Ray Comfort's Blog, page 58

The Atheist Worldview...

"Mr. Comfort, I have to disagree with you on a couple of things. First, as an atheist my life is not purposeless. It does have meaning. Primarily it is for the people I love and those that love me. Second, I don't use atheism as an excuse to engage in the things that you listed. I know other atheists that are the same. I hope you have to good day." Zathras

I have to respectfully disagree. Let me ask you a few questions. What is the ultimate purpose of your existence? I know that you love your family--that's what you do while you are here. But why do you exist? If you can't give me an answer, then you have no purpose to your existence. The second question is, do you love the God who gave you life? Are you thankful to Him for everything you have--your loved ones, your eyes, the ability to think, for food on your plate, for the fact that you can breathe?

As an atheist, you will have to answer that you are not. Of course you don't thank God. You are thankful for life, but not to God because you don't believe He exists. In so doing, you are guilty of the greatest of all sins. The greatest Commandment is to love the Lord your God, with all of your heart, all of your mind, all of your soul, and all of your strength. If that's the greatest Command, then the greatest sin is failure to do so. You are guilty of gross ingratitude; and you are guilty of it because of your atheistic worldview, and I'm sure you know of other atheists who are the same.For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

Something for Atheists on Sunday

I have what may be a moral dilemma for some of you. Think carefully before you answer.

It's 1943. A German officer armed with a machine gun has commanded you to get into a bulldozer and drive it forward. In front of you are hundreds of Jewish men, women, and children, who have just been shot and thrown into a mass grave. many of them are still alive. You are to cover them with soil--to bury them alive.

You know that if you refuse, you will be instantly shot by the officer, and tossed into the grave, dead or alive. Then he or someone else will drive the bulldozer. Do you obey him?

If you bury them, are you guilty of any crime? If you say that you would simply be following orders, was any Nazi therefore guilty of a moral crime when six million Jews were slaughtered? After all, they were all just following the orders of one man...Adolf Hitler.For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

The Problem of dogs...

"I've heard and read of babies and toddlers who died. Had they broken the ten commandments? I had a dog who died. Did it break the ten commandments? And then of course there's the whole problem that if we die because of our sins, and Jesus paid the price for our sins, and, in fact, undertakers have not been put out of business at all, because death continues to devour the entire human race, Somebody forgot to collect Jesus' payment, which speaks ill of the efficiency of the divine economy..." Steven J.

It makes sense that you come to this conclusion. This is because of your idolatry. The god you don't believe in doesn't exist. You have an erroneous image of God. This was the problem with the religious leaders at the time of Christ.

Think of how Jesus answered them when they asked Him a question about God and the afterlife. They created a scenario about a woman who had seven husbands, each one dying and going to Heaven to wait for his wife. Their big stumper was "In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be?" They thought it was a real "Gotcha!" It wasn't. Jesus told them that they were in great error, because they neither understood the Scriptures, nor the power of God. And that's your problem.

First, to understand the Scriptures you need the Holy Spirit, who comes via the new birth (see John 3:1-5). If you obey the gospel and repent and trust in Jesus, God will give you the Holy Spirit, who will open the eyes of your understanding and lead you into all truth. Without Him, you are like a man who tries to read a book with the light off.

Second, you don't understand the power of God. As an atheist, set aside your belief for a moment and think about all the massive stars, the beautiful birds, DNA, etc. Don't skip over the thought. Think about how big those stars are, how they float in space, have their own governing laws, etc. Think of all the colorful birds--the structure of their feathers, their amazing fast-moving eyes, their instincts, their little beating hearts, their ability to fly, etc. Think of the incredible structure of DNA and how it works.

If God made those things, then He must be breath-takingly, mind-blowingly (I'm making up words here), awesomely powerful. Then consider the trillions of other utterly amazing things in creation. Hold that thought, and then consider the fact that if He can do all that, He can handle your minor problem of toddlers and dogs.For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

Black or Green?

Sue and I were watching football on TV recently, when I froze the picture on a spectator, and told her to look at his strange green shirt. When she said that the shirt looked black to her, I had the thought that she might be going colorblind. It was clearly green.

