Protestantism

» EvilChihuahua - The Rage

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

Why Do the Atheists Rage?

by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG-U.S.October 9, 2007

When you walk into AiG's research library, you'll see two shelves along the wall holding recent books promoting the encompassing worldview of atheism. (The photo shows just a few of the best-known texts.) And not surprisingly, these books by atheists devote large sections to presenting the supposed evidence to debunk creation and to uphold atheistic evolution.

Some of the books have become bestsellers. Nowadays during today's culture wars, it appears that all you have to do in order to become a famous (and well-compensated) author is to write a book promoting atheism and slamming religion (Christianity most of all), and if you can catch on with a well-known publisher with some marketing clout, you can ride to the top of bestseller lists.1

The "new atheists," as they are now being called, are much more aggressive than their predecessors. They include vehement anti-creationist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University; the raging contrarian Christopher Hitchens, author of the 2007 bestseller God Is Not Great;2 writer Sam Harris; and philosopher Daniel Dennett. It doesn't appear that these prominent atheists are mere publicity seekers. They come across as very serious in their mission to convert readers to atheism. (Of course, the potential for financial rewards and recognition probably provide at least some motivation as well.)

In addition, explicitly anti-Christian magazines and other publications have been increasingly pushing atheism as they too ride the same literary wave.3 Atheists (sometimes called "antitheists"), who heretofore have largely remained inside the comfort of their offices, are now becoming more vocal and aggressive on the journalistic front of the war against organized religion. So, with high-profile magazine articles and bestselling books, coupled with frequent media appearances and intensified efforts to see schools teach evolution with even greater fervor, these new atheists are no longer a passive academic bunch. One might have to go back 200-plus years to find such public vehemence against Christianity by intellectuals: the atheists of the French Revolution who sought to stifle Christianity and other "evils" (though violence is not a hallmark of today's atheists as it was for many in France of the late 1700s).

What caught our eye most recently in the atheist barrage against religion occurred in the context of comments from atheists about the growing creation movement and AiG's new Creation Museum most of all. The museum was last month's cover story for the journal American Atheist, where the photo on the cover showed protestors at the opening of the museum. In an editorial and articles (especially "The rally for reason"), the museum was unjustly skewered.

Here were some of the errors or misrepresentations we uncovered in the September issue of American Atheist:

Bloated Attendance Figures
It is common for event organizers to inflate their attendance figures to make their event appear significant. Such happened in the very first line of the "Rally for reason" article, when the author stated that "several hundred" protestors took part in a rally outside the museum's front gate on May 28. If you look at photos (including wide-angled ones) taken by the rally organizers themselves (some shown in American Atheist), you might see 50 people at one time.4 In fact, an American Atheist magazine writer acknowledged this, but interestingly chose to quote a Cincinnati Post article that (falsely, for reasons we can't ascertain) claimed there were 400 protestors. Our security team, which repeatedly came out to the front gate to observe the protestors, doubt that there were even 100 total throughout the day. They also note that there were several dozen reporters on hand to cover the museum's opening that day, and some of them were spotted among the protestors and thus also appeared in some of the rally photos.

In the late afternoon (and many hours before the museum closed with a fireworks celebration at 10 p.m.), the protestors had dwindled to zero, as thousands of people were still on the museum grounds. (There were over 4,000 museum visitors that day.)

American Atheist also greatly exaggerated the importance of the protest when they claimed that so many media came to the museum because they wanted to cover the rally ("an event that was as well covered in the media as the opening itself," it was stated on p. 4) and that "articles were carried in the major news media" (p. 8). It would seem that the reporters came to cover a museum opening, not a protest (it was only a sidebar for most reporters), and that is reflected in the fact that when the articles appeared, most of them gave slight coverage to the protestors. If you would come to the AiG offices and read the articles for yourself, you would quickly see that what the media covered was a significant event in American Christendom, not a rally against it.

But is such exaggeration surprising? After all, if atheists and other secular humanists do not believe in absolute truth, then "truth" is relative to them, and one can exaggerate to make a claim to attempt to show that a failed demonstration was successful.

