"Blindness and atheism are ideologically synonomous...."
"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist."
"All deceased atheists either cannot say whether atheism is right or wrong because they don't exist themselves, or they can indeed say that atheism is wrong..."
"If the irrational universe created itself or if an irrational explosion created the universe, then an educated, rational atheist should be able to create the universe with relative ease today..."
"No faith in God is the most blind faith of all, because it assumes that no faith can be placed in God without any verifying evidence that faith in God fails, and with proof that faith in God is remarkably solid."
"Atheism is more of a fanciful desire rather than a sincere belief..."
"The burden of proof for God's existence doesn't reside with the one who asserts God's existence because it is not at all a burden to prove God's existence. What is an impossible burden is proofing He doesn't exist."
Atheists are people who deny the existence of their Maker and the existence of the Creator of the universe. Atheism is an ideological struggle primarily against Christianity because Christianity strongly explains the existence of the True God and proclaims that all humans have the responsibility to love and obey His Law. This Law is written in the hearts of all people and is clearly perceived as the embodiment of sanity, civility and righteousness for mankind as a whole. Atheists are nevertheless against this Law because of their depravity, but they find it hard to condemn the Law because of its obvious rectitude. So they deny the existence of the Maker of this Law so as to deceptively undermine the universal authority this Law has. So one can truthfully say that debate with atheists over whether God exist is the ideological toggle position between immortal human souls morally responsible to God and animalistic human bodies without a soul and responsible to no one and with no life after death.
Atheists would rather view humans as animals who are not under a universal moral Law from God and would rather not face the reality of an afterlife for souls of humans. The existence of God nevertheless in their minds is the greatest obstacle against this fantasy and so they primarily deny God’s existence on this basis, - often without realizing it.
Even atheists admit this. For example one atheist wrote, “Atheism has wide ranging implications for the human condition. In the absence of belief in God, ethical goals must be determined by secular (nonreligious) aims and concerns, human beings must take full responsibility for their destiny, and death marks the end of person’s existence.” So this is really an outline of the ideology that atheists profess, and denying the existence of God is the most convincingly way in their minds to lend credibility to this ideology.
Therefore when you are accosted by atheists, atheists’ ultimate goal is usually not to get you to disbelieve the existence of God, but for you to espouse their ideology and to assume their hostility against God’s morality, against Christianity, against an absolute truth, against the infallibility of the Bible, and against the general conscience of humans which may naturally feel pricked when it goes contrary to the Law that God has written in everyone’s heart. Denying God’s existence is perhaps the most obscure way however, of leading people down a turbulent slope against the historical peace Christianity has brought.
You can see this to be true in the growing popularity of people who may not necessarily call themselves atheists and may invoke God’s name in conversations (vain conversations for that matter), but otherwise maintain the same ideology atheists have against the truths of the Bible. Such people share very common grounds with atheists and have many atheists as their friends.
Those who actively call themselves atheists have been called “positive atheists” as opposed to those who tacitly maintain an atheistic ideology, but simply disbelieve God without necessarily denying His existence and are called, “negative atheists.” Those who call themselves “positive atheists” are usually the ones who try to convince others, especially professing Christians that God does not exist. Such atheists are against Christianity and they realize that if they can successfully cast doubt in professing Christians’ minds about the existence of God, then they can undermine all the essential tenets of Christianity, such as the fact that God created the world and that we are all responsible to obey Him.
Atheism is nothing new. In Psalms 14:1, we read “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” This was written thousands of years ago, during a time when a nation that God had created existed. Atheists at that time denied God’s existence to seek to open the door to the abominable deeds they were committing and seek to make Israel feel free to transgress God, because in their logic, God didn’t exist in the first place.
Atheists wish to argue that statistics and evidence show that atheists are no more immoral than believers. When atheists make this claim however, one should realize these three facts. First, when atheists use the word, “moral” they are not talking about the morality of God, but rather what atheistic society has defined “ethical”. So in other words, their definition of morality is what atheists call morality. Second, when atheists use the word “believer” they are using an immensely broad definition referring to people who claim to believe in God or gods, without regard to the authenticity of those who truly believe in the true God, and those who ostensibly invoke His name. The nuance between true believers and hypocrites is greater than the difference between night and day, but atheists don’t make that distinction. And lastly, atheists fail to realize that atheism is immoral by mere definition, because it promulgates a lie and labels the truth of God’s existence as folly.