Knowing that women are usually right, I stood up and walked across to look at the TV from her perspective. Sure enough, she was right. The shirt was black. But when I sat back down in my seat, the shirt turned back to green. We couldn't both be right. Or could we?

As I looked closely at the TV screen, I noticed that light from a window that was behind me was reflecting exactly on the man's shirt. The light, or the absence of it, changed the color of the shirt, depending on your perspective.

From an atheist's perspective, Christianity looks like a black and lifeless stump. Christians really stink. But Christians see Christendom as a huge, beautiful, green, fruit bearing tree. They can't both be right. Or can they?

Look at how the Bible addresses the two differing perspectives:

"Our lives are a Christ-like fragrance rising up to God. But this fragrance is perceived differently by those who are being saved and by those who are perishing. To those who are perishing, we are a dreadful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved, we are a life-giving perfume..." (2 Corinthians 2:15-17 (NLT).

So who is right? Do Christians stink of "a dreadful smell of death and doom," or are we a really "sweet" smelling people? It all depends on the light you have. If you are godless, you have no light at all. But when you come to the light, you will not only see biblical Christianity in a completely different light, you will understand why you so scorned it, and why you had such contempt for those who love God. It is for the same reason criminals scorn the police, and hold them in contempt.For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

Charming Little Pup...

I have to admit, this is not a cute puppy. There's nothing in the dog that draws out affection. His teeth are yellow and crooked. Half of them are missing. His skin is wrinkly, and his ears look like the dried pig's ears they give to dogs to chew on. He is balding, and what is left of his hair is thin and grey. His eyes are not bright and wide, his nose is dry and crusty, and he's sitting with his ugly foot in his ugly mouth.

Nope, he's about as cute as a wart...and it looks like he's got a few of those pushing through too.

Such is our state before God. There's nothing in us that it likeable and that draws His affection toward us (see Isaiah 64:6). We are selfish, hateful, blasphemous, self-righteous, ungrateful, wicked, and even repulsive. The best of us is one ugly puppy. The Bible teaches that nothing in us is desirable and worthy of His love. That comes solely because He is love and because of His mercy.

Look at this verse: "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (Romans 5:10, NKJV).

Not only were we not attractive to God, but when we were blasphemous enemies of God, Christ died for us (see Roamns 5:8). This is hugely consoling for the Christian because it means that if I live to get old, when my hair grows thin, when my ears become long and floppy, my teeth become yellow and fall out, my skin gets wrinkly, my eyes fail, and my mind goes--when I'm just one ugly puppy, He is still the lover of my soul. His love isn't dependent on me. It is dependent on Him. How cool is that!For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

A Scientific Impossibility...

"Ray Comfort is a dishonest propagandist. He has been told hundreds of times that no atheist claims that atheism says 'nothing created everything'--yet he just repeats it anyway, over and over and over." Captain Howdy

• "It's no miracle, it requires no magic man in the sky, particle/anti-particle pairs just pop into existence constantly." PZ Myers, "Something Comes From Nothing. "http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/20...

• "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity." Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff, "A Universe from Nothing."

• "Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing."

• "So now you have an idea of just what went on in the early Universe, and how we got from nothing to something. But if you want the really short version, it runs like this, 'First there was nothing, then there was the Big Bang, and energy cooled down into matter, and we're made of matter, so here we are.'" Karl S. Kruszelnicki, "News in Science"

• "Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know." "All About Science"

• "It is now becoming clear that everything can -- and probably did -- come from nothing." Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England

• "Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer."

• "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover magazine, April 2002.

• "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)." --"How the Universe can come from Nothing."

• "Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . " Scienceline.org

• "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific." Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University

• "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." Victor J. Stenger, atheist, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

• "This initial paucity of information is consistent with the notion that the universe sprang from nothing." The Universe Sprang From Nothing, Seth Lloyd, Physicist

• "Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things -- perhaps even the entire universe -- can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes." Creation ex nihilo -- Without God (1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic

• "To understand these facts we have to turn to science. Where did they all come from, and how did they get so darned outrageous? Well, it all started with nothing." --"Fifty Outrageous Animal Facts," Animal Planet

• "To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine "Physics & Math/Cosmology"

• "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally." (Alan Harvey Guth theoretical physicist and cosmologist). Discover Magazine, April 1, 2002

