7, "The wicked are everywhere, and everyone praises what is evil. Keep us always safe, O Lord, and preserve us from such people."

...AND ON THEY GO, THE NEW VERSIONS JUST KEEP COMING TO CORRUPT THE CHURCHES!!!

READ MORE: The Ugly Truth About Today's Bible Versions

Doesn't anyone have a problem with what I just showed you? I agree with Dr. Gail Riplinger that the men behind the modern corrupt Bibles are sincere, truly believing that they are doing something good; but Satan in very subtle and clever and is the driving force of darkness behind the entire Bible revision movement. You can hear Dr. Riplinger (I love this dear lady) talk about these things, and much more: NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS (a 1:23 hour MP3 interview with Dr. Gail Riplinger; You must hear this!).
“That book [King James Bible], sir, is the rock on which on republic rests.” —U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)

Where is Hyles-Anderson College?

I know exactly how Peter Ruckman felt, because my own Bible college from which I earned my Bachelor's degree (HYLES-ANDERSON COLLEGE, 1985-1993) in Crownpoint, Indiana, has bailed-out of the battle for the inspiration of God's Word. By openly denying the inspiration of the King James Bible in 2008 (and since), one foolish man destroyed the lifetime work of Dr. Jack Hyles at the First Baptist Church of Hammond (FBCH), Indiana. Ecclesiastes 9:18, “Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.” First Baptist Church of Hammond (who owns Hyles-Anderson College) are AWOL from the battle. I'm sick of standing alone, but I WILL continue to do so by God's grace for as long as I can! I thank God for the few HAC graduates who do stand—I praise God for BOTH of you! Where are the 7,000? “It's Time To Come Out Of The Closet” (Dr. Jack Hyles; The Bible's under attack—where's the 7,000?).

Where Were You During The Battle? (MP3, Dr. Jack Hyles; The sin of neutrality in the Work of God!)

FBCH made a wonderful tribute online to honor Brother Hyles, but if FBCH really wants to honor Dr. Hyles, then why don't they uphold the truths that he so fervently fought to uphold? Folks, was Dr. Hyles a fool? Why is FBCH totally abandoning THE TRUTH that Dr. Hyles preached? There is a deafening silence heard from FBCH and HAC! Satanic Bible versions are flooding into the churches!!! What were those truths that Dr. Hyles thought were so important, which HE HIMSELF in 1994 called...

their number long before I did! I am so sick and tired of these neo-evangelical, dead, lukewarm, lifeless, fuddy-duddy churches today, like the Harvest Baptist Church on Guam! Did I mention that they forced me out and banned me from returning! Yes, it is true! Do you know why? It is because I AM RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG ON THE HOLY BIBLE. They are all shameful Bob Jones graduates! The truth hurts, don't it! I mean, I couldn't put it any simpler. This is what happens when light meets darkness, when a real Hyles-Anderson College graduate (back when HAC graduates still believed what Dr. Hyles actually taught) meets the neo-evangelical Bob Jones University camp!!! I wouldn't give you a dime for that mess at Bob Jones, nor their sorry graduates. What a shame to the cause of Christ. The gloves are off!
THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS!

skullanddrones #racist skullanddrones.tumblr.com

atheism nowadays is loads of white people trying their hardest to be against the mainstream

so you have dicks like richard dawkins and christopher hitchens that support white supremacy

calling people who have faith in god “delusional” and thus erasing the cultural history of poc whose cultures are based heavily upon spirituality and religious symbolism

it is an act of post colonialism, to deny a god that somebody else believes in

you minimise their cultural identity

you make whoever has faith feel inferior

fuck you

Mr Mannn #fundie mrmannn.blogspot.com

Atheist Extremist [Richard] Dawkins Avocates Nazi Eugenics as, "Not so bad."

Shocking to hear this?
YET, this is where modern day atheism is leading. If you believe in nothing than any atrocity is without consequence. Please understand, the greatest genocides in the 20th century were under atheist communism. Yes, Hitler used genocide as a tool of the state, but so did Stalin. The purges, political executions, and planned genocides of the communist states dwarf the Hitler Death Camps. Once again we see an atheist lifting up the icon of evil Hitler, as an example to be followed. Without a moral code of good and evil, the crimes of Hitler can be repeated again and again.

Sentiments like these are a great arguments why Christians need to be involved in govt-apparently there is no sanctity of life without our input. And we certainly cannot depend on an atheist to value life if no other atheist will condemn comments like this.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

The staunch atheist has the zeal of a religious fanatic. He is fundamental in his belief that there is no God, and armed with basic Richard Dawkins phrases, he is ready for a fight. For him, atheistic evolution is a hill to die on, because that worldview opens up a pleasurable world of immorality. He thinks that it gives him license for fornication, pornography, and every other sinful pleasure his wicked heart desires. To him, there are no moral absolutes, because there is no God, and therefore no Moral Law. He is unreasonable, angry, bitter at God, and will color his speech by blaspheming the name of the God he doesn’t believe exists. The atheist is someone who pretends that there is no God.

Robin Schumacher #fundie carm.org

At first blush, atheism and Islam couldn’t seem more different. Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural deity whereas Islam (whose name means "submission") is monotheistic and asserts a supreme supernatural god named Allah. Atheism denies any life beyond this world while Islam teaches that those Muslims whose good works exceed their bad will spend eternity with Allah after life on earth with both Muslims who lack works and non-Muslims being punished after death. And on it goes.

However, there is one thing that both the faith of atheism (yes, atheism is indeed a faith-based system) and Islam have in common: they aggressively do everything in their power to silence any voice that dares to challenge their ideology.