Atheists also assert that Christians do what is good to escape the punishment of God and out of fear, whereas atheists do what is good for the betterment of humankind. True Christians never do what is good strictly from fear of punishment, but rather because they revere God and know that He is the only one we are responsible to and because they love doing what pleases God. On God’s righteous Day of Judgment, this higher mode of obedience to God that the True Christian practices is acceptable to God because it is produced by the Holy Spirit, whereas atheist’s righteous works strictly for “humane benefit” is manmade and is an unacceptable way of righteousness that God doesn’t recognize as true righteousness. In other words, true Christians do what is right in the sight of God the only acceptable way before God which is by the Holy Spirit. Atheists do what they think is right by the power of the depraved nature of man and for corporal rewards, which God says is “filthy rags”.
Moreover, the “betterment of humankind” as atheists label it can never be realized through the lie that God doesn’t exist. If one wanted to establish a better path for humankind, he or she would be wise to look beyond the transient corporal existence of humans and consider the eternal spiritual state human souls enter after only a short period of time in the corporal state. Therefore true Christians’ efforts have far reaching implications that continue after corporal death, whereas atheist’s best efforts struggle to reach even the grave.
Atheists maintain that the existence of evil makes the existence of God improbable. This argument reveals how debased the understanding atheists have is. By definition, evil is the transgression of God’s Law. There is no evil that atheists can truthfully cite that is not a breach of God’s Law. Without God’s Law, evil wouldn’t be defined and wouldn’t exist. In the animal world, evil doesn’t exist, because animals are not under a moral law. Humans are, and atheists verify that humans are by acknowledging evil. Evil then is proof of a Creator who subjected creatures under a law, which if it is broken, sin is bred. Evil is proof of God’s existence. The fact that evil can be universally defined shows that there is a common Creator of humans; otherwise, the definition of evil would not exist or would so widely vary that no consensus would exist to make it meaningful in any tangible sense. Atheists have therefore accidentally yielded a proof of God’s existence, by acknowledging the universality of evil.
The argument atheists intend to use when they cite the presence of evil is that God, being good, can’t exist because He wouldn’t allow evil. Such an outlook should spiral atheists into chronic depression. Since they acknowledge that evil does exist, but want to assert that God does not exist, they lock themselves into a hopeless world with no possibility of evil ever being destroyed. God is the only One capable and willing for that matter, to destroy evil. True Christians look forward to the certain fulfillment of the destruction of evil by God. Atheists must look to the dejected depravity proven historically of man to rectify the world and to scrap evil. There is surely no hope in man for the destruction of evil. In fact, the exemplification of evil is proceeding from bad to worse in man. Atheism itself is a form of evil. God is going to scrap atheism on the last day by the manifestation of Himself. When everyone bows their knee to God, one evil will certainly be dispelled, and that evil will be the lie that God doesn’t exist. Atheism is undoubtedly the very producer of THIS evil.
Atheists seem to think that evil is happening and God is helplessly standing back and watching it. No, but God providentially brings all to pass all that comes to pass, and there is nothing outside of His dominion and control. God has planned it all. Atheism is planned by God. Why? For many reasons, and we read of one reasons in the book that atheists reject, the Bible, in Romans 9:22, “What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared unto glory.” In other words, God allows evil to make known His hatred for evil, and to show that He is able to fix everything back right. God allows man to do his worse, and God restores it all back, unto His glory. Deadly tornadoes, fatal car crashes, natural disasters, etc. are heart-wrenching experiences for us, but for God, they are but small matters, and it is easier for Him to restore these things back to perfection after such “disasters” than it is for Him to have created all these things in the first place. God is not on a human level so that He must worry and nor is He hurt by what atheists perceive to be “evils”. God is not under any law which prohibits Him from destroying whatever He has created. The earth and all that it contains belongs to God, and it would be stupid to think that we as measly humans can tell God how to handle and manage His own creation. God does whatever He wants with His own, and He is under no Law which could define His actions as "atrocities" as atheists say. If atheists are able to create their own world and create their own people out of nothing like God did, then they can likewise do whatever they wish with their own world. The point is, anyone who can create what God has created is also thoroughly capable of managing it and has the prerogative to do as they please with it. Disasters in this world are not a disaster for God in any sense of the word. Such “evils” as atheists call them accomplish the divine and unsearchable works of the wisdom of God. Everything that occurs in this world happens just as God planned it, just as God brought it about, just as God intended, and just right for the purposes He has decreed.
