Al Stefanelli (Georgia State Director of American Atheists) sure stepped in it big time, and displayed for all the world atheism’s complete lack of understanding logic and critical thinking.
New York wants to memorialize seven firefighters who died on 9/11 (a good thing) by renaming a street “Seven in Heaven Way”. Who could have a problem with that? Enter stage left, atheists trying to stamp out all religion based on their illogical and unprovable dogma. Where’s the tolerance?
The “Freedom from Religion Foundation” attempt to force their views onto everyone else crashes and burns in a spectacular fireball; the National Day of Prayer began in the 1950’s (so it’s a recent effort by atheists to squash it), and the law roughly reads:
Another court case involving religion and the First Amendment popped up recently. Unfortunately, the ACLU once again shows they’ve never actually read the First Amendment.
The “debate” continues over the founding of the United States on Christian principles. When Sarah Palin stated the US is a Christian Nation, atheists went into full spin mode. Can the question be decided as a matter of facts, or is it only a matter of opinion?
Recently a storm erupted regarding the change in phrasing from “freedom of religion”, to “freedom to worship”. As the administration’s comments and speeches are vetted and approved in advance (and usually read from a prompter), it’s not simply a slip of the tongue but an intended policy change; it’s a conscious change in language, and since the phrase has been used by the President himself, it’s reasonable to conclude he is not only aware of the shift, but approves of it.
Freedom of religion makes the news quite a bit as atheists attempt to stomp out any and all references to God frequently claiming “separation of church and state” as meaning a valedictorian can’t mention God in their commencement speech, or nativity scenes can’t exist in public places, or crosses on hills, or any public display of religion anywhere.
Previously we noted in an interview with Richard Dawkins, when asked for his definition of morality he responded “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” In short, society defines whatever it believes is right and wrong. That is, of course, value relativism where nothing is right or wrong—absolute morality doesn’t exist according to Dawkins.
Bill Maher may hold strange views, but one thing we admire him for—he’ll state his views straight out, without any attempt to sugar coat it or show tact (at least he’s honest and proudly proclaims his views, in contrast to others who attempt to hide it. He’s consistent in his atheist far-left elitist views). Recently on his show atheist S.E. Cupp appeared, whose latest book titled “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity” created some interesting discussion, and displayed the paradox of atheism.
The “separation of church and state” phrase gets thrown around frequently as a first amendment issue, but you’d be surprised to see the phrase doesn’t appear where it’s frequently credited—in the first amendment to the Constitution.
It’s even funnier (actually sad) they take their God-denying rants seriously.
… I do not know of ANY who think they [atheists] are “just as good” as Christians. That, quite honestly, is an insult to me as an Atheist. Not only do I believe that those who have evolved beyond religion, stand on a higher moral ground, but that most Atheists have a much better grasp on reality, are more open minded, more compassionate, and just simply have more common sense than any Christians that I have met.
For some reason, atheists aren’t happy unless they convert religious people to their dogma. Why? I don’t know, but they frequently display intolerance, expressing a deep conviction to win converts to the religion of atheism. Here’s a statement which isn’t very remarkable, except for the revelation of the methods atheists should use to win converts.
Atheists frequently don’t recognize contradictions while attempting to defend the logical inconsistencies created by atheism. Atheists claim there is no God; after the statement is made (usually as an unproven “fact”), and the logical contradictions of that statement are pointed out to them, instead of admitting they made an error they go to great lengths to disavow the problem.
Errors in logic must be avoided if you wish to have an open mind and use critical thinking. This of course means you must be open to all possibilities, forming opinions based on logic and analysis instead of preconceived ideas; confirmation bias can arise during analysis by making assumptions based on what you want to see, instead of evidence and logical deduction.
Carl Sagan provides many quotes loved by both atheists and evolutionists in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of God and religion in general. Here’s a popular Sagan quote:
You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe. Carl Sagan
Previously we discussed Dawkins’ view of shifting atheist zeitgeist morality — the idea culture shapes morals, and who can say anything is right or wrong? Dawkins even goes so far as to claim nobody can state Hitler was wrong — after all, morality comes from shifting society, not an absolute standard. Dawkins’ idea of morality is absurd, of course, but more absurd when atheists don’t even believe or follow what they say — consider the following Rasmussen poll:
In the atheism verses God debate, one thorny issue always remains for the atheist — how does the atheist define morality (right and wrong)? Without absolute standards, where does right and wrong come from? Consider the atheist’s favorite spokesman Richard Dawkins speaking on the question of morality.
Some atheists finally admit the logical absurdity of stating “There is no God”, but attempt to weasel out of the problem by claiming practically we can state there is no God (or, almost certainly there is no God), because they don’t have proof meeting their requirements. Here’s one attempt at such an argument — see if you can spot the logical error before reading the answer.
You have no evidence for an afterlife, So by logic means there is no afterlife.
Statements along these lines frequently appear. But they’re wrong logically, and quite simple to show the logical error of. Until the 1900’s we had no evidence for quantum mechanics or photons — does that mean they didn’t exist until 1900?
In a previous article on the problem of evil we discussed the hubris of the person attempting to attribute to themselves all knowledge — as if they don’t understand why God acts the way He does, it doesn’t make any sense at all. Naturally, the only way that logic works is if the person possesses all knowledge themselves — making themselves into a sort of Deity. And the last thing the atheist wants to do is acknowledge the existence of God.
Devotees of evolutionary dogma face a problem as it’s widely accepted neither the time the universe has existed (let’s just use 15 billion years) nor the amount of matter in the universe allow for random mutations to produce what surrounds us. So what’s a disciple of evolution to do? Declare the non-randomness of evolution, as atheist Richard Dawkins does — only one teeny tiny problem, which we’ll get to after the quote.
Atheists try to escape the absurdity of their position (the only way you can say God doesn’t exist is by having all knowledge, since if you don’t God can exist outside your knowledge) by silly arguments, some even go so far to attempt proof God doesn’t exist. But those attempts always fail as they fall into the same logical problem.
We’ve mentioned previously a book by a “scholar” utterly lacking basic logical and Biblical analysis as a warning not to depend on Phd’s and other accolades to give credibility to some theory. Another book by that “renowned Bible scholar” has come under fire … by an atheist desperately trying to show no God exists, yet we’ll agree with the atheist the “renowned Bible scholar” uses bogus “scholarship”, in spite of their title.
One of the arguments skeptics like to disprove is C.S. Lewis’ logical conclusion from the claims of Jesus. Commonly called “The Trilemma” or “Lord liar or lunatic” (although Lewis didn’t use exactly those words), although one wonders why it becomes so important to discredit a philosophical argument having little bearing on the facts involving the diety of Jesus.
Want new posts delivered to your inbox? Enter your email address to get FREE emailed updates!
Other ways to stay current:
