Atheism

The United States founding as a Christian nation - is Sarah Palin right, or the atheists?

The administration recently changed the phrase “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” in speeches. Is it a big deal indicating a policy shift?

Freedom of Religion has become twisted to become freedom from religion, which is not what the Founders intended, as a simple reading of the Amendment makes clear.

Previously Richard Dawkins, when asked for his definition of morality, responded “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” In short, society defines whatever it believes is right and wrong. That’s value relativism where nothing is right or wrong—absolute morality doesn’t exist according to Dawkins. But is his answer consistent? In another discussion Dawkins again answers the question.

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 about frequently as a first amendment issue, but you’d be surprised to see the phrase doesn’t appear where it’s frequently credited. So what does separation of church and state imply?

It’s even funnier (actually sad) they take their God-denying rants seriously.

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.

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. Yet Sagan himself also demonstrates how absurd his position was, as he contradicts his own idea.

According to atheist morality, morals are not absolute but shift with society. Why then do atheists protest over Christmas displays, when society overwhelmingly approves of them? Atheists don’t appear to follow their own moral view.

Without any absolute reference, where does the atheist obtain their morality? Do they have any? Or does it depend on each person individually?

Attempts by atheists to justify their dogma always come up short, as claiming “There is no God” is a logical absurdity. Another attempt fails - see if you can spot the error as an exercise in critical thinking before reading the answer.

Does lack of proof for God mean no God exists?

In Part I we discussed the logical reason why the problem of evil isn’t a problem. In Part II we’ll analyze the argument itself, and see why it falls flat as well. In short, the problem of evil … isn’t.