• Richard Dawkins: "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years AFTER THE UNIVERSE EVOLVED OUT OF LITERALLY NOTHING is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." "From tail to tale on the path of pilgrims in life", The Scotsman (April 9, 2005, CAPS added)

• "But the latest scientific consensus asserts that the universe sprang naturally from nothing because the total energy of the universe equals zero (thanks to negative energy). Nature abhors a void and fills it with quantum fluctuations." "Is Everybody 100% Positive There is no God?" http://www.atheistnexus.org

• "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." "Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

• "To be fair, I actually think Ray won this round. He was challenged to show where atheists say 'everything comes from nothing', and he did ... There ARE atheists who say 'everything came from nothing', regardless of the details of the specific definitions in use." Whateverman (from WEARESMRT--atheist website)..

NOTES:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/20...
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/merc...
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4490...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/article...
http://big-bang-theory.com/
http://creation.com/the-universe-is-n...
http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vac...
"IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?" http://www.atheistnexus.orgFor Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

Observable Speciation...

"BobGreen said...I accept the fact of evolution because it has been observed. 'Dear Bob,Observed? Where?' [Bob replies]: If you would care to Google on 'Observed instances of speciation' you will find plenty of examples, for example from the talkorigins site. However, beware, you will also find plenty of religious sites anxious to push their religious agenda. Religion is irrelevant with respect to science."

"Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. If it has been observed, then evolution is true and the Bible is false. Speciation is the crossing of one species into another species. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)." The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

The author of Talkorigins attempts to characterize "species" with:

"One aspect is the idea of reproductive compatibility and continuity within a species. Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats! This has a firm grounding in folk knowledge. The second notion is that there is a discontinuity of variation between species. In other words, you can tell species apart by looking at them (Cronquist 1988)."

It's not just dogs that reproduce dogs and cats reproduce cats. Throughout all of nature, we see elephants bringing forth elephants, horses produce horses, fish produce fish, insects produce insects and birds bring forth birds. The second point was that we can tell each species simply by observing them. Even with the hundreds of varieties within the species of dogs, if you hold up a picture of one to a toddler, whether it is a Great Dane or a tiny Chihuahua, the child will say "Dog!" It's the same with horses, even though there are different shapes and sizes within the species. All the Animals have a certain look and they reproduce with within their own "species" or as the Bible puts it "kinds."

Let's now look at the talkorigins site and study the article titled "Observed Instances of Speciation" of one species evolving into a "new" and "distinct" species.

The article is broken into five parts: 1. Acknowledgments, 2. Definitions, 3. Context, 4. How to tell if speciation has occurred, and finally, 5. "Observed instances of speciation."

The writer begins Part 5 with, "Observed Instances of Speciation. The following are several examples of observations of speciation." However, at the beginning of the article he gives an important qualification. He says, "Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation." Huh? His evidence for observed speciation doesn't exist? So if they aren't examples of "observed speciation," why are they listed as "Observed Instances of Speciation"? It's because there aren't any.

He even pleads for evidence: "If you know of observations that I should include, let me know and I will chase down the reference, read it and modify the file." Here is one example he gives of speciation that he says isn't an example of speciation:

"The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."

The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence." This has nothing to do with evolution. Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple.

But Talkorigins has more evidence, in another article titled: "Some More Observed Speciation Events." This is written by James Meritt. He says,

"Someone writes: I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred English dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules?) This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process."

Then he gives examples of this observable evidence of speciation:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

He points to an experiment from the 1940's in which a windflowers produced wildflowers that "were similar in appearance to the hybrids." They were still wildflowers. Once again no evolution has taken place. There is no new species. Remember that speciation is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

Speciation has never been observed, because it has never taken place. All of nature--animals, fish, birds and insects bring forth after their own kind, just as the Bible says.

Is it true that "Religion is irrelevant with respect to science"? At least one person would disagree: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"--Albert Einstein. Rather, evolution has nothing to do with science. It is an unscientific, unobservable, and unsubstantiated theory.

NOTES:
http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern....
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-s...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-s...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-s...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speci... Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

Something for atheists, on Sunday

"And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and many people. Now when he came near to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said to her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto you, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. And this rumor of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about" (Luke 7:11-17).