Now, to be fair, I must add a qualifier to both atheism and Islam in this regard. I have had dialogues with both atheists and Muslims who were very respectful, truly considered my arguments for Christianity, certainly respected my intelligence, and defended my right to voice an opinion that was contrary to their own. I have benefited greatly in discussions with such people and appreciate their correcting me on inadequate arguments that I asked them to consider.

By contrast, it is militant Islam and atheism (which I call hatetheism) that seeks to stifle any person that calls into question the validity of their worldview.

The fact that militant Islam practices such a thing is no news to anyone remotely educated on that movement. One needs to look no further than the high-profile imprisonment of Youcef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in 2009 for being a Christian and preaching Christianity in Iran. The formal charge labeled against pastor Youcef is blasphemy against Islam.

While militant Islam’s persecution against non-Muslims is widely acknowledged, what isn’t so well known is that hatetheism operates in the exact same way as militant Islam.

Hatetheism both insults and tries to humiliate anyone who professes faith in God and does everything it can to silence those it considers its enemies. For example, comedian Bill Maher has openly stated that the opinions of religious people should not be respected and has gone on to say: "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking . . . . I think religion is a neurological disorder . . . . I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality.”1

Sporting such a spirit, it is not surprising that hatetheists have no desire for any dialogue with others who do not share their opinions. A case in point is the first “Reason Rally,” which was held in Washington D.C. on March 24, 2012, with headliners like Richard Dawkins and other similar famous atheists being present.

When Tom Gilson, editor of the book True Reason, contacted David Silverman of American Atheists to inform them that Christians would be present at the Reason Rally and were interested in having a respectful dialogue with the atheist group with a formal debate between Dawkins and Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, also being proposed, he was told the following:

"Make no mistake--you are not welcomed guests at the rally. We are not going to DC for ‘dialogue’ with people who believe ridiculous things--we are going to have fun with other like-minded people. Those who proselytize or interfere with our legal and well-deserved enjoyment will be escorted to the 1st Amendment pen by security, which will be plentiful, where you can stand with the Westborough [sic] Baptists and shout yourselves hoarse.

Spreading out among the crowd is not a substitute for a permit. Indeed, I will be meeting with the Parks Commission on Thursday to discuss how to handle your infiltrative permitless counter-protest."2

While Silverman and his group have no problem erecting billboards during times such as Christmas and Easter that mock Christianity and thus insert themselves into Christians’ holidays, it appears they have no desire to have Christians "intrude" into their events.

So much for being "free thinkers."

One last illustration of hatetheism doing its best to silence its opponents is when supposed "neutral" scientists, who are really devotees to philosophical naturalism, shut down any peer that dares to challenge certain teachings of evolution. A good example of this is the current legal case of David Coppedge vs. his former employer, NASA, who first demoted and then fired Coppedge after he shared DVD’s of intelligent design with some of his co-workers.

Commenting on how aggressive the adherents to naturalism can be, paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has stated, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”3 Those knowing the history of this battle in academia will remember that Darwinian advocates only asked that their view be taught alongside intelligent design in the early 1900’s, but now they do everything in their power to shut the door in ID’s face. Noting the double standard in situations like this, Ravi Zacharias has said: “Is it not odd that whenever it has power, liberalism is anything but liberal, both in the area of religion and politics?" We can also add science to that list.

I think most everyone would agree with the argument that the only reason a person should believe anything is that that particular "thing" is true. If Islam is true, we should all be Muslims. If atheism is true, then we should all be atheists. If Christianity is true, we should all be Christ followers.

But the fact is, sometimes people who say that they are truth seekers aren’t interested in hearing the truth. There are other factors at work other than a commitment to what’s really true, and these influences can often bring together those who are otherwise enemies of each other.

Without a doubt, militant Islam and hatetheism seem to have absolutely nothing in common. But when it comes to shutting down anyone who dares to oppose them, they couldn’t be more alike and indeed make comfortable bedfellows.

ikester7579 #fundie kjbchurch.com

I'm not sure where this would go, but since it does deal with the subject of evolution on one level. I thought I would post it here.

There is currently a movement going on to get people to commit the unpardonable sin. Which is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost (KJV). Being a creationist, I have made the connection to evolution through Richard Dawkins being in support of this group. And allowing his picture to be used to promote the cause. Dawkins has more or less become the poster boy for any hate towards Christians being spewed from the interbet, or his published books.

And because this hate is not really scientific in any way. It leaves the only thing left that every atheist believes that is doing this, which is Evolution. What this proves is why Hitler did what he did through evolution. And why this same hate is now brewing on the same level through several websites who promote the same subject to one degree or another.

It is estimated that around 3,000 teenagers go to this site to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and deny God. In hopes they will lock themselves into a hell they can never be dragged out of. The owner of this site actually targets teens as he puts adds on teen sites. His goal? To eliminate the Christian way of thinking in ten years.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/index.html

It's about half way down that page. This actually proves that what Hitler did was mainly based on the evolution theory.

Connor R #fundie debunkedevil.blogspot.com

[Someone attempting to debunk this webpage http://www.evilbible.com/common_lies.htm]

CTS- Common Lies Christians Tell
Ok, a few apparent lies that Christians tell. For the sake of being thorough I'll go through all of them, even the ones mentioned in the introduction. Before I begin, I'd like to make a point about lying. A lie is defined as "a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive". This means that Charlotte is accusing Christians of, completely on purpose, deceiving everyone that they discuss the following topics. That is one large accusation. I would contend that most, if not all, Christians don't fully understand the Einstein, Darwin, or American topics. Now I'll begin the explanations.