Count Again
The article also states, "The $27 million Answers in Genesis Creation Museum, built on 49 acres of lush countryside near Cincinnati, boasts state-of-the-art exhibits including 55 animatronic dinosaurs."

Actually, there are four animatronic dinosaurs and one animatronic pterodactyl in the museum, plus dinosaur models that do not move.

Noise Equates to Peace?
The article claimed that the protest was "peaceful" (p. 8). While there was no violence, if one calls a loud rock band at the protest area outside the museum gates that was intended to disrupt the event a "peaceful" thing, then we will have to re-write one definition of "peaceful" at least.

Ironically, on page 6 of the American Atheist, an author bemoaned the fact that a Christian was reportedly being loud in sharing his faith at a park in San Francisco.

Geography Lesson Needed
In an editorial about the museum's opening, the president of American Atheist rejoiced in the fact that so many [sic] people turned out for the protest rally even though the museum is in a "remote location." One might think you would have to be something of a hardy traveler in order to find your way to the museum site. Well, the museum is right off an interstate and in the greater Cincinnati area (population 2 million), just two exits from the major Cincinnati Airport, and within a day's drive of almost 190 million Americans (650 miles).

Insults Galore
In yet another article in the American Atheist, a writer attacked AiG president and museum founder Ken Ham with comments like he and his "worshippers" seek to "drag America back into an age darker than the thousand years ... normally identified as the Dark Ages" (p. 21). The analogy of the creation movement to the Dark Ages is flatly hackneyed and ridiculous.

Later in the article, the writer derisively called the Creation Museum "The Eighth Wonder of the Ancient World," which, while containing modern technology, has content which is out of date by over 2,000 years. (The Ninth Wonder, meanwhile, is the museum's "amazing iron fence," which protects the museum "from demonic forces that Kenneth Ham imagines haunts the other regions of Kentucky.")

On page 23 in this same article, the writer claimed that if "Ken Ham had any desire to alleviate human suffering, he could have spent his $27 million [the price tag to build the museum and its exhibits] to buy condoms for all the people of Africa ...." Wow. Putting aside the fact that the author does not know Ken's heart about what he feels about the suffering of others and what he might be privately doing to alleviate their suffering, and also putting aside the observation that it was tens of thousands of AiG donors who willingly shared their gifts with AiG to build the museum, here is what we will state (again) about philanthropy and a Bible-upholding ministry like AiG that receives donations: as nations ignore or abandon God's Word as absolute authority and accept evolutionary philosophies, it will adversely affect the ways their people will think and act; many social calamities have been fueled by evolutionary beliefs such as racism, abortion, and some holocausts, whose participants denied biblical authority in these matters-and therefore biblical morality-and society suffered.

Finally, Ed Kagin, who, as head of the ironically named organization Free Inquiry Group, opposed the building of the museum on private property and using private funds, alluded to the museum's "terrorism of ignorance." He also wrote that it was committing "child abuse" by teaching bad science! On top of that, he claims that AiG and other creationists want to create a theocracy in America (pp. 10-11). (For a rebuttal of this increasingly stated claim by secular humanists, see: Creationists-American fascists?)

History Lesson Needed
On page 22, an article declared that AiG and all creationists believe that "all the founding fathers [of the United States] were devout Christians." Well, we do not say that, and, in fact, have recognized that some of the Founders were Deists (see our comment, for example, at Evolution, the election and the "enlightened").

Misc. Anti-creationist Comments
On page 23, the alleged 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps is made. Besides the observation that we also share about half of our DNA with bananas, read: The differences make the difference-differences in gene expression distinguish humans from other primates.

Later on the same page, the writer claimed that the Bible is wrong about the value of pi being 3.0, when it is about 3.14. For our rebuttal to this getting-very-old assertion, see Does the Bible say pi equals 3.0?

Conclusion
Unfortunately, the American Atheist pieces are not online as we write, so no link can be provided so that you can quickly check them for yourself.

The longer I am involved in creation ministry, the more I see that the creation/evolution issue is at the very heart of today's culture wars. As Ken Ham has pointed out so often, there's been a change in the culture of Western nations-occurring at a very foundational level. Generations have been indoctrinated by the secular education system, media, and science museums to build their thinking on human reason, not the Word of God.