Atheism presents a phenomenal impossibility by denying the Creator while accepting creation. Inevitably, creation without a Creator implies self-creation. Self-creation has never been scientifically verified by any scientist. Nevertheless, self-creation must be espoused if one is to deny the Creator. Self-creation is an immensely impossible notion, because it implies that something that doesn’t exist, suddenly finds itself in a state of nonexistence, and suddenly creates itself out of nothing. This is the ultimate of science fiction, and requires a mountain of fanatical faith to embrace. Atheists argue that if God does exist then somebody or something had to create God as well, and so they ask why the universe can’t just be, just as Christians assert that God is. There is a very precise answer to this question. Think about this. Examination of every corporal and earthly thing shows that it is under the principle of a beginning and an end. We see birds hatch from eggs, grow up, raise young, and then die. We watch rivers form, and then fill with sediment to form ground. We watch volcanoes start and then end. We watch seeds germinate and grow to trees, and then die years later. We constantly witness the beginning and the end of things in this world, or we are able to trace back the beginning and surmise the probable end. If the earth created itself, it would reveal within itself a microcosm of self-creation and self-preservation. We would suddenly find things that didn’t exist now in existence. We would find traits that didn’t at first exist to suddenly exist without a first cause. Species would suddenly exist without procreation. Extinction of species wouldn’t be significant because we could look for new species at any random rate. If self-creation was a real concept, the world would be very illogical, untraceable, uncertain and no one could be logically traced as the perpetrator in any crime, nor could we assume that an inventor was behind the various objects that we see. We wouldn’t know what was self-created and what was made by man. A new world and earth could explode into existence at any location at any time. Considering the millions if not billions of other stars and planets it would be in fact, statistically reasonable that another planet will exist pretty soon. New adult humans could suddenly pop into existence here on earth. Self-creation would therefore be a profoundly important topic, and industries would spend billions researching self-creation so as to perhaps stimulate it to produce whatever it could. Reader, the point is, self-creation is fantasy, and atheists know that it is. Surely, if self-creation was possible, proof and examples of it right here on earth would exist in impressive numbers. We can see that this earth follows rules, and one is that everything has a beginning.
Well who then created God? God is not part of this earth, so there is no way atheists can say that God had a beginning. We can only say things of this earth, including the earth have a beginning and that someone started their beginning, because there are principals and proof in nature that this world is subject to a beginning and an end. But atheists have not analyzed God in order to find that God must have a beginning too. God is above the idea of a beginning. We clearly see that this earth is not above the idea of beginning. But God is, and is by definition of His Supremacy and His Almighty Power and by His Holy attributes. We cannot say that God had a beginning because God is above the idea of a beginning and it is He who created the reality of a beginning and subjected everything corporal to this idea. He has even limited our minds in comprehension to things which have a beginning, in that we cannot mentally transcend above that idea. But God cannot be understood by humans because humans are not infinite and cannot think infinitely enough to understand the infinite of infinity of God.
If we saw that the earth had the ability to create itself, and if we witnessed self-creation all the time here on earth, it might would reasonable to assume that creation could have instantiated itself without a creator. If we saw species and inanimate objects pop into existence right before our eyes, and saw an earth pop into existence by itself, it might be reasonable to assume that this earth could have done the same thing. Atheists usually tout themselves as proof imbibers but they assume more blind and I should say "wicked" faith in the overt impossibility of self-creation than all false religions and superstitions combined.
The existence of God is obvious. The existence of the world unanimously proclaims the existence of the Creator. This is reasonable, sane and to be honest, requires NO faith to believe.
Non-belief in God also poses seriously impossible overtones concerning human existence, animals, and plants. The logical and reasonable structure of these creatures can only soundly be described in intelligent design. Atheism is nevertheless forced to concoct any number of obtuse scenarios describing the structurally sound design of these creatures, usually citing superstition such as evolution, adaptation, and natural selection as possible answers. The problem with such fiction is that it all according to its error requires a colossal amount of time to disseminate the variety and logical design we see today, therefore pitting atheists against an irrational and unverifiable age of the earth. Atheists usually claim to believe in proof, but the only concrete way to verify the age of the earth is to have lived at the time of its creation, or nearly at the time of creation and count the years up to the present age, or have the Creator of the earth tell you how old it is. Atheists use a number of dating methods such as radiometric dating, carbon-14, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, thorium-230, lead, and fission-track dating, but none can concretely establish the age of earth because proof would require that one lived from the beginning, and lived to the present day accurately counting the years to corroborate the dating process. Although such dating methods may be verified for lengths of time, in order to know whether the dating method is accurate based on all the past geologic and historic events, one would have to know precisely what geologic and historic events took place that could have altered the reliability of the dating method, or otherwise rendered it inaccurate. For scientist who believe in a Big Bang theory, other big bang catastrophic events could have occurred locally in strata or within the earth’s crust dramatically altering the makeup of structures and offsetting any stable decomposition of radiation or any thing else that may be measured and relied upon today. Of course advocates of some of these dating methods assert that pressure, temperature, and time have never been shown to alter their accuracy, but they haven’t studied these dating methods for billions of years to yield proof. I mean, seriously, you who believe in a catastrophic explosion, or whatever, there is certainly no telling what happen during the “prehistoric” period of the earth, or for that matter, what other catastrophic events could have seriously undermined the accuracy of dating methods which, in contrast to the age of the earth, such dating methods are relatively new.
Belief that the earth is 4.6 billion years old takes a whole lot more blind faith, speculation and suspension of proof than belief in the several thousands of years that is verifiably the age of the earth. Atheistic scientists know this too, but they are nevertheless compelled to take an awry stand concerning the age of the earth because they discount intelligent design and the creation established by God.
Atheism also poses serious and I should say disturbing problems concerning abstract foundational principles concerning justice, morality and government. Since atheism denies God, it must base all these principles upon the mutable and the “ever evolving” fragility of humans. The idea of justice then for example, becomes based upon the consensus of the people of that particular society and therefore can change. This undermines the definition of justice and even the importance of its administration because what was just for one society may change for another. If justice changed, justice couldn’t be concretely defined, and atheists really couldn’t logically oppose any form of punishment or non punishment because just penalties would be entirely subject to one’s own mind. Consequently, a society stoning someone for stealing a penny for instance, couldn’t be concretely unjust for atheists because justice would be subject to the consensus of the society, and not upon the immutable penalties that God has established. Without God, atheists couldn’t say what is absolutely right or wrong, because this would vary from person to person and from society to society. On this basis, atheists have no basis to decry historic atrocities such as what Hitler, Stalin, or any other group that abused another did. True Christians nevertheless have a clear cut foundation of justice from God which retains it validity despite society and ethnicity, and can be concretely relied upon to consistently render sound justice and truth. True Christians can be relied upon therefore to predictably decry all historic atrocities, even those committed by false Christians.
Atheists sometimes use an inane argument to defend themselves in regard to morality. They say that Christians do what is right because God exist. They assert that if God didn’t exist then Christians would, or some Christians at least say they would have no basis to do what is right and moral. In contrast, they say that atheists would nevertheless continue doing what is moral because they didn’t think God existed in the first place. There are however two outstanding flaws with this nonsense. First, it installs the word “if” in an idea concerning God’s existence as though the possibility that God doesn’t exist is real. Saying “if God doesn’t exist” is a prologue for impossible, flawed and seriously unprincipled reasoning. Only a fairy tale can ensue from this particular “if” condition, because in this condition, one would be fabricating his or her own reality since the certainty of God’s existence is principally unequivocal and is the essence of authentic reality. Second, atheists fail to realize that true morality is entirely defined in the essence of God’s existence, and that God is the sole Author of all morality. “If God doesn’t exist” as atheists say, neither could atheists positively define morality in order to nevertheless live moral apart from God’s existence. In principle form, atheists are divorcing God’s existence from all that God’s existence means and brings forth. This is equivalent to saying, “If I never existed, then all of my notes would still exist.” Of course, if I never existed, my notes could not have existed either since they are contingent upon my existence. Likewise if God didn’t exist no common definition or idea of morality would exist either, nor would the entire universe nor would humans exist either for that matter. If you had to ask me, I’d say that atheists must make this foolish argument on grounds of profound ignorance and misconceptions of the True God that true Christians realize exists. The only way that this atheistic argument makes sense is that atheists got entirely the wrong god in their minds.
Atheists incessantly insist that proof of God’s existence is simply not verifiable, and always seek to challenge Christians to provide such proof. The problem with this however lies in the fact that atheists are asking for proof while denying a world more of it than a Christian can cite. Everything that atheists see is proof of God’s existence. Moreover, the existence of abstract ideas such as knowledge, intelligence and morality are derivative of a mind and never an inanimate object. Since knowledge can be gain from inanimate and animate objects, knowledge had to reside in their structure, which means that knowledge was imparted in their making. This knowledge ultimately testifies to the existence of God who is the first source of all true knowledge and wisdom. For instance, a tree has no knowledge of its own. Nevertheless we can gain quite a deal of knowledge from trees. We can even extrapolate this knowledge to build other structures and things. Since knowledge can be gained from a tree that has no knowledge, we know that knowledge went into the composition of that tree. This knowledge is always the product of a mind, and this mind is the mind of God. You can read a more thorough explanation of this truth at Society for the Ten Commandments - Proof of the Existence of God - Feb 27.