Einstein

This is a hotly debated issue. I'm not sure whether or not there is enough evidence to say it one way or another, but there are two basic conflicting views. Richard Dawkins (wrote "The God Delusion") sees Einstein as a pantheist, which he goes on to say is basically "sexed-up" atheism. He believes Einstein's use of the word 'God' was always used only in a poetic and metaphorical sense. On the other side of the issue, Susan Wise Bauer (wrote "The Well-Trained Mind") doesn't try to portray Einstein as a Christian, but argues that Einstein believes in one god and had a tendency toward deism. This view basically portrays God as a universal clock-maker, who winds everything up and then lets it tick without interfering. So those are the differing views, I'll post a few links below so you can see both sides. What we can say about Einstein is that he absolutely believed in the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. He also believed that religion and science can cooperate, they are not in contention.

Evidence for Jesus's Existence

First of all, the Bible is absolutely reliable as a historical document. Archeologists frequently discover artifacts that confirm the events recorded in the Bible. For a video on these findings click here. The writings of Josephus, a Roman citizen who lives from c. 37-100 wrote about Jesus. He calls him "a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man", and says that he performs paradoxes and won over many Jews and Greeks. He even calls him the Christ. In a later writing, he also calls James the "brother of Jesus, who is the Christ". Many other early scholars reference "Christus", a Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". Justin Martyr mentioned an "Acts of Pilate", a record of some cases Pilate was involved in, but only Tertullian also mentions this. The evidence for the Bible and Jesus's historicity is to numerous to do more than touch on, so look around for yourself.

Darwin Recanted on his Deathbed

I don't believe this to be true. There is very little evidence for this. This story became popular when it was preached by an evangelical woman named "Lady Hope". She may have visited Darwin, but if she did it is most likely that she did so around 7 months before his death. At this point in time he would not have been bedridden as she had said, and therefore was unlikely that he was studying the Bible then. As Charlotte said, his daughter opposed this and his wife made no comment on it. It's likely she would have, as she was worried about the "godless nature" of his views. This doesn't rule it out entirely, but it doesn't have the background to be stated as fact.

Evolution is false (or only a theory)

This is an interesting one for sure. I agree that micro-evolution is as close to a fact as you can get with our limited knowledge. All it does is explain the variation we see every day as humans. Charlotte goes on to admit that "macro evolution remains a theory", and then contends that it is a fact (by saying "EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN"). I know a certain line of resources (look to the right) that would contend otherwise, and with scientific observations of their own. The theory of evolution by natural selection is at this point in time filled with far too many holes to be assumed to be a scientific fact. I'm also going to stray away from saying it is a flat-out falsity because of the evidence on the other side of it. Hopefully time will tell, but for now, Christians saying it's only a theory aren't lying.

Atheists Have No Morals

Once again, Charlotte using a statistic to prove her point and does not give a source for it. It is a gross generalization to say that no atheist alive has morals, so I don't agree with this statement. I do, however, take issue with Charlotte's accusations that Christians cause true immorality (genocide, slavery, etc). I've already disproved the slavery point, see here. I've also argued many times that genocide is not often caused by Christians, but when it is there are absolutely not following the Bible's teaching. The only wars backed by God were against societies taking part in extreme immorality (demon worship, human sacrifice, sodomy, etc).

Regarding women's suffrage, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union was one of the most influential groups pushing women's rights. Eleanor Roosevelt, a huge influential leader, was a theist (although not a Christian). The Christians who believed that women should not vote misunderstood the historical context of verses like 1 Corinthians 14.35 and Colossians 3.18. Women do have a different God-given role than men, but that is a different topic.

Back to atheists' morals. The Bible teaches that "the Law is written on our hearts" (Romans 2). This would imply that every person, unless their conscience has been severely fragmented by sin, has a basic moral awareness. Furthermore, many values consistent with Christianity are encouraged in our society. However, an argument exists that atheism, if left unchecked, will cause moral deprivation. If there is no God, there exists no standard for ethics beyond what is helpful for society. When no objective standard exists, it is easier to argue that choices like homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, prostitution, etc can do no material harm to society. In fact, one of the only atheists against gay marriage is Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who has been labeled a hypocrite by fellow atheists. Food for thought.

United States Founded on Christianity

Charlotte is correct here, but I'm going to add some perspective. There is no disputing the fact that the majority of the founding fathers and colonists at the time were Christians. This means that America was founded on a number of biblical Christian values (equality, respect, etc). However, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all deists. They believed in a generic god, but did not accept orthodox Christianity. Charlotte is correct, one of the principle reasons for the voyage to America was freedom of religion. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: State sponsorship is not conducive to a strong Christian faith. There's no need for Christians to push this idea. This "lie" is likely based on ignorance, not deception, I've not met one Christian who knows the information I just posted above. Atheists, please inform my brothers of this respectfully, there are not lying to you.

There Are No Atheists In Foxholes

You can wikipedia this to understand it. This is meant as an expression, not a statistical fact. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, which Charlotte referenced, stands against the use of this as a statistic. It's simply meant to show that many people re-evaluate their positions on God's existence when under circumstances of extreme stress. This common idea is backed up by the experiences of people who encounter NDEs, or Near-death experiences. I've posted a link below for some information about atheists in particular who encounter this phenomenon.