Atheists build their worldview's foundation on evolution, and in their own fundamentalist zeal, some atheists are becoming borderline hysterical in their claims. Harris, for example, said that: "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."5 Dawkins declared that Christians should not have the right to indoctrinate their children in religious "nonsense," and argued that children who are brought up in Christian homes are being exposed to an "infection."6

AiG's mission is to engage the culture and the church to return to the authority of God's Word. With aggressive atheists increasingly on the march, AiG needs your prayerful support more than ever. In fact, with the opening of the Creation Museum this year, and with more than 220,000 guests in just over four months, the attacks on AiG will probably escalate.

The creation/gospel message is vital for today. God is using it at the frontlines of the foundational battle in the lives of countless souls, as generations of people have been indoctrinated to build their thinking on human reason, not the Bible. And at the base of this is the creation/evolution issue.

Thankfully, some of the sworn enemies of Christianity have eventually understood what truly is at stake and, using their critical thinking skills (plus the prompting of the Holy Spirit), became converts to Christianity over time. We can only pray that this will be the case with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, the American Atheist writers, and others.

-- posted by EvilChihuahua

» EvilChihuahua - The Irrational Worldview

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

Atheism: An Irrational Worldview

by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG-U.S.October 10, 2007

Atheists are "coming out of the closet" and becoming more vocal about their message that "there is no God." Professor Richard Dawkins (Britain's leading atheist) is encouraging those who share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to "free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community."1 Will Christians be prepared to "give an answer" to the atheists' claims?2

Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational-and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Here's why:
Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can't have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement "My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot" is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God's. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person's opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God's self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter-they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can't have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material-part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can't stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist's world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist's view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn't actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent "proofs" against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How can the atheist respond?
The atheist might say, "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don't believe in God." But this is no different than the critic of air saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don't believe in air." This isn't a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it's because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic-and that's the point. It's because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are conventions made up by man." But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work-like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn't do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are material-they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain." But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn't argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: "We use the laws of logic because they work." Unfortunately for him, that isn't the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they're true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist's position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions
Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, "[A]theism presupposes theism." Laws of logic require the existence of God-and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God's image and have access to God's laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.

Any thoughts on these articles? Keep in mind I didn't write them so they are not my exact views.:)

-- posted by EvilChihuahua

» pink101 - The Irrational Worldview

In response to The Irrational Worldview posted by EvilChihuahua:
.
The Evil Chihuahua asks, Any thoughts on these articles? Keep in mind I didn't write them so they are not my exact views.:).
.
You are the one who brings them up. What are YOUR thoughts?
.

-- posted by pink101

» EvilChihuahua - The Irrational Worldview

In response to The Irrational Worldview posted by pink101:

Well, it's almost bedtime so I'll keep it short and sweet.

While I wouldn't be visiting the Creation Museum anytime soon, I do think AiG is correct in their rants about radical Atheists. From what I've seen from these books mentioned, said Atheists are relying on pathetic stereotypes whilst ignoring the evils their own kind have brought upon humanity. I think that they're no better than the radical fundies that attack.

Plus, I find it strange that such (eh hem) "knowledgeable" people act as though ignorance is such a bad thing.

-- posted by EvilChihuahua

» pink101 - Off The Wall Idiots

In response to The Irrational Worldview posted by EvilChihuahua:
.
What does AiG stand for?
.
I think--maybe--some focus needs to be put on the question of just what is wrong with religion that Atheists put so much effort into its opposition.
.
Can you come up with any answers to that question?
.
Or, are Atheists just off the wall idiots?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Off The Wall Idiots

In response to Off The Wall Idiots posted by pink101:
.
What does AiG stand for?
.
"Answers in Genesis". Ken Ham's Christian site promoting the literal interpretation of Genesis: "believing it, defending it, proclaiming it."
.
From the first article: "it appears that all you have to do in order to become a famous (and well-compensated) author...(Of course, the potential for financial rewards and recognition probably provide at least some motivation as well.)