This poor woman had lost her husband, and then her only son was died. Life dealt her a double blow. Now she was alone. Her neighbors and friends sympathized, but no one could take away the pain or bring back her dead son. But Jesus had compassion on her, and He wrecked the funeral. A word from Him, and the undertaker had no body to bury. Imagine if there was Someone who could do this for you. Someone who could stop this mysterious "death" thing that devours the entire human race. It swallows kings, presidents, doctors, scientists; no one escapes.

Imagine if there was something that could be done to stop the cold hand of death...that could put the undertaker out of business. You don't have to imagine anything! There is One who can save you from death, and you can experientially prove it to be true. Jesus Christ is the undertaker's nightmare. The Bible says that Jesus came to destroy the power of death, and He did it by leveling the scales of eternal justice. We will all die because we have violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments), but Jesus paid our fine on the cross, and then rose from the dead.

That means that God can commute your death sentence, because your fine was paid by Another. So weep no longer. Instead, stand still and think of your many sins. Think of what God did for you through the suffering death of the Savior, then repent and trust in Jesus. You need no longer be held captive to the power of death, once you come to know, fear, and glorify God.For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

God bless Professor PZ Myers...

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. He is (was) also a popular atheist blogger, who revealed a longstanding embarrassment about atheists who say that they "lack a belief in gods." In an attempt to try and legitimize the philosophy of atheism, he distanced himself from those who misrepresent his personal convictions. But in his effort to swat those who bug him, he hit a hornets nest. The reaction was stinging. He said,

"Only this time it isn't a mob of religious fanatics and anti-choicers who have called me pond scum who will go to hell, an insect souled vile man, ablack-souled amoral monster, pure evil, morally depraved, with a depraved mind, descend[ing] down the various stages into madness, and so forth…but I have this time managed to antagonize a bunch of atheists."

And no wonder. He made the mistake of pointing out the non-existent foundations of atheism. He showed how unthinking it is to say that you have no beliefs in any gods. Modern atheists changed the definition of "atheist" from "someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God," and in doing so, thought that they had outwitted the opposition. They pled ignorance to the God issue. They believed that it was intelligent, but their "reasoning" wasn't clever. It was stupid, and the learned professor said so.

He who says that he has no beliefs that there are any gods, believes that there is no evidence that any gods exist. Belief (trust) is the foundation for marriage, for our convictions about history, for all human relationships, for the health of our monitory system, for flying in planes, driving in cars, eating food prepared in restaurants, drinking bottled water, for taking medicine, our convictions about the age of the earth, for calling a number on your phone, having surgery, for accepting the hypothesis of evolution, and a million and one other things.

In reference to the many atheists who believe that they don't have faith, Myers betrayed their trust when he said,

"Boy, I really do hate these guys. You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug [obscenity] comes along and announces that 'Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.' As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. [He then calls them ignorant people]."

But the professor didn't stop there. He also dismantled another foundational argument of modern atheism. One of their biggies is to say that we are all "born" atheists. As babes, we arrived with no belief in the existence of God. He said of such infantile beliefs,

"Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist — it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is. Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all."

Then he took a swing at atheists who admit that they don't know for sure that God doesn't exist. He said,

"I have heard this so often, the hair-splitting grammatical distinctions some atheists think so seriously important in defining themselves. All you're doing is defining yourselves as [obscenity] retentive freaks, people! Get over it. Either way, you're an atheist — and that goes for the over-philosophized fussbudgets who insist that they're agnostics, not atheists, because they aren't 100% positive there aren't any gods, only 99 44/100ths positive."

But this is the "trivial" belief of the pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins. He said that he couldn't know for sure that there was no God. He told Ben Stein that he was 99% sure God did not exist. Professor Dawkins said,

"Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further."

No wonder angry atheists came at him from all angles. He even spoke to the nasty prejudice they had towards people of faith, lumping them in with murdering terrorists. He said,

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. The second sentence is false. Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!"

Good advice professor. Those who love God don't hate anyone. They love atheists, and even love their enemies. The professor then tried to build up what he has just smashed down. He said,

"You are an atheist — take pride in what you do believe, not what you deny. And also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn't arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren't always accounted for by stupidity."

Yes, take pride in your scientifically impossible belief that nothing created everything, that you are nothing but a primate, and that you have no purpose for existence. Atheism leaves you with no knowledge of your origins, no knowledge of what you are doing here on earth, and tells you nothing about what happens to you after you die. It gives you nothing of substance because it is nothing. It keeps you from repentance and faith in Jesus that will put the truth into your hands and bring to everlasting life.

NOTES: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/20...
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Steve Paulson, The Flying Spaghetti Monster

P.s. My apologies to Professor Myers for misspelling his name in the first posting.For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

God bless Professor PZ Meyers...

PZ Meyers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. He is (was) also a popular atheist blogger, who revealed a longstanding embarrassment about atheists who say that they "lack a belief in gods." In an attempt to try and legitimize the philosophy of atheism, he distanced himself from those who misrepresent his personal convictions. But in his effort to swat those who bug him, he hit a hornets nest. The reaction was stinging. He said,

"Only this time it isn't a mob of religious fanatics and anti-choicers who have called me pond scum who will go to hell, an insect souled vile man, ablack-souled amoral monster, pure evil, morally depraved, with a depraved mind, descend[ing] down the various stages into madness, and so forth…but I have this time managed to antagonize a bunch of atheists."

And no wonder. He made the mistake of pointing out the non-existent foundations of atheism. He showed how unthinking it is to say that you have no beliefs in any gods. Modern atheists changed the definition of "atheist" from "someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God," and in doing so, thought that they had outwitted the opposition. They pled ignorance to the God issue. They believed that it was intelligent, but their "reasoning" wasn't clever. It was stupid, and the learned professor said so.

He who says that he has no beliefs that there are any gods, believes that there is no evidence that any gods exist. Belief (trust) is the foundation for marriage, for our convictions about history, for all human relationships, for the health of our monitory system, for flying in planes, driving in cars, eating food prepared in restaurants, drinking bottled water, for taking medicine, our convictions about the age of the earth, for calling a number on your phone, having surgery, for accepting the hypothesis of evolution, and a million and one other things.

In reference to the many atheists who believe that they don't have faith, Meyers used betrayed their trust, when he said,

"Boy, I really do hate these guys. You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug [obscenity] comes along and announces that 'Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.' As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. [He then calls them ignorant people]."

But the professor didn't stop there. He also dismantled another foundational argument of modern atheism. One of their biggies is to say that we are all "born" atheists. As babes, we arrived with no belief in the existence of God. He said of such infantile beliefs,

"Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist — it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is. Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all."

Then he took a swing at atheists who admit that they don't know for sure that God doesn't exist. He says,

"I have heard this so often, the hair-splitting grammatical distinctions some atheists think so seriously important in defining themselves. All you're doing is defining yourselves as [obscenity] retentive freaks, people! Get over it. Either way, you're an atheist — and that goes for the over-philosophized fussbudgets who insist that they're agnostics, not atheists, because they aren't 100% positive there aren't any gods, only 99 44/100ths positive."

But this is the "trivial" belief of the pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins. He said that he couldn't know for sure that there was no God. He told Ben Stein that he was 99% sure God did not exist. Professor Dawkins said,

"Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further."

No wonder angry bees came at him from all angles. He even spoke to the nasty prejudice atheists had towards people of faith, lumping them in with murdering terrorists. He said,

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. The second sentence is false. Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!"

Good advice professor. Those who love God don't hate anyone. They love atheists, and even love their enemies. The professor then tried to build up what he has just smashed down. He said,

"You are an atheist — take pride in what you do believe, not what you deny. And also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn't arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren't always accounted for by stupidity."

Yes, take pride in your scientifically impossible belief that nothing created everything, that you are nothing but a primate, and that you have no purpose for existence. Atheism leaves you with no knowledge of your origins, no knowledge of what you are doing here on earth, and tells you nothing about what happens to you after you die. It gives you nothing of substance because it is nothing. It keeps you from repentance and faith in Jesus that will put the truth into your hands and bring to everlasting life.

NOTES: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/20...
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Steve Paulson, The Flying Spaghetti MonsterFor Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.