Near-death experiences: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html
Einstein opinions:
http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/02/08/was-albert-einstein-religious/
Historicity of Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources
Julia Gillard: http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/atheists_against_gay_marriage

Richard Shumack #fundie biblesociety.org.au

Who holds extraordinary beliefs: Christians or atheists?

OPINION | Richard Shumack
September 2015

Australia recently hosted a lecture tour by noted celebrity atheist Peter Boghossian. Peter is part of Richard Dawkins’ speaking team and notorious for his book A Manual for Creating Atheists. I had the privilege of being invited to join him on stage in a public discussion of his ideas. This was challenging because, like Dawkins, Boghossian thinks that Christians are highly defective in the ways they come to their beliefs about God. So defective, in fact, that they can be regarded as having some sort of mental illness.

In defence of this bold claim Boghossian puts forward a central big idea: to get sensible beliefs you need to use reliable ways of knowing. Peter illustrates this using an instance from his life where he needed to work out the size of a broken door in his house. He suggests that if you want to know this reliably then you shouldn’t ask your dog, shouldn’t use divination and you shouldn’t offer a goat as a sacrifice. Instead, you should use a tape measure. And fair enough. You won’t be surprised to hear that, in my part-time job as a surveyor, tapes are my go-to device for finding out the size of doors.
The general idea aside, this illustration is not great. It doesn’t recognise the complexities of knowing in real life. So sometimes asking dogs can be a good way to find things out. My dog loves tennis balls, and her sense of smell is so acute that she can find them in closed cupboards or under beds. She knows the words “find” and “ball” and will do so on command. She is the most reliable method I have for knowing where hidden tennis balls are! More to the point, however, I don’t know anyone who actually tries to measure distance using dogs or divination. Similarly, my hunch is that goat sacrifice isn’t about finding out things at all – it’s more likely to be about appeasement. Nevertheless, despite the weakness of the illustration, Boghossian’s key idea is well made. We should know using reliable methods. Where he goes wrong, however, is to then go on to say that the only reliable way of knowing things is via the scientific method. In other words the only beliefs that are sensible are ones based on reasoning from objective evidence – ideally in laboratory conditions.

Now I agree that reasoning from objective evidence is a very good way of knowing lots of things. Especially scientific things like door sizes. But just a little reflection reveals that it is not the only way we know things. In everyday life we know things through a whole range of different methods. We know some things, like the fact that child abuse is wrong, intuitively. We know some things, like I have a headache, from personal experience. We can know some things, like riding a bike, through just doing it. And we know some things – and probably most things – through other people telling us. So, aside from a few monuments, everything we know about the past is based on eyewitness testimony. Similarly, most of what we know of our friends is from their personal testimonies. In fact, a few experts aside, pretty much all we know about science comes from what our teachers tell us.
The upshot of this is that reasoning from objective evidence is well and good. But it really doesn’t give us enough knowledge about so many important things in life like other people, morality, experiences and history. We know these things in so many other ways that are also well and good, ordinary and necessary.
Here’s an example. An ancestor of mine was one of the earliest European settlers in the Canberra area. Near the end of his life he produced an oral history of those early years. It’s a great read, full of stories about bushrangers, cricket, family and friendships with, and injustices suffered by, the local Aborigines. Now, not one single thing in this book can be proven scientifically. But it is still completely reasonable for me to say that I know my family history, and that the only way I can know it is through this sort of eyewitness testimony.
In arguing for the sole reliability of scientific knowledge, Boghossian is wrongly arguing for a position that he holds in common with most of the so-called New Atheists. Philosophers call this “scientism” and almost to a person they recognise that it is a silly position to hold. Atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci says that “what really characterises the New Atheism, as distinct from previous versions of atheism, is its marked turn toward scientism … I maintain – as a scientist and philosopher – that such a move has been a bad one for public atheism, [because] scientism is philosophically unsound.” Indeed it is really only the militant New Atheists who like to argue for it. It is easy to see why they try though. Since the existence of God or the supernatural can’t be conclusively proven by the scientific method, people who follow “scientism” can then argue that belief in such things is baseless and probably delusional.

Scientism is revealed to be an extraordinary and unsustainable way of thinking about knowledge, whereas Christian belief is based on all the ordinary ways of knowing. Christians sensibly ground so many of their ethical and existential beliefs in intuition. Christians put their faith in Jesus in large part based on the eyewitness testimony to the historical events of his life, death and resurrection. Christians know God personally through the presence of the Holy Spirit and they experience his power through miracles like healing and visions.
Of course, Christian belief in these things is extraordinary. But it is extraordinary because God is extraordinary. The way we come to these beliefs is remarkably ordinary, and it’s on account of that “ordinariness” that it is reliable.

Richard is a part-time Research Fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity. He is also Director of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at Melbourne School of Theology, and part of the Understanding and Answering Islam team for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

radorth #fundie christianforums.com

C.S Lewis married his wife Joy when he was in his fifties. Their marriage was a truly happy one by all accounts. Lewis says they "feasted on love." Soon after they were married Joy got bone cancer which meant certain death within a few months. But Lewis asked a certain minister to pray for her, and not only was she healed, but bones which were eaten away showed clear signs of being regenerated. In any case all concernd including doctors believed they had seen a miracle. Joy lived for two more years.

Lewis was of course overjoyed at the miracle and the extra years with Joy.

But when Joy died, he referred to God as a "cosmic sadist" in his anger and grief.

This is a perfect example of the Spoiled Brat Principle. We are so entirely lost and ungrateful that even the greatest Christian apologist will complain- in spite of seeing a miracle.