Atheism denies the human soul and an afterlife. Christianity acknowledges them both and prepares the soul for an afterlife. If one was unsure whether atheism or Christianity was right, they would always be better off to remain on the “safe side” and follow Christianity “just in case” there is an afterlife and a God. Atheism can never receive proof because according to it, once one dies, he or she no longer exist. Nevertheless Christianity can and will receive proof, because according to it, once we die, we will stand before God and face an afterlife. If you are an atheist, if God doesn’t exist, when you die, you lose, and if God does exist when you die, you lose. If you are a Christian, if God doesn’t exist, when you die, you don’t loose because that’s it, but if God does exist, you win. So for those who are unsure, you know one thing for sure. In the end, you can never win as an atheist, but as a Christian you can – and will! I hate to use this argument because the existence of God is so overwhelming that saying “if God exist” falls far short of the truth. But for the sake of sane argument for those who vacillate in the truth, it is astounding to learn that no matter how you look at it, atheists have fastened themselves in the loser’s seatbelt.
Agnostics assume the position that the existence of God cannot be known for sure. This is pathological pessimism. Perhaps agnostics are impotent in judging whether God exists or not, but they should simply speak for themselves and not for others who may be more learned and cognizant of principles and matters outside their own narrow circle. Some agnostics have even triumphed their former debased ignorance and became poignantly aware of the existence of God. Saying that God’s existence cannot be known, locks agnostics in a perpetual bout of pathetic ignorance. Agnostics would be better off to say that their contemporary knowledge falls short of verifying the truth of God’s existence, but that future analysis and further knowledge may later prove God’s existence to them. Evidently, Christians are light-years ahead of agnosticism in terms of knowledge of God. Maybe agnostics will one day catch up. I am optimistic.
It is true that the kind of god that atheists may maintain in their mind may not exist. For example, many atheists assume false characteristics of the god they deny, by assuming that he is all-loving, and all caring. True Christians have never maintained that such a god exists, but many false Christians have. Such a god is nonexistent just as atheists say. But the existence of the God that expresses wrath, hatred, loves and cares for His elect, loves righteousness, and reserves retribution for non-believers and created and fore-ordained all things is not a mere supposition, but a very real and living fact.
Atheists also say that although the Bible does have some truth in it, it is nevertheless a book filled with lies, deception, and fantasy from superstitious idiots. Such a bigoted diatribe against the Bible is very virulent for the moral development of all people, and further verifies that contemporary American atheism insinuates a dissident ideology to the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible has been a huge factor conserving morality throughout the world, and has been at the core of beliefs against murder through abortion for example, against cursing and swearing, against violence, and against all evil in general. Proper interpretation of the Bible has never proven pernicious to any innocent person or system. Atheists likewise discount the miracles described in the Bible, and say that if such miracles did occur strong evidence should exist to corroborate them, or else they should be considered false. The fact is, however, such miracles were witnessed by dozens of people who have accurately told us what happened. It would be hard for such evidence to be revamped back to what existed at the time. Most importantly, God is the witness to these miracles as well. God’s testimony is far better than all evidence. Evolution, big bang and other propositions of atheists do not even have a shred of empirical evidence, yet atheists nevertheless believe or at least say they believe them.
Atheism is a living testimony to the accuracy of God’s word to Adam when God said that in the day that Adam ate he would surely die. The death that transpired the same day of Adam’s disobedience is the same death that embodies atheism. Atheists are dead to the truths of God and His righteousness to the extent that they purport that God doesn’t even exist. This is nothing new but is the same fruit pertinent to the flesh of depraved man dead in trespasses and sin. When one considers the exceeding infinity of God, it becomes obvious that atheists’ cruel and bigoted hatred for God and the Bible is truly a case of exceeding hate-mongering and often irrevocable spiritual death and ignorance. Atheism is by far, a monumental obstacle to proper moral and natural human progress and knowledge because it denies the Author of this all.
The Blindness of Atheism
ing christ.
Originally Posted by A pimp named Slickback