.
Ham built the Creation Museum in Kansas -- $20 adult admission, $10 kids 5-12 years. Ham sells books, videos, magazine, does the lecture circuit - for which Ham is "well-compensated" and receives "financial rewards and recognition". (People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.)
.
IMO, folks need to 'consider the source' when reading articles from AiG.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Off The Wall Idiots

In response to Off The Wall Idiots posted by Migisi:

.
Thanks.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» EvilChihuahua - Off The Wall Idiots

In response to Off The Wall Idiots posted by pink101:

Well, first of all, Atheists in general are not off the wall idiots. Off the wall idiots can be found in every religion. Most Atheists are intelligent, kind, caring individuals. Those like Dawkins (AA's) are not.

I think--maybe--some focus needs to be put on the question of just what is wrong with religion that Atheists put so much effort into its opposition.

Why do the Fundies hate anything non-Christian? Why do the radical Muslims hates anything that isn't Islam? The same can be said about radical Hindus, Pagans, Scientologists, Mormons, etc. They like to find faults in all every religion but their own ("My faith is perfect"). People like Dawkins are the same: They find faults in all religions but their own. In fact, Dawkins goes as far as to completely ignore certain facts (eg. Dawkins claims Hitler was a Creationist, whilst though who actually knew him clearly stated he was an Evolutionist).

But, not surprisingly, AA's love to bring up the same tired issues over and over again:

War

They say religion is the cause for just about every war. However, if we remove religion, war will still erupt over land rights, fascism, human rights and just plain racism. Hell, a war was even triggered by a soccor match.

Child Sex Abuse

Once again, get rid of religion, and our children are safe. Wrong! Child sex abuse doesn't exist only in the Catholic Church, it exists in schools, Summer Camps, Clubs, Juvenal Halls, friends/neighbors homes, etc. It comes as no surprise that Dawkins and his minions seem to think that no Atheist has been guilty of child sex abuse. And yet, my mum's uncle was both an Atheist and a rock spider. Removing religion won't stop child sex abuse, removing paedo's will.

Racism

Religion is racist, says the AA's, and yet these AA authors are eager to attack the Jews. They'll say Creationism is racist, and yet while Creation teaches that all mankind are equal (gasp! How racist), it's evolution that teaches that caucasians are superior to Asians, Middle Easterns, Jews, Native Americans, those of African decent and Pasific Islanders (Down Under, Aborigines have been known to denied Evolution for that very reason). When Evolution first reached Australia, farmers in Tasmania embraced it and freely went about shooting every Aborigine he saw, after all, they were told they were only subhuman animals. The death toll was appauling.

Millions have suffered in the name of God, but no one has suffered in the Name of Atheism.

History says otherwise. In Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, Communistic Eastern Europe, etc. Christians, Jews and Muslims are/were arrested, beaten, tortured and killed in the name of Atheism. The death toll of victims of Atheism in 20th century was higher than that of any other religion. And no, I'm not saying Atheists are evil murders or anything if you're wondering.

So what's the solution? Dawkins says do away with religion. That won't make much difference. These things will still exist. My solution is to combat the cause of these things, not the religions of those who cause it.

Dawkins is willing to blame everyone for the horros of this world, yet what is he doing help? He's willing to blame the church for child sex abuse, but what's he doing to help the victims? If anything, it seems like he's exploiting them.

And while the AA's are bitching about the evils of religion, it's the religious who are out there fighting poverty, child sex abuse, child slavery, hunger, war, domestic abuse, gang violence...the list goes on. Girls as young as 8 are being hired out to paedophiles by their parents for money every day. That is disturbing, but what's more disturbing is that isn't only happening in the third world. In Australia, the US and the UK this is a real epidemic. This is happening under our very noses, and it could possibly be happening in your town right now. Why aren't people like Dawkins trying to expose this? It's this type of thing, not religion, that is the problem.

Now, I want to make this clear, I have no problem with Atheists in general, but I have a real problem with the select few who do nothing more then spread hatred towards a certain group (well, if they are attacking NAMBA, PETA and the KKK I have no problem because these groups are evil to start with).

-- posted by EvilChihuahua