Questions:

1. Why would God want to heal anyone if he gets called names by Christians anyway?

2. Why should we believe all the skeptics need is proof, when it makes little difference to Christians thenselves?

3. Why should we believe a skeptic would not behave as Lewis did- or worse, at first very grateful to God, and then calling him names?

4. If Jesus came back and healed all the terminally ill patients in the world for two years, you would do what exactly, and for how long?

[...]

BTW, this thread neatly nullifies the "Why does God hate amputees?" and other rhetorical questions.

kirkz2006@yahoo.com #fundie groups.yahoo.com

Intelligent design is a reality.

There is greater complexity in life forms than mankind has the intelligence to duplicate and complexity that has only been observed to the result of intelligence.

Even Richard Dawkins concedes the evidence for ID. He tries to pass it off as the work of space aliens.

I predict that is where secularists will go in the future -- the creator of life on the planet is aliens. Anything to deny the possibility of God.

KZ

Lance Welton #racist unz.com

Dysgenics and Low Creativity: Why China Can’t Save Civilization

It’s possible to derive some comfort from contemplating the Chinese. Sure, unless something radical is done, Western civilization is going to collapse due to the most intelligent women having the fewest children and massive IQ (and highly fertile) immigration from the Third World [See At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future, By Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie] but surely civilization will be preserved by the Chinese. Unfortunately, research is showing that this is just wishful thinking.

Thus the leading IQ researcher Professor Richard Lynn actually proclaimed in his book Dysgenics that China’s one child policy—introduced in 1979 and abolished in 2015—was the saviour of civilization. The strongly cultural desire in China for a boy and the abortion of female fetuses, meant that by the late-1990s, young males massively out-numbered females in China, showed Lynn. The females would naturally be attracted to the wealthiest and most educated males, as these males would be able to provide the optimum lifestyle for them and, anyway, females tend to sexually select for status because doing so, under evolutionary conditions, ensured the survival of their offspring [Women marry up, By Edward Dutton, In T. Shackleford, & V. Shackleford-Weeks,Encyclopaedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, Springer, 2018]. The inevitable result, argued Lynn: less intelligent Chinese men would fail to breed, as intelligence robustly predicts wealth and status and is about 80% genetic. In addition, the ability to pay the fines for breaking the One-Child law would allow the wealthy, and thus more intelligent, to have more than one child. As such, concluded Lynn China must have “eugenic fertility” and it is to China that the “torch of civilization” will pass. [Richard Lynn: “Eugenics and Dysgenics: A Promise Denied”, YouTube, at 42 minutes]

Unfortunately, this is not what research by a young Chinese psychologist has found. In a study published in 2016 in the leading journal Intelligence, Mingrui Wang presented some shocking—and counter-intuitive—findings. Even despite the one child policy, there is dysgenic fertility in China. [Evidence of Dysgenic Fertility in China, by Mingrui Wang et al, Intelligence, July-August 2016]

The Chinese researcher and his team explored the relationship between intelligence, education-level and fertility, using a large sample from the China Family Panel dataset, which is highly representative of the Chinese population. They found that among the cohort born between 1951 and 1970, the correlation between general intelligence and fertility was -0.1, very similar to that found in Western countries.

Between 1986 and the year 2000, the Chinese lost 0.31 IQ points per decade and between 1971 and the year 2000, the Chinese lost 0.75 IQ points.

The researchers also discovered that education level is negatively associated with fertility in China. And the negative correlation between fertility and both IQ and education level is stronger among females than males.

In other words, though the Chinese have an average IQ of 105 according to Richard Lynn, and despite their introduction of the One-Child policy, they are suffering precisely the same process as the West. The most intelligent females are not selecting for the most intelligent Chinese males or, indeed, any males. As in the West, they are dedicating themselves to their education and then their careers, meaning they are simply failing to pass on their genes at all.

In addition, the strong cultural tradition in China—especially in the low IQ countryside – of desiring sons rather than daughters, leading to selective abortion, is dual-edged. The more intelligent Chinese, living in the cities, are more likely to content themselves with having a daughter. And the more intelligent she is, the more likely she is to have no children, leading to the elimination of her (intelligent) parents’ genes. It is possible that this phenomenon could even be sufficiently strong to undermine any indirect benefits to IQ which may have been wrought by the one child policy.

Slightly less intelligent women are spending all of their twenties dedicated to their careers, only have children in their thirties and not having very many. The least intelligent Chinese women—too low in IQ and impulsive to use contraception—are, it would seem, having excess children even despite the fines and the risk of heavy-handed Communist Party officials (illegally) trying to compel them to have abortions []. Perhaps their husbands see the fines as a price worth paying if it ensures that they get a son.

In addition, the one child policy never even applied to China’s non-Han ethnic minorities. These groups are overwhelmingly rural-dwelling and they have lower IQ than the Han. The more Han a Chinese region is then the smarter it is [Differences in intelligence across the 31 regions of China and their economic and demographic correlates, By Richard Lynn & Helen Cheng, Intelligence, 2013]. For example, the average IQ of Tibetans in 92 [I Q and Mathematics Ability of Tibetans and Han Chinese, By Richard Lynn, Mankind Quarterly], meaning their IQ is almost 15 points lower than that of the Han, similar to that of Greece or Romania. [Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences, By Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2012]

This decline is made all the more perilous due to research, led by a Japanese psychologist called Kenya Kura, which has shown that Northeast Asians are genetically less intellectually creative than Europeans. [Why do Northeast Asians Win So Few Nobel Prizes?, By Kenya Kura et al., Comprehensive Psychology, 4: 2015] Northeast Asians, compared to Europeans, have higher gene frequencies of polymorphisms which make people collectivist, socially anxious, and fearful of anything novel. Kura and his team argue that this is adaptation to a particular ecology, where it is vital to stay in a tightly-bonded group.

However, they note that scientific innovators tend to combine very high IQ with an optimally low level of collectivism, low social anxiety and low fearfulness of the new. In other words, they have high “Openness-Intellec t”, as psychologists term this trait. This psychological profile means that they can think outside the box and don’t care about the offence to vested interests which their new idea will almost certainly result in.

This is why, maintains Kura, it is the West that generated the Industrial Revolution, rather than more intelligent Northeast Asians. The West is indeed the Goldilocks Zone for genius.

“The torch of civilization” may well pass to China, but it will continue to get dimmer and dimmer and very little new fuel will be added to it. The torch’s bearer will slide into an increasingly authoritarian dictatorship—as happens to relatively low IQ societies—and the light of civilization will go out, unless it can somehow be passed to a society that is still under eugenic fertility.

Fred the Bus Driver #fundie haloscan.com

What Garvan says about the guy in Missouri is true. It happened in one of our churches in a neighboring congregation.

His parents were homeschooling him and carefully selecting readings that accorded with the Christian worldview. Their first mistake came when they allowed him to read the Narnia books, which they thought reflected the Bible despite the magical elements. I can't remember exactly how he got his hands on Harry Potter, but it was something like he went to a bookstore one time with an auntie who asked him what kinds of books he liked, and he said "Narnia", so she bought him a Harry Potter book.

That night, he awoke in a cold sweat screaming. His parents kept asking him was what the matter and he replied using strange words that they hadn't heard before. Under the covers of his bed they found one of the Harry Potter books, he had read about three-fourths of it. He wasn't able to function normally and his parents sent him to a Christian counsellor, who suggested sending him to a Christian camp for psychologically-disturbed children.

When Pastor K came to hear of this story, he related it to us in a memorable sermon called "Hogwarts: Hogwash". He also told us that there is a homosexual character in the books, which hardly seems appropriate for children. And he said that even though Lewis and Tolkien claimed to be Christians, we should not be wary of letting our children read their books or watch the films, because children may confuse fantasy with reality. (e.g. many children poke around in the wardrobe after reading C.s. Lewis, hoping to find a magical kingdom there, just as children try summoning up the Devil after reading Harry Potter) I myself read Lewis and Tolkien and enjoyed them before I was saved, but if Nancy and I are lucky enough to be blessed with children, we will not be permitting our children to read this material. Any other parent should think hard before sending their children into this world of uncertainty.

Eric hyde's Blog #conspiracy ehyde.wordpress.com

I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore, and for good reason.

It was in atheist chat-rooms and blogs that I first cut my teeth in theology many years ago. Since those days I have not heard anything new from atheists.

It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title ‘New Atheists’ to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion. To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.

However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most. My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sides—atheists and Christians alike—to move on to more interesting debate material.

One additional note: another reason I do not enter into the atheist-Christian debate world much anymore is because of the sheer discourtesy that both sides tend to show the other. I will not delete any comments, no matter how uncivil or juvenile they become, because, for me, it is an important part of the article. The responses (if there are any) will demonstrate the current state of atheist vs. Christian banter. Also, I will not respond to rude posts. This is advanced warning so please don’t think me rude as well if I ignore them.

Okay, here we go:

1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

There are a couple of problems with this line. Starting with the idea of ‘evidence,’ what exactly does one mean by evidence? What is sufficient evidence for one person is often not sufficient evidence for another. A court of law provides innumerable examples of how two parties can possess the same collection of data, the same power of logic and reasoning, yet argue for completely different interpretations of the data. The old saying is true: the facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

When confronted with the charge that there is no evidence for God the Christian often does not know where to start with a rebuttal. It’s as G.K. Chesterton once said, asking a Christian to prove God’s existence is like asking someone to prove the existence of civilization. What is one to do but point and say, “look, there’s a chair, and there’s a building,” etc. How can one prove civilization by merely selecting a piece here and a piece there as sufficient proofs rather than having an experience of civilization as a whole?

Nearly everything the Christian lays eyes on is evidence of God’s existence because he sees the ‘handiwork’ of God all around him in creation. But this is hardly sufficient evidence in the court of atheist opinion, a court which presupposes that only what can be apprehended by the senses rightly qualifies as evidence (in other words, the atheist demands not evidence of God’s handiwork, but rather material evidence of God Himself). For the Christian who believes in a transcendent God, he can offer no such evidence; to produce material evidence of God is, ironically, to disprove a transcendent God and cast out faith. If one desires God to appear in the flesh, well… He already did. But even if one lived at the time and could touch Christ in the flesh, this would still not “prove” God’s existence in the scientific sense (science has no such categories).

The second part of the line is equally short-sighted. What does one mean by ‘existence’? If one means, ‘that which has come into existence,’ then surely God does not exist because God never came into existence. He always was; He is eternal. This was a famous assessment of the matter by Soren Kierkegaard (dealing with Hegel’s dialectic of existence). The argument is a bit involved, so for times sakes I’ll just have to state it and leave it there.

2. If God created the universe, who created God?

This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as ‘eternal.’ It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (a necessary Being upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being rather than God as simply one more being among other beings in existence, follow this link for more.) What is a Christian to do but smile at such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.

3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.

Bang! Owned.

Not so fast. This argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could.

(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea ‘all-powerful,’ or ‘omnipotent’ self-defeating. When one considers the juvenile question, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God. For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are God’s. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: “God cannot overpower Himself.” But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)

4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What I love about this well-worn atheist ‘argument’ is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations. When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not ‘proofs,’ but rather ‘evidences’ that elicit strong consideration). Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for whatever. It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.

5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science.

Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness. The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse. Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.

Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky). On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.

In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry. If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.

But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood. The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world. But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever? One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith. “Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag. Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith. The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation. The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love. If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate (if you don’t mind a baseball analogy). There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here. But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas. A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite. A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament. That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence. It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history. One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself. The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were. If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.” I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good. So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God. Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs. The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry. And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth. The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business. Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things. But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God? etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter. Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic. Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from. The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.

That’s it… my top 10 list. Thanks for reading. Cheers.

JohnR7 #fundie christianforums.com

[On Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion.]

YOu do not really expect that Christians are going to read dribble like that do you?

The thing about Dawkins is that everything is black and white. What he believes is either true or false. There either is a God or there is no God. Atheism is either true or false. There is no middle ground and there are no doubts.

To many people try to compromise and end up being luke warm. But you are either in or out with God, you are either for Him or against Him. You are either a friend of God or an enemy of God.

Eric Metaxas and Stan Guthrie #fundie news.tfionline.com

Depressed Teens: They Need More Than Happiness

By Eric Metaxas and Stan Guthrie, BreakPoint.org, June 14, 2017

The numbers are shocking. According to the journal Translational Psychiatry, more than 36 percent of teen girls in America are depressed or have had a recent “major depressive episode.” For boys, it’s a slightly less alarming–but only slightly less–13.6 percent.

It wasn’t always this bad. Writing at the National Review Online, Mona Charen reports that rates for depression and anxiety “were much lower during the Great Depression, World War II, and the turbulent 1970s than they are today.”

Mental-health issues are spreading like wildfire on college campuses, too. Ohio State, for example, reports a 43-percent jump in students seeking mental-health counseling in the last five years.

As Charen writes, “Something is robbing young people of happiness and well-being.”

Indeed–but what, exactly? Charen looks at several factors, eventually landing on changing family dynamics, such as divorce and single parenting. And this is right, as far as it goes. Not having a mom and dad at home can be very hard on young people. But it goes deeper. I think religious myopia has something to do with it, too.

Back in 2005, Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton described a corruption of the historic Christian faith growing among young people in America, including those in our churches, which they call Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. It is, they say, “centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amicably with other people.”

But despite Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’s focus on feeling good, it’s clear that many young people don’t. The question is why?

Perhaps what they need is not more encouragement to be nice, but more opportunities to encounter Love Himeslf–who gives them not a list of do’s and don’t’s, but an invitation to a banquet. “Come to me,” Jesus says, “all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. (Matt 11:28).

Somewhere deep inside, unhappy young people know that they were meant for more, much more, than this world can possibly offer. As Augustine said, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.”

It’s not about mere happiness. As C.S. Lewis said, “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that.” And yet Lewis claimed that there is something beyond mere happiness. He called it Joy, saying that the Lord uses it to draw us to Himself. “It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong,” Lewis wrote, “but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us…. We are far too easily pleased.”

So how do we connect young people with Jesus? Well, we need to pursue and know Him with this same holy dissatisfaction ourselves. Do we? You cannot share what you don’t have.

jshm22 #fundie answerbag.com

Answering the question "Did god make Atheists"

----------

There are no such things as atheists their just theists living in denial.

"Atheism" is a negative affirmation and we know that logically you cannot prove a negative.

There are only two logical positions you can hold - theist or agnostic. "atheism" is the man made cult.

ScarletCrusader #fundie christianforums.com

The movie is EVIL and the books behind it are even more EVIL and directly Anti-Christian, glorifying daemons. This is an evil stealth campaign, an alliance between NLC's capitalism and the daemonic evil of Atheism. Boycott that evil movie, destroy the books (if you got a copy of them) and go and see Prince Caspian, a movie based on Good books made by C.S. Lewis, a blessed author and servant of God.


God's curse on Philip Pullman!

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior, and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality. [1] Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

[...]

Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[4] The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."[5]

In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward plus the issue of of atheistic ideology of communism being involved in the greatest mass murder of mankind in world history.

[...]

Per capita atheists and agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.

Syrryn #fundie evilbible.com

(It's what Dawkins calls "The God of the Gaps." No matter how small science makes the gaps, the truly stupid will keep trying to shoehorn their 'god' into them.)

Richard Dawkins arrogance never fails to amaze me. What kind of professional adult spokesman, deliberatley calls people stupid???

I believe that if the Big Bang happened, then of course God did it. The proof lies in the fact that science cannot explain what was before it. Human intelligence states that there must have been something before the beginning as 'nothing' simply doesn't exist.
When Dawkins can explain this little conundrum, I may listen to him. In the mean time, whenever there is no earthly answer, then a Godly answer must suffice. To argue otherwise just seems childish to me.

GospelPete #fundie uk.youtube.com

I have as much proof for what I believe as does Richard Dawkins and his brainwashed followers...

The difference is that my faith actually leads to a meaningful and fulfilling life which answers questions rather than asks them and never has them answered...

Atheism = Organized confusion
Christianity = Organized cohesion

Atheism = Animal instinct
Christianity = Self control and Moral accountability

Al650 #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

More nonsense. The media in this country is very liberal and very Leftist. It is clearly anti-God and pro immorality. I would not want to be in charge of America's cultural exchange program with other countries. What would I send them? Television programs like Brothers and Sisters or Grey's Anatomy or Desperate Housewives? The latest Jennifer Anniston fornication movie?

The evolution worldview encourages people to deny God's authority in their lives. We must accept evolution, not because of science but so we can deny God. Just read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

God bless,
Al

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

(Reactions to James Delingpole's article)

(proreason)
This illustrates one of the core problems with liberals of all stripes. They have no limits on their unhinged desire to control everybody and everything around them.

(aka Randy Yonkers)
The left is driven by toxic emotions.
They thrive on the control they get from making themselves and everyone around them miserable. They label destruction and misery "Progress". They manufacture pain and rage and sell it for profit, by taxing a guilted public and forcing them to pay for the "cure".

(Eskel Gorov)
The entire concept of "AGW" is preposterous. Even if there were an AGW "consensus" (which there categorically is not), it's irrelevant. Consensus is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of scientific process. Relying on those more educated than you are is just fine until science becomes corrupted by politics and the politician's eternal quest for more tax dollars from the uninformed. AGW is indeed about politics, wealth redistribution, and crowd control. We can and should be better stewards of our planet; but, we don't need to abandon all scientific process and commit suicide in order to do so. This stewardship has little or nothing to do with CO2. Regardless, a consensus of people from NOAA, NASA,and the IPCC who have all been caught red-handed altering data to meet their failed modeling assumptions is worthless on its face. Failed models, failed theory, end of story.

(redpilldebtslave)
CO2 is plant food. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too and the earth is covered by a bunch of it. Imagine if they went after water like they do the energy industry. We need politics to stay out of science. This all fell apart when they got caught falsifying data. Follow the money.
Leftists are the science deniers! LOL! Too funny!

(ricocat1)
Those liberals who are concerned about CO2 should hold their breaths until they turn blue. Don't exhale. No CO2. No liberals. Problem solved.

(Trump Train aka Honey Badger)
These liberals idiots would have rather breathed nuclear fallout by voting for HRC... end of the planet for sure!
There is no greater contaminant then of one’s mind, you can thank the liberal ideology for that!
Our youths minds are being poisoned all across the campuses in America by these liberal professors.
President Trump already saved the planet by defeating the nuclear holocaust know as HRC, ending the Paris Accord, slashing the EPA and ending big bureaucratic regulations!

(Johnny)
these people are seriously mental defects and delusional,, they dont stop to think who is going to fund these places without republican support,, liberals arent going to part with weed money to keep the lights on

(proreason)
Allow me to crystalize your comment a bit more. I think it has a core that is a real insight. You said: "these people...dont stop to think".

Liberals are too p*ssed off at everybody else for not complying with their manias to think about anything other than enforcing their will.

(Pleiades R)
"bite the hand that feeds them" comes to mind

both comments so valid, so many liberals I know think work is beneath them, they spend money on the latest cell/computer/clothing/shoes/entertainment/restaurants... then complain insurance, utilities, necessities are too expensive.... some are on assistance, but they own a "vape", a big screen tv and cable...

they make fun of me for having an old phone and not dressing expensively... I don't have cable or a tv.... but, I pay my own way...

amusingly they support open borders... if only they were destroying their own world, not the world we share...

(redpilldebtslave)
I often tell them they advocate their own destruction. By destroying the family and abusing the legal system, we have today's society. That is advocating for the leftists grand utopia. Leftists advocate their own destruction. Everybody must suffer as they do.
I usually say it just like that. They accuse me of making threats on the leftist sites. All I do is predict their futures.

(Jon)
These climate nuts are out of control.

Please support our Vets and Police! Boycott the Superbowl this weekend! #Boycottsuperbowl #PleaseStand

(Eric Simpson)
It's a consensus of ideology, not of science. Notice that nearly every conservative scientist does not believe the leftist scam.

(rennyangel2)
Not, "conservative" scientists but many REAL scientists who study cause and effect, are knowledgeable about history, and are not trying to impose their own views on outcomes or results.
There is a current complaint in the scientific community that too many "experiments" are not repeatable, as they should be if the same processes are followed, and I think the problem with replicating in today's science is because too many choose a pre-determined outcome and then force their "experiment" into the desired result. No wonder, one scientist has trouble producing the same conclusion, again.

(earlysda)
The problem in science is that they fell for a different god than the the Creator (Jesus Christ), and have been wandering in the darkness ever since.

(Reno Rivera)
Doesn't matter. The left lost on this one.

I don't feel sorry for the fickle, Rebekah Mercer. She's getting some payback here for betraying Bannon.

Also, she is not behind BB and never one who made BB popular.

I guess she is now since Bannon left and BB becoming effeminate with increased People Magazine type and news stories.

(earlysda)
Sadly, most of our youth are taught the doctrines of Evolution as "scientific fact", when actually, even Richard Dawkins admits: "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening".

(Mash Draggin)
Science is being subverted and swallowed up by politics, and the fact that there are so many marxists at our universities is a big reason why. The left wants to use science as a political weapon. It's actually slowing down real scientific advancement too.

Richard Swinburne #fundie cnn.netscape.cnn.com

Math Proves Christ's Resurrection?

It is faith, not proof, that makes Christians believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection, the central tenet of the religion. Until now.

Oxford University professor Richard Swinburne, a leading philosopher of religion, has seemingly done the impossible. Using logic and mathematics, he has created a formula that he says shows a 97 percent certainty that Jesus Christ was resurrected by God the Father, report The Age and Catholic News.

This stunning conclusion was made based on a series of complex calculations grounded in the following logic:

1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.